EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3411
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46395 Posts
I always get a little confused with the whole "protester wall standing in traffic to stop people through civil disobedience" situation, because the cars/ drivers still have the right of way and some of these drivers might be trying to get through for an emergency. I have very little sympathy for the protesters who get bumped by slow-moving cars trying to pass, and even less when the protesters scream at the drivers that the drivers are committing assault or manslaughter by "hitting" these people. I think that's a huge overreaction. I understand that the point of such a demonstration is to make things explicitly inconvenient and force the layman to directly acknowledge and deal with the issue at hand, but I don't really know how the legal dance works between a demonstration of disobedience by protesters and the need for other people to actually get to their jobs or families or take care of other personal things that could be emergencies. It seems like an awkward situation for everyone involved. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46395 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On March 21 2016 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I always get a little confused with the whole "protester wall standing in traffic to stop people through civil disobedience" situation, because the cars/ drivers still have the right of way and some of these drivers might be trying to get through for an emergency. I have very little sympathy for the protesters who get bumped by slow-moving cars trying to pass, and even less when the protesters scream at the drivers that the drivers are committing assault or manslaughter by "hitting" these people. I think that's a huge overreaction. I understand that the point of such a demonstration is to make things explicitly inconvenient and force the layman to directly acknowledge and deal with the issue at hand, but I don't really know how the legal dance works between a demonstration of disobedience by protesters and the need for other people to actually get to their jobs or families or take care of other personal things that could be emergencies. It seems like an awkward situation for everyone involved. I mean that's why principled, thinking people try to block in parking lots and streets terminating in objectionable locations if they're dealing with cars at all, to remove the emergency or "just living my life" element. I'm pretty sure you're also supposed to never ever move to touch a moving vehicle if you're protesting in this way and let officers usher you away if they deem it necessary. Unfortunately the thinking can often fall by the wayside in emotionally charged protest situations, and this is hardly the exclusive purview of the left; just look at Planned Parenthood protesters before there was legislation about demarcation lines when it comes to causing inconvenience. It's just kind of expected. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 21 2016 03:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: So what happens if a protester purposely blocks a slow-moving car from getting through and gets injured in the process (as the car successfully pushes through)? Is it a hit-and-run? Is there any legal precedent to charge the driver with anything? Does it depend on the speed of the car? If the protester scratches or otherwise damages the car, is he responsible for paying for it? The case is completely fact driven(no pun). It depends on the chain of events and who contributed to what. There is no clear answer to that without details fact set. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On March 21 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote: The case is completely fact driven(no pun). It depends on the chain of events and who contributed to what. There is no clear answer to that without details fact set. Technically wouldn't the person be jaywalking if he wasn't within the bounds of a crosswalk? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 21 2016 04:29 ticklishmusic wrote: Technically wouldn't the person be jaywalking if he wasn't within the bounds of a crosswalk? Technically yes. But Arizona uses comparative negligence in civil law, all of the actions of either party would be taken into account. There is no moment where is it totally ok to hit someone with your car, but the actions of the protester could make them so close to 50% at fault that no damages would be awarded. But the driver could also be a total idiot and hurt someone who was trying to get out of their way and just protesting up until the point where the car wanted to go through. There is no clear cut answer of who is right and wrong. And the court doesn't really do that, anyways. In general though, it isn't really worth it to drive through a crowd of angry protesters. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46395 Posts
On March 21 2016 03:49 TheTenthDoc wrote: I mean that's why principled, thinking people try to block in parking lots and streets terminating in objectionable locations if they're dealing with cars at all, to remove the emergency or "just living my life" element. I'm pretty sure you're also supposed to never ever move to touch a moving vehicle if you're protesting in this way and let officers usher you away if they deem it necessary. Unfortunately the thinking can often fall by the wayside in emotionally charged protest situations, and this is hardly the exclusive purview of the left; just look at Planned Parenthood protesters before there was legislation about demarcation lines when it comes to causing inconvenience. It's just kind of expected. On March 21 2016 04:36 Plansix wrote: Technically yes. But Arizona uses comparative negligence in civil law, all of the actions of either party would be taken into account. There is no moment where is it totally ok to hit someone with your car, but the actions of the protester could make them so close to 50% at fault that no damages would be awarded. But the driver could also be a total idiot and hurt someone who was trying to get out of their way and just protesting up until the point where the car wanted to go through. There is no clear cut answer of who is right and wrong. And the court doesn't really do that, anyways. In general though, it isn't really worth it to drive through a crowd of angry protesters. That makes sense, thanks guys  | ||
|
Monochromatic
United States999 Posts
Have you looked at that website? It seems incredibly arbitrary when something is called a "half truth" or a "mostly true." Heck, they list the same quote twice and give it a different rating each time? ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/b5tSma7.png) I don't trust that website. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 21 2016 06:05 Monochromatic wrote: Have you looked at that website? It seems incredibly arbitrary when something is called a "half truth" or a "mostly true." I don't trust that website. They explain in the second ruling why the second quote was rated False instead of Mostly false like the first one. | ||
|
Yurie
12161 Posts
On March 21 2016 06:05 Monochromatic wrote: Have you looked at that website? It seems incredibly arbitrary when something is called a "half truth" or a "mostly true." Heck, they list the same quote twice and give it a different rating each time? I don't trust that website. I trust that site since they write clear reasons for each ruling they make. Meaning you can decide if you agree or not on the core issues you care about. Even if it is off one degree now and then it still tells a tale over large samples as well. Though it should be used more for reading specific things that matter to you. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28892 Posts
However, even if you disagree with some of the findings, even if your personal bias is different from that of the politifact-judges, it should be clear that Trump and Cruz lie more than everyone else, | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22566 Posts
Find where he did in fact say those things. | ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
Trump just blurps stuff out of his ass Is there any chance of Kasich winning this? I'd prefer him out of these all I'd say. Also not sure how its possible but Bill O'Reilly actually seems reasonable | ||
|
Surth
Germany456 Posts
On March 21 2016 07:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: removing all elements of bias is very difficult. However they cite article-length reasons for each claim, with sources, so you can investigate for yourself. If you really want to, you could always open five random ones for each candidate and see whether the reasoning and conclusion makes sense to you. Maybe you'll disagree with a couple rulings, maybe not - there's certainly some degree of arbitrariness to it (but there is some degree of arbitrariness to mostly everything).. However, even if you disagree with some of the findings, even if your personal bias is different from that of the politifact-judges, it should be clear that Trump and Cruz lie more than everyone else, But its not like their findings are based on analysing 100 random statements of these candidates. they analyse whatever claims they want to analyse. what if 1) they mostly decided to take on claims that were in the news 2) a lot of the news have concentrated on the outrageous claims that trump has made? Whenever you say "it should be clear that", try thinking the reverse instead. How is it that many people think this is not clear at all? or, to quote thomas kuhn that old asshat, instead of just deciding that aristotle must have been an idiot, maybe think about it some more... edit: this is not necessarily a direct response to you, btw. i think everyone in this thread could do with a little less "obviously" and "it seems clear that" because obviously most things are not obvious | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On March 21 2016 07:09 Gorsameth wrote: The 2 listed seem especially easy to prove if you think they are incorrect. Find where he did in fact say those things. I think that the article is saying that he said it but a year after the invasion but he is implying (and does whenever he talks) that he had been saying it even before the invasion like he was some sole prophet and could see the future. I suppose the context of his statement is what determines whether they call it false or mostly false. | ||
|
pebble444
Italy2503 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4447 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4447 Posts
On March 21 2016 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: To clarify, NettleS said the protester was a liberal.* The zerohedge article said he was a liberal and he's been confirmed as a Sanders supporter. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/2politifact032016grONLINE.png)
