5 ms·

And we have responded to these near constant threats by providing the president with the best security protection money can buy. Seems reasonable? I don't under

And we have responded to these near constant threats by providing the president with the best security protection money can buy. Seems reasonable? I don't understand what your point is.

refulgentis 6y ago
There's a galaxy-brain idea that the Constitution says you can't be banned from Twitter from accidentally inciting an accidental sacking of the Capitol People will repeatedly attempt to complain this is unfair by attempting to find 'double standards' - here, the idea is if anyone tweets 'kill trump' and we can find the tweet an hour later, clearly Twitter has a bias towards Duh Dems Thinking people will find these concerns obviated by the platforms consistently kicking off groups when things turn violent. It's just that the only examples of this until now were international and off most people's radar.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  Sacking?
xwdv 6y ago
You misunderstand, they didn’t call for killing the President, they called for killing the private citizen, potentially after he’s been stripped of all protections through impeachment.
- apocalyptic0n3 6y ago
  Impeachment wouldn't strip him of anything (despite the many tweets and stories about it, there is nothing special about a second impeachment). If he is impeached and the Senate votes to convict, then he will lose benefits. At the moment, however, it is believed that the Secret Service detail will remain in place regardless.
  - wavefunction 6y ago
    Presumably Congress could strip a former President of those benefits as they have in general in the past, which was then reversed during the Obama administration. I assume they could even strip a specific individual of those benefits while leaving them intact for others.
- dantillberg 6y ago
  Former presidents remain protected by the Secret Service for the rest of their lives [0]. 0: https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/6620 https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/6620
Triv888 6y ago
Shouldn't Twitter ban them too?
- mywittyname 6y ago
  Presumably they get a visit from the Secret Service, which is arguably much worse than a Twitter ban. Meetings with Federal Agents are not exactly easy going under normal circumstances. I can't imagine how it must feel if the the outcome of a poor interview is Federal prison.
- enkid 6y ago
  Yes, they should. No one is arguing they shouldn't.
  - stronglikedan 6y ago
    Lot's of folks are arguing they shouldn't. Maybe not here on HN, but the double-standard is in full effect elsewhere.
    - alsetmusic 6y ago
      Please link examples.
- noelsusman 6y ago
  Yes? Are you under the impression that's controversial?
  - Triv888 6y ago
    It is much worst than what Trump ever said and his tweets got blocked much more quickly... If they want to filter the flow of information, they need to do it equally to everyone.

And we have responded to these near constant threats by providing the president with the best security protection money can buy. Seems reasonable? I don't understand what your point is.

refulgentis 6y ago

There's a galaxy-brain idea that the Constitution says you can't be banned from Twitter from accidentally inciting an accidental sacking of the Capitol People will repeatedly attempt to complain this is unfair by attempting to find 'double standards' - here, the idea is if anyone tweets 'kill trump' and we can find the tweet an hour later, clearly Twitter has a bias towards Duh Dems Thinking people will find these concerns obviated by the platforms consistently kicking off groups when things turn violent. It's just that the only examples of this until now were international and off most people's radar.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Sacking?

xwdv 6y ago

You misunderstand, they didn’t call for killing the President, they called for killing the private citizen, potentially after he’s been stripped of all protections through impeachment.

apocalyptic0n3 6y ago
Impeachment wouldn't strip him of anything (despite the many tweets and stories about it, there is nothing special about a second impeachment). If he is impeached and the Senate votes to convict, then he will lose benefits. At the moment, however, it is believed that the Secret Service detail will remain in place regardless.
- wavefunction 6y ago
  Presumably Congress could strip a former President of those benefits as they have in general in the past, which was then reversed during the Obama administration. I assume they could even strip a specific individual of those benefits while leaving them intact for others.
dantillberg 6y ago
Former presidents remain protected by the Secret Service for the rest of their lives [0]. 0: https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/6620 https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/6620

Triv888 6y ago

Shouldn't Twitter ban them too?

mywittyname 6y ago
Presumably they get a visit from the Secret Service, which is arguably much worse than a Twitter ban. Meetings with Federal Agents are not exactly easy going under normal circumstances. I can't imagine how it must feel if the the outcome of a poor interview is Federal prison.
enkid 6y ago
Yes, they should. No one is arguing they shouldn't.
- stronglikedan 6y ago
  Lot's of folks are arguing they shouldn't. Maybe not here on HN, but the double-standard is in full effect elsewhere.
  - alsetmusic 6y ago
    Please link examples.
noelsusman 6y ago
Yes? Are you under the impression that's controversial?
- Triv888 6y ago
  It is much worst than what Trump ever said and his tweets got blocked much more quickly... If they want to filter the flow of information, they need to do it equally to everyone.