More rigged rules...

Discussion in 'Current Events & Politics' started by Barbarian, Oct 12, 2017.

  1. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    26,533
    Christian:
    Yes
    He never said that, actually. It's a satire based on his intent to remove or change the First Amendment. It's humor. Sorry about that.
     
  2. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    26,533
    Christian:
    Yes
    That's what my Warning For the Humor-Impaired was there for. I'll spell it out for you, in the future. Didn't mean to mislead you. Sorry...
     
  3. civilwarbuff

    civilwarbuff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    5,079
    You did not mislead me.........just yourself.....thinking you were posting a scoop.....hillaryous.......You should try to work that into your failed comedian act......"How barbarian was sucked into the fake news cycle"......heck, I might even come watch that act.....assuming it is free that is......LOLOLOLOL
     
  4. Potluck

    Potluck Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,640
    Location:
    Cranberry Pa
    Christian:
    Yes
    Trump never had that intent.
     
  5. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    26,533
    Christian:
    Yes
    Barbarian observes:
    He never said that, actually. It's a satire based on his intent to remove or change the First Amendment. It's humor. Sorry about that.

    Well, let's take a look...

    KARL: I want to ask you about two things the President has said on related issues. First of all, there was what he said about opening up the libel laws. Tweeting “the failing New York Times has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change the libel laws?” That would require, as I understand it, a constitutional amendment. Is he really going to pursue that? Is that something he wants to pursue?

    PRIEBUS: I think it’s something that we’ve looked at. How that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story.
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/priebus-trump-considering-amending-or-abolishing-1st-amendment
     
  6. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    26,533
    Christian:
    Yes
    You missed my Warning For The Humor-Impaired, and thought it was a real story. It's not. It's a satire on Trump's move to change the First Amendment. It's a joke.

    I'll spell it out for you in the future. But if I forget, anytime you see WFTH-I, I'm letting you know it isn't serious.
     
  7. civilwarbuff

    civilwarbuff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    5,079
    No, you missed the very first line in the article where it specified that it was satire and you posted it believing it was true unless you really are that sloppy in your postings?.....which is it barb?
     
  8. Potluck

    Potluck Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,640
    Location:
    Cranberry Pa
    Christian:
    Yes
    Show me where the 1st amendment is mentioned in the transcript. Talking Points Memo went way overboard adding that in their headline.
    Fake news. Very misleading.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
  9. Potluck

    Potluck Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,640
    Location:
    Cranberry Pa
    Christian:
    Yes
    White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus on changes to libel law


    Some commenters have noted that White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus spoke Sunday about possible changes to libel law. I agree that this would be a big story if any specific changes were called for, but at this point it's just too hard to tell what, if anything, will ever be proposed. Here's the interview with ABC's George Karl:

    (Insert transcript)

    This sounds interesting, because of course changes to libel law may well substantially affect what is safe to say in public debate. But the trouble is that there's just no specifics here. "I think it's something that we've looked at and how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story" — not terribly specific. And the original "change the libel laws" isn't terribly specific, either.

    -------------------

    No mention of changing or abolishing the 1st amendment.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
  10. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    26,533
    Christian:
    Yes
    The interviewer pointed out that what Trump was asking for would require a Constitutional amendment. (obviously repealing the First Amendment, since it guaranteed the right that Trump was trying to overturn.

    Priebus admitted that it was being considered.

    Nice try. But as you know, Priebus admitted exactly what I said.

    That would require, as I understand it, a constitutional amendment. Is he really going to pursue that? Is that something he wants to pursue?

    PRIEBUS: I think it’s something that we’ve looked at. How that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story.
     
    Mozart's Starling likes this.
  11. Uncle Siggy

    Uncle Siggy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,723
    Location:
    OHIO
    I had heard he was going to but hadn't heard when before I posted, this is what the EO entails: https://constitution.com/gop-failure-president-trump-takes-axe-obamacare/
     
  12. Uncle Siggy

    Uncle Siggy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,723
    Location:
    OHIO
    So has anybody tried their coffee before or is this going to be the fist time? Seems I've either seen it somewhere before or I've seen an advertisement for it before. Anyway let me know how it tastes I might be interested if it isn't too acidic, I usually drink Community brand for that very reason but it's hard to find up here.

