|
Muslims are threatening to leave America if Trump wins
|
|
Topic Started: Sep 2 2016, 08:24 PM (1,535 Views)
|
|
Two a.m.
|
Sep 3 2016, 12:12 AM
Post #21
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,133
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- estonianman
- Sep 2 2016, 11:21 PM
- Two a.m.
- Sep 2 2016, 10:56 PM
I certainly couldn't blame any Muslim for no longer feeling safe in this country under someone like Trump. Supposedly we have Constitutional protections that would stop Trump but we've never really elected a president before who would be as likely to ignore the Constitution so I'm not sure how it would be able to stand up to him. He might simply try to enforce his illegal ideas anyway. If Mr. Trump wins, I don't know that anyone is truly safe. Not just Muslims or Mexicans. But journalists, judges, political opponents.
Judge Learned Hand warned us many years ago: "I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
Well Clinton supported building a wall - and every president prior has had deportations. So what constitutional precedent are going on here? and journalists, judges and political opponents? depending on wild strawmen now for your arguments now? Please don't tell me you write for Vox.
I don't mind deportations or building a wall. They aren't high priorities but I don't see anything wrong with them and they have nothing to do with the Constitution.
But Trump has been very clear, threatening and hostile toward the rights of journalists. I have absolutely no doubt he would attempt to use government force to attempt some of the things he's talked about from silencing critics through manipulation of libel laws to using anti-trust suits against newspaper owners to squelch outlets he doesn't like. I also see no reason why he might stop at journalists. Nothing whatsoever in Trump's personality has shown any thing other than that the man is a thin-skinned, petty, vindictive, egomaniacal, tempermental bully with no respect whatsoever for laws, traditions or even basic human moral conventions which have generally kept presidents from their most dictatorial impulses. Worse, he has generally been rewarded by his base for the sort of draconian, blustery, vengeful statements that would typically make people queasy about a normal presidential candidate so I don't expect him to be constrained by bad PR. Congress is currently Republican. The Republicans are - even by political standards - morally and ideologically bankrupt. They certainly won't stop him. And Trump's first act will be to appoint the deciding vote on the Supreme Court that the GOP - in defiance of normal procedure - kept open for him.
The fact is that Trump has been remarkably open about what a horrifying person he is and what a threat he is to our nation and the planet. If we do not see it, it is simply because we are willfully blind, flatly uneducated and morally neutered, obsessed with triviality and shallowness.
This should not be a close election. This should be - literally - the biggest landslide since George Washington. Not because Hillary Clinton is awesome or anything. The fact that she is breathing, sane and not Trump should be enough to win all 50 states. In the nation I grew up in 30 years ago, it would have been enough.
It isn't now because we are not that country anymore. We are a different country - a frightening, declining nation that has been hollowed out and rendered vulnerable to the self-serving ravings of a dictatorial dingbat.
November doesn't really matter. The fact that this isn't a landslide and that a majority has chosen to either actively support the crazy guy or drug themselves with third party soma means we have already lost no matter the outcome.
We have been weighed, measured and found very wanting.
|
|
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Sep 3 2016, 12:35 AM
Post #22
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,739
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:12 AM
But Trump has been very clear, threatening and hostile toward the rights of journalists.
He banned obvious propagandists from his press conferences. its unconventional for sure - but understandable.
These folks fabricated stories about himself and his family in order to propagate an ideology.
perspective please
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
Two a.m.
|
Sep 3 2016, 12:40 AM
Post #23
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,133
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- estonianman
- Sep 3 2016, 12:35 AM
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:12 AM
But Trump has been very clear, threatening and hostile toward the rights of journalists.
He banned obvious propagandists from his press conferences. its unconventional for sure - but understandable. These folks fabricated stories about himself and his family in order to propagate an ideology. perspective please
He has threatened to expand libel laws so people won't be able to criticize him as much and - more chillingly - he has threatened the owner of the Washington Post with an antitrust suit against Amazon, his other business - which as president, he will have the power to bring.
Who cares about the thing you mentioned?
|
|
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Sep 3 2016, 12:51 AM
Post #24
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,739
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:40 AM
- estonianman
- Sep 3 2016, 12:35 AM
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:12 AM
But Trump has been very clear, threatening and hostile toward the rights of journalists.
