|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 01 2015 15:51 xDaunt wrote:
The anti-Trump hysteria is outright laughable. Extrapolating that he's the second coming of Hitler from his politically incorrect remarks? Please. We shouldn't be bothered with this nonsense until he writes his own version of Mein Kampf.
To me, what's way funnier is seeing posters like you go out of their way to call xenophobic and sexist remarks "politically incorrect" instead of what they are. Looks like the "telling it like it is" motto doesn't really apply to everything, who would have guessed.
|
I've gone trough the last few pages trying to join the debate but I have no idea what you guys are on about.
|
"He received a Doctorate of Divinity in Spiritual Counseling as well as a Doctorate of Philosophy in Metaphysical Sciences from The University of Metaphysical Sciences."
That reminds me of the "Syrian observatory for human rights" institution.
|
On December 01 2015 21:18 NukeD wrote:
I've gone trough the last few pages trying to join the debate but I have no idea what you guys are on about.
It was mostly a discussion about fridge rhetoric coming out from the Trump camp and it’s overwhelming resemblance to fascist rhetoric. And I posited Trump’s complete disregard for the political process and limits to presidential power would have him advocated to the limitation or removal of Congress.
And there was a brief discussion about the harm to the political process due to the democratization of media creation tools like Photoshop, movie maker and other mediums to propagate that media. And that the effort required to debunk a misleading or false YouTube video is thousands of times greater than the effort to create it. And modern news media is doing a shameful job at filling that role.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i'm not sure if trump is genuinely bigoted or just playing up the nativist/bigotry of the base, but policy wise he'll most probably be restrictive about immigration and labor. trouble with trump is that both his rhetoric and policy are appealing to a large section of the populace and if it gains momentum in the space of public discourse it could be a runaway disaster. it is my view that reason why highly nativist policies are not entertained atm is that they are not being bought up by either establishment, but these policies enjoy wide wide support enough to sustain a general election candidate.
kill it with fire while early
|
Trump is a candidate uniquely suited for the media cycle, or he just has the unique mojo to exploit the media cycle. That's about it, IMO his policy, etc. are just frosting on the cake.
|
As someone posted, he is viewed 89% unfavorable nation wide. His media footprint on the internet does not appear to be representative of his national popularity. I have the feeling he will be another case of the internet not mirroring reality, while the news media acts like it does.
|
Looks like we know where clutz gets his news 
After a shooting at a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Colorado, Fox News were seen to be reporting that the attack was a "bank robbery gone wrong".
In an attack which killed three people and injured ten others, the network reported that the killer started at the Chase Bank before moving to the abortion clinic, and that the attack had nothing to do with Planned Parenthood.
The Fox News report was later picked up by right-wing publication Breitbart:
“Fox News Channel and The Gazette report witness accounts that claim the shooting at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic actually began at a nearby Chase Bank location."
Colorado shooting: Fox News reports Planned Parenthood abortion clinic wasn't the real target
|
On December 01 2015 23:38 oneofthem wrote:
i'm not sure if trump is genuinely bigoted or just playing up the nativist/bigotry of the base, but policy wise he'll most probably be restrictive about immigration and labor. trouble with trump is that both his rhetoric and policy are appealing to a large section of the populace and if it gains momentum in the space of public discourse it could be a runaway disaster. it is my view that reason why highly nativist policies are not entertained atm is that they are not being bought up by either establishment, but these policies enjoy wide wide support enough to sustain a general election candidate.
kill it with fire while early
I don't think that anyone is going to beat Trump's populist (yes, it's nativist, too) rhetoric and platform by slandering it as being "bigoted" and even "racist."
|
I endorse this future where other news agencies reporting on shitty reporting every time it happens. The fact that CNN and Fox News have any credibility left is just sad.
slan·der
ˈslandər/Submit
nounLAW
1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
I don't think anyone's statements about Trump being racist or sexist are slander, as that would be a criminal offense. Last time I checked personal opinions were not crimes.
|
Trump's rhetoric doesn't need to be beaten; it beats itself while also assisting the general public in identifying those in this country that hold those views.
