Cont: The Trump Presidency VIII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim_MDP said:
Wow you guys.
I should get out more. :D
(still never actually been to the beaches/coast right here, though I could throw a rock and hit the Dunes NP. [emoji14] )

... sitting here parked by the bay... looking at a ~35 foot sailboat stuck on the mud a couple hundred yards across the water. If what I found online is the one... it was stolen by a homeless dude and run aground (amud) two months ago.
Damn... come haul that thing out ya bastards. :D

I like this spot... the large tugs do staging/practice/training right in front of me. It's like a ballet. :D :D
Click to expand...

Yes you do. I love the dunes. I like Shore Acres, Cape Arago and Whisky Run beach. The tide pools are so cool. I walked the beach for miles both way at Whisky Run and probably saw 20 people in an entire week. And that was in August!
 
dudalb said:
Sort of OT, but the new Dinedh D Souza movie compares Donald Trump to Abraham Lincoln, and the Democratic Party to the Nazis.
It's sad in a way.D' Souza so want to be a mover and shaker in the far right but that he is of Indian (as in Asia) descent and has a brown skin guarentees he will never be accepted by the far right. Guy is a study in self hate,since eh never speaks of his Indian heritage without a air of contempt.
Click to expand...

D Aouza’s last Movie on Hillary and the Democratic Party was the only movie that the Cinema Snob (Brad Jones) ever walked out on. This is a guy who can sit through all the ridiculous Christian, Cannibal, and what he terms S***teo movies.
 
dudalb said:
Sort of OT, but the new Dinedh D Souza movie compares Donald Trump to Abraham Lincoln, and the Democratic Party to the Nazis.
It's sad in a way.D' Souza so want to be a mover and shaker in the far right but that he is of Indian (as in Asia) descent and has a brown skin guarentees he will never be accepted by the far right. Guy is a study in self hate,since eh never speaks of his Indian heritage without a air of contempt.
Click to expand...

D Souza is a whore. I loved watching Hitchens wipe the floor with him.
 
acbytesla said:
Good point.
Click to expand...

He is also inept. I have seen stills of a couple of the reenactments in the film ..of Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler...and they look drop dead funny...the Hiler suicide in particular.
Thought D Souza might have made a mistake in making a hero ol Lincoln. That might no go over well with the sizable "Neo Confederate" wing of Trump Supporters.
 
acbytesla said:
I read that too. That is another reason that they can't let Jones off the hook. I tend to be very wary of libel and defamation cases because of their chilling effect of freedom of speech and the press. But freedom of speech does have limits and malicious speech is dangerous.

Jones enormously profited by promoting this and other wild ass conspiracy theories to the detriment of our society and needs to be held accountable. He had no reason at all to believe that his hoax claim was true, but that didn't matter at all. This is the vey definition of malice.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree but the claim that the parent of a dead kindergarten student is an actor is a claim as to a falsifiable fact. The standard can't just be that it's malicious, it has to be factually wrong too. That parent should have recourse as to that accusation. The parent(s) should have a day in court, if they wish to present evidence that the child was their son or daughter, they did attend that school and were murdered on the day in question. Because the claim was particularly malicious, and frivolous, those parents should have a claim on their own attorney fees, time spent defending the claim and a punitive judgment. If Jones kept it to "the parent's grief didn't seem real", okay that's despicable but not a claim of fact and should be protected. Jones could have kept it on the side of opinion and fed the misguided beliefs of his drones without crossing into the actionable.


I certainly won't cry for Jones if he gets a huge judgment against him. We can have free speech and protect the innocent from libelous claims of fact at the same time.
 
acbytesla said:
As bad as Trump is, he's not Hitler. But he certainly has borrowed propaganda tactics straight from Hitler and Goebbels though.
Click to expand...

He's not the Hitler of 1943/45 with the Final Solution in full swing. I'm not so sure he's not Hitler of 1933 to 1938. We tend to only look for the Hitler who dressed his salad with his own brains in the bunker after having killed 6 million Jews. We don't tend to look for new Hitlers when they form coalition governments or win narrow electoral victories.

We've seen the first inkling of concentration camps for immigrants. There are discussions of revoking citizenship for some who were naturalized. He won't come for the rights of natural born US Citizens yet. He'll keep picking at the rights of those on the margins. By the time he goes for your rights it will be too late. The trouble with only looking for the Hitler of 1945 is that by the time you recognize him, it's too late.
 
