Why are Conservative such "yellow bellies" fearing right of dissent?

Jump to Last Post 1-14 of 14 discussions (101 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image80
    Credence2posted 13 months ago

    This one sticks in my gullet, ladies and gentlemen. Please see the attached editorial and any supporting background material you wish.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … b95f651c25

    Just who does this guy ( Trump)think that he is? He uses the ‘excuse’ of excess costs to the government to close down public space or make people pay to use them?

    This man is attacking the First Amendment and I take great offense at that.

    Someone asked me once to evaluate the ‘man’ instead of his party affiliation. Attacks like this on the people’s right to assemble peaceably make such an evaluation principle impossible for me. Anyone advocating or supporting The Trump style of conservatism which is part and parcel the of ‘New Republican Party’ is placing themselves in the position as my ‘natural adversary’. Anyone wearing That label is not good for me and when it comes to the midterms, I have to vote Democrat all the way down to the county dog catcher.

    The Washington Post has got it right, “Democracy dies in the darkness”.

    Can any conservative out there tell me how Trump's idea is acceptable? Wasn't he the one that proposed the "pass in review" style military parade? He did seem to have any problems with "costs" then, so don't tell me this new idiocy is about 'saving money'.

    1. Live to Learn profile image80
      Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Ok. I read the article. I don't think a peaceful, respectful, non violent protest should incur charges, nor should anyone be charged a fee to protest. But, I think people and organizations should be held accountable for damage done, trash collection if excessive litter encountered and costs for police if they turn violent. I think that would be fair.

      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Ok, that would be fair, so the Trump proposal as presented is nuts....

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          I read the article, not the proposal, so I couldn't say. I'll see if I can find time to read it.

      2. profile image76
        Hxprofposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        I agree with you LTL.

    2. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I read your link Cred, and I can see why the explained new rules would stick in your craw.

      However, if you go beyond the Op-ed piece, there may be other details that, although they may not change your mind, may at least give you some digestive relief.

      For instance, and drawing from the actual proposal that can be found here: Dept. of Interior - NPS DRAFT Proposed Rule – August 7, 2018

      The NPS, (National Park Service), already had the authority to charge for all the things the Op-ed piece said were new Trump initiatives. They just hadn't been doing it.

      Depending on the location used for the demonstrations, Small Group Exemptions, ie. no permit needed and no subsequent charges - under normal conditions, are available for groups as high as 1000 people.

      It seems there are two areas of focus; The National Mall, and Memorial sites. (the draft points to security concerns relative to certain White House sidewalks. From past experiences, I think the 'large' demonstrations most of us would think of would be on the National Mall or in Lafayette Park or McPherson Square.

      The draft included one example of the 2012 McPherson Square encampment demonstration.  It was planned for less than 500 people so no permit, or support costs were required. But ... here is a description of what happened:

      "... demonstrators attempted to erect a large and unsafe barn-like structure made up of a wooden frame of boards and planks"

      "... demonstration involved a large number of tents of various sizes, including dome, A-frame, and outfitter tents, that covered a majority of the Square."

      " ... Demonstrators used these tents for sleeping, meetings, as a library, as temporary restroom facilities (with buckets), and as a mess hall (with propane) - NPS personnel and participants reported human waste found around tents or in trash receptacles. Rodent burrows were observed and rodents were reported seen at night. "

      "The U.S. Park Police requested and spent approximately $480,000 for
      emergency operations to maintain law and order in connection with this event. This amount does not include additional funds that the NPS spent to restore and rehabilitate the condition of the park after the event."


      Those protesters could have demonstrated all they wanted, as long as they wanted to - without the structures, (structures would have required a permit), and without getting permission, and without costs. But, do you really think it would be unfair to hold them responsible for costs their occupation created - when they knowingly circumvented the known restrictions?

      Examples such as that aren't drawn from the Op-ed piece.

      Relative to restrictions and costs for demonstrating at Memorials, the Draft Proposal has this reasoning:
      "These restrictions further the NPS’s interest in securing these memorials and maintaining the intended atmosphere of calm, tranquility, and reverence, and in providing the contemplative visitor experience intended for the memorials. "

      So if up to 500 people could protest peacefully at the Lincoln Memorial, without requiring permits or surcharges, is it unreasonable to expect a 50,000 person demonstration to be responsible for the additional security costs?

      I'm not sure, but entertaining the idea doesn't seem anti-democracy to me.

      There are more tidbits in the actual Draft Proposal that your linked Op-ed neglects to mention and I think if you take a look you might wonder if a possible 'middle ground' would be a bad compromise.

      I am not ruling out that this may be a Trump move to restrict protesters, and if it is I think it is as anti-democracy as you do, but it may also be a reaction to such organized and orchestrated events as The Women's March, and its multi-million dollar cost to D.C..

      Maybe some perspective like being able to protest free if you don't make taxpayers pay for your actions, but if your protest will knowingly generate extraordinary additional public expense - then there some price to pay?

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Thanks, GA, but it doesn't change my mind. I am happy to leave things as they were, in the traditions of the Vietnam and Watergate protests. I do not like stifling of dissent as it is an innately cowardly act from a gutless yellow t*rd.

        Excerpt from the article or op-ed:

        "And it goes beyond just the Mall. Want to protest in front of the Trump hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue? Under this proposal, you’ll have to take out your checkbook, because the NPS maintains control over the broad sidewalks of Pennsylvania Avenue. In addition to the upfront costs to even request a permit, you may be billed for the cost of barricades erected around the hotel — fencing you didn’t ask for but that the hotel wants."

        Since when is the Trump Hotel a time honored memorial or national treasure?

        We have never had any of this "trouble" before since the fiasco of the "bonus army" of the thirties. Why all the hubbub, now? Trump in his maniacal tyranny linked to this so called 'need' is more than just an coincidence.

        1. All of this started under Trump's watch. August, 2018 and it is a bad idea. Who pays from the Macy's parade in New York or every other type of ceremonial gathering in Washington? Where are the concern about those?
        In the nation's capital, no 1963, March on Washington, if we had to make everyone pay to participate. But, of course there can be no comparison between a bum like Trump and JFK.

        2. How many aspects of government that I would rather not pay for that is alove fest for the Righty? The right to peaceful assembly by anyone is a right that should be enjoyed by us all and like the city of New York cleaning up after the Macy Parade, it's part of the cost of living in a democratic system.

        1. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Hi Cred, I didn't think it would change your mind. And, like you,  if the motivation is as your linked Op-ed claims, it didn't change my mind either.

          I saw your ACLU link in another comment. I can also agree with those parameters. But ...

          Your link includes this;
          "Can government impose a financial charge on exercising free speech rights?
          Some local governments have required a fee as a condition of exercising free speech rights, such as application fees, security deposits for clean-up, or charges to cover overtime police costs. Charges that cover actual administrative costs have been permitted by some courts. ... "


          Those guidelines certainly seem to predate this new "Trump" thing. And, they don't seem to be greatly different from the discussion's "Draft Proposal." Meaning, this is a practice the ACLU has considered acceptable in the past, and it is acceptable to you now. So, beyond searching the Draft Proposal for the sneaky hooks' that the OP-ed implied were there ... where is your beef?

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Here's the rub and my biggest concern. I don't see anything from Trump making concessions to the principles delineated in the excerpt below:


            Also, regulations with financial requirements should include a waiver for groups that cannot afford the charge, so that even grassroots organizations can exercise their free speech rights. Therefore, a group without significant financial resources should not be prevented from engaging in a march simply because it cannot afford the charges the City would like to impose.

    3. Onusonus profile image78
      Onusonusposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Liberals concerned about the first amendment, what a joke.

      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Well, it is obvious that conservatives certainly are not.

        1. hard sun profile image88
          hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Parents defending a child...how far must he go before the excuses stop. They can spin, twist, intellectualize all they want. Trump is trying to stifle protest and this isn't the only thing he's attempted, or said, that reveals his discontent with the first amendment. Republicans can definitely no longer claim to be the party of patriots...unless they say they are patriotic to Trump.

          1. Onusonus profile image78
            Onusonusposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Except that every time liberals decide to protest something they end up trashing the place, destroying private property, setting stuff on fire, and attacking people they disagree with.

            The constitution says the right of the people peaceably to assemble, not loot and riot.

    4. Ken Burgess profile image92
      Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Well, it depends on your view of protest and free speech.

