Trump Says He Won't Return To Twitter (barrons.com) 215
Earlier today, Twitter announced that it has agreed to be acquired by Elon Musk for approximately $44 billion. The announcement led to speculation that former President Donald Trump may return to the social media platform after being permanently banned in January 2021 for his role in the January 6th insurrection. However, according to TechCrunch, "it looks like he's not interested and is instead planning to formally join his own Truth Social platform over the next seven days." From the report: "I am not going on Twitter, I am going to stay on Truth," Trump told Fox News. "I hope Elon buys Twitter because he'll make improvements to it and he is a good man, but I am going to be staying on Truth. The bottom line is, no, I am not going back to Twitter." [...] Trump's comments from today come as shares of Digital World Acquisition Corp, which announced a deal in October to acquire Trump Media & Technology Group, fell 9.5% as Twitter officially announced its deal with Musk. It's possible that Truth's shaky start could cause Trump to change his mind about rejoining Twitter down the road.
Trump's media group released its Truth Social iOS app in February, but the app remained unavailable to users for quite some time. Truth is being marketed as an alternative to social media giants like Twitter and Facebook. If Trump does end up posting on Truth regularly this week, it will mark the former president's return to social media following his ban from numerous platforms, including Twitter and Facebook. So far, he's only posted on Truth once.
As for Twitter, Musk says that "free speech" is key to Twitter's future. Twitter says the transaction, which was unanimously approved by the board, will likely close this year following shareholder and regulatory approval and "the satisfaction of other customary closing conditions."
Trump's media group released its Truth Social iOS app in February, but the app remained unavailable to users for quite some time. Truth is being marketed as an alternative to social media giants like Twitter and Facebook. If Trump does end up posting on Truth regularly this week, it will mark the former president's return to social media following his ban from numerous platforms, including Twitter and Facebook. So far, he's only posted on Truth once.
As for Twitter, Musk says that "free speech" is key to Twitter's future. Twitter says the transaction, which was unanimously approved by the board, will likely close this year following shareholder and regulatory approval and "the satisfaction of other customary closing conditions."
lol (Score:2, Informative)
Oh Donnie, if only.
Re:lol (Score:5, Informative)
Then again, he lies a lot...
Re: lol (Score:2)
And only flat-earthers believes him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I am hearing this in the Star Wars voice:
Gold leader: It's no good, I can't post!
Trump: Stay on Truth.
Gold leader: Twitter is too close!
Trump: Stay on Truth!
*gold leader blows up*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: lol (Score:2)
your Interactive Content should not contain discriminatory references based on religion, race, gender, national origin, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or disability;
your Contributions are not obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, violent, harassing, libelous, slanderous, or otherwise objectionable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also US only (actually blocks you otherwise based on IP), which is refreshing! Even if I accidentally click a link it won't work.
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
If trump goes back to twitter, then the inflated value for truth social will deflate and trump will receive no value for it, because it was really just a pump and dump for money and not any real attempt to create a long standing platform
Re: (Score:2)
If trump goes back to twitter, then the inflated value for truth social will deflate and trump will receive no value for it, because it was really just a pump and dump for money and not any real attempt to create a long standing platform
Trump, being Trump, will have made his exit before that happens.
And then go back to Twitter? I guess that depends on whether The New Twitter (under Musk) wants Trump back. And, well, that's complicated. [newsweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If Trump wants back on Twitter, it will say a a lot about Twitter if they accept him. Free speech is only really free if you also let the kooks talk. Something that is in increasingly short supply in social media.
Trump is no better than (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Did anyone ever claim that he's better? I'm pretty sure most of the complaints trend the other way...
Re: (Score:2)
He may be no better than them, but he's certainly worse than many of them.
Re:Trump is no better than (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably all the lying and thieving.
Exactly. Maybe, just maybe it's all of the things he's said and done.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, virtually all the politicians are predisposed to prevaricate when it suits them, but the Donald is no different [nytimes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Let's start at the begging with claiming to have the biggest inauguration ever.
https://www.politifact.com/fac... [politifact.com]
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh!
Re: Trump is no better than (Score:2)
There was no way anyone coule have known back then....*sarcasm*
They get both sides if you let them spout that and get away with it. They were oh so smart when they openly voiced their opinions mocking us. Make sure when later proved right, you always go and beat them back down like they did to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
His "build the wall" blurb was originally just a throwaway line of no importance, but it clicked with his crowd- they were instantly captivated by the idea of a wall (lol) and the idea became wildly popular amongst them. That's how it became a mainstay of his schtick.
It combined a simplistic concept ("build a wall") with a mostly racist motivation behind it ("brown people are stealin' our jerbs!"). Voila, a new campaign talking point for the GOP is born.
Simple minds, simple slogans. Jingoism sells well
Re: (Score:2)
Actually a few "caravans" have made it to and through our porous border.
I'm sure there were all types in each of them, both innocent and evil.
The trouble is, they are coming in droves...we are being invaded.
We need to take control of our borders.
I welcome migrants that want to come to this country and become US ci
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Clinton conspiracy theories"
You mean like how the Clinton campaign faked evidence to implicate the Trump campaign and Alfa bank in a conspiracy? That conspiracy theory?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that one. Feel free to provide an FBI statement that the evidence was faked, much less a conclusion as to who was responsible for "faking" it. I won't be holding my breath.
Re: Trump is no better than (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because "draining the swamp" is pointless (but effective no doubt) rhetoric because it can mean whatever the listener wants it to mean.
What did he actually do? What does it mean to you?
Re: Trump is no better than (Score:2)
Reading comprehension my good man. Read it again and try harder.
Re: (Score:3)
"Drain the swamp! My bottom-feeding friends can't breathe down there!"
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and he put Hilary in prison, just like he promised he would and he built that wall and got Mexico to pay for it.
Re: Trump is no better than (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Because no one defines "drain" or "swamp". The swamp appears to be corrupt politicians, but only from an opposing party, since they rally around their own corrupt members. But "drain" is never clear. Does it mean buy a bumper sticker?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, from 2016 to 2021 it appears to have referred to "draining" the "swamp" (in this case, defined as the United States Treasury) of money, and replacing it with unprecedented levels of debt.
That's the pro-fiscal-responsibility small-government Republican party at work!
Re: (Score:2)
The way to drain the swamp is not to try to get all the effluent out of it, because it will just fill back up. You need to cap the effluent off at source.
In other words, reform your democracy to avoid a two party system and reliance on money to get elected. Introduce a more representative system that requires cooperation, and where every vote counts. Voters should never be given a choice of who is the least bad option.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, one started a trade war with china which makes everything I do in the electronics industry more expensive ... one ignored a global pandemic with millions dead including people I know .. one called Pootin a genius as his army is killing children in the street
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
[ *multiple quotations missing ]
Re: (Score:2)
You think that's better?
Why is the Russian military policy so stupid? It's driven by one man, and everybody has to agree with him. It's better to have a web of mutual responsibilities and obligations so that one man's mania can't drive country to ruin.
Democracy is an ugly POS. But systems that present themselves as tidier are actually far, far worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the word good could be used here, but "more inefficient at being terrible"
Re: (Score:2)
I guess there is something more honest about sending a violent mob to try to overthrow democracy by force instead of influencing government through donations and backroom deals. Maybe honesty isn't always a virtue.
I give him 6 months (Score:5, Insightful)
Before he is back on Twitter (assuming he gets unbanned).
Like any professional shitposter you need the "haters" more than your sycophants.
Doesn't matter anyway, every crazy thing he says on Truth will get pasted to Twitter. You can't avoid him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, he'd actually need to post something to "Truth" for it to get pasted to Twitter. Such an event hasn't happened yet, other than the single post he made which amounts to "coming soon" even though there's no need to delay unless his shit platform just can't handle even this little amount of traffic...
Re: (Score:2)
There is almost certainly a contract in place with T/S that he can't have a personal account on another media platform. That being said, I doubt it would apply to a political campaign's account so assume almost immediately after the midterms.
Too many characters (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
welcome to https://news.ycombinator.com/ [ycombinator.com]
Yeah sure. (Score:3, Insightful)
no web app? (Score:2)
that's a big no from me
Marxism (Score:3)
“I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member” — Groucho Marx
Re: (Score:2)
International Marxist Film Festival!
He Won't Keep That Promise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You would think he'd have found a kindred spirit in Musk and be eager to get back on his platform.
Remember that time Elon Musk said he would fix all the lead pipes in Flint, but ended up giving water filters to a few schools?
Re:He Won't Keep That Promise (Score:5, Informative)
Re:He Won't Keep That Promise (Score:4, Funny)
He promised to lower drug prices and improve healthcare for everyone. He promised to work for the people and not for wealthy donors. He did the exact opposite of all those things. And that's just for starters. The fact he was impeached twice shows he failed the promises he made to the office of the Presidency of the United States and the American people.
Yeah, thank goodness we don't have that low inflation and low gas prices anymore!
And what a relief to have Ukraine invaded again (Ukraine invaded under Obama, not invaded under Trump, invaded under Biden).
Man, that energy independence that we had sucked too. What a relief!
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a promise. But he said it, so it's more likely than not to be untrue.
Re: (Score:2)
Formally join? (Score:2)
It's his own failing web site! He has posted exactly ONCE since the failed opening and now he says he's going to "formally join"?
The man is the literal definition of his name [thefreedictionary.com].
Re: (Score:2)
"Formally", I assume it involves dressing up, signing some forms, kissing a ring?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He'll come back (Score:2)
Don cannot resist. The account will probably be unbanned eventually and Trump will find it irresistible, his quivering paw hovering over the tweet button.
He can't resist.
Countdown... (Score:2)
He'd fail human authentication anyway (Score:2)
Soon enough, they won't allow anyone from planet Melmac anymore.
MySpace Redux (Score:3)
We have all seen enough social media platforms come and go to know that there is a clock on how long they stay relevant, and when they're done, they're done.
Twitter may well be in the bottom of the 8th inning. Something else will come along.
whatever (Score:2)
In case you have not figured it out by now, Trump will do whatever is best for himself right now. If and when it helps Trump to be on twitter he will be right back on it.
High praise ... (Score:2)
Trump told Fox News. "I hope Elon buys Twitter because he'll make improvements to it and he is a good man, ...
Re: (Score:2)
Trump told Fox News. "I hope Elon buys Twitter because he'll make improvements to it and he is a good man, ...
Consider something I heard a commentator (I forget who) say about Trump while he was in office:
He loves you on Monday.
He hates you on Wednesday.
He fires you on Friday.
Now he can't "fire" Elon, but you get the point. Trump is nothing if not mercurial.
Trump won't return to Twitter . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
. . . until Musk makes the pilgrimage to Mar-a-lago to kiss the ring.
I can't even imagine why the richest person in the World, with no political aspirations, would kowtow before someone not even in the Forbes top 400 anymore (Trump was at #1,299 in 2021). As much as they don't really need the other, Musk *really* doesn't need Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
This is because all of this is Trumpistan wishful thinking - they need their multiple-times-a-day indoctrination injection via Twitter and they've been having withdrawls for the last 400+ days.
Musk could give a fuck about Trump, right up until Trump actually has any power to do anything for Musk again.
Another lie nobody believes. (Score:2)
I'm sure that if Twitter removed his ban tomorrow, he'd be back about 10 seconds afterward, constantly bleating on about a stolen election that wasn't stolen, and election fraud that only resulted in votes for him and had no material difference in the election outcome.
The good news is that nothing of value is being lost, because if you want that there's more than enough proxies for it available.
Re: Another lie nobody believes. (Score:5, Interesting)
If there is something positive is that losing the election really broke Trump's brain, his mind simply cannot accept the result and learn and adapt from it.
He'll win the R primary for 2024 but he won't be able to shut up about the 2020 election and voters, especially independents will be reminded how tiresome his unchanging style is. The magic is gone and while his base is as loud as ever they are also smaller than ever.
On the plus side I look forward to him making fools of DeSantis and any other challengers in the primary.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is something positive is that losing the election really broke Trump's brain, his mind simply cannot accept the result and learn and adapt from it.
He'll win the R primary for 2024 but he won't be able to shut up about the 2020 election and voters, especially independents will be reminded how tiresome his unchanging style is. The magic is gone and while his base is as loud as ever they are also smaller than ever.
On the plus side I look forward to him making fools of DeSantis and any other challengers in the primary.
The GOP no longer needs to appeal to voters. They have control at the state level and a few key state legislatures will overturn the decision of the voters in 2024 and hand the election to the GOP candidate. Joe Biden was the last democratically elected president this nation will ever have.
Re: (Score:2)
The GOP no longer needs to appeal to voters. They have control at the state level and a few key state legislatures will overturn the decision of the voters in 2024 and hand the election to the GOP candidate.
I'm skeptical, but even if you're correct, how are those GOP state legislatures going to stay in power after they override the will of their own voters? Gerrymandering can only do so much.
In some ways I actually hope that this does happen, specifically to wake voters up to the importance of paying attention to state-level elections.
Re: (Score:2)
The GOP no longer needs to appeal to voters. They have control at the state level and a few key state legislatures will overturn the decision of the voters in 2024 and hand the election to the GOP candidate.
I'm skeptical, but even if you're correct, how are those GOP state legislatures going to stay in power after they override the will of their own voters? Gerrymandering can only do so much.
Gerrymandering can do exactly that. The GOP has a perfect system in place. They cannot be voted out.
Trump wants primacy and control (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't assume that he's not going to rejoin Twitter just because he says he's not going to.
Trump thinks of himself as a deal maker. If he thinks he's got an angle or some kind of leverage, he's not going to participate in anything until he's negotiated a cut.
âoeThank Godâ (Score:2)
Jezus H. Christ (Score:2)
Doesn't anybody like /entertainment/ anymore? And right after *Easter*!
I believe that (Score:2)
I just purchased the Brooklyn bridge. Got a great deal on it from a Nigerian prince who had inherited it.
That's a relief (Score:3)
Wait, what were we talking about again?
ya right (Score:2)
Every time he speaks he lies.
Sedition [Re:Insurrection] (Score:5, Informative)
January 6th was not an insurrection. No one involved has been convicted of such.
No one was convicted of "insurrection", because "insurrection" is not the name of the federal crime.
The federal crime is "seditious conspiracy," and, yes, some of the Capitol conspirators were convicted [live5news.com] of that.
Seditious Conspiracy [cornell.edu]:
18 U.S. Code 2384: If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From the article: "The attack resulted in the deaths of five people, including a police officer."
And they wonder why trust in media is so low when mainstream news constantly publish obvious lies like the above.
As for the charges, I would say every protest in the US has nutcases who want to abolish every institution of the state. At you average antifa riot you can find people who want to abolish police, military, institute anarchy or communism.
It is laughably stupid to believe that Jan 6 protests were an ins
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They stormed the capitol while the electoral votes were being counted. It was serious enough that senators were diving for cover and being escorted to a safe area. Some of those who invaded got into legislative offices, some of them got onto the house floor, etc. The goal appeared to be to intimidate Pence into committing treason and refusing to certify the election.
Most people were just rowdy morons. A lot were rowdy thugs. Those guys tore down barricades, broke windows, broke doors, they beat on polic
Re:Sedition [Re:Insurrection] (Score:5, Insightful)
Any reasonable definition of the word, huh? Let's go with the Oxford Dictionary definition, which I think most people would find to be 'reasonable':
noun: a violent uprising against an authority or government.
Seems like what we saw on 6 January meets that definition. There was violence. It was an uprising. And it took place inside the United States Capitol while executing the constitutional process of transferring power, thus uprising against that authority or government.
So by definition, you're wrong.
