Are Republicans Preparing to Militarize?

[Woody1]

You think their danger is limited to climate? Amusing.

No, I just think your post is off topic. What does it have to do with a military republican party? I admit the OP was a bit open ended, but climate change is kind of another subject, wouldn't you agree? Are the republicans going to start wearing green uniforms or something?

 

[Woody1]

Maybe he should cool it with the hate speech and people won't hate him so much.

Maybe so, but it looks like the plan backfired for the protesters. They came out looking even worse than Trump. I was thinking -- if I vote democrat -- then I'm voting for this huh? An ambulance can't even get to the hospital because of rioters flipping them off. The whole election was about choosing the lesser of two abysmal candidates. If you could take away the super-delegates I'd vote for Sanders over another Bush any day. It's time to get rid of the insiders in both parties IMHO.

 

[douwd20]

No, I just think your post is off topic. What does it have to do with a military republican party? I admit the OP was a bit open ended, but climate change is kind of another subject, wouldn't you agree? Are the republicans going to start wearing green uniforms or something?

I take a broader view. There isn't a single factet of human existence that the Republican Party is "life affirming". Every policy means death to some plant or animal including the animal that likes to think itself as seperate and supreme humanity. The militarization in the OP certainly dovetails into death and morbidity.

 

[Woody1]

I take a broader view. There isn't a single factet of human existence that the Republican Party is "life affirming". Every policy means death to some plant or animal including the animal that likes to think itself as seperate and supreme humanity. The militarization in the OP certainly dovetails into death and morbidity.

OK, let's take the dive then. Will you stop buying products made in China? If not then I think we're done. China Tops world in carbon emissions

 

[spidergoat]

Maybe so, but it looks like the plan backfired for the protesters. They came out looking even worse than Trump. I was thinking -- if I vote democrat -- then I'm voting for this huh? An ambulance can't even get to the hospital because of rioters flipping them off. The whole election was about choosing the lesser of two abysmal candidates. If you could take away the super-delegates I'd vote for Sanders over another Bush any day. It's time to get rid of the insiders in both parties IMHO.

The ambulance thing is a non-starter. Plenty of protestors on various issues from various political perspectives have historically blocked traffic.

OK, let's take the dive then. Will you stop buying products made in China? If not then I think we're done. China Tops world in carbon emissions

Because our economy depends on cheap Chinese made goods. And by the way, China is also a leader in alternative energy development.

 

[Michael]

Article and Retraction / Correction:

The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed. Thus, where we indicated that higher scores in Table 1 (page 40) reflect a more conservative response, they actually reflect a more liberal response. Specifically, in the original manuscript, the descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.​

Note: Individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely than average to be moody and to experience such feelings as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness.


Here's an example of the Fascistic tactics the far-left have come to embrace.
Further, BAMN is an actual cult.

Update: University "Professor" Eric Clanton faces up to 40 years in prison. This was only one of many recorded incidences of him sneaking up and bashing people in the face. The man hit in the head was hit in his temple. Hits to the temple are one of the most common ways of hemorrhaging the brain and killing the individual. Eric Clanton could have hit him on top of his head, where he'd have a less likely chance of dying of a brain hemorrhage. He didn't, instead, he was swinging at the sides of the head, the most dangerous place to be hit. He's lucky he didn't kill someone.

Of course, Eric is a Social Marxist. See, following the complete collapse of socialist economies of the last century, it became evidence that Economic Marxism was a failure that led to the starvation, imprisonment and ghoulish deaths of 100s of millions of humans. HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dead thanks to economic Marxism. Did the left admit they were hugely mistaken? No, they doubled down and turned to Social Marxism. This ideology is doing to society, was economic Marxism did to those economies: destroying it.

Oh, and as for the claim: 'most felons are conservative'. I'm not sure where the empirical data come from to support this statement. According to this paper: Do Voting Rights Notification Laws Increase Ex-Felon Turnout? The authors found that the areas these samples, most go on to become Democrats. OVERWHELMINGLY SO. In the State of New York (as an example) of those who registered to vote, 62% registered as Democrats and 9% registered as Republicans, with 26% registered as independents. While this is a correlation, where ex-felons strongly correlate with being Democrats, which may or may not mean anything at all - where on earth did the claim that most felons are Church-going Conservatives come from?! What? A sample directly from Salt Lake City, Utah?

Anyhow, I see CNN fired Kathy Griffin. Over this image.

I read this interpretation of this artwork:
You, a poor unemployed worker: "I will vote for the candidate who may be of aid".
Me, a rich socialite: "I will cut your f*cking head off to keep what I have."

 

[douwd20]

OK, let's take the dive then. Will you stop buying products made in China? If not then I think we're done. China Tops world in carbon emissions

Total diversion. So what it they do? Does that end our responsibility or any nation's responsibility?

 

[joepistole]

Article and Retraction / Correction:

The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed. Thus, where we indicated that higher scores in Table 1 (page 40) reflect a more conservative response, they actually reflect a more liberal response. Specifically, in the original manuscript, the descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.​

Note: Individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely than average to be moody and to experience such feelings as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness.


Here's an example of the Fascistic tactics the far-left have come to embrace.
Further, BAMN is an actual cult.

Update: University "Professor" Eric Clanton faces up to 40 years in prison. This was only one of many recorded incidences of him sneaking up and bashing people in the face. The man hit in the head was hit in his temple. Hits to the temple are one of the most common ways of hemorrhaging the brain and killing the individual. Eric Clanton could have hit him on top of his head, where he'd have a less likely chance of dying of a brain hemorrhage. He didn't, instead, he was swinging at the sides of the head, the most dangerous place to be hit. He's lucky he didn't kill someone.

Of course, Eric is a Social Marxist. See, following the complete collapse of socialist economies of the last century, it became evidence that Economic Marxism was a failure that led to the starvation, imprisonment and ghoulish deaths of 100s of millions of humans. HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dead thanks to economic Marxism. Did the left admit they were hugely mistaken? No, they doubled down and turned to Social Marxism. This ideology is doing to society, was economic Marxism did to those economies: destroying it.

Oh, and as for the claim: 'most felons are conservative'. I'm not sure where the empirical data come from to support this statement. According to this paper: Do Voting Rights Notification Laws Increase Ex-Felon Turnout? The authors found that the areas these samples, most go on to become Democrats. OVERWHELMINGLY SO. In the State of New York (as an example) of those who registered to vote, 62% registered as Democrats and 9% registered as Republicans, with 26% registered as independents. While this is a correlation, where ex-felons strongly correlate with being Democrats, which may or may not mean anything at all - where on earth did the claim that most felons are Church-going Conservatives come from?! What? A sample directly from Salt Lake City, Utah?

Anyhow, I see CNN fired Kathy Griffin. Over this image.

I read this interpretation of this artwork:
You, a poor unemployed worker: "I will vote for the candidate who may be of aid".
Me, a rich socialite: "I will cut your f*cking head off to keep what I have."

Says the man who supports the guy who hates the free press and proclaims the free press is "the enemy of the people", and advocates the use of torture, and openly admires the worlds most famous dictators.

At least Griffin's friends condemned her action. At least Griffin apologized. That didn't happen when Ted Nugent and other Republicans did similar things. No "conservative" ever condemned Nugent for advocating for the murder of Clinton and Obama. Yeah, facts matter comrade or are you just that ignorant?

 

[spidergoat]

I was thinking -- if I vote democrat -- then I'm voting for this huh?

How do you know the protestors were Democrats?

 

[iceaura]

I would recommend your stereotype individual should stay out of engineering so they don't kill someone. Personally, I try not to stereotype people.

So far, you have posted almost nothing except wingnut stereotypes of people.

Stereotypes can be an intellectual cop-out. It can be a sign of intellectual weakness,

Yep. Like whatever has you buying into the notion that CNN is a leftwing news source.

Because an opinion is not a fact no matter how much somebody insists while they provide no real evidence of their own. Regarding the video, I try to filter the content. It's for the purpose of discrediting CNN of course. Now with that known let us proceed. The video clips look like real life situations.

You posting that silly thing as evidence of anything looks like real life intellectual cop-out and weakness.

Yep, they fell into their own trap as I see it. Mohammed Ali figured it out a long time ago. He'd say things that ticked people off just so they'd come to the fight, then he walked to the bank with their money. It worked every time.

CNN made a lot of money by promoting and airing Trump's campaign. Are you saying CNN was doing the Ali shuffle, walking to the bank with the money after sticking the suckers with President Trump on purpose?
That makes sense - although their CEO did kind of apologize, he didn't seem to really regret the big profits he racked up promoting Trump over all other candidates. But my own take is that he didn't really plan it - he just couldn't turn it down.

They are. Have you ever seen the toilets backing up at half-time at a football game, a colosseum event, etc.? Civil engineers know their shit (pun intended).

That doesn't mean Trump's inauguration was competently run, with a normal ratio of potties to people.

After a porta potty event is over, the deficant material must be disposed of, and can be measured then. I got my data on that too. Bottom line: the Trump inauguration was just average, though the media tried to make it look small, and Trump's press secretary made a fool of himself when he said it was the largest crowd ever. The press wants to delegitimize the election.

So you don't know what the fuss was about.

Trump made repeated claims about the inauguration that were blatantly false. Trump - not his press secretary, who got caught in the middle - first claimed his crowd was the biggest ever (it wasn't). Trump also claimed it did not rain (it did), and a couple of other whoppers. Trump then repeated these claims, in the face of physical evidence, for weeks afterwards. He also accused the press of enemy action and hostile lying, when they reported the physical facts - he impugned their integrity, and doubled down on his own falsehoods.

And he obviously won, since here you are castigating the press and palming the blame off on some press secretary, and you are not alone.

So given the numbers and influence of the thug crowd, what do we - can we - expect from the media and the relevant authorities if the Republican Party sets up a paramilitary wing? We are already seeing the corporate backers of the Republicans setting up such forces - and often getting cooperation rather than oversight and limitation from those charged with defending the rule of law. https://theintercept.com/2017/05/27...tanding-rock-to-defeat-pipeline-insurgencies/

 

[Tiassa]

Matt Bors, 30 May 2017.​

No I didn't changed the subject, I basically changed nouns in your OP. The point of it is to put yourself in the opposing position so you can see where they're coming from. Maybe I gave too little and expected too much from you.

The problem with just randomly making shit up is that you make no sense.

 

[iceaura]

Oh, and as for the claim: 'most felons are conservative'. I'm not sure where the empirical data come from to support this statement. According to this paper: Do Voting Rights Notification Laws Increase Ex-Felon Turnout? The authors found that the areas these samples, most go on to become Democrats. OVERWHELMINGLY SO. In the State of New York (as an example) of those who registered to vote, 62% registered as Democrats and 9% registered as Republicans, with 26% registered as independents. While this is a correlation, where ex-felons strongly correlate with being Democrats, which may or may not mean anything at all - where on earth did the claim that most felons are Church-going Conservatives come from?! What? A sample directly from Salt Lake City, Utah?

You keep talking about the Democratic and Republican Parties, when the question was about conservative vs liberal ideology.
Here:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-likely-to-be-atheists/
A regular citizen is five to ten times as likely to be an atheist as an incarcerated person. So that's a clue, although the percentages are too small to move the needle.
You also have the fact that corporal punishment was part of the childhood of most felons, especially violent ones, and is also more common in conservative households.
Now figure in traditional sex roles, male dominance, etc - again, more common in felons and in conservatives both.
Then add race - with black people and brown people both more often conservative and more often felons.
And finally, education - the less educated the more conservative, on average, and the less educated the more likely a felon.

If felons manage to beat all those odds and come up more often liberal, that would be a surprise.

 

[Bells]

I have to research it some more.

You ignore the OP and the topic of the thread and now you claim that you don't really know what the thread was about so you just decided to change the topic, repeatedly?

My initial guess is that the current police force is incompetent, untrustworthy or both.

Not only do you show your lack of reading and comprehension, you also show a clear unwillingness to even read the article linked in the OP.

The reason the Republicans want to use the militia for "security" is because their rally was cancelled due to the possibility of unrest. The rally was cancelled after their last rally saw the right wing murderer who stabbed 3 people, killing 2, for defending two Muslim women he was abusing, attend their rallies, and made himself known and seen espousing their right wing ideology. This was linked in my earlier post.

As for competency, one of the militia groups being touted by the Republican Party to guard their rallies.. These are the same type of people who rushed to protect a gun store that refused to allow any Muslim Americans into their store. One of these so called militia members accidentally shot himself with his own weapon, while standing guard outside the store. So yeah, these are the types of people the Republicans want to use as "security" while they hold protests about their bigoted ideology? What could possibly go wrong?

The issue of competency aside, these kinds of actions have been seen before, historically. Here is what the head of the GOP in Portland had to say about his protest marches and rally's and why he wants to hire white supremacists to guard these Republican gatherings:

“If we don’t tell our fellow citizens that there are these dark forces in the government, like the CIA and the shadow government, who are trying to take Trump down with lies, who is going to tell them?”

Spencer Sunshine, an associate researcher at Political Research Associates who last year co-authored a major report on the growth of the far-right Patriot Movement in Oregon, said: “The Oath Keepers have been acting as a de facto security team for white supremacists and neo-Nazis for the last month or two.​

As I tried to explain (and perhaps I failed to), a law enforcement agency has been compromised when it chooses to operate outside of federal laws that were already on the books before the election. We elected people in the government to take care of the laws (and some of them are pretty bad).

Off topic, again.

You have zero evidence that the law enforcement agencies have been compromised.

Yes, and likewise the same people voted for their representatives to do the job of fixing the law. I find it unacceptable when one department usurps the authority of another vested in them by the voting public. Does that bother you? Maybe not.

Can you please explain and provide links about which laws are "broken", needing to be fixed?

Can you please explain and provide links, explaining how these laws are somehow connected to the GOP in Portland threatening to use right wing militia to protect their rally's?

Well I am trying to stay on subject but we have a few issues to clear up:

You have yet to actually address the actual subject matter of the thread. Aside from hand-waving and a pithy comment about police incompetence with no proof whatsoever, you don't even know what the thread is about. So I need to ask, what in the hell are you doing participating in a thread you a) do not understand; b) have no inclination of understanding; c) have no desire to actually discuss?

1) Where do you find unbiased input?
2) When we look at the same input (such as a video), how different is our perception of it? I apologize that I can't find a video without bias on the subject matter. I don't see anyone else trying. Hence all we can offer is our opinions. This is not good. Do you have a better suggestion?

Again, what the hell does this have to do with the thread?

I don't see the possibility of a two-sided conversation unless the previous issues are addressed in some fashion. If you just want to pat each other on the back, then I should leave. I don't think that was the intent of this forum. I might just leave anyway, and leave you feeling safe and protected. I'm o.k. with that and you're o.k. with that. We both win.

The only issues you seem intent on discussing are the ones you introduced. And there is more than one. You have refused to actually stay on topic and you have attempted to force this thread off topic repeatedly, despite repeated attempts to get you to stay on topic.

I'll be blunt, your personal issues will not be address in this thread and if you wish to discuss everything from Hillary, Obama and your furniture, alleged police incompetence in guarding rally's, media bias and all the rest of the ridiculous subjects you have tried to introduce into this thread, then start a different thread and stop forcing this one to go off topic and then trolling it when you don't get what you want.

It sounds risky. They better know what they are doing, and respect the rights of individuals at the same time. Security guards are kind of a joke, and police officers have a bad public relations problem with the african american community. Take the Charlotte riots for example. I come from there and I know the place well. A black police officer shot a black suspect with an illegal handgun, and the police chief is black. BLM came in and started a riot, and bullied white people. A black bystander shot and killed a black protester. Now as a reality check -- let's hear your version of the Keith Scott shooting, to make sure we're on the same page.

What does Keith Scott have to do with this thread?

Tell me, how well will white supremacist militia groups work with the African American community, for example? How well do you think these rally's will go, when the last rally they held saw one member leave said rally and murder two people because they dared to stand up for two young women the right wing murderer was abusing? You think it sounds "risky"?

If that is indeed the unbiased account of events, then I am indeed opposed to it. I usually start with Facebook because every fringe niche of humanity is in there and I'll get a taste of all views.

Facebook is your go to for information?

You'd be better off going outside, beating drums to spread the news.

So I put Trump and oath keepers in the search bar, but only find one entry which obviously favors oathkeepers. If you can look beyond that, you'll find a complete list of what they want to do. Some of it is pretty appalling IMHO, but it is the best list of 50 oathkeeper proposals I've seen. Now my question is this: Why haven't any liberals voiced their concern over it on Facebook? [snip]

Firstly, Facebook is the absolute worst place to go for any form of information.

Nothing you will read on these Facebook pages will give you an unbiased account or unbiased information. Facebook has had an issue for years, of literally false stories being posted as "news". And the websites for these organisations are not going to give you unbiased information.

Secondly, no I will not be clicking on that link you provided. Issues of legality and whatnot. Reading information on unbiased news sites, legal sites and studies is one thing. Accessing their Facebook pages is another thing altogether.

Thirdly, do candidates have a right to free speech? Yes. But free speech ends when it is used to incite violence. You can read up on a famous case in your country, which addresses this directly.. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395U.S.444 (1969)..

Shouting down a speaker or making loud noises as they speak is not illegal. Inciting violence, is illegal, and when said words then lead to people dying, then I should not have to state the obvious, should I?

Wait a minute, you just made a paradigm shift in the intended question. This only apples to republican events you say.

What?

This thread is about the GOP and their threats to militarise their events.

It's even in the title. Did you not even bother reading the title of this thread?

Now that demands a different response, like what happened in Chicago. The police officers just stood by and let gangsters shut down the Trump rally. I believe a candidate should have the right to speak. The riot was so bad that ambulances couldn't even get through. I'll show a video. The police were worthless. See for yourself, and recall there is someone in that ambulance that needs to see a doctor:

It demands a response that you address the actual thread and the thread topic and subject matter.

And no, that is not what actually happened at that Trump rally.

 

[Michael]

Says the man who supports the guy who hates the free press and proclaims the free press is "the enemy of the people", and advocates the use of torture, and openly admires the worlds most famous dictators.

This is what I would call "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

Trump told grade 4 reading ability, Government schooled, America - exactly what was needed, to be elected. Just as B.Sanders says exactly what his base needs to hear. You know, like "Universal Healthcare" or "15.oo" an hour minimum wage.

Does Trump admire strongmen? Probably. He's a Progressive Authoritarian Statist, why wouldn't he?

Though I think Trump probably would have preferred less phony wars (he's probably come to see how the bread gets buttered in the USA, and will soon be siding with the MIC and the Bankster war profiteers accordingly). It should be noted: whereas Trumpy Trump talks a Big Game; O-blah-blah on the other hand actually ordered the murder of an American teenager/child ..... and then smugly giggled about how he was good at murdering people to his cabinet members. But hey, at least he gave us O-blah-maCare and, when not being back-paid the bribes he was given at 400,000 per phony speech to the banking establishment he enriched, he's building a 400,000,000 dollar 'Library' to himself.

LOL

So there is that much.

 

[Michael]

You keep talking about the Democratic and Republican Parties, when the question was about conservative vs liberal ideology.
Here:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-likely-to-be-atheists/
A regular citizen is five to ten times as likely to be an atheist as an incarcerated person. So that's a clue, although the percentages are too small to move the needle.

According to the data, a prisoner in the USA is twice as likely to be a Buddhist relative to the general population, whereas a Protestant is around a third as likely. Well, that answered that

As an aside, while I'm a strong Atheist, I fully support cultural Christianity in Western Nations. Now, of course, the USA is no longer a Nation - but, for those few left, Poland for example.

 

[joepistole]

This is what I would call "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

Trump told grade 4 reading ability, Government schooled, America - exactly what was needed, to be elected. Just as B.Sanders says exactly what his base needs to hear. You know, like "Universal Healthcare" or "15.oo" an hour minimum wage.

Does Trump admire strongmen? Probably. He's a Progressive Authoritarian Statist, why wouldn't he?

Though I think Trump probably would have preferred less phony wars (he's probably come to see how the bread gets buttered in the USA, and will soon be siding with the MIC and the Bankster war profiteers accordingly). It should be noted: whereas Trumpy Trump talks a Big Game; O-blah-blah on the other hand actually ordered the murder of an American teenager/child ..... and then smugly giggled about how he was good at murdering people to his cabinet members. But hey, at least he gave us O-blah-maCare and, when not being back-paid the bribes he was given at 400,000 per phony speech to the banking establishment he enriched, he's building a 400,000,000 dollar 'Library' to himself.

LOL

So there is that much.

The truth isn't a derangement syndrome comrade.

 

[wellwisher]

President Trump is not a patrician politician. He is a deal maker. There is a difference, which many on the left fail to see. A deal maker will take an extreme position to start the deal, knowing his opponent, will go the other way to pull the deal in his favor. In the deal, they pull in opposite directions and meet somewhere in the middle, with both happy. This is not called flip flopping, but the art of the deal.

The used car says $10,000 on the wind shield, so you offer $5000. This will be insulting to a patrician, who is stuck at the ideals price of $10,000. But to the deal maker, the $5000 is not an insult, but a starting offer that can then be countered, until both agree. The patrician cannot move from the ideal price, so the deal gets stuck at the opening bid. The left them projects this to mean Trump is a right wing patrician, who is not willing to compromise. The left needs counter offer, but it has been conditioned to not move.

A patrician takes an extreme position and has little flexibility to move. Anything less needs to be avoided out of peer pressure. If they compromise this is called flip flopping. This is why nothing gets done in Washington and why the left can't move forward.

If the Democrats had given Trump a second bid, beyond the patrician ideal that nothing about Obama Care can change, the deal could go forward. But patricians don't know how to negotiate, and end up being insulted, turning a deal into a war.

If you look at the photo above, Kathy Griffin is pretending to be an ISIS fighter, with that blank unfeeling indoctrinated stare, who has just beheaded Trump. If you check the historical data, ISIS tends to attack and behead innocent people. It is all about maximizing terrorist shock value to compensate for their weaknesses. Attacking the innocent appeals to the left, since it describes them. It is not about a fair fight or good eradicating evil, but evil attempting to terrorize the innocent. This is not making a deal It is disturbing to think that the left is that intolerant. This may drive the right to make a stand against evil. The left is creating its own reality, because of a biased pre-programmed fantasy that is more than just an opening bid in a negotiation.

 

[Woody1]

You ignore the OP and the topic of the thread and now you claim that you don't really know what the thread was about so you just decided to change the topic, repeatedly?

Not only do you show your lack of reading and comprehension, you also show a clear unwillingness to even read the article linked in the OP.

The OP says: "Is the republican party preparing to militarize"? It is written in the present tense and the 2016 election is over already. Is the present affected in some way, are we conjecturing a 2020 election scenario, or what?

The reason the Republicans want to use the militia for "security" is because their rally was cancelled due to the possibility of unrest. The rally was cancelled after their last rally saw the right wing murderer who stabbed 3 people, killing 2, for defending two Muslim women he was abusing, attend their rallies, and made himself known and seen espousing their right wing ideology. This was linked in my earlier post.

Isn't it rather odd that terrible people like that don't show up at democrat rallies and do the same thing or worse to disrupt them?

As for competency, one of the militia groups being touted by the Republican Party to guard their rallies.. These are the same type of people who rushed to protect a gun store that refused to allow any Muslim Americans into their store. One of these so called militia members accidentally shot himself with his own weapon, while standing guard outside the store. So yeah, these are the types of people the Republicans want to use as "security" while they hold protests about their bigoted ideology? What could possibly go wrong?

Yeah, I agree. Poor judgement at work here. Maybe the OP should read: "Did the Republican party learn their lesson in 2016"? The same should be asked of the protesters. They went there to start trouble and they got 4 years of a Trump/Pence administration in return. They helped put him there.

You have zero evidence that the law enforcement agencies have been compromised.

The sheriffs of sanctuary cities refuse to enforce federal law. I thought everyone knew that.

Can you please explain and provide links about which laws are "broken", needing to be fixed?

Immigration laws for one. They need to be more immigrant friendly or do you like them the way they are?

Can you please explain and provide links, explaining how these laws are somehow connected to the GOP in Portland threatening to use right wing militia to protect their rally's?

New laws are being passed around the country to arrest protesters who obstruct traffic, and make public safety threats (bullying). This came after a BLM protest in Memphis where a baby needed to go to the ER and couldn't because I-40 was blocked and they couldn't turn the car around on the bridge. This is a video from a Memphis news broadcast. Several states are writing laws to make this kind of thing a felony:

You have yet to actually address the actual subject matter of the thread. Aside from hand-waving and a pithy comment about police incompetence with no proof whatsoever, you don't even know what the thread is about. So I need to ask, what in the hell are you doing participating in a thread you a) do not understand; b) have no inclination of understanding; c) have no desire to actually discuss?
Again, what the hell does this have to do with the thread?

It seems everyone is talking past me. Yeah the police are perfect. Listen to yourself. Why is BLM around?

The only issues you seem intent on discussing are the ones you introduced. And there is more than one. You have refused to actually stay on topic and you have attempted to force this thread off topic repeatedly, despite repeated attempts to get you to stay on topic.

I am addressing your comments point by point and I'm off topic.

What does Keith Scott have to do with this thread?

The point is you can have black police officers and a black sheriff trying to control a race riot, and it doesn't make much difference. Aren't the Trump rallies race riots, or do you have a better name for them? What do you propose to put out the fire?

Tell me, how well will white supremacist militia groups work with the African American community, for example? How well do you think these rally's will go, when the last rally they held saw one member leave said rally and murder two people because they dared to stand up for two young women the right wing murderer was abusing? You think it sounds "risky"?

He should be in jail along with about half the Chicago protesters.

Facebook is your go to for information?

Facebook is where I go for reactions, not facts. I get to hear all sides of an argument. The concept sounds foreign to you -- where you actually listen to people you disagree with and look for common ground.

Firstly, Facebook is the absolute worst place to go for any form of information.

So when Hillary makes a post on facebook, I shouldn't read it. ok.

Nothing you will read on these Facebook pages will give you an unbiased account or unbiased information. Facebook has had an issue for years, of literally false stories being posted as "news". And the websites for these organisations are not going to give you unbiased information.

True, and the bias works both ways instead of the way that makes you feel good.

Secondly, no I will not be clicking on that link you provided. Issues of legality and whatnot. Reading information on unbiased news sites, legal sites and studies is one thing. Accessing their Facebook pages is another thing altogether.

ok. That's up to you. I guess you feel better with a virtual name where we are all virtual people. Personally, I have found a presence on Facebook brings accountability when people communicate, and the dialogue is more civil as a result.

"Thirdly, do candidates have a right to free speech? Yes. But free speech ends when it is used to incite violence. You can read up on a famous case in your country, which addresses this directly.. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395U.S.444 (1969).."

OK. In that case they were going to use public property to march. We all share the right to public property. The republican rallies are tenet by entirety, like when you rent an apartment. When you have a party you have the right to throw out anybody you don't want in your apartment. People that come there purely to start trouble should be jailed.

Shouting down a speaker or making loud noises as they speak is not illegal.

Those people are there to start trouble aren't they? Like the Westboro gang. God forbid they should show up at a funeral that I attend.

Inciting violence, is illegal, and when said words then lead to people dying, then I should not have to state the obvious, should I?

Yes, I agree, look at what happened at the Chicago rally.

This thread is about the GOP and their threats to militarise their events.

If the wrong people stay home then the point is moot.

 

[Woody1]

Total diversion. So what it they do? Does that end our responsibility or any nation's responsibility?

So I'm talking to the PETA lady in a fur coat. okeeeeee.

 

[Woody1]

The ambulance thing is a non-starter. Plenty of protestors on various issues from various political perspectives have historically blocked traffic.

Would you agree that your life is a greater priority than my free speech? The laws are being written that way in several states since the Memphis BLM protest on the I-40 bridge.

On the other hand, the protests gave Trump plenty of free air time (as one forum-member has lamented) and the complainers got to voice their rights. It was a win-win situation, and it was quite the spectacle. Let the show go on. I don't want to see anyone get hurt though.

Because our economy depends on cheap Chinese made goods. And by the way, China is also a leader in alternative energy development.

Companies send their operations to China so they can pollute as much as they want to, and not have to pay for it. You get a price break in return, and you are happy with it.