US Politics Hamsterwheel V3.0
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 616
My point, VP959, is simply that we constantly hear requests to "curb" Trump's opinings on various topics, along with exaggeration and distortion of what he says being apparently the duty of the media.
So, for instance, when he asked, in his often silly stream-of-verbiage method, whether there was a way to utilize the disinfectant properties of external chemicals in some sort of internal application (no, there is not, we agree) -- that was taken by multiple media outlets to indicate that he was suggesting drinking Lysol. And when some mental moron did so, he was solely responsible for their death.
So when he then comes out with "I'll regulate and maybe shut down Twitter", the opponents pounce on it as some sort of major assault on the First Amendment. Well, it's not. He couldn't function without Twitter.
And you'll be pleased to hear that nobody here believes he can shut down Twitter. This whole episode is another mountain made over a molehill, mainly so that by Friday the media can pronounce that this was "the worst week ever for Trump".
Meanwhile, on the other side of the ballot page, the presumptive nominee goes from one ridiculous mis-speak to another, while the press simply snickers a bit.
So, for instance, when he asked, in his often silly stream-of-verbiage method, whether there was a way to utilize the disinfectant properties of external chemicals in some sort of internal application (no, there is not, we agree) -- that was taken by multiple media outlets to indicate that he was suggesting drinking Lysol. And when some mental moron did so, he was solely responsible for their death.
So when he then comes out with "I'll regulate and maybe shut down Twitter", the opponents pounce on it as some sort of major assault on the First Amendment. Well, it's not. He couldn't function without Twitter.
And you'll be pleased to hear that nobody here believes he can shut down Twitter. This whole episode is another mountain made over a molehill, mainly so that by Friday the media can pronounce that this was "the worst week ever for Trump".
Meanwhile, on the other side of the ballot page, the presumptive nominee goes from one ridiculous mis-speak to another, while the press simply snickers a bit.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 378
My post was absolutely nothing to do with anything related to curbing what your president may or may not say on Twitter, or anywhere else, it was a pretty simple question about whether or not he could do as he said he could in that tweet, regulate or close down Twitter. My assumption was that he probably couldn't, because of your constitutional right to free speech.
The disinfectant thing I mentioned was, as you'll have seen from the link to today's other current news article, about 796 people in Iran that died after drinking disinfectant, as a consequence of misinformation spread via social media, nothing to do with your president (as far as I know). It just happened that both BBC news articles came up next to each other in my feed today, first the one about misinformation resulting in hundreds of deaths, then the story about the tweet threatening to regulate or close down Twitter.
The disinfectant thing I mentioned was, as you'll have seen from the link to today's other current news article, about 796 people in Iran that died after drinking disinfectant, as a consequence of misinformation spread via social media, nothing to do with your president (as far as I know). It just happened that both BBC news articles came up next to each other in my feed today, first the one about misinformation resulting in hundreds of deaths, then the story about the tweet threatening to regulate or close down Twitter.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 546
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,037
Originally Posted by VP959
So, given that you have a right to free speech, has the president got the authority to regulate or close down a publisher?
It is possible for the government to attempt to prevent the publication of a specific article or specific information - so-called prior restraint, perhaps similar to your DSMA but more specific as to who and what. But that can be taken to court by the publishers' lawyers, and is rarely successful. It is generally not considered Constitutional except in very limited cases of classified military or diplomatic information. And in any case, it never involves closing down the publisher or publication in toto.
Nor can the President do it personally - it gets done formally through departments like Justice or Defense.
Now, in our history, mobs have burned newspaper offices and/or killed publishers or journalists - mostly related to slavery, but not necessarily, nor all that long ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Gazette_shooting
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Parish_Lovejoy
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,037
Originally Posted by wishiwasupthere
But this may well be charged as manslaughter by the state, and a violation of civil rights by the Feds.
Dumb cops for sure, clearly violating all kinds of procedures....
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full
Not sure of your point. Are you talking about the event - or about the grieving family in the picture, who don't look dumb to me?
But this may well be charged as manslaughter by the state, and a violation of civil rights by the Feds.
Dumb cops for sure, clearly violating all kinds of procedures....
But this may well be charged as manslaughter by the state, and a violation of civil rights by the Feds.
Dumb cops for sure, clearly violating all kinds of procedures....
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Yakima
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by West Coast
The firing seems appropriate as the former officer used unauthorized techniques. If the death is attributed to those unauthorized techniques (which would seem likely) then he should be tried and if found guilty spend a lot of time behind bars, not only to ponder his mistakes but to give pause to other cops.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Yakima
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full
A less argumentative answer. No.
It is possible for the government to attempt to prevent the publication of a specific article or specific information - so-called prior restraint, perhaps similar to your DSMA but more specific as to who and what. But that can be taken to court by the publishers' lawyers, and is rarely successful. It is generally not considered Constitutional except in very limited cases of classified military or diplomatic information. And in any case, it never involves closing down the publisher or publication in toto.
Nor can the President do it personally - it gets done formally through departments like Justice or Defense.
Now, in our history, mobs have burned newspaper offices and/or killed publishers or journalists - mostly related to slavery, but not necessarily, nor all that long ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Gazette_shooting
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Parish_Lovejoy
It is possible for the government to attempt to prevent the publication of a specific article or specific information - so-called prior restraint, perhaps similar to your DSMA but more specific as to who and what. But that can be taken to court by the publishers' lawyers, and is rarely successful. It is generally not considered Constitutional except in very limited cases of classified military or diplomatic information. And in any case, it never involves closing down the publisher or publication in toto.
Nor can the President do it personally - it gets done formally through departments like Justice or Defense.
Now, in our history, mobs have burned newspaper offices and/or killed publishers or journalists - mostly related to slavery, but not necessarily, nor all that long ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Gazette_shooting
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Parish_Lovejoy
On the flight back to Washington, press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters President Trump is going to sign some kind of executive order on social media. No further details appear to have been offered, but it comes after he lashed out over fact checks on his tweets.
— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) May 27, 2020
— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) May 27, 2020
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 763
Originally Posted by obgraham
So, for instance, when he asked, in his often silly stream-of-verbiage method, whether there was a way to utilize the disinfectant properties of external chemicals in some sort of internal application (no, there is not, we agree) -- that was taken by multiple media outlets to indicate that he was suggesting drinking Lysol. And when some mental moron did so, he was solely responsible for their death.
Trump suggests 'injection' of disinfectant to beat coronavirus and 'clean' the lungs - NBC
Trump speculates about injecting disinfectants to treat COVID-19 - CBS
Doctors reject Trump's dangerous suggestion to use disinfectant as a coronavirus treatment - CNN
Trump Suggests Injecting Disinfectant Into The Body To Treat Coronavirus - MSNBC
And what the President actually said:
"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.
I now realise the real “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is the gold medal worthy mental gymnastics performed by Trump supporters who twist, re-interpret or lie about Trump’s actual words, or just blindly attack the “fake news lame stream media” when they accurately report what he said in order to defend their hero at all costs.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 616
Well, Dre, if you make that conclusion from what Trump actually said (as reported in your post) I don't see how you can call yourself a "reasonable person".
The only suggestion in Trump's question was that it sounded interesting to him.
Actually, it is interesting to me, too: "what is the mechanism of action of disinfectants, and is there a way to apply that on an intracellular or antiviral basis"? That is called "research", and it doesn't sound much crazier than using moldy bread to kill bacteria.
The only suggestion in Trump's question was that it sounded interesting to him.
Actually, it is interesting to me, too: "what is the mechanism of action of disinfectants, and is there a way to apply that on an intracellular or antiviral basis"? That is called "research", and it doesn't sound much crazier than using moldy bread to kill bacteria.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by obgraham
Well, Dre, if you make that conclusion from what Trump actually said (as reported in your post) I don't see how you can call yourself a "reasonable person".
The only suggestion in Trump's question was that it sounded interesting to him.
Actually, it is interesting to me, too: "what is the mechanism of action of disinfectants, and is their a way to apply that on an intracellular or antiviral basis"? That is called "research", and it doesn't sound much crazier than using moldy bread to kill bacteria.
The only suggestion in Trump's question was that it sounded interesting to him.
Actually, it is interesting to me, too: "what is the mechanism of action of disinfectants, and is their a way to apply that on an intracellular or antiviral basis"? That is called "research", and it doesn't sound much crazier than using moldy bread to kill bacteria.
Personally I think anyone would, to a layman seeing/knowing/being told by medical professionals that:
Quote:
"And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute”.
No dispute there.
So, again to a layman, if it can be done outside the body that fast, can , or why can’t it, be done inside the body before it damages the lungs:
“And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that”.
And the caveat from a layman that if indeed it was to proven possible, then it would have to be done under medical supervision:
“so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me”.
Now is it, would it be possible to achieve that result, pretty sure no one knows right now, but it does sound interesting.
To quote Elon Musk, as long as it doesn’t violate the rules of physics, anything can be done, it may be difficult, but not impossible.
Perhaps that might apply to the field of medicine, I would like to think so.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Yakima
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by obgraham
Well, Dre, if you make that conclusion from what Trump actually said (as reported in your post) I don't see how you can call yourself a "reasonable person".
The only suggestion in Trump's question was that it sounded interesting to him.
Actually, it is interesting to me, too: "what is the mechanism of action of disinfectants, and is there a way to apply that on an intracellular or antiviral basis"? That is called "research", and it doesn't sound much crazier than using moldy bread to kill bacteria.
The only suggestion in Trump's question was that it sounded interesting to him.
Actually, it is interesting to me, too: "what is the mechanism of action of disinfectants, and is there a way to apply that on an intracellular or antiviral basis"? That is called "research", and it doesn't sound much crazier than using moldy bread to kill bacteria.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 616
Originally Posted by Winemaker
Oh come on ob, apply Occam's razor, don't be dense. The man is an idiot and spews stuff without thought of consequences and you know it.
Can you at least point me to a nice Washington Viognier?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 54
Posts: 840
Originally Posted by West Coast
Watch CNN do ya?
Originally Posted by obgraham
Is that all you got tonight?
Can you at least point me to a nice Washington Viognier?
Can you at least point me to a nice Washington Viognier?
