Trump Blames Freedom of the Press for Bombings

[twomp]

In his effort to capitalize on this weekend’s New York bombings, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump blamed freedom of speech in general and freedom of the press in particular for the attacks, insisting that he is “totally in favor of freedom of the press” but wants to dramatically curb the ability to print certain things.

Trump claimed “where you buy magazines and they tell you how to make these same bombs” should be illegal, and that the US “should arrest the people that do that.” He didn’t mention the magazine’s name, but speculation is he was referring to al-Qaeda’s online magazine, Inspire, which is not available for sale anywhere.

Trump went on to insist that “websites are the same thing, those people should be arrested,” saying that the US has been using freedom of speech as an excuse not to arrest people for such unacceptable speech. This is not the first time Trump has come out critical of press freedom.

Trump campaigned early on to open up libel laws to allow the press to be more easily sued, and just last month complained that the New York Times made up a story about him to benefit Hillary Clinton, insisting that “it is not freedom of the press when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want.”

While Trump’s anti-press comments got the most attention, he also called for the US to dramatically shift policing to allow police to racially profile, citing Israel’s police system as doing “an unbelievable job, as good as you can do” and wanting to copy them, particularly in the anti-Muslim stuff.

He finally complained that bomber Ahmad Khan Rahami would be getting “amazing” medical care in the US with “a fully modern and updated hospital room,” comments which appear to undercut his longstanding complaints that Obamacare is dramatically worsening health care quality in the US.

http://news.antiwar.com/2016/09/19/t...-for-bombings/

[dannno]

So you oppose taking out ISIS?

[Jamesiv1]

http://news.antiwar.com/2016/09/19/t...-for-bombings/

Why do you hate America?

[dannno]

I guess when fighting Germany in WWII, we and our allies should have avoided attacking the industrial plants where they built tanks because we might take out the center where they keep the plans for said tanks - you know, freedom of speech.

Likewise, turning this issue into freedom of speech is sorta silly. They are at war with us, they have online magazines that describe how to make the bombs that were planted in NY and NJ recently, seriously injuring dozens of people. They are actively violent and killing people. Take the $#@!ing magazine out.. if you are going to attack them, attack them! I'm not arguing for a central authority on the internet, but there are ways to do it.

If you are against taking out ISIS, then just say so - that's fine - but instead of starting by attacking the people who want to go in, disable them and get out - attack the people who want to turn it into a boondoggle like the rest of our wars seem to turn into. It just ends up causing a lot more pain for innocent bystanders and costs our country a lot more.

[donnay]

Do you think the press is free--the narrative is what happened over the weekend was not a terrorist attack. There's no freedom of the press and really hasn't been for a very long time. The controlled media follows a script given to them.

[CPUd]

[PierzStyx]

I guess when fighting Germany in WWII, we and our allies should have avoided attacking the industrial plants where they built tanks because we might take out the center where they keep the plans for said tanks - you know, freedom of speech.

Likewise, turning this issue into freedom of speech is sorta silly. They are at war with us, they have online magazines that describe how to make the bombs that were planted in NY and NJ recently, seriously injuring dozens of people. They are actively violent and killing people. Take the $#@!ing magazine out.. if you are going to attack them, attack them! I'm not arguing for a central authority on the internet, but there are ways to do it.

If you are against taking out ISIS, then just say so - that's fine - but instead of starting by attacking the people who want to go in, disable them and get out - attack the people who want to turn it into a boondoggle like the rest of our wars seem to turn into. It just ends up causing a lot more pain for innocent bystanders and costs our country a lot more.

People who "want to go in, disable them and get out" are the exact reason we are in a "boondoggle." That you think one doesn't follow the other is rather silly.

As for the freedom of the press, isn't it funny how people want liberty except in times of war? All they have to do is label someone your enemy and you're ready to forgo liberty for security. Except as history is showing you don't get more secure. You just turn into more of a slave.

[PierzStyx]

Isn't it amazing how people who say they support liberty, you know, things like freedom of speech, are all too willing to sell themselves into government slavery for security? The government really does know which of your buttons to push to get you to willingly put those chains on.

[dannno]

People who "want to go in, disable them and get out" are the exact reason we are in a "boondoggle." That you think one doesn't follow the other is rather silly.

Ya because they are whores invested in the military industrial complex and by lying they can get us into the boondoggle wars they planned from the beginning. Maybe Trump will be that way too, I dunno, maybe he won't.. But what we do know is that Hillary will absolutely be more of the same.

As for the freedom of the press, isn't it funny how people want liberty except in times of war? All they have to do is label someone your enemy and you're ready to forgo liberty for security. Except as history is showing you don't get more secure. You just turn into more of a slave.

