POG Politics Thread - Page 73 - Puzzles and Other Games Forum

Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, received a secret payment of at least $400,000 (£300,000) to fix talks between the Ukrainian president and President Trump, according to sources in Kiev close to those involved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44215656

I for one am glad y'all avoided Clinton and her pay to play system.

05-23-2018 , 07:24 PM

#1802

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,092

Quote:

Originally Posted by ihcjay

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/23/medi...ers/index.html

lol

I wonder how twitter execs feel about this as it might set a precedent that prevents them from running their fiefdom however they see fit--i.e blocking and banning voices they don't like.

05-23-2018 , 08:59 PM

#1803

ihcjay

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 44,298

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

I wonder how twitter execs feel about this as it might set a precedent that prevents them from running their fiefdom however they see fit--i.e blocking and banning voices they don't like.

Nope

05-23-2018 , 09:02 PM

#1804

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 61,092

So you think twitter is in support of this ruling?

05-23-2018 , 11:05 PM

#1805

pwnsall

CFBBPC

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 65,623

The court apparently isn't going to try to enforce the ruling in any capacity

Can twitter ban me completely or do they always have to allow me to at least have an account and interact with the president? Given they allow him to have a public platform on their medium.

05-23-2018 , 11:40 PM

#1806

ihcjay

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 44,298

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

So you think twitter is in support of this ruling?

It's a different situation irt Trump because of who he is.

05-24-2018 , 02:51 AM

#1807

soah

Unexpected

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 61,667

It must be nice to be the spokesman for the Mueller investigation. You can collect a salary and benefits just to play around on the computer all day and answer "no comment" to reporters a few times per month. Do you think they're currently hiring?

05-24-2018 , 04:12 AM

#1808

iamnotawerewolf

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 31,482

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

So you think twitter is in support of this ruling?

I think twitter likes the idea that a public figure cannot limit twitter's application, reach, and relevance.

05-24-2018 , 04:15 AM

#1809

iamnotawerewolf

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 31,482

Quote:

Originally Posted by pwnsall

The court apparently isn't going to try to enforce the ruling in any capacity

I really hope Trump believes this.

Quote:

Can twitter ban me completely or do they always have to allow me to at least have an account and interact with the president? Given they allow him to have a public platform on their medium.

Twitter isn't a government actor...

05-24-2018 , 04:15 AM

#1810

iamnotawerewolf

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 31,482

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokiri

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44215656

I for one am glad y'all avoided Clinton and her pay to play system.

*crickets*

05-24-2018 , 08:14 AM

#1811

pwnsall

CFBBPC

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 65,623

Yeah I know. I think my angle still makes sense though. I mean it's at least arguable.

I assume they'd be held to the same standard as banning protestors if the president spoke in public. Something of that nature.

They're a government actor by allowing the government to act on their platform.

05-24-2018 , 08:28 AM

#1812

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,419

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

I wonder how twitter execs feel about this as it might set a precedent that prevents them from running their fiefdom however they see fit--i.e blocking and banning voices they don't like.

What? It's clear they are ruling on this as an official arm of the president and not as a standard American citizen.

05-24-2018 , 08:30 AM

#1813

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,419

Quote:

Originally Posted by pwnsall

Does the same apply to television networks that air the State of the Union address?

05-24-2018 , 08:35 AM

#1814

soah

Unexpected

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 61,667

My uninformed thought would be that if there's a problem with the fact that certain people have been banned from Twitter and therefore can't interact with the President, then the obligation would fall on the government to find an alternative to Twitter rather than for the courts to impose on Twitter. If you're requiring Twitter to make those types of accommodations then it seems like it would violate the Takings Clause.

That said, I don't know what I'm talking about.

05-24-2018 , 08:38 AM

#1815

soah

Unexpected

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 61,667

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

Does the same apply to television networks that air the State of the Union address?

This doesn't seem analogous. It isn't broadcast on just a single network, for one thing. And it's impossible to ban people from receiving a television transmission.

05-24-2018 , 08:44 AM

#1816

pwnsall

CFBBPC

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 65,623

My hunch is twitter is fine with the arrangement of Trump using their platform is one they are happy with.

Guessing if he could ban people from responding to him but they could still see what he writes that would pass scrutiny. Actually seems like that's the case right now so they must be ruling they have a right to actually interact with the president.

Twitter could of course choose to ban the president.

05-24-2018 , 09:04 AM

#1817

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,419

Quote:

Originally Posted by soah

This doesn't seem analogous. It isn't broadcast on just a single network, for one thing. And it's impossible to ban people from receiving a television transmission.

He said Twitter is a government actor by allowing the government to act on their platform. I was addressing only that statement, and the analogy holds.

Tv networks allow the government to act on their network. Does that make them government actors.

05-24-2018 , 09:33 AM

#1818

pwnsall

CFBBPC

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 65,623

Not a government actor in general, just in that single capacity. And I'm using the term generally so you'll have to parse what it means with your brain.

I agree the analogy sucks. 2-1. Majority rules!

05-24-2018 , 09:53 AM

#1819

master3004

Revisionist Historian

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 56,419

So in the singular instance of the State of the union, are the TV networks government actors?

05-24-2018 , 09:56 AM

#1820

pwnsall

CFBBPC

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 65,623

Maybe, I was just trying to go off the courts ruling of "designated public forum"

You can take it up with them if you want

If you want to use your nudging analogy technique to tell them their ruling is dumb, have at it!

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...natedforum.htm

05-24-2018 , 10:03 AM

#1821

pwnsall

CFBBPC

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 65,623

Not sure I see anything that would be specific precedent for something like this.

I'm imagining Starbucks hosting the mayor for like a Q and A and then someone they banned for some previous lewd behavior wanting to go there and participate. Are they forced to allow 'em in? Maybe! My gut says they would end up being forced to if such a case happened.

How much is that like twitter? I don't know.

05-24-2018 , 10:12 AM

#1822

pwnsall

CFBBPC

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 65,623

There's a thread at the top of reddit about NFL banning kneeling and no one is mentioning how it's not a freedom protected from private companies. Sad! (someone did a bit further down)

Though you can argue the NFL is a government entity because of (whatever benefits they get from the government).

05-24-2018 , 11:55 PM

#1823

vaya

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 15,156

The NFL didn't ban kneeling

Quote:

Originally Posted by pwnsall

05-25-2018 , 10:42 AM

#1824

iamnotawerewolf

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 31,482

Quote:

Originally Posted by pwnsall

the examples in that article are all of forums created and maintained by the government (municipal auditorium, public college student-group fund/benefits), not just forums "used by" the govt

elsewise, given the ubiquity of taxation, you might be concerned that the government "uses" everything, or alternatively that everything "benefits from" the gov't, and therefor everything is, by designation, "public"

Last edited by iamnotawerewolf; 05-25-2018 at 10:48 AM.