Why Protecting The Free Press Requires Protecting Trump's Tweets

from the protecting-the-speech-you-disagree-with dept

Sunday morning I made the mistake of checking Twitter first thing upon waking up. As if just a quick check of Twitter would ever be possible during this administration... It definitely wasn't this past weekend, because waiting for me in my Twitter stream was Trump's tweet of the meme he found on Reddit showing him physically beating the crap out of a personified CNN.

But that's not what waylaid me. What gave me pause were all the people demanding it be reported to Twitter for violating its terms of service. The fact that so many people thought that was a good idea worries me, because the expectation that when bad speech happens someone will make it go away is not a healthy one. My concern inspired a tweet storm, which has now been turned into this post.

I don't write any of this to defend the tweet: it was odious, unpresidential, and betrays an animus towards the press that is terrifying to see in any government official – and especially the Chief Executive of the United States of America. But inappropriate, disgraceful, and disturbing though it is, it was still just speech, and calls to suppress speech are always alarming regardless of who is asking for it to be suppressed or why.

Some have tried to defend these calls by arguing that suppressing speech is ok when it is not the government doing the suppressing. But the reason official censorship is problematic is because it drives away the dissenting voices democracy depends on hearing. Which is not to say that all ideas are worth hearing or critical to self-government; the point is that protecting opposing voices in general is what allows the meritorious ones to be able to speak out against the powerful. There is no way to split the baby so that only some minority expression gets protected: either all of it must be, or none of it will be. If only some of it is, then the person who has the power to decide which will be protected and which will not has the power to decide badly.

Consider how Trump himself would use that power. Given, as we see in his tweet, how much he wants to marginalize voices that speak against him, we need to make sure this protection remains as strong as possible, even if it means that he, too, gets the benefit of it. There simply is no way to punish one man's speech, no matter how troubling it may be, without opening the door to better speech similarly being suppressed.

Naturally as a private platform Twitter may, of course, choose to delete this or any other Trump tweet (or any tweet or Twitter account at all) for any reason. We've argued before that private platforms have the right to police their services however they choose. But we have also seen how when speech is eliminated from a forum, the forum is often much poorer for it. Deciding to suppress speech is not something we should be too quick to encourage, or demand. Not even when the speech is provocative and threatening, because so much important, valid, and necessary speech can so easily be labeled that way. As Justice Holmes noted, "Every idea is an incitement." In other words, it's easy to justify suppressing all sorts of speech, including valid and important speech, if any viewpoint aggressively at odds with any other can be eliminated because of the challenge it presents. Courts have therefore found that speech, even speech promoting the use of force or lawlessness, may only be censored when "such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Given that even a KKK rally was found not to meet this description, these requirements for likely imminence of harm are steep hurdles that Trump's tweet are unlikely to clear.

The truth may well be, as many fear, that Trump would actually like people to beat up journalists. It may also be true that he has some bad actors among his followers who are eager to do so. But even if people do assault journalists, it won't be because of this tweet. It will be because Trump, as president, supports the idea. He'll support it whether or not this tweet is deleted. After all, it's not as though deleting the tweet will make him change his view. And it's that view that's the real problem to focus on here.

Because Trump has far more powerful means at his disposal to act upon his antipathy towards the media than his Twitter account affords. In fact, better that he should tweet his drivel rather than act on this malevolence in a way that actually does do direct violence to our free press. Especially because, in an administration so lacking in transparency, his tweets at least help let us know that this animus lurks within. Armed with this knowledge we can now be better positioned to defend those critical interests his presidency so threatens. Painful though it is to see his awful tweets, ignorance on this point would in no way have been bliss.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 12:19pm

    No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

    Now, what propaganda bubble do you live in that liberal hysteria and CNN's over-reaction -- and then intimidating person who actually had little to nothing to do with Trump -- that this at all surprises?

    Actually, your notion of "unpresidential" and CNN's over-reaction is the big story here. "You people", by which I mean elites, just do not understand how CNN is regarded by non-elites. It's known as totally biased organ of globalists, not as a fount of truth. And so when CNN has proved that recently, to go crazy about a very minor bit of humor, you and CNN thereby prove my point.

    And I guess you're okay with the quite ominous "CNN reserves the right" to OUT this person, as not mentioned. Yeah, I know they backed away from it. That backing away is also vastly more important than your alarm over "unpresidential". -- See, when you LEAD off with that bias up front, you prove yourself CLUELESS.

    Reading over... In fact, while pretending to defend speech, you simply rail against Trump's / president's. Do you ACTUALLY think this little bit of humor is sign of coming crack-down on dissidents? You just went off the rails.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 12:37pm

      Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

      That's a mighty fine crop of derp you've raised.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 12:50pm

      Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

      "-- See, when you LEAD off with that bias up front, you prove yourself CLUELESS."

      I don't think you realize it, but that statement is easily a two-way street.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JoeCool (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 2:15pm

        Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

        You might say - he was clueless. :D

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 2:33pm

        Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

        @AC quoting "See, when you LEAD off with that bias up front, you prove yourself CLUELESS."

        That's ending a paragraph comprising one thought, snowflake. I define and then refer to "that" bias, meaning phrase an alleged "defense" like: "even Hitler, I mean Trump, should be allowed to make insane and dangerous comments".

        This person was moved to write and ended up attacking Trump more than defending his right to the "bully pulpit". That inherent contradiction and not being objective enough to mention CNN's manifest malevolence and stupidity is simply BIASED AND CLUELESS.

        You illustrate another kind of clueless with one line of vague gain-saying. It's not adequate, just shows you know can't argue substance. Thanks for a back-handed compliment.

        So far only support for the writer is vague too.

        How about some TD fanboy be brave and state that the animation was anything CNN should have bothered to notice? ... But it's a few seconds of totally routine mocking at most. TD rails about similar over-reaction every day! Different when CNN, eh?

        CNN flew off the handle, found out (perhaps illegally) who made the GIF, though missed that it was added to, got a phone number somehow, tried to call, eventually confronted by email, then threatened to dox. -- SO IF defend CNN, that's the load you take on.

        Oh, and I forgot to object that: no, Twitter, a business, does NOT have any "right" to control speech on its platform: that violates DMCA and removes protections. This is nowhere near out of bounds by common law, so Twitter had better NOT take it down. That's actionable in court, and Trump is in position to act more directly too.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 2:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

          *squints eyes and rereads post* Not sure if trolling or serious.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 3:32pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

            He is serious, and I find that I do not really disagree with them that much.

            He is pointing out a specific type of hypocrisy that tends to abound here at TD. Heck, I have to admit that I have also committed the same offense against others here as well.

