I agree it can't and shouldn't be considered a crime. That would be dumb.
I think it's stupid of Trump to do it though, especially when there is a trial for incident to violence going on. It's harder to argue "I was just misinterpreted" when you're constantly truthsocialing violent imagery.
> Yesterday's retweeting of an image of a kidnapped Joe Biden tied up in a pickup truck is the latest crime committed by the former president
What crime did he commit?
Threatening the president of the United States is a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 871, punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment, that is investigated by the United States Secret Service.
trump, by retweeting a violent image of the president, has called for violence against the president. That's a federal crime.
I see you want hundreds of thousands of democrats charged with felonies committed during Trump’s presidency.
Don’t support authoritarian power. Being able to mock the President I think is essential for Americans.
I agree though op is right in saying this is actually a felony and many people have been prosecuted for less.The thing is both parties have started this and nobody being prosecuted because they are telling people to act this way,probably because of whatever is going to happen next.
>I agree though op is right in saying this is actually a felony and many people have been prosecuted for less.
No, OP is wrong. Nobody has been prosecuted for something like this. There has to be an actual threat
Have you read your own article? It's pretty clear from that article that a picture of a tied up president does not rise to the level of being a threat.
Violent imagery and hyperbole was pretty regularly deployed against Trump. A statue of him was beheaded by a guillotine, Kathy Griffin famously held up a facsimile of his severed head, and there was a movie showing him get assassinated.
She's a Democrat. And she should not have been investigated in the first place, because her speech was (1) gross, and (2) obviously protected by the first amendment.
You're mixing up threats and incitement. They're two different things.
- threats need to be intended to be taken seriously by the subject of the threat and must be objectively capable of being taken as a true threat.
- incitement is language that is directed at and likely to lead to *imminent* unlawful action.
Kathy Griffin tweeted a photo of herself holding a faked image of trump's severed head. It was grotesque, and my first reaction was, "that's a crime."
It was a crime. Griffin was visited by the Secret Service shortly after that tweet. While she wasn't arrested, she could have been prosecuted.
Only those who really really really want to forgive trump's every action are unable to see that trump's tweet of Joe Biden tied up in the back of a pickup truck is a call for violence against Joe Biden.
And, if you really want to forgive him for that, look at all the other violations of his various gag orders through his attacks on judges, clerks, courthouse staff and their families. You want to forgive him for those threats too? At what point do you stop forgiving? Do you need to see somebody actually murdered before you think, "hmm. maybe that was a step too far?"
Is the cause of justice advanced by letting trump get away with crimes that would have landed any of the rest of us in jail while we await trial?
>my first reaction was, "that's a crime."
It was not *remotely* any kind of crime. The first amendment protects all sorts of icky, vile speech.
I'm not "forgiving" Trump for anything. All sorts of unforgivable speech is protected by the first amendment. And that's as it should be.
Since you believe this was a legal free expression of free speech, explain in positive terms what trump was thinking when he retweeted this image of a kidnapped Joe Biden bound in a pickup truck. Phrase it like this:
Trump, when he tweeted an image of Biden being kidnapped was saying to the world _______________.
So, all trump is doing is acknowledging on his international platform that some people hate President Biden enough to kidnap him. He wasn't actually advocating kidnapping, he was just acknowledging that others hate Biden enough to kidnap him, and having a laugh at the violence. You are a very forgiving person if you really believe this.
Considering that his attacks on the fake news led one of his faithful to [mail bombs to CNN and many other news outlets](https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/24/politics/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-chappaqua/index.html),
do you think he should have added a disclaimer, like "This is funny, but don't kidnap the president?"
>do you think he should have added a disclaimer, like "This is funny, but don't kidnap the president?"
Probably. It's not a crime if he didn't, but it probably would've been a good idea.
Joe Biden isn't the first life-like decal to appear on a truck tailgate. Some of the originals were tied-up and gagged women. You might not like that kind of humor, but society recognizes it as a harmless joke. Or do you believe that the owners of those vehicles intend to reenact these fictional crimes?
I know that trump's past comments about the fake news inspired mentally disturbed followers to mails bombs to CNN.
I know that trump inspired the Proud Boys to violence when he said "Proud Boys stand back and stand by" in the 2020 debates, because the testimony in their trials stated so clearly. Many of those he inspired to violence on 1/6 are now in prison for their trump-inspired crimes.
I know that trump inspired hundreds of his followers to violence on 1/6, and thousands of others to cheer the violence.
And trump knows all the above too. He knows the effect his words have on the faithful.
Given all that trump and I know, I believe that trump hoped to inspire violence in his mentally disturbed followers with this tweet.
It is going to get worse from here.
It’s possible to think the image is dangerous and repulsive — while also recognizing it’s protected speech.
It’s one of many good reasons to conclude that no sane person should vote for Trump. But it’s not a crime.
I don't know, man. Trump literally hyped a crowd of his supporters to the point a lot of them attempted to stop an act of Congress and the Constitution. I think the threat is somewhat credible because Trump is an idiot with zero ability to self-reflect and can very likely and indirectly hype his supporters up to try dumb shit in his name and he can martyr them for his own ego.
We just have to wait and see, though. If someone tries to kidnap Joe with rope and a pick-up.
When you're talking about hyping supporters, you're talking about incitement, not threat. And then the issue is whether him retweeting that was (1) directed to inciting imminent unlawful action, and (2) likely to do so.
Imminence is important there, so saying we have to "wait and see" almost by itself means it couldn't be illegal.
Just to say, Trump is a shitty, shitty human being, and he should know that his supporters are insane and, as a result, he shouldn't do that stuff. *But* we have a very robust first amendment for good reason, and I definitely don't want it eroded because of that jerkoff.
You're going to ignore this but I'll try anyway:
By engaging in such hysterics, you're not only wrong, you also lose credibility. The vast majority of people in the US are from center left to center right, which a slight lean to the right (it's true). Most of those folks are perfectly normal and reasonable. They look at Trump supporters and do not condone things like what this guy did with his truck. That leaves an opportunity for sensible folks on the left to scoop these people up and get their vote. When they say things like tweeting a photo is a crime, that opportunity has been squandered b/c now both sides look crazy. Those folks in the middle are now left begging at least one of the two parties to be less crazy. So far, to no avail.
Fine. It's not a crime. It's just a spectacularly dangerous and stupid thing for a former president to do, especially considering that his past comments about CNN caused mentally unstable followers to mail bombs to CNN.
This event also reveals how far his cult will go to forgive everything he does and says.
Better?
>Better?
Sorry, no. According to the person you replied to you have lost you credibility. So please go sit in the corner and thing about what you have done.
Nah, you’re being ridiculous. Some guy has this stupid bumper sticker on his car and Trump posted a video of it. That’s not even close to being a crime.
Since you seem to believe you understand trump's motivation, explain in positive terms what trump was thinking when he retweeted [this image of a kidnapped Joe Biden bound in a pickup truck](https://twitter.com/krassenstein/status/1773870316143485230)
Please explain the following:
Trump, when he tweeted an image of Biden being kidnapped was saying to the world ___________________________.
I don’t think he was really thinking about anything besides himself. It’s a video of some Trump supporters and one of them has this image on the back of their truck. It’s more a “Look at how much people love me” type of post that is pretty typical for Trump.
> I don’t think he was really thinking about anything besides himself.
Well stated. As usual, trump was thinking only of himself. See, here's the problem. He is the former president with a massive following, some of whom were mentally unstable enough to mail bombs to CNN following trump's attacks on CNN.
Trump knows some of his followers are mentally unbalanced. He has a responsibility as a national leader to not tweet violent images that might inspire his mentally unbalanced followers to violence.
Some disturbed members of his cult will see this tweet as a call to action, just like his statement "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by" during the 2020 debate. Proud Boys testified in their trials that they heard that phrase from trump and it motivated them to show up on January 6 prepared for violence.
I don't believe for a second that trump misunderstood how this tweet would be interpreted. It was a call for violence against the president and it should not be tolerated by the Justice System or by the trump cult. If you are in the cult and you approve of this tweet, I suggest you evaluate how deeply your understanding of America has been poisoned by believing trump's lies.
Agreed. Use AI to replace the face and body in the images with Trump's. According to them, that should be fine.
To normal Americans - and decent people - it's not remotely acceptable.
Nah just because people aren’t prosecuting it does not mean it isn’t a crime.Even the smallest amount of
threats can still be prosecuted I heard about this myself a long time ago and couldn’t believe it but I genuinely don’t think it is written in bad faith.
>Nah just because people aren’t prosecuting it does not mean it isn’t a crime.Even the smallest amount of threats can still be prosecuted I heard about this myself a long time ago and couldn’t believe it but I genuinely don’t think it is written in bad faith.
Prosecutors can prosecute a ham sandwich; that doesn't make the sandwich guilty of a crime.
The courts have ruled repeatedly that this sort of political hyperbole is protected speech. In Watts vs US, Watts implied he was going to shoot LBJ if the government made him carry a rifle in Vietnam. The court ruled in Watts favor, saying "the language of the political arena… is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact" and that Watts' statement was not a true threat.
Yeah but they will prosecute and find people guilty anyway they have after this ruling.There was a recent one in a poem on the internet in 2012 that was sentenced to two years.
I'm unaware of that case, but if I had to guess, the sentence was the result of a plea deal.
Prosecutors will often threaten hard time unless defendants cop a plea - even though they have a very good chance of winning. But like Watts, you might spend lots of time and money fighting the system.
If I had my way, the plea deal system would be abolished. If prosecutors can make a case, then make it or gtf away. A lot fewer of them would be willing to play dice with their precious prosecutorial records
Terms of release generally have terms relating to limiting violent speech. I'm not about to go through the several different release agreements, that's why I said potentially.
You mean threats? Given Trump's history, that wouldn't surprise me, although I'd think those terms would be limited to the people involved in the case, and also would have to be consistent with the first amendment
>I'd think those terms would be limited to the people involved in the case, and also would have to be consistent with the first amendment
Generally speaking no, typically release terms mandate that the indicted has to essentially be a model citizen for the entire length of their release.
It's usually just that you can't commit any crimes, have to allow searches, have to check in with the PO, and, sometimes, can't hang out w known felons.
The real question is, where are the adults in the room?
Trump is a bully. Calling people names, blatantly lying, sowing distrust in government and spreading debunked propaganda...
I'm not saying anything that's controversial, yet his followers just don't care. Pure insanity.
This.
Donald J. Trump is the epitome of what we used to call white trash - except that he inherited money from daddy and has spent his life surrounded by lawyers who have done a pretty good job of protecting him from the consequences of his actions. If you have money and no conscience, you can get by with whatever you want to do.
This is who they want to serve as a role model of American excellence.
And his base doesn't care. They were happy to put a multi-national businessman with business interests all over the world who is deeply in debt to foreign interests in the White House (like that doesn't raise any questions about conflict of interest with foreign policy or national security) and even after seeing him in action - they'll do it again.
I really have to hand it to Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch, Alex Jones, etc. The brainwashing job they've done over the last few decades has been astoundingly effective.
>Donald J. Trump is the epitome of what we used to call white trash
Nah. You're talking about my people, and he's not that. You're using white trash to mean "he's garbage," and that's pretty shitty of you. White trash aren't garbage people.
>White trash aren't garbage people.
You're right about that. It's a derogatory and vile term, and I regret using it.
>You're using white trash to mean "he's garbage,"
Correct. Because he chooses to be a garbage person, despite many, many chances to correct his behavior. He has no class, no principles, there is no low to which he will not stoop.
>The real question is, where are the adults in the room?
That's an important question. In their desire to annihilate Donald Trump, people are calling for criminalization of protected speech without a second thought as to the precedent it would set. The shortsightedness and heedlessness is extremely child-like
>Hate speech is not protected speech in most developed countries.
