Twitter Suspended Hundreds of Thousands of Accounts Amid 'Violent Extremism' (fortune.com) 202
Twitter said on Tuesday it had suspended more than half a million accounts since the middle of 2015 as the company steps up efforts to tackle "violent extremism" on its microblogging platform. From a report: The company shut down a total of 376,890 accounts in the last six months of 2016, Twitter said in its latest transparency report.
What's the plan, Stan? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because shutting down extremist accounts ends violent extremism... how exactly? What about the baby, freshly dumped alongside bathwater?
(of course the point was always to dump the baby to begin with.)
Re:What's the plan, Stan? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly...censoring speech (whatever that speech is) doesn't actually change people's hearts and minds. It just pushes the speech into darker corners of the web. I would much rather know who the hateful and bigoted are so I can avoid them.
Re: (Score:3)
Moreover, I'd like to have all the extremist argumentation slapped the fuck down by intellectuals in public. Given the way things are going however, it's as though transparency and public discussion were anathema to those with power to censor.
I mean, it can't possibly be that some jack-ass white supremacist, trash-ass ISIS goon, or wank-ass Hillary Trumponite, were hard to repudiate -- unless your own wack bullshit depends on similar constructions. Then it's really hard without stabbing yourself in the back
Re:What's the plan, Stan? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's virtually impossible in an unmoderated forum. For instance if your opponents vastly outnumber you, your brilliant repudiations will largely go unnoticed due to the noise. Not to mention many people judge arguments based on apparent popularity. If lots of people are acting offended by what you say, regardless of the merit of your argument, there is a huge group of people who simply won't want to believe you because you're a troll/jerk/mean/whatever.
unless your own wack bullshit depends on similar constructions
Your own wack bullshit DOES depend on similar constructions! Unless you're only going to go out and argue the most basic, obvious things that virtually nobody disagrees with.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a silly viewpoint. Certainly we have media even now that's able and willing to pick-and-choose what they publish; given this, it's absolutely necessary to have open fora -- and for platforms like Twitter etc. -- for the presentation of minority views. Such as yours, and mine. As such, basic communication tools shouldn't be subject to a Gestapo-esque gimping. What's more, China's example shows us that the logical endstate of that is private messenger applets that dock your good-citizen points for disc
Re:What's the plan, Stan? (Score:4, Interesting)
it's absolutely necessary to have open fora -- and for platforms like Twitter etc. -- for the presentation of minority views
I agree. What does "open" mean though? For that to be meaningful the platform has to be moderated. The quality of the outcome correlates with the quality of the people involved. The fact that you think it's a silly viewpoint tells me that you lack experience in unmoderated discussions with large groups of hostile people. When you have 20 people all arguing slight variations of the same theme against you, and not reading your replies to other people, it's just a quagmire. If you have no way of "muting" most of the people, the exercise is pointless.
Slashdot is open enough for me and has great moderation because it's mostly great people who mostly value principles like free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
Moreover, I'd like to have all the extremist argumentation slapped the fuck down by intellectuals in public. Given the way things are going however, it's as though transparency and public discussion were anathema to those with power to censor.
After all, it's worked so well on Slashdot, right? That's why we never have arguments over whether or not Climate Change is real any more. Once the bous arguments of the climate change denying posters were shown to be based on false claims and conspiracy theories, all of the anti-climate change posters recanted their positions are accepted the truth, right?
I think the problem is that people don't actually behave the way you think they should, when intellectuals slap down extremists in public, people who a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A business deciding they're not going to allow certain kinds of messages on their public bulletin board is no more censorship than me ordering my racist uncle to stop talking trash or get out of my house. In both cases, a private interest is making space available but making rules about what and cannot appear. Seeing as violent extremists have no lack of other places on the Internet to spread their message, this does constrain them. What it does do, however, is force them back on to their own echo chambers,
Re:What's the plan, Stan? (Score:5, Informative)
It's still censorship. It's legitimate and legal, but still censorship. The word censorship doesn't always have to carry a negative connotation. Parents censor the speech of their children often or the TV content their children are exposed to. There is nothing wrong with it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Generally when censorship is brought up here, it's an attempt to conflate First Amendment protections with a private organization's lawful right to moderate content. Yes, in technical terms it is censorship, but since some people seem to believe that the First Amendment protection of speech somehow should be imposed on private companies' Internet-facing content, I think it's useful to draw a distinct line between content moderation and censorship.
Re:What's the plan, Stan? (Score:4, Insightful)
but since some people seem to believe that the First Amendment protection of speech somehow should be imposed on private companies' Internet-facing content
That's not the argument. No one is saying companies should be forced to comply with the first amendment. "Free speech" as a principle exists outside of the Constitution...it's the shared cultural value that the Constitution seeks to protect. The cultural value came first, then the legal protection. This is how descriptive legal systems like english common law came to be.
The point is that these online platforms like Twitter don't hold this cultural value. That's okay, I guess, you don't have to. But they claim to, while saying they're only denying a platform for "hate speech," but this is bullshit too since they never punish anyone for saying "killing white people." That's pretty damn hateful.
They're not for free speech, they're not against "hate" on principle, they're just partisans.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that much of a cultural thing, as newspapers have always exercised the right to edit letters for content, or in some cases to outright refuse to publish them. As to the claims of equal tolerance of hate speech, that's a legitimate point, though I find that claims that white people are as frequently the objects of out and out hate speech tend to be pretty hyperbolic.
Re: (Score:3)
I find that claims that white people are as frequently the objects of out and out hate speech tend to be pretty hyperbolic.
I think you just don't notice. One of the critical functions of our brains is making most of the world irrelevant. There's an infinite number of facts in any room, from the patterns of scuff marks on the floor to the discolorations in the paint on the walls etc etc. If you noticed all those things you're probably on drugs or brain damaged and incapable of functioning. So you just don't notice shit that isn't either a tool to help you achieve your objectives or an obstacle in your way. Somebody saying "kill
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is we don't know enough about the accounts to make an informed judgement.
For example, Twitter has a problem with sockpuppets. It's got a lot better recently, so one might speculate that some proportion of those accounts which were banned are sockpuppets. Is sockpuppetry a form of trolling that the company should try to deal with so that other users are not hounded and harassed off their service, or should the just let it be a free-for-all?
On the one hand we know that 4chan/8chan style forums whe
For reference (Score:3)
The subject for people to review is called Natural Law. Individual Liberty has been an issue since recorded history began. John Locke was one of the main influences for the Founders of the US, but also influenced Law in much/most of the West.
First Amendment a Common Strawman (Score:3)
Generally when censorship is brought up here, it's an attempt to conflate First Amendment protections with a private organization's lawful right to moderate content.
That's funny, because the way I usually see it go on /. is that the pro-censorship side (i.e. you) brings up 1AM/government censorship first, as a strawman so they can claim that, because it doesn't apply, we should care about private censorship either.
The concept of free speech (and censorship) still exists outside of the 1AM (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters). The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment [aclu.org] [aclu.org] wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowled
typo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You only offer another straw man argument. Outside of the dark web, can you name a single site or organization that really allows absolute, unrestricted free speech with zero censorship?
Even 8chan doesn't go that far. Voat certainly doesn't. Is there a single example, or are we talking entirely hypothetically here?
In practice some limits are necessary for all sites. The limits set are usually based on what the site wants its content to be, and what it needs to do to keep revenue flowing in (ads, users etc.)
Re: (Score:3)
Thats fine until governments, political leaders use a service at a city, state and federal level.
Then the product becomes more of a public record that needs to allow access, comment and archiving.
Allowing different governments in is not a "private companies" "Internet-facing content".
Selectively Banning Racism (Score:4, Insightful)
A business deciding they're not going to allow certain kinds of messages on their public bulletin board is no more censorship than me ordering my racist uncle to stop talking trash or get out of my house.
Which is only to say that "Yes, both situations are examples of censorship."
To make the metaphor more accurate to what Twitter is doing, let's say you had two uncles, each a different color and both racist toward the other. Now let's say you picked sides and only threw out the uncle whose racism you disagreed with.
