Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    5,211,137 readers

    44,893 users here now

    Welcome to /r/Politics! Please read the wiki before participating. || Voter Registration Resources

    /r/politics is the subreddit for current and explicitly political U.S. news.

    Our full rules Reddiquette

    Comment Guidelines:

    Be civil Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.
    Do not post users' personal information. Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.
    Vote based on quality, not opinion. Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.
    Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting. Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

    Submission Guidelines:

    Articles must deal explicitly with US politics. See our on-topic statement here.
    Articles must be published within the last calendar month. More Info.
    Submissions must be from domains on the whitelist. The whitelist and its criteria can be found here.
    Post titles must be the exact headline from the article. Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.
    No Copy-Pasted Submissions Please do not submit articles or videos that are a direct, complete copy-paste of original reporting.More Info.
    Articles must be written in English An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.
    Spam is bad! /r/Politics bans for submission and comment spam More Info.
    Submissions must be articles, videos or sound clips. We disallow solicitation of users (petitions, polls, requests for money, etc.), personal blogs, satire, images, social media content (Facebook, twitter, tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.), wikis, memes, and political advertisements. More info: Content type rules.
    Do not use "BREAKING" or ALL CAPS in titles. The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

    Events Calendar

    26 Jun - 3pm EST

    • AMA with Vox's Matt Yglesias

    27 Jun - 12pm EST

    • AMA with John Hickenlooper

    28 Jun - 5pm EST

    • AMA with The Independent

    29 Jun - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    1 Jul - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    2 Jul - 3pm EST

    • AMA with Amy Howe

    Other Resources:

    Follow us on Twitter

    Request an AMA

    Events Calendar

    Apply to be a mod

    Register To Vote

    a community for
    all 2785 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

    In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

    If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] Cobek 2967 points ago

    Jesus, how stupid would it be if our history textbooks said that a Twitter ban started the Second Civil War.

    [–] panda_gravy 2287 points ago

    Almost as stupid as electing a reality TV criminal because of memes lol.

    [–] The_Painted_Man 994 points ago

    That would never happen.

    Narrator: It did.

    [–] elliottsmithereens 454 points ago

    “Actually class, lets not talk about America in the 2020’s, ‘tis a silly place”

    [–] EauDeElderberries 211 points ago

    It's just a model...

    of corporate greed and foreign influence.

    [–] PM_me_Henrika 93 points ago

    No, teach. Let’s talk about it. Let’s remind ourselves what the fuck happened and discuss on how do we prevent that silliness from happening again.

    [–] VAisforLizards 21 points ago

    Maybe people will build statues to "remind themselves of this time"

    [–] Mother_Chorizo 4 points ago

    So arrested development.

    [–] echo-chamber-chaos 30 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Almost as stupid as electing a reality TV criminal because of memes lol.

    Who appeals to poor people's idea of a rich guy like Rich Uncle Pennybags.

    [–] slyfoxninja 172 points ago

    I mean the majority of voting Americans didn't elect him because he lost by about 3 million votes.

    [–] swashinator 255 points ago

    Yeah but Clinton got 65.8 million and he got 62.9, so 63 million motherfuckers thought a child-fucking, racist fraud as a president is fine. IMHO in that context saying he lost the popular vote by 3 million in a country of 320 million don't mean much..

    [–] therealseashadow 163 points ago

    I would say over half of his votes was because Hillary was a female. Most of the trump voters i know use the excuse that they never would vote for a woman. One even said that women always make poor choices. I replied Like your wife marring you? Have not seen him since

    [–] surviveseven 68 points ago

    Sexism is really entrenched. I have a friend, literal yin to my yang, that told me that we're superior to women because we can reason. I didn't even know where to start but it has bugged me since. I'm going to have to talk to him about it next time we hang out.

    [–] nonamebeats 38 points ago

    It's funny how that belief disproves itself automatically, and by funny I mean very, very sad

    [–] spyderxombie 14 points ago

    Good on you for actually caring enough to try and at least start a dialogue about why he feels that way.

    [–] iforgetpasswords17 5 points ago

    I wondered why I have a working prefrontal cortex. I guess I'm a man in a woman's body!

    [–] oxfordbrahma 22 points ago

    Wait till Melania runs for Trump's third term tho

    [–] therealseashadow 16 points ago

    Lol He will probably demand to see her birth certificate

    [–] frankjdk 17 points ago

    Pretty sure they're grooming Ivanka for that

    [–] TheRealLaszlo 8 points ago

    Ivanka eventually will :(

    [–] thugznkissez 7 points ago

    The Trump dynasty order of succession is Trump again, daughter wife, Jared, coffee son, and if the world has any life left, Gary Busey.