Lol... label someone your enemy you claims they are your enemy and is actively attacking you?

Look, I know how ISIS was created - the US funded and created them and I would prefer to just leave the whole situation. But if I have to choose between the option of continuing to fund and help ISIS which is what would happen if Hillary gets elected, and taking out ISIS which at least has some possibility of Trump is elected then I will choose taking out ISIS. Trump also promises a more peaceful foreign policy with less interventions against foreign nations. I don't know if he will deliver that, but I know Hillary will NOT deliver that and again be more of the same.

[John F Kennedy III]

“it is not freedom of the press when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want.”

We have always been at war with Eurasia...

[Origanalist]

Isn't it amazing how people who say they support liberty, you know, things like freedom of speech, are all too willing to sell themselves into government slavery for security? The government really does know which of your buttons to push to get you to willingly put those chains on.

I'm seeing it daily from so called supporters of liberty.

[dannno]

Here's what I'm saying - Ron Paul has the CREDIBILITY to get on a youtube or write an article about this whole situation - how ISIS was created - how we can stop funding them and get out - how we can protect our first amendment rights - how we can protect freedom of speech on the internet...

The media has absolutely ZERO credibility in this matter and has no legitimate platform on which to attack Trump on this issue. They don't explain how or who created ISIS and they only occasionally pay lip service to the Constitution.. and they support somebody like Hillary who is far worse on this issue - who will compound our problems with ISIS and foreign policy boondoggles.

[LibertyEagle]

“it is not freedom of the press when newspapers and others are allowed to say and write whatever they want.”

We have always been at war with Eurasia...

He's talking about them downright lying. Once upon a time, news organizations were expected to tell the truth. I don't remember the year of the ruling, but it wasn't too awfully long ago that a court ruled that they were no longer held to that standard. I think that is a problem. Don't you?

[PierzStyx]

Ya because they are whores invested in the military industrial complex and by lying they can get us into the boondoggle wars they planned from the beginning. Maybe Trump will be that way too, I dunno, maybe he won't.. But what we do know is that Hillary will absolutely be more of the same.

We absolutely know Trump would be more of the same- worse than what we have now in fact.

"Few of the policies he mentioned were significantly different from the antiterrorism strategy now being pursued. For example, Mr. Trump said he would join with allies in the Middle East to “aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cut off their funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting.” The Pentagon is already pursuing all those approaches.

The biggest departure in the speech came in his proposed new test for people seeking admission to the U.S., the latest variation of a proposal that has been central to his presidential campaign, but also one of its most controversial." http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-t...u-s-1471291339


Lol... label someone your enemy you claims they are your enemy and is actively attacking you?

Look, I know how ISIS was created - the US funded and created them and I would prefer to just leave the whole situation. But if I have to choose between the option of continuing to fund and help ISIS which is what would happen if Hillary gets elected, and taking out ISIS which at least has some possibility of Trump is elected then I will choose taking out ISIS. Trump also promises a more peaceful foreign policy with less interventions against foreign nations. I don't know if he will deliver that, but I know Hillary will NOT deliver that and again be more of the same.

That you think you can "take out ISIS" is the problem. You could kill every member of ISIS and it wouldn't matter. Because ISIS isn't the problem. Get rid of ISIS and a new one will spring up. If you really want to eliminate the threat then you have to eliminate the cause. The cause of ISIS is US military intervention in foreign nations. You want to lessen terrorism to the point that it is negligible as a threat again? Forget ISIS. Stop trying to bomb al-Qaeda/ISIS/whoever comes next. Stop the interventions, stop the blowback, stop the terrorism. Continue attacking ISIS and just create the next problem. Keep supporting military intervention and you are the problem.

Responses in bold.

[dannno]

I'm seeing it daily from so called supporters of liberty.

I'm sorry but I don't believe the first amendment was written to protect violent groups actively engaged in violence and combat..

[nikcers]

I guess when fighting Germany in WWII, we and our allies should have avoided attacking the industrial plants where they built tanks because we might take out the center where they keep the plans for said tanks - you know, freedom of speech.

Likewise, turning this issue into freedom of speech is sorta silly. They are at war with us, they have online magazines that describe how to make the bombs that were planted in NY and NJ recently, seriously injuring dozens of people. They are actively violent and killing people. Take the $#@!ing magazine out.. if you are going to attack them, attack them! I'm not arguing for a central authority on the internet, but there are ways to do it.

