https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46587185

However, as Commander in Chief of the US armed forces, any intervention by Mr Trump could count as unlawful command influence, and might mean the case against Maj Golsteyn is thrown out.

A Pentagon spokesperson said on Sunday that the allegations against the major are "a law enforcement matter".

Just another example Trump thinking being POTUS has no limits...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46587185

However, as Commander in Chief of the US armed forces, any intervention by Mr Trump could count as unlawful command influence, and might mean the case against Maj Golsteyn is thrown out.

A Pentagon spokesperson said on Sunday that the allegations against the major are "a law enforcement matter".

Just another example Trump thinking being POTUS has no limits...

if he thought being potus had
no limits, CNN and saturday night
live would be off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if he thought being potus had
no limits, CNN and saturday night
live would be off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny that you say that
Dec 16, 2018 08:58:54 AM A REAL scandal is the one sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion? [Twitter for iPhone]
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how many puppies did Trump eat today, where is that story?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how many puppies did Trump eat today, where is that story?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

None. He only eats hamburgers and KFC
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if he thought being potus had
no limits, CNN and saturday night
live would be off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Wow another nice deflection Mr Objective

how many puppies did Trump eat today, where is that story?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I don’t write his tweets
He is very capable of tweeting his foot into his mouth all by himself
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny that you say that
Dec 16, 2018 08:58:54 AM A REAL scandal is the one sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion? [Twitter for iPhone]
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How is this supposed to be an example or proof that Trump thinks the POTUS has no limits?

How is this supposed to be an example or proof that Trump thinks the POTUS has no limits?

His tweet certainly illustrates the point that he believes anything critical of him should be illegal and f... the first amendment.
As you have said before you can’t take him literally....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow another nice deflection Mr Objective

it’s not a deflection. Trump hates CNN and SNL, but thanks to our laws, they can continue attacking the potus and never saying anything good about him. the ability of cnn and SNL to do what they do, is irrefutable
evidence of the limits in trumps authority. just because i proved that you’re wrong, doesn’t mean it was a deflection. you are embarrassing yourself here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How is this supposed to be an example or proof that Trump thinks the POTUS has no limits?

because shut up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

His tweet certainly illustrates the point that he believes anything critical of him should be illegal and f... the first amendment.
As you have said before you can’t take him literally....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I reread his tweet again, and I didn't see anything in it that illustrates him believing anything critical of him should be illegal or against the First Amendment. You seem to be trying very hard to stretch what he said into something he didn't say. Maybe you shouldn't be taken literaly?

I reread his tweet again, and I didn't see anything in it that illustrates him believing anything critical of him should be illegal or against the First Amendment. You seem to be trying very hard to stretch what he said into something he didn't say. Maybe you shouldn't be taken literally?

I disagree, his tone and tenor continually illustrates his wish that all his detractors could and should be silenced.
Should I fear getting something wrong in a political argument on the internet?
Will alliances fail, people go bankrupt and lives be disrupted or end due to my badly informed statement?
Luckily I'm not president, my speech would be much more carefully considered if it had an impact beyond this small pond.

Tone and tenor?
Sounds more like singing than it does a tweet. More evidence of corruption has been demonstrated due to tone and tenor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tone and tenor?
Sounds more like singing than it does a tweet. More evidence of corruption has been demonstrated due to tone and tenor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly. "Tone and tenor"? How about the actual, effin, words. Pete can "interpret" tone and tenor in whatever way he can to "illustrate" something that exists in his head. It's that tricky way to paint an ugly picture of an innocuous statement. It's called propaganda.

Or, to use one of the favorite words of anti-Trumpers, its a lie.

Exactly. "Tone and tenor"? How about the actual, effin, words. Pete can "interpret" tone and tenor in whatever way he can to "illustrate" something that exists in his head. It's that tricky way to paint an ugly picture of an innocuous statement. It's called propaganda.

Or, to use one of the favorite words of anti-Trumpers, its a lie.
As you previously said and notice, I added nothing to his tweet till some whined “And his less than eloquent and imprecise way of communicating them doesn't help his image when they're added to by those who wish to call him...”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As you previously said and notice, I added nothing to his tweet till some whined “And his less than eloquent and imprecise way of communicating them doesn't help his image when they're added to by those who wish to call him...”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like I've said, you're a slick con artist. Again, you ply your insinuative technique of twisting words to suit your narrative.

You say you added "nothing" to his tweet. This makes a subtle impression that I said you added "words" to it. I didn't say that you added words, I said you "You seem to be trying very hard to stretch what he said into something he didn't say." In effect, you attached your twisted, unnecessary interpretation to his words.

