Will Trump end up as a 'secondary' president to the GOP?

[Ralin]

I wonder. Trump is banned from Twitter and the other major social media platforms. This happened after the election, but what does happen if he runs again in 2023? Do we just accept that companies like Facebook and Twitter get to bar one of the major candidates from major organizing platforms? Does the ban extend to other people advertising rallies and speeches featuring him?

[Broomstick]

Keep in mind that he was not barred on a whim. He was barred for inciting violence, an offense for which anyone may be banned. He was banned for a reason, not a political bias.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Well, Trump's still got followers who BELIEVE.

I saw a post making the rounds of FB where a very deluded woman explains that "Oh, they couldn't arrest Biden and Harris, it would have caused a Civil War, so they let them get Inaugurated, but TRUMP is really in charge behind the scenes!"

I really hoped it was a parody, but... *SIGH*.

In a (somewhat) more substantive example than random crazies on Facebook, we have this from the Arizona GOP:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/23/politics ... index.html

The Arizona Republican Party sent a clear signal Saturday that its leadership remains loyal to former President Donald Trump when it voted to publicly punish Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, former Sen. Jeff Flake and Cindy McCain, all of whom opposed Trump's efforts to overturn President Joe Biden's victory, or in the case of Flake and McCain, endorsed the Democrat before the election.

...

Kirk Adams, a former state representative and adviser to Ducey, called the actions akin to going down "the rabbit hole of loyalty."
"What we're getting is a purity test, and that purity test is simple: are you loyal to Donald Trump no matter what? If you're not, we'll censure you."
Ward appeared publicly unconcerned about any warnings from moderates, as she spoke to the assembled Arizona Republicans at the Dream City Church in Phoenix. The venue was closed to nearly all reporters, except for a few hand-selected outlets.
Ward ended her speech ahead of the member vote for party chairwoman with, "Make America Great Again!" She then introduced a recorded audio message from Trump, where the former President told members, "I give her my complete and total endorsement."
Ward defeated her challenger by 3 points in two rounds of voting.

Sadly, there's still a lot of "Trump Loyalty Policing" going on. And while some of the fringers turned on him for not pushing the coup hard enough as Crossroads said, he still has a distressing hold on segments of the GOP itself. And a still not-unsubstantial amount of die-hards out there; I saw a Trump Parade just last week going down the Interstate around here.

His influence, toxic as it is, will still be quite some time lingering around the Republican Party. Maybe if McConnell and others vote to convict they can start trying to shuck some of it off. But what's really gong to tell the tale is how the 2018 GOP Primaries go down.

Trumpism is making Trump's acquittal in the Senate increasingly likely. Although, realistically, the odds that he'd suffer any meaningful legal or constitutional consequences from his half-baked coup attempt were already somewhere between zero and imaginary spherical cow error.

Also, with Republicans at the state level continuing their push for one-party authoritarianism the old-fashioned way, Trump has a platform for continuing relevance by pushing "voter ID" and other means of disenfranchising Democratic voters defenses against voter fraud. Although thinly-disguised racism and nativism has always been a core plank of this generation's GOP; so one can readily envision someone smarter and more devoted to those causes than Donald Trump inevitably taking on the white populist mantle.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Do we just accept that companies like Facebook and Twitter get to bar one of the major candidates from major organizing platforms?

Liberals apparently do. I am pretty disturbed at the way so many people are actively celebrating the idea that corporations get to make political decisions by fiat. Even this hand-wringing about "Oh it wasn't political bias, he was inciting violence!" is missing the point. The Economist said it better than I could:

Surely this was acceptable in the face of a mob on the rampage? Legally, private companies can do as they choose. However, some decisions lacked consistency or proportionality. Although Twitter cited a “risk of further incitement of violence” by Mr Trump, the tweets it pointed to did not cross the common legal threshold defining an abuse of the constitutional right to free speech. Meanwhile Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is still on Twitter and death threats are easy to find online. The companies ought to have focused on individual posts for incitement. Instead they have banned people, including the president, pushing fringe voices further from the mainstream. In some cases action was needed, as with Parler’s poorly policed and violent exchanges, but overall there was no clear test for when speech should be banned. The internet’s infrastructure, including cloud-computing services, which should be neutral, risks being drawn into divisive partisan battles.

