Mondi wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
Mondi wrote:
Trump does appear to have some dictatorial tenancies
Yet you say he "hasn't passed any major legislation".
(Dictatorial tendencies) On example might be his refusal to hold regular press conferences. Another might be the White House holding press briefings without permitting cameras. Yet another might be his constant attacks on the free press, characterizing it as fake news (and yet ascribing to far right/alt right/conspiracy theorist publications from Fox, Breibart, and InfoWars). Another still might be his attempting to influence privates businesses to fire employees who are protesting while at work (i.e. putting pressure on private business to dismiss employees doing something he does not agree with).
You like to use the term “dictatorial tendencies”… I do not think you know what it means.
Also, aren’t you supposed to be arguing
in favour of Free Speech??
(UMMMM President Trump is entitled to Free Speech)
You obviously did not google what I suggested….
Mondi wrote:
Another might be putting family members into high level government jobs, for which they are not qualified--that's a good one
How qualified were Rahm Emanuel, George Stephanopoulos, and Dee Dee Myers?
All three were in there early 30s when President Clinton put them in office.
Did President Clinton have dictatorial tendencies?
Working with family members helps greatly in the trust and communication departments.
I mean it’s not like billionaires Jared/Ivanka needed the work.
(btw fyi billionaires tend to be competent people.)
Anyhoo, you have clearly been brainwashed into thinking this is something new:
http://fortune.com/2017/04/26/donald-tr ... ite-house/
Donald Trump is far from the first president to enlist his children and in-laws in the work of the White House. Look back through history, and it turns out that plenty of presidencies have been a family affair.
Eighteen sons served in their fathers' White Houses, most of them with the title of "secretary to the president," … Fourteen daughters or daughters-in-law have taken on responsibilities in the White House
(or are you saying most US Presidents have dictatorial tendencies lol)
Mondi wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
Mondi wrote:
, along with a VERY tenuous grasp of the concept of free speech.
How so?
Google this: "trump is right" nfl "First Amendment"
Free speech, the ability to protest, the right to freedom of assembly...and other such rights and freedoms are rights individuals have vis-a-vis the government. Trump appears to lash out at many protesters with whom he does not agree, accusing them of disrespecting the flag or the country.
Google this: "trump is right" nfl "first amendment"
When folks engage in political protest while on the job, their employer has the right to fire them.
Also, on the job or not, when protesters engage in violence, they deserve to be arrested.
(you’re being a little vague here so I’m trying to cover all bases)
And again, President Trump is entitled to Free Speech.
But you don’t understand the concept of Free Speech.
Mondi wrote:
After all, he tweeted that burning the flag should result in jail or revocation of citizenship--which does not accord with a judgment of the US Supreme Court on freedom of speech.
You’re really reaching to try to pin an anti-free-speech lable on The Donald here.
A large number of Americans have agreed with The Don on this for most of US history.
In fact it was illegal to burn the flag for over 20 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act
And since that time there have been 16 attempts to again make it illegal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration
So if Donald Trump is anti-Free Speech because of his position on this matter
… so too are about 100 million Americans.
Once more I will point out the irony of a guy (YOU) arguing...
for... Free Speech
…
while complaining about a man (POTUS) using Free Speech to give an opinion.
"Oh no, he's using his right to free speech to weigh in on the long-standing flag desecration controversy
... what a dictator!!"
Mondi wrote:
He also proposed to change libel laws to go after the press...
Yes, as he said, when they “write
purposely negative and horrible and false articles”.
As it should be, no?
(libel/slander is an
exception to Free Speech)
Mondi wrote:
Anyhow, it might just be me, but I would hope that anyone who supports democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, equality under the law...essentially all the things that go hand and hand with Western democracies would not support a POTUS who seems either not to not understand or not to support (or both) many of these critical tenets underpinning the United States and Canada.
Nice conclusion, you have proven nothing but
your own failure to understand.
You don’t understand President Trump’s personal right to Free Speech.
You don’t understand President Trump has not violated anyone’s Free Speech.
You don’t understand that Free Speech cannot necessarily be expressed at the workplace.
You don’t understand that violence and destruction of property are not Free Speech.
You don’t understand that Libel/Slander are
exceptions to Free Speech.
(as are Obscenity, Fighting Words, Causing Panic, Incitement to Crime, and Sedition)
You don’t understand what a “dictator” is… or isn’t.
You show that you don’t fully understand “democracy”
(when you state an elected President "should not be supported”)
And “equality under the law” = WTF