Labor Party Convention Fall 2020 - Portland, Maine (voting on convention site)

[Lambsbread]

I know you all have some "peaceful" demonstrations in mind but it is a really wrong idea to ban tear gaz. Like you know, when the nazi were demonstrating in Virginia, tear gaz would have been quite useful!

The idea of reserving tear gas, something banned under international law as a war crime, only for one's political opponents seems like an incredibly slippery slope.

[SevenEleven]

I know you all have some "peaceful" demonstrations in mind but it is a really wrong idea to ban tear gaz. Like you know, when the nazi were demonstrating in Virginia, tear gaz would have been quite useful!

The idea of reserving tear gas, something banned under international law as a war crime, only for one's political opponents seems like an incredibly slippery slope.

Yeah, it would be better to keep them gathered at the protest and have infiltrators go around micro-chipping them.

[Continential]

I know you all have some "peaceful" demonstrations in mind but it is a really wrong idea to ban tear gaz. Like you know, when the nazi were demonstrating in Virginia, tear gaz would have been quite useful!

So much for wanting to prosecute George W Bush and other people for war crimes when a influential member is willing to be a war criminal.

[windjammer]

I know you all have some "peaceful" demonstrations in mind but it is a really wrong idea to ban tear gaz. Like you know, when the nazi were demonstrating in Virginia, tear gaz would have been quite useful!

So much for wanting to prosecute George W Bush and other people for war crimes when a influential member is willing to be a war criminal.

This is absolutely not true. It is not forbidden to maintain peace at home, only forbidden in an armed conflict between two countries.

[windjammer]

I know you all have some "peaceful" demonstrations in mind but it is a really wrong idea to ban tear gaz. Like you know, when the nazi were demonstrating in Virginia, tear gaz would have been quite useful!

The idea of reserving tear gas, something banned under international law as a war crime, only for one's political opponents seems like an incredibly slippery slope.

How would you stop a KKK riot that could lynch blacks then?

[Lambsbread]

I know you all have some "peaceful" demonstrations in mind but it is a really wrong idea to ban tear gaz. Like you know, when the nazi were demonstrating in Virginia, tear gaz would have been quite useful!

The idea of reserving tear gas, something banned under international law as a war crime, only for one's political opponents seems like an incredibly slippery slope.

How would you stop a KKK riot that could lynch blacks then?

Well, first of all, if there is such a significant insurrection that the KKK (or any group) is showing up en masse with the legitimate ability to "lynch blacks" then a state of emergency would be declared and the national guard would be brought in--they're not going to try to disperse those people, they're going to try to arrest those people. That is no longer a law enforcement issue, it's a national security issue.

Second of all, the job of our intelligence community is to (allegedly) monitor events such as the one you're describing and stop them before they even get there--so many of these people would be arrested for inciting terrorism before such an event would even take place.

Third of all, if international law dictates that it is a war crime to use tear gas on foreign enemy combatants, no matter the circumstance, then we should not allow an exception for domestic terrorism either--no matter how heinous and vile their ideology may be. Because when the tide inevitably turns and fascists come to power, they will use it against people who believe that, yknow, it's BAD to "lynch blacks."

[Continential]

I know you all have some "peaceful" demonstrations in mind but it is a really wrong idea to ban tear gaz. Like you know, when the nazi were demonstrating in Virginia, tear gaz would have been quite useful!

The idea of reserving tear gas, something banned under international law as a war crime, only for one's political opponents seems like an incredibly slippery slope.

How would you stop a KKK riot that could lynch blacks then?

We didn't use tear gas in the LA Riots in 1992, why should we do it today?

[windjammer]

I know you all have some "peaceful" demonstrations in mind but it is a really wrong idea to ban tear gaz. Like you know, when the nazi were demonstrating in Virginia, tear gaz would have been quite useful!

The idea of reserving tear gas, something banned under international law as a war crime, only for one's political opponents seems like an incredibly slippery slope.

How would you stop a KKK riot that could lynch blacks then?

Well, first of all, if there is such a significant insurrection that the KKK (or any group) is showing up en masse with the legitimate ability to "lynch blacks" then a state of emergency would be declared and the national guard would be brought in--they're not going to try to disperse those people, they're going to try to arrest those people. That is no longer a law enforcement issue, it's a national security issue.

