[Roundy]

Two questions:

Those of y'all who like Trump, can you name two things he's done that you disagree with?

Those of y'all who dislike Trump, can you name two things he's done that you agree with?

So out of curiosity, now that you've gotten several answers, was there a point to this little exercise?

I just realized that even Lackey indirectly answered when he said he disagreed with most of Trump's response to the coronavirus.

[honk]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html

Idiot.

[Lord Dave]

This is either gonna fire up his base to new heights or backfire so bad it'll kill his election.

Maybe both.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html

Idiot.

In fucked up countries where the government controls the media, this is how it starts.

[Pete Svarrior]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html

Idiot.

I mean, I know this won't happen, but it would be so, so delightful if Trump killed Twitter somehow. If he does, I will illegally vote for him in the election.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

If Twitter went away, the Kardashians could still post pictures of their butts and boobs on Instagram and there'd be one less media channel for the federal government to spew its propaganda. I think I'd be okay with all that.

This is the Richard Nixon Paradigm recreating itself. When evidence of Nixon's corruption first surfaced all the Republicans circled to defend him. All the conservatives said it was an attack on America from the liberal jackals. As the evidence grew, their defense became more intense. Then Nixon started firing investigators, trying to shut down TV stations and the Republicans started to get concerned. That's where we are right now. The Republican Party is watching Trump start to melt down and they're starting to wonder if they want to be part of it.

[honk]

Why would Trump want to kill Twitter when it's been such a big success for him? He's just trying to bully Twitter into dropping the one (relatively small) effort they've made in reining in the wave of misinformation flowing from him. Also:

\1) helped expose the inherent biases and hypocrisy in the mainstream media. Unfortunately he's done so by amplifying the issue to a gross caricature of itself, but in the end if outlets feel more accountable as a result, and/or readers end up viewing the news with more of a critical eye, that's a good thing.

Trump hasn't done anything of the kind. His problems with the media are that they fact-check him and call out his blatant lies, that they regularly report on his many scandals, failures, and the permanent cloud of bad news that seems to surround him, and that they don't kiss his ass like the yes-men he surrounds himself with do. None of those are bad things. They are all very good things that the media is supposed to do. Have they made a few mistakes in their reporting, of course, but that's an inevitable part of their job. Trump has done nothing to highlight media biases and hypocrisies or encourage more accountability, and because he is the way he is, he almost certainly never will.

2) exposed the cracks in a number of democratic institutions we take for granted. Thanks to Trump's pushing to get away with anything he possibly can, we know a great deal of what a wannabe autocrat can get away with, offering a blueprint for dealing with leaders who try to reach a little too far in the future.

This one I do agree with. When Trump finally leaves office, we're very likely going to see laws to mandate the release of tax returns from presidential candidates, strict regulation of the president's ability to profit from business ventures while in office, and possibly even emoluments-related legislation. And the Republicans currently in Trump's pocket will be all for it, desperate to try and rewrite history so they can claim they were opposed to Trump all along.

[Lord Dave]

It doesn't take a doctor to see Trump is overwieght and over 70 and in a high stress job.

No, it does take a doctor to decide, in conjunction with the patient, what actions to take regarding the health of the patient.

Do you want Trump (or anybody else, for that matter) to get involved with the decisions you and your doctor come to?

.... Do you not live in America?  Having people involved with medical decisions between you and your doctor is how the American healthcare system works.  Politicians and insurance companies dictate your medical care.

Thanks to people like you who thought that somehow that would be a good idea and supported the Clintons and Obamas?

And do you think Trump's care is dictated by an insurance company or a politician, other than Trump?

??
When did Clinton or Obama want private, for profit insurance companies dictating care based on cost and profit?

Clintons - When they overhauled the insurance industry participation in Medicare...which is government determining the amount of money they would pay doctors and the amount of money you would need to pay for the supplemental insurance to cover the things that Medicare doesn't cover.

Obamas - further fucking things up...

I'm not talking about Medicare, I'm talking about ONLY PRIVATE INSURANCE. You know, the shit you have?

As for politicians: FDA, abortion regulations, medical malpractice laws, etc...

Much of the policies/procedures for operation written under the leadership of the two shitbags previously listed.

Also, no, I am sure Trump's care is dictated by Trump, and Trump alone.

Yeah, I got no problem with that.

I've told a doctor or two  to fuck off here and there...

