JonRowe
1867
Get your sleds out, the slope is getting quite slippery.
Timex
1868
This tweet has a hilarious video with another idiotic trump supporter looking stupid.
Timex
1870
It is up to him.
First, we’re not talking about what Tom allows on the board. As you’ve pointed out, it’s a private forum, and no one has a right to say anything here. Tom could, if he so chose, require that everyone say “Tom is the greatest and best” in every post here.
What we’re talking about is the broader notion of free speech in the public arena… and racism and hate is protected speech. I have the RIGHT to express hate and racism, because those are opinions. The fact that you may not like hearing them, or they may make you feel bad, does not matter at all.
Timex
1871
Oh man, more trump spokemen making absurdly terrible comments.
Note that none of the accusations made againt Khan here are true, or supported by even one shred of evidence.
Learning that Mr. Kahn was paid big money by Hillary to take the stage and demean Trump clearly defines the man’s lack of objectivity and submission to Hillary’s hideous effort to compel him to disgrace the memory of his son.
Hillary’s staff obviously wrote the speech. She even bought him the pocket constitution which he probably never read but also returned to the staff after the speech.
Hillary tried to get 5 other Gold Star parents to do the theatrics and they all said no and were paid handsomely to keep the request confidential.
Kahn’s history of advocating for Islamist terrorists like the Muslim Brotherhood and his prior communications with terrorist individuals and organizations give reason to his dumb attempt to enter the arena and re-define to real Americans the Trump they know as a patriotic leader who will confront and destroy America’s demons and do what Hillary and her hero Barack don’t have the fortitude or disposition to do.
Scuzz
1872
Except for your employer. He may not like hearing it and it could legally cost you a job.
Nesrie
1873
Who is stopping you and how? (obviously not you you). What example do you have where someone walked out the door, said something racist and was hauled off to jail? The only examples I’ve seen described on this board and others are people angry that people are being held accountable to their words by private parties. I’ve not seen anyone say the bigots, racists and whatever should all be lined up and put in jail.
Unless every other source, including testimonials by cadets and Army officers about Khan’s personal stash of pocket Constitutions, are incorrect/false, we know this simply isn’t true.
Carl Paladino is an idiot.
Timex
1875
Read how Armando described it, right? I thought he covered it pretty well.
Currently, I believe that the status quo in the US is quite good regarding freedom of speech. I’m more describing why it’s important that we not erode that position, as some may want.
See? Is there really any value to society letting that guy walk around, opening and closing his mouth and letting whatever the heck he wants just fly on out of it? :-P
Just read my posts and it’ll come around eventually, I’m sure! :-)
Oghier
1877
At some point, I expect Trump to accuse Hillary of male pattern baldness and erectile dysfunction.
Nesrie
1878
Oh. So this is a complaint about the erosion of Freedom of Speesh. This isn’t actually the group that’s kind of getting mad at their rights being violated now (which they’re not). This is more of a future state fear. Okay.
Tman
1879
Speaking of free speech, Ken White over at Popehat, explains that Donald’s comments about 2nd amendment people going after Hillary is indeed free speech.
Attempts to punish incitement to violence are governed by the “clear and present danger” test articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Brandenburg involved a Klan rally at which a speaker said “We’re not a revengent organization, but if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken.” He was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute for “advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.” In one of the most important First Amendment decisions of the last half-century, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction. “[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Thus, since the Klansman wasn’t advocating imminent lawless action and likely to incite it, his words were protected by the First Amendment. By the same logic, Trump’s comment is protected. It’s conditional, it’s directed to something that will happen (at the earliest) more than six months in the future, and it’s not likely to produce action. I don’t think this is a close call at all.
Timex
1880
Well, in many ways, what he’s saying here is in fact NOT protected speech, and is instead libel. He’s not expressing an opinion, as much as he’s intentionally lying and promoting falsehoods in order to damage another person.
Particularly, ShivaX (if I’m remembering how the tangent started in general) was talking about how many people on both the Left and Right in the US would be perfectly content to ban/punish speech that they strongly disagree with, and said that he’d even seen people on these very boards espouse such a notion (or something approximating it). So, uh, yes!
I can more or less ride along to some extent until I get to the phrase about how the Donald’s speech is “not likely to produce action.” Given the kind of people he speaks to (both literally and figuratively) and their frightful devotion to him and their own backwards ideals, I kinda think Reagan’s kid has the right of it in being deeply fearful about what effect his words in particular might have. These are genuinely loony people, and he’s already more or less sicced them on people at his rallies and brought them all crawling out of their filthy ideological hovels in general.
Fair enough, though, of course, as we’ve covered above, libel is fantastically hard to really make stick here in the US (at least, as far as I remember from my Journalism Law class from BU. . . ).
Nesrie
1882
Donald Trump is not directly responsible for what his psycho followers do. When his words constitute a threat again a person, especially a public individuals, I can hope the agencies involved will work the issue. We know people have been arrested and convicted I believe for threats against officials in the past, credible threats.
He’s not immune to criticism though and outrage, and even if the phrase doesn’t pass the credibility muster it didn’t play well with the character analysis that followed it to some groups.
Aside from all the other issues I have with Trump, one of the highlights seems to be he wants to be able to say anything he wants, lies and all, but sue anyone else who does the same.
Oghier
1883
Michael Gerson wrote an insightful opinion in today’s Washington Post regarding the long-term harm Trump is doing to the GOP. Party identification tends to be sticky, and Trump is particularly unpopular among young voters. Here’s why:
At high schools and colleges with Latino or Muslim students, spray-painting “Trump 2016” on a wall or poster is properly taken as a racially charged incident. When white students chant “Trump! Trump!” at a basketball game against a team including minorities, it is properly taken as a racial taunt. Young people understand the logo of the Republican nominee — the very name of the Republican presidential candidate — as conveying a message of exclusion.
These are the first serious political impressions of my younger son, voting in his first presidential election this year. It is the way to lose a generation.
Trump is synonymous with racism in a demographic where it’s simply not tolerated.
Scuzz
1884
Aren’t the ones screaming “Trump Trump Trump” and spray painting Trump 2016 part of the same demographic?
And when was the last time that the GOP “owned” a good percentage of that demographic?
Good article in the New Republic comparing Trump and Mussolini…not really from the “fascism” angle, but from the view of personal behavior and quirks.
It’s pretty hard to watch a video of Mussolini speaking and not see Trump’s mannerisms.
Again, in the same article:
I was not alone. In 1984, voters ages 18 to 24 supported Reagan over Mondale by 61 percent to 39 percent. “The oldest president in U.S. history and the youngest members of the nation’s electorate,” said the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1986 , “have forged one of the strongest bonds in American politics.” The first serious political memories of my generation were of an appealing, creative, electorally dominant (at the national level) GOP.
I read that editorial earlier today. The idea that people (ie, racists) are chanting “Trump Trump Trump” at Latinos playing in sporting events is disastrous for the GOP. When your candidate’s name is shorthand for “white supremacy”, you’re in deep shit, at least nowadays.
