What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[viper37]

You make it against the law to show up to a protest with "gaz" masks, baseball bats, body armour, american fists, etc, and then arrest them when they violate the law.  you don't just decide to go all Getsapo on them because you don't like their looks.  Always remember that you could be next.

doubtful I could be next, I dislike protests.

I just disagree and I don't like the Gestapo comparison.  I'm not talking about arresting people at home, just when they show for the protest, with everything they need for their mischief.

[Razgovory]

Well, since we can't get the first one, what are we to do?

Thoughts and prayers?

I've said it before.  Staging violent counter protests is counter productive, they look like victims.
Let them do their silly parade, armed to the teeth, with all the cameras on them, and stage some multicultural activity/parade the day after in the same city.

And letting them spread their hate has resulted in the spread of their ideology.  The risks are too great.  The Germans make this sort of bullshit illegal, and unlike Grumbler I'm not afraid that some day Germany will throw me in jail.

[Eddie Teach]

I think America has a slightly better track record on this.

[grumbler]

You make it against the law to show up to a protest with "gaz" masks, baseball bats, body armour, american fists, etc, and then arrest them when they violate the law.  you don't just decide to go all Getsapo on them because you don't like their looks.  Always remember that you could be next.

doubtful I could be next, I dislike protests.

Doubtful that you are as safe as you think, because there are, in fact, laws that have nothing to do with protests. 

I just disagree and I don't like the Gestapo comparison.  I'm not talking about arresting people at home, just when they show for the protest, with everything they need for their mischief.

I understand that you want to abandon the rule of law in dealing with those whom you do not like; the point I am making is that abandoning principles for expediency like this led Germany to the Gestapo.  Once you give the police the power to arrest anyone they think "likely to commit a crime," you cannot claim the principle of "not talking about arresting people at home."  If the police think that you are sitting at home and "likely to commit a crime," they can arrest you under your own rules.

[Admiral Yi]

CNN has brought suit in DC District Court to return Jim Acosta's press pass.

[The Minsky Moment]

So saith SS:

CNN, who has nearly 50 additional hard pass holders, and Mr. Acosta is no more or less special than any other media outlet or reporter with respect to the First Amendment.

So . . . the Second Amendment is a personal right, not a collective one, but the First Amendment is a corporate right?  Jim Acosta's free speech can be violated because his corporate employer still has access?

And does the WH interpret the First Amendment as giving it the right to determine who in each media corporation will be assigned to the WH beat?

[The Minsky Moment]

Wow Ted Olson is representing CNN.  The doyen of the conservative bar in DC.  This is a statement filing.

[Razgovory]

I think America has a slightly better track record on this.

I wonder if the Cherokees had this debate back when the the Jacksonians were a rising faction in American politics.

[Valmy]

I think America has a slightly better track record on this.

I wonder if the Cherokees had this debate back when the the Jacksonians were a rising faction in American politics.

It did not quite work like that.

[Syt]

Matthew Whitaker, the gift that keeps on giving:

https://www.newsweek.com/matthew-whitaker-jews-muslim-judges-attorney-general-1210003

ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL MATTHEW WHITAKER ONCE SAID JEWS, MUSLIMS AND ATHEISTS SHOULD NOT BE FEDERAL JUDGES

New acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said in 2014 that judges without a New Testament "biblical view of justice," should not serve on the federal bench and suggested that he would block the appointment of non-Christian judges if given the chance.

While Whitaker singled out atheists in particular as being unfit to serve, his comments also extended to Jewish and Muslim Americans.

In 2014, Whitaker was running for the Republican Senate nomination in Iowa and participated in a forum hosted by the religious-right group The Family Leader. The forum's leader, Bob Vander Plaats, outlined the themes of the event in his opening remarks. "We believe God has three institutions: It would be the church, the family, and government," he said. The Republican nominees were then asked a series of questions about their religious values, including their views on federal judgeships.

"If you get to the United States Senate and you have the majority, you can block President Obama's judges," said moderator Erick Erickson, a conservative blogger. "But most Americans would say you need to have a real reason to block those judges other than just they're liberal. How do you set the criteria that you will use to block those judges?"

Whittaker's two competitors, Sam Clovis and Joni Ernst, said that they would use faith-based criteria and make sure they acknowledged "natural law."

Natural law is the belief that legal rights and systems of morals were given to humans by God and were not derived from the rules of society. The concept is often used in religious communities to deem certain acts immoral and "unnatural" like the use of contraception or same-sex relationships.