He banned obvious propagandists from his press conferences. its unconventional for sure - but understandable. These folks fabricated stories about himself and his family in order to propagate an ideology. perspective please
He has threatened to expand libel laws so people won't be able to criticize him as much and - more chillingly - he has threatened the owner of the Washington Post with an antitrust suit against Amazon, his other business - which as president, he will have the power to bring. Who cares about the thing you mentioned? Is criticism? Or outright lies?
Because lies would fall under libel legislation - and is why his wife is currently suing the Daily Mail which basically made up the story that she was an eastern European whore.
I agree that this should not be illegal - but should absolutely be sued in a civil court.
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
Two a.m.
|
Sep 3 2016, 12:58 AM
Post #25
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,133
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- estonianman
- Sep 3 2016, 12:51 AM
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:40 AM
- estonianman
- Sep 3 2016, 12:35 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
He has threatened to expand libel laws so people won't be able to criticize him as much and - more chillingly - he has threatened the owner of the Washington Post with an antitrust suit against Amazon, his other business - which as president, he will have the power to bring. Who cares about the thing you mentioned?
Is criticism? Or outright lies? Because lies would fall under libel legislation - and is why his wife is currently suing the Daily Mail which basically made up the story that she was an eastern European whore.
And she can sue because we have libel laws already. There is - as there must be - a higher legal standard for public figures because we have to respect freedom of speech but if a journalist simply make something up about you with intent to do injury - legally called "malice" - then you can sue. But if you are president, you shouldn't be obsessed with quelling every person that says false things about you. How would things be if Obama were that way?
Again the stuff he said about Bezos is even worse because - unlike with libel law - he will have unilateral power to actually file antitrust against Bezos or anyone else he doesn't like.
And if that isn't scary enough, think how he'll use the secret parts of the government we don't even know - or only know a little about. Even having Clinton or Obama in charge of some of the stuff the NSA is doing frightens the hell out of me. I can't begin to imagine putting that power in the hands of someone like Donald J. Trump.
|
|
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
|
| |
|
Harambe4Trump
|
Sep 3 2016, 01:01 AM
Post #26
|
|
- Posts:
- 17,327
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #42
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:58 AM
- estonianman
- Sep 3 2016, 12:51 AM
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:40 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Is criticism? Or outright lies? Because lies would fall under libel legislation - and is why his wife is currently suing the Daily Mail which basically made up the story that she was an eastern European whore.
And she can sue because we have libel laws already. There is - as there must be - a higher legal standard for public figures because we have to respect freedom of speech but if a journalist simply make something up about you with intent to do injury - legally called "malice" - then you can sue. But if you are president, you shouldn't be obsessed with quelling every person that says false things about you. How would things be if Obama were that way? Again the stuff he said about Bezos is even worse because - unlike with libel law - he will have unilateral power to actually file antitrust against Bezos or anyone else he doesn't like. And if that isn't scary enough, think how he'll use the secret parts of the government we don't even know - or only know a little about. Even having Clinton or Obama in charge of some of the stuff the NSA is doing frightens the hell out of me. I can't begin to imagine putting that power in the hands of someone like Donald J. Trump. Excellent. Amazon is a monopolu
|
Skipping leg day is the equivalent of a woman having an abortion. You're ashamed of it, and it was probably unnecessary. #MAGA #wallsnotwars
|
| |
|
Mr. Tik
|
Sep 3 2016, 01:06 AM
Post #27
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,993
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #102
- Joined:
- Mar 20, 2016
|
- estonianman
- Sep 3 2016, 12:35 AM
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:12 AM
But Trump has been very clear, threatening and hostile toward the rights of journalists.
He banned obvious propagandists from his press conferences. its unconventional for sure - but understandable. These folks fabricated stories about himself and his family in order to propagate an ideology. perspective please ^^^^^ Propaganda
|
You may be a conservative republican..if you are pro life until you get your mistress knocked up
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Sep 3 2016, 01:30 AM
Post #28
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,739
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Adolph Hipster
- Sep 3 2016, 01:06 AM
- estonianman
- Sep 3 2016, 12:35 AM
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:12 AM
But Trump has been very clear, threatening and hostile toward the rights of journalists.
He banned obvious propagandists from his press conferences. its unconventional for sure - but understandable. These folks fabricated stories about himself and his family in order to propagate an ideology. perspective please ^^^^^ Propaganda Prove it homeslice.
