4 ms·
Since the election results became apparent cable outlets have begun cutting away from the President’s speeches and tech companies have begun censoring the Presi
by awb 6y ago
Since the election results became apparent cable outlets have begun cutting away from the President’s speeches and tech companies have begun censoring the President’s speech.
Absolutely nothing has changed in the President’s speech or behavior since his 1st speech announcing his candidacy 5 years ago.
We needed a John Hancock 5 years ago that was willing to draw a line on violent speech and disinformation regardless of the consequences. Instead we got media leadership with their thumbs to the wind ignoring their platform policies and hiding behind a “public interest” rationale.
Too little too late.
- threeseed 6y agoContext matters. What Trump did over the last 5 years pales in comparison to what he is doing now. The effortless transition of power is the most fundamental and sacrosanct process in a democracy. And everyone has an obligation to defend it.
- prox 6y agoIt’s literally what he has sworn to defend at the inauguration. Instead we got this tweet “Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election," he tweeted. "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" He has sworn duty to not incite the crowd, no matter how much he thinks he has lost. That’s what the courts are for (which he tried and lost) and even many,many recounts (which didn’t move the needle noticeably) and that is what the democratic process is for.
- URSpider94 6y agoI'd argue that there's actually no difference in his behavior. Trump has been consistently divisive, untruthful and inflammatory since day one. What has happened is that his sustained behavior has radicalized a significant fraction of the population to the point that they are convinced that everyone else is lying to them and there's a massive conspiracy against their god-leader. I don't want to run afoul of Godwin's Law here, but if you ever wonder how people ended up following leaders like Stalin, Franco or Mussolini - it was a process of years. People who called this out as dangerous from day one were ridiculed as alarmists or partisans.
- jopsen 6y agoSo true, Even if the US election often seems like a coin flip, the fact that it only lasts 4 or 8 years means that a wrong flip doesn't matter so much. This is probably pretty important, as it's well known that Americans like to exhaust all other options before doing the right thing ;)
- jonhohle 6y agoThe argument being made, regardless of whether it's true or not, is that at best it's an unfair coin that favors one party over another. Using that coin, the party has taken two branches of government and allegedly will stack the third in its favor and has no check to prevent it from doing so. With all three branches there is little to no possibility of the unfair coin being investigated. I find it somewhat disappointing that the more compelling allegations were not tested in court. At least there would be public documentation of the argument and reasoned verdict.
- pythonaut_16 6y agoDo you have a list of the more compelling allegations? I'm genuinely curious to see them.
- jonhohle 6y agoI don’t have a list, but historically SCOTUS has ruled that legislatures are responsible for election laws and those cannot be changed by the whim of the state executive branch. Minimally Wisconsin and Pennsylvania (and possible Michigan and Georgia) sent out, received, and counted ballots that were outside the bounds of their respective election laws. Pennsylvania was especially egregious in that they were told to separate ballots received after the cutoff defined by law in case there was a challenge (which there was); they did not, making it impossible to separate late ballots from on time ballots. Some counties in Pennsylvania also contacted voters to cure ballots before Election Day; (again) my understanding of the law is that mailed ballots could not be opened until the polls opened on Election Day so there would have been no way to identify ballots that needed to be cured. This was inconsistent across counties. Wisconsin’s screw up had to do with who was eligible to receive a mail in ballot. There was a ruling that confirmed that ballots were sent to people ineligible for mail in voting, but that they would have to be argued individually. IIRC there were 200k mail in ballots provided and now separated from the voter. Even if you could identify all ineligible voters, there would be no way to identify their ballots.
- linuxftw 6y ago> We needed a John Hancock 5 years ago that was willing to draw a line on violent speech You mean like 'no justice no peace' or just speech that doesn't align with your political ideology? (To be clear, I'm all in favor of defunding police and the government at large)
- awb 6y agoYes, any speech calling for violence is not helpful and I think worthy of discussion about the effects it has on our society. Groups can practice boycotts, peaceful protests, civil disobedience, political activism, fundraising, etc. without resorting to violent speech.
- linuxftw 6y agoHow do you feel about certain protestors being called terrorists? People openly call for violence every day. People vote for it, it's what they want. Just look at the wars in the Middle East. Entire nations are calling for that violence. Right now, society has the belief that violence by the state against people is sometimes justified, but never the reverse. Unless it's against a 'bad' state, then it's okay. Then they're freedom fighters.
- runarberg 6y agoThings escalated really gradually over the course of 4 years
- DubiousPusher 6y agoI don't think that's true at all. It's been an up and down maelstrom of anti-democracy and mob bating since the man walked down that escalator.