      How many business windows have been smashed, how many cars destroyed, how many people assaulted (or worse) in just the last two years.

      Not picking sides as to who is to blame, right wing, left wing, BLM or KKK, I could care less... what I have seen is wanton destruction of property and assaulting of anyone that doesn't stand with whatever group is out there protesting.

      Considering this is coming from the WP, a muckraker of a 'newspaper' as exists in the world today, I don't make much of it.

      According to the article, when you parse away all the bias and rhetoric, it states:  "Under the proposal, which is open to public comment, the National Park Service (NPS) would charge protesters “event management” costs. This would include the cost of barricades and fencing erected at the discretion of police, the salaries of personnel deployed to monitor the protest, trash removal and sanitation charges, permit application charges"

      Its a proposal, intended to charge the people who make a mess of the place 'clean up costs'... sounds like a good plan to me.  Someone has to pay for cleaning up the cr_p.  And protecting people from those who think it is their right to assault others.

      1. hard sun profile image88
        hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        "Considering this is coming from the WP, a muckraker of a 'newspaper' as exists in the world today, I don't make much of it."

        There is a link here to the actual Dept of Interior proposal, just an FYI

        1. Ken Burgess profile image92
          Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Yeah, GA covered it nicely, nothing needs to be added to it.

          Amazing what rational level headed review of the actual facts does to deflate topics like these from the WP.

          1. hard sun profile image88
            hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Your'e not even making sense. Why does the source matter if you can read the actual proposal? Talk about un-rational. You all just don't like someone telling you that you all drank Trump's silly juice. America will survive Trump Murica probably not.

      2. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Ken, I don't think that I was unclear about peaceable assembly and what it means. It will not be tolerated that assembly for peaceful protest and demonstration now has a cost. We will roast Trump over the coals for it. My point is WHY NOW?  Pedestrian throughfare can come down any large city street and they need to be cleaned, so what is the big deal? Trump simply does not like protests period, but he will just earn himself more with this behavior. If there are costs associate beyond reasonable wear and tear they are to be assessed after the event and not used to intimidate participants with pay to play bulls*it before it even starts. Yes, we are going to resist....

        That Woman's March in 2017 had millions of participants and no riots. The excuse of a potential riot is just an excuse for Trump to shut every one up, but voices and the controversy will become just that much loader and prominent as a result of his attempts.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image92
          Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          "Why Now?"

          I don't think this is an issue presented for diabolical or political reasons. 

          It may just be a proposal someone thought up to help cover rising costs.

          At worst, I think this MAY be in reaction to all the assaults, business glass shattering, rioting, jamming up airports, roadways, etc. that we have seen in the last two years. Maybe.

          "Why Now?"

          Because we are a month away from elections, and the muckrakers are out there finding anything and everything they can to twist and spin with their bias.

          Make everything possible about politics, get people agitated, riled up.  Tis the season for it, and obviously with you Credence, this topic hit a cord.

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            "Because we are a month away from elections, and the muckrakers are out there finding anything and everything they can to twist and spin with their bias."

            Doesn't the right have its own "muckrakers" to counter?

            Anyone restricting my right to vote or publically airing a grievance strikes a nerve, naturally.

            1. hard sun profile image88
              hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              No, not naturally because it's Trump. Considering what we are dealing with, I'll muckrack with the best of em till we take our nation back. And, I'll interfere in any Trumpian love fests  disguised as rational discussions.

            2. Ken Burgess profile image92
              Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              To answer the question, I suppose the right does have its own "muckrakers", however, I am not reading their muck, let alone carrying a pitchfork onto the forums over it.

              As to your last point, I have yet to see anything regarding this matter that in any way restricts your ability to air grievances, let alone your right to vote.

              Sorry, I'd say this particular article is hyperbolic and inflammatory for the purposes of inciting the very reaction in its readers that you espouse here.

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 13 months ago

    When I lived in a private, gated community it had a clubhouse and pool for use by residents.  OR, a resident could rent the entire thing for a private party.

    Near me is a large, enclosed space that is used for public functions such as the city rodeo.  It is rented periodically for RV shows by merchants or other sales events.

    I've rented the gym of a school for private functions.  This kind of thing is, I think relatively common - when public space is reserved for special events put on by specific people there is always a fee to be paid.

