Happy Inauguration Day Eve!!

Originally Posted by Nova_C

The president of the United States has declared that all but one of the prominant newspapers in the nation are 'enemies of the people'.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832708293516632065?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

That doesn't chill you at all? You're fine with your government declaring the news as the enemy? Isn't freedom of the press one of the underpinnings of American democracy?

Actually I agree with Trump concerning the captive media outlets such as CNN, CBS, etc. In my opinion, they are merely sources of propaganda and don't do any real sort of new reporting whatsoever. They have been bought and paid for by enemies of our Republican form of nationalistic government, and are actively trying to destroy our way of life. Well, at least our way of live before this "false news" onslaught has been launched.

Originally Posted by Nova_C

Although, considering you just posted that you supported being able to run people down in the street for daring to protest the government without consequence, perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree. It seems you prefer unquestioning obedience to the government. Do not question. Do not resist. Obey.

What happened to the man who just a short while ago was talking about the rights of the people?

You obviously misunderstood (purposely or otherwise) the gist of that proposed law. Protestors have no right to impede anyone's progress on public streets, not do they have any right to instill fear of harm to persons or property in that pursuit. Anyone engaging in such actions revokes any rights of protection against MY trying to protect my person and property. THEIR rights end where MINE begin. So if I am in my vehicle in any place I have a lawful right to be, going to some place I also have a right to be going to, and someone is illegally impeding my progress in an aggressive manner with a potential for damage to my property or harm to my person, then I may very well choose to exit the scene, even if it means I have to go OVER them in order to do so. Quite frankly, this just seems like a natural corollary of the CASTLE DOCTRINE, which is the law of the land in quite a few states, and hopefully will become federal law sooner or later (if Constitutional in that jurisdiction). I do NOT have to retreat simply because you are in my way.

How is that for my position on "rights of the people"? Unfortunately, I am just not sympathetic to what appears to be YOUR type of people.

It has nothing at all to do with the government. It has to do with MY rights as a citizen of the USA. Quite frankly, I don't CARE what the protests would be about at all. The same would apply to anyone protesting FOR something I truly believed in. That does not give them the right to impede my progress or potentially subject me to damage or harm. If someone comes at me with a baseball bat while I am in my vehicle, and my only escape is OVER him, do you SERIOUSLY think I am going to roll down the window and ask him WHY he is doing that?

The law mentioned above is intended to do much the same as the Castle Doctrine law concerning the presumption of intent and liability.

No surprise that Obama doesn't want to lose control of the power he had as POTUS.

The proposed law does not give you the right to purposely run over a protestor or group of protestors. If they're simply standing in the center of the street protesting, and you notice them and can safely stop, you cannot knowingly run them down. You can call the police, and the police can arrest them for impeding traffic. But you cannot just run them over. That proposed law protects people that accidentally run down a protestor, I.e., if they step out in the center of the road while you are driving at a legal speed and you have no time to stop. You cannot, however, legally and knowingly run people down for standing in your way. Just call the police and let them take care of them.

If the protestors are acting aggressively and you feel like your life is in danger, that is more of a case of self defense. From what I understand, this law does not apply to instances of self defense. It only protects people who accidentally run down people obstructing roadways.

It will be interesting in the future to see if these laws will be considered constitutional.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Rich Z

No surprise that Obama doesn't want to lose control of the power he had as POTUS.

I'm actually amazed that you think this is real. That you think there's a massive conspiracy. That the world really is out to get you. And I don't know how I can possibly convince you that the world is not nearly as bad as you seem to believe.

There isn't a monolithic 'left' out to discredit Republicans. There isn't a secret group of child molesters run by the Clintons. There isn't some kind of coup in the making. And certainly all news that disagrees with what you believe isn't lying to you. At some point everyone must have the humility to stop what they're doing and think, "What if I'm wrong about what I believe?"

What if you're wrong about Trump?

Regarding the law concerning running over protesters, I don't think anyone has the right to just run someone down if they're 'impeding' you. We all live in the same world, one person's right does not just overrule another's. We share this space, whether you like it or not.

