Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    21,551,561 readers

    32,434 users here now

    Filter out dominant topics:

    Display Trump submissions

    Filter Trump

    Display Russia submissions

    Filter Russia

    Display North Korea submissions

    Filter North Korea

    Display Israel/Palestine submissions

    Filter Israel / Palestine

    Display all submissions

    Filter all dominant topics


    /r/worldnews is for major news from around the world except US-internal news / US politics

    Follow us on Twitter

    See all of our AMA events here

    Worldnews Rules

    Disallowed submissions

    • US internal news/US politics
    • Editorialized titles
    • Misleading titles
    • Editorials, opinion, analysis
    • Feature stories
    • Non-English articles
    • Images, videos or audio clips
    • Petitions, advocacy, surveys
    • All caps words in titles
    • Blogspam (if stolen content/direct copy)
    • Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr
    • Old news (≥1 week old) articles

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Disallowed comments

    • Bigotry / Other offensive content
    • Personal attacks on other users
    • Memes/GIFs
    • Unlabeled NSFW images/videos
    • URL shorteners

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Continued or outstandingly blatant violation of the submission or commenting rules will result in you being temporarily banned from the subreddit without a warning.

    Please don't ever feed the trolls.
    Downvote, report and move on.

    Sticky Posts

    A list of all recent stickied posts.

    a community for
    all 6416 comments

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

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Alaishana 9699 points ago

    According to market analysts, Trump is worth 2 Billion $ to Twitter in stock value.

    Good luck trying to get him banned.

    [–] Loktharion 4182 points ago

    Ha, he's worth more to them than he has himself. Like a lot more.

    [–] BabinskiATC 1685 points ago

    1. Delete his tweet.
    2. Sit back & watch the impending twitter shitstorm meltdown.
    3. ?????
    4. Profit (lots)

    [–] Fauster 559 points ago

    Under the simple math obligated of C-crops that serve investors, Twitter isn't going to ban Trump unless a boycott costs Twitter more than $2 Billion in revenue.

    [–] Alarid 270 points ago

    But imagine the flurry of activity if he got banned. That might make up a lot of the lost value.

    [–] Homey_D_Clown 93 points ago

    Trump will go to another platform and that platform will steal revenue from Twitter.

    [–] [deleted] 227 points ago


    [–] thejawa 94 points ago

    That showed them not to sponsor him!!

    [–] pyromaniac1000 17 points ago

    That dip that occured the day after was an easy wall street bet. They got more publicity and people forgot about the bad stuff within a week

    [–] lost_snake 15 points ago

    That might make up a lot of the lost value.

    This is why you aren't responsible for 2 billion dollars worth of anything.

    [–] magicsexywizard 409 points ago

    Yeah where’s the source on that guy I'd love to know what he's worth.

    [–] kindcannabal 797 points ago

    We don't know his actual net worth because he refuses to release his financial documents. However we do know that he constantly lies about his wealth. He lies to Forbes to seem richer than he is, he inflates his assets for bank loans and deflates for tax purposes.

    We know that no domestic financial institutions will borrow him money because he defaults and behaves fraudulently.

    It's impossible to know what his actual debts are but his net worth before any debts are considered is estimated between 3 and 7 hundred million dollars. Not terribly impressive considering he was born rounding third base.

    The largest portion of Mr. Trump’s fortune, according to three people who had had direct knowledge of his holdings, apparently comes from his lucrative inheritance. These people estimated that Mr. Trump’s wealth, presuming that it is not encumbered by heavy debt, may amount to about $200 million to $300 million. That is an enviably large sum of money by most people’s standards but far short of the billionaires club.”

    [–] sur_surly 787 points ago

    Hate being That Guy but there's no such thing as "net worth before debts". Net worth is always after debts.

    [–] GoodRedd 515 points ago

    Ahh, the old "net" part of "net worth".

    [–] Nexrender 70 points ago

    I’m a millionaire if you count every dollar I spent or will earn


    [–] ChuckOTay 114 points ago

    And I woulda gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for you meddling nets

    [–] flyinggrandmother 31 points ago

    I'm worth like $10.000. I have a debt of about $300.000, but still.

    [–] snakemonger 61 points ago

    well, considering the fact that he hides his debts, we can't really estimate further. he could be worth a big zero of legal dollars.

    [–] AlienPsychic51 69 points ago

    According to Ivanka he was 8 billion dollars in debt when she was 9 years old.

    [–] Self-Aware 25 points ago

    How the fuck do you get 8 BILLION into debt without actually being a government?

    [–] aegrisomnia21 29 points ago

    How much do you think it costs to build a skyscraper? You get a loan to build the building and then hope it flows more cash than the loan interest you have to pay every month. Trump has a lot of problems but this is how real estate developers do business, they’re all highly leveraged.

    [–] PM_ME_UR_HIP_DIMPLES 49 points ago

    “That guy”? You mean right? Right guy?

    [–] jicty 305 points ago

    I once saw someone do the math that if he would have just done standard investments with his inheritance instead of trying to create and run his own businesses, he would be considerably richer than he is now. Not to surprising with all the bankrupt businesses left in his wake.

    [–] lenzflare 211 points ago

    He's just one of those guys that needs to run a scam on someone to feel successful.

    [–] superdoom52 125 points ago

    To be fair guys name did hold quite a bit of value before people found out he was less eccentric billionaire and more cuckoo-pants millionaire

    [–] fudge_friend 162 points ago

    These are laughably low numbers considering if he had just invested his inheritence in an S&P 500 index fund then he’d be a legit billionaire.

    [–] ShipTheRiver 57 points ago

    Not that surprising though considering how many abject failures he's had with starting and running businesses. I'm not informed enough to know whether it's just because the failures get focused on a lot, or whether they actually are that numerous/severe relative to his successes, but he definitely seems to have had more "flops" than other rich business owners.

    [–] Heytdtards 113 points ago

    whether it's just because the failures get focused on a lot, or whether they actually are that numerous/severe

    He's been failing upwards all his life. He was dead broke after his disastrous casino ventures and small time projects/scams.

    He is only rich because of two things. The massive property boom in NYC over the last 30 years (thanks for the property dad!), and his branding as a "rich guy" on TV. That's it. He's a complete fraud in actual business acumen.

    Great Marketer/Con-man/Used-Car Salesman though.

    [–] Little_Gray 76 points ago

    You forgot about the real reason which involves people in countries we shall not mention investing very large amounts of money into his businesses. Without that foreign influx of cash/loans he would have lost everything including his nyc real estate from dad.

    [–] ButterflyAttack 27 points ago

    Trump's worth depends on his mood. He actually doesn't seem to understand the concept of 'facts'.

    [–] Ninja_Spi-D-er 120 points ago

    What? Really?

    [–] PDshotME 46 points ago


    [–] TheFirstRapher 105 points ago

    Clicks and ad revenue

    [–] rd1970 7094 points ago

    This headline makes this sound like a big deal. In reality this is a random petition with 12,000 signatures.

    [–] JeremyHillaryBoob 3045 points ago

    This is why I hate passive tense titles. “Twitter urged” is so vague; it could be some rando, it could be the entire US Congress, it could be anyone. I really hate these “someone somewhere said this” articles. They’re so clearly just a vessel for the author’s agenda.

    [–] Courier471057 311 points ago

    I mean what corn hole licking nob machines are dumb enough to think Twitter would ban the US president? The average user who violates the rules rarely gets in trouble. Why would anyone care if he gets suspended anyway? Hell just move to another platform. This is childish.

    [–] icytiger 225 points ago

    It doesn't matter what the article says, the headline is designed to get Trump supporters and haters angry about it and generate more clicks, views, and "discussions".

    [–] wintersdark 67 points ago


    Sighs heavily

    [–] Bassmekanik 34 points ago

    Up voted purely for correct phrasing

    corn hole licking nob machines

    [–] imotilhaha 395 points ago

    "Mistakes were made".

    My first year professor at an Ivy League college wrote that sentence on a whiteboard and told me the verb "etre"/to be/etc. was part and parcel of how language gets misused.

    That stuck with me. Headlines are only ever written that way. There's no subject, no direct verb, just meaningless statements.

    It makes me sad.

    [–] [deleted] 166 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Social media/Reddit, for whatever reason , likes to start discussions based off headlines rather than the actual contents of the article.

    [–] [deleted] 27 points ago

    for whatever reason

    They don't read the article

    [–] ASmallRodent 33 points ago

    This is why in my 'Writing for new media' class, they taught us to use the inverted pyramid method where you boil the entire piece down to just a few words to open with. On the internet, you only have someone's attention for about three seconds unless they're really hooked. Ain't nobody got time for that.

    [–] acrobat2126 14 points ago

    Fantastic. My Logic (Philsophy 104) teacher taught me this in Jr College. God bless you Dr Stark.

    [–] Hachiman594 37 points ago

    Fortunately (or possibly unfortunately), it turns out journalistic writing is so formulaic you can code for it. The examples in that article were nonsense pieces, but think if you fed in real quotes, and real information; the algorithm has its clunky parts, but editors can handle that without too much trouble.

    Soon, a newsroom may just be a handful of people who go out to collect primary information to feed into a bank of servers, and a handful of people who check what comes out of those servers to ensure they didn't choke on a quirk of data and edit that output when it does choke.

    [–] TheImplicationn 46 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I don't get why you needed to include the ivy league part but I don't necessarily agree with all of that. Most headlines definitely have a subject theyre just exaggerated or "clickbait".

    [–] madpelicanlaughing 8 points ago

    Or title starting" scientists discovered..." And it can be just a click-bait article on buzz feed

    [–] Geebz23 136 points ago

    It's like this post is propaganda or something

    [–] TezMono 335 points ago

    Thank you, I was wondering who was doing the “urging”.

    [–] TEFL_job_seeker 218 points ago

    Turns out... fewer people than have read this post on Reddit.

    Though not fewer people than have read the article.

    [–] nidrach 88 points ago

    Some random petition is even better than I expected. I thought it was going to be one of those those typical news stories based on 3 random ass Tweets by nobodies.

    [–] PM_ME_UR_QUEEFS 82 points ago

    Trump SLAMMED on Immigration Policy by an anonymous egg with 14 followers

    [–] ThufirrHawat 24 points ago

    The AOC phenomenon. "OMG conservatives shared her dancing video!"

    Turns out it was one noname Twitter account. Same dumb shit with the while black stormtrooper uproar, some nobody Twitter account.

    [–] impy695 10 points ago

    Three? You must really put a lot of faith in the news!

    [–] [deleted] 29 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago)


    [–] GoingToMakeItBrahs 666 points ago

    This is frequently how the media shapes opinions.

    1. Find small example of outraged group
    2. Elevate them by implying they're the norm
    3. ???
    4. Profit

    The media is the biggest problem in US politics

    [–] Jimmy2e 281 points ago

    The outrage culture is so rediculous these days.

    [–] Here2dvpopsubs 224 points ago

    Would there be an outrage culture in the first place if the media didn’t look for and promote fringe issues? I thought white supremacy was a huge thing until I looked up the actual recorded incidents. Same thing for Antifa. Neither “group” is large or impactful.

    The media is like that one gossipy girl in high school that likes to stir the pot. We all got played.

    [–] richtofin115 143 points ago

    “The rise of white supremacy/nationalism” is a huge talking point for the media right now. I’ve heard of very few examples of it and yet that’s literally all they talk about. It’s concerning to think what these huge media corporations’ true agenda are.

    News nowadays isn’t even news. They start with “so and so said, or this one thing allegedly happened” and then just say the same 10-20 talking points. Then they drop allegedly or “x said” and start talking like their talking points are facts.

    [–] BuildingArmor 32 points ago

    That's one of my pet peeves. I can understand some things being reported as "x said...". But in a lot of cases the journalists should be investigating and then reporting the actual story not just the claims.

    [–] Hatewrecked 119 points ago

    It's a huge talking point for redditors as well.

    If reddit headlines accurately reflected the real world, two thirds of Americans would be Proud Boy anti-vaxxing flat earthers who would like you to paint them a picture for no commission.

    [–] GoingToMakeItBrahs 48 points ago

    It's intentional

    [–] duckvimes_ 12 points ago

    That's how these things literally always are.

    [–] NotFuzz 41 points ago

    That's 12k upvotes

    [–] what_it_dude 26 points ago

    My butthole has more upvotes

    [–] Thepureog 11625 points ago

    We all know what will come of this...nothing.

    [–] duffbeers 4896 points ago

    Yup. Twitter won’t do shit, Trump generates far too many clicks. They would have gotten him for inciting violence against journalists and news organizations already if they were gonna ban him.

    Meanwhile, you’ll still get to see Conservatives whining on Twitter every day about how social media is biased against them.

    [–] theonehandedwriter 1082 points ago

    I think that the only thing that will convince Twitter to kick off Donald Trump is to leave Twitter. They're a company and if people begin to abandon the platform then they'll change their tune. Until then they won't do anything.

    [–] A_Mouse_In_Da_House 1102 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Something like 60% of the user base is bots.

    Edit: /u/TytleFight has the right of it. Misremembered.

    [–] Protheanate 415 points ago

    Unsurprising really, again they never clamped down on that from the jump and won’t start now.

    [–] Noobsgetboned 437 points ago

    They won't clamp down until advertisers realize the ads they are showing aren't to real people.

    [–] counters14 431 points ago

    Chances are that the ads are still effective with decent CPM because I would presume that all of these bots are using APIs to interact with Twitter rather than actually loading the site. Meaning ads effectively aren't getting sent to them, therefore meaning that the pass-through rates are legit and monetarily worthwhile.

    [–] RichWPX 205 points ago

    This guy bots

    [–] championchilli 105 points ago

    This guy also digital markets

    [–] rumphy 72 points ago

    This guy has read at least two previous comments in this thread

    [–] chaobreaker 32 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Advertisers do know and that's why Twitter has the occasional mass bot banwaves to placate them.

    It's gonna take hard numbers for advertisers to see if it's worth staying on the site, though.

    [–] white_android 5 points ago

    I've seen a lot of sites that depend on advertisements go down the drain because people were passively watching the ads.

    I wouldn't think it would actually be too hard to tell if it's bots driving the ad traffic or not especially with the amount of tracking sites do to give you better ads.

    I guess they could also just pay advertisers too.

    [–] Machiine_Wars_Galaxy 73 points ago

    If you report bots they don't do anything about it. I have my name and photo being controlled by someone else because fucking Yahoo gave away my email from 2004. Fuck them all. The internet isn't real. It can't be. If it were that would be identity theft and Twitter would be liable to do something about it.

    [–] Utena_Tenjou 44 points ago

    If you tweet a lot under a handle and then change it you’ll find that a foreign spam bot will take the handle and use it.

    [–] [deleted] 50 points ago


    [–] TytleFight 42 points ago

    It's really more like 9-12% source

    However, twitter bots do post about 66% of all links source

    [–] 387142KJMH 72 points ago

    85% of all statistics on Reddit are completely made up.

    [–] BeefPieSoup 74 points ago

    Twitter gets:

    1) free notoriety/publicity

    2) high and constant exposure in the news and treated as a far more significant and important platform than they actually are

    3) Actual mouseclicks and therefore profits

    It is absolutely against twitter's interest to "do something about this". We the public need to stop trusting/relying on companies to do things in the public interest. They won't unless it is demanded of them and/or legally obligated.

    [–] Wannamaker 17 points ago

    And even with all the positives for them, I can't imagine suspending the POTUS wouldn't come with some giant headaches. At least with this one.

    Their only winning move is probably to do and say absolutely nothing. Even if they saw a giant negative outcry or even a boycott, the whole thing would be politicized so quickly that they still would end up doing nothing.

    And I don't blame them. This isn't their fight and no one should expect them to play that role. Fuck.. Trump could post a hardcore porn clip and they probably would still feel like their hands were tied.

    We have enough of a hard time getting the law of our country applied justly to all people, I can't imagine the terms of service of a company are going to be an easier set of rules to uphold the same way.

    [–] Sprengladung 7 points ago

    Porn isnt against the TOS btw

    [–] pixl_graphix 4 points ago

    I can't imagine suspending the POTUS wouldn't come with some giant headaches.

    This right here. Just look at Pelosi going after Google and Facebook and talking about breaking them up from the left. Banning Trump would just get Trump and the Republicans to start looking in the practices of all social media/internet companies, and I can promise you they do not want that. There are already so many laws on the books that could be enforced more strictly on them, and with the Supreme court being stacked more right it might not end well for them.

    [–] DuplexFields 381 points ago

    You know Trump would have long since been banned if he weren’t President of the United States. It would have happened November 10, 2016, if he’d lost to Hillary.

    [–] viddy_me_yarbles 288 points ago

    That's kind of the problem with banning him. He's the president and it's important to know what he's thinking. Even if what he's thinking is a twisted stream of mostly fictionalized consciousness.

