The president of the United States has been de-platformed by Facebook and Twitter

Donald Trump has been suspended from Twitter and Facebook after tweeting to supporters who attacked the US Capitol.

In a social media message to protesters he said "I love you" before telling them to go home. He also repeated false claims about election fraud.

Twitter said it required the removal of three tweets for "severe violations of our Civic Integrity policy".

The company said the president's account would remain locked for good if the tweets were not removed.

It went on to say that "Future violations of the Twitter Rules... will result in permanent suspension of the @realDonaldTrump account".

It means Donald Trump's days on Twitter could be numbered. The president is not known for paying much attention to Twitter's community guidelines.

Meanwhile, Facebook banned Mr Trump for 24 hours. YouTube also removed the video.

Facebook said: "We removed it because on balance we believe it contributes to rather than diminishes the risk of ongoing violence."


Wow.

He's an amateur. I've been given several bans by Facebook.

They are 24-hour bans, at best. They love Trump...he's good for business.

Original Quill wrote:They are 24-hour bans, at best.  They love Trump...he's good for business.

He just got banned for 2 weeks.

Beats my record of 3 days.

Makes one wonder how The Donald will spend the rest of his life
when he's been unbanned. Will anyone care a fish's tit was he tweets about? Seriousy?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:They are 24-hour bans, at best.  They love Trump...he's good for business.

He just got banned for 2 weeks.  

Beats my record of 3 days.  

I was banned from Twitter before I  had even worked out how it worked

Do I win?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Makes one wonder how The Donald will spend the rest of his life
when he's been unbanned. Will anyone care a fish's tit was he tweets about? Seriousy?

Hopefully, they won't allow social media in prison. Too many possibilities...

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

He just got banned for 2 weeks.  

Beats my record of 3 days.  

I was banned from Twitter before I  had even worked out how it worked

Do I win?

Deleting yourself by mistake isn't the same as being banned.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Makes one wonder how The Donald will spend the rest of his life
when he's been unbanned. Will anyone care a fish's tit was he tweets about? Seriousy?

Probably. His followers are pretty loyal.

It will take a wholesale rebuke from the Republican Party to make him mostly inconsequential.

Right now its about 50-50.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

I was banned from Twitter before I  had even worked out how it worked

Do I win?

Deleting yourself by mistake isn't the same as being banned.

I was suspended.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Deleting yourself by mistake isn't the same as being banned.

I was suspended.

Girl, you don't have the attitude to get suspended by Twitter.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
I was suspended.

Girl, you don't have the attitude to get suspended by Twitter.

Well I didn't suspend myself.

I get the " Your account is suspended"  message, followed by....


In order to maintain a safe environment for users on Twitter, we may suspend accounts that violate the Twitter Rules. Common reasons for suspension may include:


and a whole list of things i might have done to earn the suspnsion.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Girl, you don't have the attitude to get suspended by Twitter.

Well I didn't suspend myself.

I get the " Your account is suspended"  message, followed by....


In order to maintain a safe environment for users on Twitter, we may suspend accounts that violate the Twitter Rules. Common reasons for suspension may include:


and a whole list of things i might have done to earn the suspnsion.

I'm not on Twitter so I don't know what you did wrong. Get someone like your grandson to tell you what you did. Were you using a proxy from China to register?

Maddog wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Makes one wonder how The Donald will spend the rest of his life
when he's been unbanned. Will anyone care a fish's tit was he tweets about? Seriousy?

Probably. His followers are pretty loyal.

It will take a wholesale rebuke from the Republican Party to make him mostly inconsequential.

Right now its about 50-50.  

All I've seen so far is Republicans being deemed part of "the deep state" if they even mildly or slightly contradict Trump.

I think it's his party now, and anti-Trumpers would be better off in a different party.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
Well I didn't suspend myself.

I get the " Your account is suspended"  message, followed by....


In order to maintain a safe environment for users on Twitter, we may suspend accounts that violate the Twitter Rules. Common reasons for suspension may include:


and a whole list of things i might have done to earn the suspnsion.

