Trump's Very First Tweet As President Elect Basically Shits On The First Amendment
from the off-to-the-races dept
Since being declared the winner of the Presidential election, Donald Trump has actually played the part of an actual President-elect quite well. His victory speech was quite gracious and welcoming. His meeting with President Obama appeared to go well. Of course, anyone who's watched him during the campaign knew it couldn't last, but perhaps, maybe, he'd actually be presidential for a few weeks or (could we dare?) a few months? But, nope. All it took was about 48 hours and the man who four years ago demanded that people "march on Washington" because President Obama was re-elected, used his very first tweet as the President elect to shit all over the First Amendment.
We noted that one of the big fears with a Trump presidency is what it would mean for the First Amendment, and kicking it off by attacking both the freedom of the press and the right of assembly in one go (also, with the bizarre claim of "professional protestors" -- which, you know, if it were true, wouldn't need "inciting" by the press) should be deeply concerning to anyone who supports the First Amendment. There were going to be protests no matter how this election turned out. That was a given. A President who was truly focused on bringing the country together would recognize the concerns and grievances, not attack them and deny their rights.
As (of all people?!?) Ryan Adams correctly noted to Trump in a response tweet: "you work for them now. You're hired. You work for all Americans now [and] your JOB is to DEFEND their RIGHT to protest." He's absolutely right. In particular, the oath that Donald Trump will take in a few months is that he will "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He talked a lot about the 2nd Amendment on the campaign trail. He should familiarize himself with the 1st.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: donald trump, first amendment, free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, leadership, protesters
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hmm, protests and political speech organized by corporate sock puppets...
Be careful what you wish for, people. The same tools can be used against you. Not that the media had anything to do with these protests other than reporting on them. But with Citizens United, there's nothing to say the media are barred from doing such a thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let us also note what else he's done
Quoting Politico:
Cindy Hayden of tobacco giant, Altria, is in charge of Trump’s Homeland Security team.
J. Steven Hart, chairman of Williams & Jensen, is in charge of the Labor team. His clients include Visa, the American Council of Life Insurers, Anthem, Cheniere Energy, Coca-Cola, General Electric, PhRMA and United Airlines.
Michael McKenna of MWR Strategies, who is working on the Energy Department team, lobbies for Engie (formerly GDF Suez), Southern Company and Dow Chemical.
David Bernhardt of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck who leads the Interior Department team, lobbies for the Westlands Water District in central California and used to represent Freeport LNG and Rosemont Copper.
Michael Torrey, who has the Agriculture Department portfolio, has his own firm representing the American Beverage Association and the Crop Insurance and Reinsurance Bureau.
Mike Catanzaro of CGCN Group, lobbies for the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a refining group, as well as Hess, Encana, Noble Energy and Devon Energy. Catanzaro is working on energy independence, along with Mike Ference, a lobbyist at the firm S-3 Group, representing Halliburton, Koch Industries and Marathon Oil.
Rolf Lundberg, who’s tasked with trade reform, worked at the Chamber of Commerce until 2013 and spun off his own lobbying firm representing Choice Hotels and the International Franchise Association.
Jim Carter, who oversees tax reform, is an in-house lobbyist for manufacturing company Emerson.
Transportation and infrastructure is being led by Martin Whitmer, the founder partner of lobbying firm Whitmer & Worrall who represents the American Association of Railroads, the National Asphalt Pavement Association and the Utilities Technology Council.
(end quote from Politico)
Those of you who voted for him based on his strident promises to "drain the swamp": you got played. He lied to you. He was never going to do any such thing. Trump has consistently screwed over everyone who supported him throughout his entire life, and you're just the latest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let us also note what else he's done
Now now, I'm sure it was just miscommunication, a translation error from Politician to English. Clearly what he meant by 'drain the swamp' with regards to lobbyists and insiders was to collect them all in one spot so that they could be better monitored, this 'spot' just happens to be around him.