And if they're coming at you with a bat, then self defense already covers that. So this law is unnecessary, then?

Originally Posted by Nova_C

I'm actually amazed that you think this is real. That you think there's a massive conspiracy. That the world really is out to get you. And I don't know how I can possibly convince you that the world is not nearly as bad as you seem to believe.

There isn't a monolithic 'left' out to discredit Republicans. There isn't a secret group of child molesters run by the Clintons. There isn't some kind of coup in the making. And certainly all news that disagrees with what you believe isn't lying to you. At some point everyone must have the humility to stop what they're doing and think, "What if I'm wrong about what I believe?"

What if you're wrong about Trump?

Funny how the word "conspiracy" has come to mean anything that someone believes is non-factual. So you are saying that it is impossible for there to BE a conspiracy? That everyone on this planet is open and above board with their plans, no matter what they are? You actually believe, I suppose, that all of the demonstrations against Trump are completely spontaneous with actual and solely grass root support by the locals? I also presume that in like kind, you do not believe that someone with the means and opportunity would not have designs that they would prefer were secret, and such people would NEVER, EVER meet and confer with others of like minds in secret?

Anyway, sure, I might be wrong about Trump. Are you seriously claiming that you believe the USA would be better off had Hillary won the presidency? Well how about this. We will give you the Clintons, for FREE, and you can have them run your country. How about that? Won't that be just peachy?

Originally Posted by OregonSnake

The proposed law does not give you the right to purposely run over a protestor or group of protestors. If they're simply standing in the center of the street protesting, and you notice them and can safely stop, you cannot knowingly run them down. You can call the police, and the police can arrest them for impeding traffic. But you cannot just run them over. That proposed law protects people that accidentally run down a protestor, I.e., if they step out in the center of the road while you are driving at a legal speed and you have no time to stop. You cannot, however, legally and knowingly run people down for standing in your way. Just call the police and let them take care of them.

If the protestors are acting aggressively and you feel like your life is in danger, that is more of a case of self defense. From what I understand, this law does not apply to instances of self defense. It only protects people who accidentally run down people obstructing roadways.

It will be interesting in the future to see if these laws will be considered constitutional.

My intention would be to continue on my journey. If someone were to jump in front of me, I would try not to hit them, but would not do so if such an attempt would possibly cause me to lose control of the car. Honestly, I don't want to damage my vehicles from impact with some idiot, but if they choose to commit suicide in that manner, I'm not inclined to join them. If someone wants to jump out into a stream of vehicular traffic, they really should be good a dodging 3,000 pound hunks of metal moving towards them. If a group of people are blocking the road, then I will slow down enough to not directly injure anyone, but I will not stop completely for fear that they would try to damage the car, take control of the vehicle, or attempt to injure myself and passenger. They will have ample opportunity to get out of the way. If they choose not to, that will be their problem. Anyone who does not have the legal authority to do so attempting to stop my vehicle will be considered as a threat to do damage or bodily injury.

But of course, unless the person was a perceived threat, any injury to them from my vehicle would certainly be accidental. The fly in the ointment there, why would anyone be in the middle of the street trying to stop me unless they WERE a potrential threat?

In all seriousness, I would actively try to avoid any such events, and areas where they are likely to take place. But shtuff happens, and if I find myself in a predicament while in my vehicle, my intention will be for my vehicle to get me the hell out of there, regardless of anyone trying to stop me.

As I mentioned before, this is a logical extension of the Castle Doctrine (or Stand Your Ground Law). I don't believe any distinction has been made on what someone is permitted to use in order to prevent threats of violence and injury from another party. A vehicle could be just as effective as a Glock in certain circumstances. In any event, I'm sure the debate over this would be interesting to view. I'm sure the bleeding heart liberals are going ballistic over it.

Originally Posted by Rich Z

Funny how the word "conspiracy" has come to mean anything that someone believes is non-factual. So you are saying that it is impossible for there to BE a conspiracy? That everyone on this planet is open and above board with their plans, no matter what they are? You actually believe, I suppose, that all of the demonstrations against Trump are completely spontaneous with actual and solely grass root support by the locals? I also presume that in like kind, you do not believe that someone with the means and opportunity would not have designs that they would prefer were secret, and such people would NEVER, EVER meet and confer with others of like minds in secret?

Anyway, sure, I might be wrong about Trump. Are you seriously claiming that you believe the USA would be better off had Hillary won the presidency? Well how about this. We will give you the Clintons, for FREE, and you can have them run your country. How about that? Won't that be just peachy?

You just posted a video claiming Obama is organizing a coup. That is the definition of a conspiracy. You claimed earlier that all the major news organizations in the US (Save Fox, I suppose) are trying to discredit Republicans. That is a conspiracy. You are claiming conspiracies, just without saying the word.

Whether or not the US would be better off with Hillary is immaterial. She lost the election. It's over. Trump is the president. Trump should be held responsible for what his administration does or does not do. President Truman had a plaque on his desk that read "The buck stops here". So the buck stops with Trump.

Originally Posted by Nova_C

What if you're wrong about Trump?

I was thinking about this last night after I closed down the computers and went to bed.

What do you mean by that? Obviously you believe that I believe something about Trump that you do not believe. So tell me, what is it about Trump's claims, persona, agenda, or whatever that YOU do not believe? And what if YOU are wrong? I know we have all come to accept that politicians will lie and are inherently corrupt as a species, but I believe one of the selling points about Trump is that he was not, and is not, a career politician.

I believe that Trump was elected (and by a landslide not accurately depicted by the popular vote) exactly because he promised REAL change in the direction of this country, and not the destructive type of change that Obama wanted. Obviously you do not believe this, so what exactly DO you believe about Trump? And what is it that you find unbelievable and why?

Originally Posted by Nova_C

You just posted a video claiming Obama is organizing a coup. That is the definition of a conspiracy. You claimed earlier that all the major news organizations in the US (Save Fox, I suppose) are trying to discredit Republicans. That is a conspiracy. You are claiming conspiracies, just without saying the word.

Then I will say the word. Yes, there ARE conspiracies afoot against Trump. The bias of the mainstream media was extremely obvious. In one video a member of CNN even openly admits it.



So again, YOU do not believe that conspiracies exist? You do not believe that conspiracies CAN exist? How so? You seriously believe that everyone in power and striving for power are all completely above board and tell everyone their plans and strategies? You believe that no one, or no groups of people, with large amounts of wealth and subsequent influence could ever possibly try to control anything related to our leadership, policies, and social direction behind the scenes?

If so, I have to admit you must have a very interesting view of the world from behind your eyes.

Originally Posted by Nova_C

Whether or not the US would be better off with Hillary is immaterial. She lost the election. It's over. Trump is the president. Trump should be held responsible for what his administration does or does not do. President Truman had a plaque on his desk that read "The buck stops here". So the buck stops with Trump.

Sorry, but it IS material. It appears that Hillary and Trump are polar opposites. The presumption is that people voted for Trump and against Hillary based on what they perceived about the respective camp's stated and perceived plans for how they intended to try to run this country.

So again, do you believe that the USA would have been better off had Hillary won the election? Since you are obviously anti-Trump, then certainly you must believe someone else would be better as POTUS. So if your choice is not Hillary, then who is it?

Frankly, I think Trump doesn't have any problems with the buck stopping at his desk. As long as he actually can do something about it. I believe he ran for office specifically to be able to take on that job and make changes to this country that will turn it away from the path towards globalism and the destruction of our way of life to make us fit in better with the world order planned. Oh yeah, conspiracy again, but you don't believe in those. Anyway, I think he is going to have a very tough time, because Washington D.C. is going to be a rather hostile place for him to work. Yeah, "conspiracy" again. But something like 98 percent of the voters in Washington D.C. voted for Hillary, so I think any rational person would take that as a glaring sign that Trump is in hostile territory in the White House. And with Obama choosing to remain in the city, the hostiles will certainly have a ring leader readily available.

I guess it will be interesting to watch what sort of conflicts Obama might get involved in concerning Trump's administration. Conspiracy or not, something tells me that Obama got addicted to the taste of power and will not be content living in relative obscurity in retirement. So we shall see.