OT-DONALD J. TRUMP

[Seahawks4Ever]

I do not know how so many can IGNORE the FACT that we as a nation are in a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. The because BAR has been MET as Trump and his criminal cohorts in both houses of congress and FOX NEWS and any station owned by Sinclair Media are BLATANTLY OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. I have not even mentioned the Bribery and other crimes. Sickening, most corrupt admin. EVER.

The ONLY thing that separates a "functioning? democracy and an Autocracy is RESPECT FOR THE RULE of LAW. Well, Trump just threw 230 years of JURISPRUDENCE out the window. You are scared, I know. But, now is NOT the time to do NOTHING. Now is NOW the time to pretend that everything will "work itself out" No, No it isn't.

I don't intend to comment other than to start this thread because I want to hear from EVERYBODY how they feel now that we are on the PRECIPICE of LOSING our great republic and most people are acting as if this has NOTHING to do with themselves when, FOOLS, it means EVERY THING to You and yours. I hope you have liquidated and organized because all HE** is about to break out and quite frankly I have a lot more on my mind than football or Seahawks.

[Aseahawkfan]

This guy knows better than to start this in this forum. There is an OT forum for a reason with plenty of Donald Trump conversation there for those that want to discuss President Twitter. Get this one out of here.

[c_hawkbob]

This guy knows better than to start this in this forum. There is an OT forum for a reason with plenty of Donald Trump conversation there for those that want to discuss President Twitter. Get this one out of here.

Agreed.

[yoder]

Agreed as well, will you move or delete this topic...or are you going to make me do it for you?

[obiken]

Agreed as well, will you move or delete this topic...or are you going to make me do it for you?

ASHF come on guy, you know better than this! I despise Trump more than anyone but put it in the OT section!!

[RiverDog]

Sometimes it's difficult to keep OT subjects separate from the main Seahawks (actually football in general) forum such as my Matt Patricia thread. But this one is blatantly off topic and should have never been started in this forum.

[NorthHawk]

Agreed as well, will you move or delete this topic...or are you going to make me do it for you?

So we can move and delete an entire thread if we start one?
I thought that would be an Admin function, not a user function.

[obiken]

Sometimes it's difficult to keep OT subjects separate from the main Seahawks (actually football in general) forum such as my Matt Patricia thread. But this one is blatantly off topic and should have never been started in this forum.

Yours was Football related Riv, He is a coach in the NFL. Trump is way off topic.

[ShackMod]

I'll move it

mak

[yoder]

So we can move and delete an entire thread if we start one?
I thought that would be an Admin function, not a user function.

Hmmm, maybe not. Anyway, thanks Mak...hell of a week over here.

[burrrton]

Let's keep this thread going, if for nothing else to keep S4EV's tweet going (it was truly genius):

A judge... ruled Trump can't block... people on *Twitter*??

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... n-twitter/

LOL. "YOU CAN'T BLOCK THAT PERSON- ALSO, YOU HAVE TO FRIEND THEM ON TEH INSTAGRAMS AND UR FLICKSTR ACCOUNTS!"

Just when I think this country is going to have to brace for a blue wave, another judge loses his marbles and rules dopey (and obviously unenforceable) stuff like this.

Every Democrat in the country should be taking up pitchforks against this dumbass. We truly live in stupid times.

[c_hawkbob]

Why every Dem?

[RiverDog]

Let's keep this thread going, if for nothing else to keep S4EV's tweet going (it was truly genius):

A judge... ruled Trump can't block... people on *Twitter*??

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... n-twitter/

LOL. "YOU CAN'T BLOCK THAT PERSON- ALSO, YOU HAVE TO FRIEND THEM ON TEH INSTAGRAMS AND UR FLICKSTR ACCOUNTS!"

Just when I think this country is going to have to brace for a blue wave, another judge loses his marbles and rules dopey (and obviously unenforceable) stuff like this.

Interesting decision, one that I agree with but that could turn into a slippery slope if government makes a habit of intervening into the world of social media. The decision must not be allowed to migrate past the behavior of public officials.

They will be able to inforce it since as noted, it only involves public officials. They will not need a Twitter police, just rely on citizens that witness illegal activity to report it.

Every Democrat in the country should be taking up pitchforks against this dumbass. We truly live in stupid times.

