Priebus: Trump Considering Amending or Abolishing 1st Amendment

[Donald Hellscream]

I get it, I mean people are constantly criticizing him, justifiably so of course but it doesn't change the fact that he obviously want all the bad words to go away even if it means the removal of freedom of speech, press, religion etc.

This will never happen and it is something the manchild should've considered before running for president.

[Jeezy911]

If social justice was losing, you wouldn't have denied being racist. It's working, their flaw was not explains why racism is wrong. I don't think they realize that you cannot simply assume someone will understand what is wrong with racism. Even if it's 2017...

Or maybe I just like Watermelon and Chicken, and maybe I actually just mean everything is OK. When you actively want to find racism, you can find it in everything. Remember, Donald Trump was never once called a racist until he ran for President. It's the card that is played when you have nothing substantive to point out, and it is actually sad because it diminishes when actual racism happens.

[Felya]

Or maybe I just like Watermelon and Chicken, and maybe I actually just mean everything is OK. When you actively want to find racism, you can find it in everything. Remember, Donald Trump was never once called a racist until he ran for President. It's the card that is played when you have nothing substantive to point out, and it is actually sad because it diminishes when actual racism happens.

Actively find? I explained exactly why you are being racist. You instead chose to post about watermelons, fried chicken and SJWs. I don't think you understand how taunting works. It's not just a wow term...

[Gestopft]

This is yet another to add to the "not gonna happen" bin, but it's still remarkably stupid that they would even admit to "looking at it."

[Snes]

He doesn't have that kind of power, nor does the senate on it's own even.

[Deleted]

President doesn't have the power to amend or abolish the 1st Amendment. lol

Not even Congress can do that.

Congress can do that. The President has a lot of power and influence, and he could use that to push for terrible amendments that would destroy the very soul of America. I don't care whether they're a democrat or republican. Those are my rights, he need to stop attacking them.

[Baelic]

Maybe eat watermelon and Fried Chicken then? Here is the OK sign for you, straight from Pepe.

Free Speech>Social justice. You guys have lost this battle with Obama leaving, but don't worry Pocahontas will make a run until people actually hear her voice with is infinitely more cringe than nails on chalkboard. Living your life in a bubble scared to offend anyone is a control tactic.

Freedom of Speech does not equate to freedom from consequence. You just can't be put in jail for it.

[Deleted]

*snort* Good luck with that.

He won't get enough support in Congress or among the people to pass an Amendment that repeals or modifies the First.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't think the Republican Party with 2/3rds control of both houses would have the gonads to gut the First.

It has nothing to with having the "guts" to do it, it has to do with principle. Only a few in the Republican Party are unprincipled that they'd try to amend the constitution to strip us of our rights.

[JohnBrown1917]

Maybe eat watermelon and Fried Chicken then? Here is the OK sign for you, straight from Pepe.

Free Speech>Social justice. You guys have lost this battle with Obama leaving, but don't worry Pocahontas will make a run until people actually hear her voice with is infinitely more cringe than nails on chalkboard. Living your life in a bubble scared to offend anyone is a control tactic.

How can I lose something in the US when i'm Dutch?

Anyway. Im not seeing how that has anything to do with your first comment, you're just rambling.

[Deleted]

"A lot" isn't enough.

It can become enough. If you just sit around twiddling your thumbs while the POTUS talks about taking your rights away you're a fool.

[Jeezy911]

Freedom of Speech does not equate to freedom from consequence. You just can't be put in jail for it.

Well that is a rather Authoritarian view of the world, isn't that what Antifa is against? Ironic.

- - - Updated - - -

How can I lose something in the US when i'm Dutch?

Anyway. Im not seeing how that has anything to do with your first comment, you're just rambling.

Has everything to do with the first comment. You write something that triggers someone, then the internet police come and throw the Banhammer and people wonder why sites like 4chan exist. You go to reddit andget up and down votes based on how liberal your response is, the dumbest shit I have ever seen.

[Edge-]

Well that is a rather Authoritarian view of the world, isn't that what Antifa is against? Ironic.

