Active Now

Malizz
DannyPetti
Discussion » Questions » Politics » Your right to assemble is under assault. "These temper tantrums from these radical anarchists must be quelled", tweeted David Clarke.
excon

Your right to assemble is under assault. "These temper tantrums from these radical anarchists must be quelled", tweeted David Clarke.

Hello:

He's talking about the demonstrators who took to the streets in city, after city, after city.. In case you're wondering who Sheriff David Clarke Jr. is, he's on Trumps list of people to run the Department of Homeland Security.  He'll show these radicals what freedom is all about..

These temper tantrums from these radical anarchists must be quelled. There is no legitimate reason to protest the will of the people. pic.twitter.com/G502pwNSN9

— David A. Clarke, Jr. (@SheriffClarke) Nov. 10, 2016

excon

Posted - November 11, 2016
Tags : None

Responses


  • 46117
    RIght.  We can only riot against the police and black people.

    Learn the rules. 
      November 11, 2016 10:27 AM MST
    1

  • Demonstrations are okay, riots are another story. People have a right to assemble, but they don't have a right to set fires and smash windows. 
      November 11, 2016 10:39 AM MST
    6

  • 3907
    Hello Nevan:

    Couple things..  I didn't say anything about your right to riot, because you have none.  And I didn't see any rioting last night..  Just peaceful demonstrators.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen.  I just didn't see it on TV.

    excon
      November 11, 2016 10:48 AM MST
    0

  • 691
    You mean the same media which told me trump had no chance of winning and that it was illegal for me to read wikileaks did not show rioters burning things and smashing windows and cars? That is such a surprise.
      November 11, 2016 12:27 PM MST
    4

  • 17614
    Thank you for providing my answer.  ;)
      November 11, 2016 2:20 PM MST
    0

  • 3907
    Hello IT and you too, TM:

    I don't know where you got the media from.  I'm talking about the guy who might be Director of Homeland Security, and what HE himself tweeted.. There's NO media involved, unless you think his TWEETS are media.. 

    Wanna try to again?  Look..  I'm sure you're FINE with this guy as the head of Homeland Security, and I'm fine with sounding the alarm about him...  That's what we do here..

    excon
      November 12, 2016 8:32 AM MST
    0

  • 691
    That was a fail at deflection. Rioters are smashing windows and setting fires and hurting people and damaging vehicles. That is not peaceful assembly and there is no right to that. What would you have said about such demonstrations if they had happened when Obama won?
      November 14, 2016 7:46 AM MST
    0

  • 3907
    Hello again, IT:

    Were I speaking, I would have distinguished between demonstrators and rioters.  He could have.  He didn't.  So, I'm left to discern WHO he meant, and I think he meant demonstrators..

    What's funny is that for the longest time, I've HEARD with my own ears, what Trump says, and what his supporters say..  And, the one constant, is that people here, TELL me that I heard wrong.. At some point, I'm gonna start believing my lying ears..

    excon This post was edited by excon at November 14, 2016 8:07 AM MST
      November 14, 2016 8:03 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    Curiously, when The Right People (i.e. Rich/White) riot and make a mess because Sports Team A defeated Sports Team B, the media and the populace accept as "...well, that's what happens when a bunch of excited people gather in crowds."

    But when the Wrong People (i.e. Poor/Urban/Ethnic) gather to protest legitimate grievances and, as these things tend to do, a large group of excited people results in a few people going overboard, it's the work of "lawless thugs" who are "a fundamental threat to our civil society"

    I wonder why that is, hmmmm?

    http://www.alternet.org/11-stupid-reasons-white-people-have-rioted
      November 11, 2016 10:56 AM MST
    2

  • Like I said before,  if the Philadelphia Eagles were able to hold onto their start this season and make it for the win we all would surely be doomed.
      November 11, 2016 11:49 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    I agree. Since "the will of the people" was HRC won the election (she won the popular vote), Sheriff Clarke has no reason to suppress people who are demanding that "the will of the people" be recognized, rather than the President be selected by a process which was deliberately designed to subvert the will of the people in favor of autocratic elites (i.e. the Electoral College).

    But, of course, such nuances never register with RAWFs like Clarke. His argument (as always with RAWFs) is "The BAD PEOPLE must be PUNISHED!!!!!" This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at November 11, 2016 10:52 AM MST
      November 11, 2016 10:51 AM MST
    1

  • 372

    Someone please inform David Clark that "the will of the people" has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Clark needs to understand that the Bill of Rights protects the minority from the majority. This is a pretty important distinction of the Bill of Rights - one that a law enforcement official should know like the back of his hand.

    The fact that Clark does NOT know this AND may be a candidate for running the Department of Homeland Security is indeed a frightening prospect.  

      November 11, 2016 12:26 PM MST
    2

  • 19937
    Peaceful protests are the hallmark of a democracy.  However, when it leads to violence, rioting, looting, arson, damage to person or property, impeding traffic or blocking non-protesters from safely walking the streets, that's more than protesting and should not be countenanced. 
      November 11, 2016 1:10 PM MST
    3

  • 3934
    @SS -- Please view this link from my prior answer.

    http://www.alternet.org/11-stupid-reasons-white-people-have-rioted

    In the abstract, I agree with you. HOWEVER, it is my subjective experience that people do a LOT more harrumphing when the gatherings of poor/urban/ethnic people protesting genuine social problems turn violent than when the stupid drunken celebrating of rich/white sports fans turn violent.

    I think we need to have a little perspective and not overreact to what is (in broad historical terms) relatively minor unrest.
      November 11, 2016 1:38 PM MST
    1

  • 19937
    I agree that there is a difference between rioting to protest social injustice and rioting because a sports team won or lost.  Only a fool would say they're the same thing.  I also agree that the two groups are treated differently for basically doing the same thing.  The bottom line is that, in my opinion, it doesn't matter what a group is rioting over - when it causes harm to the person or property of others, they need to be arrested and brought up on charges. 
      November 11, 2016 10:54 PM MST
    0

  • The key to successful demonstration is using non-violent tactics.
    No matter what the issue or who is protesting.
    When authorities come down hard on protestors who have caused no harm,
    the media broadcasts it
    and thus brings the issue to the largest possible number of people.
    It provokes debate and helps in creating shifts of opinion, e.g., ending the Vietnam War.

    I am amazed that no one here is yet asking questions about the protests at Standing Rock.
      November 11, 2016 1:41 PM MST
    1

  • 34433
    We have the right to PEACEFULLY assemble.....

    That is not what the people are doing.  Setting fires, destroying private property, stopping traffic (one woman was actually ran over) etc....is not a constitutional right. Never has been and never will be.

    So much for all the worry over Trump supporters being violent. 
      November 11, 2016 3:54 PM MST
    2

  • 3934
    @m2c -- And the RAWF F***ING HYPOCRISY hits just keep on coming!...;-D...

    Re: "So much for all the worry over Trump supporters being violent."

    You're right. We don't have to worry about it. It's ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-attacks-idUSKBN1352NO

    Oh, that's right. Only "Real Americans" are protected from violence by the law...;-D... This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at November 11, 2016 4:16 PM MST
      November 11, 2016 4:16 PM MST
    0

  • 34433
    No not protected. If they are criminals then they need to go to jail. I don't care if they supported Trump throw them in jail. Can you say that about the Hillary supporters? Or are you rolling in F***ING HYPOCRISY yourself?
      November 11, 2016 5:09 PM MST
    1

  • 380
    The left is hypocrisy. Their claim of being tolerant is has big a lie has anything Clinton might of said.
      November 12, 2016 8:19 AM MST
    0

  • 380
    Clarke, Trump nor the cops will not stop peaceful protests. That's not what he's talking about.
      November 12, 2016 3:32 AM MST
    1