SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President Trump's practice of blocking Twitter users who are critical of him from seeing his posts on the social media platform violates the First Amendment, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Wednesday.
The ruling came in a case brought by seven Twitter users who had been blocked by the @realDonaldTrump account after they criticized the president.
The plaintiffs, who were joined in the suit by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, claimed that Mr. Trump's Twitter feed is an official government account and that blocking users from following it was a violation of their First Amendment rights.
In her ruling, Federal District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote of the plaintiffs that "the speech in which they seek to engage is protected by the First Amendment" and that Mr. Trump and Dan Scavino, the White House social media director, "exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/business/media/trump-twitter-block.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
See also: http://time.com/4808270/sean-spicer-donald-trump-twitter-statements/:
When asked at a press briefing whether Trump's tweets qualify as official statements on behalf of the White House, Spicer said that he "is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States."
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 25 2018, @03:29PM (50 children)
Premise
So apparently if you're president now you legally have no private life. I mean, pragmatically maybe you didn't already because paparazzi, but yeah.
If Trump's Twatter account is official government announcements, does that mean that he can't leak information on it? Because any leak is designated as on purpose, and official government policy?
Would seem to imply that Trump is going to be held to the things he says on Twitter, which is a bit laughable.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 25 2018, @03:33PM (10 children)
This is how they handle blocks on Twitter? I would think it would make more sense to do it the other way around, i.e. they can see what you do but *you* can't see anything *they* do. Which would include if Twitter has any private messaging system?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Informative) by insanumingenium on Friday May 25 2018, @03:45PM (1 child)
Both are options, you can mute them in which case you can't see their posts. Or you can block them where they also can't see yours. Muting was found to be acceptable, blocking not, guess which one Trump uses.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 25 2018, @04:02PM
Ah, okay. I've never really looked at Twitter for any length of time.
lol
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday May 25 2018, @07:14PM (7 children)
The fact that Twitter allows people to block certain respondents clearly demonstrates it was the intent of the developers that this feature be available as a routine part of the twitter environment. The judge has decided to politicize that.
District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald is a Clinton appointee. Did anybody actually expect a different ruling?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Friday May 25 2018, @07:40PM (6 children)
I didn't expect a different ruling, because this is not a partisan act. This is BIPARTISAN. Orange Anus does not get to decide who can, and who cannot, listen to OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS.
The platform of Twitter and the developer's intentions are wholly irrelevant to the main points being discussed:
Both questions are incredibly clear in their answer, and backed up by his former press secretary. ALL of his public communications (communications with an open ended recipient list, or a fucking wildcard *) are official communications, and therefore subject to the laws of the United States of America. That fucking bastard is not above the law! I don't think you agree anybody is either, unless the conversation devolves into a hopeless partisan quagmire.
What was decided by the court, which is most certainly not a partisan swipe against Trump, is the answer to #2 is that EVERY CITIZEN has the right to hear official communications from the tippity top of the Executive Branch.
With all due respect, Frojack, your attempt to make this an invalid partisan decision is utter bullshit. Trump does not have the right to block citizens from listening to his official communications. Even if over half of America just waits to pounce on him and deride whatever he said.
You know who can control who can listen to leaders? Dictators, and the Monarchy before the fucking Magna Carta. Such bullshit has no place in America, and is antithetical to the principles of Freedom.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @10:51PM
If the president is speaking at the press room in the whitehouse, that is official speech. You get to attend.
Listening to it from somebody else is clearly not a substitute. You have the right to see it yourself.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @11:58PM (1 child)
Orange Anus does not get to decide who can, and who cannot, listen to OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS.
Pay attention children this is how you continue to act butt hurt over a loss to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yC7-JsR2Fk [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Saturday May 26 2018, @12:25AM
Again you dumbfucks, you try to make it partisan. It has nothing to do with winning or losing, Republicans or Democrats, loose constructionists versus strict constructionists, etc.
It has everything to do with what constitutes official speech from our leaders, what laws govern said official speech, and can a leader forcibly restrict *specific* citizens from hearing his public addresses. All very easy to answer questions, unless your partisan, or completely lack the ability to put forth in cogent reasoning for why the speech is either unofficial, or that not all citizens are equal in who can receive the content of official speech.
All the efforts to make it partisan just show how intellectually impotent you all are. Meaning, the ones who abandon all reason and good sense to defend the positions of Trump, No. Matter. What.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @01:10AM (1 child)
Hey sanctimunous twat, your life is so rich. I hope your Trump Derangement Syndrome doesnt flare up and cause an anurism.
I'm loving life right now. Thank you POTUS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @03:58PM
Go drink some vodka Ivan, you're kissing the wrong booty again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 27 2018, @06:38AM
But should public announcements require an account to see said communications? Can't you search @realdonaldtrump on google and see them while being logged out, even if blocked?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 25 2018, @04:17PM (14 children)
When you're broadcasting messages in a forum of millions, no. This is saying that the President does not have the right to discriminate against individuals from the larger population.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday May 25 2018, @04:36PM (13 children)
You're begging the question. This assumes that he's acting officially on behalf of the government. I assume anything he says on Twitter are more Tourette's outbursts that may or may not be even marginally connected to reality.
If he's not speaking in an official capacity, he is free to discriminate against anyone he likes.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @04:42PM (3 children)
And the insanity continues. Never before Trump would people consider such things. If he mentions anything about US business it becomes official. This deranged schizophrenic idea that the President can say things but we have to guess if they are valid or not, well it is too much. We have a child president but I say the special treatment ends now. Next time he puts his foot in his mouth, via Twitter or otherwise, make him eat it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 25 2018, @05:46PM (2 children)
And then he's too much of a special little snowflake to handle any criticism on top of it all.
I thought conservatives were supposed to be against that kind of stuff...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @07:13PM
The cons have shown their true colors, they're cons! they stand for nothing but gains
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 25 2018, @08:33PM
They are, this is straight from the conservative play book: We're against this stuff, we've done it all our lives and know how bad it is, so you shouldn't do it - in fact, we'll pass laws saying you shouldn't do it (but, as for us, we'll keep on doing it because we can't help ourselves - but it's bad, very bad we tell you, and it must end NOW!)
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @04:47PM
Thing is, there was a press release where his representative (Spicer at the time) stated that the feed was official.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 25 2018, @05:40PM (3 children)
And I agree - but, as the current President of the country, he is broadcasting these outbursts to millions of people around the world, and I agree with the decision that: if any US citizen, anywhere, wishes to receive these outbursts in the same timely manner as the majority of the US population is able to, they should be able to do that and not arbitrarily discriminated against like some loser kid in the 3rd grade who never gets invited to anybody's birthday party even though the invitations are handed out at school. O.K. - less than perfect structural analogy, but the emotional sentiment is there.
What is totally ridiculous here is that Trump could just use Mute and be compliant - is it that hard for his IT staff to help him with that?
And I agree - if he's not speaking in an official capacity, but I suppose I disagree in that: if he's speaking to potentially millions of citizens, that's an official capacity - no matter how brain-fogged he might be while doing so. Rolling this back 100 years: something the President said while in a restaurant with a few dozen people around might be considered non-official, whereas something he said over megaphones, repeated by criers to thronging crowds of hundreds of citizens, is an official statement - no matter if he was drunk and delirious at the time, that's his bad judgement for opening his mouth in a public forum, and our bad judgement for putting him in the Oval Office to start with, but no less official.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by frojack on Friday May 25 2018, @07:25PM (2 children)
He, (and I) reject your assertion, and allow the president to speak his mind without it rising to an official action, based on YOUR opinion of the size of the Audience. Never before has audience size been a criteria.
There are MANY officially recognized ways for a president to make an official proclamation, and Twitter isn't one of them.
All of the official methods involve written and published statements with signatures witnessed by other officials.
Expressing an opinion is not something you've ever denied to any other president. Why start now, just because your liberal butt hurts?
You, (most specifically you), are never given any status to make such a decision as to what is official.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 25 2018, @08:12PM
Except that the White House says that it is.
And we the people, as voiced by the court, are not denying the orange oaf his right to speak wherever and however he wishes, opinion, fact, deluded fantasies, all fair and available.
What has been judged by the court as inappropriate is for the President to censor his speech, deny access to it to selected persons who desire to hear it.
I presume to repeat what the court has already decreed. If the orange one feels himself to be above the court's judgement: bring it on, the impeachment will go that much faster and certainly.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @09:50PM
It is staggering how far you conservatives bend over for Trump. I really don't get it, one "strongman" puffs up his chest and suddenly all your personal integrity and morals go out the window. Trump's scandals should have put him at 0.2% polling with Republicans, but for some reason he could do no wrong. What really bothers me is that if it was a Democrat Prez doing this you'd be ALL up in their shit about it.
The "essay" below really did nail it right on the head, you conservative types are 100% led by your hatred. At least Obama ran on a campaign of hope before he won and sold out. Trump has increased the level of hatred and division beyond reason, and yet we see the Christian base continue to support him. The power of propaganda folks!
Don't worry, liberals had enough blame during Obama's time with not pulling out the pitchforks as he bailed on promise after promise. However I still didn't see the rabid defenders dropping everything they stand for just to support their side of the aisle.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NewNic on Friday May 25 2018, @06:24PM (3 children)
And you would be wrong with one of those statements. The administration has already stated that what is he writes using his twitter account is government policy.
You would be correct that they are likely to not be connected to reality.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Friday May 25 2018, @07:28PM (2 children)
There's a different way to look at it. It's official policy that *whatever* plane the U.S President is on has its call sign changed to "Air Force One". Unless I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure about that. So you may be able to look at it as wherever, and however, the President addresses the people, it intrinsically becomes official communications.
He's a fucking dipshit showman, so he's quite used to the idea of exclusivity and controlling who can see him and can't see him. That's a pretty standard practice in entertainment and marketing. That's long gone though the instant the inauguration was performed.
Whether he likes it or not, the inane babbling coming out of his mouth is official. I don't believe the President could even speak in unofficial capacity. It's like the Pope saying, "Okay, just for the next few minutes I'm not speaking as the Pope..". Nobody would believe that, and it wouldn't be unreasonable for church members to still interpret it as official Pope communications.
The only exceptions I believe, are when the President is clearly not addressing the people at all, but is involved in private meetings considering classified information and operations. Even then, I do believe that the minutes of the meeting are recorded for posterity, but not available for decades likely.
In the end, that horrid man must accept that he is *EVERYONE'S* President, and then he does not have the moral or legal authority to deny a citizen the contents of his official speech. I don't even believe he can mute people, because we have a right to address our politicians and list our grievances.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @10:23PM (1 child)
An aircraft flown by the marines is Marine One. (that fat green helicopter) An aircraft flown by the navy is Navy One. (for example, Bush going to the aircraft carrier) An aircraft flown by the army is Army One.
Everything else is Executive One. Nixon did it, flying on United as some sort of endorsement for commercial aviation. It would be Executive One if Trump flew in his personal jet.
I suppose that means a wingsuit or hang glider can be Executive One.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @09:57AM
Did they break his guitar?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilsa on Friday May 25 2018, @04:57PM (9 children)
There's shifting the goal posts, and then there's what you said. How exactly does twitter constitute as private life, ESPECIALLY when it is being used by Trump in his capacity as president? Maybe if he had limited to his tweets to cat videos and other personal things, then sure. But no, he's been continually making tweets regarding policy and other government matters.
I'm sorry, but no. You don't get to have it both ways. Trump is president, and whether he likes it or not, that comes with *gasp* responsibilities and limitations. At least until he manages to get the Republicans to give him dictator status.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 25 2018, @05:42PM (8 children)
ESPECIALLY when it is being used by Trump in his capacity as president?
And, also, ESPECIALLY when government funds are being used to operate the account.
FTA:
In her ruling, Judge Buchwald said Mr. Trump and Dan Scavino, the White House social media director, “exert governmental control over certain aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account.”
Dan Scavino is paid by us, not Trump.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Friday May 25 2018, @06:37PM (6 children)
Being fair, seeing how Trump donated his own salary (some $400k) to the treasury, I think we can look the other way when Dan Scavino ($180k) goes through his tweets a couple of times a day.
Money aside, a workable technical solution could be for Twitter to implement subscribe-able blacklists. So, when you subscribe to someone's feed, you'll have the option to also subscribe to their blacklist or anyone's blacklist for that matter. This could also resolve the censorship problem Twitter and Facebook are facing with regards to moderation: They can run multiple lists registering certain accounts under one violation or the next, and let people choose to do what they like with it. Hate speech... Sexual content... Troll... Democrat/Republican... Cat lovers... You'll have separate lists for everything moderated by 3rd parties. So people will elect their censor of choice to manage it or just blacklist people on their own. Then, if you see a developed thread where one party is blacklisted while another is seemingly discussing a topic you want to hear, you'd click the whitespace and the whole thread will open up without the censoring. You can even do a moderation system similar to soylent on top of it with scores and groups of moderators running their own hierarchies and stuff...
