Frenchy
Peace, Love and Camembert
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2016
- Messages
- 19,838
- Reaction score
- 26,897
What Do You Think Of Donald Trump?
- Thread starter roots reggae
- Start date
MikeH
Presumably Male
- Joined
- May 8, 2016
- Messages
- 19,203
- Reaction score
- 48,639
Really. It's actually really sad state of fairs when the two persons competing for one of the most powerful positions in the world were Trump and Hillary...
You can make a choice said the doc. We can cut off your left ball or the right one!
Frenchy
Peace, Love and Camembert
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2016
- Messages
- 19,838
- Reaction score
- 26,897
Do you honestly think she could have been any worse? Not that I "hate" Trump nor "love" Hillary, but seriously after 6 months would she have been more divisive, unpopular, unhinged, narcissistic, delusional, lying and ineffective (notably at just keeping the White House in order , at minimum?) . Not to mention going berzerk publicly against anything or anyone that Fox News kinda told him to be angry against? .
It's a tall order you know...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2013
- Messages
- 2,628
- Reaction score
- 5,320
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2013
- Messages
- 2,628
- Reaction score
- 5,320
Not in the short run-that's for sure.
As for farther down the road, maybe, maybe not-which is my personal feeling. That's all dependent upon how much longer The Trumpeteer lasts.
Best case scenario: The US faces up to its shortcomings, rather than its glorify a questionable greatness. Only then, is there the possibility for national growth.
Worst case scenario: Forget about Islamic terrorists. The domestic kind are already in place, quite conveniently ready and armed.
TheScientist
TAG Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2014
- Messages
- 3,922
- Reaction score
- 7,154
To the best I've been able to determine, "terroristic" is not actually a legal term. That website you linked to is a for profit lawyer advertisement service, and since they couldn't be bothered to actually link to any legal citations of state or federal law code, not all that credible. The un-cited example they gave of a supposed Texas statute would not and could not override federal or constitutional issues.
First Amendment cases are not simple matters, see the two Wikipedia articles below on unprotected speech in the US:
- Clear & Present Danger
- Imminent Lawless Action (a clarification of above)
- "<group name>" are scum and should all die" is legally protected speech
- "Lets go kill all the <group name>" is likely to be unprotected speech
The ACLU does not get to decide if the First & Second Amendment rights do not mix. This could easily end up as a incredibly complicated issue.
France has laws on hate speech but they are not that strong. Basically slap on the wrist punishment. John Galliano got a suspended fine of €6,000 as "punishment" for his very public anti-semitic rants. A few public apologies and claiming it was because of his drinking problem and thats it. No jail time, and he didnt have to actually pay a fine. Strong laws my skinny ass.
You can't legislate belief. Appealing to "lives would be saved" doesn't cut it. European style hate speech laws are nothing but fig leafs which let the left believe they've done something about the problem but it doesn't work. Nothing gets fixed.
Its not easy to talk about US 2nd Amendment rights in a European context.
The limits are pretty broad and interesting. The 2003 limits on insulting the national flag or anthem & public persons for example are more restrictive than the US. Also note from there that promoting the use of drugs has a max penalty of up to five years in prison and fines up to €76,000. Compare that to the max penalty for holocaust denial of of five years' imprisonment and a €45,000. So literally I could be punished worse in France for publishing an article saying "Macron should just get high and meditate on this" (two potential legal violations) than publishing an article saying "there's no evidence that the gas chambers were real".
Frenchy
Peace, Love and Camembert
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2016
- Messages
- 19,838
- Reaction score
- 26,897
On the last point the answer is no, you wouldnt . There are many other circumstances taken into account than just the narrow legalistic viewpoint. But i will not argue with you on this, better things to do if you see what I mean
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2013
- Messages
- 2,628
- Reaction score
- 5,320
I apologize for another "back," but I just could not let pass your assumption over the legal term, "terroristic threat."
