4 ms·

What is Trump's abusive Twitter behavior?

ceejayoz 9y ago
Explicit threats: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/911789314169823232 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/91178931416982323... Problematic enough that Twitter had to issue a statement on why they didn't take action on it: https://twitter.com/Policy/status/912438046515220480 https://twitter.com/Policy/status/912438046515220480
- Domenic_S 9y ago
  I don't think you know what "explicit" means.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    "explicit (adj): stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt" If you're confused or in doubt as to what Trump means in that tweet, I'm really not sure what to tell you. It's a very clear threat.
    - Domenic_S 9y ago
      Am I taking crazy pills? If he had said, "...then I'm going to order a nuclear strike", that would have been explicit. Saying "they won't be around much longer" is a veiled threat, the threat is implicit.
      - kelnos 9y ago
        What's the point of this subthread? Whether or not that particular tweet embodies an explicit or implicit threat is irrelevant. Implicit threats clearly fall under the umbrella of "abusive Twitter behavior" as well.
        tree_of_item 9y ago
        The point is they said it was explicit, but it wasn't.
        kelnos 9y ago
        So the purpose of this thread is to enforce pedantry and ignore the actual point of the discussion. Got it.
    - tree_of_item 9y ago
      Yeah, sorry, but that tweet is an implicit threat. What does he mean by "won't be around much longer"? The fact that you can even ask that question means it's implicit.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  You’re bothered by the leader of the US applying military leverage against our enemies? That’s literally his job. Edit: Hacker News is limiting me, so in reply to jtsummers below: 1) that’s an idealistic and unrealistic view of how international affairs work. And in fact, being able to apply such leverage actually makes war less likely since it allows countries to better gauge each other’s true intentions and willingness to act, preventing catastrophic miscalculations. 2) Congress hasn’t exercised its power to declare war since WW2, yet the US has fought in many wars since then. 3) Congress sometimes but not always has given authorization for these conflicts in lieu of a declaration. But sometimes the President has acted totally unilaterally, like in the Korean War in the 50s. The War Powers Act explicitly gives the President some unilateral authority, but... 4) The predominant legal view in the US is that the President does not need Congress’s authorization, at least to start a war, as it is inherent in his Constitutional powers. Edit Edit: I would reply directly, but Hacker News is rate limiting me. Also, I don’t think he is bluffing. I think Trump is dead serious about annihilating NK if they don’t disarm. If NK, either by its own calculus, or under China’s pressure, does not change course, they are toast. I’m not saying point 4 above is correct on principle, but that it’s the view, based on the “commander in chief” clause, that will likely prevail in the chambers of the Supreme Court. That’s how law works. A lot of things would be very different if we actually adhered to the Constitution. And they’re unlikely to even take such a case for various reasons (such as the “political question” doctrine, as well as mootness).
  - Retra 9y ago
    His job is to command the military over twitter?
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      No, he is trying to convince the North Korean regime that we are willing to use military force to achieve our objectives. Making statements to that effect to his domestic audience is part of convincing the North Koreans that we will actually do it. If they think he is bluffing, then they won’t submit. This is basic diplomacy theory.
Retra 9y ago
I'm arguing that one can ban someone from twitter without violating the spirit of free speech. It's not really relevant to my point whether Trump's behavior is abusive or not on account of the fact that I'm not trying to make philosophical points which only apply to him. The idea that a twitter ban is somehow a violation of free speech is farcical. It'd make almost as much sense to say a 140 char limit is a violation of free speech, and in practice, it's probably worse than a ban.

Explicit threats: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/911789314169823232 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/91178931416982323... Problematic enough that Twitter had to issue a statement on why they didn't take action on it: https://twitter.com/Policy/status/912438046515220480 https://twitter.com/Policy/status/912438046515220480

Domenic_S 9y ago
I don't think you know what "explicit" means.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  "explicit (adj): stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt" If you're confused or in doubt as to what Trump means in that tweet, I'm really not sure what to tell you. It's a very clear threat.
  - Domenic_S 9y ago
    Am I taking crazy pills? If he had said, "...then I'm going to order a nuclear strike", that would have been explicit. Saying "they won't be around much longer" is a veiled threat, the threat is implicit.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      What's the point of this subthread? Whether or not that particular tweet embodies an explicit or implicit threat is irrelevant. Implicit threats clearly fall under the umbrella of "abusive Twitter behavior" as well.
      - tree_of_item 9y ago
        The point is they said it was explicit, but it wasn't.
        kelnos 9y ago
        So the purpose of this thread is to enforce pedantry and ignore the actual point of the discussion. Got it.
  - tree_of_item 9y ago
    Yeah, sorry, but that tweet is an implicit threat. What does he mean by "won't be around much longer"? The fact that you can even ask that question means it's implicit.
marcoperaza 9y ago
You’re bothered by the leader of the US applying military leverage against our enemies? That’s literally his job. Edit: Hacker News is limiting me, so in reply to jtsummers below: 1) that’s an idealistic and unrealistic view of how international affairs work. And in fact, being able to apply such leverage actually makes war less likely since it allows countries to better gauge each other’s true intentions and willingness to act, preventing catastrophic miscalculations. 2) Congress hasn’t exercised its power to declare war since WW2, yet the US has fought in many wars since then. 3) Congress sometimes but not always has given authorization for these conflicts in lieu of a declaration. But sometimes the President has acted totally unilaterally, like in the Korean War in the 50s. The War Powers Act explicitly gives the President some unilateral authority, but... 4) The predominant legal view in the US is that the President does not need Congress’s authorization, at least to start a war, as it is inherent in his Constitutional powers. Edit Edit: I would reply directly, but Hacker News is rate limiting me. Also, I don’t think he is bluffing. I think Trump is dead serious about annihilating NK if they don’t disarm. If NK, either by its own calculus, or under China’s pressure, does not change course, they are toast. I’m not saying point 4 above is correct on principle, but that it’s the view, based on the “commander in chief” clause, that will likely prevail in the chambers of the Supreme Court. That’s how law works. A lot of things would be very different if we actually adhered to the Constitution. And they’re unlikely to even take such a case for various reasons (such as the “political question” doctrine, as well as mootness).
- Retra 9y ago
  His job is to command the military over twitter?
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    No, he is trying to convince the North Korean regime that we are willing to use military force to achieve our objectives. Making statements to that effect to his domestic audience is part of convincing the North Koreans that we will actually do it. If they think he is bluffing, then they won’t submit. This is basic diplomacy theory.

Retra 9y ago

I'm arguing that one can ban someone from twitter without violating the spirit of free speech. It's not really relevant to my point whether Trump's behavior is abusive or not on account of the fact that I'm not trying to make philosophical points which only apply to him. The idea that a twitter ban is somehow a violation of free speech is farcical. It'd make almost as much sense to say a 140 char limit is a violation of free speech, and in practice, it's probably worse than a ban.