I don't think it did though. There wasn't ever an actual example of pay to play as far as I ever saw.
Email from H. Clinton to John Podesta
large image
Spoiler!
The same organizations also donated to the Clinton Foundation, so even if you accept that Hillary took the money and never expected anything in return (a gigantic stretch) she accepted money from the same groups that fund ISIL. There is way more of this kind of stuff in the Wikileaks documents if you take the time to read them.
It is a very big deal when people are blocking traffic, damaging public and private property not to mention getting hit by a car
It's not a big deal (i.e. not morally outrageous) in the context of a person in a deep blue state not voting then peacefully expressing their concern over the President-elect's words and actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
You are 100% right it doesn't change anything like for example the outcome.
Also doesn't change what I was actually referring to; people can change their mind or regret their past actions and choices or change their minds based on new information and peacefully protest their President-elect's divisive words or actions, like his disregard for people who didn't vote for him.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Also doesn't change what I was actually referring to; people can change their mind or regret their past actions and choices or change their minds based on new information and peacefully protest their President-elect's divisive words or actions, like his disregard for people who didn't vote for him.
Protest at the voting booth. Otherwise shut yer yap if you didn't vote at all. What's next a bumper sticker that says I didn't participate but I demonstrate?
Quote:
disregard for people who didn't vote for him.
Clinton did this to perfection by alienating half the voting public.
So the Clinton Foundation (from which Clinton doesn't receive a single dime) accepted money, which wasn't accepted by Hillary since she wasn't running the Foundation while she was Secretary of State, from countries that also supported ISIS, meaning that many people got access to live saving drugs instead of ISIS getting even more weapons.
Wow, get a rope.
EDIT: I think it's pretty obvious but just in case get a rope sarcastically refers to hanging Clinton for the crime of diverting money from ISIS to sick people. I.e. "String her up."
So if I give money to a criminal organization and also give some to my church that means my church is somehow complicit in criminal activities? Seems more like the wealth of the wicked being laid up for the righteous.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Protest at the voting booth. Otherwise shut yer yap if you didn't vote at all. What's next a bumper sticker that says I didn't participate but I demonstrate?
Clinton did this to perfection by alienating half the voting public.
Unfortunately for you there's no law against protesting. People in the states have the right to free speech and exercise the right to protest.
Protest at the voting booth. Otherwise shut yer yap if you didn't vote at all. What's next a bumper sticker that says I didn't participate but I demonstrate?
"Your right to protest should be limited by what I think is reasonable."
Doesn't work that way fortunately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
Clinton did this to perfection by alienating half the voting public.
And? Tu quoque is a logical fallacy.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Protest at the voting booth. Otherwise shut yer yap if you didn't vote at all. What's next a bumper sticker that says I didn't participate but I demonstrate?
Clinton did this to perfection by alienating half the voting public.
I have seen this argument on many news sites. How American to get angry about changing the second amendment but to hell with the first amendment! Why would a democracy need guns over free speech?
Unfortunately for you there's no law against protesting. People in the states have the right to free speech and exercise the right to protest.
Can't demonstrate with impunity though which clearly many of these people are doing.
Quote:
The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct an assembly at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or interference with traffic on public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety or order.[13] Statutes that prohibit people from assembling and using force or violence to accomplish unlawful purposes are permissible under the First Amendment.[14]
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
"Your right to protest should be limited by what I think is reasonable."
The President-elect bragged, on the stage of at least one debate, that he "paid to play".
He said this out loud:
“I was a businessman, I give to everybody. When they call, I give.” You know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me. . . . And that’s a broken system.”
To cheers, of course, from his law-and-order, we-hate-insiders supporters.
It seems just a touch hypocritical to call one person "crooked" for allegedly doing something, and applaud another person for boastfully confessing to doing that same thing.
Can't demonstrate with impunity though which clearly many of these people are doing.
See above.
I know there have been protests but I haven't seen any violence or riots reported. How are they breaking the first? Where did the violence and riots occur?
Last edited by wwkayaker; 11-17-2016 at 09:20 PM.
Reason: Spelling
Protest at the voting booth. Otherwise shut yer yap if you didn't vote at all. What's next a bumper sticker that says I didn't participate but I demonstrate?
I see this said/posted a lot. Is there anything credible whatsoever to suggest that protesters didn't vote? Common sense would say that most people engaged enough to protest, likely made the effort to vote. Is this just one of those things people say enough so it gets accepted or is there any reason to believe there is truth behind it?
I wanted to learn more about these protests and the violence/riots so I searched Trump protests. The links presented spoke of non violent protests. The first link I found that spoke of violent protests was from Vanity Fair. Ironically (use intended), the link was to an article describing how Trump supporters were violent to peaceful demonstrators.
I know there have been protests but I haven't seen any violence or riots reported. How are they breaking the first? Where did the violence and riots occur?
First result from a Youtube search ignore the dramatic music someone decided to add.
That's not remotely close to the criteria you said should limit rights, those criteria are actually reasonable.
Not all of it is reasonable. No one is saying peaceful protests are illegal or a problem in most cases, although they can be if you block roads and the like which is happening.
Sorry, but the fact you're having issues finding information on the Trump Protests seems to suggest you're not actively looking for reputable news either.
Here's a hint, type in "Trump Protests Violence" in Google news and you get 100 of articles that you can scroll through until you find one you think is reputable.
I support their right to protest, I'm certainly not pro-Trump, but actively trying to pretend that there hasn't been issues with the protests is simply crazy.
I see this said/posted a lot. Is there anything credible whatsoever to suggest that protesters didn't vote?
I posted a link a bit above, a news station basically cross referenced a bunch of people arrested with voter records and found that lots either hadn't voted, or weren't registered to vote.
So it definitely is credible. Now it's one example which doesn't mean it is representative. It's also a record of people arrested, which by definition is a self-selecting subset of the protesters (selected by doing something worthy of being arrested for).
It could just be that people who are likely to get arrested are also more likely to attend a protest for the purpose of doing arrest-worthy things rather than attending because they feel strongly one way or the other.
Personally I think every rioter is a false flag operation paid for by rich republicans to discredit the real protesters.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
