DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ukFAvYP3UU

Ironically, this sort of thing will make people like Woody even more adamant with their support of dear leader Trump.

Watch the primary results.

you may be right, NS, but then again, I am focused more on the General. This sort of thing is yet another nail in the coffin of the Trump debacle. The Great Leader turned tail, left his supporters out to dry and went home to his comfy bed in New York City.



oh, and did you actually watch the video I posted, NS? It was meant as humor.

Nightshade wrote:Ironically, this sort of thing will make people like Woody even more adamant with their support of dear leader Trump.

Trump supporters will feed off protests because it satisfies the hunger for confrontation, which is why they support Trump in the first place. (confronting "establishment," confronting "liberals," etc) Protests, in effect, validate their support.

There's a dangerous feedback loop waiting to happen if these things escalate.

So the people who went to a rally in support of their candidate should "step back" and let the demonstrators take over? How very commie of you.

woodchip wrote:So the people who went to a rally in support of their candidate should "step back" and let the demonstrators take over? How very commie of you.

It's called the First Amendment. Look it up.

First Amendment says nothing about it being OK to disrupt a group by shutting down their free speech. Feel free to correct me .

woodchip wrote:First Amendment says nothing about it being OK to disrupt a group by shutting down their free speech. Feel free to correct me .

where to start? I did so elsewhere, so here's the synopsis. We have the right to assemble and speak publicly. That's it. No mandate to take turns, no restriction because someone was there first. Nothing except the right to free expression. Trump was free to speak. His supporters are free to speak. SPEAK, not BEAT on people.

Actually the first does not allow for the disruption of an organized speaking event, as I understand the law you must get a permit to have a counter protest, and conduct yourself within the confines of the law and that permit. And generally those counter protests take place outside the venues.

At least as far as rented venues and such…outdoor rallies in public are a different story, but still have a protocol if permits are involved.

I know the law is not the same everywhere, but in every case where ad hoc protests are violating someone else’s first amendment rights, they should be broken up.

Perhaps slickster, you should look back at one of your sides conventions and the utilisation of "Free speech zones. Of course back then you had no concerns about free speech and the First Amendment as what was being done was to protect your heros:

It is only a slight exaggeration to refer to free speech zones as temporary concentration camps. Although the Holocaust has largely transformed our modern understanding of concentration camps, they were historically intended to "concentrate" populations of "dangerous" individuals into a small area so the government could monitor them more easily.

The 2004 DNC in Boston utilized such a camp, with surveillance cameras to record the individuals inside the cage. Conditions were so appalling that U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodlock referred to the designated protest zone as a "grim, mean, and oppressive space," which had the overall feel of an "internment camp."

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/4488 ... convention

Spidey wrote:Actually the first does not allow for the disruption of an organized speaking event, as I understand the law you must get a permit to have a counter protest, and conduct yourself within the confines of the law and that permit. And generally those counter protests take place outside the venues.

actually there are rules to make that the reality. Trump chose not to adhere to such rules(ticketed events, notice of limitations at the gate, etc). Now, one might suggest that his people are stupid, but I don't believe it. Trump wishes to whip his people into a frenzy of antagonism towards others( take the country back from THOSE people). He paid for it, he owns it.

I’d like to see those rules, because as I understand it the person or group renting space can control who can and cannot be there.

If you are asked to be quiet, then that rule is now in place.

they CAN control it, but there are rules to be followed. Trump, for whatever reason, seems not to be bothering.




by the way, how many people actually viewed the linked video?

I didn't watch...I've already seen the movie.

callmeslick wrote:by the way, how many people actually viewed the linked video?

I did!

always loved The Blue Brothers.


anyway, there was, if you go look for it, a complete Twitter takedown of Trump this morning from Bernie:

Trump tweets to the effect of Bernie 'better watch out' because he was going to send his supporters to Bernie's rallies

Sanders replied-Send Them! They need to see what a real honest politician looks like.

wow, they don't seem violent to me.

It's creepy how this guy reminds me of Trump:

[youtube]zcZJF81jt4w[/youtube]

[youtube]Tj9M34DzAKo[/youtube]