The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[chipbennett]

I made an edit at the end that clarified this. You absolutely can hinder a person's message if you continue to threaten them with financial ruin for saying it.

But 1) the speech must first take place, and 2) the burden of proof still lies with the person filing the lawsuit to prove that the speech was false, and caused harm.

Could've fooled anyone here.

I absolutely hate that critical thinking has degraded so much in our society that it has been replaced with this sort of binary thinking. I have not defended Trump. I have merely pointed out the fallacy regarding equating his statements on libel laws with fascism.

Back to my "if yes", then. Do you think this is pro-1A or anti-1A

I think it is ambivalent to the first amendment, because it has nothing to do with congress passing laws that suppress speech.

 

[BugI02]

But a Cruz/Rubio "unity" ticket would be peachy keen?

They never seem to understand that it's the hypocrisy that bothers us the most, Chip.
Trump can do no right and the GOPe flavor of the month can do no wrong

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Tell me what he means, first. Otherwise, debating the consequences of what he means is pointless.

It's a matter of opinion, then, and no one here is going to change your view of it.

My opinion... is that his history of SLAPP lawsuits and his comments about opening up libel laws is anti-1A. I perceive those actions as anti-1A.

Your opinion... is that since he hasn't put pen-to-paper and detailed his feels on why he files (or threatens) to file these suits... those actions cannot accurately reflect on the man, and cause you to form an opinion on this matter.

You're asking a question that can't be answered (and shields you), so you're safe from having to waver on the subject.

 

[Thor]

Just got back from voting for Trump in my primary. Funny, it didn't feel like I was bringing about the fall of western civilization. It felt good

We'll check back on that. Of course if it doesn't work out dissent and any mention of disagreement will either bring lawsuits or prison so maybe we won't.

Good on you voting your conscience.

I'm sure it will feel good for me not voting the same way.

 

[T.Lex]

Tell me what he means, first. Otherwise, debating the consequences of what he means is pointless.

So we're both frustrated that Trump won't say what he really means. Cool.

Those who keep asserting what Trump means continually conflate legal and colloquial definitions.

Wait - TRUMP is the one conflating! You can't have it both ways. Either he's speaking colloquially or legally. Well, he isn't really speaking legally, because he keeps omitting the malice part of the public figure jurisprudence. If he's speaking colloquially, then all we can do is extrapolate what it means legally.

As Chief Enforcement Officer, he's going to have the luxury of enforcing these laws. He, colloquially, is expressing how he will do it.

An intentionally false statement that causes harm to the person about whom that statement is made is not protected speech.

I say Trump is fascist. Is that true or false?

Trump says Rosy is a fat pig. Is that true or false?

And it can also make a mockery of libel laws. Little Debbie declared George Zimmerman a "public person", and then threw out his defamation suit against NBC partly on the basis that Zimmerman could not prove malice, even though NBC intentionally edited recorded statements, and intentionally portrayed the edited statements in a manner to make Zimmerman appear to be racist, and then editorialized about Zimmerman's alleged racism on the basis of those edited comments, all in a manner that demonstrably harmed Zimmerman.

Your point? You want it easier for Zimmerman to sue NBC, even if it makes it easier for Trump to sue me? Or you? Or INGO? Or Twitter?

Or, what is really my point, direct the DOJ/IRS/DHS/FCC to investigate me/you/INGO/Twitter for civil rights violations based on defamatory statements?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Mmm, consistency.


Trump, this morning:
"I never said I was going to be paying for [legal] fees" of people arrested at his rallies.

Trump, two days ago:
Donald Trump Says He May Pay Legal Fees of Accused Attacker From Rally
Trump looking into paying legal fees in sucker punch incident | TheHill
Donald Trump on paying legal fees for punch-thrower - Business Insider

Trump, last month:
Trump Tells Crowd to ?Knock the Crap Out? of Protesters, Offers to Pay Legal Fees | Mediaite

 

[Thor]

They never seem to understand that it's the hypocrisy that bothers us the most,

You mean the hypocrisy of Mr I'mNotPC and I don't need to step on eggshells when criticizing anyone surrounding himself with a minefield of eggshell of 'how dare you challenge me or question anything I say' or I can call you names, insult your gender/looks/heritage and threaten to sue? You mean that hypocrisy?

Or should I look for the links now about why everyone else is unacceptable?

 

[T.Lex]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...ory.html?postshare=5631457539544939&tid=ss_tw

Trump said in an interview that he knew he couldn’t win the suit but brought it anyway to make a point. “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.”

It wasn't about truth or falsity. It was about power. He had the power to make the other guy's life miserable. So he did it.

 

[BugI02]

And on that point, we disagree to varying degrees. From what I gather, you have a level of trust in what Trump says. That's fine, that's your call. I don't. I see his campaign making it this far a clear product of leftist media serving him up and preparing him for a GOP party loss. Others, for some reason, buy what he and the media are presenting to them... and I simply don't get why.

Oh I don't know, could it be that a whole lot of people don't see the candidates the way you do?

"Does thinking you're the last sane man on the face of the Earth make you crazy?" - Del Spooner

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Sorta on-topic... Trump's campaign is one big safe space

Trump's volunteer contract forbids all criticism of Trump

Just gives the image of someone with skin as thin as Obama.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I absolutely hate that critical thinking has.....

Don't get me wrong, I don't lump you in with the circlejerkers. They've got their own thing going on, somewhere. They can keep that mess to themselves.

You're one of the smarter guys on here (not that you need my validation on that)... but that's why I'm finding it difficult to get through this line of discussion. But, I see where I've erred. Let me try this way:

What is your opinion of a person that habitually files (or threatens) SLAPP lawsuits to hinder criticism?

I'm not asking you what the law says. I'm not asking you to play semantics. I'm just curious of your opinion on such a person.

I've already shared my opinion on that sort of person, and how that opinion influences my views of them on Free Speech.

 

[BugI02]

At the risk of challenging stereotypes, I consider myself a #nevertrump voter for purposes of the primary, yet not a dichotomous thinker. (There are 10 kinds of people in this world....)

I just think Trump would be a singularly bad candidate for the GOP or any party.

Totally not the point you were making, but I had to come up with something to disagree with you on. Its been awhile. Feeling nostalgic.

T.Lex although I am a Trump supporter, I find your position perfectly honorable if I understand it correctly. When you say for the purposes of the primary I take that to mean you think there are (many) other, better choices for the party's standard bearer; but should Trump win the nomination you might need to reconsider. If I interpret the caveat correctly, no Trump supporter would or should ask for anything more. We just hope that in the general if it's Trump v Clingon that you would correctly identify who is the most dangerous choice and act accordingly.

 

[17 squirrel]

Just got back from voting for Trump in my primary. Funny, it didn't feel like I was bringing about the fall of western civilization. It felt good

I just ate a Subway Chocolate Chip Cookie because you put a smile on my face.

 

[chipbennett]

It's a matter of opinion, then, and no one here is going to change your view of it.

My opinion... is that his history of SLAPP lawsuits and his comments about opening up libel laws is anti-1A. I perceive those actions as anti-1A.

Your opinion... is that since he hasn't put pen-to-paper and detailed his feels on why he files (or threatens) to file these suits... those actions cannot accurately reflect on the man, and cause you to form an opinion on this matter.

You're asking a question that can't be answered (and shields you), so you're safe from having to waver on the subject.

I'm not sure you quoted the right comment. I was talking about the "closing the internet" quote/video.

 

[T.Lex]

T.Lex although I am a Trump supporter, I find your position perfectly honorable if I understand it correctly. When you say for the purposes of the primary I take that to mean you think there are (many) other, better choices for the party's standard bearer; but should Trump win the nomination you might need to reconsider. If I interpret the caveat correctly, no Trump supporter would or should ask for anything more. We just hope that in the general if it's Trump v Clingon that you would correctly identify who is the most dangerous choice and act accordingly.

haha

Thanks.

Yeah, well, if it comes to that, I honestly don't know what I will do. Until Trump gets the nomination, I will do what I can to prevent it.

And, when you put it in terms of "most dangerous choice" - it gets REALLY hard for me to balance out the answer. The danger will come from different angles with either one of them. On top of that, there's the devil-you-know v. the devil-you-don't.

 

[chipbennett]

Don't get me wrong, I don't lump you in with the circlejerkers. They've got their own thing going on, somewhere. They can keep that mess to themselves.

You're one of the smarter guys on here (not that you need my validation on that)... but that's why I'm finding it difficult to get through this line of discussion. But, I see where I've erred. Let me try this way:

What is your opinion of a person that habitually files (or threatens) SLAPP lawsuits to hinder criticism?

I'm not asking you what the law says. I'm not asking you to play semantics. I'm just curious of your opinion on such a person.

I've already shared my opinion on that sort of person, and how that opinion influences my views of them on Free Speech.

I don't like that behavior, either. I personally don't like Trump's bluster/bombast, for that matter. But I see it more as someone who is a product of his environment. As a businessman, you don't set the rules; you simply play by them. There's not much of a line between competitive advantage and "gaming the system", and all of it is legal. So, naturally, using lawful lawsuits falls into that.

I'm not in favor of, supporting, or defending such practices. I just don't equate them to fascism.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I don't like that behavior, either. I personally don't like Trump's bluster/bombast, for that matter. But I see it more as someone who is a product of his environment. As a businessman, you don't set the rules; you simply play by them. There's not much of a line between competitive advantage and "gaming the system", and all of it is legal. So, naturally, using lawful lawsuits falls into that.

I'm not in favor of, supporting, or defending such practices. I just don't equate them to fascism.

I'm in the camp that doesn't want to chance giving someone like that the power of the highest office in the world. Fascist-lite, or fascist tendencies... would likely result in a fascist President.

Again, just my opinion and what I perceive from him and his history. Too big of a risk.

 

[BugI02]

The people are the people. They like what they like. They're predisposed to what they're predisposed to. We have a system where candidates who should not be electable end up as the only choices. I'm tired of the hobson's choice. I want a real choice. Trump was not my 2nd or 3rd choice. He was way down on that list. He only moved up the list because others dropped out. And soon he'll be #1 on the list because Hillary will be the only other choice. That's a ****ed up system right there. At least it's not as ****ed up as the British system, but this has gotta go. People say in a representative democracy you get the government you deserve. Well I don't deserve Trump or Hillary. But I'm gonna be stuck with one of them. And according to all the favorability ratings, neither one is who America wants.

Jamil, I think it would be a much easier task to fix the primary system. It is largely under the control of the parties and changeable without the need to tinker with the constitution, and it might acheive most of the results you're looking for. Switching to some version of the Borda count for primaries would solve what you perceive to be the main problem with your available choices. Alas, like redistricting/gerrymandering, it is hard to visualize circumstances under which those who benefit most directly from the status quo get onboard with any changes.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm in the camp that doesn't want to chance giving someone like that the power of the highest office in the world. Fascist-lite, or fascist tendencies... would likely result in a fascist President.

Again, just my opinion and what I perceive from him and his history. Too big of a risk.

I understand that position. I just happen to think that the biggest risks are Trump being incompetent as President, and his malleability on some positions.

Clinton, on the other hand, can't wait to let her fascist flag fly.

 

[chipbennett]

Jamil, I think it would be a much easier task to fix the primary system. It is largely under the control of the parties and changeable without the need to tinker with the constitution, and it might acheive most of the results you're looking for. Switching to some version of the Borda count for primaries would solve what you perceive to be the main problem with your available choices. Alas, like redistricting/gerrymandering, it is hard to visualize circumstances under which those who benefit most directly from the status quo get onboard with any changes.

As much as I despise the primary system: don't the parties have the right to determine the method that the party uses to nominate their own candidates?