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
Coast2coast
|
Sep 3 2016, 01:58 AM
Post #29
|
|
- Posts:
- 16,018
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Harambe4Trump
- Sep 2 2016, 11:30 PM
- Coast2coast
- Sep 2 2016, 11:27 PM
- Drudge X
- Sep 2 2016, 10:30 PM
Trump has not threaten to kill Muslims with exception of the radical ones.
Mr. Trump cheerleads millions of our less spectacular citizens to see Muslims as an enemy to America. For the second time today I must write that I stand by a comment I have made.
Perhaps you were asleep on 9/11? No.
I wasn't asleep on 4/19/95 either. Should our Presidential Candidates whip up hatred for Americans?
How about you? Were you awake on 4/20/99? Have you organized a political movement with one of your central themes being a campaign designed to whip up hate against High School students? Why not?
|
|
|
| |
|
Coast2coast
|
Sep 3 2016, 02:05 AM
Post #30
|
|
- Posts:
- 16,018
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- estonianman
- Sep 2 2016, 11:30 PM
- Coast2coast
- Sep 2 2016, 11:24 PM
- estonianman
- Sep 2 2016, 10:26 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
No need to.
Yes you do - you've lost this one. There is no bloodbath here in the US, nor will there be under a Trump presidency. As I said, "No need to".
By the way because you have no counter argument to offer does not indicate a loss for mine.
|
|
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
Sep 3 2016, 02:18 AM
Post #31
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,222
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Harambe4Trump
- Sep 3 2016, 12:04 AM
- Demagogue
- Sep 2 2016, 11:50 PM
I doubt Trump can win. Heck, at times I doubt he even wants to win
With that said, if he wins, don't let the doorknob hit ya where the good lord split ya.
I can not stand Clinton and loath her every bit as much as any liberal loathes Trump. I will not be leaving if she wins. I will merely join those doing everything in their power to limit the damage her incredible corruption causes.
Likely, you doubted Trump would win the nomination. At first, yes. Back in July / August of 2014 I thought he was a sideshow.
I also always thought there was a chance he was a DNC plant who was just trying to make republicans look bad and smear the frontrunners. I never doubted whether he wanted to win the nomination though. Or at least take out as many republicans as he could before getting kicked out.
Now I doubt whether he actually wants to win.
We'll see.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Sep 3 2016, 02:37 AM
Post #32
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,739
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Coast2coast
- Sep 3 2016, 02:05 AM
- estonianman
- Sep 2 2016, 11:30 PM
- Coast2coast
- Sep 2 2016, 11:24 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Yes you do - you've lost this one. There is no bloodbath here in the US, nor will there be under a Trump presidency.
As I said, "No need to". By the way because you have no counter argument to offer does not indicate a loss for mine. You pretty much failed again comrade - see you in the next couple days.
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
Tesla
|
Sep 3 2016, 03:13 AM
Post #33
|
|
- Posts:
- 535
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #135
- Joined:
- Mar 25, 2016
|
- Two a.m.
- Sep 2 2016, 10:56 PM
I certainly couldn't blame any Muslim for no longer feeling safe in this country under someone like Trump. Supposedly we have Constitutional protections that would stop Trump but we've never really elected a president before who would be as likely to ignore the Constitution so I'm not sure how it would be able to stand up to him. He might simply try to enforce his illegal ideas anyway. If Mr. Trump wins, I don't know that anyone is truly safe. Not just Muslims or Mexicans. But journalists, judges, political opponents.
Judge Learned Hand warned us many years ago: "I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." Look to putins Russia for an example of American life during Trump years. And if you think his hard core right wing judges wouldn't rule against 2 term presidential limits, think again.
|
|
|
| |
|
Drudge X
|
Sep 3 2016, 03:29 AM
Post #34
|
|
- Posts:
- 14,737
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:58 AM
- estonianman
- Sep 3 2016, 12:51 AM
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:40 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Is criticism? Or outright lies? Because lies would fall under libel legislation - and is why his wife is currently suing the Daily Mail which basically made up the story that she was an eastern European whore.