Not exactly sure which dumbass you're talking about (initially, through word association, I immediatly thought DJT), and like Cbob, I'm not sure why just the Dems should be taking up pitchforks.

[burrrton]

Why every Dem?

I don't know any Dem who wants the guy around until 2024, and I assumed not all Repubs are against him. I wasn't trying to cover every class of human being with the statement.

one that I agree with but that could turn into a slippery slope

Ya think? The judge doesn't even know what he's ruling on- there was literally nobody that couldn't read everything Trump tweets. I'm not sure you know how Twitter works, either, if you agree with this.

This isn't "turning into" a slippery slope- we're at terminal velocity sliding down a greased ramp because Trump gives a certain faction of this country a boner.

Not exactly sure which dumbass you're talking about

The judge, of course (though I think Trump's a dumbass, too).

[RiverDog]

Ya think? The judge doesn't even know what he's ruling on- there was literally nobody that couldn't read everything Trump tweets. I'm not sure you know how Twitter works, either, if you agree with this.

This isn't "turning into" a slippery slope- we're at terminal velocity sliding down a greased ramp because Trump gives a certain faction of this country a boner.

You're right, although I do have a Twitter account, I don't use it much except to monitor statements of those I follow. I've never had the need or desire to send out a tweet.

However, I don't think an intimate knowledge of how Twitter or other social media works is required to have an opinion on how publicly elected officials use a free public forum.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't know Twitter worth a damn either. I signed up to follow Pete Carroll. That's it. Tweeting is far too short for real useful information I believe. People who write these twitter tirades and statements are nutty. It's like the word it is named after. A bunch of people putting out so much stupid, short information, it sounds like a bunch of birds twittering. It's like the creators were making fun of their users, yet at the same time profiting on humanity's insane need to "talk" all the time.

[burrrton]

However, I don't think an intimate knowledge of how Twitter or other social media works is required to have an opinion on how publicly elected officials use a free public forum.

I didn't mean that as insultingly as it came out- the point is that no one's tweets are 'secret' unless they protect their account. All the J-school flunkies that were "blocked" could still read and report on his tweets- they just didn't like not being able to tweet back at him, as if there's some right to do so.

It was a made-up controversy, and the judge was as clueless as the 'journalists'.

[RiverDog]

I didn't mean that as insultingly as it came out- the point is that no one's tweets are 'secret' unless they protect their account. All the J-school flunkies that were "blocked" could still read and report on his tweets- they just didn't like not being able to tweet back at him, as if there's some right to do so.

It was a made-up controversy, and the judge was as clueless as the 'journalists'.

I wasn't insulted. You stated a fact, that I am not familiar with Twitter.

IMO the issue isn't who can read the tweets, it's who can respond to them. Twitter is a free service available to anyone, and as such, public office holders, or those running for public office, must not be allowed to use it to spread unanswered political propaganda to the general public. They have to provide equal access for a response.

An example would be the State of the Union address. Radio and television stations cannot air the speech and in the process, provide the POTUS with free access to the general public to express his/her political opinions without providing equal access for a response from the opposing party.

That's one of the principles that separates our form of government from totalitarian regimes.

And I agree with ASF about Twitter, which is one of the reasons why I don't use it other than following people.

[burrrton]

They have to provide equal access for a response.

LOL. From everybody? In what universe?

Radio and television stations cannot air the speech and in the process, provide the POTUS with free access to the general public to express his/her political opinions without providing equal access for a response from the opposing party.

The analogy would be whether they have to provide equal access to everyone that wants it. They don't.

[RiverDog]

Point is that they have to provide equal access. Twitter is a little different in that it's free to air political views and other media charges fees for their airtime. But to answer your question, if a politician airs a politically oriented message, then anyone has the right to post a response. Someone like Trump can't use it as a his exclusive billboard to spread his political propaganda. We're an open society. Hitler did not allow for any opposing views in their available forums

[burrrton]

But to answer your question, if a politician airs a politically oriented message, then anyone has the right to post a response.

Nonsense, RD. Politicians and public figures post politically-oriented messages *all the time* (publically, it's really all they do!) and there is absolutely no obligation for any outlet to be required to allow *everyone* who wants to respond to do so.

You're making this up as you go along just like the judge did, seemingly starting from your desired conclusion and rationalizing backward.

