Trump banned from Twitter!

[Dashinka 24,505]

14 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

There was a useful value in getting information more timely and in a condensed fashion (the way we thought of Google or Wikipedia), for example I'd check #abtraffic, #yyctraffic, #yycroads, #yyc, and so on. City communications, Police, Fire, or RCMP would use Twitter and FB to communicate to people in a community if something was happening, like burst pipes, regional theft, fires, vandalism, or even active shooters so people wouldn't panic if they saw an armored vehicle and SWAT like police (or non uniformed officers) walking down the road with rifles in HR. They served as points of communication for people in a neighborhood or community watch, for events, crime/suspicious people alerts, product deals, general help or info, and so on. 

 

They even had their value from a strategic marketing standpoint. It was at one time possible to cue general trends (consumer and political) from a broad approach. It's always been useful for targeted differentiation for those who are most active and that won't change even though they're wrecking their own platforms now. 

 

These two companies in particular have their own partnerships and basically Trump being elected threw a wrench in this ridiculously predictable and entitled meritocracy surrounding (federal) elected office, using their platforms at that, knowing how to utilize broad appeal to connect with people. People in the bureaus, media, party establishment, those with primary connections to these tech giants really went at them to control their platforms because they simply found someone not in their little meritocratic environment to be against their personal interests which they clearly place above the populace's interests (eg rights, transparency, being informed). Realizing this, they didn't hide the fact that they needed to produce different outcomes which is why they radically changed their policies and approach befitting their own environment. The media and others helped prep an unhinged entitled party fanatic base to adopt more authoritarian viewpoints so that they could suppress undesirable opinions while maintaining ideological control over those that vote and think in a way that caters to their system and strategy. 

 

This is basically a microcosm for such meritocratic groups. They particularly utilized the bureaus who are highly experienced in producing social instability. People in local/state governments were simply part of this group or were bought off by organizations seeking to likewise produce more instability. They know there was never any good outcome to radical changes allowing illegal immigrants, not prosecuting criminals, immediately releasing them back to the public to wreak havoc especially rioters, while selectively targeting people in this virus enforcement. All malicious and designed to increase instability. This is why we saw such extreme/drastic changes all over the place in such a short period of time. The entire point was to produce instability and in a multitude of ways. One was to dramatically increase the personal animus (persona politics) of the populace and to connect with them by showing certain people in bureaus and such with similar traits. Social media was a good medium for this but not if competing views were allowed which is why suppression (banning, algorithmic shadow bans and so on) ramped up. This is how brand marketing in particular works. People wind up with the age old "they must be like me!" connection and this winds up working to lower barriers to instability by helping orient behavior to something desirable. So much so that the left and others can be publicly shown this insanely dangerous methodology and yet be perfectly on board with it to where they are advocates. The second method of instability is, once they get their first demographics on board is they use them to produce instability and pressure others to adopt change via cognitive dissonance. Many people are psychologically weak and abandon their principles at the slightest bit of pressure and their desire for cognitive equilibrium ("Normal") has them weakly accept counterproductive viewpoints. The third is they ensure the other side is similarly polarized but in a significantly disorganized way. This aids in the fourth one which is misdirection, which is, to be able to cause chaos and redirect people's blame toward their desired target. Trump being busy fending off incessant bureau and Congress attacks, never mind using his ignorance of everything political (including said meritocratic environment) to infiltrate his cabinet can't really spend much time understanding what's going on and organizing people to convey useful messages. So he focused far more on defending himself and figuring out who he can trust. It took a couple years, which increasingly led to transparent revelations of broad misconduct from top to bottom. And because they saw this as a threat they even more intensely ramped up censorship (along with involving themselves in the election) to try and ensure their desired outcome. How little geniuses that call themselves moderates and independents understand when they they want to go back to normal they tend not to grasp how they've been used, and what normal actually means. A rapid expansion of malevolent people combined with weakening of grounded principles, in an unstable environment, means only one thing... civil war.

