According to Moore's Law, our computers have become 1024 times more powerful today, than they were 15 years ago. This awesome increase should have accommodated the increased number of things we expect from our desktops, browsers included.
That it has not, is explained by the people involved. Programmers — of both the web-pages and the browsers. jQuery is bad enough, how about multiple instances of jQuery — because different components of the same web-page ask for a different version of the library?
What used to be coded in C or C++ is increasingly being implemented in Java, Go, Python, Rust or Ruby. Because it is more convenient for the programmers. Oh, yes, it is slower — just get a faster machine, would you? And I don't mean to trash these languages here — you could write good code in them. But you could also, without even realizing it, write bad code — and ship it...
Sysadmins aren't much (if any) better. Tracking package-dependencies is hard — let's use containers. This application needs Java-1.8u67, but this other one has only been tested with 1.8u63 — so we are going to run both JREs side-by-side, who cares about the wasting more RAM by doing so, than a typical desktop computer had in 1993?
For better or worse, humanity needs many more programmers, than are naturally born. Folks going into a profession without an enthusiastic calling for it aren't going to make things great, they are happy to settle for "good enough"...
If we get more Muslims in over time, we'll also be getting some of the US-born ones to adopt US culture, which doesn't include pushing Sharia law
A noble, but unsubstantiated hope. Tsarnayev brothers grew up in America. And not in some "hateful" fly-over country, but in Boston, of all places. Omar Mateen — the Orlando-shooter — was born in New York.
And what did we, the US, get in exchange for the scores killed by these people? Are there numerous American-born Muslim scientists, inventors, engineers offsetting the carnage the listed assholes have caused? Not especially — should have been accepting more immigrants from Eastern Europe instead (like Asimov, Sikorsky, Brin, and Torvalds to name a few).
In Europe — so often used as an example for the unwashed Yanks to follow — the situation is, apparently, even worse.
You're confusing having a state church with the possibility of giving it a lot of influence in lawmaking.
I'm not — merlinokos is. The survey he referred to asked the question: "Would you like Christianity to become an official religion of the US". There was nothing in there about "giving it a lot of influence".
We're not talking about a general Christian movement in politics, but one generally rooted in fundamentalism, like Iran and Saudi Arabia to some extent
As I wrote, 300 years ago Christian White men thought up our nation. Most of them would've been considered "fundamentalists" by today's standards — their stance on women voting, or same-sex marriage would be most appalling. And yet, they've created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which neither Iran, nor Saudi Arabia, nor any other Islam-dominated society can come close to replicating. Because the Prophet made the mistake of officially bundling secular law into religious dogma.
Even if we do, somehow, go back to the opinions of those "fundamentalists" prevailing nation-wide again, we'd still be a much healthier and freer society, than what our Muslim immigrants are used to. That a large number of them, foolishly, wish to replicate theirs here — while we nod understandingly and purr about the "wonderful tapestry of diversity" — should worry you much more, than any Christian thought.
The reason I do not care about Muslims wanting Sharia law in the US is that there are too few of them to effectively push it.
Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the US and the world. Though it is an Individual's right to choose any faith (or none at all), it is also the State's right (duty!) to keep track of people choosing, what's likely to make them hostile to and oppressive of the rest of the country.
If Brendan Eich could be fired from Mozilla for privately opposing homosexual marriage, how could supporters of the firing be welcoming towards people, whose preferred legal system calls for killing of homosexuals, married or not?
nullified by your (possibly entirely valid) concerns about Democrats' viewpoints. I am not here to discuss those
I was not here to discuss faults of America's Christians either. For better or worse, that's a prevailing religion here and has been from before the nation was officially formed. The number of Muslims, however, is acutely growing in recent years and their set of beliefs was the topic.
You chose to switch the subject from American Muslims to American Republican Christians — because their "lack of appreciation of the Constitution" worries you more than Islam compelling the faithful to ignore any secular laws does — don't fault me for extending the discussion to include Democrats, whose own "lack of appreciation" is only worse, but worries you none.
the source is highly questionable
I've offered an explanation for this and provided other sources as well. You chose to ignore all that and faint taking offense at my "change of subject" to wriggle out of an argument you've lost...