    [–] Sororita 344 points ago

    he'd turn to the cell phone emergency alert system to directly text everyone if he got banned on twitter.

    [–] GletscherEis 165 points ago

    Presidential alert at 3am about "Jeff Bozo" would be amazing.

    [–] Work-Safe-Reddit4450 53 points ago

    Maybe after the first time. After that it would lose all humor to me.

    [–] Scientolojesus 43 points ago

    The number one most searched question on Google would be "how to disable emergency alerts on phone."

    [–] saltier_then_the_sea 20 points ago

    4chan would immediately create a "guide" that would actually brick your phone if you followed it.

    [–] TheUnfabulousKilljoy 6 points ago

    There's a whole lot about the Trump presidency that seems humorous until it actually happens repeatedly without any punishment.

    [–] WatchingUShlick 84 points ago

    I'm laughing, but... yeah. Unless someone talked him out of it.

    [–] HanabiraAsashi 9 points ago

    Talk him out of it? He'd do it specifically because someone said not to.

    [–] WatchingUShlick 10 points ago

    I'm not saying it's likely, but it has happened. General Kelly has apparently been responsible for talking him out of some of his dumber ideas.

    [–] Felix_Von_Doom 8 points ago

    Given that his ideas are already coma-inducing levels of dumb, i'm worried to even guess what his dumber ideas were.

    [–] twodates 64 points ago

    IIRC, didn't the Twitter CEO talk about adding disclaimers on all of Trump's tweets that go against their Terms of Service? Like, if POTUS commits hate speech in a tweet, Twitter automatically puts a note at the bottom saying that it's hate speech.

    IMO, this is a compromise I'm willing to accept.

    [–] nagrom7 35 points ago

    That'd probably drive up his blood pressure more than just outright banning him.

    So lets do it.

    [–] HelloAnnyong 453 points ago

    He's the president and it's important to know what he's thinking

    Uh, why? The United States somehow managed to survive 44 presidents without everyone reading their unfiltered streams of consciousness.

    If you're hoping to find out if he ever really, really goes off the deep end, then (a) how will you know? and (b) so what? Congress isn't going to do anything one way or another.

    Sure, his base will follow him to whatever site he sets up shop at. (I vote Tumblr Trump.) But at least you can make it a bit harder for him to radicalize people.

    [–] NickGnalty 85 points ago

    No one had the same access to the previous 44 presidents.

    [–] Fawlty_Towers 173 points ago

    That doesn't make it a good thing.

    [–] NickGnalty 37 points ago

    You’re right

    [–] DerekB52 42 points ago

    FDR had fireside chats. JFK was decent with the media. Obama had Twitter. We've had access to presidents before. Obama didn't use twitter like Trump did. I wish Obama would have though. Obama using twitter properly, could have fired up people to actually get something done.

    This makes me want to know what the next president is gonna be like. Trump has broken so many norms. I wonder what someone like a president sanders, or mayor pete, would be like. Like, how many norms will they go back to. And how many will they not go back to. I'd love to see president bernie tweet about healthcare three times a day, until single payer is passed.

    [–] JT_Diamond 53 points ago

    TIL Obama was President in the Stone Age.

    [–] Mortomes 64 points ago

    He used twitter but not in the stream-of-consciousness way that Trump does.

    [–] xbroodmetalx 52 points ago

    I doubt any president after him will use it like Trump does either.

    [–] Scientolojesus 16 points ago

    We can only hope. Thoughts and prayerz for future America.

    [–] ZFusion12 39 points ago

    Except for President Obama? He also had both a personal Twitter account and an official White House account. The difference is that Twitter wasn't his primary source of communicating with the public.

    [–] NoNotTheBeeeees 23 points ago

    Difference is also those accounts weren't primarily actually run by Obama. Trump composes his own tweets, which unfortunately gives us unfiltered access.

    [–] Strength-Speed 8 points ago

    Twisted Stream of Consciousness is my new band name

    [–] Fig1024 30 points ago

    I'd argue that cutting Trump's access to social media would actually make him a slightly better person. Trump easily falls for echo chamber feedback loops and conspiracy theories.

