Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Matchles]

Trump now suggesting soldiers with PTSD are weak...

Well that does it. Pretty much the only people that haven't been attacked by Trump are Putin and white supremacists.

[Breccia]

I'll be the first to admit - not the best source. But still - if it's even out there it's basically true, right?

Hmm.

"A source close to the campaign, who declined to be named discussing the inner-workings of the operation, said the candidate’s children have been “frustrated” with their father for his lack of attention to debate preparations and struggle to stay disciplined, and at Trump’s senior staff who have been unable to control the candidate from giving in to his worst impulses on the campaign trail, including his increasingly personal attacks on Hillary Clinton and his unconstrained use of Twitter to settle personal scores."

...well an unnamed source ain't hot. But it matches 100% with the other stories about his entire campaign asking him to prep. Then he didn't. And he got fucking destroyed. Honestly, why wouldn't they be frustated? Papa dun goofed.

Now they do have a source, Trump himself. "Hard to be unhappy when we are doing so well.” So...if they're not worried about his mental health, maybe they should be.

[Tijuana]

And the first two are totally irrelevant in this case

But yes, they could face criminal charges and damages. Good thing they don't care, huh?

You may see it as a good thing when journalists break the law but, I do not. This shows how partisan you guys are that you don't care if laws are broken, so long as it benefits your candidate. What happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Will you care then?

- - - Updated - - -

You haven't paid attention to anything that has happened in this country with regard to the 1st Amendment and the press in the last 50 years have you?

Guy, there are specific laws that ban publishing tax returns without consent. No intelligent person sees stealing and printing confidential documents as "free speech".

The work that I personally do is confidential. Are you saying that it's ok for me to release that information to the press because free speech? Free speech has limits and if you don't acknowledge that, you are not worth my time, to be frank.

[Breccia]

I believe it was only dropped a week ago because they were refiling with more witnesses.

Don't care. Still baseless. Trump is attracted to huge fake tits. Children don't have those.

[Matchles]

Are you equating quoting anonymously to printing documents that are specifically forbidden to be printed by law? (without consent)

Any case is going to rest on the public interest in the information for 1st Amendment purposes vs. the reason for the laws prohibiting the action. Almost any lawyer that would take a stand on this issue would say that it is extremely likely that the NYT would prevail.

[cubby]

That's a lot of words but it's still illegal to print confidential documents. Free speech protects opinions, not untrue statements presented as fact, or printing stolen documents.

You can think what you want but, consider what you are saying. You are saying every confidentiality law on the books is meaningless.

Where are you seeing that it's illegal for a non-involved third party to print "confidential" documents?

[Matchles]

Guy, there are specific laws that ban publishing tax returns without consent. No intelligent person sees stealing and printing confidential documents as "free speech".

You know what doesn't matter when you are deciding whether an action is allowed under the constitution? State laws. Supremacy clause buddy, read up on it.

[Lenonis]

Are you equating quoting anonymously to printing documents that are specifically forbidden to be printed by law? (without consent)

Quoting anonymously can also be forbidden to be printed by law if it violates a non disclosure or other confidentiality laws.

I'm trying (and seemingly failing) to get you to see how the press gets some leeway in this space due to the first amendment.

Once again, not saying there wasn't a violation of the law or that punishment won't occur, but I'm saying it's likely to either be mitigated or nullified by the first amendment protections.

[DeadmanWalking]

So Donald released a list of tax loopholes that he would lose but none of them are the ones that he uses to pay no federal taxes. Saying that he knows the way to abuse the system so only he can fix it is just as dusengenious as letting the fox guard the gen house.

[Edge-]

Where are you seeing that it's illegal for a non-involved third party to print "confidential" documents?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7213

[Breccia]

This shows how partisan you guys are that you don't care if laws are broken, so long as it benefits your candidate.

At what point did I even hint they didn't break the law? I said they didn't commit slander or libel. And I've linked multiple sources saying it's illegal. The NYTimes knew and flat-out didn't care. That's why the story came to them.

I think the results are hilarious. That's not the same as "legal". Hacking and releasing emails ain't legal either, but Trump didn't say a damn thing about that did he?

[Lenonis]

This shows how partisan you guys are that you don't care if laws are broken, so long as it benefits your candidate.

Don't see you getting bent out of shape about Wikileaks.

[Breccia]

So Donald released a list of tax loopholes that he would lose but none of them are the ones that he uses to pay no federal taxes. Saying that he knows the way to abuse the system so only he can fix it is just as dusengenious as letting the fox guard the gen house.

Why'd you bring @GennGreymane into this?

[cubby]

They disclosed tax returns without authorization. That certainly appears to be against the law. They appear to have solicited publicly for the tax returns. That appears to be against the law as well.

I've see the illegality of people requested tax documents from publishing them (why Obama couldn't do it, if he were so inclined). Where are you seeing that everyone is barred from publishing them?

[Wildtree]

Free speech is the right to speak your opinion, not just steal documents and print them. Slander is a real thing, and it opposes free speech. Libel is a real thing and it opposes free speech. Confidentiality laws are a real thing and they oppose free speech.

I've asked you before, to point to the slanderous part.
You didn't.

Because you can't. It does not exist.
Slander not, because that is applicable to oral/spoken defamatory statements.

Libel applies to written word, however there's no such thing as an accusation.

Trump did not pay any taxes for 20 years = accusation, and possible libel.
Trump possibly (maybe, likely, etc etc) didn't pay any taxes for 20 years = speculation, display of a possibility = not an accusation. Libel doesn't apply.

You don't have to be much of a lawyer. All you need is basic understanding of the English language.

[GennGreymane]

Why'd you bring @GennGreymane into this?

I bring my self into everything actually... its kinda partially why we needed the wall.

[Breccia]

I bring my self into everything actually... its kinda partially why we needed the wall.

There is no way the Horde is paying for that stupid fucking wall.

[Merkava]

I've see the illegality of people requested tax documents from publishing them (why Obama couldn't do it, if he were so inclined). Where are you seeing that everyone is barred from publishing them?

Here. 10Char

It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

[PACOX]

They disclosed tax returns without authorization. That certainly appears to be against the law. They appear to have solicited publicly for the tax returns. That appears to be against the law as well.

Trump invited the Russians to hack a presidential election and potentially release state secrets...

The financial information was obtained illegally but don't act like the Trump campaign doesn't have its own demons.

[Merkava]

but don't act like the Trump campaign doesn't have its own demons.

What about my post history makes you think that I act that way?