4 ms·

> if you have something to hide Most people don't realize that most people have something to hide. The USA has so many laws on its books. Many of which are out

> if you have something to hide Most people don't realize that most people have something to hide. The USA has so many laws on its books. Many of which are outright bizarre[0] and some of which normal people might normally break[1]. And that's only counting current/past laws. It wasn't that long ago a US President was suggesting all Muslims should be forced to carry special IDs[2]. If you have a documented history being a Muslim, it could be harder to fight a non-compliance charge. [0] https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-a-law-where-you-can-t-put-ice-cream-in-your-pocket https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-a-law-where-you-can-t-put... [1] https://unusualkentucky.blogspot.com/2008/05/weird-kentucky-laws-bathing-suits-and.html?m=1 https://unusualkentucky.blogspot.com/2008/05/weird-kentucky-... [2] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-muslims-id/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-muslims-id/

president 5y ago
Did you even read the snopes article you referenced before making what seems like a definitive claim about how Trump was suggesting muslims carry special IDs? Because Snope's own rating is "Mixture" of truth and false and if you read the assessment, it is grasping at straws to even make that conclusion.
- kf6nux 5y ago
  Yes, "mixed" means you have to read the nuance. I think I accurately captured the reality. If you have a correction to offer, please do. EDIT: Ultimately, the nuance in that history is not relevant to the point that criminal law changes to include new categories in unexpected ways.
  - president 5y ago
    Sure, I can accept there is some nuance but the phrasing and definitive manner of your original statement is very misleading. I'm not the biggest fan of the guy but casually mentioning that he suggested the idea when in actuality it was an idea posed by a reporter is bad faith in my opinion.
hunterb123 5y ago
> “Certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy,” he added. “We’re going to have to do things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.” > “We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,” Trump continued. “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.” That's all he said to the interviewer. The interviewer was asking the hypothetical and suggested the special identification! He wouldn't take the bait, so since he didn't answer the hypothetical they said "he wouldn't deny it" and wrote the campaign of hit piece articles anyway. Whatever response they got they would have wrote that same piece. If he would have answered one way they would have quoted out of context. Since he responded generically it's obviously drummed up. The fact check is hilarious. "Mixed", lol. Never answer a hypothetical, it's always a trap.
- daqhris 5y ago
  Your last sentence just made me freak out thinking that I've previously done such stupidity in front of a "law officer". I never for one second thought it could be a trap; I was overly willing to cooperate and truthfully respond to a "theoretical" inquiry. Damn, it hurts in retrospective.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > That's all he said to the interviewer And then the next day, he clarified: Reporter: "Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?" Trump: "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems." And then he tried to backpedal. Decided it was a watch list, not a database, etc. Basically the usual shtick of his where he tries to say everything and nothing at the same time.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    Again that's a generic response: > There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems Beyond databases. What does that mean? That could be analog systems, that could be anything not stored in a computer. Nothing to do with identification which would need a database. It's a generic answer to avoid a hypothetical. It's a nonanswer. He said nothing, not everything. You are attributing the reporters question to him. The reporter is posing the hypothetical that they created in the first place by the initial interview. My main point was hypotheticals are always trap (unless among friends!), but that's a great example of an obvious one. The usual shtick is to say nothing, because the journalistic usual shtick is to ask gotcha hypotheticals.
kingcharles 5y ago
I always liked this one I found in the Illinois statutes - it basically criminalizes every person online: Barratry. If a person wickedly and willfully excites and stirs up actions or quarrels between the people of this State with a view to promote strife and contention, he or she is guilty of the petty offense of common barratry[.] https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HTit.+IV&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=85000000&SeqEnd=85600000 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720...
- akira2501 5y ago
  Barratry typically implies that this is specifically being done with lawsuits and other legal instruments, not in the general case.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  There is a renaissance of such laws regarding causing offense. That would basically be anybody whose face you don't like? I wonder how much considerations go into suggestions like this. Side effects should normally hit your face like a truck.

president 5y ago

Did you even read the snopes article you referenced before making what seems like a definitive claim about how Trump was suggesting muslims carry special IDs? Because Snope's own rating is "Mixture" of truth and false and if you read the assessment, it is grasping at straws to even make that conclusion.

kf6nux 5y ago
Yes, "mixed" means you have to read the nuance. I think I accurately captured the reality. If you have a correction to offer, please do. EDIT: Ultimately, the nuance in that history is not relevant to the point that criminal law changes to include new categories in unexpected ways.
- president 5y ago
  Sure, I can accept there is some nuance but the phrasing and definitive manner of your original statement is very misleading. I'm not the biggest fan of the guy but casually mentioning that he suggested the idea when in actuality it was an idea posed by a reporter is bad faith in my opinion.

hunterb123 5y ago

> “Certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy,” he added. “We’re going to have to do things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.” > “We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,” Trump continued. “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.” That's all he said to the interviewer. The interviewer was asking the hypothetical and suggested the special identification! He wouldn't take the bait, so since he didn't answer the hypothetical they said "he wouldn't deny it" and wrote the campaign of hit piece articles anyway. Whatever response they got they would have wrote that same piece. If he would have answered one way they would have quoted out of context. Since he responded generically it's obviously drummed up. The fact check is hilarious. "Mixed", lol. Never answer a hypothetical, it's always a trap.

daqhris 5y ago
Your last sentence just made me freak out thinking that I've previously done such stupidity in front of a "law officer". I never for one second thought it could be a trap; I was overly willing to cooperate and truthfully respond to a "theoretical" inquiry. Damn, it hurts in retrospective.
rootusrootus 5y ago
> That's all he said to the interviewer And then the next day, he clarified: Reporter: "Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?" Trump: "There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems." And then he tried to backpedal. Decided it was a watch list, not a database, etc. Basically the usual shtick of his where he tries to say everything and nothing at the same time.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Again that's a generic response: > There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems Beyond databases. What does that mean? That could be analog systems, that could be anything not stored in a computer. Nothing to do with identification which would need a database. It's a generic answer to avoid a hypothetical. It's a nonanswer. He said nothing, not everything. You are attributing the reporters question to him. The reporter is posing the hypothetical that they created in the first place by the initial interview. My main point was hypotheticals are always trap (unless among friends!), but that's a great example of an obvious one. The usual shtick is to say nothing, because the journalistic usual shtick is to ask gotcha hypotheticals.

kingcharles 5y ago

I always liked this one I found in the Illinois statutes - it basically criminalizes every person online: Barratry. If a person wickedly and willfully excites and stirs up actions or quarrels between the people of this State with a view to promote strife and contention, he or she is guilty of the petty offense of common barratry[.] https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HTit.+IV&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=85000000&SeqEnd=85600000 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=0720...

akira2501 5y ago
Barratry typically implies that this is specifically being done with lawsuits and other legal instruments, not in the general case.
raxxorrax 5y ago
There is a renaissance of such laws regarding causing offense. That would basically be anybody whose face you don't like? I wonder how much considerations go into suggestions like this. Side effects should normally hit your face like a truck.