If you are against taking out ISIS, then just say so - that's fine - but instead of starting by attacking the people who want to go in, disable them and get out - attack the people who want to turn it into a boondoggle like the rest of our wars seem to turn into. It just ends up causing a lot more pain for innocent bystanders and costs our country a lot more.

Godwin's Law already? This is hardly a real comparison because you are arguing the MSM narrative. We aren't at war against ISIS, we are not at war against Terror. We are the only super power, as Putin puts it. We are at war over the new world order and the people that oppose the new world order. Arguing that this is not about Russia, Iran, makes you seem really dishonest because I know that you know this is not about ISIS.

[dannno]

Responses in bold.

You responded to me saying that we should stop funding ISIS and leave the Middle East and stop attacking countries there with you saying the exact same thing. You aren't teaching me anything, you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say here. If it's a choice between continuing funding ISIS and going to war with Syria and all these other countries which will continue to embolden ISIS, and doing what TRUMP says and stop attacking these countries and just take out ISIS, I would choose stop attacking all these Middle Eastern countries and take out ISIS. Does that make sense? I know you want to believe that Trump won't do what he says, and I dunno whether to believe him or not either - but once again our other option is 100% more of the same..

I don't know what Donald Trump is going to do, he's not incredibly consistent with his statements, but he has said many times that our foreign policy is too aggressive and we should think hard before we go to war. Whether he means it or not, I dunno, but that is better than the alternative of more of the same.

[dannno]

Godwin's Law already? This is hardly a real comparison because you are arguing the MSM narrative. We aren't at war against ISIS, we are not at war against Terror. We are the only super power, as Putin puts it. We are at war over the new world order and the people that oppose the new world order. Arguing that this is not about Russia, Iran, makes you seem really dishonest because I know that you know this is not about ISIS.

I didn't mention Hitler, just Germany, so that law was not invoked.

Secondly, ISIS is at war with us. They claim they are at war with us and they are actively bombing and terrorizing us here at home. Obviously they won't be able to take over our country, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't protect ourselves from the casualties.

[nikcers]

If it's a choice between continuing funding ISIS and going to war with Syria and all these other countries which will continue to embolden ISIS, and doing what TRUMP says and stop attacking these countries and just take out ISIS,

False choice, we are the ones who embolden ISIS. ISIS' presence helps us in the middle east.

[LibertyEagle]

Responses in bold.

So, you think this is a bad thing? Trump is absolutely right and to not do so is fricking suicidal. If someone wants sharia law, why on earth would they want to come to America? It's not a fit. That may not be PC to say, but it is nonetheless the truth.

Donald Trump, expanding on the provocative immigration ideas that have propelled his presidential candidacy, proposed on Monday a new ideological test that would limit immigrants seeking admission to the U.S. to “those who share our values and respect our people.”

He argued in a speech fleshing out his plans to combat terrorism that tighter immigration standards were needed to fight Islamic State with the same vigor with which the U.S. fought the Cold War. “We will be tough, and we will be even extreme,” he said.

It wasn’t immediately clear what the test—he called it “extreme vetting,” a phrase that didn’t appear in his prepared remarks—would include, but Mr. Trump suggested he would ban not only terrorist sympathizers but those who believe in Shariah law, don’t believe in the U.S. Constitution or “support bigotry and hatred.” Shariah law is the legal system of Islam that governs public and private behavior.

[nikcers]

I didn't mention Hitler, just Germany, so that law was not invoked.

Secondly, ISIS is at war with us. They claim they are at war with us and they are actively bombing and terrorizing us here at home. Obviously they won't be able to take over our country, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't protect ourselves from the casualties.

we control the propaganda that ISIS puts out- those magazines are created by the deep state, our tax dollars.

[nikcers]

This is about Cold war 2, not ISIS. I will not give up my free speech over Russia. I would rather die in a nuclear pile of green goo.

[PierzStyx]

I'm sorry but I don't believe the first amendment was written to protect violent groups actively engaged in violence and combat..

So then you don't believe in free speech or the inalienable rights of each individual to say what they think, believe, and wish to do? You want limits on those ideas you think too "dangerous" for consumption?

If the freedom of speech doesn't protect the speech of those you oppose then you do not have free speech at all. You have governmentally approved speech. Congratulations. You agree with Hillary Clinton.

The real silly part is that for you to say this and believe it you can only do so by ignoring the traitors, rebels, and terrorists who wrote the thing in the first place. The Founders who wrote the Bill of Rights belongs to violent anti-government groups that actively engaged in violent rebellion against their lawful government and killed those who opposed them. They tortured people publicly, or do you think having your body covered in molten tar was a nice experience? They openly called for violence against government representatives and violence against the government itself.

Indeed, the First Amendment was specifically written to protect violent groups actively engaged in violence and combat because it was written by those who had done just that.

[PierzStyx]

So, you think this is a bad thing? Trump is absolutely right and to not do so is fricking suicidal.

To do so is fricking suicidal. That you think this is okay makes you a bigger danger to my life and liberty than ISIS every has been. Indeed, given that you want to use the government to violently abuse millions of people, killing those who oppose you and forcing the rest to think and live like you, like "an American" makes you no better than ISIS, (mod edit). Your religion you are killing for is the same as theirs- the State.

[PierzStyx]

You responded to me saying that we should stop funding ISIS and leave the Middle East and stop attacking countries there with you saying the exact same thing. You aren't teaching me anything, you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say here. If it's a choice between continuing funding ISIS and going to war with Syria and all these other countries which will continue to embolden ISIS, and doing what TRUMP says and stop attacking these countries and just take out ISIS, I would choose stop attacking all these Middle Eastern countries and take out ISIS. Does that make sense? I know you want to believe that Trump won't do what he says, and I dunno whether to believe him or not either - but once again our other option is 100% more of the same..

I don't know what Donald Trump is going to do, he's not incredibly consistent with his statements, but he has said many times that our foreign policy is too aggressive and we should think hard before we go to war. Whether he means it or not, I dunno, but that is better than the alternative of more of the same.

Trump is 100% the same. Actually read teh article. He just wants to go after Iran instead of Syria.

[LibertyEagle]

To do so is fricking suicidal. That you think this is okay makes you a bigger danger to my life and liberty than ISIS every has been. Indeed, given that you want to use the government to violently abuse millions of people, killing those who oppose you and forcing the rest to think and live like you, like "an American" makes you no better than ISIS, (mod edit). Your religion you are killing for is the same as theirs- the State.

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.

[donnay]

Trump is 100% the same. Actually read teh article. He just wants to go after Iran instead of Syria.

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-presid...if-trump-wins/

[LibertyEagle]

So then you don't believe in free speech or the inalienable rights of each individual to say what they think, believe, and wish to do? You want limits on those ideas you think too "dangerous" for consumption?

If the freedom of speech doesn't protect the speech of those you oppose then you do not have free speech at all. You have governmentally approved speech. Congratulations. You agree with Hillary Clinton.

The real silly part is that for you to say this and believe it you can only do so by ignoring the traitors, rebels, and terrorists who wrote the thing in the first place. The Founders who wrote the Bill of Rights belongs to violent anti-government groups that actively engaged in violent rebellion against their lawful government and killed those who opposed them. They tortured people publicly, or do you think having your body covered in molten tar was a nice experience? They openly called for violence against government representatives and violence against the government itself.

Indeed, the First Amendment was specifically written to protect violent groups actively engaged in violence and combat because it was written by those who had done just that.

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..._of_the_press/

[LibertyEagle]

We absolutely know Trump would be more of the same- worse than what we have now in fact.

"Few of the policies he mentioned were significantly different from the antiterrorism strategy now being pursued. For example, Mr. Trump said he would join with allies in the Middle East to “aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cut off their funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting.” The Pentagon is already pursuing all those approaches.

Pierz, the U.S. government is not trying to take out ISIS. They never have. Their sole goal of being in Syria is to overthrow Assad. In fact, our government loves Al Qaeda and ISIS, to the extent that they will do their dirty work for them. Which is why the U.S. government has been running guns and other supplies to them for quite a long time. I'm sure you remember that Hillary was running guns to the Syrian rebels from the CIA Outpost in Libya. Our government is helping them out in the open now.

[robert68]

· The chance of being murdered by a non-terrorist is one in 14,275 a year compared to one in 3,609,709 a year for all foreign-born terrorist attacks.

· The chance of being murdered on U.S. soil by any terrorist, native or foreigner, was one in 3.2 million a year.

· The chance of being murdered in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, committed by a foreigner after 9/11 was one in 177.1 million a year.

· For every successful foreign-born terrorist who actually killed somebody on U.S. soil in an attack, over 28 million foreigners entered the United States.

· 9/11 is a tremendous outlier in terms of deadliness – about an order of magnitude deadlier than the second-deadliest terror attack in world history.

· Excluding 9/11 from this analysis helps us understand what most terrorist attacks in the past and the future are going to be like. Doing that reveals that 91 percent of the deaths caused by all terrorists on U.S. soil, native or foreign-born, were committed by natives or those with unknown nationalities (usually because their identities were never uncovered) while 9 percent were committed by foreigners.

http://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-terrorism


"Fear of Terror Makes People Stupid"