NihiledIt
101824
3111
164
Aug 2, 2016 11:29 PM
NihiledIt
101824
3111
164
scratchimo1
404 syntax error
[deleted]
[deleted]
Lolslols
No.
TheLeprechaunn
That's why he knows all the best words.
pocketflan
Everyone knows it.
cucumbersome
He knows yuge words.
helpusdrzaius
and lots of them. lots of yuge, very nice, words. I am very rich, very very rich.
BenderBendingRrodriguez
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!
VigorousWhale
esbear
Considereing that slander is not protected as free speach, he may have a point.
celebratorygunfire
What a shitshow.
bishopbrennansarse
What a shower. What a fucking shite house.
HeywouldJablowme
I like dumpster fire
OhNoItsTheDramaLlama
Like a DRUMPHster fire!
iamthecomet
Just wait till season 4
Elnuggettato
Ha! Oh I made myself sad...
NerdN1
He says things that you expect a satirical caricature to say. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R42mFx3_ss
dniMdesreveR
It's shit like this that cause unemployment among satire writers - reality is crazier than anything they can come up with.
Sipsap88
Trump is terrible but am I the only one who thinks he's not referencing the constitution when he uses "right" in that context?
AllLivesDontMatter
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he means.
Sipsap88
I.e. "She/he has no right to talk to me like that!" or "He has no right to treat my wife that way."
SepticStorm
^this. but he has managed once again to put his foot in his mouth,
Treblaine
Still an unintentionally hilarious joke.
AnswerLady
First ammendment-Freedom of Speech.
Cluelessfucker
I'm not a Trump supporter but it is important to note that slander is a civil wrong. Whether this is truly slander is perhaps debatable.
ratfaceddog
Not really.
Elnuggettato
Uh... Hi from 2020...
Mewmus
Khan bitches that if Trump had his way then his family would have never come here....but that also means his son will still be alive.
BerthaMasonIsInMyAttic
Well there's absolutely no guarantee of that.
BismoDismo3111
It's going to be great. The greatest ever. We're going to win so much you all will get tired of winning.
SepticStorm
you know, call it a failure of language but there is a difference between you have no "constitutional" right and you have no "social" right
SepticStorm
I read that more as Trump saying: " you can't say that, You don't know me" but once again he has put his foot in his mount. SMH
StraightToCatFolder
We need a constitutional lawyer here!
thepartystoohard
Where did Trump say this? I read through his tweets and didn't see it. Also oh man his twitter feed, I'm so terrified for this election
CrazyCatLad
When people defend him I just say, "Go read his Twitter."
Ezzybells
He might not have said it on Twitter. It wasn't retweeted from him.
spict
Maybe I'm old fashioned but political discussion should not happen mainly in Twitter.
thepartystoohard
Ha, fair. I didn't mean to imply it SHOULD be- just that usually the dumbest shit he says is often tweeted.
thepartystoohard
Eh, USA Today has the exact quote, so it's probably word for word. Still no idea for the origin though
thepartystoohard
Update: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/setting-the-record-straight
thepartystoohard
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/30/trump-fallen-soldiers-father-ve-made-lot-sacrifices/87790612/
thepartystoohard
Yeah, I guess not. Was it in the Stephanopoulos interview?
CairoLen
Yes.
thepartystoohard
Apparently no- but @nothanksnothanks found it! https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/setting-the-record-straight. Search "no right"
nothanksnothanks
He said it during an interview on This Week with George Stephanopoulos https://youtu.be/hhy-xQbQ14s
Treblaine
As much as we'd all love to watch Trump talk for 20 minutes... please just give us the timestamp.
nothanksnothanks
https://youtu.be/hhy-xQbQ14s?t=14m43s
Treblaine
If you meant 14 minutes and 43 seconds in, 3 minutes after that he's still not said anything about "have no right".
nothanksnothanks
Oh, that part: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/setting-the-record-straight
BourbonAndBeethoven
Still not convinced that this isn't the greatest trolling of all time. If they discover it to be true, they'll rename it "trumping."
biff1895
Trumping is already a thing in parts of the UK.
PapiBlanco
Look up cracked's "what if trump is just an elaborate prank" on YouTube. It honestly seems to make sense after that video
icecoldjoe
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trump-is-playing-4d-chess
RichManSCTV0
Trump is playing like 40D chess
HalfOpenSkies
The GOP melt down right now is happening because they assumed he was just a troll, but it's becoming apparent he's just honestly stupid.