    So how is it horrible to charge for shutting off a sidewalk or street for a demonstration?  Who SHOULD pay for barricades, security, etc. for special events put on by specific people?  When public land is reserved for your specific group, who should pay the cost?

    1. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      So, you are going along with this? Who pays the cost? The same taxpayers ask to pay for 35 billion dollar do-do birds that never fly. What is the basis for changing the free speech American tradition besides the fact that Trump does not like it?

      Did you read the article and sense the direction Trump is taking us. Don't you get it? He does not want any protests..period. I hope that the ACLU rips him a 'new one', as this will not stand.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        You didn't indicate who should cover the costs of you shutting down public land, reserving it for yourself.  You decline to foot the bill; who SHOULD cover the cost then?

        This isn't about free speech, this is about using public land for private purposes without covering the cost of doing so.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Taxpayers.

          Peaceful assembly is protected by the constitution.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            So it is.  So "peacefully assemble" in groups small enough that there is no cost and public access to it's own lands is not seriously affected.

            The constitution does not guarantee that the will cover the costs of people destroying property.  It merely guarantees that people may gather without fear of govt. stopping peaceful gatherings that are harming no one.  Peaceful assembly, for example, does not mob riots burning buildings/property or sending people to the hospital.  It doesn't even mean that a few can take over public property for their own private use.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            You want ME to cover the cost for YOU to shout out messages I don't want to hear while causing as much harassment and inconvenience as possible and still be within the law?  This does not sound reasonable, at least to me.

            If you decide you would like a TV spot - a half hour ad - would you requirement me to pay for that, too, as part of your free speech?  Would you require that I purchase/rent a sound system so your voice is louder?  Should I purchase a skywriter to fly above your demonstration or rent bleachers for your audience?

            Point being, where does the requirement that I purchase what you wish to have so you can spread your message further come to an end?  As far as I'm concerned, the right to free speech does not include the right to require anyone else to spend a single dime to increase the strength of your voice.  You can stand on a streetcorner and shout; I am not required to financially  support your desire to do more.

  3. hard sun profile image88
    hard sunposted 13 months ago

    This is about as anti-democratic as it gets. What happened to the pro-Constitution Tea Party movement? Is the reality that most of these people had no clue what they were even protesting and really have no respect for the Constitution? Many Trumpians were once proud members of that movement.

    Trump and his supporters are enemies of America...he says this about the media so why should we not use the same language? It's been more than clear that Trump cares nothing about freedom. Those that defend him sound like a parent going out of their way to defend their child. It's sickening reading the excuses that so many people on this forum provide for Trump. These people need deprogrammed before we have no nation left that's worth living in.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Right on.

  4. hard sun profile image88
    hard sunposted 13 months ago

    They take a little, then a little more then a little more and it's all justified by those who condone the taking.

  5. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 13 months ago

    I don't see why anyone is upset.  You see, people have rights, but with that also comes responsibilities.  So, it requires money to protest in DC...guess what?...it costs money to get permits to protest in most cities in the United States.  You have a right to protest, but you should also be responsible with the cost associated with it.  Why should cities have to pay all the costs associated with a large group protesting?  Guess what else?  This tax affects ALL people who want to protest.  Liberals, Conservatives and more.  So, with the right to have a large protest comes the responsibility of the costs involved with it.  Adults know this is how the world works.

    1. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I am willing to abide by the link below. I still say that Trump is stifling dissent or is attempting to do so, why is all of this outrageous expense issue coming up now?

      https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/file … otests.pdf

      1. hard sun profile image88
        hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Especially from a guy who says he's proud not to pay taxes...where's Trump's responsibility? This would be one of the most regressive and anti-first Amendment taxes ever implemented..fits a pattern that people refuse to see.

        "Therefore, a group without significant financial resources
        should not be prevented from engaging in a march simply because it cannot
        afford the charges the City would like to impose."

        Maybe this is Trump's problem, or maybe it's just more posturing to his enemies of America base.

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          You know, Don, I don't buy any of the GOP explanations as nothing more as discouraging protests, as Trump thinks that his ego supercedes any regards for the right to dissent in a peaceful orderly way. All this talk about expense is BS. As I mentioned earlier, Trump was more than happy to saddle the taxpayer with some sort of Pass and Review sort of military display. How much more would that have cost in diversion of personnel and any number of logistic costs on the ground? Who pays for veterans parades in the city DC? For the conservative "wasteful" is relative as long as their addled concepts are not violated, but it is OK to gore the other guys ox.

