Trump's at it again, after the bomb threats to his critics, calling the media the enemy of the people and claiming that they excite hate as he excites hate against them and his critics.

At 10/28/18 08:07 PM, Zornuzkull wrote: i think this thing is a bipartisan issue that most folks can get behind... having the entire nation at the mercy of a private entity is not exactly a great idea... i hope something gets done about it for your nations sake...

They've tried and failed of course it would be smart to bring in a moderately autonomous entity like the Federal Reserve reigned when they've never had even had a proper audit by Congress only independent ones by the Fed itself. The fact is that it controls our nations currency and the rates of interest to banks should be brought into the fold under the Treasury. despite the fact that it is a historically failed piece of legislation born as knee jerk reaction by Progressives in the the early 20th century it's done nothing but suck tax money in like a black hole.

At 10/30/18 09:21 AM, Zornuzkull wrote: Trump claims he can defy Constitution and end birthright citizenship...

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
The US Constitution... correct me if im wrong...

Just like his threats to revoke due process, it's mostly just for show, to ramp up the idea in the public consciousness that doing those things, or chipping away at those things, might be okay... But he can't do those things unless the Supreme court justifies them - and he has plenty of conservative justices on his side, welling to rubber stamp his stuff that could open up a precedent that could be used against anyone...

At 10/30/18 09:21 AM, Zornuzkull wrote: Trump claims he can defy Constitution and end birthright citizenship...

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
The US Constitution... correct me if im wrong...

I doubt he could with an Executive Order but he probably will if he wants just so those idiots in the 9th Circuit on the West Coast to block it within an hour after him signing then he can send it immediately up to his loaded SCOTUS and get a constitutional ruling.

At 10/30/18 02:05 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
I doubt he could with an Executive Order but he probably will if he wants just so those idiots in the 9th Circuit on the West Coast to block it within an hour after him signing then he can send it immediately up to his loaded SCOTUS and get a constitutional ruling.

Yeah, and that would be a REALLY bad precident to set if they let him do it (I have some faith that SCOTUS would shut this down even today, but still), especially if you care about any particular amendments when an unfavorable president is in charge (like, say, an executive order against the 2nd amendment).

I hope he's just posturing, but if he's not I hope SCOTUS has the foresight to knock this down. It benefits no one (neither Democrat nor Republican) for a president to have absolute power to change the Constitution with executive orders.

Unless he uses the order to shut out elections permanently after, but we're not there yet so we shouldn't assume.

At 10/30/18 02:40 PM, Gario wrote:
I hope he's just posturing, but if he's not I hope SCOTUS has the foresight to knock this down. It benefits no one (neither Democrat nor Republican) for a president to have absolute power to change the Constitution with executive orders.

I don't think that he has the power but the fact that is would be in the judicial part of the three branches (a neat loophole) and SCOTUS can touch it.

essentially using an executive order to bait a judicial case so SCOTUS can make a ruling after the legal mambo of executive/judicial and requesting a ruling

Trump says Wall Street is on pause, while also blaming Democrats, if they retake the Congress, for it's eventual downturn.

An intresting story.

It seems now that its never a conspiricy when the rightwing does it.

At 10/30/18 09:01 PM, Zornuzkull wrote: i see... so... messing with constitution is bad when democrats touch it... messing with constitution good when Trump touches it... urggggh... your all a bunch of statist cock suckers... who'd hand your freedom away to any cunt in charge providing his party is the correct colour...

No I'm just pointing out a procedure that's within rules of the constitution where it's possible to get a Supreme Court ruling put possibly on the table by playing two of the three branches of government. By trying to play Executive order a Federal court (most likely the 9th and most idiotic) will try and say no you cant then it gets bumped up to SCOTUS If they decide to hear it (by vote of the judges) .

But at this point it's just speculation since it's one heck of a move.

At 10/30/18 07:33 PM, Heretic-Anchorite wrote: An intresting story.

It seems now that its never a conspiricy when the rightwing does it.

I would not be surprised if some of them claimed that this was all a false flag operation by the deep state, that is somehow exclusive to Democrats and the left, and is meant to undermine the undermine of the undermining of Trump, especially a week before the midterm elections.

Oh God, this smackdown is gonna be good. The paper trail left by Jack Burkman is long, and he targetted the one guy who has virtually unlimited resources at his fingertips to take him down.

This is going to be a work of art.

