MAGAThread XIV: All persons born or naturalized ...

[Vassenor]

Trump suggests that protesting should be illegal

President Trump has long derided the mainstream media as the “enemy of the people” and lashed out at NFL players for kneeling during the national anthem. On Tuesday, he took his attacks on free speech one step further, suggesting in an interview with a conservative news site that the act of protesting should be illegal.

Trump made the remarks in an Oval Office interview with the Daily Caller hours after his Supreme Court nominee, Brett M. Kavanaugh, was greeted by protests on the first day of his confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill.

“I don’t know why they don’t take care of a situation like that,” Trump said. “I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You don’t even know what side the protesters are on.”

He added: “In the old days, we used to throw them out. Today, I guess they just keep screaming.”

More than 70 people were arrested after they repeatedly heckled Kavanaugh and senators at Tuesday’s hearing.

Trump has bristled at dissent in the past, including several instances in which he has suggested demonstrators should lose their jobs or be met with violence for speaking out.

First Amendment? What's that?

[Ifreann]

I wonder if it's ironic that someone with a Black Sun flag has appeared to tell us symbols used by racists have nothing to do with racism.

Kram is literally a Jew so one would have to assume he isn't using the symbol because he's a Nazi.

Just like how Zina Bash probably wasn't trying to show support for white supremacy, but nonetheless white supremacists do the same thing to show their support of white supremacy to other white supremacists.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Trump suggests that protesting should be illegal

President Trump has long derided the mainstream media as the “enemy of the people” and lashed out at NFL players for kneeling during the national anthem. On Tuesday, he took his attacks on free speech one step further, suggesting in an interview with a conservative news site that the act of protesting should be illegal.

Trump made the remarks in an Oval Office interview with the Daily Caller hours after his Supreme Court nominee, Brett M. Kavanaugh, was greeted by protests on the first day of his confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill.

“I don’t know why they don’t take care of a situation like that,” Trump said. “I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You don’t even know what side the protesters are on.”

He added: “In the old days, we used to throw them out. Today, I guess they just keep screaming.”

More than 70 people were arrested after they repeatedly heckled Kavanaugh and senators at Tuesday’s hearing.

Trump has bristled at dissent in the past, including several instances in which he has suggested demonstrators should lose their jobs or be met with violence for speaking out.

First Amendment? What's that?

*deflated sounding trumpet noise*

[Major-Tom]

Trump suggests that protesting should be illegal

President Trump has long derided the mainstream media as the “enemy of the people” and lashed out at NFL players for kneeling during the national anthem. On Tuesday, he took his attacks on free speech one step further, suggesting in an interview with a conservative news site that the act of protesting should be illegal.

Trump made the remarks in an Oval Office interview with the Daily Caller hours after his Supreme Court nominee, Brett M. Kavanaugh, was greeted by protests on the first day of his confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill.

“I don’t know why they don’t take care of a situation like that,” Trump said. “I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You don’t even know what side the protesters are on.”

He added: “In the old days, we used to throw them out. Today, I guess they just keep screaming.”

More than 70 people were arrested after they repeatedly heckled Kavanaugh and senators at Tuesday’s hearing.

Trump has bristled at dissent in the past, including several instances in which he has suggested demonstrators should lose their jobs or be met with violence for speaking out.

First Amendment? What's that?

Trump, like your pissed of boomer grandpa who longs for days of "Americana" and "respect" while being not so subtly racist and half-delusional on social media. Except, y'know, he's not someone you see on Thanksgiving, he's running the country.

[Telconi]

Trump suggests that protesting should be illegal

President Trump has long derided the mainstream media as the “enemy of the people” and lashed out at NFL players for kneeling during the national anthem. On Tuesday, he took his attacks on free speech one step further, suggesting in an interview with a conservative news site that the act of protesting should be illegal.

Trump made the remarks in an Oval Office interview with the Daily Caller hours after his Supreme Court nominee, Brett M. Kavanaugh, was greeted by protests on the first day of his confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill.

“I don’t know why they don’t take care of a situation like that,” Trump said. “I think it’s embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You don’t even know what side the protesters are on.”

He added: “In the old days, we used to throw them out. Today, I guess they just keep screaming.”

