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.

Compare that to his tweet from four years ago:

It’s true that there are lots of protests going on, some of which have turned violent. It’s also true that there’s been a wave of attacks on minorities across the US by Trump supporters. An actual leader would seek to tell his supporters that’s not how Americans should act. But that’s not what we got.

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.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Trump's Very First Tweet As President Elect Basically Shits On The First Amendment”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
142 Comments
Bruce C. says:

Hmm, protests and political speech organized by corporate sock puppets...

Maybe someone could interest Trump in getting Citizens United vs. FEC overturned?

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…

Anonymous Coward says:

Let us also note what else he's done

After vigorously denouncing Washington insiders and making “drain the swamp” one of his campaign’s slogans…every appointment he’s made to his transition team has been a Washington insider.

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.

That One Guy (profile) says:

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.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Let us also note what else he's done

That’ll be true till he reneges on the promises he made that attracted the support in the first place. Nativists will be annoyed about the wall not being built and the millions of deportations not taking place.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Meme about Hired Protestors

This is a common myth of the alt-right. It’s simply not true: nobody is hiring protesters. Organization is being driven at the local level by activists. But of course propagating the myth is done in order to pretend that people are only protesting because they’re paid, not because they have truly wish to.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re: Meme about Hired Protestors

Are you new to this? It’s almost like you’ve never seen organized protest before. Nothing you or anyone else has offered proves they’re hired or ‘professional’. It wouldn’t be hard to prove if it were true, so go for it.

Have you considered they might really feel the way the say they do?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Meme about Hired Protestors

They are professional activist. You are confused by the word professional. It means organized here. Their trainers make the money. They are easy to find on Faceplant and twitter twats. When you engage them with history, personal experience, studies, or facts, they fold and disappear.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Meme about Hired Protestors

Sir, professional implies getting payed for it. I don’t doubt they are very experienced protesters and they have a network akin to “Occupy Wall Street”, but if you were in one of the large coastal cities during the campaigns, you would know how extremely unpopular Trump was among some groups. So, while it may be possible to find some shady crap on some social media, you can’t seriously deny that many people actually are that upset about Trump winning the election.

Anonymous Coward says:

Gee, it seems the president elect is just like any other politician. Surprised?

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.

art guerrilla (profile) says:

Re: Re:

thanks for the point EVERYONE seems to be eliding: obama and/or hillary have been staunch defenders of free speech/1st amendment issues ?
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…

Anonymous Coward says:

He only said its unfair, not illegal or something that should be suppressed. That’s not shitting on the first amendment, its exercising his first amendment right. BTW, I didn’t vote for him and never would and think he’s a stupendous unqualified jerk. 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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.

Padpaw (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

maybe they should be acting less like spoiled children not getting their way and instead peacefully protest their dislike of trump.

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

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think Trump has used such legal acts before… Furthermore, incitement is not an unknown word from the press about some of his headless speech.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I expect every president, republican and democrat alike, to be critiziced for every mistake They make, that’s exactly why They should think They’re every word before speaking.
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?

Insane Test Pilot (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Well said. Too many people believe diversity = conformity. Scott Adams pointed out that Trumps supporters took him seriously, but not literally — and his detractors were the opposite, taking him literally and not seriously. The downside of his seemingly preferred method of communication, the tweet, is that unless carefully crafted, the point being made can be left open to interpretation. Your interpretation is, I would argue, the most reasonable. Taking it as an attack on the First Amendment is a bit extreme. Another clause in that Amendment is the freedom of speech — which extends to even our president. I think a case could be made that it was a bit petulant, disappointingly, but watching the reaction in the press, the parade of people claiming that they were living in fear now could be construed as a contributing factor to the animosity expressed toward President Elect Trump. So, he has a point — albeit not very artfully conveyed.

OldMugwump (profile) says:

"Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment

For better or worse, Mr. Trump won the election.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: "Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment

I agree. Saying that the protestors are being “very unfair” is not at all an attack on the First Amendment. It’s hypocritical given his tweet from 4 years ago, but hypocrisy is not an attack on the First 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.

OldMugwump (profile) says:

Re: Re: "Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment

He won the the election. That’s how democracy works – the winner of the election gets the position.

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.

Founding Father says:

Re: Re: Re: "Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment

We actually created a constitutional republic to protect the minorities from being totally unrepresented, so a revolt would be an attack on the failure of that rather than democracy.

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. ?.

JMT says:

Re: "Very unfair" is not an attack on the 1st amendment

“”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).

Tyson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Dramatic much?

Why hasn’t your trusted mainstream media followed the money? Who pays them? Who leases the buses, who prints their signs? What do you think Community Organizers get paid for? You are the one reading straight up propaganda. There has never been a time of such media collusion as now, and you here state that you trust the mainstream media?

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/soros-trump-protests-revolution/

Padpaw (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Dramatic much?

MSM has been so highly biased against anyone that disagrees with Hillary it’s a wonder most people are still watching them.

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.

Portland means Eugene means Anarchists says:

He has a point if you research it

Not to spoil the fun but the Portland anarchists come up from Eugene OR at every opportunity. These actually are professional protesters in that they have instructions, guidelines for how to create havoc. They came together starting with the WTO meeting in Seattle and have grown and spread and take every opportunity to create, well Anarchy.

Look at the arrest records…

I.T. Guy says:

Re: He has a point if you research it

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/11/501685976/anti-trump-protest-in-portland-ore-turns-destructive-declared-a-riot

“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,”

I.T. Guy says:

Re: He has a point if you research it

Portland Police also attributed the destructive behavior to a subset of the protesters, tweeting at one point, “Many in crowd trying to get anarchist groups to stop destroying property, anarchists refusing.” The would-be peacekeepers were met with threats not to interfere, police said.

“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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: He has a point if you research it

Look up that phrase in the dictionary, and you see a picture of George Soros. Most of these riots were “organized” by his agitprop mafia, MoveOn.org. The digital equivalent of the Weather Underground. This is the U.S. version of the destructive “color revolutions” that SOB has fomented all over the world.

Regret says:

Mike, this has nothing to do with First Amendment

Mike – To be clear, I’m not a Trump supporter. That said, the President (and therefore the President-elect) has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and the 1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble….” Technically, Trump isn’t even President now, so he couldn’t illegally abridge free speech if he wanted to. Furthermore, he’s not saying they *can’t* protest, only that this manner of a protest is “unfair” (whatever that means) and that the support of the media is inappropriate. This is actually a perfect example of the “bully pulpit” of the President which has been used by every President we’ve ever had. While I support your general point that the government should not implicitly or explicitly suppress speech, I think crying wolf over “1st Amendment” violations is at least as bad as conflating copyright and patent law, misunderstanding “Fair Use” or the myriad of other abuses you rightly criticize in others.

Anonymous Coward says:

It absolutely does nothing of the sort. Again, you’re pulling stories out of your ass, this time in an attempt to cover up how violent and incendiary you people really are. Why are you so incensed mike? Could it possibly be the fact that this particular change in presidency means ripping a lot of side and under the table dealings of the previous presidency out by the fucking roots (as they well should be)? I thought so.

Teamchaos (profile) says:

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).

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.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

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?

  • 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*

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.

Teamchaos (profile) says:

Re: Re: You need to get over it Mike...

Mike, thanks for the reply, guess I hit a nerve.

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.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

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."

Teamchaos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 You need to get over it Mike...

We’ve had this argument before when you tried to convince me that Vox was unbiased. I believe that only by knowing and acknowledging our own inherent biases can we break out of them and hope to glimpse the objective truth. I subscribe to and read conservative publications/sites and liberal publications/sites so I can see all sides of an issue. You’re apparently convinced you’re right, so no need to see the whole picture, no need to understand the viewpoints of the other side because in your mind there are no sides and there is only your side and you’re right. Good luck with that. Consider me the loyal opposition. I’ll keep reading because I like your opinions, they make me think, even if you can’t admit you have an opinion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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.

