Yes. I think it is undeniable that, under the law, sedition did take place last Wednesday. What is even worse, after it started, President Trump seemed to be encouraging and justifying it, which led to Twitter being forced to suspend his account.
It should be viability. The state should not be able to force a woman to give up the use of her body to another living thing (the fetus) against her will.
Not that I agree with this decision in any way, but you aren't telling quite the whole story. The pregnant woman started the altercation and the police ruled that the woman was merely defending herself by shooting her, which is legal there (stand your ground state). Because of that, according...
I think Trump is embarrassed that he isn't nearly as wealthy as he claims. So, I care because I like to see morally bankrupt men like Trump embarrassed. Beyond that, I wouldn't expect to gain too much from them.
If Trump fails to clarify, how are we to tell the difference. It's not like s0me tweets are "official sounding" or anything. Shouldn't we hold our president to a higher standard?
I don't think there is much of anything that every single scientist on the planet agree on, but that doesn't really matter too much. The vast, vast majority of scientists believe the theory of evolution by natural selection is true (at least to some extent). And, science certainly supports the...
In our legal system this would be precedent, regardless of the outcome. If the courts (and the DOJ) come to the conclusion that Trump's tweets are official presidential communication, then all of his tweets will be considered the same. Precedent denies Trump the ability to pick and choose when...
The following is a good article explaining why, according to the law, Trump's tweets are Official Presidential Statements.
DOJ says Trump's tweets are official presidential statements
Since his tweets are official presidential communications, wouldn't that mean he must be acting in his...
I would say that atheism and theism (according to your definitions provided) are equally weak. They both rest on a proposition that cannot be proven or really even evidenced beyond arguments from ignorance and subjective experience.
Just to make this clear, are you claiming that speech from a government employee, while in their official capacity, is not a government act? If not, when would speech be government speech?
If they are on the job in their official capacity, then yes. Trump has said himself that his twitter account is official presidential communications. So, in this instance, he is "on the job in his official capacity".
Obviously enough, reason would dictate that the proportion of intolerant atheists be equal to or below the proportion of intolerant religious people. In my experience, there are far more intolerant religious people (just think of the amount of religious people who are intolerant of same-sex...
SNL has never encouraged violence. If anyone got that impression, they would probably be ignorant to the fact it is a satirical show written and performed by comedians. So, I'm not sure that is pertinent here.
It is important that we are all permitted to make fun of, mock, insult, and...
He is trying to scare SNL, as he basically controls the FCC. In other words, you'd better do as I say or I will unleash the FCC on you. The remainder is merely Trump being a snowflake.