More than 70 people were arrested after they repeatedly heckled Kavanaugh and senators at Tuesday’s hearing.

Trump has bristled at dissent in the past, including several instances in which he has suggested demonstrators should lose their jobs or be met with violence for speaking out.

First Amendment? What's that?

It's not in violation of the 1st amendment to put some reasonable limitations in place. :^)

[Major-Tom]

Trump suggests that protesting should be illegal



First Amendment? What's that?

It's not in violation of the 1st amendment to put some reasonable limitations in place. :^)

"I think it's embarrassing for the country to allow protesters."

Seems fucking cut and dry, my friend.

[Petrasylvania]

Trump suggests that protesting should be illegal



First Amendment? What's that?

It's not in violation of the 1st amendment to put some reasonable limitations in place. :^)

They can burn shoes away from flammable objects. :^]

[Internationalist Bastard]

Trump suggests that protesting should be illegal



First Amendment? What's that?

It's not in violation of the 1st amendment to put some reasonable limitations in place. :^)

Reasonable limitations as in not letting protests happen?

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's not in violation of the 1st amendment to put some reasonable limitations in place. :^)

Reasonable limitations as in not letting protests happen?

Given what he's referencing that's about as reasonable, yeah.

[Telconi]

It's not in violation of the 1st amendment to put some reasonable limitations in place. :^)

"I think it's embarrassing for the country to allow protesters."

Seems fucking cut and dry, my friend.

Nothing is cut and dry in regards to our constitution, it's as fluid as the SCOTUS line up.

[Telconi]

It's not in violation of the 1st amendment to put some reasonable limitations in place. :^)

Reasonable limitations as in not letting protests happen?

Sure.

[Vassenor]

Trump suggests that protesting should be illegal



First Amendment? What's that?

It's not in violation of the 1st amendment to put some reasonable limitations in place. :^)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So how do your "reasonable limitations" not breach that?

[Petrasylvania]

Reasonable limitations as in not letting protests happen?

Given what he's referencing that's about as reasonable, yeah.

But if a Democrat called for stifling protests, RAEG.

[Vassenor]

So when is the Second Amendment crowd going to take action against this blatant attack on the Constitution by someone who swore to uphold it?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Reasonable limitations as in not letting protests happen?

Given what he's referencing that's about as reasonable, yeah.

This isn’t “let’s stop violent protests”
It’s people at ent allowed to kneel to during a song, it’s pretty fucking stupid to be upset about, especially when you consider that Trump has achieved exactly what he wanted and distracted every one from what the protest was about

[Telconi]

It's not in violation of the 1st amendment to put some reasonable limitations in place. :^)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So how do your "reasonable limitations" not breach that?

Rights aren't absolute.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So when is the Second Amendment crowd going to take action against this blatant attack on the Constitution by someone who swore to uphold it?

The day when a party that actually respects the Constitution shows up and has a chance of winning I would assume. Until then you have to vote for the guys who respect the parts of it that are most relevant to you. Yay for American democracy.

[Internationalist Bastard]

So how do your "reasonable limitations" not breach that?

Rights aren't absolute.

Neat so when can I be dictator and force everyone to worship me?

[Telconi]

So when is the Second Amendment crowd going to take action against this blatant attack on the Constitution by someone who swore to uphold it?

Advocating for death is against site rules Vass.

[Vassenor]

So how do your "reasonable limitations" not breach that?

Rights aren't absolute.

Time to turn in your guns then if the right to bear arms is no longer absolute.

[Telconi]

Rights aren't absolute.

Neat so when can I be dictator and force everyone to worship me?

if you get 5+ SCOTUS justices to back you, then yes.

[Telconi]

Rights aren't absolute.

Time to turn in your guns then if the right to bear arms is no longer absolute.

Implying it was absolute before...
Implying this literally hasn't already happened...

[Washington Resistance Army]

Rights aren't absolute.

Time to turn in your guns then if the right to bear arms is no longer absolute.

He lives in CA lol, the Democrats have already taken his guns.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Neat so when can I be dictator and force everyone to worship me?

if you get 5+ SCOTUS justices to back you, then yes.

Hooray for no moral standards

[Telconi]

if you get 5+ SCOTUS justices to back you, then yes.

Hooray for no moral standards

Indeed...