The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: velcro on September 05, 2018, 09:51:42 PM

Title: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: velcro on September 05, 2018, 09:51:42 PM
Quote
Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!

Let me get this straight.  The President is ordering a newspaper to "turn over" to the government the writer of an Op-Ed.  No investigation, no judge, no warrant.  No plausible national security threat.  The lead law-enforcement officer of the country is ordering this. Publicly, on what is considered official channels.

How is this not a house-on-fire constitutional crisis? How is this not a cut-and-dried violation of the Constitutional oath?

Is it because nobody actually believes he means it, including the entire Congress, and the entire Executive branch?  What does that say about how our country views the Presidency now that Trump is President?  How will we know he really means anything?  How can our country function with that kind of ambiguity?  How impotent and dysfunctional does it make our country look, especially considering that he hired the person he wants turned over?

I apologize for sounding shrill, but this is seriously, seriously, effed up.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDeamon on September 05, 2018, 10:30:08 PM
Such commentary is interesting however any comments coming from RNC loyalists should be held with a grain of salt as even if Trump weren't mentally off the rails I expect they would still be deadset on convincing everyone - as Trump's opposition does - that he is unfit so that a real party man can take over. Whether Trump was competent or incompetent I rather expect their position with regard to him would be the same, but nevertheless such warnings as this should also be considered as potentially accurate. Even merely the anti-Russia lobby alone would be strong enough to present a 'united front' of agreement on Trump being off the rails and unfit, and I give them about as much credit as I give Putin.

Well, at this point they may be trying for a flat out "psychotic break" with regards to Trump so that it can be taken as undisputed that he's gone off the deep end.

Even if it is due to justifiable paranoia that practically everyone seems to be out to get him in one way or another.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDeamon on September 05, 2018, 10:38:00 PM
Quote
Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!

Let me get this straight.  The President is ordering a newspaper to "turn over" to the government the writer of an Op-Ed.  No investigation, no judge, no warrant.  No plausible national security threat.  The lead law-enforcement officer of the country is ordering this. Publicly, on what is considered official channels.

How is this not a house-on-fire constitutional crisis? How is this not a cut-and-dried violation of the Constitutional oath?

Is it because nobody actually believes he means it, including the entire Congress, and the entire Executive branch?  What does that say about how our country views the Presidency now that Trump is President?  How will we know he really means anything?  How can our country function with that kind of ambiguity?  How impotent and dysfunctional does it make our country look, especially considering that he hired the person he wants turned over?

It isn't a crises because "been there, done that" with Nixon, IIRC.

Anybody who is likely to be party to carrying out such an executive order knows it is illegal on its face.

There also are orders, then there are orders. Which is where the other half of the fun and games come into things.

The President can say, or type into Twitter, pretty much anything he wants. So long as he doesn't frame it as an outright order to "the appropriate person" or otherwise issue a written order, through the proper forms/channels, then it isn't actually an order and it has no legal standing. Nobody gets in legal trouble for disobeying it, and nobody gets in legal trouble for issuing it--"because it never actually happened."
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDeamon on September 05, 2018, 11:29:52 PM
The President can say, or type into Twitter, pretty much anything he wants. So long as he doesn't frame it as an outright order to "the appropriate person" or otherwise issue a written order, through the proper forms/channels, then it isn't actually an order and it has no legal standing. Nobody gets in legal trouble for disobeying it, and nobody gets in legal trouble for issuing it--"because it never actually happened."

...Which on further reflection is eerie in its proximity to Nixon's own games, only in his case, it was demonstrated that he expected those "orders" to be carried out, and they often were. Which is where he landed in trouble. So long as nobody actually attempts to carry out Trump's orders, and Trump doesn't "follow through" on people failing to obey his illegal orders, the "fiction" of the order "never happening" gets to remain.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: velcro on September 06, 2018, 08:01:55 AM
Quote
The President can say, or type into Twitter, pretty much anything he wants. So long as he doesn't frame it as an outright order to "the appropriate person" or otherwise issue a written order, through the proper forms/channels, then it isn't actually an order and it has no legal standing. Nobody gets in legal trouble for disobeying it, and nobody gets in legal trouble for issuing it--"because it never actually happened."

That is a valid interpretation.  But a competent President, one who tries to preserve the power and respect of the United States of America, would never do such a thing.  It blurs all the lines of command, encourages everyone to avoid accountability, and eliminates transparency.

For a President to say "This illegal thing should be done", then have him (or his supporters) say "I didn't mean it" may be a valid legal excuse.  But when it happens over and over, it is no longer a moral excuse.  And for people who care more for country than party, it is not a political excuse.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDeamon on September 06, 2018, 08:31:11 AM
Which brings us back to "They're trying to get him to publicly demonstrate he is unfit for office."
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: DonaldD on September 06, 2018, 10:23:40 AM
Who is this "they"?  Donald Trump?
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Wayward Son on September 06, 2018, 10:28:29 AM
Perhaps this order to reveal information will be just another instance where Trump's misguided impulse will be thwarted by members of his administration? ;)
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: D.W. on September 06, 2018, 10:35:26 AM
Or another demonstration that nobody, not even Trump, treats his tweets as "official communication" let alone an order.  It's just like, how he feels at the time man.   8)
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Seriati on September 06, 2018, 10:37:24 AM
Do you have a citation to the Trump's order to the NYT?  I haven't seen one.

The NYT piece doesn't describe any acts of treason and should be fully protected.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDeamon on September 06, 2018, 10:41:53 AM
Which brings us back to "They're trying to get him to publicly demonstrate he is unfit for office."
Who is this "they"?  Donald Trump?

The people (allegedly) in the Trump Admin who are behind the op-ed.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: D.W. on September 06, 2018, 10:46:48 AM
It was another tweet by Trump Seriati
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Seriati on September 06, 2018, 10:55:27 AM
Tweets are not orders.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: D.W. on September 06, 2018, 11:01:16 AM
Indeed.  But that conclusion means we have to ignore what the president tweets.  Something he says he does in part because we (as citizens) cannot trust the Fake News. 

So the point of the post, I assume, is how do we / should we handle a situation where the President makes an order, which is NOT an official order, which nobody is under any obligation to enforce? 

I mean, we already give him a pass when the kooks attack the press quoting Trump that the media is the enemy of the people. 

His words have an impact because he is the president.  When is an order not an order?  When it's a tweet apparently.  When is a president not a president?  When nobody around him knows if he is serious or not, and if he IS serious, they don't know if they should follow his orders...
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Fenring on September 06, 2018, 11:17:20 AM
His words have an impact because he is the president.  When is an order not an order?  When it's a tweet apparently.  When is a president not a president?  When nobody around him knows if he is serious or not, and if he IS serious, they don't know if they should follow his orders...

Not to defend foolish comments made on Twitter, but I still don't understand why everyone is having such a hard time parsing what Trump's use of Twitter is supposed to mean. It isn't supposed to 'mean' anything. It's literally what you'd think tweeting is: he's just chatting about whatever's on his mind with no intermediary so the people can hear his ponderings. Now, that may not be 'good' if his ponderings are dumb, but on the other hand I don't see the need to obsess over comments that seem really intended to be just chatter, almost as if you were in the room with him and he was making various remarks as a running commentary. Whether Twitter can be more than that (or should be) I don't know, but it seems like his tweets just consist of what's rolling through his head. Some may be on point, others erroneous, and others still boneheaded, but either way I don't know why you'd read them in an attempt to parse them as "orders" or anything like that.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Seriati on September 06, 2018, 11:22:06 AM
Indeed.  But that conclusion means we have to ignore what the president tweets.  Something he says he does in part because we (as citizens) cannot trust the Fake News.

Can you walk through the logic on this?  Did we have to ignore what Obama said in speeches?   Those were not executive orders either.

Quote
So the point of the post, I assume, is how do we / should we handle a situation where the President makes an order, which is NOT an official order, which nobody is under any obligation to enforce?

I would take it as political commentary of the President.  He thinks the author is a traitor.  He's wrong as a matter of treason against the US, he's right as a matter of personal loyalty.  The NYTimes is under no obligation to reveal the source (of course in my view, publishing the piece on an anonymous basis was completely contemptible of them, but hey, anything goes when it's anti-Trump).

I mean, this piece is completely different if Pence wrote it, than it is if a Whitehouse intern is the source.   

Quote
I mean, we already give him a pass when the kooks attack the press quoting Trump that the media is the enemy of the people.

The media lying and misrepresenting for political purposes directly harms this country.  Is calling them "enemy of the people" a bridge too far?  Isn't this the same country where Republicans are routinely labelled racists without real cause?  Where Republicans wanted to "kill old people" because they don't believe in socialized medicine?

Why is this particular label, that is more justifiable than many that are routinely tossed around offensive?

Maybe if the media took their obligations as seriously as they take their priviledges we wouldn't even be having such a debate. 

Quote
His words have an impact because he is the president.  When is an order not an order?

An executive order is pretty formal.  An order by the President to people that work for him is pretty clear. 

An order by the President to random citizens or organizations?  Absent some kind of national emergency why would we believe that is binding?  We teach kindergartners that Congress makes the laws not the President.

Quote
When it's a tweet apparently.  When is a president not a president?  When nobody around him knows if he is serious or not, and if he IS serious, they don't know if they should follow his orders...

The President is a politician.  Politicians say things all the time.  Why exactly, despite repeated history, does anyone thing a tweet is a binding policy?
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: D.W. on September 06, 2018, 11:52:57 AM
Quote
Can you walk through the logic on this?  Did we have to ignore what Obama said in speeches?   Those were not executive orders either.
Maybe I'll be proven wrong but I can't remember Obama making a statement like the following:

"the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!"

It's pretty explicit language.  The only reason it's not a huge deal is, as Fenring points out, the platform and Trump's use to date of it, make us interpret it as NOT a big deal.  NOT to be taken as an order.  NOT to be even taken as a serious telegraphing of what he may do.  That expectation is at war with how presidents address the nation in the past. 

As far as the logic walk through, I am not referring to only executive orders.  And let me be clear.  I agree this was NOT an order.  But this applies to pretty much everything he tweets. 

Quote
I mean, this piece is completely different if Pence wrote it, than it is if a Whitehouse intern is the source. 
Why?  Is it that one is more credible, or is it the level of obstruction one could exert?  Just curious.

Quote
Why is this particular label, that is more justifiable than many that are routinely tossed around offensive?
IMO?  Because our whole system falls apart without the press to keep us informed and hold our politicians accountable to the people.  Is it as corruptible and stained as all other parts of the machine?  Sure.  Doesn't mean we don't need it.  IMO it's probably the most important part of a representative democracy. 

Quote
We teach kindergartners that Congress makes the laws not the President.
If true, I think we should remind them a bit more vigorously in high school.  ;)

Quote
Why exactly, despite repeated history, does anyone thing a tweet is a binding policy?
Nobody does.  That it's NOT is the point being made.  When the president makes an order or expresses a desire that is against the law or the constitution or is a war crime or what have you, we should all pay attention, and talk about it, and ask how he can be restrained.  That we argue instead if it really counts as an "order" is interesting to me.  The president may be A politician, but he's defiantly something new.  As such we should expect a lot of new situations cropping up reacting to him.

How could the media act in any way other than how it has is my question.  I think they take things VERY seriously.  It's the president and his supporters and his party who is partly reliant upon him who inform us how NOT serious the guy is...
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Fenring on September 06, 2018, 12:02:23 PM
Quote
I mean, this piece is completely different if Pence wrote it, than it is if a Whitehouse intern is the source. 
Why?  Is it that one is more credible, or is it the level of obstruction one could exert?  Just curious.

You don't think it matters if there's a direct conflict of interest with the person who wrote it? Just for instance, you don't think it would be worth noting that the person penning a letter declaring an old man unfit to manage his affairs is also the person who would inherit the old man's estate?
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: D.W. on September 06, 2018, 12:10:33 PM
Thanks, I should have included that possibility as well if I included any examples of why.

So... the credibility issue.  As it would speak to motivation to fabricate info?  But instead of the more powerful leading towards more certainty, it in fact would be the opposite?

As to my opinion, I think the anonymous nature, and the timing tell us all we need to know.  This person is not being honest about their own motivations.  While this editorial plays into my confirmation bias, it smells WAY fishy to me. 

Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: NobleHunter on September 06, 2018, 12:21:25 PM
The NYT piece and the book are too tailored to appeal to certain biases for me to trust them. I wonder if anything will be independently verified.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: velcro on September 06, 2018, 01:08:28 PM
Quote
Is calling them "enemy of the people" a bridge too far?  Isn't this the same country where Republicans are routinely labelled racists without real cause?  Where Republicans wanted to "kill old people" because they don't believe in socialized medicine?

I don't condone labeling all Republicans as racists, or claiming they want to kill old people.
You seem to be implying that if some random guy said this once, it gives the President cover to say anything he wants.

The President should be held to the highest standards, not the lowest.

As far as what I mean by "order", the President ordered the NYT to turn someone over.  He did not sign an executive order, which only applies to the executive branch, not private citizens.  So please do not conflate the two. 

Order: give an authoritative direction or instruction to do something

I think the tweet qualifies.

Thought experiment:
What if Trump tweets "All Mexicans, or people that look Mexican, should be turned over to the government at once!"
or "All Democrats should have their voting registration revoked at once!"

Is that OK, because he doesn't mean it, and won't enforce it?
Might some government worker think it is policy and try to enforce it?  They might be stupid, but would they be wrong in a legal sense, that their boss said it should be done?  If there is even a slim possibility of this, then the tweet is completely irresponsible, and possibly criminal.

Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: D.W. on September 06, 2018, 01:21:42 PM
"All Democrats should have their voting registration revoked at once!"
This makes it an opinion. 

"Poll workers must throw out any ballot by a registered Democrat!" would be more in line with the example.  ;)
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Wayward Son on September 06, 2018, 02:00:03 PM
Quote
It isn't supposed to 'mean' anything. It's literally what you'd think tweeting is: he's just chatting about whatever's on his mind with no intermediary so the people can hear his ponderings.

But ponderings can be important, too.

It's one thing to ponder, "Should I have chicken or beef for dinner?" That's a minor pondering that no one would pay any attention to.

It's another thing to ponder, "Should I kill my wife, cut her up into little pieces, and put them into a dumpster?"  That's one the person's wife would probably want to know about, and probably talk to him about (preferably with a baseball bat at hand). :)

When someone ponders something illegal, immoral, dangerous or simply unethical, you have to wonder, why is the person pondering this at all?  Doesn't he know better?  Doesn't he realize that he can't do it?  Why is he even considering it at all?

For chicken vs beef, the answer is obvious.  For becoming the neighbor in Rear Window, you have to start questioning the person's morals and judgement.

So when the President ponders to do something illegal, immoral and unethical, you have to start questioning his judgement and ethics.  He should know better.  The fact that he doesn't means that we should be worried.  Even if it isn't supposed to "mean anything."
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: D.W. on September 06, 2018, 02:17:36 PM
Quote
So when the President ponders to do something illegal, immoral and unethical, you have to start questioning his judgement and ethics.  He should know better.  The fact that he doesn't means that we should be worried.  Even if it isn't supposed to "mean anything."
But what if that ship's already sailed?   ;D
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDrake on September 06, 2018, 02:30:50 PM
It is reminiscent of his suggestion in an interview with fox that when it comes to terrorists we should "take out their families"

Which he then repeated. Not an order, but could it influence somebody's decision to abort a drone strike? Quite possibly.

Quote
Watching a previously recorded strike in which the agency held off on firing until the target had wandered away from a house with his family inside, Trump asked, “Why did you wait?” one participant in the meeting recalled.

Any politicians tweets, speeches, off the cuff remarks give insight into what they would like to see happen.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Seriati on September 06, 2018, 02:36:48 PM
So when the President ponders to do something illegal, immoral and unethical, you have to start questioning his judgement and ethics.

It's not illegal for the NY Times to reveal its source.

It's not immoral for them to reveal their source.  It's actually come out that this anonymity grant was unusual as it was handled through the editorial board.  That literally means their reporters didn't vet this, didn't verify it, and aren't the ones protecting the source.  The credibility is much less on this than it could have been.

It's unethical for the NY Times to reveal the source.  It's not unethical to ask or even demand they do so.  Courts have ordered sources revealed before (granted under specific circumstances).

So really, how should I look at your claim here?  Is it just hyperbole?  Is it fake?  Is it a gross misunderstanding?
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Fenring on September 06, 2018, 02:42:27 PM
The funny thing is that in theory the editorial could have been written by anyone ranging from Pence to a hobo on the streets of NYC, and so long as the NYC assures us that it's from a high-up staffer we'll read it as such, suspicions and all. Not to say I'm accusing the editors of lying about the source, but imagine for a moment if they were - how would anyone ever know since their position is to protect anonymity? They could have written it themselves, at that. My point is that I'm sick of these "anonymous sources" that have been plaguing the "news" for years now and are used to justify all manner of things or otherwise "inform" the public of what it's desire they believe. "Someone said a thing" is not news, and the old standby of "we're just reporting what someone said so we didn't make anything up" seems to apply here as well as any other place. Without a name to the story there's no way to verify if what's stated is true, exaggerated, totally made up, or what.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: D.W. on September 06, 2018, 03:09:34 PM
Agreed.  Granted I believe it comes from an actual "high level staffer" (thanks subjective title!) but there is zero way to tell if it's just one person making things up or not.  I'm not sure it sheds any light while blowing all this smoke. 
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDeamon on September 06, 2018, 03:20:03 PM
Quote
Why exactly, despite repeated history, does anyone thing a tweet is a binding policy?
Nobody does.  That it's NOT is the point being made.  When the president makes an order or expresses a desire that is against the law or the constitution or is a war crime or what have you, we should all pay attention, and talk about it, and ask how he can be restrained.  That we argue instead if it really counts as an "order" is interesting to me.  The president may be A politician, but he's defiantly something new.  As such we should expect a lot of new situations cropping up reacting to him.

Wow, talk about zero defect taken to an extreme. Does everybody get held to this standard, or just Trump?

Last I checked, the office of President of the United States of America was held by a human being, not a deity. At no point did I see "has achieved social perfection" on the qualification list. I'm not aware of any other job positions that hold the same requirement either.

Yes, people in positions of power that publicly express certain things are more than a bit concerning.  The doesn't mean the shovels, pitchforks, and torches get brought out every time somebody of such stature utters such things and it becomes known. Particularly when many of those alleged utterances happened behind closed doors.

You're venturing very dangerously into declaring a whole slew of things as punishable thought crime, no need to demonstrate intent to follow through, just having the thought and being unguarded enough to express it where someone might overhear is now enough to convict.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of living in a society that insists on living to that standard. Honestly, I don't think anyone is actually capable of living up to it, if they were honest. I'll take living among the unwashed sinners over the self-professed saints on this one, thank you very much.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Wayward Son on September 06, 2018, 03:25:24 PM
So when the President ponders to do something illegal, immoral and unethical, you have to start questioning his judgement and ethics.

It's not illegal for the NY Times to reveal its source.

It's not immoral for them to reveal their source.  It's actually come out that this anonymity grant was unusual as it was handled through the editorial board.  That literally means their reporters didn't vet this, didn't verify it, and aren't the ones protecting the source.  The credibility is much less on this than it could have been.

It's unethical for the NY Times to reveal the source.  It's not unethical to ask or even demand they do so.  Courts have ordered sources revealed before (granted under specific circumstances).

So really, how should I look at your claim here?  Is it just hyperbole?  Is it fake?  Is it a gross misunderstanding?

In this instance, I was replying to Fenring's general assertion that Trump's tweets aren't supposed to mean anything and should be ignored, not this tweet in particular.

However, it does reveal that Trump believes that he has the right and authority to demand that the NY Times reveal it's source, when U.S. laws allows news media to keep sources secret (except in specific circumstances).  And I do not believe that Trump had any "specific circumstance" in mind; I think he just believes that, since he is President, he gets to do anything he wants.  And probably will issue an official decree or injunction unless someone talks him out of it, stops him, or ignores his request.

(Gee, just like those in the editorial. :) )

So it just reveals to me that he is a spoiled little brat who needs adults to keep him line--much like a 10-year-old driving a semi that I suspected he would be like.  Glad to hear that there are those in power who also recognize the danger.

IMHO.  :D
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Fenring on September 06, 2018, 03:31:39 PM
In this instance, I was replying to Fenring's general assertion that Trump's tweets aren't supposed to mean anything and should be ignored, not this tweet in particular.

That wasn't what I said. I said that his tweets shouldn't be interpreted as more than him venting his thoughts. I didn't say they should be ignored. For anyone who's interested in what's on the President's mind they're probably useful to pay attention to. If you're looking strictly for hard facts and proof of intent and so forth, then yes, maybe it would be better to ignore them under those conditions. Also, if they aggravate you it might be better to ignore them. But the lack of his tweets containing any official policy or hard intent doesn't mean they are bereft of any content. They have about as much content, as I said, as hearing a guy making peanut gallery comments in a room. Learn what you can from them, but I don't think they're solid grounds for any kind of "gotcha!" moment on policy and the law.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDeamon on September 06, 2018, 03:34:22 PM
In this instance, I was replying to Fenring's general assertion that Trump's tweets aren't supposed to mean anything and should be ignored, not this tweet in particular.

However, it does reveal that Trump believes that he has the right and authority to demand that the NY Times reveal it's source, when U.S. laws allows news media to keep sources secret (except in specific circumstances).  And I do not believe that Trump had any "specific circumstance" in mind; I think he just believes that, since he is President, he gets to do anything he wants.  And probably will issue an official decree or injunction unless someone talks him out of it, stops him, or ignores his request.

In this particular instance I have to wonder if thise op-ed being classed as a potential threat to the mental stability of the PotUS would actually in fact make it a "National Security Interest" and actually subject to the information being disclosed to the Government because of that.  8)
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: D.W. on September 06, 2018, 03:36:20 PM
Quote
Wow, talk about zero defect taken to an extreme. Does everybody get held to this standard, or just Trump?
Just Presidents of countries.  Call me out if I fail to hold subsequent Presidents to the same standard.  ;)

No pitchforks or shovels here.  Only a keyboard so far.

He can THINK anything he wants.  As POTUS he has a responsibility to restrain those thoughts and reflect on the reprecussions on what saying or typing them might be.  Can you think of any position possible that being "ungarded" is more detrimental?

I get that people say they want an ungarded unfiltered line into what the president thinks.  Some even are honest about that desire.  Getting what they ask for however is a trainwreck from where I'm standing.


Quote
I'm not comfortable with the idea of living in a society that insists on living to that standard.
I'm not comfortable living in a society that doesn't.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Fenring on September 06, 2018, 03:43:23 PM

Quote
I'm not comfortable with the idea of living in a society that insists on living to that standard.
I'm not comfortable living in a society that doesn't.

Trust me, you don't want a society where people fear to express their real views. That is when Trumps get elected. What you want is a society where people truly don't espouse those views that scare you. But so long as they do it's always better to elicit the truth rather than make people fear to speak. You need to know what they are thinking and to reward truthful expression rather than to foster secret hidden thoughts. I actually think many of the dangerous or dumb things people think come about as a result of a culture of having to hide truthful thoughts. This hidden society, never spoken up, grows on its own and gets cultivated under ground, and will only get worse unless brought up to the light of day.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDeamon on September 06, 2018, 03:44:04 PM
Quote
I'm not comfortable with the idea of living in a society that insists on living to that standard.
I'm not comfortable living in a society that doesn't.

And that's why things aren't likely to end well, for anyone.  :(
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDeamon on September 06, 2018, 03:52:31 PM
Trust me, you don't want a society where people fear to express their real views. That is when Trumps get elected. What you want is a society where people truly don't espouse those views that scare you. But so long as they do it's always better to elicit the truth rather than make people fear to speak. You need to know what they are thinking and to reward truthful expression rather than to foster secret hidden thoughts. I actually think many of the dangerous or dumb things people think come about as a result of a culture of having to hide truthful thoughts. This hidden society, never spoken up, grows on its own and gets cultivated under ground, and will only get worse unless brought up to the light of day.

Agreed, that kind of social mindset is only likely to encourage things like the truthers, the vaxxers, and so on.

It also is one of the most unironic things which the people pushing it seem oblivious to. They speak of "living in a society without fear."

What they really mean is "A society rife with fear, but full of people who are more than happy to smile to your face and even treat you as a best friend.... All while wishing someone would smash your face in with a baseball bat."

Because they're afraid someone is going to find out how they really feel, and that fear of discovery is leading them down all kinds of dark and twisted paths. But as part of that fear of discovery, they're pretending to be someone they're not, which is how you have you have a "good friend" who wants nothing more than to see your head smashed in.

I'd rather know about why they're going to resent me up front, before the weapons come out.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Seriati on September 06, 2018, 03:53:19 PM
Quote
So really, how should I look at your claim here?  Is it just hyperbole?  Is it fake?  Is it a gross misunderstanding?

In this instance, I was replying to Fenring's general assertion that Trump's tweets aren't supposed to mean anything and should be ignored, not this tweet in particular.

However, it does reveal that Trump believes that he has the right and authority to demand that the NY Times reveal it's source, when U.S. laws allows news media to keep sources secret (except in specific circumstances).

Every single American has the right to make such a demand.  The NY Times has the right to ignore them.  Are you confused on how free speech works, or just not a believer that the President has the same rights as others?

It's also not clear how the TWEET demonstrates he thinks he has the "authority" to force them to reveal a source.  Did it come with federal agents seizing a lawyer's data base in a pre-dawn raid... oops... wrong right that was violated. 

Did you forget that the Obama administration actually went so far as to seize phone records of journalists and subpeona them?

If he sends government agents to get the name, you'd have a point.  Until then you really don't.

Quote
And I do not believe that Trump had any "specific circumstance" in mind; I think he just believes that, since he is President, he gets to do anything he wants.

If by "anything he wants" you mean tweet about something, then yes he can do anything he wants.
 
If you actually mean the words, then please demonstrate where he has violated the law.  Or exceeded his authority.

Quote
And probably will issue an official decree or injunction unless someone talks him out of it, stops him, or ignores his request.

Lol, let's see if this occurs.

Quote
So it just reveals to me that he is a spoiled little brat who needs adults to keep him line--much like a 10-year-old driving a semi that I suspected he would be like.  Glad to hear that there are those in power who also recognize the danger.

Lol.  So you're willing to believe an anonymous opinion based on an appeal to authority because it suits your confirmation bias. 

Quote
IMHO.  :D

That's not really an opinion, that's a blatant abandonment of opinion.  It's just literally, saying that you'll believe anything you hear so long as you wanted to believe it in the first place.  That's great.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: D.W. on September 06, 2018, 03:57:54 PM
Quote
Trust me, you don't want a society where people fear to express their real views.
That's fair, and I kinda knew that was coming when I wrote my response. 

To be clear:  I do not want a society where POTUS expresses his real views without considering the repercussions of doing so.  Or even a society where POTUS expresses his views after making such consideration as a means to provoke a response that is damaging to said society.

You and I are not held to the same standards as a large company's CEO or brand spokesperson.  Our politicians are held to an even higher standard than that (in some regards).  POTUS is held to the highest standard.  Or should be.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDrake on September 06, 2018, 04:29:16 PM
Exactly. Every single word you speak as a powerful person can have a powerful impact. Even behind closed doors, you should be maintaining poise and diplomacy.

The only person I can think of who is close to Trump in this regard is Elon Musk and he's a trainwreck too. Now he's getting sued by a cave diver and investigated by the SEC.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Wayward Son on September 06, 2018, 05:33:21 PM
Quote
So really, how should I look at your claim here?  Is it just hyperbole?  Is it fake?  Is it a gross misunderstanding?

In this instance, I was replying to Fenring's general assertion that Trump's tweets aren't supposed to mean anything and should be ignored, not this tweet in particular.

However, it does reveal that Trump believes that he has the right and authority to demand that the NY Times reveal it's source, when U.S. laws allows news media to keep sources secret (except in specific circumstances).

Every single American has the right to make such a demand.  The NY Times has the right to ignore them.  Are you confused on how free speech works, or just not a believer that the President has the same rights as others?

I believe that he is not making the demand as an American citizen, but as the President of the United States.

He made the demand on the official POTUS twitter account.  The one where he makes official announcements so as to bypass the mainstream media.

Seriously.  You don't think there is a difference when a peasant makes a demand, and when the king does? 

Quote
Quote
And I do not believe that Trump had any "specific circumstance" in mind; I think he just believes that, since he is President, he gets to do anything he wants.

If by "anything he wants" you mean tweet about something, then yes he can do anything he wants.
 
If you actually mean the words, then please demonstrate where he has violated the law.  Or exceeded his authority.

I don't think he had violated the law.  I don't think he has exceeded his authority.  I think, from what he wrote in the tweet, that he believes he can violate the law and exceed his authority.  (But, of course, he believes that doing so won't actually violate the law and exceed his authority, because he believes he can do anything he wants.)  The fact that he may not be able to does not mean he does not believe he can, or may try.

Quote
Quote
And probably will issue an official decree or injunction unless someone talks him out of it, stops him, or ignores his request.

Lol, let's see if this occurs.

What makes you think you'll ever see it?  The whole point of the editorial is that they are doing it without the public, or Trump, realizing it. ;)

Quote
Quote
So it just reveals to me that he is a spoiled little brat who needs adults to keep him line--much like a 10-year-old driving a semi that I suspected he would be like.  Glad to hear that there are those in power who also recognize the danger.

Lol.  So you're willing to believe an anonymous opinion based on an appeal to authority because it suits your confirmation bias.

Is that any worse than you disbelieving it because it doesn't suit your confirmation bias? ;)

Actually, I don't take this editorial as "proof."  But it is an odd coincidence that such an editorial came out that confirms my bias.  And it is very, very likely that the writer is who the NYT says he is, simply because the NYT has a reputation to consider, and if it turns out they misrepresented who the writer was, heads would roll.  I find it exceedingly unlikely those who OK'd this editorial would risk their careers without checking it out thoroughly, especially since they almost never publish anonymous opinion pieces.  Of course, you mileage may vary. 

Quote
Quote
IMHO.  :D

That's not really an opinion, that's a blatant abandonment of opinion.  It's just literally, saying that you'll believe anything you hear so long as you wanted to believe it in the first place.  That's great.

In your humble opinion.  :P

And right back at you.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Seriati on September 06, 2018, 06:18:53 PM
Seriously.  You don't think there is a difference when a peasant makes a demand, and when the king does?

We don't have kings.  Trump is less autocratic than Obama was, yet the outrage is far greater.  Sounds more to me, honestly, like the issue isn't whether the "king" is making a demand, just that a Republican is doing so.  I mean honestly, Obama created DACA with a stroke of his pen, overrode the law on immigration and created a new class of citizenship, and that's okay.  His administration continued the NSA's unsupervised and illegal surveilance without warrants, and that was okay.  He actually siezed the records of journalists to try and catch leaks (then turned around and changed the classification standards on his way out the door to try and cause leaks) and that was okay.

Trump tweets and that's the King we should be worried about. 

#late_to_the_party

Quote
I don't think he had violated the law.  I don't think he has exceeded his authority.  I think, from what he wrote in the tweet, that he believes he can violate the law and exceed his authority.  (But, of course, he believes that doing so won't actually violate the law and exceed his authority, because he believes he can do anything he wants.)  The fact that he may not be able to does not mean he does not believe he can, or may try.

Well notwithstanding that you directly contradict yourself, he believes he can exceed his authority, but he doesn't actually believe it because he believes he has no limit on his authority, his actually record puts a literal and direct lie to that.  Again, what evidence do you have?

Quote
Quote
Quote
And probably will issue an official decree or injunction unless someone talks him out of it, stops him, or ignores his request.

Lol, let's see if this occurs.

What makes you think you'll ever see it?  The whole point of the editorial is that they are doing it without the public, or Trump, realizing it. ;)

We're waiting to see Trump's official decree, not hidden behind the scenes manipulation.  We're talking about your unsupportable claims about how Trump believes he can exceed his authority.

Quote
Is that any worse than you disbelieving it because it doesn't suit your confirmation bias? ;)

I don't believe unsubstantiated rumors.  Whether they confirm or deny my bias.

I'm perfectly happy to speculate.  It's entirely possible the author actually believes everything they say and that it's not actually true.  It's entirely possible it's far worse.  All we really know, is that people with an anti-Trump agenda published a rumor that's anti-Trump.  Is there any verification of any of claims made?  Have you seen them?

Heck a bunch of what's claimed is that Trump isn't Republican enough for this person.  That he's abusing his authority by carrying out his campaign promises.  Wow.

Quote
Actually, I don't take this editorial as "proof."  But it is an odd coincidence that such an editorial came out that confirms my bias.

It's not at all odd.  Like I said, the timing with the Woodward book is suspicious.  Dollars for donuts, the author is one of his sources. 

It's also a persistent media meme that Trump is mentally deficient.  They keep making the claim, notwithstanding the lack of any evidence.  There are plenty of responsible people in the administration that would not keep that a secret, and plenty that would LOVE a legitimate reason to remove Trump from office.  It's literally inconceivable that there is a conspiracy of people working to keep us from finding out that Trump is mentally deranged.  Who exactly would that be benefitting?  Not the Republican party, not the never Trumpers, not the Deep State.  How exactly would they keep that a secret against a backdrop of constant deep state leaking?

No, the damage here is innuendo and people who want to believe, not reality to the claims.

Quote
And it is very, very likely that the writer is who the NYT says he is, simply because the NYT has a reputation to consider, and if it turns out they misrepresented who the writer was, heads would roll.

Did I miss where they say who the writer is?  The NYT editorial board did not say who s/he is, and given they didn't run it through their news room their vetting of the claims is suspect as well.

I honestly don't think they really care about their reputation.  Without an on the record source this story is an attempt to make the news rather than report the news. 

Quote
Quote
That's not really an opinion, that's a blatant abandonment of opinion.  It's just literally, saying that you'll believe anything you hear so long as you wanted to believe it in the first place.  That's great.

In your humble opinion.  :P

Not really.  Your "opinion" is to accept rumor without verification.  To trust in unknown authorities, reported as "he said" statements by people up to no good. 

There's no objective reasoning there.  It's literally, they said what you wanted to hear, ergo, you will treat it as true.

Quote
And right back at you.

And you guys think climate deniers need to provide more proof.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDrake on September 06, 2018, 06:50:21 PM
Quote
I honestly don't think they really care about their reputation.  Without an on the record source this story is an attempt to make the news rather than report the news.

It is a really strange op-ed, the more I look at it. Usually op-eds are synthesized from facts in wide public circulation. Here, we have someone saying things from their own personal experience, things that may or may not be corroborated. It could be performance art, for all we know.

I personally think I can trust that this person was vetted for plausibility by the Times. The person would be able to do the things they describe. Remember, they don't say they heard about someone else doing things. To get a second person to weigh in would be to effectively remove the anonymity.

Let's say for a minute that the story is true. If you are the editorial board at the Times, are you going to squash a pivotal and unprecedented confession? Something of critical interest to the American public? If the person were not anonymous, would the Trumpers believe the person suddenly? It would just be an identifiable liar instead of an anonymous one, would it not?
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Wayward Son on September 06, 2018, 06:52:42 PM
Quote
Sounds more to me, honestly, like the issue isn't whether the "king" is making a demand, just that a Republican is doing so.

Sorry, but that's because you don't have a very good ear. 

I'm saying it because Trump makes demands like a king.

Quote
Well notwithstanding that you directly contradict yourself, he believes he can exceed his authority, but he doesn't actually believe it because he believes he has no limit on his authority, his actually record puts a literal and direct lie to that.  Again, what evidence do you have?

I don't contradict myself.  A person can actually exceed his authority and not believe he has exceeded his authority at the same time.  All it takes is ignorance, arrogance, and the unwillingness of listen to council--traits that Trump has in spades. :)

And the evidence I have are Trump's tweets, his previous tweets, and my understanding of people garnered from years of experience with people.  Of course, this is no proof.  But it is enough to form an opinion, which has a lower level of proof, and which I acknowledge may be wrong.

Quote
It's literally inconceivable that there is a conspiracy of people working to keep us from finding out that Trump is mentally deranged.

Here's the thing: Trump is probably not mentally deranged.  He is merely arrogant, opinionated, ignorant and unwilling to listen to council.  Much like a 10-year-old.  :)

10-year-olds are not mentally deranged.  They are not mentally incompetent.  Even an adult with a 10-year-old mentality is not deranged or incompetent.  But that doesn't mean he's qualified to do everything.  You still wouldn't want one flying a jet airliner.  Or to be President.

Of course, how do you prove someone is simply unqualified to be President?  If he isn't deranged or incompetent, that is very hard to do, if not impossible.  So what do you do?  Follow him to the letter and let him f**k things up?  That'll hurt your country and your party.  Resign?  You'll be replaced by someone who will follow him to the letter.
How about try to prevent the worst from happening while you're there?

Forget the word "deranged."  It appears to be a conspiracy of people trying to keep us from finding out that Trump is incompetent as a President.

Quote
There's no objective reasoning there.  It's literally, they said what you wanted to hear, ergo, you will treat it as true.

So says the man who thinks Trump saved us millions of dollars on Air Force One, just because a known liar said so, and might know better.  :P

I treat it as possibly true because it fits in with everything else I've seen about this Administration.  I admit it may not be true, which is why I classify it as an "opinion."  Your faith that it couldn't possibly be true simply show you are merely doing psychological projection.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: velcro on September 07, 2018, 11:03:57 PM
Two blatant falsehoods here:

Quote
Did it come with federal agents seizing a lawyer's data base in a pre-dawn raid... oops... wrong right that was violated.

There were warrants.  Attorney-client privileges were maintained.  What right was violated?  Sources please.

Quote
So says the man who thinks Trump saved us millions of dollars on Air Force One, just because a known liar said so, and might know better.

No, that was billions, my friend. :)

And to be fair, Seriati only said that we didn't know enough to be 100% sure Trump was wrong. There was evidence aplenty to prove to any unbiased reader that Trump was wrong, but Seriati never actually claimed the opposite, as far as I remember.  But I could be wrong.

Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: scifibum on September 08, 2018, 12:08:50 AM
The tweet isn't an order because we don't live in a country where private businesses can be ordered to do something by the President via tweet. It's not an order because there is simply no chance that it will be treated as such.

It's still very disturbing that Trump evinces the desire to violate the 1st amendment on a frequent basis. This may be political commentary, but the political position he's advocating for is totalitarianism. His continued fondness for brutal dictators gives the same impression.

Seriati...
Quote
The media lying and misrepresenting for political purposes directly harms this country.  Is calling them "enemy of the people" a bridge too far?

I'd like you to do a thought experiment and ask yourself how you'd have reacted if Obama, in office, had repeatedly called right-leaning media "the enemy of the people" and suggested that their 1st amendment rights should be curtailed. 

It's several bridges too far, and I'm disappointed in you.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDeamon on September 08, 2018, 08:19:38 AM
Obama did publicly call out Fox News as "not news" which was taken by many as his view that the 1st Amendment may not apply to Fox. (As I highly doubt he viewed it as "artistic expression" of "redeeming social value" either)
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: D.W. on September 10, 2018, 10:09:48 AM
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-north-korea-bob-woodward-2018-9 (https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-north-korea-bob-woodward-2018-9)
Would this have been OK since it wouldn't have been an actual order?

It's like some warped version of Simon Says played out on the national and global playground.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: rightleft22 on September 10, 2018, 01:00:37 PM
Question to anyone

What do you think was the motive behind writing Op-ed and having it published?

My thought is that they want to push Trump into a paranoia and mental breakdown so they can invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: D.W. on September 10, 2018, 02:41:59 PM
My guess was it was more, "make them look bad leading up to midterms", with the paranoia being icing on the cake.  They're talking about trying to claim unfit for the office without citing mental / physical impairment.  Trying to play the "temperament" or even "ignorance" card is a really tough sell.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Greg Davidson on September 10, 2018, 05:41:45 PM
Quote
Trump is less autocratic than Obama was, yet the outrage is far greater. 

Seriati, please defend this assertion. Provide a definition of what you mean by autocratic, and then show why President Obama's actions violate that definition to a greater degree than President Trump's. 
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: velcro on September 10, 2018, 06:41:25 PM
For what it is worth, I also respectfully ask Seriati for actual evidence of his assertion.   ;D

Here's my opinion on what the motive behind the op-ed was.  The author goes to great lengths to claim that he is not going along with Trump's dangerous actions, but helping reduce the danger from inside.

Quote
working diligently from within to frustrate ... [Trump's] worst inclinations.
Quote
But we believe our first duty is to this country
Quote
That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions
Quote
The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. , they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing
Quote
Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.
Quote
But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

I think it is reasonable to infer that when the whole thing comes tumbling down, and he, along with everyone in the Trump administration, is asked why he should not be considered complicit, accessory to the crime, or a member of a conspiracy to commit crimes, he can point to this and say "I was actually fighting against all the bad stuff!  I am the unsung hero!"

Of course, that ignores the reality that he should quit and reveal what he knows. That is undoubtedly the right way to fulfill his duty to the country. But then he doesn't get the goodies that Trump provides.  Which makes the author, well, GUTLESS.  Nobody can say I never agree with Trump.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDeamon on September 10, 2018, 09:45:57 PM
Quote
Trump is less autocratic than Obama was, yet the outrage is far greater. 

Seriati, please defend this assertion. Provide a definition of what you mean by autocratic, and then show why President Obama's actions violate that definition to a greater degree than President Trump's.

I would point out that an Autocracy doesn't necessarily require obedience to a person, but instead require it to be directed at something else. Be it a religion or political system among other things.

I don't think Obama was an Autocrat any where close to Donald Trump's level when it comes to expected obedience towards himself personally.

I DO agree that Obama does strongly favor autocratic forms of governance far more than Trump does.

Do NOT confuse leadership styles with political preferences, while they can often indicate one another, it can also cause one to wildly miss the mark as well.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: DonaldD on September 11, 2018, 01:29:53 AM
Since autocracy requires power to be concentrated in a single person, where that person's decisions are not subject to restraint, your attempt to paint Obama with that particular brush requires that you redefine the word.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Greg Davidson on September 11, 2018, 10:46:37 AM
Quote
I DO agree that Obama does strongly favor autocratic forms of governance far more than Trump does.

Seems that you define "autocratic" as a policy that you disagree with. Case in point, Obamacare - if a popularly elected President, along with a popularly elected House of Representative and Senate all go along to pass a law that you disagree with, is that what you consider autocratic?

edited to fix error about Senate votes.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: velcro on September 11, 2018, 12:46:32 PM
Quote
au·toc·ra·cy
ôˈtäkrəsē/Submit
noun
a system of government by one person with absolute power.

Quote
Definition of autocrat
1 : a person (such as a monarch) ruling with unlimited authority

Quote
Definition of autocracy
plural autocracies
1 : the authority or rule of an autocrat
2 : government in which one person possesses unlimited power
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDeamon on September 11, 2018, 12:48:16 PM
Since autocracy requires power to be concentrated in a single person, where that person's decisions are not subject to restraint, your attempt to paint Obama with that particular brush requires that you redefine the word.

Language is an evolving thing, and in this case, the problem is there doesn't really seem to be a good alternative that describes the mindset, so as the closest approximation not already in wide usage(at least, until Trump took office), autocrat picked up the usage. Although I think "Authoritarian" works as well, if not better with respect to Obama. However, circa 2014, Authoritarian was already in wide use, autocrat, not so much.

Like I said, replace a single specific person with "require it to be directed at something else. Be it a religion or political system among other things."

Trump operates like an Autocrat. However, he does not appear to actually espouse support for political systems that would actually facilitate an Autocracy. (Although, going back to his "style" being autocratic in nature, he unfortunately tends to like people who actually are autocrats.)

Obama was, beyond any doubt in my mind, an Authoritarian, and as a consequence of that, espoused support for policies and systems which DO facilitate the formation of an Autocracy. Which isn't to mention Obama's imfamous "I have a pen and a phone..." and I'm not afraid to use them statement. Which was VERY autocratic in and of itself.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDeamon on September 11, 2018, 12:58:41 PM
....and Yes, the Authoritarian/Autocrat distinction could also be parlayed into the distinction between a Libertarian Position as opposed to a Liberal Position with regards to social issues specifically.

Libertarians view most "liberal solutions" to be authoritarian in nature. Because what else would you call someone claiming to have the legal authority to regulate inter-personal interactions?
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Greg Davidson on September 11, 2018, 05:36:05 PM
Quote
Obama was, beyond any doubt in my mind, an Authoritarian, and as a consequence of that, espoused support for policies and systems which DO facilitate the formation of an Autocracy. Which isn't to mention Obama's imfamous "I have a pen and a phone..." and I'm not afraid to use them statement. Which was VERY autocratic in and of itself.

Please explain your mind to the rest of us. Because using a pen and a phone don't sound very authoritarian, they sound like a President who was elected by the citizens of America so that he could sign legislation, use the powers of the office that he was elected to, and speak to people. Why is that a nightmare scenario of autocracy for you?

Meanwhile, focusing on Trump's policy to "not espouse support for political systems that would actually facilitate an Autocracy", one of his two major accomplishments will be to appoint Supreme Court Justices who were chosen with the explicit objective of stripping away abortion rights. That sounds like a pretty sensitive regulation of inter-personal interactions. 

Be clear about what you want without abusing words. You don't like Obama, and you don't like his policies. So make your case about specifics.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: velcro on September 11, 2018, 10:50:04 PM
Quote
Trump operates like an Autocrat. However, he does not appear to actually espouse support for political systems that would actually facilitate an Autocracy.

Except he is on record as supporting politicians that are autocrats.

Quote
saying of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, “He is the head of a country and I mean he is the strong head ... He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.”

Quote
“Hey, he’s a tough guy,” Trump said. “When you take over a country — a tough country, tough people — and you take it over from your father, I don’t care who you are, what you are, how much of an advantage you have. If you can do that at 27 years old, I mean, that’s one in 10,000 that could do that. So he’s a very smart guy. He’s a great negotiator.”
(In response to a question about executions)

Trump reportedly congratulated the Philippine president for doing an “unbelievable job on the drug problem.”

Trump says that he has a “great relationship” with Duterte.

Quote
President Donald J. Trump spoke today with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey to congratulate him on his recent referendum victory

Quote
Erdogan will gain the power to issue decrees, appoint public officials including ministers and judges, decide the budget and control the military and the police. By contrast the power of parliament will be diminished and the role of prime minister abolished.

Quote
Regarding China's president, and his new lack of term limits. “He’s now president for life. President for life. And he’s great,” the US president reportedly told Republican donors.

“And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll give that a shot some day,” Trump added, according to CNN which obtained a recording of what it described as an upbeat, joke-filled speech.
Maybe a joke.  But maybe only the part about us "giving it a shot", in that Trump never criticized the increase in executive power by someone who is cracking down on dissidents and the press.

Quote
“We agree on so many things. I just want to let everybody know in case there was any doubt that we are very much behind President el-Sisi. He’s done a fantastic job in a very difficult situation. We are very much behind Egypt and the people of Egypt. The United States has, believe me, backing, and we have strong backing.”

Do we need to mention Putin (https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/03/politics/trump-putin-russia-timeline/)?

Some of the quotes are from here (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/trump-xi-jinping-dictators/554810/).

Any quotes from Obama praising autocrats?

Again echoing Greg - what specific policies facilitate the formation of autocracies?  Even Scandinavian policies do not tend to form autocracies, even though governments as a whole have more control.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDeamon on September 12, 2018, 09:21:15 PM
Quote
Trump operates like an Autocrat. However, he does not appear to actually espouse support for political systems that would actually facilitate an Autocracy.

Except he is on record as supporting politicians that are autocrats.

Yes, as covered by the parenthetical you omitted.

Trump operates like an Autocrat. However, he does not appear to actually espouse support for political systems that would actually facilitate an Autocracy. (Although, going back to his "style" being autocratic in nature, he unfortunately tends to like people who actually are autocrats.)

Quote
Obama was, beyond any doubt in my mind, an Authoritarian, and as a consequence of that, espoused support for policies and systems which DO facilitate the formation of an Autocracy. Which isn't to mention Obama's imfamous "I have a pen and a phone..." and I'm not afraid to use them statement. Which was VERY autocratic in and of itself.

Please explain your mind to the rest of us. Because using a pen and a phone don't sound very authoritarian, they sound like a President who was elected by the citizens of America so that he could sign legislation, use the powers of the office that he was elected to, and speak to people. Why is that a nightmare scenario of autocracy for you?

Uh, have you completely blanked out the context in which that statement was made? He was commenting on Republican obstructionism in regards to blocking legislation on issues Obama considered important. He basically said, albeit in very flowery and diplomatic terms. "If they don't want pass legislation to make this possible, that's fine. I have a pen, I can issue Executive Orders which will have much the same effect, and I have phone I can use to contact my various Cabinet secretaries and direct them to pursue administrative processes to achieve it through regulation."

...Which he then went about doing. And had SCotUS smack him down several times. Trump repealed a lot of the remaining Executive Orders with Executive Orders of his own upon entering office.

And that is the bigger measuring stick I'm using to determine who was being more authoritarian, and who was actually doing more to "further the cause" regarding autocracy and the Presidency.

Trump has done far more to roll back Government Regulation and Executive authority than he has done to expand it, although he has certainly made some rather outrageous claims regarding what exactly may be within his Legal ability of things he can do. (And he might be right about several of them?)

Also, Trump "behaving like an Autocrat" when it comes to people that ostensibly work for him isn't overly concerning, particularly given his known background.

Just so long as he doesn't do so when it comes to people who don't work for him. Although he's certainly pushing the boundaries even there, but him being a loudmouthed opinionated blowhard is par for the course with him.

Don't look at me, I didn't want him to get the Republican Nomination, I didn't even vote for him(I voted 3rd party), and I'd be very happy if he resigned tomorrow, although in some respects, I'm almost more concerned about what the VP might do once he is the one in the Oval Office. I'd much rather see a completely different Republican ticket in 2020, all things considered, but I have my doubts as to that actually happening.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 12, 2018, 09:28:45 PM
My example of Obama being autocratic would be when he said he didn't have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally declare a mass amnesty such as DACA and then, after declaring that if Congress wouldn't act that he had a phone and a pen, and he did it anyway. And now when Trump tries to do away with an autocratic act of Obama that was never even legal to begin with and was a blatantly unConstitutional usurpation of Congressional power according to no less a supremely respected Constitutional scholar by the name of Barrack Hussein Obama himself, Trump is somehow the guy over-reaching his authority.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Fenring on September 12, 2018, 10:25:34 PM
Just for clarity, I think there is a miscommunication here about what "autocratic" means. It seems to me that some anti-Trump people here mean by it that Trump acts like a bully, basically, whereas others like TheDeamon seems to be regarding autocracy as being a matter of how the Executive relates to the other branches more so than whether the person running it has one temperament or another. So whereas Obama didn't "act like" an autocrat in terms of his demeanor and language the argument is that he saw the Executive as having more authority and centralized power than many believe it should have. So he would be a "structural autocrat" in this sense even if his ran his office with decorum. Whereas contrariwise the argument is that while Trump behaves like a bully on a personal level and expects people to bow to him as a "leader", his concept of governmental structure seems to be going in roughly a Republican way for the most part, which typically involves deregulating and decentralizing, effectively weakening the Executive. So structurally this would be an anti-autocratic or (as TheDeamon pointed out) anti-authoritarian position, despite being a child on a personal level. This argument sounds coherent to me, although I can't say for certain if it's accurate.

I would definitely say that Obama continued or even endorsed many Federal policies that I would consider not only authoritarian but even fascistic, with the proviso that he didn't initiate them for the most part but merely allowed them to continue. My uncertainty there is I'm not sure if he didn't want to end them, or if he naively thought he could but realized after some time he was powerless to do so even if the law said it was theoretically under his control. I give him a bit of leeway because of this. The problem is that Trump also seems to not be making strides to walk back the post-9/11 insano structures in government, but perhaps this talk of eliminating ICE is a start in that direction. I'll be curious to see what happens if there are more flare-ups in areas like Syria to see if he continues the traditions of the past two administrations in foreign policy, both of which were highly autocratic.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDrake on September 13, 2018, 09:24:25 AM
I had to spend some time thinking about this. Certainly his apparent admiration for autocrats is a point of issue.

When it comes to the executive branch alone, I don't think there's any question how autocratic he is. The scorched earth for anyone who disagrees with him, exercises their own initiative, his quote "I am the only one that matters."

His lack of respect for historically independent agencies like the FBI tends in this direction. Just fire anybody who isn't doing what you want.

His pardons, especially Arpaio seem to indicate that Trump has little respect for the judicial system. Other comments about judges and the judiciary, and a desire to bypass or short circuit legal process especially for immigration are also a factor.

NAFTA was an agreement reached with the support of Congress, and I think we see that Trump is happy to unilaterally work that out on his own - along with all trade issues. Trump also simply refuses to spend money that Congress has allocated in the budget when he doesn't like the policy. An example of this is Congressional authorization of sanctions on Russia that Trump refused to implement.

On the other side, Trump has rolled back a lot of the Obama executive actions that were controversial in the bypass of Congress - everything from the Iran deal to the dreamer action. I think Obama felt stymied by "the resistance" of conservatives that was every bit as desperate to stop him as Trump's "resistance" and went for the greater good. That's where his pen and phone comment came from.

I won't try to decipher which is more autocratic, I don't know how to measure that, but I do think there's ample evidence of Trump's autocratic tendencies.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: D.W. on September 13, 2018, 09:39:17 AM
As much as I like Obama I can't disagree with a lot of the criticism here.  He successfully branded himself as someone trying to actually accomplish (good) things while Congress refused to "do their jobs".  Trump has branded himself as a petulant child who wants what he wants and he wants it now. 

I told one of my friends who I discuss politics with a lot at one point that POTUS should primarily be the Cheerleader-in-chief and his "job" was to reassure the public things are running smoothly and they could trust in the government.  To project confidence and calm reassurance.  (he was rather dismayed by this suggestion)

In short, POTUS needs to BE the "adult in the room", not the one being minded by other adults in the room.  Because Obama was good at this, and Trump has *censored* the bed in this regard, the lenses we use to view the two of them are distorted.

I really wish I could look only at the actions taken and policies moved forward (or pushed backwards) by Trump and ignore HOW he operates.  It would be interesting if the optics really didn't matter.  Unfortunately, from where I'm sitting, he's failing at the most important part of his job.  To make the country, and the world, believe things are running smoothly, and in fact cannot do anything BUT run smoothly, because this is America.

Was Obama an autocrat?  I think he just wanted to do what he felt was best for the country, and over reached now and then, and the system pushed back where appropriate.  Trump I see as wanting to be king, and have as much power as possible and surround himself with people who can help him achieve it.  Not much push back going on.  "Perceived" motives matter.  Those on the other side of the red/blue divide probably would swap those names and descriptions I guess...
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Greg Davidson on September 13, 2018, 10:12:21 AM
 
Quote
I would definitely say that Obama continued or even endorsed many Federal policies that I would consider not only authoritarian but even fascistic,]I would definitely say that Obama continued or even endorsed many Federal policies that I would consider not only authoritarian but even fascistic,
Those words don't mean what you think they do, at least when used by most people in the rest of the world. How many other countries in the world right now would you consider "not only authoritarian but even fascistic" based on the policy criteria that you use to judge President Obama?

Here's what a poster developed before the Trump Administration and sold at the U.S> Holocaust Museum listed as early signs of fascism. Does this sound more like President Obama than President Trump?

Quote
EARLY WARNING SIGNS OF FASCISM

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
4. Rampant sexism
5. Controlled mass media
6. Obsession with national security
7. Religion and government intertwined
8. Corporate power protected
9. Labor power suppressed
10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts
11. Obsession with crime and punishment
12. Rampant cronyism and corruption
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Greg Davidson on September 13, 2018, 10:15:15 AM
Quote
My example of Obama being autocratic would be when he said he didn't have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally declare a mass amnesty such as DACA and then, after declaring that if Congress wouldn't act that he had a phone and a pen, and he did it anyway.

Cherry, if you were doing an fair tally, you would show the number of executive actions and the number of successful court challenges by President to show a differential level of autocracy. President Trump's Muslim ban was found to be un-Constitutional in several iterations, why isn't that just as bad or worse?
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Fenring on September 13, 2018, 11:41:35 AM
Those words don't mean what you think they do, at least when used by most people in the rest of the world. How many other countries in the world right now would you consider "not only authoritarian but even fascistic" based on the policy criteria that you use to judge President Obama?

Interesting question. Let's look at it point by point. And bear in mind as we do that most countries in the world see American in a very different way than you or most people on this forum do. It's almost standard for foreign people to see American as either a bully, a bloated decadent place, and quite often the most dangerous country in the world. I don't agree that this is a fair assessment of the U.S. absent other attributes it has that at least outweigh these and make it a great place, however that should not be taken to discount these criticisms. And they aren't outliers; they're ubiquitous. The U.S. is hated in a lot of the world, and not just the Muslim world. Being blind to that doesn't help anyone, and the criticisms often come about because of some of these so-called 'fascistic' traits that I'll mention now:

Quote
EARLY WARNING SIGNS OF FASCISM

Let's check this closely.

Quote
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism

The U.S. is probably the most nationalist country in the world I can think of, excepting places like NK where I'm not exactly sure if "nationalism" is the right word for a dictatorship. I tend to think of nationalism as having to be a popular movement, or at least one affiliated with a larger party. And the proof is in the pudding: American exceptionalism, as it's sometimes called, is a non-controversial position that at this point both major parties and probably a majority of Americans subscribe to. It amounts to little more than stating that American is and should be the most powerful country in the world, both economically and militarily, and that any actions that further this end are both strategically and ethically acceptable. This doesn't have to be seen as malevolent, and I think many people see it as a responsibility in the form of "we have the best set of freedoms and ethics and need to be in charge so as to protect the world." We can grant that fully and still have to call it a nationalist belief structure. This is the greatest mistake many Americans make now in calling out "white nationalists" from the alt-right, because it's a specious accusation coming from a largely nationalist consensus within the country. The irony is that these so-called "white nationalists" sound to me to be more like anarchists (in the formal sense), being accused by actual nationalists who would like to see central power used to suppress the anarchists.

Quote
2. Disdain for human rights

Drone attacks, and more specifically, Obama's famous "kill list". And in 2nd place, the continuation and likely expansion of the mass surveillance program. In theory a court ruled it illegal during Obama's tenure but I don't think anything actually changed. In 3rd place we might mention his admin's tendency to bring down the hammer hard on whistleblowers.

Quote
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause

Doesn't apply to Obama as far as I can tell.

Quote
4. Rampant sexism

Same.

Quote
5. Controlled mass media

This is ubiquitous and is more a technological matter at this point than a matter of who is President. That said the emerging structure of "clearinghouse news" whereby an undisclosed governmental "source" feeds stories to news agencies that disseminate the stories is a classic propaganda technique, and has become the new normal, almost supplanting entirely investigative journalism. This began during W's Presidency and continued to get worse under Obama. Again, this isn't "his baby" but it did go on during his watch. This is one reason why it's important to distinguish between an autocratic government structure and an autocrat-toned President. The autocratic structure is going to behave in ways a dictator would even if the President personally doesn't, and if the President pushes for more centralized power he's directly or indirectly feeding into this beast.
 
Quote
6. Obsession with national security

I can't adequately diagnose this one because many foreign debacles that happened during his Presidency (Libya, Syria, Yemen) were not necessarily directly his doing. For instance I think he may have finally signed off on Libya but I doubt he was the actual one pushing for it. And to make myself clear, I consider hostile foreign adventures to fall under the rubric of "national security" even if making that connection can only be done on a case-by-case basis. Properly, I can say that the 'powers that be' were obsessed with national security (aka national power) during his Presidency, which is nothing new, and that while this may not have been a personal characteristic of his it did characterize the government while he was President.

Quote
7. Religion and government intertwined

I actually think American exceptionalism *is* a secular religion. But putting that aside I would agree that Obama didn't display this trait.

Quote
8. Corporate power protected

Nothing was done about Wall Street following 2008. Again, I would suggest this may have been because Obama was powerless to do anything so I won't comment on what his private wishes might have been.

Quote
9. Labor power suppressed

There is labor power in the U.S.?

Quote
10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts

I'd say there's been a growing movement of disdain for disagreement, which is not quite the same but is arguably worse. I don't think America is very friendly to the arts at all, which has nothing to do with Obama in particular. However I'll also point out that this criterion is mostly uninteresting as I'm sure you can find plenty of tyrants, kings, and fascist parties that love the arts and the "correct" intellectual activities. The Nazis are an obvious example here, as well as tyrants like Julius Caesar in the distant past. That probably boils down to their individual personality as well as what their regime can benefit from arts and intellectual work. I think I'd agree that tyranny doesn't tolerate dissenting intellectual work, which is a bit of a different proposition.

Quote
11. Obsession with crime and punishment

No, Obama wasn't like this.

Quote
12. Rampant cronyism and corruption

I honestly don't know, but I'll give this one a pass as well.

In conclusion, many of these categories got a check mark under Obama. That doesn't mean that he, personally, instituted or created these conditions, but they were there and thrived under him and that speaks to the structure of government at the time. Ironically, though, it muddies the issue of whether the Executive was autocratic under Obama because some of these conditions are impossible to remedy if the Executive is too weak, while at the same time they could only come about as a result of an Executive that's too strong. It's a real problem.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDrake on September 13, 2018, 11:44:47 AM
Greg, the travel ban(s) are clearly within the scope of Presidential power, not an expansion of such. They were implemented in such a manner that they failed other constitutional tests, but not really an example of expanding presidential power in the same way as DACA flew in the face of established congressional law regarding foreign nationals and their status in the country.

The courts never ruled on the constitutionality of DACA. Some lawsuits were brought, thrown out for standing. A DACA expansion was ruled unconstitutional.

Of course Trump has done similar things with H1B status, guidelines which are generally set by congress. There are bills working their way through, but Trump didn't wait for that. He started making applications more onerous, swamping people with extra paperwork and process to thwart the existing will of congress.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: velcro on September 13, 2018, 01:23:52 PM
TheDaemon,

I apologize, I did not read carefully your parenthetical about Trump liking autocrats.  Nonetheless, the depth and breadth of that "liking" (effectively political support) weakens the argument that he does not support autocracy.

Quote
Also, Trump "behaving like an Autocrat" when it comes to people that ostensibly work for him isn't overly concerning, particularly given his known background.
emphasis added.

 They ostensibly work for us.  He can autocratically tell them how best to serve us, but not how best to serve him.  He often does the latter.

Fenring,

Your evaluation of the "early warning signs" only mentions Obama.   I am pretty sure a side by side comparison would be much more revealing.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Fenring on September 13, 2018, 01:38:50 PM
Your evaluation of the "early warning signs" only mentions Obama.   I am pretty sure a side by side comparison would be much more revealing.

I'm not sure it's as important as you may think to prove who's "more autocratic" between the two of them, although I know why you would prefer that. My general thesis would be more in the vein that if autocratic government has become the new normal (which I think it has in certain areas like foreign policy and the intelligence community) then it will go without saying that any given Presidency will have these traits. The difference between autocratic Obama and autocratic Trump can be outlined in whether one is autocratic 'structurally' (as I mentioned above) versus autocratic temperamentally as Trump is. But overall the pattern is more important. A question we might ask is that, if a previous autocrat put systems into place that need to be removed (to increase liberty), does being less of an autocrat stand much of a chance of achieving that? We might invoke LBJ's Presidency to examine this point. And if not, does that mean that in order to try to effect change there needs to be an ever-increasing level of centralized executive power? Ron Paul wrote an article a while back about how Trump is unintentionally helping to reduce the centralization of power in the U.S. by weakening the country in various ways. That's a funny outlook but I wonder whether there isn't some merit to the idea that walking back an entrenched power structure can't really be done without simply weakening the power structure so that it's less resistant to changes, or alternatively from a death-punch stemming from a disaster.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Pete at Home on September 13, 2018, 02:12:33 PM
Predictably Fed up. Trump is hardly the first PITILUS executive to make such demands.

Quote
Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!

Let me get this straight.  The President is ordering a newspaper to "turn over" to the government the writer of an Op-Ed.  No investigation, no judge, no warrant.  No plausible national security threat.  The lead law-enforcement officer of the country is ordering this. Publicly, on what is considered official channels.

How is this not a house-on-fire constitutional crisis? How is this not a cut-and-dried violation of the Constitutional oath?

Is it because nobody actually believes he means it, including the entire Congress, and the entire Executive branch?  What does that say about how our country views the Presidency now that Trump is President?  How will we know he really means anything?  How can our country function with that kind of ambiguity?  How impotent and dysfunctional does it make our country look, especially considering that he hired the person he wants turned over?

I apologize for sounding shrill, but this is seriously, seriously, effed up.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: rightleft22 on September 13, 2018, 02:47:46 PM
and that makes it all ok
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Wayward Son on September 13, 2018, 03:30:28 PM
It's no more significant than when a policeman says, "You should go to jail for that" or a judge saying "you should go to prison for that."  Why would anyone worry about those? ;)
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: D.W. on September 13, 2018, 03:36:11 PM
In that case, "should" would be welcome.  It's the "will" that you should be concerned with.   8)
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Wayward Son on September 13, 2018, 03:41:06 PM
Of course, it's a little late to be concerned once the word becomes "will." :)
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: velcro on September 13, 2018, 09:23:47 PM
 
Your evaluation of the "early warning signs" only mentions Obama.   I am pretty sure a side by side comparison would be much more revealing.

I'm not sure it's as important as you may think to prove who's "more autocratic" between the two of them, although I know why you would prefer that.

With all due respect:
-You don't know why I would prefer that, or even that I would prefer that.  You don't know that I think it is at all important :)
-If you read the thread, this entire line of questioning originated with the comment
Quote
Trump is less autocratic than Obama

Greg's list of the early warning signs was a way to somewhat quantify that comparison.  You chose to quantify one side, which does nothing to address the line of questioning we were all looking at.

If you want to continue your own tangent of how autocratic Obama is in isolation, feel free.  But please don't infer that I am creating some artificial reason all on my own to drive a comparison.

I apologize if my tone is harsh, but you are making a lot of assumptions and inferences that seem to me to make communication difficult.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: velcro on September 13, 2018, 09:29:00 PM
It's no more significant than when a policeman says, "You should go to jail for that" or a judge saying "you should go to prison for that."  Why would anyone worry about those? ;)

In my opinion, a better analogy is when the chief of police reads an uncomplimentary article and says "The author should go to jail for that" in the presence of police officers.  They ought not do anything.  But they might.  And anyone with an ounce of integrity would realize that the police chief is showing extremely bad judgment.

ETA - just saw the wink ;)  but I think the post is still worth keeping.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Greg Davidson on September 13, 2018, 11:29:58 PM
How can anything bad come from merely asking a hypothetical question such as "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" 
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Fenring on September 14, 2018, 12:18:53 AM
Your evaluation of the "early warning signs" only mentions Obama.   I am pretty sure a side by side comparison would be much more revealing.

I'm not sure it's as important as you may think to prove who's "more autocratic" between the two of them, although I know why you would prefer that.

With all due respect:
-You don't know why I would prefer that, or even that I would prefer that.  You don't know that I think it is at all important :)

I should have said "I believe I understand some fundamental reasons for preferring that", rather than to insinuate that those were certainly your reasons.

Quote
-If you read the thread, this entire line of questioning originated with the comment
Quote
Trump is less autocratic than Obama

Yes, and my reply to the ensuing exchange was that each side was using a different definition (or axis) for assessing that.

Quote
Greg's list of the early warning signs was a way to somewhat quantify that comparison.  You chose to quantify one side, which does nothing to address the line of questioning we were all looking at.

Read the exchange more carefully. I wasn't answering the question of who is more autocratic. I was answering Greg's comment that the words I was using "autocratic and fascistic" didn't mean what I thought they meant, and weren't being applied to Obama correctly.

Quote
If you want to continue your own tangent of how autocratic Obama is in isolation, feel free.  But please don't infer that I am creating some artificial reason all on my own to drive a comparison.

I don't care how autocratic Obama is in comparison to Trump because I have no dog in that race. I was answering the question of how "fascistic" could be applied to Obama's Presidency based on the list Greg quoted, and this was intended to provide an explanation of what I meant by the word. It was a demonstration of usage, and not directly relevant in any quantitative assessment or comparison.

Quote
I apologize if my tone is harsh, but you are making a lot of assumptions and inferences that seem to me to make communication difficult.

You may want to re-check the conversation history to see if I was being unreasonable. My main effort was in providing some language to help distinguish TheDeamon's position from Greg's, because I felt there was some speaking past each other. In the case of my 'guess' about what you in particular meant, sorry about that.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: velcro on September 14, 2018, 12:58:51 PM
Fenring,

I understand your reasoning, and accept your apology.  I apologize for overreacting to what was really just my misunderstanding of what you were trying to accomplish.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Seriati on September 17, 2018, 04:22:47 PM
Quote
There's no objective reasoning there.  It's literally, they said what you wanted to hear, ergo, you will treat it as true.

So says the man who thinks Trump saved us millions of dollars on Air Force One, just because a known liar said so, and might know better.  :P

Reading comprehension.  I think I said twenty times WE don't know one way or the other, but that it was plausible based on the information we had.  I said ZERO times that it did happen, and was objecting to people who conclusively believe its a lie based on the same lack of evidence.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Seriati on September 17, 2018, 04:30:07 PM
Two blatant falsehoods here:

Quote
Did it come with federal agents seizing a lawyer's data base in a pre-dawn raid... oops... wrong right that was violated.

There were warrants.  Attorney-client privileges were maintained.  What right was violated?  Sources please.

Let me get this straight, you're defending a claim that Trump's tweet violated a right, by asking for proof that seizing an attorney's records violates a right?  Lol.

There's absolutely no truth to the idea that attorney client privilege would have been maintained under the original justice department plan - to have people uninvolved in the direct prosecution review the records for privilege. 

It's also directly inconsistent with how they treated Hillary, where they let her turn over subpeoned government records to her lawyers (notwithstanding the lack of security clearance by such lawyers), who choose what to deliver and participated in the destruction of the original devices.

Quote
And to be fair, Seriati only said that we didn't know enough to be 100% sure Trump was wrong. There was evidence aplenty to prove to any unbiased reader that Trump was wrong, but Seriati never actually claimed the opposite, as far as I remember.  But I could be wrong.

There's actually not enough for an unbiased reader to claim the opposite.  An unbiased reader would have acknowledged that without a release of the actual information involved there can't be a claim one way or the other.  (Now let me remember, who was it that had that opinion...)
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: velcro on September 17, 2018, 09:27:01 PM
Quote
Let me get this straight, you're defending a claim that Trump's tweet violated a right, by asking for proof that seizing an attorney's records violates a right?  Lol.

Sorry, you didn't get that straight. That sentence didn't claim anything about Trump's tweet.  I didn't ask for anything.  You did manage to distract and distort, and pretty much make stuff up at will.  I am stating a fact, that seizing an attorney's record, with a valid warrant, obtained through proper channels and without fraudulent information, is not violating a right. Please address that comment, and that comment alone, without putting words in my mouth.

As someone who "always has a source", your credibility hinges on your ability to provide one to prove that a right was violated.  Hint: the source should actually support your claim, because we actually look at the sources.

Quote
There's absolutely no truth to the idea that attorney client privilege would have been maintained under the original justice department plan - to have people uninvolved in the direct prosecution review the records for privilege. 
  That is how they always do it.  Please explain how the current processes, approved by Justice Departments under administrations of both parties, fail to maintain attorney client privileges.

Quote
It's also directly inconsistent with how they treated Hillary, where they let her turn over subpeoned government records to her lawyers (notwithstanding the lack of security clearance by such lawyers), who choose what to deliver and participated in the destruction of the original devices.

And what crime was she charged with? Did they have several people associated with her pleading guilty to a variety of crimes and turning state's evidence on her?  Were there warrants, or just subpoenas? Doesn't matter, because Hillary.

Quote
An unbiased reader would have acknowledged that without a release of the actual information involved there can't be a claim one way or the other.

Nope, not even close.  Trump said he saved $1B.  There is ample evidence to contradict that statement. Not receipts for the cost of the plane, but multiple expert statements, and Trump's own statement about the cost.  There is absolutely, positively ZERO evidence to support that statement.  If you disagree, provide a scintilla of evidence that he saved $1B. Otherwise, it is clear what you have.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDrake on September 18, 2018, 06:54:11 AM
What I'm worried about is the rights of the innocent client, patient or patent that may be swept up in the raid. And the taint teams that review this consist of FBI agents and U.S. attorneys, and that seems to me like a core violation of the Fourth and Sixth amendments to have government officials reading through material that may turn out ultimately to be privileged and confidential.

-dershowitz

It seems somebody needed an assist. I'm not really against the raid myself. But there are important questions when it comes to searches involving 3rd parties and their rights. Whether it be a church, hospital, or law office.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Seriati on September 18, 2018, 04:57:05 PM
Quote
Trump is less autocratic than Obama was, yet the outrage is far greater. 

Seriati, please defend this assertion. Provide a definition of what you mean by autocratic, and then show why President Obama's actions violate that definition to a greater degree than President Trump's.

I'm more than a little confused why you would drop the list of examples from the quote and then ask me about examples.  The full quote is below.

We don't have kings.  Trump is less autocratic than Obama was, yet the outrage is far greater.  Sounds more to me, honestly, like the issue isn't whether the "king" is making a demand, just that a Republican is doing so.  I mean honestly, Obama created DACA with a stroke of his pen, overrode the law on immigration and created a new class of citizenship, and that's okay.  His administration continued the NSA's unsupervised and illegal surveilance without warrants, and that was okay.  He actually siezed the records of journalists to try and catch leaks (then turned around and changed the classification standards on his way out the door to try and cause leaks) and that was okay.

To be clear.  Obama felt empowered to reverse the immigration law of this country, that provides for deportation as the default circumstance for those found to be here illegal.  Those are the laws as drafted by Congress.  By choosing to flip them on their head and establish a status of "won't be deported" absent additional conditions that don't appear in those laws.  He did this after he - Constitutional scholar - expressly stated he didn't have the authority to act without Congress.

His administration was one that grossly expanded the regulatory state (again, law making without involving Congress).  He acted to embed permanent political actors into the bureaucracy to ensure his policy would be "election" proof.  He unilaterally entered into treaties and claimed they weren't treaties to avoid his obligations to provide them to the Senate (heck he tried to declare the Senate in recess so he could make recess appointments in violation of the Senate rules).

Pretty much everytime he did anything autocratic people jumped and said he had to do it because of the "do nothing" Congress or "obstructionism".  None of which justifies being an autocrat.
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: Seriati on September 18, 2018, 05:04:09 PM
Quote
I DO agree that Obama does strongly favor autocratic forms of governance far more than Trump does.

Seems that you define "autocratic" as a policy that you disagree with. Case in point, Obamacare - if a popularly elected President, along with a popularly elected House of Representative and Senate all go along to pass a law that you disagree with, is that what you consider autocratic?

If the law appoints a health czar with the power to make life and death decisions it would be in support of autocrats.  The Roman's would elect a dictator to deal with crisis.  The dictator was literally the embodiment of an autocratic policy.

Is ObamaCare directly autocratic?  Not really.  It's dramatically big government, but the government is still controlled by a lot of people. 
Title: Re: Trump Orders NYT to Turn Over Writer to the Government.
Post by: TheDrake on October 17, 2018, 01:08:54 PM
Quote
Trump: ‘The Only Way To Find Out What Happened At The Saudi Consulate Is To Send In More Journalists One At A Time’

The Onion gets comedy, no matter what you think about Trump.