Trump Not Even Waiting To Get Into Office Before Threatening The First Amendment, Press Freedoms
from the quick-on-the-draw dept
During the campaign and after his win, President Elect Donald Trump has been remarkably consistent on his calls for curtailing the rights afforded to the American people and our news organizations by the First Amendment. Between threatening lawsuits over campaign ads, suggesting that political protests ought to be stopped, and mocking free speech in more general terms, the soon-to-be President has positioned himself to be a challenger to long-held freedoms for which very real blood has been shed to protect.
But it seems the President Elect is not content to wait to enter office to try to begin this erosion of the First Amendment. Amidst a week of turmoil over the publication of comments about the classified briefing he, amongst others, received detailing intelligence findings about Russian involvement in the previous election cycle, Donald Trump has called upon Congress to investigate how this information was leaked to NBC News.
“I am asking the chairs of the House and Senate committees to investigate top secret intelligence shared with NBC prior to me seeing it,” he tweeted. "Before I, or anyone, saw the classified and/or highly confidential hacking intelligence report, it was leaked out to @NBCNews. So serious!" he added on Sunday.
We should note first the dissonance in Trump's stance and the Inception-esque nature of NBC's reporting. Essentially, NBC was reporting on a leak of a classified briefing that accused Russia of actively hacking, and then leaking, internal DNC communications. It's a leak about intelligence of a leak, in other words. And the DNC leaks were prominent talking points by Trump during the campaign, at times being read verbatim by the candidate at rallies, while at other times he simply read to the crowd news reports of the leaks. Those leaks were kosher, it seems, yet the NBC reports deserve Congressional investigation.
Perhaps more importantly, the prospect of Congress hauling journalists before the government to answer questions about their sources for the leaks takes the country back to a time prior to the precedent of not doing this.
Congressional committees, including the House and Senate intelligence committees, do technically have the authority to investigate the leak and subpoena NBC News reporters. But they are not likely to do so, media attorney Mark Zaid told POLITICO.
“I’d say there is little to no chance that Congress would get involved with any kind of classified media leak investigation,” he said. “Could they? Sure. Do they? No.”
In fact, the last time Congress did something like this was back in the 1970s, when a CBS reporter, Daniel Schorr, got his hands on a classified report from the House intelligence committee about illegal conduct perpetrated by the CIA. Schorr refused to name his source for the document in front of Congress, risking imprisonment, a punishment that was never actually levied. Given that the document Schorr used in his reporting, and subsequently shared with other news organizations, detailed only internal CIA practices and the government's assessments of them, returning to this kind of dangerous meddling by the government into news reporting over a document that deals with foreign spycraft would be strange indeed.
Strange, and dangerous, according to Joseph Califano, Jr., the man who represented Schorr during the ordeal.
Califano was dismayed after hearing about Trump’s tweet.
“That is a savage attack on the First Amendment,” he said. “We’ve been through this. Reporters have confidential sources. That’s become a hallowed part of the First Amendment and the ability of reporters to report. … These committees should not be getting into that.”
"If the government wants to find out who leaked and it’s somebody in the government, and if the intelligence community wants to find out who leaked, the Justice Department can go look at the CIA and look at all the national intelligence agencies," he said. "Not the reporter. That’s the wrong way to do it. That is really a serious erosion of a freedom that is essential."
But, as we've said, President Elect Trump has shown little regard for either the First Amendment or for the customs and norms of government action. Instead, he at times looks to wield government power as though it were his personal cudgel against his perceived political enemies. For anyone interested in a thriving and free America, whatever your political proclivities, whomever you may have voted for, the warning bells should be ringing loud and clear.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: donald trump, first amendment, free speech, leaks, reporting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
T Minus 8 Days ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe ya shouldn't be skipping those daily intelligence meetings after all huh Trumpet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, Trump had a part in that by batching up his reports, delaying the time until he actually saw the information. But this really is an issue. It basically means that Trump can't trust any of the classification headers on his briefings, but must assume that someone in a trusted position is leaking information to those NOT in a trusted position.
If I were in this position, it would drastically change the way I conduct briefings, and possibly cause me to clean house of ALL those who had access to the material; directors, aides, etc. It's the only way to be sure, and it's not like Trump hasn't shown that he's got other people he feels are qualified to take over.
It's not about the first amendment, and it's not about press freedoms: it's about trusting the people who brief you. The investigation doesn't even have to include NBC; it has to include those who actually leaked the info.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why? There's no evidence that this happened.
The dossier originate outside of any US intelligence agency. Whomever handed it to them likely also handed it to news agencies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So you're for Nuking it from orbit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So now he cares about leaked information? I say we do what every conservative has been telling us to do since the DNC emails were leaked - focus on the message and not the source.
Karma's a bitch, isn't it PeeOTUS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And hasn't fake news been around for, well, since print? Isn't it all up to the idiot with the eyes in the end? How is this even a thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
since when do red necks even know that word?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You know what's ACTUALLY fake news? That Obama was born in Kenya. Or that Cruz's father helped assassinate JFK. Or any one of a hundred blatantly false things Trump said during the campaign, and continues to say now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The racist conspiritards started making that claim in early 2008 when Obama was doing well in the primaries. As your link shows, the booklet wasn't dredged up until 2012. By Breitbart, naturally.
By mid-2008 Obama's birth certificate had been released and validated by Vital Statistics in Hawaii. His birth announcement had been found in two local papers - placed there by Vital Statistics, not the family. Only the most sub-moronic and delusional racist conspiritards were still making the claim in 2012. In other words, Breitbart's core audience. Including Donald Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their proof that he wasn't born in the US? Nothing. They "felt" the documents might not be real, and they point to interview outtakes and book misprints stating that Obama was born in Kenya (which, he was - Barack Obama *senior* at least. There's no evidence that Barack Obama Jr., his son and President of the United States was).
That's why these people are usually referred to as racists. There is literally nothing approaching sanity that would make anyone even consider that he wasn't born in the state of Hawaii - unless you really have a problem with something visibly different between him and previous office holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He provided his birth certificate in mid-2008. It was authenticated at the time by Vital Statistics in Hawaii. Full stop.
Make no mistake; this was THE birth certificate. The official record. If you were born in Hawaii at any time and requested a copy of your birth certificate, what the birthers mislabel as the "short form" is what you would receive. Regardless of the original format on file.
The original was still on file, and in 2008 the registrar stated that she had seen it. I think even the Republican governor of Hawaii stated that he had seen it.
But yes, not doubt there IS a back-story:
Consider Val McClatchey, who took the only known picture of the smoke cloud from the explosion of Flight 93 on 9/11. Because this contradicted the conspiritards, they've endlessly stalked and harassed her. The same happened to the 2008 registrar who authenticated Obama's birth certificate. The same happens to parents of children killed in the Newtown Massacre.
And no doubt it would have happened to the retired doctor and registrar on the original birth certificate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If you were born in Hawaii at any time and requested a copy of your birth certificate, what the birthers mislabel as the "short form" is what you would receive. Regardless of the original format on file."
Don't get mad at me for this, but this statement is not entirely correct. See statement below.
"But there are particular times when the long form is required, such as "for foreign adoptions or applications for dual citizenship,"
I will point out however, and I'll assume we are in agreement on this, the long form IS NOT required to be supplied as proof to be the President, just the short. So once the short form was supplied, the conversation should have ended.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/q-and-a/a9807/long-form-birth-certificate-5649302/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The AC didn't say it was true, he just stated he thinks, and he said it as a matter of fact but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, that that is the reason people believed he was not born in the U.S. You think he's a liar because of that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The AC claimed that it started the birther claims. Not only is that a lie, but its a goddamned stupid one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But look. I'm just pointing out the evidence and the time line that I'm finding in my research. I would like to also point out that the "birthers" that started this were Democrat, not Republican. The Republicans may have ran with it, but they didn't start it.
If you want more sources, you can google it and see. I stopped at 2 as I don't have much time to post right now.
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/birtherism-where-it-all-began-053563?paginate=false
http:// time.com/4496792/birther-rumor-started/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A low-level local official in the Democratic Party down south made some claims at the beginning of 2008, which were quickly shot down and disproven. That does not begin to excuse the firehose of racist conspirtard wingnuttery coming from all over the right, from WorldNetDaily and Breitbart to the current president-elect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Politifact has a good history of this.
"There is no evidence that Clinton or her 2008 campaign ever floated the theory. While Clinton supporters circulated the allegations the last time she ran for president, they had no ties to either the candidate or her staff."
The only thing I questions is the below statement. They say "Clinton supporters circulated the allegations", then they say that "they had no ties to either candidate".
So a rogue supporter did this maybe?
Also;
"Clinton supporters circulated the rumor in the last days of the 2008 Democratic primary and after Clinton had conceded to Obama. But the record does not show Clinton or her campaign ever promoting the birther theory, let alone starting it."
So Clinton "supporters" circulated it? I think that is much different than Clinton personally starting it, but I can see where someone may think that.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/16/donald-trump/fact-checking-donal d-trumps-claim-hillary-clinton-/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it takes a true right winger to pick it up and run with long after saner minds have considered it a non-issue and proven it not to be true. You'll notice that they dropped the issue almost as soon as it was raised, whereas Palin's supporters ran with it for years.
Nice deflection though - but you're basically saying that even if you're dumb enough to believe in the false dichotomy, "the right" can't even come up with their own half-assed lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I'm sure you will figure it out soon - lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's been flinging shit around like a monkey with diarrhea. It was inevitable that he'd get some on himself at some point.
I'm laughing like hell at you, trying to defend this piss-poor (see what I did there?) excuse of a person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The fact that the President-elect decided to move int he same direction as Putin and Erdogan is telling of the nature of the character. And this is the person that not even 50% of the tallied votes voted for.
Stunning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm laughing like hell at the irony.
Remember when Trump was saying Obama was born in Kenya?
Ted Cruz's dad linked to the JFK assassin?
Pizzagate?
All I know is what's on the Internet?
The chickens have come home to roost, and until I see proof otherwise, Trump likes piss games.
Yes karma's a bitch and she has her eyes fixated on the PeeOTUS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk about fake news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Talk about fake news
You know, just like the claims that Obama was born in Kenya. Sure, those claims from WorldNetDaily and others were fake news, repeated only by racist delusional conspiritards. But once those racist delusional conspiritards included someone prominent like Donald Trump, the existence of the claim was very much real news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Talk about fake news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
But now government intelligence agencies have briefed the President, President-elect and senate leaders on the dossier. While that doesn't verify the allegations, it makes them a real newsworthy story.
As for your CNN wingnuttery...
Back in 2007 news broke that Halliburton had lost $billions in government money shipped to Iraq. Entire cargo pallets of money disappeared. A major embarrassment for Bush's administration, let alone former CEO and still stock-holder Dick Cheney.
And then Playboy Playmate Anna Nicole Smith died.
Even the Daily Show - a comedy show - covered the Iraq money story and showed footage of Halliburton and military officials each giving their "I dunno..." in front of Congress. Foreign news services like The Guardian and BBC covered the story. But American news services ignored it.
CNN instead switched to 24-7 dead bimbo coverage for the week, and did not have room for the Iraq money story.
If anything they're partisan towards the Republicans. They just don't look it when compared to Fox News. But then you probably migrated to Breitbart years ago because Fox News was too lib'rul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
maybe if you removed those blinders .. ahhh screw it, not worth the effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
You go to great lengths to excuse the lies and fake news from the media and your candidates. No wonder you are losing so badly.
Tell me - if you knew he liked piss so much, would you still have voted for him?
Karma's a bitch, isn't it?
Chickens have come home to roost right on the PeeoTUS's head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
That's quite the commie lib'rul anti-Trump bias they've got there. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Talk about fake news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Talk about fake news
The problem is that "fake news" doesn't really have a clear definition. It's a meaningless term.
Following the election, the term was popularized as a reference to sites designed to deliberately trick readers into thinking they were respected news sources, populated with entirely fictional stories.
That's not the same thing as bad reporting, or false reporting, or reporting of unsubstantiated allegations.
And, not for nothin', guys like Stewart, Colbert, and Oliver have been using the phrase "fake news" for some time to refer to satirical programming that apes the style of news programming, which is yet another different thing.
I think fake news is a bad, unclear, and often misleading term. There are clearer phrases you can use, instead of just parroting political talking points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Talk about fake news
Bullshit.
fake
adjective
not genuine; imitation or counterfeit.
"she got on the plane with a fake passport"
synonyms: forgery, counterfeit, copy, sham, fraud, hoax, imitation, mock-up, dummy, reproduction, lookalike, likeness
antonyms: genuine
news
noun
newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent events.
"I've got some good news for you"
a broadcast or published report of news.
plural noun: the news
'He was back in the news again"
synonyms: report, announcement, story, account
The words are clearly defined so putting them together makes something also pretty clearly defined. What fake news is not is facts and opinions that someone doesn't agree with or doesn't want to believe, which is the definition that many, Trump supporters in particular, seem to be suddenly using. Intelligent people know exactly what fake news actually is, even if they're deliberately abusing the term for their supposed benefit. Idiots may genuinely not understand the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
"Intelligent people know exactly what fake news actually is,"
Wow, they must be clairvoyant too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
I recall a "fake" news story getting posted on this site not to long ago. They got suckered, but that doesn't mean they are not intelligent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
Do you need to be one to understand dictionary definitions?
*"Wow, they must be clairvoyant too."*
I thought it was pretty clear I was referring to knowing what *the definition of the term* fake news is, not whether a news item is fake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
In other words, anything from The Onion ("imitation") to a layout proof filled with lorem ipsum ("mock-up") to a site that just reposts other sites' stories with an aggregator and misattributes them ("copy"). Because words have more than one meaning.
Yes, and this abuse and ignorance are possible because "fake news" is a nebulous, ambiguous term.
If you mean forgery or counterfeit, say forgery or counterfeit. It may not be as concise, but it's a lot clearer.
This is the entirely predictable result of a poorly-chosen phrase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
The thing about communication is it requires more than one person to engage in it. It's not what you think that matters.
By "originally" you mean when the term entered heavy rotation this past November, right? As I said, Stewart and Colbert self-applied the term "fake news" for years prior to that. Colbert himself has expressed some annoyance at the phrase's recent usage; I don't remember his exact phrasing but it was something like, "Fake news is what we do. This is just lying."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
Actually for us to have a discussion what I think *does* matter, just as what you think matters. Otherwise what the hell are we doing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
I thought fake news is rumor or counterfactual claims that are presented as genuine news.
The Onion might qualify as fake news if it's not recognized as satire, though since The Onion does satire exclusively, and most readers recognize most Onion articles immediately as satire, it doesn't qualify as fake news.
I'm not so sure about tabloid news. My impression is that many people who read it believe it.
A more classic term for fake news would be false propaganda which is to say, news releases that are intended to sway minds towards an ideology, where the details are counterfactual.
What seems important about fake news is not merely that it's false, but it's intended to sway minds how to vote and how to act. There's a term for that...
Incitement? Instigation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Talk about fake news
CNN talked only about the existence of the documents Buzzfeed leaked and speculation on the credibility of those documents; it did so because those documents are newsworthy if they are legit (and no one has come forward with evidence to disprove them, including Trump). CNN neither mentioned details contained in the documents nor said that all the documents are completely factual. If anything, the way CNN reported on the documents is the "fair and balanced" or "objective" take on the matter that people complain does not exist in the press any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Talk about fake news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
Wow, you so changed my mind - I'm convinced.
And those damn videos that someone faked, you know .. of donny bragging about grabbing womens crotches, and the video of donny making fun of that handicapped dude - all fake.
Wow, how dare those libtards lie to the american people like that, no wonder donny won the popular vote by so many millions.
But the one thing that is endearing about donny is the fact that he is straight forward in answering all questions succinctly and thoroughly. He never deflects, for example, he could simply respond to every question with a little tidbit about how horrible Hillary is, but he does not - he has the strength of ten bulls resisting the temptation to attack other like a child .. unlike Hillary!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
Actually, YOU were had by 4chan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Talk about fake news
That's gold Jerry, gold!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Talk about fake news
Did CNN run an article purported to be from Buzz Feed but was actually fake? This is horrendous!
Is "the left" more or less worried than "the right" about the news, fake or not, that Donny likes golden showers?
Does Kellyanne Conway, Chief Deflection and Projection Manager, make up that bullshit all on her own or does she get help from elementary school children? It is rather impressive how she can come up with astonishing levels of bullshit seemingly on the spot. Scary but impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Talk about fake news
Since the left is really worried about fake news, maybe they could take a look at what is going on at CNN and Buzzfeed?
It's always best to clean your own house before asking someone else to clean theirs.
Mmmmkay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember that rumor that Trump would nominate Thiel to the supreme court? Yeah, if that comes to pass we may as well just start preparing the rockets so we can blast ourselves off this planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guiliani to head Trumps Cybersecurity team. What does Gulliani know about Cybersecurity?
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/US-Trump-The-Latest/2017/01/12/id/768189/
Techdirt, what does former NYC MAYOR RUDY GUILIANI know about Cybersecurity. I did not know Guilianni was a Cybersecurity expert? Can any Techdirt comment or answer this question? Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guiliani to head Trumps Cybersecurity team. What does Gulliani know about Cybersecurity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The over the top outrage being peddled has the effect of normalizing Trump. He becomes relatable when such outlandish claims are reported which are completely devoid of supporting documentation aside from repeating a claim with enough frequency as to become as annoying as "Head-on, Applied Directly to the Forehead".
As a Democrat I'm frustrated. There are real issues and criticisms I want addressed that are dispersed and overwhelmed by all the pissing in the wind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It was good for a few laughs but now the bugger is doing really stupid shit. What an ass clown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are real issues and criticisms I want addressed that are dispersed and overwhelmed by all the pissing in the wind.
I see what you did there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
considering Trump always lies, what he says is useless anyway.
More accurately: considering Trump's reality continuously changes, what he says is useless anyway.
The press will need to start taking a more empirical approach to the presidency, ignoring what he telegraphs he'll do for what orders he's made, and what those orders mean (or could mean) on the context of prior, related orders.
It might be a good era for career hackers as well if they can intercept intra-office communications.
Considering the duplicitous nature of US national politics such a change may prove to be ultimately for the better. Pics or it didn't happen: we believe the intents of our officials only when we see results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not important says Drumpf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The US Two-party system hasn't worked for a while.
At least not for we, the people. It works great for limiting our choices so we have to choose someone wholly corporate-owned.
The problem is we made it too difficult to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The US Two-party system hasn't worked for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The US Two-party system hasn't worked for a while.
It pissed me off that Clinton was handled with kid gloves when she fell under fire of the CFAA and Espionage acts while we have activists and whistleblowers who languish in prison for doing no more than she did.
But where Clinton was one of America's elite and immune to the common law that oppresses the rest of us Trump is, by comparison, a monster. He loves only himself, and was happy to marginalize (if not outlaw) large blocs of Americans to win the election.
I worry that he is so addicted to winning and afraid of losing that he will scorch the earth, possibly literally, when his hour is done.
I came to terms with my distaste for Clinton's position in the elite because it was a choice between a bandit and a demon from beyond the pale. At least the bandit could be negotiated with. At least she'd respond to activist pressure.
To be fair, though, I've not been able to trust the Republican party since Bush. He, too, was voted in with a majority and campaigned as a slightly-right moderate, a compassionate conservative, but once in office he went far right, and that was even before 9/11.
Since 2001, (more thanks to Tom Delay than bush) the GOP doesn't compromise. They don't negotiate across the line, and they prioritize partisanship over governance, so yeah, a Republican dominated regime has gone from inconvenient to outright hostile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The US Two-party system hasn't worked for a while.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-spending-idUSKBN1341JR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The US Two-party system hasn't worked for a while.
Except that he played on the marginalization of huge swaths of Americans in order to appeal to the proles and endorsed violence against anyone who spoke against him. Trump rallies were markedly similar to National Socialist rallies in the 1930s.
He is anti-establishment, but he's not reform anti-establishment, he's watch-the-world-burn anti-establishment, and I'm terrified we're going to soon be regretting the loss of those parts of establishment that we liked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The US Two-party system hasn't worked for a while.
It is true that low-IQ Hillary voters did attack rallies in San Jose, Chicago, Albuquerque, etc., but they were egged on by her campaign, and probably her benefactors, that's where the blame should be placed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The US Two-party system hasn't worked for a while.
Were there incidents in which Clinton offered to pay the legal fees of someone who committed assault at one of her rallies? Or something similar happened?
I may not be a professional historian, but considering the magnitude of the tragedy in Germany, it's something certainly worth studying, if nothing else to understand how to prevent it from happening again.
And we are seeing a number of comparable symptoms today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Until those powers are used by a more censorship happy Congress. Am I the only one worried about the fact that they have the power to do it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We can manage seeing food on display without stuffing ourselves before the register, and we manage not tackling prospective members of the opposite sex on sight (well, some do, and others put them out of sight).
But this hate thing just doesn't seem to be as obvious in the repertoire of things people need to internalize in order to count as members of civilization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
his title.
A complete and fake article, to vent his
spleen because his Rotham lost the election.
TG, you should be calling out the MSM and the
lies they print.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
obama already destroyed the 1st A. with the NDAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: obama already destroyed the 1st A. with the NDAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]