Things that made you Facepalm today (Political Version)

[Parkbandit]

It's hard to argue when the white House team came out and stated it's for official business and policy. That's the key to the entire issue. Blocking someone on from receiving the information is the main issue.

Are they blocked from receiving the Tweets though?

I don't Twitter.. so maybe blocking them makes them lose their ability to read his Tweets.. but I doubt it works like that.

[Parkbandit]

This ruling isn't aboput what twitter is or isn't. It is about whether or not the President can block off communication and extends beyond Twitter. Like I said, replace Trump with Schumer and you'd all be lolling.

To be fair.. I don't have to replace the name and I'm still LOLing.

Trump IS very, very thin skinned and gets trolled very easily.

[Alfster]

Are they blocked from receiving the Tweets though?

I don't Twitter.. so maybe blocking them makes them lose their ability to read his Tweets.. but I doubt it works like that.

I don't use Twitter either, but it looks a lot like blocking someone on Facebook.

Block is a feature that helps you control how you interact with other accounts on Twitter. This feature helps users in restricting specific accounts from contacting them, seeing their Tweets, and following them.

[Tgo01]

This ruling isn't aboput what twitter is or isn't. It is about whether or not the President can block off communication and extends beyond Twitter. Like I said, replace Trump with Schumer and you'd all be lolling.

Not really. I think this is bull no matter who it’s about. I have defended Obama on some shit before and he was literally Hitler.

[Tgo01]

Really? The only butt hurt one here is you. It's affecting both sides relatively equally. Like i stated earlier - AOC is being sued for being a snowflake too.

How am I butthurt? Because I disagree with you?

And the fact that AOC is being sued over this shows how absurd this ruling is. Why does she have to be sued? The courts have already said government officials can’t do this so she should not be doing it in the first place. This just shows the overreach of the courts because they can’t enforce this shit and they know it. But they will keep siding with butthurt liberals over it because it’s Trump.

[Tgo01]

you are conflating a disruptive public event with comments on the Internet. It isn’t the same.

It’s the exact same thing. These people aren’t looking for a debate or seeking clarification from Trump on his policies, they are only there to do the internet equivalent of shouting down a politician at a rally.

[Tgo01]

Are they blocked from receiving the Tweets though?

I don't Twitter.. so maybe blocking them makes them lose their ability to read his Tweets.. but I doubt it works like that.

They are blocked while logged in. Simply logging out allows them to read all of his tweets. That’s why this ruling is bullshit. The only way I would agree with this ruling is if Trump protected his profile, which means only people he specifically allowed to read his tweets could, logged in or otherwise.

[Tgo01]

Here's a couple of random replies to one of Trump's latest tweets:

Your #BitchMitch has done nothing for the people of Kentucky. He is bought and paid for! #DitchMitch

Kentucky may have decided they no longer want Satan representing their state!

Oh yes! So much political discourse! God forbid we can't see this sort of shit times 30,000 each and every single time Trump tweets.

[Gelston]

Not really. I think this is bull no matter who it’s about. I have defended Obama on some shit before and he was literally Hitler.

Yeah, you say that now. Sorry, I just don't believe you. You especially would probably be laughing at Schumer calling him the fucking Snowflake that can't handle some mean tweets.

I would too, just as I do about Trump now.

[Tgo01]

Yeah, you say that now. Sorry, I just don't believe you. You especially would probably be laughing at Schumer calling him the fucking Snowflake that can't handle some mean tweets.

I would too, just as I do about Trump now.

No I really wouldn't. I defended Obama when he was busy droning American citizens without due process, why wouldn't I defend him over something far less consequential?