Trump trying to destroy Free Press?

[Pogo]

Then what IS the topic? Perhaps my screen is broken....

Points for using the word "obdurate" though. I've already seen "hoosegow" and "obdurate" in the same day. Can "fisticuffs" be far behind?

So, since false comparisons were used in the OP no other comparisons, false or nor, are valid simply because of the thread title? Okie dokie.........

The thread title is straightforward. Whether the OP that comes with it makes its case eloquently or not, well that's what the thread's for, but its entire focus was, again, on Donald Rump and his attitude toward a free press.

You chose to stop and sip at the word 'fascism'. That uh, wasn't the end of it.

So yea verily, tell me more of this "pedantry".

Ahhhhh, the old obfuscation ploy.

Yup, like getting hung up on "fascism", projecting it to "Hitler" and ignoring the rest of the point.

"Obdurate" followed by "obfuscation"... is today "ob-" day? I thought that was obsolete.

No more beating around the bush, deflection doesn't suit you......... Remember, perception is everything..... or have you forgotten?
Heck I'd love to see the contest come down to Sanders and Trump, two train wrecks that would each be lame duck presidents from the moment one or the other was sworn in. Neither having the full support of their establishment parties, potentially both attempting to then "rule by executive order" keeping SCOTUS busy undoing everything they do. Now that would be hysterically funny to watch.
Hillary is probably Machiavellian enough to do the job but that remains to be seen.........

I don't disagree on most of that, certainly not on Hillary. Rump or Sanders would indeed be on their own, and since they seek an office festooned with checks and balances, could not be any more effective flying solo than any other iconoclast. The difference would be in their supporters; Sanders represents a constituency that believes in his ideas, where Rump represents a movement (insert joke here) that believes in emotion. Either energy could produce ---- well.... something.

But we're off the topic, which is Rump's assault on the First Amendment.

 

[tinydancer]

So has anyone proved that Trump's oppressing the media yet?

 

[Ringel05]

So, since false comparisons were used in the OP no other comparisons, false or nor, are valid simply because of the thread title? Okie dokie.........

The thread title is straightforward. Whether the OP that comes with it makes its case eloquently or not, well that's what the thread's for, but its entire focus was, again, on Donald Rump and his attitude toward a free press.

You chose to stop and sip at the word 'fascism'. That uh, wasn't the end of it.

So yea verily, tell me more of this "pedantry".

Ahhhhh, the old obfuscation ploy.

Yup, like getting hung up on "fascism", projecting it to "Hitler" and ignoring the rest of the point.

"Obdurate" followed by "obfuscation"... is today "ob-" day? I thought that was obsolete.

No more beating around the bush, deflection doesn't suit you......... Remember, perception is everything..... or have you forgotten?
Heck I'd love to see the contest come down to Sanders and Trump, two train wrecks that would each be lame duck presidents from the moment one or the other was sworn in. Neither having the full support of their establishment parties, potentially both attempting to then "rule by executive order" keeping SCOTUS busy undoing everything they do. Now that would be hysterically funny to watch.
Hillary is probably Machiavellian enough to do the job but that remains to be seen.........

I don't disagree on most of that, certainly not on Hillary. Rump or Sanders would indeed be on their own, and since they seek an office festooned with checks and balances, could not be any more effective flying solo than any other iconoclast. The difference would be in their supporters; Sanders represents a constituency that believes in his ideas, where Rump represents a movement (insert joke here) that believes in emotion. Either energy could produce ---- well.... something.

But we're off the topic, which is Rump's assault on the First Amendment.

Like that's nothing new in politics.......

 

[NightFox]

You are so fucking dumb. What does "III" mean here? (It means three as in, not one or two).

Nothing because your list doesn't contain amendments it contains proposals for amendments, apparently you don't understand the difference between the two nor do you appear to understand what entities are involved in the ratification process, nor do you appear to understand why the BILL OF RIGHTS is called the BILL OF RIGHTS and why the two proposals you're so fanatical about don't fit that moniker.



"Why do we want intelligent terminals when there are so many stupid users?" -- Anonymous