[RD] GOP war on the First Amendment

More than some privacy. Why did Hillary Clinton set up the server if not to avoid questions?
My belief is the same as yours regarding her motive. It's the same reason why Trump broke his promise to release his tax records and his health records. One of those two people is newly receiving trademark protections from China.
If wikileaks is to be believed, the riots at Trump events were organized by DNC. Political correctness indeed.
This is an unfair summary of what information we have. Once you say 'riot', you're talking about a criminal act. But hey, litigate the past. One of the two candidates is now talking about banning the allowedness of newspapers using anonymous sources.
 
Last edited:
When one offers the "one-bad-apple argument", you ridicule.

Because that argument is a mischaracterization of the proverb.

The saying is "a few bad apples spoil the barrel." It's saying the exact opposite of what people using the proverb want it to. Find a different proverb.
 
Remember facts have a Liberal Bias



I imagine this treatment of the IC, Neighbouring countries, US traditional Allies is making all the Trumpsters feel really good. At least for now
Of course likely to have unforeseen consequences and blowback

As much as I would love to see Republican media like FoxNews, get it. When Obama tried to ban them from press conference. All the liberal media like NYT, CNN, WP objected and so Fox news wasnt execluded from the WH press conferences. Now that the shoes is on the other foot. Not so much. I guess this will be a new precedence

That wasn't even a press conference, they wanted an interview with some treasury guy.
 
There are plenty of good police departments that have a culture that doesn't single out black people. Boston, for one.

If you're gonna fix the bad police departments, you need to do something about the bad 15% of officers that are influencing the rest. A few bad apples ruining the bunch indeed: http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977/race-police-officer

"About that 15 percent of officers who regularly abuse their power: they exert an outsize influence"



Back on the OT, I'd recommend everyone here look up Masha Gessen (especially the article she wrote just after the election: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival/ ). As a journalist and a Russian exile, she knows a thing or two about autocrats taking control of the media. I hope the American media outlets are taking notes.

Granted, you guys have a few hundred years of journalistic tradition to fall back on; but you also have a few bad habits that've cropped up in recent decades that have added rust to your robust system. Honestly, I feel it could go either way. Still, I'm hopeful things will work out in the end. Your media is full of smart people...granted, that's true of media all over the world, but unlike those other outlets, your media also has resources, laws, and robust legal teams. But if Trump gets sufficient control of the judiciary...well, that would be very bad for democracy.
 
I've said it before, but since it seems like it needs to be said again...

This "bad 15% that exert an outsized influence" do so because they aren't the only ones that are bad. We need to stop accepting the "I'm not a bad cop, I just don't enforce the law when the criminal is a fellow officer." The "blue brotherhood" is made up of bad cops, period. The outright bigots and thugs might be the worst, but that is no excuse for the rest.

There's also the sycophant problem. It is fundamentally impossible to seat a fair jury if by some miracle a cop comes to trial. The prosecution can burn every challenge and not come close to eliminating every "I love the cops and would never vote to convict one no matter what evidence is presented" badge licker, so it's hard to blame them for not wanting to prosecute a losing case. Except of course that most of them are cut from the same badge licker cloth so they are trying not to prosecute anyway.
 
There's also the sycophant problem. It is fundamentally impossible to seat a fair jury if by some miracle a cop comes to trial. The prosecution can burn every challenge and not come close to eliminating every "I love the cops and would never vote to convict one no matter what evidence is presented" badge licker, .

We had a perfect example of that in the courtroom where I used to work. Plaintiff had been shooting into a passing city bus when he was spotted by police who gave chase. The police fired three times, which brought the plaintiff down. His gun bounced away. Police approached the plaintiff as he lay helpless and shot him three more times in the back, with one shot injuring his spine, leaving him a paraplegic. Plaintiff brought a civil rights suit, contending that the second volley of shots was excessive force.

Jury quickly brought back a defense verdict. No way were they going to give that sleazeball plaintiff a penny.
 
We had a perfect example of that in the courtroom where I used to work. Plaintiff had been shooting into a passing city bus when he was spotted by police who gave chase. The police fired three times, which brought the plaintiff down. His gun bounced away. Police approached the plaintiff as he lay helpless and shot him three more times in the back, with one shot injuring his spine, leaving him a paraplegic. Plaintiff brought a civil rights suit, contending that the second volley of shots was excessive force.

Jury quickly brought back a defense verdict. No way were they going to give that sleazeball plaintiff a penny.


That is the perfect example. Even I'm opposed to rewarding a guy for randomly shooting at a city bus...but that doesn't mean that the cops should get off scott free. Him and the cops should have been resolving their differences on a prison yard somewhere, not in civil court.
 
The suit isn't a reward for shooting a bus

I know that. However, the perspective is reasonable that compensating the guy for an outcome that resulted from his bad actions wouldn't accomplish anything good. My problem with the case is that there were probably no criminal charges filed against the cops that shot a downed suspect repeatedly...no doubt claiming that they "feared for their lives."

In addition, there is also no doubt that other cops who stood by and watched it happen not only suffered no consequences but would certainly have testified that shooting a guy who was laying on the ground bleeding was "totally justified." And since they didn't join in and blast away there are people who would call them "the good cops."
 
Given the high level vague summary, I'd guess a pretty significant portion of people would actually be disappointed they shot him in the back rather than the forehead. Probably enough to make sticking criminal charges a pretty stiff order. Jury trials wind up with juries.
 
Muhammad Ali's widow and son detained by Customs for two hours and questioned about their religion.

Muhammad Ali’s namesake son and the boxing legend’s former wife went on MSNBC Monday to discuss what it was like to be stopped at an airport in their own country for no reason they could determine except their religious faith.

Customs officers detained Muhammad Ali Jr. at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on Feb. 7 as he and his mother, Khalilah Camacho-Ali, returned to the U.S. from Jamaica.

They were heading to the baggage claim, Ali said, when “the guy from immigration pulled me aside and asked me my name.”

Ali recalled, “I was like, “OK, my name is Muhammad Ali,’ and he asked me, ‘What is your religion?’”

“I was like, ‘Why would you even ask me what my religion is?’” Ali continued:

I said, ‘I’m Muslim,’ and it was like he didn’t believe me because he took me in a backroom and asked me the same questions again. So I answered them and I was like, ‘What is this all about?’

Ali said officers would only tell him, “We’re checking something.”

“I was like, ‘OK, but I was waiting an hour and 45 minutes for you to check something,’” he said, adding that the officers split him and his mother up and he was worried about her.

Muhammad Ali Jr., 44, was carrying a U.S. passport at the time of his detention. He has no criminal record.

He and his mother said they travel extensively and have never been profiled like this before.

While officers had also stopped his mother, they released her shortly after she produced a photo of herself with her famous former husband, reports the Courier-Journal.

Other individuals have faced similar questioning by Customs and Border Protection agents since President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning refugees and people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from traveling to the United States. A federal judge halted the order prior to the Alis’ detention.

Camacho-Ali suggested Monday that if officers are hassling her and her son, they’re undoubtedly hassling other Muslims, and she’s happy to fight back on their behalf.

“Muhammad Ali, everybody knows him as a person who stands up for what you believe in,” Camacho-Ali said. “We must carry on that legend, because if we let people get away with it now, then there will be no end to the trauma. These people are going through a lot, not just us,” she said.

If she were given the opportunity to speak with President Trump, Camacho-Ali said she’d ask him to read the Qur’an and to recognize that Muslims “are people of peace.”

In a statement to The Washington Post, Customs and Border Protection denied that the Ali family had been detained because they’re Muslim.

“Every day CBP officers process more than 1.2 million international travelers,” the agency said. “We accomplish our mission with vigilance and in accordance with the law. CBP does not discriminate based on religion, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation … We treat all travelers with respect and sensitivity.”

Family lawyer Chris Mancini, also speaking to MSNBC, dismissed that statement as untrue.

“Are they questioning you if you’re a Christian? Are they going to ask you if you’re a Jew?” Mancini said. “That statement flies in the [face] of what we know is actually happening.”

He said, “We’ve always protected people’s religious rights as something that was fundamental, rock-solid foundational in our Constitution. ... Since when do we ask people about their religions when they enter the United States?”
 
This isn't a new story, it's been going on for a while. If you're a citizen you don't have to answer anything and they still will let you go. If you're a non citizen, they have a right to bar you from entry so you gotta weigh the risks and decide if it is worth it.
 
This isn't a new story, it's been going on for a while. If you're a citizen you don't have to answer anything and they still will let you go. If you're a non citizen, they have a right to bar you from entry so you gotta weigh the risks and decide if it is worth it.

If you are a citizen, you don't have to answer anything, but they can certainly detain you and cause quite a kink in your travel plans.

If you're not a citizen, best to travel without any electronics, and ratchet down intelligence level for questioning - you're not well served by accurate answers, you want to just give stereotypical answers.
 
If you're not a citizen, best to travel without any electronics, and ratchet down intelligence level for questioning - you're not well served by accurate answers, you want to just give stereotypical answers.

Trump, making America safe again. :rolleyes:
 
If you are a citizen, you don't have to answer anything, but they can certainly detain you and cause quite a kink in your travel plans.

If you're not a citizen, best to travel without any electronics, and ratchet down intelligence level for questioning - you're not well served by accurate answers, you want to just give stereotypical answers.

Is it really that bad for non-citizens? I was planning to visit one day.
 
I wonder who will outlast, Sean Spicer or Kellyanne Conway.

My money is on Conway, because it wouldn't surprise me if Spicer was forced to resign to avoid the job straight up killing him. Dude is way high strung and goes from 0 to 60 way to fast.
 
Is it really that bad for non-citizens? I was planning to visit one day.

I recommend the same for any international border. I'm not specifically aware of *any* country where border guards don't have the right to arbitrarily demand passwords for electronic devices.

And border guards, cops, etc. aren't trained to ask precise questions expecting specific answers. (And if they had that capability, they'd probably be engineers or such, rather than border guards.) If you parse their questions carefully, you're going to attract more suspicion than if you just immediately blurt out the obvious answer as the dullard tourist that you are.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom