Rose Hamid you are dubbed awesome by me, a random person on the internet. Seriously though, a few points: 1. BLM could learn a lot from her on how to make their presence and cause known at a politician's rally. 2. Those people booing her and all that are freakin' morons. 3. I'm not clear if the police started escorting her out prior or after people starting jeering her. If after, I hope they did it more for her safety than anything else. In all other cases, those guys are equally messed up. Good luck to Rose Hamid, I hope that she and others will continue these sorts of protests, and not be deterred by this incident. On a related note, if I were Trump, I'd probably make an effort to personally invite her to the next rally. EDIT: Daily Mail article on the subject: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...suggests-Syrian-refugees-affiliated-ISIS.html
She peacefully disrupted Trump's rally by standing up and blocking a few people from seeing DJT. Much more effective than BLM supporters for sure, but still disruptive. The ugly reaction by some as she was escorted out really made her point. It appears that her male companion stayed, at least from that one clip. I wish each of them peace and prosperity. Great respect for their courage and class.
I wanted to figure out why she was kicked out because I think that is very important, was if for her safety or did she do something wrong ? and who kicked her out. I found it was the police who removed her, I thought perhaps it was private security etc but it wasn't it was police. Here is reason - "Major Steven Thompson of the Rock Hill Police Department said that Hamid was removed because police were briefed beforehand that 'anybody who made any kind of disturbance' would be escorted from the premises. " So rules were given out by police because they were briefed to remove anyone causing a disturbance, it was the police who made the call. To me it doesn't help anyone cause, it would have been more helpful had she not caused a disturbance which she was warned against. To me what she did shows lack of respect, you get allowed in there are no problems and then you break the rules and get kicked out. Protest outside or do whatever you want that doesn't break the rules of a place you are invited and allowed in. Its common courtesy, do I want some progun clown disturbing a Clinton rally? heck no its low class and makes you look like you cant follow rules. It also reinforces stereotypes. If you want to make a point, make it the right way, don't reinforce stereotypes that group X cant follow rules, it defeats purpose. I would have gone sat and been cool then got whoever attacked me thrown out and been like wow look at these people acting like tools. TL;DR didn't follow rules handed down by police before event, got kicked out.
your wording doesn't make it clear that the attendees were aware of the rules in question. you say "police were briefed beforehand that...", not "attendees were briefed beforehand by police..." or some such
I wonder what would happen to someone that refused to stop blocking the view of others during a Clinton rally?
I think the perspective is that it was much worse. I mean, he wasn't impeached until there was definitive proof that he knew what was happening and tried to cover it up and involved a large number of additional illegal activities BEYOND record keeping. How the heck is organizing a break-in of the opposition's headquarters, then being shown to be lying about it, and then proven to have been covering it up all along, along with numerous other illegal activities, not worse? I don't understand your "perspective." And then there's the Bush email scandal (again involving private servers and emails instead of using official channels) which also involved a lot more people and a lot more emails - which had almost no consequences other than resignations as far as I know. I think, in perspective, Clinton's private email server was much less, but the GOP has managed to make it seem far more sinister than it is. It's still a stupid thing she did, IMO, and something that SHOULD be against the law (and I believe, under current laws, it would be illegal) but it hasn't been shown to be have broken any laws during her term as far as I understand. At the same time, Secretary of States using private email is a historical fact, not an anomaly, though, again, after the Bush email stuff you'd think she'd have said "official pls." There's even a book called "Worse than Watergate" that describes the Bush presidency. Maybe someone will write "Worse than Watergate" re: Clinton? Probably not. Doesn't seem anywhere as insane. Then there's the Ronald Reagan stuff. My god. In any case, if it turns out what she was doing was illegal, or was covering up illegal activities, go for it. But stuff like this and defunding PP when no wrong-doing has been proven is silly, or, dare I say, tyranny.
Also, even if they were told, there's a decent chance that standing quietly wouldn't have been considered "disruption" even if it briefly blocks someone's view. At least, I wouldn't have considered it a disruption requiring immediate escort from the premises. But then I'm perhaps less jumpy than police guarding a potential future president would logically be. How is disseminating classified materials through a private network and outside of proper channels, then trying to hide that fact during the subsequent investigation, not at least the same? The "worse" part has to do with her breaking national security rather than "merely" (still a big crime) illegally swiping non-classified data (though proprietary) from the opposition.
I am not much of a trump fan but at least he said from start he didn't want to invade Iraq. Hillary and Bush wanted to and supported it and did. Odd I don't see anyone talking about that much. Anyone who votes for Hillary must like people who start wars, I personally wouldn't vote for her because of bad decisions like that. Trump just talks about blocking some people till the government gets a grip on threats, others actual bomb and kill them, Hmmm wonder which is worse. I don't really agree with either but I do know which is worse. Just so odd that no one talks about her actions and what she supported, hmm I wonder why, oh wait no I don't, ideologues and blind allegiance.
a lot of the pro-bernie stuff i've seen includes a list of hillary flipflops to showcase bernie's consistent stand on ~everything
I think too many people even on the left are too afraid of "socialism" to vote Bernie. Anecdotally, of course. But I am personally super interested in a Sanders vs Trump general election. That'd be so fun and interesting.
I think many are too smart to vote for "socialism" but then again I don't have much faith in people knowing what form of government USA is.
I give the guy props for not being all over the place just trying to change his position to fit in. I can respect that that aspect at least.
I read somewhere that Trump only called it when the war was already over a year in. I mean. It was pretty clear at that point that the war wasn't exactly going well, to put it nicely. http://www.nytimes.com/live/republi...-trump-opposed-iraq-war-but-after-it-started/ So to me, it doesn't seem that prophetic as I hear people make it out to be.
He did reportedly call it a "mess" the week it started. Though it does seem he wasn't very public with his dissent until later. Though to be fair that's still a better record than than almost everyone in the running.
What the heck does voting for Sanders have to do with forms of government? You are making so little sense here and I don't understand why DJ keeps liking your posts.
