The Resistance™ Blocks Traffic, Fails

[LordKiran]

Thanks for reminding us that conservatives fantasize about acts of terrorism and encourage each other to commit acts of terrorism.

[ent]hellip[/ent]but don't call them deplorable. That would be mean!

- - - Updated - - -

Oh yeah, 4 people block traffic therefore resistance to Trump is stupid and he should get 8 more years.

Don't you love it?

4 people block traffic, therefore it is reasonable to kill people who disagree with right wingers, but if we point out that actual Nazis with actual Nazi flags in Charlottesville were wearing red MAGA caps, we are "attacking their free speech."

Ah, crap. Underseer got triggered.

Remember "Umadbro?" Its funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Keep on trolling, Trausti. We'll see where it eventually gets you.

 

[Malintent]

It would be nice if it were possible to hold protesters responsible for the economic damage they do, but like wanting to run them down, that's just another empty threat, and no is worried by it. If you can't keep them out of the street, how do you make them pay for your lost day of work, or dented hood and windshield, because you righteously ran one down.

As I said in an earlier post, the protesters have given up on changing your mind and have chosen instead to change your life, probably for the worse. Your opinion is of no value in this exchange. Deal with it.

- - - Updated - - -



Did you sue the estate of the guy you say you killed?

No. never got his ID (he didn't have any) and he was apparently homeless... so no one to sue. I had a huge dent in the SIDE* of my car until the day I sold it for far less than it could have been worth (what with the dried blood still on the massive dent and all).

* I did attempt to swerve to not hit him... it was a dark and lonely road with no chance a car snuck up on me and was in the next lane... however, despite swerving radically, to the point the vehicle was traveling sideways, I still whacked him like a fastball straight down the pike with the rear left side of my 1970 Dodge Dart.
It took a few minutes to find him in the weeds at the side of the road. I totally remember his face to this day... just before, and... after.

Swerving did nothing to help him. It might have gotten me or one of my two passengers hurt... or if it was in the middle of the day or a busier road, multiple other people may have been killed.

In fact, if I was driving then what I am driving today, I would certainly have rolled.

Well, there you go. Suing a homeless person yields you nothing, so why think a protester in the street would have a greater net worth? Except for the smug self satisfaction, you've really got no upside to running down protesters.

It's more likely you'll have to be rescued by the police when other protesters pull you from your car. Of course, the police will treat you like James Fields, the Charlottesville hit and run white supremacist. Suddenly, you'll become the story. I wouldn't be surprised if your posts on this forum become public. When this thread is revealed, boy, are you fucked. Even a sociopath would have to see this as a bad deal, all the way around.

I appreciate your description of your vehicular homicide, especially the part about the danger you faced while snuffing out his candle. It's almost as if you had suddenly developed empathy, or something like it. A little late, but still credit due for the effort.

The empathy for him has died down considerably over the past decades.. Where does your fresh empathy come from? The desire to harm others to promote your personal preferences?
The purpose of a suit in a vehicular accident is to recoup lost assets... not to punish. The purpose is to restore property damaged by someone doing something irresponsible and reckless... driving on the highway is not reckless.. walking on it is.

I never promoted violence or illegal activity. I am promoting zero empathy for those that loose their lives in the face of oncoming traffic they choose to sacrifice themselves to for their cause.

 

[Bronzeage]

No. never got his ID (he didn't have any) and he was apparently homeless... so no one to sue. I had a huge dent in the SIDE* of my car until the day I sold it for far less than it could have been worth (what with the dried blood still on the massive dent and all).

* I did attempt to swerve to not hit him... it was a dark and lonely road with no chance a car snuck up on me and was in the next lane... however, despite swerving radically, to the point the vehicle was traveling sideways, I still whacked him like a fastball straight down the pike with the rear left side of my 1970 Dodge Dart.
It took a few minutes to find him in the weeds at the side of the road. I totally remember his face to this day... just before, and... after.

Swerving did nothing to help him. It might have gotten me or one of my two passengers hurt... or if it was in the middle of the day or a busier road, multiple other people may have been killed.

In fact, if I was driving then what I am driving today, I would certainly have rolled.

Well, there you go. Suing a homeless person yields you nothing, so why think a protester in the street would have a greater net worth? Except for the smug self satisfaction, you've really got no upside to running down protesters.

It's more likely you'll have to be rescued by the police when other protesters pull you from your car. Of course, the police will treat you like James Fields, the Charlottesville hit and run white supremacist. Suddenly, you'll become the story. I wouldn't be surprised if your posts on this forum become public. When this thread is revealed, boy, are you fucked. Even a sociopath would have to see this as a bad deal, all the way around.

I appreciate your description of your vehicular homicide, especially the part about the danger you faced while snuffing out his candle. It's almost as if you had suddenly developed empathy, or something like it. A little late, but still credit due for the effort.

The empathy for him has died down considerably over the past decades.. Where does your fresh empathy come from? The desire to harm others to promote your personal preferences?
The purpose of a suit in a vehicular accident is to recoup lost assets... not to punish. The purpose is to restore property damaged by someone doing something irresponsible and reckless... driving on the highway is not reckless.. walking on it is.

I never promoted violence or illegal activity. I am promoting zero empathy for those that loose their lives in the face of oncoming traffic they choose to sacrifice themselves to for their cause.

The operative term here is zero empathy. You have promoted violence. That you think your assault is somehow justified under the law is just another symptom of your problem.

 

[Malintent]

Well, there you go. Suing a homeless person yields you nothing, so why think a protester in the street would have a greater net worth? Except for the smug self satisfaction, you've really got no upside to running down protesters.

It's more likely you'll have to be rescued by the police when other protesters pull you from your car. Of course, the police will treat you like James Fields, the Charlottesville hit and run white supremacist. Suddenly, you'll become the story. I wouldn't be surprised if your posts on this forum become public. When this thread is revealed, boy, are you fucked. Even a sociopath would have to see this as a bad deal, all the way around.

I appreciate your description of your vehicular homicide, especially the part about the danger you faced while snuffing out his candle. It's almost as if you had suddenly developed empathy, or something like it. A little late, but still credit due for the effort.

The empathy for him has died down considerably over the past decades.. Where does your fresh empathy come from? The desire to harm others to promote your personal preferences?
The purpose of a suit in a vehicular accident is to recoup lost assets... not to punish. The purpose is to restore property damaged by someone doing something irresponsible and reckless... driving on the highway is not reckless.. walking on it is.

I never promoted violence or illegal activity. I am promoting zero empathy for those that loose their lives in the face of oncoming traffic they choose to sacrifice themselves to for their cause.

The operative term here is zero empathy. You have promoted violence. That you think your assault is somehow justified under the law is just another symptom of your problem.

Substantiate the charge that I promoted violence and I will apologize (and possibly answer to the mods regarding ToS). Fail to substantiate the charge and I will report your post as a violation of the terms of service relating to claims against a fellow poster.

That you choose to label "ambivalence" with "violence" is your failing, not mine. People do seem to get quite angry when others are "ambivalent" towards their cherished beliefs... and maybe that is where the "violence" is coming from... your frustration. I don't know, though.. I can't read your mind. You can't read mine.

I have assaulted no one, past or present. I have unique knowledge of what it is like to be in a fatal car accident with a pedestrian, and perhaps you have not. I have never publically suggested anyone break any law (except a couple of tax laws, maybe... a few times). Telling people to drive safely by not swerving into other traffic to avoid a suicidal crazy person is good advice anytime. Call your Insurance company and ask them what they would prefer you do.. swerve blindly or apply the brakes in a controlled manner and keep in your lane.
We can disagree, but stop shouting "Bengasi" at me, so to speak.

 

[Bronzeage]

The empathy for him has died down considerably over the past decades.. Where does your fresh empathy come from? The desire to harm others to promote your personal preferences?
The purpose of a suit in a vehicular accident is to recoup lost assets... not to punish. The purpose is to restore property damaged by someone doing something irresponsible and reckless... driving on the highway is not reckless.. walking on it is.

I never promoted violence or illegal activity. I am promoting zero empathy for those that loose their lives in the face of oncoming traffic they choose to sacrifice themselves to for their cause.

The operative term here is zero empathy. You have promoted violence. That you think your assault is somehow justified under the law is just another symptom of your problem.

Substantiate the charge that I promoted violence and I will apologize (and possibly answer to the mods regarding ToS). Fail to substantiate the charge and I will report your post as a violation of the terms of service relating to claims against a fellow poster.

That you choose to label "ambivalence" with "violence" is your failing, not mine. People do seem to get quite angry when others are "ambivalent" towards their cherished beliefs... and maybe that is where the "violence" is coming from... your frustration. I don't know, though.. I can't read your mind. You can't read mine.

I have assaulted no one, past or present. I have unique knowledge of what it is like to be in a fatal car accident with a pedestrian, and perhaps you have not. I have never publically suggested anyone break any law (except a couple of tax laws, maybe... a few times). Telling people to drive safely by not swerving into other traffic to avoid a suicidal crazy person is good advice anytime. Call your Insurance company and ask them what they would prefer you do.. swerve blindly or apply the brakes in a controlled manner and keep in your lane.
We can disagree, but stop shouting "Bengasi" at me, so to speak.

It's really simple. You advocate running over people who are in the street, because you disagree with their politics. Unless you know of a way to run someone down in a gentle manner, which causes no trauma, that's a violent act.

That you claim to have killed someone in a manner which did not attach blame to you, serves to makes your feelings about running over protesters more bizarre.

 

[TSwizzle]

It's really simple. You advocate running over people who are in the street, because you disagree with their politics.

I really can't understand how you came to that conclusion. Malintent did not advocate deliberately killing/injuring protesters by running them over with a vehicle because he disagrees with their politics.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's really simple. You advocate running over people who are in the street, because you disagree with their politics.

I really can't understand how you came to that conclusion. Malintent did not advocate deliberately killing/injuring protesters by running them over with a vehicle because he disagrees with their politics.

Hate to say it.. but I might accidently run you over with my car. I've done it before. Not on purpose. But a homeless person was wandering around on the highway, and I hit the shit out of him because it was late, dark, and there is no reasonable way I should have seen him, nor any reason to think that a pedestrian would be in the middle of the highway (just outside an airport, no less). Cops had no questions for me, let me drive home, and I never heard anything about it since (over 15 years ago). He no doubt died on the way or at the hospital. He was hit by a tank of a Dodge at about 45-50 mph. I don't feel bad, like, at all. The guy was mentally ill wandering around on the highway. I was the unlucky person that ended up damaging my car on him.

So, no permit to protest, placing yourself in immediate danger.. getting yourself killed.... I hope your family enjoys your Darwin Award.

It's sometimes difficult to parse sarcasm and facetious comments, but when I ask, "What are you going to do about it?" and the answer is "...I might accidently run you over with my car. I've done it before. ..", I see that as advocating violence.

When he goes on to tell his story of killing a man with his car, but feeling no regret because he was not legally responsible for the death, it's difficult to see it another way.

 

[thebeave]

Probably, but what are you going to do about it?

Hate to say it.. but I might accidently run you over with my car. I've done it before. Not on purpose. But a homeless person was wandering around on the highway, and I hit the shit out of him because it was late, dark, and there is no reasonable way I should have seen him, nor any reason to think that a pedestrian would be in the middle of the highway (just outside an airport, no less). Cops had no questions for me, let me drive home, and I never heard anything about it since (over 15 years ago). He no doubt died on the way or at the hospital. He was hit by a tank of a Dodge at about 45-50 mph. I don't feel bad, like, at all. The guy was mentally ill wandering around on the highway. I was the unlucky person that ended up damaging my car on him.

So, no permit to protest, placing yourself in immediate danger.. getting yourself killed.... I hope your family enjoys your Darwin Award.

Cool story, bro.

If killing people is your preferred way to protest protesters, knock yourself out. You'll be called to account for your actions. Maybe you'll get off with a warning, maybe you'll go to prison. That's your risk.

Beyond that, it's an empty threat, unless you are a sociopath who has no inhibition against killing people because they are in your way. As you said, you don't feel bad.

Have you ever considered that protesters blocking traffic (especially a bridge, which BLM protesters have frequently done in my area), can result in emergency vehicles not being able to get through to take people to a hospital, or to fight a fire burning up an apartment building? Even when this risk is pointed out to the protesters (or their supporters, like on this forum), they seem to find ways to ignore it or rationalize it away. Who is the real sociopath here?

 

[bilby]

Hate to say it.. but I might accidently run you over with my car. I've done it before. Not on purpose. But a homeless person was wandering around on the highway, and I hit the shit out of him because it was late, dark, and there is no reasonable way I should have seen him, nor any reason to think that a pedestrian would be in the middle of the highway (just outside an airport, no less). Cops had no questions for me, let me drive home, and I never heard anything about it since (over 15 years ago). He no doubt died on the way or at the hospital. He was hit by a tank of a Dodge at about 45-50 mph. I don't feel bad, like, at all. The guy was mentally ill wandering around on the highway. I was the unlucky person that ended up damaging my car on him.

So, no permit to protest, placing yourself in immediate danger.. getting yourself killed.... I hope your family enjoys your Darwin Award.

Cool story, bro.

If killing people is your preferred way to protest protesters, knock yourself out. You'll be called to account for your actions. Maybe you'll get off with a warning, maybe you'll go to prison. That's your risk.

Beyond that, it's an empty threat, unless you are a sociopath who has no inhibition against killing people because they are in your way. As you said, you don't feel bad.

Have you ever considered that protesters blocking traffic (especially a bridge, which BLM protesters have frequently done in my area), can result in emergency vehicles not being able to get through to take people to a hospital, or to fight a fire burning up an apartment building? Even when this risk is pointed out to the protesters (or their supporters, like on this forum), they seem to find ways to ignore it or rationalize it away. Who is the real sociopath here?

Have you stopped to think just how vanishingly rare that event must be, compared to other, far easier to solve situations that delay emergency vehicles?

This is a 'Please think of the children!' argument, used more with a view to claiming some moral high ground than because the argument actually has any merit.

Protesters want to be disruptive. They don't care if you like them or not, or wish to get you to side with them - they want to make it easier to give them what they want than it is to deal with them in any other way. If they are few enough in number that they can simply be arrested, then they are not a problem (and they are not going to get what they want). If they are numerous enough to cause major problems (perhaps even including the very occasional death of an ambulance passenger caught in traffic), then the smart move is to throw them a bone to make them shut up and fuck off. Because continuing to do nothing to address their grievances is just going to lead to more and/or larger protests.

Giving in to a vocal minority who are too small in numbers to disrupt traffic would be stupid; NOT giving in (at least somewhat) to a vocal minority who are numerous enough to make life a misery is also stupid. It takes a lot for most people to decide to join an illegal protest, so when a sizable crowd shows up for one, it's a pretty good sign that something really does need to be changed.

 

[Derec]

I'm the one who got triggered?

Yes.

That's why we can call you terrorists. It's not just that some of you do it, but that doing this is part of your ideology.

Overreacting to a joke like "all lives splatter" is one of the defining characteristics of somebody who is triggered.

 

[Derec]

If I ever am in a situation where I have a political cause and feel I have no voice in government, I will stop traffic. I won't make people late for work. They won't get to work that day. It will be such an overall shut down that government resources to maintain order will be overwhelmed. Fire departments, paramedics, school buses, nobody moves on the streets.

And do you think everybody with a "political cause" should do likewise?

Of course, this will irritate people, but only those with political power,

No, you will irritate everybody.

the kind of power that tells politicians to see that this kind of thing doesn't happen again. Since we've already proved they can't stop it from happening, their only path is to address the problems that inspired the protest.