            A lot of people have been fighting and arguing so much that it's like the hatfields and mccoys up in here. Fighting for so long they really do not even know what they fight for. All they need is the idea that the person in question is somehow not on their team and must be eliminated or ridiculed.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Thad, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:44pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

              Or maybe they just get tired of listening to the same comments repeated over and over again, and realize there's no sense trying to reason with the person who keeps making them.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 5:53pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                "Or maybe they just get tired of listening to the same comments repeated over and over again, and realize there's no sense trying to reason with the person who keeps making them."

                You don't say...

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2017 @ 6:55am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

              Actually I missed the part about hypocrisy. I was just trying to figure out if he truly didn't understand the original article and is ignorant about US law or if he is deliberately trying to incite an argument.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 3:50pm

          Re: Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

          Common law. Those words don't mean what you think they mean.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 7 Jul 2017 @ 12:41am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

            English language. None of those words mean what he seem to think they mean.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 5:26pm

          Re: Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

          Well, as much as you seem to get how to compliment people, I am not seeing a substantial prerogative to not assume I am elite (though I don't watch CNN) and you watch way too much FOX News ("It's known"... is not a convincing argument.).

          I don't take a stance on CNN as such. I just don't want to poison the well or go down the path of assuming since it will make an ass out of u and poor ming.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Thad, 6 Jul 2017 @ 5:30pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

            ("It's known"... is not a convincing argument.

            Maybe he's Dothraki.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 5:39pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

              In that case I owe him an apology. Making a khal drink salt water is cruel.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 7:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

          The writer is defending all speech, including odious and idiotic speech, as in the example. That is speech, and the writer is also free to do it. Get it?

          Defending CNN: Lol who did that?

          The people here i see rail on and on the most about "sides" and "teams" generally seem to be the ones with some team agenda, and y'all think you know exactly which "team" we all are on. Have fun with that.

          You don't know how the DMCA works, do you? Not that I agree whatsoever that goofball's tweets should be deleted. But Twitter can delete his account just because they are having a bad day, or the price of tea in China went up or down. Ask millions of banned account holders / deleted post writers just how actionable it is. And if he uses his position to force something for personal reasons, he may just find out how actionable _that_ is. (As if he hasn't used office as a personal toy already.)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      stderric (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 2:36pm

      Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

      The post would make a lot more sense to you if you could read it in Standard American English rather than Regional Paranoid Lunatic.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 5:46pm

      Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

      ""You people", by which I mean elites, just do not understand how CNN is regarded by non-elites."

      Genuinely curious as to what you think an 'elite' actually is. Coz according to the dictionary you have a very high and flattering opinion of us all. So thanks, I think...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 8:01pm

        Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

        I would also like to know which non-elites he imagines are aligned with his particular non-elite. I suspect rather more less-privileged persons are not aligned with his "non-elite".

        But really i think "elite" is a dog whistle, and one of those words which means one thing in one sentence, and another thing in a different sentence.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      techflaws (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 10:21pm

      Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

      > "You people", by which I mean elites, just do not understand
      > how CNN is regarded by non-elites.

      Doesn't mean the non-elites are right in their views! I'm still waiting for anyone to come up with a shred of evidence that CNN lied in their coverage of Trump.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 12:25pm

    I think the most surprising part to me in all of this isn't the fact that people what it removed, but the following:

    1) That people honestly think it was meant as a threat or to incite violence. And I don't mean random twitter idiots or the radical ignorant fringes of any group but full on columnists who would otherwise avoid traditional trending idiocy.

    2) That people who don't honestly think it was meant as a threat are picking up and running with it as a story. For years in order to get a real national news story on this level you'd either have to be a member of Congress or someone with an audience of millions to get attention for when they say stupid shit. And I'm specifically referring to the idea that this is a means to incite violence, not the actual tweet itself. I've got no idea where this started but it doesn't appear to because anyone notable said it, it seems to have grown just on the strength of news stories pushing it along.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 12:35pm

      Re:

      >1) That people honestly think it was meant as a threat or to incite violence.

      Henry II muttered something about someone ridding him of a meddling archbishop, and a saint was created.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 8:07pm

      Re:

      Well, it's a contest to see who can be a bigger idiot, apparently. Since we clearly showed the UK they can't compete with us no matter what, it's all an internal competition now.

      A simple, "How inappropriate, thank you. I can't believe the presidency has come to this, even" would probably suffice.

      Eventually they will all suffer manufactured (or otherwise) outrage fatigue, and then it will all be accepted as the new normal. I can only hope the press and the electorate improves as a result of all this, but i wouldn't hold my breath.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 7 Jul 2017 @ 2:31pm

        Re: Re:

        CNN and Trump are giving each other a run for their money in a shoot-themselves-in-the-foot contest.

        NEWSWEEK: Trump may have just lost his war with CNN, as poll shows more people trust the network than the president.

        CNN: Hold my beer...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 12:28pm

    What you might think of as unpresidential might be exactly what other Americans are looking for in a president.

    I understand you're, on the surface at least, defending his right to tweet this joke. Yet by not even acknowledging the problems CNN has with integrity, you lose some integrity yourself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 12:35pm

      Re:

      Yes, some people are looking for a President as ignorant, uneducated, and illiterate as they are.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 1:50pm

      Re:

      "What you might think of as unpresidential might be exactly what other Americans are looking for in a president."

      If Americans are seriously looking for a President who would choose to spend any part of his time in office retweeting a video of him taking part in pro-fucking-wrestling, then fuck those Americans completely.

      "Yet by not even acknowledging the problems CNN has with integrity, you lose some integrity yourself."

      I'm so tired of this laughable line. There is no news organization out there that can't be susceptible to a holier-than-thou cretin holding out for the one true scotsman of a completely flawless news organization. CNN is not without flaw, nor are they particularly bad from a truth and facts standpoint. Their chief flaw is, as is the case with most news outlets these days, attempting to profit from creating debates out of false equivalencies. To do this, they get laughably partisan puppets to bicker with each other in a race to see who can fit the most talking points into each segment. They are neither the only nor the most egregious perpetrator of this nonsense....

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 2:09pm

        Re: Re:

        "then fuck those Americans completely."

        Hey, go right ahead putting your politics and party before fellow Americans and the Nation.

        I did not like Obama or Trump, but I will not be a fool and say that to my fellow citizens. Party of hate, right? It has been my experience that people that act like you do, are the real problems.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 2:19pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Wow, that's some great projection there.

          The only people putting "politics and party" before the nation are the people propping up Donald Trump.

          They usually do it with the same "both sides" tone policing nonsense you're trying. Or they try to claim that being intolerant of intolerant people is intolerance.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 3:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "The only people putting "politics and party" before the nation are the people propping up Donald Trump."

            You are incorrect.

            "Or they try to claim that being intolerant of intolerant people is intolerance."

            I am not certain you have a firm grasp on the English language. Intolerance of any kind even of the intolerant is by definition THE meaning of being intolerant, or are you telling everyone that words now need to mean what you want them to mean when it serves your purpose?

            But as long as only you get to be hypocritical it's okay right?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 2:36pm

        Re: Re: @ "Dark Helmet": SHEESH! The video was one simple little bit of HUMOR!

        And you and CNN are getting bent out of shape over it? SHEESH.

        How many times have YOU written to not be thin-skinned? You clearly have such strong anti-Trump bias that you abandon that routine advice. Why?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 2:38pm

          Re: Re: Re: @ "Dark Helmet": SHEESH! The video was one simple little bit of HUMOR!

          It's almost like the President should be held to a high standard.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 2:58pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Dark Helmet": SHEESH! The video was one simple little bit of HUMOR!

            It's almost like Timmy hates those who aren't like him while pretending the left is full of love and tolerance.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 3:57pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Dark Helmet": SHEESH! The video was one simple little bit of HUMOR!

            complete non-sequitur.

            He is pointing out "Dark Helmets" hypocrisy NOT about any standards that the president should be held to by himself or others.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Annonymouse, 7 Jul 2017 @ 9:23am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: @

            A standsrd as high as George Jr?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Annonymouse, 7 Jul 2017 @ 9:23am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: @

            A standsrd as high as George Jr?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JMT (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 5:54pm

          Re: Re: Re: @ "Dark Helmet": SHEESH! The video was one simple little bit of HUMOR!

          *"You clearly have such strong anti-Trump bias..."*

          Anti-idiot bias? Yes.
          Anti-bullshit bias? Yes.
          Anti-corruption bias? Yes.
          Anti-misogyny bias? Yes.
          Anti-racism bias? Yes.
          Anti-nepotism bias? Yes.
          Anti-bully bias? Yes.

          I'm a victim of my terrible biases.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 6:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Dark Helmet": SHEESH! The video was one simple little bit of HUMOR!

            Everyone has biases.

            The problem is the idea that an anti-Trump bias meaningfully translates into proof of your other "claimed" biases.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Dark Helmet (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 6:11pm

          Re: Re: Re: @ "Dark Helmet": SHEESH! The video was one simple little bit of HUMOR!

          "And you and CNN are getting bent out of shape over it? SHEESH.

          How many times have YOU written to not be thin-skinned? You clearly have such strong anti-Trump bias that you abandon that routine advice. Why?"

          You're misunderstanding me. I actually thought the video was modestly funny. I certainly don't think it was a call for violence against anyone at all.

          If you simply read what I said, I said that any American who WANTS his or her President to spend time on Twitter retweeting that stuff is an idiot. I'm not entirely clear how that's even arguable...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 6:24pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Dark Helmet": SHEESH! The video was one simple little bit of HUMOR!

            whaaa???

            you posted...

            "If Americans are seriously looking for a President who would choose to spend any part of his time in office retweeting a video of him taking part in pro-fucking-wrestling, then fuck those Americans completely."

            then said...

            "If you simply read what I said, I said that any American who WANTS his or her President to spend time on Twitter retweeting that stuff is an idiot. I'm not entirely clear how that's even arguable..."

            I think the simple reading was accurate. You pretty much trash mouthed fellow Americans with vigorous emphasis.

            I agree that Trump's tweets are out of hand, but I also agree that Trump has got you all by your goats. You need to ignore the idiot. Trump is an attention whore and you guys are giving him a LOT of attention, a WHOLE LOT of Attention. But I constantly try to tell many of you that you often wind up working against yourselves... not that you are going to listen.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 8:13pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Dark Helmet": SHEESH! The video was one simple little bit of HUMOR!

              So... he trashmouthed people who want to see the president tweeting videos of him taking part in pro wrestling.

              Uh huh. And?

              You keep telling us... lol. You are making it about Trump. This was about defending free speech. Don't defend free speech if it gives person x attention?

              I don't even.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 2:57pm

        Re: Re:

        Your attitude is exactly what is wrong with liberals and illustrates why leftist ideology always leads to violence. You view anyone with thoughts, views, ideas different from yours as less than human and thus worthy of disdain and eventually physical harm. Leftist ideology has put 100 million people in the ground and the current movement in the US would add to it if/when they could. If you could defend your ideology with words, as is often talked about here, you would. Instead you call people names, label them, beat them with your protest signs, pepper spray women, burn immigrant's limousines, and so on.

        The fact that you don't realize how poor mainstream media, and most especially leftist media, is not surprising. You are part of that media and don't even know it. When the Democratic leaders call for the left to bleat like sheep, they do so in unison. They don't even know why they do it, just because they were told to do so.

        Oh, and your excusing of CNN is pathetic. Just Google for the video of Sad Panda Face CNN to see the panel of 4 "journalists" react poorly to John Ossoff's loss in the GA run-off election. CNN is a partisan puppet from top to bottom. The others aren't far behind.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        btr1701 (profile), 7 Jul 2017 @ 2:33pm

        Re: Re:

        > There is no news organization out there that can't be
        > susceptible to a holier-than-thou cretin holding out for
        > the one true Scotsman of a completely flawless news
        > organization.

        CNN: "You should be outraged by Trump calling us enemies of the people!"

        Also CNN: "Make mean memes about us and we'll ruin your goddam life."

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:46pm

      Re:

      Yet by not even acknowledging the problems CNN has with integrity, you lose some integrity yourself.

      https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cnn+site%3Atechdirt.com

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 12:30pm

    Well said

    Completely agree. Just about everything Cheeto has tweeted (or said) is complete garbage, but I'll defend even *his* right to say it.

    You could make a decent argument that he has skirted quite close to inciting violence at some of his rallies, but that's a different story.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 6 Jul 2017 @ 12:53pm

      Re: Well said

      skirted?

      February 2016, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
      "So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell .... I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise."

      February 2016, Las Vegas, Nevada
      "The guards are very gentle with him. He’s walking out with big high-fives, smiling, laughing. I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you,"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        bob, 6 Jul 2017 @ 2:01pm

        Re: Re: Well said

        Thanks for putting the CNN video back into perspective for me. When I first heard about it I just thought it was stupid to even pay it a second thought, although amusing to see. But when taken with his other rhetoric at his rallies it really does show a potential darker side of the video.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 2:17pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well said

          Looks like you lost perspective instead of gaining it.

          Lets break this down.

          "So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you?"

          This is clearly stating that "they must first start an offensive action" before you take any action.

          The general rule is, if you begin the process of assaulting someone, then you generally have forfeited your right to not being assaulted either. Additionally, considering that people could potentially hide lethal weapons in benign appearing objects, it is generally a good idea to no present yourself as an assailant.

          "But when taken with his other rhetoric at his rallies it really does show a potential darker side of the video."

          That needs seriously clarification. Are you implying that Trump is the "potential dark side" of his rallies or the hostile people becoming violent?

          It seems to me there is a whole long of "those I agree with" are not in the wrong here" while "those I don't agree with are getting dark about this" accusations.

          Both sides are equally to blame here because they have been showing quite a bit of contempt in multiple areas of politics.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 2:20pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

            That "general rule" literally doesn't exist.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 3:20pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

              I see, you are a troll, my bad.

              If you are not, then... wow, you are just too ignorant to discuss this with. Citizens are quite legally allowed to restrain or make citizens arrest as it were, even by violence if necessary, if they witness a person in the act of breaking the law.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest

              They do vary around the world but do tend to serve as a "general rule". It does however make me sad to see a person of your considerable ignorance pedaling that ignorance around.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                That One Guy (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 9:42pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

                "So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell .... I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise."

                By all means, show where in that statement he was saying to arrest them, 'even by violence if necessary', because, and this might just be my eyesight acting up, all I'm seeing is him saying that if someone might be 'getting ready to throw a tomato' those that see them not only have his blessing to 'knock the crap out of them' but his promise that he'll pay the legal fees they'll face for doing it.

                If you're going to just make stuff up and try to come up with after the fact rationalizations it helps if people can't simply scroll up slightly to check what was said.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 3:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

            The general rule is, if you begin the process of assaulting someone, then you generally have forfeited your right to not being assaulted either.

            Throwing a tomato is now 'assault'? I could understand if it were a banana, but a freakin' tomato is grounds for beating the crap out of someone?

            That's watering the term down to use it for justification for actual assault to the point that you might as well classify 'saying mean things at someone' as assault because it might 'hurt their feelings.'

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 3:27pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

              Are you trolling too?

              You folks sure do need a lot of education today.

              "Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim."

              http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault

              Yes, it may seem laughable that one might consider a mere tomato a threatening weapon, but the object being used to make "offensive contact" with is not the ONLY basis for what classifies as assault.

              I bet you would very readily classify a 30 year old body builder throwing a tomato at a 5 year old girls face as definitely being assault. Or would you ask the 5 year old girl to "shake it off"? Assault is assault regardless of how effective the assault in question was.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 3:54pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

                Finished that whole bucket of paint chips early today did we?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 3:58pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

                  It appears that several of you have managed to eat them all before I got a share.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                That One Guy (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:06pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

                Ah the classic 'you don't agree with me, therefor you must be a troll', because that's never not glaringly obvious.

                If that definition extends to the point where 'they threw a tomato at me' is enough to qualify then it would seem to be just as laughable as your version of it.

                However, that's besides the point, and missing out on the false equivalency you seem to be making here in an attempt to justify what was said. Hitting someone with a tomato is significantly different than hitting someone with your fists.

                One of these is likely to cause a dirty suit and maybe a stinging eye if some juice gets in there. The other is likely to require a hospital visit. Can you guess which is which and why the two are not comparable in practice, even if they might be considered similar under the law?

                A 30 year old bodybuilder against a 5 year old girl? Come on, if you're going for the emotional plea go full bore. Try a baseball hall-of-fame pitcher against a 1 year old from five feet away. Really amp up the 'if you would consider this assault because it would likely cause serious harm then clearly this wholly different situation where the harm is mostly to the clothing and/or ego of the one hit should be treated the same'.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:10pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

                  @ "A 30 year old bodybuilder against a 5 year old girl? Come on, if you're going for the emotional plea go full bore."

                  And you're going full-tilt stupid.

                  Once over a threshhold, it's assault. Even with a tomato. Just go TRY it, smartass. SHEESH. You dig in on this bit of well-known common law? -- MAJOR HOOTS!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    That One Guy (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:19pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

                    So you ignore the rest of the comment pointing out that the two actions aren't comparable in order to go with 'but assault!' and more insults. Yeah, can't say I'm surprised here.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:33pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

                      I highly recommend trying to use the gray matter between your ears.

                      The situation I presented was done so that you could understand that a seemingly innocuous object, a tomato in this case, can certainly turn out to be more dangerous that it would otherwise appear.

                      You are presenting the mind of a juvenile by overtly focusing on the fact that a tomato is involved here when it is merely being used as an example for emphasis.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        That One Guy (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 9:53pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

                        Once again, whether it's legally assault or not does not mean that the two actions are at all similar in practice. I could agree that legally the actions might fall under the same category of 'assault' and still not think that the two are even remotely similar in the harm they result in, or that one justifies the other.

                        That someone might stick something else in a tomato to make it more dangerous is irrelevant because that qualifier wasn't used, it was simply 'a tomato', and if 'someone might have modified an item to make it extra dangerous' is enough justification to treat it as though they had then throwing gorram confetti at someone would be enough to respond with a beating by that argument.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:28pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

                  "Ah the classic 'you don't agree with me, therefor you must be a troll', because that's never not glaringly obvious."

                  Negative, that was the you must be a troll for posting something ignorant and easily provably false, unlike most of you I am okay with people having different opinions, I just call out the hypocritical, inconsistent, or just flat out incorrect. Your claims of it being a false equivalency is bankrupt and very revealing of your own cognitive dissonance in the subject matter.

                  It does not matter what the tool of an assault is, be it a piece of paper, spitting, tomato, or just a bucket of water. The classification for what constitutes assault is pretty clear. Your attempts to derail the conversation to hide your shame is fairly obvious. The attempt (success for failure) to make any form of a physically threatening move against another is defined legally as assault. Even if it is just to harm, a single hair on their head.

                  Because if you are not trolling, then you should have instead followed the advice of... better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Thad, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:50pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

                    In the game of Troll Bingo, "You're just calling me a troll because I don't agree with you!" is the free square.

                    Let's see...I've got calling everybody else a troll on my card too. Sweet. C'mon, just three more...

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 5:20pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

                      I made it clear that I was calling him a troll for stating asking a question in a fashion that implied that the "legal" definition of assault as not as I stated it.

                      If he wants to hold a position that contradicts facts then we are not discussing opinions here are we?

                      You only make yourself look stupid to continue to falsely advance the premise that I called him a troll over a difference of opinions. I called him a troll for just being more the grossly ignorant of the facts. He allowed his own feelings about a tomato not being a serious threat to imply that it could not be considered assault. The law is quite clear about this.

                      If you guys really hate me that much, go ahead and throw a tomato at a police officer or just someone else in front of one and see what charges you get. When you get out of jail please come back and regale me with "how wrong" I am and that I was such a meanie for calling someone a troll over it.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Thad, 6 Jul 2017 @ 5:29pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

                        Hm, four paragraphs of strawmen that don't actually address the point of my post...does that count as one Bingo square, or two?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 5:47pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

                          You are pretty thick aren't you son?

                          Did your card deck get stuck on call everything a strawman argument or something?

                          "That One Guy" posted...
                          "Throwing a tomato is now 'assault'?"

                          I informed his considerable ignorance that it was by the legal definition of "assault".

                          Like you, he then followed up with my accusation that he was a troll for completely getting a "FACT" wrong by questioning it with incredulity and claiming that it was because I did not like his opinion.

