IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , libel laws , Reince Priebus , Trump administration , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 2nd May 2017, 10:03 AM   #81
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
GOP supporters see this as being strong, failing to bend to the will of the White House correspondents and instead holding his own rally, taking decisive action to suppress fake news by tightening libel laws and putting a pushy reporter firmly in his place.



He won't need one.

The GOP will continue to back him to the hilt and pander to his whims. They may even attempt to enact legislation to change the libel laws, safe in the knowledge that they will be defeated and that the majority voting against it will be Democratic Party representatives and so Trump can blame the Democrats for foiling him again.
When will the GOP find it cost-ineffective to be hoovered to Trump's trouser-snake? When they become as unpopular as Trump himself, who is even less popular than that weakling Obama's attempt to give U.S. citizens a glimpse of first-world UHC?
__________________
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore,
So do our minutes hasten to their end . . .


WS

Last edited by Resume; 2nd May 2017 at 10:21 AM. Reason: and the mysterians
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2017, 10:28 AM   #82
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 12,511
Originally Posted by stargazer0519 View Post
Yes, exactly. Support your local high school debate team. It's one of the few places where young teenagers learn to exercise their critical thinking skills.
I'd love to have them write essays that must include 3 common fallacies, then have them switch papers to make sure they accomplished it.

Assignments for persuasive essays, usually in the 5-paragraph format, are often tied to literature reading in class. But that's not necessarily the most productive approach, because if they are not engaged in the literature they won't be able to cite 3 separate reasons supporting their thesis statement.

Get them to write about something that matters to them. They are naturally critical thinkers, but they have to learn that stating one reason 3 different ways is not the same thing as giving 3 reasons to support their point of view.

It could work pretty well in middle school as well.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2017, 11:01 AM   #83
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
When will the GOP find it cost-ineffective to be hoovered to Trump's trouser-snake?
Likely never

Originally Posted by Resume View Post
When they become as unpopular as Trump himself, who is even less popular than that weakling Obama's attempt to give U.S. citizens a glimpse of first-world UHC?
45% will turn out and vote Republican anyway. House districts are gerrymandered so the only threat is from the primaries and no-one lost one of those for the GOP by being too right wing.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2017, 02:30 PM   #84
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Perhaps he's thinking that there there should also be some kind of "executive privilege" to protect The President from accusations of libel relating to statements made as President.

<snip>

He's put "exception" back doors in all of his "swamp draining" efforts so far. At his discretion, of course.

And has shown no hesitation in using them.

No reason to expect this would be any different in his mind*.

(*:Using the term very loosely.)
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2017, 02:36 PM   #85
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of)
Posts: 27,292
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Holy cow! I'd REALLY like to be able to call Poe's Law on that. But I can't. When you Google "Priebus", the very first thing that is offered is "Priebus First Amendment". And he's supposed to be the grownup in the room.

By comparison, he is.

But that's a pretty low bar.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2017, 03:00 PM   #86
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
The GOP will continue to back him to the hilt and pander to his whims. They may even attempt to enact legislation to change the libel laws, safe in the knowledge that they will be defeated and that the majority voting against it will be Democratic Party representatives and so Trump can blame the Democrats for foiling him again.

That's all politics in a nut shell. I've seen bills sponsored by people who voted against it in a panic that it almost became law. They wanted the brownie points for creating the bill, secure in the knowledge it wouldn't become law, or so they thought.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2017, 07:37 PM   #87
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
I'm glad it is nigh-impossible to Amend the Constitution to get rid of the First Amendment.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2017, 10:51 PM   #88
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
I'm glad it is nigh-impossible to Amend the Constitution to get rid of the First Amendment.
Doesn't need to be repealed, merely modified to suit Trump's aims.

Heck a SCOTUS ruling effectively rewrote the second amendment to turn it into a personal right to bear arms for gits and shiggles.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 05:56 PM   #89
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,203
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
No it really is just up to him, former secretaries of defense say that they can not legally stop them and it is a legal order.

See http://www.radiolab.org/story/nukes/

There are talk of laws making a nuclear first strike require someone else's agreement under proposal but current law is that it is up to the president solely.

So Secretary of Defense William Perry does not agree with you. They can try to talk the president out of it but at the end of the day he has sole discretion on the use of nuclear weapons including first strikes.
You'll notice that I didn't say that the SoD could over-rule it, just that they had to verify it. It's the Commanders on the ground and in the air that have the final say as to if they will launch.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 06:00 PM   #90
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Doesn't need to be repealed, merely modified to suit Trump's aims.

Heck a SCOTUS ruling effectively rewrote the second amendment to turn it into a personal right to bear arms for gits and shiggles.
Not going to happen.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 07:02 PM   #91
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
That's all politics in a nut shell. I've seen bills sponsored by people who voted against it in a panic that it almost became law. They wanted the brownie points for creating the bill, secure in the knowledge it wouldn't become law, or so they thought.
That's a reasonable description on how we got Prohibition.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2017, 11:45 PM   #92
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Not going to happen.
Why not ?

The Patriot Act drove a carriage and four through a range of constitutional rights with nary a peep.

Changing libel laws (with a handy "parliamentary privilege" exemption for lawmakers) may not even require a constitutional amendment, merely a SCOTUS ruling to show that the libel laws are indeed compatible with the existing first amendment.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 12:29 AM   #93
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Why not ?

The Patriot Act drove a carriage and four through a range of constitutional rights with nary a peep.

Changing libel laws (with a handy "parliamentary privilege" exemption for lawmakers) may not even require a constitutional amendment, merely a SCOTUS ruling to show that the libel laws are indeed compatible with the existing first amendment.
Let's see.

First, there aren't federal libel laws. There is exactly 0% chance that Congress is going to add one just because Donald Trump's feelings get hurt when the media tells the truth about him, much less one that would allow him to successfully sue them. Even if Republicans voted 100% lockstep in favor, they would not have the votes. They don't have 60 votes in the Senate and no way even a single Democrat would vote for it. Not that all Republicans would be in favor anyway. Plenty of them are smart enough to know that such a bill would bite their side in the ass as it would also allow Democrats to go after right wing media. Trump can't even get Congress to fund his stupid wall, but he is going to get them to do this? Come one.

As for the Supreme Court, they have made rulings that make it basically impossible for politicians to successfully sue for libel. While it is theoretically possible for them to overturn this precedent, they would first need a case to do it. Like Congress passing a law and it getting challenged. Which as I already explained, is not going to happen. And even if they did, what reason do they have to change it, because an unpopular president wants them to? Please. These people have lifetime appointments, Trump has no leverage over them.

Seriously, this is not going to happen. I suspect that Trump told his people to look into it. And they did and found there was no way to do it or already knew. But Reince can't well go on TV and say that his boss is a petulant idiot who wants to implement an unconstitutional plan that won't happen.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 12:47 AM   #94
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Let's see.

First, there aren't federal libel laws. There is exactly 0% chance that Congress is going to add one just because Donald Trump's feelings get hurt when the media tells the truth about him, much less one that would allow him to successfully sue them. Even if Republicans voted 100% lockstep in favor, they would not have the votes. They don't have 60 votes in the Senate and no way even a single Democrat would vote for it. Not that all Republicans would be in favor anyway. Plenty of them are smart enough to know that such a bill would bite their side in the ass as it would also allow Democrats to go after right wing media. Trump can't even get Congress to fund his stupid wall, but he is going to get them to do this? Come one.

As for the Supreme Court, they have made rulings that make it basically impossible for politicians to successfully sue for libel. While it is theoretically possible for them to overturn this precedent, they would first need a case to do it. Like Congress passing a law and it getting challenged. Which as I already explained, is not going to happen. And even if they did, what reason do they have to change it, because an unpopular president wants them to? Please. These people have lifetime appointments, Trump has no leverage over them.

Seriously, this is not going to happen. I suspect that Trump told his people to look into it. And they did and found there was no way to do it or already knew. But Reince can't well go on TV and say that his boss is a petulant idiot who wants to implement an unconstitutional plan that won't happen.
Excellent points all
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 03:13 AM   #95
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You'll notice that I didn't say that the SoD could over-rule it, just that they had to verify it. It's the Commanders on the ground and in the air that have the final say as to if they will launch.
No they don't they only get to show if the order came from a legitimate source namely directly from the president. They don't get to decide that the president is bonkers and drunk and not fire.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 07:21 AM   #96
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
/derail
Getting back to the topic of this thread, I have a serious question: Among statements that are non-libelous under current US law, what kinds would become libelous if the laws were changed as Trump desires?

Let's consider two concrete examples, neither of them libelous under current law.

Let's suppose someone says, in writing, that some public figure, such as former President Barack Obama, is a thin-skinned narcissist. Suppose further that this statement is not accompanied by evidence, and its author not only refuses to offer evidence in support of that statement but also throws a hissy fit when challenged to provide evidence. Does Trump want that kind of thing to become libel?

Consider also a less extreme example. Suppose someone says, in writing, that some public figure such as current President Donald Trump is a thin-skinned narcissist, providing numerous examples in support of that claim and providing still further examples in support when challenged. Does Trump want that kind of thing to become libel as well?

My guess is that Trump wants the second of those examples, but not the first, to be considered libel.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 07:24 AM   #97
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Getting back to the topic of this thread, I have a serious question: Among statements that are non-libelous under current US law, what kinds would become libelous if the laws were changed as Trump desires?

Let's consider two concrete examples, neither of them libelous under current law.

Let's suppose someone says, in writing, that some public figure, such as former President Barack Obama, is a thin-skinned narcissist. Suppose further that this statement is not accompanied by evidence, and its author not only refuses to offer evidence in support of that statement but also throws a hissy fit when challenged to provide evidence. Does Trump want that kind of thing to become libel?

Consider also a less extreme example. Suppose someone says, in writing, that some public figure such as current President Donald Trump is a thin-skinned narcissist, providing numerous examples in support of that claim and providing still further examples in support when challenged. Does Trump want that kind of thing to become libel as well?

My guess is that Trump wants the second of those examples, but not the first, to be considered libel.
Trump wants it to be libel for the media to say negative things about him even if they are true. That's all he cares about.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 08:58 AM   #98
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
Mod WarningOff topic posts dumped to AAH - the topic of this thread is well expressed in its title, keep to that title.

NB: when I started the housekeeping clean-up of this thread I hadn't realised I'd posted in this particular thread, as ever we try not to - outside of housekeeping - moderate threads we are active participants in therefore any further actions regarding the posts moved to AAH will not be actioned by myself.
Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:Darat
__________________
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 09:27 AM   #99
kmortis
Biomechanoid
Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
 
kmortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Texas (aka SOMD)
Posts: 32,151
Didn't they try that under John Adams? Something called the Sedition Acts. Granted, those were to stop "false statements critical about the federal government", but in this political climate I don't see one party accepting the critique of their opposition as being true or accurate.
__________________
-Aberhaten did it
- "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe
-Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping
- Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm
kmortis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 09:45 AM   #100
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by kmortis View Post
Didn't they try that under John Adams? Something called the Sedition Acts. Granted, those were to stop "false statements critical about the federal government", but in this political climate I don't see one party accepting the critique of their opposition as being true or accurate.
We had similar restrictions under Wilson in WWI.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 10:09 AM   #101
kmortis
Biomechanoid
Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
 
kmortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Texas (aka SOMD)
Posts: 32,151
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
We had similar restrictions under Wilson in WWI.
I guess these "good ideas" just keep getting recycled...
__________________
-Aberhaten did it
- "Which gives us an answer to our question. What’s the worst thing that can happen in a pressure cooker?" Randall Munroe
-Director of Independent Determining Inquisitor Of Crazy Yapping
- Aberhaten's Apothegm™ - An Internet law that states that optimism is indistinguishable from sarcasm
kmortis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 11:14 PM   #102
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 25,183
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
But Reince can't well go on TV and say that his boss is a petulant idiot ...
But you gotta admit it would make for great television.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2017, 11:34 PM   #103
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 37,582
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Let's see.

First, there aren't federal libel laws. There is exactly 0% chance that Congress is going to add one just because Donald Trump's feelings get hurt when the media tells the truth about him, much less one that would allow him to successfully sue them. Even if Republicans voted 100% lockstep in favor, they would not have the votes. They don't have 60 votes in the Senate and no way even a single Democrat would vote for it. Not that all Republicans would be in favor anyway. Plenty of them are smart enough to know that such a bill would bite their side in the ass as it would also allow Democrats to go after right wing media. Trump can't even get Congress to fund his stupid wall, but he is going to get them to do this? Come one.

As for the Supreme Court, they have made rulings that make it basically impossible for politicians to successfully sue for libel. While it is theoretically possible for them to overturn this precedent, they would first need a case to do it. Like Congress passing a law and it getting challenged. Which as I already explained, is not going to happen. And even if they did, what reason do they have to change it, because an unpopular president wants them to? Please. These people have lifetime appointments, Trump has no leverage over them.

Seriously, this is not going to happen. I suspect that Trump told his people to look into it. And they did and found there was no way to do it or already knew. But Reince can't well go on TV and say that his boss is a petulant idiot who wants to implement an unconstitutional plan that won't happen.
I was thinking about this again while I was mowing the lawn yesterday and then I saw a story about President Trump's latest Executive Order protecting religious freedom.....

If you want to introduce a bill to curtail freedom of speech then you want to name and pitch it in a way that seems to protect free speech.

I'd therefore call it the First Amendment Protection Act (I admit that FAPA isn't a great name) and say something to the effect that the United States is fighting an asymmetrical war against Islamic Terrorism, external involvement in the election process and fake news. Faceless people and organisations are able to spread all kinds of lies on the internet and there's no effective redress. By the time someone in politics can take action it's too late and oftentimes there's no-one to sue for libel.

Therefore in order to protect freedom of speech, and ensure that the political process is protected against foreign interference and Islamic Terrorists, the FAPA will make it easier for sitting or prospective representatives to seek redress for inflammatory, untrue or negative comments made against them. Exemptions include comments made by sitting or prospective representatives (or their agents) as part of the democratic process.

In order to prevent local partiality from allowing a representative to get justice, the FAPA will apply at a federal level.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:06 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.