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.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 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."

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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.

JMT says:

Re: Stretch much?

I’m stunned how many commenters here are focusing on the ‘unfair’ bit, which Mike didn’t even mention in the article, and completely ignoring the glaring fact that the president-elect is criticising people for protesting, something not only a major 1A-prtected act, but also something he encouraged against Obama. How can you not see that?

I.T. Guy says:

You know whats funny…. I’ll tell you. Plenty of PPL around talking about how sad they are that The Trumpet won. In the smoking area, at the Wawa, at the supermarket, etc.

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.)

Teamchaos says:

Re: Re:

I live in one of the three counties in Missouri who went for Clinton. I know a few folks who are openly happy, but most are keeping their heads very low since violence against Trump supporters is a very real thing. Two of my neighbors houses got vandalized because they had Trump signs in their lawns. I’ve heard of many similar incidents where houses or cars were vandalized.

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-trump/

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.

Wendy Cockcroft (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I suppose that depends on where you sit. I’ve been bashing the left lately because of the whingeing and that stupid safety pin campaign. However, it doesn’t matter how badly either opposite behaved, nobody gets a pass on bad behaviour. We’re not going to measure it out and hold a contest for the best or worst-behaved side.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

MSNBC is now clamoring on about how the electoral college turned a “win” into a “loss”, and about how “undemocratic” our system has become… If the Hillary won by the electoral collage, they’d be clamoring about how great it was, that is was gilded in gold, should never be changed, and was the most democratic concept upon the face of the earth. The media, at this point, is chock full of incensed livid bitter-assed fucktarded little shits with no regard to anything other than having the little under-the-radar & under-the-table deals remain in place. NO – YOU DON’T GET TO HAVE THAT.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I actually hope the left doesn’t figure out why they lost so it guarantees they keep losing. But it would be best if they came around to face their own lies and start competing on ideas rather than name calling, lies and labeling. But when you can’t defend your policies you resort to shutting down discussion.

JMT says:

Re: Re:

“If the Hillary won by the electoral collage, they’d be clamoring about how great it was, that is was gilded in gold, should never be changed, and was the most democratic concept upon the face of the earth.”

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?

anonymous coward says:

Cognitive Dissonance

Ya know what? 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. When the folks who can’t keep their impulses for destruction under control, and won’t (or can’t) *peacefully* protest actually get called out on their outrageous behavior…

…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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

TomZ (profile) says:

So, just because you don;t like trump, you have to write a story disparaging him every day.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“boy who cried wolf”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

anonymous coward says:

TD bias question is moot

“our positions are entirely consistent”

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.

anonymous coward says:

An observation on the consistency of Shit

“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.””

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.

FM Hilton (profile) says:

Acts

It doesn’t matter what he said in the past, really. It’s the sheer fact that he now has the power to do something about what he thinks is wrong.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

The so-called “elites” should consider telling their legions of useful idiots to behave… after the last dozen years or so of ridiculous fear mongering legislation about domestic terrorism (functional definition: using violence to pursue political goals), they might find it unsettling when the massive bureaucratic machine created to respond to that -ism starts to take interest in their actions…

FM Hilton (profile) says:

Re:Acts

“then we give him enough rope to hang himself with. Not lynch him before he does anything.”

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.

Wyrm (profile) says:

Funny part is the attempt to remind how Drumpf is the legitimate president elect because half the country voted for him…

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.

FM Hilton (profile) says:

Tweets and emails

I think we have the goods on him-he’s deleted his tweets that say anything good about anyone..such horseshit.

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.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Actually. It’s Clinton supporters that have turned to violence against Trump supporters. Numerous stories.. Documented, of people being physically attacked for voting for trump. Don’t twist things to try and prove your view
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!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...