You could have just said the rudest thing that’s ever been said on the forum but I would have no idea what it was.
You shouldn't have said anything. Olisimme voineet päästä pälkähästä!
Not even Jaffa Cakes?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
2020 US Presidential Election
- Thread starter RichT54
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
If it's Putin, then yellowcake is more likely
Calling Jaffa Cakes a biscuit?, I think a few nights in the Gulag will remind you that they are cakes!
Turns out Vlad is savvy on what is a biscuit and what is a cake, and doesn't like it when people muddle them up!
Thinking about it if trump doesn't want to be there for the inauguration isn't he saying to everyone that he has lost?
The moment he leaves the White House for the last time I can see a call to an emergency locksmith being made.
"Yes this is the white house, we need all our locks changing and fast, we have an ex-employee that we want to prevent coming back on site"
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
...and as he is fond of saying....by a landslide.
A Die Hard 2 reference? It's definitely the weekend
Well it wasn’t on at Christmas Eve - a travesty.
I don't care what the law says, a cake is something I can only eat two of (even those that have been reduced in size under the pretense that a smaller cake is a healthier option). A biscuit is something that I can eat half a packet of. And I can eat half a packet of Jaffa Cakes (finished a packet of cherry flavour today - not that good). Mind you, if they've got them in the Gulag ...
edwin_m
Veteran Member
No Jaffa Cakes either. But Putin might offer Trump one of these nice Novi chocs.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
All in a jar of their own for him only.
py_megapixel
Established Member
The various TV channels had several interviews with proud Trump supporters today...
One of them claimed that Trump had never in his life condoned violence (what a broad statement to make) while another carefully avoided a question which amounted to 'How can you consider someone so clearly incompetent fit to be President' by using it as an opportunity to throw a few insults Biden's way instead.
I often find it interesting to see supporters of disastrous ideas confronted with their reality....
One of them claimed that Trump had never in his life condoned violence (what a broad statement to make) while another carefully avoided a question which amounted to 'How can you consider someone so clearly incompetent fit to be President' by using it as an opportunity to throw a few insults Biden's way instead.
I often find it interesting to see supporters of disastrous ideas confronted with their reality....
That’s it, at last. Well done Twitter, Donald Trump is now banned for good!
(Before anyone says anything, I cant seem to get Twitters blog to work as a quote on here)
(Before anyone says anything, I cant seem to get Twitters blog to work as a quote on here)
Last edited:
py_megapixel
Established Member
Good riddance.That’s it, at last. Well done Twitter, Donald Trump is now banned for good!
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
He can't tweet... but still has access to the nuclear arsenalThat’s it, at last. Well done Twitter, Donald Trump is now banned for good!
(Before anyone says anything, I cant seem to get Twitters blog to work as a quote on here)
It looks like Twitter is on a roll tonight, with NBC News also reporting that Twitter has removed the accounts of a number of Trump's high profile supporters including Michael Flynn and Sidney Powell - both involved in many meetings over the past few weeks to "Overturn the result, Putting out False Claims of the Voting System" etc...
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
With the way things seem to be going over the last week, I'm sure most of the republican party will have long since disconnected those buttons by now! It's quite interesting to see that, DTJ seems to be claiming it as Donald Trumps Republican Party, while DT himself seems to be in a rather large fall out with the party.He can't tweet... but still has access to the nuclear arsenal
kristiang85
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,744
I think this sets a very worrying precedent, to be honest.
py_megapixel
Established Member
It sets the precedent that somebody who spends four years propagating various forms of hate and discrimination and then throws a fit when he discovers that most of the population disagrees with him, going as far as to incite violence against another arm of the government that he is supposed to lead, can be banned from a social media platform. I don't find that worrying at all.
kristiang85
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,744
But is it up to the social media platform to decide what is "good" and "bad"? What happens if they deviate from the current position, and suddenly a certain group are deplatformed and vilified? You could argue it is already happening with white working class Americans. One can see why they are so angry, and this is only going to enforce it.
I'm already worried about the overreach of these companies, and this isn't helping dissuade that opinion.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
The worrying parts are that (a) Jack from twitter is a more effective check on the power of the executive branch than either the legislature or judiciary; (b) DJT can no longer tweet but is still the Commander in Chief of the globe's largest and most advanced military; and (c) people seem more concerned with stopping him from saying naughty things than stopping him from over-reaching in more pernicious ways.