Forgive me again, for citing another for-profit legal firm. I believe the following quote, but just don't have the time/desire to spend finding a source that may be more acceptable to you. I do, promise, however, to cite, directly, a sample state law dealing with terroristic threats.
Federal Defense Attorneys Fighting Terroristic Threat Charges
A terroristic threat doesn’t sound like your average, run-of-the-mill threat. Typically, we think of threats as harmful statements of intent, sometimes made with real conviction and other times only as a means of expressing anger or advancing a goal.
Of course, most threats are considered crimes. While the state recognizes that words alone are not the same as physical violence, people aren’t free to go around causing others to live in fear. Free speech enjoys Constitutional protection, but that protection ends when other people’s rights are infringed.
http://federal-lawyer.com/criminal-law/terroristic-threat/
Now for the State of Georgia:
2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 11 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
ARTICLE 2 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 16-11-37 - Terroristic threats and acts; penalties
O.C.G.A. 16-11-37 (2010)
16-11-37. Terroristic threats and acts; penalties
(a) A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence, to release any hazardous substance, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-8-92, or to burn or damage property with the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. No person shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated.
(b) A person commits the offense of a terroristic act when:
(1) He or she uses a burning or flaming cross or other burning or flaming symbol or flambeau with the intent to terrorize another or another's household;
(2) While not in the commission of a lawful act, he or she shoots at or throws an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers; or
(3) He or she releases any hazardous substance or any simulated hazardous substance under the guise of a hazardous substance for the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.
(c) A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic threat shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both. A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both; provided, however, that if any person suffers a serious physical injury as a direct result of an act giving rise to a conviction under this Code section, the person so convicted shall be punished by a fine of not more than $250,000.00 or imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 40 years, or both.
(d) A person who commits or attempts to commit a terroristic threat or act with the intent to retaliate against any person for:
(1) Attending a judicial or administrative proceeding as a witness, attorney, judge, clerk of court, deputy clerk of court, court reporter, probation officer, or party or producing any record, document, or other object in a judicial or official proceeding; or
(2) Providing to a law enforcement officer, adult or juvenile probation officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge any information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense under the laws of this state or of the United States or a violation of conditions of bail, pretrial release, probation, or parole
shall be guilty of the offense of a terroristic threat or act and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished, for a terroristic threat, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years or by a fine of not less than $50,000.00, or both, and, for a terroristic act, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years or by a fine of not less than $100,000.00, or both.
Forgive me again, for citing another for-profit legal firm. I believe the following quote, but just don't have the time/desire to spend finding a source that may be more acceptable to you. I do, promise, however, to cite, directly, a sample state law dealing with terroristic threats.
Federal Defense Attorneys Fighting Terroristic Threat Charges
A terroristic threat doesn’t sound like your average, run-of-the-mill threat. Typically, we think of threats as harmful statements of intent, sometimes made with real conviction and other times only as a means of expressing anger or advancing a goal.
Of course, most threats are considered crimes. While the state recognizes that words alone are not the same as physical violence, people aren’t free to go around causing others to live in fear. Free speech enjoys Constitutional protection, but that protection ends when other people’s rights are infringed.
http://federal-lawyer.com/criminal-law/terroristic-threat/
Now for the State of Georgia:
2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 11 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
ARTICLE 2 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 16-11-37 - Terroristic threats and acts; penalties
O.C.G.A. 16-11-37 (2010)
16-11-37. Terroristic threats and acts; penalties
(a) A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence, to release any hazardous substance, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-8-92, or to burn or damage property with the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. No person shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated.
(b) A person commits the offense of a terroristic act when:
(1) He or she uses a burning or flaming cross or other burning or flaming symbol or flambeau with the intent to terrorize another or another's household;
(2) While not in the commission of a lawful act, he or she shoots at or throws an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers; or
(3) He or she releases any hazardous substance or any simulated hazardous substance under the guise of a hazardous substance for the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.
(c) A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic threat shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both. A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both; provided, however, that if any person suffers a serious physical injury as a direct result of an act giving rise to a conviction under this Code section, the person so convicted shall be punished by a fine of not more than $250,000.00 or imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 40 years, or both.
(d) A person who commits or attempts to commit a terroristic threat or act with the intent to retaliate against any person for:
(1) Attending a judicial or administrative proceeding as a witness, attorney, judge, clerk of court, deputy clerk of court, court reporter, probation officer, or party or producing any record, document, or other object in a judicial or official proceeding; or
(2) Providing to a law enforcement officer, adult or juvenile probation officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge any information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense under the laws of this state or of the United States or a violation of conditions of bail, pretrial release, probation, or parole
shall be guilty of the offense of a terroristic threat or act and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished, for a terroristic threat, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years or by a fine of not less than $50,000.00, or both, and, for a terroristic act, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years or by a fine of not less than $100,000.00, or both.
TheScientist
TAG Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2014
- Messages
- 3,922
- Reaction score
- 7,154
Misslorena
TAG Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2017
- Messages
- 250
- Reaction score
- 599
as a Mexican stuck in an immigration process to the United States that is taking twice as long,
nothing I can say is going to be remotely positive.
nothing I can say is going to be remotely positive.
TheWhiteBear
Ambassador of Mars/President of Kenya/Astronaut
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2015
- Messages
- 299
- Reaction score
- 600
I sexually identify as a Apache Helicopter and a single father of no kids, I am disappointed that you thought I was serious, come on JoeBlowJob, I know you are better than this. Not a liberal but I might have scumbag ancestories though.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2013
- Messages
- 2,628
- Reaction score
- 5,320
SachikoHadaka
TAG Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2018
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 101
I lived in the USA before, and I'm sad about what my old home has become under him.
As an escort I know he'd be interested in my business, but I'd refuse to take him. Mostly I know he'd try to stiff me (and not in the good way!)
I had such a huge lady boner about Obama, and I want him back so bad. I know he'd never take,me but...
A girl can dream.
As an escort I know he'd be interested in my business, but I'd refuse to take him. Mostly I know he'd try to stiff me (and not in the good way!)
I had such a huge lady boner about Obama, and I want him back so bad. I know he'd never take,me but...
A girl can dream.
MossBoss
Hello
- Joined
- May 23, 2014
- Messages
- 2,607
- Reaction score
- 4,614
Recently read an interview with the Yanis Varoufakis the Greek Finance Minister. According to him the main reason Trump is the President is due to the incompetence and ineffectiveness of Obama.
Obama was more interested in giving out food stamps and spending time on minority causes than anything else. Hence, the middle and working classes seeing a decline in their living standards didn’t vote for the candidate endorsed by Obama.
Obama had a lot of good will directed towards him but squandered his chance.
A lot of people who praise Obama do it to be ‘trendy’ without much idea what he did or didn’t do when in office.
Obama was more interested in giving out food stamps and spending time on minority causes than anything else. Hence, the middle and working classes seeing a decline in their living standards didn’t vote for the candidate endorsed by Obama.
Obama had a lot of good will directed towards him but squandered his chance.
A lot of people who praise Obama do it to be ‘trendy’ without much idea what he did or didn’t do when in office.
meiji
Global Moderator
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3,370
- Reaction score
- 4,929
I don't think that's really it, but it's pretty close. The Democrats have basically lost their soul and bend over backwards to avoid criticism by the right by being moderate for moderation's sake. Without a vision or a plan, the Dems basically look bought by corporations, which is what both parties are these days. However, the right is much more effective at communications, and both they and Trump were very effective at getting out a message lying to Americans saying that they'd fix all their problems and save them from all the nasty mexicans, etc. The Republican Party has been exceptionally good at fear-mongering over the last 40+ years, and their pushing fear compounded the Dems not doing much to stop the hollowing out of the middle class (not that the Republicans have done much, either). Between a lot of Dems just staying home because they were turned off by the party and by Clinton, and the right being electrified by Trump,
If the Dems stood up and campaigned on things like single payer health care and a number of provisions to encourage actual wealth instead of artificial wealth building through financial black magic, they would have done a lot better. But it's possibly too late now. The Dems not only didn't focus on a vision of maintaining the middle class, they also gave up on securing wins in local and state elections so they neither have a 'bench' to draw from nationally nor do they have control of many states when it comes to preventing gerrymandering and protecting citizens' right to vote in elections.
MossBoss
Hello
- Joined
- May 23, 2014
- Messages
- 2,607
- Reaction score
- 4,614
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2011
- Messages
- 13,296
- Reaction score
- 36,308
If he can make it through without being impeached, he just might. People grossly underestimate how passionately certain segments of the population support him.
FWIW, Paddy Power now has the following odds up:
Trump to be impeached in his first term:
YES - 2/1
NO - 1/3
Year of Trump impeachment:
2018 - 13/2
2019 - 9/1
2020 - 20/1
Trump resignation:
YES - 7/1
NO - 1/14
WIll Trump complete 1st term in office:
YES - 1/2
NO - 6/4
Last edited:
Frenchy
Peace, Love and Camembert
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2016
- Messages
- 19,838
- Reaction score
- 26,897
I think there will be no impeachment. He will just make himself irrelevant. Like the clown in a circus that doesnt make anyone laugh anymore but you keep him cause getting rid of him would be too much hassle. The best way for the « fake news media » to kill him is just to ignore him.
Frenchy
Peace, Love and Camembert
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2016
- Messages
- 19,838
- Reaction score
- 26,897
Yeah right, and he’s certainly practicing what he preaches (e.g having same acceptance vs previous POTUS, or refraining to comment on other countries leaders... )
Donald Trump was not supposed to win, he was not taken seriously by the mass media and liberals. Every poll wrongly predicted that Trump will lose the Presidential race. Every media outlet endorsed Hillary Clinton for President even calling the race “a lopsided win for Hillary.” Everyone wanted Hillary to win so badly, they even cried on national Television when Trump was announced the President. For the next two weeks the liberals were enticing riots, protesting in the streets, even calling to outlaw the Electoral College mechanism. The liberals were slapped in the face, they were dumbfounded.
When Obama became President winning the exact same way that Donald Trump won, you didn’t see Republicans enticing violence or crying on TV. Liberals promised to leave the country if Donald Trump would ever become President. The liberals in 2008 & 2012 were happy with the Electoral College system then. In fact they brag about, so why can’t Trump? Because Trump’s victory hurts liberal pride and they can’t show how to be good losers.
When Obama became President winning the exact same way that Donald Trump won, you didn’t see Republicans enticing violence or crying on TV. Liberals promised to leave the country if Donald Trump would ever become President. The liberals in 2008 & 2012 were happy with the Electoral College system then. In fact they brag about, so why can’t Trump? Because Trump’s victory hurts liberal pride and they can’t show how to be good losers.
Last edited:
Frenchy
Peace, Love and Camembert
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2016
- Messages
- 19,838
- Reaction score
- 26,897
Yes, and trust me, some American women loved it that way
Good for you. So why the anti-trump hysteria?
Frenchy
Peace, Love and Camembert
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2016
- Messages
- 19,838
- Reaction score
- 26,897
I am not anti-Trump per se. It’s just that Trump seems to have an anti-everything hysteria himself. But I find the whole show has some comedic value, I always read his tweets first thing in the morning. And on a few issues I actually agree with him (gasp!) ,to the extent that he’s consistent about them (not always the case). For instance I agree that the visa lottery system is dumb. Or that Germany and Japan can and should develop their defense more, WW2 was more than 2 generations ago now, and they are rich, stable democracies.