6 ms·

In fairness, Trump's tweets are not about actually doing anything, they are more about getting votes. So arguing the feasibility of suggestions outlined in a Tr

In fairness, Trump's tweets are not about actually doing anything, they are more about getting votes. So arguing the feasibility of suggestions outlined in a Trump tweet kind of misses the point.

Traster 6y ago
Really? Because literally this week Trump tweeted something and then followed it up with an executive order.
- umvi 6y ago
  He also promised to throw Hillary in prison for the emails. Still waiting on that one.
  - dathinab 6y ago
    I think he would have done so if he could. In the end the US president has a lot more power then president's in other democratic counties but still he's constrained by the law.
    - phlakaton 6y ago
      What law do you imagine constrains him from doing so?
      - sangnoir 6y ago
        On the contrary, the way the US constitution works is the government has no power at all, except granted by the constitution or laws passed by congress that are constitutional. The question is - which law empowers him to do so?
        ModernMech 6y ago
        You are both mistaken. Laws are written by people, and the constitution is a piece of paper. The legislative body that passed these laws just heard arguments from the House that the President attempted to extort a bribe from a foreign allied government using taxpayer dollars, and on the other side they heard the President argue that not only is he within his rights to refuse handing over any and all evidence of that crime, it's not even a crime because if he believes it will benefit his election, and he believes his election will help the American people, ispo facto he cannot be removed from office. The Senate agreed with the President and decided not to remove him for this conduct. Not only that, he cannot be indicted for said conduct because the Justice Department has a policy stating they cannot indict the President. For instance in the Mueller investigation they documented no fewer than 10 instances of obstruction of justice by the President, a federal crime. The lead investigator in that case also testified under oath that the President was not truthful in his answers to investigator questions. This has emboldened the President to argue in court that not only is he immune from indictment, he's immune from any and all investigation. So the question is not which laws constrain the President, nor is it which laws empower the President. At this point after all that, the question is: "Who is going to do this for the President, and who is going to stop him?"
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    I think a lot of people are still waiting, and hoping, on that one but it will never happen. Politicians at that level don't seem to go to jail much.
xtiansimon 6y ago
That’s a bubble of reality distortion surrounding the public facing messaging of the man. That is not the expectation for the Office of the President. He won. He got to the top office.
pm90 6y ago
No. This man holds the office of the POTUS. There are certain responsibilities that come with it. The officeholder cannot make deadly threats publicly and expect everyone to just shrug it off.
- Simulacra 6y ago
  But does that responsibility extend to other members of Government, or just the President?
  - yarrel 6y ago
    Can you distract people by asking this?
  - vmh1928 6y ago
    You seem to be arguing throughout this thread that the President's comment is akin to saying "red sky at morning, sailors take warning." As if he's predicting a rain storm. But he's not just some guy at the marina, he's the President. It's also useful to look at what he isn't saying. He isn't calling for an investigation into the death or the lack of prosecution or the racial divide in the country or acknowledging the rage and anger of the non-white community that keeps being treated differently from the white community. His followers will hear this statement, "when the looting starts the shooting starts" as a dog whistle call "it's OK to start shooting." Or further, "I expect you to put this slave revolt down."
    - Simulacra 6y ago
      But again, it's an observation, not a statement of fact, nor a declaration. "When a black person is killed is when the looting starts" How is that statement any different that what Trump said? As much as you want to editorialize and censor, you can't twist a statement to fit your narrative.
tehwebguy 6y ago
It was a message, directly to law enforcement, that he thinks it’s okay for them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting. I can’t see how anyone would see that as anything other than a crime against humanity
- chooseaname 6y ago
  I don't know why you're getting down voted. Trump's words are a quote of someone who believed that "... it’s okay for them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting." Trump is very much saying he believes looter should be shot.
  - Balgair 6y ago
    To be clear here: Looting is not a capital offense. It's stuff. No TV/car/stereo is worth killing a person over. You have insurance for these things (hopefully). Though laws vary widely in the US, in CA the punishment is about a year in county jail, give or take: https://www.shouselaw.com/california-looting-laws.html https://www.shouselaw.com/california-looting-laws.html
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - andrew_ 6y ago
      To be clear here: it's not just "stuff." In innumerable ways, the looting and rioting is resulting in loss of material items that cannot be replaced. Case in point: https://twitter.com/wakiyan7/status/1266350546249629699 https://twitter.com/wakiyan7/status/1266350546249629699
      - wetmore 6y ago
        Things that can't be replaced huh? Like human lives, say those of Floyd or the protesters being shot at by police?
chooseaname 6y ago
This is my comment on the other HN thread about this: > The phrase was used by Miami's police chief, Walter Headley, in 1967, when he addressed his department's "crackdown on ... slum hoodlums," according to a United Press International article from the time. > Headley, who was chief of police in Miami for 20 years, said that law enforcement was going after “young hoodlums, from 15 to 21, who have taken advantage of the civil rights campaign. ... We don't mind being accused of police brutality." This is where the quote comes from. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-when-looting-starts-shooting-starts-come-n1217676 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-... Edit: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quotes-cop-sparked-race-riot-tweet-2020-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quotes-cop-sparked-rac... > The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence found that Headley's remarks and policing policies had been a significant factor in sparking the riots. > Headley died four months after the riots. The Times in its obituary noted his policies had caused "growing resentment" among black Miami residents. Our President fully understands the gravity of those words. This is what he wanted to say. This is what he meant. This is what he believes. This is WHO HE IS.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
pizlonator 6y ago
Not sure why you’re downvoted. I think that you’re right about Trump’s motive. It’s all a PR game to keep him in power, even and especially when he says nasty stuff. If you try to argue with it as if it was reason then it will be like punching a cloud. Under that mental model, it’s hard to predict how this will play out. I don’t know how this Twitter action will affect the psychology of his supporters. It will be interesting to watch!

