The First 100 days

Honestly, I wasn't even trying to make a joke with that. Lol

 

May I just state the most bizarre thing I have ever seen on hornfans are the claims on multiple threads that the mainstream media is anti-Israel. I want the posters that said that to think about the makeup of a good portion of media executives then rethink those statements.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_businesspeople

^ scroll down to television, film and video.

Anti-Trump? Sure. Bad at facts in general? Yes, nowadays. Anti-Israel? Lolwut?

 

They may not be anti-Israel, but their seething hatred of Trump would easily cause them to do and say things that could go against Israel. They have shown they will do anything to ruin his presidency. If you can't see that, then lolwut?

 

Trump urged postmaster general to double rates on Amazon: report

Not just Amazon but other companies too.

 

So buried below the anti-Trump fake news and the royal wedding, CNN hid yet another example of winning. China comes to the table.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/19/news/china-united-states-trade-announcement/index.html

 

Rather than pursuing the torture narrative with this woman, I would much rather have seen a focused line of inquiry into her knowledge of and participation in the Deep State's spying on the Trump 2016 Campaign and their collective actions taken post-election against the new administration. And do this while the C-Span cameras were rolling. The people have a right to know

 

When you convince yourself that your opposition is inherently evil, it's impossible to have a democracy:

 

A judge rules that Donald can't block people on Twitter. The judge should be removed from office. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-can-t-block-users-his-twitter-feed-federal-judge-n876831

 

The Trump administration has stated that Tweets from the POTUS account should be treated as official statements. When you block someone on Twitter you block not only their ability to respond but view the tweets. Should official statements only be allowed to be viewed by preferred individuals? Isn't that the opposite of the transparent government we all want?

 

Do you really think this will hold up in a higher court? There are many official channels so this isn't the only one. You have a right to block users that are abusive to you.

 

I'm not a lawyer but I think the administration is on shaky ground with their claim that it's an official channel yet the platform excludes people from viewing that channel if blocked. It seems that the administration might have a beef with Twitter functionality. Not sure the "plenty of channels" excuse flies when put up against transparency laws on the books.

 

Dude, let's be honest here. This is a liberal judge trying to get under Trump's skin. This will be knocked down in a higher court. It amazes me how you can not get see through the MSM ********.

 

I appreciate that your biased opinion is an honest one. I disagree but I'm not a lawyer and would happily accept any legal opinions. Someone posted a local case where a local politician blocked a constituent from their public position Facebook account. From memory, the judge in that case found that they it was a violation of a constituent's 1st amendment rights to block them in a place where other constituents have a voice.

 

The fact is that his Twitter account is a private account that is not the property of the United States. It is not a public forum either regardless what this crackpot judge thinks. This is why this will not hold up in the higher courts.

 

@POTUS is not public? I suggest you visit twitter to see the privacy statement linking it to WH.gov. The @realDonaldTrump account also represents his public role as POTUS not as a private citizen. The fact that both accounts are interchangeable further clouds the issue.

 

From a lawyer friend of mine.

 

I've even used a MSM article for you. The fact that courts believe that social media are public forums is absurd. These court decisions won't hold up in the appellate courts. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...is-not-a-public-forum/?utm_term=.4b1351d37f13

 

To let you know how screwed up this decision is you can know troll any government agency and they can't block you. Ridiculous.

 

Garmel,

I wouldn't be so sure. A conservative federal judge in Pennsylvania reached a similar ruling last year in regard to a Facebook account. It's not an identical set of facts, but there are stark similarities. I'm not saying Trump will definitely lose this battle. I'm just saying it's not clear cut, and it's not necessarily ideologically driven.

 

If I was Trump I'd use Twitter as a forum for announcements and not engage with anyone who responds. I'd turn off the comment section if that is possible and not read it. He should know by now that the trolls and political operatives flood that platform. It's not a serious, good-faith arena for dialogue. Yahoo quotes Twitter as if it's a human being. It's become this morass of people trying to make a name for themselves. Just like "Instagram Models."

 

It's NEVER clear-cut when the lawyers get involved.

 

Sounds like the Singapore summit might be off for now

 

Yes.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...out-summit-with-north-koreas-kim-jong-un.html

 

Obama was too desperate to walk away from a terrible deal with Iran. Trump is different.

 

Trump achieved quite a bit already without ever having to meet with the guy
-- The return of 3 hostages
-- The reported destruction of NoKo nuclear facilities
-- The restoration of global respect

A meeting is still likely, IMO. Plus, Trump offered to deal with him directly, one-on-one, which has the potential to get something done much faster than going through all the various intermediaries

 

That only took a year and a half

The U.S. dethroned Hong Kong to retake first place among the world’s most competitive economies, thanks to faster economic growth and a supportive atmosphere for scientific and technological innovation, according to annual rankings by the Switzerland-based IMD World Competitiveness Center.​

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...siness&utm_content=business&utm_medium=social

 

Have a link? I think you might be confusing the Virginia case where a conservative federal judge banned a democrat from doing it to a republican. This case sounds like it might have been ideological driven as well. It shames me that a conservative would stoop to this level.