Jump to content

Republican National Convention in Charlotte


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 394
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

^ Given that none of the revenue is likely to materialize anywhere, its starting to look like this worked out as well as it possibly could have for Charlotte. We got a bunch of publicity (pre Cov

Think I can speak for Charlotte when I say  

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." - Thomas Jefferson to William Hamilton, April 22, 1800 I live by this

Posted Images

On 8/1/2018 at 8:03 PM, elrodvt said:

I didn't respond to your prior post because it made no sense and I know you will not change.

Which is exactly how I feel about some of your comments.    I didn't agree with them, didn't like them and didn't see the need to respond...so I just downvoted.  We did exactly the same thing but you feel the need to complain about the very actions you take.   So I pointed out your hypocrisy.  

Calling someone a hypocrite is not an insult.  It's an observation.  Calling someone an asshole is an insult.  You asked if it was a good idea to allow the freedom of speech.  I said it was because I don't want hypocrisy to rule what can and can't be said.  Since your a hypocrite, I don't want someone like you having a say over what others say.   Especially since you're unable to see the difference.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

Which is exactly how I feel about some of your comments.    I didn't agree with them, didn't like them and didn't see the need to respond...so I just downvoted.  We did exactly the same thing but you feel the need to complain about the very actions you take.   So I pointed out your hypocrisy.  

Calling someone a hypocrite is not an insult.  It's an observation.  Calling someone an asshole is an insult.  You asked if it was a good idea to allow the freedom of speech.  I said it was because I don't want hypocrisy to rule what can and can't be said.  Since your a hypocrite, I don't want someone like you having a say over what others say.   Especially since you're unable to see the difference.  

 

 

ACB776A2-644C-4B7C-AC93-C7D063D104E7.jpeg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

Which is exactly how I feel about some of your comments.    I didn't agree with them, didn't like them and didn't see the need to respond...so I just downvoted.  We did exactly the same thing but you feel the need to complain about the very actions you take.   So I pointed out your hypocrisy.  

Calling someone a hypocrite is not an insult.  It's an observation.  Calling someone an asshole is an insult.  You asked if it was a good idea to allow the freedom of speech.  I said it was because I don't want hypocrisy to rule what can and can't be said.  Since your a hypocrite, I don't want someone like you having a say over what others say.   Especially since you're unable to see the difference.  

 

I think you're in the world of ideals and not really separating freedom of speech from reality.  It's all fine and dandy if such events can occur without incident but that's not always the case.  If indeed civil order isn't possible (much proven when the KKK and White Supremacy groups are center stage), Law and Order takes precedence even it means shutting it down before or during the event.  This group or groups in particular infuriate a coalition of people, almost to the point that is uncontrollable by law enforcement.    There are no group(s) of any other kind in American history that compare in size and legacy, so  any equivalency in treatment is pure lunacy or straight ignorance.   And if indeed other group or groups pose such a high threat to civil order, the same rules apply to "freedom of speech". 

Edited by Durhamite
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Durhamite said:

I think you're in the world of ideals and not really separating freedom of speech from reality.  It's all fine and dandy if such events can occur without incident but that's not always the case.  If indeed civil order isn't possible (much proven when the KKK and White Supremacy groups are center stage), Law and Order takes precedence even it means shutting it down before or during the event.  This group or groups in particular infuriate a coalition of people, almost to the point that is uncontrollable by law enforcement.    There are no group(s) of any other kind in American history that compare in size and legacy, so  any equivalency in treatment is pure lunacy or straight ignorance.   And if indeed other group or groups pose such a high threat to civil order, the same rules apply to "freedom of speech". 

So when Black Lives Matter and other supporters came to Charlotte to protest and those protests turned to riots, are you suggesting that BLM should not have been allowed to protest in the first place?  Because using your logic (without a political bias) it reads as if you're saying freedom of speech needs to be limited when civil order isn't possible.  The same can be said for Antifa and you're free to go research the violence there.  Just search Antifa + Portland.  

I personally don't agree with anything the KKK, BLM, Antifa or any other extreme organization thinks but I don't want to live in a place where those that I oppose have their voice suppressed because some don't have the emotional wherewithal to disagree with their views without turning to counter violence. 

I also am a full supporter to law and order and I agree that once a group moves past peaceful protest and to destructive behavior they should not only be stopped but they should be dealt with by law enforcement to the fullest extent.  I think the difference is some here want to remove the freedom of speech on the grounds that it's possible or probable for destructive behavior and that's wrong for many reasons.  The biggest is that once you cross that line in the sand, hypocrites or intolerant voices can suppress others under the guise of public safety.  Which, unless I am wrong, is what you're suggesting.  