                          By the way, here is the definition of what a fact is.

                          "fact
                          fakt/
                          noun
                          noun: fact; plural noun: facts

                          a thing that is indisputably the case.
                          "the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"
                          synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More
                          truth, verity, gospel
                          "it is a fact that the water is polluted"
                          antonyms: lie, fiction
                          "


                          Now, here if the definition of "opinion"

                          "o·pin·ion
                          əˈpinyən/
                          noun
                          noun: opinion; plural noun: opinions

                          a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
                          "I'm writing to voice my opinion on an issue of great importance"
                          synonyms: belief, judgment, thought(s), (way of) thinking, mind, (point of) view, viewpoint, outlook, attitude, stance, position, perspective, persuasion, standpoint; More"

                          It is pretty clear of what the facts are. But you are free to continue to be wrong, and stupid, and believe that I called him a troll for having a difference of opinion when we are talking about "FACTS".

                          I am not a liberal/leftist that calls people trolls for having an opinion I do not hold. I call people trolls for what a troll really is.

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

                          "In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement."

                          That One Guy's claim that it is incredulous to view "throwing a tomato" as being assault was either gross ignorance or being a troll. If he is will to come forward and admit that he is truly "that ignorant" then I will be most happy to offer and apology for calling him a troll.

                          This is a discussion about facts, and you are doing everything you can to avoid the discussion on facts, because your intellect is juvenile and in need of defending for "unknown" reasons. If yo got a fact wrong, so be it, learn and try not repeat it. Until then... grow up! Please!

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2017 @ 10:14am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

                          One square for a strawman. One square for self martyrdom.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 3:31pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

              "That's watering the term down to use it for justification for actual assault to the point that you might as well classify 'saying mean things at someone' as assault because it might 'hurt their feelings.'"

              Gee, where have we seen people trying to redefine mean words as violence...? Hint: It ain't the trump crowd.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:04pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said -- @ Throwing a tomato is now 'assault'?

              Not just NOW, been that way in civilized countries for many decades. You can go to jail for spitting on someone. -- You almost certainly WILL if that person is a cop.

              Your overweening ignorance, while believing yourself to know-it-all, is part of why I read Techdirt. Major hoots.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            JMT (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 6:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

            "The general rule is, if you begin the process of assaulting someone, then you generally have forfeited your right to not being assaulted either."

            That may be the rule in your head, or even in your lifestyle, but not so much in law. Even Trump knew that, that's why he said he'd pay the legal fees.

            Note the instruction was also to a large crowd. So in your eyes an appropriate response to the heinous act of throwing a tomato (aren't you a little snowflake...) is multiple people delivering a severe beating, under circumstances that could easily get completely out of control. You are a pretty shit person, you know that?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 8:17pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

            No, it's "look for any potential inappropriate action as an excuse to escalate shit all out of proportion". That's an easy one, because some varieties of Trump supporters were already doing that to some people for simply existing at his rallies.

            _"Both sides are equally to blame here because they have been showing quite a bit of contempt in multiple areas of politics."_

            Which, apparently exactly and only two, sides are these?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 3:00pm

        Re: Re: Well said

        Yes, he was asking people attending his rally to defend themselves against the violent leftists. The same leftists who burn immigrant's limousines and smash Starbucks windows. The same leftists that beat and pepper spray women just for being conservative.

        So no, he didn't incite violence, he told people they were ok to defend themselves against violence. But you knew that.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 8:20pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well said

          Yep sure, those leftists. All ten of them, if any of that actually happened. And absolutely anyone remotely left of center totes agrees with that shit. Just like everyone on the right looooves Trump. And no one left-leaning does. Not at all. Lol.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 7 Jul 2017 @ 12:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

            One guy smashes a window = look at those violent leftists! let's ignore everything anyone I can apply that label to says!

            One guy goes into a pizza place and fires a shot because he believes right-wing conspiracy theories = how dare you say that other right wingers would even consider such a thing!

            Anyone who treats politics as a team game is an idiot, but it's generally visible that one side of political spectrum is more prone to violence than the other. And it's not the left.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2017 @ 3:53am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

              If only it were one leftists, but no it is pretty much all of them. They are throwing the worlds biggest tantrum now.

              As for the right being more violent then please explain how the leftist ideology is the one that put 100 million people in the ground in the last 100 years? The left always leads to violence. It cannot be defended with speech so requires fear, intimidation and ultimately death to defend it.

              Go to YouTube and pull up videos of the leftists protests and marches. Listen to their speeches. Then pull up videos of conservative gatherings and listen to their speeches. One is full of hate and anger, the other is full of peace and hope.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 7 Jul 2017 @ 4:08am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said

                Waaah! Leftists! You people are hilarious. I bet you can't even define the groups you're so offended by.

                "Go to YouTube and pull up videos of the leftists protests and marches. Listen to their speeches. Then pull up videos of conservative gatherings and listen to their speeches. One is full of hate and anger, the other is full of peace and hope."

                Yep, I can pull up lots of peaceful "leftist" protests and bring up lots of right-wing protests full of racial hatred and attacks on people for who they choose to marry. But, somehow I don't think that's what your blinkered little mind was thinking of.

                You're right, being a simple-minded moron is fun, but I prefer real life, it's much more fulfilling.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    OldGeezer (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 1:20pm

    I don't think anything Trump tweets should be taken down. They are getting more bizarre all time and show his rapidly declining mental health. I don't want him impeached either. Pence or Paul Ryan could be worse. I just want him to be buried in so much scandal and lunacy that the republican agenda will be crippled. Don't you think a lot of republicans are aware we elected an idiot? At some point they will realize that if they ever want to be reelected they need to stop supporting him. Trump talks like he won by a landslide when he lost except for our archaic electoral system. If the democrats hadn't nominated a woman they should have known was widely hated Trump would have never stood a chance. If they wanted a female president, why not Elizabeth Warren?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      bob, 6 Jul 2017 @ 1:57pm

      Re:

      It's not that the democrats nominated a woman that they lost, it was that they nominated that woman (Hillary Clinton).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JoeCool (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 2:23pm

      Re:

      Holy carp! Did anyone see this?

