Total posts: 17,895
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Who's him? You're saying there was only one person carrying a gun there?
We are referring to the person who had the effigy lol. It’s protected by the first amendment. Is the “violence” by him actually likely to happen? Nope.
Sure, but what about those who sent death threats to the state governor? What if they attended the protest with guns?
Maybe you should reread the Justice’s statement, specifically the part where the he said “whether that violence is likely to actually occur.” I think we both know that death threats are investigated to ensure no actual action is likely to occur. Plus having an effigy and lawfully carrying a firearm are protected rights. Exercising both of them together isn’t illegal.
Ok. What if they did the same thing, except on Trump's campaign trail in a state where open carry is legal?
Sure, if they’re protesting outside of a Trump event with gun’s in an open carry state, it’s perfectly fine. Problem is your side doesn’t support open carry nor concealed carry because they’re anti-gun.
So much for your hypothetical huh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The Trump campaign was wiretapped during an election by the opposing party using a false dossier funded by that opposing party. It’s worse than Watergate. There was no Russian collusion. Mueller said so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Yeah, if there's no genuine intent to commit or incite violence or clear and present danger. There is both. We know that there is clear intent to commit or incite violence because there have been dozens of posts on Facebook made to hang her. We know that there is also a clear and present danger because they're brandishing firearms.
Incite violence against the person by that same person. Not others. Him. Plus it is legal to open carry in Michigan, so no, they’re not brandishing weapons, they’re exercising their 2nd Amendment and following state law.
I wonder what would happen if protesters show up at the White House with guns and a hung effigy of Trump. 🤔He’d probably retreat to his bunker and order them to be shot on sight lol.
It’s illegal to open carry in D.C. And concealed carry is very restrictive. Plus it is illegal to carry a firearm within 1000 ft of the White House. I don’t make gun laws, the states do.
“D.C. has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. The city prohibits the open carrying of guns, and carrying concealed weapons is allowed only with a permit. Although a court recently upended a significant portion of D.C.’s concealed-carry law, it still remains illegal to carry a permitted concealed gun within 1,000 feet of a protest, on public transportation or anywhere near the White House, National Mall or U.S. Capitol.”
So much for your hypothetical huh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Do you know what they were fighting over? An effigy of Michigan's Governor being hung on a fishing rod.
Protected under the first amendment.
“Hanging in effigy was a common form of political protest in the 18th and 19thcenturies. Presidents Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were all hanged in effigy; and before the civil war, “Hang Abe Lincoln on a Sour Apple Tree” was a commonly sung parody of “John Brown’s Body.” (There was a similar song about Lincoln’s southern counterpart, Jefferson Davis.).”
“The First Amendment protects the right to free expression, which includes the right to shoot, burn, or in any way destroy an image of anyone including the president as long you’re not posing a “credible threat.” The standard here is whether there is genuine intent to commit or incite violence, and also whether that violence is likely to actually occur. If there’s no “clear and present danger,” as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. put it, there’s no basis for censorship.”
Also, there was a fight over an axe.Yeah. Certainly seems peaceful to me.
And the cops were called to resolve the issue among a couple of bad apples because the protestors wanted a peaceful protest. Keep on saying conservative protests were not peaceful bud. George Floyd protests were a million times worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well, the NYPD did decrease violent crime by like half since 2000. We should abolish the NYPD right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Wait, if Trump’s making money by being corrupt, how has his networth declined?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I’m not going to argue with something who believes that the conservatives protesting lockdowns were like terrorists and were violent. You’ve lost all credibility.
Thanks for showing how a peaceful protest works. People trying to break up the fight. People calling for the police. Police came and solved the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wait hasn’t Trump’s networth been declining since he started running in 2015?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you read what the judge had to say about the FBI?
Ofc. It’s no myth that the FBI lied to the FISA court and withheld evidence to wiretap a Trump official Carter Page.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Bruh you lost all credibility when you claimed conservatives protesting lockdowns were like terrorists and not peaceful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why did the FBI lie to the FISA court about the Steele dossier?
Cause Trump’s a Russian Agent. Duh.
#NoCollusion
#NoObstruction
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Vote against him.
Pretty sure he’s British😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
I don't know that much about politics so can any of y'all tell me why Trump was elected in the 1st place?
TL;DR
Blacks hated Hillary and Silent Majority came out in droves
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because when the mob can define what is peaceful, you can experience the new American tradition of mob tyranny. Cancel culture on steroids.
