Facebook Removes Trump Post For the First Time (theguardian.com) 291
AmiMoJo shares a report from The Guardian: Facebook has removed a post from Donald Trump's page for spreading false information about the coronavirus, a first for the social media company that has been harshly criticized for repeatedly allowing the president to break its content rules. The post included video of Trump falsely asserting that children were "almost immune from Covid-19" during an appearance on Fox News. There is evidence to suggest that children who contract Covid-19 generally experience milder symptoms than adults do. However, they are not immune, and some children have become severely ill or died from the disease.
The Twitter account for Trump's re-election campaign, @TeamTrump, also posted the video, which Twitter said violated its rules. "The account owner will be required to remove the Tweet before they can Tweet again," a company spokesperson said of @TeamTrump. During a press briefing on Wednesday afternoon, Trump repeated his false claims about children and the disease.
The Twitter account for Trump's re-election campaign, @TeamTrump, also posted the video, which Twitter said violated its rules. "The account owner will be required to remove the Tweet before they can Tweet again," a company spokesperson said of @TeamTrump. During a press briefing on Wednesday afternoon, Trump repeated his false claims about children and the disease.
How about the entire account? (Score:3, Insightful)
EOM
Re: (Score:2)
if they plan to delete it every time he posts some bullshit, this amounts to effectively the same result.
Re: How about the entire account? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: How about the entire account? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still blown away why the media didn't discount all of his social media posts because there's no guarantee that he's even posting them. There's no guarantee that a foreign hacker isn't sliding shit into the feed. There's no guarantee he's not snoozing away and someone else in the family is posting shit.
To treat a 2am tweet from the president the same as a prime-time, televised address from the oval office is fucking crazy.
And yet here we are.
All this shit would have been a whole lot better if the fucking MSM hadn't decided to cover tweets and facebook posts as if they were real news.
Re: How about the entire account? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course we know Trump is posting these. You think Trump has an aide that does drunken twitter at 2am on his behalf?
The president treats these tweets as the real thing, and so the MSM is forced to do so also. So blame Trump for being the one that turned Twitter into the official presidential record.
On the other hand, his tweets are often more coherent than his prime time televised stream of consciousness. At least with 280 characters he's required to occasionally end a sentence.
Re: (Score:3)
You think Trump has an aide that does drunken twitter at 2am on his behalf?
It's either assuming that, assuming that they took away the briefcase with The Button and replaced it with a toy version, or lying awake worrying.
Re: How about the entire account? (Score:5, Funny)
Trump does not drink. That's the scary thing - he posts this insane crap sober.
Re: (Score:3)
You think Trump has an aide that does drunken twitter at 2am on his behalf?
If he did, would he even know? Does he even remember what he's tweeted?
FTR, I only think he has aides who tweet during the day on his behalf. You can tell someone else wrote one of "his" tweets when it's complicated, yet everything is spelled correctly.
Re: (Score:3)
He makes sure not to cross the streams.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this "insightful"? The PUBLIC can decide for themselves how to "treat" anything the President says. Whether he says it on Facebook or in a Fireside Chat like FDR used to do or in some sort of "Executive Order" makes no difference. He's the President of the United States and being late at night and just ranting on the internet sounds like some excuse I might use, but I am not the President of the United States of America. I still have to take responsibility for my words though.
And if Trump isn't
Re: (Score:2)
I think by now we have established that the public is too stupid to tell facts from fiction.
Re: (Score:3)
I recall him going through some monthslong period(s) of press conference blackouts - just not holding any. When he does he's generally playing games. About a week or so after George Floyd died, his people told the media they were hosting a "press conference" about it in the Rose Garden. It was about 2 or 3 PM Central, the local TV channels here interrupted their normal programming to carry it. Makes sense right? Protests are erupting coast to coast, stuff is burning - maybe the President has something to sa
Re: (Score:3)
There's no guarantee that a foreign hacker isn't sliding shit into the feed.
We'd be able to tell that quite easily simply based on the spelling improving AND THE random words no LONGER being capitalised. Also they won't be signed off with the official POTUS signature "SAD!"
