Random Politics & Religion #14

Yea and I +d you for it.

Now I know you said you don't to argue further on the matter.

However I'm really curious as to why you don't agree that a President/President-Elect ranting and threatening the free press is not a big deal.

For me it's potentially a big deal with respect to the first amendment.

He has actively tried to destroy this site on two separate occasions and yet we let him rejoin the community; The only other person that tried to shut the site down was Vigoor by threatening Scragg.

That says a lot about his attitude.

Lol... how did he actively try to destroy the site?

the first time was using texan law to find a loophole with the site's administration.

the second time was trying to get google to shut down our ad support for our content repeatedly breaking their guidelines. He would know the details involved better than I would though, as this is just glimpses of info from him and scragg

the first time was using texan law to find a loophole with the site's administration.

the second time was trying to get google to shut down our ad support for our content repeatedly breaking their guidelines. He would know the details involved better than I would though, as this is just glimpses of info from him and scragg

I think it only becomes a threat to the first amendment if he uses his executive powers to silence them. Being critical on them, no matter how misguided it may be, is not a breach of the first amendment.

In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction.[1] The right that is most often described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US constitutional right to free speech. A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right (freedom of speech or otherwise) for fear of legal repercussions. When that fear is brought about by the threat of a libel lawsuit, it is called libel chill.[2] A lawsuit initiated specifically for the purpose of creating a chilling effect may be called a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or more commonly, a "SLAPP suit".

>.> Shouldn't this have been nuked into oblivion so we could start on Random PnR #15 like a week ago?

Finally something I can agree with! These guys could use a nice embargo.

A Texas law to find a loophole with the site's administration? This is interesting, can we discuss this law... does it fall under random politics?

President-elect Donald Trump’s charitable foundation engaged in self-dealing in 2015 and prior years, the foundation said in an Internal Revenue Service filing.

That self-dealing, which typically triggers additional taxes for anyone who got improper benefits, resulted from payments to “disqualified persons,” or foundation insiders, according to the document. The document, which was the foundation’s tax return for 2015, doesn’t provide more details. Representatives for Mr. Trump didn’t respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

The tax form asks if any income or assets were transferred to a disqualified person, and the foundation checked “yes.” The signed, undated form was posted on Guidestar, a website that compiles nonprofits’ tax forms. Guidestar said it was submitted by the law firm representing the foundation and that it might not be the exact final version that gets submitted to the government.

“They admit at this point that there are problems with their prior returns,” said Phil Hackney, a Louisiana State University law professor who has been examining the returns.

The tax code requires nonprofits to release their tax returns publicly. As a result, the foundation’s filings give voters one of the few peeks they have had into Mr. Trump’s dealings with the IRS. He was the first major-party presidential candidate in 40 years to refuse to release his tax returns....

Donald Trump’s Foundation Engaged in Self-Dealing, IRS Filing Shows
Foundation’s 2015 tax return reports payments to foundation insiders
Wall Street Journal

And lots more, mostly background.

You will read it, however, as self-dealing is a felony charge and, if found guilty, Trump must be impeached, because then he'd be a convicted felon ineligible to hold public office.

When is your country's thanksgiving? I forgot you dorks are coming up soon

Welcome to the Candlejack drinking game. Over the next few months, take a drink anytime he says "faithless elector", "Hitler", "KKK", or a form of the word "impeach". Any survivors can set the new rules after that.

He's a carpetbagger and it's going to bite him in the *** when his mass of down trodden and angry supporters realize he took advantage of them and their emotions.

I've been saying this for a while and no joke it's like yelling into the wind with some folks and relatives.

Ah, yet glories of glory, if Pence acts on his bigoted impulses, he can also be impeached. Federal hate crimes laws apply to the president as well.