Midterms and Discord

[Cow Poke]

Politically stupid - I agree. Of course, politicians only misspeak or say stupid things on days that end with "y"

Well, not just the days .... um....



yeah!

[One Bad Pig]

Why is THAT an issue? Flag burning is a legally protected act - as has been repeatedly affirmed by the courts.

I have to admit, I don't understand this extreme devotion to a piece of cloth. It's the thing the cloth represents that is important - not the cloth.

When a flag is being burnt, the intention is not to denigrate the piece of cloth, but the thing it represents. I, in turn, have to admit why you don't see that.

[Sparko]

Undocumented immigrants (or illegal immigrants) if you prefer, are barred from voting. They are not barred from volunteering to get out the vote, or stand on corners with campaign signs, or any number of other activities. They simply cannot vote.

As with De Santis earlier comment, her statement was politically stupid. It wasn't "wrong" or encouraging illegal activity, AFAICT.

um foreigners can volunteer at campaigns but ILLEGAL foreigners? I don't think so. They are not even supposed to be in the country much less volunteering in our elections. Pretty sure that is a great way to get arrested and deported.

[Sparko]

Horse hockey. In many instances, they are specifically targeting the women trying to get into that place of business, and attempting to intimidate or shame them into not going. Your difference is not much of a difference.

They are not legally allowed to interfere with anyone entering or leaving the clinic. And since it is a place of business, it is completely different than hounding some public official at a restaurant. AND every abortion protest I know of around here is done legally with permits.

If they want to protest in front of the Senator's office, then that is quite OK.

I'm not "defending" anyone. I am pointing out your incorrect statements about the legality issue. Rude and boorish - no problem. Illegal? Not necessarily.

Of course it would depend on the local laws and statutes but generally causing a scene in public is illegal in most places. And you are required to get permits before public protests and you can't block pedestrian or street traffic. And you can't harass people. Especially not in a place of business.

[carpedm9587]

When a flag is being burnt, the intention is not to denigrate the piece of cloth, but the thing it represents. I, in turn, have to admit why you don't see that.

The intent is not to denigrate what it represents - but to emphasize that what the flag actually represents is not being honored (in the opinion of most burners). I don't know anyone who takes a stand that freedom, liberty, and honor are things to be denigrated. I know MANY who feel the U.S. has fallen away from those principles, which is what they are attempting to say when they burn the flag. At least, many. I'm sure there are also those who also simply want to say the U.S. sucks.

However, this country is founded on a principle of freedom of speech and expression. You cannot honor that, and then say, "well, except for the flag - you can't be free to express what you wish with respect to the flag."

[carpedm9587]

um foreigners can volunteer at campaigns but ILLEGAL foreigners? I don't think so.

Show me the law that says that an illegal immigrant cannot be volunteering at political events.

They are not even supposed to be in the country much less volunteering in our elections. Pretty sure that is a great way to get arrested and deported.

It may well get them arrested and deported because it makes them visible (assuming anyone knows) - but it is not, AFAIK, illegal. If you think otherwise, simply cite the relevant law.

[carpedm9587]

They are not legally allowed to interfere with anyone entering or leaving the clinic.

Of course not - which is why they stand in a gauntlet-type fashion and hurl insults and abuse at the women trying to enter. Not ALL protesters do this, of course, but then not all protesters accost Republicans in restaurants either. I'm still not seeing a difference. You cannot condemn one without condemning the other - at least not and remain consistent.

And since it is a place of business, it is completely different than hounding some public official at a restaurant.

Interesting...I thought restaurants were places of business...

AND every abortion protest I know of around here is done legally with permits.

Perhaps there. But they ar enot all done that way.

If they want to protest in front of the Senator's office, then that is quite OK.

If they want to protest anywhere, and they observe the law, that is quite OK.

Of course it would depend on the local laws and statutes but generally causing a scene in public is illegal in most places.

A restaurant is not "in public." It's a private establishment. The owner makes the call, unless a law is being broken. And "causing a scene" is not necessarily illegal. You seem to be skating very close to "if I don't want to hear it, it's a scene."

And you are required to get permits before public protests and you can't block pedestrian or street traffic.

You have this part wrong. You are required to get a permit IF your protest is going to block pedestrian or street traffic. Anyone can gather a group and stage a protest without a permit anywhere, as long as they do not block rights of way and do not create a danger. I can gather 20 of my friends tomorrow, make signs, and go picket on any street in downtown Burlington, so long as we do not block anyone's way and do not engage in verbal assault (the legal definition thereof). If I want to parade my protest down the center of Main Street, I need a permit.

And you can't harass people. Especially not in a place of business.

I think you are not very clear on the law on this one, and are letting your emotions drive your posts.

[One Bad Pig]

The intent is not to denigrate what it represents - but to emphasize that what the flag actually represents is not being honored (in the opinion of most burners). I don't know anyone who takes a stand that freedom, liberty, and honor are things to be denigrated. I know MANY who feel the U.S. has fallen away from those principles, which is what they are attempting to say when they burn the flag. At least, many.

What a load of codswallop. Generally those who burn flags are expressing hatred or contempt for the country and/or its government.

I'm sure there are also those who also simply want to say the U.S. sucks.

Ya think?

However, this country is founded on a principle of freedom of speech and expression. You cannot honor that, and then say, "well, except for the flag - you can't be free to express what you wish with respect to the flag."

You're fighting against an argument I haven't made.

[Sparko]

Show me the law that says that an illegal immigrant cannot be volunteering at political events.

well the the one about them not being allowed in the country where the campaign office is located for one. They are illegally in the country. They can't legally do anything in the country. Just being here is breaking the law. They are illegal. illegal. duh.

[carpedm9587]

What a load of codswallop. Generally those who burn flags are expressing hatred or contempt for the country and/or its government.

In my experience - they are expressing hatred for what their government country are DOING - not for the country itself, or the principles on which it was founded. They want the country to be better - and to do what they consider to be "the right thing." But I realize that most on the right are so caught up in that cloth, they really can't see past the act of burning it.

Ya think?

Of course. I would never claim that everyone burning the flag honors what it stands for. Members of ISIS are not honoring what the U.S. stands for when they burn the flag and hang presidents in effigy. Demonstrators within the U.S., in my experience, are protesting that the U.S. has fallen away from its principles - which it clearly has (IMO).

You're fighting against an argument I haven't made.

That "you" was meant in the generic sense, not specific to you personally. I realize in writing, that is not always clear from context. That sentence would have been better if I had written, "One cannot honor that, and then say, 'well, except for the flag - you can't be free to express what you wish with respect to the flag.' "

[carpedm9587]

well the the one about them not being allowed in the country where the campaign office is located for one. They are illegally in the country. They can't legally do anything in the country. Just being here is breaking the law. They are illegal. illegal. duh.

Actually - there are many "undocumented immigrants" that are here perfectly legally. It happens when they cross at legal check points and apply for asylum. Whie they are awaiting their asylum hearing - they are undocumented immigrants.

But even those undocumented immigrants who cross the border illegally and go into hiding - while they broke the law crossing the border, there is still no law that says they cannot participate as a volunteer in pretty much anything. There IS a law that says they cannot vote. There are laws about not hiring them for work. There is no law that says they cannot volunteer. Engaging them is politically stupid - and it's dangerous for the undocumented immigrant who is exposing themselves - but it's not illegal.

[Sparko]

Of course not - which is why they stand in a gauntlet-type fashion and hurl insults and abuse at the women trying to enter. Not ALL protesters do this, of course, but then not all protesters accost Republicans in restaurants either. I'm still not seeing a difference. You cannot condemn one without condemning the other - at least not and remain consistent.

I have never seen ANYONE hurl insults and abuse at the women. Have you ever been to an abortion clinic protest? It is all about wanting to help the women, not condemn them. yeesh.

Interesting...I thought restaurants were places of business...

If they want to protest the restaurant for some reason, yes. But they are interfering with a government official who happens to be out trying to enjoy his private life at a restaurant. They can protest at HIS office.

Come on Carp, you are really stretching now.

Perhaps there. But they ar enot all done that way.

Show me one that is not.

If they want to protest anywhere, and they observe the law, that is quite OK.

They are not observing the law. They are disturbing the peace, verbally assaulting someone in a restaurant, harassing people, blocking traffic, etc.

A restaurant is not "in public." It's a private establishment. The owner makes the call, unless a law is being broken. And "causing a scene" is not necessarily illegal. You seem to be skating very close to "if I don't want to hear it, it's a scene."

It is a place of public accommodation. Read the civil rights act.

You have this part wrong. You are required to get a permit IF your protest is going to block pedestrian or street traffic. Anyone can gather a group and stage a protest without a permit anywhere, as long as they do not block rights of way and do not create a danger. I can gather 20 of my friends tomorrow, make signs, and go picket on any street in downtown Burlington, so long as we do not block anyone's way and do not engage in verbal assault (the legal definition thereof). If I want to parade my protest down the center of Main Street, I need a permit.

They are interfering with the business of the restaurant. They are blocking pedestrian traffic where they are gathering.

I think you are not very clear on the law on this one, and are letting your emotions drive your posts.

I say the same back to you. The laws of course vary depending on the location. But generally harassing someone out trying to enjoy themselves at a restaurant is illegal.

Here is a page of various harassment laws in different states where verbally harassing someone or disturbing the peace are against the law and such actions as we are discussing would fall under those laws:

http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/...cacyordinance/

[JimL]

So I'm curious - what elections have been called into question as "illegitimate" by Democrats?

The funny thing is, is that the democrats actually have reason to call the elections into question, not because the voting systems are somehow rigged, but because of the suppression tactics carried out by republicans all around the country. Once republicans take over a state legislature they immediately go to work enacting voter suppression laws and doing extreme gerrymandering of districts wherin even though more people vote democrat, just as is the case nationally, the state houses remain in republican control. In other words they cheat, it's the only way that they know they can win, and if they should lose they will charge the other side with cheating. They really have become a most unethical, undemocratic political party and now they have the best possible leader that an unethical, undemocratic party, could have.

