2016 Republican Primary

[BDKJMU]

There needs to be a law in the country that protesters blocking highways are allowed to be run over..

So the people's right to peaceful protest should result in their murder?

They don't have a right to block highways..

[BDKJMU]

So the people's right to peaceful protest should result in their murder?

There's nothing peaceful about these protests.

Exactly. In his libtard world blocking highways, throwing rocks, destructing property, scuffling with Trump supporters and the police is peaceful...

[LeadBolt]

There's nothing peaceful about these protests.

Exactly. In his libtard world blocking highways, throwing rocks, destructing property, scuffling with Trump supporters and the police is peaceful...

There is a huge difference between murder and justifiable homicide, just sayin'...

[AZGrizFan]

What I learned today: Arizonans who hate Donald Trump are bigger assholes than Donald Trump himself.

[Skjellyfetti]

There needs to be a law in the country that protesters blocking highways are allowed to be run over..

I'm sure you would have been on board if the Feds just leveled these guys with armored vehicles.

[DSUrocks07]

There needs to be a law in the country that protesters blocking highways are allowed to be run over..

I'm sure you would have been on board if the Feds just leveled these guys with armored vehicles.

Once again, one side is equating the government to people...while disparaging corporations as people.

[Ivytalk]

What I learned today: Arizonans who hate Donald Trump are bigger assholes than Donald Trump himself.

Now that's impossible. It just is. JSO agrees.

[kalm]

So the people's right to peaceful protest should result in their murder?

They don't have a right to block highways..

Correct. And sometimes, peaceful protests can still be illegal. Disruption is kind of the point when you're protesting something. It gets you headlines. You might be a douchebag for doing it and can be arrested (unless you're armed and your last name is Bundy...oh wait...)

It's the right to run someone over part that Trip was questioning here. You're not backing down from that now are you?

[∞∞∞]

I'm not questioning the legality of the protest; it's clearly illegal. It doesn't mean people should die, get hurt, or even get arrested every time. Often the law of common sense should take precedent over the law of man.

[DSUrocks07]

Either way. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about these protests. Anyone who interferes with the daily lives of the public at large should be arrested and charged. It's a shame that they are allowed to get away with this because it's not PC to arrest protesters anymore.

Even anti-abortion advocates who protest outside of PP locations still allow those who want to enter to do so.

[kalm]

Either way. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about these protests. Anyone who interferes with the daily lives of the public at large should be arrested and charged. It's a shame that they are allowed to get away with this because it's not PC to arrest protesters anymore.

Even anti-abortion advocates who protest outside of PP locations still allow those who want to enter to do so.

1) Some protesters were arrested in Arizona.

2) It's called civil disobedience for a reason.

3) Everything will be ok.

[DSUrocks07]

Either way. There's a right way and a wrong way to go about these protests. Anyone who interferes with the daily lives of the public at large should be arrested and charged. It's a shame that they are allowed to get away with this because it's not PC to arrest protesters anymore.

Even anti-abortion advocates who protest outside of PP locations still allow those who want to enter to do so.

1) Some protesters were arrested in Arizona.

2) It's called civil disobedience for a reason.

3) Everything will be ok.

Keyword "some"

Next time I drive by the PP here in Dover and I see a protest I'll let them know that they can completely block off the parking lot entrance as a form of "civil disobedience". I'm sure it will be okay in that sense as well.

[kalm]

1) Some protesters were arrested in Arizona.

2) It's called civil disobedience for a reason.

3) Everything will be ok.

Keyword "some"

Next time I drive by the PP here in Dover and I see a protest I'll let them know that they can completely block off the parking lot entrance as a form of "civil disobedience". I'm sure it will be okay in that sense as well.

They were blocking a freeway. The cops started arresting people. The protest broke up.

It's OK.

[DSUrocks07]

Modern progressivism in a nutshell:

"Hey, let's change the rules when it suits us and is politically beneficial to our fad causes but at the same time only allow those rules to be enforceable at certain convenient times and locations when in the name of equality and fairness"

[∞∞∞]

Do you prefer to arrest hundreds of people every time they protest, tie up the court systems, burden taxpayers with unnecessary costs, and slap criminal records on fellow Americans?

The whole point of protesting is to bring an idea to the general public, and sometimes it means inconveniencing others to do it. Even illegally, it still doesn't mean we overreact and throw everyone into the justice system (and certainly not physically hurt them).

I think our founding fathers would HIGHLY disagree if they read what some here suggest sometimes.

[BDKJMU]

There needs to be a law in the country that protesters blocking highways are allowed to be run over..

I'm sure you would have been on board if the Feds just leveled these guys with armored vehicles.

They weren't blocking a 4 lane HWY stranding thousands of people.

[DSUrocks07]

Do you prefer to arrest hundreds of people every time they protest, tie up the court systems, burden taxpayers with unnecessary costs, and slap criminal records on fellow Americans?

The whole point of protesting is to bring an idea to the general public, and sometimes it means inconveniencing others to do it. Even illegally, it still doesn't mean we overreact and throw everyone into the justice system (and certainly not physically hurt them).

I think our founding fathers would HIGHLY disagree if they read what some here suggest sometimes.

Certainly in the late 1700s...

Possibly up through the to late 20th century...

In 2016? With the level of technology and social access that society has? Not so much.

Besides, I thought that what the founding fathers "would have wanted" was always open to interpretation, or is that another example of selectively applying the rules?

Side note (for kalm):

You keep using the phrase "civil disobedience", pretty sure it doesn't mean what you are implying it means.

What unjust law on the books or government organization are they protesting?

[kalm]

Modern progressivism in a nutshell:

"Hey, let's change the rules when it suits us and is politically beneficial to our fad causes but at the same time only allow those rules to be enforceable at certain convenient times and locations when in the name of equality and fairness"

Yeah...that's what it is.

No one is saying to change the rules. If it makes sense to arrest people every single one of them, do it. I'll leave that up to LE.

You are amazingly butthurt this morning.

[DSUrocks07]

Modern progressivism in a nutshell:

"Hey, let's change the rules when it suits us and is politically beneficial to our fad causes but at the same time only allow those rules to be enforceable at certain convenient times and locations when in the name of equality and fairness"

Yeah...that's what it is.

No one is saying to change the rules. If it makes sense to arrest people every single one of them, do it. I'll leave that up to LE.

You are amazingly bored this morning.

fify

Politics are boring
You're boring me
Which makes me bored
Which makes me talk about politics

[kalm]

Do you prefer to arrest hundreds of people every time they protest, tie up the court systems, burden taxpayers with unnecessary costs, and slap criminal records on fellow Americans?

The whole point of protesting is to bring an idea to the general public, and sometimes it means inconveniencing others to do it. Even illegally, it still doesn't mean we overreact and throw everyone into the justice system (and certainly not physically hurt them).

I think our founding fathers would HIGHLY disagree if they read what some here suggest sometimes.

Certainly in the late 1700s...

Possibly up through the to late 20th century...

In 2016? With the level of technology and social access that society has? Not so much.

Besides, I thought that what the founding fathers "would have wanted" was always open to interpretation, or is that another example of selectively applying the rules?

Side note (for kalm):

You keep using the phrase "civil disobedience", pretty sure it doesn't mean what you are implying it means.

What unjust law on the books or government organization are they protesting?

a) I used the phrase one time.

b) There's more than one definition.

noun
the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest.

[DSUrocks07]

Certainly in the late 1700s...

Possibly up through the to late 20th century...

In 2016? With the level of technology and social access that society has? Not so much.

Besides, I thought that what the founding fathers "would have wanted" was always open to interpretation, or is that another example of selectively applying the rules?

Side note (for kalm):

You keep using the phrase "civil disobedience", pretty sure it doesn't mean what you are implying it means.

What unjust law on the books or government organization are they protesting?

a) I used the phrase one time.

b) There's more than one definition.

noun
the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest.

^you mean THAT definition?

[∞∞∞]

In 2016? With the level of technology and social access that society has? Not so much.

Absolutely not! First of all, 15% of the population still doesn't have Internet access. But that's really not the point I want to make:

Technology and social access has actually insulated a lot of people from other point of views. They now get to selectively choose what to read, watch, or listen to. I see it here and on other forums all the time: "I don't follow ~insert organization~ because ~insert reason~" (and hey, I'm guilty of it too).

Additionally, there are still populations in the US, especially in the mid-west and south, where accessibility to information is very limited. Broadcast stations are all extremely similar in both political and religious views and there's not much to challenge these ideas; I'm sure we've all driven or stayed in these areas.

There are also places where people have never met a black person, Muslim, Hispanic, and etc. Even in DC today, surrounded by one of the most ethnically diverse places in the US, some black children will never meet a white person until they're teens (so it goes both ways).

People have legitimate gripes and it doesn't mean we just dismiss it because it doesn't fit our world view or how we think things should be run. And that's why protests are still a good way to bring about change: discomfort in your own beliefs is not a bad thing. Conservatives still challenge my beliefs all the time, but I don't hate it or wish they'd stop.

[Skjellyfetti]

They weren't blocking a 4 lane HWY stranding thousands of people.

Blocking a 4 Lane highway = worthy of summary executions.

2-lane road: meh.

[AZGrizFan]

They weren't blocking a 4 lane HWY stranding thousands of people.

Blocking a 4 Lane highway = worthy of summary executions.

2-lane road: meh.

It's only summary execution if they're not smart enough to get the fuck out of the way of oncoming vehicles.

so, yeah, given the intelligence level of those protesting it's probably gonna be multiple summary executions.

[kalm]

Blocking a 4 Lane highway = worthy of summary executions.

2-lane road: meh.

It's only summary execution if they're not smart enough to get the fuck out of the way of oncoming vehicles.

so, yeah, given the intelligence level of those protesting it's probably gonna be multiple summary executions.

The anarcho-fascist approach! I like it!!!