I predicted in the first, and much better version of this thread. I'm with wikey. Millions of dollars will be wasted, and nothing will happen.

Mike @ 25/5/2018 7:47

vladykins @ 24/5/2018 8:05 The ruling lies not on the mode of discussion itself (Twitter) but on the job of President, which requires certain protocols on communication dissemination. For example, the President isn't supposed to limit press briefings to just those press folks who are "friendly" to the administration. This follows those same protocols. To extend your argument then would require that the Washington Post and CNN have to cover every conservative nutter because they have access to the President and therefore cannot limit. You can see that argument falls apart quickly. ;) Yeah, to be fair, I get your first point. I read something about the ruling which said that because Trump announces some things on Twitter before anywhere else, it's unconstitutional for him to block people. I see how it could be considered so. Don't think I agree with your second point though. By calling Trumps' Twitter account a public forum, are they also implying that Twitter on the whole is a public forum? Because if they are, I think Twitter would have a duty to be politically neutral to everyone. Unless I'm misunderstanding the implication of 'public forum' My own opinion is that they are a private company and can do what they want. I understand an exception been made for Trump though, given the way he uses it and his position.

It again comes down to the position and access to that position, rather than the mode of communication. If the President has a press briefing and cuts out people for political reasons, it is a serious problem, because of equal access for reporting purposes. If I have a press briefing and nobody shows up, I can't demand they show up because they show up for the President. So the mode of press access doesn't matter but the fact that they have access to the President. That's why demanding equal access to the President doesn't change the nature of Twitter to a public forum where everyone has equal access to communicate. Not everyone's letters get printed in the newspaper, offensive or libelous comments on news websites get removed all the time as well.

I honestly think there's a stronger chance of Trump being reelected in 2020 than for him to get impeached.

You'll need a big blue wave in 2018 or 2020.

Herm Serduchka @ 28/5/2018 15:53

I honestly think there's a stronger chance of Trump being reelected in 2020 than for him to get impeached. You'll need a big blue wave in 2018 or 2020.

I unfortunately agree with you.

That's because everyone is hung up on red or blue. It's like Don King is running shit, ffs.

Time 4 Gary Johnson to save the day

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/31/trump-administration-will-put-steel-and-aluminum-tariffs-on-canada-mexico-and-the-eu.html

luv putting tariffs on one of our closest allies and trade partners

It's a negotiation tactic, but he's going to wreak havoc on US manufacturing in the short term. Especially on smaller manufacturers.

Primate @ 1/6/2018 13:53

It's a negotiation tactic, but he's going to wreak havoc on US manufacturing in the short term. Especially on smaller manufacturers.

he makes the best deals!!

Considering the thread title:

Melania hasn't been seen in like 22 days apparently

If anyone is following, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of that christian baker who denied services to a gay couple for their wedding cake.

Josh @ 4/6/2018 14:22

If anyone is following, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of that christian baker who denied services to a gay couple for their wedding cake.

Surely that's a bake crime!

Igor @ 1/6/2018 13:05

Primate @ 1/6/2018 13:53 It's a negotiation tactic, but he's going to wreak havoc on US manufacturing in the short term. Especially on smaller manufacturers. he makes the best deals!!

He's good at "big me little you", but you can't treat allies like subcontractors for very long. There just aren't enough of them.

Josh @ 4/6/2018 16:22

If anyone is following, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of that christian baker who denied services to a gay couple for their wedding cake.

It's luckily a narrow ruling specifically because the Commission was inconsistent in their own enforcement. If they had been, then this baker would have no standing.