So it is permissible for a sitting president to publicly state an interest in changing the Bill of Rights by executive order?

a_s beat me to it...""Unclear what order will entail, or what effect it will have"

So, since we don't even know what is in the EO, how do you know it interferes with 1A?

Yes because his speech is also protected by the 1A. Now if you are asking if it can be done, likely not and if he tried Supreme Court battle ensues.

a_s beat me to it...""Unclear what order will entail, or what effect it will have"

So, since we don't even know what is in the EO, how do you know it interferes with 1A?

Mark,most of your post reads as an appology for current acts and a burrowing into history(previous administration).

The question remains regarding the current administration.

Let me see if I can put it into a metaphor you can digest,mark.

A man applies and gets the job of dogcatcher,with all the inherent risks. One day,while preforming his duties,he is nipped(let's say by a beagle).In a fit of pique,he immediately demands that all beagles be shot on sight or euthanized.He knew the job had risks,but now in the position he wants to change the terms of employment and remove what he views as a personal threat.
Can you now follow the question?

And, there it is 'lalalalalalalala'

Point to the 1A dilemna you suggested - or you admit you cannot...

And, you don't even know what a metaphor is...
A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another.

Such as, "Dusty is the black sheep of his family". Dusty is clearly not a black sheep, the metaphor is the reference that he's the 'different' one, in this case implying 'bad'.

So besides not knowing the implications of 1A, and not being able to provide an example of how Trump is violating 1A, you clearly don't know what metaphor is.

Here's one you might understand..."Three strikes and you're out"...get it?

I feel obligated to chime in here, partly because I've had some experience in journalism and have a few journalists in the family. While I think some of the current frustration with "the media," is warranted, I don't think it's fair to generalize all journalists or news outlets as self-aggrandizing truth-stretchers intent on generating click bait. In fact, I think most of them try to be objective and balanced, and believe in objective journalism's value to a healthy democracy.

Part of the fallacy, here and elsewhere, is treating "the media" as though it's one homogeneous thing acting in its own, misguided self-interest. This is also unfair and, honestly, inaccurate. While most of you remember simpler times with three TV news channels, radio, and several trusted newspapers, we've now got cable news, print news, AM talk radio, news websites, news aggregators, blogs, vlogs, self-appointed wonks, commentators, agitators, etc, and a network of social media engines geared to blast all that content down the long hallways of our distributed, personalized echo-chambers.

Has the standard for objective journalism gone down? Perhaps, but only if you view all of these sources in aggregate and with equal weighting. But god knows they're not created equally. And so we're left, individually, to judge the relative value of each of the sources, whether we're getting it from the AP, NPR, or some guy on youtube. A senior writer for the Wall Street Journal is going to have a lot more clout in my book than a staff blogger for Buzzfeed.

Moreover (and I mostly blame cable news outlets for this), many people have a hard time telling the difference between objective news and editorializing. And, to your point a_s, a lot of news outlets have a hard time holding readers' interest (ie making money) without some level of editorializing. What percentage of CNN's or Fox News' content is just news and not a couple of talking heads telling us how to think about it? At a time when nearly half of all Americans still get their news primarily from TV (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...-a-news-source/), this is a dangerous game we're playing.

So, how do we fix it? First, let's recognize that guilt lies at the feet of both left- and right-leaning outlets; this is not just a liberal or a conservative problem. Second, let's recognize that leaders calling news they don't agree with "fake" or generalizing all journalists as criminals does not help improve the system; what it does do is baselessly degrade the public's trust in an institution we rely on to hold our government accountable. And third, let's understand, too, that we all are partly to blame in our consumption of overly editorialized content, of calling some news "fake," "made up," or "lies" without good reason, and, at worst, for encouraging outright violence toward journalists as a whole.

My last bit of advice is this: seek out news from multiple sources, judge the source and value of the content critically, and be especially wary of any source that tells you "it's the only source you need for all your news."

Check https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news for one organization's attempt to aggregate multiple perspectives on the same news story, with bias ratings for each of its sources.

I have no interest, nor any intention of paying tribute do anyone that makes their living telling me what or how I should think. When a journalist presents the news without bias without directed opinion without f****** telling me what I should know feel or think... I May reconsider

Oh good lord, dusty plays yall like a violin, I thought the post was useless from the beginning, let him rant to his self