Does The President Have Free Speech To Tell The People His Opinion Of Government

[DoggyDaddy]

On my iPad it is a very similar font just a couple of sizes larger and easier to read than the standard size. It must appear different on different devices. On my iPad it was a better read so I thought it was for everybody...

Maybe it is device specific. I have the opposite problem with your posts where you're quoting from an article. Your regular font looks like everyone else's, but the part you're quoting looks really tiny and is hard (for me) to read.

 

[2A_Tom]

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause a row.

I will just scroll past things I have a difficult time with.

 

[Ingomike]

Maybe it is device specific. I have the opposite problem with your posts where you're quoting from an article. Your regular font looks like everyone else's, but the part you're quoting looks really tiny and is hard (for me) to read.

Same for me and I cannot get it to change. I highlight it and change the size and it will not change that I can see.

 

[Ingomike]

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause a row.

I will just scroll past things I have a difficult time with.

I'm glad to know, now to figure out how to correct it. I want engagement with my post. If I go to the trouble to post and quote I thought it added to a conversation...

 

[Ingomike]

Reads like a post from Lib01

Would love to see a screen shot from any of you...

 

[KG1]

It appears AG Barr wishes Trump would curb some of his tweets.

Says they make his job more difficult.

 

[Ingomike]

It appears AG Barr wishes Trump would curb some of his tweets.

Says they make his job more difficult.

And they may, BUT, as the Trump team was clear that the President has the right to opine...

 

[Rick Mason]

And they may, BUT, as the Trump team was clear that the President has the right to opine...

He has the right to opine and the right to order. the president, whoever he is, is the singular head of the administration which includes the Department of Justice. the Attorney General answers to him, not the other way around.

 

[Ingomike]

He has the right to opine and the right to order. the president, whoever he is, is the singular head of the administration which includes the Department of Justice. the Attorney General answers to him, not the other way around.

I believe the deep state, which includes all entrenched DC, those presidential advisors that have been there as long as most of us have been following along, have created the thinking that Presidents have to look a certain way and only speak of certain things as a way of controlling the President himself. I think this applies equally to both parties. Looking back at the office holders since Regan, in hindsight they all have a Manchurian candidate kind of feel, like they were given a sedative, unrealistically calm and unflappable.

I think a reason they are sacred of Trump is they have not yet broken his spirit, and oh how they have tried and still trying, that spirit that connects a NY playboy to the common people that attend his rallies, they fear that. Literally everything that has happened to Trump is an attempt to break him and his spirit, this cabal has never failed at this. They thought they had also instructed the populace on the perscribed decorum that we must elect in a President, they are still shocked the people didn't do as instructed, still attempting to overturn that result.

And if you think this is partisan, think again. I believe that if the impeachment vote were anonymous, he would be gone, not for the bogus articles, but to eliminate him. I guarantee that if the house had an anonymous vote for who would be President, HRC or Trump, in February of 2017, HRC would have won.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I believe the deep state, which includes all entrenched DC, those presidential advisors that have been there as long as most of us have been following along, have created the thinking that Presidents have to look a certain way and only speak of certain things as a way of controlling the President himself. I think this applies equally to both parties. Looking back at the office holders since Regan, in hindsight they all have a Manchurian candidate kind of feel, like they were given a sedative, unrealistically calm and unflappable.

I think a reason they are sacred of Trump is they have not yet broken his spirit, and oh how they have tried and still trying, that spirit that connects a NY playboy to the common people that attend his rallies, they fear that. Literally everything that has happened to Trump is an attempt to break him and his spirit, this cabal has never failed at this. They thought they had also instructed the populace on the perscribed decorum that we must elect in a President, they are still shocked the people didn't do as instructed, still attempting to overturn that result.

And if you think this is partisan, think again. I believe that if the impeachment vote were anonymous, he would be gone, not for the bogus articles, but to eliminate him. I guarantee that if the house had an anonymous vote for who would be President, HRC or Trump, in February of 2017, HRC would have won.

I think it's because he is pushing and attempting to exceed the limits on powers given to the Chief Executive. If one thinks that the office of the president already, even before Trump, had too much power, then the fact that Trump is using those powers well beyond what any prior Chief Exec has tried then that should be cause for concern.
But that of course would assume that people really do think that the office of the president has too much power to begin with.