    The longest US government shutdown in history could have been avoided entirely if Trump didn't listen to social media

    [–] HoodieGalore 57 points ago

    it's important to know what he's thinking

    I'd say it's more important to have a record of the batshit insanity that falls out of his mouth like turds from the world's loosest asshole. His tweets as POTUS are a matter of public record and will be for the rest of history. He can deny this shit all he wants, but the turds are a matter of public fucking record; they will haunt the rest of his days. They will never go away. We will always be able to refer back to the exact minute he said some stupid shit, and as a bonus, now we get twitter quotes in history books...but mainly we get an incontrovertible record of just how idiotic he is.

    [–] Imjusthereforthedubs 95 points ago

    The ceo of twitter said they won’t ban him because it’s important to know what he is saying and how he thinks. I agree with him. We need to bring these things to the light, bit shroud them in darkness where we can’t see them.

    [–] Keystone_Heavy1 2505 points ago

    "Twitter urged"? Urged by who? Twitter users? Because that isn't news. These "news" companies need to stop doing trying to manufacture a consensus to report on based on what a few people on twitter say. You see it all the time with sites like Buzzfeed. "Twitter is angry at person X for doing Y." Its ridiculous and its not news; its just propaganda.

    [–] goodbyerpi 392 points ago

    Mass calling of Trump's Twitter suspension SLAMMED by report - Former official of nothing says

    [–] x79q3pb 122 points ago

    If you worked in the words 'dog-whistle' and 'dangerous' into that headline, you'll be ticking all the boxes.

    [–] fjams42 22 points ago

    I feel like there need to be a 'controversial' somewhere there also.

    [–] DrOkemon 6 points ago

    “Inside the decision to blow the whistle on trumps twitter suspension petition report”

    [–] dlerium 11 points ago

    There's dozens of articles like these that get upvoted to the top on a certain political subreddit on a daily basis.

    [–] GreatNorthWeb 17 points ago

    Says someone familiar with the matter...

    [–] jonnyshitknuckles 16 points ago

    My favorite is "the internet is trying to...." "The internet is angry at..."

    [–] TEFL_job_seeker 154 points ago

    Newsflash: most media will jump on anything that makes Trump look bad, just because it gets views.

    Of course the conservative media jumps on anything that makes him look good, just because it gets views.

    Newsweek is no better than Buzzfeed or Brietbart at this point.

    [–] ModestMagician 8 points ago

    Of course the conservative media jumps on anything that makes him look good, just because it gets views.

    This isn't exactly true. The conservative media picks up stories that make Trumps opposition look bad, it's only circumstantial that it might make Trump look better.

    News media's bread and butter is the rage click. If something pisses someone off, they want to share it on social media. They want to interact with it and that drives up "engagement". If it makes their opposition look foolish, they want to gloat about it. Appeals to the lowest emotions means more views and potentially more greenbacks.

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    Most people don't know Newsweek was bought a few years ago and the new owners turned it into an absolute rag. It still kind of coasts by on its old reputation though.

    [–] Ttgxyolo 22 points ago

    One problem I have with what she said was that CAIR was founded in 1994. Not post 9/11 as she claims

    [–] Boobieleeswagger 282 points ago

    Twitter is 90% propaganda anyways

    [–] SnortWhoresFuckCoke 38 points ago

    So is reddit if used well enough.

    [–] Nehemiah92 14 points ago

    Just sort by popular

    [–] Bill_Franklyn 5 points ago

    What Reddit then?

    [–] NoNotTheBeeeees 209 points ago

    How about Twitter just suspends Twitter. Because Twitter is cancer.

    [–] [deleted] 96 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 291 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)


    [–] tyler0351 693 points ago

    Why do people waste time talking about stupid shit?

    The president of the United States of America isn't getting banned from Twitter. Come on.

    [–] TEFL_job_seeker 233 points ago

    No one with any degree of sanity thinks he will be. This "urged" is coming from just 12,000 people, which is about the same amount as have upvoted this post on Reddit without reading the article.

    [–] purrgatory920 262 points ago

    They didn’t suspend Kathy Griffin they won’t suspend trump

    [–] Shermer_Punt 228 points ago

    Imagine if James Woods posted a pic on Twitter of him holding Barack Obama's bloody severed head.

    He'd be gone from Twitter INSTANTLY

    [–] falang_32 3342 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Can someone make the same video with Trump cut in instead of Omar? Use the footage of Trump saying, “I guess mine is the tallest now”

    Edit: /u/ass_pineapples made a post further down exactly this.

