What's happening to the First Amendment?
- Thread starter stu4don
- Start date
Rather fallacious considering she received more votes. Trump won, but it was not a great victory nor does he have a mandate.
Bodizephax
I've posted how many times?
Wasn't Hillary supposed to win in a landslde ? Again, you ignorant leftist, the popular vote does not matter in American Presidential elections--Trump easily won the electoral college. Elections have consequences. Let see now--The repubs have the congress, the senate, the majority of the Governors---Americans have spoken--The left is out ! Trump has a mandate !
We're a democratic Republic with Constitutional rules that thoughtfully seeks to avoid domination by the two or three largest States in our presidential elections. In football terms, Hillary kicked six field goals and Trump score five touchdowns. She may have scored more often, but Trumps scores counted more, and yes...it was a butt whipping. One of the greatest developments in the history of mankind is the peaceful transition of power after free elections, and the Democratic Party strategy to undermine and try to delegitimize Trumps election is one of the low points of our political history.
A reminder to all the posters in this thread: The First Amendment gives us the right to voice our opinions without government restrictions. The essential test of your understanding of this right is whether you are willing to fight to protect this right for the people whose opinions make your blood boil. We've seemed to have forgotten that second part.
Ask the gay conservative guy Milo who tried to speak at UC Berkley and the people who went to hear him exercise his free speech right.
Dublin. Your response is part of the problem. Instead of showing your support for the essential freedoms that truly make America great all the time, you focus on someone else's bad acts. America will never be great if we don't learn how to have civil conversation on the important issues confronting us.
Please tell me why you have to insult and demonize people who don't agree with you in order to "MAGA."
Please tell me why you have to insult and demonize people who don't agree with you in order to "MAGA."
What the heck are talking about. Cal Bezerkley teachers and students leftist who prevented a person who happened to be a gay conservative from his point of view. you should standing up for Milo. Instead you criticize the poster. WTF. This is based on your prior post. which is correct. by the way the excuse for your leftist friends was he is a white supremacist, homophobic misogynist nazi. the irony. IF you are conservative you do not have free speech especially on campus. and Milo is not what your ilk say he is.
He contradicts himself in everything he writes. Liberals are becoming everything they once criticized and hated. Too comfortable on their own indoctrination and and prejudice to admit it.
I will agree that a number of students are unusually (and unfortunately) sensitive to some conservative viewpoints, causing rather ridiculous protests for certain individuals - but if I were a conservative, I'm not sure Milo is the hill that I want to die on for this issue.
The " hill " is his right to say it and for students to have the right hear what he has to say in peace and make up their own individual minds . College Campuses have rarely in past shyed away from having controversial speakers from the left speak. Burning of books and censorship are not good roads to go down.
Watch a couple of his videos on youtube and you will see the lies on him are hurting free speech. That said I was watching Tucker the other day and he had on a ridiculous communist women with outlandish opinions on Trump. However, I would fight for hers even though she is an idiot.
Most definitely. That's why Dems were mourning more than Reps were celebrating on election night.
Your assumptions about people who disagree with you prevent any real discussion.
BTW, why are you not attacking CPAC which refused to let Milo speak? Where are your protests? If I followed your linear thinking, not complaining about CPAC treatment of Milo makes you a supporter of child abuse. But would that be an erroneous assumption?
BTW, why are you not attacking CPAC which refused to let Milo speak? Where are your protests? If I followed your linear thinking, not complaining about CPAC treatment of Milo makes you a supporter of child abuse. But would that be an erroneous assumption?
My point is that if conservatives want to bitch about conservative speakers not getting the right to speak at college campuses, you'd be better served getting angry at the fact that Condoleezza Rice was not able to speak at a campus, rather than a guy who is an internet troll/provocateur. Maybe the same people who support "Focus on the Family" want to have Milo be the standard-bearer they support, but I doubt it.
There is a huge difference between an organization's decisions on who to invite (or not invite) to speak at their functions......and, rioters attacking a stage to override that decision and silence the speaker.
In a private function, and organization (and/or it's leaders) have the right to choose who they want to have there.......rioters don't have the right to attack these organizations, attack speakers, or silence anyone.
You understand that the 2 things you're comparing aren't even similar, right?
I don't think it matters who you're talking about speaking, right leaning, left leaning, controversial, standard, etc.
Rioters (and these "college students" are just that, rioters) do NOT have the right to attack and/or silence speakers through force or violence
That's the issue.
I'm literally SHOCKED that the left doesn't want to protect this right at the moment, given how they're trying to paint Trump as a totalitarian and how easily he could turn the "not allowed to speak" precedent against them
(I mean, isn't the left having a "WE MUST PROTECT THE 1ST AMENDMENT!!!" meltdown right this moment??)
This makes no sense. Milo asked for and received permission form the Berkley Admin to speak there. No sensible person would argue everyone has a right to be invited to speak everywhere. It is very hard to believe that any intelligent person (which I believe you are) would not see the difference between a private entity canceling an engagement and people violently preventing someone from speaking.
Yes, I acknowledge Trump won by the rules of our republic but he did not whoop ass (to which I replied) nor does he have a mandate. You can argue all you like, but the popular vote shows you incorrect. I have no disagreement with you trying to convince, even lying, to yourself.
Trump won the electoral college, not the same as large victory and certainly not a mandate. On the whole the Republican victory was more significant than Trump's; we will see whether Trump or Congress takes the upper hand in the upcoming budget debate.
FYI: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won the popular vote in over 85% of them, some 2,600+ and Hillary won a little more than 400+. He didn't capture the 10 largest metro areas with dense population and voters that are overly Democratic. Both ran campaigns designed to capture electoral votes. Period! Trump won overwhelmingly the majority of counties.
He's the winner!!!! Get over it Liberals - You Lose
Watched a basketball game last night were one team won by over twenty points. But they didn't get the most rebounds so I don't consider it a legitimate win.
Trump has a mandate to rule because he won the elections according to the rules we've all laid down, agreed to, and been following for hundreds of years
I get that the left thinks that they want/should delegitimize Trumps presidency, and that they're actually right in doing so.
The "popular vote" argument is always one of my favorites.....lol
Do you know who actually won the "popular vote"? (if you argue that it even exists)
"Stayed at Home and Chose Not to Vote"
That's the same person who has won the "popular vote" in every presidential election in US history, fyi
I actually like the baseball analogy better
Regular Person - "The Cubs won the World Series"
Left Extremist - "Well, they only won on some arcane technicality about players having to get to home plate....which discriminates against all the players we left on base."
Regular Person - "Well yeah...that's how the rules of baseball work, always have been"
Left Extremist - "Well, the Indians (too racist?) had more hits, and that's really a more fair way to judge.....so they should have won. The Cubs don't have 'Bragging Rights'."
That's what the "Trump Didn't Win the Popular Vote" argument always sounds like
People need to stop this liberal vs Conservative crap. Ignorance is bliss and too many Republicans are beating their chest for a victory over Clinton while they elected a fascist to office. Check the facts... His proposed expenses are going to expand the deficit. The wall and the infrastructure project are way to expensive and Mexico isn't paying the taxpayers will...Twice. once now to build and once more to tear it down. Move on to his tax plan and proposals to end the ability to claim property or state taxes as a deduction on taxes wash away the potential income tax simplification. Wake up. I'm a conservative and all for small government and less taxes. Our president is playing a populest shell game keeping the sheep pounding their chests while he bend everyone over a table for a quick rogering. How about pushing a voucher program for schools which shifts money to for profit schools and reduces funding for public schools... Another hidden tax. ACA will not be replaced but repaired which is assinine. Wake up people. Fascism will destroy democracy. George Washington warned against partisan politics in his first farewell address and it's a warning we all need to heed.
Your worried about the deficit now after Oblamebush spent more th an all other Presidents put together for the worst 8 years of growth.....hilarious!
For a second there I thought this was going to be one of those non-partisan balanced op eds. By the end of the sentence that was history.
It's not the least bit hard to deny, for any rational person.
I'm working on a response to you're earlier post (which was literally LOADED with errors and poor logic), but that's going to take me a bit.
