POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[SeventhSandwich]

This looks to be more against rioters and the pieces of stuff who obstruct traffic. I have no problem with this.

"Yeah okay, let's just mow down crowds of protestors just because they're blocking cars. Definitely nothing Orwellian about that."

[Ad Bot]

[beachbum111111]

"Yeah okay, let's just mow down crowds of protestors just because they're blocking cars. Definitely nothing Orwellian about that."

Yes people obstructing traffic and damaging property get attacked after 15 minutes. This is Orwellian how?

[SeventhSandwich]

Yes people obstructing traffic and damaging property get attacked after 15 minutes. This is Orwellian how?

I don't get how you can make a huge stink about a neo-national socialist getting punched in the jaw, but you can turn around and say, "Yeah, blocking a highway for more than fifteen minutes? Mow the forgeters down with a machine-gun."

[Stocking]

Yes people obstructing traffic and damaging property get attacked after 15 minutes. This is Orwellian how?

seventh is literally brain damaged. he's kind of like lord tony in that he trolls just by being himself

[beachbum111111]

I don't get how you can make a huge stink about a neo-national socialist getting punched in the jaw, but you can turn around and say, "Yeah, blocking a highway for more than fifteen minutes? Mow the forgeters down with a machine-gun."

Saying mean things =/= blocking off traffic and damaging property. Seventh it's never just blocking off traffic, half the time they smash bottles on the pavement to damage tires of vehicles going by. And even if it was just obstructing traffic it's still bullstuff

[IkeTheGeneric]

The bill is just unnecessary bullstuff being proposed by a stuffty senator, something that happens a lot in Indiana. The police are already fully capable and are within their legal rights to disperse protesters if they're blocking traffic. If the situation is escalated to a violent confrontation, the police are within their legal rights to respond with lethal force. The only reason you idiots are defending it because you've gotten this autistic notion that every idea proposed by somebody belonging to your party is 100% infallible.

[Ronin]

Lest we forget the brave dude who went down on a girl mid-riot during the Vancouver Stanley Cup in 2011

[SeventhSandwich]

Saying mean things =/= blocking off traffic.

Neither of those things are worthy of lethal force. I deleted 'destroying property' because that's not actually mentioned in the bill. You could just have a crowd of people standing in the highway and this law legalizes mowing them down.

[Insert Name Here²]

The only reason you idiots are defending it because you've gotten this autistic notion that every idea proposed by somebody belonging to your party is 100% infallible.

Yeah this isn't true but okay

[IkeTheGeneric]

Yeah this isn't true but okay

Thanks Mr. Contrarian, you sure shot down my statement. That sure shows me for trying to say things!

edit: Interjection: It totally is true and it's not okay. Holy stuff is it stupid to have stufflers like beachbum try and suck off every republicunt doing something dumb again. You don't have to be a hair-dying, richard-sucking transloveual facist liberal to understand that the bill was a facetious attempt at stirring up stuff, probably to get everyone arguing about whether or not it's a good idea to blow away stupid protesters so they can pass some not-as-dumb bill that people might have gotten outraged about but won't now.

Fact of the matter is that the bill probably won't get passed, and the only thing that's changed is all of you are now butthurt about it.

[beachbum111111]

Neither of those things are worthy of lethal force. I deleted 'destroying property' because that's not actually mentioned in the bill. You could just have a crowd of people standing in the highway and this law legalizes mowing them down.

The way you try to frame this is hilarious. They only reason that the police would use lethal force in the first place would be if the protesters were violently attacking them. Not innocently standing on the road (even though they are STILL obstructing traffic).

[SeventhSandwich]

The way you try to frame this is hilarious. They only reason that the police would use lethal force in the first place would be if the protesters were violently attacking them.

Massive shootouts between armed police and unarmed civilians can happen without any specific trigger. Hence Kent State.

I'm not saying this would happen frequently, just that passing a bill like this leaves us no recourse to punish someone for improper use of force.

[Insert Name Here²]

edit: Interjection: It totally is true and it's not okay.

It isn't true at all with me though, and I have no idea why you're assuming it so. I don't care what party does what. But, if a bill is passed or someone does something that I agree with or disagree with, then that's that. I don't suck the richards of certain political parties, that's a very ignorant thing to do.

edit to add on: If the certain bills I agree with don't get passed or someone I like politically doesn't succeed, I accept it and I leave it at that. Getting butt-hurt and whining about it doesn't fix anything.

[IkeTheGeneric]

It isn't true at all with me though, and I have no idea why you're assuming it so. I don't care what party does what. But, if a bill is passed or someone does something that I agree with or disagree with, then that's that. I don't suck the richards of certain political parties, that's a very ignorant thing to do.

A lot of "I"s in there for somebody who I wasn't directing my statement towards, nor was previously involved in the conversation. _{Hint: I wasn't talking about you, you have no direct involvement in anything I was talking about because you weren't arguing in favor of the bill}

[Insert Name Here²]

A lot of "I"s in there for somebody who I wasn't directing my statement towards, nor was previously involved in the conversation. _{Hint: I wasn't talking about you, you have no direct involvement in anything I was talking about because you weren't arguing in favor of the bill}

Oh whoops, I thought you meant it towards everyone who supported it with the vauge statement of "The only reason you idiots are defending it because you've gotten this autistic notion that every idea proposed by somebody belonging to your party is 100% infallible." I support it myself so I thought you were talking to me as well as everyone else who supported it as well lol

Sorry