Basically, when people put you in a box it's a prison. But when you put yourself in a box it's your home.
compiling...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 25 2018, @06:53PM (2 children)
I think we can look the other way when Dan Scavino ($180k) goes through his tweets a couple of times a day.
No, I don't think we can look the other way when government employees violate people's constitutional rights.
That's kind of a big deal, actually.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @01:14AM
Two years of "Muh Russia" conspiracies and this is the best you got? He blocks people on Twitter... wow. Best oart of this 4d masterpiece is now and Dem who blocks people on Twitter will look like a hypocrate. I cant wait till they start getting clubbered on their own platform.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday May 26 2018, @10:45AM
Please. Just because the law hasn't caught up with giving private forums protections from defamation doesn't mean we should be treating Twitter and other social networking like public forums and press like some mindless legal drones. We both know it doesn't make a lick of sense not to let officials moderate their social accounts. The white-house was filtering the media allowed into the press briefings for years and no thought it's unreasonable. When presidents and secretaries attended private parties and gave speeches, no one suggested uninvited people should be allowed in to make counter speeches. And on the money issue, when "free" speech was written into law, it would have cost you a newspaper press and a publishing company distribution network.
Stop being too pedantic about the constitution. The right to bare arms doesn't mean you get to carry a nuke with you. The right to free speech doesn't mean you get to yell "Fire!" in a crowded hall, defame or circumvent someone's IP. There were always restrictions. Some specified by the letter of the law. Others by the technology of the times. I think any public official should be allowed to reach to their public without having the opposition take front row seats to toss tomatoes at their face during their speech. We can sort through this technically or legally, but it doesn't change the fact that you can't operate a representative democracy when candidates and representatives can't reach the public since their opposition is attacking them at every speech.
Even if we wanted to make every speech platform into a debate platform, people, elected officials or otherwise, would have a say against whom they are debating. Maybe a more direct form of democracy is better suited for the information age. But right now, presidents are executives and should only answer to congress, the house and the courts. If people don't like what he's saying, they should vote for a better president and/or congress men that would ask in their stead.
Overall, meh.
compiling...
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 25 2018, @08:38PM
Has f-all to do with what?
The president's salary is a gnat's turd on the ass of an elephant riding great blue whales across the oceans, flanked by schools of millions of sharks, tuna, turtles and dolphin.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @09:56PM (1 child)
He donated his salary as a PR move, he's making WAY more money by simply being the president. However it is a really good sound bite for morons who can't see beyond the surface details. "He's so rich he's donating 400k to help fix the government!!!" laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawl
Trump pegged you tards from the start, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters."
Y'all are suckers and got taken for a massive ride by a conman. The sooner you come to terms with that the better for literally everyone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @10:42PM
By simply being the president, he has lost about a billion dollars.
Sure, I'd have voted for him if he stood in the middle of 5th avenue and shot someone. He couldn't have shot Vince Foster and Seth Rich.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday May 25 2018, @07:29PM
So, you thing twitter gets paid by people who tweet?
How very naive [quora.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 25 2018, @05:37PM (7 children)
So apparently if you're president now you legally have no private life.
If it was actually private the decision may have gone the other way.
It's not, though, he's got Whitehouse staffers operating the Twitter account. Those are public employees.
So he's using taxpayer money to run the account and the courts say that makes it a government account. It's not that illogical.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 25 2018, @05:47PM (1 child)
He does? If so they're doing a pretty shoddy job of keeping him from making a fool of himself.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 25 2018, @06:04PM
He does? If so they're doing a pretty shoddy job of keeping him from making a fool of himself.
They can't fix Trump so they actually purposely make themselves sound dumber:
Trump's staff ghostwrites some of his tweets and inserts grammatical errors to make them seem authentic [businessinsider.com]
(Score: 2, Disagree) by frojack on Friday May 25 2018, @07:31PM (4 children)
No, he doesn't have whitehouse staffers operating the account.
They might look at it once in a while, but they specifically do not operate it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 25 2018, @08:13PM (2 children)
No, he doesn't have whitehouse staffers operating the account.
This is the stipulation of facts [knightcolumbia.org] from the case. (wherein both parties agree to a mutual set of facts upon which to base the case)
12. Defendant Daniel Scavino is the White House Social Media Director and
Assistant to the President and is sued in his official capacity only. Mr. Scavino posts messages
on behalf of President Trump to @realDonaldTrump and other social media accounts, including
@POTUS and @WhiteHouse. Mr. Scavino has access to the @realDonaldTrump account,
including the access necessary to block and unblock individuals from the @realDonaldTrump
account.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Saturday May 26 2018, @04:26AM (1 child)
Now I'm wondering if the guy who posts here as The Real Donald Trump is actually Scavino or his minions?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday May 26 2018, @10:00AM
I don't know if it is one of Scavino or his minions, but if he isn't then they should hire him. I was starting to wonder if it was actually The Donald.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @10:38PM
Does it hurt your ego to be constantly wrong? Have you thought about maybe branching out in your belief system?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday May 25 2018, @05:57PM (2 children)
He can have a private life. In private. Take his family to a private dinner -- assuming they can stand to be around him. Topic for dinner, how many other pr0n stars did you pay off during your campaign?
When he does something that is deliberately public, related to official United States policy, then that's about as public a forum as it gets.
I want to do something in private, so I'll put it on Twitter, Facebook, etc in order to keep it really sooper seekrit private!
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 25 2018, @08:41PM (1 child)
This one is #friendsonly
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by edIII on Saturday May 26 2018, @12:34AM
Well fuck, I owe Trump an apology. He used the Konami code, correctly.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @06:52PM (1 child)
Yeah right. Last I checked, Twitter was specifically a public forum, not some private E2E encrypted direct messaging system.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 25 2018, @07:01PM
You knobs are all interpreting "public vs. private" as "can people see when I do this vs. is it secret" instead of "is this a part of my job vs. is this something I am doing personally."
Maybe my terminology was suboptimal, but come on. Use a brain cell or two.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday May 26 2018, @02:34AM
You pretty much don't: Not just because of the paparazzi, but because you are required to report a great deal of your activities to the public. Plus you are at beck and call of the job at all hours of the day, because, for instance, you might get the proverbial 3 AM phone call, and not answering it now means you have a nuclear war on your hands.
the reason you're required to report so much to the public is that the public is your boss. Think of it this way: If you did allow presidents to have a private life, they could and will be bribed and blackmailed even more than they already are, and hide that from the public by saying "that's private".
More to the point, you certainly can't describe statements made to the public via the Internet as part of your private life. A pre-Internet version of what Trump's position is: He wants to be able to hold a press conference and say that only Breitbart can report on what is said about it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Subsentient on Friday May 25 2018, @03:32PM (7 children)
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 3, Informative) by insanumingenium on Friday May 25 2018, @03:43PM (2 children)
That is the funny part. The court literally suggested that he could mute people instead of blocking them and everyones rights would be respected, he hasn't done so that I have heard. He doesn't have to look at the criticism, he just can't block his critics from seeing his public posts.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Subsentient on Friday May 25 2018, @03:50PM (1 child)
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @05:00PM
You may not be a liberal, but that statement certainly qualifies you for libtard.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday May 25 2018, @06:38PM (2 children)
If a controversial public figure has enough time to read mean tweets and block haters, they probably have too much free time.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday May 25 2018, @06:59PM
Republicans don't concern themselves with silly things like governance. So, they have more free time than most.
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Friday May 25 2018, @08:43PM
Oh no. We want him having lots of free time, could you imagine if he actually engaged in affairs of State, domestic or foreign?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @12:00AM
In what way is he disgusting? I am not seeing it. So please explain to the class.
(Score: 2, Informative) by fritsd on Friday May 25 2018, @04:12PM
Covfefe!
That is all.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @04:21PM (5 children)
I Hate You All, an Essay
This is an essay on why I despise you all. It's an effort to explain to you that you are wrong, how you are wrong, what you can start doing about it, and also I will generally insult and belittle you along the way. Idiots.
Capitalism Is Not As Horrible As You Are
A lot of the people (mostly on the Left) bitch about capitalism being the root of all evils. I used to believe it. It was an attractive thought, but really, I can't even hate it at this point. I can't hate it because it's just a tool. Makes about as much sense to hate as rakes or screwdrivers. Not only is it a tool, but it's really really good at what it's designed to do. The problem is that it's designed purpose is at odds with almost all of the people who love it.
If you love it, then ask yourself why the fuck you're still living in a crumbling house in the middle of rural fucking corncob nowhere. Are you're holding out because "anyone can make it big" and you "could be the next Bill Gates"? Guess what dipshit, if you were going to be the next Bill Gates, you probably would have done it by now. You're not that smart (you're willfully backing a system that's making the area you live in quickly become economically impossible to escape, after all) and you're not going to do it in a resource and culture starved backwater. Even if you did manage to create something worth financially supporting, you have no money, no talent pool to hire from, and no supporting infrastructure. No, capitalism is not your friend.
If you love it and you're not living in a crumbling house in the middle of rural fucking corncob nowhere, then congratulations, you're lucky enough to be part of the problem. Now go ask a homeless person how many steps it took for them to end up on the street and count how few differences between you and them there REALLY are. And TIP them for the effort, you worthless cheapskate; They imparted wisdom into your dense little skull, after all.
If you hate it, then stop fucking self-righteously mumbling to yourself about how horrible it is, and start recommending other options. Maybe invent a few new ones, assuming your dime-store liberal arts degree didn't destroy ALL your capacity for creative thought.
You Have the Emotional Control of a Six Year Old
You stupid assholes will parade around with your stupid fucking Make America Great hats and guns like a fucking pride parade squealing about how great your "freedoms" are, yet you throw a tantrum because someone on TV isn't forced to salute the flag. You throw a tantrum when gay people want to marry. You throw a fucking tantrum when a secretary of state uses a personal phone and private email server. Then you cite it as a reason that secretary shouldn't be president, but then suddenly not give a flying fucking fuck when the fucking dipshit that does get elected president does the same thing because he happens to be in your fucking tribe.
I honestly can't decide if that's more or less disgusting than the shallow wannabe do-gooders who will throw a fucking hissy-fit, smashing buildings and fighting other jackasses because the president is "racist" or because he said shitty things about women. Yeah, that's fucking terrible, but how much campaigning did you do? How much of the legwork did you get involved in, you know, like, to stop that? WHAT THE FUCK did you do about the problem other than sit with your thumb up your ass and maybe vote when the time came (maybe)? And yet you fucksticks DARE to get mad and throw rocks like children when Trump make outrageous claims about building walls that you and I both knew wouldn't happen. Yet even now he's helping neuter Dodd-Frank (even more than it initially was) which paves the way for 2008 to happen all over again, and there's not a fucking word out of any of you. You goldfish are too fucking young/stupid to remember what happened 10 years ago, apparently. Well, the adults in the room called it a "recession". It's what happens when the banks are allowed to get away with making shitty deals that wreck the economy. There were a lot of layoffs. Inflation occurred. The job market absolutely dissolved. People, particularly the poor and minorities, struggled to secure loans for housing for quite a while after that. It was the REASON the Dodd-fucking-Frank Act happened. And now even as Trump, 50 Republican senators, and 16 Democratic ones (12 of whom directly helped) prime our economic self-destruct sequence, you sit there silent? You don't fucking care about bad shit happening unless it disrupts your fucking feelings. Fuck you.
Maybe you got herded into complacency by your handlers at the New York Times or Washington Post or whatever and bought up the propaganda I see everywhere right now. The word I keep seeing mindlessly parroted is "mid-tier". As in, "oh, this change only helps mid-tier banks". Guess what motherfucker, I'm going to shit in your Cheerios, because "Mid-tier" actually means every fucking bank on the planet that's not one of the US top nine. If 2008 happened again with the same players (which can happen NOW, thanks), only with this neutered form of Dodd-Frank, you'll be seeing about a 108 trillion bailout (napkin estimate since you don't care about real fucking facts anyway) rather than 210 trillion. Well, that sure sounds like a victory, right? (No, no it doesn't.)
Fuck you all. The only redeeming part of the impending economic nightmare is that I at least get to watch you all get precisely what you deserve and I get to keep laughing about it until we all fucking starve to death.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @04:23PM (4 children)
Your Tribal "Us Versus Them" Mentality Makes You At Least Half Wrong
Republicans are typically rural dumbfuck hillbillies that vote for people who talk about the things that scare them. I base this on any political map compared with any state GDP map. Well, guess what, it's not the "brown people", the "gays" or even the "liberals" causing your problems, it's the FACT THAT YOU KEEP VOTING FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T SUPPORT YOUR BEST INTERESTS. Here's a mental exercise if you can fucking manage it. Try to keep up: Has voting for Republicans ever directly improved your life? How? How do you know it was because of the Republicans? See if you can answer those questions without the answer being dependent on someone else being denied something because "gays marrying", "abortions", "terrorism", and "brown people" really don't make *your* shitty little life any worse, dickhead*. But if you got this far, now see if you can find proof of the Republicans actually being responsible for it. No, no, no, I mean actual proof, not the regurgitated smegma spewed into your eyes and ears by what passes for your "news sources" you psycho fucking nutjobs. Your extremes are neo-nazis, people who thought the crusades were a good idea, and people who think it's okay if people starve to death in the street. That should be a WARNING SIGN, you misguided retards.