You know what? If "Antifa rioters" planned to kick in the doors to the United States Capitol during a joint session of Congress which is part of the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next, then they would deserve being cited for seditious conspiracy too. But they didn't - it was Trump supporters and conspirators. So just mentioning any of the right-wing's favorite boogeymen just make you look ridiculous.
Your whataboutism won't work here. There was a plan to overturn the results of a legitimate election, which is being documented by actual investigators. There was a violent insurrection (yes, I said it, because I already established that's what it was) at the seat of government while that government was going through the constitutional process of affirming the next head of state, where militia groups with ideological ties (if not actual ties) to the outgoing administration were present, and had weapons stashed close by with people ready to deliver at a moment's notice. Oh, and some of them have already pled guilty to the seditious conspiracy.
So now it's your turn - how was this not an insurrection, if the whole purpose of this violent uprising was to obstruct or delay the functioning of government?
Re: (Score:3)
Also, and I am not saying this is right but it's reality, the right wing spent an entire summer framing every protest and action after George Floyd in the worst possible light with exaggerations, bad faith, dishonest framing, manipulated footage, and any other method to steer the narrative the way that helped them politically even when geuinely bad shit went down that did not need such tactics (and there were definitely some bad riots).
Now when they go and do their own riot they expect to be treated in the
Re: (Score:2)
"The attack resulted in the deaths of five people, including a police officer."
I don't follow. Why is that an obviously lie? I've never heard anyone dispute this fact. Sure, you can spin it so that the deaths aren't important, or that they would have happened anyway.
It is laughably stupid to believe that Jan 6 protests were an insurrection by any reasonable definition of the word. A bunch of idiots making a mess at the capitol building and taking selfies is not even 0.0001% of what it would take to take power by force in the US.
Just because they had little chance of success doesn't mean that that wasn't their goal. As you said yourself, it was a bunch of idiots. If I was going take part in an insurrection or revolution against Congress, I sure as hell wouldn't expect to get out alive. If several thousand Chinese people had stormed the Capitol bui
Re: (Score:2)
He pled guilty. Not he had a trial and was found guilty, but he pled guilty. Almost as if he was being threatened with 20-60 years so pleading out to 7(3 and 1/2 with good behavior) was the smart play instead of rolling the dice because at the time there had been no trials. Meanwhile, of the three trials that have actually occurred none were convicted of seditious conspiracy, 1 was convicted because he was on video breaking shit and assaulting a cop, 1 was convicted of some charges because he climbed over a
Re: (Score:2)
He pled guilty. Not he had a trial and was found guilty, but he pled guilty.
Right. "Convicted" is what happens following "pleading guilty".
As I said. Convicted of seditious conspiracy,
Re: (Score:2)
1. fuck off impersonator troll
2. unsolved murders are still murder, even if no suspects have been charged. If a car thief steals a car and doesn't get caught, that doesn't mean the car wasn't stolen, you fucking idiot.
3. you don't know shit about criminal law, so probably don't comment on it.
Re:It's NOT an "insurrection", stop spreading misi (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's stupid. By your logic I'm not allowed to say some thief stole my neighbors wheelie bin because the police haven't charged anyone with theft.
Re: (Score:2)
The mob delayed Pence from certifying the election results. Interrupting due process is insurrection.
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-u... [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, so if someone steals a package off my porch but the police never catch or charge the person that stole it, it wasn't theft?
Tell us you're not a lawyer, without actually telling us.
Re: (Score:2)
Guilty of seditious conspiracy though.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politic... [go.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So your contention is that the definition of "insurrection" is
incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto
That's not exactly "spelled out", and does nothing to clarify what insurrection is. Maybe you want 10 U.S. Code 253 - Interference with State and Federal law [cornell.edu] :
opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
It is up to a court of law (or possibly Congress itself) to make the determination of what is and what isn't a crime, and to dole out punishment. But alleging that someone has committed said crime is protected under the First Amendment (subject to restrictions thereupon).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm looking forward to all the posts from Bernie Sanders over at Truth Social...