Trump Blames Freedom of the Press for Bombings

[Anti Federalist]

I don't think I can stand this anymore...to see members on this board, of all the fucking places on the interwebz, argue that in a time of war, a war that is never going to end, press and free speech should be restricted by government...well...for fuck's sake.

I'm ashamed of you.

We all were better than this.

 

[JK/SEA]

that guy looks like me.

 

[nikcers]

TOS VIOLATION

ATTEMPTING TO INCITE A RETALIATION.

REPORTED.

 

[dannno]

I don't think I can stand this anymore...to see members on this board, of all the fucking places on the interwebz, argue that in a time of war, a war that is never going to end, press and free speech should be restricted by government...well...for fuck's sake.

I'm ashamed of you.

We all were better than this.

Nobody here has advocated that position, I am arguing Trump did not advocate that position and the media is just making shit up again.

 

[Ender]

Nobody here has advocated that position, I am arguing Trump did not advocate that position and the media is just making $#@! up again.

Trump Quotes:

Trump, in reply, said that “freedom of the press,” a protected constitutional right, was to blame.

“They’re all talking about it so wonderfully because, you know, it’s called ‘freedom of the press,’ where you buy magazines and they tell you how to make these same bombs that I saw” Trump said. “They tell you how to make bombs. We should arrest the people that do that because they’re participating in crime. Instead they say ‘oh no you can’t do anything, that’s freedom of expression.’”

Trump made his comments around minute 21 of this clip:

But Trump nonetheless claimed he’s “totally in favor of freedom of the press,” despite indicating precisely the opposite.

“The websites are the same thing, those people should be arrested. They’re inciting violence, okay? They’re making violence possible. They should be arrested immediately…yet we don’t want to touch them because of freedom of speech,” he said.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-first-amendment-terrorism-f190ca5108b6#.imzof8kuf
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/19/donald-trump-suggests-arresting-media-reaction-bombings.html

Trump voiced concerns in the past about free expression, including calling in December for “closing” up parts of the internet.

“Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech,’” Trump said. “These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-freedom-of-expression_us_57dfde58e4b04a1497b54f2f

 

[r3volution 3.0]

“Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech,’” Trump said. “These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people.”

And Trump's just the man to edumacate them!

Think of the possibilities...

...redirecting all websites on the web to Trump's Twitter account.

...replacing all TV channels with a looping, 24 hr infomercial for Trump steaks.

It'll be Great!

 

[dannno]

Trump Quotes:



https://thinkprogress.org/trump-first-amendment-terrorism-f190ca5108b6#.imzof8kuf
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/19/donald-trump-suggests-arresting-media-reaction-bombings.html




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-freedom-of-expression_us_57dfde58e4b04a1497b54f2f

Right - so I don't agree with Trump that it should be illegal to produce materials which give instructions on how to make a bomb - but isn't that currently illegal in some form already? Have you found any books in stores where they give instructions on how to make bombs? What is the state of the anarchist cookbook? Would you be willing to upload it to your website so others can download it?

So already he is basically saying what the law is currently, he isn't saying the government should do anything they aren't already doing, but that's not totally related to the main issue he is discussing..

Trump refers specifically to ISIS and how they are producing materials that show people how to make bombs - but they are ALSO engaged in violence and combat - once again - violent combatants don't get first amendment protections. Bomb their servers, hack their servers, I don't give a fuck.. I'd prefer not to have my tax dollars extracted to pay for it, but I would rather pay for that then pay to expand ISIS under Hillary and use them to start more wars.

 

[PierzStyx]

What in hell are you talking about? What I quoted was about immigration standards. We have every right to determine who enters our country and is offered citizenship. To offer this to people who want to live under a different form of government than we have here is downright stupid. I fail to see how that has one thing to do with killing anyone.

First of all, you do NOT have a right to determine who enters the country. If you think that then you have no concept of either how the US government is supposed to work or what property rights.