    Here is something you might be interested in: https://www.communitycoffee.com/military-match
     
    Pegasus likes this.
  13. Potluck

    Potluck Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,640
    Location:
    Cranberry Pa
    Christian:
    Yes
    THAT would require"a constitutional amendment". (absolutely NO reference to changing or abolishing anything. )
    Adding a new one? That makes more sense as long as the 1st remains intact.

    "Priebus admitted that it was being considered."
    Changing the libel laws. Yes. And I suppose Supreme Court would need to be involved. Would be a lot to it.

    Libel laws were changed in 1964 without ever touching the 1st amendment. I see no reason what-so-ever the 1st amendment would need changed to revamp libel laws. Besides, the democrats have been changing gun laws without touching the 2nd amendment for years. Abolish the 1st amendment? Again, no reference to the 1st amendment unless you want to make the single word "amendment" mean any amendment you want.
     
    civilwarbuff likes this.
  14. Barbarian

    Barbarian Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    26,533
    Christian:
    Yes
    Sorry, tapdancing around the fact won't help. The interviewer pointed out that Trump couldn't do what he wanted to do to the press without a constitutional amendment, and Priebus admitted that was being considered.

    No way to spin that one.
     
  15. Potluck

    Potluck Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,640
    Location:
    Cranberry Pa
    Christian:
    Yes
    OK. I can agree with that compromise. But the 1st amendment remains intact, unchanged and definitely not abolished.

    Libel laws changed and the 1st amendment untouched.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

    New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case, if he or she is a public figure, prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such claims by public figures rarely prevail.

    Before this decision, there were nearly US $300 million in libel actions from the Southern states outstanding against news organizations, as part of a focused effort by Southern officials to use defamation lawsuits as a means of preventing critical coverage of civil rights issues in out-of-state publications. The Supreme Court's decision, and its adoption of the actual malice standard, reduced the financial hazard from potential defamation claims, and thus countered the efforts by public officials to use these claims to suppress political criticism.

    -------------------------------
    Not sure why an amendment would be needed since the current law is based on a malice standard that may be changed.

    Criticism. ok.
    Fake news. detestable.
     
    civilwarbuff likes this.
  16. Deborah13

    Deborah13 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,641
    Location:
    USA
    Christian:
    Yes
    What did he roll back?
     
  17. Deborah13

    Deborah13 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,641
    Location:
    USA
    Christian:
    Yes
    People who are not intent on commending anything and everything posted by you probably got it, I certainly did and I had no idea what WFTH-I means. If they went to the link or even read the link they would have known.
     
    Mozart's Starling likes this.
  18. Mike S

    Mike S Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    Messages:
    10,274
    Location:
    Connecticut

    Trump signed an EO stopping cost sharing payments to insurance companies. Such payments were never authorized by the Obamacare legislation, and have been ruled unconstitutional by a judge in the federal district court for the DC.
     
  19. Deborah13

    Deborah13 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,641
    Location:
    USA
    Christian:
    Yes
    Thanks, Mike. I missed that.
     
    Mike S likes this.
  20. civilwarbuff

    civilwarbuff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    5,079
    Dem Pollster Warns Dems: Polls Are Still Wrong About Trump[​IMG]
    Posted by Fuzzy Slippers Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 7:00pm
    “His style is not what won him the presidency. It was, remarkably, his substance”

    [​IMG]
    Mark Penn, Democrat strategist and former pollster for Bill Clinton during his presidency, is reviled by today’s regressive Democrats. Happily, his truth bombs land amongst his leftist audience with a fizzle amid looks of scathing disdain.

    Penn’s latest attempt to speak truth to the left’s waning political power addresses why, as co-director of the Harvard-Harris Poll, he believes that the left is still getting everything wrong, particularly when it comes to polls and President Trump.


    In July, Penn co-authored with Andrew Stein a piece in the New York Times urging Democrats to move back to center. He noted that the Democratic Party had moved so far left and extended their totalitarian tentacles so far into the lives of middle America that the only way back was to adopt Clinton’s triangulation model.
    https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/...d:+LegalInsurrection+(Le·gal+In·sur·rec·tion)
     
    Uncle Siggy likes this.

Share This Page