Re: (Score:3)
Thankfully, this argument doesn't apply to the @TeamTrump account. But it does raise the question about what would happen if his account posted dangerous misinformation about the coronavirus. Could they take it down, or just hide it behind a "this information is false or misleading" click-through?
The worst part about all this is that bullshit "what-if" slippery slope questions have a long and ignoble history on Slashdot, but this one is dangerously close to being not hypothetical.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's not Facebook's responsibility to preserve the Presidential Record.
It is that of the the US government.
Re: (Score:3)
Who ever said they did?
I thought a court did and Trump essentially said the same thing by claiming it was the only way he could communicate directly with the people.
No POTUS after him will go anywhere NEAR Twitter because of him.
I wish.We see other world leaders using social media such as Twitter to communicate. Like it or not ( and I don't), it's here to stay. Biden won't use it the same way if/when he is elected, but he will use it.
Re: (Score:2)
We see other world leaders using social media such as Twitter to communicate.
..yeah, and many of them, like Trump, make complete asses of themselves when they do.
Re: How about the entire account? (Score:5, Informative)
They are different scenarios, although some people get lost on details.
Trump attempted to block people from his twitter account because they were critical of him. Both the initial court and appeals court found that this violated the first amendment. Since Trump choose to conduct official business and interact with the public through that forum, blocking people from using that forum abridges both a person's right of speech and the right to petition for redress.
In contrast, in this situation he is using media companies to violate content which violates the company's ToS. It is being blocked because it is both factually wrong and is harmful, which their ToS allows them to block. Whether those are Tide Pod challenges or declaring that children are virtually immune and therefore safe to be exposed, both should be blocked. He still has the right to speak it, and he can use official government channels to publish it if he chooses, but no media company is obligated to further host or broadcast it on their own.
In stark contrast to his assertion, children have no difference in getting the disease. Youth, infants, even newborns can contract the virus, and they appear to be just as susceptible as adults. The key difference is how they express symptoms, usually developing mild symptoms or showing no visible symptoms while carrying (and spreading) the virus. Because his claims are trivially shown as false, violate all health standards, and pose a direct danger to people, the platforms are blocking them under their ToS.
Re: (Score:3)
they appear to be just as susceptible as adults
Children do appear to be less susceptible to Covid-19, probably because of the lack of an ACE2 receptor.
First 5 hits on Google say: [google.com]
">Will children reveal their secret? The coronavirus dilemma [nih.gov]
Susceptability of children, Covid-19 [chop.edu]
The immune system of children: the key to understanding SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility? [thelancet.com]
Are children less susceptible to COVID-19? [nih.gov]
good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I am not sure whether it is just his ignorance on what the word means or it was his intention to lie, either way it is a dangerous misrepresentation.
No reason it can't be both. He's an expert after all.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a big message coming from the "open the schools!" crowd that children are immune. Trump is listening to them and ignoring his health advisors. Trump has a bad habit of retweeting random shit and repeating stuff he heard on social media as if it were fact. Totally amazing that the leader of the free world is probably less informed than a covid-19 patient who's been placed into an artificial coma.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:good! (Score:5, Insightful)
. The death rate for children is infinitesimal.
There's a monumental difference between dying from COVID and being immune to getting it - and potentially spreading it to those that are lot more vulnerable.
Parents are not nearly as worried about children getting COVID, as they are of it being spread to the rest of the family.
If I look at my household, 2 of 5 are in the vulnerable category, 2 of 5 are "nearly immune", and the last is a normal adult.
Would having 40% of a household die be a problem to the remaining 60%? Where 2/3 remainder are under 5yrs old?
Re: (Score:3)
The death rate for children is infinitesimal
Death is not the only negative outcome. Even if you put aside the risk of children transmitting Covid to others, there are also several significant long-term health effects which can be caused by it.
Re:good! (Score:4, Informative)
Children are not getting sick,
Correct. Children are not getting sick. They're [foxnews.com] just [cnbc.com] dying [usatoday.com] from [cnn.com] it [thehill.com]. And when they're not dying from it, they're facing [nbcnews.com] a rare condition [nbcnewyork.com] which produces toxic shock [nytimes.com].
there is no data to support that Children are the source of a lot of infections.
But they are [businessinsider.com] a source of infections [wric.com]. It all depends on their age [smithsonianmag.com]:
A recent study from South Korea of 5,706 infected people and their 59,073 contacts found children under 10 transmitted less often to adults while those between the ages of 10 and 19 spread the virus as well as adults do. Households with the older children had the highest rate of spread to other members—18.6 percent— of any age group while households with younger children had the least spread, just 5.3 percent. The overall average was 11.8 percent.
That aside, why does Facebook believe it knows?
Facebook doesn't know, but it uses what the experts are saying (now go move the goalposts about experts). Then again, when it comes to the con artist, essentially everything he says is a lie so it's not difficult to cut him off. Like when he said NASA was dead before he came along [businessinsider.com] and it was because of him that SpaceX has taken off.
we can sue their pants off for any content which is not true.
They're not the one producing the content. Only trying to manage it. Compare that to the Fox tabloid which deliberately lies, creates lies, and disseminates lies. Then says their people have no duty to tell their viewers the truth [hillreporter.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:good! (Score:5, Informative)
Partial immunity in a person is a real thing. it means that the body mounts an immune response quicker or greater than a person without partial immunity, but less than a person with full immunity. The result is a less severe case or a shorter period of illness.
Partial immunity in a group can refer to the same thing; it can also refer to a group each of whose members is more likely to be fully immune than the general population.
Re: (Score:2)
greatest in amount, quantity, or degree.
synonyms
nearly all - almost all - the greatest quantity/part/number - the majority - the bulk - the lion's share -Â the mass - the preponderance
I highlighted the relevant piece. Used correctly.
Nice use of statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
"some" stupid things? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"some" stupid things? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would posit that about 90% of what comes out of his orange Big Mac hole is stupid, while the last 10% is unintelligible sounds that make no sense.
Now, let's be fair. Not everything Trump says is stupid or unintelligible. Some of it is evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, "almost" is open to interpretation, but it's CLEAR how Trump wanted it to be interpreted.
It's a "WEASEL WORD" which is to say he can claim he didn't say children were completely immune or anything later on and it's true. He didn't say kids were completely immune.
He just wants people to think they're immune enough that we don't have to worry about them spreading the virus. He is downplaying the threat of the virus, which you should recall he called a HOAX.
Re: (Score:2)
So for you, lowering the crime rate and educating children isn't important.
Furthermore, the data statistics on COVID in children are widely available, and if you can't comprehend them, that's your fault. Trump clearly understands the matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody rational would claim that "Trump clearly understands the matter."
That's just not a rational comment.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to miss the nuance. The word "immune" has a meaning. Terms like "infection rate" and "death rate" have definitions as well, which are different from "immune".
Children can and do get the virus. School age children, toddlers, infants, and even newborns can and do contract it. They do not have immunity. They absolutely can and do contract the disease. While sick they can and do transmit the disease to others.
Children typically have mild symptoms, and young children often show no symptoms even when th
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I see phrases like "Because optical resonators are almost immune" and " shRNA1-transgenic plants were found to be almost immune" and "from almost immune (ie, no symptom development or virus amplification), moderate resistance,to no resistance (Table 1)." NONE OF WHICH SEEM TO BE REFERENCING COVID-19 in particular and even if they were do not suggest that children are in any way "almost immune".
"that single chronically infected animals remain undetected in vaccinated, and thus almost immune, sounders,
Re: (Score:2)
He's just out for the attention.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's his thing, he says inflammatory things to get more attention. It's all about the attention, like some insecure 4yr old. (Which is his maturity level.)
I wonder if it'd be better at this point to simply ignore him - let him spew his nonsense, and not even react, at least then we wouldn't be playing into his game and he'd hopefully get bored.
Re:He's just out for the attention.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I read this argument a lot, and it scares the living fuck out of me.
