The Trump thread: All things Donald

[Athos_131]

TRUMP SLAMMED IRAN’S BALLISTIC MISSILE TEST, THEN IT TURNED OUT TO BE FAKE

#Resist

[Lois]

Wrong.

He is a public servant, his position as president means that he doesn’t have the option of private speech. His statements can be, and are statements of policy.

His statements are contradictory to the First Amendment.

But I really don’t expect ignorant people to understand that. Just as he doesn't understand that he is NOT a private citizen.

Ok, so nothing illegal or specific he has ever done. Just checkin'. As I stated, I am very aware of your Opinion of our President, and trust that anything not legal will be resolved in the courts, just wondered if you were stating opinion or facts, and it is opinion.  Nothing wrong with stating opinions under the First Amendment is there, for either You or for our President, right? Right?

Have a good day, Katiebee.

Defend and protect the Constitution, first Amendment.

He does not understand the words or the concepts in the document.

His thoughts are inimical to the rights set forth in that document.

He fails to understand what his job is.

Katie is right.  Trump is a public official sworn to uphold the US Constitution.  Attacks upon freedom of speech, religious freedom, and a free press could be a violation of this oath.

[MissBarbara]

Wrong.

He is a public servant, his position as president means that he doesn’t have the option of private speech. His statements can be, and are statements of policy.

His statements are contradictory to the First Amendment.

But I really don’t expect ignorant people to understand that. Just as he doesn't understand that he is NOT a private citizen.

Ok, so nothing illegal or specific he has ever done. Just checkin'. As I stated, I am very aware of your Opinion of our President, and trust that anything not legal will be resolved in the courts, just wondered if you were stating opinion or facts, and it is opinion.  Nothing wrong with stating opinions under the First Amendment is there, for either You or for our President, right? Right?

Have a good day, Katiebee.

Defend and protect the Constitution, first Amendment.

He does not understand the words or the concepts in the document.

His thoughts are inimical to the rights set forth in that document.

He fails to understand what his job is.

Katie is right.  Trump is a public official sworn to uphold the US Constitution.  Attacks upon freedom of speech, religious freedom, and a free press could be a violation of this oath.

Not even remotely.

First off, I find the assertion "his position as president means that he doesn’t have the option of private speech" to be deeply troubling. Where does it say that in the Constitution? Nowhere. Is this a tradition upheld by his predecessors? Not even slightly. Does the Oath of Office contain a proviso barring the president from expressing his personal opinion? Nope.

Second, and at the risk of agreeing with Joan (which I am), Trump has in no way come even close to violating the First Amendment, neither as it is written nor as it has been interpreted over the past two centuries. You're both falling prey to one of the most common fallacies dominating political conversation today, which is very surprising. His opinion is misguided, divisive, unwanted, heavily tinged by politics (and, arguably, racism), and, to put it plainly, flat out stupid.

Condemn his opinion as loudly and longly as you like. I'll be right there with you. But please don't deny his right to express it, or even argue that he doesn't have a right to express it. Doing so, you're both guilty of the type of "fascism" that you're constantly accusing Trump of being guilty of.

[joan1984]

Wrong.

He is a public servant, his position as president means that he doesn’t have the option of private speech. His statements can be, and are statements of policy.

His statements are contradictory to the First Amendment.

But I really don’t expect ignorant people to understand that. Just as he doesn't understand that he is NOT a private citizen.

Ok, so nothing illegal or specific he has ever done. Just checkin'. As I stated, I am very aware of your Opinion of our President, and trust that anything not legal will be resolved in the courts, just wondered if you were stating opinion or facts, and it is opinion.  Nothing wrong with stating opinions under the First Amendment is there, for either You or for our President, right? Right?

Have a good day, Katiebee.

Defend and protect the Constitution, first Amendment.

He does not understand the words or the concepts in the document.

His thoughts are inimical to the rights set forth in that document.

He fails to understand what his job is.

Katie is right.  Trump is a public official sworn to uphold the US Constitution.  Attacks upon freedom of speech, religious freedom, and a free press could be a violation of this oath.

"could be"... more layman opinion.

He has not broken the law with his political speech, things said in rallies paid for as political rallies, where he IS a private citizen, making statements and campaign slogans, wish lists for his supporters, who largely agree with him as do most Americans.

Wish you guys would just pay attention to the one's you elected, keep them in line, doing what you wish to be done, and stop the butt-hurt about November 2016.  Flawed Candidates competed and one of them one the prize, which was of course the greater number of Electoral College votes, (while winning 86% of all "counties" in this Nation).

Gassing about every twitter post he makes, or his personal opinion expressed to supporters, or how he may state his thoughts, as compared to how some previous President stated his thoughts, is a total waste of time, for us all.

You so liked how President Bush '43 stated his thoughts, remember?

You enjoyed 8 years of President Obama, with nary a problem raised by the working MSM in all that time, no followup questions, no real opposition from Congress, either Democrat or Republican and what there was from RINO's now proved to be just lip service...

Change, Change, Change, is that not what you wished for? Well, you got it.

Congrats to Judge Moore, soon to be Senator Elect in Alabama. Trumpism is winning, no matter what people think of Trump, or what positions he takes.

Woo.

[Katiebee]

Wrong. He has said repeatedly that he does not lie that what he says he means.

What he says directs policy.

As a public servant his public speech is restricted. This is settled law from several court cases.

Speaking as President, which is what he is doing, not as a private citizen, his statements are contradictory to what is expressly allowed by the Constitution. Thus he is advocating restricting the exercise of free speech under the First Amendment.

[Katiebee]

I disagreed vehemently with Bush ‘43 policies. I would gladly return to that  administration simply because Bush ‘43 understood the rule of law, understood the position and duties of President, and didn’t make the US a laughing stock of the the free-world.

[MissBarbara]

Wrong. He has said repeatedly that he die not lie that what he says he means.

What he says directs policy.

As a public servant his public speech is restricted. This is settled law from several court cases.

Speaking as President, which is what he is doing, not as a private citizen, his statements are contradictory to what is expressly allowed by the Constitution. Thus he is advocating restricting the exercise of free speech under the First Amendment.

Wrong in what way? How, exactly, are "his statements contradictory to what is EXPRESSLY allowed by the Constitution" (my emphasis, your word)?

Please provide some detail about how a U.S. president's speech is restricted by law.

Do you really believe that a U.S. president may not say or write anything that might that might influence policy? Really?

Take, for example, President Obama's many remarks in support of gay marriage, before the SCOTUS decision was handed down. How does that not blatantly violate your restriction on public servants expressing opinions? Add to that, it also violates your restriction on public figures making statements that influence policy. Where's the condemnation? Where's the outrage?

Here's the chief point: If Trump had said or Tweeted that NFL players who "take a knee" or otherwise engage in an action during the playing of the National Anthem should be arrested and/or prosecuted, I would be right there alongside you condemning Trump. He did nothing of the sort. And, if I didn't know better, I'd wonder whether you have an even vague notion of what the First Amendment means, what it says, and what were the intentions behind its formulation.

And here's the point: The left in general and Democrats in particular are doing themselves and the country a massive disservice -- especially with mid-term elections only a year away -- by hyper-obsessing over every word Trump writes or says. Have we learned nothing from the 2016 election? Are we uniformly blinded to the way in which Trump won the election in the first place? It tragically seems like we are.

[Northwest]

If you only read one article this month...make it this one. Brilliant writing from one of America's best journalists:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-madness-of-donald-trump-removal-25th-amendment-w504149

[Katiebee]

I am saying that what he says CAN be interpreted as policy.

We have a president who is currently exchanging insults in real time with an unstable dictator. What the ass doesn’t seem to understand is WHAT HE SAYS AND HOW HE SAYS IT MATERIALLY AFFECTS OUR LIVES. What is at stake is more than his pathetic ego. He can provoke, by his ill-considered blathering an attack on US forces that would initiate a war.

His statements can also be interpreted by the weak-minded as a change in policy that Removes them from legal restriction so that they can act against the law.

Because Trump IS a the highest government official in the land when speaks about as First Amendment right and opinions that people should be punished or silenced from speaking he IS Advocating a governmental  restriction of speech.

His office HAS no off position. He is on duty 100% of the time, just like the military. And the military, like other members of the government, are restricted in their free speech. If they can be identified as a government official, then their speech is considered official government statements.

[MissBarbara]

If you only read one article this month...make it this one. Brilliant writing from one of America's best journalists:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-madness-of-donald-trump-removal-25th-amendment-w504149

Thanks for posting this. Though hopelessly biased, it's nonetheless insightful.

One line that struck me was this: "And it's his own administration that is crumbling, not any system." That's a great point, and hits at the core of the problem. Too many people are chicken-little-like proclaiming that the Constitution is being [take your pick] shredded, trampled upon, ignored, violated etc., etc. To this author's point, the Constitution's just fine, and so is our political system. We've survived far worse, and both the Constitution and federal government are still standing.

I especially like the surprisingly even-handed way he addresses the possibility of Trump suffering from a mental disorder, and, especially, his discussion of the "Goldwater Rule." A piece that begins with partisan hyperbole turns to present a cool-headed, fact-based analysis, complete with expert opinions (i.e. and not just "Everyone with half a brain and a recent copy of the DSM knew..."). And his discussion of the applicability of the 25th Amendment is spot on.

Great piece, thanks again.

[MissBarbara]

I am saying that what he says CAN be interpreted as policy.

Just as Obama's wholehearted and unequivocal endorsement of marriage equality CAN be interpreted as policy.

If you object to one, you must object to the other.

[Katiebee]

Obama’s personal opinion was against gay marriage.

His support of marriage equality WAS a policy statement.

[joan1984]

Of course he was against it, and so was Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and every Democrat seeking election again. The fact that they turned on the dime, the politically correct, political donor 'dime' is not surprising, not was it unexpected. There was no percentage in it to keep with their value, and so, dump the value, and move on.

Downhill from there, toward appeasement to what we are left with, haha "left" sorry. When you look at UC Berkley being willingly held hostage to facist acts of "antifa" and the asinine snowflake appeasement of Red State after Red State, as well as some Blue State Governors with what the NFL used to call "happy feet", trying to dodge and weave and spin their way to reelections.

Understand you obsess about President Trump, and had no issues you will talk about in detail about the reality of "What Happened" with your failed Hillary effort, but putting your health into jeopardy by chasing every word a man you hate tweets is not productive, and listening to it is not either.

Luckily you live in a State that works to keep it's laws and border secured, and are not facing some of the chaos that 'sanctuary' cities and states must deal with, at their own peril... suicidal resistance, lawless support of criminals, with no upside insight.  Anyway, if there has been a law broken, please note the details, otherwise, please know you are pissing into the wind...

Feel better?

Obama’s personal opinion was against gay marriage.

His support of marriage equality WAS a policy statement.

[Northwest]

Thanks for posting this. Though hopelessly biased, it's nonetheless insightful.

Biased?

"...Watching Trump lean over a podium on the road to the presidency was like watching a stud boar hump a hole in the wall."

[Athos_131]

Wrong. He has said repeatedly that he die not lie that what he says he means.

What he says directs policy.

As a public servant his public speech is restricted. This is settled law from several court cases.

Speaking as President, which is what he is doing, not as a private citizen, his statements are contradictory to what is expressly allowed by the Constitution. Thus he is advocating restricting the exercise of free speech under the First Amendment.

Wrong in what way? How, exactly, are "his statements contradictory to what is EXPRESSLY allowed by the Constitution" (my emphasis, your word)?

Please provide some detail about how a U.S. president's speech is restricted by law.

