Pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Printable View
Pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Republicans and Democrats have parts of their party that are authoritarian - this isn't new. It is a shame but we don't have a major party that is Libertarian. Generally speaking liberals want FAR MORE invasive restrictions on daily freedoms in compared to Republicans. (Specifically economic freedoms).Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
In case you've been in a coma for the last year: Democrats weren't the ones who just elected the president with the most authoritarian platform in centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Frank-Dodd is far worse than what Trump may try from what I've seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
EDIT: To say nothing of big government liberalism that would have occurred if Scala's seat went to a liberal. From gun rights to freedom of speech it would have been a dark day for those who believe in liberty.
I give up.
Clinton's Rioters should have done the same earlier.:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
"Clinton's rioters"?
Cheap shot for the sore losers protesting the results...kinda what everyone said Trumps followers were gonna do.
I don't know about you, but I'm slightly more worried about Trump's actions post-election than the actions of a bunch of protesters.
Well yes, but remember how he was threatening our democracy buy saying he would contest the results!
He doesn't have much of a moral high ground in denouncing people who refuse to accept election results, does he now?
And you really don't see the difference between a presidential nominee doing something vs. a bunch of college kids doing the same thing?
The point is that the media made a big deal about how we would need 'unity' after the election. It gave warnings about what conservatives would do after the inevitable Trump loss would occur. Turns out, Trump won and it is the violent left that is rioting and protesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Haven't really followed news about that, are those protests and riots still going on? Sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Though keep in mind the media was most concerned about one candidate not accepting the legitimacy of the election if he lost, and I'm pretty sure Clinton congratulated Trump by now (and surprisingly the winner is complaining about 'millions of illegal votes' :bulb: )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
It's difficult to take comments like these seriously. The overwhelming majority of protestors have not been rioting, nor have they been violent in any other way. The protests have not been encouraged by Clinton. Trump, in contrast, encouraged protests and made thinly veiled threats prior to the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Prior to the election, Trump said he himself may not concede the election if he were to lose. Clinton has conceded.
Trump is expected to become president despite losing the popular vote by a huge margin. This is a legitimate reason for protesting, because it runs counter to at least one popular and legitimate conception of democracy where each citizen's vote matters no more or less than that of any other citizen.
A significant majority of Americans have been opposed to the Electoral College since long before you guys were born. Afaict support for electoral reform has tended to exceed the vote share of any particular presidential candidate, suggesting that it's not just an opinion held by partisan voters and sore losers. They have legitimate concerns about the rules of the game, ie. about how the game is played. Trump, in contrast, did not simply question the rules of the game. He implied that he was the target of a vast conspiracy involving, among other things, illegal voters and phony votes. That's not disputing the rules of the game--that's disputing the legitimacy of voters and of the game itself, and with no real evidence to boot (in contrast to the obvious fact that the US electoral system is designed in such a way that the winner of the popular vote can, in theory, lose the election to someone who secured less than 30% of all votes and several examples of candidates--mostly from one party--losing the election despite winning the popular vote).
Many of Trump's policy positions seem to be objectively bad--or at least so objectively bad that both Democrats, many Republicans and most independent observers oppose them--and his actions during the election as well as after it indicate that his adminstration's future policies may be even worse. This is a legitimate reason for for protesting.
When a minority of voters put a bunch of authoritarian, racist, xenophobic anti-Muslim sociopaths in control of the government there should be protests. Democracy and justice don't begin and end with "Election--the casual family-friendly game for up to 60% of eligible voters". Regardless of the outcome of an election, people should protest perceived injustice rather than just swallowing their frustration and anger. Regardless of where you are on the political map, it's not your opponents' protests that are the problem you need to tackle.
The precedent being that the Democrat Al Gore didn't accept the results in 2000 and it took a Supreme Court ruling to finalise the election results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
In that case there was serous reason to contest the result though. I think in hindsight nobody seems really sure who really won depending on how the votes would have been recounted. Seems fair the contest the results in a case like that. This time the result didn't come down to a few hundred votes :p
Indeed it didn't and its not getting contested. If it was a clear landslide the other way like this was (electoral college wise) then I think it would be accepted too.
If however it had been extremely close again like it was in 2000 then it wouldn't have been either way.
Which is why it was a dumb controversy. If it was close enough to justify challenging it then everyone would, if it was clear enough not to then realistically nobody would.
Do you think they're being paid to protest, too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Possibly.
Didn't take you for a Breitbart reader.
Are you claiming nobody's been getting paid to protest?
Are you claiming things just because you like claiming things?
When you say "possibly", do you mean "fifty percent likelihood"?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Just like it's possible Rand is an ISIS-supporting Nazi.
No. If I meant that I'd say "probably".Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Who needs things like evidence when making claims, right?
There is evidence.
Do you have a source for this other than some claims by admitted fake news pages on Facebook?
So what range of probabilities are you talking about here?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I read that online, must be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Though if they were getting paid isn't that just free speech? Money is speech I seem to recall.
Not going to weigh in on whether or not these protesters were paid, (or really if paid protesting is a thing at all), but I doubt the argument would be that paying protesters should be illegal, assuming it is done peacefully and lawfully, rather that it wouldn't necessarily constitute spontaneous grass roots support, even though it may appear that way from the outside.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Except this is a way to delegitimize all anti-Trump protest. Which makes it a very dangerous claim if not supported by an abundance of evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Wasn't it claimed by the President Elect in one of the election debates? Is this site fake?Quote:
Originally Posted by Echovirus
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...ng-they-hire-/
Not necessary. The permanently overly quick to protest nature of the young and the left delegitimised protest decades ago. That's why we have rule by secret ballot elections and not rule by vocal activists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Which is not to say that protest is invalid or demean individuals reasons for protesting. Just that a protest has occurred means nothing in its own right.
The Washington Times refers to something completely different and prior to the election. :bored: It should be noted that the guy who released the videos has been caught editing videos to such an extent that they can't be taken seriously.
So do you have any actual evidence or do you just believe anything that makes you feel good about yourself?
Moving goalposts much? The discussion thus far has been about the post-election protests, hence Veldan's quip about "Clinton's rioters", and October is definitely before November. And if you're going to take James O'Keefe at his word, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in Sydney. FFS, the man used to be on Breitbart's payroll and The Trump Foundation has directly donated to Project Veritas. Do you not think that's a vast conflict of interest, especially when he won't release the undoctored tapes?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
If it happened in October then a priori it stands to reason it could have happened in November too. It's not proof but it's possible.
How does it make it a dangerous claim? In my mind even if they are getting paid it would be a "legitimate" protest. What makes a protest legitimate or illegitimate? What makes claims of legitimacy dangerous?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It's a claim typically made in authoritarian regimes. If protesters are being paid to protest, they're not real protesters and don't enjoy the relevant freedoms. It's also effective in discrediting the opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Except it didn't happen in October. Assuming something did happen (which isn't at all clear), it was that Democratic organizations sent a few people to raise a ruckus in Trump rallies.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Isn't this kinda similar to Pelosi calling GOP grassroots efforts a few years ago as astroturf?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki