24 ms·

It really puts this tweet from POTUS last month in a crazy new context: "So sorry to hear the news about Jeff Bozo being taken down by a competitor whose repor

by danhak 8y ago

It really puts this tweet from POTUS last month in a crazy new context: "So sorry to hear the news about Jeff Bozo being taken down by a competitor whose reporting, I understand, is far more accurate than the reporting in his lobbyist newspaper, the Amazon Washington Post. Hopefully the paper will soon be placed in better & more responsible hands!" https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1084627451983073280?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/10846274519830732... Strange times we're living in.

thisismyusernam 8y ago
Strange and terrifying.
pjc50 8y ago
Trump has been making transparent threats on Twitter since before getting elected. Until now they've been pretty empty threats.
- brisance 8y ago
  He solicited a hostile foreign power to interfere in the 2016 elections. In many countries this would be equivalent to treason. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jul/27/donald-trump-russia-dnc-email-hack-video https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jul/27/donald...
  - Juliate 8y ago
    I thought it was in the US?
    - HillRat 8y ago
      The factual and evidentiary bar for treason is quite deliberately high in the US; in this case, if Trump colluded with the Russian government it would represent a violation of campaign laws (and a scandal of historic proportions!) but (Russia not being actively at war with the US) not treason qua treason.
      - ianai 8y ago
        I think that’s too complicated. The US has to be in a state of declared war against the country the traitor aides.
  - mc32 8y ago
    I think he’s just implying they have more competence than the FBI in finding alleged missing emails. His comms is very non literal -and people take him literally. His whole campaign was off hand blue collar jokey remarks. Pundits understood him literally, so they failed to understand him at all. His nomination competitors also saw him in this light and ultimately failed. Mostly, J think they failed to understand his communication style1[1]. Occasio on the Dem side uses some of this same comms style for the left and it works to a degree, but the left is more uptight about being PC in comms so cant go as far afield with it. Kerry undermining foreign policy is closer to treason but no one bothers cuz he’s an old hand. Let’s say the Dems win the next cycle, but then as they try working with Russia or Iran on things, Bolton struts in on visits to give his two cents... Basically, I think many people try using a standard/traditional comms framework to parse his comms, but he uses a different more blue collar style[2]. Not frat style of a GWB, or the ancient oratorical style of Obama. Obviously people are disagreeing with me, but I'd suggest reading what some linguists and political theorists have to say. [1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886916311187 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188691... [2]https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.14318/hau6.2.009 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.14318/hau6.2.00...
    - jaibot 8y ago
      The example Thiel used in the original "seriously but not literally" argument was the wall. Of course Trump wasn't talking about a literal wall, he said, it was more of a metaphor for, you know, something. This argument was always embarrassingly stupid, but anyone still making it after Trump shut down the government for a month over literal wall construction has forfeited their right to be taken seriously at all.
      - mc32 8y ago
        I disagree with Thiel there, His base, and most independents want a literal wall (and, as he claims, Dems used to be for a wall) But his speeches are littered with these blue collar type speech patterns (boasting, exaggeration, put-downs, etc., when trying to “win” an argument).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - koolba 8y ago
    That video is the ultimate test for whether the viewer's political beliefs and biases are strong enough to override their sense of humor.
    - JeremyBanks 8y ago
      Did you miss the part where Russia was actually listening and did what he said, and he had reason to know it? His "joke" was deliberate treason.
      - koolba 8y ago
        And that's why the Russians took a time machine to four months before that joke (July 2016) to hack Podesta's emails (March 2016) right?
        JeremyBanks 8y ago
        He didn't ask them for Podesta's emails, he asked them for Clinton's, and they got right on it: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-clinton-emails.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-...
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        EamonnMR 8y ago
        Something similar happened with the "secret wall street speech transcripts"-not a major story, but the fact that they weren't public became a major talking point for the Trump supporters I talked to-and lo and behold they did eventually leak.
    - bennesvig 8y ago
      Not sure why your comment is getting downvoted. It's absolutely true. It was obviously said as a joke.
  - everdev 8y ago
    The scary thing is without consequences this might become the new normal.
JustSomeNobody 8y ago
Can we all just agree Trump is corrupt already and get him out of office?
- everdev 8y ago
  Lots of smoke for sure, but I'd much rather follow due process and wait for a crime to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a legal setting. Otherwise you're setting a dangerous precedent.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    “Beyond a reasonable doubt” does not apply to removing the President from office. The applicable standard is “whatever will convince half of the House and two thirds of the Senate.”
    - everdev 8y ago
      Yeah, which feels like a slippery slope into political takeovers, especially since the speaker of the house is 3rd in line. If Republicans were guaranteed to keep the President and VP slot, you'd see an impeachment much more easily. I don't think any Republican will want Pelosi a heartbeat away from the Presidency unless Trump's crime was so clear and egregious that 2/3 of the country wanted him gone.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        That’s been the standard since the adoption of the Constitution. If it was a slippery slope, you’d think we would have slipped down it at some point in the past 230 years.
        everdev 8y ago
        Seems like we're always finding new precedents to set like the "nuclear option" in the Senate. And 230yrs is pretty young for a country.
nerdponx 8y ago
The only thing strange about it is how much easier it is to learn about these conspiracies now that we have the Internet. People are acting all shocked like this is a new state of affairs. It's not. We are just far more empowered now to actually learn about these things.
- hedvig 8y ago
  Empowered to learn maybe, but no change in power to act it feels like.
- everdev 8y ago
  Not all Presidents or foreign powers are obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them. Wether you call it gaining influence or blackmail, it's usually the technique of authoritarians or the corrupt and not a path we want to advocate or even tolerate.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    > Not all Presidents or foreign powers are obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them. Yes, all presidents and foreign powers do this. Although Bezos doesn't present any proof that it's actually happening here, just speculation.
    - matthewdgreen 8y ago
      Let's be clear here: I'm the last person to defend the NSA, but there are huge differences in the restrictions placed on official US spying agencies and foreign ones. If a sitting President used his office to demand that the NSA spy on a US citizen for political reasons, it would be a huge scandal. When foreign governments like the Russians or Saudis do it, it's unprosecutable and "deniable", even if the President hints that he wants it to happen and expresses happiness that it has. That's the era we're living in, and it's dangerous as hell.
      - 8y ago

by danhak 8y ago

thisismyusernam 8y ago

Strange and terrifying.

pjc50 8y ago

Trump has been making transparent threats on Twitter since before getting elected. Until now they've been pretty empty threats.

brisance 8y ago
He solicited a hostile foreign power to interfere in the 2016 elections. In many countries this would be equivalent to treason. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jul/27/donald-trump-russia-dnc-email-hack-video https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jul/27/donald...
- Juliate 8y ago
  I thought it was in the US?
  - HillRat 8y ago
    The factual and evidentiary bar for treason is quite deliberately high in the US; in this case, if Trump colluded with the Russian government it would represent a violation of campaign laws (and a scandal of historic proportions!) but (Russia not being actively at war with the US) not treason qua treason.
    - ianai 8y ago
      I think that’s too complicated. The US has to be in a state of declared war against the country the traitor aides.
- mc32 8y ago
  I think he’s just implying they have more competence than the FBI in finding alleged missing emails. His comms is very non literal -and people take him literally. His whole campaign was off hand blue collar jokey remarks. Pundits understood him literally, so they failed to understand him at all. His nomination competitors also saw him in this light and ultimately failed. Mostly, J think they failed to understand his communication style1[1]. Occasio on the Dem side uses some of this same comms style for the left and it works to a degree, but the left is more uptight about being PC in comms so cant go as far afield with it. Kerry undermining foreign policy is closer to treason but no one bothers cuz he’s an old hand. Let’s say the Dems win the next cycle, but then as they try working with Russia or Iran on things, Bolton struts in on visits to give his two cents... Basically, I think many people try using a standard/traditional comms framework to parse his comms, but he uses a different more blue collar style[2]. Not frat style of a GWB, or the ancient oratorical style of Obama. Obviously people are disagreeing with me, but I'd suggest reading what some linguists and political theorists have to say. [1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886916311187 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188691... [2]https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.14318/hau6.2.009 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.14318/hau6.2.00...
  - jaibot 8y ago
    The example Thiel used in the original "seriously but not literally" argument was the wall. Of course Trump wasn't talking about a literal wall, he said, it was more of a metaphor for, you know, something. This argument was always embarrassingly stupid, but anyone still making it after Trump shut down the government for a month over literal wall construction has forfeited their right to be taken seriously at all.
    - mc32 8y ago
      I disagree with Thiel there, His base, and most independents want a literal wall (and, as he claims, Dems used to be for a wall) But his speeches are littered with these blue collar type speech patterns (boasting, exaggeration, put-downs, etc., when trying to “win” an argument).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- koolba 8y ago
  That video is the ultimate test for whether the viewer's political beliefs and biases are strong enough to override their sense of humor.
  - JeremyBanks 8y ago
    Did you miss the part where Russia was actually listening and did what he said, and he had reason to know it? His "joke" was deliberate treason.
    - koolba 8y ago
      And that's why the Russians took a time machine to four months before that joke (July 2016) to hack Podesta's emails (March 2016) right?
      - JeremyBanks 8y ago
        He didn't ask them for Podesta's emails, he asked them for Clinton's, and they got right on it: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-clinton-emails.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/13/us/politics/trump-russia-...
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - EamonnMR 8y ago
        Something similar happened with the "secret wall street speech transcripts"-not a major story, but the fact that they weren't public became a major talking point for the Trump supporters I talked to-and lo and behold they did eventually leak.
  - bennesvig 8y ago
    Not sure why your comment is getting downvoted. It's absolutely true. It was obviously said as a joke.
- everdev 8y ago
  The scary thing is without consequences this might become the new normal.

JustSomeNobody 8y ago

Can we all just agree Trump is corrupt already and get him out of office?

everdev 8y ago
Lots of smoke for sure, but I'd much rather follow due process and wait for a crime to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a legal setting. Otherwise you're setting a dangerous precedent.
- mikeash 8y ago
  “Beyond a reasonable doubt” does not apply to removing the President from office. The applicable standard is “whatever will convince half of the House and two thirds of the Senate.”
  - everdev 8y ago
    Yeah, which feels like a slippery slope into political takeovers, especially since the speaker of the house is 3rd in line. If Republicans were guaranteed to keep the President and VP slot, you'd see an impeachment much more easily. I don't think any Republican will want Pelosi a heartbeat away from the Presidency unless Trump's crime was so clear and egregious that 2/3 of the country wanted him gone.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      That’s been the standard since the adoption of the Constitution. If it was a slippery slope, you’d think we would have slipped down it at some point in the past 230 years.
      - everdev 8y ago
        Seems like we're always finding new precedents to set like the "nuclear option" in the Senate. And 230yrs is pretty young for a country.

nerdponx 8y ago

The only thing strange about it is how much easier it is to learn about these conspiracies now that we have the Internet. People are acting all shocked like this is a new state of affairs. It's not. We are just far more empowered now to actually learn about these things.

hedvig 8y ago
Empowered to learn maybe, but no change in power to act it feels like.
everdev 8y ago
Not all Presidents or foreign powers are obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them. Wether you call it gaining influence or blackmail, it's usually the technique of authoritarians or the corrupt and not a path we want to advocate or even tolerate.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  > Not all Presidents or foreign powers are obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them. Yes, all presidents and foreign powers do this. Although Bezos doesn't present any proof that it's actually happening here, just speculation.
  - matthewdgreen 8y ago
    Let's be clear here: I'm the last person to defend the NSA, but there are huge differences in the restrictions placed on official US spying agencies and foreign ones. If a sitting President used his office to demand that the NSA spy on a US citizen for political reasons, it would be a huge scandal. When foreign governments like the Russians or Saudis do it, it's unprosecutable and "deniable", even if the President hints that he wants it to happen and expresses happiness that it has. That's the era we're living in, and it's dangerous as hell.
    - 8y ago