Second of all, the job of our intelligence community is to (allegedly) monitor events such as the one you're describing and stop them before they even get there--so many of these people would be arrested for inciting terrorism before such an event would even take place.

Third of all, if international law dictates that it is a war crime to use tear gas on foreign enemy combatants, no matter the circumstance, then we should not allow an exception for domestic terrorism either--no matter how heinous and vile their ideology may be. Because when the tide inevitably turns and fascists come to power, they will use it against people who believe that, yknow, it's BAD to "lynch blacks."

I know you all have some "peaceful" demonstrations in mind but it is a really wrong idea to ban tear gaz. Like you know, when the nazi were demonstrating in Virginia, tear gaz would have been quite useful!

The idea of reserving tear gas, something banned under international law as a war crime, only for one's political opponents seems like an incredibly slippery slope.

How would you stop a KKK riot that could lynch blacks then?

We didn't use tear gas in the LA Riots in 1992, why should we do it today?

You are both making the role of the police harder to keep order. There is a big difference between tear gaz being used during riots and the king of tear gaz being used during world wars.


And then this is me who is a "war criminal". You are giving up on the state's duty to maintain peace.

[Continential]

I know you all have some "peaceful" demonstrations in mind but it is a really wrong idea to ban tear gaz. Like you know, when the nazi were demonstrating in Virginia, tear gaz would have been quite useful!

The idea of reserving tear gas, something banned under international law as a war crime, only for one's political opponents seems like an incredibly slippery slope.

How would you stop a KKK riot that could lynch blacks then?

Well, first of all, if there is such a significant insurrection that the KKK (or any group) is showing up en masse with the legitimate ability to "lynch blacks" then a state of emergency would be declared and the national guard would be brought in--they're not going to try to disperse those people, they're going to try to arrest those people. That is no longer a law enforcement issue, it's a national security issue.

Second of all, the job of our intelligence community is to (allegedly) monitor events such as the one you're describing and stop them before they even get there--so many of these people would be arrested for inciting terrorism before such an event would even take place.

Third of all, if international law dictates that it is a war crime to use tear gas on foreign enemy combatants, no matter the circumstance, then we should not allow an exception for domestic terrorism either--no matter how heinous and vile their ideology may be. Because when the tide inevitably turns and fascists come to power, they will use it against people who believe that, yknow, it's BAD to "lynch blacks."

I know you all have some "peaceful" demonstrations in mind but it is a really wrong idea to ban tear gaz. Like you know, when the nazi were demonstrating in Virginia, tear gaz would have been quite useful!

The idea of reserving tear gas, something banned under international law as a war crime, only for one's political opponents seems like an incredibly slippery slope.

How would you stop a KKK riot that could lynch blacks then?

We didn't use tear gas in the LA Riots in 1992, why should we do it today?

And then this is me who is a "war criminal". You are giving up on the state's duty to maintain peace.

A state's duty to maintain peace could mean genocide or death or ending of human rights.

[OBD]

It appears we have an intruder. Security?

[Dr. MB]

Labor Presidential Primary

[] HCP/ Devout Centrist
[] MB/ Ted Bessell

72 hours to vote.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Labor Presidential Primary

[] HCP/ Devout Centrist
[X] MB/ Ted Bessell

[Mike Thick]

1. MB/Ted
2. HCP/DC

[SevenEleven]

1. Mb
2. HCP
3. HCP
4. Mb

[Dr. MB]

1. mb

[Badger]

HCP/DC

[Left Wing]

[] HCP/ Devout Centrist
[X] MB/ Ted Bessell

[Former President tack50]

1: Write-in: Tack50
2: MB

[Lambsbread]

[1] MB/Ted Bessell
[2] R2D2/Tack50

[thumb21]

MB

[Rookie Yinzer]

1. Hummus con pita

[OBD]

1. BM/BedTessell
2. HCP

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

MB

[Sestak]

HCP/DC.


Also please change the thread title. By just looking at it I'd have no idea a primary vote was going on. VOTER SUPPRESSION, RIGGED!

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

1. HCP