Try starting from the front instead: let's say Steve Young (Kennewick mayor) gets interviewed on KEPR and says "The Hanford Reach should be bulldozed." (insert some other politically-charged statement there if you want)

Should KEPR then be required to give every person who has something to say about that a platform to do so?

Hitler did not allow for any opposing views in their available forums

Oh brother. The people whining the loudest about being blocked are the ones with the largest platforms, none of which are 'blocked' from responding.

[Aseahawkfan]

I tend to agree with Burrtton on this one. They don't need to be able to respond to Trump to respond to what Trump says. You can read what he says and retweet it or respond with your own tweet. Trump should be fine to block people. It's Twitter that shouldn't be able to block people from responding via their Twitter account. There is equal access to the platform to disseminate information, but that doesn't mean there needs to be equal access to respond to President Twitter's tweets.

To use a different analogy, if Stephen Colbert on his show insults Trump or what not, he doesn't have to let everyone with an opinion on his show nor does the network. That doesn't mean people can't respond to Stephen Colbert using some other media system like Twitter, Youtube, or another TV show to respond to him. Public political figures can tweet as though they're talking on their Twitter account and someone else can respond via their Twitter account. No one is limiting the platform, mere the ability to respond on the originating twitter account.

[burrrton]

It's Twitter that shouldn't be able to block people from responding via their Twitter account.

Which brings up another interesting topic:

Trump will almost surely make a public beat-off motion in response to this, but I *think* Twitter could themselves remove his 'blocks'- the question is whether they want to take that measure after publicly admitting recently they 'shadow ban'** accounts.

Might be a tough argument to make that they want to "give everyone a voice" but are forcing some accounts to tweet into the void.

**Shadow banning is making it so an account behaves normally except that any tweet it makes isn't broadcast to any of its followers' feeds.

[RiverDog]

Nonsense, RD. Politicians and public figures post politically-oriented messages *all the time* (publically, it's really all they do!) and there is absolutely no obligation for any outlet to be required to allow *everyone* who wants to respond to do so.

It's not about everyone being able to respond or requiring a response. Money, along with a few other things such as literal ability, would prevent 'everyone' from responding to a TV commercial or announcement. It's about equal access, or in Teddy Roosevelt's words, fair play.

Try starting from the front instead: let's say Steve Young (Kennewick mayor) gets interviewed on KEPR and says "The Hanford Reach should be bulldozed." (insert some other politically-charged statement there if you want)

Not a good example. First off, that's an extreme situation that's not likely to happen. TV stations rarely interview mayors or councilmen for that very reason, that they are publicly elected officials. They usually interview a city manager or engineer that is appointed or hired.

Secondly, you're talking about an unsolicited interview, not someone like Trump getting up in the morning to give us his morning tweets. Mayor Young can't just walk into the TV studio and grab the microphone like Trump does with his cell phone.

Should KEPR then be required to give every person who has something to say about that a platform to do so?

Of course not. TV stations are quite a bit different forums than Twitter. It would not be practical for them to provide 'everyone' an opportunity to voice their opinions. They only have 24 hours worth of available air time. Twitter's forum has no such limitations. But if a group of individuals petitioned the TV station and demaned that they be allowed a rebuttal on a controversial issue like bulldozing the Hanford Reach, I'm pretty sure that the station would have to provide that group with the same access as they did the mayor.

[HumanCockroach]

I think the ruling is based on the government's inability to censor public access to political statements, which is indeed against the law. At least that's my understanding. Ultimately, if Trump was strictly tweeting about grabbing women, or how he was going to be poisoned if he didn't eat strictly McDonald's etc, he wouldn't probably be subject to that part of the first amendment, unfortunately, that isn't what he's tweeting about, making him subject to that public access portion.

Blocked users can't just not respond, but are blocked from seeing wgat ever governmental dihrea he decides to spew..

[burrrton]

Blocked users can't just not respond, but are blocked from seeing wgat ever governmental dihrea he decides to spew..

So you don't use Twitter, either?

There is literally *no one* who can't see his tweets and literally *no one* blocked from responding, even on Twitter itself.

You just illustrated why the decision is laugh-out-loud silly.

[HumanCockroach]

Alright, I honestly don't care, it's what was reported, I simply posted the reasoning.

[burrrton]

Alright, I honestly don't care, it's what was reported, I simply posted the reasoning.

Fair enough, but take my word for it, then.

[HumanCockroach]

Fine, whatever, like I said, I try to stay far away from trump, the judicial system, and government in general. It's a joke top to bottom, I'm in the duck, don't get noticed, do your job, hope we all still breathing, and make better choices next time stage...

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't use Twitter much, but I know enough to know what burrton says is how it works. If Trump made his account private, then people couldn't see his statements that weren't followers. Trump has a public account. Anyone can see his tweets. All that happens when he blocks them is they can't respond to his tweet on his account. But they can see the statement and retweet it. The stupidity of social media. Man, I never thought the 70 year old president would be the most followed tweeter in the world. This is just damn strange.

[burrrton]

All that happens when he blocks them is they can't respond to his tweet on his account.

It's worse- they can even respond. They just can't do it with the blocked account.

Trump isn't limiting anyone's ability to do anything with regard to his tweets- 'blocking' is nothing but a thumb in the eye to the 'prestige' (whatever it is) of a Twitter account. The suit was brought by people who take themselves and their 'social media personas' too seriously, and the judgment was rendered by a judge who knew nothing about the subject matter.

[Aseahawkfan]

It's worse- they can even respond. They just can't do it with the blocked account.

Trump isn't limiting anyone's ability to do anything with regard to his tweets- 'blocking' is nothing but a thumb in the eye to the 'prestige' (whatever it is) of a Twitter account. The suit was brought by people who take themselves and their 'social media personas' too seriously, and the judgment was rendered by a judge who knew nothing about the subject matter.

twitter is dumb. Bah.

[RiverDog]

twitter is dumb. Bah.

I'm not a fan of Twitter, either, but I can see it's usefulness. Trump claims that the media misrepresents him. For the sake of argument, if we assume that he's right, he can use it to bypass the media and get his message out directly to the American people without it being filtered or framed by the media, particularily to those who support him.

That doesn't mean that I think DJT uses Twitter appropriately. To the contrary, IMO he way over uses it, the NFL's anthem policy being just one example where I felt that he should have kept his big mouth shut. But it does demonstrate that it has its place.

[c_hawkbob]

Trump makes himself look far worse, using twitter, than the media portrays him.

[RiverDog]

Trump makes himself look far worse, using twitter, than the media portrays him.

To you and me, yes. There's countless times that he sends out a tweet that's patently false and IMO he looks foolishly uninformed.

But his core base doesn't see it that way. I don't think they bother to fact check him or even if they did, that it would make a difference to them that many of the things he tweets about aren't completely accurate. It's what they want to believe, so it doesn't take much to convince them. He tells them what they want to hear.

[burrrton]

I don't think they bother to fact check him or even if they did, that it would make a difference to them that many of the things he tweets about aren't completely accurate. It's what they want to believe, so it doesn't take much to convince them.

I get the impression his faithful base doesn't so much believe everything he says, but rather delight in watching him make the MSM wet themselves, true, false, or otherwise.

Plus, the media steps on plenty of rakes all by themselves, too, making it easier for them to not give a rip (witness the latest kerfuffle over the "animals" comment, for a perfect example).

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not a fan of Twitter, either, but I can see it's usefulness. Trump claims that the media misrepresents him. For the sake of argument, if we assume that he's right, he can use it to bypass the media and get his message out directly to the American people without it being filtered or framed by the media, particularily to those who support him.

That doesn't mean that I think DJT uses Twitter appropriately. To the contrary, IMO he way over uses it, the NFL's anthem policy being just one example where I felt that he should have kept his big mouth shut. But it does demonstrate that it has its place.

And the media takes whatever he says on Twitter and builds negative stories as well. Most sensible politicians have learned it is best to stay as quiet as possible and use carefully crafted statements to keep the media at bay (even that doesn't work half the time). Twitter has not helped the president do anything but provide the media more pablum to generate negative stories against him. Twitter does not let you convey complex ideas in a useful way. Twitter is stupid and making us as a race more ignorant. People trying to educate or convey complex ideas via a Tweet should know better.

At best Twitter is ok for conveying simple news like, "I'm making a movie" or "Just ate a great sandwich at Restaurant B." Crap that doesn't matter some attention whore person uses to broadcast their life bit by bit. A president should not be using it like Trump is doing.

[idhawkman]

I'm really shocked at how little people know about twitter and how it works.

Everyone has a voice and can post it on Twitter.