This kinda undercuts your argument.  You said he's taking it under the direction of a doctor but are ok with Trump having his Doctor be told what to do.  So basically, you are ok with Trump taking a perscription drug under a non-doctor's orders. (Ie. His own)

Of course, have you also considered that this is an attempt to assassinate Trump?  Get him to take a drug that has a high chance of killing him?

[Roundy]

Of course, have you also considered that this is an attempt to assassinate Trump?  Get him to take a drug that has a high chance of killing him?

Hahaha. "Yes Mr Trump, if you take the drug as a preventative I guarantee you won't get the virus. Would you like a little Lysol in your veins to speed the process along?"

[Lord Dave]

Of course, have you also considered that this is an attempt to assassinate Trump?  Get him to take a drug that has a high chance of killing him?

Hahaha. "Yes Mr Trump, if you take the drug as a preventative I guarantee you won't get the virus. Would you like a little Lysol in your veins to speed the process along?"

You know he'd do it too.

[Lord Dave]

Oh snap, Twitter is escalating. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/twitter-trump-minneapolis-post-broke-rules-glorified-violence

Trump is gonna get banned at this rate.


Damn, paywall.

https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/twitter-donald-trumps-warning-label-minneapolis-glorifies-violence-1234619685/

[AATW]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html

Idiot.

In fucked up countries where the government controls the media, this is how it starts.

Agreed. He Tweeted something that wasn't factually accurate. Twitter didn't edit or delete the Tweet, they didn't censor him. They simply flagged it with something to direct people to an article which gave the facts. Where's the issue? Trump got to say his piece but people were also directed to something which gave the facts. But, he can't abide scrutiny or anyone saying no to him so he's had a massive hissy fit and abused his power to try and shut down that scrutiny.

One of my issues with Trump is that he wants to be able to say and do whatever he wants without consequence or scrutiny.
That is never OK for the leader of a country, it's particularly not OK for a serial liar like Trump.

Trump actively tries to undermine the press - those who try to hold him to account are "fake news". Now he's trying to stop people like Twitter from scrutinising him. You could argue it's not their job to but someone has to. If he Tweets that people should definitely drink bleach to cure Covid-19 (I know he hasn't, but let's say) then should they just publish that with no warning? You'd like to think that people could work out that it's bad advice but people are pretty stupid.

Trump comes across as a tinpot dictator - ignore the press, you get your news from ME.
The things leaders say and do should be held up to scrutiny. Trump tries to prevent that. It's dangerous.

[totallackey]

I'm not talking about Medicare, I'm talking about ONLY PRIVATE INSURANCE. You know, the shit you have?

No, the shit I used to have prior to Clinton and Obama fucking it up with the same regs affecting Medicare.

This kinda undercuts your argument.  You said he's taking it under the direction of a doctor but are ok with Trump having his Doctor be told what to do.  So basically, you are ok with Trump taking a perscription drug under a non-doctor's orders. (Ie. His own)

Of course, have you also considered that this is an attempt to assassinate Trump?  Get him to take a drug that has a high chance of killing him?

The doctor approved of it.

Whether he initially recommended it or whether Trump asked to take it, it is done deal.

As it would be for you asking your doctor for advice and coming to an agreed conclusion.

Assassination?

[totallackey]

One of my issues with Trump is that he wants to be able to say and do whatever he wants without consequence or scrutiny.

You mean like you here on this forum?

[AATW]

One of my issues with Trump is that he wants to be able to say and do whatever he wants without consequence or scrutiny.

You mean like you here on this forum?

No.

I mean, I don't have the power to. But I've never reported a post because someone posted something I didn't agree with.
What I say on here should be subject to the rules of this forum and can be scrutinised and replied to by anyone else here.
That's how places like this work.

So no, I don't think that but Trump demonstrably does. Even if you like him and the things he says, you surely think he should be subject to scrutiny and fact-checking. Any leader should. But Trump doesn't think that, you can tell that by his reaction when he's asked difficult questions or by the way he sacks people who challenge him. Can you not see how dangerous that is?

[Lord Dave]

I'm not talking about Medicare, I'm talking about ONLY PRIVATE INSURANCE. You know, the shit you have?

No, the shit I used to have prior to Clinton and Obama fucking it up with the same regs affecting Medicare.

So before clinton, your insurance company had no rules or regulations on how much doctors can charge, what procedures they could be reimbursed for, or how often you can visit for a checkup? They just said "Doctor, do whatever you want, we'll pay"?

This kinda undercuts your argument.  You said he's taking it under the direction of a doctor but are ok with Trump having his Doctor be told what to do.  So basically, you are ok with Trump taking a perscription drug under a non-doctor's orders. (Ie. His own)

Of course, have you also considered that this is an attempt to assassinate Trump?  Get him to take a drug that has a high chance of killing him?

The doctor approved of it.

Whether he initially recommended it or whether Trump asked to take it, it is done deal.

As it would be for you asking your doctor for advice and coming to an agreed conclusion.

Yes but if he did it just because he was following orders, is it really him approving it?

Assassination?

Sure.
Say I wanna kill Trump.  I can convince him that Drug X is great for him.   (Or let him tell me) and simply wait until he hypes it enough then give him enough to kill him (or make his risk if death higher).  When they ask me why I perscribed it, just say 'He made me.  He ordered me to and I obeyed because he knew what he was doing.'
Who would blame me for doing what Trump said?

[totallackey]

One of my issues with Trump is that he wants to be able to say and do whatever he wants without consequence or scrutiny.

You mean like you here on this forum?

No.

I mean, I don't have the power to. But I've never reported a post because someone posted something I didn't agree with.
What I say on here should be subject to the rules of this forum and can be scrutinised and replied to by anyone else here.
That's how places like this work.

So no, I don't think that but Trump demonstrably does. Even if you like him and the things he says, you surely think he should be subject to scrutiny and fact-checking. Any leader should. But Trump doesn't think that, you can tell that by his reaction when he's asked difficult questions or by the way he sacks people who challenge him. Can you not see how dangerous that is?

Come on, you generally want to have free reign on this forum.

You certainly complain loud enough when you don't...but anyway...

I think the facts should always be checked.

But that isn't what is happening in this case.

Bosses always fire people who don't do what they are told to do.

That is the way of the world and has been for millenia.

I fail to see why anyone should maintain ties with anyone else who are unequally hitched.

[totallackey]

I'm not talking about Medicare, I'm talking about ONLY PRIVATE INSURANCE. You know, the shit you have?

No, the shit I used to have prior to Clinton and Obama fucking it up with the same regs affecting Medicare.

So before clinton, your insurance company had no rules or regulations on how much doctors can charge, what procedures they could be reimbursed for, or how often you can visit for a checkup? They just said "Doctor, do whatever you want, we'll pay"?

My first insurance policy was an HMO and I didn't pay a thin red cent for anything.

I had 100 percent FULL COVERAGE for everything.

No hospital bills, no doctor bills, no prescription bills...zip, nada, zilch.

Cost me 50 dollars every two weeks.

I had this coverage from 1981 through 1992.

Clinton got elected and out the door that went...

Yes but if he did it just because he was following orders, is it really him approving it?

Yes. It is still the doctor ordering the prescription.

But maybe Trump FORGED THE DOCTOR SIGNATURE!!!

Why don't you write the doctor and try to elicit the bombshell story, Dave...

The whole issue is just totally ridiculous.

The medication has been in use for over 50 freaking years.

The medication has the exact same, potentially dangerous side effects of arrhythmia (for those having prior heart conditions) should they be taking it for the purposes it was actually approved for.

Malaria also affects the respiratory system.

Assassination?

Sure.
Say I wanna kill Trump.  I can convince him that Drug X is great for him.   (Or let him tell me) and simply wait until he hypes it enough then give him enough to kill him (or make his risk if death higher).  When they ask me why I perscribed it, just say 'He made me.  He ordered me to and I obeyed because he knew what he was doing.'
Who would blame me for doing what Trump said?

Probably a law firm...

But don't worry...

The malpractice limits are capped.

[timterroo]

Oh snap, Twitter is escalating. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-29/twitter-trump-minneapolis-post-broke-rules-glorified-violence

Trump is gonna get banned at this rate.


Damn, paywall.

https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/twitter-donald-trumps-warning-label-minneapolis-glorifies-violence-1234619685/

Part of me hopes this will happen, that Trump will lose his shit completely and shut down twitter. It will do a couple things:

1. Trump will lose his primary communications platform.
2. Perhaps the melt-down will be enough to sway some voters and republicans to the other side.

More likely what is happening, is that trump is setting himself up for future success after his presidency ends - he will engage in a massive law-suite on all the social media outlets who have "done him wrong".

Signing the executive order was the first move in the game of chess. Twitter is nothing more than a pawn in his grand scheme.

[Lord Dave]

With Trump, apply Occam's Razor.  Its not chess, its a tantrum: pure and simple.