He Was Up Tweeting at 3am Again....

a reply to: loam

That view, based on tweet, is completely unhinged.

Nope. Trump is blatantly violating the 1st Amendment in his rambling angry tweets.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Not in it's entirety. That stance is just nonsense. You can't blanket statement a news organization that large and say that for decades they've never reported anything true.

That's a straw man. And it's intellectually dishonest as well.

~Tenth

Where did I say they never said anything true? I never said that. You would make a great NYT editor. They are a pile of propaganda I said, which doesn't mean everything they say is false. Just like what you just wrote about what I said. Thanks for that example of NYT reporting!

originally posted by: loam

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: loam

Your answer to Trump's blatant intimidation of the press and his attempt to abridge and censor media outlets is to say "Obama did it too!"

LAME!

No. My answer is pointing out the ridiculous comparison between Trump's tweet and Obama's ACTUAL threat to the press.

But I get it. You are anti-Trump. So facts don't matter. Only the conclusion.

Not much comparison between Trump and Obama other than as a foil.

Trumps up working at 6am.

Obama... he might make it to the Golf course by noon or 2...

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: windword

How is cancelling a meeting, threatening? I have meetings cancelled regularly, it happens...

Ive cancelled meetings just to reinforce exactly who is in control. Ive also sent group emails out addressing some thing or another in "public" to the email group to control the behavior of a person or direction of something.

I see what he is doing. Basically.. youll either play straight or play for an audience.

As far as his 3 am tweets ( or 6 am) I cant speak to that. I have VERY erratic and undisciplined sleep habits myself. I knew I was truly in the land of the free when gyms started staying open 24 hours and gave keycards to the members.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

a reply to: Vasa Croe

He's cancelled the meeting because, apparently, they printed something he didn't approve of and he didn't like its "nasty tone". He's putting "terms and conditions" on what and how the press can disseminate the information that he's required to give them, and bargaining their access based on compliance That's is a egregious violation of the 1st Amendment.

By publicly denouncing this media outlet as illegitimate, he financially threatens their stock holders and employees alike. That's an abuse of power.

Interesting...have you read the 1st amendment? I don't believe he is in Congress, nor is he POTUS at this point. He has made no laws and is simply negotiating how his interaction with a paper will go. He doesn't have to give them access at all actually. They can write whatever they want and he can simply tell the public they base their articles on opinion as none of them have direct access to his staff or himself.

Silly argument.

a reply to: windword

So expressing an opinion is a 'blatant violation of the first amendment'?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: loam

That view, based on tweet, is completely unhinged.

Nope. Trump is blatantly violating the 1st Amendment in his rambling angry tweets.

Please explain how he is violating the 1st. I don't think you have a clue as to the inaccuracy of what you're typing at this point.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: loam

That view, based on tweet, is completely unhinged.

Nope. Trump is blatantly violating the 1st Amendment in his rambling angry tweets.

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Um...so saying you have a "nasty tone" is somehow keeping the press from doing their jobs?

you have jumped the shark yet again. didn't think this level of stupidity was achievable.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

Yes he is, seriously!

Let me make this clear.

If you're going into a meeting and your potential adversary changes the conditions at the last minute then it is your inalienable right to postpone said meeting until all conditions are agreed upon by both parties concerned.

Nobody wants to be ambushed.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Frankly, this appears to be an exercise in futility.

It's only real value is in demonstrating how unhinged, illogical, hypocritical and desperate the left has become.

Sad, because some of their goals have legitimacy. But the left has lost all credibility...and they seem determined to utterly self-destruct.

Amazing to watch.

a reply to: network dude

Trump said that the paper's remarks were "nasty in tone". Trump is trying to dictate to the NYT what they can print and how they print it. That's a violation of the 1st Amendment.

a reply to: loam

Amazing to watch.

What's amazing, and horrifying, is watching people who are so willing to offer up the 1st Amendment and their civil rights!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: network dude

Trump said that the paper's remarks were "nasty in tone". Trump is trying to dictate to the NYT what they can print and how they print it. That's a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Again....I don't think you understand the 1st at all. He can say whatever he wants about them....he is a US citizen and his speech is protected. Your inability to understand this is perplexing.

Great news.
I'd just keep cancelling them and revoking their access every time they lied or refused terms. The NYT fully deserve it.
Hopefully we'll see the press pool made up of independent journalists.

originally posted by: windword
Trump said that the paper's remarks were "nasty in tone". Trump is trying to dictate to the NYT what they can print and how they print it. That's a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Seems to me that Trump has 1st amendment rights, too. As long as he's not using the power of government to force the media to cover news in a certain way, I don't see a problem. He otherwise has the right to complain about their coverage all he wants.

a reply to: windword

You have as of yet failed to demonstrate how he is doing that.

Is the NYT no longer able to continue their specious reporting of him or his future administration?

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

If you're going into a meeting and your potential adversary changes the conditions at the last minute then it is your inalienable right to postpone said meeting until all conditions are agreed upon by both parties concerned.

The government doesn't have an adversary in the "the press".

Do you know what the terms and conditions of the meeting were? I'm betting that you don't, so I'll tell you. Trump insisted that the meeting with the New York Times' CEO's, Editors and journalists be "off the record". In other words, he insisted that they NOT print, share or disseminate the contents or outcome of their meeting.

That's a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The NYT agreed to no such thing, and Trump claimed in a Twitter rant that THEY, the NYT violated the meeting's "terms and conditions", which the NYT never agreed to. According to the NYT, the first they heard that the meeting had been cancelled was through Trump's early AM Twitter rant.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Frankly, this appears to be an exercise in futility.

It's only real value is in demonstrating how unhinged, illogical, hypocritical and desperate the left has become.

Sad, because some of their goals have legitimacy. But the left has lost all credibility...and they seem determined to utterly self-destruct.

Amazing to watch.

Agreed, but seeing the complete implosion on the left is actually very interesting. Watching an entire way of thinking collapse and then expose it's flaws so comprehensively is something I think will be written about for years to come.

a reply to: loam

You have as of yet failed to demonstrate how he is doing that.

He's trying to make a deal with media outlets, by threatening them through social media shame and pressure, to report "the news" the way he wants them to, or else he'll unleash his "beautiful Twitter" assassins. He's threatening defamation and financial terrorism if they fail to comply.

a reply to: windword

It's a violation of the 1st Amendment, in that the government, which he is currently representing, has no right to interfere, threaten or "abridge" the Freedom of the Press.

how so,
first,a president or president elect does not have to do one on one interviews with the press, and to be honest i can't find any where in the Constitution that says he has to speak to the press at all. care to so me a law of some kind that does. he as president only has to address the nation and congress. as president elect he doesn't even have do that.

second, he has not used his position as a government leader to threaten interfere, threaten or "abridge. he as a citizen has all legal rights (and yes he is a citizen first then president elect second) to call the press on things that they write or say about him and go through civil means to do so.

care to show me where he has used the government or any personal means to do any of the things you say.
they are still free to write and says what they want. he doesn't have to cooperate with them just because they want him to.