PapiBlanco
Look up cracked's "what if trump is just an elaborate prank" on YouTube. It honestly seems to make sense after that video
Bootsy81
I still think it'll get to inauguration day and instead of taking his oath of office he'll just say "what the fuck America?" and leave.
5712
Freakingdoomguy
*hope
UjustgotFdintheA
Man that's what I been saying for a year now, if he does I will applaud him. Well played Mr. Trump
Dolewhipper
then he will just rant for like 5 hours saying how stupid his voters were.
checkacheckitoutlikethisherewego
I'm not even mad.
Mcmcman
Because no one ever uses the phrase "has the right" as in "it was not in good taste" or "was not morally sound"
cleep3
The First Amendment is in the Bill of Rights....
IMakeLotsOfReferencesAndRemakes
Vantango84
Right. Which is part of the constitution.
cloak71
Which are the first 10 amendments to the us constitution. Clear you haven't read it either.
TzarCowski
If you believe the first amendment applies to interactions between people. you are incorrect.
mizcs
Well i mean, it is borderline Libel, isn't it? libel is not covered under freedom of speech
onthejol
Ugh go read the constitution
theguybehindtheguybehindtheguy
This is so far from libel it's not even funny. Also, it's almost impossible to sue somebody for libel and for good reason.
mizcs
i'm sorry, i was misguided and stupid
isuckatbeingfunnysoipostcoolgeologicfeatures
Trump doesn't need to read the constitution he just needs to surround himself with people who have and he'll be fine. Then we'll never lose
scratchimo1
They'll be in charge of reading the constitution, he'll be in charge of making America great again.
isuckatbeingfunnysoipostcoolgeologicfeatures
Right! That's what im saying. Would you rather be "stronger together" or would you rather make America great again?
anotherdickat
America is already great
MrMcCookieMuffin
If your leader can't accomplish such a simple task, how do you expect him to be competent in his presidential tasks? :/
isuckatbeingfunnysoipostcoolgeologicfeatures
Im being sarcastic sorry if that was unclear lol
MrMcCookieMuffin
Ohh, hard to tell over the net' - gotcha haha.
AcidExfoliate
"The only litmus test for a supreme court justice is that they follow the constitution" - Gary Johnson https://www.johnsonweld.com/
TheFreshPrinceOfDenmark
What theory of constitutional interpretation does Johnson subscribe to? Does he follow SCOTUS precedent or always apply originalism?
AcidExfoliate
Compare to : http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/trump-constitution-isnt-always-relevant/
anotherdickat
https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/07/29/gary-johnson-is-worse-than-donald-trump/
AcidExfoliate
That's the stupidest Article I've ever seen. It applies DNC and GOP ideals to him and says he doesnt meet them. Duh. We know.
anotherdickat
https://www.lp.org/platform The party platform is also a dumpster fire.
AcidExfoliate
You spelled "I dont agree with it" wrong.
anotherdickat
I see you've never read it. Can I lend you my link? Oh, I already did.
Shenkman
its funny because the amendments arent even on the constitution. jesus christ people know your own history.
mosesfunk
By definition the amendments are "on the constitution". An amendment to any document becomes part of the document. What was your point?
Shenkman
my point is that they are on the bill of rights not the constitution. Not debating that the constitution is the base for the bill of 1/
Shenkman
rights. Im just pointing out that people think that the amendments are written on the constitution. which they entirely are not.
mosesfunk
Just in case you don't believe me. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/
Shenkman
lol look at the bottom of your link buddy.
mosesfunk
The bill of rights are part of the Constitution; legally! There is no point in discussing the legal implications of the Constitution (1/2)
mosesfunk
without the amendments because they legally changed the Constitution. Stop trying to be a pedant; especially when you're wrong here. (2/2)
[deleted]
[deleted]
ratfaceddog
In actual reality, slander isn't that easily qualified.
nothanksnothanks
Actually no, you and he are wrong. The Khan statement was "Let me ask you: Have you even read the US Constitution?"
[deleted]
[deleted]
onthejol
Don't use that word! Slanderous
Vantango84
"I don't know what he said" Then why are you commenting and defending him?
[deleted]
[deleted]
cunttliflower
It probably would have saved everyone's time if you had done a tiny bit of research before putting your opinion out there. Probably.
skiprains
I don't understand this, could someone please clarify this? I don't understand the context.
[deleted]
[deleted]
NeoAcario
It'
CheeseBerry
Glad I'm not the only one.
K1191
First Amendment is the freedom of speech, it's in the constitution. Trump is trying to say another man doesn't have free speech and that 1/?
K1191
he (Trump) has read the constitution. But if he actually had, he would know that Khizr Khan does have the right to do so.
blamsy
Dad of a fallen Muslim-American soldier accused trump of never reading the constitution at the DRC. Trump responds in a way that confirms it
idislikecomingupwithuniqueusernames
I mean he didn't even really make an accusation. Just sarcastically asked. What a dumb thing for Trump to blow up on.
GreaterDog
People say Trump is secretly smart and just cleverly trolling his way to the top, but with him being so easily baited I can't believe that.
ThePakistallion
Even if that is true... There is no substance to anything he says. It's fine to be in the spotlight but how is he leading?!?
TheSinsOfTheUnworthyMustBeBaptizedInBloodAndFear
1.Well my American history teacher(politically neutral) says he likes to act outrageous because then he doesn't have to pay for advertising
TheSinsOfTheUnworthyMustBeBaptizedInBloodAndFear
2. Like all the other candidates do. You know who he is and what he wants you to think he's about without having to pay for tv time and such
blamsy
As a republican, Khan's speech was very moving.
CrazyCatLad
Facebook friend of mine posted a rant about how Khan is a fool, a coward and blames Khan's countrymen for the death of her own son. 1/2
CrazyCatLad
2/2 Can PM you it if you're interested in it to see where you stand on the diatribe.
anotherdickat
The first amendment of the Constitution guarantees Mr Khan the right to say that, The Chump saying he has no right shows he's not read it.
PangolinBan
Trump's being a dick here, but you're not entirely correct. The First Amendment protects the public from the government doing anything 1/2
PangolinBan
2/2 that infringes on the right to free speech. It doesn't protect the public from being sued for libel, slander or defamation, however.
anotherdickat
Then The Chump should sue instead of saying he has no right.
PangolinBan
That would be a supremely stupid thing to do. I don't see that happening, it'll only work against him.
samsonguy920
I think it is at this time we really need to look at Trump's and Clinton's running mates. Because that is who is going to be President >
samsonguy920
> after T or C get impeached and thrown out.
anotherdickat
Mrs Clinton on the other hand, if there was anything that she was ACTUALLY going to be prosecuted for, it would have happened already. -->
anotherdickat
The republicons have enough of a hateon for her that she'd be in prison if there was even the thinnest actual reason.
anotherdickat
The Chump has less than a snowball's chance in hell because he can't keep his fucking dumb-ass-mouth shut. About anything. Ever. Seriously.
samsonguy920
That's what bothers me, as he is the one more likely to get impeached right in the door. Hillary's slippery and smarter every day.
AphidTaco
What if he has. Is it not slander?
Hatchitt
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
onthejol
And of all the awful things Trump says about other public figures? That's okay? The verbal gymnastics to prove trump is in the right is wow
KamalaKhan
Not legally, no. Slander for a public figure is really hard to establish, especially where political speech is concerned, because political
KamalaKhan
speech has the strongest 1st amendment protection. It's the fundamental aim of freedom of speech: to promote open political discourse
RyuuGaWagaTekiWoKurau
Mr. Khan asked if Trump has even read the constitution, and that he'd gladly lend him his. Not slander.
AphidTaco
Fair enough. But that's not what the "joke" is. If Trump has read it, and someone claims he didn't. Is it slander?
dephress
How is that slanderous?
RyuuGaWagaTekiWoKurau
Fair question. Anything can be challenged in a court of law. But I doubt it would go anywhere unless there was clear malice intended.
AphidTaco
Can it be inferred that using the national media to cast someone that's running in a negative light during an election is malicious?
adritha
If that's the case than basically every politician should be charged with slander. Technically Trumps comments ab Hillary being 1/2
RyuuGaWagaTekiWoKurau
Courts would have to weigh in free speech, defamation, and different standards for political campaigns. Definitely a lot of grey area.