Even if you are within your rights to do that, the banned uncle (and plenty of other, non-racist folks) are right to call you out for both your hypocrisy and your own racism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never quite understood this argument how censorship actually makes extremists stronger. In a modest way I can see some legitimacy in saying be an "underground" movement will have a certain romantic appeal, but it's still pretty damned limiting. When White Supremacists had their shady BBSs and later websites, those were places that one had to actually seek out. But Twitter, Facebook and Google have given these groups a kind of free mass distribution they could only have previously dreamed of, and I thin
Re: (Score:3)
>I've never quite understood this argument how censorship actually makes extremists stronger.
That's not the argument. The argument is that censorship neither removes extremism nor makes it less relevant in a concrete security sense, and that censorship is invariably applied to goals that have nothing to do with anti-extremist programs. See the "baby w/ bathwater" simile in my first post.
Furthermore, censorship is anathema to an open society. To wit: once permitted, you'll find that the censors are never
Re: (Score:2)
>But as we have already established, it is permitted where private individuals or organizations are concerned.
As I have pointed out time and again, the issue is not whether it's permitted of Twitter or not. The rest of your comment is you listening to yourself babble.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is the issue. In Common Law, as with Constitutional Law, that which is not forbidden is permitted. Twitter has a right to moderate content just as a newspaper or a store billboard does. Don't like it, don't use their service. The idea that any service should be forced to publish racist or extremist material is beyond absurd, and violates every notion of property rights and personal liberty. No one owes a pack of racists and violent lunatics some sort of platform.
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to disagree with the cake baking decision, though on that score, the Civil Rights Acts also set something of a precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
For a concrete example, right-wing bourgeois politicians at the EU level (i.e. NGOs and such) have repeatedly attempted to have communism declared an act of terrorism. Their definition includes such heinous things as striking, unionization, the ability of workers to switch companies as they themselves see fit, and limits on onerous forum clauses. Surely that's on par with truck bombs and gunning children down at a summer camp, for everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
However take a look at the violence by the left (reminiscent of Maoist Red Guards) over talks by Charles Murray and Milo.
Re: (Score:2)
>this is a lie that striking has been equated with terrorism.
It is absolutely not a lie. But I also note that you make no comment on the other things.
Re:What's the plan, Stan? (Score:4, Informative)
All free market people are completely supportive (in concept) with striking and switching companies. There is a problem with public service employees being unionized because there isn't anyone negotiating on behalf of the taxpayers. The politicians want the unions on their side so
Please show me quotes equating striking, switching companies with terrorism. Now there have been union goons, but that is not the same as equating unionism with terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling the dog rabid is an excuse for putting it down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial pressure to censor is, where effective, equivalent to primary censorship. As seen in Twitter's transparency report.
Re: (Score:2)
It is, how? We're talking here about a private company whose fortunes are materially effected when potential buyers or advertisers walk away because they can't or won't control the extremist content that's appearing on their forum? Are you saying private web portals should have no power to constrain the kind of material that gets posted on their websites? Liberty isn't just for the extremists, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to have the public accommodation debate.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about ending violent extremism, it's about not associating your product with it.
Re:What's the plan, Stan? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because shutting down extremist accounts ends violent extremism... how exactly?
Maybe I'm missing something, but where does it say that they intended to end violent extremism? It said they're trying to "tackle 'violent extremism' on its microblogging platform," but I think a more reasonable interpretation of that is that they're not trying to deal with violent extremism itself, but with its presence on their platform.
And actually, to deal with your question more directly, denying extremists a platform does help prevent the spread of that extremism. It doesn't really matter if it's ISIS or the KKK, if you help people spread their propaganda, you're deepening the problem. Twitter has simply taken the position that they don't want to assist in spreading that kind of propaganda. And before you start harping on the First Amendment, no, the First Amendment does not require that private parties assist you in spreading your speech. It only disallows the government from making your speech illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
It says that their reason for suspending hundreds of thousands of accounts is "violent extremism". Unfortunately no-one can verify if this is true in any given case, since all evidence is hidden behind the mechanism of suspension. Might as well call it wrongthink, not that extremism has any better a definition.
Try this thought experiment out for size: if Twitter's workforce were to try and unionize, do you think Twitter would permit them the use of their own platform?
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately no-one can verify if this is true in any given case...
Do their terms of service provide that you have some kind of right of review? Or do those terms specify that they can suspend your account?
Try this thought experiment out for size: if Twitter's workforce were to try and unionize, do you think Twitter would permit them the use of their own platform?
If they were smart they would permit it. I don't know that they have an obligation to. Does NBC have an obligation to run a reality TV show about people who hate NBC?
More to Free Speech Than the First Amendment (Score:3)
And before you start harping on the First Amendment, no, the First Amendment does not require that private parties assist you in spreading your speech. It only disallows the government from making your speech illegal.
But as usual, it's the pro-censorship side (i.e. you) who's brought up the First Amendment first, as a strawman so you can dismiss it.
The concept of free speech (and censorship) still exists outside of the 1AM (the world is bigger than America and American laws, for starters). The ACLU has a blindspot a whole amendment [aclu.org] [aclu.org] wide, but when it comes to free speech even they acknowledge the extent of the threat:
Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.
Re: (Score:2)
But as usual, it's the pro-censorship side (i.e. you) who's brought up the First Amendment first, as a strawman so you can dismiss it.
This is perhaps the stupidest sentence I've read all day. It doesn't make sense to dismiss whatever statements are made first.
It doesn't get much better after that. From the thing you yourself quoted:
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment...
Yes, there are instances where shutting down a conversation can be dangerous, in much the same way that exercising any of your rights can become dangerous. Still, boycotts and protests are protected by the First Amendment. When you say something stupid, your freedom of speech protects your right to say it.
Re: (Score:2)
they're not trying to deal with violent extremism itself, but with its presence on their platform.
Exactly how much violent extremism fits into 140 characters? An IED and half a Kalashnikov?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sunk cost fallacy (Score:2)
> And actually, to deal with your question more directly, denying extremists a platform does help prevent the spread of that extremism.
So, you're saying that censorship works? Because for decades we've known that it doesn't change anyone's mind. And that it only makes people curious about these ideas you don't want anyone to see. I think more than a few people here have looked at things precisely because the powers that be told them not to look, whether that be an old MIT lock picking guide, 'zine or
Re: (Score:2)
For Twitter, you can assume that this is not so much about pushing agendas or silencing voices (or ending extremism). This is about making sure Twitter doesn't become an unpleasant place to be. If people stop going there because it sucks because it's full of lulz nazi eggs shouting caps-locked slurs at them, that hurts Twitter right in the pocketbook.
Argue all you want about Twitter's responsibility to defend free speech, but ultimately they'r
Re: (Score:2)
It's an unpleasant place if your tweets gets censored.
Re: (Score:2)
>If people stop going there because it sucks because it's full of lulz nazi eggs shouting caps-locked slurs at them, that hurts Twitter right in the pocketbook.
That's why Twitter recently rolled out keyword muting. Add slur du jour, problem addressed.
This being said, I've never seen any evidence of this giant mudslide of abuse that wasn't screencaps obviously doctored to maximize internet martyr points. On the contrary, there's quite a bit of maoist peer-pressure stuff and such going on in the moonbat se
Trumpeting threats w/o being responsible (Score:2)
Who said it did? However, giving extremists a worldwide platform in which to spread their alternate news is not the responsibility of a social media platform.
It seems, that if you are a social media platform, you might want not want to be a battle ground for extreme points of view. If you were, it might make many users uncomfortable and harm your ability to be an inviting social platform.
Most users don't want to be in the middle of a flamefest. Besides that, governments might have cause to restrict acces
Re: (Score:2)
>Who said it did? However, giving extremists a worldwide platform in which to spread their alternate news is not the responsibility of a social media platform.
Weasel words for controlling which views people are allowed exposure to. There's a fundamental distrust in Joe Q. Public in this reasoning, which assumes that seeing a video of ISIS beheading a civilian causes him to turn to the side of medieval murderers in a lickity split.
Meanwhile actual terrorists with high double-digit body counts have managed
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not worried so much about Joe Q. Public, but you obviously have not been through many internet flamewars. Nothing will turn off most of the audience faster than a site permitting their forums to be used for political or hyperbolic trash talking.
Scared me there for a second (Score:2)
It's a good thing my non-violent extremism is left untouched.
The death of Twitter (Score:2)
Since Twitter exists primarily to complain about other Twitter users, it seems like banning a lot of controversial accounts will utterly destroy people's use of Twitter since the people they like to complain about will be gone.
Re: (Score:2)
There's actually a girl petitioning to have Twitter ban anyone who says something mean. She's complaining that people say violent things or threaten to rape women... which, of course, we all recognize from third grade when everyone would threaten to blow you up or something. We're pretend-adults now, and that means sometimes someone 5,000 miles starts yammering about how they would rape you, as if he could.
...and journalism? (Score:2)
"Twitter (TWTR, -3.18%) also said it had started taking legal requests to remove content posted by verified journalists and media outlets. Twitter said it had received 88 such requests, but had not taken any action on the majority of these requests."
Wait, what? Removing content posted by journalists?
What are these "legal requests" to remove content posted by journalists, who is making them, why are they legal, and what content exact
Why not close the rest, too? (Score:2)
Due to this experiment, I believe we can safely say that Twitter's good to society is inversely related to its user-base population. The logical conclusion is that Twitter would provide the most good to society by closing all of their accounts.
We get to define the extremists (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Some Trump supporters do support the idea of violent extremism
Do they? I do not remember any violent extremism coming from the Trump camp.
Seems to me all the violence has been on the anti-Trump side:
1. Hillary hires violent thugs to disrupt Trump Rallies - as was proved by the Veritas project.
2. Hillary supporters beat down homeless African American woman.
3. Hillary supporters beat down man in Chicago, and steal his car, because they thought he voted for Trump.
4. Hillary supporters abduct and torture m
Re: (Score:2)
hey, you can't use the word "thug", that's racist. Because the only ones rioting and looting are not white. twitter SJW confirm.
A disturbance in The Force (Score:2)
As if 376,890 voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure you meant 890 voices, it is Twitter after all.
TWTR: conservative ideology = "violent extremism" (Score:2)
To Twitter, it's only "harassment" or "extremism" if it's against the left. They'll happily defend terrorists, criminals, and child abusers that follow their narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
There were thousands of tweets threatening to assassinate Trump. Twitter had no problem with those.
Threats to assassinate Trump are fine (Score:2)
There have been thousands of tweets threatening to assassinate Trump, or offering money for somebody to assassinate Trump.
As long as the tweets are leftist extremism, they are fine.
However, posting something truthful about Islamic extremism can certainly get your account suspended. Tweeting anything the left does not want people to know can get your account suspended.
Is Twitter's stock price still crashing? (Score:2)
Just wondering.
Whats next on the SJW ban list? (Score:2)
Given the investment China makes in US popular culture?
No more Tiananmen square? 1989? No mention of 1950's Communist party policy?
A ban on any negative comments to protect the historical narrative surrounding of the Communist party in China?
A lot of wealthy monarchies and theocracies may not like to be reminded of their faiths or cults teachings?
Ban cartoons that are considered blasphemy and also take an active role to prevent apostasy?
Ba
Re: (Score:2)
Really? When I look at the data from Sept 22 to March 21, I don't see anything that looks like a correlation. When I expand the graph to a year I see it remaining roughly the same other than an abberation around the 2016 presidential campaign when the Orange One became so prominent, falling back to norms in October when no one gave a damn, and then more recently falling again when Twitter has had news of problems with the company itself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
99% of which were conservative, no doubt. When left wing extremists get violent, they get cheered and let off.
Re: (Score:2)
cuz you don't want to see it?
If only there was some way we could mathematically calculate the strength and significance of a purported correlation...
I tried to Open a Twitter Account (Score:3, Insightful)
...the first tweet I made in response to someone (I forget now) that was critical of the Democrats, the account was suspended and they demanded all kinds of personal information so they could, "decide" if I were a bot or not.
Fuck them. Fuck the SJWs from Silicone Valley. The Big Quake can't come soon enough if you ask me.
Re:I tried to Open a Twitter Account (Score:4, Interesting)
I've made plenty of responses to lefties on twitter. Most of the time I avoid profanity and always avoid obscenities and the F bomb. I'm amazed at people that get on twitter and say horrible things to other people they don't even know. I have had people call me names and just as a social experiment I responded in a reasoned manner ( remembering my 7 habits classes ) and continued to argue my point. At the end I almost always got one of two solutions. Either they called me bad names and then blocked me, or surprisingly, they became calmer and began to debate in a reasoned manner and in the end agreed to disagree. I've trolled on /. a few times but with twitter I've been experimenting and it's an interesting format. Trying to debate with people with 140 characters is a challenge that will sharpen your skills.
Re:I tried to Open a Twitter Account (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh no, I don't love everyone. I just miss the good old days when you could be civil even with people you hated.
Re: (Score:3)
I think I talked with you on twitter recently.
but they haven't shut off Trump yet (Score:2)
so it's all bogus.
All the violence has been on the anti-Trump side (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me all the violence has been on the anti-Trump side:
1. Hillary hires violent thugs to disrupt Trump Rallies - as was proved by the Veritas project.
2. Hillary supporters beat down homeless African American woman.
3. Hillary supporters beat down man in Chicago, and steal his car, because they thought he voted for Trump.
4. Hillary supporters abduct and torture mentally ill man because man supported Trump.
5. Violent riots when Trump was elected
6. Violent riots when Trump was inaugurated
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck them. Fuck the SJWs from Silicone Valley. The Big Quake can't come soon enough if you ask me.
Nothing violent or extreme in that opinion. You know, just the catastrophic demise of a few million people.
If you're not just trolling you ought to calm down a notch.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck them. Fuck the SJWs from Silicone Valley. The Big Quake can't come soon enough if you ask me.
So you think that Twitter making efforts to quell bot posts during an election is a conspiracy by the "left"? ...
Sigh
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that ALL Left live in Silicone Valley?
Sigh....
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not. I don't even know what you are saying or what's going on inside your paranoid brain. Have fun with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that's funny. Mod him up.
Re:So Hillary's account got deleted? (Score:4, Insightful)
That sounds like a shibboleth...
Specifically what part of the non-process did you find broken? What should the process/party have done to prevent Trump (or any other candidate)?
Except they are sort of limited to who throws their hat into the ring... and unlike the Democrats, worked to not play favorites and let the candidates & their supporters duke it out.
A Bill Clinton Democrat maybe, but thanks to the wonderful DNC nomination process, they ended up with the worst possible candidate. Of course, I contend that it was actually the election of Obama which moved the Overton window enough to make a Trump run & presidency possible.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a shibboleth...
I'm not Jewish. ;)
Specifically what part of the non-process did you find broken?
A slate of 16 candidates in 2016. We went from the Seven Dwarfs in 2012 to the Clown Car in 2016. Strong indicators that the RNC was out of control.
What should the process/party have done to prevent Trump (or any other candidate)?
A citizenship test that immigrants take. The same citizenship test that most Americans would flunk because they don't understand how the country works. A determined candidate would know the answers inside and out. A non-serious candidate like Trump would huff and puff about how "elitist" the test was.
Except they are sort of limited to who throws their hat into the ring...
The job of the party leadership to cultivate
Re: (Score:3)
The RNC isn't supposed to be in control. You don't understand what happened.
Re: (Score:2)
The RNC isn't supposed to be in control. You don't understand what happened.
Somoeone needs to update Wikipedia.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) is responsible for promoting Republican campaign activities. It is responsible for developing and promoting the Republican political platform, as well as coordinating fundraising and election strategy. Its current chairman is Reince Priebus. The chairman of the RNC is chosen by the President when the Republicans have the White House or otherwise by the Party's state committees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#Structure_and_organization [wikipedia.org]
Re: So Hillary's account got deleted? (Score:2)
You still don't understand.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes one wonder, since Clinton had all that superdelegate advantage to begin with, why did they bother to try so hard and sink Sanders?
Because Sanders forced Hillary to go from right-of-center to left-of-center in regards to Wall Street and other issues. The Clinton/Obama strategy has always been about co-opting the Republican agenda. Healthcare is a great example. What started off as a proposal from the Heritage Foundation, implemented as RomneyCare in Massachusetts, and came out half-baked as ObamaCare became Obama's signature achievement. The Republicans spent seven years screaming "repeal and replace" and they don't have the votes to r
Re: (Score:2)
Alhamdulillah!
