Trump Under Fire

[Lenmcharristar 9,180]

22 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

That's the problem, Len. Like with Britain a huge chunk of the population doesn't believe that returning to old-fashioned nostalgia is a good thing. The fact that Don has stacked his team with his cronies just cements the idea that American politics hasn't changed the slightest bit.

Again all he's demonstrated at this point is that we're now doing that thousand mile walk with a twisted ankle.

What the people shows government is that they will vote to who's playing ball by their rules and showed by voting trump that they will take a chance on a wild card over them so they should get their act together and start doing what the people want

[ChrisJones 7,973]

23 hours ago, Lenmcharristar said:

What the people shows government is that they will vote to who's playing ball by their rules and showed by voting trump that they will take a chance on a wild card over them so they should get their act together and start doing what the people want

Agreed mate but that's the mandate of any elected official. They work for us. His platform was a complete change to a political system that was overrun with sh*te. Drain the swamp.

He did.

And then he refilled the swamp with all his own cronies. He can't even fiddle his expenses privately showing how unfit for politics he actually is!

[Born Hunter 17,638]

What do you folks reckon to Donald having to unblock folks on his Twitter account because a district judge found it unconstitutional?

Quote

U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan ruled on May 23 that comments on the president’s account, and those of other government officials, were public forums and that blocking Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) users for their views violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I'm inclined to agree with the DoJ.

Quote

The U.S. Justice Department said the ruling was “fundamentally misconceived” arguing Trump’s account “belongs to Donald Trump in his personal capacity and is subject to his personal control, not the control of the government.”

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-twitter/trump-unblocks-more-twitter-users-after-u-s-court-ruling-idUKKCN1LE08U

 

[socks 32,253]

If it's his personal twitter account he should be able to block anybody he wants. If it's a government account then no. Just because he is the POTUS doesn't mean he should have to take abouse off whoever on his twitter account. 

[ChrisJones 7,973]

4 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

What do you folks reckon to Donald having to unblock folks on his Twitter account because a district judge found it unconstitutional?

 

2 hours ago, socks said:

If it's his personal twitter account he should be able to block anybody he wants. If it's a government account then no. Just because he is the POTUS doesn't mean he should have to take abouse off whoever on his twitter account. 

I agree with both of you. It's his personal account and he should have that freedom to do as he pleases but Don has refused to use the officially sanctioned Twitter account for official business and continues to use his personal account as his primary source of communication. As POTUS he's not allowed by the constitution to block anyone's 1st amendment rights and he'll also have a sticky over the coming years as his tweets are public record under his mandate.

Remember the uproar when a certain presidential candidate used private email accounts to access work stuff? Geese and ganders. You can't vilify someone else and then claim an exemption.

[Born Hunter 17,638]

4 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

 

I agree with both of you. It's his personal account and he should have that freedom to do as he pleases but Don has refused to use the officially sanctioned Twitter account for official business and continues to use his personal account as his primary source of communication. As POTUS he's not allowed by the constitution to block anyone's 1st amendment rights and he'll also have a sticky over the coming years as his tweets are public record under his mandate.

I just don't see how the government is stopping anyone speaking freely here though mate. Your right to free speech is to protect against the government not to do as you like in someones personal property (cyber property?). Is a citizens social media accounts viewed as every other citizens platform to express their first amendment right? To me it's on par with being entitled to assemble and protest (under 1A) in my living room. Now if the government were forcibly closing other citizens Twitter accounts then that would be a clear overstep in my mind.

7 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Remember the uproar when a certain presidential candidate used private email accounts to access work stuff? Geese and ganders. You can't vilify someone else and then claim an exemption.

Maybe I misunderstand you mate, I thought that candidate's actions were controversial because of security concerns, not 1A rights?

[ChrisJones 7,973]

23 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

I just don't see how the government is stopping anyone speaking freely here though mate.

Don as John Q Citizen is entitled to engage, or not, as he pleases.

Don as POTUS isn't allowed to switch off his constituents just because they might be unpalatable. 

This is one of those situations where the technology is being interpreted from a constitutional standpoint. If Don wasn't using the platform for official business and announcements I honestly don't think it would have been an issue but seeing as he refuses to use the platforms official account he's blurred the lines himself.

23 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

Your right to free speech is to protect against the government not to do as you like in someones personal property (cyber property?).

Agreed. House rules (like here) can stifle free speech if they choose. It's a private place in cyberspace the same as Twitter is. The issue here isn't house rules it's those presidential official announcements and related business tweets are a matter of public record. 1A allows John Q Citizen to have an opinion on those announcements and to challenge/support in kind. Essentially every man has the right to be heard and voice for or against an elected official (under 1A). Blocking someone on a forum that is being used for official business is like saying this is one-way traffic only. Again this is one is where 1776 is trying to reconcile with 2016.

23 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

Maybe I misunderstand you mate, I thought that candidate's actions were controversial because of security concerns, not 1A rights?

The Clinton email scandal was indeed a security issue but the call was that she was using private emails to conduct public business and therefore it should be public record what she's up to. I seem to remember a certain other candidate running part of his platform on the public accessing that information too although I could be mistaken.

I'm sure your company has social media policies. I know mine does. The US is adapting the 242-year-old rules to account for that. This isn't to say that I don't think Don's entire persona should be entirely public, he's entitled to his 4th amendment rights as is everyone else but this is a case where if he used the POTUS account for work, and DJT for personal there wouldn't be an issue. He broke protocol and he's being very slightly inconvenienced for it.

[Francie 6,362]

Fox news has reported that all of killarys deleted emails are secure in a chinese state funded company, lol

This should be interesting.

[Kerny92 1,246]

In the meantime our leader is making me want to turn in to a mass murderer........

[Francie 6,362]

31 minutes ago, Kerny92 said:

In the meantime our leader is making me want to turn in to a mass murderer........

Not a bad jiver df lol

[Kerny92 1,246]

5 minutes ago, Francie said:

Not a bad jiver df lol

I just want to strangle her, doesn't that wind you up.....

[Kerny92 1,246]

That creature is truly hideous!

[ChrisJones 7,973]

4 hours ago, Francie said:

Fox news has reported that all of killarys deleted emails are secure in a chinese state funded company, lol

This should be interesting.

That's a belter! It's Fox News though, how does the saying go? I'll believe it when I see it?

3 hours ago, Kerny92 said:

In the meantime our leader is making me want to turn in to a mass murderer........

Makes sense now Brexit is almost underway. It's a lucrative market and a lot are following the lead of the Chinese.

[si brown 8,486]

3 hours ago, baker boy said:

Someone should take a sledgehammer to her feet

she dances like some fecker already has... is she Peter crouch's great gran!!

 

[green lurchers 16,369]

14 hours ago, Francie said:

Fox news has reported that all of killarys deleted emails are secure in a chinese state funded company, lol

This should be interesting.

Now thers a name I ain’t heard in a while good old killary uma bengahazi clinton