The other problem is who made the decisions. The tech industry’s concentration means that a few unelected and unaccountable executives are in control. Perhaps their intent really is to protect democracy, but they may also have other, less elevated motives. Some Democrats cheered, but they should evaluate any new speech regime based on its broader application. Otherwise an act that silenced their enemies last week could become a precedent for silencing them in future. The regrets were telling. Angela Merkel, Germany’s leader, said that private firms should not determine speech rules. Alexei Navalny, a Russian dissident, decried an “unacceptable act of censorship”. Even Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s ceo, called it a “dangerous precedent”.

There is a better way to deal with speech online. Making the industry more competitive would help by diluting the clout of individual firms and by stimulating new business models that do not rely on virality. But for as long as the industry is an oligopoly, another approach is needed. The first step is to define a test of what should be censored. In America that should be based on the constitutional protection of speech. If companies want to go further by attaching warnings or limiting legal content they need to be transparent and predictable. Difficult judgments should fall to independent non-statutory boards that give people the right of appeal.

[Ralin]

Even this hand-wringing about "Oh it wasn't political bias, he was inciting violence!" is missing the point.

It also ignores the fact the fact that inciting violence is sometimes totally okay depending on who the targets are. Iraq was still a whole hell of a lot worse and more violent than anything Trump did in office. Nothing like this ever happened to Bush or his administration, then or now.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It also ignores the fact the fact that inciting violence is sometimes totally okay depending on who the targets are. Iraq was still a whole hell of a lot worse and more violent than anything Trump did in office. Nothing like this ever happened to Bush or his administration, then or now.

I'm not totally sure I follow what your point is. Are you saying Bush should be banned from Twitter because of the Iraq war, or are you saying inciting violence against Bush on Twitter would be totally okay? I really don't understand what your point is or how it relates to what we're really talking about.

My point is more that the banning of Trump, regardless of how you feel about whether or not it was the "right" thing to do to ban him, is not only arbitrary (since it isn't the result of the application of any particular consistent or transparent norm or standard) but potentially problematic in the way it sets a nasty precedent with corporate influence.

[Gandalf]

It also ignores the fact the fact that inciting violence is sometimes totally okay depending on who the targets are. Iraq was still a whole hell of a lot worse and more violent than anything Trump did in office. Nothing like this ever happened to Bush or his administration, then or now.

I'm not totally sure I follow what your point is. Are you saying Bush should be banned from Twitter because of the Iraq war, or are you saying inciting violence against Bush on Twitter would be totally okay? I really don't understand what your point is or how it relates to what we're really talking about.

My point is more that the banning of Trump, regardless of how you feel about whether or not it was the "right" thing to do to ban him, is not only arbitrary (since it isn't the result of the application of any particular consistent or transparent norm or standard) but potentially problematic in the way it sets a nasty precedent with corporate influence.

Bush (and regime) incited violence against Iraq through a whole bunch of lies and such. To my knowledge, he hasn't been banned from anything.

[Ralin]

Bush (and regime) incited violence against Iraq through a whole bunch of lies and such. To my knowledge, he hasn't been banned from anything.

Yeah. The fact that inciting insurrection and violence against one country and its government is considered outrageous and bannable and the other is just business as usual for the president speaks volumes about whose laws (and lives) matter more.

[Solauren]

Bush (and regime) incited violence against Iraq through a whole bunch of lies and such. To my knowledge, he hasn't been banned from anything.

It all gets down to 'Terms and Conditions'. Trump probably violated 'Terms and Conditions' of Twitter by inciting criminal actions on Twitter.
In theory, other social media sites could have banned based on 'publically established patterns of behavior'.

Bush (and regime) did not violate the 'Terms and Conditions' of any Social Media platform, as they didn't use them. (Hell, do either ex-President Bush's even have confirmed public social media accounts anywhere).

Hell, someone convicted of murder 20 years ago, could get out tomorrow, set up a social media accounts, and that platform would have no cause to close their accounts. (I'm pretty sure 'Terms and Conditions', that apply to crimes you've completed your sentencing for, were pardoned for, not convicted of, and that occurred before you became a member, would violate laws associated with fair and ethical treatment.)



Now, I've heard people arguing that Trump getting kicked off social media (specifically Twitter) was unfair/wrong/political. But let's stop and consider something -
Trump was banned for tweets that were "in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy".

Therefore, Trump violated the terms and conditions of a business.

They were within their legal rights to ban someone.

Just like Darth Wong is within his legal rights to ban someone from here.
Just like a restaurant is within their legal rights to kick out a customer
Just like the Second-Hand Comic/Toy store I go to is within their rights to kick out problematic individuals.
Just like I'm within my legal rights to kick someone out of my home and off my property.

[Gandalf]

Trump's been violating those terms and conditions for a while though. "Liberate State Name" comes to mind.

Why didn't they ban him then?

[LadyTevar]

Trump's been violating those terms and conditions for a while though. "Liberate State Name" comes to mind.

Why didn't they ban him then?

They were still wrestling with the "He's the President" conundrum at that point, and wondering how much they COULD censor him.
After he lost, game was up.

[Gandalf]

Trump's been violating those terms and conditions for a while though. "Liberate State Name" comes to mind.

Why didn't they ban him then?

They were still wrestling with the "He's the President" conundrum at that point, and wondering how much they COULD censor him.
After he lost, game was up.

He was still president when they banned him.

[Ralin]

It all gets down to 'Terms and Conditions'. Trump probably violated 'Terms and Conditions' of Twitter by inciting criminal actions on Twitter.
In theory, other social media sites could have banned based on 'publically established patterns of behavior'.

Bush (and regime) did not violate the 'Terms and Conditions' of any Social Media platform, as they didn't use them. (Hell, do either ex-President Bush's even have confirmed public social media accounts anywhere).

Pretty sure the invasion of Iraq and execution of Saddam Hussein violated a number of Iraqi laws.

Now, I've heard people arguing that Trump getting kicked off social media (specifically Twitter) was unfair/wrong/political. But let's stop and consider something -
Trump was banned for tweets that were "in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy".

Cool, so will Biden be kicked off Twitter if he threatens war with Iran or North Korea? How about any members of Congress who run for office on a tough on crime or pro-death penalty platform? What about violating other laws, like advocating for Taiwanese and Hong Kong separatism or supporting anti-government forces in Syria?

Therefore, Trump violated the terms and conditions of a business.

They were within their legal rights to ban someone.

Just like Darth Wong is within his legal rights to ban someone from here.
Just like a restaurant is within their legal rights to kick out a customer
Just like the Second-Hand Comic/Toy store I go to is within their rights to kick out problematic individuals.
Just like I'm within my legal rights to kick someone out of my home and off my property.

You, Wong and your toy store don't have the ability to shift the course of presidential elections. I don't see anyone talking about regulating any of those as public utilities.

He was still president when they banned him.

And declaring that he personally is still the president and calling for violence against people trying to remove him is very much a political act.

[Zaune]

Trump's been violating those terms and conditions for a while though. "Liberate State Name" comes to mind.

Why didn't they ban him then?

Plausible deniability. On previous occasions he could still claim that he hadn't meant it that literally, and it would be hard to prove to the contrary... and it might even have been true, since it's only in the last year or so that his dementia has progressed from "the writing's on the wall but he's still able to sort of muddle through" to "well past the point where his staff can cover for him anymore".

[Solauren]

It all gets down to 'Terms and Conditions'. Trump probably violated 'Terms and Conditions' of Twitter by inciting criminal actions on Twitter.
In theory, other social media sites could have banned based on 'publically established patterns of behavior'.

Bush (and regime) did not violate the 'Terms and Conditions' of any Social Media platform, as they didn't use them. (Hell, do either ex-President Bush's even have confirmed public social media accounts anywhere).

Pretty sure the invasion of Iraq and execution of Saddam Hussein violated a number of Iraqi laws.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? This is not about the law.
Show me where Bush, as a user of Facebook or Twitter, violated their Terms and Conditions, (meaning he had to do so ON FACEBOOK or TWITTER) in calling for the second Iraq-US War. Good luck with that, because Twitter didn't even exist to 2006.

Now, I've heard people arguing that Trump getting kicked off social media (specifically Twitter) was unfair/wrong/political. But let's stop and consider something -
Trump was banned for tweets that were "in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy".

Cool, so will Biden be kicked off Twitter if he threatens war with Iran or North Korea?

That's actually an interesting question upon consideration. Would an acting President calling for military action, or threatening military action, something that is within his legal powers to do, actually constitute a violation of Twitter's 'Terms and Conditions' if he did so on Twitter?
(By comparison, the President has no legal power to call for a insurrection, riots, or an attempted overthrow of their own government)

I don't care to venture a guess on that. I can imagine it could get ugly.

However, I also can't see Biden actually using Twitter in that way. Makes for an interesting thought experiment.

How about any members of Congress who run for office on a tough on crime or pro-death penalty platform?

That is also an interesting question. It's not a direct call for 'Glorification of Violence', but it could be seen as an action that could lead to more violence, and peoples death. (Even if that violence and death were in fact 'legal'.) Therefore, it could be seen as a violation of the policy.

What about violating other laws, like advocating for Taiwanese and Hong Kong separatism or supporting anti-government forces in Syria?

Again, an interesting question. And a complicated one when you consider we're now dealing with US laws (where Twitter is based), International Laws, and potentially laws of other countries (in your examples, China and Syria).

Therefore, Trump violated the terms and conditions of a business. (Snip)

You, Wong and your toy store don't have the ability to shift the course of presidential elections. I don't see anyone talking about regulating any of those as public utilities.

[/quote]
No, but the legal principals are the same. And quite frankly, if there was any serious move to regulate them as public utilities, the US government would be up for a legal fight I don't think they could win. They'd have to buy Twitter outright to do that, and that move would drive Twitter stock value up massively. However, that' neither here not there. (See below)

As for affecting presidental elections. People literally begged Trump to stop using Twitter to prevent that. His fault, not Twitters.

Now, it seems to be, the easiest method to deal with this would be...
For Twitter to ban all political posts from their service. Including posts by elected officials, or those running for office. Full Stop.
No argument, no discussion. Just a simple message and an update to their Terms and Conditions.

i.e
"In an attempt to be politically balance, Twitter is now banning all political posts, discussion, or related content from our service.
While this maybe be considered an attack on free speech, Twitter must take into account the impact that such content can have, and on scales.
Twitter must also take into account it's accessibility, and therefore operations, in multiple international jurisdictions.
This is simply the most direct manner to deal with this issue."

[Gandalf]

Trump's been violating those terms and conditions for a while though. "Liberate State Name" comes to mind.

Why didn't they ban him then?

Plausible deniability. On previous occasions he could still claim that he hadn't meant it that literally, and it would be hard to prove to the contrary... and it might even have been true, since it's only in the last year or so that his dementia has progressed from "the writing's on the wall but he's still able to sort of muddle through" to "well past the point where his staff can cover for him anymore".

Is that based on anything, or just a guess on your part?

[Zaune]

Is that based on anything, or just a guess on your part?

It's not a professional medical opinion, but I think it's a reasonable extrapolation given that he started wittering on about intravenous disinfectant as a COVID cure in a press conference: He was already showing signs back in 2016 but he wasn't that far gone.

[Gandalf]

Is that based on anything, or just a guess on your part?

It's not a professional medical opinion, but I think it's a reasonable extrapolation given that he started wittering on about intravenous disinfectant as a COVID cure in a press conference: He was already showing signs back in 2016 but he wasn't that far gone.

And the "plausible deniability" part?

[Zaune]

Ah. Yeah, that would be what I'd like to think is an educated guess, on the basis that if Twitter booted everyone who's ever got carried away and used language in the heat of the moment that could be construed as advocating violence if taken out of context -or construed as such in context by someone who's actively trying to make the facts fit their preconceived notions- then they'd have no userbase left.

But if some hot-headed idiot running their mouth results in an angry mob breaking down the door of a government building and nearly getting into a shootout with the police, they can't really give the instigator the benefit of the doubt anymore; in fact there is no more doubt to give them the benefit of.

That said, the fact that Trump was President is a complicating factor as well. There have been court rulings to the effect that public officials cannot block members of the public from their official social media unless they cross the line into harrassment or threats, as opposed to refusing to accept an evasive answer to a question about a public issue; it's quite likely that the same logic would apply to preventing a public official using social media to communicate with their constituents without cause if it got as far as the courts.

[Gandalf]

Ah. Yeah, that would be what I'd like to think is an educated guess, on the basis that if Twitter booted everyone who's ever got carried away and used language in the heat of the moment that could be construed as advocating violence if taken out of context -or construed as such in context by someone who's actively trying to make the facts fit their preconceived notions- then they'd have no userbase left.

And?

But if some hot-headed idiot running their mouth results in an angry mob breaking down the door of a government building and nearly getting into a shootout with the police, they can't really give the instigator the benefit of the doubt anymore; in fact there is no more doubt to give them the benefit of.

Something like this?

17/4: Trump tweets "Liberate Michigan."

30/4: Armed Trump mob try to storm the Michigan legislature. Some of them are later charged with trying to kidnap the governor.

1/5: Trump tweets in favour of the Trump mob, stating that the Michigan government should make a deal.

That said, the fact that Trump was President is a complicating factor as well. There have been court rulings to the effect that public officials cannot block members of the public from their official social media unless they cross the line into harrassment or threats, as opposed to refusing to accept an evasive answer to a question about a public issue; it's quite likely that the same logic would apply to preventing a public official using social media to communicate with their constituents without cause if it got as far as the courts.

So should he have been bumped after leaving office instead?

[Solauren]

Ah. Yeah, that would be what I'd like to think is an educated guess, on the basis that if Twitter booted everyone who's ever got carried away and used language in the heat of the moment that could be construed as advocating violence if taken out of context -or construed as such in context by someone who's actively trying to make the facts fit their preconceived notions- then they'd have no userbase left.

Twitter does boot people that get carried away. It doesn't seem to be affecting their userbase very much.

After all, Twitter has 321 million active users (as February 2019, according to Wikipedia).
For comparison, the United States has an estimated population of 330,052,960 (2020)

[LaCroix]

US company was afraid booting the current US president off their service for repeated violations of the TOS might lead to retributions from said president who is known to be petty and prone to rash act of revenge, and only acted when said president was blatantly doing it again while already been voted out, created a public outrage with it, and said vote was certified shortly after he did so...

News at 11.

Anyone arguing why Twitter did not ban him before is just being obtuse for the sake of it.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

US company was afraid booting the current US president off their service for repeated violations of the TOS might lead to retributions from said president who is known to be petty and prone to rash act of revenge, and only acted when said president was blatantly doing it again while already been voted out, created a public outrage with it, and said vote was certified shortly after he did so...

News at 11.

Anyone arguing why Twitter did not ban him before is just being obtuse for the sake of it.

It's simpler than that. Twitter didn't ban Trump until the optics of keeping him around got bad enough to outweigh the user engagement (and thus ad revenue) he drove to their platform. Until that point, they were more than happy to turn a blind eye to his behavior on the platform.

But anyway ...

As for an answer to the original question: "Will Trump end up as a 'secondary' president to the GOP?"
The answer increasingly appears to be "yes." State and local Republican Parties (such as ones in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Washington State, Oregon, and Wyoming) are censuring lawmakers who are deemed as being insufficiently-loyal to Trump and Trumpism.

Worse, professional shit-gibbon Rand Paul forced a Senate vote on whether impeaching Trump is even constitutional Tuesday. The result: Only five Republicans voted 'yes'

This vote was seen as something of a harbinger of how the Senate might ultimately vote in the impeachment trial itself. And right now, it shows that, at most, five Republicans might vote to convict Trump. That is at least twelve fewer than is needed.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I'm guessing the bullshit excuse the Republicans who won't vote to convict will be that since he's already left office, it doesn't matter?

[Zaune]

I must admit I'm confused as to how impeaching an ex-President works, legally speaking. Can he not be prosecuted for misconduct in office as a private citizen now that he's left?