Summations Only

Please explain how the Right intends to stop people questioning the powers of the Presidency.

quote:

---

The idea is that the President legitimately has those powers by an honest assessment of the laws. Other Presidents have used the same powers. They belong to the Presidency. That's what the Constitution says.

---

Even if Trump were only pressing the limits of Constitutional Rights it would be legitimate to question whether he had overstepped his powers.How do you intend to silence those questions ?

quote:

---

The court is wrong, the people who talk about the separation of powers happen to be wrong in these particular cases. But they won't recognize it, they won't acknowledge it.

---

Then perhaps you could produce the clauses that allow the President to ignore the 5th and 14th Amendments and show that they apply. Without that there is an open and shut case that Trump's order was illegal in denying Due Process Rights to visitors and immigrants arriving in the country.

I note that you provide no support for assertion that the President can simply ignore Due Process rights in this case.Being nasty about those who would defend the Constitution is hardly a substitute for making a case.

The media SHOULD be what Trump calls "fake news". They should not censor news he happens not to like, nor should they make false or questionable assertions just because Trump wants people to believe them.That should not be controversial among anyone who wants a free society.

Since you define "telling lies" as saying things you don't like then I would expect the media to "tell lies". Doing their job requires them to sometimes "tell lies". You, on the other hand want the media to actually tell lies when things you want to be true are, in reality, false.I mean, you can choose to believe things just because you like them but expecting anyone else to agree - let alone condemning anyone who disagrees - is daft at best.

Just the truth Faith. We all know that you are the one in love with slander so long as it is directed against people you hate. You almost seem to think of slander as a Christian duty.

quote:

---

So is this thread about the Wikipedia definition of fake news or the Trump definition of fake news?

---

The OP seems to prefer the Trump definition.

I don't remember who originated it but it is certainly appropriate - it may not be verbatim because I am going from memory here. Even if the media are lying - and there seems to be quite a bit of exaggeration and padding in the attempts to back up that claim - it is still the case that Trump and a good many of his supporters want the media and the Government to tell the same lies. And that would be worse than the present situation.

Who are you trying to kid, Faith ?The President is the most senior person in the Government. Trump has been bringing in his own people. Congress is dominated by the Republicans. Who are these "Obama and anti-Trump" people who "own" the Government ? What lies - actual lies mind you not truths you want suppressed as is so often the case with you - do they agree with ? And I want actual evidence that they agree, not supposition and innuendo.

I didn't call you a liar but your reaction looks an awful lot like a confession that you were.Anyway the fact is that Trump lies. Trump complains that the media don't agree with his lies. That clearly fits. If your Obama supporters or Trump opponents in the government aren't making similar complaints you don't really have anything to match. (And "the other side is doing it too" is a pretty poor excuse even when it is true)

In the OP you claimed that talk of setbacks was "fake news". The court decisions against Trumps Executive Ordern immigration were certainly a setback. And yet it is demonstrably true that the courts did, in general decide against Trump, with the result that he is preparing a new Executive Order intended to avoid (at least some of) the problem areas.

Conspiracy theory ranting aside is there any reason we should trust a YouTube video over the official crime figures ?

quote:

---

Honesty. An honest assessment of the video shows its truthfulness over the statistics.

---

You have said that sort of thing before - and it has usually been dishonest.So. On what grounds would I honestly conclude that a video on YouTube made by I don't know who is more truthful than the statistics ?

I guess that the lone policewoman chasing down three kids who might have been throwing stones at a school really convinced you that it was a "war zone"

You mean more fake news surely. They certainly aren't countering fake news stories. Nobody made anything much of the Swedish crime figures until the claims of a crime wave started making the rounds - and those crime figures qualify as genuine news until they are shown to be false. And nobody is publishing stories claiming that there are no assassination plots against Trump (the absence of assassination plots is not news)Seriously, why should we trust these especially when they come from a source notorious for producing fake news.