CURRENT EVENTS

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 657
  • Views: 14K
  • Politics 
Patb78 said:
Don’t know if this is the correct thread for this topic, but here goes. Has anyone seen the ad Samuel L. Jackson has done for a Swedish energy company named Vattenfall? It pokes fun at trump’s dislike of wind energy. It’s hilarious. I don’t know how to post it, but it would be great if someone did. You would all (except probably our trumpers) get a good laugh out of it.
Click to expand...
I had to hear today about how the windmills off the coast of New jersey are being torn down so the poor whales can be saved.


On a related note, my mother leaves town in 36 hours. not that I am counting....
 
Patb78 said:
Don’t know if this is the correct thread for this topic, but here goes. Has anyone seen the ad Samuel L. Jackson has done for a Swedish energy company named Vattenfall? It pokes fun at trump’s dislike of wind energy. It’s hilarious. I don’t know how to post it, but it would be great if someone did. You would all (except probably our trumpers) get a good laugh out of it.
Click to expand...
This it? .... MF wind farms! ... like a middle finger to CO2.

 
Two things about all these media (traditional and social) settlements with Trump.

1. I know the reflexive response from GOPers is that the Biden administration did the same thing by pressuring social media companies to "censor" disinformation about Covid and the 2020 election. But (a) I don't recall any lawsuits by Biden or anyone associated with his administration against media companies, and (b) even the GOPers in Congress who investigated that alleged pressure did not find any evidence of threats or coercion on the part of the Biden team. What Trump is doing seems to me to be completely different from what Biden did.

2. The Supreme Court's immunity decision defines the president's "official acts" so broadly that I have a feeling Trump would not be able to be sued for anything related to his social media bans while he is in office. If Trump can't BE sued while in office, he also should not be permitted TO sue while in office. I get the logic behind some form of presidential immunity while in office, even if SCOTUS completely botched it by making his immunity virtually limitless. I don't see any logical reason a president should be able to pursue lawsuits like this while in office. It's a perfect recipe for corruption, coercion, and personal enrichment, which is exactly what we see playing out.
 
lawtig02 said:
Two things about all these media (traditional and social) settlements with Trump.

1. I know the reflexive response from GOPers is that the Biden administration did the same thing by pressuring social media companies to "censor" disinformation about Covid and the 2020 election. But (a) I don't recall any lawsuits by Biden or anyone associated with his administration against media companies, and (b) even the GOPers in Congress who investigated that alleged pressure did not find any evidence of threats or coercion on the part of the Biden team. What Trump is doing seems to me to be completely different from what Biden did.

2. The Supreme Court's immunity decision defines the president's "official acts" so broadly that I have a feeling Trump would not be able to be sued for anything related to his social media bans while he is in office. If Trump can't BE sued while in office, he also should not be permitted TO sue while in office. I get the logic behind some form of presidential immunity while in office, even if SCOTUS completely botched it by making his immunity virtually limitless. I don't see any logical reason a president should be able to pursue lawsuits like this while in office. It's a perfect recipe for corruption, coercion, and personal enrichment, which is exactly what we see playing out.
Click to expand...
Civil immunity is necessary. Criminal immunity is never necessary or justified. And not all civil immunity is justified. Negligence based torts, sure. Defamation? Absolutely no immunity. If the president doesn't want to be sued for lying about people, he shouldn't lie about people.

But of course, I would like to see our defamation laws strengthened -- especially for political actors.
 
Icky Mettle said:
Yikes. I wish I didn’t see that.
Click to expand...
Once you come to the conclusion that those with a different vision of what America should be are the very personification of evil, then everything you do, regardless of what that is, become a virtuous defense of truth, justice, liberty, and the American way.

Or as Jacob Bronowski more eloquently said near the conclusion of the penultimate episode of his landmark PBS series, "The Ascent of Man," "This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods."

I routinely pray to God to protect me from those who think they perceive His will with absolute clarity.
 
lawtig02 said:
Two things about all these media (traditional and social) settlements with Trump.

1. I know the reflexive response from GOPers is that the Biden administration did the same thing by pressuring social media companies to "censor" disinformation about Covid and the 2020 election. But (a) I don't recall any lawsuits by Biden or anyone associated with his administration against media companies, and (b) even the GOPers in Congress who investigated that alleged pressure did not find any evidence of threats or coercion on the part of the Biden team. What Trump is doing seems to me to be completely different from what Biden did.

2. The Supreme Court's immunity decision defines the president's "official acts" so broadly that I have a feeling Trump would not be able to be sued for anything related to his social media bans while he is in office. If Trump can't BE sued while in office, he also should not be permitted TO sue while in office. I get the logic behind some form of presidential immunity while in office, even if SCOTUS completely botched it by making his immunity virtually limitless. I don't see any logical reason a president should be able to pursue lawsuits like this while in office. It's a perfect recipe for corruption, coercion, and personal enrichment, which is exactly what we see playing out.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. He can sue someone but they can’t countersue? That reminds me of playing games with my kids when they were younger and none of the rules that were adverse to their chances of winning could apply to them even though they all applied to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top