 The freedom to stand in public and express your views is not the same as the freedom to do whatever you want because you have views.  So in the case of the RNC, I don't have any issue with a highly controlled free speech zone or zones.   I don't have a problem with the city denying protests that would have movement and create unnecessary risk to the public at large.  But this is where I stop.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

So when Black Lives Matter and other supporters came to Charlotte to protest and those protests turned to riots, are you suggesting that BLM should not have been allowed to protest in the first place?  Because using your logic (without a political bias) it reads as if you're saying freedom of speech needs to be limited when civil order isn't possible.  The same can be said for Antifa and you're free to go research the violence there.  Just search Antifa + Portland.  

I personally don't agree with anything the KKK, BLM, Antifa or any other extreme organization thinks but I don't want to live in a place where those that I oppose have their voice suppressed because some don't have the emotional wherewithal to disagree with their views without turning to counter violence. 

I also am a full supporter to law and order and I agree that once a group moves past peaceful protest and to destructive behavior they should not only be stopped but they should be dealt with by law enforcement to the fullest extent.  I think the difference is some here want to remove the freedom of speech on the grounds that it's possible or probable for destructive behavior and that's wrong for many reasons.  The biggest is that once you cross that line in the sand, hypocrites or intolerant voices can suppress others under the guise of public safety.  Which, unless I am wrong, is what you're suggesting.  

 The freedom to stand in public and express your views is not the same as the freedom to do whatever you want because you have views.  So in the case of the RNC, I don't have any issue with a highly controlled free speech zone or zones.   I don't have a problem with the city denying protests that would have movement and create unnecessary risk to the public at large.  But this is where I stop.  

 

Wtf does that mean?...lol.  If at any point freedom of speech incites a melee/riot, the law will shut  it down or preclude it from happening, especially if prior experiences weren't  good.

Are you illiterate or just on here to complain?  Which part of my previous statement did you miss about applicable across the board.   No one is suppressing anything, it's about law and order.  And I stand by that statement, no group in the history of the country has inflicted more harm and hate than KKK/White Supremacy groups.  You can't seriously compare BLM or Antifa to them...the sheer volume and long legacy of the KKK/White Supremacy groups (lynching, murder, etc)  is well known.  I don't have to research a damn thing, neither do you, it's rather obvious.  That said,  I trust in our law enforcement officials/experts to make these calls, they're much more versed and equipped to address these matters. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Durhamite said:

If at any point freedom of speech incites a melee/riot, the law will shut  it down or preclude it from happening, especially if prior experiences weren't  good.

This word is the problem.  You think it's OK to prevent speech because something might happen in the future or something happened in the past.  That's not clear and present danger.    That's wrong.

21 minutes ago, Durhamite said:

No one is suppressing anything, it's about law and order.

Not allowing people the freedom of speech to 'preclude' potential violence from happening is suppression and that is exactly what has been suggested be done in this thread.   The conversation is about if suppression should happen or not.  It's not about the actual suppression of speech.  Mostly because 'the law' understands the law.

12 minutes ago, Durhamite said:

You can't seriously compare BLM or Antifa to them...the sheer volume and long legacy of the KKK/White Supremacy groups (lynching, murder, etc)  is well known.

I can absolutely compare these hateful groups to each other.  Hate is hate and violence is violence and it doesn't matter if there is 200 years of history or 2 years to me.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, cjd5050 said:

This word is the problem.  You think it's OK to prevent speech because something might happen in the future or something happened in the past.  That's not clear and present danger.    That's wrong.

Not allowing people the freedom of speech to 'preclude' potential violence from happening is suppression and that is exactly what has been suggested be done in this thread.   The conversation is about if suppression should happen or not.  It's not about the actual suppression of speech.  Mostly because 'the law' understands the law.

I can absolutely compare these hateful groups to each other.  Hate is hate and violence is violence and it doesn't matter if there is 200 years of history or 2 years to me.  

BLM  a  hate group?  Maybe in your make believe world.  Attempting to use literal application of wording in the constitution without conditions is foolish and unrealistic.  You have the right to keep and bear arms but not without certain conditions  (felons, mentally ill, etc) and not in a lot of venues.   

And yes, shutting down a protest event based on an extremely volatile climate is solely a judgment call.    That isn't suppression, it's fundamental common sense and practical application of law and order....just like keeping  weapons out the hands of felons.  

