Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
A Civil War where the right wingers would win...

You base that on what, exactly?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
A Civil War where the right wingers would win...

You base that on what, exactly?

I'm thinking it's coming from the same source of insight that predicted Trump would never win. All this talk of Civil War is absurd.

It's also a bunch of false bravado and bs. Most right wingers I know are the most out of shape buffoons you'll ever meet, or think their 308 rifle will save them versus a drone. This is a very stupid tangent to go down anyway as our country is so fat, lazy, and stupid we put Trump in power in the first place, we're not gonna die to remove him because of those reasons.

Serious question, and one asked devoid of hope or endorsement, but is there a general feeling that Trump, one way or another, won't see out his four years?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Serious question, and one asked devoid of hope or endorsement, but is there a general feeling that Trump, one way or another, won't see out his four years?

When you have both Obama's and Bush's ethics lawyers saying that Trump will be in violation of the Constitution from day one, there's a chance of impeachment if the Republican/Trump relationship melts down (especially since that puts a cookie-cutter Republican in charge), or if Democrats take Congress in 2018.

Norm Eisen gives a pretty good overview of all the insanely corrupt problems that are going to crop up just from Trump's decision to retain his businesses in the latest episode of Pod Save America.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


There's another way of looking at that, and as I've said before, it always surprises me that the USA doesn't share this viewpoint.

For example, you pay £104 and get £4672 worth of medical drugs in return. On the surface, that looks a pretty bad deal.

And yet, if you do nothing, and let that person's health gets worse, it's more than likely that:

that person gets a serious condition and has to go to hospital. A team of surgeons has to operate on that person, plus weeks of after care, plus the cost of the ambulance to get them to hospital = more than £4672.

Plus, if those drugs keep that person going, keep them working, then they pay tax back, and it's likely that they claim no benefits because they have a job.

Now, that is good value for money. Surely the Americans can see the business sense in that?

That's exactly why my company pays for private medical insurance - they want us back up and running faster.

But you're correct; early treatment is almost always cheaper than later treatment, and the US system seems to be set up to prevent people seeking treatment until it's got as bad as they can handle.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


There's another way of looking at that, and as I've said before, it always surprises me that the USA doesn't share this viewpoint.

For example, you pay £104 and get £4672 worth of medical drugs in return. On the surface, that looks a pretty bad deal.

And yet, if you do nothing, and let that person's health gets worse, it's more than likely that:

that person gets a serious condition and has to go to hospital. A team of surgeons has to operate on that person, plus weeks of after care, plus the cost of the ambulance to get them to hospital = more than £4672.

Plus, if those drugs keep that person going, keep them working, then they pay tax back, and it's likely that they claim no benefits because they have a job.

Now, that is good value for money. Surely the Americans can see the business sense in that?

That's exactly why my company pays for private medical insurance - they want us back up and running faster.

But you're correct; early treatment is almost always cheaper than later treatment, and the US system seems to be set up to prevent people seeking treatment until it's got as bad as they can handle.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks prevention is better than cure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Serious question, and one asked devoid of hope or endorsement, but is there a general feeling that Trump, one way or another, won't see out his four years?

When you have both Obama's and Bush's ethics lawyers saying that Trump will be in violation of the Constitution from day one, there's a chance of impeachment if the Republican/Trump relationship melts down (especially since that puts a cookie-cutter Republican in charge), or if Democrats take Congress in 2018.

Norm Eisen gives a pretty good overview of all the insanely corrupt problems that are going to crop up just from Trump's decision to retain his businesses in the latest episode of Pod Save America.

Can't see Trump getting impeached. That would require the GOP to have a spine.

And given the ease with which Trump swept aside the approved GOP presidential candidates and hijacked the GOP, who would replace him? Pence?

I'm sure that would go down well with Trump's base.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Can't see Trump getting impeached. That would require the GOP to have a spine.

And given the ease with which Trump swept aside the approved GOP presidential candidates and hijacked the GOP, who would replace him? Pence?

I'm sure that would go down well with Trump's base.

Actual picture of GOP leadership.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Can't see Trump getting impeached. That would require the GOP to have a spine.

And given the ease with which Trump swept aside the approved GOP presidential candidates and hijacked the GOP, who would replace him? Pence?

I'm sure that would go down well with Trump's base.

Actual picture of GOP leadership.

Spoiler:

The GOP are a shadow of their former glories, hollowed out and fading with each passing year. The declining number of voters backing them is testament to that.

Nah, for better or for worse, the GOP will stand or fall with Trump. They can't ditch him. Once you jump out of that aeroplane, you can't turn back, you can only hope your parachute is working.

 reds8n wrote:
.... an army of loyal people to help the Leader.

That always works out well.

Well, if they all wear black or brown jackets or shirts or something, at least they could be easily identified.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm confused. If I'm carrying concealed at the mall, and I'm coming up the escalator, and someone is at the top of the escalator standing there looking at his phone while blocking my path off the escalator, he is battering me because he is restricting my right to free movement. So it's okay for me to draw and defend myself, right?

That's what the kids get for playing Pokémon Go!

If they're playing Pokémon Go! it's your civic duty to weed them out of the gene pool.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
A Civil War where the right wingers would win...

You base that on what, exactly?

Did ya miss the snarky orkimon? ( )

Jeez... we ain't going to have a civil war anytime soon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Serious question, and one asked devoid of hope or endorsement, but is there a general feeling that Trump, one way or another, won't see out his four years?

When you have both Obama's and Bush's ethics lawyers saying that Trump will be in violation of the Constitution from day one, there's a chance of impeachment if the Republican/Trump relationship melts down (especially since that puts a cookie-cutter Republican in charge), or if Democrats take Congress in 2018.

Norm Eisen gives a pretty good overview of all the insanely corrupt problems that are going to crop up just from Trump's decision to retain his businesses in the latest episode of Pod Save America.

You talking about the emolument clause?

Frankly, it's a nothing-burger.

Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.

I think talk of civil was is silly.

What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.

The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The NHS seems like our VA: people will readily admit there are issues, some have horror stories, but the vast majority don't want to see it go away and are very happy with it despite the flaws.

There are a LOT of horror stories with the VA, way more than the NHS, but like with any public service, obviously not having it is worse. The old better than nothing cliche.

It's worth noting that that UK also has private health insurance and pay as you go private health options, as well as the NHS.

 Peregrine wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
You're not understanding the argument I'm making. I never said boycotts were bad I said that Trump's tweet supported Linda Bean's right to free . speech.

No, I understand it perfectly, you're just wrong. The right to free speech means that the government can not prevent you from speaking or punish you for doing so. It does not mean that private citizens can not treat you badly for speaking. Linda Bean is free to support any political candidates she wants, and people are free to express their disgust with her actions and say " you, vote for someone else". Trump's tweet was not supporting Linda Bean's right to free speech (which is not being infringed upon), it was supporting some bizarre "right" to never have any consequences for your speech or beliefs, no matter how horrible they are.

No one should feel the need to try to enact a boycott against the Patriots to get Brady cut from the team and kept out of the NFL because he supported the "wrong" candidate.

This I will agree with. Nobody should support a boycott against the Patriots because of Brady's political choices. They should be supporting a boycott against the Patriots because the Patriots and Brady. If you're a Patriots fan you're already the lowest of the low, so expecting you to vote correctly would be wildly unrealistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Just because somebody gets hit by a car doesn't mean it's murder or that the driver was at fault. Numerous times on my commute I've seen people run across multiple lanes of a highway with 55-70mph speed limits just because jaywalking across the highway is a shortcut. If you're driving along obeying the law, staying in your lane, not speeding, maintaining a safe distance between yourself and other cars etc. and some guy decides to run across the highway like a human version of the game Frogger you can't control when that guy runs into the highway, if he times it right, how fast he runs, when you see him etc. Hitting that guy with your car wouldn't necessarily be murder. Jaywalking is illegal because it's dangerous and so is blocking traffic without first obtaining a permit. This isn't a preplanned march or parade route it's an unexpected group of people walking into traffic in the roadway. If you want to literally go out and play in traffic you're choosing to create a life threatening situation, protestors could be fatally struck by cars and the unexpected traffic jam could cause fatal car accidents.

You're missing the point here.

Currently the driver is presumed to be at fault, but not required to be at fault. The driver can use the "it wasn't possible to avoid them" defense in court, but has the burden of proof and must convince the jury that the accident was in fact unavoidable. If you hit someone who suddenly sprints across a 70mph road within your reasonable stopping distance you aren't at fault. But if you're speeding, driving drunk, failed to stop even though you had sufficient stopping distance, etc, you are responsible for the injury/death and pay the price. And "but they were doing something illegal" isn't going to be an acceptable defense. You don't get to kill someone just because they're doing something illegal, you're still obligated to attempt to avoid the pedestrian. Whether or not the police punish them for jaywalking is an entirely separate question.

The proposed law reverses the burden of proof: the driver is presumed to be innocent unless the prosecution can prove that it was a deliberate act of murder, as long as the victim was illegally blocking traffic. This is a huge problem because meeting that burden of proof is virtually impossible unless the defendant is stupid enough to confess to a crime. If they say "oops, it was an accident" the prosecution can't prove that it was deliberate. So if you're mad about a protester standing in the road and blocking your commute you can just keep driving, and if they don't dodge fast enough and you kill them you can't be punished for it.

It should be pretty obvious why the current situation is clearly better than the alternative.

Linda Bean =\= LL Bean. People can protest Linda Bean for supporting Trump if they want, it's an extremely intolerant attitude to be that outraged against somebody simply because he/she exercised their constitutionally protected right to speak and vote their conscience in a way that was different than yours. Trump's tweet thanked Linda Bean and promoted LL Bean, which was ignorant because again, Linda Bean =\= LL Bean, she has no influence over the company. The people that want to protest LL Bean and force them to take away Linda Bean's minority ownership stake in her family's company because Linda supported Trump. I consider that to be un-American in idea and practice because all Americans should value our liberties that allow us to vote for the "wrong" candidate and express the "wrong" thoughts and be secure in our own individual thoughts and actions. Nobody should want to arbitrarily limit options to force people to only be able to choose the "right" candidates and beliefs, that's totalitarian and the antithesis of our free society. I don't dislike boycotts I just don't like boycotts based on overtly faulty reasoning and faux outrage.

I'm glad we're in agreement on idea that nobody should be a Patriots fan. I knew we had common ground somewhere. Evil exists in the world and it resides in the portion of the Venn diagram where Patriots fans, cat people and people who put ketchup on hot dogs overlaps.

I don't think there are a lot of people out there who want to kill people with their car. If you put yourself out in the roadway then you're creating a traffic hazard and you're responsible for any accidents caused by the willful creation of that hazard. If I'm driving on the road and something falls out of the back of my truck onto the road, thereby creating a hazard, which results in a traffic accident that leaves people injured or dead it's my fault. I may have had no intention of creating a hazard, I may have even made an attempt to secure the contents of my truck to prevent anything from falling out but I'm still responsible for the accident I caused. If a drive is impaired/under the influence, speeding, distracted by their phone, etc. then that's a mitigating circumstance that may render the driver at fault or partially at fault but the onus is on people to stay out of the street if they're not using a crosswalk. Around here we have a problem with deer crossing roads and causing accidents. Hitting the deer isn't illegal, nobody gets in trouble for hitting a deer but nobody wants to hit the deer, nobody aims for them or accelerates into them. I don't think this proposed law is really necessary, I don't think there's a problem with how current law handles people impeding traffic but if the new law passes it isn't going to magically instill murderous intent in people either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
Paul Ryan had his town meeting where he layed out the case for repealing and replacing ACA. Basically he stood there and told a bunch of lies, because the argument to dump ACA is a big lie, and Paul Ryan is a lying gak.

He claimed ACA was collapsing. While this claim is deliberately vague (because he's lying to people), we can have a quick look at ACA enrolments. 11 million in 2016, and it is on track to be 12 million. Expanding coverage year on year is the opposite of collapsing, so Ryan is lying.

Ryan lied when he again claimed the 'death spiral'. He claimed young people were leaving, when the number of young people enrolled has remained steady at 28% for a few years now. For Ryan's death spiral to be true that number would have to be in decline, it isn't and so Ryan's claim becomes yet another lie.

I didn't watch the town hall but I'm curious if Ryan was talking about enrollment numbers or costs. The ACA can be collapsing because of the cost of ensuring everyone regardless of preexisting conditions coupled with the constant rise in overall costs of health care outpacing the amount of money coming from premiums and new enrollees. If the expense is growing faster than the revenue then its a death spiral regardless of enrollment increases. Similar issue with the young people claim. If Ryan said young people are leaving when the numbers are remaining constant then that's clearly a lie but if the number of young people enrolling is holding steady at 28% and that's below the predictions and necessary percentage of young enrollees needed to offset rising costs of the expanded pool of insured people then it's a death spiral. Expanding coverage isn't really an effective method for reducing costs which is the main problem with the ACA, it's not pushing costs down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ender502 wrote:
Obama told dems to make Republicans "own" a repeal of the ACA. In the same vein I think Republicans will have to own trump. And I think this will be the end for them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression are all that are keeping them afloat at this point. Another 4 years and they wont be able to come close to winning a national election. I mean, they lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and HRC was crazy unpopular.

I think talk of civil was is silly.

What concerns me is the slow erosion of voting rights we have seen and will continue to see under a trump administration.

The only time Republicans have a spine is when denying people the right to vote, reducing VA benefits or taking healthcare away from children. They are real adamant on those points.

Gerrymandering and voter suppression didn't make 62,000,000+ people turnout and vote for a "terrible" Republican candidate. Having the support of all those people is going to keep the Party relevant for the foreseeable future. The 3 million margin in the popular vote is attributable to HRC beating Trump by 3 million votes in CA. The popular vote in the other 49 states was effectively a draw. The Republican party ceasing to be a viable party on the local and state level in the most populous state in the country is the big obstacle facing the Republican Party on a national level. Even other "Blue" states like Wisconsin, MA, NJ, NY, etc. we see Republicans winning statewide elections for governor and senator because there isn't the massive disparity between party affiliation and influence that there is in CA.

CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers

Here's a fun little thing if anyone is interested. You draw the charts for the Obama admin, and then is shows you how close you were. I ended up thinking things were worse other than unemployment. Sort of interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/15/us/politics/you-draw-obama-legacy.html

 whembly wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Serious question, and one asked devoid of hope or endorsement, but is there a general feeling that Trump, one way or another, won't see out his four years?

When you have both Obama's and Bush's ethics lawyers saying that Trump will be in violation of the Constitution from day one, there's a chance of impeachment if the Republican/Trump relationship melts down (especially since that puts a cookie-cutter Republican in charge), or if Democrats take Congress in 2018.

Norm Eisen gives a pretty good overview of all the insanely corrupt problems that are going to crop up just from Trump's decision to retain his businesses in the latest episode of Pod Save America.

You talking about the emolument clause?

Frankly, it's a nothing-burger.

Right, remember everyone:

Clinton Foundation receiving money from foreign governments for supposed "access" to government = huge strike against Clinton, charity should be shut down.

Trump's businesses receiving money from foreign governments for supposed "access" to government, in direct opposition to the Constitution = Eh, whatta gonna do about it?

 Vaktathi wrote:
CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers

Peter Theil is "thinking" of a run...

First open gay Gov, who's also a republican. (wasn't he the guy who bankroll'ed Hulk's defamation case against Gawker?)

 ender502 wrote:
There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....

protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.

Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.

The courts have consistently upheld the ability of municipalities and states to infringe on the people's right to assemble and protest in the form of making certain forms of civil disobedience illegal and requiring people to secure a permit to make use of public spaces for protests/events. I think that's whembly's point, that there are many ways people can organize and conduct protests that don't break the law. People don't have to break the law to have an effective protest. Oftentimes people do break the law when they protests to varying degrees but it's not a requirement for the process to be effective. Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media. Did the people who burned down a Walmart in Charlotte during the protests in the streets there get meetings with people who can actually make changes to policing policies?

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers

Peter Theil is "thinking" of a run...

First open gay Gov, who's also a republican. (wasn't he the guy who bankroll'ed Hulk's defamation case against Gawker?)

i know nothing about him so cant comment, but would make for interesting CA political theater.

 Just Tony wrote:
If I get upset about someone spitting on me and calling me a baby killer because I'm in uniform, I'm being intolerant of their beliefs and their rights to protest. Cuts both ways, I guess...

just as a question...did this actually happen to you? Because this is a persistent myth across many nations and wars going back at least to the 19th century with basically zero actual documented evidence of ever having occurred.

 Vaktathi wrote:
CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers

Other than the Governator how many Republican governors have they had in the last couple decades? Who was the last Republican senator from CA?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers

Other than the Governator how many Republican governors have they had in the last couple decades? Who was the last Republican senator from CA?

Since the first time Jerry Brown was governor, CA had one recalled democrat and the rest were Republicans.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers

Peter Theil is "thinking" of a run...

First open gay Gov, who's also a republican. (wasn't he the guy who bankroll'ed Hulk's defamation case against Gawker?)

I'm not sure the religious right would let that happen.

 infinite_array wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Serious question, and one asked devoid of hope or endorsement, but is there a general feeling that Trump, one way or another, won't see out his four years?

When you have both Obama's and Bush's ethics lawyers saying that Trump will be in violation of the Constitution from day one, there's a chance of impeachment if the Republican/Trump relationship melts down (especially since that puts a cookie-cutter Republican in charge), or if Democrats take Congress in 2018.

Norm Eisen gives a pretty good overview of all the insanely corrupt problems that are going to crop up just from Trump's decision to retain his businesses in the latest episode of Pod Save America.

You talking about the emolument clause?

Frankly, it's a nothing-burger.

Right, remember everyone:

Clinton Foundation receiving money from foreign governments for supposed "access" to government = huge strike against Clinton, charity should be shut down.

Trump's businesses receiving money from foreign governments for supposed "access" to government, in direct opposition to the Constitution = Eh, whatta gonna do about it?

You really can't compare the two...

Clinton foundation is a charity. (lookee here, guys the foreign donations has dried up... CGI is shutting down).

Trump's businesses are simply that... a business. His assets are mainly tied to his properties and his "Trump" brands. So, unless you're advocating for him to sell off his properties (which they'd lose massive money + still owes money to banks)... and sell his "Trump" brand (how the feth do you do that??)... we're all kinda stuck with this. It stinks to high heavens, but let's be pragmatic here... he isn't divesting his properties or selling his brand.

Weirdly... the president is specifically excluded from the federal conflicts of interest law (whereas, Clinton was NOT excluded during her tenure as SoS). The issues he is dealing with are not legal issues, but appearances of conflicts.

Emolument clause doesn't mean his business can't ever take money from foreign government for at-market hotel rates... it means that Presidents may not accept payments for services whilst in an office. (I'm sure accepting above-rate for these rooms would constitute as bribery, which he CAN be impeached/removed for...).

Don't know if this we discuss here at dakka, but his lawyers last week stated that Trump has committed all profits on rooms rented by foreign officials to be paid to the U.S. Treasury. It'll be interesting as to how this would mechanically work, but there is that.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....

protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.

Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.

The courts have consistently upheld the ability of municipalities and states to infringe on the people's right to assemble and protest in the form of making certain forms of civil disobedience illegal and requiring people to secure a permit to make use of public spaces for protests/events. I think that's whembly's point, that there are many ways people can organize and conduct protests that don't break the law. People don't have to break the law to have an effective protest. Oftentimes people do break the law when they protests to varying degrees but it's not a requirement for the process to be effective. Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media. Did the people who burned down a Walmart in Charlotte during the protests in the streets there get meetings with people who can actually make changes to policing policies?

I think we have to recognize that not all law breaking is the same. Burning down a WalMart isnt in the same league as blocking traffic.

If someone breaks a law in order to either show the injustice of the law or to bring attention to an issue, I'm cool with that. I am not cool with arson.

I am also alright with requiring permits for protests, especially when it will effect traffic. It's a safety issue.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....

protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.

Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.

Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media.

You are telling me famous NFL players that bring revenue to states/cities were able to protest effectively live on television? It is almost like they had the audience right in front of them the whole time. Where the people who are blocking off the highways/interstates probably do not have a film crew following them or 100,000+ followers/friends on various forms of social media.

I wonder why some people break the law to get attention for their cause and others do not.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
CA has frequentl had Republican governors, the problem is they put up Meg Whitman last time who's answer to unemployment was going to be to fire tens of thousands of state workers

Peter Theil is "thinking" of a run...

First open gay Gov, who's also a republican. (wasn't he the guy who bankroll'ed Hulk's defamation case against Gawker?)

I'm not sure the religious right would let that happen.

In CA?... I have family there... but, I haven't felt the "pulse" of that state in quite some time.

I don't think him being gay would be an issue... it's the fact that he's a Republican.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....

protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.

Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.

Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media.

You are telling me famous NFL players that bring revenue to states/cities were able to protest effectively live on television? It is almost like they had the audience right in front of them the whole time. Where the people who are blocking off the highways/interstates probably do not have a film crew following them or 100,000+ followers/friends on various forms of social media.

I wonder why some people break the law to get attention for their cause and others do not.

America: "If you have money, you can do anything!"

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 ender502 wrote:
There has been some talk about laws and I wanted to add some context....

protesting.... You either support people's right to free speech and assembly or you don't.Period. You either stand up for our constitutional rights or you don't. Period. The question about what is "appropriate" when it comes to protest isn't a question or debate. It is merely people trying to say, in a faux southern genteel way, "don't protest. Just please shut up. Whatever you're complaining about doesn't effect me nor should it." The point of protest is to make your opinion known and to let others know what the situation is and why you are protesting. It is supposed to effect others. Thats sort of the point. The forces of status quo would rather you just protest in your living room. That way no one has to see or hear you and no one has to recognize the situation. That just wont fly.

Civil Disobedience...the point is to break the law. The point is to be punished for breaking an unjust law. To bring attention for the unjust nature of the situation..like getting arrested for drinking at a whites only fountain.

Multiple NFL players got face to face meetings with mayors, governors and police chiefs due to their protests during the national anthem before games and their comments at press conferences and on social media.

You are telling me famous NFL players that bring revenue to states/cities were able to protest effectively live on television? It is almost like they had the audience right in front of them the whole time. Where the people who are blocking off the highways/interstates probably do not have a film crew following them or 100,000+ followers/friends on various forms of social media.

I wonder why some people break the law to get attention for their cause and others do not.

It was the same cause and the NFL players are perfectly capable of advocating for it and discussing it intelligently and in depth. Lawful protests are better than unlawful rioting.