[Delete] @Baden

Clinton's practices exposed classified documents. That's not fairly common. — frank

Trump uses a non-protected smartphone as a matter of routine when engaged in conversations about classified matters, and refuses to take advice on not doing it. Of course, according to Trump supporters, when Trump does it, it's OK, but if someone else were to do it - like, a Democrat candidate - then it would be completely beyond the pale. Not that they’re hypocritical about such things.

Trudeau hasn't tortured and killed enough of his own citizens for Donald to consider him a Goodfella. — Baden

In an interview with Fox News’ Brett Baier on Air Force One as he was leaving Singapore, Trump brushed aside Kim Jong Un’s oppression of his people, according to transcriptions by The Hill. “Yeah, but so have a lot of other people have done some really bad things,” Trump said, adding, “I mean, I could go through a lot of nations where a lot of bad things were done” [which incidentally is an example of ‘whataboutism’].

Trump then went on to praise on Kim, calling him a “tough guy” who took control of his country from a young age. “I don’t care who you are, what you are, what kind of advantage you have,” Trump said. “If you can do that at 27-years-old, you, I mean, that’s one-in-10,000 that can do that.”

Throughout the interview, Trump called Kim — who he has previously referred to as “little rocket man” — a “very smart guy” and a “great negotiator”.

Obviously a ‘great negotiator’, as he got Trump to cancel the military exercises that have been held every year since the end of the Korean War in return for a vague commitment. Indeed the general consensus is that the Reality TV Summit was a big win for Kim Jong Un.

And the next headline is Trump imposing major tariffs on Chinese imports. Never mind that the GOP’s stated policy has been free trade and the abolition of trade barriers for decades. Never mind that Trump doesn’t exhibit the least scintilla of understanding about what ‘free trade’ means, or why indeed America and China have a trade imbalance. Never mind that Trump’s former senior economic adviser, Gary Cohn, resigned over this very matter and continues to warn against it.

His reaction to the Inspector General’s report is likewise completely mistaken, wildly mis-informed. He can’t even read and interpret a report, instead lashing out at the FBI as ‘a den of thieves’ and ‘scum’. It’s truly a disgraceful spectacle. Every day, with Trump, seems like the final straw, the last straw, surely someone has to act to bring this to an end. But no.

To understand Trump we have to disengage from the particularity of his lies and outrageous actions. His lies are not about changing any story from truth to non-truth. His actions are not about getting any particular thing done. What he is about is destroying the possibility of the value of truth. What he is about is creating chaos so that he can do whatever he wants. That is, his lies and actions are attacks on truth and order in general.

Somewhere somehow (likely his family of origin, and practiced in his own family and businesses) he discovered that within certain horizons, his approach works. Two problems: first, he's got almost the widest horizon possible. He can and will tell any lie without fear of consequence. The chaos he'd like to have so he can do what he wants is a little more difficult to achieve, and that for both fairly simple reasons, and one astonishing reason. The fairy simple reason is that Congress and the courts and we are still active. The astonishing reason is that Putin won't let him! (Because the value of Trump to Russia is limited - he won't get what they think is not in their interest.)

I said two problems. The second is that the technique of lies and chaos is institutionalized in the new Russia under Vlad the Putin. Trump's personal practices are at one with the official practices of the Kremlin. It is by now a safe bet, imo, that somehow Trump is getting instruction from Russia. The sheer destructiveness of his words and "actions" and "policies" as against truth and order are the plainest evidence.

The moral of the story is that it is no longer appropriate to decry the lies and the outrages - those still need to be dealt with, of course - rather it is to realize that the US and the West is engaged in a hot war of ideas and ideologies with a foe that is as evil as any Satan, and it is a war without quarter. And at the moment, the President of the United States is on their side.

If you want to read a deeply disturbing book on this, Timothy Snyder, The Road to Unfreedom, ISBN-10: 0525574468,

https://www.amazon.com/Road-Unfreedom-Russia-Europe-America/dp/0525574468/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1529110595&sr=1-1&keywords=the+road+to+unfreedom

He can’t even read and interpret a report, instead lashing out at the FBI as ‘a den of thieves’ and ‘scum’ — Wayfarer

So what do you make of this txt exchange prior to election between FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page?

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted Strzok.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The American people want you to rejoin S. Korea, become a dedicated ally of world peace, and make lots of Korean barbecue sauce for the world market. — frank

With regard to this.

That it’s no big deal. That it is a private opinion. That ‘the right’ will clutch at straws while the building is burning down.

I suspect it will become a "big deal" along with everything else the FBI leadership were up to.

Keep watching.

Do you know why James Comey was criticized in the IG’s report? You know the report says nothing at all about there being any kind of conspiracy to interfere with the election on the part of the FBI, right? And that Trump shows no sign of comprehending what the report said, right? You know that Paul Manafort, who was Chairman of the Trump Campaign, is in jail facing criminal charges? So yes, will watch, with interest.