Edited by Durhamite
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the various "op-eds" on the definition of what or who is a hate group, I would like to chime in with my take on the subject.  BLM or Black Lives Movement I would not really classify as a hate group in the literal sense.  I do believe their title is a misnomer in the sense that black lives taken by police is their focal point and really nothing more.  They generally come across as a loose fit of individuals that fancy themselves as some type of civil rights group of something to that effect.  I find it quite ironic, that since the 2016 election, they have somewhat faded into the background....also they seem to be ambivalent on the deaths of blacks in routine crime...especially perpetrated by other blacks.  I've thought they should rename themselves Black Lives Should Matter to The Police to reflect their true motivation for action.  I don't believe they have been particularly active in Chicago lately as well

.http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-homicides-data-tracker-htmlstory.html

Antifa on the other hand is nothing but the left wing equivalent to the Klan...instead of white hoods and sheets. they are in black clothing and masks/face cloths.  They are nothing more then a manifestation of the late 19th century/20th century anarchist movements that were instrumental for the rise of radical left wing governments that arose in Europe in the aftermath of WW1.  The first time I had heard of this organization was their violent rioting and destruction of property in Seattle back in 1999 during the WTO meetings in that city.  This group is not only anti-fascist but very opposed to capitalism and free market trade.  If people don't see this group as for what they are, then either you have some type of "romantic" anti-establishment opinion of their methods and just have your head 'stuck in the sand"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, The Force Sleeps said:

After yesterday's news, I cannot wait for this convention. I think we're gonna have front row seats to some serious fireworks.

And even better national and international exposure then the 2012 DNC.....I also have a feeling there is going to be a "dark horse" alternative candidate to emerge on the Republican side as well!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Force Sleeps said:

After yesterday's news, I cannot wait for this convention. I think we're gonna have front row seats to some serious fireworks.

If you don't mind my ignorance... what happened in yesterday's news that would affect the 2020 RNC or potentially make it one of the most watched Conventions of all time?  Are you referencing the Muller Investigation some how?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hushpuppy321 said:

If you don't mind my ignorance... what happened in yesterday's news that would affect the 2020 RNC or potentially make it one of the most watched Conventions of all time?  Are you referencing the Muller Investigation some how?

1) His former lawyer said under oath that Trump directed him to commit multiple felonies and there appears to be evidence supporting that statement.

2) Cohen's conviction (via a guilty plea) means that the SDNY has determined that Trump violated election laws in 2016. It is now a matter of public record that 2016 was a fraudulent election for reasons unrelated to Russian hacking.

Edited by kermit
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kermit said:

1) His former lawyer said under oath that Trump directed him to commit multiple felonies and there appears to be evidence supporting that statement.

2) Cohen's conviction (via a guilty plea) means that the SDNY has determined that Trump violated election laws in 2016. It is now a matter of public record that 2016 was a fraudulent election for reasons unrelated to Russian hacking.

It won't matter.  I don't understand it but his supporters are loyal and the Party will stand by him.  He was right when he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose support.  I sincerely hope I'm wrong but I doubt it.  There will have to be a lot more and even then his base (who get their news exclusively from Fox) will assume it's a hit job. 


 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kermit said:

1) His former lawyer said under oath that Trump directed him to commit multiple felonies and there appears to be evidence supporting that statement.

2) Cohen's conviction (via a guilty plea) means that the SDNY has determined that Trump violated election laws in 2016. It is now a matter of public record that 2016 was a fraudulent election for reasons unrelated to Russian hacking.

Wholly Crap - Those are definitely huge issues but i think JBS is right that nothing will take his supporters away from him.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, JBS said:

It won't matter.  I don't understand it but his supporters are loyal and the Party will stand by him.  He was right when he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose support.  I sincerely hope I'm wrong but I doubt it.  There will have to be a lot more and even then his base (who get their news exclusively from Fox) will assume it's a hit job. 


 

 

This, plus Congress isn’t going to impeach him, regardless of what the investigation finds. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

As best I could tell from twitter the George Floyd murder protest last night looked to be a few hundred people, a medium-sized protest. Based on what I have read online, it looked like CMPD struggled to manage it in a way that minimized conflict and property damage. Last night did not give me much confidence in CMPD’s ability to handle the much larger protests that will undoubtedly come with the RNC.

(I was not there so I may be wrong about CMPD’s response or the size of the protest)


(QueenCityNerve had very good coverage)

Edited by kermit
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, queensguy06 said:

Of course he does.  He only needs his voters to be able to vote in November, and then he's done with them.  Doesn't need them after that.  King of the cons!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.