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/03/exclusive-all-american-indian-launches-senat e-campaign-against-elizabeth-warren/

      The "inventor" of email is going to run for office. I knew he was a scam-artist, but going into politics is a new low, even for him.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 2:36pm

        Re: Re:

        It's a little funny that he was inspired to run by Trump, who has his emails printed out for him.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 8:23pm

        Re: Re:

        I heard him making noises about it before. I love the games they play with "Indian".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 7 Jul 2017 @ 12:48am

        Re: Re:

        Yeah, I knew that. One of the regular idiots here keeps banging on about it. Anyone who votes for him probably has to be reminded how to breath every 5 minutes.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        OldGeezer (profile), 7 Jul 2017 @ 11:16am

        Re: Re:

        Senator Warren would have soundly kicked Trump's ass. This "inventor of email" is just as full of shit. Sounds like a publicity stunt. Maybe he thinks if he can also claim to be a congressional candidate that will help his bogus defamation suits.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 3:32pm

      Re:

      Archaic? That is funny right there. It is working exactly as intended.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JMT (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 6:05pm

        Re: Re:

        Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 6:17pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You are technically correct, but it does appear that the OP called the electoral system Archaic as to imply that it was broken. Most people are erroneous in thinking that our Archaic system of elections is broken when it is not.

          Is is the people not understanding how our government works, that is broken. The several states are not even required to let you vote for president if they do not wish! The American system of Government is quite genius, but unfortunately people never take the time to find out how and why. Instead they prefer to trash talk something they literally do not understand. A TD community specialty to be sure!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            OldGeezer (profile), 7 Jul 2017 @ 11:27am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            The electoral college made sense in colonial days. One reason it was put in place was there was so much inbreeding among royalty in the old world that a number of the old world monarchs were clearly insane. Don't know if it would have helped then since it didn't stop the nut case we have now even when he lost the popular vote.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 3:02pm

    Well, well. My prior TOR browser session, as usual, lasted for TWO comments, then was poisoned.

    There's really only one explanation and it's that some "administrator" decides who's making comments and then blocks that (TOR) IP address.

    Happens so often that I usually ignore, but this time I'm again making effort to inform the public that Techdirt censors out of sight.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 3:19pm

      Keep tilting at those windmills Don

      Never gets old how you make a claim and then immediately undermine it yourself. Using a browser that will get your comments caught by the spam filter and then whining when to the surprise of no-one but you it's caught by the spam filter.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:04pm

        Re: Keep tilting at those windmills Don

        I was a bit too frugal with words: that browser session was PAST the alleged "spam filter" and I'd made two comments, THEN it was poisoned. Comprende-vous, maintenant? Tell me how that happens, then. -- No, don't bother, as you clearly know nothing about how TD actually works coming from TOR.

        Oh, and for anyone new to this cesspit that claims it's SO for "free speech" that wants Facebook to host video of murders: my home IP address is blocked, that's why I must use TOR. THAT didn't happen automatically, smarty-pants, I EARNED it by telling TRUTH. And hooting. The kids can't stand either.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:17pm

          Re: Re: Keep tilting at those windmills Don

          I was a bit too frugal with words: that browser session was PAST the alleged "spam filter" and I'd made two comments, THEN it was poisoned. Comprende-vous, maintenant? Tell me how that happens, then. -- No, don't bother, as you clearly know nothing about how TD actually works coming from TOR.

          Let's see, one possibility has a member of TD staff dedicated to reading every comment, who has such a raging hate-boner for you that they specifically target you out for 'censorship', and using Tor had nothing to do with why your comment was caught by the spam filter.

          On the other hand you admit to using a browser that will get your comments caught by the spam filter, and two comments made it through before the others were caught, meaning it could be as simple as 'you posted too many comments too fast' or 'the two that made it through were a fluke'.

          Out of the two, I wonder which is more likely...

          THAT didn't happen automatically, smarty-pants, I EARNED it by telling TRUTH. And hooting. The kids can't stand either.

          That you continue to think(or at least claim) that your comments are reported not because you hand out insults with regular frequency, but rather because people can't stand your 'truth' is likewise all sorts of funny, in large part because I imagine you're the only one who believes you.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 7 Jul 2017 @ 12:51am

          Re: Re: Keep tilting at those windmills Don

          "my home IP address is blocked"

          Yet, instead of considering why that is, you keep playing childish games and then whine when those fail.

          If only you were self-aware enough to understand what you were doing.

          "I EARNED it by telling TRUTH"

          Can you link to when you did that? I must have missed it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 3:56pm

      Re: Well, well. My prior TOR browser session, as usual, lasted for TWO comments, then was poisoned.

      Haven't you said repeatedly that only filthy pirates use VPN's?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:06pm

        Re: Re: Well, well. My prior TOR browser session, as usual, lasted for TWO comments, then was poisoned.

        @ Haven't you said repeatedly that only filthy pirates use VPN's?

        No, I haven't. In any case, using TOR to get around arbitrary blocking for the content of my speech is of course perfectly cromulent.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Thad, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:53pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well, well. My prior TOR browser session, as usual, lasted for TWO comments, then was poisoned.

          arbitrary blocking for the content of my speech

          ...

          arbitrary

          for the content of my speech

          ...which one is it, genius?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 7 Jul 2017 @ 12:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, well. My prior TOR browser session, as usual, lasted for TWO comments, then was poisoned.

            I wonder if he'll understand why he's an idiot for saying that?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:51pm

      Re: Well, well. My prior TOR browser session, as usual, lasted for TWO comments, then was poisoned.

      Nobody cares, Hamilton.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:13pm

    Statements made callling people crooked, low iq, amd the like may cross the line to libel or slander. More significantly its something no president should do.

    That all government policy seems to vr defined in 140 characters reveals how shallow the thought process is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:54pm

      Re:

      Statements made callling people crooked, low iq, amd the like may cross the line to libel or slander.

      No, they most certainly do not. They're protected opinion and rhetorical hyperbole. Schoolyard insults are not defamation, especially not when they're leveled at public figures.

      There are a lot of things Trump's done that are probably illegal. But name-calling isn't one of them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:25pm

    RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

    Now, what propaganda bubble do you live in that liberal hysteria and CNN's over-reaction -- and then intimidating person who actually had little to nothing to do with Trump -- that this at all surprises?

    Actually, your notion of "unpresidential" and CNN's over-reaction is the big story here. "You people", by which I mean elites, just do not understand how CNN is regarded by non-elites. It's known as totally biased organ of globalists, not as a fount of truth. And so when CNN has proved that recently, to go crazy about a very minor bit of humor, you and CNN thereby prove my point.

    And I guess you're okay with the quite ominous "CNN reserves the right" to OUT this person, as not mentioned. Yeah, I know they backed away from it. That backing away is also vastly more important than your alarm over "unpresidential". -- See, when you LEAD off with that bias up front, you prove yourself CLUELESS.

    Reading over... In fact, while pretending to defend speech, you simply rail against Trump's / president's. Do you ACTUALLY think this little bit of humor is sign of coming crack-down on dissidents? You just went off the rails.

    -------

    Just to show I can. This technique, which I seldom do out of decency that TD lacks, really drives the kids crazy. My point is that "the Community" is phony in first place, it's administrator approved, is never applied to fanboys no matter how vile, TD does not visibly state reserves the right to edit, and in any case, it's NOT a "free speech" site if dissent is disadvantaged. If TD would just admit that it has a biased view and no intent to be fair, I'd quit mentioning.