And she can sue because we have libel laws already. There is - as there must be - a higher legal standard for public figures because we have to respect freedom of speech but if a journalist simply make something up about you with intent to do injury - legally called "malice" - then you can sue. But if you are president, you shouldn't be obsessed with quelling every person that says false things about you. How would things be if Obama were that way? Again the stuff he said about Bezos is even worse because - unlike with libel law - he will have unilateral power to actually file antitrust against Bezos or anyone else he doesn't like. And if that isn't scary enough, think how he'll use the secret parts of the government we don't even know - or only know a little about. Even having Clinton or Obama in charge of some of the stuff the NSA is doing frightens the hell out of me. I can't begin to imagine putting that power in the hands of someone like Donald J. Trump. Suing Amazon is not a bad idea. Amazon is currently run by the Chinese. Actually run is an understatement. It's more like owned by the Chinese. Bezos needs a wake up call.
|
|
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
|
| |
|
Two a.m.
|
Sep 3 2016, 03:57 AM
Post #35
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,133
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Drudge X
- Sep 3 2016, 03:29 AM
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:58 AM
- estonianman
- Sep 3 2016, 12:51 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
And she can sue because we have libel laws already. There is - as there must be - a higher legal standard for public figures because we have to respect freedom of speech but if a journalist simply make something up about you with intent to do injury - legally called "malice" - then you can sue. But if you are president, you shouldn't be obsessed with quelling every person that says false things about you. How would things be if Obama were that way? Again the stuff he said about Bezos is even worse because - unlike with libel law - he will have unilateral power to actually file antitrust against Bezos or anyone else he doesn't like. And if that isn't scary enough, think how he'll use the secret parts of the government we don't even know - or only know a little about. Even having Clinton or Obama in charge of some of the stuff the NSA is doing frightens the hell out of me. I can't begin to imagine putting that power in the hands of someone like Donald J. Trump.
Suing Amazon is not a bad idea. Amazon is currently run by the Chinese. Actually run is an understatement. It's more like owned by the Chinese. Bezos needs a wake up call.
The question is not whether Amazon has actual anti-trust issues under the law. They probably don't and Trump is full of crap. But that's beside the point. The problem is that Trump doesn't care about anti-trust issues. He simply cares about Bezos' politics. He's made this clear.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/13/technology/donald-trump-jeff-bezos-amazon/
"I have respect for Jeff Bezos, but he bought the Washington Post to have political influence," Trump said. "He owns Amazon. He wants political influence so Amazon will benefit from it. That's not right. And believe me, if I become president, oh do they have problems. They're going to have such problems."
Replace "Jeff Bezos" with "Rupert Murdoch" and replace "Washington Post" with "Fox News". Now imagine Obama or Clinton saying it. The conservatives would have lost their lunch. So would I. It's horrifying.
Incidentally, when he's talked about his desire to prosecute Amazon, he always brings up Bezos personally and the Washington Post which he hates. Aside from the fact that he sounds like a mob boss in these quotes, that's important because Bezos' politics and the Post's coverage of Trump isn't supposed to matter to an anti-trust prosecution of Bezos' other company. The government is supposed to pursue anti-trust violations in the interest of the public, not in the interests of the president's political grudges. It is completely inappropriate (and that's the kindest words I can think of) for Trump to speak in this manner about a potential prosecution. What Bezos is or is not doing with the Post and its politics are irrelevant.
But that's obviously the real reason Trump is talking about doing it and he'd likely carry through with it. Basically, Trump has the mindset of a third-world despot and that's the attitude he plans to have toward media that doesn't play ball with him.
Edited by Two a.m., Sep 3 2016, 03:59 AM.
|
|
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
|
| |
|
Robert Stout
|
Sep 3 2016, 08:36 AM
Post #36
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,195
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #112
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 03:57 AM
- Drudge X
- Sep 3 2016, 03:29 AM
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:58 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Suing Amazon is not a bad idea. Amazon is currently run by the Chinese. Actually run is an understatement. It's more like owned by the Chinese. Bezos needs a wake up call.
The question is not whether Amazon has actual anti-trust issues under the law. They probably don't and Trump is full of crap. But that's beside the point. The problem is that Trump doesn't care about anti-trust issues. He simply cares about Bezos' politics. He's made this clear. http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/13/technology/donald-trump-jeff-bezos-amazon/"I have respect for Jeff Bezos, but he bought the Washington Post to have political influence," Trump said. "He owns Amazon. He wants political influence so Amazon will benefit from it. That's not right. And believe me, if I become president, oh do they have problems. They're going to have such problems."Replace "Jeff Bezos" with "Rupert Murdoch" and replace "Washington Post" with "Fox News". Now imagine Obama or Clinton saying it. The conservatives would have lost their lunch. So would I. It's horrifying. Incidentally, when he's talked about his desire to prosecute Amazon, he always brings up Bezos personally and the Washington Post which he hates. Aside from the fact that he sounds like a mob boss in these quotes, that's important because Bezos' politics and the Post's coverage of Trump isn't supposed to matter to an anti-trust prosecution of Bezos' other company. The government is supposed to pursue anti-trust violations in the interest of the public, not in the interests of the president's political grudges. It is completely inappropriate (and that's the kindest words I can think of) for Trump to speak in this manner about a potential prosecution. What Bezos is or is not doing with the Post and its politics are irrelevant. But that's obviously the real reason Trump is talking about doing it and he'd likely carry through with it. Basically, Trump has the mindset of a third-world despot and that's the attitude he plans to have toward media that doesn't play ball with him. Amazon will be singing praises for President Trump, our "dear leader"...Nothing motivates political opponents more than the threat of losing their rice bowl..............
|
|
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
|
| |
|
Robert Stout
|
Sep 3 2016, 08:57 AM
Post #37
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,195
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #112
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- Two a.m.
- Sep 2 2016, 10:56 PM
I certainly couldn't blame any Muslim for no longer feeling safe in this country under someone like Trump. Supposedly we have Constitutional protections that would stop Trump but we've never really elected a president before who would be as likely to ignore the Constitution so I'm not sure how it would be able to stand up to him. He might simply try to enforce his illegal ideas anyway. If Mr. Trump wins, I don't know that anyone is truly safe. Not just Muslims or Mexicans. But journalists, judges, political opponents.
Judge Learned Hand warned us many years ago: "I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it." True....Trump will not make big moves against Muslim immigrants until he nominates three new Supreme Court Justices...They still have time to get the hell out of my country................
|
|
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
|
| |
|
estonianman
|
Sep 4 2016, 01:33 PM
Post #38
|
|
- Posts:
- 19,739
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #44
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- Robert Stout
- Sep 3 2016, 08:57 AM
- Two a.m.
- Sep 2 2016, 10:56 PM
I certainly couldn't blame any Muslim for no longer feeling safe in this country under someone like Trump. Supposedly we have Constitutional protections that would stop Trump but we've never really elected a president before who would be as likely to ignore the Constitution so I'm not sure how it would be able to stand up to him. He might simply try to enforce his illegal ideas anyway. If Mr. Trump wins, I don't know that anyone is truly safe. Not just Muslims or Mexicans. But journalists, judges, political opponents.
Judge Learned Hand warned us many years ago: "I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
True....Trump will not make big moves against Muslim immigrants until he nominates three new Supreme Court Justices...They still have time to get the hell out of my country................ You don't believe their lies?
|
|
MEEK AND MILD
|
| |
|
clone
|
Sep 4 2016, 01:52 PM
Post #39
|
|
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
- Posts:
- 26,359
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #155
- Joined:
- Apr 4, 2016
|
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:12 AM
- estonianman
- Sep 2 2016, 11:21 PM
- Two a.m.
- Sep 2 2016, 10:56 PM
I certainly couldn't blame any Muslim for no longer feeling safe in this country under someone like Trump. Supposedly we have Constitutional protections that would stop Trump but we've never really elected a president before who would be as likely to ignore the Constitution so I'm not sure how it would be able to stand up to him. He might simply try to enforce his illegal ideas anyway. If Mr. Trump wins, I don't know that anyone is truly safe. Not just Muslims or Mexicans. But journalists, judges, political opponents.
Judge Learned Hand warned us many years ago: "I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
Well Clinton supported building a wall - and every president prior has had deportations. So what constitutional precedent are going on here? and journalists, judges and political opponents? depending on wild strawmen now for your arguments now? Please don't tell me you write for Vox.
I don't mind deportations or building a wall. They aren't high priorities but I don't see anything wrong with them and they have nothing to do with the Constitution. But Trump has been very clear, threatening and hostile toward the rights of journalists. I have absolutely no doubt he would attempt to use government force to attempt some of the things he's talked about from silencing critics through manipulation of libel laws to using anti-trust suits against newspaper owners to squelch outlets he doesn't like. I also see no reason why he might stop at journalists. Nothing whatsoever in Trump's personality has shown any thing other than that the man is a thin-skinned, petty, vindictive, egomaniacal, tempermental bully with no respect whatsoever for laws, traditions or even basic human moral conventions which have generally kept presidents from their most dictatorial impulses. Worse, he has generally been rewarded by his base for the sort of draconian, blustery, vengeful statements that would typically make people queasy about a normal presidential candidate so I don't expect him to be constrained by bad PR. Congress is currently Republican. The Republicans are - even by political standards - morally and ideologically bankrupt. They certainly won't stop him. And Trump's first act will be to appoint the deciding vote on the Supreme Court that the GOP - in defiance of normal procedure - kept open for him. The fact is that Trump has been remarkably open about what a horrifying person he is and what a threat he is to our nation and the planet. If we do not see it, it is simply because we are willfully blind, flatly uneducated and morally neutered, obsessed with triviality and shallowness. This should not be a close election. This should be - literally - the biggest landslide since George Washington. Not because Hillary Clinton is awesome or anything. The fact that she is breathing, sane and not Trump should be enough to win all 50 states. In the nation I grew up in 30 years ago, it would have been enough. It isn't now because we are not that country anymore. We are a different country - a frightening, declining nation that has been hollowed out and rendered vulnerable to the self-serving ravings of a dictatorial dingbat. November doesn't really matter. The fact that this isn't a landslide and that a majority has chosen to either actively support the crazy guy or drug themselves with third party soma means we have already lost no matter the outcome. We have been weighed, measured and found very wanting. The hyperbole is strong in the above....especially ironic is his pearl clutching for (ahem) journalists....which Hillary avoids for close to a year while Trump takes them and their nonsense questions daily.... how bad is it...so bad that Hillary's press secretary has to make a statement that she will hold press conferences (if she is elected President)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-hold-press-conferences-president-press-secretary/story?id=41828072
The above poster is just butthurt because Trump actually calls them on their nonsense and overt bias....
Trust me....when Trump wins suddenly "journalists" which actually start doing their job challenging and keeping tabs on the truth as it relates to those in power....the state of the media will be fine....until the next Dem President and then they will back to their journo-list ways....
|
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
|
| |
|
Right-Wing
|
Sep 4 2016, 02:43 PM
Post #40
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,653
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #118
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:58 AM
- estonianman
- Sep 3 2016, 12:51 AM
- Two a.m.
- Sep 3 2016, 12:40 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Is criticism? Or outright lies? Because lies would fall under libel legislation - and is why his wife is currently suing the Daily Mail which basically made up the story that she was an eastern European whore.
And she can sue because we have libel laws already. There is - as there must be - a higher legal standard for public figures because we have to respect freedom of speech but if a journalist simply make something up about you with intent to do injury - legally called "malice" - then you can sue. But if you are president, you shouldn't be obsessed with quelling every person that says false things about you. How would things be if Obama were that way? Again the stuff he said about Bezos is even worse because - unlike with libel law - he will have unilateral power to actually file antitrust against Bezos or anyone else he doesn't like. And if that isn't scary enough, think how he'll use the secret parts of the government we don't even know - or only know a little about. Even having Clinton or Obama in charge of some of the stuff the NSA is doing frightens the hell out of me. I can't begin to imagine putting that power in the hands of someone like Donald J. Trump. And nary a peep out of the incrediby hypocritical 2AM when Obama was selectively using the IRS, EPA and DOJ as political weapons, or when Obama was caught spying on journalists or threatening their careers or the careers of federal whistle blowers...not a word out of 2AM when all that was happening. Oh, maybe something like...that's a little weird, or that's a bit creepy; but nothing like the repetitive, and oh so boring, pants wetting display he goes through when he discusses Trump.
At least what Trump called for was above board and would be on the record in a public courtroom for everyone to scrutinize on its merits. Unlike Obama's covert abuse of power.
2AM you really need to get some perspective bro...your thin veneer of objectivity has completely worn off.
|
|
Donald Trump is Barack Obama's President!
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|