Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for “glorifying violence”

In fairness, Trump's tweets are not about actually doing anything, they are more about getting votes. So arguing the feasibility of suggestions outlined in a Trump tweet kind of misses the point.

Really? Because literally this week Trump tweeted something and then followed it up with an executive order.

That’s a bubble of reality distortion surrounding the public facing messaging of the man. That is not the expectation for the Office of the President. He won. He got to the top office.

No. This man holds the office of the POTUS. There are certain responsibilities that come with it. The officeholder cannot make deadly threats publicly and expect everyone to just shrug it off.

It was a message, directly to law enforcement, that he thinks it’s okay for them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting. I can’t see how anyone would see that as anything other than a crime against humanity

He also promised to throw Hillary in prison for the emails. Still waiting on that one.

This is my comment on the other HN thread about this:

> The phrase was used by Miami's police chief, Walter Headley, in 1967, when he addressed his department's "crackdown on ... slum hoodlums," according to a United Press International article from the time.

> Headley, who was chief of police in Miami for 20 years, said that law enforcement was going after “young hoodlums, from 15 to 21, who have taken advantage of the civil rights campaign. ... We don't mind being accused of police brutality."

This is where the quote comes from.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-...

Edit:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quotes-cop-sparked-rac...

> The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence found that Headley's remarks and policing policies had been a significant factor in sparking the riots.

> Headley died four months after the riots. The Times in its obituary noted his policies had caused "growing resentment" among black Miami residents.

Our President fully understands the gravity of those words. This is what he wanted to say. This is what he meant. This is what he believes. This is WHO HE IS.

I don't know why you're getting down voted. Trump's words are a quote of someone who believed that "... it’s okay for them to shoot protestors so long as there is looting."

Trump is very much saying he believes looter should be shot.

To be clear here: Looting is not a capital offense. It's stuff. No TV/car/stereo is worth killing a person over. You have insurance for these things (hopefully).

Though laws vary widely in the US, in CA the punishment is about a year in county jail, give or take:

https://www.shouselaw.com/california-looting-laws.html

I think he would have done so if he could. In the end the US president has a lot more power then president's in other democratic counties but still he's constrained by the law.

To be clear here: it's not just "stuff." In innumerable ways, the looting and rioting is resulting in loss of material items that cannot be replaced. Case in point: https://twitter.com/wakiyan7/status/1266350546249629699

What law do you imagine constrains him from doing so?

Things that can't be replaced huh? Like human lives, say those of Floyd or the protesters being shot at by police?

To be clearer still: Minnesota does not have stand your ground / castle doctrine laws - you can't protect "material items" with deadly force, no matter how valuable or irreplaceable. Instead, there is are Duty to retreat laws.

On the contrary, the way the US constitution works is the government has no power at all, except granted by the constitution or laws passed by congress that are constitutional. The question is - which law empowers him to do so?

Not sure why you’re downvoted.

I think that you’re right about Trump’s motive. It’s all a PR game to keep him in power, even and especially when he says nasty stuff. If you try to argue with it as if it was reason then it will be like punching a cloud.

Under that mental model, it’s hard to predict how this will play out. I don’t know how this Twitter action will affect the psychology of his supporters. It will be interesting to watch!

That's horrible.

That's still not worth shooting people in the streets over.

There are reports that some of the fires are set by provocateurs from the police. But this is impossible to prove either way.

1. This is horrible.

2. This could've been avoided if the original policeman was brought to justice.

You are both mistaken. Laws are written by people, and the constitution is a piece of paper. The legislative body that passed these laws just heard arguments from the House that the President attempted to extort a bribe from a foreign allied government using taxpayer dollars, and on the other side they heard the President argue that not only is he within his rights to refuse handing over any and all evidence of that crime, it's not even a crime because if he believes it will benefit his election, and he believes his election will help the American people, ispo facto he cannot be removed from office.

The Senate agreed with the President and decided not to remove him for this conduct. Not only that, he cannot be indicted for said conduct because the Justice Department has a policy stating they cannot indict the President. For instance in the Mueller investigation they documented no fewer than 10 instances of obstruction of justice by the President, a federal crime. The lead investigator in that case also testified under oath that the President was not truthful in his answers to investigator questions.

This has emboldened the President to argue in court that not only is he immune from indictment, he's immune from any and all investigation.

So the question is not which laws constrain the President, nor is it which laws empower the President. At this point after all that, the question is: "Who is going to do this for the President, and who is going to stop him?"

I have recently looked into conceal carry, and many states DO NOT allow you to shoot someone who tells you they want your wallet. If they do not seem like a threat to your life, you are not allowed to use lethal force. Obviously, things can later be argued in court.

No, I don't think it was. A plain reading of the quote does not direct anyone, to do, anything. It is an observation. Just like it was your observation (and opinion) that it said something different.

The questions are this: Who is right? Who decides that?

I have taken down this same argument you made elsewhere on this topic and I ask that in addition to your not arguing about something that didn’t happen and how you hypothesize people you cannot name would react, that you make the argument just once and not paper all over a topic with exact copies of it.

But does that responsibility extend to other members of Government, or just the President?

I think a lot of people are still waiting, and hoping, on that one but it will never happen. Politicians at that level don't seem to go to jail much.

I think it’s a threat directed at private gun-owning citizens that would be willing to take the law into their own hands. I’m old enough to remember the L.A. riots, where the police essentially peace’d out and let the resulting storm “work” itself out. It was God-awful for everyone involved, from the looters to the business owners to the innocent bystanders watching idly by.

Trump is warning the looters that they are taking their lives in their own hands, not just against the police, but against other private citizens protecting their property.

"a threat directed at" I'm not trying to be pedantic here, forgive me, but I reiterate that it was an observation. Any meaning beyond that is your own. The statement stands as it is, any interpretation by Twitter is editorializing.

I'm going to give Trump a C grade on communication on this one. A better Tweet would have been something like, "Minneapolis is why we need the second amendment and stand your ground laws." Followed by calls to Congress on nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, stand your ground, etc.

> A plain reading of the quote does not direct anyone, to do, anything.

Humans are not robots, however, and putting your fingers in your ears doesn't change the very clear nature of his message.

Can you distract people by asking this?

This is true, I agree. It was an observation that the people rioting and looting are choosing to put their lives into their own hands.

They are. Or do you want them dragged through the streets and hanged immediately?

>A plain reading of the quote does not direct anyone, to do, anything.

Ah yes, and his followers are widely known for their highly nuanced and level-headed understanding of things he says (and politics in general) /s.

>The questions are this: Who is right? Who decides that?

On whether egregiously advocating violence is ok? Really?

Sorry I needed to include some references here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/27/arts/design/van-gogh-stol...

and

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/us/politics/klobuchar-min...

"During her own presidential campaign, Ms. Klobuchar faced continued protests, as well as some calls to drop out of the race from local black leaders in Minneapolis, after news reports found numerous faults in the prosecution of a black teenager named Myon Burrell while Ms. Klobuchar was the prosecutor."

You seem to be arguing throughout this thread that the President's comment is akin to saying "red sky at morning, sailors take warning." As if he's predicting a rain storm. But he's not just some guy at the marina, he's the President. It's also useful to look at what he isn't saying. He isn't calling for an investigation into the death or the lack of prosecution or the racial divide in the country or acknowledging the rage and anger of the non-white community that keeps being treated differently from the white community. His followers will hear this statement, "when the looting starts the shooting starts" as a dog whistle call "it's OK to start shooting." Or further, "I expect you to put this slave revolt down."

Twitter. It is a private company. If he doesn't like Twitter, rather than complain about Twitter on Twitter he could move to Gab where most of his followers are.

Honestly, I can't figure out what the tweet means. "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts." From a plain reading I think he's saying when the feds take control they will shoot looters.

But again, it's an observation, not a statement of fact, nor a declaration. "When a black person is killed is when the looting starts" How is that statement any different that what Trump said? As much as you want to editorialize and censor, you can't twist a statement to fit your narrative.

I think it means that Trump doesn't understand that he can't just march the Army in there at his sole discretion.

But if the situation escalated to the point that federal troops were needed (at the request of the state), then yes, there is almost certainly going to be shooting. You don't expect that a stern look from the Army is going to do the job.

So you chose to conflate the loss of irreplaceable Native American artifacts and historical records with the loss of a life, on a thread discussing material items?

I get that this is emotional, but that was not warranted. The rioters have destroyed the historical records of a Native American tribe and I'd like to think that they've suffered enough. The point was to show that it's not only cheap Target things being lost here.

I was not arguing in favor of shooting anyone. I was simply pointing out that dismissing the destruction in generality as "stuff" is in error and minimizing the effect. Don't lose objectivity in the face of tragedy.