Cleveland RNC 2016


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 446 of 446 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

I once saw a video where they were having a Town Hall. A Teacher asked (very calmly and politely at that) a question of Christie.

He proceeded to yell at her, spittle flew from his lips, and he turned red.

I couldn't believe anyone could do that to someone asking a question calmly.

I haven't really had that high of an opinion of Christie since then.

Some say that this is just how those in the Northeast US act, but having met quite a few from there, I think it was just Christie.


We have the two major tickets in hand. General election thread here. Or not, as you will. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Christie is basically a less effective Trump.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Christie is basically a less effective Trump.

Christie traded all his political capital and future to be Trump's Wormtongue, and Trump kicked him to the curb.

Silver Crusade Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

His were the eyes of a man who has gazed into the abyss, and the abyss gazed back, and then he endorsed the abyss.


Can't read that article, Kalindlara. I've already exceeded my allotment of freebies. Haven't found another source so far.


Does Chrome's (browser) incognito mode work?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I really do want to find out when he thinks America was great. What's he aiming for?

The Washington Post did an interesting investigation of Trump supporters in late 2015. They asked lots of Trump supporters "when was the last time America was great?" The answers were quite varied, and included the Reagan administration, the first Bush, the Eisenhower administration, the Nixon administration, and the Kennedy administration. The strongest indicating factor was the age of the respondent: America was totally great when you were a kid, but isn't great now that you are an adult.

Around the same time, in August 2015, Chuck Todd asked Trump himself the same question. I can't seem to find the video, but here's a transcription in the Washington Post of that interview. For those who don't want to click on that link for some reason, here's Trump's response:

Donald Trump, August 2015 on MTP wrote:
I would say during the administration of Ronald Reagan you felt proud to be an American. You felt really proud. I don't think since then to any great extent people were proud.

However, Chuck Todd pointed out a quote of Donald Trump in 1987, suggesting Trump may have flip-flopped in the last 25 years:

Trump in 1987 wrote:
To the American people. For decades, Japan and other nations have been taking advantage of the United States .... The world is laughing at America's politicians as we protect ships we don't own carrying oil we don't need destined for allies who won't help.

Todd said that Trump didn't seem to like America during the Reagan administration. Trump brushed off this apparent contradiction, saying

Trump in August 2015 wrote:
I thought America was excellent [in 1987]. I think NAFTA was a huge mistake. I thought it was a terrible mistake. And, you know, but I just think that he set a tone that was an excellent tone for the country. I disagree--

And honestly I can't tell what he was trying to say after that, and I watched the interview when it aired.

So, there you have it: Trump is aiming to restore America to how it was in the Reagan administration, just not the way it actually was in the Reagan administration when Trump hated it.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

To steal from xkcd on citing Free Speech: "you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."

Community & Digital Content Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed an unhelpful post and comments replying to it.


thejeff wrote:
To steal from xkcd on citing Free Speech: "you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."

Free speech isn't conditional. Nor should it immunize one from receiving others' free speech in return when they don't like what you say. Policing/criminalization of speech is a dangerous, slippery slope to places we shouldn't be going.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
To steal from xkcd on citing Free Speech: "you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."
Free speech isn't conditional. Nor should it immunize one from receiving others' free speech in return when they don't like what you say. Policing/criminalization of speech is a dangerous, slippery slope to places we shouldn't be going.

And we're not. That's the whole point.

Free speech criticizing someone else's free speech isn't "Policing/criminalization of speech", unless there's some actual legal power behind it. Me saying "You shouldn't say that" does literally nothing to infringe on your free speech.


I'm worried when there's mention of stuff being 'illegal to say' is all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:
I'm worried when there's mention of stuff being 'illegal to say' is all.

And i'm worried when people insisting on an ideology need to support that ideology by completely fabricating things that have absolutely no correlation to reality because their ideology is completely lacking in reason, evidence or sense.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
I'm worried when there's mention of stuff being 'illegal to say' is all.
And i'm worried when people insisting on an ideology need to support that ideology by completely fabricating things that have absolutely no correlation to reality because their ideology is completely lacking in reason, evidence or sense.

I'm not seeing/following your point, BNW.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It gets interesting when a speaker has power. A mob boss can say, "Take care of him", and have some pretty lethal consequences, even though he does nothing but speak. Similarly, a hate group leader can say, "that <insert racial minority slur> is getting out of line, don't you think", and have something happen. Free speech? Maybe. But when you have power, people often act on your free speech. Does the fact that you didn't personally physically do anything immunize you completely then?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:
I'm worried when there's mention of stuff being 'illegal to say' is all.

And the quote said "it's not illegal to express".

Who's said anything about "illegal to say"? Or even "should be illegal to say"?

And yes, Samy, there are actually laws that cover both of those cases. The first is clearly illegal - you're telling an employee to murder with the reasonable expectation he'll obey. The second depends on the circumstances - basically coming down to how direct the causation is.


Immunization for just saying words? Depends.

Giving orders to "take care of" someone as a mob boss is a criminal act under 'conspiracy' and/or whatever else the DA can figure out.

The hate group example is far broader. The example of "[insert here] is getting out of line, don't you think" incorporates no directive, so yes, it would seem to protect them. Now, if Hate Group Leader A says "that building full of [insert here] is out of line, burn 'em all to death", and his followers carry out that order, that isn't free speech anymore than "take care of Tony Fishface" would be.

Plenty of people of all epidermal pigmentations, both genders and every "sub category" in the world exercise free speech to say and write all kinds of nasty stuff. Are you saying no one is allowed to flap their jaws in an insensitive manner? There are already consequences for doing so in the form of blowback, people boycotting businesses, getting fired from work, etc.

Of course, certain kinds of speech are already restricted under the guise of "sedition"...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
I'm worried when there's mention of stuff being 'illegal to say' is all.

And the quote said "it's not illegal to express".

Who's said anything about "illegal to say"? Or even "should be illegal to say"?

And yes, Samy, there are actually laws that cover both of those cases. The first is clearly illegal - you're telling an employee to murder with the reasonable expectation he'll obey. The second depends on the circumstances - basically coming down to how direct the causation is.

*rereads* *blinks* *curses failing at reading comprehension 201*

Ayup, that's on me for misunderstanding. :)


Turin the Mad wrote:

Immunization for just saying words? Depends.

Giving orders to "take care of" someone as a mob boss is a criminal act under 'conspiracy' and/or whatever else the DA can figure out.

The hate group example is far broader. The example of "[insert here] is getting out of line, don't you think" incorporates no directive, so yes, it would seem to protect them. Now, if Hate Group Leader A says "that building full of [insert here] is out of line, burn 'em all to death", and his followers carry out that order, that isn't free speech anymore than "take care of Tony Fishface" would be.

Though if the hate group example was "That <expletive> right there is getting out of line" and the mob listening turns and rips him to shreds, then even without the explicit directive the leader is in trouble.

Much like when the mob boss just says "Louie's been giving me trouble" and the men know to go rough him up without the orders ever being so explicit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
It gets interesting when a speaker has power.

Interesting but not relevant, given that this is a discussion on an internet forum, and unless your email address ends with "@paizo.com," you have the same amount of power regardless of whether your computer is turned on or not.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's relevant to the election, because I think the Trump campaign is treading very close to the hate group example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
It's relevant to the election, because I think the Trump campaign is treading very close to the hate group example.

Well, under US Law (Brandenburg v. Ohio, q.v.), "The 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 imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." (Emphasis mine.)

The most important word in that sentence, from Trump's point of view, is probably "imminent." Political speech is generally given the highest level of protection and deference under the First Amendment, so unless Trump actively points at someone in the crowd and says "Take that <censored> out," he's probably legally untouchable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Samy wrote:
It's relevant to the election, because I think the Trump campaign is treading very close to the hate group example.

Well, under US Law (Brandenburg v. Ohio, q.v.), "The 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 imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." (Emphasis mine.)

The most important word in that sentence, from Trump's point of view, is probably "imminent." Political speech is generally given the highest level of protection and deference under the First Amendment, so unless Trump actively points at someone in the crowd and says "Take that <censored> out," he's probably legally untouchable.

Though the "In the old days ... They'd be carried out on a stretcher ... I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you." kind of talk, if it was actually directed at the crowd while there was a protester there and the crowd reacted by attacking the protester, comes pretty close to "inciting imminent lawless action".

Which is probably why the campaign started added up front announcements directing supporters not to attack protesters.

Silver Crusade

theJeff, Republicans that go to Trump Rallies have been repeatedly attacked by paid protesters from SEIU, LaRaza and MECHA and other Soros funded groups. [Look at footage from the San Jose Rally] So if these rent a mob protesters are counterattacked by people attending Trump rallies that is just the risk that these rent a mob protesters take to earn their money. If these rent a mob protesters peacefully protested outside the rallies and did not go in and try to disrupt the rallies then there would be no problems with them being attacked.

For the most part conservatives are happy to attend political rallies hear the speaker cheer and go home unless they are attacked by lefties then they might choose to counterattack, you can't blame them for that.
The Campaign does not want its rallies disrupted by fighting between its followers and the left wing protesters.

Neither Republican or Democratic Rallies should be disrupted by protesters that go into the rally to disrupt it. Protesters should protest out side the Rally and let both sides say what they want to their followers.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:
theJeff, Republicans that go to Trump Rallies have been repeatedly attacked by paid protesters from SEIU, LaRaza and MECHA and other Soros funded groups. So if these rent a mob protesters are counterattacked by people attending Trump rallies that is just the risk that these rent a mob protesters take to earn their money.

Not only is this utter tripe, the latter bit is a disgusting attempt at justification of violence.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the exaggeration. It's not just "violent protesters", it's "paid protesters", "rent a mob protesters", etc.
And I'm supposed to be able to tell they're paid from footage from the San Jose Rally?

I'll freely admit some protests have been more disruptive than I like. Some have even been violent. I didn't None of that changes the responsibilities of the guy on stage inciting more violence. A line which the Donald has come very close to.


Lou Diamond wrote:

and other Soros funded groups. [Look at footage from the San Jose Rally] So if these rent a mob protesters are counterattacked by people attending Trump rallies that is just the risk that these rent a mob protesters take to earn their money. If these rent a mob protesters peacefully protested outside the rallies and did not go in and try to disrupt the rallies then there would be no problems with them being attacked.

John Stewart did this better


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You mean I could've been paid to protest all these years!

Can... can I get retroactive pay for that.

Silver Crusade

Captain, send your voucher to the New America Foundation, you never know you may get paid for all you work. Have a nice day.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sadly, captain, you'll be paid in mangos and shipping containers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't protest to get paid, nor do I know whatever group you just named.

Besides, I don't protest against politicians, I protest against injustice and environmental issues. :-)

In fact I just hugged a tree for you. :-)

Mangoes you say...


thejeff wrote:

I love the exaggeration. It's not just "violent protesters", it's "paid protesters", "rent a mob protesters", etc.

And I'm supposed to be able to tell they're paid from footage from the San Jose Rally?

I'll freely admit some protests have been more disruptive than I like. Some have even been violent. I didn't None of that changes the responsibilities of the guy on stage inciting more violence. A line which the Donald has come very close to.

I'd prefer not to deliberately hold back on judgment, here. Trump has very clearly crossed that line on a few occasions. It's okay to say so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Lou Diamond wrote:

and other Soros funded groups. [Look at footage from the San Jose Rally] So if these rent a mob protesters are counterattacked by people attending Trump rallies that is just the risk that these rent a mob protesters take to earn their money. If these rent a mob protesters peacefully protested outside the rallies and did not go in and try to disrupt the rallies then there would be no problems with them being attacked.

John Stewart did this better

OMG, I just wasted 3 hours of my afternoon watching Jon Stewart clips on youtube; I blame you, BNW! :P

Edit: Okay, I checked the time tags and it was probably more like an hour. Look, whatever, the trenchant political commentary surpassed temporal experience!


Wow, the Soros funded mobsters thing is still a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mmmm, Soros-funded lobsters... {drools}


Orville Redenbacher wrote:

Wow, the Soros funded mobsters thing is still a thing.

Friggin' pisses me off. Where's my check, George?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Babies, I tell ya,

Sounds like Trump is the right candidate for the job, then! No one stands up to babies like he does! No one!


Scott Betts wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Babies, I tell ya,
Sounds like Trump is the right candidate for the job, then! No one stands up to babies like he does! No one!

Meh. He's no Greg Stillson (yet).


Scott Betts wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
Babies, I tell ya,
Sounds like Trump is the right candidate for the job, then! No one stands up to babies like he does! No one!

Most Holy does

Liberty's Edge

Would referencing Eddie Izard's American Dream bit drive us too close to the earlier babypocolyse?

401 to 446 of 446 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Cleveland RNC 2016 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions