• 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!

Ron DeSantis Says Floridians Have Right to Hit Protesters With Cars

Lord of Planar said:
Your resposne clearly shows you fail to comprehend the argument. You are attacking a point nobody is saying. It is impossible to argue against that, as nobody is making that stupid claim.
Click to expand...

It’s always bizarre when people do that. On another level, it’s kind of concerning too…
 
Peter said:
Please show where anyone on here is enabling rioters.
Click to expand...

If violent rioters surround the car of an innocent bystander and posing a direct threat to that person, do they have a right to drive the hell out of there and get away from the violence, yes or no?
 
Maidenrules29 said:
So, a mob of people surrounding your car, perhaps to start jumping on your hood, banging on your windshield and passenger-side windows or bricking them to try and break them and extricate you from your vehicle to beat you senseless, THAT is free speech to you? That is what DeSantis is talking about here. A MOB surrounding your vehicle and impeding your progress. You HAVE to assume, for your own safety, that they are not attempting to sell you cookies. You stomp on that pedal and get your ass out of there.
Click to expand...

First, there is little doubt DeSantis is politically trolling. He could have made his language decisive. He chose to "weasel word" it.

Second, one better realize this is going to be one of those cases where one is not innocent until proven guilty. The defense is to be able to PROVE that there was a reasonable man standard case that one's physical well being was decidedly at threat. it will not be assumed by a jury, and certainly not by a judge, that was the case. Again, the accused will have to PROVE it.
 
CANON said:
Well, there it is, the protest is the threat.

Glad you were finally honest about it.
Click to expand...

Dishonest post. He was referencing rioters being enabled to riot.

Why are you misrepresenting his post? It must be because you know you don’t have a logically sound argument.

Post in good faith instead of making dishonest posts.
 
Absentglare said:
MAGA gave the family of Ashli Babbit $5M for her act of suicidal terrorism, like how the Jihadists in the Middle East will pay the families of their suicide bomber terrorists.
Click to expand...
Trying to re-write history already?

This Stipulation is not and should not be construed as, an admission of liability or fault on the part of the United States, its agents, servants, or employees, and it is specifically denied that they are liable to Plaintiffs. This settlement is entered into by all parties for the purpose of compromising disputed claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act and avoiding the expenses and risks of further litigation.​
​
It's money to make the nuisance go away. Not any admission of guilt, and no verdict of guilt.

www.judicialwatch.org

Judicial Watch Announces $4.975 Million Settlement of Ashli Babbitt Wrongful Death Lawsuit with U.S. Government - Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced a $4.975 million settlement today in the wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. Government filed on behalf of the family of Ashli Babbitt, the U.S. Air Force veteran who was shot and killed inside the U.S. Capitol by then-Capitol Police Lt. Michael...
www.judicialwatch.org
 
Hello My Son said:
Dishonest post. He was referencing rioters being enabled to riot.

Why are you misrepresenting his post? It must be because you know you don’t have a logically sound argument.

Post in good faith instead of making dishonest posts.
Click to expand...

It was not dishonest at all, this was specially asked previously and there was a refusal to answer.

Guess I should have added rioters to the list of words MAGA abuses.
 
Lord of Planar said:
What else can it be when people cannot understand simple facts?
Click to expand...

In other words, you've lost the argument but want to strut about the chessboard like you've won.
 
Phys251 said:
In other words, you've lost the argument but want to strut about the chessboard like you've won.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you think I lost.

You still have not cited anything that shows a senator can go where he pleases.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm sorry you think I lost.

You still have not cited anything that shows a senator can go where he pleases.
Click to expand...

He was arrested. The burden is on you to cite the crime he was arrested for.
 
Phys251 said:
He was arrested. The burden is on you to cite the crime he was arrested for.
Click to expand...
Ooops. Crossed treads. Still, you havbe not shown that in the other thread. He was not arrested.

Another thing you get wrong, like you constantly get facts wrong.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Ooops. Crossed treads. Still, you havbe not shown that in the other thread. He was not arrested.

Another thing you get wrong, like you constantly get facts wrong.
Click to expand...

Don't accuse me of getting shit wrong when you can't even keep your threads straight.

Anyway, he was handcuffed by the agents. Not technically arrested, that's a small point. A bigger point is why the authorities handcuffed a sitting US Senator.
 
CANON said:
It was not dishonest at all, this was specially asked previously and there was a refusal to answer.

Guess I should have added rioters to the list of words MAGA abuses.
Click to expand...

Lord of Planar said:
It is sick to watch people who enable rioters, and destruction, and then do not understand the threat others see them as.
Click to expand...

CLAX1911 said:
They do that's the point to threaten you. It's not a protest. It's authoritarianism.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was dishonest. As shown above, he was responding to a post about people enabling "rioters" and "destruction" and pretending like rioting and destroying things does not pose a threat.

Why post lies when it's so easy to disprove such nonsense? It's not cute. It just makes one look silly.
 
God bless Ron DeSantis.

Lees
 
dcsports said:
lol. He didn't say that. Again, read what he said.

You might consider the Law of Holes.
Click to expand...
You are the one who may want to consider the Law of Holes. For instance, say you inadvertently drive into active civil unrest and a protest. You're now in the hole. If you decide to press your way forward through it anyway, you're digging it deeper by refusing to stop and potentially escalating the problem. The second Law of Holes is that you need to recognize that you haven't solved the problem and are still in the hole even after ceasing to dig, and that further action is required to extricate yourself from the hole. In this case, that would mean retreating or turning around. With DeSantis, what we're talking about here is the 'law of an A-hole'.
 
Atomic Kid said:
You are the one who may want to consider the Law of Holes. For instance, say you inadvertently drive into active civil unrest and a protest. You're now in the hole. If you decide to press your way forward through it anyway, you're digging it deeper by refusing to stop and potentially escalating the problem.
Click to expand...
He wouldn't be cuz people could just get out of the way.
Atomic Kid said:
The second Law of Holes is that you need to recognize that you haven't solved the problem and are still in the hole even after ceasing to dig, and that further action is required to extricate yourself from the hole. In this case, that would mean retreating or turning around. With DeSantis, what we're talking about here is the 'law of an A-hole'.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the law of fascism to me. We've scumbags take over the street and don't get the hell out of the way and they pay the price for their own stupidity and somehow someone else's fault.

If your ideas were worth listening to you wouldn't need to be throwing your fit in the street people would consider it maybe try having less stupid beliefs.
 
Atomic Kid said:
. If you decide to press your way forward through it anyway, you're digging it deeper by refusing to stop and potentially escalating the problem.
Click to expand...
Do mobs only surround the front of vehicles when they mob them? Nope. What if you can't back up either?
 
L
CANON said:
It was not dishonest at all, this was specially asked previously and there was a refusal to answer.

Guess I should have added rioters to the list of words MAGA abuses.
Click to expand...
LOL. What is your definition of a rioter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom