The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[jamil]

If I had a LOT of money I would run for king of the world and hire the hildebeest to suicide the opposition and then hire people to run the world so I could go back to shooting and fishing.

I'm not sure you can pay her price. She only takes souls as payment.

 

[actaeon277]

15 per hour isn't enough.
It's 33 per hour.
https://fee.org/articles/the-33-min...ysX9gCVCy6oqG7ohm4Nbvv6otnAkGTYAYSfNMUcELxntA

 

[ArcadiaGP]

We don't really have a general "economy" thread... so just dropping this here anyway, could be election-related?

Major CEOs that stepped down in the past month:

Disney, Mastercard, LBrands, Uber Eats, Hulu, MGM, IBM, LinkedIn, Salesforce, Morgan Stanley, Nestle, co-founder of BlackRock...

Also notable:

Decline in valuations in past 2 days:

Apple: -$110 billion
Microsoft: -$80 billion
Google: -$66 billion
Amazon: -$61 billion
Facebook: -$38 billion
Tesla: -$19 billion
Alibaba: -$18 billion
Netflix: -$9 billion
Uber: -$8 billion

 

[T.Lex]

Anyone interested in talking about the victorious presidential campaign that is suing a prominent newspaper for defamation for an opinion piece?

Not the candidate, apparently, but the campaign.

Notwithstanding the technical legal issues (like "standing"), is this a good thing for the 1A? Granted, the 1A forbids the gov't from doing things, not a private entity. Just an interesting interaction because the candidate won national office, so is a (significant) part of the government.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Anyone interested in talking about the victorious presidential campaign that is suing a prominent newspaper for defamation for an opinion piece?

Not the candidate, apparently, but the campaign.

Notwithstanding the technical legal issues (like "standing"), is this a good thing for the 1A? Granted, the 1A forbids the gov't from doing things, not a private entity. Just an interesting interaction because the candidate won national office, so is a (significant) part of the government.

At first I thought maybe you were talking about this...

[h=1]Obama demands pro-Trump group stop using his voice to attack Biden[/h]
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...mp-group-stop-using-his-voice-attack-n1143776

 

[T.Lex]

At first I thought maybe you were talking about this...

Obama demands pro-Trump group stop using his voice to attack Biden


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...mp-group-stop-using-his-voice-attack-n1143776

No you didn't.

Not a lawsuit, not a campaign making clams, not a part of the government.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

No you didn't.

Not a lawsuit, not a campaign making clams, not a part of the government.

Actually I did. But at any rate, care to elaborate on what you were talking about?

 

[T.Lex]

Actually I did. But at any rate, care to elaborate on what you were talking about?

Trump's campaign suing the NY Times over one of their Russia Russia Russia! opinion pieces. Links abound.

ETA:
I don't care that it is Trump's campaign. Any campaign that did this would be problematic IMHO. Trump just happens to be the first (to my knowledge).

The Obama thing is meh to me. Its like when musicians get upset that candidates are using their music. Whatevs.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Trump's campaign suing the NY Times over one of their Russia Russia Russia! opinion pieces. Links abound.

ETA:
I don't care that it is Trump's campaign. Any campaign that did this would be problematic IMHO. Trump just happens to be the first (to my knowledge).

The Obama thing is meh to me. Its like when musicians get upset that candidates are using their music. Whatevs.

I hadn't heard anything about Trump's campaign suing the NY Times. That seems kinda "meh" too. As you said, the campaign is not part of the government. Obama however, was a very big part of the government, even though he no longer is. So in my view, they're about on equal footing.

 

[T.Lex]

I hadn't heard anything about Trump's campaign suing the NY Times. That seems kinda "meh" too. As you said, the campaign is not part of the government. Obama however, was a very big part of the government, even though he no longer is. So in my view, they're about on equal footing.

Seriously?

So Carter and Trump are on the same footing in terms of influence?

Dude. The POTUS, while in office, authorized his campaign to sue a newspaper for publishing an opinion.

Had Obama done that to Brietbart, the Birthers-now-Trump-supporters would have been apoplectic. (And I'd have been the same level of uncomfortable as I am now.)

 

[jamil]

Trump's campaign suing the NY Times over one of their Russia Russia Russia! opinion pieces. Links abound.

ETA:
I don't care that it is Trump's campaign. Any campaign that did this would be problematic IMHO. Trump just happens to be the first (to my knowledge).

The Obama thing is meh to me. Its like when musicians get upset that candidates are using their music. Whatevs.

Is this a good thing for free speech? I don't see how you could argue that it ISN'T free speech that's happening. So which part of free speech do you restrict. The right for someone to write an op-ed piece fabricating "news", or, restrict someone's right to claim some kind of damage by it? I haven't read what the op ed said, and I haven't read anything about what the law suit alleges, or exactly who is suing. But, the idea itself doesn't bother me as long as it's not wasting the money I pay in taxes. The courts are free to rule that the law suit is nonsense. So this subject is pretty meh to me.

 

[jamil]

Seriously?

So Carter and Trump are on the same footing in terms of influence?

Dude. The POTUS, while in office, authorized his campaign to sue a newspaper for publishing an opinion.

Had Obama done that to Brietbart, the Birthers-now-Trump-supporters would have been apoplectic. (And I'd have been the same level of uncomfortable as I am now.)

Meh.

 

[T.Lex]

Is this a good thing for free speech? I don't see how you could argue that it ISN'T free speech that's happening. So which part of free speech do you restrict. The right for someone to write an op-ed piece fabricating "news", or, restrict someone's right to claim some kind of damage by it? I haven't read what the op ed said, and I haven't read anything about what the law suit alleges, or exactly who is suing. But, the idea itself doesn't bother me as long as it's not wasting the money I pay in taxes. The courts are free to rule that the law suit is nonsense. So this subject is pretty meh to me.

Fair enough, I guess.

The legal parts of it are interesting in an inside-baseball kind of way.

The policy issue is that this is akin to a SLAPP suit. (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.) Whether they win or lose isn't as important as making it expensive for the other guy to exercise a right.

Trump campaigned on limiting the 1A, and he's testing a new way of doing it.

 

[Ingomike]

Seriously?

So Carter and Trump are on the same footing in terms of influence?

Dude. The POTUS, while in office, authorized his campaign to sue a newspaper for publishing an opinion.

Had Obama done that to Brietbart, the Birthers-now-Trump-supporters would have been apoplectic. (And I'd have been the same level of uncomfortable as I am now.)

Creating fake news this morning? They knowingly published false information about the President and administration, that their very own reporting makes clear was not true.

Where in the constitution does the President lose the rights enjoyed by all citizens? If the jury decides for them, and it is a tough legal road so be it. Like the KY kids suing, maybe the lying media will try to get it right.

 

[T.Lex]

Where in the constitution does the President lose the rights enjoyed by all citizens? If the jury decides for them, and it is a tough legal road so be it. Like the KY kids suing, maybe the lying media will try to get it right.

Remember that when a Dem does it.

 

[Ingomike]

Remember that when a Dem does it.

I would add, there is a balance and we are out of balance with the legacy media in its death shivers. And while I do not want to change the legal standards for defamation etc. I can understand why a guy so relentlessly attacked by the legacy media would.

Analysis of legacy media coverage of Trump shows 96% negative, maybe a suit or so like this will make them a little more careful in what they publish...

 

[jamil]

Creating fake news this morning? They knowingly published false information about the President and administration, that their very own reporting makes clear was not true.

Where in the constitution does the President lose the rights enjoyed by all citizens? If the jury decides for them, and it is a tough legal road so be it. Like the KY kids suing, maybe the lying media will try to get it right.

It's an op ed. It's opinion. That some people take it as "news" is the fault of the idiots who take it as news.

 

[KLB]

Creating fake news this morning? They knowingly published false information about the President and administration, that their very own reporting makes clear was not true.

Where in the constitution does the President lose the rights enjoyed by all citizens? If the jury decides for them, and it is a tough legal road so be it. Like the KY kids suing, maybe the lying media will try to get it right.

I'm not sure I agree with suing a paper for the content of an opinion article. If it had been posted as news and was knowingly false, that would be a different beast altogether.

 

[jamil]

I would add, there is a balance and we are out of balance with the legacy media in its death shivers. And while I do not want to change the legal standards for defamation etc. I can understand why a guy so relentlessly attacked by the legacy media would.

Analysis of legacy media coverage of Trump shows 96% negative, maybe a suit or so like this will make them a little more careful in what they publish...

I would be fine if the media went back to the fairness doctrine. However, that doesn't apply to opinion pieces. If they're clearly in the opinion section of a news paper, or a clearly opinion oriented political show on air or streaming, they have every right to make their opinions known. Sean Hanity surely can't be considered hard news. He's a pundit expressing opinions. So is Rachel Madcow.

 

[BugI02]

Seriously?

So Carter and Trump are on the same footing in terms of influence?

Dude. The POTUS, while in office, authorized his campaign to sue a newspaper for publishing an opinion.

Had Obama done that to Brietbart, the Birthers-now-Trump-supporters would have been apoplectic. (And I'd have been the same level of uncomfortable as I am now.)

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...rolling-for-lent-2020-02-26?mod=mw_latestnews
What the pope wants Catholics to give up for Lent: trolling