Author Topic: Obama today about the support of Trump  (Read 547 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 7660
  • Darwins +1025/-25
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Obama today about the support of Trump
« Reply #29 on: August 14, 2016, 07:18:04 PM »
And there I'm going to have to disagree with you in the strongest possible terms.  Freedom of speech does not mean that a person is not liable for things they say.  If someone shouts "Fire" in a crowded building, and it turns out there wasn't one, they can be held liable for the results (say, if there's a panic and some people are hurt or killed).  If nobody is hurt or killed, then the liability is minimized.

It's worth noting that no deranged Clinton supporter (or anyone else) made an assassination attempt on Obama in 2008.  If there is no assassination attempt made on Clinton this year, then Trump's liability for suggesting that "Second Amendment people" could do something where nobody else could will be limited to being condemned for saying something abysmally stupid.  But what if one of those "Second Amendment people" does in fact attempt to assassinate Hillary Clinton?  Like it or not, when someone is in a position of power, they are responsible for things they say.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 8075
  • Darwins +314/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Obama today about the support of Trump
« Reply #30 on: August 15, 2016, 07:11:16 AM »
Trumps a fucking idiot. What's her excuse?

She needs no excuse after her apology. Where's Trump's apology - for EVERYTHING that comes out of his mouth?

These patently sad and false equivalencies are boring, and rather pointless. They remind me of the sad attempts by creationists to tear down the Theory of Evolution, rather than make any kind of case for their own ideas. There is no comparison at all between Trump and Hillary in terms of morals, qualifications, decency, and genuine empathy for the people they will be working for. And that's just scratching the surface. Once a person buys into the Fox and Right Wing propaganda regarding Hillary, they may as well be a creationist in comparison to one who accepts the current Theory of Evolution. There's just no way to get them to see how completely off the rails the Hillary hater club has become.

All politicians are human (with the exception of his orangeness, Heir Trump). All make mistakes, all say stupid things, all misrepresent facts, and all fail to be perfect in their presentation. But there is no equal comparison across the board in any way between the two major candidates. They are indeed world's apart on everything. Even if Heir Trump is faking it, he is still failing to be even remotely a decent person. He thinks we like that.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4082
  • Darwins +246/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • I find your lack of hate disturbing.
Re: Obama today about the support of Trump
« Reply #31 on: August 15, 2016, 11:12:35 AM »
I'm on lunch break at the moment and do't have time to respond in full but I did want to address this real quick

It's worth noting that no deranged Clinton supporter (or anyone else) made an assassination attempt on Obama in 2008. 

That statement may be accurate depending on how you define "attempt".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_threats_against_Barack_Obama#2008

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4082
  • Darwins +246/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • I find your lack of hate disturbing.
Re: Obama today about the support of Trump
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2016, 07:54:34 PM »
And there I'm going to have to disagree with you in the strongest possible terms.  Freedom of speech does not mean that a person is not liable for things they say.  If someone shouts "Fire" in a crowded building, and it turns out there wasn't one, they can be held liable for the results (say, if there's a panic and some people are hurt or killed).  If nobody is hurt or killed, then the liability is minimized.

I tried to find some examples of people being arrested for yelling "Fire!" in a theater. I couldn't find anything. But I did find out where that phrase came from and what it meant at the time.

Quote
But it is said, suppose that that was the tendency of this circular, it is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Two of the strongest expressions are said to be quoted respectively from well-known public men. It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent them may have been the main purpose, as intimated in Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462. We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8474153321909160293&q=%22Schenck+v.+United+States%22+OR+%22249+U.S.+47%22&hl=en&as_sdt=2006

The Schenck v. United States case was about Schenck actively circulating propaganda against the draft during WWI.

The act of falsely shouting Fire in a theater was an apt analogy but not, exactly, what the court was deciding on.

Later,

Quote
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio[1] in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are obvious.
 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#The_Schenck_case


Quote
It's worth noting that no deranged Clinton supporter (or anyone else) made an assassination attempt on Obama in 2008.  If there is no assassination attempt made on Clinton this year, then Trump's liability for suggesting that "Second Amendment people" could do something where nobody else could will be limited to being condemned for saying something abysmally stupid.  But what if one of those "Second Amendment people" does in fact attempt to assassinate Hillary Clinton?  Like it or not, when someone is in a position of power, they are responsible for things they say.

As I sited in my previous post, there were plans for assassinating Obama in 2008. Thankfully, they were thwarted before any shots were ever fired.

So...what is your threshold of accountability? If they prevent someone from trying to assassinate Hillary what do you think should happen to Trump? 
When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

Offline stuffin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1006
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Obama today about the support of Trump
« Reply #33 on: August 15, 2016, 09:58:04 PM »
Why didn't Trump just say the gun owners (2nd Admen Folks) need to get organized and VOTE against Hillary?????

No he has to use Trump Talk to send subliminal messages to the looneys and in turn keep the focus on Trump.  Just more narcissism from Trump.

Right! And I similarly question Hillary for bringing up Bobby's assassination. She could have made the same point she wanted to make by merely mentioning her husband's primary campaign but she insisted on also mentioning a primary candidates violent demise. Even after she apologized to the Kennedy family for bringing up Bobby's assassination in the primaries, she still mentioned that event a couple more times without invoking his name or the word assassination. So, even after she was fully aware of how insensative and politically charged her words were, she still insisted on using her example of a candidate dying before the nomination had been sealed.

I'll give Trump a little bit of leeway for being an uncouth, blathering idiot who does not put any forethought into what he is going to say but I cannot extend that same level of understanding for Mrs. Clinton because I know she is smarter than Trump and more aware of the power of words. I know she puts much more thought into her messages and the perception she wants to shape.

When asked why she hadn't drop out of the Democratic primary she wanted to convey the message that "Hey, anything could happen between now and then so why drop out now?"

Why would she feel the need to use the assassination of a beloved Democratic candidate to make that point?

Bernie did not invoke anyone's untimely demise when asked why he was still in the race even though it looked as though Hillary had the nomination locked up. He didn't even try to explain that "Hey, anything could happen between now and then."

So, why didn't Hillary just explain that in 1994 her husband didn't clinch the nomination until after the California primaries and just leave it at that?   

Trumps a fucking idiot. What's her excuse?

Sorry, I can't, don't and won't defend Hillary. You have never seen me praise her. Except for her government experience I don't see her as a savior. It is actually a shame the Dems have to run out maybe the worst candidate they ever had to run against Trumpty Dumpty.

Also, he now wants his followers to go out and personally monitor voting stations; his pattern of intimidation is obvious, I don't fall for your calling him a fucking idiot. No, he is a calculating puddle of diarrhea who doesn't deserve toilet paper to clean his sphincter so please don't push him for Prersident with me.
The Greatest Story Ever Told Was So Wrong

Been Two thousand Years and He Ain't Shown Yet,

We Kept His Seat Warm and The Table Set.

The Greatest Story Ever Told Was so Wrong, So Wrong.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4082
  • Darwins +246/-32
  • Gender: Male
  • I find your lack of hate disturbing.
Re: Obama today about the support of Trump
« Reply #34 on: August 15, 2016, 10:02:59 PM »
I wasn't aware of your disposition. I wasn't trying to push anything on you. I'm guessing you aren't aware of my disposition either. If I only had two choices I would vote for Hillary.


Edit to add:

Fuck Donald, but fuck him with equal justice. No underhanded double standard bullshit.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2016, 10:07:46 PM by Mr. Blackwell »
When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 8075
  • Darwins +314/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Obama today about the support of Trump
« Reply #35 on: August 16, 2016, 07:13:33 AM »

Sorry, I can't, don't and won't defend Hillary. You have never seen me praise her. Except for her government experience I don't see her as a savior. It is actually a shame the Dems have to run out maybe the worst candidate they ever had to run against Trumpty Dumpty.

Also, he now wants his followers to go out and personally monitor voting stations; his pattern of intimidation is obvious, I don't fall for your calling him a fucking idiot. No, he is a calculating puddle of diarrhea who doesn't deserve toilet paper to clean his sphincter so please don't push him for Prersident with me.

My bold. Can you help me understand what makes her "the worst candidate they ever had"? I am genuinely curious.