Current Events > Trump suggests protesting should be illegal

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-suggests-protesting-should-be-illegal/2018/09/04/11cfd9be-b0a0-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html?

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 dont know why they dont take care of a situation like that, Trump said. I think its embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You dont 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 Tuesdays 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.

---

He would burn the Constitution if he could.
---

The executive branch is ran by fascists holding hands with white nationalists.

let's not sugarcoat it anymore.

Totally not a wannabe dictator tho.
---

majority demo more mad about a kneeling multiracial athlete though.
---

wtf we hate the first amendment now
---

It's really weird how Trump likes to flirt with fascism and say positive remarks about dictators.
---

Why not, it's not like it accomplishes anything. Lock the thugs in jail and slap them with heavy fines they won't ever be able to afford, more protesters locked up = cleaner and safer streets!
---

Trump is an embarrassment.
---

Does he think the same thing about tea party protesters?
---

ITT throwing out disruptors at an event = making protesting illegal?

Regressives giving themselves gray hairs over nothingburgers again.
---

frozenshock posted...

Does he think the same thing about tea party protesters?

The Tea Party always acquired permits.
---

Nowhere does it say illegal in there.

fake news
---

Do you have an unbiased source?
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

Totally not a wannabe dictator tho.

he's just a few steps away from being a goddamn dictator.
---

Is there as usual some context that's being left out? If not, that might be the first thing he's said that really does ring alarm bells. Limits on protesting are fair enough, but outright banning it... not cool.
---

DarkTransient posted...

Is there as usual some context that's being left out? If not, that might be the first thing he's said that really does ring alarm bells.

First sentence: "President Trump has long derided the mainstream media as the enemy of the people ", so I wouldn't doubt something was left out. Trump has always said FAKE news is the enemy of the people, not mainstream media, so credibility of the article is already suspect.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

ITT throwing out disruptors at an event = making protesting illegal?

Regressives giving themselves gray hairs over nothingburgers again.

I wonder what you think about subjects when Trump hasn't gotten around to giving you your opinion.

Do you just ignore them, or what?
---

Sayoria posted...

He would burn the Constitution if he could.

Yeah, pretty much.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

ITT throwing out disruptors at an event = making protesting illegal?

Regressives giving themselves gray hairs over nothingburgers again.

I understand you struggle with reading comprehension, but try reading the Trump quote again...
---

TheRealDill2000 posted...

Do you have an unbiased source?

---

joestarrr posted...

Sayoria posted...

He would burn the Constitution if he could.

Yeah, pretty much.

Nah, he'd probably eat it [1]. Or tear it up like a toddler, leaving the white house interns with the task of attempting to tape it back together [2].

1. https://www.newsweek.com/trump-ate-sensitive-document-after-cohen-meeting-former-white-house-aide-1069399

2. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-rips-papers-staffers-tape-together-2018-6
---

Mal_Fet posted...

ITT throwing out disruptors at an event = making protesting illegal?

Regressives giving themselves gray hairs over nothingburgers again.

I think its embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You dont even know what side the protesters are on.

Try reading. Would help you out a lot.
---

If it were, he would no longer be able to (literally) cry; Witch Hunt!
---

bark bark bark
---

And people still believe in him, what the fuck
---

PostCrisisJ2 posted...

bark bark bark

Good boy!
---

Superlinkbro posted...

And people still believe in him, what the fuck

Initially it was that the other option seemed even worse.

Now, I'm thinking more a case of "America was fucked either way". Although this is still the option less likely to fuck over anyone else.

Let this be a lesson to America - don't rule out 3rd party options so easily.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

ITT throwing out disruptors at an event = making protesting illegal?

Regressives giving themselves gray hairs over nothingburgers again.

Shut up, Mal.
---

DarkTransient posted...

Superlinkbro posted...

And people still believe in him, what the fuck

Initially it was that the other option seemed even worse.

Now, I'm thinking more a case of "America was fucked either way". Although this is still the option less likely to fuck over anyone else.

Let this be a lesson to America - don't rule out 3rd party options so easily.

Trump was a 3rd party option and people voted for him

How is throwing protesters out of a hearing who are being disruptive equivalent to "making protesting illegal?"

This is a pathetically disingenuous article from WashPo.
---

GOP has already tried to legislate this in state houses as well

People need to pay attention because its not just Trump threatening their rights
---

Polycosm posted...

joestarrr posted...

Sayoria posted...

He would burn the Constitution if he could.

Yeah, pretty much.

Nah, he'd probably eat it [1]. Or tear it up like a toddler, leaving the white house interns with the task of attempting to tape it back together [2].

1. https://www.newsweek.com/trump-ate-sensitive-document-after-cohen-meeting-former-white-house-aide-1069399

2. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-rips-papers-staffers-tape-together-2018-6

I'm not sure if this is funny-haha or funny-sad.
---

The Admiral posted...

How is throwing protesters out of a hearing who are being disruptive equivalent to "making protesting illegal?"

This is a pathetically disingenuous article from WashPo.

might have something to do with

I think its embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You dont even know what side the protesters are on.

---

as much as i hate Trump and look for any reason to criticize the buffoon, i really think the context of the quote matters here and i really don't think he meant all protestors, just disruptive ones inside a courtroom like we have here.
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

The Admiral posted...

How is throwing protesters out of a hearing who are being disruptive equivalent to "making protesting illegal?"

This is a pathetically disingenuous article from WashPo.

might have something to do with

I think its embarrassing for the country to allow protesters. You dont even know what side the protesters are on.

He's referring to allowing the public into a confirmation hearing when it's causing dozens of disruptions. Closing the confirmation hearings is nowhere close to "making protesting illegal."

What a pathetic reach and clickbait title by WashPo.
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

as much as i hate Trump and look for any reason to criticize the buffoon, i really think the context of the quote matters here and i really don't think he meant all protestors, just disruptive ones inside a courtroom like we have here.

the context of the quote compels me to believe he was referring to protests in general considering the disruptive ones were ejected, yet he still says

In the old days, we used to throw them out. Today, I guess they just keep screaming.

---

The Admiral posted...

He's referring to allowing the public into a confirmation hearing when it's causing dozens of disruptions. Closing the confirmation hearings is nowhere close to "making protesting illegal."

What a pathetic reach and clickbait title by WashPo.

Let me understand this: When Trump is against the idea of protests, he's actually referring to protesters at confirmation hearings. Except, the next quote is -

In the old days, we used to throw them out. Today, I guess they just keep screaming.

...So he's saying that we shouldn't allow protests of confirmation hearings, and we used to handle this by throwing out protesters. Even though, by definition, a closed hearing would mean there are no protesters to throw out.

To add more confusion to this, the disruptive protesters WERE ejected, meaning the "They just keep screaming" part would likely be referring to the non-disruptive protesters in the context of his quote, where "screaming" is his interpretation of criticism since the actual screaming (i.e. disruptive) individuals were properly ejected.
---

@Mal_Fet is a fucking moron. Why humor that guy?
---

I'll be fair: WaPo is a biased source. Perhaps there are quotes that better contextualized what Trump says, since what he says either way is a mess that doesn't really make sense.

It just makes more sense in the context of both quotes that he's generalizing protesters, since the second quote is contextualized by the fact that protesters were thrown yet, yet he implies they weren't, which means he's either referring to protesters collectively or he's an idiot who wasn't even aware disruptive protesters were ejected.
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

...So he's saying that we shouldn't allow protests of confirmation hearings, and we used to handle this by throwing out protesters. Even though, by definition, a closed hearing would mean there are no protesters to throw out.

To add more confusion to this, the disruptive protesters WERE ejected, meaning the "They just keep screaming" part would likely be referring to the non-disruptive protesters in the context of his quote, where "screaming" is his interpretation of criticism since the actual screaming (i.e. disruptive) individuals were properly ejected.

He's literally discussing the confirmation hearings and the constant disruptions by protesters. Not sure why this is so confusing to you or why you're trying so hard to twist this.
---

The Admiral posted...

He's literally discussing the confirmation hearings and the constant disruptions by protesters.

And yet

In the old days, we used to throw them out. Today, I guess they just keep screaming.

He says this, despite the fact disruptive protesters were thrown out, implying he's referring to protesters as a whole. There's no twisting that. Either he's a moron who can't communicate ideas or a proto-fascist, or more of his statement was cut by WaPo since they have their own agenda.
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

The Admiral posted...

He's literally discussing the confirmation hearings and the constant disruptions by protesters.

And yet

In the old days, we used to throw them out. Today, I guess they just keep screaming.

He says this, despite the fact disruptive protesters were thrown out, implying he's referring to protesters as a whole. There's no twisting that. Either he's a moron who can't communicate ideas or a proto-fascist, or more of his statement was cut by WaPo since they have their own agenda.

So the logical thing to do would be, see what any other sources say... neutrals if possible, if not, find a few on both sides that seem to agree.
---

I'm digging to see, because the second quote really doesn't make sense to me in the context of what's being discussed by the WaPo article given what actually happened to disruptive protesters.
---

Okay, so the original text was from The Daily Caller -

http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/05/full-transcript-trump-daily-caller-interview/

THE DAILY CALLER: Can I ask you about the Kavanaugh hearing today?

POTUS: Yeah.

THE DAILY CALLER: Democrats have put on quite a show, have you kept up with it?

POTUS: A good show or a bad show?

THE DAILY CALLER: Ill leave that up to you, sir.

THE DAILY CALLER: Have you seen some of it? Its been a lot of protests and interrrupting.

POTUS: "Im amazed that people allow the interruption to continue. You know, there are some people that just keep screaming at the same people. In the old days we used to throw them out. Today I guess they just keep screaming. I thought Sen. Hatch was good because he was very indignant at the interruptions by a woman that was up there that just kept going on and on. I dont know why they dont, why they dont take care of a situation like that because its terrible. I think its embarrassing for the country to allow protesters, you dont even know which side the protesters were on. But to allow someone to stand up and scream from the top of their lungs and nobody does anything about it is frankly I think its an embarrassment. I think, well its really early stages, but I think the Democrats are grasping at straws, that looks like to me. Its incredible how bipartisan everything, when you look at how the opposite, I mean, when you look at how the level of division between the two sides, its sort of incredible.

WaPo is being deceptive here by saying "He added" since that portion of the quote occurred before his later quote, the "why do we allow protests" quote, and when you look at the actual interview quotes there is the implication that Trump was not fully aware of how many had been disrupted at the time.

"He added" implies the second quote was after the first, but could be weasel'd legally since it was technically a statement he added onto a separate statement.

So I'd agree that this is #3, WaPo being deceptive, but they present in a way where quote 2 backs up quote 1, but quote 2 appears nonsensical since it implies he didn't know protesters were ejected when the full context of the article would explain why he didn't know (he wasn't following it closely, apparently)
---

Zero_Destroyer posted...

Okay, so the original text was from The Daily Caller -

http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/05/full-transcript-trump-daily-caller-interview/

THE DAILY CALLER: Can I ask you about the Kavanaugh hearing today?

POTUS: Yeah.

THE DAILY CALLER: Democrats have put on quite a show, have you kept up with it?

POTUS: A good show or a bad show?

THE DAILY CALLER: Ill leave that up to you, sir.

THE DAILY CALLER: Have you seen some of it? Its been a lot of protests and interrrupting.

POTUS: "Im amazed that people allow the interruption to continue. You know, there are some people that just keep screaming at the same people. In the old days we used to throw them out. Today I guess they just keep screaming. I thought Sen. Hatch was good because he was very indignant at the interruptions by a woman that was up there that just kept going on and on. I dont know why they dont, why they dont take care of a situation like that because its terrible. I think its embarrassing for the country to allow protesters, you dont even know which side the protesters were on. But to allow someone to stand up and scream from the top of their lungs and nobody does anything about it is frankly I think its an embarrassment. I think, well its really early stages, but I think the Democrats are grasping at straws, that looks like to me. Its incredible how bipartisan everything, when you look at how the opposite, I mean, when you look at how the level of division between the two sides, its sort of incredible.

WaPo is being deceptive here by saying "He added" since that portion of the quote occurred before his later quote, the "why do we allow protests" quote, and when you look at the actual interview quotes there is the implication that Trump was not fully aware of how many had been disrupted at the time.

"He added" implies the second quote was after the first, but could be weasel'd legally since it was technically a statement he added onto a separate statement.

So I'd agree that this is #3, WaPo being deceptive, but they present in a way where quote 2 backs up quote 1, but quote 2 appears nonsensical since it implies he didn't know protesters were ejected when the full context of the article would explain why he didn't know (he wasn't following it closely, apparently)

...and bam, there it is.
---

It's a sad day when Daily Caller has more accurate reporting than The Washington Post.
---

Glad to see CEs resident Imperial Wizard supporting this.
---

Also, as far as I can tell, he's not even saying the hearings should be closed, he's saying that loud, disruptive people should be tossed, he's lamenting they weren't, and apparently not aware they were. The "why do we allow protests" quote is in the middle of a wall of text that's talking about people yelling, so he's most likely referring to that.

So I'm going to be fair here. I don't like Trump, people should this by now, but this a non-story.
---

Sayoria posted...

He would burn the Constitution if he could.

---