I like Trump 
|
Edit: Whitney Houston mispost
|
On December 02 2015 00:00 Plansix wrote:I endorse this future where other news agencies reporting on shitty reporting every time it happens. The fact that CNN and Fox News have any credibility left is just sad. Show nested quote +slan·der
ˈslandər/Submit
nounLAW
1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. I don't think anyone's statements about Trump being racist or sexist are slander, as that would be a criminal offense. Last time I checked personal opinions were not crimes.
There are two things that I find hilarious about this post. The first is its literalism ad absurdum. The second is that it comes from a purportedly American paralegal who clearly doesn't understand that slander is generally a civil claim.
|
On December 02 2015 00:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2015 00:00 Plansix wrote:I endorse this future where other news agencies reporting on shitty reporting every time it happens. The fact that CNN and Fox News have any credibility left is just sad. slan·der
ˈslandər/Submit
nounLAW
1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. I don't think anyone's statements about Trump being racist or sexist are slander, as that would be a criminal offense. Last time I checked personal opinions were not crimes. There are two things that I find hilarious about this post. The first is its literalism ad absurdum. The second is that it comes from a purportedly American paralegal who clearly doesn't understand that slander is generally a civil claim.
I understand how slander works. I have had to explain to several of our smaller clients exactly how not viable their “suit for defamation of character and slander” case is. Which is why I know that claiming a recorded statement is racist will never qualify as slander in a civil or criminal capacity. Maybe if the statement was fictitious, but published by someone as who 100% knew it was fictitious. Stating an opinion is not legally actionable.
And I posted it in because of your constant refrain of dismissing or downplaying any claim of racism, not matter how obvious. I think your cut off might be if the person is wearing the white hood of the KKK while making the statement.
|
On December 02 2015 00:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2015 00:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 02 2015 00:00 Plansix wrote:I endorse this future where other news agencies reporting on shitty reporting every time it happens. The fact that CNN and Fox News have any credibility left is just sad. slan·der
ˈslandər/Submit
nounLAW
1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. I don't think anyone's statements about Trump being racist or sexist are slander, as that would be a criminal offense. Last time I checked personal opinions were not crimes. There are two things that I find hilarious about this post. The first is its literalism ad absurdum. The second is that it comes from a purportedly American paralegal who clearly doesn't understand that slander is generally a civil claim. I understand how slander works. I have had to explain to several of our smaller clients exactly how not viable their “suit for defamation of character and slander” case is. Which is why I know that claiming a recorded statement is racist will never qualify as slander in a civil or criminal capacity. Maybe if the statement was fictitious, but published by someone as who 100% knew it was fictitious. Stating an opinion is not legally actionable. And I posted it in because of your constant refrain of dismissing or downplaying any claim of racism, not matter how obvious. I think your cut off might be if the person is wearing the white hood of the KKK while making the statement.
They might only be wearing the hood as a prank in a harmless fraternity initiation though.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 01 2015 23:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 23:38 oneofthem wrote:
i'm not sure if trump is genuinely bigoted or just playing up the nativist/bigotry of the base, but policy wise he'll most probably be restrictive about immigration and labor. trouble with trump is that both his rhetoric and policy are appealing to a large section of the populace and if it gains momentum in the space of public discourse it could be a runaway disaster. it is my view that reason why highly nativist policies are not entertained atm is that they are not being bought up by either establishment, but these policies enjoy wide wide support enough to sustain a general election candidate.
kill it with fire while early I don't think that anyone is going to beat Trump's populist (yes, it's nativist, too) rhetoric and platform by slandering it as being "bigoted" and even "racist."
he frames it in racial terms so it is appealing to strong bigot and racist segment of the populace. this is the group that is most influential in the gop primary. nobody needs to beat it because it's the largest vulnerability of trump right now, at least in terms of unfavorability rating. if he continues his broad targeting rhetoric he'll obviously not win in a general election. but he's free to change that stuff after he gets past the primaries, unless he's just a moron.
the republican strategy of targeting hispanic voters fails to recognize and exploit the division within that demographic. lots stand to gain by tightened immigration because they alerady have status and so on. i expect trump to tune down the racial rhetoric and focus on the bare our jerbs aspect if he somehow makes it past the primary. trump is strong on this point and will surprise come general election time. all he has to say is 'i hire hispanics but only with status' or something like that.
i've said before trump will turn much more moderate after the primary season, and he's a performer that will be able to make people forget rather quickly.
anyway not sure if it made national news but some dude was arrested around uchicago for threatening to shoot up the school. but not a peep was heard for the murder rate in the forbidden lands of darkness around the university.
|
On December 02 2015 01:00 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 23:59 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2015 23:38 oneofthem wrote:
i'm not sure if trump is genuinely bigoted or just playing up the nativist/bigotry of the base, but policy wise he'll most probably be restrictive about immigration and labor. trouble with trump is that both his rhetoric and policy are appealing to a large section of the populace and if it gains momentum in the space of public discourse it could be a runaway disaster. it is my view that reason why highly nativist policies are not entertained atm is that they are not being bought up by either establishment, but these policies enjoy wide wide support enough to sustain a general election candidate.
kill it with fire while early I don't think that anyone is going to beat Trump's populist (yes, it's nativist, too) rhetoric and platform by slandering it as being "bigoted" and even "racist." he frames it in racial terms so it is appealing to strong bigot and racist segment of the populace. this is the group that is most influential in the gop primary. nobody needs to beat it because it's the largest vulnerability of trump right now, at least in terms of unfavorability rating. if he continues his broad targeting rhetoric he'll obviously not win in a general election. but he's free to change that stuff after he gets past the primaries, unless he's just a moron. the republican strategy of targeting hispanic voters fails to recognize and exploit the division within that demographic. lots stand to gain by tightened immigration because they alerady have status and so on. i expect trump to tune down the racial rhetoric and focus on the bare our jerbs aspect if he somehow makes it past the primary. trump is strong on this point and will surprise come general election time. all he has to say is 'i hire hispanics but only with status' or something like that. i've said before trump will turn much more moderate after the primary season, and he's a performer that will be able to make people forget rather quickly.
Like I've said before, no one who's paying attention mistakes Trump for being a conservative. Not even the conservatives who support him are supporting him because they think he's conservative. And that's the great irony of the republican establishment trying to take Trump down. Trump is the ultimate RINO. From a policy standpoint, he's basically THEIR guy when you get right down to it.
|
On December 02 2015 00:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2015 00:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 02 2015 00:00 Plansix wrote:I endorse this future where other news agencies reporting on shitty reporting every time it happens. The fact that CNN and Fox News have any credibility left is just sad. slan·der
ˈslandər/Submit
nounLAW
1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. I don't think anyone's statements about Trump being racist or sexist are slander, as that would be a criminal offense. Last time I checked personal opinions were not crimes. There are two things that I find hilarious about this post. The first is its literalism ad absurdum. The second is that it comes from a purportedly American paralegal who clearly doesn't understand that slander is generally a civil claim. I understand how slander works. I have had to explain to several of our smaller clients exactly how not viable their “suit for defamation of character and slander” case is. Which is why I know that claiming a recorded statement is racist will never qualify as slander in a civil or criminal capacity. Maybe if the statement was fictitious, but published by someone as who 100% knew it was fictitious. Stating an opinion is not legally actionable.
And the absurdity continues. Nonetheless, you do realize that you shouldn't be advising anyone of their legal rights, right?
And I posted it in because of your constant refrain of dismissing or downplaying any claim of racism, not matter how obvious. I think your cut off might be if the person is wearing the white hood of the KKK while making the statement.