As long as the media is preaching Orangeman bad, Donald Trump will win. People don’t learn that polls don’t matter. I would purposefully say I’m voting Biden just to give em the middle finger in November.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@fauxlaw
How the hell do you call conservative protests against lockdowns “quasi-terrorist” and not peaceful while claiming the George Floyd riots are peaceful lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
What vandalism or burning occurred during that protest? Also, there was a 7 PM curfew in place. Had the officers escorted them after the curfew, this point would be more valid. But they didn't.
They were attacking police officers with bottles full of unknown liquids. The officer were asked them to back up because of the curfew half an hour prior. It’s foolish to think those who wouldn't back up would magically go home after the curfew came.
Ok, then stop the "chaos during the night", not the "peace during the day".
So the cops should sit there and do nothing until the church gets vandalized and looted again? Good idea!
How do you know they were going to do something? Were you there at the rally? Can you read their minds? Did they say anything about doing stuff? If you claim that they were going to do stuff, then you need to prove it.
They were throwing bottles of unknown liquids at police officers and that’s what happened the night before. It wasn’t peaceful at that point. If they didn’t throw bottles and stuff at police officers I’d say there was no threat, but they did...
Again, what property was at risk?
Saint John’s Catedral, Lafayette Park
So you acknowledge the fact that Barr gave the order, and thus lied about not giving the order? Good. I'm glad we got that over with.
Lmao, your two “anonymous” officials lack any sort of credibility unless we know who they are. And plus you’re intentionally being misleading by saying he didn’t give the order. He didn’t give the tactical order. He said “get it done.” And the Park Officials/Guard gave the tactical order to do so.
So the federal guard was so inept that they delayed the order for at least 6 hours?
Welcome to the bureaucracy of Washington D.C.
Read the part I cited in my last post carefully.
I think you need to reread all of your sources that you have used. Both Fauxlaw and I have pointed out your contradictory sources.
This might be of interest:
Lafayette Park and Saint Johns Catedral fall under the authority of the US Park Service. So no, they weren’t on the streets. They were moved to the streets after they refused to do so.
If we go with your definition of violent, then it is impossible to have peaceful protests while there are right-wing boogaloo provocateurs who specifically wish to sabotage every single one of them.
Not true. If your goal is to be peaceful, you hand the person over to the police. You do everything in your power to keep it peaceful. I didn’t see people bring the culprits forward.
What federal property was harmed during this specific protest?
This is irrelevant considering the actions of the previous night. I’ve said multiple times, if the actions of the previous night didn’t happen and people weren’t throwing water bottles, I would support your cause. As soon as they started throwing water bottles like the night before, there was an immediate threat to both the police officers and Lafayette Park/ St. John’s Catedral.
When did the protesters of the 6 PM demonstration vandalize anything?
Jeez Louise, it’s a preventative measure. After the actions of the previous night there was a threat to public safety. If they got a permit BLM would be held legally accountable if something did happened. But since they didn’t and there was a credible threat, police moved them out.
I never said that it was true just because a member of the media said it.
You’re literally parroting media talking points, but ok.
How do you know they were lying in this instance? Do you have any counterevidence to what they presented? For that matter, do you even have anything suggesting that they were lying?
If it’s fits their narrative, why wouldn’t they lie? People like you are going to believe them like gospel. If they say Orangeman bad because of this this and this you’re going to believe them without question. I however choose to analyze sources. Question it’s move. They posted something false in the article, why wouldn’t there me more, because they’re clearly biased against Trump. Bias implies an agenda.
Which one? The one where armed quasi-terrorists stormed Michigan's Capitol because they couldn't accept the state's measures to protect the general populace from COVID-19? Because that certainly didn't scream peaceful.
Lmao, they’re the terrorists? Are they the ones burning stuff down? Are they ones looting? Are they the ones burning? Are they the ones killing? Conservative protests were peaceful. Did police ever use tear gas, or rubber bullets, or anything of the like once? No, because the protests were peaceful. Just cause they have guns doesnt mean they aren’t peaceful. You have lost all credibility by saying these protests weren’t peaceful.
Was there a group of far-right saboteurs who publicly stated that they were hellbent on turning his protests violent?
Did MLK advocate for non-violence. Did MLK condemn the violence some African American groups were committing? Show me one time where a protest lead by MLK became violent.
Pretty hard to do when you don't have them in your hands.
