Anti-Trump protests

[Ordos]

Hence why I said "Can"

[Jay]

Just now, mtangelsfan said:

It isn't a game, it is one of their primary jobs as Congress to vet and approve/disapprove of judicial appointments.  It is how the balance of powers is supposed to work.  Refusing to do their jobs is a slap to the folks who put them in office.  It is dereliction of duty.

It is a game.

Ever been a juror? The legal system is a game. The team with the best players wins. Finding the truth is not the goal, winning is the goal.

Not exactly the same thing but these are lawyers representing us in Washington. That's what they do.

[mtangelsfan]

It is their job Jay.  It is what they get paid to do.  They also set a very horrible precedent.

[mtangelsfan]

2 minutes ago, Ordos said:

Hence why I said "Can"

Can is meaningless then.  I "can" drink and drive.  It is still illegal.

[Jay]

1 minute ago, cezero said:

the trump hanging effigy was no bueno

 

I didn't see that but it's easy to imagine...

If (and I'm sure there were) hanging effigies of Obama it would be considered racist and rightly so.

 

[mtangelsfan]

I think blocking traffic and effecting people's lives negatively is much worse than burning a piece of cardboard or some straw.

[the dude abides]

Where they should be protesting is the DNC HQ and the offices of superdelegates.

 

[Jay]

1 minute ago, mtangelsfan said:

It is their job Jay.  It is what they get paid to do.  They also set a very horrible precedent.

IIRC there was already a precedent for what they did... Schumer...? I could be wrong about that.

But hey we all cry foul at what the Dems or Repubs are doing in Washington. You didn't see any serious challenge to what the Repubs did w.r.t. Garland, nobody went to jail. The Dems cried about it a little bit and that was it.

 

[the dude abides]

Just now, Jay said:

IIRC there was already a precedent for what they did... Schumer...? I could be wrong about that.

 

Interestingly enough, it was Biden.

[Ordos]

1 minute ago, mtangelsfan said:

Can is meaningless then.  I "can" drink and drive.  It is still illegal.

It is not meaningless. If they had approval from municipalities, you wouldn't have any complaint, and therefore they could. Do you expect any municipality to set aside a time and place that you can drink and drive?

The point I make, again, is that when it turns violent, you can no longer expect this protection.

[mtangelsfan]

IIRC there was already a precedent for what they did... Schumer...? I could be wrong about that.

But hey we all cry foul at what the Dems or Repubs are doing in Washington. You didn't see any serious challenge to what the Repubs did w.r.t. Garland, nobody went to jail. The Dems cried about it a little bit and that was it.

 

 

They didn't because basically they believe, and rightly now I guess, that there are very few consequences for not following the law.  

[mtangelsfan]

2 minutes ago, Ordos said:

It is not meaningless. If they had approval from municipalities, you wouldn't have any complaint, and therefore they could. Do you expect any municipality to set aside a time and place that you can drink and drive?

The point I make, again, is that when it turns violent, you can no longer expect this protection.

Yet they didn't have approval, so they were not supposed to.  People can break the law, doesn't mean they won't be arrested.

[Jay]

2 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

IIRC there was already a precedent for what they did... Schumer...? I could be wrong about that.

But hey we all cry foul at what the Dems or Repubs are doing in Washington. You didn't see any serious challenge to what the Repubs did w.r.t. Garland, nobody went to jail. The Dems cried about it a little bit and that was it.

 

 

They didn't because basically they believe, and rightly now I guess, that there are very few consequences for not following the law.  

I'm not an expert on the law, maybe you are.

[arch stanton]

Disrupting traffic is vindictive and petty and really doesn't move their agenda forward. It's a form of whining and serves no positive purpose for either side. 

[Ordos]

And I would have no problem if they did get arrested for it. They have to understand where the rules apply to their rights.

[Blarg]

20 minutes ago, Ordos said:

Under the First Amendment, every citizen has the right to peacefully assemble (and yes, that can include blocking the freeway). When it gets violent, however, the same protections do not apply.

No, they do not have any right to block transportation and should have been immediately removed from any access to the freeway. Peaceful assembly does not impinge the rights of others to pass through on roads or highways. 

[gotbeer]

One of these days.  On one of these protests.  Someone is going to go postal on these people.  And that person will probably get off on temporary insanity.

[arch stanton]

6 minutes ago, Jay said:

IIRC there was already a precedent for what they did... Schumer...? I could be wrong about that.

But hey we all cry foul at what the Dems or Repubs are doing in Washington. You didn't see any serious challenge to what the Repubs did w.r.t. Garland, nobody went to jail. The Dems cried about it a little bit and that was it.

 

It seems like a pretty blatant dereliction to me. If they don't want to hold confirmations within a month or so it should be considered no contest. 

[Glen]

4 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

Disrupting traffic is vindictive and petty and really doesn't move their agenda forward. It's a form of whining and serves no positive purpose for either side. 

Yeah, I agree. All it does is possible people off and turn them against your cause.

These protests in general are stupid. Trump was elected, he's gonna be president.  That's how 'Murica works. As somebody else said, protest the DNC for giving us Hillary.

[Jay]

2 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

It seems like a pretty blatant dereliction to me. If they don't want to hold confirmations within a month or so it should be considered no contest. 

I'm sure we could all agree on that... but apparently that's not the case, am I right?

Which brings me back to my original point, it's just a game and in this case the Repubs rolled the dice and won.

[Glen]

3 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

It seems like a pretty blatant dereliction to me. If they don't want to hold confirmations within a month or so it should be considered no contest. 

Well, ultimately they got what they wanted and faced no consequences. But again, I agree with you.

[Ordos]

7 minutes ago, Blarg said:

No, they do not have any right to block transportation and should have been immediately removed from any access to the freeway. Peaceful assembly does not impinge the rights of others to pass through on roads or highways. 

We've already been over this, see above.

And yes, I have been stuck in traffic behind a protest that was approved ahead of time (that was a joy), so it most certainly can.

[NJHalo]

10 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

One of these days.  On one of these protests.  Someone is going to go postal on these people.  And that person will probably get off on temporary insanity.

 

[Jay]

It's funny, see the eyeglasses that Michael Douglas is wearing in 1993, they went out of fashion and are now back in style.

President Tom Kirkman in Designated Survivor.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

We need a good herd thinning. Protesting is a right but there's ways to do that don't involve going on freeways, looting or rioting.