The Trump Presidency: Sweet/Sweat 16

[plague311]

Legally, no, he doesn't.
If you are a public figure in the US, and Tlaib is certainly that, Libel is almost impossible to prove.
And what Trump said about Tlaib is no worse then what a lot of people are saying about Trump.
They don't have to legally produce Proof, and neither does Donny.
Still INHO the POTUS should simply not stoop to that level.

Do you have anything to support that?

Libel is defined as:

a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

This is a) written and b) damaging to her reputation given that it got her banned from a country (despite it being reversed). These are provable statements, and Trump actually wrote the initial statement that prompted the banning as well.

I know you're correct that it's more complicated for public figures to sue for libel, but this is blatant. He's blatantly saying that she hates all Jews and singling her out.

I'm not saying this specifically is libel, but it's certainly getting there as well as borderline harassment to me. He's using a position of power and his social media presence to harass her.

 

[The Greater Fool]

But I'll repeat: if McHrozni says "Trump (or his rich backers) are paying people to attend his rallies." I don't expect it to mean "factory workers are forced to attend Trump's speech during work hours lest they are denied their pay." It's misleading at best.

Belz, I think the muddling factor is that this rally took place on their work site.

The employers are closing the work site for the rally, and all employees are forced to not work this day. No one can or will be paid for work, as the work site is closed for the day. Everyone loses the days pay, and overtime benefit later in the week. If it stopped here you would be correct, penalizing workers for not showing up is not paying them to show up.

But, the employer also says, "we will pay everyone that shows up to the rally a days pay, and this day's pay will also be considered hours worked for overtime calculations. If you choose not to show up, it's OK, we won't hold it against you.

The above is exactly Paying the workers to go to a rally, and exactly what occurred. It is paying workers to go to a rally.

The employer is just working real hard to make it not sound like they were paying for attendance.

 

[plague311]

*snipped for brevity*

Reading through your explanation, it made me wonder if there's a legal requirement for something like this. As far as getting paid that is, since it's not technically a "rally" it was considered a government function of the POTUS.

Are the contractors\employers required in any way to give them payment given that the plant had to close (I assume for security reasons)?

 

[The Greater Fool]

Reading through your explanation, it made me wonder if there's a legal requirement for something like this. As far as getting paid that is, since it's not technically a "rally" it was considered a government function of the POTUS.

Are the contractors\employers required in any way to give them payment given that the plant had to close (I assume for security reasons)?

The company could have said the site is closed for the day, no one get's paid (which is effectively what they did). In such cases, if employees have Vacation/PTO they can choose to use it that day to get a (nearly) full check.

Then the company could have invited any employees that wished to attend the means to do so (check in, breakfast, buses, etc.). No pay required.

Thus, again, this is a pay for play for those choosing to attend.

 

[plague311]

What's one way of getting Jewish voters to vote for you? Tell them they lack knowledge!

"I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat -- I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty," Trump said.

 

[Segnosaur]

What's one way of getting Jewish voters to vote for you? Tell them they lack knowledge!

"I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat -- I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty," Trump said.

Who exactly does he think they're being "disloyal" to?

The assumption is Trump was referring to Israel, but last time I checked, Israel was a separate country from the U.S., and being a citizen of one did not automatically make you a citizen of the other.

 

[Arcade22]

Apparently the Log Cabin Republicans have officially endorsed Trump for 2020. This is surprising given that Trump has consistently sided with evangelical reactionaries totally opposed to any and all LGBT rights.

He doesn't hesitate one second to bar trans people from the military just to placate one representative... who actually only asked for the military to stop funding their medicine and not bar them. Would Trump hesitate to bar homo/bisexuals from the military if his committed homophobes was nagging him about it?

Of course this only affected a very small, even negligible number of people... which is one of the reasons why one can only question why some people felt it was so important they be removed from the military.

For things that really matter, let it be known that The Trump Administration, which has said it would not lecture brutal dictators about torturing dissidents to death or murdering journalists in embassies, is standing up for gay rights abroad by supporting the legalization of gay sex. You won't hear that on the FAKE NEWS of course...

 

[Segnosaur]

So how to fix the economy and head off an upcoming recession?

Why, Tax cuts of course!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/20/politics/white-house-payroll-tax-cut-economy/index.html
...officials have discussed the possibility of a potential payroll tax cut to stave off anxiety over an economic slowdown in recent days.

Admittedly, a payroll tax cut would be better than what the republicans did last time (largely corporate tax cuts and estate tax cuts), it would still drive up the deficit even more, and the U.S. would still have to deal with certain infrastructure problems.

 

[plague311]

Apparently the Log Cabin Republicans have officially endorsed Trump for 2020. This is surprising given that Trump has consistently sided with evangelical reactionaries totally opposed to any and all LGBT rights.

Who else are they really going to back? It's not like there are a wide range of Republicans that are extremely open to homo\bisexual views. I don't think anyone is running against Trump this time around either. So it's either a) support him because he's running or b) don't support anyone at all. Might as well get their names in the paper.

Admittedly, a payroll tax cut would be better than what the republicans did last time (largely corporate tax cuts and estate tax cuts), it would still drive up the deficit even more, and the U.S. would still have to deal with certain infrastructure problems.

At least the middle class might actually get some benefit from that. Though not as much as they would like I would bet.

 

[Lurch]

So how to fix the economy and head off an upcoming recession?

Why, Tax cuts of course!

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/20/politics/white-house-payroll-tax-cut-economy/index.html
...officials have discussed the possibility of a potential payroll tax cut to stave off anxiety over an economic slowdown in recent days.

Admittedly, a payroll tax cut would be better than what the republicans did last time (largely corporate tax cuts and estate tax cuts), it would still drive up the deficit even more, and the U.S. would still have to deal with certain infrastructure problems.

Just *****' crazy. Reduce tax revenue in order to worsen the deficit just to allay anxiety for another fiscal quarter. Trump is trying to make the country as much a head-in-the-sand denialist as he himself is. The only tactic conceived is immediate relief; no thought given beyond that all too near horizon.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Just *****' crazy. Reduce tax revenue in order to worsen the deficit just to allay anxiety for another fiscal quarter. Trump is trying to make the country as much a head-in-the-sand denialist as he himself is. The only tactic conceived is immediate relief; no thought given beyond that all too near horizon.

That's not the near horizon, it's a cliff.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...



I've never said anything of the sort.

You did, you said they get their regular pay (some pay), just not the overtime.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My best guess is it's a distinction that literally makes no difference.....

This ^

Bottom line, Some people at some Trump rallies are entice with compensation to attend.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It can’t?

The money didn’t come out of President Trump’s pocket, did it?
President Trump didn’t decide that these people should be plaplaced in this position, did he?

I have a hard time placing this in top 300 most discussion-worthy comments and actions from DJT.

Nothing comes out of Trump's pocket. He uses campaign donors for everything. This is like paying off Karen and Stormy, someone else paid the money.

In this case there should definitely be a campaign finance investigation into whether those salary benefits constitute an undeclared campaign donation.

 

[a_unique_person]

Just *****' crazy. Reduce tax revenue in order to worsen the deficit just to allay anxiety for another fiscal quarter. Trump is trying to make the country as much a head-in-the-sand denialist as he himself is. The only tactic conceived is immediate relief; no thought given beyond that all too near horizon.

That is how Trump has lived his whole life.

 

[The Man]

Not forfeiting an amount of money you'd normally get is not the same thing as being paid to attend some event. That's quite different. From the title, you'd get the impression that people at Trump's rallies are paid to be there -- which wouldn't surprise me. But this isn't the case. It's people who are NOT going to be paid in full if they don't attent as part of their work.



No, just different. Different enough for the title to be misleading.

Nope, those that attended were clocked in and were paid for that time. That's paying them to attend as well as letting those know who didn't attend that they wouldn't be making their normal pay.

 

[The Man]

The one thing to be made clear here is that this was NOT something Trump or his campaign actually did. It was the company who was responsible.

Not sure if it was the company or the union, perhaps both.

 

[Arcade22]

Who else are they really going to back? It's not like there are a wide range of Republicans that are extremely open to homo\bisexual views. I don't think anyone is running against Trump this time around either. So it's either a) support him because he's running or b) don't support anyone at all. Might as well get their names in the paper.

Maybe it's time they reconsidered their political affiliations, since their party only seems to produce candidates that are either directly hostile towards their own interests, or merely tolerates them simply because there's nothing to gain from undermining them.

The only reason evangelical Christians are not focusing on bashing LGBT individuals and agitating against their freedoms is because it would be politically unpopular throughout much of the country.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump in the case of taxes, is following a long GOP tradition.

Reagan- big tax cuts, deficit soared.
GW- big tax cuts, said he was giving people their money, then he started a needless war and didn't pay for it.
And now Trump- big tax cuts especially ones he and he family enjoy, deficit is soaring.

In between Clinton and Obama repaired some of the damage.

Lying GOP continues to claim they are fiscally responsible and the Democrats overspend.

 

[The Man]

Right. Heart attack or murder. No difference.



But that's money they would've had anyway just for showing up to work that day. That the money would be denied if they didn't attend the event is a dick move, but it's not like paying actors to see his candidacy announcement back in 2015.

Were they able to show up for work that day? If so then there would be no need for the excused absence citation. What work can you do if everyone esle, most or just critical personnel is absent or at a rally?