 

The best way to prevent this all along was people standing their ground on their principles, for example basic American principles of speech which the left maliciously try to gaslight about these principles being only for government. Don't affirm malicious behavior by voting in those who are doing it. Don't engage in "call out" culture which is another implement to muddle appropriate response. People talk up "calling out" things but it is a distraction.. people calling out things are more than capable of actions counter to their stated views, which is why our principles tells us to follow actions and not words. Don't stick around on platforms that are trying to censor you. Be willing to adjust to a changing environment, which means if the environment around you is radically changing and pressuring you, don't give an inch, if you're not a leader be ready to go with those following those principles. Go with people making more principled approaches even if you might ideologically disagree with them (meaning be prepared to join left wing populist movements as well so long as they're actionable in maintaining primary common values eg the constitution), the importance of our common principles and a powerful informed populace vastly outweighs our mere political differences. 

 

Had people stuck with those principles we'd not be facing this. People had better learn quickly to not bend the knee, to make uncomfortable choices that follow our long standing principles even against all the various methods people try and halt it. Learn to cut ties with minor leaders who you may agree with but who simply want to bank on people wasting their time with non contributory actions. It means involve one's self more in processes like elections, encourage people to vote outside the two parties, and learn to organize to unify voices based on our common principles which are neither left or right. Learn to join other platforms when the one you're on abandons their principles and bring as many people as you can to it. Utilizing what little options one has left in a productive way easily results in their defeat and much faster than letting them win and letting rebellion decide it much later. 

Culturally powerful people/entities acting culturally irresponsibly can be a problem.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 hours ago, nykolos said:

Nothing wrong with defending the most successful President in 30 years, too bad you wont ever one.

 

 

 

 

  He's going to be close to the bottom of the list as far as successful presidents go. 

 

  I never said there is anything wrong with defending him though. Just if someone is defending him and pretending that was calling him out. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

16 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Culturally powerful people/entities acting culturally irresponsibly can be a problem.

To get different people have to want different, and in the face of a rapidly changing environments, my biggest issue with conservatives is they are basically suckers. A few openly muse about it, but I know many conservatives are likely thinking, "why do we lose so often, even when we win?".. so-called conservative politicians wind up bringing in neocon judges, don't represent the conservative populace at all. Why? Start looking inward, folks. Your approach is far too easy to take advantage of, so go outside your comfort zone and learn a new one. Too much they broil things down to superficial ideology, and it's this logic that has people like Mitch McConnell doing this (removed) to Trump and his supporters only weeks after thanking Trump and his supporters for getting re-elected.

 

Equally, on the subject of social media, sitting there on the same platform endlessly whining has done nothing but make your situation worse. It's ridiculous that it's taken this much to get them moving to other platforms.

 

Most funny of all is, perhaps they can better understand my independent point of view now. Because the way they pointlessly sat there on platforms and whining, when its so easy to just register elsewhere, is precisely how I see voting outside the two main parties. It's ridiculously easy to vote outside the artificial box you trap yourself in, people just make it seem so monumentally difficult.. it's all in their head. So when they tell me I'm wasting my vote because I don't pointlessly corner myself the way they are, it's another affirmation that this naive battered wife approach is not only about validating one's own choices and avoiding looking inward, but that they're making choices in utter contrast to their stated goals. All I can do is make my own choices, try to empower them to see how their approach is easily abused,  try to get them to make make better choices with a result that better reflects their views.

Edited January 14, 2021 by Unlockable
removed inappropriate emote

[B_J 2,752]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  He's going to be close to the bottom of the list as far as successful presidents go. 

 

  I never said there is anything wrong with defending him though. Just if someone is defending him and pretending that was calling him out. 

To be fair, there were some good things that happened during his presidency (jobs, etc), but COVID hit, which wasn't his fault but he really didn't step up as a leader in any meaningful way.  But he is going to be remembered, fairly or unfairly, not for the good things that happened but for his poor leadership during COVID and the way he is leaving office.

 

 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

6 hours ago, nykolos said:

Nothing wrong with defending the most successful President in 30 years, too bad you wont ever one.

 

 

 

What exactly has Trump accomplished? 

[Boiler 45,520]

We need to remember that Trump committed a most heinous crime, one that can never be forgiven, he beat Crooked Hillary.

 

This is what it is really all about.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, B_J said:

To be fair, there were some good things that happened during his presidency (jobs, etc), but COVID hit, which wasn't his fault but he really didn't step up as a leader in any meaningful way.  But he is going to be remembered, fairly or unfairly, not for the good things that happened but for his poor leadership during COVID and the way he is leaving office.