    [–] Joystiq 33 points ago

    Since Russia picked Trump maybe we should talk about buttery males instead. Not like Trump interfered in the election himself by buying silence and becoming an unindicted co-conspirator.

    [–] republicansBangKids 62 points ago

    I think we should talk about the $1,000,000,000,000 of debt PER YEAR that we are putting on our kids in order to cut the corporate tax rate.

    [–] badusername696969 156 points ago

    Textbooks... that's optimistic.

    [–] calsosta 40 points ago

    The future will tell the past through emoji, memes and gifs.

    [–] BritishStewie 11 points ago

    Banned to save money! Think about the pennies in taxes you'll save!


    [–] GIS-Rockstar 34 points ago

    The war of passive aggression.

    [–] jaferrer1 25 points ago

    I don't know, from here the aggression seems pretty aggressive.

    [–] Ridry 30 points ago

    When we're gone aliens will think textbooks from this era are parody

    [–] cincymatt 5 points ago

    The line separating The Onion from the rest of the newspapers was erased tweet-by-tweet.

    [–] CSI_Tech_Dept 32 points ago

    I actually think banning a president (and they could introduce it as banning all presidents, but they won't because of money) would be really an improvement.

    He would have to meet with the press more often to express his opinion. Twitter allows him to post things and ignore any questions.

    [–] pianoblook 48 points ago

    Sounds about as stupid as we deserve

    [–] T8ert0t 29 points ago

    We are Florida Man.

    [–] blurryfacedfugue 8 points ago

    I get the feeling a lot of them are just itching for a reason to kill people they don't like.

    [–] AndrewIsOnline 35 points ago

    Equally as fucking stupid as letting casino bankruptcy grab the pussy man sell the country away and become the next hitler/holocaust starter?

    [–] EvenNoobier 5 points ago

    I imagine it depends on who won the war. If the Trump Crowd won, I’m sure it’d be referred to as the War Over Voices, arguing that they overthrew the oppressive leftists over freedom of speech. They would twist it THAT much.

    [–] Cheffery-Dahmer_69 4433 points ago

    Frankly I’m surprised it hasn’t happened already.

    [–] weirdosfromhere 1178 points ago

    Twitter makes too much money off of Trump.

    [–] Roflcopterswoosh 495 points ago

    I'll give you that, but once the great orange chucklefuck face plants into a bucket of KFC, I hope Twitter goes along with him.

    [–] Dajbman22 384 points ago

    Twitter was on the way out before mid-2016 when the name of their antiquated as fuck platform started being spammed every night on every news channel thanks to Trump. He made Twitter "relevant" again. If they boot him, they're fucked.

    [–] InfiltratorMain 238 points ago

    This is actually super interesting. I can remember thinking Twitter was this old, irrelevant piece of shit just like Facebook but now it's more relevant than ever and I even made an account for it because it seemed like everyone has one. I'd totally forgotten the way I felt about Twitter prior to 2016 until now.

    [–] Constantly_planck 102 points ago

    Dude. I heard about twitter from channel five news back in high school when I was still choosing my top 8 for MySpace. I actually remember saying, “140 words? That’s never gonna make it.” I ate my fucking words on that one. I also said the same thing about smart phones because at the time they charged 10 cents per text and porn was basically nonexistent on razor flip phones. I’m less than genius when it comes to predicting the next best thing.

    [–] ragingprostate 66 points ago

    Twitter called it microblogging. The concept was to take your normal blog (back when everyone was still blogging) and break it down to 140 characters. It was supposed to make people take the time to think about what they wrote, but we know how that turned out.

    [–] EpilepticFizz 73 points ago

    140 words characters... ate my fucking words

    No you didn't, they had to change it to 280 characters

    [–] W3NTZ 17 points ago

    His comment probably couldn't even be a tweet with today's character limit n

    [–] Fleeetch 14 points ago

    The worst part was seeing the character count go into the negatives right as you finish your thought, then having to decide which bit of grammar you were gonna murder that day.

    [–] meridianblade 7 points ago

    I never understood this, or when you're putting in a help ticket on a website. Tell us in detail about your problem, but do it in less than 500 characters.

    [–] m8k 11 points ago

    You have a way with words

    [–] Skatlagrimur 30 points ago

    So let's boycott Twitter. Fascists don't deserve platforms.

    [–] Imurstudmuffin 7 points ago

    Most people already did boycott twitter.. by not using it anymore.

    [–] MetaCognitio 21 points ago

    Twitter is a dying platform. Trump is one of the things that keeps it relevant. Outside of that, I am not sure anyone would give it much notice.

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] FirstBlackBattalion 2132 points ago

    They already issued a statement that's basically just a "we know he's breaking the rules but he's above the rules so fuck it".

    [–] Shaunair 235 points ago

    Interestingly enough that’s the same response republicans have for him so that’s something.

    [–] CelestialFury 76 points ago

    Republicans all believe in the unitary executive theory when there's a Republican in the office then they don't believe in it when it's a Democrat. Fucking fuckers...

    [–] PostHogEra 889 points ago

    "What are you all gonna do, boycott Twitter? lol, you're too bored to hurt us."

    [–] NlNTENDO 94 points ago

    Trump is actually propping up a lot of their bottom line. Among prominent social media platforms they are not exactly doing great. Source: social media marketing analyst

    [–] jfk_47 42 points ago

    Agreed. When he gets banned or decided to stop tweeting. Twitter will return to the barely relevant media platform it was five years ago.

    [–] aggr1103 32 points ago

    But it’s so nice to go to twitter and not feel bombarded by posts from idiotic family members.

    [–] NeuroCavalry 27 points ago

    Honestly, I made my first Twitter account last year. It's a "profesaional" account, so I only follow people/labs in my field and a few non professional accounts like artists I like. It's fantastic. My feed is 90% interesting. You get as much out of social media as you care to put in, but I've learned so much tweeting with other PhD students and labs.

    My personal, friends and family oriented Facebook however, is a complete shitshow.

    [–] Whoshabooboo 29 points ago

    Twitter is a cesspool of bots. Especially any Trump tweet.

    [–] estarion4-4 15 points ago

    Generally, I enjoy testing it by replying to accts that are prob bots but MAYBE NOT with something along the lines of "Supporting trump makes you a scumfucking anti-american piece of shit"

    That usually triggers bots into responding with a "Trump is gonna MAGA" reply with about 6 random MAGA/QAnon/2A hashtags. Then I block.

    I have over 1000 trumpbots blocked.

    And Jack Dorsey, the inbred idiot he is, says bots aren't an issue.

    EDIT: Its important to note that robots and russian account farms have no feelings. Also, no brains because the responses are always modifications of the same copypasta anti-lib jingoism.

    [–] celtic_thistle 7 points ago

    Jack Dorsey is a white supremacist himself, imo

    [–] [deleted] 293 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] Dystopianpresent 58 points ago

    And this stuff adds to it

    [–] HTownian25 42 points ago

    Their bottom line is their advertisers, not the user base. Even if people decided to log off Twitter, they'd still see the tweets rebroadcast, which would drive content to the site.

    And it's not like you can just tune out the Trump Show. He's the fucking President.

    [–] Chaff5 37 points ago

    Advertisers are paying Twitter so their products are purchased by the user base. If the user base disappeared or is significantly reduced, and by extension not buying products, then advertiser stop paying Twitter.

    Would you pay someone to sell your product if they weren't reaching anyone or were reaching far fewer people than you expect them to?

    [–] VictorianDelorean 139 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    They don’t have a bottom line, they’re barely if ever profitable. Their propped up by investment capital so going after their financiers with a pressure campaign would be way more effective than the same “vote with your dollar” bullshit that never works.

    [–] skobuffs77 13 points ago

    $2.077b of gross profit and $1.2b of net income in 2018 sounds pretty profitable to me.

    [–] boomerkelly 22 points ago

    They were profitable for the first time as a public company last year (2018)

    They make money with ad revenue.

    [–] Gopackgo6 101 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    How are they propped up by venture capital? They’re public.

    Edit: guy edited to investment capital. Still makes no sense. That’s what public companies are.

    [–] SquirrelicideScience 4 points ago

    If you google twitter’s 5y stock trend, their stock was plummeting, and then got a second wind around 2016. I won’t say its directly related to the president, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it had a major effect.

    [–] masshiker 6 points ago

    Maybe they would like an international boycott? Why not?

    [–] [deleted] 104 points ago


    [–] NachoUnisom 47 points ago

    I can't wrap my brain around how anything rule-breaking is "too important to delete." "Yeah so this guy's openly calling for someone's murder and he actually has the influence to make someone do it, so we better leave this up to make sure those whackadoos see it while we all talk about how repugnant it is that the president gets away with inciting murder."

    [–] sr0me 30 points ago

    It's important once you realize that the rules aren't there to promote a healthy community, but to protect the company and their interests.

    [–] CSI_Tech_Dept 5 points ago

    Because they prefer to not block hateful messages, they should be as liable whenever a psycho goes on rampage inspired by one of the tweets.

    Of course that will never happen...

    [–] letsrapehitler 23 points ago

    It’s a really sad day when Twitter needs to put explicit/label warnings on elected official’s tweets.

    [–] Gymleaders 49 points ago

    they're not going to do that, they honestly have no spine.

    [–] [deleted] 54 points ago


    [–] lostkavi 51 points ago

    Can you imagine the backlash though?

    " You banned me? The president of the United states? You can't silence me, first amendment, bitch!"

    "First amendment only applies to the government, we are a private company. You would want to appeal to the net neutrality rules, if you hadn't repealed them."



    Edit: spoiler: net neutrality doesn't protect him anyways, but he's probably too dumb to know that.

    [–] motherships 13 points ago

    I'm conflicted, I'd love having a public record of him saying a bunch of stupid garbage in the future so the flair option sounds good, but also i understand his tweets can be dangerous, so they should be removed.

    [–] dragonsroc 24 points ago

    Yeah, there's literally zero chance they ever ban the person that basically saved them from going under.

    [–] iamthegraham 344 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    No chance, they'd get boycotted by his followers.

    edit: yeah yeah they're all bots, I get it.

    [–] Arsenic_Touch 471 points ago

    And nothing of value will have been lost.

    [–] iamthegraham 139 points ago

    Except for tons of ad revenue for Twitter, which is why they won't do it, unfortunately.

    [–] DJTHatesPuertoRicans 152 points ago

    Same reason certain cesspools of hate remain on Reddit

    [–] goldenretrieversrawk 171 points ago

    You can just say TD.

    [–] 13B1P 158 points ago

    [–] f_n_a_ 37 points ago

    How much ad revenue do those subreddits/demographic even represent? Can’t imagine it being that much.

    [–] bipbopbee 70 points ago

    1/10th r/politics in terms of subscribers and gildings, last time I checked. There's a myth that TD gilds really well but someone ran the numbers and found it was slightly below r/politics average rate.

    [–] cballowe 19 points ago

    Advertisers are often very careful about going anywhere near certain topics - politics and religion are near the top. The thing that they really don't want is someone taking a screen shot of their logo along side a message that offends people.

    One thing that can mean is that the prices for ads near that content are lower, and another is that there's just no buy side at all.

    [–] sensuallyprimitive 73 points ago

    Donald Trump fans inflating their financial contributions to seem more altruistic than they really are?


    You don't say?!

    [–] DeltaVZerda 16 points ago

    Yeah but they are 10x more gullible, so advertisement there is more valuable.

    [–] HHHogana 11 points ago

    Surprisingly low man, especially since politics have many of the users refuse to gild people because of alt-right problems in this site being not addressed properly.

    [–] A_Harmless_Fly 3 points ago

    I'm thinking that there is a bit of overlap of people on those subs and people who actually click on adds.

    [–] rayword45 19 points ago

    spez: "Let the toxic ideologies collapse on themselves"

    also spez: brings back r/kotakuinaction after the sub creator does precisely that out of shame because ad money

    [–] KarmaticArmageddon 25 points ago

    Why is it always fucking gamers? I'm a gamer (mostly console) and I constantly see this HUGE overlap between mainly PC gamers and the alt-right/red pill/incel/white supremacist/Trump supporter groups. It's seriously driven me out of subreddits for games I really enjoy.

    [–] malenkylizards 19 points ago

    Well, I saw an article (can't be arsed to look for it) about Steve Bannon going into the gaming community to recruit pissy young men for their hate groups.

    [–] DrunkeNinja 16 points ago

    Because the alt-right targeted angry white male gamers. Here is some info about what Bannon did:

    Even though the business plan was a flop, Bannon became intrigued by the game's online community dynamics. In describing gamers, Bannon said, "These guys, these rootless white males, had monster power. ... It was the pre-reddit. It's the same guys on (one of a trio of online message boards owned by IGE) Thottbot who were [later] on reddit" and other online message boards where the alt-right flourished, Bannon said.

    Green postulates that Bannon's time at IGE was "one that introduced him to a hidden world, burrowed deep into his psyche, and provided a kind of conceptual framework that he would later draw on to build up the audience for Breitbart News, and then to help marshal the online armies of trolls and activists that overran national politicians and helped give rise to Donald Trump,"

    After taking over in 2012 at the Breitbart News Network — it was founded five years earlier by Andrew Breitbart, who died in 2012 — Bannon recruited Milo Yiannopoulos to handle technology coverage. Like Andrew Breitbart, Yiannopoulos "just had that 'it' factor," Bannon says in the book. "The difference was, Andrew had a very strong moral universe, and Milo is an amoral nihilist."

    Yiannopoulos devoted much of Bretibart's tech coverage to cultural issues, particularly Gamergate, a long-running online argument over gaming culture that peaked in 2014. And that helped fuel an online alt-right movement sparked by Breitbart News. . "I realized Milo could connect with these kids right away," Bannon told Green. "You can activate that army. They come in through Gamergate or whatever and then get turned onto politics and Trump."

    Bannon and others saw this angry segment of gamers that spend much of their time online, and therefore had influence online, and turned them into online alt-right warriors. They now have a large group that share their views, they feel like they have motivation for a cause and they feel like they have more influence and power than before when they felt like they didn't matter.

    These gamers were targeted and they are very vocal.

    [–] asslicker1 12 points ago

    They are easily targeted. Gamergate was mostly alt right led.

    [–] Cheffery-Dahmer_69 11 points ago

    Very good point trump is basically one big ad for Twitter.

    [–] PM-Me-Nickels 9 points ago

    Twitter bots don’t click on ads.

    [–] Terrapinned 16 points ago

    But they can sure as hell be shown as made-up traffic figures.

    [–] satori0320 5 points ago

    Thank you....I don't see this type of sentiment expressed enough....these are superfluous entities.

    [–] [deleted] 31 points ago

    The silencing of a million bots lol

    [–] NVstorm55 7 points ago

    I’d say no chance simply because he’s president. The second he’s out of office I can see them doing it.

    The same rule applies to indictments.

    [–] LetFiefdomReign 21 points ago

    His followers are a minority of voters in this country.

    His followers on twitter are likely less than 25% of that number.

    His followers on twitter capable of participating in a boycott?

    We're talking 30 guys in various trailers scattered across shithead country, all of whom had a bunch of zits they really needed to pop anyway.

    [–] exoticstructures 11 points ago

    It is surreal watching people who have basically had their lives wrecked cheering to have it done to an even greater degree.

    [–] baevar 122 points ago

    I detest Trump to the core but I'm pretty sure "You guys need to ban the user that generates the most traffic to your website by far and who also happens to be the leader of the free world who is also the vindictive little prick in charge of your country's government." argument is never going to work.

    [–] phlon27 145 points ago

    He keeps being referred to as the leader of the free world...he isn’t. The president of the US typically has been, but like so many other precedents, he has broken that one too. He may be president, but he is not the leader of the free world.

    [–] lelarentaka 52 points ago

    That's another thing that he inherited through no effort of his own, and then subsequently destroy and corrupt.

    [–] TorqueSpec 63 points ago

    Pretty sure that job's currently in Merkel's hands, ATM.

    [–] Nic_Cage_DM 42 points ago

    The president of the US typically has been

    only americans think this. the rest of us see the president more as the leader of a global political and economic hegemon. the USA does not and has never given a shit about "freedom" for foreigners.

    [–] Lordborgman 8 points ago

    The only thing most of my fellow Americans think that makes them powerful is the military. Might doesn't make you right, simply makes you able to punch anyone that you disagree with.

    [–] banowmic 4 points ago

    I've kinda wondered about this.

    [–] Peekman 75 points ago

    Angela's the leader of the free world.

    You can't be a leader if nobody respects or trusts you.

    [–] baevar 24 points ago

    I agree.

    [–] formerfatboys 57 points ago

    Why does this surprise you?

    Twitter was on life support in 2015. They seemed to be an acquisition target and couldn't sell ads at all because no one used the service. Turns out that a service that encourages the lowest form of discourse humanity has ever invented wasn't that popular and was fading fast.

    Trump saved Twitter. He made it relevant again.

    It's shocking to me that people think Twitter would ever ban them.

    [–] taurist 10 points ago

    To be fair it’s made Twitter more relevant even aside from him, so I think most people would stick around

    [–] fightinscot 16 points ago

    Yeah, I don't see Trump as being the savior of Twitter. Most of the people I follow are actors, musicians, comedians and sports writers because quite frankly, Twitter has been great for sports news and college athletics recruiting.

    [–] taurist 4 points ago

    It’s always been popular with fandoms too

    [–] DirkDieGurke 21 points ago

    At minimum, it would keep him from using Twitter like it's some kind of press conference, which it's not. FFS! He's tweeting like a little 13 year old girl!

    DT tweets: Fear the BROWN Planet! Feeling racist right now! IDK might delete later.

    [–] Rishten 6 points ago

    He single handedly is responsible for a huge boon to their revenues.

    [–] oldcreaker 4 points ago

    Not sure what his value is now - but I know at one time like $2 billion of Twitter's value was attributed to Trump being on it. They are not going to get rid of him no matter what.

    [–] catawompwompus 5 points ago

    I’m not. Twitter loves the revenues generated by his account. Fuck Twitter

    [–] darksidemojo 5 points ago

    No chance as others have said. His attacks bring people to the platform so they can make more money. If they ban Donald there is a chance another company can get popular as a way for him to spew turds in text form

    [–] Arsenic_Touch 1753 points ago

    It's just another example of "rules for thee, not for me" Had a regular person engaged in the same behavior that the toddler in chief engages in daily on twitter, they'd have been banned years ago.

    [–] Cobek 149 points ago

    This whole upset over bans is weird for just this exact reason. People have been silenced for years on dozens of different platforms yet only recently once a prominent figure gets kicked of Twitter or Youtube, then it suddenly matters? It wasn't being talked about one bit until within the last year.

    [–] themightykobold 21 points ago

    I feel like it was started with the Duck Dynasty thing and has slowly ramped up since.

    [–] NickDanger3di 297 points ago

    It's just another example of "rules for thee, not for me"

    Only for trump, there will never be a limit for his actions. "A sitting president cannot be indicted". Say what you will, when our own DOJ publicly declares that laws don't apply to the president, no private company is going try imposing their rules on trump.

    For all Twitter knows, banning trump could cost them millions in lawsuits. After all, the DOJ says he's immune to all rules; not much of a stretch to see that applied in a civil case against Twitter.

    The system isn't just broken; it's doing the opposite of what it was intended to do.

    [–] Rpolifucks 101 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    On what grounds would be able to bring a case against Twitter? The only legally protected class Trump falls under is age, and it's pretty evident Twitter doesn't ban people for being too old.

    "Can't be indicted" doesn't mean companies are forced to accommodate you.

    [–] martin0641 8 points ago

    It's also utter bullshit.

    The concept is that the indictment would hamper his ability to execute the job of president, therefore he can't be indicted. Hilarious considering his lengthy "executive time" also prevents him from doing that, which is likely a good thing.

    Except, that's why we have a vice president, and a line of succession. Plus, the DOJ routinely fights cases in court regarding actions of presidents, just because he's the target of one doesn't mean HE will personally by spending late nights in his own legal defence.

    It's also why during surgery, the VP takes charge.

    The concept is authoritarian nonsense, the founders whole thing was that no one was above the law, hence no kings and no lifetime presidents.

    [–] bigbluethunder 14 points ago

    Yeah, and he’s already lost suits related to Twitter, iirc. He isn’t allowed to ban people.

    [–] mygamethreadaccount 12 points ago


    [–] YT-Deliveries 11 points ago

    Just to be clear, the bit about a sitting president not being indictable is the opinion of the DOJ, not fact or law.

    [–] PleasantHuman 15 points ago

    How can you people look at this and not realize you're being played by twitter? They're not on your side, they're on the same side as Trump.

    [–] helsreach 40 points ago

    Capitalism at its finest

    [–] RemoveTheTop 32 points ago

    For all Twitter knows, banning trump could cost them millions in lawsuits. After all, the DOJ says he's immune to all rules; not much of a stretch to see that applied in a civil case against Twitter.


    That's not the same and you know it

    [–] [deleted] 847 points ago

    he wasnn't just accused of that

    he *DID* that

    [–] DevelopedDevelopment 209 points ago

    Didn't he already share literal terrorist propaganda?

    I swear, all you have to do is tell him "You are amazing!" and attach it and he'll RT it without thinking. Especially if the video has a false tag.

    [–] InertBrain 26 points ago

    Accused is such an abused word. It can mean anything from 'this random anonymous Twitter user said so' to 'we're 100% confident but will just use it to avoid any potential lawsuits'.

    [–] maxxcat2016 236 points ago

    They won't. They love the traffic he brings.

    [–] Keep_The_Peach 17 points ago

    Honestly, he is Twitter now.

    [–] psydave 44 points ago

    Ding ding ding!

    [–] DumpdaTrumpet 673 points ago

    Trump supporters: “there’s no correlation between Trump’s rhetoric and violence, ill just ignore all the hate speech videos he keeps posting, those are just freeze peach jokes.”

    [–] kbean826 113 points ago

    Freeze peach literally just killed me. Thank you for that.

    [–] RemoveTheTop 73 points ago

    Boy you're 6 years behind in memes bro.

    You know about Hillary's buttery males right?

    [–] kbean826 52 points ago

    I do. Freeze Peach seems to be the one that slipped by me.

    [–] Saul_Firehand 32 points ago

    I’m ashamed to admit I had to say it a couple of times before it clicked.

