Donald Trump

[Roger Bissell]

40 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

where was your outrage when folks actually did this kind of crap to Trump?

Or even worse? For example, they made him sign a pledge not one of them had the intention to honor and the backstage boys tried to use Fox to humiliate him about it in front of the 24 million people who tuned in to see him in the first debate.

[....]

You are making the same mistake Darrell is, mixing private action everyone has a right to do with infringing actual individual rights and calling the person who acts in his own interests a dictator. I believe it's an honest mistake because it's based on misinterpreting words (attributing strict academic meanings on words that are used in a brawl), ignoring contexts, and not looking at what someone habitually does, but it's still the same mistake.

Also, there's this. When your guy does it, that's acceptable. When Trump does it, the world is crashing into the rebirth of Hitler.

[....]

Nyah nyah nyah!

Where was my outrage? When people were misrepresenting his proposal about immigration and refugees, I was urging people to look at Trump's web site (as well as Rand Paul's statements) to see for themselves that he was not calling for a permanent ban. Does that count?

As for the pledge - not one of them had the intention to honor it? What about Christie and (you claim) Huckabee? Did they not intend to honor it, but now are whole-hog? Or are you just exaggerating, as is your wont and privilege?

Acting in one's own interests is not automatically wonderful and praiseworthy and deserving of defense. It's in Trump's interest to get people to stop saying false and vicious things about him, but he does not have blanket freedom to do whatever in order to get them to stop. There are numerous actions he could take that would clearly amount to dictatorial action - or at least, violation of others' rights. This includes "negotiated punishment." (Who came up with that indecent euphemism, anyway??) The end does not justify the means. You know this. Why do I have to point it out?

Strict academic meanings? Oh yeah. Principles and concepts. Anything firm and unyielding. As opposed to pragmatic, emotional, euphemistic words and phrases - and brawls. Brawls. (Attention K-Mart shoppers: there is a blue-light special on brown shirts in Aisle 3.)

No, when "my guy" does it, it is NOT acceptable. I bitterly opposed the Patriot Act as promoted by "my guy," George W. Bush. I knew that, even if *he* did not abuse the law, some President not too far down the road *would* abuse it. Are we there yet? I think we're close. *That* is why I'm unhappy about and fearful of this whole notion of "negotiated punishment" you are promoting and approving of Trump doing. One more example: the IRS has been weaponized by Obama's people, and no one is lifting a finger to stop it. Will a President Trump put a stop to it - or will he use this tactic to stifle dissent and opposition? Stay tuned.

The reason the specter of *fascism* is being raised precisely at this point is that the issue of free speech is taken by *many,* including Rand, to be a litmus test for whether we are past the boundary line and into dictatorship. (I take your invocation of "Hitler" to be an attempt to smear and dismiss this concern, because Trump has only a sweat moustache, not a real one.)

As for your summary argument (nyah nyah nyah), all I can say is: is that all you got?

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 minute ago, Roger Bissell said:

As for your summary argument (nyah nyah nyah), all I can say is: is that all you got?

Roger,

Actually it isn't.

I've also got a guy being elected.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

One more example: the IRS has been weaponized by Obama's people, and no one is lifting a finger to stop it.

Roger,

I could get snarky, but I actually hear you. I know where you are coming from and, despite the banter, I'm from there, too.

I'm also going on my familiarity with Trump's way of doing things (meaning I look at a hell of a lot more than the anti-Trump attacks) and my life experience.

And... look who's coming out to endorse Trump. These are not dictator folks. Some are too socially conservative for my taste, but these are mostly small-government pro-individual rights people. They are all good people who support free market productiveness and individual rights: Sarah Palin, Jeff Sessions, Jan Brewer, and so on. (Even Chris Christie in a half-ass sort of way.  )

I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump ultimately eliminate the IRS like Ted Cruz wants to do.

I'm serious.

One of my biggest things with Trump is that he does not make money from the war machine. Instead, he makes shitloads of money the capitalist way by providing great products people want and selling them at the price the free market will accept.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

20 minutes ago, Roger Bissell said:

This includes "negotiated punishment." (Who came up with that indecent euphemism, anyway??) The end does not justify the means. You know this. Why do I have to point it out?

Roger,

You are presuming too much.

Try real arguments instead of strawmen you make up.

Michael

[Selene]

REB:

What are the top five (5) qualities do you want in the Chief Executive?

Maybe we can all start with some common ground.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I suspected the following but I am now certain. I used to wonder where are all the big endorsements with Trump? Now I know.

I have no doubt there is a huge line-up of top people waiting to endorse Trump and they have been waiting for awhile. He is holding them back so he can usher them in, one by one, at the proper time for best media impact and best political impact.

I have just been vindicated in this belief.

In major blow to Ted Cruz, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama endorses Donald Trump for GOP nomination
By Jose A. DelReal and Robert Costa
February 28, 2016
Washington Post

From the article:

DelReal and Costa said:

 

Starting early last year, Sessions and his advisers privately consulted with Trump on immigration policy and helped to shape the candidate’s position paper. They had one extensive call in July that was confirmed by both sides and is considered the moment that Sessions began to consider backing Trump.

“I like him,” Trump said of Sessions when asked about that call. “Tough guy. I like that. We have a similar thought process.”

By August, they were in more frequent touch — two men who shared staunch conservative views on trade and immigration. When Trump held a rally in Mobile, Ala., in August, he did so in part because it is the home town of Sessions, whom he brought onstage as thousands roared. The senator put on a “Make America Great Again” cap.

A month later, when Trump visited Washington in September for an event, he huddled with Sessions in the senator’s hideaway office at the Capitol. Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, who would later endorse Trump, joined them.

 

Does anyone think this is the only deal Trump has been working on backstage?

Michael

[Selene]

Cruz's network has to be stung by this endorsement.

Now, does Glenn Beck go "Network" crazy?

 

[Brant Gaede]

17 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have just been vindicated in this belief.

In major blow to Ted Cruz, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama endorses Donald Trump for GOP nomination
By Jose A. DelReal and Robert Costa
February 28, 2016
Washington Post

From the article:

Does anyone think this is the only deal Trump has been working on backstage?

Michael

He's gonna replace the White House with a Trump condo tower.

--Brant

in four months

[Selene]

Jeff Sessions laid down five (5) tests for all the candidates:

Quote

“I know we have to talk about the economy, national security, and the military, and the budget, and it’s hard to know who’s got the best idea,” Sessions said. “But on these two issues [immigration and TPP], I think the voters should say, ‘If you’re not going to be right on those, I’m not voting for you in this primary and I’m not going to vote for you as president.’ I really think it’s that important.”

1. How would you vote (or how did you vote) on fast-track, and would you support or oppose advancing a final trade agreement which enters the United States into a new international commission with binding authority on future United States trade policy?
2. If the vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership were held today, and you had a vote to cast in Congress, would you vote for it or against it?
3. Upon entering office, will you promptly and unconditionally terminate and rescind all of President Obama’s illegal executive amnesties — which provide work permits and entitlements to illegal aliens — including President Obama’s first executive amnesty in 2012, which remains in effect?
4. A supermajority of GOP voters say immigration is too high. Every year, on autopilot, we let in another 1 million immigrants on green cards, 700,000 foreign guest workers, half a million foreign students, and 100,000 refugees and asylees. Historical precedent would be to reduce record-breaking immigration, rather than continuing to surge it beyond all historical precedent. Will you support legislation to reduce immigration numbers, and will you oppose legislation that would add to the number?
5. Today, law enforcement are under increasing scrutiny and face excessive criticism from the political elites and the media, and are being targeted by criminals and terrorists. Meanwhile, since 2011, the federal prison population has declined by over 20,000, and is on track to be at its lowest level since 2005. Since 2009, the total state prison population has dropped every year, and is over 56,000 lower than it was then. These circumstances may have contributed to a nationwide spike in crime. The FBI recently reported an overall increase in violent crime and a 17 percent increase in homicides in the nation’s 50 largest cities. At the same time, the CDC reports that heroin and opioid drug overdoses have reached an all-time record high. Do you support efforts by President Obama and some Republicans in Congress to reduce penalties for drug-trafficking and further reduce the federal prison population, or do you think government should do more to keep drug traffickers off the streets?

Interesting man.

These "trade agreements" are clearly insane the more I discover about them.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just to rub it in a little  :

Thank you @SenatorSessions!#MakeAmericaGreatAgain #Trump2016https://t.co/Szs0QF88HR pic.twitter.com/UL6t60TTjP

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

February 29, 2016

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are trying to push this Trump not condemning/disavowing the KKK as quick as they'd like.

My memory served up a similar happening to Romney, and after a some digging here is the reference: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-reports-mitt-romney-used-ku-klux-klan-rallying-cry-keep-america-american/

 

[Selene]

Black Muslims have always been folks that I got, and get, along with because they are situationally accurate a number of racial issues in society.

Quote

Farrakhan said, “How many of you are going to vote for Hillary Clinton? You don’t have to raise your hands. I do not blame you for wanting a female president, but that is a wicked woman. She can be sweet but so can you. And you know when you are sweet but playing a game.  All of a sudden she knows about Trayvon Martin. All of a sudden—the boy’s been dead two years now—she talking about him like she met the mother and oh…  White people this is Satan. And you fall for that crap? Most of you went to jail for having a little blunt. They arranged that—the Clintons. Mass incarceration  came about under the Clintons, Don’t forget that. They call my young gang bangers super predators. And Black Lives Matter put it to her—she didn’t know how to handle that. Call you a super predator, that has no conscience, no sense of  dignity like you are a dog, an animal. She gotta bring you to heal you my young brothers. This is what she said about you and she didn’t just say it—it became law and policy of the U.S. government under Bill Clinton and his wife, and now she is apologizing, but apologizing can’t bring back the broken families. Apologizing cant bring back those that been destroyed in prison life.”

A...

[Darrell Hougen]

Michael, You said:

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I disagree with this attribution since it conflates two different things that don't belong together into one.

The first is the right to make propaganda. That right is something Trump would never negotiate or even dream of infringing.

But earlier, you said:

On 2/28/2016 at 7:10 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Who said Trump is negotiating freedom of speech?

He would never do that and, like I said, Sarah Palin would slap him silly.

He's negotiating the level of propaganda the attack dogs are using against him. He's scaring them to get them to pipe down. He's being unpredictable. Since they are playing dirty with him, he's playing dirty right back. That's not 100% accurate, but it's in the ballpark.

So which is it?  Is he negotiating over the right to make propaganda or not?  If Trump wishes to negotiate over the "level of propaganda" then he wishes to negotiate over the "right to make propaganda."

Continuing with your argument:

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The other is the right to be immune from the consequences of attacking someone. Nobody has that right. This is a person thing, an individual citizen thing, not a law thing. If someone runs nasty propaganda against you, you have every right to punch back. And punch harder if you can. All citizens have that right. And if you punch harder, the person who got walloped by the counterpunch and is seeing birdies circling over his head has no right to expect the government to protect his right to make nasty propaganda and be immune from all consequences from the victim. The counterpuncher has the same right the puncher does.

...

Accurate identification of facts and principles, including contexts, are important.

I argue for that.

Michael

The right to do something means the right to be immune from any legal consequences for doing that thing.  The right to create propaganda means the right to be immune from criminal prosecution or civil suits if one creates propaganda.  

I would go further.  Because many pronouncements made by pundits and others are made with incomplete information or involve vaguely worded statements or predictions of future events, it is often difficult to tell whether a person honestly believes a statement to be true or not.  Therefore, a wide degree of latitude should be given in the realm of political speech involving public individuals to make untrue statements.

The standard was set in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.  So later, when General William Westmoreland sued CBS News for libel, he was eventually forced to withdraw the case before it went to a jury and with no damages awarded.

Quote

Westmoreland v. CBS was a $120 million libel suit brought in 1982 by former U.S. Army Chief of Staff General William Westmoreland against CBS, Inc. for broadcasting a documentary entitled The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception. Westmoreland also sued the documentary's narrator, investigative reporter Mike Wallace; the producer, investigative journalist and best-selling author George Crile, and the former CIA analyst, Sam Adams, who originally broke the story on which the broadcast was based.

Westmoreland's claims were governed by the landmark New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, which held that, in order to recover for defamation, a "public figure" like Westmoreland must prove that the defendant made the statements in question with "actual malice" (essentially, with knowledge, or reckless disregard, of falsity).^[1]

...

Westmoreland's decision to dismiss the case before the jury reached a decision prevented an appeal that might have created a legal landmark. Instead, this high-profile case provided a practical demonstration of what many already understood: That any public figure seeking damages for libel must follow the stringent standards set in the precedent of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Further, a public figure must prove actual malice, as required by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, even in the face of allegations of media misconduct.^[1]

Finally, the case demonstrated an old adage: bringing a libel suit is generally a poor way to burnish a reputation. Westmoreland's suit brought greater attention to the CBS documentary and its allegations against him; the testimony of high-ranking military officers at trial provided further support for those allegations, in a highly public forum. Allegations that otherwise might have been forgotten are now part of any Westmoreland biography.^[7][10]

The 1982 suit involved a general, not a president.  I shudder to think what kind of contortions our current justices might subject the law to in order to uphold a verdict in favor of a sitting president.

That doesn't mean that a person can't fight back, but the proper way to fight back is to create counter-propaganda, to call out the other person if you think he is lying, to attempt to win in the court of public opinion, not in the judicial courts.

There is already evidence that Trump doesn't particularly care for free speech.  In the battle between Michael Mann (of global warming hockey stick fame) and Mark Steyn, Trump has evidently decided to side with Mann.

Quote

... Trump didn't like National Review coming at him. So over the weekend he Tweeted an approving link to a two-year-old column arguing that National Review is doomed. Unfortunately for me, its thesis is that National Review is doomed because of the Michael E Mann lawsuit. So, when it comes to global-warming fanatics vs free speech, Trump is apparently cheering for the global-warming fanatics.

If you don't know anything about the case, it involves a libel lawsuit that Mann filed against Steyn when Steyn had the temerity to call him a fraud.  It probably should have been summarily dismissed, but it has been dragging on through pre-trial motions for 4 years.  The problem is that the process is the punishment for ordinary people that don't have deep pockets.  So, the idea of a president or his minions filing defamation suits is truly troubling.  So is the idea of weakening the legal protections against such suits.

There is also the libel suit that Trump himself filed against Bill Maher.  Now, while I detest Maher, he is an entertainer and his right to make fun of public figures must be protected.  Here is the background.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc0JJi71MEc

Sorry, I don't know how to make the video show up in the post.

Eventually, Trump withdrew the lawsuit.  He probably figured that the case was unwinnable but reserved the possibility of refiling the suit in the future.  Perhaps that is why he wants to get the law changed.  Maybe he is still pissed at Maher.  Trump seems to have a long memory for slights or supposed injuries.  He still can't get over the fact that Cruz won Iowa.

Darrell

[Brant Gaede]

Ah, Westmoreland. A mediocre four-star general. I exchanged salutes with him in Vietnam. A year earlier, in Ft. Gordon army hospital, I gave Eisenhower one of his own "Eisenhower grins." I used to have one of his cards--given to me then for helping to take care of him--with five stars on it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

20 minutes ago, drhougen said:

Sorry, I don't know how to make the video show up in the post.

Darrell,

Probably because of this on the video's page when you try to get the embed code:

Quote

Embedding disabled by request

They don't tell you that for the normal url or shortcode, just when you try to get the HTML embed code.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

54 minutes ago, drhougen said:

The right to do something means the right to be immune from any legal consequences for doing that thing.

Darrell,

Of course.

I think everyone on this board agrees with that.

But legal immunity does not mean the victim of an assault cannot be pissed and come right back at the attacker. And, note, that retaliation can be a lawsuit if laws have been infringed during the commission of that "something" the person had a right to do.

That's what I meant by immunity from consequences.

The way your argument is framed, a victim would not have the right to do that. Well, maybe an eye-for-an-eye kind of retribution. XXX says YYY is a pedophile, so YYY can say XXX is. I can tell you from winning fights, though, they are rarely won like that. You have to be creative.

There is no right to immunity from the actions of a really pissed creative victim so long as they stay within the law.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

36 minutes ago, drhougen said:

So which is it?  Is he negotiating over the right to make propaganda or not?  If Trump wishes to negotiate over the "level of propaganda" then he wishes to negotiate over the "right to make propaganda."

Darrell,

Really?

In other words, when you negotiate the price of a house with someone, you are actually negotiating his right to sell it to you? And since you cannot do that, you have no right to negotiate the price?

I say that's bull doody.

Negotiating price between two civilians is not negotiating legal rights with the government. Ditto for level of propaganda and the right to do propaganda. NYT has the right to go all out against Trump if they wish. They do not have the right to keep Trump muffled and demand he just take it and not retaliate.

So, as one private party to another, they negotiate a level both find acceptable. Just like they do with any celebrity. In fact, this goes on all the time.

This is part of the logical mistake I see at the premise of your argument--conflating normal actions by citizens with legal decrees.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

45 minutes ago, drhougen said:

The right to create propaganda means the right to be immune from criminal prosecution or civil suits if one creates propaganda.

Darrell,

This is just plain wrong.

I don't know where you are getting your legal knowledge from, but all citizens have the right to sue others when they believe they have suffered injury irrespective of what they are doing. They can sue if they are shopping, for God's sake. The word "propaganda" is not a magical word that puts some people above the law.

There is no law prohibiting citizens from suing others that I know of. Sometimes there are contractual stipulations to that effect and, once in awhile a regulatory office will issue a decree of some sort to that effect concerning itself, but guess what generally happens? You guessed it. They are sued.

A good example is the autism and vaccine thing. The government is making it impossible for citizens to sue it, but as time goes on, it is facing a huge legal headache for having done so. 

Bringing suit is one of our fundamental rights in the USA.

Michael

[william.scherk]

[Jonathan]

On February 27, 2016 at 4:30 PM, william.scherk said:

I guess one of the reasons this doesn't ring any bells for me is because I think of myself as elite, and don't feel a bit of shame or discomfort in so doing. I speak English (and French), I am white, I am tall and attractive, I am quite intelligent, I have a Canadian passport. I am of the middle class.

My point in putting scare quotes around my use of the term "elite" was meant to signal that I was using the term in the way that folks these days(TM) are using the term. Non-leftist media people, pundits and the like are referring to the power mongers as the "elite." Peggy Noonan prefers "protected," as in people who are protected or exempt from the policies that they inflict on everyone else. They are people whose lives will be comfortable and secure regardless of whether or not the policies that they support fail or have very destructive, unintended consequences for others. They are people who never admit to having had any involvement or responsibility in everything's going south and sideways due to their policies. Or they have jobs in government which will not be cut, and whose salaries will continue to increase annually, even if their jobs are superfluous during a decade in which the nongovernmental sector is suffering massive unemployment due to government policies. Let them eat cake.

Are you that type of "elite"? I hope not.

 

Quote

What is wrong with a country that can't educate its people and set the stage for achievement? It is not a zero-sum game. Every cent put toward an elite education for your children gives them access to ever-more-fabulous levels of consumption and achievement, in real terms.  

I don't accept the notion that a country is responsible for educating children. That's the children's parents' responsibility.

Every cent put toward an elite education does not give children access to ever-more-fabulous levels of consumption and achievement. Free educations remove consequence from the equation, and they disincetivize accomplishment. The more responsibilities that governments assume, and the more that people are excused from, the more additional responsibilities they seek to be excused from. In the US, public school districts with the highest per pupil spending have been the lowest in achievement. The "elitist" attitude the I was referring to is the one which measures only claims of good intentions and throw-tax-money-at-it spending, and of promises of hope and change and gloriously bountiful futures, but never, ever measures or takes responsibility for actual results.

 

Quote

To drag this back to shore, and to avoid the rocks, to the topic.  It is your political system that has seized up, malfunctioned. You HATE congress, You People. The numbers are shocking. The  two-party (only) system is arthritic, overgrown and institutionalized, a vast overgrown coral reef, anything but nimble and responsive to a changing electorate. The national will is divided by a wall of enmity. The Red America and the Blue America exist, and in contrast with the rest of the industrialized world, America is divided socially, still fighting over gay merges and angry with The Other side. 

I love it. The American system was set up to be divided. I think that the power needs to be even more divided, divested, and decentralized. The more impediments to government's "solving" of problems the better.

 

Quote

I can feel your angst, Jonathan, and yet you have prospered in your life against odds relatively even. You are elite. 

I wasnt expessing personal angst, but describing what I see in Trump supporters/advocates. I'm not endorsing or stumping for Trump. I'm just reporting what I see in friends and acquaintances. They are not what the "elites" claim that they are. Don't take my lack of fear of Trump, or my enjoyment of his shaking things up, or my appreciation and respect of his achievements as agreement with every one of his positions.

J

 

Quote

 

[Jonathan]

What am I missing? Where did this idea start that Trump is going to end free speech? My understanding is that he suggested strengthening libel/slander laws in regard to cases in which news entities maliciously lie in attempting to destroy someone's reputation. Are people here supporting the "right" to intentionally tell falsehoods so as to damage another person's name and reputation? Are you saying that if you aren't free to publish vicious lies about others, then the constitution has been shredded and you don't have freedom of speech?

Sounds just a bit panicky to me. It's like when Trump identified the reality that there were rapists and murderers among those illegally crossing the border. The panicked response was that Trump was a racist who was saying that all people who did not have his skin color were rapists and murderers. Where's the logic? Where's a rational, proportional response, rather than fear of the imaginary monster strawman HitlerTrump?

J

[william.scherk]

 

[MereMortal]

13 hours ago, drhougen said:

The right to do something means the right to be immune from any legal consequences for doing that thing.  The right to create propaganda means the right to be immune from criminal prosecution or civil suits if one creates propaganda.  

If the propaganda is a knowingly false and malicious lie, you can sue and win if you prove it.  Are you suggesting making defamation suits illegal?  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sarah Palin just posted on Facebook a link to the following article:

This Donald Trump video “The Snake” is going viral in Europe

Here's the Trump video that is going viral in Europe:

 

That's a hell of a powerful montage.

No wonder it's going viral...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

What is and isn't "propaganda" is irrelevant to any libel/slander discussion for it cannot be objectified. You have a right to make propaganda. That's the beginning and the end of it. In a libel trial whether what is being discussed is or isn't propaganda is besides the point, not defamation, maliciousness, a public figure, etc.

What we have here works pretty well. Forget importing what they do in Great Britain. That caused one revolution. The in-house motivation for one will happen soon enough.

--Brant