Jump to content
270soft Forum

If Trump were banned from Twitter....


If Trump Were Banned from Twitter Poll  

32 members have voted

  1. 1. If Trump were banned from Twitter for flagrantly violatng their policy his approval rating would....

    • It would go up if he were banned. (44% or higher)
    • It would go down if he were banned. (41% or lower)
    • It would stay about the same, if he were banned. (roughly 42 to 43% approval)
  2. 2. Could Twitter throw the elections in Democrats favor if they banned Trump the day before election day if the race were close?

    • Yes
    • No, it would Trump.
    • It would make no difference
  3. 3. Should Trump face the same consequences as all other Twitter users if he violates the rules?

    • Yes
    • No. Presidents should be above the typical Twitter user rules.
  4. 4. Do you think think Trump's rhetoric on Twitter is a problem?

    • Yes.
    • No
    • Doesn't bother me, but it could be.


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, vcczar said:

New poll

Twitter is a cesspool as it is. It always has been. I've never had an account, and have no intention to, but since newsfeeds and forums are always various people's Twitter posts, it's reputation is highly apparent to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Patine said:

Twitter is a cesspool as it is. It always has been. I've never had an account, and have no intention to, but since newsfeeds and forums are always various people's Twitter posts, it's reputation is highly apparent to me.

How do you know that it has always been a cesspool if you've never had an account? I use it regularly and it doesn't seem any better or worse than this forum, especially if you don't look at the comments on the posts. I follow primarly experts and such, so I get a lot of useful information. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think banning Trump would only make a difference right before election day. This is because they'd ban him only if he went way beyond what he's already said. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason I voted No is because while what he says is fucking absurd, offensive, downright grotesque. The American people should be allowed that window into the terrible things that really do run through his mind. Every time he tweets it reminds the regret-a-Trumps like me just how awful he is inside and out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Twitter has made a mistake here.  Yes, Trump's twitter account is absolutely vile on almost any given day -- but people need to be able to see how vile, and stupid, and incompetent he is.  If Trump is willing to broadcast that on Twitter, I say let him.  Let the people see what a whiny bitch he truly is.

If Trump had never had a Twitter account, his approval rating would be much higher as most Americans wouldn't be exposed to his direct thoughts as often without them being filtered through other members of his administration and thus might believe that things were generally going okay.  

But now?  Too late.  Everybody knows who he is now (thanks to Twitter) -- if he never tweeted again, we'd still know exactly who he is.  That goes for his supporters and detractors alike.

I say Twitter should let Trump do as he will, and let his own tweets blow up in his face on election day.


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

The reason I voted No is because while what he says is fucking absurd, offensive, downright grotesque. The American people should be allowed that window into the terrible things that really do run through his mind. Every time he tweets it reminds the regret-a-Trumps like me just how awful he is inside and out.

That's a very good point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is just one reason why I will never use Twitter. The other reason being the neo-Nazi hordes. Believe me, it would do us all a favour if they banned them all!

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Wiw said:

He is just one reason why I will never use Twitter. The other reason being the neo-Nazi hordes. Believe me, it would do us all a favour if they banned them all!

Actual people in the world today who truly qualify, ideologically, as "Neo-Nazis," or "Fascists," by proper definition are actually a tiny minority of the population. However, the word is hyperbolically, irresponsibly, and vitriolically thrown around as political invective in the same way as when Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly (and @servo75, for that matter) call Obama and the Clintons "Communists." These terms have specific and narrow meaning - they are NOT just general purpose terms. "Trumpism," and "New Left Progressivism," (although saying that Hillary Clinton is ideologically part of the latter is really pushing unrealistic views and expectations for her, and Bill Clinton only ever embraced such viewpoints in his post-White House philanthropy, and even Obama showed reluctance at first for embracing many of those ideas), are new, modern movements, unprecedented and in the modern context, and not at all related to "Fascism," or "Communism," in origin or application at all, really. The two older terms are only chosen to be tossed around for their historical baggage to make an emotional impact, but the fact is, they're not really applicable, and using them hurts and distorts any socio-political discourse (not like that's not done already in so many ridiculous ways as is).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CentristGuy said:

The Twitter issue is yet again the #Resistance doing counter productive actions that leads to losing Elections. 

Of course, using the label "Resistance," the collective name of the French underground in France itself (as opposed to the Free French abroad and in the French colonies) desperately fighting Hitler's occupation and Petain's sell-out collaboration State to conflate with people making an campaign criticism and a few protests is not at all a gross exaggeration of what's going on or just how competent or much power, direct affect, or AMBITION Trump seems to have, or a disconnect of the situation, reality, perspective, and proportion, is it? :wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Wiw said:

Not really, considering the guy silences people he doesn't like and has very disturbing policies and ideologies.

As horrid as he is, and as monstrous as he is as a President, who has Trump successfully "silenced," or "censored," among his political opponents, if I may ask? I am not of him doing so successfully once that is on record (only wistfully declaring he'd like to). There have been terrifying and monstrous world leaders across the 20th and even 21st Centuries thus far who have "silenced," and "censored," those whose who spoke against them ruthlessly. But, for all of his horrid flaws, Trump has never, to my been knowledge, been of them (despite ranting about it from time to time, and using such buzzwords as "fake news," - despite the fact I'm absolutely convinced that if weren't for the American media focusing intently on him in the 2016 election and giving all that free coverage and effective advertising space - however negative it was mostly meant to me toward him - he would NEVER have won the GOP Primaries and certainly not the GE).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...