[carpedm9587]

I have never seen ANYONE hurl insults and abuse at the women. Have you ever been to an abortion clinic protest? It is all about wanting to help the women, not condemn them. yeesh.

Not all from the U.S. - but...

https://rewire.news/article/2018/02/...ds-protesters/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-clinics-in-wa
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8340471.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-abor...and-blockades/

I could post more...but if history repeats itself, non of these will convince, and I've used up enough time.

If they want to protest the restaurant for some reason, yes. But they are interfering with a government official who happens to be out trying to enjoy his private life at a restaurant. They can protest at HIS office.

Come on Carp, you are really stretching now.

He's a public official. They can pretty much protest him anywhere. Harassment as described in the news reports I do not condone. Protest I have no objection to. And it's only trespass if the owner says "not here." That request should also be respected.

Show me one that is not.

Sparko - that request is impossible. First - I don't know where you live. Second, permits are documented - protests without permits are not (for obvious reasons). Perhaps you should research the laws about protests and demonstrations. If this site doesn't give you a rash, there's a good summary here.

They are not observing the law. They are disturbing the peace, verbally assaulting someone in a restaurant, harassing people, blocking traffic, etc.

As I have now said numerous times - I do not condone the harassment depicted in the story, or that was exercises against McConnell or Cruz or any of the others who have been heckled and harassed in public. I think shouting down speeches is rude and boorish, and betrays an inability to hear anything that isn't aligned with one's own views. Both sides do it. My comments have specifically been about your position about protesting being limited to offices or formal places of work. You over-reached, which is what I was addressing. And I repeat, "verbal assault" has a specific legal meaning. Just shouting something at someone that they don't want to hear does not constitute "verbal assault" (legally). It may be "verbal assault" emotionally or in terms of simple decency, but it does not achieve the legal definition of that term.

It is a place of public accommodation. Read the civil rights act.

I suspect you read it, Sparko. As far as I know, "public servants" is not a protected class under the civil rights act.

They are interfering with the business of the restaurant.

That is for the owner to determine.

They are blocking pedestrian traffic where they are gathering.

If they are blocking pedestrian traffic, then that would violate local ordinances and empower the police to take action. But a protest that happens in front of a restaurant, targeting a public figure within that restaurant, is not "automatically" illegal. It is perfectly legal if it does not occlude rights of way, and does not engage in verbal assault or actions that disrupt normal activity in that area.

I say the same back to you. The laws of course vary depending on the location. But generally harassing someone out trying to enjoy themselves at a restaurant is illegal.

Only if it crosses the lines previously outlined.

Here is a page of various harassment laws in different states where verbally harassing someone or disturbing the peace are against the law and such actions as we are discussing would fall under those laws:

http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/...cacyordinance/

Sparko - your giving me links to things that essentially affirm what I have been saying. If you read them, each of these specifically identifies what is considered "harassing behavior." By most of these, what the folks in the restaurant did would be considered "harassing behavior" if the local area had such ordinances in place, but only if it had occurred in a public place. You will note that most (all?) of these deal with public spaces - they do not address what can or cannot happen in a private space. And these are examples specifically listed by this site as "examples" for other localities to emulate. The implication is that these kinds of laws do not exist in all places. Indeed, the lack of them must be fairly widespread, or there would be little cause to create such a list.

So once again - my original post was not to defend the specific incidence - but to highlight that your objection was too broad and was excluding actions that would be considered perfectly legal - if not particularly civil.

And I am repeating myself far too much here. My point and argument have been clearly made. I'll leave you to the last word.

[carpedm9587]

The funny thing is, is that the democrats actually have reason to call the elections into question, not because the voting systems are somehow rigged, but because of the suppression tactics carried out by republicans all around the country. Once republicans take over a state legislature they immediately go to work enacting voter suppression laws and doing extreme gerrymandering of districts wherin even though more people vote democrat, just as is the case nationally, the state houses remain in republican control. In other words they cheat, it's the only way that they know they can win, and if they should lose they will charge the other side with cheating. They really have become a most unethical, undemocratic political party and now they have the best possible leader that an unethical, undemocratic party, could have.

I agree that Mr. Trump is a vile leader. I agree that a fish tends to rot from the head - and the widespread acclaim he receives from his base, and from Republicans and Evangelicals in general does not reflect well on the party or that segment of Christianity. I agree that there is a significant amount of "cheating" - but I don't think it is limited to Republicans. I think both sides do it - but the Republicans leadership is simply better at it. Operation Red Map was a stroke of political genius, and it gave a party that cannot make many (most?) of its positions popular with the majority of the country enormous political advantage and shifted the political control of the federal government (all three branches now) into the hands of one party. I root for the Democrats today because of that political imbalance. But ultimately I think this political system will remain broken until a few basics are addressed:

1) Term limits (including the judiciary)
2) Getting big money out of politics (or at least making it completely visible)
3) Removing redistricting from partisan legislatures, or at least making approval a function of a multi-partisan, independent commission.
4) Tort reform

Only then do we have a hope of pushing for a balanced budget at all government levels, and perhaps getting out of this dysfunctional mess we have today.