Trump and Other Lying Trolls.
And of course Trump is not Happy that his statements will be fact checked, but I sure am ecstatic.
I am not sure how we got to the point that our President can lie daily and almost half the American citizens either believe him or don't care. I am not even sure which is worse, I mean:
And of course Trump is not Happy that his statements will be fact checked, but I sure am ecstatic.
I am not sure how we got to the point that our President can lie daily and almost half the American citizens either believe him or don't care. I am not even sure which is worse, I mean:
- stupid cultists who don't know better is bad, but
- citizens that know he is lying and accept it as okay seems so much worse.
To those who believe Trump, my offer still stands. Find a factcheck here that you disagree with here and I will research it and post on it. Or even here...
I like this comic, Honest Abe was like rolling in his grave as Lying Trump was interviewed at Abe's monument.
It is interesting that twitter is fighting so hard not to take down the defamatory Trump quotes. Are they biased in favor of Trump?
ReplyDelete--Hiram
I think they are trying to defend "free speech" while trying to ensure their platform is not used to spread lies.
ReplyDeleteThat is a fine line to walk in our polarized society.
Nothing about free speech requires any of us to propagate someone else's opinions. The fact that I say something, doesn't mean you have to repeat it. Or keep it published here, for that matter.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
Well if Twitter wants to stay a viable business with customers from all sides of the country, they do need to balance conflicting views.
ReplyDeleteAnd now Trump threatens a business with government retaliation.
ReplyDelete"Well if Twitter wants to stay a viable business with customers from all sides of the country, they do need to balance conflicting views."
ReplyDeleteThere are thousands of Google pages listing failed conservative social media alternatives. (The reality, of course, is that Hiram is right: Twitter and Facebook consistently bend over backwards to give right-wing folks -- access to the platform, contrary to the narrative they like to spread. For instance, Judd Legum: Facebook allows prominent right-wing website to break the rules
NYT Analysis
ReplyDeleteThe FB Free Speech Battle Explained
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see if the Trump True Believers bite on his Right to Lie" argument.
ReplyDeleteThe costs of Lies on Social Media
ReplyDeleteVOX Twitter Story
ReplyDeleteWell if Twitter wants to stay a viable business with customers from all sides of the country, they do need to balance conflicting views.
ReplyDeleteTwitter is able to leave up defamatory comments like those made by Trump because they are about public figures and largely protected by New York Times v. Sullivan.
https://www.amazon.com/Make-No-Law-Sullivan-Amendment-ebook/dp/B004KABEQ0/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=anthony+lewis&qid=1590605813&sr=8-3
--Hiram
Review of Hiram's book
ReplyDeleteAnthony Lewis was an op ed columnist for the New York Times. His more famous book is "Gideon's Trumpet" about the Supreme Court case that held that criminal defendants in state courts had a right to counsel.
ReplyDelete==Hiram
"And now Trump threatens a business with government retaliation."
ReplyDeleteAnd now Trump threatens a business by requiring them to follow the law. There, I fixed it for you.
What law is he trying to enforce?
ReplyDeleteThe one where they are forced to publish anything that anyone wants them to on their business's platform?
As I said, if he does not like the company's policies, he is free to find another service provider.
Public law 230. Have you read the EO? It's pretty clear your reporter is talking through her hat.
ReplyDeleteTrump wants to Revoke 230 which gives social media platforms protection from lawsuits
ReplyDeleteUnless you have a better source.
He wants to be free to publish anything he wants on their platform without them having the right to question it, or put notes regarding it.
How can any private enterprise supporter like that idea? Could you as a business owner imagine being forced to say lies for a Liberal or Conservative politician?
Not sure what your fabulously biased source says, but your interpretation is exactly right, AND actually is what the law says. Twitter can be a "platform" for free speech and enjoy liability protection, or they can be a "publisher" that censors content and NOT enjoy such protection. They've obviously crossed that line long ago. Somebody said that "the antidote for free speech is more free speech."
ReplyDeleteFree Speech works both ways, especially when it is on their platform...
ReplyDeleteThey have the right to tie fact checking and labels to content... Unfortunately Trump does not like that...
It is quite the co-dependent relationship. Trump needs Twitter and Twitter loves the free advertisement.
So if you maintained a website, would you allow people to post brazen lies and invitations to violence on it?
ReplyDeleteOr would you draw lines as to how far is too far?
"They have the right to tie fact checking and labels to content" That is true. But they do not have the right to liability protection.
ReplyDeleteIf I maintained a website (like yours) I would certainly feel free, even an obligation, to block objectionable content or even contributors that I found offensive. My right as a "publisher." And if I did not "censor," or posted such things myself, I would be liable for any damages caused by my "free speech." Twitter is trying to have it both ways. About time somebody called them out on it. Even Facebook seems to agree.
The problem with Trump's proposal is that today they address only the most egregious lies and extremists... (ie alex jones)
ReplyDeleteIf he has his way they will tighten down content requirements for everyone to protect themselves from litigation. I think it is better if Trump stops lying and inciting violence...
Or he just accepts their right to call him on it.
Wrong again. What Twitter needs to do to avoid liability is to become the "platform" they claim to be, where anybody can say anything and the only "fact-checking" comes from others on the platform. Somebody incites violence on a /platform/ then they are personally liable for that, and the platform is not. Put up a soapbox in the park and the person putting up the soapbox isn't responsible for the craziness shouted from it, the shouter is. Simple.
ReplyDeleteIf you think Trump lies on Twitter, you can say so, and people will believe you, or him, their choice. The antidote for free speech is more free speech, not less.
And how do you justify Twitter simply closing or suspending the accounts of people with whom they politically disagree? Can you find any justification for a "platform" doing that?
Let me repeat...
ReplyDeleteIt is their platform...
If Trump and you do not like their rules...
Start your own far right conspiracy platform...
Kind of like FOX News but where people can post. :-)
Apparently Gab is waiting for him to switch.
ReplyDeleteThe question is Trump ready to give up the "authenticity" that a main stream platform like Twitter gives him to go to a site that allows.
ReplyDelete"If Trump did decide to open a Gab account he would join the likes of far-right radio host Alex Jones, far-right political commentator Milo Yiannopolous and British far-right activist Tommy Robinson, all of whom have been banned from Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram."
Long live business rights to say no to annoying customers...
Fine. Twitter wants to control what is said on "its platform," then they can be sued six ways from Sunday for anything they say, or that others say, there. That is the law. If Twitter wants protection of the law, they have to live by it.
ReplyDeleteUnless Twitter changes its ways, their "fact check" of Trump is a clear violation of law. As well as the 20,000 other documented cases of them censoring free speech (based on their obvious political bias). Really, if that's what you want, maybe you should just watch CNN all the time.
I will leave it to the judges to determine what is a violation of law.
ReplyDeleteI usually avoid Twitter and cable news...
I stick with the sources at the top of this pyramid usually since I want news and not opinions / entertainment.
They are pretty well aligned with the Allsides Ratings and my experience
That is an interesting pyramid. Not a lot wrong with it, except that they put the "center" in the wrong place! Anybody really believe the NYT, ABC, CBS, WAPO and CNN are centrists?
ReplyDeleteI avoid Twitter and cable news AND network news and the Star Tribune. I see new guidelines saying that too much news is harmful to health, and I discovered that long ago.
Actual they put CNN cable as Left Leaning.
ReplyDeleteAnd CNN Online as closer to Centrist. (unless you go to there opinion page)
Yes I can get good news and information from all of the above...
It is pretty much FOX who mixes their opinion / news during most of their air time and on their web site.
Actually, I can get good /information/ from anybody, I just have to dig down to the actual base facts. From many outlets (like the Strib), it is too much work, but can be done. Of course, you can't necessarily trust those facts until you dig them out of more than one source. THEN you can form your own opinion about what those facts mean.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, Twitter "censored" the President. The President cites the law and claims what they did was a violation. My opinion is that the President is clearly correct and Twitter is wrong, and that opinion is backed up by the common knowledge that there are thousands of other examples of Twitter censoring account-holders, plus the simple fact that they have an admittedly highly-biased "fact checker" at all.
As I said, we will see what the courts say. :-)
ReplyDeleteSure. So in the meantime, can you quit second-guessing them? You've made a charge that Trump lied and that Twitter was doing their proper duty. Both are your opinion, and must be so, since the courts have NOT ruled. Also, since what Trump SAID was an opinion, protected by the first amendment and the 230 law, and what Twitter did was violate, arguably, one or both, from whence your dead certainty of YOUR opinion?
ReplyDeleteTrumps "opinion" is still there.
ReplyDeleteTwitter "sources" are still there.
Not sure what Trump's fuss was about.
And yes Trump lies often...
Michigan SOS
California Governor
Don't you ever get tired of trying to defend a pathological liar?
Yep...
ReplyDeleteTwitter got it right, Trump is lying
What makes you think Trump is a liar??? You've made much of your OPINION of that, but your opinion is just that, regardless of how many sources you find that support your confirmation bias. And much, I think, depends on the definition. If Trump states an opinion with which you disagree, does that make it a lie? Apparently it does, to you. Feel free, but do not expect agreement.
ReplyDeleteThe Michigan SOS was never going to send out ballots.
ReplyDeleteThe Cal Gov was never going to send out ballots to everyone in California.
Trump LIED.
This is not an opinion... I am not sure why you disagree.
"If Twitter wants protection of the law, they have to live by it."
ReplyDeleteIf they made cakes, would you support them?
Moose
Define "everyone" as Trump was using the term. Then tell me it was a lie. Did it get the point across that he was trying to make? You seem to have missed it.
ReplyDeleteJerry,
ReplyDeleteTrump was very clear in his lie.
You just can't accept that you are supporting a repeated liar.
I wonder what that says about you?
"There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone.....
....living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way!"
I do not accept that my opinion says ANYTHING about me, YOU do.
ReplyDeleteOf course what we believe and are willing to defend says a lot about us.
ReplyDeleteFor better or worse.
This is one of Trump's classics...
ReplyDelete"The noise (from windmills) causes cancer."
What fascinates and disturbs me is how folks like yourself and my parents are so brainwashed that it is almost impossible for you to say.
ReplyDeleteYes Trump lies often and egregiously.
Is it something that if you acknowledge the reality you can no longer vote for him?
I have given you 2 lists that document ~400 lies. Just pick one where you think they got it wrong and I will look into it further.
Maybe you should look into every one of them before casting aspersions on somebody else's character. And then look again, without the jaundiced eye and confirmation bias firmly lodged, like a log.
ReplyDeleteJust pick one... It should not be so hard if they are so obvious.
ReplyDeleteI will tell you now that 2 of them are likely provable lies.
ReplyDeleteJust pick one... It should not be so hard if they are so obvious.
ReplyDeleteAnd is 2 of 400 a good thing from the President you support?
I will never understand.
I confess I never read the list. The 2 is purely an estimate based on the "blind squirrel theory." Everything else on that list is somebody's OPINION based on the preconceived notion that Trump is a liar, and therefore everything he says must be a lie. Start with some other premise, say, that Trump is doing a lot of good and these "fact checkers" are just a bunch of nitpickers that are trying to derail that good, and you get an entirely different answer.
ReplyDeleteSo you are scared to face the truth of exactly how much he lies and how extreme the lies are.
ReplyDeleteHow can that seem like a healthy rational way to evaluate the politician you are defending so aggressively?
It reminds me of an ostrich with his head in the sand swearing that there is not a predator nearby.
At least it explains some why my parents avoid researching any of Trump's statements.
They are just happier blaming the "lying media" rather than truly evaluating their cult leader.
I am still amazed at the psychology behind this?
Here is an interesting read.
ReplyDelete"Sean Illing
And how do you distinguish a cult leader from what we’d normally consider a charismatic leader?
Steven Hassan
I have a chapter in the book on malignant narcissism as a characteristic of destructive cult leaders. These are people who have a deep need for grandiosity, to be the center of attention, who need to control others, and who lack empathy and lie without hesitation. These are psychological traits perfectly attuned to manipulation and projection.
But the malignant part is about sociopathic tendencies. Almost every cult leader thinks he’s above the law, which is why he’s allowed to persecute and harass or harm anyone he wants. When someone really believes this, they can rationalize all kinds of destructive behavior.
Sean Illing
Well, let’s get to the book. Why are you calling a Trumpism a cult?
Steven Hassan
I began this book with the assumption that Trump is a malignant narcissist. Actually, watching him and listening to him reminded me of Sun Myung Moon, the leader of the cult I joined in college, in that both have a kind of God complex where they’re the only one with the answers, the only one who can fix things. Moon was going to create a theocracy and Trump was going to “drain the swamp.” But the way they carry themselves is similar.
But what really made me think of Trump as a cult was the way the groups who supported him were behaving, especially religious groups who believed that God had chosen Trump or was using Trump. There are actual pro-Trump religious groups, like the New Apostolic Reformation, whose leaders were saying, “We’re of God. The rest of the world is of Satan, and we need to follow our chosen leaders who are connected to God.”