          This is just bringing Trump, his henchmen and his supporters under just that more attention as the Blue Wave approaches. Just the sort of publicity that they all need right now, and I relish in it.

          1. hard sun profile image88
            hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Yeah exactly. Trump has always been a burden on taxpayers, clogging up our courts, not paying his share...and now he golfs and tweets his way through a "presidency."

            You may be able to rationalize this away as not a big deal, but, in the end, it's just another freedom stifling, Constitution testing attempt from the enemy of the people. There is no debating a Trump supporter anyway...Trump is right all the time and they'll go down with the ship before admitting maybe they voted wrong. I could have seen this in middle school.

            If a blue wave doesn't come, it's because it's rigged right? That's the game Trump played.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            "I don't buy any of the GOP explanations as nothing more as discouraging protests, as Trump thinks that his ego supercedes any regards for the right to dissent "

            Fair enough: I don't buy any of the liberal claims that because people are being asked to pay for the costs of their own actions (proposed, anyway) it has anything to do with Trump, his ego or the right to dissent.  Dissent all you want...on your dime.  I am at a total loss to understand why you think I should pay for you to shout your opinions at me.

      2. Live to Learn profile image80
        Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        That link you provided states that fees can be assessed for costs incurred by municipalities by protestor's actions and certain permit restrictions are allowed. How much more do you think Trump is looking for?

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Of course,we all against tents and people "nesting" in these areas. But the big problem is assessing fees without consideration as to whether participants can afford them. My First Amendment Rights should have nothing to do with how much money I have. That is a point I don't see touched on in Trump's proposal, and it is a big one. Why the restrictions on placards and signs?

          Just one example, I look to find more.

      3. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        I rather like your link, but am having trouble seeing any "outrageous expense" from any of the activities mentioned there.  A protest on the sidewalk, leaving room for normal business/person activities, for instance, will not result in charges under the proposal. 

        On the other hand, a "live in" in a park, destroying public property as it happens, WILL result in charges; something is is entirely reasonable to me.

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          It's funny that a reasonable proposal, fully outlined, with every reason to see there is no hidden agenda is presented here as ' yellow bellied'. That, to me, smacks as unreasonable.

          Room for disagreement? Definitely. Cause for dramatics? I don't see that.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            When Trump tried to ban travel from countries that did not vet travelers he was anti-muslim.  When he tried to secure our border he was a racist, and when he enforced the law he was a child abuser.

            It's all about the spin; how bad can you make it look and still be technically correct?

        2. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          You and L to L know what I am talking about. We not talking about riots and destructive behavior. I thought that you understood, L toL we are talking about freedom of assembly. With all the gatherings that go in and around DC, does this arcane attitude apply to them all or just the protests Trump abhors? You should be able to get a permit, in the case of traffic being rerouted and such. I had to suffer through that stupid Glenn Be k person a few years ago during one of his despicable Right wing rallies.

          REASONABlE cleanup behind protesters and rallies in public space is what I am willing to pay for to protect speech rights, can't be any more silly than what you gun nuts propose we are to observe as part of your rights?

          I guess, we will just see with the midterms if the voters consider this any other issues under the current regime as viable? Heaven knows what you will all do if you lose....

          So, it does matter whether you want to hear it or not, you are going to listen and people WILL Not be silenced, Trump not withstanding.

          1. hard sun profile image88
            hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            If they lose, I guarantee it was rigged...that's what Trump will say. I say if they win it's rigged...it works both ways if you're going to destroy democracy.

            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              If he ends up with a House of Representatives under Democratic control, his vaunted negotiating skills will be nothing more than to "impose martial law".

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Was it "reasonable cleanup" to bulldoze our city park  and start over after the Wall Street sit in?  Was it reasonable to supply free electricity to anyone illegally living in that park?

            Is it "reasonable cleanup" to spend an extra 50 grand picking up trash after a major protest in the mall? To spend a million in renting extra porta-johns for your party?

            Yeah, it's all about being "reasonable", but your idea of reasonable is nearly unlimited while mine is near zero for semi-private parties, whether you label them as "protests" or something else.

            You don't want to be "silenced", pay your own way.  Don't expect me to do it for you.

            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              With that attitude, why don't I ask you rightwing types to pay for the failed military dodo birds and other wasteful military spending from your own pocket. I don't see any difference, while you will try to make one? Since you want to select what a reasonable taxpayer expense is, I guess I can as well, right?

          3. Live to Learn profile image80
            Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            I do get your point and have already said I'd be against it, on the grounds that it might cause people to believe they did not have the right to protest.

            My main beef is the sensational nature of the OP. This isn't right wing b's. It is an attempt to hold parties accountable for costs incurred. Nothing devious or right wing about it.

            Of course, the ignorant comments about Nazis is bound to be regurgitated in the conversation. The left, the unending drama. Heaven help us.

            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              The message needs to be strong to make the point. And we know based on Trump's proposed radical change from American traditions of protests at the nation's capital that it is about more than just recouping costs incurred by peaceful participants trespass.

              For me, as a progressive, it is a "big deal".

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, the degradation of norms is a very big deal. Notice how the Trump supporter labels the truth about Trump's praising of Nazi sympathizers as "ignorant" and the warning about Trump's continuing efforts to suppress dissent as " unending drama. " At what point will these people say "enough"?

                1. Credence2 profile image80
                  Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  For Trump supporters, their man is covered in titanium alloy. I just see the proposed change and with Trump's record, it is not hard to see where it is leading.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image80
                    Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    You cannot have forgotten the' sky is falling' rhetoric from the right when Obama was on office. Didn't happen. They looked foolish, kind of how your fears look now.

                2. hard sun profile image88
                  hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  When we vote them out, or get them out by any means necessary..that was their motto with Obama who really did value the Constitution. They wanted a dictator from the beginning, it's clear as day.

              2. Live to Learn profile image80
                Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                I disagree on that point, the one that this is any more than attempt at conversation on costs incurred and who should cover them.

                If we could all make it a big deal when groups we support result to violence, held them accountable, denounced their tactics... maybe there'd be no need for the conversation.

  6. Live to Learn profile image80
    Live to Learnposted 13 months ago

    I found this link while attempting to find the wording of the proposal

    https://wtop.com/dc/2018/10/park-servic … est-costs/

    It says they want public comment on an idea to charge a recovery for any costs incurred. You agreed that was reasonable.

    1. hard sun profile image88
      hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Good find. That's just likely the NPS trying to dampen concerns brought about by Trump's Interior Secretary. The NPS likely doesn't want to go as far as the Trump Administration...was Trump even born in the US? Like Credence says, why do this now..fire up the Murican base..but America is coming, lol.

      "Any final decision would be made by NPS in consultation with the U.S. Department of the Interior"

  7. hard sun profile image88
    hard sunposted 13 months ago

    https://www.nps.gov/nama/learn/news/upl … -06-18.pdf

    Here's the 95 page rule proposal from the Deportment of Interior if anyone wants to read through it. There's a lot more than fees here.

    1. Live to Learn profile image80
      Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Reading through that, although I don't find their suggestions (from their point of view) exceptionally unreasonable, we have the right to peaceful assembly. It should not be in jeopardy of being abrogated by legalese. I think, for large protests, it would not be unreasonable to require a bond. To ensure damages were covered, if the protesters turn violent or destructive.

      Peaceful protesters have an obligation to keep the peace.

      1. hard sun profile image88
        hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Of course not

      2. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Your request for a bond is unreasonable as it imposes a cost on peaceful protests and I think it discourages protest and dissent. But, silencing adversaries suits conservatives just fine. I say that If there are problems, you deal with them after the fact.

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          I get your point and understand your fears. I'll be honest. Although I think a bond would be fair and reasonable, I think we should always err on the side of whatever gives us a greater assurance of peaceful assembly. So, if I had to vote, I'd be voting with you.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Not sure it is reasonable, anyway.

            "I'm going to be in the national mall on the date of XXX, pretesting YYY".  If you're interested, come on down!", repeated by 1,000 people on social media  And 200,000 people show up - who would you require to show a bond before they are allowed to walk onto the mall grass?

