General US Politics Discussion

[Eutyphro]

So rich white men are collectively classified as not oppressed? Two pages back, you explicitly rejected collective notions of oppression.

I don't reject all collective notions of oppression, as long as they are factually accurate. I think it's obviously possible to argue that black people are oppressed, considering how economically disadvantaged and mass imprisoned they are. But it should also be noted that the mass imprisonment mainly applies to black males specifically. The moment white women or fat people are considered an oppressed class it becomes obvious that facts or reason aren't significant to SJW's. If an African American girl at Yale tells others to "check their privilige" it's really pretty ridiculous. Some individual white men are oppressed (unnecessarily incarcerated, or in other ways disadvantaged or burdened) , but "white men are oppressed" is not categorically true enough. But now that I've been thinking about it, students in the USA do have legitimate grievances about student debt, but really not about racism and sexism on campus. That's a load of bullsh*t.

 

By that logical progression, all American concerns are moot because the ones in Syria, Malawi, etc. are relatively more profound.

I think being grateful for that which is good, which is a lot in the USA, is an important thing but I guess you don't think that.

 

Not to mention the fact that they were largely protesting bigotry.

They were protesting to enforce political correctness and censor conservatives. Protestors also often interrupt Ben Shapiro at colleges, who is not as offensive as Milo. But even in the case of Milo, you have the simple option of not going to the event. Noones 'safety' is under threat. It's their right to protest Milo, but it has become a tendency for SJW's to do everything in their power to ruin every conservative event, and that's really quite sh*tty for conservative students who are able to organize nothing.

 

Surely you know the only difference between these supposedly-privileged students and the afflicted is a matter of winning a genetic, geographic, and chronological lottery right? They surely know it…which is why they are protesting.

No, that's not why they are protesting. Modern protesting is too often centered on identity (pretending white women are an oppressed class in a 'women's march', though 52% of white women voted Trump), false narratives (as in BLM chanting "hands up don't shoot"), and in this case enforcing political correctness and censoring conservatives. Any genuine leftist who cares about matters that are factually accurate would've immediately left the protest after Antifa and students started rioting.

 

lol sometimes? The unifying pillar of the so-called alt-right is built around closeted white nationalism. Just about every Republican gathering looks like a 1950s boardroom ffs. But yeah identity politics is mainly just getting out of hand on the left.

Yeah, sometimes. Because not everyone on the right participates in identity politics. That would be a silly generalization.

 

This honestly doesn't call for much head scratching. Conservatives have been crowded out of the intelligentsia because simply put, beyond the more formulaic and borderline-criminal dimensions of generating $, they’re typically stupid. And even in big business, much of the heavy lifting (R&D, the average engineer/technocrat, the less-disposable roles in finance, legal services, medical professionals, etc.) is done by those who generally oppose modern American conservatism. The authority of conservatives in this country is almost entirely obtained through wealth as opposed to contributing to any theoretical research or creative endeavor. In fact, the more Republican-dominated corporations generate wealth more-directly derived from either economic rent seeking, war-profiteering, extractive services, multinational agribusiness, or some other overtly parasitic activity. However, they are admittedly sincere in that regard because social entrepreneurship is a bunch of neoliberal bullsh*t. And when we consider the lack of talented conservative artists as well, it becomes quite clear that the right has a tendency to turn people into a waist of functioning organs. But bless their hearts nonetheless

It's true that conservatives are less creative and on average probably less intelligent. But there is a problem in social sciences where the liberal/leftist majority has gotten out of hand due and it threatens the political diversity within universities. To an extent the differences in interests and occupation between conservatives and liberals, because they correspond to personality traits, are natural. But when university employees start being selected on the basis of political affiliation then it becomes an issue and the University runs the risk of becoming an echo chamber of desirable politically correct research outcomes. Here's an article, with at the bottom a graph about how the conservative/liberal ratio has changed from 1/3 to 1/14 in social psychology. http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/01/07/new-study-finds-conservative-social-psychologists/ And that is also a cause of the rise of the idiotic safe space ideology.

Edited February 11, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Clem Fandango]

 

 

Lol @ calling Milo homophobic.

 

Do you genuinely believe cis gay men can't be homophobic?

 

I guess they can be self loathing homosexuals, similar to a lot of self loathing heterosexual male feminists.