It's all part of the war that is going on.

We will see who wins.

Highly ironic that members here claim the Left is stifling the First Amendment when conservatives are doing that in the literal sense.

You know that Paul Manafort, who was Chairman of the Trump Campaign, is in jail facing criminal charges? — Wayfarer

By the way, Manafort is not charged with anything related to Trump campaign.

Also, he has not been tried.

Feel free to quote examples.

Also the policy of separating immigrant parents (illegal and legal alike) from their children is, to my mind, the worst US atrocity since the War in Iraq. Not really sure why I'm the only one commenting on it here.

I literally provided a link.

And the next headline is Trump imposing major tariffs on Chinese imports. — Wayfarer

For Trump, it's nothing more than a money grab. He says, we're doing it because we have to, but it's more like we're doing it because we can. Of course it's the American consumer who pays. And he'll use that money to build a wall of some sort.

Shouting down invited speakers out of turn, rather than addressing invited speakers during question time, and pulling fire alarms, is not ALLOWING free speech within the venue.

Civility vs incivility was the issue there.

"Uncivil" protesting (e.g. shouting down speakers) is protected under the First Amendment. It is a form of free speech, even if it may be considered "juvenile" by some (depends on the speaker, for me). But when Republican-backed legislation cracks down on protests through policies that include expulsion, then that is a literal infringement on freedom of speech, and is undeniably hypocritical.

Universities make rules, or not, for control of conduct within their auditoriums during such events. It is not against the 1st amendment for those institutions to control student behavior.

No different to a teacher or lecturer expecting not to be screamed at incessantly while doing their job

All schools have always had their rules.

It is not against the 1st amendment for those institutions to control student behavior. — raza

It is when:

Republican-led state legislatures in Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina have imposed similar policies on public colleges and universities, and bills to establish campus speech guidelines are under consideration in at least seven other legislatures. These efforts, funded in part by big-money Republican donors, are part of a growing and well-organized campaign that has put academia squarely in the cross hairs of the American right.

Sounds very reasonable to enact in order to straighten out all the nonsense that has been allowed to go on for too long.

These are kids that do not know anything trying to stop other kids from learning from visiting speakers of counter views to the things they don't really know much about in the first instance.

Those events are for invited speakers to be heard. Plain and simple, although not for the emotionally retarded.

Those events are for invited speakers to be heard. Plain and simple, although not for the emotionally retarded...........students on those campuses (was who I was referring to there, by the way).

This is what you found objectionable in more detail;

GOLDWATER INSTITUTE

The model legislation presented and explained in this brief does several things:

* It creates an official university policy that strongly affirms the importance of free expression,
nullifying any existing restrictive speech codes in the process.

* It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers, no matter how controversial, whom members
of the campus community wish to hear from.

* It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes
with the free-speech rights of others.

* It allows persons whose free-speech rights have been improperly infringed by the university
to recover court costs and attorney’s fees.

* It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain
neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion
and dialogue within the university itself.

* It ensures that students will be informed of the official policy on free expression.

* It authorizes a special subcommittee of the university board of trustees to issue a yearly
report to the public, the trustees, the governor, and the legislature on the administrative
handling of free-speech issues.

Taken together, these provisions create a system of interlocking incentives designed to encourage
students and administrators to respect and protect the free expression of others.

It should be obvious that the above protects all invited speakers from the left or right or from the mars.

This is what you found objectionable in more detail; — raza

Yes I certainly find some of these (vague) planks objectionable, particularly given that they are from an Institute named after Barry Goldwater, which receives millions of dollars from Republican donors including the Mercer family, and the Kochs.

Well organizing stuff costs money. People won't do all this work for free.

Millions of dollars goes in all directions FROM all directions all the time.

So which "vague planks" specifically do you find objectionable and why?

It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers, no matter how controversial, whom members of the campus community wish to hear from.

It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes with the free-speech rights of others.

It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion and dialogue within the university itself.

If I wanted to hear another vacuous complaint regarding Leftist "intolerance" of campus free speech, then I could just pop on over to the NYT's op-ed section. More importantly, would you like to provide your thoughts on the Trump administration's policy of separating immigrant families?

It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers, no matter how controversial, whom members of the campus community wish to hear from.

It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes with the free-speech rights of others.

It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion and dialogue within the university itself. — Maw

So how would these, you have listed above, impinge upon, say, a so-defined left leaning speaker?

Is it not the same for any invited speaker from anywhere? Is that not an example equality? Same rules for everyone?

would you like to provide your thoughts on the Trump administration's policy of separating immigrant families? — Maw

Although, to correct you, not "immigrant" families. Immigrants do not cross borders illegally.

Apparently this was an Obama policy that has yet to be altered which democrats have been invited to meet with the current administration in order to improve it.

Apparently celebrity democrat supporters also tweeted photos of cage-like areas holding undocumented border jumpers, but deleted their tweets once it was pointed out that the photos were taken in 2014.