A
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
I guess Johnson, but I truly don't know enough about him. And even less about Stein. Except I agree with her policy on public education far more than Johnson's.
I know I won't vote for Trump or Clinton and that's about as far as I am right now.
I know I won't vote for Trump or Clinton and that's about as far as I am right now.
If it's Donald Trump that comes with it, I'll risk it. And isn't Trump all about wanting to be able to broaden libel laws? He doesn't seem like a champion of the 1st Amendment to me, even with his prospective appointments to the SCOTUS.
Trump won't issue press credentials to the Washington Post and other media outlets because of his displeasure with their reporting.
That's restricting freedom of the press.
Hillary won't do press conferences at all.
Pretty sure this is a misinterpretation of what freedom of press is.
Tamping down someone's freedom of the press includes forbidding certain stories or inflicting federal punishments on someone who writes something they don't like. Not letting someone in the room when fifteen other news outlets are represented is childish, but not unconstitutional.
IMHO
The top of the Libertarian ticket said, "Really, there are going to be no litmus test. You're going to appoint good people, and you're going appoint people that look at the Constitution of original intent." Although Weld name checked Breyer and Garland, he also said, "You want people who are tranquil of mind and can analyze the issues and come to a conclusion that makes sense, rooted in the jurisprudence of our country going back hundreds of years."
I feel like we have a long way to go from there to someone anti-individual right to bear arms. In fact, as laid out by many on here, you could draw the opposite conclusion based on original intent and existing precedent.
I was going to say appealing to people who lean left seems like a mistake, but I can see thinking the disaffected Sanders voters are easier to get to build the 15% from. I think this is some of what their doing, and trying to reassure those people that a Johnson vote isn't a vote to make us Somalia.
I feel like we have a long way to go from there to someone anti-individual right to bear arms. In fact, as laid out by many on here, you could draw the opposite conclusion based on original intent and existing precedent.
I was going to say appealing to people who lean left seems like a mistake, but I can see thinking the disaffected Sanders voters are easier to get to build the 15% from. I think this is some of what their doing, and trying to reassure those people that a Johnson vote isn't a vote to make us Somalia.
Trump has spouted more anti 1st Amendment rhetoric than any candidate for President ever, probably more than all prior candidates combined,
That's a thin reed given his prior pronouncements. Hopefully, if he wins, and I still don't think he will, he'll hold up his end on that piece of business. If so, I'd vote for him in 2020.
Stating the obvious, but OK voting has minimal impact. That said, I'll damn sure be voting for beer/wine in stores.
Stating the obvious, but OK voting has minimal impact. That said, I'll damn sure be voting for beer/wine in stores.
AMEN
Limiting Press Credentials and limiting Freedom of Press are not the same thing. Not one damn bit.
They can write whatever the hell they want, they just are not given access. Credentials and rights are not one in the same. OSU probably will never give you credentials, are they limiting your rights to Freedom of Press? There is no censorship.
They can write whatever the hell they want, they just are not given access. Credentials and rights are not one in the same. OSU probably will never give you credentials, are they limiting your rights to Freedom of Press? There is no censorship.
And let the record show that my favorite tee has a skeleton walking a dog skeleton, the caption being "In dog years I'm dead". Point of which is I get to vote at least twice.
Anti 1st A, or anti national media? There is a difference.
Part of the job in journalism is acting as the people's watchdog on government. Trump seems to love the spotlight, but he can't take the heat involved. There's a duty these men and women have, and it's to ask the questions we all want answered.
He doesn't like to answer them...not a good sign of leadership right there.
He doesn't like to answer them...not a good sign of leadership right there.
Hillary is far worse than Trump in this regard.
Evil, your spot on! Why would he give credentials to people who already support the opposing candidate, take statements out of context as a matter of practice and who have no interest in treating their "candidate" by the same standard they hold you to? I wouldn't want them around either, not because they write articles against me but because they lie, distort and manipulate everything to hurt you personally and your campaign .
The national press is a freakin disgrace and I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting those clowns around.
The national press is a freakin disgrace and I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting those clowns around.
The other part of journalism is reporting on all events in government---even those events which shine a bad light on administrations the press favors. It doesn't include coordinating stories and talking points or working side by side with the administration to thwart the political process as we have recently seen in the Wikileaks email dump.
And Hillary won't talk to FOX news either. Also refused to do a debate with Bernie on FOX.
So, not a good sign of leadership right there.
They ask the questions their superiors tell them to ask. They manipulate the responses, if they get any, into whatever agenda they, or said superiors, want. There is very little actual quality-news coverage anywhere. But, this does nothing in preventing or restricting Freedom of Press.
The best news organization on TV is One America News. Unfortunately, it's only found on Uverse. They do have 1 or 2 hour long O'Reilly type shows but the majority of their broadcast is actual news from around the world and across the nation which none of the other networks, cable or ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox carry.
And British online papers produce better news than any US online paper.
1) Hillary had all but already locked up the primaries, and they had 3 debates already.
2) Fox hasn't had democrats debate in 12 years.
3) she never cried "libel"
In all fairness, she was on Fox News Sunday yesterday. She lied her ass off, but she was there. Lying her ass off.
On second thought, there is no possible way her ass is gone. So I should have said, "She's a big fat liar" and that would have been more accurate.
Similar threads
