quote:

Trump's campaign in 2015 proposed a blanket ban on all Muslim immigration to the United States — the news release remains on his campaign website to this day — and the courts ruled that this rhetoric was relevant when it halted his first travel ban, despite Trump's team arguing that it wasn't a Muslim ban. In striking down the first travel ban, the courts cited Rudy Giuliani's comments that suggested Trump sought to make his Muslim ban idea legally practical.

“So when first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban,'" Giuliani said. “He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'”

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

If the WaPoo people weren't so obviously at war against the Republicans on behalf of the alt left, their articles could almost be taken seriously

They'rte not even worthy of lining bird cages at this point though, because only idiots and ideologues would fund their propaganda machine by purchasing the liner material from them

And you can finde partisan judges to back any insanity

Totally meaningless drivel

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


Judge Hale noted in his ruling that speech inciting violence is not protected under the first amendment, a point supported in past SCOTUS rulings.

The primary case involving free speech and violence is Brandenburg v Ohio, where the Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment does not protect speech inciting violence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

a moment of prayer to the scrotum

Our scrotum who art in heaven hallowed be thy name, give us the day our daily bullshit, on earth as it is in heaven.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

If the WaPoo people weren't so obviously at war against the Republicans on behalf of the alt left, their articles could almost be taken seriously

They'rte not even worthy of lining bird cages at this point though, because only idiots and ideologues would fund their propaganda machine by purchasing the liner material from them

And you can finde partisan judges to back any insanity

Totally meaningless drivel

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

If the WaPoo people weren't so obviously at war against the Republicans on behalf of the alt left, their articles could almost be taken seriously

They'rte not even worthy of lining bird cages at this point though, because only idiots and ideologues would fund their propaganda machine by purchasing the liner material from them

And you can finde partisan judges to back any insanity

Totally meaningless drivel

Bosco, you are forgetting one important fact, Judge Hale ruled against Trump and his supporters, citing SCOTUS on the subject.

It does not matter what paper reported it.

You are failing to grasp the essence of the situation.

His travel bans have been blocked based on his saying he wants to 'ban Muslims' from entering the country during his campaign speeches.

His numerous occasions of telling supporters to 'knock the crap' out of protestors speaking against him at rallies has done nothing to help his agenda.

You rail against the 'alt left' for violent protests and say nothing against Trump for telling his supporters to do the same damn thing, which makes you and those saying the same things hypocrites.

In the case Brandenburg v Ohio, Brandenburg was arrested and convicted of advocating violence and violent acts against others.

His whole appeal was based that what he said was protected under the first amendment. The supreme court ruled against him.

Technically, under that ruling, every time Donald Trump openly told his supporters to commit acts of violence against protestors, he was violating the law. The fact he was not arrested and charged with inciting violence is to put it mildly, a miracle, or to be more precise, pure dumb luck.

The only thing protecting him now is the fact he is the president and thus, immune from arrest unless impeached.

Conservatives often claimed that Obama had little regard for the constitution, and violated it on many occasions, the problem is, which people seem to have forgotten, that if that were true, congress would have had the grounds to impeach and throw him out of office.

And considering that the Republicans had the control of both houses in his last years, the fact that none of them even bothered to introduce a motion to impeach speaks volumes.

In this case however, the proof is there in video of him openly advocating violence. It is also there where he turns around and blasts liberals for their violent protests, or blasts them for calling for disruption of town hall meetings.

The hypocrisy is so obvious it is almost laughable, condemning people for breaking the laws when he himself told supporters to break the law.

As I said, there are points in his agenda I support, but it is also true that he has done somethings that are ethically and legally questionable.

And while the Freedom Caucus may be a pain in his ass, as it has been with many GOP congressmen, he cant really afford to piss them off too much. There is enough of them to kill any programs he may endorse by siding with dems in both houses.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend is an all to common move in American politics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


In the case Brandenburg v Ohio, Brandenburg was arrested and convicted of advocating violence and violent acts against others.

His whole appeal was based that what he said was protected under the first amendment. The supreme court ruled against him.


In this case however, the proof is there in video of him openly advocating violence. It is also there where he turns around and blasts liberals for their violent protests, or blasts them for calling for disruption of town hall meetings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


In the case Brandenburg v Ohio, Brandenburg was arrested and convicted of advocating violence and violent acts against others.

His whole appeal was based that what he said was protected under the first amendment. The supreme court ruled against him.


In this case however, the proof is there in video of him openly advocating violence. It is also there where he turns around and blasts liberals for their violent protests, or blasts them for calling for disruption of town hall meetings.

Oh so you seen this guy hold a gun to peoples heads and force them to commit violent acts is that it?

NO!

He was he exercizing his right to free speech the commission of any crime as a result falls upon the person committing the crime not the person exercizing free speech.


Once again! Everyone kneel, face washington and bow to your god:

a moment of prayer to Scrotumus Maximus

Our scrotum who art in heaven hallowed be thy name, give us the day our daily bullshit, on earth as it is in heaven.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

A federal judge in Kentucky ruled that Donald Trump incited violence at a campaign rally in Louisville in March of 2016.

quote:

A judge rules Trump may have

quote:

“It is plausible"

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

A federal judge in Kentucky ruled that Donald Trump incited violence at a campaign rally in Louisville in March of 2016.

the headline of the article says this:

quote:

A judge rules Trump may have

the text of the article says this:

quote:

“It is plausible"

which means "reasonable to believe but not proved."

how does one get from those two things, to what you wrote, that a judge "ruled that trump incited violence?"

quote:

Hale found ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's actions, and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled out constitutional protections for speech that incites violence.

"It is plausible that Trump's direction to 'get 'em out of here' advocated the use of force," the judge wrote. "It was an order, an instruction, a command."

quote:

Lawyers for Trump and his campaign also argued that they cannot be held liable because they had no duty to the plaintiffs, who assumed the risk of injury when they decided to protest at the rally. The judge countered that under the law, every person has a duty to every other person to use care to prevent foreseeable injury.

"In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that their harm was foreseeable and that the Trump Defendants had a duty to prevent it," the judge ruled, referring the case to a federal magistrate, Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl, to handle preliminary litigation, discovery and settlement efforts.