If the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect citizens from governmental mandates.....what does that mean when POTUS declares what's "acceptable"?
Printable View
If the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect citizens from governmental mandates.....what does that mean when POTUS declares what's "acceptable"?
That our little orange terror is likely doing long lasting damage to the concept of the presidency as a bully pulpit and wiggin is likely face palming for suggesting it could ever have worked any other way.
The president is morally wrong, again, but he's saying what he knows will fire up his constituents. Recall, his deals with Nancy and Chuck disappointed those same constituents, so now he's got to rekindle their support. It SO does not matter to him what sort of harm such tactics might cause to any aspect of the nation.
I never suggested Donald Trump's version of the bully pulpit could do any good. I just wondered whether there were circumstances where the reputational risk of being called out by a non-terrible POTUS might have some value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
It does have a large effect, but that effect is conditional on a president's popularity. The main causal mechanism is that politicians fear the electoral consequences of publicly opposing a popular leader with a national constituency.
As long as the viewpoint doesn't get accompanied with actual government action it isn't concerning. Kinda dumb of Trump but... well we are used to that by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I'm concerned about that, especially since Trump has a way of 'normalizing' outlandish statements (or at least his base claims they like that he says things they think, without being concerned about political correctedness).Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It's also hypocritical for conservatives to complain about campus speech being stifled by liberals, but they aren't bothered by Trump saying the NFL should have rules to stand for the national anthem. What's next, another attempt to ban flag burning? It's hard to understand why Republicans aren't doing more to stand up to the crap Trump says, since they claim to be all about the Constitution and rule of law.
And while I'm at it....wtf Alabama??
Republicans are political critters...shocker.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And Democrats practically voiced that anyone who disagreed with Pres Obama was a racist.
Trump is the best thing to happen to show WHY you do not want all the power in the Presidency.
It's what I told my friends years ago: You want this very strong central government? Well, sooner or later you are gonna get someone you HATE in office with all this power...then you will complain about it.
Enjoy!
Veldan, nothing in your post addressed 1st Amendment issues under the Trump administration. :bored:
So far he's made comments that only exacerbate our divisions; from confederate statues and public protests, to saying the press is 'the enemy of the people' and MSM is 'fake news'. He continues to call the Russian investigation a 'hoax'. He tweeted about banning transgenders in the military! And now he's letting any business or corporation cite a 'moral objection' to subsidizing birth control for employees.
No, I don't think this is all just politics as usual. Trump may be all over the map when it comes to political speech, freedom of assembly, self-expression, religious liberties, or The Fourth Estate (since he treats everything like a reality TV show) -- but the serious people should be calling him out, especially congress.
So I don't meet your ever shifting standards, I'm just pointing out you pointing out hypocrisy with politicians is a big nothing.
I see you didn't address my point of this was easily foreseen when one branch gets too much power (never mind the federal government in total). Eventually you are going to get someone you hate, and in this sad case, someone we all on this forum despise. We have a spineless Republican congress, now imagine how shitty it would be if they all were actually working with him? This is the dread Libertarians have been pointing out, but folks like you refused to acknowledge.
You know, I keep hearing this trope again and again and again. Mind showing us some evidence that this was actually a widespread and common problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Ummm...watch American cable news networks during his eight years?
And...talking with my friends who are Democrats. It was plainly stated.
Was it? Then it shouldn't be hard to find proof. Other than your personal anecdotes, that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
You know, there are plenty of Dems on here. Where did we express that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
...
... perhaps these comments were in reference to racists disagreeing with Obama for racist reasons, using racist arguments and dog-whistling.
This is just such a strange argument. Even with shared or limited power, Trump can do a great deal of damage. Trump has accomplished extremely little wrt policy, and yet he has made the whole world a little less stable, made the entire US a lot more divided, made the lives of tens of millions of people less safe. The only way to completely neutralize this kind of harmful influence is to not have a president at all, and even that wouldn't be a solution. Trump doesn't demonstrate the virtue of libertarianism so much as he demonstrates the idiocy of the geniuses who actively cultivated the attitudes that helped him become president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Folks here tend not to be that partisan, especially as a good chunk of them are abroad...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
...then again...
You have to distinguish between people who call someone a racist simply for disagreeing with Obama and those who call someone who disagrees with Obama a racist for being a racist, saying racist things or supporting racist policies. If you can't make that distinction, it's an indicator of your own partisanship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Example from the left:Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0ed71826c6c1f
There's overwhelming evidence that racial resentment is the strongest predictor of support for Trump (both during the primary and the general election)...
I can readily believe that having Obama in the White House solidified and strengthened racist sentiments and coalitions and that those groups strongly supported Trump in the general election. It does not follow that they're the reason Trump is President* but they very clearly were and mostly remain strong supporters of him. We pointed out the David Duke endorsement during the campaign, for example.
*Every election, I have to remind people that absent some fairly unique conditions which did not apply to this US election or any other in recent history, you simply cannot partition the voters for a candidate and assign responsibility for victory to one sub-group and not the others
That article doesn't really say what you seem to think it says.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Riiight, as if Libertarians could have saved the Republican Party from its own grab for power? By going along with a POTUS that calls the Press "fake news" and undermines their 1st Amendment constitutional authority? While using Twitter for foreign policy? Pull my other thumb :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
We have a president/vice president that pays lip service to our military, and wraps it in the flag and national anthem, and calls that patriotism, and uses that for their own political ends. Such a shame. :(