No, that's a realistic view. If you go to a block party with your neighbors and decide that's the best to go to on a neo-nazi recruiting drive, you're probably going to find yourself uninvited from further neighborhood events.

That's a social consequences of your decision to exercise your right to free speech.

No clue what Antifa or authoritarians have to do with anything.

[Jeezy911]

No, that's a realistic view. If you go to a block party with your neighbors and decide that's the best to go to on a neo-nazi recruiting drive, you're probably going to find yourself uninvited from further neighborhood events.

That's a social consequences of your decision to exercise your right to free speech.

No clue what Antifa or authoritarians have to do with anything.

Ok so what if I go to a BLM rally and get fired. I'm sure the ACLU would love to have that case, assuming of course I was black. They actively want to kill police, but thats ok right? So much double standard.

[Edge-]

Ok so what if I go to a BLM rally and get fired.

Fired from where?

Which state are you in?

What was their reason for firing you?

I'm sure the ACLU would love to have that case, assuming of course I was black.

If your civil rights were infringed, the ACLU may take up your case regardless of what your skin color was. Remember, the ACLU has defended members of the KKK when their rights were infringed upon, so this continued effort to portray them as extreme left wing nutjobs is bloody stupid as hell.

Depending on what state you're in and the reason given, it may very well be completely legal for your employer to fire you (potentially even for no reason at all!) or you may indeed have had your civil rights infringed upon with an illegal firing. But you know, needs context to figure that stuff out.

They actively want to kill police, but thats ok right? So much double standard.

Please cite where the groups (either the main BLM, or any of it's larger offshoots) official stance supports or advocates for the murder of police, or where BLM has an official membership with proper registration etc. and not just a loose association of people who freely claim membership (or not).

[JohnBrown1917]

Has everything to do with the first comment. You write something that triggers someone, then the internet police come and throw the Banhammer and people wonder why sites like 4chan exist. You go to reddit andget up and down votes based on how liberal your response is, the dumbest shit I have ever seen.

You just keep dodging have to explain how 'nordic countries have no black people' is not racist'. Impressive.

[Kujako]

You just keep dodging have to explain how 'nordic countries have no black people' is not racist'. Impressive.

Just look at them all!

ok... Black Pete is kinda racist.

[Baelic]

Well that is a rather Authoritarian view of the world, isn't that what Antifa is against? Ironic.

How so? Cause as far as I understand it, being Authoritarian is entirely a government thing. And what I stated basically meant that Government can't do jack shit to you, doesn't stop the rest of society from going against you for it (within the law, obviously)

[Barnabas]

Um.

Try restructuring that in a way that makes sense, AND THEN try removing the boogeyman strawman you've built yourself up.

What straw man? You can't amend the Constitution without 2/3 votes in congress.

[Orbitus]

Its not really about free speech as much as it seems to be about false reporting. People love to hold Trump accountable for everything he says, while we have some new agencies just blatantly reporting false statements based on reporting whos source either cannot be named, who knows if they even exist, or Jeff from accounting who heard it from Susan in the mailroom, who heard it from Richards brothers wifes sister.

My biggest gripe about the media is that nobody is there to hold them accountable at all, I'd love to see Fox and NBC just start discrediting either other over shitty reporting but we know that will never happen.

So, you don't like anonymous sources, not fake news. You cannot say they are false statements without some sort of proof stating that they are false statements. Ever hear of "Deep Throat", not from porn, but from the Watergate scandal? Bet you didn't complain about that when "Deep Throat" literally took down Nixon with anonymous information.

[Breccia]

What straw man? You can't amend the Constitution without 2/3 votes in congress.

Correct. But the article says nothing about Congress, and neither does the thread title. It says Trump is considering it. And, by Priebus by proxy, it is. You then responded with "fake news" (it isn't, you just don't like it) and bring in Congress, which has nothing to do with Trump considering it.

Fake news claims there will be 2/3 of congress supporting such idiocy? Just need to know who is supporting it so we know who to get out of office?

You made the claim about Congress up, then attacked that claim. That is a textbook strawman.