Random Politics & Religion #09

That is stretching so far. You might as well have said that Trump just declared war on the entire EU.

It's pretty clear Trump doesn't understand geopolitics if he'd even entertain such ideas. Nukes in any form or shape would change life as we know it across the globe. You don't even talk about that type of ***in jest.

It'd basically castrate the global economy and destroy the tenuous peace we've all had the pleasure living in since WWII.

I would have thought he would have waited until after he was sworn in to do that....but good for him for taking a proactive approach to the problem...

What is being reported are words he said, or in one case reportedly said, being report by a source who the interviewer has no reason to suspect is providing them misinformation.

Trump says idiotic ***in situations he really shouldn't. Media presents it. They may somewhat questionably point readers toward misinterpretation, but they do not publish a known falsity or recklessly disregard the truth. (est. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964)

You don't get to claim all the glamour of being a bombastic "tell it like it is" guy (not that he really does that) and also whine when people report what you say and take it literally.

You'd think you'd understand this concept quite well given the way everything every president ever has been taken out of context by anyone who disagrees with them.

Trump is a public figure. The bar for libel for public figures is far, far higher than it is for people who are not public figures. (See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 1974)

This has been taken to trial many, many times.

Trump uses libel lawsuits as a bully tactic because it doesn't matter if he wins them (for the record, he's only won one, ever, and that case is ongoing in appeals and isn't looking promising for him in the end).

He uses the threat of having to go to court with someone with more money and resources as a weapon.

He doesn't want to reign in the media for the good of the public. He wants to reign in the media the way his heroes in China and Russia manage their media.

You can nitpick definitions of libel all you want, but it has been taken all the way up to the Supreme Court

What did you expect him to say? That we will never use nukes under any circumstance ever? The whole point of having nukes in the first place is that by having them and having the ability to hit any target on Earth with them serves as a major deterrent to engaging in open warfare with the U.S.

It's like having a minefield around your property with real mines, but they're all deactivated and there's a sign out front saying, "CAUTION: MINE FIELD.... BUT SERIOUSLY GUYS, NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT BECAUSE THEY'RE ALWAYS DEACTIVATED"

In the same interview, it's pointed out that even noted Republican hero Ronald Reagan despised the concept of "mutually assured destruction" and sought to wind down the arms race and stockpiling/threat of nuclear devices.

What you're saying is not without merit, but Trump's actions and words have not been encouraging that the things he said are within the context you're attempting to frame them.

Libel is making ***up about a person and publishing it as fact with intent on injuring the persons reputation. Taking someone's own words out of context is not libel.

But being that you have often demonstrated a difficulty in differentiating a personal attack from an observation of behavior the error on your part is understandable.

My instinct is that this is all smoke and no fire. If Trump had lost 10% popularity in the last week, how come his rallies are still packed with people to the point where people cannot get in?

The reports of his campaign truly imploding are likely all part of the smear and propaganda campaign against him. Everyone is Washington is absolutely terrified for him to turn on the lights and bug bomb the corruption that would no doubt result from his election. If he was imploding they would not be panicked.

A guy who has never held a public office doesn't know ***about geopolitics?

Who knew?

The point of nukes is to have nothing to say. Let your enemies and allies like guess at the type of force you've got tucked away. You don't have to answer questions that leave you open to judgement calls. Would you answer a question about nuking Russia? Nope. Because it's a dumb question. Next.

Trump has a serious issue with getting baited because he doesn't understand the larger ideas at play or just doesn't care. Get on message.

Legit question:

Do people who go to political rallies really represent the voting public as a whole? For either party? Or primary candidates?

You couldn't pay me enough money to go be in the crowd at a rally no matter how much I supported the candidate.

So, if I say that I heard Clinton said she will dine on all of the firstborns of America, you won't say that's libel?

So you're saying Trump isn't familiar with mutually assured destruction or hasn't bothered to read up on the serious topics he'd face as POTUS? Seriously? We don't talk about nuking allies even if its a contingency plan somewhere. Keep 'em guessing. Shut up.

Someone get this guy a copy of The Art of War or something.

Well being that he demonstrated a lack of understanding with respect to the triad you can't exactly expect him to give the correct answer about nuking a nation who also has a triad.

I think he's focusing more on the deliberate misrepresentation portion of libel rather than the blatant lie, but from the legal standpoint it's simply not libel either way, no matter how much he wants it to be.

Oh that was the best story I saw the other day

"Trump asked if he can use nukes" - Trump want to use nukes!

I think it's time we nuke this thread.

I can see it now Trump said this no he said that for 30 more pages.

The arms race with Russia was getting sufficiently nuts, that's for sure. And I certainly believe that nuclear weapons should be an absolute 100% last resort. However, the whole "red button" idea that the president can just send a nuke anywhere at any time by just because he feels like it seems very overblown to me and approaching the realm of fantasy. Maybe someone can confirm or deny that for me, because it doesn't sound right. On that note, I highly doubt Trump would nuke anyone, and presidential opinion on military actions seems to change drastically from the day they get into office and get briefed by actual military leaders anyway so I don't put much credence to any Trump comments that have to be stretched to make a point in the first place.

If you have a source and you truly believe it's accurate (or if you're playing the satire angle, which is a different subject almost entirely), no.

If you say/write it knowing it's absolutely false and try to pass it off as fact, then yes.

To truly answer it and define it as libel the question must asked towards the originator: Do you honestly believe that?

No= libel
Yes = not libel

Which is why the law should be re-written to include that. Which, I'm sure, Trump will present legislation for consideration.

Which is what the media is truly afraid of. I mean, they would be stuck at reporting the news, instead of spreading lies and misrepresentations like they love to do.

And people wonder why the general public has a deep mistrust of the media.

If that's the case, you just prove my point.

Well, Trump didn't lose 10% popularity in the first place. That perception comes from people who don't understand how polls work... which is pretty much the vast majority of people, apparently.

You really want the executive branch overruling the judicial?

Because that's what you're suggesting.


While I myself am not a fan of the media's representation of "facts" at all times, your suggestions actually have deeper implications against the First Amendment than any gun control legislation has ever had over the Second.

Which is what the media is doing. I mean, come on!

Like I said before, they are purposefully reporting lies to demean a presidential candidate.

Did Trump really say those things that MSN reporter said? Did Trump really boot out that baby? I mean, come on now!

I want the Legislative Branch to propose a law, the Executive Branch sign the law, and the Judicial Branch to enforce the law.

There is no overruling. Trump is not going to sign an executive order decreeing that all media outlets must only report the news without commentary.

That's Obama's shtick.

How is only reporting the news against the First Amendment?

Thanks, Wikipedia School of Law.

Pretty sure you cant use nukes without a consensus from the POTUS and the Secretary of Defense.

I won't comment on what's libel and what isn't, but when an article hits top news that's based entirely on 3rd party hearsay, that's just ridiculous. And you wonder why fewer and fewer people trust the media.