Craig4 said:
He's not the Hitler of 1943/45 with the Final Solution in full swing. I'm not so sure he's not Hitler of 1933 to 1938. We tend to only look for the Hitler who dressed his salad with his own brains in the bunker after having killed 6 million Jews. We don't tend to look for new Hitlers when they form coalition governments or win narrow electoral victories.

We've seen the first inkling of concentration camps for immigrants. There are discussions of revoking citizenship for some who were naturalized. He won't come for the rights of natural born US Citizens yet. He'll keep picking at the rights of those on the margins. By the time he goes for your rights it will be too late. The trouble with only looking for the Hitler of 1945 is that by the time you recognize him, it's too late.
Click to expand...

No, he's not even the Hitler from 33 to 38 or even the Hitler in 1923. The final solution is in Mein Kampf which he wrote in prison after the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. Trump is running the dictator's handbook. That I agree. He is dividing America to his ends.

But what happens if the Dems win back the House and or the Senate?

Me, I'll wait to slice my wrist until after the midterms
 
acbytesla said:
No, he's not even the Hitler from 33 to 38 or even the Hitler in 1923. The final solution is in Mein Kampf which he wrote in prison after the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. Trump is running the dictator's handbook. That I agree. He is dividing America to his ends.

But what happens if the Dems win back the House and or the Senate?

Me, I'll wait to slice my wrist until after the midterms
Click to expand...

I think the Cheeto Benito comparison is more apt. He even makes the same stupid arrogant faces as Il Duce.
 
Craig4 said:
He's not the Hitler of 1943/45 with the Final Solution in full swing. I'm not so sure he's not Hitler of 1933 to 1938. We tend to only look for the Hitler who dressed his salad with his own brains in the bunker after having killed 6 million Jews. We don't tend to look for new Hitlers when they form coalition governments or win narrow electoral victories.

We've seen the first inkling of concentration camps for immigrants. There are discussions of revoking citizenship for some who were naturalized. He won't come for the rights of natural born US Citizens yet. He'll keep picking at the rights of those on the margins. By the time he goes for your rights it will be too late. The trouble with only looking for the Hitler of 1945 is that by the time you recognize him, it's too late.
Click to expand...

So what do you recommend we do other then wallow in angst..which too many people here like to do.
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
I tend to agree but the claim that the parent of a dead kindergarten student is an actor is a claim as to a falsifiable fact. The standard can't just be that it's malicious, it has to be factually wrong too. That parent should have recourse as to that accusation. The parent(s) should have a day in court, if they wish to present evidence that the child was their son or daughter, they did attend that school and were murdered on the day in question. Because the claim was particularly malicious, and frivolous, those parents should have a claim on their own attorney fees, time spent defending the claim and a punitive judgment. If Jones kept it to "the parent's grief didn't seem real", okay that's despicable but not a claim of fact and should be protected. Jones could have kept it on the side of opinion and fed the misguided beliefs of his drones without crossing into the actionable.


I certainly won't cry for Jones if he gets a huge judgment against him. We can have free speech and protect the innocent from libelous claims of fact at the same time.
Click to expand...

Its pretty easy to prove that it isn't factual. It HAS to be false for defamation, it also has to be damaging. Go watch the Paul Newman film Absence of Malice and read the court decision NY Times v Sullivan. Actual malice is about being reckless. If you say something or publish something about a public figure that is false, but you did your due diligence in trying to find the truth, you are just mistaken and not guilty of defamation because you are absent of malice.

Jones is not absent of malice.
 
acbytesla said:
Its pretty easy to prove that it isn't factual. It HAS to be false for defamation, it also has to be damaging. Go watch the Paul Newman film Absence of Malice and read the court decision NY Times v Sullivan. Actual malice is about being reckless. If you say something or publish something about a public figure that is false, but you did your due diligence in trying to find the truth, you are just mistaken and not guilty of defamation because you are absent of malice.

Jones is not absent of malice.
Click to expand...

He lied, he knew he was lying, and he didn't care about the damage that could be and was caused.

Pretty clear-cut case to me.
 
I hates Alex Jones, but think he will probably walk on this one. Juries are reluctant to convict on defamation cases.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
He lied, he knew he was lying, and he didn't care about the damage that could be and was caused.

Pretty clear-cut case to me.
Click to expand...

Me too. But his lawyers said it was protected free speech. But of course, they are paid to represent him. What I don't like is this case is in Texas. You never know what a jury might do. But I would be more shocked if the judge buys the protected free speech argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom