Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

DiscoGary wrote:

Timothy Foyle wrote:

It's not that we are laughing with you, Gary. We're laughing at you.

[ahem . . . cough, cough . . . ]

Oh, I mean, YES. THAT'S RIGHT! YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT'S GOING ON. SAVE US FROM THE DEEP STATE, GARY! SAVE US!!!

Hmmm. More hate speech coming from my Leftist friends. Shouldn't this be blacklisted?

Isn't expressing a desire to punch a Nazi an expression of hate? Shouldn't that be blacklisted too?

Hate? Hate?!? Moi?

No, no Gary. It is certainly not hate. It is happy talk. Good times. Sharing a laugh.

And you, as the guest of honor at our laugh-fest! Gary, we LOVE you. Keep it up!

Trollminator wrote:

. . .

All that aside, Gary wants us all to like and respect white supremacists. He’s never going to get that because most of us think they are sub-human scum. That of course does not mean I will default to physical assault. That’s where it “does not compute” for Gary.

I ABSOLUTELY AND VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT! White supremacists are human beings. Some of their ideas may not be worthy of respect and some of their actions may be considered intolerable.

But you are ABSOLUTELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY WRONG if you think of them as "sub-human scum". Further, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT AND ZERO STANDING to declare what most of us think.

Please try to represent yourself. Let others represent their own views.

words matter wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

DeBlasio is certainly trying. This is seriously getting out of hand. The few Democrats who aren’t yet completely insane should stand against this kind of talk.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/400744-de-blasio-slams-murdoch-fox-news-we-would-be-a-more-unified-country-without?__twitter_impression=true

Nothing in that article indicates that DeBlasio is trying to limit free speech.

He wants to ban a conservative news outlet- that IS an example of limiting free speech.

There has to be limits wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

No, it is not a slippery slope. It is a sheer cliff and Liberals have jumped straight off it.

Liberals can see no line at all between real Nazis and Trump and his supporters.

I’m sorry, but there has to be limits on free speech. Hate speech has to be one of them. We live in different times than 250 years ago.

Yes, there DO have to be limits on free speech. And Flagpole clearly and concisely enumerated them.

Next.

Trump downer wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Free speech and the First Amendment is long a liberal love. I'm a former journalist and so of course am for free speech. Donald Trump is very much an enemy of free speech. The press is a check on people in power. Just like the ACLU often defends vile people, you have to be for free speech for everyone if you have any integrity.

Has Trump limited anyone’s free speech.?

I didn't say that he has, but he is an enemy of free speech. He has banned certain reporters from being able to be in the gaggle, he calls the press the "enemy of the people", and the "Daily White House Briefings" have gone from 8 in May to 5 in June to 3 in July. He only accepts reports about him that kiss his butt. If he were younger, we would be in danger of him actually becoming a dictator, but that is not going to happen. Just too old, and Americans won't stand for it much longer.

etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, wrote:

swerve wrote:

Do you honestly think it's okay for the President of the United States to be blocking citizens and critics on Twitter?

Yes, it's his Twitter, he can do what he wants, just as other Twitter users do, newspapers do, forums do, TV channels do, radio stations do, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,

Wrong. He is a public official who uses Twitter to conduct his work. He fired Rex Tillerson, and others, via Tweets.

Trump downer wrote:

Has Trump limited anyone’s free speech.?

He has tried.

When Samantha Bee criticized his daughter on her show he publicly called for her to be fired.

When NFLers protested, he publicly yelled for those son of a bitches be taken off the field. Fired!

He is the president. He is the government.

He can’t do that.

That is a first amendment violation.

There has to be limits wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

No, it is not a slippery slope. It is a sheer cliff and Liberals have jumped straight off it.

Liberals can see no line at all between real Nazis and Trump and his supporters.

I’m sorry, but there has to be limits on free speech. Hate speech has to be one of them. We live in different times than 250 years ago.

No. That's not the right way to think about it. We have free speech in this country. Sometimes people say horrible crap, and then they might suffer some consequences (job, friends), but this is not something the government should regulate. The Supreme Court has already determined (correctly) that legally there isn't anything called "hate speech". Of course we all know what it is, but do you want the government to define what it is? No you don't. You really don't. Ultimately that would give the government the right to make an extremely broad definition, and suddenly there is no more free speech unless it is complimentary. Free speech should go on unfettered.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

words matter wrote:

Nothing in that article indicates that DeBlasio is trying to limit free speech.

He wants to ban a conservative news outlet- that IS an example of limiting free speech.

Where in the article does he state that he wants to ban a conservative news outlet?

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

You see most of the violence coming from the left. There is no argument, this is a fact, liberals. You have Antifa rioting, the Scalise shooter, people attacked for wearing M.A.G.A. hats and Maxine Waters calling for harassment of conservatives. More examples of the intolerant left acting badly and worse:

.....

blah, blah, blah

No, YOU see most of the violence coming from the left because you are blinded by right wing propaganda. Any rational, clearheaded, non dimwit would see it coming from both sides, but TONS of it coming from the right too.

Want me to list examples??? Try me.

Once again, you prove yourself, like DG, to be living in a completely made-up, alt-right universe, which resembles reality in no way, shape, or form.

Are you seriously this dumb, deluded or dishonest??

Nope wrote:

etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, wrote:

Yes, it's his Twitter, he can do what he wants, just as other Twitter users do, newspapers do, forums do, TV channels do, radio stations do, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,

Wrong. He is a public official who uses Twitter to conduct his work. He fired Rex Tillerson, and others, via Tweets.

Wrong, he is someone who has a Twitter account, it's his, he has the password and is responsible for what gets posted on it. If he resigns, gets replaced, keels over, whatever, the new incumbent doesn't get his Twitter account.

It's his personally to do what he wants with, just the same as you or I if we have one. Just the same as he can make a comment to a reporter regarding Government/his action or decisions that then gets published in the media, if he chooses to do it that way, as other Presidents have done on occasions, it's his choice to do it that way, just as using Twitter is.

Plenty of Government statements, decisions, etc are/have been made via media of all sorts, just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong.

The GOP pundit on CNN tonight has been making an excellent point: Special elections are entirely different than districts fortified by an incumbent. The Democratic pundits on every network have been inane for months in trying to insist the average gap between 2016 result and special election result it what to expect in November across the board.

Not even close. There have been many Republican retirements. Those districts will likely see a similar shift. But when the House incumbent is already established he/she normally has a substantial benefit of doubt and is hellish to remove.

Democrats are in good shape to regain the House but it is hardly a certainty and if it happens the margin figures to be quite low...perhaps 1-6 seats. I have to laugh every time somebody projects a 50-70 seat gain.

Yeah, if these states were gerrymanded the other way, toward red and not toward blue.

I expected Balderson to win by 3 points tonight so I never kidded myself that O'Connor would hold on. This is August 2018, not November 2017 when Trump's approval rating was several points lower and therefore races like this could slip away.

Too many Democrats fail to differentiate between late 2017 and currently. Alabama would not happen now.

I meant gerrymandered toward blue and not toward red.

Why can't we edit around here?

0/10. You are a compete and total moran.

Trump conducts official US business via Twitter. He is subject to the Open Records act. If Trump doesn't like that he can quit the job. Then he can ban people as he pleases.

Yeh, this was already ruled upon by a federal judge:

http://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-twitter-account-is-a-public-forum-97159

Until Trump wins an appeals it’s the law.

Open Records wrote:

[quote]It's not a POTUS account that gets passed on. wrote:

[quote]Nope wrote:

0/10. You are a compete and total moran.

Trump conducts official US business via Twitter. He is subject to the Open Records act. If Trump doesn't like that he can quit the job. Then he can ban people as he pleases.

What official US business would that be and how should he conduct it officially?

Do you have a link to this Open Records act that applies to him and it's relevance to him using Twitter?

Thanks.

Flagpole wrote:No. That's not the right way to think about it. We have free speech in this country. Sometimes people say horrible crap, and then they might suffer some consequences (job, friends), but this is not something the government should regulate. The Supreme Court has already determined (correctly) that legally there isn't anything called "hate speech". Of course we all know what it is, but do you want the government to define what it is? No you don't. You really don't. Ultimately that would give the government the right to make an extremely broad definition, and suddenly there is no more free speech unless it is complimentary. Free speech should go on unfettered.

Steve, there are (at least) two key amendments to your constitution that baffle most of the rest of the world, at least in the way you treat them as holy commandments, with little or no room for interpretation: the right to bear arms, and the right to free speech.

I won't go on about your gun culture, except to say I don't understand it, but recognize that for people growing up with it, it carries deep (almost religious) significance.

Your position on free speech, though, is what I'd like to focus on today. Most other first world societies have some form of right to free speech, but generally treat it as an ideal, rather than a back and white absolute. In Canada, hate speech is illegal. Your Supreme court declared "hate speech" has no legal meaning; smart legal minds in Canada determined that it can be defined, on a case by case basis with careful analysis. The bar to meet the definition is very high (as so it should), but not infinitely high (as in your position). We've already mentioned Germany's laws against Nazi or anti-Holocaust speech.

I imagine you worry about having any reasonable limits on free speech because surely if they can limit some speech, eventually all speech can be arbitrarily limited. That's an imaginary, hypothetical problem that doesn't exist in places where reasonable limits on hate speech are in place. I'm not sure why you Yanks couldn't also find a way to make it work.

Flagpole wrote:

There has to be limits wrote:

I’m sorry, but there has to be limits on free speech. Hate speech has to be one of them. We live in different times than 250 years ago.

No. That's not the right way to think about it. We have free speech in this country. Sometimes people say horrible crap, and then they might suffer some consequences (job, friends), but this is not something the government should regulate. The Supreme Court has already determined (correctly) that legally there isn't anything called "hate speech". Of course we all know what it is, but do you want the government to define what it is? No you don't. You really don't. Ultimately that would give the government the right to make an extremely broad definition, and suddenly there is no more free speech unless it is complimentary. Free speech should go on unfettered.

Sorry. You are just wrong on this. Hate speech needs to be limited. I agree with the previous poster. We live in different times now and different rules need to be established to live in a civil society.

Looks like it’s going to be under 1% win. I don’t see the provisional or absentee ballots swinging it.

Alan