Random Politics & Religion #14

"Obesity isn't an epidemic"

Green Party nominee Jill Stein appeared to have met her initial fundraising goal early Thursday for recounts of the vote in three key swing states that went to Donald Trump — Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

However, she quickly raised the sum being sought by another $2 million. "Raising money to pay for the first round so quickly is a miraculous feat and a tribute to the power of grassroots organizing," a message on her website read.

The Green Party did not single out any specific evidence of fraud, nor does it need proof of irregularities to call for a recount. Stein's party won only 1 percent of the vote.

"After a divisive and painful presidential race, reported hacks into voter and party databases and individual email accounts are causing many Americans to wonder if our election results are reliable," Stein said on Wednesday. "These concerns need to be investigated before the 2016 presidential election is certified. We deserve elections we can trust."

A small but vocal group of scientists and activists have emerged in recent days advocating for a recount on the basis of Trump's wholly unexpected win and concerns about Russian involvement in the election. They note that only a small minority of public polls predicted Trump's success, and though public polls have been wrong before the magnitude of their error this cycle was unprecedented.

They also point to evidence Russian hackers infiltrated the Democratic National Committee and potentially a top adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign as evidence of both ability and willingness. Hackers compromised voter records in Illinois and attempted to breach voting systems in a handful of other states prior to the election.

Clinton's campaign officials have not commented on Stein's efforts, which hinge on the Green Party's ability to pay for a recount....

Green Party's Jill Stein Raises Millions for Election Recount

Won't matter, wisconsin's deadline was today, and the other two are the 28th and 30th. Not only that, but if Hillary did scream for a recount after her concession speech which said "Trump is our president" then that's going to make things look extremely fishy and piss off a lot of conservative citizens, and that'll be a bigger problem than the riots in the streets which will be getting shut down if the republican senator from Washington gets his bill passed, which'll label those NGO-backed protests as economic terrorism (Means they're coming for you Soros.)

that'll be a bigger problem than the riots in the streets which will be getting shut down if the republican senator from Washington gets his bill passed, which'll label those NGO-backed protests as economic terrorism (Means they're coming for you Soros.)

*sorry not bill. His horribly written ideas on what he would put in his bill

But I don't see what is "horribly written" about anything he said in your link.

The premise of his ideas are actually pretty understandable. Why should protests involve destroying public property and hurting local businesses? Why should they involve shutting down public transportation routes?

I mean this isn't even a ban on Freedom of speech, it is just ensure that protests are civil.

I can see where some of these lines can be a bit grey and can maybe be abused.

I think the biggest one is the public transit ones. I think it should just limit them to shutting down major highways or bridges but protester should be allowed to protest on the streets.

But I don't see what is "horribly written" about anything he said in your link.

There are many problems but here are a few:

1.There are already laws for destroying property, causing damage, disturbing the peace, etc. This is already illegal.

2. This law will make people who organize the protest, run an organization, or even support the organization with donations.

3. He doesn't define who would determine when protesters shifted from "protesters" to "economic terrorists". Is it the police officers, is it the DA, and what is the exact definition? But this goes against the previous statement that says "anyone who knowingly breaks the law".....how are people who donated to a cause or organized it supposed to be liable for something that happens unintentionally in the middle of a protest? If it was a conspiracy to commit a crime to being with....again their is already a law(s) for that.

1.There are already laws for destroying property, causing damage, disturbing the peace, etc. This is already illegal.

2. This law will make people who organize the protest, run an organization, or even support the organization with donations held liable for other people's actions.

3. He doesn't define who would determine when protesters shifted from "protesters" to "economic terrorists". Is it the police officers, is it the DA, and what is the exact definition? But this goes against the previous statement that says "anyone who knowingly breaks the law".....how are people who donated to a cause or organized it supposed to be liable for something that happens unintentionally in the middle of a protest? If it was a conspiracy to commit a crime to being with....again their is already laws for that.

So the people funding and instigating the violent protests can't be held liable? I agree that his description leaves grey area but it if passed through a bill I'm sure it will be more defined.

Furthermore this gives the government power to disrupt protests that are clearly causing property damage.

There are already laws for what you are describing.

Conspiracy to commit a crime (property damage, violence, etc) is already a crime.

The government already has the power to move against people who are violent at a protest. Hell, they have the power to move against people who are not violent if they refuse to vacate an area. They arrest people at protests all the time for destroying property, violence, ignoring orders to vacate an area, etc.

Actually, it's very easy to determine what is a protest and what is a riot. Protests do not destroy property or purposefully shut down traffic. Riots do. It's as simple as that.

I disagree a bit with the last part. I think Protests shouldn't block major highways or all lanes of a bridge but sometimes peaceful protests should be able to block traffic. I, however, that Ambulances and other emergency vehicles should be allowed through and if they are not during a protest it should be a felony.

Protests that block traffic aren't always riots.

Just to make things perfectly clear this fool dude is a STATE senator. And in the other Washington the GoP has a tenuous hold on the state senate, with the state house and governor being in the hands of the Dems.

TLDR: if it does become a bill, it goes nowhere.