 

[Ingomike]

I think it's because he is pushing and attempting to exceed the limits on powers given to the Chief Executive. If one thinks that the office of the president already, even before Trump, had too much power, then the fact that Trump is using those powers well beyond what any prior Chief Exec has tried then that should be cause for concern.
But that of course would assume that people really do think that the office of the president has too much power to begin with.

Please trust we agree that the office of President has too much power. This is because of outright congressional action giving away power and quietly sitting by while Presidents have taken their power, failing to protect what the framers entrusted them with. I think that congress and the President should be pushing boundaries, and zealously guarding their constitutional powers and doing all they can for the people. I do not consider it a negative Trump pushes the boundaries to enact his agenda, no more than I think it negative that congress protects theirs. That is what checks and balances is all about...

I am reminded of that asinine emergency war powers act that a lazy congress gave to the office of President, and all the whining about Trump using it to fund wall construction. It said what it said suckers, Trump was right to use it. Take it way if congress didn't like it.

My perception of the current situation is congress frittered away their power and are upset Trump, the uncontrollable President, is using that power...

 

[Hkindiana]

I will demonstrate font size 4. ​Notice anything?

Does anyone else just ignore/not read posts written in blue that are more than one or two sentences long, because they are so hard on the eyes?

 

[4sarge]

I will demonstrate font size 4. ​Notice anything?

I do and with Old Eyes on High Resolution, I Prefer 3 or 4 also. To each His Own that Suits Their Needs

 

[Rick Mason]

I think it's because he is pushing and attempting to exceed the limits on powers given to the Chief ...the fact that Trump is using those powers well beyond what any prior Chief Exec has tried then that should be cause for concern.

"I think " hardly qualifies as a discussion point.

Specifics, please. Details of your charges. Examples that exist in reality?

 

[BugI02]

Does anyone else just ignore/not read posts written in blue that are more than one or two sentences long, because they are so hard on the eyes?

If it's what you want to do, does it matter if anyone else is doing it?

 

[Kutnupe14]

"I think " hardly qualifies as a discussion point.

Specifics, please. Details of your charges. Examples that exist in reality?

Examples? Here's a few.
Invoking executive privilege over entire agencies
Using an emergency declaration to divert congressionally approved funds to a pet project
Sending private citizens to conduct investigations
Demanding the DoJ investigate political opponents

Now, keep in mind, I'm not weighing in on the justifications of using these powers, or if his authority in doing so, only that they have rarely or never been used by prior presidents, and that his use of is an expansion of the powers the president traditionally wields.

 

[BugI02]

Examples? Here's a few.
Invoking executive privilege over entire agencies
Using an emergency declaration to divert congressionally approved funds to a pet project
Sending private citizens to conduct investigations
Demanding the DoJ investigate political opponents

Now, keep in mind, I'm not weighing in on the justifications of using these powers, or if his authority in doing so, only that they have rarely or never been used by prior presidents, and that his use of is an expansion of the powers the president traditionally wields.

Crossfire hurricane?

None so blind ...

 

[Ingomike]

Crossfire hurricane?

None so blind ...

Checkmate...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Crossfire hurricane?

None so blind ...

The word "rarely" seems to have been missed

 

[ashby koss]

The President recently opined on the Roger Stone sentencing and the dems are predictably screaming obstruction of justice. Just under what constitutional caveats does the President lose his ability to opine to the people? Does this just apply to just the President or to senators and representatives?

I get that if a President goes after a defendant of a government prosecution that the defense can use that to claim the trial was tainted, but if the President, the elected overseer of DOJ thinks they are wrong, where is the constitutional authority to stop his speech?

Good old Chuck Todd asks a senator if DOJ should be above elected oversight.



That this self aggrandized eliteist wants an unconstitutional unresponsive bureaucracy over the people, that is beyond criticism by our reps, is truly an insight into their thinking. Even the dem did not go for that.

I hired Trump to go to DC and break some glass draining the swamp. To disrupt the corrupt cabal of dems and repubs, and the deep state they have grown cozy using against even everyday Americans. This conventional wisdom the the President cannot speak his mind for fear of an obstruction claim is just another glass that needs shattered...

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/1...inks-dojs-problem-is-too-much-accountability/



Sized for Amurica. Must start in 4