 

 

 

   That's true, and it's true to an extent for any president. There were also some bad policies, and we can honestly say Trump didn't do a lot to help himself out if that legacy was something he was even concerned with. 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

We need to remember that Trump committed a most heinous crime, one that can never be forgiven, he beat Crooked Hillary.

 

This is what it is really all about.

He did beat Hillary. She is irrelevant.

[B_J 2,752]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   That's true, and it's true to an extent for any president. There were also some bad policies, and we can honestly say Trump didn't do a lot to help himself out if that legacy was something he was even concerned with. 

You know, with the COVID things, all he had to do was put on a mask and be a cheerleader.  Not a cheerleader for himself, but just encouraging the country.  Just that would have made a real difference.  

 

That's really when the job became too big for him.  He could handle the job during normal times when things were going okay, but once there was a real crisis, his weaknesses and need to make everything about himself really hurt.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

What exactly has Trump accomplished? 

 

  I gave him credit for some of his foreign policy. Getting out of NATO has always been something I supported which I think was some Trump would have tried to do. Reducing US military presence in some areas in general was a good idea. However much of that was driven by nationalism, not altruism. Often even when I liked the outcome, I didn't agree with the motivation.

 

   Other things like legislation lowering pharmacy costs were great ideas. In the end though, the office of president is not a job where you can bully your way to success. I know that work for Trump in other areas, but the inability to work with people and compromise, and the ability to alienate those people he needed to work with gave him no chance at ever succeeding with his agenda.  

[Dashinka 24,505]

3 minutes ago, B_J said:

You know, with the COVID things, all he had to do was put on a mask and be a cheerleader.  Not a cheerleader for himself, but just encouraging the country.  Just that would have made a real difference.  

 

That's really when the job became too big for him.  He could handle the job during normal times when things were going okay, but once there was a real crisis, his weaknesses and need to make everything about himself really hurt.

That is IMO the thing that hurt him the most.  When he was having those daily briefings and they devolved into fights with the WH correspondents, it really turned a lot of folks off and made a lot think that was all he cared about.  He should have left all of those up to Pence, but of course hindsight being what it is and Trump being what he is, we got what we got.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, B_J said:

You know, with the COVID things, all he had to do was put on a mask and be a cheerleader.  Not a cheerleader for himself, but just encouraging the country.  Just that would have made a real difference.  

 

That's really when the job became too big for him.  He could handle the job during normal times when things were going okay, but once there was a real crisis, his weaknesses and need to make everything about himself really hurt.

 

   I've said several times in the past, but one of his supposed strengths was surrounding himself with good people to get the job done, and I think the failure to do that was a big part of the issues the administration had.  I think the biggest part of that failure, both finding people and the turnover, is the absolute difficulty he has working with people. Good people don't want to be in that situation, and in the end you have the Trump administration. People who's best quality was the ability to say the things that Mr Trump wanted to hear. 

[B_J 2,752]

After these four years, I hope some of us have learned something.  I have no issue with an outsider being President, in some ways that might be for the best.  But maybe, just maybe, character does matter a bit.

[yuna628 9,676]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

I think you meant AWS and not Twitter since I don't believe Parler sued Twitter.  Probably a frivolous, but how else would the leeches make money. 

Yes, I mean AWS. Couldn't edit it though, sorry.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

24 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I gave him credit for some of his foreign policy. Getting out of NATO has always been something I supported which I think was some Trump would have tried to do. Reducing US military presence in some areas in general was a good idea. However much of that was driven by nationalism, not altruism. Often even when I liked the outcome, I didn't agree with the motivation.

 

   Other things like legislation lowering pharmacy costs were great ideas. In the end though, the office of president is not a job where you can bully your way to success. I know that work for Trump in other areas, but the inability to work with people and compromise, and the ability to alienate those people he needed to work with gave him no chance at ever succeeding with his agenda.  

I agree about some of the foreign policy including the military. I agree with changing trade policy where China was concerned. 
Nothing ever came of his best health care ever promise. I just don’t see how he was e best President since Reagan. He ended up more like Nixon.