So, for sure, you added no content to his tweet. I never said you did. But your fake "interpretation" was "something." It was not, as you say, "nothing." And the "something" that you added to the conversation was a lie.

if he thought being potus had
no limits, CNN and saturday night
live would be off.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny that you say that
Dec 16, 2018 08:58:54 AM A REAL scandal is the one sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion? [Twitter for iPhone]
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like I've said, you're a slick con artist. Again, you ply your insinuative technique of twisting words to suit your narrative.

You say you added "nothing" to his tweet. This makes a subtle impression that I said you added "words" to it. I didn't say that you added words, I said you "You seem to be trying very hard to stretch what he said into something he didn't say." In effect, you attached your twisted, unnecessary interpretation to his words.

So, for sure, you added no content to his tweet. I never said you did. But your fake "interpretation" was "something." It was not, as you say, "nothing." And the "something" that you added to the conversation was a lie.
Keep spinning

Keep spinning

So you got nothing.

it’s not a deflection. Trump hates CNN and SNL, but thanks to our laws, they can continue attacking the potus and never saying anything good about him. the ability of cnn and SNL to do what they do, is irrefutable
evidence of the limits in trumps authority. just because i proved that you’re wrong, doesn’t mean it was a deflection. you are embarrassing yourself here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


do you or do you not have thought on Trump influencing yet another criminal investigation? talking about cnn or SNL is a deflection.. so please your embarrassing yourself with your made up proof of your made up event...

Keep spinning

(1) Are CNN and SNL highly critical of Trump?
(2) are they still on the air?

do you or do you not have thought on Trump influencing yet another criminal investigation? talking about cnn or SNL is a deflection.. so please your embarrassing yourself with your made up proof of your made up event...

"talking about cnn or SNL is a deflection"

I brought up CNN and SNL. And if some nut is making the claim that Trump sees no limits to his authority, then pointing to the continued ability of those outlets to attack him, is not only not a deflection, it makes the statement that Trump is a dictator, look like the nonsense that it is.

"talking about cnn or SNL is a deflection"

I brought up CNN and SNL. And if some nut is making the claim that Trump sees no limits to his authority, then pointing to the continued ability of those outlets to attack him, is not only not a deflection, it makes the statement that Trump is a dictator, look like the nonsense that it is.

"So why sweat it?

Because it's wrong — and anti-Constitutional — for a president to threaten to use government to punish protected speech. Period. Even if the president's threats amount to nothing, individuals and companies fear the government's awesome power enough that they might decide poking fun at the president isn't worth the risk: When a president threatens censorship — and that's precisely what Trump is doing — the chances of self-censorship go up. The president is trying to bully a notable critic into silence: NBC and Saturday Night Live can probably take the pressure, but what about an individual or a publication that doesn't have access to the same powerful lawyers and deep pockets?

The First Amendment sometimes feels fragile because it's so often used to defend unpopular speech. Who really wants to be on the side of Larry Flynt or Fred Phelps? The administration went after Jim Acosta a few weeks ago not just because White House officials dislike the CNN correspondent, but because they knew Acosta's occasional grandstanding can make other journalists uncomfortable — the administration wanted to see if it could divide the press corps into journalists more and less deserving of First Amendment protections. That's why Trump targets SNL now: If you're not a fan, maybe you want to shrug and wait for a more noble cause to come along. By then, though, it might be too late. Better to push back now instead of waiting for real damage to be done.

So yes, the president's threat matters. It isn't the worst thing Trump tweeted this weekend: He also called his former lawyer a "rat" for cooperating with the government, and suggested he'd intervene in the case of a Green Beret accused of killing a prisoner suspected of terrorism. Taken together with the SNL threat, the tweets confirmed what we already know about Trump: He's lawless and petty, a narcissist with autocratic tendencies.

Which means, for now, Alec Baldwin's ridiculous Trump wig might as well be a banner for freedom. May it ever fly proud and high."
By Joel Mathis in the The Week

So yes, the president's threat matters.

Can you please specifically point out what is the threat in this statement?:
"Dec 16, 2018 08:58:54 AM A REAL scandal is the one sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion? "

It isn't the worst thing Trump tweeted this weekend: He also called his former lawyer a "rat" for cooperating with the government, and suggested he'd intervene in the case of a Green Beret accused of killing a prisoner suspected of terrorism.

Can you please specifically explain what is illegal or unconstitutional about calling Cohen a rat, or of suggesting he would get involved in some unspecified way with the Green Beret case?

Taken together with the SNL threat, the tweets confirmed what we already know about Trump: He's lawless and petty, a narcissist with autocratic tendencies.