You and GreenHorizons throw around the R-word as casually as Charlie Sheen does blow and bangs whores. You've made it pretty easy for me to poke fun at your SJW-antics so far.
|
On December 01 2015 07:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2015 06:28 ragz_gt wrote:On December 01 2015 06:08 Plansix wrote:On December 01 2015 06:03 ragz_gt wrote:
Wow going directly for Hitler. Seems like you skipped a few steps there buddy. Did you miss the part where he was responding to a post that literally references the Hitler Youth and says "You can't blame parents for letting them join, it was like boy scouts"? Its fine to bring up Hitler if you are responding to a post that directly references him. I meant for OP (though it's kinda for both, the argument is pretty much over when Hitler is mentioned), shoulda quoted to avoid confusion. Due to Donald Trump retweeting Neo-Nazi propaganda, considering mandatory Muslim registries, egging on his supporters to rough up a protester, being endorsed by at least a couple Neo-Nazi groups (one of which, who's leader was selling Trump T-shirts the day before the Charleston terrorist, who followed their site, shot up that church), and (according to tumblr) even an actual Holocaust survivor saying the similarities are there, there has been a suspension of Godwin's Law. Of course this only applies to pre-election Hitler comparisons, Trump hasn't actually started rounding up Muslims and placing them in camps, though if he got elected and did it, people would be right to say we can't act surprised and to blame the "moderate whites" who let it get that far. Trump should of never had a chance after pushing so hard that our president wasn't legally our president and the entirety of all the alphabet agencies and the pentagon were either oblivious or in on the conspiracy. But instead you got a bunch of mealy-mouthed cowards who didn't make Trump into the laughing stock he should of been and now he's kicking every one of their cowardly asses. Luckily Trump loses big already to Sanders in a heads up, so what it would take to beat him is already pretty obvious.
Trump's a piece of shit, agree with you on that, but until he straight up announces himself as a fascist, any references to hitler, any godwinning attempts, etc is just shitty tactics by people not debating or whatever in good faith. you can be racist and bigoted (which he is, or is at least pretending to be to play to certain crowds) without being a genocidal mania like hitler.
i also would not put any stock into who endorses him. It's the same stupid tactic the Republicans used when that racist pastor was supportive of Obama. going along those lines, I also think it would also be foolish to blame the moderate whites in your hypothetical, in the same way it was kind of shitty and stupid to blame the black community for Prop 8 not passing a while back.
|
On December 02 2015 01:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2015 00:21 Plansix wrote:On December 02 2015 00:13 xDaunt wrote:On December 02 2015 00:00 Plansix wrote:I endorse this future where other news agencies reporting on shitty reporting every time it happens. The fact that CNN and Fox News have any credibility left is just sad. slan·der
ˈslandər/Submit
nounLAW
1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. I don't think anyone's statements about Trump being racist or sexist are slander, as that would be a criminal offense. Last time I checked personal opinions were not crimes. There are two things that I find hilarious about this post. The first is its literalism ad absurdum. The second is that it comes from a purportedly American paralegal who clearly doesn't understand that slander is generally a civil claim. I understand how slander works. I have had to explain to several of our smaller clients exactly how not viable their “suit for defamation of character and slander” case is. Which is why I know that claiming a recorded statement is racist will never qualify as slander in a civil or criminal capacity. Maybe if the statement was fictitious, but published by someone as who 100% knew it was fictitious. Stating an opinion is not legally actionable. And the absurdity continues. Nonetheless, you do realize that you shouldn't be advising anyone of their legal rights, right? Show nested quote +And I posted it in because of your constant refrain of dismissing or downplaying any claim of racism, not matter how obvious. I think your cut off might be if the person is wearing the white hood of the KKK while making the statement. You and GreenHorizons throw around the R-word as casually as Charlie Sheen does blow and bangs whores. You've made it pretty easy for me to poke fun at your SJW-antics so far.
Wait, I’m not a licensed attorney? I can’t tell people their legal rights, assess liability or set legal fees? My entire legal career is a lie!
You should always assume that any time I say I inform clients of something, it is after discussing it with my attorneys. They delegate the task to me because it’s non-billable and I’m good at talking clients down from shit cases that they will lose money on and then take their business elsewhere. I am currently talking down a client that wants to challenge a bunch of legal fees on a debt that are guaranteed by statute because my attorney does not want to have this discussion again.
And I throw around the R-word when I feel it is appropriate. Institutionalized, systematic racism is a problem for many sections of the US and not discussing the matter doesn’t help. Sorry if that offends you, but not all of us have the high standard that requires burning crosses on front lawns before racism can be discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