In fairness, Trump's tweets are not about actually doing anything, they are more about getting votes. So arguing the feasibility of suggestions outlined in a Trump tweet kind of misses the point.

Traster 6y ago

Really? Because literally this week Trump tweeted something and then followed it up with an executive order.

umvi 6y ago
He also promised to throw Hillary in prison for the emails. Still waiting on that one.
- dathinab 6y ago
  I think he would have done so if he could. In the end the US president has a lot more power then president's in other democratic counties but still he's constrained by the law.
  - phlakaton 6y ago
    What law do you imagine constrains him from doing so?
    - sangnoir 6y ago
      On the contrary, the way the US constitution works is the government has no power at all, except granted by the constitution or laws passed by congress that are constitutional. The question is - which law empowers him to do so?
      - ModernMech 6y ago
        You are both mistaken. Laws are written by people, and the constitution is a piece of paper. The legislative body that passed these laws just heard arguments from the House that the President attempted to extort a bribe from a foreign allied government using taxpayer dollars, and on the other side they heard the President argue that not only is he within his rights to refuse handing over any and all evidence of that crime, it's not even a crime because if he believes it will benefit his election, and he believes his election will help the American people, ispo facto he cannot be removed from office. The Senate agreed with the President and decided not to remove him for this conduct. Not only that, he cannot be indicted for said conduct because the Justice Department has a policy stating they cannot indict the President. For instance in the Mueller investigation they documented no fewer than 10 instances of obstruction of justice by the President, a federal crime. The lead investigator in that case also testified under oath that the President was not truthful in his answers to investigator questions. This has emboldened the President to argue in court that not only is he immune from indictment, he's immune from any and all investigation. So the question is not which laws constrain the President, nor is it which laws empower the President. At this point after all that, the question is: "Who is going to do this for the President, and who is going to stop him?"
- Simulacra 6y ago
  I think a lot of people are still waiting, and hoping, on that one but it will never happen. Politicians at that level don't seem to go to jail much.

xtiansimon 6y ago

That’s a bubble of reality distortion surrounding the public facing messaging of the man. That is not the expectation for the Office of the President. He won. He got to the top office.

pm90 6y ago

No. This man holds the office of the POTUS. There are certain responsibilities that come with it. The officeholder cannot make deadly threats publicly and expect everyone to just shrug it off.

Simulacra 6y ago
But does that responsibility extend to other members of Government, or just the President?
- yarrel 6y ago
  Can you distract people by asking this?
- vmh1928 6y ago
  You seem to be arguing throughout this thread that the President's comment is akin to saying "red sky at morning, sailors take warning." As if he's predicting a rain storm. But he's not just some guy at the marina, he's the President. It's also useful to look at what he isn't saying. He isn't calling for an investigation into the death or the lack of prosecution or the racial divide in the country or acknowledging the rage and anger of the non-white community that keeps being treated differently from the white community. His followers will hear this statement, "when the looting starts the shooting starts" as a dog whistle call "it's OK to start shooting." Or further, "I expect you to put this slave revolt down."
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    But again, it's an observation, not a statement of fact, nor a declaration. "When a black person is killed is when the looting starts" How is that statement any different that what Trump said? As much as you want to editorialize and censor, you can't twist a statement to fit your narrative.

tehwebguy 6y ago

It was a message, directly to law enforcement, that he thinks it’s okay for them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting. I can’t see how anyone would see that as anything other than a crime against humanity

chooseaname 6y ago
I don't know why you're getting down voted. Trump's words are a quote of someone who believed that "... it’s okay for them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting." Trump is very much saying he believes looter should be shot.
- Balgair 6y ago
  To be clear here: Looting is not a capital offense. It's stuff. No TV/car/stereo is worth killing a person over. You have insurance for these things (hopefully). Though laws vary widely in the US, in CA the punishment is about a year in county jail, give or take: https://www.shouselaw.com/california-looting-laws.html https://www.shouselaw.com/california-looting-laws.html
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - andrew_ 6y ago
    To be clear here: it's not just "stuff." In innumerable ways, the looting and rioting is resulting in loss of material items that cannot be replaced. Case in point: https://twitter.com/wakiyan7/status/1266350546249629699 https://twitter.com/wakiyan7/status/1266350546249629699
    - wetmore 6y ago
      Things that can't be replaced huh? Like human lives, say those of Floyd or the protesters being shot at by police?

chooseaname 6y ago

This is my comment on the other HN thread about this: > The phrase was used by Miami's police chief, Walter Headley, in 1967, when he addressed his department's "crackdown on ... slum hoodlums," according to a United Press International article from the time. > Headley, who was chief of police in Miami for 20 years, said that law enforcement was going after “young hoodlums, from 15 to 21, who have taken advantage of the civil rights campaign. ... We don't mind being accused of police brutality." This is where the quote comes from. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-when-looting-starts-shooting-starts-come-n1217676 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-... Edit: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quotes-cop-sparked-race-riot-tweet-2020-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quotes-cop-sparked-rac... > The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence found that Headley's remarks and policing policies had been a significant factor in sparking the riots. > Headley died four months after the riots. The Times in its obituary noted his policies had caused "growing resentment" among black Miami residents. Our President fully understands the gravity of those words. This is what he wanted to say. This is what he meant. This is what he believes. This is WHO HE IS.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

pizlonator 6y ago

Not sure why you’re downvoted. I think that you’re right about Trump’s motive. It’s all a PR game to keep him in power, even and especially when he says nasty stuff. If you try to argue with it as if it was reason then it will be like punching a cloud. Under that mental model, it’s hard to predict how this will play out. I don’t know how this Twitter action will affect the psychology of his supporters. It will be interesting to watch!