Don’t forget the “Freedom Trains” to get there.
As the article shows, political (mostly GOP) candidates have been doing this a lot, and it’s just wrong. I’d send Trump a cease-and-desist letter, then have a staffer keep track on C-SPAN how many times he’s used my song(s), and then sue, seeking big bucks for each usage. If someone who wants to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” as POTUS won’t even respect an artist’s rights to his or her works, that could be an attack ad right there.
No, but if those coastal regions want to become our Southeast and Southwest Territories, that might be okay.
Come now. Surely it’s ‘Paint It Black’.
In what ways, specifically?
Why do you feel the need to resort to hyperbole? There’s plenty of things to dislike about Trump without making wild and crazy Nazi references.
Off the top of my head: violation of the First Amendment by treating Muslims differently than those with other religions and violation of the Constitutional birthright citizenship clause by pretending it doesn’t exist.
It’s not some cut and dried law he is obviously violating. Most politicians stop when challenged because they don’t want to drag it through the courts or have a public feud. Trump is not so disinclined. Here’s a Hollywood Reporter article briefly discussing the complexities:
The oath he is seeking to take is specifically to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution. Is he aware of that?
I can just see him smirking and shrugging when asked to repeat that part- then saying “well, some of it.”
[hijack?]
:eek: Are you unaware of the grave changes to intellectual property law a decade ago or so? IIRC, power was redirected toward Big Business, less toward the actual artist.
I’m not up on such things. The WaPo article referenced above was quite informative. Seems to me that the Stones could claim that Trump’s usage damages their brand. But I’m no lawyer. It was a bit of a hijack but it was part of his campaign rallies that I found upsetting (though by far not the most upsetting).
Please explain, in general terms, the processes needed to deport 12,000,000 people. To me, this process needs to include:
- Laws stripping away rights.
- The means to find these people.
- The means to transport them.
- The means to hold them in a facility prior to “deportation”.
- Deporting.
The only difference between the above and Hitler, '32, is step 5.
Enslavement
Encampment
Deportation
By any other name, it smells just as horrible.
#5 is a pretty big difference. Also, you wouldn’t need to strip away rights to deport people in the country illegally.And how is “the means to find these people” supposed to be a Hitler simarity?
Generally there must be proof of the “being in the country illegally” bit. Before that, the deportee-to-be has rights. Plus all the legal citizens and residents that will inevitably be rounded up, they have rights. In the zeal to “streamline” the process or making it easier to deport people, rights will invariably be stripped from the innocent.
I never said they had no rights, guys. I said you don’t have to strip away those rights to deport them. People get deported all the time. If you are going to deport them all in a week then yeah you’d probably have to cut some corners.
I never said it was cut and dried. But I think the Stones and other objecting music groups have a pretty good shot at winning, especially when the Trump campaign persists even when asked to stop.
Let’s not forget that if Trump gets the White House, he also gets the contents of all the NSA’s data facilities. (Not to mention the data collected by the FBI, CIA, etc.)
The fact that he persists after being asked to stop has nothing to do with it afaik. According to the article I linked:
And if Trump wanted to play it safe, he could do an easy end run as the article continues:
Every single time I drive by that building, I mutter cursewords under my breath.