* This bears a goddamned footnote because I really want to drive home how much you hate the things you think you support. Freedom? Nope, because you get pissed when people exercise their right to assembly, their choice to not respect your hideous fucking flag, or their choice to fuck whoever they wish. Life? Well, you sure do hate abortions and birth control, but you shitheads seem to really pop a stiffy over war and the death penalty so quick that it seems like it must be a better choice for you limp, impotent sadists than viagra is. On the topic of viagra, you also hate nationalized healthcare too. So by all accounts it sounds to me like you confused dumbfucks really hate life because you want it to happen, but then refuse to help it continue and then invent still MORE reasons to kill people. Fuck pro-life, I think you're pro-fucking-murder. You just don't like abortions because that's less people to fucking slaughter. Limited government? Guess not that either since you masturbate over the DHS, police in jackboots, and the fucking "patriot" act. Nope, your entire platform centers around making sure the Democrats don't get what they want, and also guns too, because why the fuck not. You're not a political party, you're a frighteningly well-organized mob of dogs that bark at strange noises on command, and you're really shitty for it.
Meanwhile, the esteemed Democrats are smug dipshits not nearly as bright as they think they are. They want to be well-meaning and enlightened, as long as it doesn't take real work and everyone is super polite about it. You smear your ivory tower "better-than-thou" bullshit everywhere and then wonder why the Republicans are just such gosh darn meanies to you. Guess what? Spend enough years shitting on people, calling them stupid and uneducated, and making absolutely zero effort to consider them in your politics, and yeah, they'll fucking lash out at you. They might even elect some noisy shitbag for the schadenfreude. Turns out you were right: They ARE shitty horrible people that do shitty horrible things when antagonized. Now you got Trump who's recreationally undoing everything good and bad your lord and savior Obama accomplished throughout his entire two terms and you limp-wristed ninnies DON'T HAVE A WAY TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Happy Fucking Congratulations!
And your extremes are pretty fucking shitty too. I shouldn't have to explain this to you retarded man-children, but stamping your feet and dressing up like the Veit fucking Cong because "the president claims he'll build a wall" doesn't make you an enlightened individual. It doesn't solve anything other than get the morons on the other extremes riled up enough to want to fuck with you, but maybe that's what you WANT. Nowhere else have I seen so many people so completely devoted to victimhood, you'd think it was some creepy fucking religion. And you manage to fight between yourselves to be the MOST victimized. The saddest part is that the Republicans manage to only be your second worst enemy just behind yourselves. You HAD the last election in your grasp. All you had to do was put someone, literally anyone in front of a podium that wasn't Hillary Fucking Clinton. Sanders would have won the election. Fuck, Biden could have won THAT election. Sure, you don't believe me. You don't have to believe me. But you know who else couldn't win the election? Hillary Fucking Clinton. The difference between me and you out-of-touch myopic fucking mouthbreathers is that you either didn't look for the signs, or you just didn't care because it was "time for a woman president". Just so you know, the message that provides to anyone who leans even SLIGHTLY right is "Don't elect me on my merits, elect me because I'm the fucking diversity hire". MORE victimization. A little tip for you is that you CAN elect a woman. That's fine. Just give people some more goddamn reasons to vote for someone beyond a set of fucking ovaries. I'm sorry, but that's not going to cut it. And you could go to ANY sleazebag right wing forum and you'd have seen there were a lot of outspoken Bernie fans even there. Did you even LOOK at your opposition's strategy? Did you read what their own people were saying? Once again, you push people away and alienate them not for merit, but for identity, and given your fetish for victimhood, I'm starting to wonder if it's not intentional. You guys are literal losers. That's almost worse than being horrible.
I would wish you all luck but frankly I'm not sure you'd know what to do with it.