Wym? They’re all right next to each other. If they wanted to they could’ve handed him over to the police. Oh wait, they didn’t.
Then what about the vast, vast majority of people there who intended to demonstrate peacefully? What should they do?
Back up at the warnings of police officers? Hand over bad actors to the police. Don’t stay in a protest that has violence?
Also, once again, how do you know the two groups (the one at the night protest and the one at the 6 PM demonstration) are the same?
Cause they were being violent by throwing water bottles. That’s how it started the night before.
Even if (and that's a big if) it were true that the peaceful protesters in every other city were also the ones at the night riots, it still wouldn't prove it for this case.
Why not? It happened in D.C. the night prior as well. If we didn’t learn from history, we wouldn’t be here today.
What actual damage was there?
Police officers getting assaulted. Plus it was a preventative measure to protect federal property based on the events of the night prior. Unless you defend that Ofc and say the police shouldn’t have done anything to ensure it was safe.
Created:
Posted in:
1. LittleCookie - 13 Reasons Why
2. PressF - Abstain
3. User - Abstain
4. Warren - Not Voting
5. Crocodile - 13 Reasons Why
6. Bear Man - 13 Reasons Why
7. SupaDudz - Bakugan
8. Speedrace - 13 Reasons Why
9.
10.
11.
12.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
See any liberals calling for reform at the FBI? Trump is white, so he can't possibly be a victim.
Saying white people are the problem are inherently racist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's so insane that the left believes they can ultimately gain power with this tribalism war.Nobody will win this.
It’s not hard to understand. If you’re a threat to police officers and federal property, you will be asked to back up. Continue protesting, just back up. Refusal to do so should result in removal. It’s their own fault. The police never told them to stop protesting, just move back. It’s one thing if they completely stopped protesters from ever gathering, but this was a completely reasonable request.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I watched a "protester" shout, "We're not going to let Trump hijack our movement with looting!"
You should watch the video in Post 130. The protestors are absolute morons
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I tried to tell him, but he just says the same thing over and over again. A true sycophant of the media. Lacks the ability to form an opinion for himself
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Watch this.This is the result of not having a police state.
I watched this live. Tucker has a way with words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
“Shut down protests.”
Why do Democrats love lying and not acknowledging video evidence of police allowing protests to happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is no false dichotomy about what you are proposing. The absence of a policed state with police authority is anarchy and vigilantism.
Hands up don’t shoot rapidly turned into I’m going to loot, burn, and kill police officers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
To clarify, do you want a fake role or a fake character or both?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Back in 2016 I bet everyone on DDO that Trump was gonna win and I was roasted and lambasted for suggesting such a thing. Hillary was gonna win, it was a slam dunk. I knew better.
The Liberal tears were so sweet. Trump always gets the last laugh. He’s undefeated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
To him they were all “peacefully protesting.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Such a shame people don’t realize that the people nor the govt has absolute power. Say bye bye to the social contract.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
I don't agree with Danielle, I sometimes even think it's fun as scum, but she's definitely right in it being a disadvantage when you don't have one.
I still don’t get why you’re at a disadvantage. Thematically it’s hard and role wise vanilla is a good safe claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't want a fundamentally transformed America where people have the right to assemble a violent mob and protest.I want an America where people have the right to peaceably assemble, you know back when America was great.
Only fools would compare these “peaceful protests” to those of MLK and Gandhi. Those didn’t have one bad apple. And even if they did, they threw it to the side and kicked it out. That’s what it means to be peaceful.
Created:
Posted in:
Was there vandalism and looting on that day? This protest and the one that happened the night prior are two different events. Without evidence, you cannot assume that there is a causal relationship between those two. Temporal proximity alone doesn't prove anything.
So if we left the protestors in place, you’re saying there wouldn’t be further vandalism or burning? Maybe you should take a look at Minneapolis and New York and literally every area where it was chaos during the night but peace during the day. Don’t gimme the bs that they weren’t going to do anything. If a risk exists to federal property guarded by federal statute, you move the risk.
Yes the order was given in the morning by Barr but it wasn’t executed by the time Barr got there in the afternoon, so Barr told them to get it done immediately. The sources you provided in this thread said that. Stop contradicting yourself.
Where in the law books does it say this?
Sections 1.5 and 1.6. We know that protests have been violent. They were violent on the night before and there was evidence that it would continue and further harm federal property. So yes, they should’ve gotten a permit so BLM can be held legally accountable if shit does get destroyed. BLM chose not to and the decision was made to save federal property from vandals.