Trump is a dangerous loudmouth with poor restraint skills, but sure, let's just ignore the guy. He's only the current fucking President of the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
I read this argument a lot, and it scares the living fuck out of me.
Trump is a dangerous loudmouth with poor restraint skills, but sure, let's just ignore the guy. He's only the current fucking President of the United States.
Yeah, and...? The people who have already decided not to vote for him aren't going to be swayed by anything he says; neither are the ones who will vote for him regardless of what he says. Personally, I intend to not vote either for him or for his idiot opponent (and please, no lectures about this being the way for Trump to get elected -- I live in California, which would be carried by Hitler if he ran as a Democrat).
I've been ignoring this clown since before the 2016 election and my mental, emotional, and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not at all convinced that a war of words achieves anything and it's more nuanced than just ignoring him. I think there is a great deal of merit in making, in each individual case, an objective assessment of how impactful Trump's words really are. Then making an honest assessment of how helpful it is for us to amplify those words, argue about them, criticise them or perhaps defend them. Do we really believe that our responses to his insane rantings are helping the situation? Sometimes they might but some
Re: (Score:2)
It's his thing, he says inflammatory things to get more attention.
He loves the hyperbole. And he doesn't come from an engineering or scientific background. So his choice of vocabulary isn't exact. More like it misses the mark by a long way. But then that's true of most politicians and leaders. And other people with an extra helping of narcissism. Deal with it. If you really need exacting answers, you are going to have to go to some other source of authority than a POTUS (Jimmy Carter on nuclear engineering being an exception). If you need a all-knowing leader to follow, s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Do it my way, or I'll hold my breath until I'm orange!"
And it works (Score:2)
I don't need to follow any of Trump's social media accounts. Whatever he posts is immediately echoed by literally every news outlet (slashdot included).
Re: (Score:2)
...we wouldn't be playing into his game and he'd hopefully get bored.
Sounds like the advice my counselors gave me regarding school bullies. "They just want a reaction, so ignore them and they'll go away."
Didn't work. Turns out, the real solution was to kick the shit out of them, so they'd go looking for an easier target.
Zuck as the arbiter of truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, I can't do it. If that hornbag told me my own name, I'd have to double check it..
Yet here we are.
Zuckerberg isn't the arbiter of jack or shit (Score:2)
Now, if Section 230 gets repealed? Yeah, then you might have a point. Because Facebook will be sure to have exemptions for their shit but you can bet independent media outlets won't.
Re:Zuckerberg isn't the arbiter of jack or shit (Score:4, Insightful)
There is plenty of information out there if you can be bothered to look for it, but that's the whole problem...
Most people don't go looking for information, they receive information from facebook and the major media outlets and then believe it without question, and this is exactly the way the media wanted it when they were people's only sources of information.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thow 'em into the juicer, find out whether they blend.
"almost immune from Covid-19", almost (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody said children don’t get COVID19 so not sure what the breaking news is
A 12 year old child has a 1 in 55,000 chance of dying IF they get it
That same child is 25x more likely to die from other causes
As a society, we have lost all commonsense in terms of risk assessment
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ee... [twimg.com]
Re:"almost immune from Covid-19", almost (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize there is a large difference between being "almost immune" and generally not dying if you get the virus, right? Sure, the mortality rates of children are less than adults. That is nothing like being "almost immune" as they still get the virus and can pass it onto others. You know, others like their parents and grandparents and teachers who also not "almost immune" and some of whom have a much higher chance of dying.
Great theory if in the Lord of the Flies (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody said children don’t get COVID19 so not sure what the breaking news is
A 12 year old child has a 1 in 55,000 chance of dying IF they get it
That same child is 25x more likely to die from other causes
As a society, we have lost all commonsense in terms of risk assessment
Yeah...the kid won't die, just his/her grandparents and the grandparents of his/her teachers as well as anyone with pre-existing conditions who happened to get exposed to them. So yeah, if you have a society of nothing but children...perhaps the Lord of the Flies or Neverland, maybe even Logan's Run, then we're all good. My kids like their grandparents. I'm not eager to kill them off...or the lady down the street who had cancer last year and shared a tin of Christmas Cookies with them...or my kid's friend's mom who has diabetes.
So yeah, if my kids are exposed to COVID and contract it, they'll be fine...My wife and I will feel like absolute shit for a few weeks...our immediate household will get through it...it's just the many people we may accidentally expose who may die.
Sorry, killing people's grandpas is not my thing. Everyone in my house follows the legal precautions, wears a mask in public, we socially distance, and minimize our exposure, like any decent human being would do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Offtopic, what does your sig mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nobody said children don’t get COVID19 so not sure what the breaking news is
This is not the point. The point is saying "Children can all go back to school because they're much less sensitive to covid-19", that is ignoring the fact that while children are indeed less prone to show the codid-19 symptoms, they can however hold the disease and pass it to someone who is at risk (parents, grandparents...).
Re: (Score:2)
Scientifically Interesting Topic (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot silence the President (Score:3)
You can only make sure that some of the people can no longer hear him.
I think it's better if everyone hears him. And ideally that everyone actively discusses what is going on. If we censor everything unpleasant or offensive then it becomes far too easy to become complacent and pretend the bad things are not happening around us.
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking idiot. Trump is the state.
Dictator: Dissent will not be tolerated. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:1.7% rate seems pretty close to "almost immune" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:1.7% rate seems pretty close to "almost immune" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you just repeating the same wrong thing I corrected?
It's not wrong. Do some research. Heck, the scientific advisers in the UK this week said pretty much the opposite to Trump. Who would you rather trust on science? Or do you need links to research papers too?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You are not under any obligation to use Facebook, or any other privately owned source. You *are* under obligation to use the US Government if you are a US citizen.
Big difference.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You conveniently ignore the fact that FB has the 1st Amendment right to repeat or *not* repeat what anyone else says.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You conveniently ignored my argument — attacking some strawman of your own making.
I never said, FB's actions are illegal — more over, I said the opposite.
My contention was — and remains — that FB should not be acting as Ministry of Truth for the same reasons, no government should have such a department.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is only "ethical", if you have the omniscience necessary to discern the actual truth.
Neither governments, nor "giant advertising networks" have this capability — it is thus more ethical for both kinds of entities to not even attempt to police speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice. We disagree. Apparently Facebook is finally growing a pair and beginning to disagree as well.
Re: (Score:2)
the fact that FB has the 1st Amendment right to repeat or *not* repeat what anyone else says.
Wait wait wait. I thought Facebook had "common carrier" status. We can't sue them over their content because they don't exercise editorial control over it.
You're saying they are free to exercise editorial control? Then Trump is free to sue Facebook over the various slanders and libels published on Facebook. (People have said all kinds of stuff: he wants to kill or lock up LGBT folks, he wants COVID-19 to kill pe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the fact that FB has the 1st Amendment right to repeat or *not* repeat what anyone else says.
Wait wait wait. I thought Facebook had "common carrier" status.
It doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is claiming to be a common carrier
It's not. Common carrier has a particular definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Children are not "almost immune from Covid-19".
- All credible doctors on Earth
Re: (Score:2)
more than 90% are. fancy that. maybe your definition of "almost" is different than Trump's and Facebooks but who gives a shit, let each speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just went to the American Assoc. of Pediatrics stats page, maybe you should too instead of talking out of your ass but being too lazy to google.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look up the "a" tag and use it. It's not that complicated to include a link to a source in a posting, ya know?
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Mr. Trumps statements are wrong, say so. Give the arguments why.
Making them disappear only lends him credibility
I sometimes listen to the Intelligence Squared Debates [intelligen...aredus.org].
They're an "Oxford style" debate. A question is posed at the start, ie "Is the Moon made of Cheese?" and an initial vote is taken.
In this case it might be:
98% No, 1% Yes, and 1% Undecided.
Because obviously, the moon isn't made of cheese.