Can you please specifically point out what was lawless about his SNL comments and his tweets?

What is so unusual about a President being a narcissist or having autocratic "tendencies"?

Which means, for now, Alec Baldwin's ridiculous Trump wig might as well be a banner for freedom. May it ever fly proud and high."
By Joel Mathis in the The Week

Wearing a ridiculous wig can be a banner for freedom, so can Trump's speaking his mind be an actual practice of it.

"So why sweat it?

Because it's wrong — and anti-Constitutional — for a president to threaten to use government to punish protected speech. Period. Even if the president's threats amount to nothing, individuals and companies fear the government's awesome power enough that they might decide poking fun at the president isn't worth the risk: When a president threatens censorship — and that's precisely what Trump is doing — the chances of self-censorship go up. The president is trying to bully a notable critic into silence: NBC and Saturday Night Live can probably take the pressure, but what about an individual or a publication that doesn't have access to the same powerful lawyers and deep pockets?

The First Amendment sometimes feels fragile because it's so often used to defend unpopular speech. Who really wants to be on the side of Larry Flynt or Fred Phelps? The administration went after Jim Acosta a few weeks ago not just because White House officials dislike the CNN correspondent, but because they knew Acosta's occasional grandstanding can make other journalists uncomfortable — the administration wanted to see if it could divide the press corps into journalists more and less deserving of First Amendment protections. That's why Trump targets SNL now: If you're not a fan, maybe you want to shrug and wait for a more noble cause to come along. By then, though, it might be too late. Better to push back now instead of waiting for real damage to be done.

So yes, the president's threat matters. It isn't the worst thing Trump tweeted this weekend: He also called his former lawyer a "rat" for cooperating with the government, and suggested he'd intervene in the case of a Green Beret accused of killing a prisoner suspected of terrorism. Taken together with the SNL threat, the tweets confirmed what we already know about Trump: He's lawless and petty, a narcissist with autocratic tendencies.

Which means, for now, Alec Baldwin's ridiculous Trump wig might as well be a banner for freedom. May it ever fly proud and high."
By Joel Mathis in the The Week

they went after acosta because he’s constantly combative and disruptive. he’s supposed to ask questions and record the answers, not argue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they went after acosta because he’s constantly combative and disruptive. he’s supposed to ask questions and record the answers, not argue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No, his job is to get to the truth for the American people. When your questions are met consistently with lies and spin and ridicule you push back. He was probably the best journalist in the press pool. Most just sat back bewildered not knowing what to do.

Jim, just about everything Trump has ever touched is now under investigation. Let that sink in.

No, his job is to get to the truth for the American people. When your questions are met consistently with lies and spin and ridicule you push back. He was probably the best journalist in the press pool. Most just sat back bewildered not knowing what to do.

Jim, just about everything Trump has ever touched is now under investigation. Let that sink in.

It's obvious that there is a concerted attempt to remove him from office . . . or do worse than that to him.

WT actual F?

I find myself agreeing with Wayne and Pete on Two separate topics!!



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46587185

However, as Commander in Chief of the US armed forces, any intervention by Mr Trump could count as unlawful command influence, and might mean the case against Maj Golsteyn is thrown out.

A Pentagon spokesperson said on Sunday that the allegations against the major are "a law enforcement matter".

Just another example Trump thinking being POTUS has no limits...

^^^

His tweet certainly illustrates the point that he believes anything critical of him should be illegal and f... the first amendment.
As you have said before you can’t take him literally....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


No speech should be banned ; )

WT actual F?

I find myself agreeing with Wayne and Pete on Two separate topics!!

Trump said he would review the case. Until he makes a decision after reviewing it, making any claims that it is an "example Trump thinking being POTUS has no limits..." is a cart before the horse absurdity.

^^^

No speech should be banned ; )
Trump said:
"Dec 16, 2018 08:58:54 AM A REAL scandal is the one sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion? "

His tweet didn't claim that any speech should be banned. He claimed that the hour by hour coverage was one sided and unfair defamation belittlement of him, and possibly collusion against him. He asked if the unfair one-sided coverage should be tested in the courts. If it could be legal--in effect does the First Amendment grant the Press the right to slant only in one direction in dereliction of the right granted to it to provide information necessary to maintain a free Republic, and if it should be tested in courts? He is most likely wrong to wonder if the media doesn't have that right (although the way courts "interpret" things one cannot be sure that his question has no merit).


But he made no claim that any speech should be banned. He asked if it was fair or even legal for news coverage to be so biased. The implication being that negative reporting should be balanced with obvious positive things if the Press's right to free speech has any merit.

And the right to speak is not a right that the Press or media has alone. The President, as well as the rest of us, have that right. His right to ask the question should not be "banned," and it certainly doesn't abridge the right of the media to be biased.

Trump said:
"Dec 16, 2018 08:58:54 AM A REAL scandal is the one sided coverage, hour by hour, of networks like NBC & Democrat spin machines like Saturday Night Live. It is all nothing less than unfair news coverage and Dem commercials. Should be tested in courts, can’t be legal? Only defame & belittle! Collusion? "

His tweet didn't claim that any speech should be banned. He claimed that the hour by hour coverage was one sided and unfair defamation belittlement of him, and possibly collusion against him. He asked if the unfair one-sided coverage should be tested in the courts. If it could be legal--in effect does the First Amendment grant the Press the right to slant only in one direction in dereliction of the right granted to it to provide information necessary to maintain a free Republic, and if it should be tested in courts? He is most likely wrong to wonder if the media doesn't have that right (although the way courts "interpret" things one cannot be sure that his question has no merit).


But he made no claim that any speech should be banned. He asked if it was fair or even legal for news coverage to be so biased. The implication being that negative reporting should be balanced with obvious positive things if the Press's right to free speech has any merit.

And the right to speak is not a right that the Press or media has alone. The President, as well as the rest of us, have that right. His right to ask the question should not be "banned," and it certainly doesn't abridge the right of the media to be biased.
You’re wrong
Rights are rarely lost wholesale but disappear incrementally
Just as people have concerns about the second amendment and incremental loss all rights need to be carefully guarded
Trump is not an ordinary citizen with limited power but the most powerful political person in this country and possibly the world.
He has yet to wield it well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You’re wrong
Rights are rarely lost wholesale but disappear incrementally
Just as people have concerns about the second amendment and incremental loss all rights need to be carefully guarded
Trump is not an ordinary citizen with limited power but the most powerful political person in this country and possibly the world.
He has yet to wield it well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's somewhat typical of you to say I am wrong when you actually agree with me. I have stated before that our loss of rights has been an incremental process.

But we disagree on the process. In regards to the current discussion of whether or not Trump made a lawless threat in his tweet, you claim that he did and that what he said is part of the process. I think, on the other hand, that your "interpretation" of what he said is part of the process that has incrementally eroded our rights.

The actual text of what Trump said is not an "illustration" of what you claim. And it is by this process over time of "interpreting" reality to fit a preferred narrative that has incrementally brought us to this point of diminished individual rights accompanied by expanded government power.

And you have defended that process of interpretation, specifically by the Court, and in general by siding with the progressive view of the constitution being a malleable structure that must change to suit changing norms.

But when "interpretation" claims that words say what they do not say, then interpretation is a lie. When we compound lies upon past lies, creating a growing heap of false precedent, we change the structure of society, of law, of relationships, and of the fundamental meaning of existence.

By "interpretation," we have created a system of government that is a lie. We claim that we are governed by our Constitution's structure and principles. We are not. We are basically governed by an administrative state. We claim that we are a democracy. But our courts routinely strike down the will of the people when it runs counter to some Progressive notion of social justice. We boast about our Bill of rights. But most rights have been eroded into being whatever the government claims them to be, if the government chooses to acknowledge them. We are daily spied on by the government that is supposed to be our servant, and deprived of a major portion of our income in order to support that government, and have been spent into an unpayable debt to be handed down to our descendants. And we have been atomized into contentious, disparate groups, and into silly identities that compete with biology. We have been post modernly and social marxistly molded into this most unnatural species of hominids to have ever claimed to own a spot on this planet.

You like to point out how, according to you, Trump is a master liar, perhaps a pathological one. And that he and his lies are part of that incremental procession of our loss of rights. To some extent you have some claim to being right. But he is more of a symptom than a cause. And he is, in some ways, a pushback against the big lie, in government and in the Press.

You claim that he is "the most powerful political person in this country and possibly the world." And yet you claim that he is soon destined to be in prison, or impeached, or run out of office--where is the mighty power you speak of in all that? Are you, as you claim, the mere "citizen with limited power" in such dire straights?

You claim some notion of us being under the thumb of some powerful one percent (or a tenth of one percent). But you support the Progressive policies of an entrenched ruling class in the elite, established cabal of congressional dinosaurs who enrich themselves at the trough and bidding of the dreaded one percent and who thwart whatever Trump tries to do. But Trump is the one who is wielding power against us??

He ran on a platform which to a great extent has been accomplished, in spite of the factions against him, and yet you claim that he has not yet wielded his power well.

I think you are a good man, and your heart is in the right place. But you express yourself in such confusing, contradictory ways that I wonder what you actually are about.