Democrat Primaries/Caucuses Discussions, Jokes, Predictions

[Seth]

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.

Sorry, but in most cases recently it's exactly that, an example of threat, force and intimidation, just as a KKK costume is. Just ask the people who have been threatened, intimidated and unlawfully touched, shoved, robbed, beaten and otherwise victimized by masked liberal fascists at Trump rallys.

Now I suppose I could be persuaded to amend my suggestion to require some sort of aggressive or threatening action on the part of the masked individual that would trigger an investigatory detention (Stone/Terry stop), which is not an arrest but merely a temporary detention in order to de-mask the individual, identify that person and take photos and issue a warning that re-masking or further aggressive or threatening action will trigger an arrest. Thus, if a masked individual touches another person, at all, that would be enough to detain that person for investigation. Attempting to flee would of course create probable cause for arrest because the individual was masked and his/her flight is indicative of an intent to commit a crime without being identified.

Of course the best way to identify masked liberal fascists who engage in violence, threats and intimidation at opposition rallys is simply for the attendees to carry marking pepper spray and hose the cocksuckers down if they get up in their faces and act belligerently, like somebody did to the "15 year old girl" who tried fucking with Trump supporters a while back.

Hacking, coughing, puking, screaming leftists pawing at their eyes and covered with indelible orange dye are pretty easy to identify.

[Seth]

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.

Exactly. And that's exactly why the liberal fascists at Trump rallys wear masks, and that's exactly what they actually did.

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.

And leftist liberal fascists have just as long and evil a history of violence against their political enemies, just ask the bank tellers burned to death in Rome, among others.

This argument barely avoids being completely absurd and is rather feeble, to put it kindly.

It's anything but absurd, it's based on factual recent evidence where 400 violent leftist liberal fascists violently attacked a group of 30 people peaceably exercising their right to free speech and assembly pursuant to a permit issued by the county sheriff.

What is interesting is that he's arguing for restrictions on an important constitutional right.

Threats, intimidation and violence are not constitutionally protected, so your argument is worthless.

You'd never find him arguing for any restrictions on gun rights at all, let alone by using such transparently lame bullshit.

Nonsense. There are thousands upon thousands of restrictions on gun rights with with I fully agree. Like the one that says that it's illegal for a felon to possess a firearm. Or the one that says you can't discharge your weapon into a crowd in a reckless manner.

More importantly, I am not suggesting that the law distinguish between liberal fascists and other fascists or anybody else. If the KKK starts showing up at Hillary rallys with masks on their faces, or the neo-nazis do, they would be under exactly the same laws.

The fact that you acknowledged the existing laws shows that you agree with the principle. Keep in mind that the laws involved don't mention the KKK specifically, they are laws of general application that apply to everyone equally!

In the south, it's ALREADY illegal to go about in public masked. It has been since about 1900.

[Forty Two]

Even though no-masks-in-public laws were originally designed to stop the KKK, they never ONLY applied to the KKK. Equal protection of the laws always required them to enforced equally. So, even though they were created because of KKK conduct at the time, it never was the case that leftist activists were "good" so they got to wear masks, whereas KKK folks are "bad" and they don't get to wear masks. That's why such laws are worded neutrally -- i.e., nobody can wear masks in public, as opposed to "the bad guys" can't wear masks in public.

The suggestion that the "no mask laws" don't apply to leftist demonstrators because they're not as bad as the KKK is complete and utter bollocks.

It's like the Civil Rights Act of 1871-- it was referenced by the shorthand as the Klan Act -- because it was enacted in part to combat the Klan. But, it didn't apply only to the Klan. It applied to everyone who sought to deprive others of their civil rights under color of law. It's still in effect -- 42 USC Section 1983, and is used all the time when people sue cops and government officials, and those acting in concert with them under color of law, for depriving them of civil rights (not just race, but religion, free speech, equal protection, search and seizure etc.).

[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.

Exactly. And that's exactly why the liberal fascists at Trump rallys wear masks, and that's exactly what they actually did.

That's a bald assertion on your part, and a broad generalization. You state it as a fact, but it's clearly your opinion. I've observed this tendency on your part many times.

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.

And leftist liberal fascists have just as long and evil a history of violence against their political enemies, just ask the bank tellers burned to death in Rome, among others.

You citing some supposed incident in Rome is not evidence of a "long and evil history of violence" on the part of anti-Trump demonstrators. We know what anti-Trump demonstrators have done, and while it is inexcusable it doesn't even begin to approach what we know the KKK has done. Your argument here is pathetically weak.

It's anything but absurd, it's based on factual recent evidence where 400 violent leftist liberal fascists violently attacked a group of 30 people peaceably exercising their right to free speech and assembly pursuant to a permit issued by the county sheriff.

Since you don't cite any report of such an incident, I question whether your description is accurate.

What is interesting is that he's arguing for restrictions on an important constitutional right.

Threats, intimidation and violence are not constitutionally protected, so your argument is worthless.

Intellectual dishonesty doesn't make your case. You aren't that stupid; you know perfectly well that what I was talking about was the constitutional rights to free speech and assembly.

You'd never find him arguing for any restrictions on gun rights at all, let alone by using such transparently lame bullshit.

Nonsense. There are thousands upon thousands of restrictions on gun rights with with I fully agree. Like the one that says that it's illegal for a felon to possess a firearm. Or the one that says you can't discharge your weapon into a crowd in a reckless manner.

I wasn't talking about what you agree with--I said that you will never argue in favor of any restrictions on gun rights. I've been on this site for several years and I've never seen you do so. If you have, and can prove it, I'll retract that statement.

More importantly, I am not suggesting that the law distinguish between liberal fascists and other fascists or anybody else. If the KKK starts showing up at Hillary rallys with masks on their faces, or the neo-nazis do, they would be under exactly the same laws.

The fact that you acknowledged the existing laws shows that you agree with the principle. Keep in mind that the laws involved don't mention the KKK specifically, they are laws of general application that apply to everyone equally!

In the south, it's ALREADY illegal to go about in public masked. It has been since about 1900.

Another example of intellectual dishonesty. Acknowledgement does not equal agreement: I acknowledge the existence of the Catholic church, that doesn't mean that I agree with its principles or beliefs.

[laklak]

It's either the law or it ain't. Applies to everybody, except Bill and Hill of course. They're special.

[JimC]

Why then did the FBI decline to prosecute (while still poisoning the well quite effectively...)?

[laklak]

No idea. I'm sure it had nothing to do with politics, though.

Actually, I have it on good authority that Hillary has a video of Obama fucking a goat, but you didn't hear it from me.

[Seth]

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.

Exactly. And that's exactly why the liberal fascists at Trump rallys wear masks, and that's exactly what they actually did.

That's a bald assertion on your part, and a broad generalization. You state it as a fact, but it's clearly your opinion. I've observed this tendency on your part many times.

Er, this is an opinion forum, or had that fact escaped you. Nonetheless, it is a fact you can look up if you care to that liberal fascists from the "BAMN" conspiracy attacked members of the Traditional Workers Party in Sacramento last week and many of them were wearing masks in order to conceal their identity. The same thing happened in England to a journalist, who was attacked and harassed by masked liberal fascists and was then lectured by the police for "inciting" them while the police did nothing to even apprehend and identify the culprits who robbed her.

And that is the custom for liberal fascists these days...and in days past...and that is a fact, not an opinion.

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.

And leftist liberal fascists have just as long and evil a history of violence against their political enemies, just ask the bank tellers burned to death in Rome, among others.

You citing some supposed incident in Rome is not evidence of a "long and evil history of violence" on the part of anti-Trump demonstrators. We know what anti-Trump demonstrators have done, and while it is inexcusable it doesn't even begin to approach what we know the KKK has done. Your argument here is pathetically weak.

Strawman fallacy. I never said that the liberal fascists "began to approach what we know the KKK has done." That's a fabrication of your mind. What I did say is that the law bans the wearing of face masks in public, particularly at public gatherings, in many states, because of the obvious and sole purpose of concealing one's identity as a tactic of threat, intimidation and escape from identification. Liberal fascists don't have to burn crosses, although they have burned bank tellers to death, in order to be guilty of concealing their identities in order to facilitate the commission of crimes against their political enemies, and that is the point. And thanks for admitting that the liberal fascists are engaging in "inexcusable" behavior...which also happens to be criminal behavior as well.

It's anything but absurd, it's based on factual recent evidence where 400 violent leftist liberal fascists violently attacked a group of 30 people peaceably exercising their right to free speech and assembly pursuant to a permit issued by the county sheriff.

Since you don't cite any report of such an incident, I question whether your description is accurate.

Google it. Sacramento BAMN Traditional Workers Party. There, I made it easy for you, you can just cut and paste.

What is interesting is that he's arguing for restrictions on an important constitutional right.

Threats, intimidation and violence are not constitutionally protected, so your argument is worthless.

Intellectual dishonesty doesn't make your case. You aren't that stupid; you know perfectly well that what I was talking about was the constitutional rights to free speech and assembly.

There is no constitutional right to engage in threats, intimidation and violence, masked or unmasked, and that's what I am talking about.

You'd never find him arguing for any restrictions on gun rights at all, let alone by using such transparently lame bullshit.

Nonsense. There are thousands upon thousands of restrictions on gun rights with with I fully agree. Like the one that says that it's illegal for a felon to possess a firearm. Or the one that says you can't discharge your weapon into a crowd in a reckless manner.

I wasn't talking about what you agree with--I said that you will never argue in favor of any restrictions on gun rights. I've been on this site for several years and I've never seen you do so. If you have, and can prove it, I'll retract that statement.

Nobody here has ever proposed a reasonable restriction on gun rights that does not already exist in the laws of the United States. When and if someone does, I'll favor it. Just because someone claims a new gun rights restriction is "common sense" doesn't mean it is. These days it means exactly the opposite in fact, and nobody ever cares to even discuss why such proposals are idiocy and infringe on the rights of the law-abiding because that is part of the Marxist dialectical plan to tell lies until they become the perceived truth.

The devil is in the details of any such proposal, and no leftist anti-gun zealot EVER agrees to engage in reasoned debate about such proposals because they know they will lose the debate because their agenda has nothing to do with common-sense anything and is strictly and ultimately about banning all firearms in civilian hands.

Those who are not idiots on the subject know this, which is why we don't waste our time debating mindless zealots whose minds cannot be changed no matter how much reason and logic is applied.

However, if YOU have a proposal you'd like to debate rationally and logically, I'm always happy to do so. Of course you're still going to lose because everything that needs to be said in the law about controlling and regulating firearms in private ownership has been said, debated endlessly by the several state legislatures and that which is both reasonable and constitutional has been enacted into law...along with a bunch of stuff that's not reasonable and is unconstitutional that keeps getting thrown out by the courts, like DC and Chicago's absolute bans on handgun ownership and the anti-concealed carry permit laws in every single state in the US, by Supreme Court ruling.

So, unless you have an interest in rational debate on the subject, shut your fucking pie hole.

More importantly, I am not suggesting that the law distinguish between liberal fascists and other fascists or anybody else. If the KKK starts showing up at Hillary rallys with masks on their faces, or the neo-nazis do, they would be under exactly the same laws.

The fact that you acknowledged the existing laws shows that you agree with the principle. Keep in mind that the laws involved don't mention the KKK specifically, they are laws of general application that apply to everyone equally!

In the south, it's ALREADY illegal to go about in public masked. It has been since about 1900.

Another example of intellectual dishonesty. Acknowledgement does not equal agreement: I acknowledge the existence of the Catholic church, that doesn't mean that I agree with its principles or beliefs.

The cool thing about the law is that it doesn't give a flying fuck whether you agree or not. The ONLY reason someone goes masked to a public political gathering, or supports or advocates doing so, is because they are, or intend to be engaged either in a criminal act or are part of a criminal conspiracy to interfere with the civil rights of others, and all such persons need to be prosecuted under federal civil rights laws just like any KKK member, because they are the moral equals of KKK members. It's just that simple.

[Seth]

Why then did the FBI decline to prosecute (while still poisoning the well quite effectively...)?

Because the FBI is not tasked with prosecuting anything. It's a law-enforcement agency tasked with investigating crimes and providing such investigatory evidence to the actual prosecutors without commenting on the probative nature of the evidence.

Comey grossly overstepped his legal, ethical and departmental boundaries by stating his OPINION on the matter, and needs to be impeached and fired for doing so.

In fact, his statements, if made at an actual trial, on the stand, would be grounds for a mistrial.

He's not a fucking prosecutor and needs to shut his fucking mouth and do his job or get out. He should also be disbarred for this.

[pErvinalia]

FireShot Screen Capture #015 - 'Bernie Sanders - Facebook Search' - www_facebook_com_topic_Bernie-Sanders_108486939173233_source=whfrt&position=1&trqi.jpg (61.84 KiB) Viewed 2912 times

No surprises there, except to those earlier in the thread who thought there wasn't an establishment (including media) bias against him.

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

[Scot Dutchy]

Pathetic but that is the way of American politics just pathetic. Please dont ever mention democracy. America would not know what that is even if it belted it in the face.

[Forty Two]