Bless you!
Alhamdulillah [...] is an Arabic phrase meaning "Praise be to God". It is frequently used by Muslims of every background, due to its centrality to the texts of the Quran and the words of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, but also spoken by some Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhamdulillah [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Except they are sort of limited to who throws their hat into the ring...
You're kidding, right? There were at one point so many Republican candidates that they had to split the field in two and hold the same debate twice to get them all in. There are a ton of things you can say about how the Republican Party got to this point, but lack of better choices is not one of them.
... and unlike the Democrats, worked to not play favorites
*chortle* I couldn't even count how many articles I read about organized Republican efforts to stop Trump. At one point they even tried having all the other candidates to collude on which states they would com
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lookie its creimer posting a political post again.
Moderate conservative. The same guy that constantly insults and lies about everyone who is not a hard core as left as they come liberal. Let me guess, later on he will be spouting for Clinton... Looking later in this thread he did. Shocking! He lied again.
Doesn't like the GOP nomination. Well, after the whole GOP nomination and Russian hacking and everything else, you know who DID rig an election? The DNC did, that's who. And yet not a SINGLE mention
Re: (Score:2)
The same guy that constantly insults and lies about everyone who is not a hard core as left as they come liberal.
Citation please?
But, I better be careful. cremier has threatened to shoot me before when I said things he didn't like, and since I am calling him a liar once again, I expect more of the same.
You never did explain how I threatened to shoot you. Every time I pointed that out, you scurried back into the shadows like a cockroach.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you did, and you know you did. Lying about that doesn't change the fact that you did.
Let me get a box of crayons.... I asserted my rights under the First and Second Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment gives me the right to speak my mind in whatever forum. The Second Amendment gives me the right to bear arms, and, since I don't live in a "stand your grounds" state, I don't have the right to shoot your sorry ass willy-nilly. I personally believe you can't have one without the other and you need both, which pisses off the people who believe you can have one but not the oth
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, he needs to go. He constantly attacks people here.
Citation please?
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop harassing our members, thank you.
Three times I was accused of threatening to shoot someone. Three times I asked for a specific example that I threatened to shoot someone. Twice I got no responses. Third time I'm called liar. So I broke out the crayons and colored inside the lines. ACs who accused me of threatening to shoot them are liars. Plain and simple. The moderators must be on holiday because none of my comments have gotten modded down today. Then again, I got 20 years of karma to burn threw.
Re: (Score:2)
But Hillary was promoting him as a great candidate.
Because Jeb Bush and his family's fundraising machine was viewed as a greater strategic threat to her chances of winning the presidency.
All Hillary cares about is herself. She needs to be kicked off Twitter, and then out of our country.
This comment clearly demonstrates that you're not an American and don't appreciate American values. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an American, and I think you and her should leave together. But unlike you, I'm not a jerk and won't kick you out.
You missed the point. As Americans we don't punish our political adversaries for losing. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship. If you think Hillary and I should be put out of the country for expressing political opinions that you disagree with, you're obviously not an American citizen and you're free to "self-deport" yourself out of the country. But unlike you, I'm not a jerk and won't call ICE on you.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you just threaten to shoot people who say things you don't like.
Nope. I wrote a blog post. Enjoy!
https://www.kickingthebitbucket.com/2017/03/21/have-i-threatened-to-shoot-you-today/ [kickingthebitbucket.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You can actually blame Hillary shills for that as well. I remember hearing nonstop how they were registering republican during the primaries so they could get Trump to be the front runner because there was NO WAY she could lose to someone like him...
In retrospect, that was stupid. OTOH, The consequences of Trump winning the election will probably be the cleansing fire that both parties need desperately.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the rule in New York (though it is closer to 1 year), and locked a lot of Independent and Republican registered folk from voting for Sanders in the primary. It also prevented the Trump family for voting for him in the primary because they were registered Democrat!
Re: (Score:2)
-1 Troll
Some people just can't handle the truth.