ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%

  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%
  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
So if that person snitches on Hiliary now she is free and clear of any wrong doing? Is that what they are saying?

WTF can Hiliary get to be nominee?

It will be ironic if republicans really prop up Cruz or Rubio to divide their voter base and it is only 2 republicans running when she is indicted.
 
just read Trump's health care plan. entirely [laughing]-worthy

you'd have a better chance of passing the ACA again than you would of passing Trump's wish list.
 
I read it and it sounds conservative. Not sure why a republican congress and senate wouldn't agree with it honestly.
 
Bill Cosby said:
I'm about as pro 1st amendment as it gets, but why should there have to be a malicious intent for a media outlet to be liable for publishing a false story about a public figure?

And is that statutory or something grounded in case law that no blow hard can just change with a pen anyway?


Fuzz has far more faith in SCOTUS than I do. Absolutely no doubt, SCOTUS would start cutting back the 1st Amendment in this day and age. And if Obama get's another appointment, good night. You can't even fart on a college campus these days the way the left has pushed the PC bullshit.
Click to expand...
Because we should have the freedom to question, report,critique, criticize, insult, speak freely about our leaders without fear of retribution. As a public figure, being in the limelight should be definition give you a thicker skin than the average citizen, so hence a malice test.

There are different tests for which type of public figure, general or all purpose. general is someone who thrusts themselves into the limelight purposefully, all purpose is your basic all around public figure who is famous 365. There are different standards for public figures, different case law.

I remember Ariel Sharon in a case against Time magazine or Ny Times, and actually won for defemation, but not 100%. Maybe settled, so you can prove it.

Most of it comes from case law. New York v. Sullivan (which set the malice standard) is the main one, with other cases determining how you test for public figures vs non-public figures.
 
Of course you don't like it your a democrat.

What's not to like?

1- no longer paying fine for not having insurance
2- no more state to state boundaries
3- write the whole premium off of taxes

Instead of laughing explain what is so bad? Most of America hates obamacare, and those are good changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigblueinsanity and drawing_dead
krazykats said:
Of course you don't like it your a democrat.

What's not to like?

1- no longer paying fine for not having insurance
2- no more state to state boundaries
3- write the whole premium off of taxes

Instead of laughing explain what is so bad? Most of America hates obamacare, and those are good changes.
Click to expand...
i didn't say it was bad. i said it has zero chance of passing (whether it be a Republican or a Democratic congress)

if you think Pharma is going to let Americans buy drugs at international prices or that hospitals are going to facilitate cost transparency, you're delusional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Free_Salato_Blue
Not delusional at all, I misunderstood.

So we are back to corporate ran America even if a guy like Trump can buck the system and win. Amazing really and a complete systems failure all around.

Not to say I understand why Obama had done what he has but sometimes let's just say I can see why he has a few times.

You know what should win an election, a candidate saying no more than 3 term for congress or senate. Now that would be amazing!
 
12821540_10100420899990399_6572121486684051634_n.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: AustinTXCat, wkycatfan and qwesley
if there were any doubt that US (special forces) ground troops were engaging ISIS, it was removed today.

the first time they catch an American serviceman and film him in HD being burned alive in a cage, sh*t's gonna get real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wkycatfan
fuzz77 said:
Trump also blows a lot of hot air. He threatens to sue people all the time...rarely does he...mostly because the suits would be baseless. He could try to change those laws but the SCOTUS would strike them down. Last time I checked "purposely negative and horrible and false articles" = "intention of malice" which is already in the law.

He said he’s “going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.”
“We’re going to open up those libel laws. So that when the New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected,” Trump said.
Trump told the media that “we’re gonna have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before.”
Current libel law dictates that public figures can only win a lawsuit against a media outlet if they can prove that the paper published a negative piece with the intention of malice.
Click to expand...

yep, right . . . intention of malice against a public figure . . . impossible to prove. Gives media a perma-shield against libel for almost any and everything they could possibly imagine to speak or print, as never can it be truly known what they, or who specifically, had in their heart-of-hearts, as necessary to determine any malicious intent. Speaking only for myself, I don't care either way, but I really see zero impingement on individual freedom of speech if media sources found themselves spending a little more time in court, as indeed they do write things against public figures time and again untrue, and indeed often motivated maliciously. There is less threat in this process to overall 1st Amendment / freedom of speech rights and liberties than there was when the assault weapons ban threatened overall 2nd Amendment rights and liberties. The former at worst case resulting in rich media ownership sending rich lawyers to shrug if off in court, the latter in a bunch of semi-autos.
 
jamo0001 said:
if there were any doubt that US (special forces) ground troops were engaging ISIS, it was removed today.
Click to expand...

There has never been any doubt. Most of the stories you can find about it provide a recount of the Delta operative killed during an raid on an ISIS location in northern Iraq October of last year, along with a reminder of Delta activities in Syria against ISIS last May. Both of those stories, when made public last year, were a bit out of the norm, as Delta activities were rarely publicized. Until this administration, almost never. prayers for successful, casualty-free missions.
 
NATO's top general accused Russia and Syria of fomenting a mass exodus of refugees as a "weapon" against the West.

Philip Breedlove, the supreme allied commander in Europe for the 28-member military alliance, told US lawmakers on Tuesday that the mass bombing of civilian targets appeared to serve no other purpose than to weaken Europe by creating a massive, and continuous, wave of people desperate for food, shelter and safety.

"Together, Russia and the Assad regime are deliberately weaponizing migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve," Breedlove told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
 
Perhaps he can help make America great again by teaching us how to start on third base (ignore Trump Water, Trump Mortgage, Trump Pictures, USFL, etc etc).

Moreover, Trump’s claim that he built a real-estate fortune out of a “small” $1 million loan is simply not credible. He benefited from numerous loans and loan guarantees, as well as his father’s connections, to make the move into Manhattan. His father also set up lucrative trusts to provide steady income. When Donald Trump became overextended in the casino business, his father bailed him out with a shady casino-chip loan—and Trump also borrowed $9 million against his future inheritance. While Trump asserts “it has not been easy for me,” he glosses over the fact that his father paved the way for his success — and that his father bailed him out when he got into trouble.

For ignoring and playing down the substantial advantages his father’s wealth gave him, Trump earns Four Pinocchios.
 
qwesley said:
Perhaps he can help make America great again by teaching us how to start on third base (ignore Trump Water, Trump Mortgage, Trump Pictures, USFL, etc etc).

Moreover, Trump’s claim that he built a real-estate fortune out of a “small” $1 million loan is simply not credible. He benefited from numerous loans and loan guarantees, as well as his father’s connections, to make the move into Manhattan. His father also set up lucrative trusts to provide steady income. When Donald Trump became overextended in the casino business, his father bailed him out with a shady casino-chip loan—and Trump also borrowed $9 million against his future inheritance. While Trump asserts “it has not been easy for me,” he glosses over the fact that his father paved the way for his success — and that his father bailed him out when he got into trouble.

For ignoring and playing down the substantial advantages his father’s wealth gave him, Trump earns Four Pinocchios.
Click to expand...

You're being generous with the use of third base...
 
wkycatfan said:
Roger Ailes says he's done with Rubio.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271569-report-fox-news-finished-with-rubio
Click to expand...

This is the shameless truth that Fox "News" is in fact an arm of the Republican party. I wonder if MSNBC has secret meetings with Democrats? If they do then they are just as bad, but I haven't heard that accusation against them at least.

Anyway....

--According to three Fox sources, Fox chief Roger Ailes has told people he's lost confidence in Rubio's ability to win. "We're finished with Rubio," Ailes recently told a Fox host. "We can't do the Rubio thing anymore." --

In a now widely reported secret dinner Rubio got Ailes to give him favorable coverage:

But the more proximate cause for the flip was an embarrassing New York Timesarticle revealing that Rubio and Ailes had a secret dinner meeting in 2013 during which the Florida senator successfully lobbied the Fox News chief to throw his support behind the "Gang of 8" comprehensive immigration-reform bill. "Roger hates seeing his name in print," a longtime Ailes associate told me. "He was appalled the dinner was reported," the source said.

The Kingmaker is pissed.



 
Good grief FTS, just read the released hillary emails. There is not a major media outlet that the DNC does NOT have some control on coverage (other than Fox).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bigblueinsanity and wkycatfan
Trump supporters, like Obama supporters, have dug in. No negative stuff gets through the goalie. What he is adding are people that just want to back who they think will win.
 
Romney's to dumb to realize him giving a high profile speech denouncing Trump is a bigger boost to the Donald than him endorsing someone. or even better, stay on the sidelines and shut the hell up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigblueinsanity
Mime-Is-Money said:
I'm assuming the double standard is the issue here. You can't advocate for limiting the reach of our federal government while simultaneously benefiting from one of its most severe perceived abuses of power.



That's another discussion. But the underlying morality of the practice, specifically if it benefits private developers, will always be questioned independent of its legality.

Bill Clinton put stuff into other living things during his presidency while signing the Defense of Marriage Act. His placement of said junk in precarious places is perfectly legal, yet completely hypocritical and obviously detrimental to his character.
Click to expand...

Does that mean every candidate who rails against the tax code should also forego any tax deductions? I see nothing wrong acknowledging the system is broken, expressing a desire to fix it, but utilizing it to your benefit until its fixed.

Bill Cosby said:
I'm about as pro 1st amendment as it gets, but why should there have to be a malicious intent for a media outlet to be liable for publishing a false story about a public figure?

And is that statutory or something grounded in case law that no blow hard can just change with a pen anyway?
Click to expand...

Yes its case law. NYT v Sullivan. SCOTUS case.

qwesley said:
Breaking: Justice Department gives immunity to State Department staffer who set up Clinton email server http://wapo.st/1TTv3cV
Click to expand...

jamo0001 said:
i would assume the immunity would be in exchange for testimony, but who knows
Click to expand...

Normally, I couldnt imagine any other reason. But this is Hillary.

qwesley said:
Good grief FTS, just read the released hillary emails. There is not a major media outlet that the DNC does NOT have some control on coverage (other than Fox).
Click to expand...

Doesnt matter which side, the media just needs out of it. We need the media to go back to telling us the facts, and letting us make our own decisions. All the spin needs to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phil_The_Music
Heard on the radio: Crying John Boehner, Paul Rino and B*tch McConnell are the reason Republicans now have Donald Trump.
 
JHB4UK said:
Romney's to dumb to realize him giving a high profile speech denouncing Trump is a bigger boost to the Donald than him endorsing someone. or even better, stay on the sidelines and shut the hell up.
Click to expand...

The GOP establishment are too out of touch to realize this. Rather than change the tune, they think the audience just cant hear it. So they play it louder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: P19978
If Trump is smart tonight he will call Megyn Kelly and company out for their biased reporting throughout the entire campaign. The contrast could not be any clearer, and the debate stage tonight offers a golden opportunity for Trump to lay the facts out to 15 million people in real time.
 
I am not politics savvy so I ask with genuine curosity. Do any of you see this "inexpicable" Trump support as a backlash against a disrespected and even desmised media? We hear that it is "anti establishment". Is the mainstream media part of this "establishment"? Does the media hate that Trump does not play by their rules of political, liberal correctness?
 
  • Like
Reactions: P19978
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kyboss360

Sports Tweet thread:

Replies
0
Views
388
The House of Blue
kyboss360
kyboss360
wildblue4

Do you think it will rain???

Replies
28
Views
1K
The House of Blue
Chump Change X
Chump Change X
Jeff Drummond

Football ***** UK Football Fan Day Open Practice Notes *****

Replies
134
Views
8K
The House of Blue
Tskware
T
DraftCat

2024 Official Draft Day Thread

Replies
346
Views
11K
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
Katonic
K
bbncal02

***** OFFICIAL Southern Miss Vs. Kentucky Game Thread ******

Replies
683
Views
31K
Wildcat Lair - Football Forum
cardkilla
cardkilla
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back