Dana Milbank is a regular columnist for The Washington Post. He writes here about the essence of Trump: Vulgarity.
He began:
The New York Times ran a fine specimen of unintentional comedy this week: an essay by conservative writer Rich Lowry titled “Trump Can Win on Character.”
The only thing that could have made it better was if it had been under the byline of Stormy Daniels.
Lowry’s argument itself wasn’t quite as absurd as the headline. He was only suggesting that Trump repeatedly call Vice President Kamala Harris “weak,” which Trump probably won’t do, because he’s too busy calling her a communist, a copycat, stupid, a recent conversion to being Black or someone with a crazy laugh who is not as good looking as he is.
Trump could win on various things: inflation, immigration, isolationism. But the notion that a felon and adjudicated sexual abuser who shouts barnyard obscenities and vulgar epithets at his rallies would return to the White House on the strength of his upstanding character? Well, let’s just say there are very fine people on both sides who would have trouble making that argument.
As though in answer to the suggestion that he can “win on character,” Trump responded over the next couple of days by:
• Holding a campaign event in front of graves at Arlington National Cemetery, where his staff reportedly pushed aside a cemetery official trying to enforce rules against politicizing the sacred ground. Trump posed graveside with a big grin and a thumbs-up, and his campaign set the Republican nominee’s cemetery visit to music and posted it as a TikTok video. When a Harris spokesman commented on the “sad” event, Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, declared that Harris herself “can go to hell.” (Vance, after a cool reception last week at a doughnut shop in Georgia, got booed by firefighters this week in Boston.)
• Announcing that two of the nation’s most prominent conspiracy theorists — Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard — would be co-chairs of his presidential transition if he wins the election, with influence over key appointments and policies. Gabbard’s trumpeting of Russian propaganda has been labeled “treasonous” by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), and Kennedy’s long-shot presidential campaign somehow fizzled after he acknowledged, among other things, having a brain worm and leaving a dead bear cub in New York’s Central Park.
• Rolling out his latest attempt to cajole his supporters to line his own pockets. This time, he offered another round of “digital trading cards” featuring a Trump superhero. Supporters who parted with $1,485 or more in this Trump-enrichment scam would be sent a piece of the fabric cut from the “knockout suit” he wore during his June debate with President Joe Biden.
• Proclaiming that it was “Biden’s fault and Harris’s fault” that he was the victim of a failed assassination attempt, asserting without evidence that they prevented the Secret Service from protecting him and that he might have been shot “because of their rhetoric.” The FBI reported that the shooter, a Republican, had searched online for both Biden and Trump events and settled on the Trump rally as a “target of opportunity.”
• Sharing another fusillade of posts on social media that cited QAnon slogans, called for the imprisonment of his opponents, and suggested that Harris used sex to advance her career.
On Thursday, Trump was in Michigan and as coarse as ever — referring twice to Harris’s running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, as “Tampon Tim”; preposterously claiming that in Democratic states “you’re allowed to kill the baby after the baby is born”; and saying of Harris: “Nobody knows who the hell she is. She does not give a damn about you.” While complaining that the Army had said he used the Arlington National Cemetery visit “to politic,” he went right on “politicking” about it. Referring to the families of the fallen he met with, Trump said Biden and Harris “killed their children as though they had a gun in their hand.”
Trump can win on character!
Trump isn’t a fan of military cemeteries, wherein rest those who died for their country and who Trump regards as “suckers” and “losers.” (Trump denies voicing those sentiments, which his former chief of staff, retired four-star Marine Gen. John Kelly, attributes to him.) Trump canceled a visit to an American military cemetery in France in 2018, citing rain, and he skipped the presidential visit to Arlington on Veterans Day that same year. Just two weeks ago, he said the civilian Presidential Medal of Freedom is “much better” than the Medal of Honor for military valor because those receiving the latter “have been hit so many times by bullets or they’re dead.”
So why did he visit Arlington this week? There was something in it for him. He would use the fallen as a backdrop for a political attack against the Biden administration — specifically, attacking Biden for his handling of the Afghanistan pullout three years ago.
Army National Military Cemeteries cannot be used for political activities, but when a cemetery official tried to “ensure adherence to these rules” she was “abruptly pushed aside,” an Army spokesman said. Trump’s campaign accused the official of “suffering from a mental health episode” and Chris LaCivita, who is co-managing Trump’s campaign, called her a “despicable” person who shouldn’t represent the “hollowed grounds” of Arlington.
LaCivita knows something about making the hallowed hollow. He led the “swiftboating” of John Kerry 20 years ago and is now attempting to do the same to Harris’s running mate by disparaging Walz’s honorable service. And here was the Trump campaign desecrating Arlington’s Section 60, where Iraq and Afghanistan war dead lie, and posting photos and video of it across social media, with a voice-over by Trump attacking his political opponents.
Of course, Trump is the one who set the Afghanistan withdrawal in motion. Now, he’s setting another calamity in motion, by getting ready to force Ukraine to give up its fight against Russia’s invasion. “Look at what’s going on right now with Ukraine surging into Russia,” he complained this week, objecting to Ukraine’s recent success. “You’re going to end up in World War III and it’s going to be a bad one.”
Openly condemning an American ally’s success? Vladimir Putin couldn’t have said it better…
Kennedy’s crackpot ideas go well beyond covid to the debunked claim that childhood vaccines cause autism, that WiFi causes “leaky brain,” that chemicals in the water supply might turn children transgender, that AIDS might not be caused by HIV, that Republicans stole the 2004 election and that 5G networks are used for mass surveillance. And that was before the world learned about his brain worm and the bear cub.
Trump this week said Kennedy has “got some very good ideas” that “turned out to be right.” And he says he’d rely on the judgment of both Kennedy and Gabbard to staff up his administration.
Trump can win on character!
Hello, everyone. This is your favorite president, Donald J. Trump, with some very exciting news. By popular demand, I am doing a new series of Trump digital trading cards!
So begins the infomercial Trump posted on social media this week. For just $99 apiece, Trump supporters can pay with credit card or crypto to own digital cards showing a young and muscular Trump on a motorcycle, holding a lightning bolt, and praying. (This third offering of cards, the America First Collection, follows the Mugshot Edition.) Those who cough up $24,750 or more will get two tickets to “a gala dinner at my beautiful country club in Jupiter, Florida” — and a “bigger” piece of his debate suit.
Proceeds go not to Trump’s campaign but to a company he created for the racket.
Don’t care for the cards? “I have a FANTASTIC new Book coming out in two weeks, ‘SAVE AMERICA,’” Trump also posted this week. “I hand-selected every Photo.” This one is $99, or $499 signed; proceeds go to a company founded by Donald Trump Jr.
These follow other grifting ventures by Trump: sneakers, bibles — you name it. But his biggest scheme by far has been convincing supporters to buy stock in Trump Media, the parent of Truth Social. Investors who bought at the peak have now lost about 75 percent of their money, as the market adjusts to the realization that the business is fundamentally worthless. (It loses millions of dollars and produces scant revenue.) But Trump’s 59 percent stake in the company is still valued at about $2.2 billion — and he can start dumping his shares on Sept. 20. Company executives have already begun cashing out. Loyal Trump supporters who bought in on his assurance that Trump Media is a “highly successful” company are left holding the bag.
Trump can win on character!
The former president is befuddled. “Kamala and her ‘handlers’ are trying to make it sound like I am the Incumbent President,” he protested on X. (His return to the platform is another acknowledgment of Truth Social’s failure.)
This is true: He’s no longer running against an incumbent president, and Harris has been skillful in making the campaign about Trump’s record. Trump keeps pining for Biden’s candidacy. At a stop in Detroit, he admitted that people are advising him “don’t waste your time” on Biden — even as he mentioned his former opponent five times.
In his disorientation, Trump retreats to his instincts.
He makes up stuff. He claims that the Biden administration is to blame for the assassination attempt, that the U.S. military has “no ammunition,” that his “administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights.”
He is outrageous. This week, he shared QAnon slogans online (“nothing can stop what is coming,” “where we go one we go all”); doctored images of Biden, Harris, Hillary Clinton, “crazy” Nancy Pelosi and others in orange jumpsuits; and proposals to indict members of the House select Jan. 6 committee for “sedition” and to prosecute Barack Obama in a “public military tribunal.” His country club in Bedminster, N.J., will host a fundraiser next week for participants in the 2021 attack on the Capitol.
