Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Paranoid Android]

NEW: @realdonaldtrump's biz pledged 6 mos. ago to purge itself of undocumented workers -- to align itself (4 years late) w/Trump's public attacks on illegal labor.
Nope.
Inside one Trump construction crew, workers say, nothing changed. They stayed.
https://t.co/abZALoZt0R

https://twitter.com/Fahrenthold/stat...071901187?s=19

Oh Trumpkins, you were conned.

[Thekri]

This is not a photo op.

They're sizing the baby up to find the cage in the right dimensions for it. That's why they're smiling.

Would explain the bizarre smiles and inexplicable thumbs up sign. After all, it is a Latino baby with no parents, a perfect candidate for deportation.

Can you imagine how weird this picture is going to be for that kid once he grows up? Here is a picture of the president of the United States holding me after my parents were brutally murdered by one of his supporters. No, I don't know why he is smiling and giving a thumbs up.

The whole thing reminds me of Erik and Don's pictures with dead animals. This is beyond crass, this is intentional.

[Dontrike]

https://twitter.com/Fahrenthold/stat...071901187?s=19

Oh Trumpkins, you were conned.

No surprise there, Trump has dozens of illegals working for him and no one bats an eye.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/alandete/status/...703031808?s=09

Looks like the grandfather confirmed it

There is no humanity within the Trump administration, nor his adult family (leaving Baron out of this).

They literally brought in a baby, whose parents died protecting him, as a political prop for one of the most tasteless images ever created.

[Zaydin]

I'm going to wait for confirmation before running with that one. Even by Trump standards, that seems unnecessarily sociopathic. Also, why would the hospital allow this?

It could easily be true, I'm just going to wait before running with that ball.

The backdrop behind them says University Medical Center of El Paso. The grandfather confirmed it. From all accounts it is authentic and Trump is just that ghoulishly lacking in empathy.

The baby was not at the hospital and two people from the WH evidently went to the family to ask to have the baby brought back to 'meet the president'.

[PACOX]

Posted this in another thread, but I'm going to post it here, too. Since it ties into what Trump has said about it.

Walmart removing violent video game displays, signs from stores but still selling guns

Buying guns at Walmart, fine. Carrying them in Walmart, you get a warning.

Toys guns?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoo...n_Crawford_III

[Fuiking]

Trump makes me violently ill in how cold he deals with the issues plagueing America... That guy has no empathy/know how to atleast *pretend* to be that.

its worrying.. its like watching a newly arisen Hitler go about his spiel.

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...about-n1040691

Trumpcare led to the murder/suicide of an elderly couple unable to afford medical care.

Republican inaction on health care, short of rolling back protections, continue to kill more Americans.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/tech/...ftc/index.html

A draft executive order from the White House could put the Federal Communications Commission in charge of shaping how Facebook (FB), Twitter (TWTR) and other large tech companies curate what appears on their websites, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

The draft order, a summary of which was obtained by CNN, calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms. Although still in its early stages and subject to change, the Trump administration's draft order also calls for the Federal Trade Commission to take those new policies into account when it investigates or files lawsuits against misbehaving companies.

This sounds like some big government overreach to me with a dash of the use of evil regulations.

Why can't they let the free market work it out?

[Endus]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/tech/...ftc/index.html



This sounds like some big government overreach to me with a dash of the use of evil regulations.

Why can't they let the free market work it out?

That isn't even "let the market sort it out", it's a straight-up frontal assault on the 1st Amendment. Even if they pass it, SCOTUS will probably kick them in the jibblies for trying it, even stacked as it is (enough of the conservatives are Old Guard conservatives who still have some basic legal ethics).

Hell, reading the content with more focus, it's an attempt to limit Section 230 protections. Those good-faith protections protect companies if, say, someone posts child pornography to their services. As long as a staffer takes that shit down and bans the user as soon as they're notified, the good-faith exemption they're granted is that they will not be charged with hosting child pornography. It's a recognition that they aren't granting prior approval to user content. That's it. It's never been about protecting users, or granting users any protections against banning.

All limiting Section 230 protections would do is force social media companies to shift to an approval-based system. Your posts are auto-moderated, until someone can look at them and flag them for posting. Nothing gets posted without moderator approval. If your posts are bad, they're never posted, rather than posted and then removed. And you can guarantee it'll be hours or days before any post gets approved, in most cases.

It can take a day or two to get a post report here processed by the mods team. And that's with the relatively small number of post reports. Imagine if they had to approve every single post?

That's what these idiots are arguing for. They have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

[Edge-]

Is this just part of Trump's "waaaah, they're censoring the good right wing folks!" nonsense?

Sure seems that way to me.

[D Luniz]

That isn't even "let the market sort it out", it's a straight-up frontal assault on the 1st Amendment. Even if they pass it, SCOTUS will probably kick them in the jibblies for trying it, even stacked as it is (enough of the conservatives are Old Guard conservatives who still have some basic legal ethics).

Hell, reading the content with more focus, it's an attempt to limit Section 230 protections. Those good-faith protections protect companies if, say, someone posts child pornography to their services. As long as a staffer takes that shit down and bans the user as soon as they're notified, the good-faith exemption they're granted is that they will not be charged with hosting child pornography. It's a recognition that they aren't granting prior approval to user content. That's it. It's never been about protecting users, or granting users any protections against banning.

All limiting Section 230 protections would do is force social media companies to shift to an approval-based system. Your posts are auto-moderated, until someone can look at them and flag them for posting. Nothing gets posted without moderator approval. If your posts are bad, they're never posted, rather than posted and then removed. And you can guarantee it'll be hours or days before any post gets approved, in most cases.

It can take a day or two to get a post report here processed by the mods team. And that's with the relatively small number of post reports. Imagine if they had to approve every single post?

That's what these idiots are arguing for. They have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

Waiting for someone to say "Our rule is just to add a valve to the series of tubes"

[Endus]

So, just going by the part you put in bold, it seems like they want to know how and why a current law protects a social media website when they decide t o take something down? Using Endus' example of someone posting child porn, they'd want to know how a social media site is protected by the law in removing such images?

Is this just part of Trump's "waaaah, they're censoring the good right wing folks!" nonsense?

Pretty much.

Right now, if I bought Facebook outright because I rubbed a lamp and wished for eleventy bajillion dollars, so I get to make all the rules without dealing with shareholders, I could decide to change Facebook policy to be "we're banning anyone who's ever said anything that supports any Republican, ever, or who's ever had a direct ancestor do so. If your grandpappy voted for Reagan, permaban."

And know what Section 230 would do to me, for banning all those Republicans from Facebook, just for being Republican or Republican-Adjacent?

Absofuckinglutely nothing. It doesn't even apply. I could ban whoever the hell I want to. It's my company, my services. I'm literally the only person who gets a say.

You could make a case, if Facebook policies were set and I, the owner, were violating them, that it was illegitimate and sue in civil court to be reinstated, theoretically, but that's presuming I didn't change those policies. If I did, you're shit out of luck; you have no grounds for a lawsuit. Your fee-fees being hurt because you're banned for being Republican? Irrelevant.

I'm not arguing that any of this is a good idea or ethically justifiable, mind you. It's a hypothetical to make the point that we're talking about private property. And even if it's considered a public accommodation like a store or hotel (unclear, at best), political affiliation isn't a protected class, so I'm free to ban customers on those grounds. Nobody has any "right" to these social media services. It's a privilege you're offered by the company. In most cases, so they can harvest your data to sell it to their real customers.

Banning people for being right-wing, even if it were happening, which it is not, would be perfectly, 100% legal. There are no ethical grounds for changing that.

See how anyone left-wing is banned from r/The_Donald, and that's stated right in their rules on the subreddit, it isn't even a guess. That's how things work. The only people complaining are abusive right-wingers who take issue with being banned for being abusive.

[Hilhen7]

This is not a photo op.

They're sizing the baby up to find the cage in the right dimensions for it. That's why they're smiling.

Oh I simply assumed Trump was getting his sacrificial baby Game of Thrones White Walker style.

[Belize]

Waiting for someone to say "Our rule is just to add a valve to the series of tubes"

What kind of valve though?

Ball valve, check valve, butterfly valve?

[Edge-]

https://www.axios.com/trump-organiza...2a888f69b.html

So in addition to employing undocumented workers at his properties, his companies have been hiring contractors with undocumented workers for decades.

MAGA! AMERICA FIRST! Except when hiring illegal foreign labor is cheaper.

[bladeXcrasher]

https://www.axios.com/trump-organiza...2a888f69b.html

So in addition to employing undocumented workers at his properties, his companies have been hiring contractors with undocumented workers for decades.

MAGA! AMERICA FIRST! Except when hiring illegal foreign labor is cheaper.

Hey, that's liberal coastal elite trump, totally different person from MAGA trump. MAGA trump is for the working class american...he understands their plight, being one of them. Liberal coastal elite trump runs elbowscwithvthe likes of Oprah and the Clinton's. That guy is satan incarnate.



/s (obviously)

[Fuiking]

or Valve, the company?

[Wyrt]

This sounds like some big government overreach to me with a dash of the use of evil regulations.

Why can't they let the free market work it out?

Is now really the time to tell social media that banning white supremacists is bad? Really?

[Thekri]

Is now really the time to tell social media that banning white supremacists is bad? Really?

Of course it is. They might over react and ban all the violent racists on their platform. Then who would vote for Trump?

[Felya]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/tech/...ftc/index.html



This sounds like some big government overreach to me with a dash of the use of evil regulations.

Why can't they let the free market work it out?

It’s Orwellian and sets precedent for there not being such a thing as private property. I’m guessing as long as they do it while bitching about communism, no one will notice communism?