The most unreported thread ever. Trump thread 9

[amispartacus]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2847535-Week-3-What-will-this-week-bring-Trump-thread

There are loads of other threads. But MN aren't highlighting them. Why not? I demand to know.

ami.....

I am so glad that the letter got read. It might not have made any difference but solidarity matters.

You can cut someone down but others appear to take their place.

Motto of every resistance group ever.

He just posted... but... he said polls are BAD!

Donald J. Trump ‏*@realDonaldTrump* 10m10 minutes ago
More
'Majority in Leading EU Nations Support Trump-Style Travel Ban'
Poll of more than 10,000 people in 10 countries...

ami I like to think that every new stupid thing he does chips away a bit more at his fan base.....

Must stop biting. I have plenty of opinions, formed through evidence as well as gut feeling. I have formed an opinion of your interesting approach to debate online

So must I, considering I have apparently a big target on my back I will carry on...

Why is asking for Social media passwords a bad thing... and your gut feeling (lol) is not data

Not sure where your trying to place me in this argument, I have no where said it was a good policy

I was commenting on the policy, not you.

I have said it will not be required under "normal" background checks

I don't think anybody can decipher what the Trump administration would do using rational thought, even people in the Trump administration. However I agree that it doesn't seem to add much to what can already be achieved, unless the intention is just to harass and alarm.

I think people on this thread are more confused than outraged. Why was Kelly suggesting it? He's not just some random politician spouting off.

Ginger Doesn't he only like polls if they support him? Then, of course, they aren't fake?

I've just logged on and seen an utter deluge of twittles from Trump. The most shocking for me: the Ivanka one. The most laughable: the poll of US people regarding the immigration ban. You cannot interpret an aggregate poll like that, and certainly cannot present a minute screen grab trying to prove a point without proving extra detail. And using his influence over Nordstrom could tip him over into impeachable territory.

Why is asking for Social media passwords a bad thing

Why would you need somebody's social media password anyway? So you could send messages in their name? Isn't the point more to track their social media identities? Can't they already do that anyway? and if somebody is trying to hide, wouldn't they just lie? Was he confused too?

Why is asking for Social media passwords a bad thing... and your gut feeling (lol) is not data

Asking people for passwords is pointless. It won't add anything to the information they can access on you.

It could be argued that it creates an atmosphere of distrust and worry that could put off innocent travellers from going to a country - the ones who don't realise that the security services already know a lot about you.

We know the Government check up already on 'us' and our data. But that's done quite covertly. IF we started having an open and visible policy like this, then that starts leading to an open form of 'police' state - a slippery slope where people know that 'Big Brother' is watching them.

Big Brother is watching us. But IF the Government goes down roads like this and makes it obvious, that's a slippery slope.

Claws

I saw a remark recently - forgive that I can't source it - to the effect that no President in history had set such a high bar for ill-effect from stories but that no President in history had had such a penchant for mistakes/transgressions. (Or words to that effect.)

Has anyone seen Resistance - it's on Channel 4 player - and is based on aspects of the French Resistance from WW2.

Asking for papers. All the time. Proving who you are. Where you work. What you are doing. Who your friends are. Your opinions.

Tesco know a hell of a lot about me just from my Clubcard. I hate to think what the Government know.

Of course, if you have nothing to hide, what's to be afraid of?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/02/08/canadian-denied-entry-usnn_14644168.html

Relevant to the last few posts about social media content and political views being examined.

His tweets today are just bizarre.

Easy D!

Jesus wept

I try not to comment on people's spellings - as I think it distracts from the arguments

Actually, I find that some misspellings distract from the arguments, because I have to stop and think twice what the hell is it they're trying to say.

"Nordstrom could tip him over into impeachable territory."

Yes please.

Asking for passwords, if that's a plan at all, is more dangerous than simply accessing the accounts.
The passwords allow people to make changes to the accounts (add or delete stuff) which would be taken as done by the account holders themselves.
It could eventually be used in a trial to show that the person was guilty of hate speech for example.

Fake news or not, it's important that the possibility of such demands is openly discussed, so that people can be prepared, and so that anyone considering it (if so) is told loud and clear that it's not acceptable.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/15/i-asked-psychologists-to-analyze-trump-supporters-this-is-what-i-learned/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.456d34ac0594

Big Brother is watching us. But IF the Government goes down roads like this and makes it obvious, that's a slippery slope.

The thin end of the wedge has already been passed though, the slippery slope has already begun, you have people openly calling for culling of "fake news" because its only the other side that produces it.

You also have people within this thread actively asking for net censorship because apparently the nebulous "alt-right" are somehow subverting the youth, people are actively calling on the government to do something already, there was no backlash on the snoopers charter because some silly mindset of "if you have nothing to hide, nothing to fear" rhetoric.

They wont even need the passwords, a username and or phone/pc is all thats needed anyway.

All I have been trying to say all along is that this particular argument is a total non issue its misplaced outrage, no one has given a shit the laws that have already passed, there is no emotive argument to make out that this is now a bad thing that it wasn't before..

Why would you need somebody's social media password anyway? So you could send messages in their name? Isn't the point more to track their social media identities? Can't they already do that anyway? and if somebody is trying to hide, wouldn't they just lie? Was he confused too?

You wouldn't need their social media passwords, there are many flaws in this supposed policy even before we realise what is available to the secret services etc without anyone's permission.

Its nothing but a scare tactic (legal rubber stamp/if you disagree we will break it anyway type of thing), along the lines of telling some child "I know your mum", its a non story, misplaced outrage (not that there was any)

God knows why I'm even arguing this point, I just agreed with someone that it really is nothing to worry about/minor detail considering the powers that they already have over you and me..

OK. So this is cheering me up: Trump Draws.

What does 'easy D' even mean? I've never heard the term.

Wow! It's taken me a yuge bigly week to catch up with you lot! Anyways - just posting to say thanks and keep up the good work! This is the best thread - FACT!! I guess I won't find Ivanka's great designs as part of the George range in Asda ? SAD!!

The thin end of the wedge has already been passed though, the slippery slope has already begun, you have people openly calling for culling of "fake news" because its only the other side that produces it

How is fake news defined? Fake news is everywhere. What's more dangerous is the 'bubble' - people only being given certain facts, only reading certain papers and only being exposed to certain opinions.

We are all guilty of that - but I personally am concerned at the way this country is going and the manipulation of people - people nowadays have a lot more access to news and 'facts' than before - but the human brain is interesting and it's hard to come to a subject without a pre formed opinion, read all the facts and then form an opinion based solely on the data.

*They wont even need the passwords, a username and or phone/pc is all thats needed anyway.

All I have been trying to say all along is that this particular argument is a total non issue its misplaced outrage, no one has given a shit the laws that have already passed, there is no emotive argument to make out that this is now a bad thing that it wasn't before..

But Lurker genuinely asking here, do you not see a difference between everyone passively haven't information collected on them, so I'm on Mumsnet and maybe all this is being stored somewhere but it doesn't feel like an invasion of my privacy because chances are this will just get lost within the zillions of other data that is collected because there is no reason for it to go further

And

An individual whether they be a child, grandmother or anyone else having their passport checked and registered as saying born in Iraq for example -taken into a room, questioned and asked for all social media/other internet related password information and interrogated purely because they are from Iraq, not because they have known terrorist links but because of their nationality

Is there no difference between these? I don't want to labour the point, but I really don't understand how this is being normalised.

8 tweets today.

I suppose it's an easy way to fake high energy.

The UK media has stopped commenting on them.