At 10/31/18 03:51 PM, Zornuzkull wrote:

At 10/30/18 11:51 AM, EdyKel wrote: Just like his threats to revoke due process, it's mostly just for show, to ramp up the idea in the public consciousness that doing those things, or chipping away at those things, might be okay... But he can't do those things unless the Supreme court justifies them - and he has plenty of conservative justices on his side, welling to rubber stamp his stuff that could open up a precedent that could be used against anyone...

oh boy imagine this being used against the right to bare arms... the autistic screeching would be heard from space...

Actually, people can already lose their rights to own a gun (and, for some reason, also lose their right to vote), if convicted and sentenced to jail for a year or more. I believe they can get those rights backs after they serve their time, and after a certain amount of years, but it varies from state to state on how long that is (and the nature of the crime committed was).
There has also been some recent court rulings to ease it for people who committed non-violent crimes, which the Trump administration was against.

Also, in Florida, 10% of the population can't vote in the that state because of their criminal record, without having to go through a confusing and lengthy process that's not a guarantee to get their voting rights back.

Kanya West now says he was used, and now has his eyes open, after months of Trump spooning. At this point, I'm not sure who was using who, after Kanya and his wife, Kim Kardashian, hounded Trump until he pardoned Kim's grandmother. I think all the backlash he is receiving for his man love of white-nationalist-loving Trump has finally hurt him where it counts, his pocketbook.

At 10/31/18 07:45 PM, EdyKel wrote: Kanya West now says he was used, and now has his eyes open, after months of Trump spooning. At this point, I'm not sure who was using who, after Kanya and his wife, Kim Kardashian, hounded Trump until he pardoned Kim's grandmother. I think all the backlash he is receiving for his man love of white-nationalist-loving Trump has finally hurt him where it counts, his pocketbook.

Pretty sure he said he was talking about blexit, not any of what you mentioned.

Let's all return to not giving a shit about what Kanye thinks, he is a crazy person.

Trump praises Gianforte, recounting his assault on reporter
David Knowles,Yahoo News• October 18, 2018

Donald Trump’s war on the media knows no bounds.
At a Thursday rally in Missoula, Mont., the president praised Republican Congressman Greg Gianforte and recounted his assault on Guardian (U.S.) reporter Ben Jacobs.

“Greg is smart, and by the way, never wrestle him,” Trump joked after Gianforte made brief remarks at the microphone.

“You understand that? Never. Any guy that can do a body slam, he’s my kind of…” Trump continued, mimicking the wrestling move as his crowd cheered him on. “He’s my guy.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-praises-gianforte-recounting-assault-reporter-015403177.html

At 8/4/17 01:40 PM, HexMagnificus wrote: The next chapter in the Trump-Thriller, who will be fired first: Robert Mueller, Jeff Sessions or Christopher Wray?

I guess we know the answer to that now.

So what about that Jim Acosta?

I believe cnn, if they were respectable, should have already replaced him. I don't think his physical contact with the internet was horrible, but his other behaviors. He is too involved and absolutely not a journalist, he is an activist.

The man, if he returns, needs this bit of a time out. Or, they could give him an opinion show.

At 11/9/18 07:16 AM, billybobthwarten wrote: So what about that Jim Acosta?

I believe cnn, if they were respectable, should have already replaced him. I don't think his physical contact with the internet was horrible, but his other behaviors. He is too involved and absolutely not a journalist, he is an activist.

The man, if he returns, needs this bit of a time out. Or, they could give him an opinion show.

You do know that is fake news,right? The video of the supposed touching was doctored. Other than that, Obama experienced similar aggressive questioning from Fox New reporters. This doesn't even include fox news ambushing politicians, which Bill Oreilly was particularly known for it in his attempt to get gotcha moments when he was with Fox News.

Apparently Acosta's ouster, specifically paired with the excuse that he's too aggressive, is what other autocracies do in order to silence the press. So yeah, I'd say this is a direct assault on the press. He asked the president solid questions, Mr. 45 bitched out and kicked him out. That's basic-ass intimidation of the press, people, and it's how other countries fuck up the press.

Republicans and right wing people are all about free speech, so surely they will get SUPER upset that the President just stripped CNN's reporter of his right to report on the white house, right?

At 11/9/18 10:49 AM, Gario wrote:
Republicans and right wing people are all about free speech, so surely they will get SUPER upset that the President just stripped CNN's reporter of his right to report on the white house, right?

please. He's not silenced. He was removed from the premises. He can talk about whatever, as long as he wants but he doesn't have to do it at the whitehouse. Also CNN is not banned from sending another journalist in Acosta's place. This compared to a liberal mob literally cracking down the door and 'tarding out at Tucker Carlson's home. HIS ACTUAL HOUSE. Which is more dangerous?

