On the green Trump's a figure of fun

3ogrp0t

 

In right-wing bubbles a Biden gaffe

Is always  fodder for a laugh.

But it's so ironic

That for gaffes Trump's iconic

And out on the golf course a perfect Falstaff.

 

512061-_sx318_

 

Filed under: morbid obesity

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Someone said of Falstaff, "a fat, vain, boastful, and cowardly knight, he spends most of his time drinking at the Boar's Head Inn with petty criminals, living on stolen or borrowed money." Trump doesn't drink; his intoxication comes from twitter exchanges with his criminals. Otherwise, the similarity is striking--if one also ignores that Falstaff was a delightful comic figure.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Bigger gaffe coming out: Orange Psycho Donnie called for Twitter to be shut down because it said a series of tweets about Joe Scarborough were untrue, even though it refused to take them down, and thus enforce its TOS.

    Falstaff was once a good beer.

  • In reply to jack:

    An interesting question: what authority does Trump have to close down Twitter? The 1st Amendment prohibits only governments from censoring speech. A newspaper does not have to print your letter to the editor. Private persons and corporations are free to do whatever they want unless they receive government support, such as private schools and colleges, or use public assets, such as broadcast radio and television. And even if they receive support or use public assets, any limit on their actions must be imposed by Congress.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Besides OPD being a hypocrite on the First Amendment,* there's also the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. 230), saying that an ISP is not liable for what a third party posts on it, unless it is a copyright violation and the ISP refuses to take it down, and, more recently, sex trafficking, and is also not liable for blocking third party content. However, given indications that he is losing the 2020 election, the latter day Mussolini has even more outbursts of this kind. He's certainly aggrieved that the Electoral College did not name him Putin.

    ________
    *Some of the tweets have the projection about cutting off the media to conservatives, the same sort of b.s. we had on Chicago Now 4 years ago after an insane person we knew was called to task for flaming Jimmy Greenfield, then the Chicago Now administrator.

  • In reply to jack:

    Yes, various apologists for Trump mumble things about the Communications Decency Act, but this doesn't explain how Trump, by decree, can amend this congressional act. We should soon learn what the game plan will be.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    OPD has said many times before that he has absolute power, including to ignore or repeal the 10th and 14th Amendments, so it just shows that as his chances of reelection decrease, his delusions of dictatorship increase.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Here's a commentary basically following our views, saying that "So Trump needs villains, bogeymen and enemies to distract voters from the problems he can’t fix and make them think only he can protect them from imminent threats." And we thought Nixon had an enemies list.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Of course, your point is on point with regard to Twitter tagging the tweets as false.

  • Well put as always, my friend -- sickening, but well put.

  • The right wing might be embarrassed, but Orange Psycho Donnie is way short of his goal of getting 95% of the Black vote, and hence the right wing doesn't count, except maybe to show that Biden has some symptom,s of senility.

  • According to this AP report, the orange thug has wimped out, directing agencies to study something they legally can't enact. But there is an Executive Order to which his ignorant base can point.

  • In reply to jack:

    Agreed. His "executive order" is a shiny skyrocket--full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. (This quote from Shakespeare is an obvious effort to apologize to AW for taking the subject onto a tangent. Here I return to Shakespeare, although not to his most famous comedy figure.)

  • In reply to jnorto:

    But it did get Twitter to man up and hide an incendiary post.

  • I've been saying for a long time, I have no use for Facebook and Zuckerberg. This AP story states that many of his senior engineers agree.

  • In reply to jack:

    Time for Zuckerberg to stand up for his country and not for Trump.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    So long as it doesn't affect his or Priscilla's pocketbook, he won't. Up until recently he hasn't worried about advertising using users' personal data (which was my original objection) to push the real FAKE NEWS, Russian intervention in the 2016 election, and Bannon's Cambridge Analytics shenanigans.

    I was somewhat surprised that OPD bit the Twitter hand that fed him (but I guess mad dogs do that), but until this episode, we didn't even know that his social media department used FB. But I guess CNN wasn't friending him there.

  • In reply to jack:

    Zuckerberg is trying mightily to preserve the fiction that Facebook is merely a platform, not a publisher--merely a chalkboard on which people can scroll their thoughts without the usual publishers' liability. But it gets harder for him every day.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    I don't think that FB has worked its way out of the coverage of sec. 230.

    Subsec. (c)(1) states the general rule:

    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

    Subsec. (f)(2) says

    The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

    Subsec. (f)(3) says:
    The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

    The distinction, as I see it, is that when the Tribune or Sun-Times had comment boards, it was the publisher of the article, but an interactive computer service for the comment board.

    I'm not saying that FB is outside the Act, but questioning Zuckerberg's judgment and motives. On the other hand I am not a member of FB (as is obvious), so I don't know what use FB itself makes of the information. For instance, Yahoo! Finance streaming channel had a story that Snapchat would not promote Trump comment, but also wouldn't block it. Again, I'm not a member of Snapchat and hence do not know what "promote" means, but wonder if the promote part straddles the line.

  • In reply to jack:

    What Zuckerberg fears is not the current section 230, but the proposals on both the left and the right to amend it. Liberals have long said there is no reason Face Book has protections from liability that newspapers and television stations do not. He is now fearful that if Trump is angered by Silicone Valley, he may throw the weight of his minions behind the movement to amend.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    That's a good point. For instance, Congress only recently amended it by including the sex trafficking exception, which reportedly put Backstage out of business.

    Assuming that Congress could get its act together, I don't think it could act in time to do OPD any good (note Rick Newman's remark that they figure they won't have to deal with him in 7 months). Furthermore, I'm not sure of what crimes they could accuse the information content provider of committing analogous to sex trafficking. Maybe being a Russian hacker interfering with an election or a fake antifa, but that doesn't do OPD any good, either.

  • In reply to jack:

    Amendments to 230 may do Trump no good, but we know how relentless he can be in seeking reprisals for their own sake.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    According to ABC News tonight. he went on another tweetstorm, but nothing of substance (just more MAGA one liners, except against Mattis). Looks like even his retribution is running out of ammo.

  • In reply to jnorto:

    I meant Backpage.

  • Jack and jnorto, I love it when you go point/counterpoint.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Rereading my comment of approx. 6:15 June 4, it looks more like King Lear. Maybe you want to do something with that.

Leave a comment