Twitter freezes McConnell campaign account

Twitter locked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s campaign account from further activity Wednesday as punishment for its sharing of a video of protesters screaming obscenities outside the Kentucky Republican’s home. The social media company will not unlock @TeamMitch unless it agrees to remove the video.”

It seems to me that Twitter is quite selective and totally inconsistent about when it chooses to enforce its terms and conditions.

37 thoughts on “Twitter freezes McConnell campaign account

  1. My brother once told me that I could never make it in talk radio because I was too reasonable. I try to have reasons for what I believe and try to listen to opposing arguments in case it turns out I am mistaken. But listening to opposing arguments necessitates having opposing ARGUMENTS to listen to. Instead of explaining why they believe something else or perhaps explaining what they believe are the faults in my reasoning I read platitudes and insults. I wish I could say it was only the left but unfortunately this is the one bastion of bipartisanship remaining to us. Too often I hear politicians, even when they espouse positions with which I agree, speak in talking points I don’t really believe they understand. Then you see all these talking heads yelling the same talking points on TV. Maybe there are some people out there that are so feeble minded that they will just agree with whichever side yells the loudest. But I have no desire to yell or insult anyone. Well to be honest I have been feeling an increasing desire to hurl an insult or two, but I don’t want to sink to that level.

    I believe that anyone that is truly persuadable is much more likely to be persuaded by a well reasoned argument than a diatribe. But as Adam will probably tell you (unless Scoop mercifully closes these comments) I am an idiot.

    1. Actually, I never close the comments manually. They are on a timer. I do control the setting of the timer, but I can’t remember what I selected as the automatic term limit. Maybe three days? Two days? Not sure.

      Occasionally they get closed when somebody still feels like commenting, but that rarely seems like such a bad thing to me. It almost always feels like a closed dialogue is played out.

    2. MM wrote: “Anyone that is truly persuadable is much more likely to be persuaded by a well reasoned argument than a diatribe”

      I have always believed this, and I guess I still do, but the real significant question is “Just how many people are in the group that can be persuaded by a logical argument (or even by overwhelming evidence)? The years seem to have taught me that more people have calcified beliefs than I previously thought, and each year seems to force me to adjust that percentage ever closer to 100.

      Trump’s approval ratings show just how entrenched our positions have become. Let’s use Gallup because they have 70 years of comparative data using the same methodology. Trump’s range is only 11 points. He has never gone below 35% or above 46%. In contrast, Dubya’s range was 39, Obama’s 29, The second-lowest presidential range in history is Ike’s 18.

      Every other president has reached at least a 59% approval rating at one time or another, but it is difficult to imagine any action which could move Trump’s needle that high. With Trump we seem to have found a president who almost perfectly straddles the continental divide of opinions. Unlike previous presidents, he has no qualities that can persuade his detractors and no qualities that can dissuade his supporters.

      Let him kill Tom Hanks and Paul McCartney on the South Lawn in front of news cameras, and he will probably not dip much below 35. Let him bring peace to the Middle East, and he’ll probably not go much higher than 46. We have made up our minds.

    3. 1.I never said you were an idiot.

      2.I think that’s all fine, but just because ‘civility’ is a big deal to you, doesn’t mean you should expect it to be a big deal to everybody else. I think civility is fine in many circumstances, but it has certainly also been used frequently by the genuine evil elites and their enables (like Mitch McConnell) to avoid answering for their actions and to try to put those who are questioning them on the defensive.

      3.There is also a matter as to what constitutes civility. For instance, is it civil that you keep dodging my question? Do you really believe Mitch McConnell is a gentleman?

    4. We don’t have many persuadable people anymore. I could drop researched studies about effects of some of the talking points today: corporate tax cuts, illegal immigration, and income inequity for example – but when no one cares and no one can be convinced – what does it matter?

      I would love a government based on researchers and Universities spending more time doing studies and finding solutions, but when you bring out information saying the top 1% is hoarding most of the resources in the world – and you have one side brainwashed to believe the poorest of the poor are the real problem because they’re Hispanic – what can you do?

      No one can even agree on the most common of ground. Everyone has set up their own confirmation bias universe, and you simply can’t break through it.

  2. Michael, me personally?

    I have several views here.

    1.Before Trump was elected, I enjoyed, then as now, the occasional flame war, I certainly have no problem with that. I also had and have no problem with Trump mocking his opponents by coming up with names for them and the like. The problem here is two fold:
    1.Trump, who is after all the President, offers nothing more than that.

    2.Many of his comments go beyond a flame war into stoking violence or nativist resentment. Even in flame wars, I’m always careful with my comments.

    In regards to ad hominem attacks, I’ve always had a consistent view: if a person says something stupid, saying ‘that’s stupid’ is not an ad hominem. If a person says a number of stupid things, it’s logical to conclude they are a stupid person, and I don’t believe that calling an idiot ‘an idiot’ is an ad hominem attack. From what I’ve read, most logicians actually agree with that.

    The other part of Trump that I’m getting at here is how he was regarded as some kind of an exception for such a long time. For instance, shortly after Chris Silly-Za at CNN wrote an article on ‘top 10 best Trump insult lines’ or something like that, Michelle Wolfe did her brilliant routine at the press thing, and Chris Silly-Za was one of those who professed OUTRAGE! at her routine.

    In regards to whole Mitch McConnell is ‘a gentleman’ thing along with the Michelle Wolfe/Trump, as from what Indy wrote, it’s always much easier for those in the dominant position to be calm or appear to be ‘civil.’ Those fighting those on top are always going to come across as ‘uncivil’ in some ways. I don’t know you either, but you seem to be enamored by the ‘civil gentlemen and gentlewomen’ genuine elites. I look at the horrible things that the Mitch McConnell’s of the world do, and I regard them as horrible people irrespective of their surface civil manner.

    1. Don’t forget, he posed with a baby with a sociopathic smile and a thumbs up today. You know, the two month old now without parents because one of philosophical followers killed them in cold blood.

      I don’t know if there’s any emotion the man experiences besides hate and anger, quite honestly. He’s almost like an alien, unable to express anything besides binary tribalism ‘For me to win, you must lose’ logic.

    2. Adam,

      “if a person says something stupid, saying ‘that’s stupid’ is not an ad hominem. If a person says a number of stupid things, it’s logical to conclude they are a stupid person, and I don’t believe that calling an idiot ‘an idiot’ is an ad hominem attack.”

      If you respond to a statement or argument by saying the person making the statement or argument is stupid, without explaining why they or their statement/argument is stupid, that is the very definition of an ad hominem attack. I noted what I saw as the irony of McConnell’s twitter being suspended for posting a video of someone else threatening him and explained why I believed the situation would in the end benefit McConnell politically. I expressed no opinion about McConnell other than it was wrong to threaten his life. You responded by saying my defense of McConnell was as pathetic as I was. How was that not an ad hominem attack?

      “I look at the horrible things that the Mitch McConnell’s of the world do, and I regard them as horrible people irrespective of their surface civil manner.” You seem to be saying their is no need to be civil to people in power with whom you disagree. You and I obviously disagree, but I don’t really see myself as being “in power.” I am a former high school teacher and attorney retired on disability living in the Bronx. I am curious about which of my past misdeeds make me such a horrible person that I do not deserve any civility. Was it my time teaching underprivileged children in the South Bronx? Or the year I spent working in a legal clinic assisting federal prisoners?

      If you want to attack Trump, McConnell, or some other public figure, go right ahead. Call them names, be rude, be profane. That’s your 1st Amendment right. But if you are not bothering to give a reasoned argument you certainly aren’t going to convince anyone that disagrees with you. But attacking people who voice contrary opinions to yours is just plain rude. It is not necessary to be rude to other commentators in order to fight the establishment.

      1. 1.I’ve already explained this. You referred to McConnell as a ‘gentleman.’ Do you believe Mitch McConnell is a gentleman?

        2.Where did I say you were ‘in power.’ What I said was ‘you seem to be enamored by people in power who act civilly.’ This goes to my first point and the question.

        It would help if you could read what I wrote correctly. I think I was pretty clear. You were really a lawyer? You can’t even read a pretty simple statement correctly.

        ‘Gentleman’ Mitch McConnell is a vile enabler of greed, corruption and death, but you’re more concerned that I’ve been rude to you. Before you get sanctimonious on me, you might want to think about that.

        1. One other point on this, I’ve probably mentioned it here before. Yes, as per logical fallacies, referring to someone as ‘stupid’ without explanation is an ad hominem and is considered a logical fallacy.

          However, this is not reality. Whenever I make this point on twitter, I generally get one or two ‘likes’ from other economists. Ideally, every person’s claim or argument should be regarded individually. However, in reality we live in a world where time is a scarce resource. Given this, the only practical way to react is that if a person makes a number of stupid comments, and primarily makes only stupid comments, is to dismiss that person as being ‘stupid’ and to not waste further time on them. This is why reputations matter so much.

          A negative reputation is really no different than an ad hominem attack, but it’s only practical given the scarcity of time.

  3. It just amazes me that people like Trump and McConnell have defenders. What can possibly make anyone think that they are doing what is good for this country, or are even well-intentioned?

    1. Anecdotal dog whistling and historical boogeyman phrases like socialism, regulation, etc keeps the uneducated population in check. You don’t have to even be on the right side of truth, you just have to obscure it to make the uneducated believe its always the boogeyman’s fault.

      You would think even small things like raising the minimum wage to at least the rate of inflation to what it was at its highest, or controlling CEO salaries and closing corporate tax loopholes and havens for gigantic corporate monopolies would be something 95% plus of people would agree on – but it’s spin masters like McConnell that keep it from happening.

      All he has to do is say liberal, socialism, or regulation and you’ll get a gigantic herd of incompetent people to snarl and ignore the facts. Forget that the FDA regulates food so you’re not eating glass shards when you goto the grocery store, or most of the Republican’s voter base is on social security – a socialism system by nature – they will simply flat out vote against the same concepts they enjoy and make their lives better – based on propaganda. Those are reasons why we pay by FAR the highest amount for healthcare among the entire world per age, and why income inequity is out of control. You can’t even convince people the CEO at Merck or wherever shouldn’t have wealth to live like a god, and actually pay some taxes like everyone else in the world, people are that ignorant.

      What can you really do, when a large populace is literally so uneducated and brainwashed to change anyone’s minds? Wealthy Republicans make all the rules, choose all the cards, and deal all the hands. And the uneducated eat it up with a spoon and ask for more.

      1. I have to disagree with you. I think many of Trump’s comments are toxic. I am surprised you believe none of his comments can really be toxic.

        So much for Michelle Obama’s when they go low we go high approach.

        1. I meant when the President of the United States has lowered the bar to below the floor, nothing anybody says in comparison can really be considered to be bad.

          1. Adam, are you telling me that before Trump was elected, all your comments were civil without ad hominem attacks on those with whom you disagreed? Trump is a terrible person that has coarsened and lowered political discourse in this country. Some of us believe that it is important to be better than Trump. While others secretly delight in the way Trump talks about people because they see it as license to do the same thing. I have my suspicions about you based on what you’ve said about me and others, but I’ll try and keep them to myself because one, I don’t really know you, and two, I try and live by Dalton’s third rule.

          2. Nature Mom. Feeling ashamed is one thing. but people have been harassed, threatened, and even lost jobs because their contributions became public. I’m not saying all these contributions should be confidential, but the more people are harassed or worse, the less supportive I am of “sunlight” provisions.

        2. Well, seems McConnell has reversed himself, will allow a background check vote. (Of course, knowing this prick, he’s already rolling logs to defeat the bill.) Think that would have happened without people camping outside his house?

          This does nothing for healthcare or HR1 but it does go to show that fighting asshole with asshole is better than not.

          1. In this instance, McConnell is probably functioning more in the role of majority led than majority leader. He wouldn’t be allowing a vote unless a majority of Senate Republicans supported allowing a vote. In the case of Merrick Garland, a majority of Senate Republicans supported not allowing a vote, because simply not voting was the least politically fraught way of keeping Scalia’s seat open for a possible Republican president to choose his successor. While the decision was hugely controversial, McConnell took almost all of the heat for it, which is one of the functions of a legislative majority leader.

            It is an extremely rare occurrence when a legislative majority leader stands against the majority of their majority (MOTM). This happens sometimes when the MOTM oppose a bill, but the leader allows a vote anyway (e.g. an increase in the debt limit) because the MOTM isn’t actually opposed to the bill, they just don’t want to be seen voting for it. Nancy Pelosi may or may not be standing against a majority of her caucus that want to impeach Trump. But if she is, she is doing it because she believes it will hurt the Democrats politically without more evidence. She’s said as much. I suspect that a good number of her members that have come out in favor of impeachment believes she is right about that and privately support her decision.

          2. I wasn’t familiar with HR1 but just read a little bit about it on Wikipedia. I don’t want to get into an argument about the merits of the bill, but I do have an observation. Part of the bill would require Super PACs to publicly reveal their donors. Rep. Joaquin Castro’s publicizing of San Antonio Trump donors has demonstrated the reason many people oppose this provision. Acts of retribution against political donors (to both candidates and ballot initiatives) is making me rethink my support for such “sunlight” provisions. It used to be that such provisions were designed to make the public aware that a candidate might be overly indebted to a certain individual or group of individuals. Now it seems that many are using such provisions to shame (or worse) people that donate to candidates or causes with which the shamers disagree. As a result, at the moment, I’m not sure where I come down on this issue.