At 11/9/18 09:53 AM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

At 11/9/18 07:16 AM, billybobthwarten wrote: So what about that Jim Acosta?

I believe cnn, if they were respectable, should have already replaced him. I don't think his physical contact with the internet was horrible, but his other behaviors. He is too involved and absolutely not a journalist, he is an activist.

The man, if he returns, needs this bit of a time out. Or, they could give him an opinion show.

I thought about making a thread on it but when I looked into the discussion being had I just didn't bother. Wall street journal and independent made articles about the "Doctored" clip posted by Sarah Huckabee Sanders and then buzzfeed made their own about what happens when you convert formats, It's all semantics to me. Plenty of gas lighting going on everywhere over the video.

There's a lot of fake outrage and excuses being thrown around.

It's been my opinion for months that he should be replaced.

Folks arguing that he assaulted her, others arguing he never touched her, plenty of mental gymnastics there, and other Orwellian BS.

He clearly touched her, multiple times. Assualt? Maybe it could be stretched that way, but I wouldn't consider it that. He was trying to block her and keep the mic, Acosta could have tried a lot harder and been more malicious if his intent was harm.

All i know is i'm tired of people thinking Jim is the only reporter asking Trump questions he doesn't like, and Jim thinking he is the only reporter in the room.

The room is pretty full of people asking Trump questions he would rather not be answering.

Jim does seem to think he is the most important voice in the room and that it's his job to fight some crusade. He makes himself the story, which isn't journalism.

At 11/9/18 10:43 AM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

At 11/9/18 10:18 AM, EdyKel wrote:
You do know that is fake news,right? The video of the supposed touching was doctored.

The only way it was actually doctored was the audio being removed and Jim's apology being cut out.

No, frame were added to it, slowed down, and sped up.

Many people can agree he didn't "assault" her, or that the contact was incidental, but lets not start saying 2+2 = 5 ok. Too many people saw the press conference live, or they can just watch the source video used, or unedited footage of the very awkward moment, even on CNN's own you tube channel.

Jim did apologize after it right away, and the WH response is overzealous to say the least.

It doesn't changed the fact that the video was doctored to be more agressive, and promoted by the White House as a reason to take away his white house press credentials because they didn't like the aggressive questions he was making. That is what bothers people. Not to mention the contentiousness Kavanaugh confirmation with many on the right saying we are overreacting to every case of sexual assault - and here is the White House overreacting when a reporter was moving his hand as a intern was trying to grab his microphone and accidental contact was made.

At 11/9/18 11:51 AM, EdyKel wrote:

and here is the White House overreacting when a reporter was moving his hand as a intern was trying to grab his microphone and accidental contact was made.

The contact may not be a giant deal, but there was no accident there. She tried to take the mic, Acosta motioned to block that effort. He wasn't moving his appendages around and she just walked into them.

At 11/9/18 11:59 AM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 11/9/18 11:51 AM, EdyKel wrote:

and here is the White House overreacting when a reporter was moving his hand as a intern was trying to grab his microphone and accidental contact was made.

The contact may not be a giant deal, but there was no accident there. She tried to take the mic, Acosta motioned to block that effort. He wasn't moving his appendages around and she just walked into them.

I don't really give a fuck. It's a non-story to begin with. The only thing that is alarming is that the White House used a doctored video to make it look worse, so they could justify a case against him. Now a non-story is a story about the actions of the White House.

At 11/9/18 10:49 AM, Gario wrote:

isnt the white house considered public property? id say there is a potential freedom of speech case based around it if it is... also pointing at something else doesn't discount the shittyness of another situation...

Its just a comparison of the political climate. Also even if it is public property so what? You are not allowed to go to a public park, cause a scene, assault someone etc and then claim free speech. It's just assault on public property. I find it really interesting that there seems to be this pushing and prodding of law. Illegals are ok because reasons, even if they want asylum there are LEGAL ways of going about it.

Never give the gov't an excuse to do something, because they will do it. Jim gave em an excuse. I'm trying to remember who that journalist was a few years ago that claimed they were assaulted because someone brushed past and they claimed assault. This is nothing new. Nobody's rights were violated.

At 11/9/18 11:26 AM, Kel-chan wrote:

At 11/9/18 10:49 AM, Gario wrote:
Republicans and right wing people are all about free speech, so surely they will get SUPER upset that the President just stripped CNN's reporter of his right to report on the white house, right?

please. He's not silenced. He was removed from the premises. He can talk about whatever, as long as he wants but he doesn't have to do it at the whitehouse.

This isn't an issue with free speech in the 1st amendment. It's an issue with freedom of the press in the 1st amendment. Yes, according to the Constitution they have to let him question the president, otherwise what does freedom of the press even mean?

Also CNN is not banned from sending another journalist in Acosta's place.

And when the next anchor asks questions about the President's misconduct they could also suffer the loss of their place there, too, until the only people there don't ask questions anymore. As I said before, this is how dictatorships silence the press, and your response is how guillible idiots or facist sympothizers suck up to their supreme leader in response. It ain't new - it's just new in America.

This compared to a liberal mob literally cracking down the door and 'tarding out at Tucker Carlson's home. HIS ACTUAL HOUSE. Which is more dangerous?

Silencing the press using governmental authority is more dangerous that a rag tag group of lefties harassing Tucker, easily - the power dynamic and implications against the constitution make all the difference. Are you actually stupid enough to make a comparison, here?

If you want to play games, though, I can play whataboutism, too - what about the pipe bombs sent to liberals all over the country, which is more dangerous? You could argue that didn't kill anyone... well, neither did the mob in front of Tucker's house. But one actually involved explosives.

What about the radical right winger who shot up a Synagogue? That actually DID kill plenty of people. Tucker's family, while likely scared, didn't die.

What about the White Supremacists who killed a protester in 2017 by hitting her with a car? Again, Nazis, killing people. Tucker's family suffered no injuries or death.

Yeah, the right wing is more dangerous and mob-like than the left, if not by example then by data collected over the years. Seriously, are you stupid enough to make this into an oppression olympics event in here, especially when the right wing has literally had everything they ever wanted given to them over the last two years?

Before people say I dodge the question, I (as well as other progressives) think what happened to Tucker was wrong and way overboard - those leftists were actually threatening him, and many should be arrested for that incident since targetted threats of violence goes past "free speech". You're an actual moron if you think distracting from the president silencing the press by outside events makes you look like anything other than a boot licking facist, though. Stay on topic, make a new one if you actually want to talk about Tucker in earnest, rather than use it as a tool to distract.

looks like Fox News has joined the lawsuit by CNN against the Trump admin for revoking Jim Acosta’s press credentials , but this may be out of their own sense of self preservation of "what can come around can go around" when the next White House administration doesn't put up with their own shit.

At 11/9/18 12:12 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:
That's called editing not doctoring, doctoring is when stuff is misrepresented, Things that didn't happen are added, and things that did are taken out. Zooming in and slowing down, and repeating frames is not doctoring...

Speeding up a video in order to bolster a claim that Acosta chopped the WH attendant is a textbook case of video doctoring - it is literally editting a video to make it looks like something that didn't happen in fact happened. The claim is "assault", unaltered footage shows it isn't, sped up footage makes it look like it is. You seriously sound as stupid as Mr. Clinton arguing over the definition of "Is", or Conway saying speeding up a video isn't the same thing as altering it (which proves the White House unequivocally used altered footage).

Not sure if people are bringing it up yet, but CNN is pressing charges against the White House on this (as they should). Fox is backing them up on it, in a surprise twist (Edy brought this up already). President says he has absolute authority to ban the media from press breifings, so he should be able to strip Acosta of his journalistic right whenever he wants (kinda just left his "He assaulted a woman" defense behind, so that point, however stupid it was, has become moot).

A judge will rule on Thursday for this first hearing. If the rule of law and freedom of the press still exists in America, I predict this will be a pretty open and shut case against Trump. If the judge rules in favor of Trump that sets a REALLY bad precident on freedom for the press to report accurate, source-based news in the foreseeable future, so here's hoping that's not the case.

At 11/14/18 08:24 PM, Gario wrote:

A judge will rule on Thursday for this first hearing.

We'll see how it goes, I believe the administration will fail. But, by the definition, his act was assault.

Really wish CNN would have removed this guy half a year ago.

At 11/15/18 08:18 AM, billybobthwarten wrote:

At 11/14/18 08:24 PM, Gario wrote:

A judge will rule on Thursday for this first hearing.

We'll see how it goes, I believe the administration will fail. But, by the definition, his act was assault.

Really wish CNN would have removed this guy half a year ago.

If you go by that definition of assault, then what does that say about anyone who does something similar. Are you saying that Kavanaugh's accusers had a case? Or that women who accuse Trump of "grabbing them by the Pussy" have a case. You may hate CNN, but you are setting up clear definition that can be used against anyone.