If you are the kind of victim-mentality fuckwit who thinks you need written permission for that kind of thing
I don't think, one should need a written permission for that kind of thing. Unfortunately, as Donald Trump's haters have amply demonstrated this year, you do need proof of consent in case you might, years later, become a Republican politician.
you are not qualified to hold an opinion on this subject.
I know, I know. Only the people, who agree with you, are so qualified...
I like how you've smoothly changed requiring consent into needing written permission as an attempt to discredit it.
What is "consent"? If it is anything less than a written (signed and solemnly notarized) note, how do we know, Trump didn't have it?
When Trump makes a statement without bountiful evidence to back it up, he is denounced as a liar — because absence of proof is, conveniently ("smoothly" you would say), is changed into proof of absence. For example:
Donald Trump Uses Twitter to Flat Out Lie About “Millions” of Illegal Votes in Election. See? No evidence, means it was not true — and he knew it to be untrue (otherwise it wouldn't be a "lie"):
Trump never cites any sources and his campaign wouldn’t go into details about the claims but the information the president-elect is citing appears to have originated with the website InfoWars, which often pushes fringe far-right conspiracy theories. The story that claimed there were 3 million illegal votes was based on a couple of tweets that someone sent with absolutely no evidence.
Why Does Donald Trump Lie About Voter Fraud? — same thing, a statement not backed up by irrefutable evidence is a lie. Not a mistake, not a hyperbole, a lie:
There is not a scintilla of evidence for this claim, and Mr. Trump’s own lawyers have admitted as much
So, if Trump's statements are lies unless proven (#PresumptionOfGuilt), how could he possibly prove having obtain consent from those women years ago? Only by getting it in writing... Which he failed to do and is, by the special rules created for Republican politicians, guilty.
you do not understand the legal concept of assault
If Trump's "grabbing pussy" without first obtaining a written permission from the owner was an assault, then so is making somebody "feel unsafe". The relevant dictionary definition is:
threatened or attempted physical attack by someone who appears to be able to cause bodily harm if not stopped
This sounds reasonable, it was a deliberate, targeted attempt to cause physical harm to someone.
It is perfectly common for people arguing online to develop a sincere (if fleeting) desire to physically harm an opponent. The deliberation and targeting are very easy to find. Usually such rage is impotent — or is it? If, as we are told by TFA, speech can cause a seizure, how about less obvious but still detrimental effects of spiting words and even polite expressions of disagreement?
If simply seeing the name "Trump" written in chalk on campus made some students "feel unsafe", should the perpetrators be prosecuted for the assault?
Folks in college today graduate a few years later — bringing their bogus ideas out with them. The Left's attack on speech is spilling from campuses... It may already be too late.
While I can not blame them for trying to make sure, truth about Holocaust trumps the lies about same, I can't help but wonder, what else they will (and already have) manually altered to better suit an agenda... Because truth may be a victim rather than a victor next time...
But those threats to the Constitution do not worry you, only Christianity does?..
the survey you cited includes no evidence that American Muslims agree with Sharia Law
Seriously? Are you that dense? The article I linked to is called (emphasis mine) "Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world". What does it tell you, that, while it has Sharia-support figures for about 20 other countries — and even a graphic showing same — the figures for the US are omitted? Ok, maybe, my growing up in the USSR gave me the ability to read between the lines, that the blissfully naive Americans do not possess. Fine. Let's look for other sources:
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
and:
nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
Now, these results are politically inconvenient to the still-prevailing dogma, so, as could be expected, the study is denounced (such as here) as "deeply flawed". But what better rebuttal could there be, than offering results of your own study contradicting those of the "flawed" one? And yet, none of the critics could cite their own numbers. Does that not tell you something?
a completely made up story
Once again, it is not "made up" at all — and certainly not completely made up. It is a real problem, and not just in the US (for which we, curiously, do not establishment-blessed figures at all), but also in Canada, UK, and Norway...
Quit denying it — makes you look stupid. You'll get better mileage out of arguing, "it is nothing to worry about" instead.
I'm far more concerned about the number of Americans who want to make Christianity the official religion of the US.
Though I would not want that to happen, I don't see, why it is a graver concern, than Sharia.
