General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsgreymattermom
(5,754 posts)Can that save some taxpayer money?
VMA131Marine
(4,149 posts)Just asking?
Maru Kitteh
(28,342 posts)I think he can raise money on whatever flim-flammy basis he can squeeze it out of people with, short of direct calls to violence or explicit threat to overthrow the govt, etc.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,838 posts)It is not OK for the federal government to try to suppress free speech.
Maru Kitteh
(28,342 posts)Now his TWEET on the other hand, calling the media "The enemy of the American people" is another matter.
One has to wonder if that Tweet is actionable and if some member/entity of the media could bring that forward in court.
underpants
(182,879 posts)kimbutgar
(21,188 posts)TNLib
(1,819 posts)To fight the "FAKE NEWS".
Squinch
(51,007 posts)health insurance, food supply, environment are all in danger of ruin by Republicans.
WHERE is our message???
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)It certainly looms large on the horizon!
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,342 posts)Meaning the venue cost; in the same manner other presidents have campaigned for reelection. Of course none of them have started campaigning one month after they took the oath before.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)His foundation being out of reach, he wanted another big slush fund.
Maru Kitteh
(28,342 posts)Charlotte, NC
Jersey
Las Vegas
Wouldn't surprise me if he has lawyers working on that right now.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Not sure which FEC or AG is likely to make a peep.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)He really knows how to pick a person's pocket, doesn't he?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,838 posts)Is this unconstitutional or what? The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Does this also apply to the executive branch? The Supreme Court seems to think it does. In New York Times Co. v. United States, the Pentagon Papers case, they said:
In seeking injunctions against these newspapers, and in its presentation to the Court, the Executive Branch seems to have forgotten the essential purpose and history of the First Amendment. When the Constitution was adopted, many people strongly opposed it because the document contained no Bill of Rights to safeguard certain basic freedoms. They especially feared that the new powers granted to a central government might be interpreted to permit the government to curtail freedom of religion, press, assembly, and speech. In response to an overwhelming public clamor, James Madison offered a series of amendments to satisfy citizens that these great liberties would remain safe and beyond the power of government to abridge. Madison proposed what later became the First Amendment in three parts, two of which are set out below, and one of which proclaimed: "The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments, and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."
The amendments were offered to curtail and restrict the general powers granted to the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches two years before in the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the people's freedoms of press, speech, religion, and assembly.
I hope somebody, maybe the ACLU or a media organization, challenges this in court.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Kimchijeon
(1,606 posts)Tsk tsk. Really hilarious considering they suck up to his dumb fatass as it is. How are they "the enemy"
What's to fight? What, really? ROFL
Not sucking up to him enough?
Stellar
(5,644 posts)I'll leave this for 45 here too.
Cha
(297,655 posts)lying billionaire?