And he’s obscene. This former president of the United States shared a photo of Harris and Clinton as part of a post associating both women with oral sex. This came as Fox News prime-time host Jesse Watters, a Trump ally, fantasized on air about Harris “paralyzed in the Situation Room while the generals have their way with her.” (Watters says he “wasn’t suggesting anything of a sexual nature.”) Also, former Trump official (and Republican convention speaker) Peter Navarro responded on X to special counsel Jack Smith’s revised indictment of Trump to conform to a recent Supreme Court ruling: “What the f— is this Jacko? YOU are going to prison for election interference. You can have Merrick [Garland] as your bunkie.” (Navarro is just out of prison himself.)
“I always look for good words, highly sophisticated — I’m highly educated, I like sophisticated words,” Trump said in Detroit this week. But for his opponents, he went on, “there’s only one word I get. That’s stupid — they’re stupid people.”
In his reflexive name-calling, he confirms that there really is one word that describes him better than any other. Vulgar.

Trump is beyond all doubt vulgar, mentally lazy, willfully uninformed, contemptuous of constitutional and societal norms that could restrain him, etc. He is completely unfit to be President. Unfortunately, his main opponent in 2024 has little regard for the bedrock American principle of free speech. There is no way for anyone who genuinely values our First Amendment rights to justify what Harris has said about this matter.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/that-kamala-harris-video-and-censorship-1e89c380?mod=opinion_lead_pos12
LikeLike
this article concerns Musk and his control of his new toy (formerly known as Twitter). Since it is behind a paywall, m as bye you could provide some text for us poor folks
LikeLike
It was from 2019, before Musk owned Twitter. The exchange was about whether Trump should be banned from Twitter.
LikeLike
But Trump is ordained by God, right? That makes his vulgarity a justification of the end. The vulgarity is just a means. He really is a representative of God.
LikeLike
Ad hominem attacks are the lowest form of criticism. These types of attacks are generally made by children or adults that suffer from arrested development syndrome. Trump has no filter and little self-control. By entertaining his cult with such nonsense, he can avoid talking policy. He knows if he talks policy, he will lose. He plans to follow Project 2025, and there is nothing in that playbook that will help the working class. Trump thrives on chaos and distraction.
LikeLike
Here is most of the WSJ piece I linked to in my first comment:
Back in 2019 X was still called Twitter. Here’s what Ms. Harris told CNN about her campaign to pressure Twitter to turn off Mr. Trump’s account:
Government must regulate speech across all media platforms and dictate one set of rules for what people are permitted to say? This is a proposal for a frontal assault on the First Amendment, and a great reason for voters not to grant Ms. Harris the promotion she now seeks. Why most media outlets have not regarded her authoritarian message as disqualifying for the presidency is a question for another day. But it’s important that Mr. Kennedy’s error not obscure the danger to liberty expressed by a candidate in her own words.
In 2019 Ms. Harris was speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper right after the network had hosted a Democratic presidential candidates debate in Westerville, Ohio. News consumers may recall Sen. Elizabeth Warren as among the most aggressive proponents of giant, overbearing government in that primary race. But that night’s drama featured Ms. Warren resisting as Ms. Harris badgered her again and again to agree that Twitter should disable the sitting president’s account. Here’s an excerpt from CNN’s transcript, as Sen. Warren was given a chance to respond to Ms. Harris:
Ms. Harris continued demanding that Sen. Warren endorse censorship of their chief political rival while the Massachusetts senator continued trying to change the subject. At one point questioner Marc Lacey of the New York Times tried to bring another candidate into the discussion but Ms. Harris said, “I’m not finished. I’m not finished.” She then continued to demand Ms. Warren’s assent in censorship, as the Massachusetts senator continued to resist.
Can you imagine a federal government so large and so contemptuous of constitutional liberty that Elizabeth Warren is the voice of restraint and the bulwark protecting individual rights?
Don’t say you haven’t been warned about Kamala Harris.
Her argument for shutting down the Trump account rested on an outrageous claim tying him to an El Paso shooting for which he was not responsible, and another bogus claim that criticizing the purported “whistleblower” that House Democrats would use for their partisan first impeachment amounted to threatening a witness. That night in Ohio, even CNN’s Mr. Tapper sounded skeptical:
She didn’t say which actual words she considered a threat and of course there was no actual crime established in the Democrats’ partisan first impeachment effort, which ended with acquittal in the Senate in early 2020.
Kamala Harris didn’t want Mr. Trump to be able to defend himself in the public square. And that should concern every American, whether they support Mr
LikeLike
Harris absolutely should be asked about those comments and asked to clarify her position on what official oversight, if any, she believes the government should have over social media (or any media), as well as what pressure government should be permitted to apply to social or other media regarding the content on their platforms.
