Trump blocks VoteVets on Twitter

| June 13, 2017 | 56 Comments

I really don’t blame President Trump, VoteVets adds nothing to the discussion about veterans – they’re just a bunch of T-shirts that MoveOn puts in front of their protests. But VoteVets seem angry that the President has blocked them;

“The Commander in Chief can block @VoteVets, the voice of 500k military veterans and families, but we will NOT be silenced,” VoteVets.org wrote on Twitter, including a screenshot that shows Trump had blocked the organization’s account.

The group has in the past criticized the president over his budget proposal, Republicans attempts to repeal and replace ObamaCare, and the president’s executive order temporarily barring individuals from certain predominantly Muslim nations from entering the United States.

In one television advertisement aired during MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in early February, VoteVets spoke directly to Trump, telling him to start acting like “a legitimate President.”

“Look, you lost the popular vote… You’re having trouble drawing a crowd… And your approval rating keeps sinking…” an veteran of the war in Afghanistan says in the ad.

Yeah, VoteVets doesn’t have a 1/2 million veterans among their membership. They’re mostly MoveOn members who joined VoteVets to boost their membership. I remember the good old days when TAH ran them off their own blog and forced them on to Facebook where they can block me. VoteVets is funded by George Soros and the limolibs at MoveOn.

VoteVets say that their mission is to support veterans running for office – they’ve never supported any conservative candidate for office. In fact they spent millions of dollars to campaign for Harry Reid, a draft dodger, using their definition. They say that they supported Chuck Hagel as proof that they support Republicans, but they never existed during any of Hagel’s campaigns for his office.

Tammy Duckworth started her political career with VoteVets. When she went to Shinseki’s VA she took a bunch of VetsVoice (their blog) writers with her as propagandists for Shinseki. Those propagandists still pray at the Duckworth/Shinseki alter.

All VoteVets is actually a distraction from veterans’ issues.

That picture at the top of the page is a meeting between VoteVets’ director, Jon Soltz and members of IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War) to work out their anti-veteran strategy for the Obama campaign in 2009.

Thanks to David for the link.

Category: VoteVets

Comments (56)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. In The Mailbox: 06.13.17 : The Other McCain | June 13, 2017
  1. Graybeard says:

    Libtards gonna libtard.

    Or put another way: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

  2. OldManchu says:

    I guess if the letters “vet” are used in anything you aren’t allowed to be opposed? Stop making veterans look like crybabies.

    What’s up with the douchebag in the blue dress shirt and cream slacks? Bending over like a high school girl taking a group picture? Where is your dignity?

    Or maybe he was crotch sniffing aviator sunglasses, Tim McGraw slouch stance dude to his right?

  3. Sonny's Mom says:

    Valor thieves are fed up, refuse to remain silent!

  4. AW1Ed says:

    Well, fook ’em if they can’t take a joke.

  5. The Old Maj says:

    I don’t have much problem with Duckworth. Her service was honorable and she gave up a lot in her service.

    We are 180 out on politics but… She got rid of Mark Kirk who was probably the worst RINO in the Senate. I was 180 out with him too.

    She sucked at the VA but the VA sucked before and after and it is going to keep on sucking so what difference does it make?

    Vetvotes and Jon Soltz are a bunch of liars. Somehow I ended up on their emailing list and the hilarity is there. If they are counting me in their 500K numbers they can make it 499,999 instead.

    • USMC Steve says:

      I have a problem with her. She hardly ever showed up for work at the VA. That she is a socialist democrat in this day and age pretty much mandates that she has shit on us and turned her back. The current socialist dem party hates the military and veterans.

  6. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    Fuck them… and their socialist message and their overlord (Soros).

  7. Commissar says:

    Yeah, I am sure you would all think it is fine Obama had blocked a conservative veteran group.

    No partisanship at all here.

    • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

      He blocked conservatives for eight years, Lars.
      “I WON”, remember that? How many times did he give them the finger at rallies?

    • rgr769 says:

      No self-respecting conservative real veteran would care if Commander 0 did that because we wouldn’t want to read his narcisstic lying leftard tweets anyway.

    • FatCircles0311 says:

      Problem with that analogy is that Obama is the scumfuck, not the people he would hypothetically block. In this case the scumfucks are vets whom I’m sure were extreme blue falcons as well.

      • Commissar says:

        Because they are liberal?

        Yeah, that is not partisan at all.

        Fuck off.

        • Thunderstixx says:

          You really don’t get it do you Lars…
          This is gonna be sooooo much fun to watch !!!
          don’t worry, you only have seven and a half years left to go !!!
          By the time Trump gets through you will be committed along with about half of the rest of your good libidiot friends !!!
          Tell Nurse Ratchet I said hello !!!

    • Commissar says:

      Your responses just proved my point.

      You would not be OK with it if Obama had done it. Hell, you are not OK with anything Obama did.

      And you think this is OK ENTIRELY because these Vets are liberals and Trump has labeled himself a republican.

      So your position is ENTIRELY partisan.

      It is not even ideological because Trump’s worldview is divergent from American conservatism and more akin to early 20th century European right wing populist fascism.

      • desert says:

        Why are y ou here? don’t you have a 3rd world shyt hole you could haunt somewhere?

      • gitarcarver says:

        I am going to disagree with you Lars.

        The closest thing we have to this situation during the Obama Presidency was him using the IRS to block groups from being certified as 501 groups for tax purposes.

        While the number of conservative groups that were wrongfully required to submit more documentation and had certification denied far outnumbered the liberal groups, most people that I talked to hated that the IRS was effectively squashing speech and political discourse.

        They didn’t care whether it was a conservative or liberal group. They hated (and still hate) the actions committed by the Obama administration.

        Is there some sort of bias and might people be happy with a liberal group being blocked from a Twitter feed? Maybe. Heck, even probably.

        But I don’t remember many liberals getting worked up about the IRS scandal. In fact, I seem to remember liberals giving cover to the IRS and their illegal actions when it came to shutting down conservative voices.

        You might have a better case and point if you, as a liberal, had come into this discussion with clean hands.

        You don’t have those clean hands so while their may be hypocrisy on the part of some here, there is certainly hypocrisy on your part.

        • rgr769 says:

          He will never get it, no matter how you explain it to him. He is not a classical liberal; he is a crypto-commie, a product of his Marxist perfessors’ indoctrination. All progs are either Marxists or their useful idiots. You might as well talk to a fencepost.

      • Foxbat40 says:

        I love that. You accuse others of being partisan then say that Trump is a fascist.

        Foot meet mouth.

    • mr. sharkman says:

      Yes, partisanship exists. This is my shocked face.

      There is right and wrong (as a rule, in the real world) and smart and stupid.

      You: progressive, wrong, stupid.

      The rest of TAH: conservative, right, smart.

      Do I need to draw pictures?

      Wait, someone already did.

      This one’s for *you*, from the past, ‘commissar’;

      http://redprimer.com/

      p.s. GFY.

    • Silentium Est Aureum says:

      The same guy who promised he wouldn’t balance the budget on the backs of veterans, and then proceeds to try to do just that?

  8. HT3 '83-'87 says:

    BFD…who cares what they think! The POTUS will hear all their regurgitated Soros views thru the Propaganda Ministry of The Demo-Leftist Party know as CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WaPo, ect. I’d like to see their members list with all their ‘veteran’ credentials. I bet it’s a smorgasbord of POSers, embellishers, fakers, phonies & wannabes. Slap a vets moniker to your name to try and add some credibility to your point of view…sorry ass excuse for an organization.

    I’m a vet, I vote, and never heard of these guys until 1448 hrs EST.

    P.S. For solidarity, I blocked them on my twitter page too. They only have 48K followers…weak. Back row Danette Andrew “McLovin” Perloff has over 120K.

  9. MSgt (ret), USAF says:

    “I’m a vet, I vote, and never heard of these guys until 1448 hrs EST.”

    Ditto. Just reading their liberal shit tells me all I need to know. Fuck them and their money man, soros.

  10. David says:

    I just want to know – since when is a Twitter feed supposed to be some sort of sacred obligation? It is the definition of non-official. I wouldn’t care if he blocked the Pope and Mike Spence.

    • Heart of TEXAS (PSG, Ret.) says:

      +1

    • gitarcarver says:

      It is the definition of non-official

      That may not be true. Trump shut down the official “President” twitter feed in which people were able to read what was being said and respond.

      The White House has said that Trump will use Twitter to make official statements and keep people informed.

      I think that makes it pretty “official.”

      Trump cannot have it both ways. He can’t say “this is my private feed” on one hand (thus allowing him to shut people off) and on the other hand say “this is my official means of communication” and shut people off without cause other than “I don’t like what you are saying.”

      If he is using Twitter as a limited public forum, he can’t block people because he doesn’t like what they say. He can block them for other reasons, but not that.

      • IDC SARC says:

        “this is my official means of communication”

        When has he said that? I have heard him say he uses it to bypass the fake news and get the truth out. I don’t recall him ever calling it “official”. I just went to the twitter page and see no statement of that account being anything but his personal account.

        and even if he did…what regulation/law/rule states he can’t block people…you may be right, but at face value it reads like that’s just your opinion.

        • IDC SARC says:

          If the government wants to set that precedent I’d enjoy it, because I’ve been banned by all sorts of politicians that didn’t like my opinion on social media. 🙂

          • gitarcarver says:

            http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-tweets-official-statements-spicer-says-n768931

            WASHINGTON — It’s official — the president’s tweets, that is.

