• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump threatens to "look at" NBC license

TU Curmudgeon said:
I believe that I already said "Of course there aren't any mechanisms in the Constitution to let the President do such things (even during total war)." so we are in complete agreement that there is no POSITIVE presidential power that allows it.

On the other hand there is no CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION on the President doing it either.

The difference between the "English School" and the "German School" (of law) is that in the "German School" anything that is not permitted is prohibited while in the "English School" anything that is not prohibited is permitted.

The United States of America is an inheritor of the "English School".

Now, if you were to ask me if I thought that the President could get away with doing it (i.e. ask for a legal opinion) then I'd have to ask you two things before I answered, and those things are:

  • "Have you already deposited 100% of my fee into my account?"; and
  • (assuming that the answer to Question 1 is "Yes.") "What answer would you prefer to have?".

On the other hand, I'm not prepared to bet even 50% of my lunch money that Congress would let Mr. Trump get away with doing something like that (not even the Congress that is currently sitting).
Click to expand...

The 1at Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law" since the Constitution also says that Congress is the legislation and that the President cannot make any laws at all. In other words the president is already prohibited, since he lacks a law allowing him to limit the free press in the first place.

Yet Trump says that he has that power. That is still bad no matter how you spin it.
 
year2late said:
That seems to evidence that perhaps the President does liquor it up on occasion:roll:
Click to expand...

Please note that, just because someone is uneducated, illiterate, inarticulate, unsophisticated, biased, egotistical, sexist, narcissistic, and a bully that does NOT mean that they are "insane".

It just means that they are someone that decent people aren't ravingly enthusiastic if their daughter wants to date them.
 
Mycroft said:
I don't see anything in your quote of Trump's tweet that says he is threatening to look at their license. I see him asking a question. That's all.
Click to expand...

Slavister said:
"Look at their license?"

Please elaborate on how you interpret that question? Does he mean, you, the twitter follower ever look at their license? Why does he want you look at their license in that context?

What sense does this sentence have for you exactly?
Click to expand...

Crickets from Mycroft... ?
 
Slavister said:
Crickets from Mycroft... ?
Click to expand...

Oh...forgive me. I kind of forgot about this thread. RL distracted me when I read your other post.

I interpret it as a rhetorical question. Nothing more. Not directed at anyone in particular.

And I certainly don't see it as him threatening to do anything.
 
Mycroft said:
I interpret it as a rhetorical question. Nothing more. Not directed at anyone in particular.

And I certainly don't see it as him threatening to do anything.
Click to expand...

Rhetorical question? Sure, it's a rhetorical question indicating their license should be examined. Otherwise, which point is that rhetorical question making exactly?
 
Slavister said:
Rhetorical question? Sure, it's a rhetorical question indicating their license should be examined. Otherwise, which point is that rhetorical question making exactly?
Click to expand...

Questioning whether something "should" be examined is not the same as "threatening to examine something".
 
Mach said:
Then we have absurdly poor laws in place to protect us from a moronic president. We need to fix all this **** that Trump is revealing. If it can be done, the new rule is, it will be done, and 30% of the population will agree to it as long as they are told what they want to hear.
Click to expand...

many laws will change post Trump.

No doubt about that.

We never considered that we would ever elect a president that would put his vanity, pocket and preservation before country.
 
Mycroft said:
Oh...forgive me. I kind of forgot about this thread. RL distracted me when I read your other post.

I interpret it as a rhetorical question. Nothing more. Not directed at anyone in particular.

And I certainly don't see it as him threatening to do anything.
Click to expand...

And Henry the Second's "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" most certainly wasn't a threat to murder Thomas Becket either.

And, of course, no one took Henry's words as spoken and then murdered Thomas Becket.

Right?
 
noonereal said:
many laws will change post Trump.

No doubt about that.

We never considered that we would ever elect a president that would put his vanity, pocket and preservation before country.
Click to expand...

That loud "WHIRRR"ing noise that you hear is the Founding Fathers turning over in their graves.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
What is the "responsible agency authority" to "revoke" a NONEXISTENT licence?
Click to expand...



“What is the "responsible agency authority" to "revoke" a NONEXISTENT licence?”

The FCC. I can say that the FCC can as much revoke a nonexistent license as you say the President can look into a nonexistent license.

‘NBC does not have a "licence".'

Individual NBC stations have broadcast license.

Hey, I’m just following and extending your own farcical, empty-headed, sum-zero, argument of vacuously true logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom