FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Are you really that dense? Attacks on the free press, emoluments, Muslim ban, giving aid and comfort to the enemy ...
Read up a bit.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...d-our-coverage
https://www.aclu.org/issues/executiv...utional-crisis
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ty-khan-214139

I suspect you've never heard the saying that "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

I see two year old citations above that are speculative, one from the leftist ACLU. You got anything where a court decision has held that Trump personally did something unconstitutional? You'll probably point to the "Muslim Ban" that wasn't a "Muslim Ban", where the district court likely exceeded its authority and the Scotus ultimately put the issue to rest. But there's nothing else I'm aware of that has been determined to have "shredded the Constitution".

Got anything else other than hysterics and histrionics?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I see two year old citations above that are speculative, one from the leftist ACLU. You got anything where a court decision has held that Trump personally did something unconstitutional? You'll probably point to the "Muslim Ban" that wasn't a "Muslim Ban", where the district court likely exceeded its authority and the Scotus ultimately put the issue to rest. But there's nothing else I'm aware of that has been determined to have "shredded the Constitution".

Got anything else other than hysterics and histrionics?

You're an incorrigible idiot, just like your much-loved Dear Leader.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You're an incorrigible idiot, just like your much-loved Dear Leader.

So, you have no backup for your own claim. Wouldn't it have been much easier to say that rather than to resort to name-calling?

Sheesh!

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

So, you have no backup for your own claim. Wouldn't it have been much easier to say that rather than to resort to name-calling?

Sheesh!

I provided ample backup for my claim. The issue is your unwillingness to believe anything critical of your Dear Leader. That's on you, not me.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I provided ample backup for my claim. The issue is your unwillingness to believe anything critical of your Dear Leader. That's on you, not me.

No, you didn't. You made the claim that Trump is "shredding the Constitution". I asked you to show me where a court has determined that this has happened. You posted articles which made allegations, and the Politico article you posted was from August 2016, months before he was even elected. The ACLU is a discussion of - as I predicted - "the Muslim ban" which is an issue that has already been settled in a manner favorable to the current administration.

So, I'll ask again. Show me where a court has determined that actions that the current administration has taken have "shredded the constitution".

For a competing perspective, there are some who have observed that there has been a reduction of regulation, which has the effect of promoting individual freedoms, which is more consistent supporting a constitution that was designed to limit the power of government.

https://www.industryweek.com/economy...behind-numbers

In the aggregate, the Trump administration is issuing fewer major regulations on manufacturers than that of the Obama administration, and it is seeking to eliminate or delay several major regulations on manufacturers that were issued by the Obama administration. (The difference from the Bush administration is less stark.) The number and cost of new major regulations on manufacturers is likely to remain low, and it is unlikely that the cost of compliance with long-standing regulations will be reduced significantly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/u...ic-growth.html

Administration officials said last month that, since January 2017, federal agencies have delayed, withdrawn or made inactive nearly 1,600 planned regulatory actions. Further rollbacks will affect financial services as well as energy and labor rules, among others.

And Mr. Trump has appointed outspoken critics of regulation to lead several federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The evidence is weak that regulation actually reduces economic activity or that deregulation stimulates it. But business executives are largely convinced that the cost of complying with rules diverts money that could be invested elsewhere. And economists see a plausible connection between Mr. Trump’s determination to prune the federal rule book and the willingness of businesses to crank open their vaults.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

You made the claim that Trump is "shredding the Constitution".

No, I didn't - you did. I said "Your idiotic Dear Leader is trying his damnedest to trash the Constitution." Fortunately for the country, he is mercifully incompetent in his dubious, misguided efforts.

And yes, his first two idiotic efforts at a Muslim ban (Rudy's words, BTW), were ruled unconstitutional by the courts. It took your beloved moron three tries to get a travel ban passed that survived legal scrutiny while accomplishing nothing to improve national security (No foreign-born terrorist from the seven countries included in President Trump's immigration restriction has been responsible for a lethal terrorist attack on American soil since 1975.) The only thing it did accomplish, however, was impress ignorant Trump cultists like you.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

No, I didn't - you did. I said "Your idiotic Dear Leader is trying his damnedest to trash the Constitution." Fortunately for the country, he is mercifully incompetent in his dubious, misguided efforts.

Oh, good Lord. You can't even be honest with yourself.

For the last time: I asked you to provide examples where Trump has tried to "shred the Constitution", and you went back and found a Politico article that preceded his election, a ACLU piece on the "Muslim Ban" that wasn't, and that's already settled law, and another speculative piece. Not one example of actually "shredding the constitution."

Go lie to someone else who will buy your BS.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

... the leftist ACLU...

A history of the ACLU defending the Confederate flag, the tea party, the KKK and Rush Limbaugh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rush-limbaugh/

They actually are non-partisan defenders of free speech, including speech by bigoted morons like you.