• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Four San Francisco protesters hit by car in ‘possible intentional act’..."

By the end of today our MAGA friends will have Trumpsplained to us that the Salt Lake shooters were cross-dressing illegal immigrants with MS-13 ties, and treated us to a picture of the victim at some point in his life wearing a Hoodie.

Then we will get photographic proof that at least one of the San Francisco car attack victims was a fat chick. I'm sure at least one more had a prior for jaywalking which of course means they had it coming ...
 
So the cops just let him go after running into a crowd, right?

Oh wait.
You are just going to love this. Much like immigration law, protestors get away with more than they should. You do not have a "right" to prevent others from travelling, you do not have a "right" to harass people. You do not have a "right" to damage their vehicle.

If you accelerate into a crowd as opposed to the crowd surrounding you, the police are still going to want to sort the incident out.
 
Strawman much?
 
So let me get this straight. The man with a rifle did not fire a shot. A man was killed by another man wearing a green vest saying security.

I have watched a number of videos with these green "security" vests people. Many of them are extremely provocative towards anybody not on the we hate Trump side. Who are these people? Who pays for them?
 

He accelerated into a crowd.

And you're doing just what I said a minute ago: trying to blame the victims.

Getting hit by an asshole is not just punishment for slowing or stopping traffic, even if that were his only concern. That's why he got arrested.
 

No. THIS person. The one who plowed into a crowd in San Francisco.

He was surrounded and his property and body were injured?

Because that was your excuse for someone runnning protesters down.
 
I see, so as far as you're concerned protests should be made away from the people they are aimed at. Out of sight, out of mind. Is that it? What would be the point?
 
No. THIS person. The one who plowed into a crowd in San Francisco.

He was surrounded and his property and body were injured?

Because that was your excuse for someone runnning protesters down.
I am not making any excuses for anyone. I am saying why it could happen. I do not condone it; I do understand it.
 
I am not making any excuses for anyone. I am saying why it could happen. I do not condone it; I do understand it.
Sure you are. Why not just make it plain people should not have tons of rolling steel slammed into them for peaceful assembly? Why so difficult?
 
I am not making any excuses for anyone. I am saying why it could happen.

Um, literally anything "could" happen.

It hasn't in these protests, though.

I do not condone it; I do understand it.

Wait, what?

You understand someone driving directly into a crowd of protesters???

And further...you understand someone driving directly into a crowd of protesters, because three decades ago in an entirely different city an 8-hour drive away, someone got injured by a crowd of protesters?
 
I am not trying to blame the victims. I am saying drivers that do slow down and stop can wind up being victims.

If this guy accelerated into the crowd, prosecute the guy. I bet there will be some footage that will show the event one way or the other.
 
Sure you are. Why not just make it plain people should not have tons of rolling steel slammed into them for peaceful assembly? Why so difficult?
It's that peaceful part that is in question.
 
First off, I am again saying that under some circumstances, drivers aren't given a choice. Protestors have been known to damage cars and threaten drivers and people in cars.

How far away and how long ago do not change the circumstances. If anything, they are more likely now than they were 30 years ago. I understand protestors moving to encircle your car can be dangerous for both sides. If that is not the case here, the driver needs to be prosecuted.
 
A strawman would be presenting a false argument to 'refute'. I don't care enough to do that. I'm just saying the inevitable distractions and smears will land pretty soon regardless.
No. A strawman is presenting something as someone else's argument, which you already did.
 
roflol. You made a claim about the size of the protest, I pointed out that it's absurd, and you get defensive. I'm not interested in your deflections.
You must not have seen pictures from the protests.
 
The no kings protest was country wide no one said just 1 of them. Its the amount of them all
Shifting sands there. But yes, still an exaggeration.
 
I see, so as far as you're concerned protests should be made away from the people they are aimed at. Out of sight, out of mind. Is that it? What would be the point?
That isn't what I said.
 
'Parks and closed streets', you said. Pointless and self-defeating.
Yes, that is what I said. To keep protesters and the public safe, and minimize disruption to people trying to live their lives and conduct business.

Blocking active streets is pointless and self defeating to the protestors - as well as being unsafe, and disruptive.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…