Wow! Interesting. I did not know that.
Thanks!
I’ll vote for Brigadoon. Let the whole mess disappear for 100 years.
I agree 100%. I’m actually surprised it hasn’t already happened.
I sure hope we don’t find out.
The issue I have is that the usual complaint doesn’t work. Yeah, you’d turn him into a martyr. But, as a martyr, he’d no longer be able to reignite anger every time it dies out. And there’s not really anyone else like him right now that could step in.
The only real thing left is being a remotely decent human being. And we all know there are people out there that aren’t that.
So, yeah, I think it will happen. If Trump isn’t preparing for it, he’s more of an idiot than I thought. And while I’d be saddened by his death, I think I’d have more of a Scalia reaction–being happy he’s no longer in the running.
But I’d still be sad that there was no defeat of this entirely anger based strategy. Becuase that’s all Trump does. He uses the anger of his supporters and the anger of those against him to fuel his supporters. His ability to make people angry is pretty much all he’s actually running on.
Keep digging that hole.
You are taking exception to what someone did at a Donald Trump political rally and think people who disrupt the rally should be punished.
So, it is incumbent upon you to tell us where the lines are drawn on what people at a Donald Trump rally can or cannot say that will not get them in trouble.
Understanding that these rule need to be applied universally no matter what the rally is.
was that Paul Czimon you echoed?
First of all it ain’t incumbent of me to do fucking shit.
Second, I haven’t said and probably never HAVE said (barring some SDMB off the wall scenario) what someone can or cannot say.
Third, my position regarding speech has pretty much always been you can say what ever the fuck you want…the only limitations being when and where such things are said.
When you learn what “what” “when” and “where” actually mean get back to me.
I don’t know how they decide when to grant details to candidates. I do know that Trump and Carson got details in November. Trump’s code name is reported to be “Mogul”.
If you Google Trump and Secret Service, you’ll find all kinds of images from yesterday, where Trump is surrounded by his detail.
Sanders was given a detail at the end of January.
You’re right. You do not have to but then you should not participate in this thread if you don’t want to.
A modest proposal:
Right to Free Speech - First Amendment.
I think we all agree that no Government agency is interfering with Trump’s 1st Amendment rights.
So, stop saying the term “free speech” or “freedom of speech” when you are referring to someone’s ability to deliver a speech without being interrupted by an INDIVIDUAL, such as a protester. You’re just confusing matters.
Come up with another term. Something like “freedom to express” or whatever the F you want to use. Just stop saying “freedom of speech”, unless you just like continuing to beat that horse.
Anyhoo, Trump is now stating that the protester that charged the stage had ties to ISIS. He doesn’t and the video purporting to show it was obviously faked. Not a great endorsement for his judgment.
Well that’s the problem.
People are mad that their candidate is being silenced.
Yes, you did. You said that people shouting at a Trump rally were denying Trump’s right to free speech. This means you think they should not have been allowed to do this.
Most of us here agree that they should not be allowed to do this. They were wrong, disruptive, perhaps even guilty of criminal disturbance of the peace.
But they were not “denying Trump’s right to free speech.” That’s a technical term, which you are using incorrectly. It’s comparable to people who say that killing an animal for meat are committing “murder.” No. That’s not what the word means.
The protesters were being jerks. They were not violating the First Amendment.
[QUOTE=leftfield6;19177081
So, stop saying the term “free speech” or “freedom of speech” when you are referring to someone’s ability to deliver a speech without being interrupted by an INDIVIDUAL, such as a protester. You’re just confusing matters.
.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is confusing matters. At least anyone one with half a brain.
FIRST AMENDMENT means the gubment can’t come after your ass if you say “the prez sucks donkey balls”
Free speech means (and has been noted several times in this thread) you get to actually SAY something without some jackass trying to shout over you, interrupt you, or otherwise keep you from actually saying something.
The actual content is irrelevant. What the gubment does is irrelevant.
If I can’t say what I want without a fight BEFORE/DURING what the fuck I am trying to say…you don’t believe in freedom of speech.
And rightly so. I hate Trump and detest everything he stands for…but shouting him down, on private property, in contravention of the law, is crappy behavior. Worse, it plays into his hands, strategically.
(Just as photos of early Tea Party protests, where the protesters were holding up grossly racist placards, seriously harmed the TP movement.)
No, it really doesn’t.
You have yet to tell me what I can and cannot say at a Trump or Sanders or Clinton or Cruz or whoever rally.
I am not kidding…how would you limit my free speech while there?
[QUOTE=billfish678]
Free speech means (and has been noted several times in this thread) you get to actually SAY something without some jackass trying to shout over you, interrupt you, or otherwise keep you from actually saying something.
[/quote]
By this very, very loose and all-encompassing definition, the disturbed person screaming gibberish on a street corner is also being denied “free speech” when they’re taken into custody for disturbing the peace.
According to your definition, “free speech” as a social desideratum is essentially meaningless. How do you distinguish between the “free speech” that ought NOT to be interfered with and the “free speech” that legitimately CAN be interfered with?