Democrat Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes, Predictions

[pErvinalia]

I'd also make it unlawful to attend a public demonstration in Cleveland (or anywhere else) while wearing any mask or device that either conceals one's identity or provides protection against the lawful use of chemical agents by victims or the police. Doing so would be an arrestable offense. If you don't have enough courage in your convictions to let your face be seen and identity known, then you don't deserve to be permitted to demonstrate.

So libertarian...

Going to a public venue or demonstration while wearing a mas to conceal your identity while you engage in criminal violence is not a peaceable act and no Libertarian is under any obligation to put up with it for a second.

Lol. Wearing a harmless piece of clothing is a "[non] peaceable act"?? As I keep saying, you aren't a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.

You persist in your idiotic notion that Libertarianism means that anybody can do whatever the fuck they want without suffering any consequences.

Rubbish. Libertarianism means you can do what you like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Wearing a mask isn't harming anyone else.

In Libertarianism the consequences of violent attacks on others are immediate and fatally final.

Wearing a mask is a "violent attack"? You really are a scared little man, aren't you?

[Seth]

Wearing a mask is a "violent attack"?

No, a violent attack is a violent attack, wearing a mask at a public gathering is merely probable cause that you are about to commit a violent act and ought to be illegal in order to prevent the individual from getting shot dead by someone who reasonably believes their lives are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from a violent masked attacker. Walk into a bank (or any other business) wearing a mask and security is perfectly entitled to
draw down on you and put you a tenth of an ounce away from getting two to the chest and one to the head.

You really are a scared little man, aren't you?

Reported.

[Seth]

Rubbish. Libertarianism means you can do what you like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Wearing a mask isn't harming anyone else.

Another deliberately mendacious and trollish mischaracterization of Libertarianism.

You can't wave a gun about and point it at people and then argue that a Libertarian cannot shoot you dead because you haven't yet pulled the trigger.

That's where the "initiation" part of "initiating force or fraud" comes in.

If you pull out a gun and point it at me you have initiated force and I can respond with force. If you even threaten to pull out a gun you have initiated force and I can respond with force. If you wear a mask to a public political gathering and display belligerent behavior you have initiated force and I can respond with force.

The purpose of making it illegal to even wear a mask at all is to prevent an initiation of force by persons who are concealing their identity that might trigger a riot. The only reason to conceal your identity is to facilitate the commission of a criminal act, which is itself an initiation of force against everyone else in the venue, all of whom are justified in using force in self defense. Like by detaining the individual, unmasking him or her for identification and turning them over to the police. Or shooting him or her if an attack is made.

If you don't want to be identified don't go to public political gatherings and don't act belligerently towards others.

The law is proposed to protect protesters, not infringe on their right to free speech and assembly. It's a time, place and manner regulation intended to keep the peace.

Those who wear masks in public are up to no good and law-abiding citizens have a perfect right to treat them that way. It's been that way for hundreds of years, Hollywood notwithstanding.

But then you're just trolling and know all of this.

[piscator]

licking Hillary's clit

Indeed! But they can't wait to line up to do so.

You sound like you fantasize about sucking the cocks of male political leaders, but you loath yourself afterwards and your psyche tries to dress it up as rejection of strong women. You were fucked for life from a young age.

Nah, your reverse psychology shit doesn't change the fact that the lamestream press is falling all over itself to suppress any bad news about Hillary, who isn't a "strong woman" she's a psychopathic narcissistic avaricious cunt with delusions of grandure, megalomania and a shrewish temper...according to her Secret Service agents.

The Secret Service that gets the DEA to set them up with Columbian hookers? That Secret Service?


Protip: Don't get lippy with HRC and you won't end up penning a bitter little book about your short little career. She's been a powerhouse since she was an undergrad. No one takes the piss out of Hillary. No one took the piss out of Vince Lombardi or George Patton either. Same deal.

[pErvinalia]

Wearing a mask is a "violent attack"?

No, a violent attack is a violent attack, wearing a mask at a public gathering is merely probable cause that you are about to commit a violent act

"Probable cause"?!? Your "libertarianism" is a fucking joke. Now you want to judge people before they have exported any harm at all? What a joke.

[pErvinalia]

Rubbish. Libertarianism means you can do what you like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Wearing a mask isn't harming anyone else.

Another deliberately mendacious and trollish mischaracterization of Libertarianism.

You can't wave a gun about and point it at people and then argue that a Libertarian cannot shoot you dead because you haven't yet pulled the trigger.

I haven't said anything about anyone else reacting to someone wearing a mask. YOU want to criminalise harmless "clothing". My only point is that that is definitionally ANTI-libertarian.

[Scot Dutchy]

One thing I will say about Seth he is consistent.

[pErvinalia]

consistently confused...

[Seth]

Wearing a mask is a "violent attack"?

No, a violent attack is a violent attack, wearing a mask at a public gathering is merely probable cause that you are about to commit a violent act

"Probable cause"?!? Your "libertarianism" is a fucking joke. Now you want to judge people before they have exported any harm at all? What a joke.

Libertarianism is not the absolutist suicide pact you trollishly characterize it to be. It's merely probable cause to compel them to remove their masks or face arrest because, as has been made obvious by recent events, there is only one reason to attend an opposition political rally while wearing a mask and that is to facilitate your ability to threaten, intimidate and commit violence and violate other people's civil rights and go unpunished. Compelling you to remove your mask and be identifiable or face arrest is a choice such people get. Nobody, not even Libertarians, are under any compulsion to stand idly by while masked terrorists threaten, intimidate and harm others.

It's an initiation of force, plain and simple, and need not be tolerated by anyone. Unmask or be arrested.

By the way, that's why the KKK can't go fully hooded in the South these days...such laws have been on the books since the 60s precisely because going about in public while wearing a mask is a form of deliberate intimidation, which is an initiation of force.

[Seth]

Rubbish. Libertarianism means you can do what you like as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Wearing a mask isn't harming anyone else.

Another deliberately mendacious and trollish mischaracterization of Libertarianism.

You can't wave a gun about and point it at people and then argue that a Libertarian cannot shoot you dead because you haven't yet pulled the trigger.

I haven't said anything about anyone else reacting to someone wearing a mask. YOU want to criminalise harmless "clothing". My only point is that that is definitionally ANTI-libertarian.

No, the clothing is not criminalized, how one goes about using it may be criminalized. Time, place and manner. You may attend your KKK rally on private property and wear a full hood and burn as many crosses as you like, but step off of your property and it becomes a crime to wear the mask or burn a cross.

Intent and purpose are part of the analysis of whether you are using clothing legally or illegally, just like anything else. Your key ring is not a "deadly weapon" so you may carry it about all you like...unless you USE IT as a deadly weapon, in which case your possession of it is a crime. A handgun IS a deadly weapon, but around here you can openly wear it in public and it's perfectly legal unless you use it in a criminal manner, in which case one of the charges you face is illegal use of a deadly weapon.

Face coverings are no different. If it's 10 below zero and there's a raging blizzard going on wearing a facemask is neither illegal nor of concern to the public. But if you are attending a political rally in the middle of the summer there is no other reason to wear a facemask than a desire to conceal your identity to facilitate your threats, intimidation and criminal acts against those you hate. If it were the KKK attending a black political rally, or the neo-nazis attending a liberal political rally in YOUR town would you still be bloviating about "harmless clothing?" I doubt it.

To reiterate, it's not the clothing that's being criminalized, it's how you are using it that matters.

[Scot Dutchy]

Yep very consistent.

[pErvinalia]

Wearing a mask is a "violent attack"?

No, a violent attack is a violent attack, wearing a mask at a public gathering is merely probable cause that you are about to commit a violent act

"Probable cause"?!? Your "libertarianism" is a fucking joke. Now you want to judge people before they have exported any harm at all? What a joke.

It's an initiation of force, plain and simple,

Yes Seth, clothing is force. You aren't a libertarian.

[Seth]

Wearing a mask is a "violent attack"?

No, a violent attack is a violent attack, wearing a mask at a public gathering is merely probable cause that you are about to commit a violent act

"Probable cause"?!? Your "libertarianism" is a fucking joke. Now you want to judge people before they have exported any harm at all? What a joke.

It's an initiation of force, plain and simple,

Yes Seth, clothing is force. You aren't a libertarian.

No, eRv, force is force, the clothing is merely part of the weapons used, just like the leather that covers the lead shot in the blackjack.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

No, eRv, force is force, the clothing is merely part of the weapons used, just like the leather that covers the lead shot in the blackjack.

That would be true in certain narrow contexts, like a bank robber with a mask on in the act of robbing a bank.

In the case of an activist at a rally, wearing a mask while protesting but committing no violence, the clothing is not an example of force.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Most of the anti-mask laws on the books were intended to prevent the KKK from demonstrating with their hoods covering their faces. The rationale was that the hoods were an element in the intimidation tactics (and much worse) used by the KKK. That by wearing hoods while marching down the street they aroused a reasonable apprehension of intimidation, threats or violence.

Seth is attempting to equate anti-Trump demonstrators (some of whom have acted violently) with the KKK, who are known to have killed people, and who have a long history of intimidation and violence. This argument barely avoids being completely absurd and is rather feeble, to put it kindly. What is interesting is that he's arguing for restrictions on an important constitutional right. You'd never find him arguing for any restrictions on gun rights at all, let alone by using such transparently lame bullshit.