See, the US government has no rights. It is not a person. It ha s"delegated powers," things it can do because the people who have the rights to do those things have authorized it to act in their name. The government then cannot do anything that you cannot do.

Property rights say that you can prevent anyone from crossing onto land you own directly. You can absolutely regulate your own land. But you neither have the right to tell me who I can or cannot have on my land nor can you determine who can or cannot go onto land no one owns. Once you do either of those things you are violating my property rights and the rights of others to move across unowned land.

Since you do not either own all the land bordering the national boundaries you cannot authorize the government to or all the land in the country you have no rights whatsoever to limit someone else in their ability to travel across the national lines, to emigrate or immigrate. Just because you make up a giant gang that runs a protectionist scam on the public doesn't mean you have any more rights than the individual does. It just makes you a tyrant.

Secondly, are you naive when it comes to immigration? What do you think happens when the US thugs burst into your home, seize your property, steal you from your home, shatter your family, and throw you in a rape cage? What do you think happens when people are caught crossing the border? What do you think laws are? Laws are force and threats of death. You are saying that you think it is okay to kill someone who refuses to go back across an imaginary line you made up to create a huge "safe space" for your "ideals." You want to declare that you are for immigration laws? Fine. But don't be a coward. Actually face up to what it is exactly that you are doing. You are okay with killing people for a victimless crime, because they hurt no one by crossing a non-existent line on a map somewhere. That isn't justice, it is tyranny. All men are created equal with the exact same unalienable rights. Not just Americans.

It is, in essence, what ISIS does. You are threatening to torture and murder someone because they think differently about government than you do. It is sick and hypocritical.

 

[PierzStyx]

Actually I never said that. Peaceful people can say whatever they want. But if they are actively engaged in violence and combat against peaceful people, then you don't use the first amendment to protect them..

Says the man calling for violence against peaceful people by electing an authoritarian.

By the way, that is exactly what you said. you believe some speech should be limited and some approved. That isn't free speech. It is regulated speech.

 

[PierzStyx]

Yeah well that is what doesn't make any sense. If we are to believe the media, Trump loves Putin. Putin is an ally of Iran. Hillary said she would definitely go after Iran and disarm them. So which is the truth? We need to use a little discernment here, folks.

Flashback:

Hillary Clinton Threatens War with Iran, ‘They’ll Be Celebrating in the Kremlin’ if Trump Wins
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...-be-celebrating-in-the-kremlin-if-trump-wins/

I didn't say it made sense.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Nobody here has advocated that position, I am arguing Trump did not advocate that position and the media is just making shit up again.

...

“The websites are the same thing, those people should be arrested. They’re inciting violence, okay? They’re making violence possible. They should be arrested immediately…yet we don’t want to touch them because of freedom of speech,” he said

Sounds like it to me.

 

[dannno]

Says the man calling for violence against peaceful people by electing an authoritarian.

By the way, that is exactly what you said. you believe some speech should be limited and some approved. That isn't free speech. It is regulated speech.

Uh, no, none of what you just said is right at all.

Where did I defend Trump for wanting to attack peaceful people? You think ISIS is peaceful people? And all I am saying is Trump is better than Hillary. I think it's pretty clear that he is better than Hillary on a wide array of issues.

And for the last time - violent combatants don't get first amendment protections!! Period. Let's pretend we were a better, more peaceful country and we got attacked by Japan and they had a state run newspaper that was circulating anti-US propaganda and perpetuating violence against us.. are you really saying we should avoid bombing their newspaper facility because freedom of speech???? Really?

 

[PierzStyx]

This is an interesting topic. Maybe a new thread should be started to discuss the 1st Amendment and what our Founders were trying to defend against. Since you raised it here, I started looking, because I remembered the old adage that free speech didn't mean you could yell FIRE in a crowded theater. I thought this was interesting, in that it described the first amendment's underlying goal was to protect speech that was against our government and its officials. http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/10/freedom_of_speech_and_of_the_press/

Do you know where the "fire in a crowded theater" argument comes from? It was when Oliver Wendell Holmes handed done the SCOTUS decision that said peacefully distributing pamphlets opposed to the draft during WWI was a violation of the Espionage Act. It was his justification for crushing the First Amendment and legalizing government censorship. It was his analogy that supposedly justified the making of any expression of dissent in war time illegal. Is that really what you want?

 

[nikcers]

violent combatants

Our bombs can't tell the difference- any candidate that supports destroying ISIS is basically just writing a blank check for our government to bomb anywhere and everywhere. Its shit like this that has Russia rebooting the KJB U.S. Admits Airstrike in Syria, Meant to Hit ISIS, Killed Syrian Troops

 

[dannno]

...


Sounds like it to me.

Pretend we were a good country, and we were in an actual legitimate war, defending ourselves, and the enemy had a state run newspaper that was helping the war effort by drafting citizens and telling them how to kill US soldiers, you think we should not take out the newspaper because freedom of speech?

I'm not defending Trump on the issue as a whole, I know he is a bit authoritarian on some of these issues and would be against free speech in some forms that I oppose him on - I just think in this instance I don't really see protecting the speech of ISIS who is going around attacking innocent people, like we need to protect their rights or something..

 

[PierzStyx]

Yep-and another Jefferson quote- been doing a few of these lately:

Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.

Thomas Jefferson

Excellent quote. Jefferson had another famous one I think applies well here:

Also:

 

[dannno]

Our bombs can't tell the difference- any candidate that supports destroying ISIS is basically just writing a blank check for our government to bomb anywhere and everywhere. Its shit like this that has Russia rebooting the KJB U.S. Admits Airstrike in Syria, Meant to Hit ISIS, Killed Syrian Troops

Totally agreed, and like I said, I prefer the Ron Paul solution over all else by a long shot - but I also prefer the stop funding ISIS, stop trying to replace foreign leaders and meddling in the middle east and just take out ISIS of Donald Trump to Hillary's continuation of the funding of ISIS and the continuation of replacing foreign leaders and meddling in the Middle East. It's pretty simple. I don't know why you wouldn't agree with that as well.

 

[nikcers]

Pretend we were a good country, and we were in an actual legitimate war,

Please can we just have everyone forget what we know?

 

[nikcers]

Totally agreed, and like I said, I prefer the Ron Paul solution over all else by a long shot - but I also prefer the stop funding ISIS, stop trying to replace foreign leaders and meddling in the middle east and just take out ISIS of Donald Trump to Hillary's continuation of the funding of ISIS and the continuation of replacing foreign leaders and meddling in the Middle East. It's pretty simple. I don't know why you wouldn't agree with that as well.

You can't take the oil and leave the middle east/Russia alone at the same time you believe in this fantasy you created. Please forget what you know.

 

[PierzStyx]

Uh, no, none of what you just said is right at all.

Where did I defend Trump for wanting to attack peaceful people? You think ISIS is peaceful people? And all I am saying is Trump is better than Hillary. I think it's pretty clear that he is better than Hillary on a wide array of issues.

I didn't say ISIS was peaceful. But you imagining that giving your vote to empower a violent authoritarian and place him at the head of an organization who is responsible for more brutality, torture, and death than ISIS could ever hope to accomplish is peaceful then you're crazy.

Trump is exactly as bad as Hillary in every way.

And for the last time - violent combatants don't get first amendment protections!! Period. Let's pretend we were a better, more peaceful country and we got attacked by Japan and they had a state run newspaper that was circulating anti-US propaganda and perpetuating violence against us.. are you really saying we should avoid bombing their newspaper facility because freedom of speech???? Really?

Who does their propaganda threaten exactly? If it is in Japan then it is no more or less a danger and bombing it will accomplish nothing to bring peace. If it is here then people absolutely have a right to side with Japan in a conflict. That is what freedom of speech means- the freedom to say controversial, unpopular, crazy stuff. Question is, if we are at war do you think an American newspaper that supports our "enemy" is going to stay open for very long? Because I doubt it. People won't buy it.