Truth is truth, regardless of who says it. Just because the media says it (even if they do have an agenda) doesn't automatically make it false.
You’re going to call it truth because a member of the media said it? We know they were lying about “Peaceful protests” in that same article. Why wouldn’t they be lying in this instance. You nor I know the truth. But we can sure as hell analyze the source you put and say that they have a bias against Trump. It’s called critical thinking.
Have you seen footage of the protester who threw the projectiles? How do you know there wasn’t an attempt to seize them made by the rest of the protesters?
This is laughable. There would be police records if someone was arrested for throwing stuff at police. Plus we saw from the video that no one was brought forward to the police after it happened. So no, there was no attempt to bring the culprit to justice.
This doesn’t answer my question. If a single saboteur can run up, throw a bottle in the general direction of the cops, and thereby turn the peaceful protest into a “violent” one (thus justifying the police reaction we saw, according to you), then how can one expect to have a peaceful protest at all? The peaceful demonstrators can’t unthrow the bottle that was thrown, and they can’t apprehend the saboteur if they get away, so what would you expect them to do?
You are misrepresenting what I’m saying. The actions of the previous night in DC combined with Sections 1.5 and 1.6 permit the actions that happened. If there was no looting, no burning the previous night and all was peaceful, and the culprits were brought forth, there would be no problem.
Peaceful protests are possible. Conservatives did it a couple weeks ago. Martin Luther King did it in the 60s. If there are bad apples, you hand them over to the police, which shows the desire to be peaceful. You don’t get to burn stuff down and then go the following morning thinking all is well, completely peaceful when you still have people throwing stuff at cops.
How do you know that the peaceful protesters that attended the 6 PM demonstration are the same ones who were in the violent riot the night prior?
Cause that’s what has been happening in every city? If the people weren’t removed, there would’ve been more damage. Especially considering some were already being violent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ignore the sycophant of the media. He doesn’t understand laws and lack of absolute protection under the 1st Amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
In both sections, it is clear that the protests can ONLY be shut down or required to have a permit IF one or more of the following are adversely affected:
- Public health/safety
Vandalism and looting. The order was given the morning after the vandalism and burning. After that burning and vandalism, they are required to have a permit so they can be legally held accountable if something does happen. They chose not to get a permit.
Ya the same media that claims the protest was entirely peaceful found those canisters. How do you know that the canisters weren’t from the night before? You choose to believe the media even after knowing their agenda. Nothing I can do to help you with that.
Do you know for a fact that protesters encouraged “or at least passively tolerated” it? From what I saw in the video the protesters in view certainly didn't passively tolerate it, let alone encourage it.
If they didn’t passively tolerate it, they would’ve handed the people who did that to the cops.
Before I make my redaction, I must ask:If you believe that military police are justified in firing tear gas and rubber bullets into a mass of protesters just because one of them commits a provocative action (which seems to be the case), then you are effectively granting saboteurs (such as the Boogaloos in Las Vegas) a heckler’s veto on every single protest. If one far-right dude runs up and throws a water bottle at a cop (I’m not saying this is the case at Lafayette, but it definitely could be considering how few projectiles were thrown), and that is enough for the cops to react belligerently, then how can one expect to hold peaceful protests at all?
There are a ton plurality of reasons that contribute to the actions by the police in this situation. The night prior the church was burned. Bricks and bottles with unknown liquids (possible caustic) were thrown at them. Knowing all this, if people thrown bottles again the following morning, do the police not have the right use force? After all, they’re human too. If the protests were entirely peaceful from the start and peaceful protestors happily handed over the violent ones to the authorities, it would be a much different situation.
And if you still think that cops should fire down upon protesters even with this in mind, then you obviously don’t care about the 1A Right to Protest. If you don’t see why this is an issue, then I don’t see why I have to redact the statements I made up to #150.
If you threaten physical harm to police officers, they have the right to retaliate whether you like it or not. If the person committing the violence was handed over, the police would feel less of threat. The protestors did not do that and instead vandalized and burned a church the previous night. You really believe police wouldn’t be threatened?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
It certainly is at your discretion but I personally do not want to play in a game where scum is at such a significant disadvantage. You can remove me.
Why are they at a disadvantage? Thematically town have to find the link between scum. You could claim your character and be fibe
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don’t know why I argue with you. You purposely claim misleading things. You purposely ignore evidence I provide and continue to parrot mainstream media talking points. There’s no use arguing against a sycophant of the media. Have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Only one bottle seen on video thrown at a cop. What about the other 10 that are already on the ground? How’d they get there? Ik, Thanos used the Space Stone to magically place them there. They definitely weren’t thrown.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
make your point or don't. I'm not doing your research for you. If you are incapable of doing so I will simply assume you had no point.
Why are you so lazy. Here’s link: https://www.nps.gov/obed/learn/management/upload/CFR-2010-title36-vol1-chapI.pdf
Read the freakin codes. I don’t need to spoon feed you anything.
agreed. That guy should have consequences. But one act (which harmed no one and couldn't have possibly harmed a cop anyway) is in no way a justification for shooting people. Police are supposed to use a proportionate response. They can't just shoot a guy for throwing a water bottle. In any other context, if someone shot a guy for throwing a water bottle he would be arrested.
How tf do you expect police to go and arrest the dude? How do the police know there aren’t more? How do the police know that the liquid in it wasn’t harmful. If protestors were so peaceful, they would handover the dude to the cops. They didn’t do that.
Police shot pepper spray bullets and smoke canisters that are not lethal. Plus the decision to move back the protestors was done in the morning after the burning and vandalism of the church the previous night by Bill Barr. But ya keep blaming it on Trump for trying to protect a church that has such a long history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
you need to tell me what your point is. You can't expect people to go out and do your research for you. I have already pointed out that case is not relevant as it is unrelated. If you disagree tell me why. Don't expect me to do your research for you.
Sections 1.5 and 1.6 have nothing to do with the court case lol. They come from the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property. Go read it.
wow, freedom really means nothing to you does it? you will sit there and clap as the soldiers stomp on the constitution. as long as they can come up with the tiniest pretext of something that kinda, sorta, maybe was a threat (even though it couldn't possibly have hurt them) then you fully support crushing protesters.
It’s not “freedom” to throw an object at a police officer during a peaceful protest. I would be saying the same even if Barack Obama was in the White House. Protesting is not an excuse for throwing stuff at cops.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I can imagine being that rookie cop told to go in a small 4 man squad to try to pick out the anarchists. It would be like finding out you were spearheading the Normandy Beach invasion.
There were people in London that brought down a statue of Winston Churchill during a BLM event
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You are talking like you never experienced a violent moment in your life, and that's scary because you are pretending like you know what the fuck you are talking about.
He’s probably a highschool student that thinks he’s preaching social justice. I know a lot of em
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
the case was about whether or not they needed a permit. They did. They didn't need a permit to protest in that park. So how exactly are the cases related?
Clearly you haven’t read sections 1.5 and 1.6. Stop being ignorant and read.
ok, in the same sense that throwing a tiny piece of candy is technically a violent act. But that doesn't justify shooting someone. Police are supposed to engage in a proportional response. If someone throws a small object at a cop, the cop is not legally justified in drawing their gun. Similarly, if someone throws an open water bottle that lands no where near a cop, they are not justified in opening fire on an entire crowd of people.
The minute you throw anything at a police officer during a peaceful protest, it’s no longer a peaceful protest. It’s not hard to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
People can change their decision until the spots are filled
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Can we agree that throwing a bottle of water at a cop is a violent action? If not then I’m done with this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
that case was about parading without a permit. as far as I know no one needed a permit to protest in that park, so that case is not relevant.
A.) Precedents are broad in design
B.) Please read Sections 1.5 and 1.6
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Resisting the police isn't peaceful, nor is it lawful.
No use arguable to these people about what’s lawful when they’re gonna break the law anyways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
wait, so you are redefining peaceful to mean that they have to obey orders that they are not required to follow? So anyone who ever protests and doesn't immediately surrender to the police is now "violent" to you? Again, you are describing a police state.
Cox v New Hampshire and Sections 1.5 and 1.6. I don’t create the laws and nor do I interpret them. But it sure as hell is the job of the President to execute to the laws. And yes the police can tell you to back up for safety reasons of the police officers. If you refuse to do that, you are subject to arrest. Regulation is not banning. I thought we were over this
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
one person out of thousand did something that didn't harm anyone. So we should violently suppress the peaceful people? How does that make any sense? That is the most flimsy pretext for a police state that I have ever heard.
Yes. Notice how conservatives weren’t throwing things at cops a couple of weeks ago. But we also forget to mention that all of them were asked to back up a number of times and they didn’t. “Peaceful.”
Created: