President’s abuse of the press is violative of his oath of office and is grounds for impeachment

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Trump likes to tweet stuff to make people lose their minds, then hits the hay refreshed, with a satisfied smile.

Yep. And that quite says it all, doesn't it?

originally posted by: UKTruth

Dear god... the left with their impeachments.

Wouldn't it be great if the President could just call for a vote of confidence? Would this one dare? How do you suppose it would turn out?

I've seen several right wing thread makers banned over the last few weeks.And yet these leftist non news threads continue?

originally posted by: TDawg61
I've seen several right wing thread makers banned over the last few weeks.And yet these leftist non news threads continue?

Right wing thread makers seem to be more prone to manners violations for some reason.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

Dear god... the left with their impeachments.

Wouldn't it be great if the President could just call for a vote of confidence? Would this one dare? How do you suppose it would turn out?

It would be much better if left wingers didn't make up and then fantasise about bogus reasons for impeachment.
As for a vote of confidence, that is just another fantasy that must have been spinning around in your head. Face up to reality.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

BS, The press cannot make false allegations with no proof whatsoever... Stopping that is not "stopping the free press"...

The framers of the Constitution didn't have in mind for the left-wing press to make up false allegation claiming that President Trump and his associates are colluding with Russia, when no damn evidence has EVER been presented...

That is called defamation of character. in fact those left-wing media who did this, have broken the journalist ethics code because they wanted to impeach a rightly elected U.S. President with nothing but lies.

a reply to: UKTruth

The problem is the reasons are not bogus. Nice try at repeating the false narrative.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

The problem is the reasons are not bogus. Nice try at repeating the false narrative.

Well I guess you'll share the impeachable offenses with us, with details and supporting links that can be verified. Please excuse us for doubting a press that has to keep making corrections and pulls stories for lack of proof.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

The problem is the reasons are not bogus. Nice try at repeating the false narrative.

Well I guess you'll share the impeachable offenses with us, with details and supporting links that can be verified. Please excuse us for doubting a press that has to keep making corrections and pulls stories for lack of proof.

Sad thing is even if they find something on Trump at this point no one would believe it. They've cried wolf so much our ears have gone deaf. Let's see first he was racist, then it was sexual assault, then it was he was a pedophile, now he's Russian. And that was just off the top of my head. What else did I leave off?
The only thing they've proven is that the man can be an Ahole sometimes
Call Trump an Ahole and I'll probably agree with you, but so was every president I can remember since Reagan. And I'm willing to bet before Reagan they were Aholes too.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Fake news and retracted stories is not 'hard hitting' .. it's made up.

What did you say when Obama illegally spied on journalists who were critical of him?

originally posted by: c2oden

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: imitator
If I was president, I would install constitutional powers to target and kill U.S. fake news terrorist.

Buster approves of anything that confirms his biased beliefs and is willing to use Hitler when it suits his misguided beliefs.

Maybe you should have been awake during history class in school.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

You're right he did swear an oath, to protect the United States from enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
The framers of the Constitution didn't have in mind for the left-wing press to make up false allegation claiming that President Trump and his associates are colluding with Russia, when no damn evidence has EVER been presented...

I'm fairly sure that when they set out the first amendment, they knew exactly what they were doing when they stated that no laws whatsoever could ever be passed to stifle the press. I mean, that's pretty all-inclusive. They might not have foreseen the internet, television, or radio, but they were familiar with the 'industrial press' - and they knew that, on balance, it was better to have idiots able to speak freely rather than censorship of everyone.

This sort of public controversy is a good thing, and a sign of a healthy democracy. If the mass media are telling fibs, then the people have the right to complain, agitate, and spread the word among themselves. The mass media are just corporations, and if people stop believing them then they will go bankrupt eventually and be replaced with media that people trust.

originally posted by: PorteurDeMort
The man is not fit for the office of President.

By what credentials do you base this statement on?
Because personally the last 3 presidents were not fit to hold office.
I will stay reserved on this one til Trump sexual assaults someone in the oval office or actually starts WWIII.
His so called "abuse of the press" is retaliatory in nature and I commend him for putting these ivory tower dwellers on notice. Now we as a people can start looking at actual facts rather than the journalist activists who infest out media establishment. I think the whole MSM needs to be reworked and reminded who it really works for.

a reply to: Bone75

LOL....BINGO!!

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: PorteurDeMort
The man is not fit for the office of President.

By what credentials do you base this statement on?
Because personally the last 3 presidents were not fit to hold office.
I will stay reserved on this one til Trump sexual assaults someone in the oval office or actually starts WWIII.
His so called "abuse of the press" is retaliatory in nature and I commend him for putting these ivory tower dwellers on notice. Now we as a people can start looking at actual facts rather than the journalist activists who infest out media establishment. I think the whole MSM needs to be reworked and reminded who it really works for.

Man, they don't make text BIG enough to say "BRAVO!" to this post!!

BRAVO...BRAVO!!

Hammer, meet nail head!!

a reply to: turbo8

Please stay focused on the topic

originally posted by: JAY1980

originally posted by: PorteurDeMort
The man is not fit for the office of President.

By what credentials do you base this statement on?
Because personally the last 3 presidents were not fit to hold office.
I will stay reserved on this one til Trump sexual assaults someone in the oval office or actually starts WWIII.
His so called "abuse of the press" is retaliatory in nature and I commend him for putting these ivory tower dwellers on notice. Now we as a people can start looking at actual facts rather than the journalist activists who infest out media establishment. I think the whole MSM needs to be reworked and reminded who it really works for.

Very well stated.

a reply to: Jefferton

you have no power here. Try being a little more intelligent with your statements. Dogmatic speech furthers nothing.

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough
The press is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Members of the press are free to criticize the government and even the President, his policies and his actions.

The press’s coverage can be “hard hitting,” and this is exactly the type of reporting that the framers of the Constitution had in mind for protections when devising the Bill of Rights.

When the press hits the President hard it’s O.K., but when the President hits back “10 times harder,” it is NOT O.K. because this is threatening, inhibiting, and controlling of the media and highly violative of the First Amendment protections for the press.

If the President engages in this type of behavior, striking back 10 times as hard, then he violates his Oath of Office to defend and protect the Constitution which includes the right of the press to criticize and call the President every name in the book and to even call his sanity into question .

The President, once more, has provided his to opponents one more point, just more grounds to be included in a draft of Articles of Impeachment.

Except that you're wrong. When hitting back ten times harder equates to throwing them in prison, then you have an argument. Until then, you sound like a snowflake