          3. If you’re going to be ashamed you gave money to someone, then don’t give them money. Duh.
            If are public officials are going to be bought and sold, we at least should know who’s paying. This is a tiny first step toward the abolition of legalized bribery.

  4. It is remarkable how angry people get at someone who defeats the democratic process year in and year out, serving only the interests of the wealthy and himself. Why, I believe I have heard of violent revolutions taking place against such people!

    But I really do think people should not do this to Mitch. They are acting like Trump supporters.

    1. Hey, people are dying while Turtlehead proudly refuses to do his job. Asking nicely ain’t getting it done. If people had been less civil to Himmler and Goering maybe things would have turned out better.

      1. If people had been less civil to Himmler and Goering those people would have been dead. McConnell is unlikely to order any executions.

        1. Sooner or later, every German in a concentration camp, or dead, was a blow against the German war effort. So was that a good thing or a bad thing, Michael M.?

          Also, we are trying to stop Trump and McConnell BEFORE they get the power to put people in camps. Well, I mean MORE people, because they already putting people in camps on the border. If you thing they would not expand that power (while people like you explain why that is a good thing), you are sadly mistaken.

          1. People like me explain why putting people in camps is a good idea? Do you mean Republican’s that voted AGAINST Trump? Whereas, you wonder if it was a good thing that all those Germans (including Jews) were killed in concentration camps? I bow to your moral superiority…

  5. If it’s any consolation to ‘Moscow Mitch’ – consider it the ‘free hand’ of the market at work.

    If he, or his campaign, doesn’t like it – then they can pull themselves up by the ‘bootstraps’ and create their own domain service, web server, website, and whatever else – and host it themselves.

    But that would involve a Boomer actually doing something themselves instead of lecturing others on it.

  6. Adam, how exactly was I defending McConnell? I was condemning threats of violence against an elected leader and pointing out the irony of McConnell’s twitter account being suspended because he posted a video of other people threatening him. I wasn’t criticizing twitter for their actions. I think their policy is generally reasonable, even if it may seem unfair in certain situations. But McConnell is going to benefit politically by twitter’s actions because the controversy will lead to the video being seen by more people. My comment about sending a thank you note was obviously made in jest. But Helm’s statements will energize McConnell partisans and repel most independents, making McConnell come across as more sympathetic. Of course people that oppose McConnell politically that take delight in nasty ad hominem attacks on the character or motives of people they disagree with (usually because it is far easier than engaging their opponents arguments) will delight in hearing it. But I suspect Ms Helm’s supporters were probably going to vote against McConnell anyway.

    For the record, I would condemn threats of violence against Nancy Pelosi just as strongly as threats against McConnell. Otherwise, I consider this reply and my original comment to be analysis rather than a defense. Is that why it seemed so pathetic to you? Or did you not bother reading it?

    As for impeaching Trump, if you can show me evidence there is a real chance he could be convicted by the Senate and removed from office, I’ll be all for it. Otherwise, impeaching Trump will only benefit him politically, making it more likely he gets reelected. If not for the 22nd Amendment, Bill Clinton might have been reelected in 2000. Here is something to else consider though. I have no doubt Al Gore would have won in the Electoral College if Clinton had been removed. Would you trade at least 5 years of President Pence for getting rid of Trump a year early?

  7. The protests outside Mitch McConnell’s home are far far beyond the pale. I don’t care how much you disagree with someone, calling for violence is never acceptable in our society. It’s a shame that people can’t seem to understand that in most (if not all cases) the people we disagree with hold their views in good faith and actually believe (for the reasons they give) what they claim to believe.

    It’s ironic that twitter’s no threats of violence policy is being enforced against the object of those threats. But twitter is actually doing McConnell a favor here thanks to the Streisand effect. Far more people will learn about these threats as a result of the suspension than would read his twitter and many will seek out the video on other platforms. Protests like these with vile threats only help whoever is being protested. I expect in a few days to a week the McConnell campaign will reach a deal with twitter and take down the video. Perhaps, McConnell, gentleman that he is will send Chanelle Helm a thank you note. If you haven’t read the WaPo article linked above she’s the Black Lives Matter Louisville leader that was apparently heard on the video saying about McConnell’s recently broken shoulder he “should have broken his little, raggedy, wrinkled-ass neck” and yelling “Just stab the m—– f—– in the heart, please.”

    1. Mitch McConnell is a horrible person, he is no gentleman.

      I don’t support calls for violence against McConnell, but if he really was concerned about things like that, he’d be supporting the impeachment and conviction of Trump, who has called for violence against various people, especially for violence to be conducted ‘by the bikers’ and by ‘the second amendment people.’

      Your defense of McConnell is as pathetic as you are.

Comments are closed.