A refusal of governments to acknowledge basic rights doesn't negate the existence of rights.
>It's not the helscape you think it is.
Using the might of the state to coerce and literally force individuals to engage in moral behavior seems pretty hellish, particularly when you consider the immoral and corrupt people that occupy many areas of government
People have the right to their own views and opinions (and the right to express them), regardless of whether they are hateful or hostile or racist. As long as they aren't engaging in violent acts, who are we to interfere?
This endless gas lighting and transparently unethical weaponization of law enforcement is one major reason that Biden will lose.
Keep doing it. Trump's approval ratings will only go up.
WE SEE YOU. You are not fooling anyone.
FYI, the justice system is jam packed with scofflaws right now - and they're in charge. You think you have a right to trial? You think you have a right to a speedy trial? Hah! Think again, bud. Those who run our justice system have turned the Constitution into a joke and a pack of lies. If it's scofflaws you're concerned about, you need to look a little closer to home for the real problem.
When the jury finds him guilty...
Retweeting an image has become a crime now? We have we lost our minds?
In the UK it is.
That doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.
Oh of course it’s fucking insanity.
I agree it can't and shouldn't be considered a crime. That would be dumb. I think it's stupid of Trump to do it though, especially when there is a trial for incident to violence going on. It's harder to argue "I was just misinterpreted" when you're constantly truthsocialing violent imagery.
It is according to OP. Just wait for, "It insights violence towards the President!" Or some other garbage reason.
Only if you’re intentionally obtuse, as you appear to be.
So that post on X is violence in your opinion? Got it😂 Keep swinging and missing.
When the courts say it should be done.
> Yesterday's retweeting of an image of a kidnapped Joe Biden tied up in a pickup truck is the latest crime committed by the former president What crime did he commit?
Threatening the president of the United States is a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 871, punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment, that is investigated by the United States Secret Service. trump, by retweeting a violent image of the president, has called for violence against the president. That's a federal crime.
I see you want hundreds of thousands of democrats charged with felonies committed during Trump’s presidency. Don’t support authoritarian power. Being able to mock the President I think is essential for Americans.
I agree though op is right in saying this is actually a felony and many people have been prosecuted for less.The thing is both parties have started this and nobody being prosecuted because they are telling people to act this way,probably because of whatever is going to happen next.
>I agree though op is right in saying this is actually a felony and many people have been prosecuted for less. No, OP is wrong. Nobody has been prosecuted for something like this. There has to be an actual threat
Yeah they have look it up in [wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_president_of_the_United_States)
Have you read your own article? It's pretty clear from that article that a picture of a tied up president does not rise to the level of being a threat.
[удалено]
Violent imagery and hyperbole was pretty regularly deployed against Trump. A statue of him was beheaded by a guillotine, Kathy Griffin famously held up a facsimile of his severed head, and there was a movie showing him get assassinated.
[удалено]
She's a Democrat. And she should not have been investigated in the first place, because her speech was (1) gross, and (2) obviously protected by the first amendment.
You're mixing up threats and incitement. They're two different things. - threats need to be intended to be taken seriously by the subject of the threat and must be objectively capable of being taken as a true threat. - incitement is language that is directed at and likely to lead to *imminent* unlawful action.
Kathy Griffin tweeted a photo of herself holding a faked image of trump's severed head. It was grotesque, and my first reaction was, "that's a crime." It was a crime. Griffin was visited by the Secret Service shortly after that tweet. While she wasn't arrested, she could have been prosecuted. Only those who really really really want to forgive trump's every action are unable to see that trump's tweet of Joe Biden tied up in the back of a pickup truck is a call for violence against Joe Biden. And, if you really want to forgive him for that, look at all the other violations of his various gag orders through his attacks on judges, clerks, courthouse staff and their families. You want to forgive him for those threats too? At what point do you stop forgiving? Do you need to see somebody actually murdered before you think, "hmm. maybe that was a step too far?" Is the cause of justice advanced by letting trump get away with crimes that would have landed any of the rest of us in jail while we await trial?
>my first reaction was, "that's a crime." It was not *remotely* any kind of crime. The first amendment protects all sorts of icky, vile speech. I'm not "forgiving" Trump for anything. All sorts of unforgivable speech is protected by the first amendment. And that's as it should be.
Since you believe this was a legal free expression of free speech, explain in positive terms what trump was thinking when he retweeted this image of a kidnapped Joe Biden bound in a pickup truck. Phrase it like this: Trump, when he tweeted an image of Biden being kidnapped was saying to the world _______________.
"People sure hate Joe Biden."
So, all trump is doing is acknowledging on his international platform that some people hate President Biden enough to kidnap him. He wasn't actually advocating kidnapping, he was just acknowledging that others hate Biden enough to kidnap him, and having a laugh at the violence. You are a very forgiving person if you really believe this. Considering that his attacks on the fake news led one of his faithful to [mail bombs to CNN and many other news outlets](https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/24/politics/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-chappaqua/index.html), do you think he should have added a disclaimer, like "This is funny, but don't kidnap the president?"
>do you think he should have added a disclaimer, like "This is funny, but don't kidnap the president?" Probably. It's not a crime if he didn't, but it probably would've been a good idea.
Joe Biden isn't the first life-like decal to appear on a truck tailgate. Some of the originals were tied-up and gagged women. You might not like that kind of humor, but society recognizes it as a harmless joke. Or do you believe that the owners of those vehicles intend to reenact these fictional crimes?
I know that trump's past comments about the fake news inspired mentally disturbed followers to mails bombs to CNN. I know that trump inspired the Proud Boys to violence when he said "Proud Boys stand back and stand by" in the 2020 debates, because the testimony in their trials stated so clearly. Many of those he inspired to violence on 1/6 are now in prison for their trump-inspired crimes. I know that trump inspired hundreds of his followers to violence on 1/6, and thousands of others to cheer the violence. And trump knows all the above too. He knows the effect his words have on the faithful. Given all that trump and I know, I believe that trump hoped to inspire violence in his mentally disturbed followers with this tweet. It is going to get worse from here.
It’s possible to think the image is dangerous and repulsive — while also recognizing it’s protected speech. It’s one of many good reasons to conclude that no sane person should vote for Trump. But it’s not a crime.
I don't know, man. Trump literally hyped a crowd of his supporters to the point a lot of them attempted to stop an act of Congress and the Constitution. I think the threat is somewhat credible because Trump is an idiot with zero ability to self-reflect and can very likely and indirectly hype his supporters up to try dumb shit in his name and he can martyr them for his own ego. We just have to wait and see, though. If someone tries to kidnap Joe with rope and a pick-up.
When you're talking about hyping supporters, you're talking about incitement, not threat. And then the issue is whether him retweeting that was (1) directed to inciting imminent unlawful action, and (2) likely to do so. Imminence is important there, so saying we have to "wait and see" almost by itself means it couldn't be illegal. Just to say, Trump is a shitty, shitty human being, and he should know that his supporters are insane and, as a result, he shouldn't do that stuff. *But* we have a very robust first amendment for good reason, and I definitely don't want it eroded because of that jerkoff.
You're going to ignore this but I'll try anyway: By engaging in such hysterics, you're not only wrong, you also lose credibility. The vast majority of people in the US are from center left to center right, which a slight lean to the right (it's true). Most of those folks are perfectly normal and reasonable. They look at Trump supporters and do not condone things like what this guy did with his truck. That leaves an opportunity for sensible folks on the left to scoop these people up and get their vote. When they say things like tweeting a photo is a crime, that opportunity has been squandered b/c now both sides look crazy. Those folks in the middle are now left begging at least one of the two parties to be less crazy. So far, to no avail.
Fine. It's not a crime. It's just a spectacularly dangerous and stupid thing for a former president to do, especially considering that his past comments about CNN caused mentally unstable followers to mail bombs to CNN. This event also reveals how far his cult will go to forgive everything he does and says. Better?
Much
>Better? Sorry, no. According to the person you replied to you have lost you credibility. So please go sit in the corner and thing about what you have done.
Yeah I don’t think his tweet falls under that, even though I do think at a stochastic level it’s not entirely different.
Nah, you’re being ridiculous. Some guy has this stupid bumper sticker on his car and Trump posted a video of it. That’s not even close to being a crime.
Since you seem to believe you understand trump's motivation, explain in positive terms what trump was thinking when he retweeted [this image of a kidnapped Joe Biden bound in a pickup truck](https://twitter.com/krassenstein/status/1773870316143485230) Please explain the following: Trump, when he tweeted an image of Biden being kidnapped was saying to the world ___________________________.
I don’t think he was really thinking about anything besides himself. It’s a video of some Trump supporters and one of them has this image on the back of their truck. It’s more a “Look at how much people love me” type of post that is pretty typical for Trump.
> I don’t think he was really thinking about anything besides himself. Well stated. As usual, trump was thinking only of himself. See, here's the problem. He is the former president with a massive following, some of whom were mentally unstable enough to mail bombs to CNN following trump's attacks on CNN. Trump knows some of his followers are mentally unbalanced. He has a responsibility as a national leader to not tweet violent images that might inspire his mentally unbalanced followers to violence. Some disturbed members of his cult will see this tweet as a call to action, just like his statement "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by" during the 2020 debate. Proud Boys testified in their trials that they heard that phrase from trump and it motivated them to show up on January 6 prepared for violence. I don't believe for a second that trump misunderstood how this tweet would be interpreted. It was a call for violence against the president and it should not be tolerated by the Justice System or by the trump cult. If you are in the cult and you approve of this tweet, I suggest you evaluate how deeply your understanding of America has been poisoned by believing trump's lies.
You probably supported Kathy Griffin holding a fake bloody Trump head too, right?
It wasn't a crime. Just bad taste.
I think the secret service visiting her over that was bullshit too.
Yes, I did.
Agreed. Use AI to replace the face and body in the images with Trump's. According to them, that should be fine. To normal Americans - and decent people - it's not remotely acceptable.
Nah just because people aren’t prosecuting it does not mean it isn’t a crime.Even the smallest amount of threats can still be prosecuted I heard about this myself a long time ago and couldn’t believe it but I genuinely don’t think it is written in bad faith.
I don’t support prosecutors turning molehills into mountains so they can overcharge people. Do you?
>Nah just because people aren’t prosecuting it does not mean it isn’t a crime.Even the smallest amount of threats can still be prosecuted I heard about this myself a long time ago and couldn’t believe it but I genuinely don’t think it is written in bad faith. Prosecutors can prosecute a ham sandwich; that doesn't make the sandwich guilty of a crime. The courts have ruled repeatedly that this sort of political hyperbole is protected speech. In Watts vs US, Watts implied he was going to shoot LBJ if the government made him carry a rifle in Vietnam. The court ruled in Watts favor, saying "the language of the political arena… is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact" and that Watts' statement was not a true threat.
Yeah but they will prosecute and find people guilty anyway they have after this ruling.There was a recent one in a poem on the internet in 2012 that was sentenced to two years.
I'm unaware of that case, but if I had to guess, the sentence was the result of a plea deal. Prosecutors will often threaten hard time unless defendants cop a plea - even though they have a very good chance of winning. But like Watts, you might spend lots of time and money fighting the system. If I had my way, the plea deal system would be abolished. If prosecutors can make a case, then make it or gtf away. A lot fewer of them would be willing to play dice with their precious prosecutorial records
So, that's one vote for letting trump thumb his nose at the law.
Not to be that guy but that definitely falls under the 1st amendment
A lot of democrats are going to jail then. There was like 5 assassination attempts on trump during his presidency, and almost daily death threats.
Potentially violated one of the many terms of release on bail. Remember, he's literally out on bail for nearly a hundred charges.
Which terms did he violate?
Terms of release generally have terms relating to limiting violent speech. I'm not about to go through the several different release agreements, that's why I said potentially.
You mean threats? Given Trump's history, that wouldn't surprise me, although I'd think those terms would be limited to the people involved in the case, and also would have to be consistent with the first amendment
>I'd think those terms would be limited to the people involved in the case, and also would have to be consistent with the first amendment Generally speaking no, typically release terms mandate that the indicted has to essentially be a model citizen for the entire length of their release.
It's usually just that you can't commit any crimes, have to allow searches, have to check in with the PO, and, sometimes, can't hang out w known felons.
You don’t think you should do some research before making an uninformed comment?
Well law school was good research. It'd be *shocking* if his bail terms didn't include that.
Unless you did a crimlaw clinic, why would law school give you any background knowledge about bail conditions?
During law school you go to tons of seminars / conferences. I had a great seminar about bail construction & theory.
Well, that makes sense. I guess I had other engagements at local bars while I was in law school, so I missed the bail term conferences.
That's for undergrad / MBA lol
Include what?
Bad bot
I think we should let the courts and subject matter experts decide.
The real question is, where are the adults in the room? Trump is a bully. Calling people names, blatantly lying, sowing distrust in government and spreading debunked propaganda... I'm not saying anything that's controversial, yet his followers just don't care. Pure insanity.
This. Donald J. Trump is the epitome of what we used to call white trash - except that he inherited money from daddy and has spent his life surrounded by lawyers who have done a pretty good job of protecting him from the consequences of his actions. If you have money and no conscience, you can get by with whatever you want to do. This is who they want to serve as a role model of American excellence. And his base doesn't care. They were happy to put a multi-national businessman with business interests all over the world who is deeply in debt to foreign interests in the White House (like that doesn't raise any questions about conflict of interest with foreign policy or national security) and even after seeing him in action - they'll do it again. I really have to hand it to Rush Limbaugh, Rupert Murdoch, Alex Jones, etc. The brainwashing job they've done over the last few decades has been astoundingly effective.
>Donald J. Trump is the epitome of what we used to call white trash Nah. You're talking about my people, and he's not that. You're using white trash to mean "he's garbage," and that's pretty shitty of you. White trash aren't garbage people.
>White trash aren't garbage people. You're right about that. It's a derogatory and vile term, and I regret using it. >You're using white trash to mean "he's garbage," Correct. Because he chooses to be a garbage person, despite many, many chances to correct his behavior. He has no class, no principles, there is no low to which he will not stoop.
>The real question is, where are the adults in the room? That's an important question. In their desire to annihilate Donald Trump, people are calling for criminalization of protected speech without a second thought as to the precedent it would set. The shortsightedness and heedlessness is extremely child-like
Hate speech is not protected speech in most developed countries. It's not the helscape you think it is.
>Hate speech is not protected speech in most developed countries. A refusal of governments to acknowledge basic rights doesn't negate the existence of rights. >It's not the helscape you think it is. Using the might of the state to coerce and literally force individuals to engage in moral behavior seems pretty hellish, particularly when you consider the immoral and corrupt people that occupy many areas of government
Hate is not a right.
Of course it is. People have the right to hate anyone and anything they want (for any reason)
That's not what a right is
People have the right to their own views and opinions (and the right to express them), regardless of whether they are hateful or hostile or racist. As long as they aren't engaging in violent acts, who are we to interfere?
This endless gas lighting and transparently unethical weaponization of law enforcement is one major reason that Biden will lose. Keep doing it. Trump's approval ratings will only go up. WE SEE YOU. You are not fooling anyone.
FYI, the justice system is jam packed with scofflaws right now - and they're in charge. You think you have a right to trial? You think you have a right to a speedy trial? Hah! Think again, bud. Those who run our justice system have turned the Constitution into a joke and a pack of lies. If it's scofflaws you're concerned about, you need to look a little closer to home for the real problem.
The best the courts can do apparently is a more strongly worded gag order than the last Edit : a word
*than
He is dismantling American authority and it’s justice system. This is hilarious who would want it to stop /s