Do you really believe that a U.S. president may not say or write anything that might that might influence policy? Really?

Take, for example, President Obama's many remarks in support of gay marriage, before the SCOTUS decision was handed down. How does that not blatantly violate your restriction on public servants expressing opinions? Add to that, it also violates your restriction on public figures making statements that influence policy. Where's the condemnation? Where's the outrage?

Here's the chief point: If Trump had said or Tweeted that NFL players who "take a knee" or otherwise engage in an action during the playing of the National Anthem should be arrested and/or prosecuted, I would be right there alongside you condemning Trump. He did nothing of the sort. And, if I didn't know better, I'd wonder whether you have an even vague notion of what the First Amendment means, what it says, and what were the intentions behind its formulation.

And here's the point: The left in general and Democrats in particular are doing themselves and the country a massive disservice -- especially with mid-term elections only a year away -- by hyper-obsessing over every word Trump writes or says. Have we learned nothing from the 2016 election? Are we uniformly blinded to the way in which Trump won the election in the first place? It tragically seems like we are.

I'm curious as your opinion, Miss B., as to Trump blocking his critics on his Twitter feed he's used to disseminate policy.

#Resist

[MissBarbara]

Thanks for posting this. Though hopelessly biased, it's nonetheless insightful.

Biased?

"...Watching Trump lean over a podium on the road to the presidency was like watching a stud boar hump a hole in the wall."

Exactly... 

[MissBarbara]

I'm curious as your opinion, Miss B., as to Trump blocking his critics on his Twitter feed he's used to disseminate policy.

#Resist

Embarrassingly, I have to plead ignorance. I'm not really sure how Twitter works.

Do you mean he blocks others from seeing what he tweets?

It's certainly stupid, ignorant, counter-productive, and another indicator of what the Rolling Stone author describes.

I guess my point -- other than the fact that Democrats, for whatever reason, insist on keeping their eye off the ball -- is that there's so much to criticize, condemn, and impugn Trump for. Why fixate on trivialities, rather than potentially indictable offenses?

[Athos_131]

I'm curious as your opinion, Miss B., as to Trump blocking his critics on his Twitter feed he's used to disseminate policy.

#Resist

Embarrassingly, I have to plead ignorance. I'm not really sure how Twitter works.

Do you mean he blocks others from seeing what he tweets?

Yes, but twitter is a free open forum.  It's similar to him denying someone the ability to watch a State of the Union address.

#Resist

[Lois]

Trump is a public official.  He has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. He then behaves in a manner which attacks the principles of the first amendment.  I wonder if such behavior would be tolerated in our service men and women who also swear this oath?

Tell me, what would have happened if one of our earlier Presidents, say John Adams, swore this oath and then started advocating for the institution of a Monarchy? (Yeah, some people thought he did with all his going on about how the President should be addressed during Washington's terms as President, but he was not really a Monarchist he just wanted to vest the office with a very high respectability).  I doubt it would have been tolerated.

This is indeed a test of our government.  There has simply been no precedent for dealing with the likes of Trump.

[Northwest]

I guess my point -- other than the fact that Democrats, for whatever reason, insist on keeping their eye off the ball -- is that there's so much to criticize, condemn, and impugn Trump for. Why fixate on trivialities, rather than potentially indictable offenses?[/b]

I take your point, MissBarbara. I think the answer, however, rests with the fact that those of us who oppose Trump are so frustrated that he breaks every rule of decency, of honorable behavior, of honesty and accuracy. His behavior is borderline criminal, and most likely actually criminal at times in the past. And yet he coasts through it all without either taking responsibility or paying a significant price for his offenses.

By way of comparison, Obama was pestered with trivialities and endlessly criticized for things he never did, while Trump steals the silverware, feels up the nieces, farts on the host and gets away with it.

The range and extent of the double standards is beyond anything which I could even have dreamed someone could get away with. It's very hard to put up with this endless diet of crap without getting discouraged to the core.