monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

"Trump is always eager to tell people that they don’t belong here, whether it’s Mexicans, Muslims, transgender people or another group. His message is, “You are not one of us',” Danforth wrote in a Washington Post op-ed posted online Thursday evening. "And when he has the opportunity to unite Americans, to inspire us, to call out the most hateful among us, the KKK and the neo-Nazis, he refuses."

Danforth's op-ed is a harshly worded rebuke from a GOP elder statesman, coming at a time when Trump is already under fire for his response to the racially charged violence in Charlottesville, where white supremacists rallied earlier this month.

Danforth, an ordained Episcopal priest and three-term senator, called on Republicans to "disassociate ourselves from Trump" and tell voters that "he does not represent what it means to be a Republican." He suggested Republicans were at risk of losing their historical connection to Abraham Lincoln and the crusade to end slavery during the Civil War.

"We are the party of the Union, and (Trump) is the most divisive president in our history," Danforth wrote. "There hasn’t been a more divisive person in national politics since George Wallace."

Gary Cohn, President Donald Trump's top economic adviser, has criticized the White House's response to Charlottesville, Virginia, in his first public remarks about the deadly violence earlier this month.

"This administration can and must do better in consistently and unequivocally condemning these groups and do everything we can to heal the deep divisions that exist in our communities,"
Cohn said he felt compelled "to voice my distress over the events of the last two weeks."

Cohn, who is Jewish, was reportedly "disgusted" and "appalled" with Trump's response to white nationalists' role in the violence in Charlottesville. The president blamed "both sides" for the violence, which left one counterprotester dead.

"Citizens standing up for equality and freedom can never be equated with white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and the KKK," Cohn told the FT.

Demolishing a Coney Island landmark to make a few hundred thousand bucks... Now that's classy!

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke recommended that President Donald Trump approve the reduction of at least three national monuments, a move that could open hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands to oil and gas drilling and mining, according to leaked copies of a report prepared by the Department of the Interior.

Trump 'must do better'

I know. Its one of the funniest things ever - a tiki torch Nazi crying over the fact that protected free speech doesn't include CS-ing peaceful unarmed protesters expressing their free and protected speech and finding out the hard way that yes, he could be charged with assault and that freely made unprotected hate speech has consequences.

But on the other hand, maybe Trump isn't the demented one. Maybe it's the people who squander their own reputations to support the hate mongering thuggish behaviour who are the unbalanced people.

Just out of curiosity, do you actually know other people who behave like Trump? Would you trust them with your children, your money, your career? People like Trump make me back up for a quick escape.

But on the other hand, maybe Trump isn't the demented one. Maybe it's the people who squander their own reputations to support the hate mongering thuggish behaviour who are the unbalanced people.

Finn's got that "reputation" thing handled. After Trump crashes and burns in ignominy, Finn will simply deny he was ever a supporter anyway, but just someone making observations. Hell if he can get away with it, he'll probably scoff that he was way ahead of everyone - that he knew the outcome all along.

Quote:

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke recommended that President Donald Trump approve the reduction of at least three national monuments, a move that could open hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands to oil and gas drilling and mining, according to leaked copies of a report prepared by the Department of the Interior.

As though we (US) haven't taken enough land of the native Americans.

there is no such things as "unprotected hate speech". You will have to find a current held ruling that shows there is such a thing.

The Brandenburg test was established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. In the case, a KKK leader gave a speech at a rally to his fellow Klansmen, and after listing a number of derogatory racial slurs, he then said that "it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken." The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:

1. The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
   
2. The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
   

This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992), the issue of banning hate speech arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such expressions considered racist and the teenager was charged thereunder. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance. Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”.[91] Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that speech in general is permissible unless it will lead to imminent violence.[92] The opinion noted "This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Fred Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of freedom of speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public."[93]

In June 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed in an unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are "racially disparaging". Justice Samuel Alito writes:

Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).[94]

Justice Anthony Kennedy also writes:

A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.[94]

Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.

there is no such things as "unprotected hate speech"

snood wrote:

Some people still unfortunately seem to be operating under the misapprehension that questions about Trump's mental health and fitness for office are somehow a stretch.

Some people continue to make ridiculous and unsupported claims about his mental health. It is both unfortunate and odious.