Anyone can follow a twitter user and see all of their tweets. Thus Trump has 40+ million followers. They all see his tweets when they login to twitter - the same way you see all of Pete Carroll's or Russell Wilson's when you follow them.

Just because you follow them, it doesn't require them to follow you and have your posts placed on their feed. Could you imagine the Kardashians or Trump trying to read hundreds of millions of tweets (40+ million a few tweets a day from each of them and maybe thousands a day from the opposition party's mechanical bots trying to spam his twitter feed). It's just not realistic.

Now each of Trump's followers (friend and foe) has the right to post to their followers a response to what Trump posts. No one is stopping them, however, most of them are not famous and don't have millions of followers like famous people have. A thousand followers for a non-famous person or entity (think of your local newspapger or the NY Times, or CNN or fox News) is a lot of followers. That's not Trump's fault. People follow him from around the world and he has no control over that unless he bans/blocks a certain entity or person. If that happens, that person or entity could easily create a new account in a few minutes and follow him with that account.

Now for the real kicker, Trump actually has 2 accounts on twitter. He has his personal account under his name and then he has the POTUS account which will switch when we have a new president. So which account is being governed? Will the SCOTUS accounts or Senator and Congressmen accounts also be governed? The whole thing is ludicrous and enforcing it will be impossible.

[Seahawks4Ever]

So, you all believe the problem with Trump is that he over uses Twitter??? You do realize he is laying the ground work to declare that the upcoming mid-term election results will be manipulated by Mueller and therefore are not to be trusted. You DO realize what this means? RIGHT??? How can you all IGNORE such B.S. ????????????

EVEN FOX News has called B.S. on Trumps blatant LIES about the so called "spy" the FBI supposedly embedded into his campaign.

Even Republican Trey Gowdy has declared that "spygate" is BOGUS and that the FBI was only doing what they SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING!

Yet, you ALL believe that it is OK that Trump has been ATTACKING both the FBI and the ENTIRE Justice Department?? Oh, it is twitter you all think is the problem with Trump.

How can you read, hear, see this man and his people peddle these LIES over and over???

Now Trump is also hinting that he just might not "abide" by the "rule" that stops him from serving only two terms. You DO understand the ramifications of such talk, do you not???

Yet, you say that it is his twitter usage that you disagree with.

And you, CHawk Bob, are you really saying that Trump's bark is worse than his bite??? So, kidnapping 50 children a day is AOK with you. Trump's immigration policy was one area where I agreed with him, until I heard about this abusive policy. Yet, you say Trump just makes himself "look bad" with what he tweets about. It says more about you than it does him Bob, and that is sad.

[Aseahawkfan]

So, you all believe the problem with Trump is that he over uses Twitter??? You do realize he is laying the ground work to declare that the upcoming mid-term election results will be manipulated by Mueller and therefore are not to be trusted. You DO realize what this means? RIGHT??? How can you all IGNORE such B.S. ????????????

EVEN FOX News has called B.S. on Trumps blatant LIES about the so called "spy" the FBI supposedly embedded into his campaign.

Even Republican Trey Gowdy has declared that "spygate" is BOGUS and that the FBI was only doing what they SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING!

Yet, you ALL believe that it is OK that Trump has been ATTACKING both the FBI and the ENTIRE Justice Department?? Oh, it is twitter you all think is the problem with Trump.

How can you read, hear, see this man and his people peddle these LIES over and over???

Now Trump is also hinting that he just might not "abide" by the "rule" that stops him from serving only two terms. You DO understand the ramifications of such talk, do you not???

Yet, you say that it is his twitter usage that you disagree with.

And you, CHawk Bob, are you really saying that Trump's bark is worse than his bite??? So, kidnapping 50 children a day is AOK with you. Trump's immigration policy was one area where I agreed with him, until I heard about this abusive policy. Yet, you say Trump just makes himself "look bad" with what he tweets about. It says more about you than it does him Bob, and that is sad.

You are so unbelievably unhinged. I always am left to wonder if you're trolling us or you truly sit in your house believing this garbage.

Who cares if he is attacking the FBI. It's fairly obvious the FBI, CIA, and the like are all politicized. They don't act in an impartial manner. I'm not sure why you or anyone else believed they did. People don't think that way. As long as we have organizations run by people, they won't be absent bias.