I mean it's not like he'd do what every politician in the history of ever has done and lie just to secure votes, that would be downright political, and a loose cannon maverick such as Himself would never do something like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let us also note what else he's done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let us also note what else he's done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let us also note what else he's done
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let us also note what else he's done
Hillary-haters are no doubt annoyed that he hasn't given much thought to putting her in jail.
When TrumpTrade, A.K.A. RCEP, starts getting more traction, expect him to do a 180 on free trade agreements that screw American workers.
At that point, when he breaks the promises they believe he made to them, his supporters will break away group by group according to the issue bloc and look to someone else to make the trains run on time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let us also note what else he's done
What it was the lesser of evil of 2 Democrats running.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meme about Hired Protestors
I have no idea if it is a true ad, or if it came before Trump's tweet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meme about Hired Protestors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Meme about Hired Protestors
In the post campaign era, there is ample evidence: craigslist ads, pre-made signs that are identical at protests in several cities, and even photos of a long line of buses that the protesters arrived on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Meme about Hired Protestors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Meme about Hired Protestors
Have you considered they might really feel the way the say they do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Meme about Hired Protestors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meme about Hired Protestors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Meme about Hired Protestors
I love how Democrats "protest" property damage and assualting people isn't protesting, it's rioting.
Didn't the left say earlier this week that "protesting" election results was beyond the pale....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think it would be any different than Hillary?
The real fun will begin when he backs off on abortion. He doesn't care about abortion, and that will really piss off the fundies.
Oh, and that wall? Hey, we already have a fence, we don't need a wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
uh, no...
further, do not the dem'rats/hillary have ANY responsibility to tell THEIR FOLLOWERS to stand down and accept the election results...
again, if the shoe were on the other foot, you would be decrying t-rump's followers for not accepting if hillary won, but it doesn't work vice versa ? ? ?
(rhetorical question: everything t-rump and followers do is execreble no matter what; dem'rats and hillary followers can exhibit the EXACT same behavior and they get a free pass... well, that's fair...)
what t-rump has shown me is that hypocrites abound...
the pearl-clutching and hysteria of the FAKE pwogwessives is disgusting, just as their vast left wing media konspiracy to demonize t-rump was disgusting...
i think he is a buffoon and a pig, but the media pile-on made me actually sympathetic to him... THE MEDIA is more an enemy of mine than fucking t-rump...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How has that worked out for us with the past three? Why do we expect The Trumpet to be any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
President-Elect 'Wah Wah' Trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He only said its unfair, not illegal or something that should be suppressed.
That's not really better, though is it?
If he feels that a significant portion of the population not liking him is unfair, then as the elected leader of the free world, he should just shut his fucking mouth and take it.
Isn't he supposed to be this tough guy, who's going to force Mexico to pay for a wall, take ISIS on head on, and renegotiate deals in our favor with our creditors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's not really better, though is it?
Of course its better. Would you rather he says its illegal and will have the FBI hunt down the protesters and arrest them when he takes office????
If he feels that a significant portion of the population not liking him is unfair, then as the elected leader of the free world, he should just shut his fucking mouth and take it.
It didn't sound to me like he was complaining about people not liking him. It sounded more like he was complaining about protesters who say he's not their president when he won a fair election. I have big problems with a lot of other things he's said but that doesn't sound out of line. As I said before, a little tolerance and inclusiveness for Trumpers is needed to move forward. It will go a lot further than acting like Trump and knee jerk bashing anything he says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Would you rather he says its illegal and will have the FBI hunt down the protesters and arrest them when he takes office????
I think I've already explained what I think he should have done. It's not unfair. It's their right.
And he above anyone else should already know that.
It will go a lot further than acting like Trump and knee jerk bashing anything he says.
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy when someone says "we should not act like Trump" and do "the right thing." I'd be glad to start doing that once I see him LEAD as an example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not unfair. It's their right.
How can a right make it not unfair? You are confusing two completely different principals.
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy when someone says "we should not act like Trump" and do "the right thing." I'd be glad to start doing that once I see him LEAD as an example.
Thanks for reinforcing my point. That exactly why we are where we are. Its always up to the other guy to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How can a right make it not unfair?