 

I'm sorry I am mean to your imagined future self.

[Eutyphro]

To get back to the subject whether identity politics is leftist or liberal, I actually think that's a very interesting subject. What it seems to me is that a lot of movements with leftist goals have to an increasingly large extent allied themselves with neoliberals (even center right politicians with some limited progressive ideas like Hillary Clinton), because on the surface they share similar goals. For instance, neoliberals desire open borders because the free movement of people and capital is in the interest of corporate enterprise. Leftists want open borders because they have an idealistic desire for an anarchist utopia. Neoliberals like identity politics, because identity is a useful tool to make people resentful and passive and make people vulnerable to commercialism, and leftism thinks identity politics is a tool to liberate the oppressed from the oppressor. Neoliberalism likes feminism and the idea of the social construct because they see the economic benefits of forcing masculine norms on society as a whole, because masculine competitiveness and creativity are more valuable than classic femininity in an advanced economy. Leftists like feminism and the idea of the social construct because it justifies a battle against what they think is a patriarchal society where a construct of femininity is forced upon women to oppress them.

[Clem Fandango]

Quantify what femininity is beyond crude stereotypes or just stop posting on the subject.

 

You say women's fashion is a result of 'inherent femininity' so what styles are we talking about?

 

You say women tend towards 'nurturing' type jobs, so what jobs are we talking about and how is empathy an advantage? Suspending empathy is one of the most important parts of nursing and teaching and the latter is a job historically done by men.

 

You say women have a natural inclination towards domestic labour... why? What does doing the dishes have to do with their apparent special empathising abilities?

 

I'd say that even if your absurd claims were true, women can live however they want but you say this will break their minds? How and why?

 

If you believe in a secular version of complementarianism, why does homosexuality exist, in your view? In the formal religious version it's considered abomination.

[Creed Bratton]

How about you stop talking about identity politics like a bunch of social commentators from tumblr and focus on more relevant things coming from the White House right now, like the whole mess with Flynn and his aide being denied security clearance by the CIA. Having potential Russian spies within the White House and not knowing who to trust in the administration is far from normal. It sounds like a script for a bad spy movie. Seems to me like Russians are the primary benefactors of such a messy and barely functional administration.

[make total destroy]

What it seems to me is that a lot of movements with leftist goals have to an increasingly large extent allied themselves with neoliberals

Yeah, no.

[Eutyphro]

Quantify what femininity is beyond crude stereotypes or just stop posting on the subject.

I don't think we should get deep into that subject in this topic, but a significant amount of ideas you ascribe to me aren't mine.

[make total destroy]

SEIU (which represents over 40,000 workers) is calling for a general strike on May day.

 

This should be interesting.

Edited February 12, 2017 by make total destroy

[Svip]

Hmm! They are ambitious if they think Trump might still be in office by then. But then again, Trump is just one man. May just seems so far away.

 

Speaking of contemplating about Trump's time in office, I read that betting markets are taking a lot of bets on whether Trump will be impeached, and apparently - to them - it's even money (for instance, 11-to-10).

 

This got me thinking, just how many ways are there for Trump to leave office before his term runs out? Let's list them. They are listed in no particular order.

 

1. Death; Natural causes

Or as natural as it might gets. This may be the most obvious scenario, I suppose. But I distinct death into two categories, and this is the first one.

 

Donald Trump is 70 years of age. And - despite what his "doctor" says - probably isn't in excellent shape/health. And he certainly doesn't lead a healthy life style.

 

But while this scenario may seem the most obvious, it would be more likely that Trump would be forced out while he was sick, and therefore - technically - not actually die in office. Although - as we'll get into later - the 25th amendment wouldn't actually make Vice President Pence President, just Acting President until Trump's death - unless Trump actually resigned.

 

2. Death; Assassination

The last known assassination attempt on a President's life was in 1983 on Ronald Reagan. The last successful assassination attempt was on John F. Kennedy in 1963.

 

It's not unreasonable to think that all presidents succeeding Reagan have had threats to their lives, that the Secret Service - or another US intelligence agency - have successfully fended off, before the public ever got to know about it. Procedure have definitely changed since the 60s, making it hard to imagine this scenario unfold, unless the USSS let it happen. But more on that later.

