politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Didn't go far enough. He shouldn't be allowed to post a thing. That's worse than house arrest to him at this point.
That would border too close to government censorship, though. I hate this guy's posts as mixhtas the next person, but full restriction should apply if he keeps breaching previous agreements only.
Having said that, I hope he does breach this one.
They didn't let Kevin Mitnick use a computer for years. They can do the same to Trump.
When and if he's convicted.
If the judge goes to far before he's convicted the right is going to scream about first amendment rights.
I'm sure they're already screaming about it tbh. But they'd have more ammunition if the judge limits him before he's convicted.
I'm tired of this walking on eggshells bullshit. They can scream whatever they like. It's the judge's discretion. Their "ammunition" is useless.
Trump is a danger on social media. He has used it to get his fans to threaten and attack people and foment insurrection. He needs to be banned from using it before he does it again.
I do too, but so many R moves are designed to eventually escalate appeals to the cherry picked SCOTUS. Fucking scum, IMO
But it's not the judges discretion to violate First Amendment rights.
They're going to scream anyway, if they aren't already. Who gives a shit what they think anymore?
Well we better not hurt the feelings of the people who are perpetuating all of this, that would be mean.
Kevin Mitnick was convicted. Trump is not yet convicted.
R.I.P.
if he cant be trusted not to break the law he should be in custody.
Since he has breached previous agreements already I think we are to the taking away all his electronics step.
Or we would in a just society.
or maybe he could be held in custody if he cant not break the law. like you or i would be if we were intimidating witnesses and judges.