            Point being that if we do that, suddenly there won't BE any "organizers".  Protests will magically happen all by themselves, with the only exception being those that require shutting down streets or bridges...and the same thing could happen there, too, as protests mysteriously spill off the sidewalk onto the street (will police try to arrest 50,000 people that got "pushed off the sidewalk?").

        2. profile image76
          Hxprofposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          "silencing adversaries suits conservatives just fine"...no sir, not this conservative.  Perhaps ultra (radical) conservatives want to do that, but be careful not to lump all conservatives together on every issue.  Just like on the left, there are differences within.

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            It's been a while Prof, is the desire to squelch dissent the foundation of just the far right? I don't believe it as it appears that there is a blurring line between the "far right" and the conservative mainstream in Trumps America.

            So, I presume that after seeing all the dialogue here you have no issue with Trumps proposals?

            1. Readmikenow profile image94
              Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              This is one more reason I struggle to take liberals serious.  In your mind, it's all about YOU.  Guess what? Any conservative organization such as the March for Life will also have to pay.  The only difference is the conservative groups realize that the adults know with rights come responsibilities. A Christian group held a gathering in Washington DC and paid tens of thousands of dollars to hold it.  So, what?  Nobody is taking away anyone's right to protest.  Trump's proposal just requires them to be responsible for it.  So, what do you have against being made responsible for your actions?

              1. hard sun profile image88
                hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Did  you read the proposal? And, is there any guarantee that it will be applied fairly to all organizations? Once again, why must this be addressed now, in the middle of an administration being accused of stiffing decent, by a president who has made it clear he doesn't like protests. Let's just keep taking it without any form of Vaseline? Why? Because Trump says so, that's why.

                This is why I can't take Trumpians seriously.

              2. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Of course we are responsible for our actions, but taxing people for the right to protest, simply protest, without undue violence, property damage and the , you know, the right to peaceably assemble is unConstitutional.

                Trump wants to make everyone pay upfront and this stifles dissent. And he had better back off, because we have not heard the last of this. I don't care if Trump doesn't like what he sees from his Oval Office window, but neither did Richard Nixon or LBJ

              3. Ken Burgess profile image92
                Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Yes Indeed.

                Amazing how indignant some people get over an Op-piece published in the WP that does nothing but put spin and rhetoric on the issue to inflame people into thinking there is something diabolical going on there.

                Fish taking the bait.

                1. Readmikenow profile image94
                  Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  You are spot on.

                2. hard sun profile image88
                  hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  What if Obama tried to do the same? And, where's Trump's birth certificate, fishy? Uh oh, her comes reality.

            2. profile image76
              Hxprofposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Sure I do.  I don't support the proposal.  What I do support is punitive financial (and criminal, where appropriate) action against those who, while protesting, create a mess, or damage property.  Peaceable protest/dissent is a constitutional guarantee....peaceable.

              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Now that is an attitude from a conservative that is completely unexpected. What has happened to the rest of your moderate and reasonable brethren?

            3. profile image76
              Hxprofposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              Sure I do.  Though I'm also in favor of holding groups/individuals accountable for destruction/trashing or for any financial challenges wrought by improper behavior.  We have constitutional protection for peaceable assembly to protest......peaceable.

  8. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 13 months ago

    It really is pointless to discuss pretty much anything with those who still support Trump. They have already demonstrated that anything goes with regard to Trump: pervasive lying, praising Nazi sympathizers, assaulting women, jailing children without their parents, bullying from the Oval Office, professing love for murdering dictators, and more.

    The only thing we should focus on now is voting them all out, each and every one of the red enablers who have let this disgusting low-life denigrate and debase our country.

    If you still have an (R) beside your name after all this, you are a target for removal from office. That is what we must do to end this.

    1. hard sun profile image88
      hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Truth..and it hurts some of them to see it...where's Trump's birth certificate? The ridiculousness has gotten way out of control and those who support Trump and claim to be conservative are really out there.

      Maybe if they stopped behaving like Nazis, we'd stop calling them Nazis.

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        You know nothing about Nazis.  You throw this word around like you can comprehend it, but the more you do, the more you show your lack of knowledge and understanding of it.

        1. hard sun profile image88
          hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Well alrighty then, lol..I was writing reports on Nazis when I was 12. At any rate, you don't know me...and I really haven't said much about Nazis here so, I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about...just hurt cause someone said bad things about the orange god who says things like. What you see isn't really happening

          1. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Great, come talk to me when you have some survivors in your family.

            1. hard sun profile image88
              hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              That means nothing to me..come and talk to me when you know what I personally have been thru, not family members...at any rate, having family members persecuted by Nazis clearly doesn't make one an expert on Nazis. Atrocities are committed every day all over the world.

            2. hard sun profile image88
              hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              We could also consider this if we're giving proxmity to real Nazis weight in arguments: http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/a … olumn.html
              Holocaust survivor on Trump: 'I've seen this before — in Nazi Germany'

            3. Readmikenow profile image94
              Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              You are to be pitied and ignored.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Talking to yourself again, I see. LOL

                1. hard sun profile image88
                  hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  You said it before I did, LOL

  9. hard sun profile image88
    hard sunposted 13 months ago

    Just let em take more freedoms, then let em take more and keep defending the reasoning

  10. hard sun profile image88
    hard sunposted 13 months ago

    "Consider requiring permit applicants to pay fees to allow the NPS to recover some of the
    costs of administering permitted activities that contain protected speech."   

    Pay for free speech. That's what the article states and that's what the proposal it to do..make us pay to exercise our right to free speech. And, ads a hundred other piece of red tape to give more leeway for denial of permits.

    Oh well. Don't mind me, or that first amendment thing

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image79
    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago

    The right to dissent: Very funny.
    These days, the protesters are paid. Who is paying them? They are someone's employees. Its not like they are citizens with a real issue. To participate in facilitating deceit is not fair. Of course, they should be taxed, since someone is utilizing public lands for their own private purpose.

    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Excellent point!  If they can pay for their protesters they can pay for their protest.

    2. profile image76
      Hxprofposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      The founders would never have imagined that there would be paid protesters.  Even so, I don't see how we can tax them and not suppress first amendment rights.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image92
        Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        Speaking of Taxation... funny how the Revolutionary War/USA was established because of our refusal to pay taxes.  And for over one hundred years we did not have taxes... and in the 100+ years since they have instilled them, the government has grown to behemoth proportions, constantly spends more money than it has, and constantly raising our taxes.

        There are a LOT of things the founders would never have imagined that have now become common place in our nation.  We are far closer to being Communist China, than we are the Free & Liberated country that our founders created.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image79
          Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          It so sad that the drill keeps drilling. Its like stop already!

  12. hard sun profile image88
    hard sunposted 13 months ago

    Last surviving prosecutor at Nuremberg trials says Trump's family separation policy is ‘crime against humanity’

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … reddit.com

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Did he point to a universal law (maybe from the UN?) that children of jailed parents must accompany them to jail?  Can we read that law?

      Crime: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by government

      1. hard sun profile image88
        hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        That's the best you got? wow..here's another one for you...

        The national debt and the federal deficit are skyrocketing. How it affects you
        https://www.msn.com/en-us/finance/marke … ar-BBOsgMs

        Better cut Medicare and Social Security! Rob from the poor and give to the rich criminals...keep the blinders on...America is being raped by a criminal...patriots aren't going down without a fight...Trumpians will stay on the silly juice

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Huh.  No crime, then. 

          Why did you post a link to someone that said there WAS a crime if there wasn't?  I'm not understanding your point, especially after the short rant about medicare and SS and robbing the poor. 

          Wait.  Are you just ranting about Trump again?  Can't find anything bad, so you make something up?

          1. hard sun profile image88
            hard sunposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Go back and read the conversation if you want to understand the point.....whether a crime or not was nowhere near the point...Mike and proximity to Nazis...oh never mind.

            Remember when you called me out for making something up...the same something you had responded to...no, oh yeah you didn't. I can't expect much, it's cool.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              "Last surviving prosecutor at Nuremberg trials says Trump's family separation policy is ‘crime against humanity’"

              Sorry - I assumed you thought a crime had been committed when you posted this.

    2. profile image76
      Hxprofposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      That last surviving member of the Nuremburg prosecution must favor jailing children with their parents!  Wow, some humanitarian.

  13. hard sun profile image88
    hard sunposted 13 months ago
  14. hard sun profile image88
    hard sunposted 13 months ago

    Sorry, I assumed people following the conversation would comment.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)