I'm not on Twitter so I don't know what you did wrong. Get someone like your grandson to tell you what you did. Were you using a proxy from China to register?

I wouldn't know how to use a proxy, Chinese or otherwise if it smacked me in the face.
I always use my own ip.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Probably. His followers are pretty loyal.

It will take a wholesale rebuke from the Republican Party to make him mostly inconsequential.

Right now its about 50-50.  

All I've seen so far is Republicans being deemed part of "the deep state" if they even mildly or slightly contradict Trump.

I think it's his party now, and anti-Trumpers would be better off in a different party.

Nah, watch. He's going to be a pariah soon, at least to the politicians. His supporters will continue until they get bored and find some other crazy shit to latch on to.

But I do think the Republican party has some serious soul searching to do. Maybe stealing all of those dumb voters from the democrats wasn't such a good idea.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm not on Twitter so I don't know what you did wrong. Get someone like your grandson to tell you what you did. Were you using a proxy from China to register?

I wouldn't know how to use a proxy, Chinese or otherwise if it smacked me in the face.
I always use my own ip.

Well, then the only other explanation is that you posted some midget porn.

You're freaky.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:


I wouldn't know how to use a proxy, Chinese or otherwise if it smacked me in the face.
I always use my own ip.

Well, then the only other explanation is that you posted some midget porn.

You're freaky.

Why would anyone discriminate against little people?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Probably. His followers are pretty loyal.

It will take a wholesale rebuke from the Republican Party to make him mostly inconsequential.

Right now its about 50-50.  

All I've seen so far is Republicans being deemed part of "the deep state" if they even mildly or slightly contradict Trump.

I think it's his party now, and anti-Trumpers would be better off in a different party.

There is a special sub-section of the Republican Party, which Trump refers to as 'Never-Trumpers'. Also, there are RINO's...Republicans In Name Only, meant to indicate that they have breached the faith and are now outside in the cold. The Republican Party has now coalesced completely around Trump and his craziness.

But internal sub-sections, all referential to the Trump brand, means that the institutionalization of the Republican Party is totally Trump-oriented. Anyway, what's there to go back to? Liars who start wars and champion rape and torture? Elitists who run the crack-cocaine trade in south/central Los Angeles to fund Nicaraguan contras? These are all official projects started by Republican administrations, and give definition to the organization. Is Trumpism an improvement, or rock-bottom?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Probably. His followers are pretty loyal.

It will take a wholesale rebuke from the Republican Party to make him mostly inconsequential.

Right now its about 50-50.  

All I've seen so far is Republicans being deemed part of "the deep state" if they even mildly or slightly contradict Trump.

I think it's his party now, and anti-Trumpers would be better off in a different party.

Nah, watch. He's going to be a pariah soon, at least to the politicians. His supporters will continue until they get bored and find some other crazy shit to latch on to.  

But I do think the Republican party has some serious soul searching to do.  Maybe stealing all of those dumb voters from the democrats wasn't such a good idea.  

It was a horrible idea, to be sure. As far as the next Trump, the closest I can think of to someone who could claim that mantle in the near future would have to be Sarah Palin. She's already got the unhinged, off the cuff speech thing nailed, and I'm pretty sure she agrees with Trump on most issues.

Even she doesn't have the narcissism or the mythology, though. Plus we have to refer to her as "she" and "her," which probably doesn't help her with a good number of Trumpies.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Probably. His followers are pretty loyal.

It will take a wholesale rebuke from the Republican Party to make him mostly inconsequential.

Right now its about 50-50.  

All I've seen so far is Republicans being deemed part of "the deep state" if they even mildly or slightly contradict Trump.

I think it's his party now, and anti-Trumpers would be better off in a different party.

There is a special sub-section of the Republican Party, which Trump refers to as 'Never-Trumpers'.  Also, there are RINO's...Republicans In Name Only, meant to indicate that they have breached the faith and are now outside in the cold.  The Republican Party has now coalesced completely around Trump and his craziness.

But internal sub-sections, all referential to the Trump brand, means that the institutionalization of the Republican Party is totally Trump-oriented.  Anyway, what's there to go back to?  Liars who start wars and champion rape and torture?  Elitists who run the crack-cocaine trade in south/central Los Angeles to fund Nicaraguan contras?  These are all official projects started by Republican administrations, and give definition to the organization.  Is Trumpism an improvement, or rock-bottom?

It's quite easy to see how the GOP has been in decline ever since, as Maddog pointed out elsewhere, it inherited the racist former Democrats in the 1960s over civil rights for blacks.

Nixon was terrible. Reagan was terrible. George H.W. Bush was okay, but too much of a do-nothing. His son was shit. After his son, the true spirit of the party began to make itself obvious, and was quickly embodied in Sarah Palin.

This was already a party, in 2008, that was never going to be satisified with the likes of John McCain, Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush ever again. It was waiting, positively thirsting for Donald Trump to come along and tell the rank-and-file, social-issues-voting Republican that he was right -- straight white Christian men were the true victims, and yet somehow superior at the same time. He told them not to be ashamed of their bigotry, but rather, to be proud of it.

Trump will be the one true love of these people's political lives, and every other would-be American white nationalist dictator will probably pale in comparison to Trump.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There is a special sub-section of the Republican Party, which Trump refers to as 'Never-Trumpers'.  Also, there are RINO's...Republicans In Name Only, meant to indicate that they have breached the faith and are now outside in the cold.  The Republican Party has now coalesced completely around Trump and his craziness.

But internal sub-sections, all referential to the Trump brand, means that the institutionalization of the Republican Party is totally Trump-oriented.  Anyway, what's there to go back to?  Liars who start wars and champion rape and torture?  Elitists who run the crack-cocaine trade in south/central Los Angeles to fund Nicaraguan contras?  These are all official projects started by Republican administrations, and give definition to the organization.  Is Trumpism an improvement, or rock-bottom?

It's quite easy to see how the GOP has been in decline ever since, as Maddog pointed out elsewhere, it inherited the racist former Democrats in the 1960s over civil rights for blacks.

Nixon was terrible. Reagan was terrible. George H.W. Bush was okay, but too much of a do-nothing. His son was shit. After his son, the true spirit of the party began to make itself obvious, and was quickly embodied in Sarah Palin.

This was already a party, in 2008, that was never going to be satisfied with the likes of John McCain, Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush ever again. It was waiting, positively thirsting for Donald Trump to come along and tell the rank-and-file, social-issues-voting Republican that he was right -- straight white Christian men were the true victims, and yet somehow superior at the same time. He told them not to be ashamed of their bigotry, but rather, to be proud of it.

Trump will be the one true love of these people's political lives, and every other would-be American white nationalist dictator will probably pale in comparison to Trump.

Xlnt post...we think alike about this.  Except I go back further than you, back to the late 1800’s, when the progressive wing of the Republican Party started being squeezed out.  During the Hayes to McKinley era (the gilded age) Republicans became less concerned about rights, and more concerned about money.  It culminated in the 1910 election, when Theodore Roosevelt abandoned the Republican Party.

Since the GOP is based on a belief in wealth, and that those who succeed in that are the real "conservatives", Republicans have been devoted to special interests (things that favor the wealthy).  [There might be religious overtones, as early Calvinist and Puritan religions believed in predestination, and nothing shows godliness more than success here on earth.]

The problem with emphasis on wealth is, we have a system based on votes, not money.  A system based on votes puts a premium on the common man, while Republicans are placing their bets on wealthy men.  There are only so many millionaires in the world (or nation), and to depend on them for votes yields diminishing returns.

This creates an emphasis on deception.  Republicans have had to appear to be what they are not, in order to be on the correct side and pick-up votes.  Ergo: enter the era of habitual lying in Republicanism.  Starting with Eisenhower (denying U2 flights), lying became an art form in Republican circles.  Nixon polished the art, and Bush I (as head of the CIA) perfected it, and Bush II was too dumb to curb proteges who had developed the lie under Reagan, particularly VP Cheney.  And Trump…shit, he doesn’t even know it is wrong.

