War Room Lounge V129: Ignored Content Edition

[CubicleGangster]

It doesn't have to be a protest. What aren't you getting? If you're in the way of the President, or more specifically, the secret service who is charged with protecting the President, you're gonna move one way or another. Could be at a parade, a rally, a hospital, a fucking Broadway show...you move if the secret service says so. End of story.

What are you not getting about this situation? The President did not need to leave the white house to do a photo shoot across the street but because he wanted to he had a bunch of people tear gassed and ran out as a show of force.

This isn't a case of the President being somewhere he was suppose to be or doing something he was suppose to do. This was him going out of his way to trample on the rights of his own citizens, and the last thing we need is some Canadian bootlicker telling Americans their rights don't matter when it comes to the Presidents wants.

 

[Fawlty]

Yet I can't think of past president during my time who showed up to a protest and did something like this

Weird

It's also weird to shield doghsit presidential behavior from criticism on the grounds that it's either not technically illegal or can't be physically stopped. Many boot polish tongue bath.

 

[Prokofievian]

Meaningfully abused? Like how?

I'm asking you. Can you think of any situation where this...

Look, the bottom line is, if the secret service tells you to move, you move. Fuck around and see what happens. They're not playing.

...is not ''the bottom line''?

 

[Fawlty]

eh, I think Mick is shooting for an angle, but fair is fair. The legality of the action is at least intellectually defensible; the judgement behind it isn't.

It's not fair to dodge the point. It's essentially blurting out "well it's not against the law" as a defense to immoral behavior.

 

[HereticBD]

What are you not getting about this situation? The President did not need to leave the white house to do a photo shoot across the street but because he wanted to he had a bunch of people tear gassed and ran out as a show of force.

Need has nothing to do with it. He wanted to go there, so he went there. He doesn't play by your rules.

This isn't a case of the President being somewhere he was suppose to be or doing something he was suppose to do.

There are lots of places he doesn't "need" to go. It doesn't change the fact that if he does want to go somewhere, he goes and the secret service parts the waters for him, like they've always done.

You just sound like a typical Lefty, thinking it's a free for all out there. It's not.

 

[CubicleGangster]

It's also weird to shield doghsit presidential behavior from criticism on the grounds that it's either not technically illegal or can't be physically stopped. Many boot polish tongue bath.

It is also extra ironic given the reason for these ongoing protests. The abuse of citizens' rights from the police and how we have to treat any unlawful order from them as a lawful order or else.

 

[Fawlty]

It is also extra ironic given the reason for these ongoing protests. The abuse of citizens' rights from the police and how we have to treat any unlawful order from them as a lawful order or else.

Good point. It's trying to affirm that, yes, we are oppressive, and yes, we're going to keep doing that.

 

[CubicleGangster]

Need has nothing to do with it. He wanted to go there, so he went there. He doesn't play by your rules.



There are lots of places he doesn't "need" to go. It doesn't change the fact that if he does want to go somewhere, he goes and the secret service parts the waters for him, like they've always done.

You just sound like a typical Lefty, thinking it's a free for all out there. It's not.

Oh fuck off with this typical Lefty shit, I don't even vote along the democratic party line. You don't need to be a lefty to see this shit for what it is.

Imagine simping this hard for a politician who will never represent you

Sorry bud, you'll never be an American

 

[HereticBD]

I'm asking you. Can you think of any situation where this...



...is not ''the bottom line''?

No, I can't. President goes where he wants. He has the highest security imaginable when he does so. Get in their faces, and see what happens. This has always been the case.

 

[MMAisGod]

Most importantly, it's why I highlighted the report of the police issuing the order to disperse before pushing protesters out.

It absolutely does make it legal. This is one of the most pitiful and desperate attempts to accuse Trump of illegal conduct I have ever seen.

Did you not read your own ACLU PSA more closely? Everywhere there is riot, disorder, or threat to the public safety, the police are justified in dispersing protesters.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights/

The First Amendment protects your right to assemble and express your views through protest. However, police and other government officials are allowed to place certain narrow restrictions on the exercise of speech rights. Make sure you’re prepared by brushing up on your rights before heading out into the streets...

What happens if the police issues an order to disperse the protest?

• Shutting down a protest through a dispersal order must be law enforcement’s last resort. Police may not break up a gathering unless there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or other immediate threat to public safety.
• If officers issue a dispersal order, they must provide a reasonable opportunity to comply, including sufficient time and a clear, unobstructed exit path.
• Individuals must receive clear and detailed notice of a dispersal order, including how much time they have to disperse, the consequences of failing to disperse, and what clear exit route they can follow, before they may be arrested or charged with any crime.

In this case, the President's safety is being secured. The White House told the media they were clearing the area before the curfew.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-order-as-violent-protests-rage-idUSKBN2382FP
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-considering-move-invoke-insurrection-act-n1221326

Asked whether the area was cleared to accommodate Trump's visit to the outside of the church, White House deputy press secretary Judd Deere said: "The perimeter was expanded to help enforce the 7 p.m. curfew in the same area where rioters attempted to burn down one of our nation's most historic churches the night before. Protesters were given three warnings by the U.S. Park Police."

Mind linking me to that Madmick post before we continue on with this discussion? Seems like it might be relevant so I'd like to read it first before replying.

Yea mang, this post above I'm talking about that. From what I'm gathering there, the protestors would be required to move once given the order, but didn't after multiple asks, and then it escalated. I was looking for something that says they are allowed to disregard the order in the name of the protest, or for Free Speech as an override, but still haven't found it at the moment.

Ultra dirty stuff while Trump smiled.

Oh yea, I read about it last night. 100% don't agree with the level of hostility to protesters to take a cutesy picture. It was handled very, very poorly to say the least. I just don't think it's an overstep of authority like has been argued unless I can see it was. If it wasn't, it could be something visited to change in the near future since it's a pretty blatant disregard of citizens space.

 

[Higus]

It's not fair to dodge the point. It's essentially blurting out "well it's not against the law" as a defense to immoral behavior.

I agree, but this is the internet and trying to get away with bad arguments is just part of the game. And that's what this is to a lot of modern fascists: a game.

 

[HereticBD]

Oh fuck off with this typical Lefty shit, I don't even vote along the democratic party line. You don't need to be a lefty to see this shit for what it is.

Imagine simping this hard for a politician who will never represent you

Sorry bud, you'll never be an American

Ah' yes, the "But Canada" tap out.

Good talk.

 

[CubicleGangster]

Good point. It's trying to affirm that, yes, we are oppressive, and yes, we're going to keep doing that.

I guess its nice to see there is some level consistency between the State and Federal level when it comes to abuse of power

 

[MMAisGod]

eh, I think Mick is shooting for an angle, but fair is fair. The legality of the action is at least intellectually defensible; the judgement behind it isn't.

Thanks, and yea it might be even more important. If the legality is too far misplaced from the morality, it should be something discussed in a different context to prevent further abuse. If legal, it doesn't mean it's not being misused. Similar to how we view nepotism, but different for obvious reasons.

 

[Prokofievian]

No, I can't. President goes where he wants. He has the highest security imaginable when he does so. Get in their faces, and see what happens. This has always been the case.

So, in your opinion, no one else in the United States ever has a right to exist in a particular place at any given time?

 

[Fawlty]

I agree, but this is the internet and trying to get away with bad arguments is just part of the game. And that's what this is to a lot of modern fascists: a game.

Sad but true.

 

[CubicleGangster]

Yea mang, this post above I'm talking about that. From what I'm gathering there, the protestors would be required to move once given the order, but didn't after multiple asks, and then it escalated. I was looking for something that says they are allowed to disregard the order in the name of the protest, or for Free Speech as an override, but still haven't found it at the moment.

The issue here I see is this:
Shutting down a protest through a dispersal order must be law enforcement’s last resort. Police may not break up a gathering unless there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or other immediate threat to public safety.

This is vague and open to interpretation. Some would agree the protest outside the White House would fit that designation, others would not. So it is not as clear cut as Madmick was trying to make it.

I need to seek out more videos of that specific protest to see if it would fit the above designation. The other stuff linked in that post were about separate protests happening in different cities. Someone opening fire in STL does not mean the protest concurrently happening in DC can be considered an immediate threat. I'm open to being shown a video of that specific protest that shows otherwise.

 

[HereticBD]

So, in your opinion, no one else in the United States ever has a right to exist in a particular place at any given time?

What? Now you're just being over dramatic. Look, if the President comes to town and the secret service asks you to move from a spot, just move. They're not playing the "sovereign citizen" routine.

Or get in their face, and scream that your rights are being violated. It's your dice roll.

 

[CubicleGangster]

Ah' yes, the "But Canada" tap out.

Good talk.

It actually wasn't a good talk and it completely devolved into a shit conversation when you hit me with that 'Typical lefty shit' nonsense post

 

[CubicleGangster]

So, in your opinion, no one else in the United States ever has a right to exist in a particular place at any given time?

Listen here, bud. If the President wants inside your house, he gets inside your house.

Don't even get me started on the line cutting privileges the President has. I dare you to call the man a butter, a dirty line cutter! Secret service will be on your ass so hard.