 

3. Resignation; Forced by Congress

This is sort of the prelude to an impeachment. In a sense, Congress decides to impeach the President and Trump decides to step down, rather than risk the consequences of an actual impeachment.

 

4. Resignation; Other

There are too many reasons to contemplate why Trump would resign beyond impeachment. But a scenario may have played out, where Trump resigning would appear as winning to him and his supporters. Or internal pressure within his Administration is forcing him out.

 

Or he becomes ill and is unable to fulfil his duties, and he resigns to focus on his health.

 

5. Impeachment

I'd rather not divide this category into several versions, because the motivations behind an impeachment would effectively be the same: Trump's support is diving in the polls, his supporters are abandoning him en masse, and Republicans standing by him is purely a liability for their re-election efforts.

 

As such, they decide to impeach the President, by which point I am sure has plenty on his record to justify an impeachment. But Trump may resign first. Who knows?

 

6. Cabinet effectively forces him out

According to the 25th amendment, the cabinet - along with the Vice President - can declare the President unfit for office and the Vice President becomes Acting President.

 

The President can then respond saying he is fit for office, overriding Cabinet's declaration. But if Congress concurs with Cabinet rather than the President afterwards, there is nothing the President can do, and the Vice President will remain Acting President until Cabinet or Congress deems the President worthy to fulfil his duties.

 

Another way to think of this is as a coup. But considering the amount of support Cabinet needs among publicly elected officials - say the Vice President and Congress - it sort of falls hollow on being a coup. But it may be one way for a coup to be orchestrated.

 

7. Coup; By intelligence

By intelligence, I mean intelligence agencies, that is, different from a military coup.

 

Imagine, that Trump has somehow made one or more US intelligence agency irritated enough, that would like to see him gotten rid off. Now, one way, would be to simply assassinate him. But considering the amount of nutjobs out there that might be willing to do that for them, they could simply just let it happen.

 

Of course, that would require the Secret Service to be one of the agencies. Without them, they are probably looking for some other ways of ousting Trump, not necessarily by killing.

 

8. Coup; Military coup

Somehow, Trump manages to piss off the military enough to force their hands. I hardly can contemplate how exactly this scenario would play out. Nor the consequences of it.

 

9. Abolishment of office

I am only leaving this here, because it is technically one way for Trump to leave prior to his expected term limit. I'll let you contemplate the ways.

 

To sum up, 3, 5 or 6 are the scenarios I consider the most likely. And therefore the most interesting to talk about. But all of these require Congress to aggressively against Trump. I am not even sure the judicial branch can do anything.

[sivispacem]

I was looking on Paddy Power last week, my personal favourite was odds of 4:1 on his Russian piss party video making it to RedTube.

 

The odds of his impeachment within 6 months are the same too- 4:1.

[darthYENIK]

He's only seemed to make enemies in his three weeks in office. Intelligence agencies, the judicial system, and he's one by one losing support from republicans on the hill, who should be his greatest ally, as well as other countries leaders. All on top of the media and the "left".

 

The only ally he seems interested in making is Russia.

 

Still, I think there will have to be something monumental to force an impeachment. I don't think there's going to be a straw that breaks the camel's back, it won't be a bunch of small things building up, but one or two giant failures that will have to occur. A forced resignation by congress or cabinet, as Svip mentioned, seems the most likely scenario for his early exit, in my opinion.

 

That said, I believe he'll stick for his full four year term, before any of that happens.

[Creed Bratton]

my personal favourite was odds of 4:1 on his Russian piss party video making it to RedTube.

This would destroy the GOP. They'd effectively become a party of incompetent clowns that supported a traitor who's being blackmailed by the enemy to the highest position of power in the country. I can barely imagine the scope of the political fallout after something like that.

 

I think impeachment after his tax returns are revealed might be the safest bet. There's most likely something very damaging in those tax returns.

Edited February 12, 2017 by The Yokel

[Stringer Bell]

if hes impeached then bible thumping conservative Mike Pence is president along with the GOP having free rein

 

its a double edge sword for you guys

[Creed Bratton]

if hes impeached then bible thumping conservative Mike Pence is president along with the GOP having free rein

 

its a double edge sword for you guys

Trump is mentally unstable and he poses a national and international security risk. Pence might be bad but he's not a wannabe dictator. He's a standard Republican politician.

[Eutyphro]

I think the idea that he's likely to be impeached is a hoax. And I also agree Mike Pence is possibly worse.

[acmilano]

Hmm! They are ambitious if they think Trump might still be in office by then. But then again, Trump is just one man. May just seems so far away.

 

Speaking of contemplating about Trump's time in office, I read that betting markets are taking a lot of bets on whether Trump will be impeached, and apparently - to them - it's even money (for instance, 11-to-10).

 

This got me thinking, just how many ways are there for Trump to leave office before his term runs out? Let's list them. They are listed in no particular order.

 

1. Death; Natural causes

Or as natural as it might gets. This may be the most obvious scenario, I suppose. But I distinct death into two categories, and this is the first one.

 

Donald Trump is 70 years of age. And - despite what his "doctor" says - probably isn't in excellent shape/health. And he certainly doesn't lead a healthy life style.

 

But while this scenario may seem the most obvious, it would be more likely that Trump would be forced out while he was sick, and therefore - technically - not actually die in office. Although - as we'll get into later - the 25th amendment wouldn't actually make Vice President Pence President, just Acting President until Trump's death - unless Trump actually resigned.

 

2. Death; Assassination

The last known assassination attempt on a President's life was in 1983 on Ronald Reagan. The last successful assassination attempt was on John F. Kennedy in 1963.

 

It's not unreasonable to think that all presidents succeeding Reagan have had threats to their lives, that the Secret Service - or another US intelligence agency - have successfully fended off, before the public ever got to know about it. Procedure have definitely changed since the 60s, making it hard to imagine this scenario unfold, unless the USSS let it happen. But more on that later.

 

3. Resignation; Forced by Congress

This is sort of the prelude to an impeachment. In a sense, Congress decides to impeach the President and Trump decides to step down, rather than risk the consequences of an actual impeachment.

 

4. Resignation; Other

There are too many reasons to contemplate why Trump would resign beyond impeachment. But a scenario may have played out, where Trump resigning would appear as winning to him and his supporters. Or internal pressure within his Administration is forcing him out.

 

Or he becomes ill and is unable to fulfil his duties, and he resigns to focus on his health.

 

5. Impeachment

I'd rather not divide this category into several versions, because the motivations behind an impeachment would effectively be the same: Trump's support is diving in the polls, his supporters are abandoning him en masse, and Republicans standing by him is purely a liability for their re-election efforts.

 

As such, they decide to impeach the President, by which point I am sure has plenty on his record to justify an impeachment. But Trump may resign first. Who knows?

 

6. Cabinet effectively forces him out

According to the 25th amendment, the cabinet - along with the Vice President - can declare the President unfit for office and the Vice President becomes Acting President.

 

The President can then respond saying he is fit for office, overriding Cabinet's declaration. But if Congress concurs with Cabinet rather than the President afterwards, there is nothing the President can do, and the Vice President will remain Acting President until Cabinet or Congress deems the President worthy to fulfil his duties.

 

Another way to think of this is as a coup. But considering the amount of support Cabinet needs among publicly elected officials - say the Vice President and Congress - it sort of falls hollow on being a coup. But it may be one way for a coup to be orchestrated.

 

7. Coup; By intelligence

By intelligence, I mean intelligence agencies, that is, different from a military coup.

 

Imagine, that Trump has somehow made one or more US intelligence agency irritated enough, that would like to see him gotten rid off. Now, one way, would be to simply assassinate him. But considering the amount of nutjobs out there that might be willing to do that for them, they could simply just let it happen.

 

Of course, that would require the Secret Service to be one of the agencies. Without them, they are probably looking for some other ways of ousting Trump, not necessarily by killing.

 

8. Coup; Military coup

Somehow, Trump manages to piss off the military enough to force their hands. I hardly can contemplate how exactly this scenario would play out. Nor the consequences of it.

 

9. Abolishment of office

I am only leaving this here, because it is technically one way for Trump to leave prior to his expected term limit. I'll let you contemplate the ways.

 

To sum up, 3, 5 or 6 are the scenarios I consider the most likely. And therefore the most interesting to talk about. But all of these require Congress to aggressively against Trump. I am not even sure the judicial branch can do anything.

 

 

 

 

Don't go for that people. Once these things starts,you don't know where could end.

[jatiger13]

I think the idea that he's likely to be impeached is a hoax. And I also agree Mike Pence is possibly worse.

I don't think Pence would be worse. Because I don't think he'd keep Bannon around, or at least he wouldn't be as influential.

[Eutyphro]

Though Trump is a pseudofascist, and though him calling a judge a 'pseudojudge' is worrying rhetoric, I'm not concvinced he is going to abolish the US constitutional democracy and turn it into a dictatorship like the liberal fear mongers pretend is a likely scenario, and at least he's not a radical social conservative. It also seems that though he is bad for the US international reputation, at least he doesn't seem to be a warmonger like most other Republicans. He could do something radically disastrous any moment and I'd have to eat my words, but I'm not convinced he's definitely worse than Pence. And I'm also not convinced he's getting impeached for being a sh*t talking troll.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Eutyphro

[Svip]

And I'm also not convinced he's getting impeached for being a sh*t talking troll.

No, he'll be impeached when his supporters abandon him and therefore threaten Republicans' own re-election bids. If they can gain more votes by throwing Trump out than by keeping him, they will throw him out.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Svip

[Eutyphro]

he'll be impeached when his supporters abandon him

Which as of now looks like an incredibly unlikely scenario.

[Creed Bratton]

Here's some non-Trump hilarious political news: http://www.cscmediagroupus.com/2017/02/11/tennessee-passes-bill-allowing-people-hit-protesters-blocking-roads/

 

This is retarded on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.

[Stringer Bell]

thats hilarious but seriously protesting in the middle of the road has gotta be the worst way to protest.

 

the nicest ppl are straight assholes behind the wheel.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Axl Rose

[Svip]

Just pretend a pedestrian was a protester.

[Creed Bratton]

the nicest ppl are straight assholes behind the wheel.

Therein lies the problem. Even nice people are assholes behind the well. Dumb violent sh*theads who can't even be arsed to read the actual law will undoubtedly think that they are now free to mow down a bunch of people that are protesting (or that they interpret as a protest) and that they won't be charged with a crime. It's only a matter of time before someone does it.

Edited February 12, 2017 by The Yokel

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

It's their right to protest Milo, but it has become a tendency for SJW's to do everything in their power to ruin every conservative event

Politically, they didn't ruin anything. In fact, they played into his interests to some extent by repeatedly staging massive demonstrations and making him a household name. I never even heard of this malaka until mid-2016...thanks to his fierce critics. These people who are supposedly censoring his platform are directly responsible for his recognition. The backlash is his biggest asset at this point. That is the nature of the provocateur. Every time Milo is allowed to speak unopposed, it's probably a disappointment in terms of publicity.

 

 

I think being grateful for that which is good, which is a lot in the USA, is an important thing but I guess you don't think that.

You either completely missed my original point or contorted it to avoid responding. You made the following illogical suggestion...

 

[A circumstance has the potential to be substantially worse (which applies to all circumstances), therefore the underlying concerns potentially influencing that circumstance are not protest-worthy.]

 

The above assertion is nonsensical. Really not that hard to grasp tbh.

 

 

But when university employees start being selected on the basis of political affiliation then it becomes an issue and the University runs the risk of becoming an echo chamber of desirable politically correct research outcomes

“start being…”? The use of public institutions as a means for controlling what ideas are considered legitimate is no new phenomena. As a Chomsky admirer, surely you know this is the nature of education institutions (especially the state-funded ones) no? This is why great minds often outgrow even the most prestigious universities? Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc...and that’s just the business folks.

 

It was Mark Twain who said, “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”

 

 

It's true that conservatives are less creative and on average probably less intelligent.

That probably has something to do with them not being well-represented at institutions entirely dedicated to theory, research, and study.

 

Here's an article, with at the bottom a graph about how the conservative/liberal ratio has changed from 1/3 to 1/14 in social psychology.

And between multi-million $-generating sports programs that dominate the student culture & much of the school’s public image, the bougie status-quo-worshiping frat/sorority children, the corporate-serving STEM programs, and the staunch capitalists of business schools, who gives a sh*t about social psych anyway? The American intelligentsia is anti-conservative yes. But that doesn’t necessarily make it leftist.

 

Liberal arts are relevant. But in terms of economic and political influence on the university as a whole (not just the tenured staff who speak on public broadcasts), radical leftists on college campuses are generally shrugged off by those who actually impact the endowment. And once again, liberals ought to be juxtaposed with leftists, not synonymous with them.

 

 

 

The right sometimes have their own brand of identity politics.

lol sometimes? The unifying pillar of the so-called alt-right is built around closeted white nationalism. Just about every Republican gathering looks like a 1950s boardroom ffs. But yeah identity politics is mainly just getting out of hand on the left.

Yeah, sometimes. Because not everyone on the right participates in identity politics. That would be a silly generalization

 

And that’s a silly strawman.

You’re kvetching about something that we can all agree is a problem among the neoliberal establishment and those with a fleeting sense of compassion for leftist causes. Meanwhile, identity politics is a defining aspect of the American right. Now this is not to distract from the clear, but less-pervasive tendency of thin-skinned campus liberals to invoke identity politics. It’s just worth noting for the sake of deflating your assertion that identity politics is primarily a feature of the left. The Republican Party and most conservative American institutions have an absolute reliance on racial division for their policies to make sense. Whereas the actual left is pretty much beyond this nonsense because misinformed neoliberals aren’t actually on the left. There’s no sense in drawing these false equivalencies between identity politics on the right with those stoked by a segment of liberal centrists, much less the actual left.

 

 

For instance, neoliberals desire open borders because the free movement of people and capital is in the interest of corporate enterprise. Leftists want open borders because they have an idealistic desire for an anarchist utopia.

The lack of nation-state borders was the default at some point. In fact, borders are already dissolving in the absence of any real leftist mobilization against them. The notion of the state not becoming obsolete at some point is the real utopian fantasy...but dystopian to those who are politically conscious of course.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[RollsReus1959]

 

the nicest ppl are straight assholes behind the wheel.

Therein lies the problem. Even nice people are assholes behind the well. Dumb violent sh*theads who can't even be arsed to read the actual law will undoubtedly think that they are now free to mow down a bunch of people that are protesting (or that they interpret as a protest) and that they won't be charged with a crime. It's only a matter of time before someone does it.

 

 

The protests are getting out of hand and its very dangerous to do such demonstrations in the middle of the road. I believe drivers will get off free even if they do intend to hit these protesters. We have already seen cars drive right through these people. It is their duty to not obstruct the flow of traffic. It is very dangerous and has started a precedent in how people protest. People think blocking the roads is the norm for a 'peaceful' protest.

 

Sadly, somebody has to get hit or killed, to make people recognize that blocking the road is very dangerous. Actually, people were being hit last year but they are still doing it. Safety should be first and the message should be second. Don't risk your fellow citizens' lives for a protest.

[Tchuck]

 

 

the nicest ppl are straight assholes behind the wheel.

Therein lies the problem. Even nice people are assholes behind the well. Dumb violent sh*theads who can't even be arsed to read the actual law will undoubtedly think that they are now free to mow down a bunch of people that are protesting (or that they interpret as a protest) and that they won't be charged with a crime. It's only a matter of time before someone does it.

 

 

The protests are getting out of hand and its very dangerous to do such demonstrations in the middle of the road. I believe drivers will get off free even if they do intend to hit these protesters. We have already seen cars drive right through these people. It is their duty to not obstruct the flow of traffic. It is very dangerous and has started a precedent in how people protest. People think blocking the roads is the norm for a 'peaceful' protest.

 

Sadly, somebody has to get hit or killed, to make people recognize that blocking the road is very dangerous. Actually, people were being hit last year but they are still doing it. Safety should be first and the message should be second. Don't risk your fellow citizens' lives for a protest.

 

 

I don't think you understand what a protest is. How else should the people protest? From the safety of their homes posting things on Facebook? The definition of those protests is to obstruct the flow of traffic to inconvenience the masses and bring to light certain issues. The onus is on those inside their cars to not hit the protesters.

 

And pray tell, what is the norm for a peaceful protest?

 

Safety first, message second? Really?

Edited February 13, 2017 by Tchuck

[RollsReus1959]

 

 

 

the nicest ppl are straight assholes behind the wheel.

Therein lies the problem. Even nice people are assholes behind the well. Dumb violent sh*theads who can't even be arsed to read the actual law will undoubtedly think that they are now free to mow down a bunch of people that are protesting (or that they interpret as a protest) and that they won't be charged with a crime. It's only a matter of time before someone does it.

 

 

The protests are getting out of hand and its very dangerous to do such demonstrations in the middle of the road. I believe drivers will get off free even if they do intend to hit these protesters. We have already seen cars drive right through these people. It is their duty to not obstruct the flow of traffic. It is very dangerous and has started a precedent in how people protest. People think blocking the roads is the norm for a 'peaceful' protest.

 

Sadly, somebody has to get hit or killed, to make people recognize that blocking the road is very dangerous. Actually, people were being hit last year but they are still doing it. Safety should be first and the message should be second. Don't risk your fellow citizens' lives for a protest.

 

 

I don't think you understand what a protest is. How else should the people protest? From the safety of their homes posting things on Facebook? The definition of those protests is to obstruct the flow of traffic to inconvenience the masses and bring to light certain issues. The onus is on those inside their cars to not hit the protesters.

 

And pray tell, what is the norm for a peaceful protest?

 

Safety first, message second? Really?

 

 

You are basically what I was referring to in my original post and that is the normalization of 'blocking the roads' as a sign of peaceful protesting. Not only does it put the protesters at danger it is also putting the motorists at risk. It's crazy that you think 'obstructing the flow of traffic' as being peaceful. I call it being an obstructionist.

 

There is no argument to be made.

 

Use common sense and re-read what you just posted.

 

Inb4 someone tells me rioting is part of a protest. Heck, it's already being accepted as normal from the Left.

 

Sadly, these protesters are no better than the KKK. The KKK never started violence when a Black man was President. Says a lot about society when people can sink lower than the KKK.

Edited February 13, 2017 by RollsReus1959

[Tchuck]

 

 

You are basically what I was referring to in my original post and that is the normalization of 'blocking the roads' as a sign of peaceful protesting. Not only does it put the protesters at danger it is also putting the motorists at risk. It's crazy that you think 'obstructing the flow of traffic' as being peaceful. I call it being an obstructionist.

 

There is no argument to be made.

 

Use common sense and re-read what you just posted.

 

Inb4 someone tells me rioting is part of a protest. Heck, it's already being accepted as normal from the Left.

 

Sadly, these protesters are no better than the KKK. The KKK never started violence when a Black man was President. Says a lot about society when people can sink lower than the KKK.

 

 

??? Normalization of blocking the roads? What sort of world do you live in? That has been the main form of protesting since peasants began to organize against the bourgeoisie. This isn't something recent that "the left" invented. I mean, sh*t, is your grasp of history that shallow?

 

No better than the KKK? What the f*ck are you on about? Stopping a road to make people think about a subject is worse than burning crosses on lawns, forcing black people out of communities, hanging them, beating, murdering them et al? Seriously? Dude, you should re-read what you just posted.

[sivispacem]

Not only does it put the protesters at danger it is also putting the motorists at risk.

Not if it's done in a coherent, organised way like pretty much everywhere else in the world. The problem with the US approach to the issue of public protest is the insistence on reactionary responses by law enforcement, often as a thinly veiled attempt to delegitimise protest. This, as opposed to proactive and collaborative agreement which allow peaceful protest to take place with the minimum of disruption as happens elsewhere in the world. But given law enforcement culture in the US this is hardly surprising.

 

It's crazy that you think 'obstructing the flow of traffic' as being peaceful. I call it being an obstructionist.

The latter does not preclude the former. You've made nothing resembling a coherent argument against it being peaceful. As far as I can determine a protester blocking the road is in no way a violent act in and of itself, so the suggestion it's somehow not peaceful is simply absurd.

 

There is no argument to be made.

Quite right- your entire line if reasoning has been a totally ridiculous non sequitur, never mind the fact you've tried to actively encourage the committing of violent acts against protesters in violation of their constitution rights.

 

Inb4 someone tells me rioting is part of a protest.

Nice straw man, doofus.

 

Sadly, these protesters are no better than the KKK.

That's possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. "Blocking roads is analogous to lynching black men and raping white women because they had black husbands". Seriously, where the f*ck does this kind of bullsh*t come from?