Hillary Clinton 65,853,516
Donald Trump 62,984,824

I guess you're right, democracy isn't working so it is time to consider all options.

wft, Einbert. I think you're saying that violence to stop Ann Coulter from speaking is morally justified. Is that correct?

Liberals itt, why not answer pokerodox's question? I have said already I believe its immoral to shut down Coulter with violence, but a sensible case can be made for the counter position, as in Hitler's famous punching Nazis quote:

Hypothetically, I think circumstances exist where threats and violence would be morally correct - certainly I hope we would smash Literally Hitler before it were too late - but Coulter doesn't nearly rise to that level imo.

I'm not sure how often these investigations are done and so I'm not sure what to make of it at this point but if anything comes of this investigation and Colbert is punished then yes, I will be totally outraged.

Now you should answer pokerodox's question.

Above I gave my "philosophy" on this issue. We have laws in this country against violence. I fully support those laws and their enforcement. If you break those laws, you are subject to arrest.

I personally would not resort to violence (or threats of violence) to prevent Ann Coulter from speaking. Personally, I find her views ridiculous and hopefully few will take them seriously.

But, given that there are over 300 million people in the United States and that she espouses very divisive and inflammatory views, it does not surprise me that there are people who feel strongly on the issue of giving her a public forum and are willing to go to extreme (illegal) measures to prevent it.

If these people choose to physically disrupt an event where Ann Coulter is a speaker, I hope and expect that they would be removed (arrested as appropriate). If they come to trial and I would be on the jury, I would find them guilty regardless of Ann Coulter's views, their own views, or my own views.

People absolutely have a right to defend their cities from fascists. Self-defense does often mean using violence, sadly.

"Fearing not I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach..."

"So much for the tolerant left!"

"So much for the tolerant left!"

Sorry, I just saw this.

If you are asking if one person has the "right" to use violence to impinge upon another person's right of free speech, the answer is no.

Generally speaking, in a political context when people talk about 'rights' (at least in the United States), they are talking about Constitutional or Legal rights, many of which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Using the word 'rights' in a more colloquial fashion not related to the Constitution (especially in a political context) can be confusing and ineffectual.

"So much for the tolerant left!"

"So much for the tolerant left!"

It's funny how right wingers always bring up the second amendment as a great defense against tyranny, but when real tyranny comes around they don't seem the least bit interested in actually fighting against it.

Question for those ITT:

Do you believe slave revolts were immoral? If so, why. If not, why not. I answered your question, the least you can do is answer mine.

Slave revolts were not immoral because they were a proportionate response to the horrors that slaves were facing.

But do you think violence at an Ann Coulter speech is anywhere in the same universe as slave's revolting?

I think using violence to defend cities from fascists is, absolutely. Look at who these fascists are attacking--undocumented students who are vulnerable and who can be deported by law enforcement, legally, at any moment. Protecting those people should be our top priority right now, by whatever means we have to.

Supporting and protecting undocumented Americans must be one of the top priorities for liberal Americans during the Trump Presidency. They are our American brothers and sisters and we must stand up for them.


https://twitter.com/DefineAmerican/s...39448340660224

You meant to say...

Could slaves work within the system to effect political change?

Are you saying "revolt" is the same as "protest"?

Question directly to you... Do you think the west today are slave states?

Obviously slave revolts were moral.

Full stop.

Einbert, you answered my question with a bunch of pictures. Just to be clear, I think you are saying that stopping Ann Coulter from speaking with the threat of violence is morally justified. Is that correct?

oh cmon. no one on the "left" thinks that. I know that you guys really really really want us to think and say that so you can be all "gotcha" but its rediculous.

Before the Emancipation Proclamation became law, abolitionism in the south was just a violent, anarchistic campaign you might have heard of. It was often called "The Underground Railroad." It was completely illegal, they did use violence in self-defense, and it was absolutely the right thing to do. I would've supported that as well.

They have confused the terms liberal and pacifist. Only a pacifist believes that violence is never the correct response to a situation.

Oh yeah, guess what fascists do to pacifists, eventually?



These guys will use violence against others and they know it. They want you to become a "pacifist" and give up your right to self-defense for a reason.