FWIS3

AKA motivating other people to be violent, so that you don't have to get your own hands dirty. Which is what Donald Trump did yesterday.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fe ... nk-w433615

I have no idea how the Secret Service et. al. will respond to this, but I have trouble imagining they'll actually do anything. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Anyway, fuck y'all establishment Republicans for being a bunch of weak simpering idiots in the face of an obviously dangerous candidate. You made, sustained, and fed this disaster. You deserve all the blowback you've gotten, and a hundred thousand times more.

When even your conservative fan base is starting to call you Vichy Republicans, you might as well take the fucking hint.

Given the ambiguity of the statement and the broad definition of free speech in this country it will be very hard to make any criminal charges against him. I do agree that he is not so subtly calling for violence against Hillary and any judges she may choose to nominate.

I have been semi-expecting a candidate who can and will appeal to the base insecurities of the voting population for several years now. I just can't decide if Trump really believes his own lies or if he is deliberately doing it to get the attention. And to appeal to the 30-40% of the population who are angry and insecure enough to jump on the crazy train hoping he can deliver on the promise to make them feel secure and fix what they are angry about.

Trump has openly bragged about not having to spend money on campaign ads because the media gives him all the free publicity he needs. They do it claiming that his crazy train is newsworthy.

The rhetoric won't be used to prosecute Donald Trump or anyone else in this country if someone does act on the implied request of "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest". There are a number of reasons why this is true.

One is that you cannot really prove that in the inner workings of Donald Trump's ID there was any intent to have Hillary (or anyone else) murdered. Intent plays a role in criminal charges.

Secondly we believe in a very broad definition of free speech in this country.

And thirdly, no matter who or what the call to violence may be we still insist that people are ultimately responsible for their own behavior and actions. The best analogy is that of the Nazi war criminal trials. Those trials were seminal in a very critical way. They established that not even soldiers had the right to hide behind the defense of "following orders" or "doing what they were told to do" to commit heinous and evil crimes. Even if someone believes that Trump is calling upon them to take action and assassinate Hillary Clinton the law is very clear that anyone who hears that message has a moral and legal duty to refuse to carry out the request.

Unlike Henry II, Trump does not have that authority or god like role in our society.

@Fisher

To be frank, this is why I think laws re: hate speech in public would be a really good idea for the US. Not to enact punishment on speakers of hate, but to provide a strong aversive for people who are thinking about it. "Gee, I'd like to spout some bullshit about Jews, but there's a fine..."

A bit late for that in this case. But one can hope.

Edit: to be clear, I don't think Trump's stupidity yesterday would fall under hate speech.

(More just a run-of-the-mill threat, which is bad enough, especially when talking about a Presidential candidate and/or Supreme Court justices. And sure, maybe it's a joke. But if I made a "joke" like that about a coworker, I could end up explaining it to the police, and probably getting fired. Right?)

But yeah, since this campaign has basically thrived on hate - specifically, a distillation of the hate subtypes common among Limbaugh listeners and such, which more extreme Republicans have pandered to for some time - I figure that putting a legal kibosh on that stuff might help, next time we get a wannabe dictator.

...

And look - if Donald Trump unzipped his fly at a political rally, dangled out his cock, and waved it around in front of a live TV audience, that would be illegal. It would be illegal even if he thought it was cool and okay.

This stuff - or, for that matter, his generalized trash talk about Mexicans - is probably a lot more harmful, in ways that can be quantified with a fair amount of objectivity.

Why should it be protected speech, any more than dick-waving?

I loved the term "Vichy Republicans" though

SciFiFisher wrote:Given the ambiguity of the statement and the broad definition of free speech in this country it will be very hard to make any criminal charges against him. I do agree that he is not so subtly calling for violence against Hillary and any judges she may choose to nominate.

I agree. I don't think this is an actionable item. I don't even think it is the worst or most blatant thing he has said.

As I just said on Facebook, one of the things I find interesting and troubling about Trump, is that even when he is giving a serious, scripted speech, he doesn't speak like an intelligent adult. He generally speaks in sentence fragments, and he doesn't present a point in a coherent manner. He doesn't make an argument for something (I mean "argument" as in a lawyer making an argument at a trial, or someone making an "argument" at a debate).

If he was a vendor who was visiting the company I work for, I doubt that I would purchase something from him. He doesn't even speak like a good businessman.

Gullible Jones wrote:@Fisher

And look - if Donald Trump unzipped his fly at a political rally, dangled out his cock, and waved it around in front of a live TV audience, that would be illegal. It would be illegal even if he thought it was cool and okay.

This stuff - or, for that matter, his generalized trash talk about Mexicans - is probably a lot more harmful, in ways that can be quantified with a fair amount of objectivity.

Why should it be protected speech, any more than dick-waving?

Because dick waving is an action. One with serious phallic implications.

There are tons of articles about the grade level in which he speaks (lowest of all pres candidates). I decided not to link to any as they all have their biases and it may be partially intentional on his or his speech writer's parts. If hes' speaking to the "common man" the one who should be angry and vote for him to fix all that they are angry about, he has to talk their language. Not like a philosopher or PhD candidate, but a guy at a bar who knows all the answers. He's a reality TV "star." Who really knows what he is really like or how he could really speak.

Trump is just a shill for Clinton. That's the only way I can make sense of it all

grapes wrote:Trump is just a shill for Clinton. That's the only way I can make sense of it all

Always in the back of my mind.

Thumper wrote:

grapes wrote:Trump is just a shill for Clinton. That's the only way I can make sense of it all

Always in the back of my mind.

My brother is of the opinion not that he's a shill, but rather he's trying to throw it (and perhaps not even consciously). No one who thinks for two seconds thinks it's a good idea to attack a gold star mother, for example, and if he kept his mouth shut a lot of folks would be a lot more sympathetic to him because they don't like Clinton. But if you don't actually want to win, just wanted your own TV network at the end of it all, this is actually not the dumbest thing you can do.

Rommie wrote:

Thumper wrote:

grapes wrote:Trump is just a shill for Clinton. That's the only way I can make sense of it all

Always in the back of my mind.

My brother is of the opinion not that he's a shill, but rather he's trying to throw it (and perhaps not even consciously). No one who thinks for two seconds thinks it's a good idea to attack a gold star mother, for example, and if he kept his mouth shut a lot of folks would be a lot more sympathetic to him because they don't like Clinton. But if you don't actually want to win, just wanted your own TV network at the end of it all, this is actually not the dumbest thing you can do.

He does keep talking about how the system is rigged. And that the media is giving him all the free publicity that he needs. And there was that rather non-cryptic mumble a few weeks ago about possibly dropping out if he was nominated/elected.

ETA: although, given what everyone who knows him has said he is really, really, really into I WIN YOU LOSE. So, if he is driven to win at all costs he may really be thinking he wants to win the election. At All Costs. I don't recall when/where it was but around the time of the last election cycle there was an article that proposed a credible argument that the GOP only needed to energize all the angry white guys in the country and they could carry the presidential election. IOW they just need to polarize and unify a majority of the angry (white and otherwise) people in the country for Trump to win. And it looks like he is doing just that.

Thumper wrote:

grapes wrote:Trump is just a shill for Clinton. That's the only way I can make sense of it all

Always in the back of my mind.

I don't believe it for a second. And I don't believe Rommie's brother's idea that he is trying to throw it, either consciously or subconsciously.

I think Trump is trying to win. He may have started this just as a PR stunt, but once it got beyond the early stages of that, I think he is in it all the way.

I'm torn as to whether he believes his delusional greatness or not, or if at least some of it is just an act, but I mostly think we are seeing the real Donald Trump. Various people who have known him over the years (there was one lawyer who did some legal stuff for him years ago) confirm that he was always kind of like this.

And his crazy-shit ideas aren't anything new. He's been pushing the Birther nonsense for the entire Obama administration.

I'll quote from myself for the next bit.

Swift wrote:I've seen some pretty ordinary people show support for Trump. For example, people I know on Facebook are defending Mrs. Trump's speech and already using "the media lies" and "the liberal media is picking on her" as rallying points.

People have a phenomenal ability to put mental blinders on and narrow their focus to just what the want to see. I thought all of Trump's obvious lies, his various bankruptcies (both moral and financial), and all the hate speech he spews would start to drive people off, but they are not. People who already hate him can't hate him more, and the rest are still supporting him ("well, at least he is honest and tells us the 'truth'"). I don't think there is a single thing he could say or do, short of biting heads off of puppies, that would drive his supporters away.

And whether we wish to admit it or not, there is a darker side to the American psyche. We have gone through some pretty dark periods (Joe McCarthy, pre-WWII isolationism, late 19th century imperialism, not to mention lynchings and legalized discrimination and hating every new immigrant group back to the Germans and Irish). Appealing to that undercurrent has always been a way to get votes.

One last thought...

Could we stop with starting a new thread everytime Trump says some new stupid thing? It is much easier to do this in a single Trump thread.

@Swift

Sure, will do. Though I'm thinking maybe I should stay away from the news a bit more... It's not like watching Trump ooze all over our political system is going to help Clinton get elected.

Yeah, I actually think it's more likely he just wants to win because he's a narcissist who thinks he should win because he's a winner. It's just that simple to him.

Rommie wrote:Yeah, I actually think it's more likely he just wants to win because he's a narcissist who thinks he should win because he's a winner. It's just that simple to him.

Exactly. And if he loses, he's got this whole, "The system is rigged." garbage to salve his wounded ego.

I wonder if he'll live to make it to the election. And, no, I'm not suggesting that someone should kill him. I'm really not. I just happen to believe that the sixty or so people who own half the world's wealth can't be enthusiastic about the idea of Trump as President. That said, there are other ways to stop him without killing him. One could rig the system, for example.

This isn't how it was supposed to be. We were supposed to be an enlightened society by now.

And where's my damn hoverboard?

SciFi Chick wrote:

Rommie wrote:Yeah, I actually think it's more likely he just wants to win because he's a narcissist who thinks he should win because he's a winner. It's just that simple to him.

Exactly. And if he loses, he's got this whole, "The system is rigged." garbage to salve his wounded ego.

I wonder if he'll live to make it to the election. And, no, I'm not suggesting that someone should kill him. I'm really not. I just happen to believe that the sixty or so people who own half the world's wealth can't be enthusiastic about the idea of Trump as President. That said, there are other ways to stop him without killing him. One could rig the system, for example.

If only people could anonymously shovel money into organizations that align against him without anyone knowing who donated, and have the next president of the USA beholden to you! Oh wait...

Gullible Jones wrote:@Swift

Sure, will do. Though I'm thinking maybe I should stay away from the news a bit more... It's not like watching Trump ooze all over our political system is going to help Clinton get elected.

I suggest that the thread should be named "The Orange Haired Clown Chronicles"

@Sigma

Hah. As the days drag on, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you were right early on; Trump is Chavez, the American remix. He wants to be a dictator, but he's just way too dumb.

Speaking of which, I hope your country manages to pull through, too. It feels horribly ironic that we're now edging into your political territory...

(And Jesus, what is with humanity this year? Did Monsanto accidentally release some brain-eating microbes, or something?)

Gullible Jones wrote:@Sigma

Hah. As the days drag on, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you were right early on; Trump is Chavez, the American remix. He wants to be a dictator, but he's just way too dumb.

Speaking of which, I hope your country manages to pull through, too. It feels horribly ironic that we're now edging into your political territory...

(And Jesus, what is with humanity this year? Did Monsanto accidentally release some brain-eating microbes, or something?)

I think you meant Umbrella Corp.

Rommie wrote:If only people could anonymously shovel money into organizations that align against him without anyone knowing who donated, and have the next president of the USA beholden to you! Oh wait...

Gullible Jones wrote:@Sigma

Hah. As the days drag on, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that you were right early on; Trump is Chavez, the American remix. He wants to be a dictator, but he's just way too dumb.

Speaking of which, I hope your country manages to pull through, too. It feels horribly ironic that we're now edging into your political territory...

(And Jesus, what is with humanity this year? Did Monsanto accidentally release some brain-eating microbes, or something?)

I must agree with you, Chavez was smarter than Trump. Chavez did do the Anti-Politics thing (because our political establishment had lost all credibility with their mishandling of the economy) but implied he was a "third way" type of candidate. And up till, say 2002 he seemed like that. Things changed after the stupid pseudo-coup attempt of 2002. So, he either used that as an opportunity to consolidate power, or he went bananas. Either way he became the model that Trump follows after that.

Maybe we'll pull through. But, after seeing how our culture works. I'm pretty sure we'll end up right back here in 20 years.

I agree with the Swift things.

I also believe the idea of Trump being Hillary's shill is on the same intellectual level as the idea that Obama is the founder of ISIS.