As to this one.........far easier
No, Tump is not "adding to the deficit" --> In reality, he has decreased the deficit by $12 Billion, so far
(as opposed to Obama, who INCREASED it by over $200 Billion)
His policies MAY end up increasing the deficit eventually, we don't know that yet, but he's certainly NOT doing that so far.
#FakeNews
#AlternativeFacts
OK sheep let play.
1. Trump is all about Nationalism.
2. Policy on deporting illegals and banning foreign nationals (including a teenager here in Houston from a country not on his banned list) can be seen as disdain for human Rights
3. He very clearly names enemies to unify his supporters vs opposition's (CNN, Hillary, Obama, Ryan, etc)
4. Spending plan is Huuuge on military spending
5. He is controlling mass media
6. He's obsessed with national security
7. Rampant disregard for exclusionary clause in the Constitution.
8. Advisory committee full of large CEOs. Protecting corporate power
9. Obsession with crime and punishment.
10. Obvious cronyism within his advisors and cabinet.
... Not all of these things are bad on their own... But every single one is listed as an early warning sign of fascism. Stop being a sheep.
I love the fact that you hash tag lines that basically mean anything not coming from my office is fake. Only listen to me.
Ignoring that lots of these points are VERY debateable/subjective-opinion-based.....
Wouldn't it be great if the entire structure of our government is created to allowed for policies such as these (and the goods they provide, especially if they're what the electorate has voted for), while protecting the people from a totalitarian rule...
Oh, wait.......that's exactly what we have
You realize that Obama was probably MORE TOTALITARIAN than Trump has shown to be (so far), right?
(He actually executed plans to consolidate power in the executive branch, beyond what was ever intended or had ever been done before....and actually did most of what the left is suddenly freaking out about Trump doing: Criticizing the judiciary, trying to control the media, etc.)
The constitution protected us from Obama (mostly), as it has every other president...and it will continue to do so
So instead of responding to the content of my post, you cry about the fact that I used phrases (in jest) that were actually STARTED BY THE LEFT??
That really says just about all that needs to be said about your ability/standing in this discussion.
But I'm a generous guy, so I'll give you another chance to respond to the content of my post:
I'm working on a response to you're earlier post (which was literally LOADED with errors and poor logic), but that's going to take me a bit.
As to this one.........far easier
No, Tump is not "adding to the deficit" --> In reality, he has decreased the deficit by $12 Billion, so far
(as opposed to Obama, who INCREASED it by over $200 Billion)
His policies MAY end up increasing the deficit eventually, we don't know that yet, but he's certainly NOT doing that so far.
#FakeNews
#AlternativeFacts
Try again buddy!
Speaking of fake news - this pretty much sums it up the fake outrage!
In what will likely be a setback to the ongoing press campaign to portray the Trump administration and campaign as a Kremlin puppet, on Monday the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives intelligence committee said he has seen no evidence of contact between Donald Trump's campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election, Reuters reported.
In what will likely be a setback to the ongoing press campaign to portray the Trump administration and campaign as a Kremlin puppet, on Monday the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives intelligence committee said he has seen no evidence of contact between Donald Trump's campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential election, Reuters reported.
Splitting hairs between Berkeley and CPAC is a distinction without a difference. Your distinction is focused on the demonstrators, rather than the right of an organization to invite or disinvite a speaker. Both the pedophile and the protestors had a right of free speech. Each wanted to provoke the other, which they did. I didn't care for either group, but I respect their First Amendment Rights to be idiots. Can you do the same?
The "Right to Free Speech" does not extend to silencing or intimidating other people, who are speaking in a permissible way
(that's just a matter of law)
It's not CPAC v. Berkely.....it's rioters silencing someone v. an organization not inviting someone
It's pretty simple:
- Rioters silencing someone by force = Not okay (and illegal)
- Organizations not inviting someone to speak = Totally fine (as long as it's not a public organization and the reason isn't discriminatory)
Get it now?
Yes, Trump won but that is not the same as a mandate as the concept has been used in the past. So we will have to disagree. Currently, he only has approx. 40% approval.