There was this blind-faith aspect to the whole thing and an unwillingness to look at any inconvenient facts. That’s all very cult-like."
"So you are scared to face the truth of exactly how much he lies and how extreme the lies are." There you go again. WHOSE truth are you using as a basis for such judgments, and WHY? What purpose is served by labeling Trump's many, many statements as lies? Is it to justify your unreasoning hatred of the man, or do you just hate the massive good he is doing for the country and want it undone? You can label "lies" 'til the cows come home, but that isn't going to make them so because, even if by some chance (say 2 in 400) there is objective truth, it either matters not or is outweighed by other considerations. You seem to think that Trump supporters are idiots and are baffled by that. Perhaps opening your eyes to a more reasonable explanation-- such as we're just as able as you are to make a judgment-- would help you.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Trump supports are idiots.
ReplyDeleteI think they show the behavior of cult members.
As I said, I am happy to dig into the lie and uncover the real truth, it is you who is scared to do so for some reason?
"I think they show the behavior of cult members." Oh, that's better. :-/ You'll settle for anything that paints those who disagree as less caring and less intelligent than yourself. You cannot admit that Trump supporter could possibly have made a rational decision. Typical liberal.
ReplyDeleteI think you just insulted the Liberals...
ReplyDeleteRemember... I usually vote Republican and voted for Trump. :-)
By your words we shall know thee...
ReplyDeleteAnd I have long known that you cannot insult a liberal. They are so absolutely convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority that disagreeing with them simply marks you as inferior and unworthy, even, of debate. Don't be a liberal.
That kind of reminds of writing back and forth with you.
ReplyDelete"absolutely convinced of their own moral and intellectual superiority"
Fair enough, but at least I am willing to be convinced otherwise, on any given issue. Liberals don't debate, they deride and dismiss. Like this: "I think they show the behavior of cult members."
ReplyDeleteAfter communicating with you for ~11 years, I am most certain that rarely or ever are you convinced of anything by anyone. :-(
ReplyDeleteYour comments and positions are pretty much identical to when we started. :-(
Unless you can think of an example of your open mindedness and willingness to learn and grow?
And please remember the context of my quote...
ReplyDelete"I don't think Trump supports are idiots.
I think they show the behavior of cult members.
As I said, I am happy to dig into the lie and uncover the real truth, it is you who is scared to do so for some reason?"
I made a statement of belief, I was not name calling.
Whereas you just just to do the name calling thing "Typical liberal."
And I am most certain that Laurie, Sean and Moose will never claim me in their ranks... :-)
"After communicating with you for ~11 years, I am most certain that rarely or ever are you convinced of anything by anyone. :-( "
ReplyDeleteYour inability to convince me says absolutely nothing about my willingness to be convinced. A good portion of the time I cannot even discern what you are trying to convince me /OF/; part of the time you simply resort to "sources" that agree with you but offer no convincing or even pertinent evidence, and the rest of the time you simply repeat your initial assertions as if seeking some talismanic power and, failing all of those, you resort to some sort of argumentum ad hominem.
Sorry for the unintended insult of "typical liberal." But when you debate like a liberal, you leave room for doubt on that. And if the others here agree with you, then you have obviously taken a liberal "side" of the debate.
I feel no insult, I just consider the source. :-)
ReplyDeleteFor the fun of it.
ReplyDeleteWhen was the last time anyone changed your mind / position in any substantive way?
What was the change and how did they do it?
OK, I was opposed to the idea of eliminating the Deputy Chair position of the MN GOP. I was convinced easily by the author of that resolution that the position was not only unnecessary, but potentially detrimental.
ReplyDeleteReally... How the club is organized?
ReplyDeleteHow about something more significant?
By the way, Does this mean it did not pass?
"Changes to the bylaws will be considered at the State Central Committee meeting and must be passed by a two-thirds vote. The proposed changes are:
• Eliminating mention of the Deputy Chair position and detailing the election of the Chair Pro Tempore."
Glad to see you looking at real sources. The change to the Bylaws did not pass. The change to the Party Constitution did not pass. I opposed both, after my discussion.
ReplyDeleteAre you jealous that my mind was so easily changed by someone with a persuasive argument?
You deem that not significant? How readily and easily you dismiss the deep concerns of 2000 very thoughtful and concerned people, but that seems to be what you do.