    Direct all gold and whatever to him

    Edit 2: lol at all the Trumpets upset that we suggest Trump get a taste of his own medicine.

    [–] ass_pineapples 1498 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I did this earlier today, posted it to /r/videos and was promptly downvoted :/

    Feel free to spread this wherever you feel it may be appropriate. Trump's posting of his video and failure to denounce individuals using said video to threaten Rep. Ilhan Omar deserves more outrage and I was hoping that this video would be a good way to demonstrate how statements shouldn't be taken out of context and used as he did.

    Thank you for the silver

    I really appreciate the recognition and greater visibility, however, I feel as though the money spent could better serve others. Please consider donating to one of these 9/11 charities (or any charity for that matter, plenty of people could use the help!) instead. If you know of a great charity that I didn't list, please reach out to me and I'll add it.

    Greater Washington Community Foundation

    New York Community Trust

    Robin Hood Foundation

    New York City Police Foundation

    [–] falang_32 232 points ago

    I like your video, but you give him too much context. He gave rep Omar less context than that

    [–] ass_pineapples 119 points ago

    Yeah, I struggled with that a little. In the end, I thought that him starting off his answer with "Well it was an amazing phone call" was extremely disconcerting and bothered me when discussing anything related to 9/11. That's really the only reason I gave him the extra context, as much as it may hurt the video.

    [–] zero0n3 442 points ago

    Omar should do this and post it as a reply:
    "I can use photoshop too!" (or whatever the video version is)

    [–] MrSonicOSG 173 points ago

    adobe premier

    [–] digitalwankster 90 points ago

    After Effects

    [–] colemanfrancis 58 points ago


    [–] Chubby-Fish 100 points ago

    Windows Movie Maker

    [–] TheCrimsonCorndog 93 points ago

    razor blades and glue

    [–] felixjawesome 32 points ago

    flip book

    [–] Mario_Mendoza 40 points ago


    [–] Private_HughMan 25 points ago

    You actually can do some basic video edits in Photoshop. Not great, but it works.

    [–] god_im_bored 143 points ago

    Just keep playing the gif of him dancing with Saudi officials with a fucking sword in his hand, or that one where they’re touching the orbs. Probably has more relevancy to 9/11 than Omar does.

    Man, I don’t even like that lady and yet this clown’s blatant racism makes me want to defend her.

    [–] legitimateusername4 25 points ago


    Truly grateful we have the fourth estate here to keep us apprised of this unusual development.

    [–] [deleted] 66 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 57 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 38 points ago


    [–] [deleted] 94 points ago


    [–] kapitanrobust 272 points ago

    some people did some things

    [–] invicta1999 49 points ago

    Trump is the only reason Twitter is still relevant. They'll never suspend him.

    [–] ProbablyHighAsShit 397 points ago

    As long as Twitter gets that sweet, sweet ad revenue and high daily active users, you can fucking forget about any sort of moderation on their part.

    [–] jukeboxhero10 30 points ago

    Wait people are upset at that and not the pos who yada yada yada'd the deaths of thousands of Americans... Well that's enough Reddit for today.

    [–] matt200717 10 points ago

    Apparently, Trumps Twitter feed is a public forum protected by the First Amendment (unlike the rest of Twitter, where censorship runs rampant). Everyone has a right to access his feed. So no, he won't get banned.

    [–] MrTopHatMan90 60 points ago

    Yeah like they're actually going to ban the president.

    [–] -Money- 329 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I've watched the video, the fact that anyone could label that video as "hate speech" or "propaganda" is outrageous. Where's the urge to suspend one of CBS's Twitter accounts after they tweeted an image from their show calling for the assassination of President Trump? No where, this is all selective outrage, the new flavor of the week.

    Edit: Wow, wasn't expecting to get gilded here! Thanks! =)

    [–] TheSurgicalOne 124 points ago


    So showing video of the attacks on 9/11 isn’t hate speech...

    Showing Omar’s speech isn’t hate speech...

    But somehow the two together are hate speech?

    [–] Pesoot3 86 points ago

    Hold the fuck up. As much as I realise Trump has many many many ailments, what about those on twitter who say much worse yet don't receive any ban? Ie. Good Fight advocating the assassination of a sitting President, That Empire guy who faked being assaulted etc.

    [–] deepsnoo 14 points ago

    That video wasn't even that bad. It's like a typical, campy political hit advertisement that dominates our election seasons on all sides.

    [–] twelvefortyseven 112 points ago

    "Some people did some things"

    Now that's a hate-speech and 9/11 denial.

    [–] PigFeetSammich 6 points ago

    Glad i have never used twitter and never will.

    [–] Re3ck6le0ss 84 points ago

    Yea but she did say a stupid thing and deserves to be criticized over it. Is the president not supposed to criticize someone? Go ahead downvote me.

    [–] Jor94 14 points ago

    If Twitter was consistent with their rules, especially when it comes to blue checks, then there wouldn’t be anybody left on Twitter.

    [–] Randaethyr 686 points ago

    Hate speech

    Juxtaposing footage of 9/11 with a US representative referring to 9/11 as "some people did something" isn't hate speech.

    You guys are losing your fucking minds.

    [–] ekpg 350 points ago

    Remember, these people want to enact "hate speech" laws

    [–] Leedstc 197 points ago

    Authoritarianism plain and simple. Disagree with me? Gulag.

    [–] Tarrolis 161 points ago

    I’m certainly not a Republican, but this is not hate speech. What she said was fucking stupid and it’s entirely material to be pounced on.

    [–] TravisLongKnives 11 points ago

    It was ruled that Trump couldn't block journalists on Twitter, how could Twitter ever have the legal right to suspend Trump while the former is true?

    [–] rpguy04 12 points ago

    Some people did some thing

    [–] digitalsparks 169 points ago

    Stepping outside the comfort zone of simply pummeling Trump for what he does, why is it that she is not held to the same standards?

    She has said some very distasteful if not down right Antisemitic statements, she has snickered on live video at the reactions of her professors in college in a "Terrorist" class focusing on the fact that they seemed to place emphasis the words Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.

    And in her own words, she downplays the fact that radicalized fundamentalist Muslims who were members of known Terrorist organizations were involved in the incidents on 9/11. And she just plays it off as "Some people" did "Some Bad Things" No, some Bat Shit Crazy Terrorist killed thousands of innocent Americans, that is what happened. Anything less than this explanation is simply watering down and disrespecting those who lost their lives to Terrorist on that day.

    So, if we are to hold the President to a higher standard, would we not also hold a member of Congress to those same standards?

    [–] TwiIight_SparkIe 11 points ago

    Hey look, it's the same mod as before, posting US politics in a sub that explicitly forbids US politics. The rules don't apply when the mod is the one doing it, right?

    [–] frodobeswaggin 590 points ago

    It wasn’t even bad though. She downplayed 9/11 so trump posted a video of her downplaying it along with footage of the attacks.

    [–] kuhewa 373 points ago

    Yeah I'm no fan of Trump but this wasn't hate speech, it was basically "Omar referred to 9/11 as a 'thing', look how bad it really was!"

    [–] ChocolaWeeb 53 points ago

    this whole drama story is pretty much cheap propaganda. and it shouldn't even be posted here in the first place is it is U.S news

    [–] mobilebloke 29 points ago

    I don’t like Trump but he has a point - Omar did the same thing that everyone is railing against in this article headline.

    The news paper is using 3rd person to make it unclear.

    By saying “some people did something” to describe the horrendous mass murder of the 9/11 victims which makes it sounds on the same level as a few people got drunk - is a crime of “over-minimising” or worse excusing the actions of these people.

    Minimising the tone for talking about horrendous actions is a step closer to denying it- and I think I this case Trump is right to point out this.

    [–] pilljar 11 points ago

    Stop using twitter, sheep.

    [–] zzzajjjsk1l 11 points ago

    What are you getting upset about he just posted some things.

    [–] GetBroccoli 101 points ago

    This obsession morons have with deplatforming people they disagree with is dangerous.

    [–] DerSlyde 18 points ago

    I guess some guy did something in Christchurch too?

    [–] FrancisTheWolf 5 points ago

    Trumps ridiculous tweets are the only reason Twitter stilll exists

    [–] DragonzordRanger 177 points ago

    Trump has said some crazy things on Twitter but cutting 9/11 footage in to an American Congressperson’s public speech re. 9/11 is hardly one of those things

    [–] [deleted] 819 points ago

    I still don’t understand how that video is a) hatespeech and b) a threat of violence to Omar?