I've never really gone with the 'Harris to take over' plan.

Harris isn't a popular Democrat and they would be giving the Republicans their very best chance in 2024.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Jul 2021 11.06pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

It's a wise and valuable precedent in today's world. No politician should be allowed unfettered access to a private company's platform. They need to meet the same standards as the rest of us.

It has zilch to do with them taking decisions on our behalf. They do, and there are many ways they can reach out to explain their reasoning. Probing the data is what the opposition does and all of that, unless secret, gets reported to us.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I think you are wrong. Harris is keeping a low profile, but has been handed the unenviable task of sorting out border security and the levels of illegal immigration.

My understanding is that there will be a complete revamp of "ICE" with comprehensive retraining and a huge increase in their numbers with recruitment targetted at former citizens of Central American countries. Money will be directed to support the economies of those countries providing most of the wanna be immigrants.

If Harris makes a good start with this and shows that, after decades of failure, the tide is turning, it will likely play well with moderate Republicans and the non-aligned.

Harris holds many aces. She is a Democrat, so can count on a core support base. She is a woman, and for some women that will be enough. And, of course, there is her ethnicity.

It would take an exceptionally charismatic GOP candidate to overcome those attributes, and I don't see any. All the likely ones carry significant baggage from the Trump years and prior to them.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Have to be honest I’m what most of you would call a lefty snowflake. That said I think the banning of Trump from Facebook etc sets a very very dangerous precedent. The fact is social media is more powerful and has the potential to influence, in fact has influenced elections is a real danger to democracy.
The fact that Nick Clegg has gone from a failed politician to one of the most powerful men in the world is about as scary as it gets.
I don’t think there is a left and right argument here I think the whole idea of democracy could end with the next generation who already get there news and views from Facebook etc being unable to form there own options about people like Trump.

You’ve just done more to explain my position than I’ve managed in days so thank you very much.

The view of Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO,

I feel a ban is a failure of ours ultimately to promote healthy conversation. And a time for us to reflect on our operations and the environment around us.

Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.