            White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that Trump’s tweets should be taken as official statements, contradicting other White House officials who have tamped down on the official nature of the tweets in recent days.

            “The president is president of the United States,” Spicer said, “so they are considered official statements by the president of the United States.”

            • IDC SARC says:

              Ha…thanks. I didn’t think of checking Spicer’s comments.

              But again what precedent/law/regulation has been broken? I don’t think there are any established guidelines in this matter.

              Seems to me filing a report of butthurt is the only thing indicated here at this time. Of course he’s going to take a beating for lacking transparency …and someone will eventually drop the race card.

              • gitarcarver says:

                The precedent is whether Trump used Twitter as either a public forum or a limited public forum. If he did, then he has a problem.

                (Please don’t say that Twitter is a private company and he can use their rules as shopping malls are often considered public forums and the government can’t impede speech there either.)

                The second precedent is that one has to wonder why Trump is blocking them. If he wants to block everyone in the entire world or make it so his feed is “read only,” that wouldn’t be an issue. But if he blocked people on the basis of the content of what they said in that public / limited public forum, there is a problem.

                Content based restrictions are hardly ever upheld by the courts and even then the government has to have a “compelling governmental interest” to restrict the speech.

                I am willing to listen, but I don’t think there is a compelling interest right now. I can’t think of one but I am willing to listen to suggestions.

                One thing is definite. If Twitter is considered a public or limited public forum and Trump cut people off because he didn’t like what they are saying, he’s got a problem.

                • IDC SARC says:

                  You make interesting points GC, but you also seem to write in a manner that didn’t pay much attention to the events of all the presidencies since Bill Clinton.

  11. IDC SARC says:

    1. I don’t care who blocks who on their personal social media

    2. I don’t see where any reason was given, so there may be a good reason or maybe not.

    3. MoveOn.org and their affiliates are little more than a hate group. I have an account with them and get their emails all the time(know the enemy). They are ridiculously lacking in logical processes, so anyone supporting them IME is a looney until proven otherwise.

    4. I could be completely wrong.

  12. Green Thumb says:

    IVAW = Losers.

  13. gitarcarver says:

    Trump needs to get off Twitter.

    His tweets just become a distraction which may be what he wants.

  14. Thunderstixx says:

    @POTUS is playing the media like a friggin Stradivarius Violin.
    He continues to advance his agenda while getting the media talking heads to explode with yet another Tweet about something that has nothing to do with anything other than being a burr under the saddle of any libidiot.
    and they respond accordingly.
    The best part is that they have no clue what he is doing and he just loves it.
    He’s a master at his game, he didn’t get to where he is by being stupid and anyone that thinks he is stupid really did fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
    This is going to be a fun eight years !!!
    Get the popcorn out, pull up a chair and kick back to watch the fur fly !!!

    • gitarcarver says:

      The problem is that courts have used his tweets to overturn the travel ban.

      He may be playing the media, but the courts seem to be playing him

      He needs to get off of Twitter and let professionals handle his social media presence,

      • IDC SARC says:

        He’s the president…I believe this falls under the old “Big Boy Rules” clause. It’s his decision. At least he’s not boring and kowtowing to anybody with a pulse.

      • rgr769 says:

        Well, then the “courts” shouldn’t have done so, because guess what, they are not evidence, and they are not part of the record on appeal. Period. But that fact seems to be lost on Progtard judges.
        Would you like your death penalty jury deciding your fate based upon some media report of some purported tweet during jury deliberations.

  15. gitarcarver says:

    ,,,,and they are not part of the record on appeal.

    Yes they are. In the recent cases, the government argued that the travel ban was not based on religion (one of the classes that cannot be banned outright.) Lawyers pulled out Trump’s tweets where he said the US needed a ban based on religion. The “record” was created in the briefs submitted to the courts and those briefs contain the tweets.

    Would you like your death penalty jury deciding your fate based upon some media report of some purported tweet during jury deliberations.

    No, but that is not what happened here. In this case, the government argued a position that the tweets contradicted.

    In other words, would you want a guy to get up on the stand and say “I didn’t murder gitarcarver (hypothetically)” and have his tweets of him bragging about the murder not allowed for the jury to consider?

    If Trump hadn’t made those stupid tweets, the courts would not have had much to hang their decisions on. (They may have found other things, but they didn’t have to.) Trump and his tweeting tom-foolery gave his enemies and the courts the ammunition they needed to overturn the travel ban.

    • rgr769 says:

      You obviously don’t know how a “record” on appeal is created that can be considered by an appellate court. I am not going to take the time to explain it to you. You haven’t seen the record on appeal, unless you are court clerk or counsel of record in the federal appellate courts considering this issue, which I doubt. I also doubt you are an appellate attorney. If you want to know how this appellate court stuff works, I suggest you go to law school; it’s only three years of grueling work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *