Trump Rally Canceled for Safety Reasons

[AAAintheBeltway]

Which also should be illegal, much in the same way employees on strike try to stop "line breakers" from going to work. That isn't just a protest, it's an illegal one.

I draw a clear line between a protest and physical interference. You may have a right to express your opinion but you don't have a right to prevent my passage.

This is why I have always felt that the First Amendment does not require cities to turn their streets over to protestors. If you want to stage a mass protest, rent a hall or find a field somewhere. You do not have the right to take over the streets of a city. That is confusing protest with mob action, which of course is the idea.

Our unelected rulers in the federal judiciary do not agree with me, but that doesn't make them right.

 

[Ricter]

To be fair, Power always wants Dissent to be a lot more accommodating (if not go away entirely).

 

[Tsing Tao]

I draw a clear line between a protest and physical interference. You may have a right to express your opinion but you don't have a right to prevent my passage.

This is why I have always felt that the First Amendment does not require cities to turn their streets over to protestors. If you want to stage a mass protest, rent a hall or find a field somewhere. You do not have the right to take over the streets of a city. That is confusing protest with mob action, which of course is the idea.

Our unelected rulers in the federal judiciary do not agree with me, but that doesn't make them right.

I understand you draw a line (and I do too) but that doesn't change what is, and is not, legal. Disruption is illegal and not protected under right to assemble or right to free speech. Public streets can be used - when approved - to stage a protest for right to assemble. Those people protesting can not disrupt businesses, services, private enterprises, etc.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Because the discussion was about protesters that disrupt private rallies. No one is talking about people sitting quietly in the rally and disagreeing with the candidate.

Wallet's original comment, where he used the word "trespass" was

How about a real simple solution... If you don't like a candidate stay out of their rallies instead of trespassing and causing a scene.
​

It's the "causing a scene" that's the problem and what is relevant to the discussion.

The "causing a scene" was in addition to the trespassing: "and." I referred to only the "trespassing" part. Read my post again and what I quoted. And then go play with your straw men again.

 

[Tsing Tao]

The "causing a scene" was in addition to the trespassing: "and." I referred to only the "trespassing" part. Read my post again and what I quoted. And then go play with your straw men again.

You're so pathetically transparent. You think we can't see the furious back peddling here? What a laugh you are!

 

[Frederick Foresight]

You're so pathetically transparent. You think we can't see the furious back peddling here? What a laugh you are!

No, but you most certainly are. Look at what I quoted when I made my post:

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...or-safety-reasons.298448/page-11#post-4259355

Anything beyond that is your wishful thinking and fabrication. Where's all that "nuance" now that you spoke so knowledgeably just earlier today? You're an intellectual fraud. If you were any smarter, you'd be embarrassed.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I understand you draw a line (and I do too) but that doesn't change what is, and is not, legal. Disruption is illegal and not protected under right to assemble or right to free speech. Public streets can be used - when approved - to stage a protest for right to assemble. Those people protesting can not disrupt businesses, services, private enterprises, etc.

I agree.

There is a practice that goes on in Washington where unions having a dispute with office building owners hire homeless people to "demonstrate" outside the building. The demonstations consists of loudly banging on drums etc to create a big enough racket to interfere with the use of the building. The city tolerates it, because it is run by leftwing drones who are beholden to unions.

 

[Tsing Tao]

No, but you most certainly are. Look at what I quoted when I made my post:

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...or-safety-reasons.298448/page-11#post-4259355

Anything beyond that is your wishful thinking and fabrication. Where's all that "nuance" now that you spoke so knowledgeably just earlier today? You're an intellectual fraud. If you were any smarter, you'd be embarrassed.

"But...but...there was an "and" in there!" "That was only a metaphor!"

You're a twat if ever there was one on this forum. And that's saying a lot!

 

[Tsing Tao]

I agree.

There is a practice that goes on in Washington where unions having a dispute with office building owners hire homeless people to "demonstrate" outside the building. The demonstations consists of loudly banging on drums etc to create a big enough racket to interfere with the use of the building. The city tolerates it, because it is run by leftwing drones who are beholden to unions.

The sound issue is a gray area. It's obviously something that can't be quantified easily, and when protests disrupt businesses by use of things like horns, etc...someone has to make a judgment call. Usually, the protesters lose in that.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

You're a twat if ever there was one on this forum. And that's saying a lot!

Aww...I must have upset you significantly if you're resorting to personal attacks right off the mark in the morning. Still butt hurt from yesterday?