But Whitaker said that using belief in natural law as a criterion for appointing U.S. federal judgeships did not go far enough.

"As someone that's interacted with the federal judiciary a time or two, I will tell you that I have a unique perspective on federal judges," he said.

"And while I agree that I want to understand their judicial philosophy and whether they understand natural law and natural rights and then the founding documents and how they fit together...I don't think that gets us far enough because natural law oftentfimes is used from the eye of the beholder," he continued. "What I'd like to see is things like their worldview.... Are they people of faith? Do they have a biblical view of justice? I think that is very important."

The moderator interrupted Whitaker and asked "Levitical or New Testament?" which is an indirect way of asking whether people of the Jewish faith should be banned from serving as federal judges.

"I'm a New Testament," responded Whitaker to laughter. "And what I know is as long as they have that [New Testament] worldview that they'll be a good judge."

Under those guidelines, Whitaker would also question the ability of Muslim-Americans and other non-Christian Americans to sit on the federal bench.

If judges have a "secular worldview," said Whitaker, "where this is all we have here on Earth? Then I'm going to be very concerned about how they judge."

The comments that suggest judges need to have a biblical view of justice are "deeply troubling and require immediate clarification," an Anti-Defamation League spokesperson told Newsweek. "The notion that non-Christian judges are disqualified from service is patently wrong, and completely inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly bars any religious test for public office," he said.

The ADL also pointed out that these views were "contrary to the mission statement of the Department of Justice—'to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law... and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.'"

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Matthew Whitaker was appointed by President Donald Trump as interim attorney general on Wednesday after his predecessor, Jeff Sessions, was suddenly ousted from office.

Trump has long vented publicly about Sessions's decision to recuse himself from overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Whitaker has been vocal about his opposition to the investigation and has said on numerous occasions that he believes it should be defunded.

Under a normal line of succession, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was overseeing the investigation, would have taken over the top role. Instead, Trump handpicked Whitaker who was acting as Sessions's chief of staff.

The Department of Justice has nearly 100,000 employees, a $30 billion budget and oversees all federal law enforcement in the country.

[Grey Fox]

Everything about this is wrong.

[FunkMonk]

Whitaker should have just fired Mueller or defunded his investigation right after he was illegally appointed acting AG. Now he's let enough time go by that he's getting roasted and dunked on by everyone. It makes his position less and less tenable.

[Valmy]

Stuff like that would really concern me during the Dubya Presidency but it is hard to take it as anything but the rantings of the insane when these same men support Donald Trump, such a Godly man guided by the principles of the New Testament.

And how Jews and Muslims have 'secular values' is beyond me. I mean they might have those values but not because of their religions.

[Syt]

And how Jews and Muslims have 'secular values' is beyond me. I mean they might have those values but not because of their religions.

They're not following the New Testament of the Lord Jesus.

[viper37]

And letting them spread their hate has resulted in the spread of their ideology.  The risks are too great.

If you forbid them to spread their ideology, you also have to prevent the far left from doing the same.  And anyone who tacitely agrees with them will need to be booted out of the public life (no politics, no administrative position in the government, etc) once it is discovered (i.e. a like on a Facebook comment about a muslim invasion, or a like on a comment gloryfying eco terrorism, stuff like that).

I believe your 1st amendment covers just about anything short of treason.  But I'm not an expert on this subject.  I just don't see any practical way to legally censor them without censoring everything else.

The Germans make this sort of bullshit illegal,

Sort of.  Again, not an expert on the legal side of things in Germany, but my understanding is that saying "Jews are evil" is not illegal, but gloryfying the Nazi past is.  For good reasons, imho.  But the US has different problems, a different history, a different legal system.

and unlike Grumbler I'm not afraid that some day Germany will throw me in jail.

Well, the chances that Germany would throw a US citizen in jail for saying "Hitler was a great man" and proudly wearing a swatiska are near non existent...  Unless Grumbler has plans to do something like that in Berlin?

Canada also has anti hate speech laws.  And specialized police squads to investigate far right groups.

What we don't have is specialized police squads to investigate far left groups, and that shows.  Even the police admits it has "some difficulties".  And any investigation on union corruption, money laundering, etc will be shut down once they get too close to their mark, as evidenced in the past.

Still, I think it mostly works ok, it's not overly restrictive on your freedom, but BB might slightly disagree, for religious reasons.  Since can be used as great vector of hate, you have to curb religious freedoms a little. I don't think it would work in the US.