Christianity is a the "official religion" of a number of countries, most of which are routinely used as examples for the unwashed Yanks on how to live. Did you know, British monarch is the head of the country's church? Yes, Britain has a state church. Or take Norway — Bernie Sanders' favorite place — they too have an official "state church".
It seems wrong to you and me, because we are Americans and value the First Amendment, but it is not evil.
Meanwhile, the two countries, where Sharia is the law of the land, are Iran and Saudi Arabia... And Islam, unlike Christianity, makes civil law part of the faith. Though it may have been an improvement over some barbaric traditions it replaced in the 7th century, Sharia is decidedly evil today.
An otherwise perfectly qualified man has lost his job of running Harvard University for merely suggesting, men and women could be different in some respects:
Last year [2005 -mi], Summers sparked international outrage by speculating at an economics conference that innate differences between men and women might be one of the reasons women lag behind in science and math careers.
Even closer to the point in TFA, this year Donald Trump was widely denounced for stating (back in 2004), that an employee's pregnancy is an inconvenience for the employer. Hillary Clinton, portraying herself as a pillar of feminism (pay no attention to her husband's sexual predations), chose to use that obvious and unremarkable true statement to attack her opponent.
You may think, no one "gives a shit", but her billion-dollar campaign did enough research to believe, there is enough of an audience, who'll defecate bricks over it. And they did...
Please. Let them rant
Nobody intends to stop "faminazis" from exercising their First Amendment rights. We are just pointing out, their rants are wrong.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
Be it as it may, large portions of them want Sharia. That alone should make a country — any country — wary of them. An American President, in particular, swears to uphold the Constitution. Keeping track of who is likely to want to abolish it is not at all outrageous — the government keeps track of even of the vehicle-owners, a trait far less dangerous to the Constitution...
some people believe it's their duty to bomb abortion clinics or murder LGBT people
Christian scripture does not compel Christians to these acts. Islamic law does — and that's the difference.
Christianity "renders Cæsar's onto Cæsar" — leaving life on this Earth to the State, whatever it might be. On contrast, Islam prescribes Sharia as the sole acceptable basis for society's laws...
Did Donald Trump advocate for a Muslim registry? Yes or no?
If he did, it was — likely as not — out of concern for those freedoms and the rights we cherish. Because Islam is incompatible with many of them.
Granted, other religions also frown at "unbelievers" (that is, believers in something else) and "immoral" behaviors, but only Islam compels the followers to not only disapprove of, but to actively right the perceived wrongs.
About 300 years ago, a bunch of White Christian men thought a nation with the First Amendment being among the laws of the land. Even today it is impossible to imagine a similar group of Muslims writing down anything of the kind.
Islam, which considers people like Barack Obama apostates, is incompatible with the First Amendment. Ironically, it is exactly that law, which prevents us from doing much about the threat. But I would not condemn Trump for trying...
Ergo, without California, Trump's nation-wide deficit of 2,833,220 votes becomes a 1,436,758 surplus. Just as I said.
Could that Nigerian asshole have had anything to do with Hillary getting so many more votes in CA than in the rest of the nation? Of course not. But it is just as plausible as Putin somehow "hacking our elections"...
Most Slashdotters may not know about the minute details of Russia's propaganda-war on Ukraine, but it had salvos like "When Ukrainians enter cities, they crucify little children".
Trump administration could seek to wipe government websites
Trump could seek to rape every woman too, should these "scientists" not attempt to hide their wives and daughters instead of some data?
Some worry the information could only be retrieved with a taxing Freedom of Information Act request.
OMG! Now we are learning, FoIA-requests are undullytaxing...
You are not allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.
This oft-cited sentiment was first verbalized by a Supreme Court Justice in 1919. The case was not about any actual fire or theater, but about a man distributing leaflets and otherwise agitating against World War I draft. The protester was trying to defend his speech by the First Amendment and failed.
There is a distinct difference between free speech and publishing opinions and instigating hate and crimes.
As the 1919 case I cited above makes regretfully if abundantly obvious, the difference is not at all "distinct", and the country's top legal minds can very well err on the side of oppression. That later-amended decision passed by SCOTUS unanimously...
Even today, a sizable portion of Americans — plenty of lawyers among them — would consider Donald Trump's speech "hateful" and "inflammatory", making it most tempting for the party at the helm of the Executive branch to prosecute him, thus helping their own candidate win. Do you really want a country like that? Oh, wait.... You probably do...
Slashdot Mirror
According to Moore's Law, our computers have become 1024 times more powerful today, than they were 15 years ago. This awesome increase should have accommodated the increased number of things we expect from our desktops, browsers included.
That it has not, is explained by the people involved. Programmers — of both the web-pages and the browsers. jQuery is bad enough, how about multiple instances of jQuery — because different components of the same web-page ask for a different version of the library?
What used to be coded in C or C++ is increasingly being implemented in Java, Go, Python, Rust or Ruby. Because it is more convenient for the programmers. Oh, yes, it is slower — just get a faster machine, would you? And I don't mean to trash these languages here — you could write good code in them. But you could also, without even realizing it, write bad code — and ship it...
Sysadmins aren't much (if any) better. Tracking package-dependencies is hard — let's use containers. This application needs Java-1.8u67, but this other one has only been tested with 1.8u63 — so we are going to run both JREs side-by-side, who cares about the wasting more RAM by doing so, than a typical desktop computer had in 1993?
For better or worse, humanity needs many more programmers, than are naturally born. Folks going into a profession without an enthusiastic calling for it aren't going to make things great, they are happy to settle for "good enough"...
Or that his fame is what caused the women to consent...
So, you admit to having just as much evidence of him having sexually assaulted anyone, as of him murdering anyone in the street?
Who care, what he says? If he does not have proof for a statement, it can only be a lie anyway.
A noble, but unsubstantiated hope. Tsarnayev brothers grew up in America. And not in some "hateful" fly-over country, but in Boston, of all places. Omar Mateen — the Orlando-shooter — was born in New York.
And what did we, the US, get in exchange for the scores killed by these people? Are there numerous American-born Muslim scientists, inventors, engineers offsetting the carnage the listed assholes have caused? Not especially — should have been accepting more immigrants from Eastern Europe instead (like Asimov, Sikorsky, Brin, and Torvalds to name a few).
In Europe — so often used as an example for the unwashed Yanks to follow — the situation is, apparently, even worse.
I'm not — merlinokos is. The survey he referred to asked the question: "Would you like Christianity to become an official religion of the US". There was nothing in there about "giving it a lot of influence".
As I wrote, 300 years ago Christian White men thought up our nation. Most of them would've been considered "fundamentalists" by today's standards — their stance on women voting, or same-sex marriage would be most appalling. And yet, they've created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which neither Iran, nor Saudi Arabia, nor any other Islam-dominated society can come close to replicating. Because the Prophet made the mistake of officially bundling secular law into religious dogma.
Even if we do, somehow, go back to the opinions of those "fundamentalists" prevailing nation-wide again, we'd still be a much healthier and freer society, than what our Muslim immigrants are used to. That a large number of them, foolishly, wish to replicate theirs here — while we nod understandingly and purr about the "wonderful tapestry of diversity" — should worry you much more, than any Christian thought.
Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the US and the world. Though it is an Individual's right to choose any faith (or none at all), it is also the State's right (duty!) to keep track of people choosing, what's likely to make them hostile to and oppressive of the rest of the country.
If Brendan Eich could be fired from Mozilla for privately opposing homosexual marriage, how could supporters of the firing be welcoming towards people, whose preferred legal system calls for killing of homosexuals, married or not?
I was not here to discuss faults of America's Christians either. For better or worse, that's a prevailing religion here and has been from before the nation was officially formed. The number of Muslims, however, is acutely growing in recent years and their set of beliefs was the topic.
You chose to switch the subject from American Muslims to American Republican Christians — because their "lack of appreciation of the Constitution" worries you more than Islam compelling the faithful to ignore any secular laws does — don't fault me for extending the discussion to include Democrats, whose own "lack of appreciation" is only worse, but worries you none.
I've offered an explanation for this and provided other sources as well. You chose to ignore all that and faint taking offense at my "change of subject" to wriggle out of an argument you've lost...
Indeed.
I don't think, one should need a written permission for that kind of thing. Unfortunately, as Donald Trump's haters have amply demonstrated this year, you do need proof of consent in case you might, years later, become a Republican politician.
I know, I know. Only the people, who agree with you, are so qualified...