What you are arguing for here is government caving to a small minority of idiots who stop traffic. But that is completely counterproductive, as rendering this tactic very effective, you would only encourage more people to do it. It is also can't possibly work because for every political cause there are at least two sides. Both/all of them would resort to this tactic, and then you have a contradiction.

And while idiots stopping traffic because of politics cannot be entirely stopped, it can be discouraged by actually prosecuting these idiots and suing their organization for damages.
Have you ever wondered why there are so many highway blockades in California? It's because the traffic blocking idiots tend to get away with it.
Alameda County D.A. drops charges against Black Friday 14
Judge Dismisses Charges Against ‘Bay Bridge 25’ Who Stopped Traffic During MLK Day Protest
But it doesn't have to be that way.

That's how it works. People who are blocking traffic aren't trying to win converts. Telling them to stand on the sidewalk and play nice, is useless.

It definitely should not work the way that enables a small minority to extort political concessions through essentially holding citizens hostage on a highway or a bridge.

Of course, I am a middle aged white man, so getting my voice heard is not difficult. My Congressman and my Senator will take my call. I find that kind of weird, but you grow up with these guys and they remember you. I'm hoping that changes soon and I have to leave a message, like everybody else.

Now I am starting to think you are Poe-ing.

 

[Derec]

Their playbook is about demonstrating(that's why it's called a demonstration) where the real limits of power are. If a couple thousand people want to block the street, government does not have the resources to stop them.

But there weren't thousands of people, these were a few people. Highway blockades usually involve dozens of idiots, sometimes a few hundred. And even a few thousand is a small minority that must not be allowed to hold the rest of citizenry hostage.

They could start arresting people and locking them up, but who's going to pay for all that overtime, and then there's no room in the jails or the courtrooms. Some other solution will have to be found.

And what would that solution be? Allow an innocent police officer to be convicted just to appease the mob? Invalidate the results of a presidential election?

No, the reason is exactly to start arresting them and prosecute them to the full extent of the law. Yes, it would cost some money upfront, but having highway blockaders face actual consequences would discourage copycats. So in the long run you would save money by not giving these idiots a pass.

If this kind of protest is a problem for you, go do something about police shooting black men,

Police should only shoot people when they are justified to do so. That has nothing to do with race.
Do you think police should refrain from shooting black men specifically even if they are justified in taking that shot? Should police take on unreasonable risks just to appease #BLM idiots?

or whatever the protest was about.

This one was about Trump being president. What exactly do you propose is the remedy for that?

Telling them to play nice, isn't going to get you to work any faster.

No, but arresting them and having them face consequences will.
And consequences need not be jail time. 100 hours of community service cleaning the highway they tried to block would be the punishment that fits the crime. Caving into their extortion would be foolish.

 

[Derec]

Civil disobedience has probably always been a thing. Support the people, not The Man, all things being equal.

It is people, not "the Man", in those cars being held up.

What we probably need is more support of such persons and less fear of reprisal in this country...

If Charlottesville Nazis blockaded I-64, would you also say that they deserved "more support"? How about anti-gay or anti-abortion protesters?

so we can be more like Europe with our economic and other rights.

In Europe they don't usually block the Autobahn to protest.

Certainly don't try to kill the protesters; that's just ridiculous and immoral.

I agree. Deliberately driving into protesters is bad, unless there is a direct threat coming form the protesters - for example if they take to banging on your car etc. you would be justified in driving through the mob if you can.
However, Malintent's point was about accidental hitting of protesters. These stunts are just a tragic accident waiting to happen.

 

[Derec]

Well, there you go. Suing a homeless person yields you nothing, so why think a protester in the street would have a greater net worth?

They are not homeless and quite a few are well off - or at least their parents are. And these things are organized - sue the organization out of business. Even with no accidents, the cumulative economic damage due to a few hour long highway blockage would be in the hundreds of thousands if not millions.

 

[Derec]

These people (the "protesters") are deranged but let's not get crazy and wish for eight years of Trump !

I think it is very likely that #BLM protests since 2014 (Ferguson riots, Baltimore riots etc.) contributed significantly to Trump's election. And the "Resistance" is doing everything they can to ensure Trump's reelection.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If they are numerous enough to cause major problems (perhaps even including the very occasional death of an ambulance passenger caught in traffic), then the smart move is to throw them a bone to make them shut up and fuck off. Because continuing to do nothing to address their grievances is just going to lead to more and/or larger protests.

Can that same logic not be applied equally to terrorism?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

These people (the "protesters") are deranged but let's not get crazy and wish for eight years of Trump !

I think it is very likely that #BLM protests since 2014 (Ferguson riots, Baltimore riots etc.) contributed significantly to Trump's election. And the "Resistance" is doing everything they can to ensure Trump's reelection.

Yes. And we still have people who refuse to see it. They will keep shouting Trump won just because America is racist (while many of the same voters who voted Trump voted Obama last time around) until Trump gets re-elected.

 

[blastula]

These people (the "protesters") are deranged but let's not get crazy and wish for eight years of Trump !

I think it is very likely that #BLM protests since 2014 (Ferguson riots, Baltimore riots etc.) contributed significantly to Trump's election. And the "Resistance" is doing everything they can to ensure Trump's reelection.

Yes. And we still have people who refuse to see it. They will keep shouting Trump won just because America is racist (while many of the same voters who voted Trump voted Obama last time around) until Trump gets re-elected.

What's the evidence for either of you other than that you don't like BLM or resisters?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think it is very likely that #BLM protests since 2014 (Ferguson riots, Baltimore riots etc.) contributed significantly to Trump's election. And the "Resistance" is doing everything they can to ensure Trump's reelection.

Yes. And we still have people who refuse to see it. They will keep shouting Trump won just because America is racist (while many of the same voters who voted Trump voted Obama last time around) until Trump gets re-elected.

What's the evidence for either of you other than that you don't like BLM or resisters?

The DNC continues to turn their backs on progressive liberals (Bernie etc) while continuing to push corrupt corporate democrats (Hillary's type, like Tom Perez) and failing to address the concerns of working people while pushing identity politics.

Yes, I see a serious problem here, and I see plenty of evidence for said problem.

Trump ran as a populist man of the people. It was a sham of course, but it worked, because he ran against Hillary who represented the establishment, identity politics, and had bought the primary. If the Democrats field another candidate like that and keep pushing as they have been (see Tom Perez recently ousting progressive democrats for his cronies in the so-called name of diversity) and if groups like BLM and other radical identity politics groups keep provoking the far right to side with Trump, Trump will win re-election.

It could be stopped. But a lot of people refuse to see it. They just think they can put their fingers in their ears and shout "racism! Sexism!" at everybody they disagree with and win votes that way.

 

[blastula]

Yes. And we still have people who refuse to see it. They will keep shouting Trump won just because America is racist (while many of the same voters who voted Trump voted Obama last time around) until Trump gets re-elected.

What's the evidence for either of you other than that you don't like BLM or resisters?

The DNC continues to turn their backs on progressive liberals (Bernie etc) while continuing to push corrupt corporate democrats (Hillary's type, like Tom Perez) and failing to address the concerns of working people while pushing identity politics.

Yes, I see a serious problem here, and I see plenty of evidence for said problem.

Trump ran as a populist man of the people. It was a sham of course, but it worked, because he ran against Hillary who represented the establishment, identity politics, and had bought the primary. If the Democrats field another candidate like that and keep pushing as they have been (see Tom Perez recently ousting progressive democrats for his cronies in the so-called name of diversity) and if groups like BLM and other radical identity politics groups keep provoking the far right to side with Trump, Trump will win re-election.

It could be stopped. But a lot of people refuse to see it. They just think they can put their fingers in their ears and shout "racism! Sexism!" at everybody they disagree with and win votes that way.

I asked for evidence but again you just list your own personal peeves.