The only person it'd be unfair to is the person looking to deprive you of or limit that right.
If you have to ask permission, is it still a right?
I think you're confusing their right to protest with the nonexistent right he has to not be offended.
Thanks for reinforcing my point. That exactly why we are where we are. Its always up to the other guy to change.
Well, I'd think the bigger man would recognize that, no? Then again, he's busy on twitter complaining about unfairness despite winning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The rioters and die hard clinton supporters in the media are not doing themselves any favours by acting this way. I find it truly disgusting.
"We lost so lets wreck shit up until we get our way" Quite inspiring that attitude
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He only said its unfair, not illegal or something that should be suppressed.
He claimed the press was "inciting." That's a pretty specific term, and it's a term necessary to argue that certain speech is unprotected by the First Amendment.
That's the concern.
But he's our president now and those who support tolerance and inclusiveness ought to figure out that they need some tolerance and inclusiveness for Trump and half the citizens in this country who voted for him if they want to change things.
I don't disagree. But if he says something ridiculous that implies he's not going to respect the First Amendment, he should be called out for it. If he does act presidential and actually does good things, I'll point that out too. But this? This is bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He claimed the press was "inciting." That's a pretty specific term, and it's a term necessary to argue that certain speech is unprotected by the First Amendment.
Interesting take on it. Those without a constitutional law background (Trump for sure) won't necessarily know that and it is not an uncommon word to use when referring to protests. I took it more as his usual bluster and an off the cuff observation of what he saw happening and not trying to setup a First Amendment legal challenge. Lets not be as conspiracy theory crazy as Trump was with his rigged election nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't think Trump has any current intention of challenging the first amendment, but how he behaves, sure doesn't prove that he knows how it works or that he cares about it. That in and of itself is worrying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He will become president and with almost half a country agains Him, He should have realized it already, if He is not prepared for it that is a problem He should solve, and I dont think the lack of political experience is a justification to omit that, after all the lack of self restraint could cause a catastrophe in the political world by, I don't know, insulting other cultures, people or other such things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Cnn own cameraman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protests in the streets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment
We all need to start accepting that. I didn't vote for him either, but he is going to be POTUS.
Going into reflexive opposition mode, regardless of what is really going on, isn't going to help anyone. It wasn't the right thing to do to Obama, and it isn't the right thing to do to Trump.
The tweet wasn't an attack on the 1st amendment. (Yes, previous tweets have been. But not this one.)
We have a Constitution and courts that are meant to limit the power of the executive, and limit the power of government to abuse citizen's rights.
Let's focus on those and make the system work as designed - not just for Trump, but for whoever comes after him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment
You want a legitimate attack on the First Amendment about these protests from an elected official? THIS might qualify:
"These temper tantrums from these radical anarchists must be quelled. There is no legitimate reason to protest the will of the people."
https://twitter.com/SheriffClarke/status/796574545243148288
The difference being (1) it actually says the protests should be "quelled", instead of just saying it's "unfair", and (2) it comes from a sheriff, who actually has the power to quell a protest, as opposed to someone who won't even hold ANY office for another two months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment
You do have to accept it if you claim to support our democratic system of government. I suspect you wouldn't be complaining if your candidate had won.
If you have a complaint, it's with your fellow citizens who chose Mr. Trump.
Either that, or stage a revolt against democracy as we know it in the US. But if you choose that, and succeed, please don't complain later that the result isn't what the people wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment
You and I can respectfully disagree and we do. But I do not have to accept it out of respect for a failed system. I'm just applying the rules of the new order your candidate created.
Anyway, this is more about the Constitution than the First Amendment so maybe we will meet in a discussion on that. We'll certainly meet somewhere.
Donald Trump is not my President. Rope. Tree. ?.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment
"My" candidate lost the election.
As usual. Perhaps that's why I'm less freaked out by Mr. Trump's win than some - I'm used to "my" candidate losing.
I voted for Gary Johnson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment
Nobody said it was. Was is an attack on the 1st Amendment is taking less than 48 hours after being elected to criticise protesters and accuse them of being a media-controlled rent-a-mob instead of a group of people with genuine grievances. The unfair bit is just his usual petulant whining that makes him sound like a spoilt child (which I'm quite sure he was).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dramatic much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dramatic much?
Do you have a credible source for that claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dramatic much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dramatic much?
Was the question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dramatic much?
http://abcnews.com.co/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out-i-was-paid-to-protest/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dramatic much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dramatic much?
If there was even a shred of truth to that absurd claim the mainstream media would be all over it, they LOVE controversy and stories that make people angry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dramatic much?
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/soros-trump-protests-revolution/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dramatic much?
Maybe it's just me, but I found it disgusting how they refused to be fair when it came to reporting on the candidates. There was a lot of news that was damaging to hillary that the media refused to even report on. Sadly they did not ignore such things when it came to her political opponents.
I don't like trump or hillary. But the media bias was disgusting to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dramatic much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dramatic much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dramatic much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dramatic much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dramatic much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dramatic much?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161013/23470435795/donald-trumps-son-campaign-manager-both- tweet-obviously-fake-story.shtml
Techdirt debunked that story months ago that you linked to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dramatic much?
But calling them payed and assuming they can incite a community without a reason is more problematic. Incitement works best if there is at least a glimmer of objective reality behind it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dramatic much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dramatic much?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/20/trump-says-clinton-and-obama-caused- violence-his-r/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate to say this, but there's a word for violent protests: riots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading the rights
I doubt that he's read it, because it wasn't produced for reality show TV.
Idiocracy wasn't a movie or book-it's now our country.
For 4 years.
God save us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reading the rights
They did. 8 years ago. How'd that work out for us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He has a point if you research it
Look at the arrest records...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He has a point if you research it
"Later in the evening, what appeared to be a small subgroup of self-described anarchists began to damage cars at a Toyota dealership and ignite fireworks, before moving through the Pearl District and damaging several businesses,"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He has a point if you research it
Many in crowd trying to get anarchist groups to stop destroying property, anarchists refusing. Others encouraged to leave area.
https://twitter.com/PortlandPolice/status/796950741411708928
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He has a point if you research it
"Those not wanting to be associated with anarchists should leave the area immediately," the police later tweeted, directing peaceful protesters to another area of the city."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He has a point if you research it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, this has nothing to do with First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike, this has nothing to do with First Amendment
I am sure he will back to his normal self in no time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike, this has nothing to do with First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He's only reaping what he sowed.
Want to end political correctness? Be careful what you wish for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You need to get over it Mike...
Trump is right to blame the media for stoking the fears of the protesters. I've seen media reports of Jews scared for their life - totally unfounded since Trump's daughter converted to Judaism and his son in law is Jewish. I've seen reports of gays equally afraid, when Trump called out his support of gays at the republican convention.
I'll be happy when tech dirt goes back to railing against the cable companies and bad cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You need to get over it Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You need to get over it Mike...
Your side lost, get over it (and don't tell me you don't have a side, your candidate may not have been on the ballot but your 'side' was).
I will say I didn't have a candidate. I didn't have a "side." I recognize the results of the election and I there is nothing for me to "get over."
No matter who won, I would be criticizing them if they said or did something stupid that offends or threatens the issues that we hold dear around here. I criticized Clinton's attacks on free speech (even did so this very week right before the election).
This isn't about team sports. I'm not on any "side" and I don't have to shut up when your candidate says something offensive.
Trump is right to blame the media for stoking the fears of the protesters
You mean the same candidate who stoked the fears of people himself? Really, now?
Fascinating. So you deny that any Jews can be fearful?
I've seen reports of gays equally afraid, when Trump called out his support of gays at the republican convention.
You maybe shouldn't just "see reports" of this stuff, but go out and talk to people whose lives are actually impacted. By saying that you don't believe these reports, it shows that you're denying people their very real feelings -- in the same way, I should mention, that MANY in the media denied the feelings of Trump supporters, by saying that they couldn't understand why they would support Trump.
You're doing the same shit. But you don't see it.
I'll be happy when tech dirt goes back to railing against the cable companies and bad cops.
We haven't stopped. Nothing has changed. It's just that you think we should stop critcizing the President because you like him better. But that's not happening. We have criticized every previous President and every previous candidate and we will continue to do so because -- UNLIKE YOU -- our positions are entirely consistent.
Stop playing team sports. Get real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You need to get over it Mike...
First - you don't have a side? Sure, of course you would have been equally happy who ever won the election.
I'm not denying the Jews or Gays are fearful, I was saying that their fears have been stoked by media misrepresentations of Trump (who is not anti-gay or anti-Jew). It's the media's fault these folks are so upset.
I think tech dirt does a great job, or else I wouldn't even both to read it much less post. But it bothers me when you get too political. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You need to get over it Mike...
Mike, thanks for the reply, guess I hit a nerve.
The nerve you hit is that you continue to accuse me of bullshit.
First - you don't have a side? Sure, of course you would have been equally happy who ever won the election.
I have made it clear that I thought both candidates would have been bad for the things we care about, but that Trump would be worse. Yes. That doesn't mean I supported Clinton. And it certainly doesn't mean I picked "a side" or am "biased." Both candidates were bad for things I care about. Trump was worse.
My posts here are not because I dislike Trump or I'm upset that he won and Clinton lost. My posts here are because Trump is doing something dangerous. If Clinton did something dangerous I'd be just as angry and I'm sure idiot Clinton supporters would be screaming at me "get over, your side lost" even tough that would be wrong as well.
Look I'm sick of bullshit "red team/blue team" idiocy. So, yeah, it hits a nerve when people jump in and assume that if you don't support the red team, you must support the blue team.
That's part of the fucking problem. People are focused on their teams and who "won" not what the fuck is happening.
I think tech dirt does a great job, or else I wouldn't even both to read it much less post. But it bothers me when you get too political. Thanks.
And that's just the thing. Getting political would mean picking sides based on the color of the uniform. We're not. We've stayed completely consistent, focusing on the actions and the policies. That's not political. It's making sure we protect what's important. Not "our side."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to get over it Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to get over it Mike...
Mike is very brilliamt, but has that one large blind spot. It's not much different than many media figures especially on the conservative side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to get over it Mike...
Careful you are getting very close to having your posts moderated. The one thing Mike hates to be told is that what he thinks is absolutely right is really just an opinion.
Um. That's not true. We leave our comments open because these kinds of conversations are interesting and useful. We have spam filters. Sometimes they catch legit comments, but we clear them out as fast as we can.
Teamchaos, no matter how ridiculous he gets with his silly "red team/blue team" shit is not going to get "moderated."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You need to get over it Mike...
I'll keep reading because I like your opinions, they make me think, even if you can't admit you have an opinion.
Huh? I have an opinion. I have loads of opinions. This is an opinion site. Everything we write about is stuff we have an opinion on.
My complaint is not with you claiming that I have an opinion, because of course I do -- and, in fact, in the very last comment I told you what my opinion was. My complaint is with you insistence that I am writing this post because I am "biased" against Trump because "my side" lost.
That implies that I my opinion here is irrational. It is not. Suggesting that both protestors and the media are doing something wrong here is an abomination from a President or President elect. Again, just this fucking week I called out Clinton for her ridiculous threats to sue stations airing Trump ads. Funny that no one on that post was screaming at me about how I was a Trump supporter.
Why can't you understand this simple thing? Criticizing Trump's actions have nothing to do with Clinton. I'm focused on the actions of Trump, just like I focused on the actions of Clinton, Obama, Bush and various other political figures. I don't have a team. I don't root for a team. When someone does something stupid, I call it out.
That's how my opinion works. The problem I have is when people like yourself suggest I need to "get over it" and ignore bad behavior because you like the fucking uniform color. That's not how it works.
I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. I don't have a side or a team. I focus on actions. If Trump did amazing things and protected the 1st & 4th Amendments and fixed copyright and patent law, I'd be the first to stand up and cheer. If Clinton came in and continued Obama's policies on all that I'd be the first shouting her down.
It's not about teams. And, yes, I have an opinion and I've never been shy about sharing it. But it's not "bias" against someone because of their team. It's an opinion about someone because of what they're doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stretch much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stretch much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, everyone is talking about it. But nowhere do I encounter a person in real life that is openly proclaiming their pleasure with the outcome. Are The Trumpet supporters just too embarrassed to admit it? (Unless hidden online.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We're happy, but fearful of what the left will do. See the link below for reports of vicious attacks on Trump supporters that will never be reported by left leaning news outlets.
http://www.infowars.com/video-high-school-girl-viciously-attacked-for-supporting-donald-trum p/
We're fearful, but we VOTED. Someday maybe the media will admit that the left they're in love with is every bit as violent, racist, and hate filled as the right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nobody is obliged to pick a team. I can't stand either of them and I'm neutral in the culture wars so don't even bother starting on that one.
I know what your game is: if we don't pick your side we're with the other one by default. That's partisan nonsense. The sooner we leave that nonsense behind and everyone gets on the side of non-partisan common sense, the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you're claiming that if Clinton got less votes but still won, MSNBC would be praising the system that delivered such a ridiculous result? Do you realise how stupid that sounds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"If you agree with what I agree it is democracy, if you disagree with me then you need to be denied you're rights"
They didn't win so they are doing everything in their power to make sure trump doesn't win either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cognitive Dissonance
...well, then you have TD and the rest of the MSM to make up reasons to blame Trump for them.
"Oh noes! A tweet! Quick, burn that Quickie Mart! He MADE me do it!"
Pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cognitive Dissonance
Marching on Washington and rioting are NOT the same thing. Marching is a protest, covered by the First Amendment. Burning police cars, assaulting people and destroying property is NOT.
I'm not a scholar of constitutional law but the ACLU says that protesting off the sidewalk and ignoring traffic laws (such as blocking traffic on the freeway as was done in a couple of cities) without a permit isn't covered by the First Amendment either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cognitive Dissonance
I'm not a scholar of constitutional law but the ACLU says that protesting off the sidewalk and ignoring traffic laws (such as blocking traffic on the freeway as was done in a couple of cities) without a permit isn't covered by the First Amendment either.
A "permitted" protest - funny how conservatives hate it when you talk about permits for the 2nd amendment, but absolutely have no problem with requiring permits to exercise the 1st.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
he did not "shit on the first amendment". He answered the free speech of the protesters with his won free speech saying he thought they were wrong. That is EXACTLY what 1st amendment proponents say you should do! He is not suppressing anyone, just adding to the conversation and offering his opinion.
Stop trying to make him controversial when he is being reasonable. Freaking out daily will make people ignore you, boy who cried wolf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This 1000 times. What we are seeing is the people are tired of the lies from the left. Anyone who believes half the country are racists, sexists, bigoted, blah, blah, blah is delusional. Until the left comes to the table with ideas and more importantly, willingness to listen, instead of name calling, they may continue to lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, just because you don;t like trump, you have to write a story disparaging him every day.
Had he not tweeted, the story wouldn't exist, no?
He makes an ass out of himself, the media reports on it, and you guys say "not fair!"
And somehow that's the media's fault?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Free speech is not a shield that protects you from criticism when you say stupid, untrue or dangerous things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is nothing dangerous about Trump's tweet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
you say stupid, untrue or dangerous things.
The comma-delineated list and use of the word "or" implies that criticism should be expected when one says:
stupid things
-or-
untrue things
-or-
dangerous things
Trump said something stupid.
But I'm sure you knew that. You're just being obtuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
-or-
stupid
-or-
thick
-or-
slow
-or-
a child rapist.
Thanks, didn't realize I can say anything I want as long as I say "or".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't tolerate simple-minded folks like yourself very well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Think about it just a tad harder. It's like the President elect is trying to "incite" shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Important Things To Do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More Important Things To Do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More Important Things To Do
Do you mind if he takes a minute to use the restroom, or is that also going to irritate you?
I have no problem with him using the restroom - I'd just ask that he leave his goddamn phone on the sink so shit that misses the bowl doesn't end up on twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morons or Liars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OHHH!!
YOU WANTED The easy job??
I think Janitor is still open..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The struggle to control Trump's Twitter feed
"Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud."
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/797034721075228672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TD bias question is moot
Yes. Yes they are. It's extremely very clear what your positions are. You've made no effort to hide them. People who complain about your bias against Trump JUST AREN'T PAYING ATTENTION when they complain about it. It's OBVIOUS - you might as well complain about water being wet. They could ignore your half-hearted claims of impartiality tho - that's something that's a LOT harder to find.
I would never bother looking for any past posts about Obama "shitting" on anything for instance. Hillary's posts are remarkably poo free as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He'll protect it...
And even more, makebit better...According to his own twisted view of the world and personal interest anyway.
As for the other citizens, they're fucked and I doubt he cares about anyone other tha himself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An observation on the consistency of Shit
Reporting:
"Trump makes 1st tweet calling out media and violent protestors despite past tweets calling for protests against Washington"
Politically Biased Reporting:
"Trump's Very First Tweet As President Elect Basically Shits On The First Amendment"
If you want to appear to be unbiased, then try watching HOW you say something as well as WHAT you say. Softballing every criticism of one side while (literally) shitting on the other, does, I'm sorry, convey bias.
Did you write about how Hillary "shit all over" Congress by perjuring herself about her private email server? Did you point out how Obama "shit all over" the Constitution and the mandated division of powers by bypassing Congress with Executive overreach? Of course not.
Getting butt hurt and lashing out when someone points this out doesn't help your case for impartiality or consistency at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Acts
And he knows he now has the power. Think he won't use it?
I think they call that tyranny.
Sure, I'll get over it when he proves us all wrong.
Wanna take bets on it happening?
Thought so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Acts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Re: Acts
We won't have to do much of anything. He's shown himself pretty capable of doing it all by himself.
Given his penchant for saying incendiary, racist and hateful things, it won't be long before we have solid proof of why it is so terrible for the United States to have elected a person who's never held elected office before in that position.
Because he has no boundaries. Just what we need in this climate of distrust and brewing violence.
A cheerleader for the vigilantes. Joe Arapaio will probably be asked to join his transition team-he just got fired for doing that same job in Arizona.
Great street creds, huh?
It's going to be a long 4 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Figures...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Figures...
And techdirt just shit on their credibility
How so?
Who's paying you to write this horseshit?
No one. Why do you assume otherwise? Are you really so infatuated with who you support that you can't believe that there are some legitimate concerns about what the man is saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Figures...
You're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's wrong on so many levels except one: more than half of 500 or so people voted for him. That's all.
Nobody got "half the country", not even "half the voters" to vote for him/her. And Clinton got more citizens' votes than the so-called "winner". His legitimacy is real, but only based on a very undemocratic election system.
(Note: the system might have made sense a century or so ago, when a handful of people had to go to the capital to report the choice of their state. Makes zero sense when actual people votes can be reported in real time.)
Guys, your system is broken and you're too arrogant to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tweets and emails
Quick-someone seize and shut down that twitter account-the man's got the highest security clearance next to the sitting President, and I don't really trust him to not blurt out something so sensitive that it could cost us our lives.
And that it is a distinct possibility is why we should all be terrified. This is not going to be a easy 4 years (or shorter, as Michael Moore thinks DT will either resign or be impeached before then) for anyone in this country.
It's enough to make you cry-and I already have.
Sorry-I just get all emotional and upset when I see America going down the shit hole.
Or as someone posted:
"You had ONE job, America."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plus the people "protesting" against Trump are intact rioting not protesting.
Major difference The right to Protest is a first amendment right
Rioting and causing disturbance is not. That is clearly stated in the first amendment. Key words in first amendment..., PEACEFUL Protest!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]