Picking up the southern vote (you call it: “Democrats in the 1960s over civil rights for blacks...”; I call it: the "southern strategy") was a tactical move led primarily by Lee Atwater, Republican strategist, in the 1960-70’s.  It was a brilliant, but dangerous move.  He had to know that the north/south thing was a rift bigger than the Great African Rift, in East Africa.  It had already ignited one civil war.  As I’ve said elsewhere, it is the permanent rift of the US, and unless we can invent a chemical to reeducate the south, they are perfectly content to live with the universal immorality of their racism.  It will be the death of the American experiment.

I agree with your assessment, and the Southern Strategy has indeed been the downfall of the GOP -- the original idea was to dog-whistle racist attitudes to voters so that they'd know what the Republican candidate meant even if others took such statements more lightly. But I believe that starting with George W. Bush (who I actually believe to be, in a nutshell, a well-meaning fool without a racist bone in his body), the Republican electorate has craved a candidate who expresses bigotry bluntly, as Trump does.

I think the catalyst for this was the 9/11 attacks, which probably made a lot of bigots feel as though they were right to categorize people into good or bad on the basis of perceived cultural and genetic differences.

That, by the way, was the first step on the ladder to where we are now, in which the global right has increasingly embraced the White Genocide Theory. That got a huge boost when a scattering of refugees fleeing ISIS committed crimes throughout European countries. That's a big reason right-wing groups in majority-white European countries embrace Trump nearly as fervently as they do in America; his message that "the other is evil, and we're righteous."

One other thing twe haven't mentioned hat has fucked the Republican Party over, ironically, comes from the election of Jimmy Carter. Though he's a Democrat, he also holds the distinction of being the first president elected largely due to the support he held among politically organized Christian groups, who were then enthusiastically pursued and won over by Reagan in his campaign against Carter and would go on to hold outsize influence in the party.

Ben Reilly wrote:I agree with your assessment, and the Southern Strategy has indeed been the downfall of the GOP -- the original idea was to dog-whistle racist attitudes to voters so that they'd know what the Republican candidate meant even if others took such statements more lightly. But I believe that starting with George W. Bush (who I actually believe to be, in a nutshell, a well-meaning fool without a racist bone in his body), the Republican electorate has craved a candidate who expresses bigotry bluntly, as Trump does.

I think the catalyst for this was the 9/11 attacks, which probably made a lot of bigots feel as though they were right to categorize people into good or bad on the basis of perceived cultural and genetic differences.

That, by the way, was the first step on the ladder to where we are now, in which the global right has increasingly embraced the White Genocide Theory. That got a huge boost when a scattering of refugees fleeing ISIS committed crimes throughout European countries. That's a big reason right-wing groups in majority-white European countries embrace Trump nearly as fervently as they do in America; his message that "the other is evil, and we're righteous."

One other thing twe haven't mentioned hat has fucked the Republican Party over, ironically, comes from the election of Jimmy Carter. Though he's a Democrat, he also holds the distinction of being the first president elected largely due to the support he held among politically organized Christian groups, who were then enthusiastically pursued and won over by Reagan in his campaign against Carter and would go on to hold outsize influence in the party.

It wasn't hard for Reagan to take votes from Carter. I keep forgetting that you're too young to remember how low of a point the US had sunk to during his administration.

Reagan carried 44 states and destroyed Carter.

When Carter's VP took on Reagan in 84, Reagan carried 49 states.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There is a special sub-section of the Republican Party, which Trump refers to as 'Never-Trumpers'.  Also, there are RINO's...Republicans In Name Only, meant to indicate that they have breached the faith and are now outside in the cold.  The Republican Party has now coalesced completely around Trump and his craziness.

But internal sub-sections, all referential to the Trump brand, means that the institutionalization of the Republican Party is totally Trump-oriented.  Anyway, what's there to go back to?  Liars who start wars and champion rape and torture?  Elitists who run the crack-cocaine trade in south/central Los Angeles to fund Nicaraguan contras?  These are all official projects started by Republican administrations, and give definition to the organization.  Is Trumpism an improvement, or rock-bottom?

It's quite easy to see how the GOP has been in decline ever since, as Maddog pointed out elsewhere, it inherited the racist former Democrats in the 1960s over civil rights for blacks.

Nixon was terrible. Reagan was terrible. George H.W. Bush was okay, but too much of a do-nothing. His son was shit. After his son, the true spirit of the party began to make itself obvious, and was quickly embodied in Sarah Palin.

This was already a party, in 2008, that was never going to be satisified with the likes of John McCain, Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush ever again. It was waiting, positively thirsting for Donald Trump to come along and tell the rank-and-file, social-issues-voting Republican that he was right -- straight white Christian men were the true victims, and yet somehow superior at the same time. He told them not to be ashamed of their bigotry, but rather, to be proud of it.

Trump will be the one true love of these people's political lives, and every other would-be American white nationalist dictator will probably pale in comparison to Trump.

Actually, that's not what I said. I said dumb voters.

Racists are dumb.

Ben Reilly wrote:Racists are dumb.

But not all dumb people are racists.

I don't think Quill is a racist.

Although, he does have some weird opinions about Eastern Europeans.

Let me amend what I said: Racism is dumb. But there are clever people who have racist beliefs. But those beliefs are dumb.

Maddog wrote:Although, he does have some weird opinions about Eastern Europeans.

Racism, or its parent, bigotry, ties congenital characteristics to judgments. For example, one might say "all blacks are dumb, but good dancers". Or, one might say "all Asians are good a math, but lousy at sports". It's unfair because you are condemning the race for something they can't help.

With eastern Europeans, or in fact southerners, I am judging the zeitgeist, not the immutable characteristic. A zeitgeist is the "the defining spirit or mood of a particular group, at a particular time". Since it involves choice, I think it is fair to judge.

The zeitgeist of the south is its racism. The zeitgeist of eastern Europe is trafficking in young girls for prostitution. I despise racism and I despise human trafficking, and I am within my rights to judge, as it is their choice to be racists or human traffickers.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Although, he does have some weird opinions about Eastern Europeans.

Racism, or its parent, bigotry, ties congenital characteristics to judgments.  For example, one might say "all blacks are dumb, but good dancers".  Or, one might say "all Asians are good a math, but lousy at sports".  It's unfair because you are condemning the race for something they can't help.

With eastern Europeans, or in fact southerners, I am judging the zeitgeist, not the immutable characteristic.  A zeitgeist is the "the defining spirit or mood of a particular group, at a particular time".  Since it involves choice, I think it is fair to judge.

The zeitgeist of the south is its racism.  The zeitgeist of eastern Europe is trafficking in young girls for prostitution.  I despise racism and I despise human trafficking, and I am within my rights to judge, as it is their choice to be racists or human traffickers.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Racists are dumb.

But not all dumb people are racists.

I don't think Quill is a racist.

I take back my second comment.

He's a bigot.

Maddog wrote:

Maddog wrote:

But not all dumb people are racists.

I don't think Quill is a racist.

I take back my second comment.

He's a bigot.

I gather you subscribe to the "all blacks are dumb" thesis.  Thought so.

Southerners!

Trump is defo intending to go out with a bang as many predicted  - including his niece who gave many prior warnings.

His SCORCHED EARTH policy that we see unfolding in front of our eyes, attests to that.

Pardoning a whole bunch of criminals including killers - and of course all his criminal friends .... While  simultaneously signing death warrants for another lot.

Throwing all his loyal political colleagues - one by one - under a bus.

Then as a grand finale he whipped up his groupies into a frenzy, to commit high treason in plain sight!!  His last Hurrah.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I take back my second comment.

He's a bigot.

I gather you subscribe to the "all blacks are dumb" thesis.  Thought so.

Southerners!  

I subscribe to the "you're a mealy mouthed dickhead" thesis.

To respond would be gratuitous.