    By the way, where's this writer defending MY right to comment right here on this "free speech" piece? HMM? Anyone?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:34pm

    RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

    Now, what propaganda bubble do you live in that liberal hysteria and CNN's over-reaction -- and then intimidating person who actually had little to nothing to do with Trump -- that this at all surprises?

    Actually, your notion of "unpresidential" and CNN's over-reaction is the big story here. "You people", by which I mean elites, just do not understand how CNN is regarded by non-elites. It's known as totally biased organ of globalists, not as a fount of truth. And so when CNN has proved that recently, to go crazy about a very minor bit of humor, you and CNN thereby prove my point.

    And I guess you're okay with the quite ominous "CNN reserves the right" to OUT this person, as not mentioned. Yeah, I know they backed away from it. That backing away is also vastly more important than your alarm over "unpresidential". -- See, when you LEAD off with that bias up front, you prove yourself CLUELESS.

    Reading over... In fact, while pretending to defend speech, you simply rail against Trump's / president's. Do you ACTUALLY think this little bit of humor is sign of coming crack-down on dissidents? You just went off the rails.

    -------

    Just to show I can. This technique, which I seldom do out of decency that TD lacks, really drives the kids crazy. My point is that "the Community" is phony in first place, it's administrator approved, is never applied to fanboys no matter how vile, TD does not visibly state reserves the right to edit, and in any case, it's NOT a "free speech" site if dissent is disadvantaged. If TD would just admit that it has a biased view and no intent to be fair, I'd quit mentioning.

    By the way, where's anyone defending my right to comment here? -- Also to not have it censored, I mean "hidden"? HMM? -- Anyone want to defend how silly this writer looks when the daily actuality of Techdirt is that my little innocuous bits of text are blocked and then "hidden"?

    Do you ever notice, Techdirt -- business that must fairly accommodate the public, not a person with rights to deny service: that notion was shot down with lunch counter sit-ins -- that I go back and be more explicit when blocked? And since usually get them in eventually, why not just do as you advertise: FREE SPEECH. (Within common law, I add, though Techdirt never does.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:35pm

      Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

      Four tries to get in. Your efforts are too effective at all. Why bother?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Thad, 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:58pm

        Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

        Jesus Christ, dude, shut the fuck up already. Start a blog or something.

        You think anybody read that? Nobody read that. Everybody saw a wall-of-text subject followed by a wall-of-text body and clicked the little flag icon.

        Post it more times? People will click the little flag icon more times. Ain't nobody gonna read that shit, son. Posting it more times actually decreases the likelihood that anybody is going to read it.

        You have no audience here except yourself. If you want people to read your shit, put it somewhere where people might read it. This is not that place. This will never be that place. We do not like you.

        And if you don't want people to read your shit, then my God, what are you doing spending so much time writing it?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 5:04pm

          Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

          More liberal hate. Guess you are the self-appointed defender of Tech Dirt. Those defenders have existed since the news group and haven't changed a bit. Maybe you didn't read the wall of text, but you sure over reacted to it. Pretty silly if you ask me.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Thad, 6 Jul 2017 @ 5:25pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

            If you seriously think that this is what hate looks like, then congratulations, you delicate snowflake, you've lived such a charmed life that you can't even tell the difference between hate and moderate annoyance.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 5:57pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

              Look, a snowflake fight!

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2017 @ 6:44pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

              I know what hate looks like, it looks like almost everyone from the left. The one thing this election cycle has revealed is the true nature of the left. 100 million people in the ground is all the proof we need so it was no surprise. The left is 0-4 in special elections in June and down 900 seats since Obama, so if you want to start winning you should seriously tone down the violence and the rhetoric.

              http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-se ats-state-legislatures-o/

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                orbitalinsertion (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 8:29pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                Democrats != left. Not even close, really, for the most part. Even Obama was to the right of goddamned Saint Ronnie.

                But please, do go on about the violent left.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2017 @ 3:58am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                  I don't have to go on about it, I only have to watch the news for the hate, anger and violence from the left. Or I can read here and see it on display almost daily. You guys resort to name calling, cursing, labeling so easily. You even do it when it is pointed out that the left uses it as a strategy to silence dissent. This is why leftists governments always turn violent. If you were confident in your positions, you wouldn't need fear to advance it.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 7 Jul 2017 @ 4:12am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                    "I don't have to go on about it, I only have to watch the news for the hate, anger and violence from the left."

                    You could turn the channel and see violence from your tribe too, sometime (often) much more of it.

                    If you think you have a "team" that's 100% peaceful and "the other" are the ones causing all the violence, you're being lied to.

                    "This is why leftists governments always turn violent"

                    Yes, look at all the violence in the Portuguese government now, for example, and the Swedes live in fear. /s

                    What a total moron you are. Don't leave your sheltered cave, you must be so scared of reality.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2017 @ 7:01am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                      It is the left that live in fear. Fear of guns, fear of CO2, fear that someone has more than they have. It is this fear, and jealousy, that drives them to hate others. We have but one life and conservatives do their best to enjoy it. Liberals make themselves miserable and try to make those around them just as miserable. For a while it appeared they were winning. Now, hopefully, this constant peddling of fear is wearing thin and people are tiring of it and rejecting it. Only time will tell.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2017 @ 7:18am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                        It is the left that live in fear.

                        Au contraire, you simple-minded little twit.

                        Fear is not passing a health care replacement bill despite having 7 years to prep, and 6 months to draft one.

                        Fear is the specter of an ongoing Russia investigation.

                        Fear is a tiny handed orange man-child acting like a PMS-ing teenager with a new phone on Twitter.

                        Fear is not putting any wall funding into the budget because you know it has no chance of going anywhere.

                        Keep telling yourself it's every one else - it's certainly more agreeable than admitting that despite all your winning, you haven't really done anything.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2017 @ 7:31am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                        You're projecting so hard we could point you up and light up the moon.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 7 Jul 2017 @ 7:32am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                        You're hilarious. The "left" are the ones peddling fear? Not the ones trying to arm themselves with every weapon they can get their hands on, the ones shredding rights because they're scared of terrorists, the ones trying to damage and even outlaw everything from gay marriage to legal immigration to subsidised healthcare because they're scared of people who are different to them?

                        Even if you're dumb enough to think there's only 2 "teams" involved here, you have to stretch a long way to think that the "left" are ones peddling fear.

                        "fear of CO2"

                        Ah, I see. You've confused "knowledge" with "fear". You see, the "left" aren't scared of CO2. They simply understand physics and chemistry, and understand that dumping tons of the stuff into the atmosphere has predictable negative consequences. Which can be avoided, if we just change the way in which we do things, now that we have the technology to not need fossil fuels. Something that's perfectly possible, with the civilised world outside of the US working toward major investment in renewables. Which already employ more people than coal, even in the US. That nothing to do with fear, it's pragmatic action in the face of reality.

                        What's scary is that there's enough drooling idiots on this planet who think that basic science is a team sport, and are willing to jeopardise the human race to score points. As the saying goes, you can't reason somebody out of a position they did not reason themselves into to begin with, and such idiotic and dangerous dogma is indeed scary.

                        Perhaps you should educate yourself as to the way things actually - or, is education scary to you too? I know that the world is more complex than your simple fictions, and that can be scary, but believe when I say you can stop being afraid if only you dare to learn.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2017 @ 7:52am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                          Thanks for proving my point. Your entire post is about the fears the left have of constant doom and gloom. I don't even know how you get out of bed in the morning. Doesn't pedaling all that fear wear you out at some point?

                          As for the CO2 fear, that has been pedaled for decades now with no results to speak of. We should be frozen by now. Or boiled by now. Or under water by now. But nope, nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. But yea, the sky is falling.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 7 Jul 2017 @ 8:03am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                            "Your entire post is about the fears the left have of constant doom and gloom"

                            Me: here's some pragmatic evidence-based reality, and some examples of things that right-0wingers have been shitting themselves over.

                            You: See! You're terrified!

                            Does it hurt to live that far away from objective reality?

                            "As for the CO2 fear, that has been pedaled for decades now with no results to speak of"

                            You mean apart from the increase in global temperature and the proven measured effect it has already caused?

                            "We should be frozen by now. Or boiled by now. Or under water by now. But nope, nothing"

                            Oh, I see, you've been getting your scientific knowledge from the fiction aisle. Try reading some actual science, not what Fox tells you they're saying. Again, reality isn't that scary you do have to address it at some point.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2017 @ 10:04am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                              Love how you provide zero evidence of warming and its effects. There has been no statistically significant warming in over 15 years. No increase in tornado or hurricane number or severity. We aren't drowning in sea water nor frozen in ice. Your scientific knowledge is the one in question. The theories, yes they are still theories, aren't panning out and none of the predictions have come true. Live in fear if you wish, make fun of others who don't live in fear, but those others are enjoying the life we have been given.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2017 @ 12:21pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                                make fun of others who don't live in fear

                                You mean like the ones who think god'll fix it?

                                https://thinkprogress.org/lawmaker-climate-change-god-bf84a114b557

                                Yeah, I'll make fun of those retards all day long.

                                Funny how when it comes to science you need proof up the ass. But when it comes to religious bullshit, somehow the bar just disappears.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2017 @ 2:43pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                                  The same could be said of you. Someone advances one unproven theory after another and you believe it is the gospel. Doesn't matter that none of the predictions ever happen, you will cling to it until your final breath.

                                  At least Christians admit they have "faith" where non-believers claim they believe in facts yet the facts are never presented. Your faith is in science whether you realize it or not.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2017 @ 9:34am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is bette

                                    The same could be said of you.

                                    Could...but that would make you look more foolish.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                PaulT (profile), 12 Jul 2017 @ 1:34am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                                "Love how you provide zero evidence of warming and its effects"

                                Sorry, I thought that the body of scientific evidence that you claim was stating something about the effects was known to you. Are you now saying that you don't read any of it?

                                "There has been no statistically significant warming in over 15 years"

                                Ah. Let me guess, you're only familiar with the misleading denier graphs that deliberate start showing warming just after the el nino rise in the late 90s? Try a graph that shows more than 15 years, you'll see a different picture.

                                That worst thing about fools like yourself is that you keep presenting "evidence" that's been debunked thousands of times, but you'll either never see the debunking of claim it doesn't count for random reason you never back up.

                                "We aren't drowning in sea water nor frozen in ice. "

                                Nobody credible stated that we would be. However, the effects that *were* predicated such as more extreme weather patterns, ocean acidifiation and so on are becoming visible.

                                "Your scientific knowledge is the one in question. The theories, yes they are still theories"

                                You're questioning my scientific knowledge, but don't know what the meaning of the word theory is in scientific terms? Figures.

                                Your ignorance is matched only by your arrogance.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  PaulT (profile), 12 Jul 2017 @ 1:48am

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                                  Oh, and if you're somehow still interested in the conversation, where would your proof be that there's been no significant warming? I'd be interested to see if this is one of the typical debunked articles that simply pretends that warming started in 1998 without taking anything else into context, or one of the studies that completely ignores warming in the oceans, even though that's well documented and predicted. Any claim that there's no warming while only looking at atmospheric temperature is just as laughable as those who claim there's no warming because it was cold on whatever patch of dirt you personally stood on today.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Thad, 7 Jul 2017 @ 5:08pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly drinkin whiskey and rye, singin' this'll be the day that I die, this'll be the day that I die

                              Mentioned this in another thread, but I finally just gave up and wrote a Greasemonkey script to hide all the anons.

                              The idiot and all his idiot friends can scream into the void all they want now. I don't even have to click the little flag anymore.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2017 @ 8:58am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                            Thanks for proving my point.

                            Thanks for speaking for all the little brains out there. Retards need and deserve to be heard.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 7 Jul 2017 @ 8:16am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                          Thank you for being the voice of reason in the cold empty howling void of that mans head.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Annonymouse, 7 Jul 2017 @ 10:28am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.

                            But it echoes so.
                            Why do yhe echoes kerp getting louder?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Brent Ashley (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 4:36pm

    Enough rope

    I find it odd that the very people who are advocating taking away his petard are those who would be most glad to see him hoist himself by it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    lars626 (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 5:25pm

    Let it be free

    Let him tweet all he wants. His tweets are a window into the real Trump, and I want to be able to see the real Trump. No filters. No spin. Let the people that elected him see what they voted for.
    Let him communicate directly with the people. Let them take out their anger on the weasels that let it happen.
    For myself, I intend to sit back and snipe at the little bird every time it opens it's beak.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Kal Zekdor (profile), 6 Jul 2017 @ 10:47pm

    Some sense

    I'm glad somebody is responding to this event with a modicum of sense. This non-story has somehow resulted in a controversial firestorm, with pretty much everyone involved trying to put it out using gasoline. I wish I was surprised, but that's par for the course these days. I used to get worked up about partisan vitriol, about people who are too blinded by their fantasy of "us versus them" to behave in an objective and rational manner, but now I'm just too damned tired.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Govt Exam Adda (profile), 7 Jul 2017 @ 1:30am

    bush, obama, trumph

    Consider how Trump himself would use that power. Given, as we see in his tweet, how much he wants to marginalize voices that speak against him, we need to make sure this protection remains as strong as possible, even if it means that he, too, gets the benefit of it. There simply is no way to punish one man's speech, no matter how troubling it may be, without opening the door to better speech similarly being suppressed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Annonymouse, 7 Jul 2017 @ 10:39am

    Argh

    Apologies for fat fingers on tiny phone keyboard

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.