[NEWS] Trump suggests that protesting should be illegal

CuddleWoozle

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,966
Likes
7
#2
Is this really surprising?

I suppose I'll be amongst the first to disappear into 'camps' for any who dissent.

I'm just surprised that it's taken this long for people to cotton onto what his thoughts are on certain subjects. Considering he's spent most of his time bitching about how people act towards him instead of just doing his job. :p
 

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
218
Likes
2
#3
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d413bbdefd47

Pretty scary how our own President thinks that our First amendment rights don't matter.
Is that any different from how some seem to think "if you don't agree with me, you should be silent" aside from who is saying it? Thing is, protest is both good and bad: good when it is for things like equal rights, better pay, better policies, better treatment, Also good when the reason is made clear. It becomes bad when there is no clear reason for the protest and when it turns to violence. One line stuck out in that article for me
You don’t even know what side the protesters are on.
If you don't know what side they are on, what is the point of the protest?

Not saying Trump is perfect, far from it, but this is one case where maybe, just maybe, he is reaching his limit due to all the "I don't like him, so I'm going to protest" situations that have happened since he became president and with all the "only we are right, every one against us is an idiot" mindset that the far left and far right have is it any wonder why some of us think that protests need to be scrutinized and certain ones (those that break out into violence) made illegal?
 

PCPilot

Est. Contributor
Messages
155
Likes
1
#4
but this is one case where maybe, just maybe, he is reaching his limit due to all the "I don't like him, so I'm going to protest" situations that have happened since he became president and with all the "only we are right, every one against us is an idiot" mindset that the far left and far right have is it any wonder why some of us think that protests need to be scrutinized and certain ones (those that break out into violence) made illegal?
I don't recall people getting locked up for repeatedly lying and claiming that the previous President was not an American citizen or a Muslim, or anyone in the Administration suggesting that this happens.

I wonder if it means that the previous team were so much more mature, or if it's just a sign that Trumpistas are stereotypical playground bullies - they talk big and like to dish it out, but run away crying when stood up to.
 

Icewolf

Est. Contributor
Messages
218
Likes
2
#5
I don't recall people getting locked up for repeatedly lying and claiming that the previous President was not an American citizen or a Muslim, or anyone in the Administration suggesting that this happens.

I wonder if it means that the previous team were so much more mature, or if it's just a sign that Trumpistas are stereotypical playground bullies - they talk big and like to dish it out, but run away crying when stood up to.
Well, there is also the fact that, while there were the big mouthed idiots when Obama was president, most of us on the right were/are "live and let live". In other words, I don't recall many protests from the right when Obama was in charge but there sure are a lot with Trump. Maybe that means the right is more apt to accept a loss in general but the left, in general (and only going by the ones that make the news here), are stereotypical whiny brats - they play by the rules and are happy when they get their way but throw a tantrum when things go against them. Bottom line is maybe some things are caused by others, no one was arrested because there was no reason to under Obama because most of us did not care unless what he did affected us. Under Trump a lot of protests are going on, maybe to the point of disrupting things that need to be done, and for who knows what reasons. I just see it as when one side is mature, the other side tends to be, when one side is immature, the other side tends to be, and it is often the louder/more populous side that tends to set the tone.

I voted for Trump, but for me it was more an "anyone but Hillary, and don't throw away my vote" deal.
 

Sapphyre

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,162
Likes
7
#7
I voted for Trump, but for me it was more an "anyone but Hillary, and don't throw away my vote" deal.
A relevant tangent: this is precisely the problem with the simple-majority voting method — it essentially forces a two-party system and thus fails to capture the will of the people. There is no distinction between voting for one candidate versus voting against the other candidate (and realistically there will only be one "other" to vote against). It almost always becomes a lesser-of-two-evils scenario. Incidentally, I voted for Hillary using exactly symmetrical logic to your own.
 
Last edited:

caitianx

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,728
Likes
1
#8
I am already on Donald Trump's "Hit List", because I belong to the following Disability Civil Rights Organizations:

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network
ADAPT
ABLE-New Hampshire
 

CuddleWoozle

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,966
Likes
7
#9
I actually did not mind previous Republican presidents. Sure, I didn't agree with them on all points but I didn't feel like they were out to just cause as much panic, confusion and mayhem as the current administration.

I would say that if I had met George W Bush I probably would have been happy with it. Even if I thought some of his policies were silly.
 

dogboy

Est. Contributor
Messages
18,542
Likes
197
#10
Yeah, there's a big difference between the two Bush presidents and Donald Trump. The Bushes were well versed in law and the Constitution. Trump doesn't have a clue. There's a reason why his Generals call him an idiot.
 

Azie

Poofhoof Princess!
Est. Contributor
Messages
368
Likes
5
#11
I would personally like to know why the 70 people were arrested besides just heckling the Justice. Non-violent protests usually don't result in arrests unless they were doing it in a way that can be defined by Disturbing the Peace statues in local law.
 