LikeLike
If I were moderating the presidential debate, that’s a question I would ask her.
LikeLike
Why? When did she say government should have official oversight over social media?
I would like to ask you why you think Congress must be banned from passing any laws affecting social media, even though there are laws governing other media?
What is special about social media?
And why can Musk ban other people but not Trump?
Why do you oppose Kamala having the freedom of speech to call out a double standard about how twitter bans people? Why do you want to censor Kamala and not Trump?
(see how easy it is to disingenuously twist what people say in a leading question, as you seem to want to be done to Kamala during the debate?)
“government” censorship??
A world in which the powerful must follow the same rules that those with no power must follow is not “censorship”.
We live in Orwellian times.
LikeLike
Read the article we’re discussing. We also discussed this yesterday. Pay attention to words.
“And the bottom line is that you can’t say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.”
LikeLike
FLERP,
Twitter had its own oversight before Musk bought it and opened the gates to all manner of Nazis and conspiracy theorists. It was self-regulating.
LikeLike
All true.
LikeLike
oversight and regulation is not censorship.
If that were the case, we already have censorship over every industry and media company that is regulated. Only twitter/x seems to be above the law.
LikeLike
Oversight could very well be censorship. That’s why she should be asked to clarify.
LikeLike
FLERP, nothing in her words referredtogo pennant regulation or control of social media. This is another Trump diversion.
LikeLike
She said this:
“And the bottom line is that you can’t say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.”
So she said that social media sites should have uniform rules (i.e. you can’t have one rule for Facebook and one for Twitter) and she said that social media sites are speaking to people “without any level of oversight or regulation” and that “that has to stop.”
If she didn’t mean that social media sites should have government oversight, then she can easily clarify that. But she has to be asked first.
LikeLike
flerp!,
Should Elon Musk have the right to amplify all posts by Trump that push provocative lies to encourage hate and violence, but also the freedom to censor posts that point out the lies?
What if Musk decides not to “ban” the truth, but to simply bury it so it’s hard to find, while amplifying those lies?
What “regulation” should Musk have? None?
Having regulations that apply to everyone is not “censorship”.
If Musk refuses to do it on his own, what do you suggest? Anything Musk owns can’t be regulated?
Why can other media be regulated? Child pornography? Minor access to certain things.
Movie ratings are just suggestions, and it would be illegal for a movie theater to keep out a 16 year old from an R rated movie?
LikeLike
If you can limit yourself to one question, I’ll respond.
LikeLike
As Kamala quite wisely said, you want her to answer a question that is best discussed in a law school debate. A gotcha!
What would your answer be? We must never regulate X? Or if you don’t think Musk must be the sole arbiter of what can and cannot be censored on twitter, use specifics about what he can and cannot do and how that would be enforced, including tweeting out the home addresses of anyone who Trump doesn’t like, or tweeting nasty attacks on Kamala’s young niece.
How is that enforced?
The irony is that there is ALREADY lots of nasty things on twitter and no one is trying to censor them all. But sometimes things are over the top, and it is right for politicians not to just say — as they do for guns – well we can’t do anything so the price of a young child being smeared or gunned down is the price we pay for “freedom” – the “freedom” for someone powerful to do what he wants or be free from regulations that no one else is free from.
LikeLike
I would hope the answer is that she did not intend to mean, and does not believe, that the government should have oversight over media content, including but not limited to social media. That’s what I would say and that’s what I would want to hear.
LikeLike
Wow, I hope you did not intend that to read as your position is that no one except Elon Musk can decide who to censor and who to amplify on twitter, including nasty attacks on Kamala’s young niece, or publishing home addresses of people who Trump says are very dangerous to him, or publishing whatever lies will foment hate and violence.
Is that what you believe?
I know that’s not what Kamala believes. But you seem to object to anyone having any say over what Musk decides.
Is it “government regulation” to not allow people to yell fire in a crowded theater?
How does one enforce a regulation?
I hope you aren’t advocating for a private militia and court system paid for by the rich because you think the “government” should not be enforcing any regulations that Musk doesn’t want to enforce.
Should Elon Musk be free to do whatever he wants on twitter or not? If we tweet twitter like we treat other media companies when they spurn regulations and laws, who enforces it?
This is a complicated question, as I am sure you know. It’s even more complicated because our federal court system has been badly infected with right wing ideologues who spurn the law, right up to the Supreme Court.
It’s dangerous times. Kamala’s criticism of twitter is NOT dangerous. Those defending the freedom of billionaires to use their power to take away the freedoms of other people are the danger.
LikeLike
Take it as a compliment when I say I refuse to believe you are this dense.
I am comfortable with the longstanding jurisprudence about the distinctions between words and “fighting words.” What I am not comfortable with is what Harris said—which is that the current state of play amounts to Facebook and Twitter having “no oversight and regulation” (if you disagree with that premise, then your beef is with Harris, not me) and that this is an intolerable situation that must “stop.”
If you think the government should be able to enforce content rules directly on social media platforms or apply pressure on those platforms to enforce content rules, then that is one of the many many things we disagree about. If you don’t think the government should be doing that, then we are in agreement and there is no point to all the flailing you’re doing in this thread. The intensity of the flailing suggests to me that we disagree, which would not surprise me.
LikeLike
“the current state of play amounts to Facebook and Twitter having “no oversight and regulation”
Are you saying that this is false?
What oversight and regulation do they have? Who enforces it?
The words “the current state of play” are important.
If I said “the current state of play amounts to Trump having no oversight and regulation”, would I have a valid opinion? Would it be correct for me to point out that the courts, the media, the Republican party and the powerful have enabled a politician who feels no limits to what he can say and do? Even shoot someone on Fifth Ave.
Of course it’s so much easier to say “how dare anyone imply that Trump doesn’t have the same oversight and regulation that some guy on the street has, I am just outraged at such a lie! Trump’s regulation and oversight right now is sufficient! Anything more would be infringing on his rights!”
Kamala’s statement had a lot more truth than what apparently you believe – that the current state of play was that twitter and facebook had absolutely sufficient oversight and regulation!
Why do you want to censor Kamala from speaking the truth?
LikeLike
Maybe you shouldn’t take the first sentence of my last comment as a compliment.
LikeLike
Are the two of you under the misapprehension that back in 2019 EVERYONE was allowed to say ANYTHING on twitter/x and no one was ever allowed to ban them?
Are the two of you under the misapprehension that is the situation today??
Sounds like you are saying Trump should not have to follow any rules that everyone else has to follow and he should be able to do anything he wants. Trump and his followers agree.
Just curious whether either of you have the courage to answer this: can Trump tweet the home addresses of the people who criticize him and tell his followers they present a clear and present danger to him?
Can he tweet a nasty thing about Kamala’s young niece?
I remember back when the ACLU showed a lot of political courage in saying the Nazi Party had the right to march and spew its hateful rhetoric in an Illinois town that was home to an unusually high percentage of Holocaust survivors.
Nowadays, people think “political courage” is standing up for the powerful having special rights that no one else has! Wasn’t that Supreme Court so brave saying that Trump has immunity?
Tom Metz, do you support people publishing private information about Barron Trump in the name of “freedom of speech”? Or do you draw the line somewhere?
(Remember how an academic got excoriated for making a reference to Barron’s name as a royal title – where were all the people standing up for her right to say it?)
Freedom of speech comes with RESPONSIBILITY. It has never been absolute.
LikeLike
How Twitter handles the content on its own platform is one matter. I wasn’t referring to that.
Whether the government should have oversight over social media regarding the content on platforms, and whether the government should apply pressure to platforms to make certain decisions regarding content, is another matter. That’s what I was referring to. That’s why I choice the words I used in my comment.
LikeLike
lol I choiced the words
LikeLike
I did not see the word “government” in any comment made by Harris about the responsibility of social media for mi storing content.
LikeLike
She spoke about “oversight and regulation” and how social media sites were operating without them and that that was bad. I construe “oversight and regulation” to mean “government oversight and regulation.” Do you construe them differently?
LikeLike
I thought we already recognized the difference between “censorship” and saying something demonstrably false that can cause harm.
You can run into a crowded theater and yell “I love Trump”, but you can’t run in and scream “fire” in order to cause a stampede.
I have no idea why you think the arbiter of freedom of speech on media platforms should be Elon Musk, and he can have one rule for the people he likes and ban the others.
Kamala is right to question a double standard whereby restaurants may not be banned from serving certain powerful people no matter how they spurn the rules of behavior, but are free to ban people that they don’t like as long as those people have the wrong politics.
LikeLike
Thank you all for your comments, and Mr Metz for publishing the BBC conversation for me to read. Since this took place in 2019, we need to look at it from the prospective of a pre-pandemic conversation about the power of a platform that is unparalleled in its scope. Facebook may reach more people, but they are all looking at their relatives and cute puppies. Twitter in 2019 was irresponsibility allowing all sorts of misinformation that would, a year later, explode into pandemic insanity. Post exhorted all sorts of crazy cures for Covid and would become an adjunct to Jan 6.
Whether Harris meant what she said or was just posturing in a political debate, we all have to agree that safeguards against false information are just as important to maintenance of democratic norms as are safeguards against suppression of true information.
we still have not come to any agreement about this matter, but we better keep talking.
LikeLike
Metz is a Trump troll.
LikeLike
Tom Metz,
I read the exchange in which Kamala Harris talks about why there should be rules and accountability for social media like Facebook and Twitter, but I did not see at any point that she advocated government regulation of these powerful sites.
I have to say, Tom, that your comment follows a pattern that I have seen repeatedly on this blog: “I know there are many terrible things Trump has said and done, BUT…Harris is far, far worse.”
These comments come from people like you who have never before commented on this blog. There seems to be a stable of Trump trolls who defend him in this fashion. The pattern is unmistakable. They make an appearance then go away.
LikeLike
Not a single word by Kamala about government regulation of social media. Not one!
LikeLike
People who believe SM platforms like X and Facebook must support the First Amendment are misinformed. Free speech is not protected everywhere, and there are numerous rules and laws disallowing certain kinds of speech in the workplace (hate speech is just one of many examples). X has posting rules, and as a workplace, they are entitled to create and enforce those rules, even as Elon Musk seems to violate his own rules with impunity. Nevertheless, Trump violates posting rules seemingly on a daily basis, and therefore IMO the argument that he should be kicked off the platform stands. For example, “Hateful conduct: You may not attack other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.” So there’s that.
LikeLike
A friend was kicked off Twitter during Trump’s presidency for expressing the hope that he would die in office. He appealed repeatedly to have his account restored. It is still suspended. Or banned.
LikeLike
Did you ever get your account working again?
LikeLike
Expressing the hope that a politician will die is dangerously close to calling for his or her death, to making an illegal, if veiled, threat or encouragement to others to commit a horrendous crime. “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” Henry II is said to have said with regard to Thomas a Beckett, which led to Beckett’s murder. And the mob boss typically doesn’t say, outright, go kill this guy. Instead, head thug says, “It would be a shame if something happened to him” or something to that effect.
LikeLike
flerp!,
are you outraged that Diane’s friend was kicked off Twitter during Trump’s presidency for expressing that hope?
Or do you approve of that kind of censorship?
What happens if the guy who owns twitter allows that comment if it was said about Biden, but censors anyone who says that about Trump? Or vice versa?
What happens if the media is bought up by right wing billionaires and simply amplifies lies and censors truth?
LikeLike
Wearing MAGA merch, profiting Traitor Trump, and wearing that crap in public is the height of vulgarity.
LikeLike
Maybe you shouldn’t take the first sentence of my last comment as a compliment.
LikeLike
Wrong spot!
LikeLike
“the current state of play amounts to Facebook and Twitter having “no oversight and regulation”
Are you saying that this is false?
What oversight and regulation do they have? Who enforces it?
(No worries, I always assume all of your personal comments about me are insults.)
LikeLike
At one point you’re in this thread arguing that there is already government oversight and regulation over social media. At other points you’re suggesting that Harris was correct in saying there is no oversight or regulation of social media. I don’t know what you’re trying to do here.
LikeLike
I still have no idea whether you think the statement that you wrote – “the current state of play amounts to Facebook and Twitter having “no oversight and regulation” – is true or false?
Which is it?
You keep telling me what you think I believe. What do you believe?
Does “the current state of play” amount to Facebook and Twitter having “no oversight and regulation”? You seem to believe there is a clear answer but I don’t know what you believe that answer is.
If the current state of play amounts to twitter having no regulation, is that what you believe is best? No limits on what anyone can say except for the limits that Elon Musk decides?
Or are you saying that the current state of play is that there are already oversight and regulation? What is that oversight and regulation and who enforces it? Elon Musk himself?
LikeLike