What is "consent"? If it is anything less than a written (signed and solemnly notarized) note, how do we know, Trump didn't have it?
When Trump makes a statement without bountiful evidence to back it up, he is denounced as a liar — because absence of proof is, conveniently ("smoothly" you would say), is changed into proof of absence. For example:
Donald Trump Uses Twitter to Flat Out Lie About “Millions” of Illegal Votes in Election. See? No evidence, means it was not true — and he knew it to be untrue (otherwise it wouldn't be a "lie"): Trump never cites any sources and his campaign wouldn’t go into details about the claims but the information the president-elect is citing appears to have originated with the website InfoWars, which often pushes fringe far-right conspiracy theories. The story that claimed there were 3 million illegal votes was based on a couple of tweets that someone sent with absolutely no evidence. Why Does Donald Trump Lie About Voter Fraud? — same thing, a statement not backed up by irrefutable evidence is a lie. Not a mistake, not a hyperbole, a lie: There is not a scintilla of evidence for this claim, and Mr. Trump’s own lawyers have admitted as muchSo, if Trump's statements are lies unless proven (#PresumptionOfGuilt), how could he possibly prove having obtain consent from those women years ago? Only by getting it in writing... Which he failed to do and is, by the special rules created for Republican politicians, guilty.
Ah, your use of SAT-words makes me feel so inferior, I'm going to cry now... Your chops are so intimidating.
If Trump's "grabbing pussy" without first obtaining a written permission from the owner was an assault, then so is making somebody "feel unsafe". The relevant dictionary definition is:
FindLaw.com may disagree with it, but who is going to ask them? Certainly not the people, for who the very election of Donald Trump is an Act of Terrorism.
Sure. Not every thing. But this one is...
Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?
It is perfectly common for people arguing online to develop a sincere (if fleeting) desire to physically harm an opponent. The deliberation and targeting are very easy to find. Usually such rage is impotent — or is it? If, as we are told by TFA, speech can cause a seizure, how about less obvious but still detrimental effects of spiting words and even polite expressions of disagreement?
If simply seeing the name "Trump" written in chalk on campus made some students "feel unsafe", should the perpetrators be prosecuted for the assault?
Folks in college today graduate a few years later — bringing their bogus ideas out with them. The Left's attack on speech is spilling from campuses... It may already be too late.
If "seizure-inducing" speech is prosecutable now, we better all become "seizure-inducing haters", before the First Amendment is dead and buried.
They could not quite get at it with "hate speech" bans, they are attacking it with "seizures" now...
While I can not blame them for trying to make sure, truth about Holocaust trumps the lies about same, I can't help but wonder, what else they will (and already have) manually altered to better suit an agenda... Because truth may be a victim rather than a victor next time...
Overall, I find the lack of appreciation for same by the other party to be far more discontenting. It is the Democrats, who wish to:
But those threats to the Constitution do not worry you, only Christianity does?..
Seriously? Are you that dense? The article I linked to is called (emphasis mine) "Muslims and Islam: Key findings in the U.S. and around the world". What does it tell you, that, while it has Sharia-support figures for about 20 other countries — and even a graphic showing same — the figures for the US are omitted? Ok, maybe, my growing up in the USSR gave me the ability to read between the lines, that the blissfully naive Americans do not possess. Fine. Let's look for other sources:
and:
Now, these results are politically inconvenient to the still-prevailing dogma, so, as could be expected, the study is denounced (such as here) as "deeply flawed". But what better rebuttal could there be, than offering results of your own study contradicting those of the "flawed" one? And yet, none of the critics could cite their own numbers. Does that not tell you something?
Once again, it is not "made up" at all — and certainly not completely made up. It is a real problem, and not just in the US (for which we, curiously, do not establishment-blessed figures at all), but also in Canada, UK, and Norway...
Quit denying it — makes you look stupid. You'll get better mileage out of arguing, "it is nothing to worry about" instead.
Though I would not want that to happen, I don't see, why it is a graver concern, than Sharia.
Christianity is a the "official religion" of a number of countries, most of which are routinely used as examples for the unwashed Yanks on how to live. Did you know, British monarch is the head of the country's church? Yes, Britain has a state church. Or take Norway — Bernie Sanders' favorite place — they too have an official "state church".
It seems wrong to you and me, because we are Americans and value the First Amendment, but it is not evil.
Meanwhile, the two countries, where Sharia is the law of the land, are Iran and Saudi Arabia... And Islam, unlike Christianity, makes civil law part of the faith. Though it may have been an improvement over some barbaric traditions it replaced in the 7th century, Sharia is decidedly evil today.
An otherwise perfectly qualified man has lost his job of running Harvard University for merely suggesting, men and women could be different in some respects:
Even closer to the point in TFA, this year Donald Trump was widely denounced for stating (back in 2004), that an employee's pregnancy is an inconvenience for the employer. Hillary Clinton, portraying herself as a pillar of feminism (pay no attention to her husband's sexual predations), chose to use that obvious and unremarkable true statement to attack her opponent.
You may think, no one "gives a shit", but her billion-dollar campaign did enough research to believe, there is enough of an audience, who'll defecate bricks over it. And they did...
Nobody intends to stop "faminazis" from exercising their First Amendment rights. We are just pointing out, their rants are wrong.
There you go! So, according to you, the wrong of promoting Black for being Black rights the earlier wrong of discriminating against Blacks.
Perhaps, two wrongs do make a right sometimes, uhm? Note, that I'm not expressing my own opinion here — just showing, what yours leads to...
Be it as it may, large portions of them want Sharia. That alone should make a country — any country — wary of them. An American President, in particular, swears to uphold the Constitution. Keeping track of who is likely to want to abolish it is not at all outrageous — the government keeps track of even of the vehicle-owners, a trait far less dangerous to the Constitution...
Obviously, Putin used the Nigerian to hide his own tracks. Duh...
Christian scripture does not compel Christians to these acts. Islamic law does — and that's the difference.
Christianity "renders Cæsar's onto Cæsar" — leaving life on this Earth to the State, whatever it might be. On contrast, Islam prescribes Sharia as the sole acceptable basis for society's laws...
Sounds like an argument against Affirmative Action...
If he did, it was — likely as not — out of concern for those freedoms and the rights we cherish. Because Islam is incompatible with many of them.
Granted, other religions also frown at "unbelievers" (that is, believers in something else) and "immoral" behaviors, but only Islam compels the followers to not only disapprove of, but to actively right the perceived wrongs.
About 300 years ago, a bunch of White Christian men thought a nation with the First Amendment being among the laws of the land. Even today it is impossible to imagine a similar group of Muslims writing down anything of the kind.
Islam, which considers people like Barack Obama apostates , is incompatible with the First Amendment. Ironically, it is exactly that law, which prevents us from doing much about the threat. But I would not condemn Trump for trying...
Ergo, without California, Trump's nation-wide deficit of 2,833,220 votes becomes a 1,436,758 surplus. Just as I said.
Could that Nigerian asshole have had anything to do with Hillary getting so many more votes in CA than in the rest of the nation? Of course not. But it is just as plausible as Putin somehow "hacking our elections"...
Which would explain, why Hillary Clinton got 4 million votes more in California, than Trump (who won popular vote in the rest of the nation)...
Most Slashdotters may not know about the minute details of Russia's propaganda-war on Ukraine, but it had salvos like "When Ukrainians enter cities, they crucify little children".
Trump could seek to rape every woman too, should these "scientists" not attempt to hide their wives and daughters instead of some data?
OMG! Now we are learning, FoIA-requests are undully taxing...
This oft-cited sentiment was first verbalized by a Supreme Court Justice in 1919. The case was not about any actual fire or theater, but about a man distributing leaflets and otherwise agitating against World War I draft. The protester was trying to defend his speech by the First Amendment and failed.
As later anti-draft protests — and the legal reaction to them — made clear, such speech is now not only legal, but commendable.
As the 1919 case I cited above makes regretfully if abundantly obvious, the difference is not at all "distinct", and the country's top legal minds can very well err on the side of oppression. That later-amended decision passed by SCOTUS unanimously...
Even today, a sizable portion of Americans — plenty of lawyers among them — would consider Donald Trump's speech "hateful" and "inflammatory", making it most tempting for the party at the helm of the Executive branch to prosecute him, thus helping their own candidate win. Do you really want a country like that? Oh, wait.... You probably do...