Considering that he had been warned countless times by twitter to stop posting half of the false and inflammatory stuff that he had tweeted, then chose to ignore it, then in effect indirectly praised those who chose to storm congress this week resulting in a 12 hour ban, only for him to come back and quite literally and fragrantly ignore the ban then yes, I feel Twitter has made the right choice here. They have banned him largely for inciting the rioting, and inciting the hate. He has caused the anger and the tension, largely through using Twitter as his main mouthpiece, and they have, quite rightly in my mind, chosen to shut his account down.
Spamcan81
Established Member
Inciting violence and hate is bad, end of. It's bad enough when a private individual does it but when it's the elected leader of a nation, that's beyond the pale.
kristiang85
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,744
Agreed. But an elected leader of a nation needs to be treated separately from private individuals - don't forget 75m people voted for Trump, and these actions are downright incendiary and as irresponsible as he is. They (the democrats and the social media/tech companies which are clearly on the same wavelength) should rise above it, IMO.
And whilst Twitter is a private platform, it is in a position of influence and power and should use it responsibly. As should the other social media companies, and the mainstream media.
As I said, today it might be the anti Trump movement that is in favour, tomorrow it might be something more chilling that gets promoted. How about this from the Chinese government, which Twitter seem OK with? https://twitter.com/ChineseEmbinUS/status/1347247602094534658?s=19
PS don't get me wrong, I abhor Trump and everything he's done, but I'm looking at the bigger picture. The US is teetering on a knife edge and I just don't feel censoring him and the voices of his supporters - and I don't mean those idiots who stormed the Capitol, but the wider voter base - is only going to make things worse.
I remember in 2016 predicting Brexit would happen because of the way fellow remainers were disparaging those who were concerned about the EU; it would only entrench their postion and anger them further. I spoke to friends about it and was laughed at. Then it happened. Trump's election was due to similar issues, and it is only getting worse and worse (and yes he is part of that, but not alone). And in the US there a hell of a lot more at stake. There are civilian militias waiting for their moment - on both sides - and making an example out of trump and his base isn't going to descalate this.
Last edited:
He's free to express his opinions elsewhere.
Wilts Wanderer
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 3,199
No doubt @RealTronaldDump will be up and running in a day or two...
kristiang85
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,744
But Twitter is the world's main open social media platform; as I said above, that comes with responsibility. I don't think they are using it correctly.
Plus Facebook and Instagram have banned him too (though they're the same thing I think?) so I'm not just picking on Twitter for this.
Social media is now on a par with MSM for influence, if not more. In the US people will go to a plethora of different channels for their news, but pretty much all of those who are social media inclined will use Twitter or Facebook as their platforms. Imagine if the BBC banned one party leader from all their feed here - we need to look at that in the same wavelength. Yes that leader could go to ITV, but it is still a huge censorship.
Preventing repeated libels, incitement and incendiary hate speech is the absolute opposite of irresponsible. If we regulated the internet properly Twitter would have banned him or been held liable for his output years ago. The nation's leader has plenty of access to media, and even on Twitter there is a Potus account for legitimate communication. The that the "leader" of the free world likes to do hate speech in his free time does not oblige anybody to publish it.
kristiang85
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 2,744
It pains me to disagree with this post, but I do.
Now if Trump is impeached and his utterings found to be in contravention of the law, and thus he be silenced from a democratic process such as that, I can agree with that. As those making that decision are ultimately accountable to the people.
But we cannot forget that 75m people in America endorse Trump (10m more than 2016, despite his four years of insanity), and it is not up to social media executives to say their voices are irrelevant. It is downright dangerous, especially when these people already believe "big tech" is in cahoots with the side they detest.
I want to see Trumpism fall as much as anyone, but my points are a) the US is in a precarious position and this seemingly small action is actually going to have bigger ramifications that will have been avoidable and b) the precedent it sets in terms of censorship is incredibly worrying and there needs to be checks and balances on these companies, as they are now as influential as mass media and governments. If not more.
They are not (Facebook does now own Instagram but they have maintained separate management). It's exceedingly rare (and quite the achievement) to manage to be banned from all three platforms.
Nope. Not even close. The BBC is a publicly funded broadcaster, with that comes an obligation to impartiality. No such obligation falls on private companies.
And those 75M people are free to vote with their feet (and their wallets) and boycott whichever social media platform they find objectionable. But they won't. They'll just continue to Tweet about how Twitter silences conservative speech, without any sense of irony.
Last edited:
nlogax
Established Member
He tried that and Twitter deleted the tweets almost immediately. Wouldn't surprise me if they disable it until the 20th when they reset the account to zero tweets and hand it to Biden (as has been publicly confirmed)
- Status