Are we endanger of this happening here?

It’s already illegal. Did you know that?

So what do you think their response will be? And should we support anymore restrictions?

Yes I did.

Which is why I said this isn’t a First Amendment issue…taking issue with the point you made in your OP.

This is called “debating”. I take a point of yours and examine it…you respond in kind.

You should try it some time. It’s a lot more fun than simply posting thread after thread where you fish for answers you want to get and blanket dismiss all other answers.

2 Likes

They did for the House, which they’re turning into UC Berkeley. It’s only a matter of time before they push this type of campus speech code nonsense into more legislation, but it shouldn’t surprise anybody that Democrats chose to focus on this.

In clause 8(c)(3) of rule XXIII, strike ‘‘father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, step-sister, half brother, half sister, grandson, or grand-daughter’’ and insert ‘‘parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, step-child, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild.

https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117hresPIH-hres5.pdf

The response should be to figure out why protesters were able to get into the Capital and fix it.

4 Likes

So since breaking and entering is already illegal, are you are predicting that the dems will not offer any new laws?

You’ve been misled. All this does is change the wording used in the House rules. It doesn’t ban or restrict the words that House members use.

That’s not a “speech code”. It was a silly edit that turned one House rule into a tautology.

And doesn’t prevent anyone in the House from using any words.

The dems will probably create some toothless statement condemning the events and then the right wing media will probably spin into something about how the Democrats are going to break into everyone’s homes and shoot their pets.

What was the point of taking time for that? More division?

The question is whether mail-in ballots can be secured at all. I believe we should take another look at the election process. We have the campaigning, the debates, and then the election day. Part of the problem with mail-in ballots is that they can be mailed in well before the campaigning and debate process is over.

Ballot harvesting has proven to be another problem here in California, as are the jungle ballots. When Kamala Harris was elected to the US Senate, our choices were between Democrats. Being California, the Democrat probably would have won anyway, but there should still have been the choice.

1 Like

Yes…

1 Like

A combination of inclusiveness and virtue signalling.

Trump was the catalyst and bears full responsibility. He will be gone in 13 days. Other than possible prosecution of a handful of the most egregious, I don’t believe anything more will come of it.

I hope you are right. That would be something that nobody would oppose. But, I’m guessing it will go much further than that. We’ll see.

I wish I felt the same way. I’m predicting democratic action. And soon.

1 Like

As were the riots this past summer and fall that some in the media labeled “mostly peaceful”. If there had been swift arrests and prosecutions over the breaking and entering, the looting, the fires, would this even had occurred?

While investigations and arrests are being made in DC, will the same hold true in places like Portland?

The entire country should insist that the moment anything breaks, anyone trespasses, it is now a riot and punishment swift and life changing.

1 Like

Won’t just be democrats. Nobody in congress wants to be vulnerable to the public. Next time thousands head for the capital there will be troops on hand.

2 Likes

I would be fine with that.

That’s fine as long as they don’t interfere with the rights of the protestors. I’m thinking this will be something a little more sinister. Like making it a crime to contest the results of an election or only allowing protest permits to government (democratic) approved organizations.

The catalyst was election procedures not being followed. The President was not reacting in a vacuum. Yes, in hindsight, it would have been great for him to caution everyone that MAGA people engage in peaceful, lawful protests. As they have been. Since they have been, what was the need to say it…except in hindsight.