• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump files lawsuit against NY Times

Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
joe1776 said:
Why wouldn't a dictator use both legal and illegal methods of consolidating his power?
Click to expand...
The defining trait of a dictator would be to use extra-legal means.
If using the courts to fight libel made one a dictator, then that
would make Tulsi Gabbard a dictator. Nah...I don't buy it.
 
joe1776

joe1776

Well-Known Member
columbus said:
I wonder if Trump is paying for this himself, or if he's billing the taxpayers for those $1500/hr lawyers?
Tom
Click to expand...
There are lawyers who would take cases like this on a contingency basis, they are owed nothing if they lose, because they get free publicity and they might get lucky and get a settlement offer.
 
joe1776

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Revoltingest said:
It makes sense if you realize that "extra-legal means" encompasses
the full universe of illegalities one might commit, eg, murder, pogroms,
coup, imperious decree, massacre, gulags, censoring opponents.
Click to expand...
You can make sense of this if you can offer a good reason that a dictator would NOT avail himself of both legal and illegal methods of consolidating his power.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Revoltingest said:
It makes sense if you realize that "extra-legal means" encompasses
the full universe of illegalities one might commit, eg, murder, pogroms,
coup, imperious decree, massacre, gulags, censoring opponents.
Click to expand...
What did Hitler do that was illegal?

As far as I can tell, demogogues get people to change the laws to suit themselves. Extra-legal activities aren't very efficient when you have the power to change the laws, and even the culture, to support your own power base.

Kinda like the way Trump changed this "Nation of Immigrants" into "Fortress America", and enough people voted for that kind of progress to get him into the White House.
Tom
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
joe1776 said:
You can make sense of this if you can offer a good reason that a dictator would NOT avail himself of both legal and illegal methods of consolidating his power.
Click to expand...
That's not my point.
A dictator would us all means available, not just legal ones.
Is Trump doing anything illegal to thwart the NYT?

If using the legal system to fight libel or slander makes one
a dictator, then is Tulsi Gabbard one too?
 
Cooky

Cooky

Veteran Member
joe1776 said:
You can make sense of this if you can offer a good reason that a dictator would NOT avail himself of both legal and illegal methods of consolidating his power.
Click to expand...

When Trump breaks the constitution by banning free speech, then I'll take into consideration that Trump has dictatorial traits. Until then... Meh.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
columbus said:
What did Hitler do that was illegal?
Click to expand...
By that question, are you claiming that he acted legally in his assumption & use of power?
Oh, dear.
Look up his experiences in Nov, 1923.
Start there, & read further.
When Trump stages a wine & cheese bar hall putsch, we'll talk dictatorship.
As far as I can tell, demogogues get people to change the laws to suit themselves. Extra-legal activities aren't very efficient when you have the power to change the laws, and even the culture, to support your own power base.
Click to expand...
What President doesn't want to change laws & culture to suit their own power & values?
That's so broad a standard that many Presidents could be called "dictator".
You're using bias confirmation rather than a standard applied to all.
Kinda like the way Trump changed this "Nation of Immigrants" into "Fortress America", and enough people voted for that kind of progress to get him into the White House.
Tom
Click to expand...
Your Hillary also advocated much stronger borders....until
opposing them became politically useful against Trump.
By your proposed standard, you supported a dictator.
 
Last edited:
joe1776

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Revoltingest said:
That's not my point.
A dictator would us all means available, not just legal ones.
Is Trump doing anything illegal to thwart the NYT?

If using the legal system to fight libel or slander makes one
a dictator, then is Tulsi Gabbard one too?
Click to expand...
You are shifting positions. Your first position was that dictators would not use legal tactics. Now, you're saying that using legal tactics does not, on its own, mark a man a dictator. That's an entirely different position, one that's obviously true.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
dianaiad said:
Look up libel laws.

Now Trump, being a 'pubic figure' has to prove a great deal more than you or I would, in regard to this, but just as freedom of speech doesn't allow yelling 'fire' in a movie theater, or allow a university to support and promote campaigns to destroy private businesses by using clearly provable lies in order to do it, then the NYT (or any other newspaper) isn't allowed to publish, with malice and an intent to deceive, inaccurate information that is specifically intended to harm someone.

Offering one's opinion? THAT'S FREE SPEECH. Deliberatly using lies that one knows are lies in order to harm? That's not free speech. Now of course, if those lies turn out to be truth, the case goes right out the window, and Trump is left hanging.

But what if those statements by the NYT turn out to BE lies, and that the Times KNEW they were lies? Shoot, for that matter, what if they didn't know they were lies the first time they were published, but when they found out that those things WERE lies, kept publishing them and refusing to retract...or almost as bad, retracted on the last page in fine print, and continued to make the claim on the front page?

What the NYT said about Trump went far beyond criticism and opinion. They flat out accused him of committing very serious crimes, and did so in a way as to insinuate that those acts are proven true; not to be argued with. No Trial, no evidence....just conviction. The only trial Trump is going to get over these things is a civil libel lawsuit.....and I think he's pretty darned brave to try it. Given the state of the courts right now, even with a compete absence of evidence to prove that what the NYT was correct, what are the odds that the courts would acknowledge such a basic thing as 'innocent until proven guilty?"

I mean, really....as careful as the papers are to put 'alleged' in front of the crime for anybody who hasn't been convicted of something, you'd think that the NYT would at least do THAT....but nope.

It will be interesting.
Click to expand...
You do know that this lawsuit is about an opinion piece, published in the paper, right? Not an actual news article?

Trump accuses people of much worse things on a daily basis. This seems a tad hypocritical to me, on his part.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
SkepticThinker said:
You do know that this lawsuit is about an opinion piece, published in the paper, right? Not an actual news article?

Trump accuses people of much worse things on a daily basis. This seems a tad hypocritical to me, on his part.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with the piece or the suit.
But it's possible that an opinion piece could
cite something counter-factual as fact. If,
& it's a big "if", it were reckless or malicious,
demonstrably wrong, & significant, the court
could find for Trump.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
columbus said:
No.
I asked you a question.
Click to expand...
And I answered it.
You must learn to read & quote past the 1st sentence in a post.

Btw, you can't blame your premature respondulation
upon my editing. I posted the whole thing at once.
Now.....answer my question in that post.
And tell me what happened with Hitler in Nov 1923.
 
joe1776

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Landon Caeli said:
When Trump breaks the constitution by banning free speech, then I'll take into consideration that Trump has dictatorial traits. Until then... Meh.
Click to expand...
Your comment has no relevance to the point I made in the post you quoted.

As to the point you made, all dictators have been extremely arrogant men who demand absolute loyalty from their people they appoint to their inner circle, who cannot be trusted to tell the truth or keep their end of agreements, who seem to think that moral rules exist only for ordinary people and do not apply to them and who get livid when they are accused of making even insignificant errors.

Donny isn't a dictator because the system won't allow him to be. He's a wannabe dictator who will come apart at the seams when he is rejected by the American people this November.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top