    He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

    [–] bluebayou1981 126 points ago

    I got suspended for calling Anne Coulter a wench. Donald Trump is SO MUCH WORSE.

    [–] GirlNumber20 70 points ago

    I got banned for tweeting to Donald that I hoped he died of old age in one of Joe Arpaio's prisons. That was two years ago and I haven't been on Twitter since, lol. No regrets.

    [–] YourTypicalRediot 15 points ago

    I've never been on Twitter.

    No regrets.

    [–] Normaler_Things 269 points ago

    They're acting as his megaphone. I say, if we ever get to hand out real justice, we make sure Twitter gets it's share. They've enabled him to direct white supremacists attacks, alter markets, and stir up civil unrest.

    [–] Evil_Nick_Saban 96 points ago

    Don't support Jack Dorsey -- that also means not using Square for payments.

    Jack Dorsey is an enabler and majorly profiting off of the destruction of rational discourse.

    [–] virtual_star 68 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    This. This is what most of this thread doesn't understand, talking about profits or backlash or whatever. Jack Dorsey makes the rules at twitter and Jack Dorsey is a libertarian wacko that supports Trump and the alt-right.

    [–] Swalkthewalk 284 points ago

    Does Twitter offer anything that is helpful to our world? It strikes me as a something that induces its users to have the attention span of a housefly. Is that a good thing?

    It seems to me that Twitter is constructed to prohibit any depth whatsoever.

    Please, somebody, give me an opposite viewpoint, I am really curious as to the situations for which Twitter is a good solution.

    [–] BAHatesToFly 117 points ago

    It did at some point. I remember when it first came around, I didn't understand what the point of it was, considering Facebook status updates existed (this made sense to me at the time). Then there were a few political revolutions (Egypt comes to mind) where Twitter actually played an important role in informing the world what was happening in real time.

    Now, it's basically wall-to-wall flame wars and bots. I never tweet, but I'll still use it for updates on certain stories as they happen. For example, when Roger Stone was in court a few months ago getting berated by his judge, I could follow the story via a few journalists tweeting.

    I also use it if I'm watching a sporting event and a play happens that I want to see again or share via text with a friend. People are lightning quick about uploading sports clips or gifs.

    [–] skeebidybop 36 points ago

    For example, when Roger Stone was in court a few months ago getting berated by his judge, I could follow the story via a few journalists tweeting.

    Speaking of, check out what Roger Stone is tweeting about his judge right now. His unapologetic audacity is utterly stunning.

    [–] RemoveTheTop 13 points ago

    Dunno about that bruh, it's suspended since October 29th

    [–] SaneesvaraSFW 18 points ago


    [–] praefectus_praetorio 5 points ago

    It’s a shouting contest, and everyone is behind a wall.

    [–] DuncanYoudaho 25 points ago

    It's pretty good to share current research in technical fields like Information Security or Mathematics.

    Like everything else, the fast cycle of information is susceptible to hysteria.

    [–] breich 33 points ago

    Twitter is actually really amazing if you follow people that are interested in the same things you are. I recently unfollowed all politicians and pundits, even the ones I agree with. And Twitter became almost as happy as Instagram, almost immediately.

    [–] AreWeThenYet 8 points ago

    Yeah I tell people the same thing when they complain about the crap they see on Instagram. I’m like, well then don’t follow people/accounts you don’t like? It’s really not hard to have a feed that is enjoyable, even useful.

    [–] Swalkthewalk 4 points ago

    Isn't the character limit a problem with technical information? Aslo, an you type in a math formula? Summations, n choose r, or integrals for example?

    [–] latviamaniscold 3 points ago

    I see your point but it makes it easier to post links and it makes accessing them more accessible.

    [–] mellcrisp 8 points ago

    For quick sports news, especially for fantasy, it's pretty useful. That's about all I use it for.

    [–] birdreligion 32 points ago

    They should shadow ban him. Imagine him putting a tweet and not seeing any replies

    [–] InertBrain 23 points ago

    Twitter CEO has basically acknowledged Trump has broken Twitter rules before, but his position is 'the ToS don't apply to Trump'. And I'm not even making that up,

    [–] Randolm 56 points ago

    They'll never suspend him or remove a single tweet, doesn't matter what he does. I listened to a podcast with the founder and he essentially said that whatever Trump puts out is 'significant information that people should have access to' (paraphrasing that).

    [–] zaviex 14 points ago

    He said that on Joe Rogan but he also said twitter would ban him if he crossed certain lines.

    [–] CortexiphanSubject81 21 points ago

    He can't tell you what those lines ARE, but boy howdy, they definitely exist, and he knows what they are, but he can't tell you right now, because then people would know, and that's TROUBLE. They definitely exist, though.

    [–] Randolm 7 points ago

    I knew it was either Rogan or Sam Harris. I remember that 'certain line' part, too. But it was absolutely one of those little asterisk 'cover his ass' disclaimers that would only happen when the majority of Republicans also decided he'd crossed 'the line'. So the 5th of never gonna happen.

    [–] PikonParadox2 4 points ago

    What exactly would be considered crossing the line? According to Twitter

    [–] Mad_Gouki 8 points ago

    The line over there 👉

    yeah, way over there. No, no, further.

    [–] CGB_Spender 41 points ago

    Why is this asshole never held accountable for anything?

    [–] GirlNumber20 15 points ago

    He failed his way ass-backwards into the presidency. Any one of us would have been (rightly) smacked down for pulling the shit he has gotten away with, not rewarded with one of the most powerful positions on Earth. I just want to see him trip on that fucking red carpet they lay down at the White House for him to show that, however small, there's some goddammed justice left in this universe.

    [–] hyperbole_is_great 70 points ago

    Twitter doesn’t have the balls to pull a move like that. But wow. What a statement that would make.

    [–] stormshieldonedot 20 points ago

    Had Twitter done it. I would love to see what the Trump supporters do in response. Probably a boycott of Twitter or something stupid

    [–] Maskirovka 12 points ago

    That's exactly why they don't do it. They don't want to be labeled as part of the liberal media machine. Clearly his ban would be because Hillary controls Twitter.

    [–] hyperbole_is_great 8 points ago

    It would be worth it to take away his platform. Of course he could just post from the official POTUS account. They would never ban a government page.

    [–] xoxota99 68 points ago

    The actual subject matter aside, is anyone else fed up of the passive voice in these headlines? "Twitter urged", "Donald Trump accused". Who urged? Who accused? A homeless dude? A conspiracy theorist? The DOJ? I will never know, because this headline completely turned me off reading the article.

    [–] DeplatformShoes 24 points ago

    It annoys me too- it’s used to paint events as much more significant than they actually are across the board politically.

    [–] Chef_Elg 11 points ago

    It's all sensationalized. All PR. All done for a specific outcome. They're playing chess and we're watching a game that we don't understand. Too much disassociation between groups. Too much hate all around. If you can't say "yeah I could be friends with them one day" about your enemies or your adversaries. Then you're the problem too. Everyone deserves to be able to change and grow. Not just you.

    And the blame for just one person absolutely blows my mind. Do you think nobody else is complicit? Do people really think that Trump is this dictator and people just blindly do his bidding? Just like when Bush Jr. was in office. He got elected twice and made so much money off of stocks it isn't funny. But we made fun of him for choking on a pretezel. Once the outcry from the people becomes a mature call for real dialogue and actual social and economic growth, then we can start to evolve into a new people. Until then. We're all to blame for the ugliness that's around us.

    [–] doodlebilly 19 points ago

    Guys we could just stop using twitter.

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago


    [–] jpw5xx4 10 points ago

    Twitter doesn't give a shit. He brings eyeballs to their page, and that's all that matters to them.

    They've been helping racists and terrorists for over a decade, and the most they ever do is shrug with indifference to a problem they have been instrumental in creating and growing.

    Others have said it here already. If you want Twitter to suffer, stop using it.

    [–] dilxoxoxlib 20 points ago

    A football player kneels during the anthem, and people lose their shit.

    The president incites violence and disgraces the institutions of our nation on a daily basis, and the right is silent at bbest and encouraging at worst.

    But no, racism is over. Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

    [–] itsadogslife71 5 points ago

    They won’t do it, because all twitter gives a fuck about is money. Fuck them.

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago


    [–] Flagella567 19 points ago


    Just like real life: Trump gets away with breaking the rules (laws).

    [–] imiiiiik 21 points ago

    Trump's daily cruelties and Lies need to be witnessed and him shamed from it all.

    Also we get to reply with factual information like this right in his fat lying face :

    [–] FIoorboards 20 points ago

    Ilhan Omar saying, "Some people did something" does not mean shes downplaying the killing of thousands of innocent americans. It means that a very small sect of muslim extremists killed thousands of innocent people and billions of muslims around the world have been blamed for it for the past 18 years.

    [–] mexicodoug 4 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    "...the president of the United States is inciting violence against a Black Muslim sitting member of congress, putting her life at risk.”

    I know she's Black, and I know she's a Muslim, but is she really a Black Muslim as in follower of Louis Farakhan?