CuddleWoozle

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,966
Likes
7
#12
That's what I wonder, as well. I could understand them getting arrested if they were trying to hurt people (obviously) or even just trying to be completely obstructive (like, I dunno, holding doors shut on people or something like that.)

But just for name calling or something like that? Unless they were threatening people. IE: "We're gonna GET YOU!" Not just going "YOU GUYS STINK." That's just opinion and is usually something that's ignored by the people being heckled. (Fastest way to keep people from heckling you actually...just walk on by without acknowledging them. It'll make them madder.)
 

tiny

Est. Contributor
Messages
4,814
Likes
84
#13
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d413bbdefd47

Pretty scary how our own President thinks that our First amendment rights don't matter.
Tring to silence opposing views does sound a bit Nazi-like... :-(

Yet as an ego-centric hypocrite, he publicly supports violent attacks to protest when it suits him:

During a campaign appearance in Billings, Montana, Trump also praised Greg Gianforte, the Republican congressman who physically attacked the Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs last year, as “a fighter and a winner”. “He’s fought in more ways than one for your state,” the president said of Gianforte, who pleaded guilty to a charge of misdemeanor assault after body-slamming Jacobs on the day before he was elected to the US Congress.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...mp-montana-rally-new-york-times-treason-claim

As many others have said, his views represent a dangerous affront to freedom and liberty.
 

ShippoFox

Est. Contributor
Messages
2,969
Likes
28
#14
Regulation is eeeeevil... unless... you know... it helps Trump. Then... well... regulation is suddenly just fine. It's total hypocrisy.
 
Messages
2,218
Likes
23
#15
It is blatantly obvious that Donald Trump is completely unfit, completely unfit, for the office of president of the United States. This is not a political statement. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with reality. And this reality is just as certain as the reality of gravity. The entire republican leadership has to know beyond any doubt that this is true, but they refuse to say so. Their refusal is political. Trump's severe shortcomings are not in his politics but in his mental abilities and whatever moral values, if any, he may have.

It's misleading to say things like "Pretty scary how our own President thinks that our First amendment rights don't matter". It implies Trump is capable of thinking about the constitution. You will never find evidence that he is. The constitution is not like a hooker or a golf course or a gullible investor or anything else in Trump's area of expertise.

Forgive me if I'm being too subtle to get my point across.
 

hex000f

Est. Contributor
Messages
122
Likes
2
#16
I agree that protesting is not inherently wrong. However when it gets out of hand and breaks laws and/or disrupts those outside the protest its wrong because no one is above the law, even if they believe they have the moral high ground.

Compare silently holding signs to screaming at someone who's trying to do a desk job.

I suspect the protesters inside the building were interfering with the staff's operations. Also googling "Can you protest on private property" shows protesting on private property eg in the buildings without permission of the owner isn't a legal right.

I don't agree with making all protesting illegal but I do agree that Trump says wild things some times. However, his actions are far more stable and calculated and those are what I care about. He could have signed an executive order to limit protests. He could have asked congress to review protesting laws.
 

CuddleWoozle

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,966
Likes
7
#17
Oh, were they INSIDE? That does make a difference. They tend to frown on people protesting inside the actual buildings. Sitting outside, fine. But coming inside and being loud/disruptive is basically asking for being picked up on nuisance disturbing the peace charges. :p

They used to do 'sit ins', where the protesters would go inside the buildings and sit in the hallways and such, but quietly. I suppose that would be creepier than coming in and screaming, actually. Imagine just walking out of your office to find fifty people just sitting on the floor staring at you silently.
 
Messages
2,218
Likes
23
#18
He could have signed an executive order to limit protests. He could have asked congress to review protesting laws.
Very dangerously worded.

Your right to openly protest how the government is being run is the single most important right you have. A distinction has to be made between protest and unacceptable public behavior. The party in power has no right to limit public behavior in a way that would suppress opposing viewpoints to give their own platform an unfair advantage.
 

quietcutie

Est. Contributor
Messages
96
Likes
0
#19
He would be fine as a president its just these nitwits who like to protest keep pushing and pushing. The man probably cant think straight at this point. Like beating a dead horse man. Give it a rest, he won, give him his 4 years to work and if he does nothing that the american people like you can just elect a new president. I may just have to remind everyone here that the president of the united states is not the be all end all power, he is not king nor our dictator. Everything he wants to pass has to go through legislation/congress which is a completely different branch of the government. The only thing a president can do is veto bills but congress can still pass the law even if he vetos if they do a majority vote. Who you should really be concerned about electing is your states representatives.
 

CuddleWoozle

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,966
Likes
7
#20
I'm just concerned about his statements about how he wants American people to 'jump up' like the North Koreans do. O-O That's a very dictator-ish thing to want.

I'm just going to keep my eye on him 'cause he says too much crazy stuff. :p

I've read stuff about how he only likes to eat fast food because he's afraid someone will poison him. Apparently he was doing this long before he got elected.

But the thing also is, that there's stuff built into the system to remove a poorly performing president. Or one who is just endangering the entire system.
 
Top