US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by MaDef

Arizona is in the 9th circuit court district, and they're pretty liberal (75-80% of their rulings are overturned by the Supreme Court).

Oh, those were the guys who overturned the Travel ban weren't they?

[Catfish]

From Oberon's link, by Spicer:
"Trump WH won't ban specific media outlets. "That's what makes a democracy a democracy vs a dictatorship"

That is what makes Russia a flawless democracy, with their Pravda.
I guess Breitbart, Fox News, Daily Caller and American Thinker will be generously allowed to report what is regarded as "News", by Trump

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by MaDef

There's a difference between protesting and insurgency.
I don't think it will have as chilling effect on protests as some would have you believe. It may however make protesters think twice before crossing state lines to protest. (which is where the idea of professional protesters comes from). It may also be an oblique way to bring George Soros to heel.

I to have concerns that SB1142 (or similar bills) could be abused, but not for first amendment issues but for the fourth amendment . My concern is that the Governments (these are state and local laws) will see the seizure of assets as a revenue stream and start confiscating assets before due process is complete or mis-applying the law resulting in questionable seizures. This type of abuse is prevalent in the civil judicial forfeiture laws used in combating the drug trade.

Lol we been down that road already. I remember in the late eighties Miami. We would track smugglers as they brought in drugs, allowed them to land the goods, transport and distrubute it. Then seized everything and anything the drugs had come in contact with. Homes, real estate, boats, cars, trucks, warehouses, bank accounts, you name it we seized it before they even got a chance to go to court. Ahh those were the happy times life was easy. That didn't last long before those mean old constitutional lawyers got involved and put a stop to that.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Catfish

From Oberon's link, by Spicer:
"Trump WH won't ban specific media outlets. "That's what makes a democracy a democracy vs a dictatorship"

That is what makes Russia a flawless democracy, with their Pravda.
I guess Breitbart, Fox News, Daily Caller and American Thinker will be generously allowed to report what is regarded as "News", by Trump

The media outlets that Trump white house banned are still allowed to publish anything they want. Comparing that to 'Pravda' style propaganda is quite a stretch wouldn't you say?

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by u crank

The media outlets that Trump white house banned are still allowed to publish anything they want. Comparing that to 'Pravda' style propaganda is quite a stretch wouldn't you say?

True, but it's a first step in the direction. Erdoghan didn't proclaim himself dictator of Turkey for life overnight either and now he de facto is.
The problem here is that a lot of actions done by Trump and his guys have the same handwriting as the deeds some people did who then became dictators.

The question is how many steps can he take before it's too late to stop it?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

True, but it's a first step in the direction. Erdoghan didn't proclaim himself dictator of Turkey for life overnight either and now he de facto is.
The problem here is that a lot of actions done by Trump and his guys have the same handwriting as the deeds some people did who then became dictators.

The question is how many steps can he take before it's too late to stop it?

well no, that is a silly argument, that is a bit like me saying freedom of expression is a lot more restrictive in Germany, as you saw with the Bohmermann affair, so how long before the Death camps spring back up?

The First Amendment is carved in stone in the U.S. Constitution and the Courts are there to protect it.

The Obama WH did a lot worse. The Obama admin declared war on Fox news and cut off their access. The Obama admin sent more people to jail for leaking info to journalists than any previous admin. The Obama admin bugged journalist's phones, etc.

Where was the outrage back then?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

True, but it's a first step in the direction. Erdoghan didn't proclaim himself dictator of Turkey for life overnight either and now he de facto is.
The problem here is that a lot of actions done by Trump and his guys have the same handwriting as the deeds some people did who then became dictators.

The question is how many steps can he take before it's too late to stop it?

To me it seems like you (and others) are making a very big assumption here. You are assuming that Trump wants to be a dictatorial leader of The United States of America. 'They' said the same thing about Obama. For me I would like to see some solid evidence that this is a possibility or that Trump even wants to do it. Being the dictator of Turkey and being the dictator of the USA would be two completely different things. I don't think that needs explaining but I would say that the people who voted for Trump would probable be the most vigorously apposed to such a thing.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Catfish

From Oberon's link, by Spicer:
"Trump WH won't ban specific media outlets. "That's what makes a democracy a democracy vs a dictatorship"

That is what makes Russia a flawless democracy, with their Pravda.
I guess Breitbart, Fox News, Daily Caller and American Thinker will be generously allowed to report what is regarded as "News", by Trump

Ironically in Russia the state (through state owned companies) owns some of the opposition media that bashes the state. An example would be Echo of Moscow radio station, which belongs to Gasprom Media. In addition to that a lot of our media is published in a partnership with foreighn media, for example Vedomosti newspaper works with FT and WSJ, in fact that specific newspaper used to be foreighn owned.

Only comparatively recently we introduced copy pasted US laws regarding foreighn agents and introduced restrictions on the media ownership by foreighn companies and citisens. Those measures seek to restrict the ability of foreighn agents, such as USG (via sponsored "NGOs"), to manipulate internal political situation in Russia.

[Oberon]

I don't think he wants to be a dictator, but he does want the press to stop criticising him and he wants a freer hand to implement his and his advisors ideas, and since he's not been in politics before he doesn't understand that this is not how things tend to work.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by u crank

To me it seems like you (and others) are making a very big assumption here. You are assuming that Trump wants to be a dictatorial leader of The United States of America.

I don't think he actually wants that (yet). I just say that he behaves like Putin, Erdoghan and co. and that is worrying enough. We'll have to see where this is going but I don't like the general direction at all.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Oberon

but he does want the press to stop criticising him and he wants a freer hand to implement his and his advisors ideas,

I think it goes without saying that every politician wants this to some degree.

And this conflict between the President and media types that he doesn't like is nothing new.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us...ics/23fox.html

From Michael Clemente, senior vice president for news and editorial programming at Fox..

Mr. Clemente suggested that the fight was part of a larger White House strategy to marginalize critics. He cited a report in Politico about a strategy session in August at which officials discussed plans to move more aggressively against opponents.

Sound familiar?

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

True, but it's a first step in the direction. Erdoghan didn't proclaim himself dictator of Turkey for life overnight either and now he de facto is.
The problem here is that a lot of actions done by Trump and his guys have the same handwriting as the deeds some people did who then became dictators.

The question is how many steps can he take before it's too late to stop it?

First step? When it comes to the press Hitler, Erdoghan, Stalin, Gengis Khan, Pol Pot pale in comparison to the censorship of President Abraham Lincoln's administration. But as you can see we survived.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by u crank

I think it goes without saying that every politician wants this to some degree.

And this conflict between the President and media types that he doesn't like is nothing new.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us...ics/23fox.html

From Michael Clemente, senior vice president for news and editorial programming at Fox..



Sound familiar?

I've heard that (or similar) every election since I was old enough to quit wearing short pants.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by u crank

I think it goes without saying that every politician wants this to some degree.

And this conflict between the President and media types that he doesn't like is nothing new.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us...ics/23fox.html

From Michael Clemente, senior vice president for news and editorial programming at Fox..



Sound familiar?

Absolutely, the role of government does tend to be to create more government. As the old saying goes 'The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy'.
But, it's been a long time since the White House has actively shunned select media from White House briefing or gaggle though, hasn't it? I mean, even the chief political anchor at Fox thought this was a step too far:

https://twitter.com/BretBaier/status/835206562549493760

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Oberon

But, it's been a long time since the White House has actively shunned select media from White House briefing or gaggle though, hasn't it?

In a perfect world the role of the media would be to simply report the news and separate their opinion pieces from that news. I think it is safe to say that those days are gone for good and a new reality is with us. In the case of President Trump and the 'left leaning' media it's hard to say who is the enabler.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/o...upid-love.html

And while many in the press may disdain the way Trump uses them to rile up crowds and deflect from transgressions, they know they have a rare story and a tantalizing, antagonizing protagonist.

As the New York Times White House reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted in January: “Trump has frequently complained about my reporting,” yet, “He remains the most accessible politician I’ve ever covered.”

Who needs who the most here? Hard to say but I have a feeling that Trump is much more valuable to these people than Clinton would have ever been. For me to believe that these media outlets are criticizing Trump on principle alone would take a lot of alcohol and a briefcase full of money.

From the same article....

He is the biggest story on the planet, “King Lear meets Rodney Dangerfield,” as Lloyd Grove tweeted after Trump’s recent press conference. As our new president is well aware, he’s a rainmaker and a troublemaker for media.