ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

faerwin wrote:

Throwing a tomato isn't assault, cmon there. The tomato isn't gonna hurt anyone. If it was a rock, it would be assault.

Depending on where you live in the United States, throwing a tomato at someone would fall under:

Assault or
Battery or
Assault and Battery


"Assault: Definition

The definitions for assault vary from state-to-state, but assault is often defined as an attempt to injure to someone else, and in some circumstances can include threats or threatening behavior against others. One common definition would be an intentional attempt, using violence or force, to injure or harm another person. Another straightforward way that assault is sometimes defined is as an attempted battery. Indeed, generally the main distinction between an assault and a battery is that no contact is necessary for an assault, whereas an offensive or illegal contact must occur for a battery.

Assault: Act Requirement

Even though contact is not generally necessary for an assault offense, a conviction for assault still requires a criminal "act". The types of acts that fall into the category of assaults can vary widely, but typically an assault requires an overt or direct act that would put the reasonable person in fear for their safety. Spoken words alone will not be enough of an act to constitute an assault unless the offender backs them up with an act or actions that put the victim in reasonable fear of imminent harm.

Assault: Intent Requirement

In order commit an assault an individual need only have "general intent." What this means is that although someone can't accidentally assault another person, it is enough to show that an offender intended the actions which make up an assault. So, if an individual acts in a way that's considered dangerous to other people that can be enough to support assault charges, even if they didn't intend a particular harm to a particular individual. Moreover, an intent to scare or frighten another person can be enough to establish assault charges, as well.

Battery: Definition

Although the statutes defining battery will vary by jurisdiction, a typical definition for battery is the intentional offensive or harmful touching of another person without their consent. Under this general definition, a battery offense requires all of the following:

intentional touching;
the touching must be harmful or offensive;
no consent from the victim.
Battery: Intent Requirement

It may come as some surprise that a battery generally does not require any intent to harm the victim (although such intent often exists in battery cases). Instead, a person need only have an intent to contact or cause contact with an individual. Additionally if someone acts in a criminally reckless or negligent manner that results in such contact, it may constitute an assault. As a result, accidentally bumping into someone, offensive as the "victim" might consider it to be, would not constitute a battery.

Battery: Act Requirement

The criminal act required for battery boils down to an offensive or harmful contact. This can range anywhere from the obvious battery where a physical attack such as a punch or kick is involved, to even minimal contact in some cases. Generally, a victim doesn't need to be injured or harmed for a battery to have occurred, so long as an offensive contact is involved. In a classic example, spitting on an individual doesn't physically injure them, but it nonetheless can constitute offensive contact sufficient for a battery. Whether a particular contact is considered offensive is usually evaluated from the perspective of the "ordinary person."

Some jurisdictions have combined assault and battery into a single offense. Because the two offenses are so closely related and often occur together, this should probably come as no surprise. However, the basic concepts underlying the offense remain the same."

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-overview.html

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

So you think that a few thousands should be able to dictate a few millions because they cover more dirt ground?

quite ridiculous

Your conception is wrong on multiple counts - I'm going to use CanHasPants' numbers posted earlier -

"

CanHasPants wrote:

Donald J. Trump 62,980,160
Hillary R. Clinton 65,845,063

Really though, that is a very peculiar statistic to cite, as opposed to the 120.7 million that voted third party or didn’t vote. What even is majority?

The USA has an approximate population of 325-330 million

65 mil - 63 mil is 2 million people. Your position is suggesting that the difference in opinion of 2 million people should be able to dictate to 330 million people.

You can back off a level and say 65 million are dictating to 330 million.

We are the United States of America, not the Unified Population of America. The framers of the Constitution intended for America to be a federation of mostly independent states, not a frothy pink smoothie where everything has been blended to uniformity. Perhaps you've noticed that California and New York do things differently than Alabama or Arizona does for instance?

We would never have had a nation without the electoral college and its balancing act of states vs population.

The founding fathers were well aware of mob mentality, and rightly feared mob rule. That's why voting for president was restricted in many ways such as being land owning citizens and most importantly by being cast by delegates. The founders really didn't trust the populace without some oversight.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote:

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

You are also absolutely missing the mark in forgetting that states have rights under the Constitution. The electoral college was meant to balance out those rights. In the first election after it was set up, the minimum votes per state (3) represented approximately one third of the total votes, whereas now it represents approximatelyone fourth of the total votes. If anything, the electoral college needs to be strengthened. We would need an electoral college with approximately 625 total votes, with 2 votes per Senator to achieve the same sort of balance between states and population.

Although we seemingly have more information readily available, the population now frequently acts like an uninformed mob with torches, making death threats.

We are the United States of America - not the United America. Diversity of political opinion is our strength, not a weakness.

Very interesting argument, I would say that the idea of acres of land having an inalienable right to a representational say in government is not really what it is about though. Regarding your argument about going back to the same ratios as in the founding days it exaggerates this argument way out of proportions.

You are aware that land (or states in reality) actually had a much different ratio than what you assert. The truth of the matter was that each representative in the lower house represented 30,000 people. The ratio now is instead each representative represents about 750,000 people. So if we followed the same ratios that was used up until 1911 when it was frozen at 435 right now the electoral college instead of 535 (100 + 435) it would be closer to 10,430 (100 + 10,330)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives#Apportionments

Considering that a battery is a lesser crime than an assault, I feel it would be very weird that a failed battery is escalated to an assault and as such, is considered more dire than a successful battery.

At any rate, based on the definition of a battery provided by Dalailama, I'd agree it's a battery.

The point, faerwin, is that your side condones political violence when it's inflicted upon your opposition. You say that violence that doesn't cause substantial injury isn't violence; when your opposition defends itself against the violent, you ignore the context and reframe defense as aggression; you are quick to claim anything your opposition says can (and, you claim, will) lead to violence, but you never hold yourselves to the same standard (nor should you). There are even those who claim words are themselves violence, justifying the assault and battery of people who are but exercising their right to free speech.

That cartoon you guys are quick to refer to, that's beyond hypocrisy. It's propaganda designed to normalize violence against conservatives.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The point, faerwin, is that your side condones political tomatoes when it's inflicted upon your opposition. You say that tomatoes that don't cause substantial injury aren't violence; when your opposition defends itself against the tomatoes, you ignore the context and reframe defense as aggression; you are quick to claim anything your opposition says can (and, you claim, will) lead to violence, but you never hold yourselves to the same standard (nor should you). There are even those who claim words are themselves violence, justifying the throwing of tomatoes at people who are but exercising their right to free speech.

That cartoon you guys are quick to refer to, that's beyond hypocrisy. It's propaganda designed to normalize tomatoes against conservatives.

Is this what you meant to write? (bolded my edits)

Some speech are violence. I'm sorry but you don't get to go full nazi against a jewish person or full KKK against a black person (plenty of other examples are available).

Freedom of speech only means that the state isn't allowed to detain/arrest you for opposing it. It doesn't mean that you are free to make threats (I certainly consider nazism and KKK to be threats) to anyone and be protected by the first. Now, I'm not accusing anyone of this kind of behavior here. The only person I'd accuse of this kind of behavior is Alex Jones. Trump also fit (past tense) the bill during some of the rallies depicted earlier but hasn't done it again since then, at least, not in the open. Extremists, of ANY political spectrum, when they are using a speech that promote violence, shouldn't be protected from the law by the 1st. The same way a mob leader isn't free to order executions because of free speech. Also, open and aggressive racism shouldn't be protected by the first imo. Antagonizing someone verbally is way worse than something like slandering/defamation and yet slandering/defamation isn't allowed under the law.


Now, I do not consider someone that exercise their right to support Trump automatically as someone that are threatening others. Unfortunately, there's a good portion of both side that see the other voter base as an enemy (And Trump certainly doesn't help when he call the free press "enemy of the people"). That behavior, unfortunately do happen by some left winged people just like it happens with right winged people.


I do denounce any of those militants that go and break windows, put cars on fire or are violent. I certainly do NOT approve of that kind of behavior, left or right.

Throwing tomatoes isn't violence because the intent isn't to harm, damage or destroy. Just like graffiti aren't violence (unless it's done in a way to incite violence). Riots aren't inherently violent either (they do, however, become violent way too often).

The mistake you make is that you think I consider defense as a problem. It's not that. What I consider a problem is excessive employ of force to remedy a problem. The same way you don't (shouldn't) shoot a kid for stealing a candy bar, you don't beat up someone protesting against your political camp, even if they are in the same crowd as you. If a Trump supporter went to a Clinton rally and started shouting about Trump, I'd expect him to be expelled, just like the reverse. I'd certainly wouldn't support him getting beat up for his views. I'd certainly consider the ones responsible for such violence as deplorable even if they are democrats. Difference is that Trump encouraged such behavior.

Let me ask you, since you didn't say you found such behavior to be problematic, would you have found it problematic if Hillary went and said that she wants the republicans disrupting her rallies to be beat up? Me, I would have without hesitation.

Don't you find it disgusting when he call the free press "enemy of the people"?


If anything, I have higher standards for the side I support than the other(s) side(s).

Let me be more clear about what I just said:

I was slightly off saying that that cartoon is normalization of violence; it's more accurately an ingredient to it. My concern is Antifa violence porn. If terrorist violence porn (left or right) is like a poutine, then moral justifications for violence are like the fries: they provide the base and are enjoyable when consumed on their own; the violence itself, or more specifically its retelling in media and in radical propaganda, is like the curds; a lack of arrests or prosecutions for that violence, indicating support from and/or incompetence of law enforcement, is the gravy.

Now I am aware that highlighting my concern over the frequency and spread of left-wing political violence can be misappropriated as propaganda to form the "fries" of a right-wing "poutine." But that's not really what I want. What I want is security to minimize violence as it would occur, and harsh punishments for violators — yes, Cool, even tomato chuckers — so that there's no "curds and gravy." I'm not going to shut up and avoid speaking truth just because some misguided asshole might use it as a reason to do dumb shit, and the fact is there's a lot of left-wing political violence out there, consistently, and a lot less of the right-wing sort — although, disturbingly, they're starting to get so much "fries" it's starting not to matter they get near zero "gravy."

This shit needs to stop, and cartoons like that, while protected by the 1st amendment, are misleading enough where they should be fought. It's /pol/-tier radical propaganda, just with the partisanship flipped — and it should be treated like /pol/-tier radical propaganda.

Apologies if this double posts - servers still acting wonky on my browser at the moment.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Very interesting argument, I would say that the idea of acres of land having an inalienable right to a representational say in government is not really what it is about though. Regarding your argument about going back to the same ratios as in the founding days it exaggerates this argument way out of proportions.

It isn't an idea. It is the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

"

Turtledove wrote:

You are aware that land (or states in reality) actually had a much different ratio than what you assert. The truth of the matter was that each representative in the lower house represented 30,000 people. The ratio now is instead each representative represents about 750,000 people. So if we followed the same ratios that was used up until 1911 when it was frozen at 435 right now the electoral college instead of 535 (100 + 435) it would be closer to 10,430 (100 + 10,330)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives#Apportionments

Your math and your data are correct.

The balance you have for the states in voting is not a balance at all, but a running total, which is explicitly what the framers sought to avoid with the electoral college (as well as the bicameral congress)

In the first election there were 3 (1 per senator, 1 per representative) voted guaranteed per state as a minimum to protect against voting dilution by large populations. This meant 39 votes out of 91. That means 42.8% of the electoral college was reserved to States.

Some states still had a disproportionately large effect. Virginia with its massive 12 electoral college votes out of 91, would be like a current day state having 71 electoral college votes.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/scores.html#1789
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1788%E2%80%9389_United_States_presidential_election#Electoral_vote


Fairly brief and unbiased overview of how electoral college was decided on here: https://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Apologies if this double posts - servers still acting wonky on my browser at the moment.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Very interesting argument, I would say that the idea of acres of land having an inalienable right to a representational say in government is not really what it is about though. Regarding your argument about going back to the same ratios as in the founding days it exaggerates this argument way out of proportions.

It isn't an idea. It is the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Yes, the comment about interesting argument was referring to your assertions about the current reality of small states having a relatively larger voice in the electoral college and needing even a larger voice. I understand about state rights. What is not being argued here is whether or not there should be such a thing as states rights. Protection for minorities is important in a democracy similarly protection of small states rights versus large states is important in our implementation of democracy. What I think is being discussed is the states rights protection now relative to the first 100 years or so of our founding.

I argue that the vast majority of small state protection is built into the constitution, especially in the Senate. The Senate has different and in some ways greater power than the House. Small and large states are represented equally in the Senate.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

You are aware that land (or states in reality) actually had a much different ratio than what you assert. The truth of the matter was that each representative in the lower house represented 30,000 people. The ratio now is instead each representative represents about 750,000 people. So if we followed the same ratios that was used up until 1911 when it was frozen at 435 right now the electoral college instead of 535 (100 + 435) it would be closer to 10,430 (100 + 10,330)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives#Apportionments

Your math and your data are correct.

The balance you have for the states in voting is not a balance at all, but a running total, which is explicitly what the framers sought to avoid with the electoral college (as well as the bicameral congress)

In the first election there were 3 (1 per senator, 1 per representative) voted guaranteed per state as a minimum to protect against voting dilution by large populations. This meant 39 votes out of 91. That means 42.8% of the electoral college was reserved to States.

Some states still had a disproportionately large effect. Virginia with its massive 12 electoral college votes out of 91, would be like a current day state having 71 electoral college votes.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/scores.html#1789
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1788%E2%80%9389_United_States_presidential_election#Electoral_vote


Fairly brief and unbiased overview of how electoral college was decided on here: https://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php

I appreciate the excellent post and agree and understood the electoral college as originally designed.

The links you provided were interesting. I especially liked the last link.

Thank you for explaining where your numbers came from. That is exactly what I had assumed.

I understand that the idea of political parties was not part of the original design of the electoral college. A few hundred years ago the logistics required for a national election probably also felt like a daunting task. The current reality is that political parties are here to stay and a national election is much easier to handle.

My basic argument is that making the only national election in our country less democratic instead of more democratic would not be a good approach. (Note the lower case democratic is referring to democracy not the political party.)