Then they have a debate and then take a second vote. The side who gains more support after the second vote is then judged the winner.
In the example I gave the side arguing that the Moon was made of cheese would almost ce
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Mr. Trumps statements are wrong, say so. Give the arguments why.
Making them disappear only lends him credibility - obviously Facebook has something to hide, right?
You mean something like This video includes false claims that a group of people is immune from Covid-19 which is a violation of our policies around harmful Covid misinformation?
And what would Facebook be hiding in this situation, a Trump truth? We know what he said, it isn't. End of story.
Re: (Score:2)
"Trump truth". I like it. It's like having a politically correct version of "bullshit".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can indeed lie all you like about medical facts unless you're someone working in the medical field, in which case your lies would be considered professional misconduct and could result in your medical license being revoked.
People lie about medical facts all the time, either intentionally or through ignorance. Think of all these old false cures people talk about which have no basis in medical fact.
But none of this should matter, people should not blindly believe what they hear, they should do their own r
False statement (Score:2)
Re:False statement (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: False statement (Score:4, Insightful)
Asymptomatic carriers spreading the disease has been debunked
No, it has not.
(masks wouldnÃ(TM)t help if I just emanate the virus).
What the fuck are you talking about when you say "emanate"? That's not a medical term. It means fuck-all without context. If the virus "emanates" from your "mouth" and "nose" then a "mask" will help, unless you are one of these dipshits who can't figure out that the mask has to cover your nose and mouth, or one of the fuckfaces who can't figure out the difference between a cloth mask and a mesh veil.
If you have it,
If who has what?
isolate,
We're trying, but the federal response has been pathetic. Canada can afford to pay people to stay home. Why can't the "greatest nation" do the same?
test the kids if youÃ(TM)re worried they may have gotten in contact
People can spread asymptomatically for two weeks. You should be worried that everyone "may have gotten in contact" with someone who has it.
and youÃ(TM)ll be fine.
One day, it will just disappear. It will be like magic.
Re:How is it not factual? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're immune then you couldn't spread the disease, you'd simply never acquire it.
Not dying is not the same as being immune. The kiddos are still going to bring home the 'rona to Mom and Dad and Memaw and Pop-pop.
Re:This is getting VERY interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
It is absolutely GUARANTEED to stomp all over YOUR rights at some future time.
I don't have a right to post on Facebook and Twitter.
Think more deeply (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed, there's no law saying anybody has a right to post on Facebook or Twitter, but those companies do have huge special legal protections against laws other corporations must follow based upon the idea that they will not censor or editorialize.
Consider some future in which a couple of right wing billionaires with massive global corporations decide to muzzle the campaigns and candidates of the left. Perhaps some future political leader will push policies you do not like and his friends atop some big corporations will decide to muzzle anybody who says things he opposes, by flagging them as "hate speech" or inaccurate, etc. It's certainly not what's happening today, but it is a future possibility. Just as people who loved Obama were happy when he acted with his pen&phone and I warned people that some future president they did not like might do the same thing some day based on the precedents Obama was setting..... you need to consider:
1. No corporation lasts forever or maintains its market share forever. Remember when HP,IBM and DEC dominated computing? When Myspace and Yahoo dominated the internet? When Ford and Chevy were THE auto makers?
2. The political leanings of corporate bosses change.
3. Law in the US pays heavy attention to "precedent" in order to provide society with predictability in any place where the law is not very specific.
4. Social and political views in society change over time. Just because most of the people pushing today's speech codes might have views that align with yours, that does not mean the people pushing speech codes 15 years from now will.
This is not partisan for me, I am very concerned by the trends and the degree to which people are embracing ideas that could lead to a VERY dark future for humanity decades from now, long after I am dead. It does not matter to me if it's a Republican or a Democrat paving the way for a future of oppression. The men who founded America constantly referred to their "posterity" (the generations people, most of whom would come long after they were gone) and tried to make sure what they built could endure for those descendants they did not even know. They argued about policies, some of which they might have preferred at the time but which would be bad for the future, and they opted to protect the future.