Trump attacks constitution and press freedom!

Fake news are fatally dangerous. Iraq was invaded based on fake news. (Source: https://nyti.ms/2OKq3dh)

 

My favorite Republican President is Warren G Harding. The Radoshes (ex-Marxists, now conservatives) tell his story:

[/quote]

 

Yes he has sworn to support the Constitution but attacks freedom of the press. And he isn't doing a very good job of protecting America from it's enemies either.

 

How has he attacked the freedom of the press?

I bet if I turn on CNN that its still running their usual crap programs.

Trump hasn't attacked anything and he is constitutionally protected to give his opinion about them.

Sorry if they don't like it but its every person's right.

 

Guess you have never read it.

 

So you don't think the first amendment applies to Trump?

Where in the Constitution does it say "everyone except Trump"?

 

Nope. When you becone the President you assume duties and responsibilities not required of the average citizen. The oath of office says:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

Using that same rationale, how would you classify Trump? Being part of that core ultra-rich group, wouldn't he and his every act be subject to question?

 

The constitution says congress may not abridge the press, it says absolutely nothing about the executive branch (the president) and the press.

Therefore when Trump took the oath to uphold the Constitution he is doing exactly that.

Nowhere does the constitution tell him that he can't say mean things about them, call them unfair or untrustworthy.

Their job is not dependent on what he thinks about them, they can still do it just fine.

Tell us what the press can't do with Trumps attacks on them?

 

Sorry but you are confusing GDP growth with wages. The wealth of the nation as a whole grew pretty well up to the Bush recession. That is totally separate from wages which have been basically stagnant since the late seventies. To put it simply the rich have done really well while the middle and lower classes have been stagnant . A lot of that difference has been due to Republican tax cuts.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...neys-manual-trump-adminstration-a8330036.html

Or

https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/freedom-press/donald-trump-thinks-freedom-press-disgusting

 

Seems that one person's Fake News is another's revelation. Best to point out this Fake News when it appears, as Trump often does, and the public can decide for themselves.

 

Sorry but I don't simply read links.

If you have a response then put it in your own words.

I could spam you all day with links also but that's not having a discussion.

And, by the way, none of those links shows that he has limited their freedom whatsoever.

The first is about changes for US attorneys, not the press, the second simply states that he made it easier to sue them if they misbehave, again, not limiting them.

See, this is why I don't bother just clicking on links.

 

Yup. If Trump were shutting down presses or cutting power to broadcasts that would actually be a problem. But he's only criticizing, and that's protected speech.

There's nothing in the constitution about the media as being something special, and they ain't, and they don't have special rights.

 

Which do you prefer?

That may be true. The differences between Leninism, Marxism, Stalinism, Nazism, Fascism, Trotskyism, etc. is best taken up by those leftists who'll debate among themselves, and frequently murder each other, until deciding which system is best for the proletariat.

After your decision is made you can let those pressed upon proletarians know. You'll probably find them in the backyard enjoying a barbecue and a beer with their friends and family..

 

And even so, the constitution only limits what Congress can do, it says nothing about the president.

You'd think if the founders intended for him do act a certain way that they would have added that in there but they didn't.

They only did for the congress.

 

Then you haven't heard Obama. I knew as a fact that whatever he was saying was a lie, so out of curiosity I would look at his eyes They were always laughing.

 

The less involved government is in the GDP, the faster the economy will grow.

Compare East Germany vs. West Germany from 1946 to 1991. Or China vs. Taiwan from 1950 to 1990. Of course the difference between an economy that Rand Paul would prefer and one that Bernie Sanders would prefer isn't as dramatic as the Germany's or China's, but there would still be a difference. A Rand Paul economy would outperform a Bernie Sanders economy by a wide margin.

 

He calls the media the enemy.
And Americans hunt down and kill their enemy all the time.
That is more than just "disliking" it all.

 

Liberals call Russia the enemy, are you saying they want to go to war with them?

That's what America does right, goes to war with their enemy?

The last time I checked, the New York Times do not possess nuclear weapons.

Who do you think is more dangerous here?

 

Aint that the reason Trump wants NATO members increase their military budgets?

So Trump is totally unreasonable to call it their enemy, as if it's the regime of Iran.

 

Trump isn't a socialist.

And Trump uses all kinds of words that aren't politically correct. You shouldn't be surprised by that now.

When Trump says enemy of the people its simply a phrase, he doesn't actually believe it.

Its just the way he speaks. Now we have had presidents like Jackson or Lincoln that literally thought the press were the enemy and they took specific action to deal with it.

Trump just says things.

 

No it's not. It's a phrase with a profound impact.

The guy is not some comedian making up jokes.

 

Textually, you are correct. But in reality, the federal courts will limit executive branch conduct that violates the First Amendment through a variety of analyses. You really don't want the president issuing fines for criticizing him.

 

The Supreme Court has already ruled on sedition, which is what we are basically talking about here.

Basically in 1962 they said that only a violent revolution, or thereby creating one, could be something not protected by the first amendment.

Specifically while this case was against the government, their ruling, as most of theirs do, continues on into other areas, in this case the first amendment.

Here was their finding.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/natio...ion-SC-quotes-1962-ruling/article14625056.ece

They did not say that the president is excluded from criticizing no matter what form that criticism takes as long as it doesn't promote a violent revolution.

So when Trump declares "enemy of the people" it falls directly under this ruling.