Trump 'to review' Mathew Golsteyn Afghan murder case

[wdmso]

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[Jim in CT]

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

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Sea Dangles]

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.