Fuck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @04:48PM (2 children)
Heh, then we get some genius pointing out what everybody already knows without a single shred of helpful advice. Yup, you're the worst one here with the judgmental know-it-all syndrome. It is easy to point out problems, fixing them is something else. Do you feel better at least?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @12:33AM (1 child)
No. They don't and you probably don't either. But you think you do? Fucking amazing. Give yourself a gold star and then start screaming it from the fucking rooftops. Be the ugly truth people don't want to look at. Tear little holes in the modern world's madness. For every clash of Jim Bob Married-His-Cousin in their MAGA hats and every dipshit college student in black pajamas that things they have it right, drop some industrial strength white noise machines throughout their crowds. Distribute propaganda showing that there is a third way. Don't be part of the problem. Be part of the problem's problem. Save the world! Kill a pundit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @04:07PM
Do not let your hatred settle in too far for your own sake. It is difficult to work it back out and it really does hurt you more than the people you are angry at.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday May 25 2018, @07:20PM
*slow clap*
Bra-vo, sir. That was a Carlinesque rant for the ages, and more correct than most people want to admit. It's just a shame all the local pearl-clutching RWNJ snowflakes are going to ignore it because, horror of horrors, you said a swear or ninety.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Friday May 25 2018, @04:25PM (2 children)
Twitter, twitter, twitter. Twitter. Twitter twitter twitter, twitter.
Twatter Tweeter twitter.
It seems like everyone these days expects all official communications to go through, and only through, Twitter(TM).
Not a day goes by that the TV news does not proudly proclaim "Today, such and such announced on Twitter(TM)...." (as dollar bills come flying in from twatter HQ). Wait, whats that, you say? Why am I not getting my news from Twitter(TM) like everyone else? Sigh.
And I will say it yet again and again... the president of the United States of America has no business posting directly on a private social media site. Statements for the public should be filtered through publicity personnel, published on an official government site, and disseminated to all relevant outlets. But nobody is going to hear what I have to say because I'm not saying it on Twertter.
Seriously. Mr Trump, stop playing with your tweeter.
And everyone else, stop putting Twitter(TM) up on a pedestal like it is something great. Use it for what it is - a private web site for throwing around large quantities of small bits of random mindless crap.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday May 25 2018, @06:03PM
The only thing the president should be using Twitter for is to send nuclear launch codes.
With a side of fries.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @07:10PM
Twitter, twitter, twitter. Twitter. Twitter twitter badger badger, twitter, twitter.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ilsa on Friday May 25 2018, @04:51PM (3 children)
Trump isn't just Trump. He's the president. That means any channel he uses for communicating with the public in the capacity of president, becomes an "official" channel, whether he likes it or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @10:47PM
It sounds like you think the president doesn't have a right to deny somebody the right to attend a press conference in person.
No, that is absurd. People can hear about it from other people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @12:02AM (1 child)
Ah all good points. Is the Obama administration going to turn over those 30,000 emails any time soon?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 26 2018, @08:26PM
Emails != twitter
Not judging emails one way or another, just a bad comparison.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday May 25 2018, @09:59PM
I'm glad that what i say here isn't 'official policy' for Gaaark's World: i try to stay consistent, but sometimes the. neeeeed...to! troll is. tooooo;: strong....
....must. say something!tobringout-the-weirdosON*SoylentNewssssssssss
Or
try tojust say something humorous.--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Redundant) by jmorris on Saturday May 26 2018, @12:55AM (1 child)
The ruling is retarded because it is basically saying any heckler can go for it and can't be ejected if they are heckling a public official. You can subscribe to Trumps tweets all ya want and there is 0% chance of being blocked. Start heckling him and he will "get him out of here" on your ass. And you can STILL follow his tweets if you switch to an alt account or simply log out.
The coverage is retarded because about 2/3 of it (the most deranged left part) omits the fact the judge was merely mugging for the cameras. Knew the Judiciary has no real power to tell the President how to use his Twitter account so the ruling was merely advisory with no attempt at enforcement or sanctions. So Progs get to dance for a day in glee at "Trump getting schooled by the courts" and then Trump will simply ignore it and his fans will do their own happy dance. And again the lesson gets hammered into a few more heads that the courts are entirely out of control. Tick tock.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by DeathMonkey on Saturday May 26 2018, @01:56AM
The ruling is retarded because it is basically saying any heckler can go for it and can't be ejected if they are heckling a public official. You can subscribe to Trumps tweets all ya want and there is 0% chance of being blocked. Start heckling him and he will "get him out of here" on your ass. And you can STILL follow his tweets if you switch to an alt account or simply log out.
Well that is the exact opposite of what just happened. You're literally inverse factual.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday May 26 2018, @01:43AM
So who is on the list? And how can I get on it? I'm getting real tired of reading about everything that Trump says on the internet.