Jump to content
The Official Site of the San Jose Sharks

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

danvilleshark

OT The Pit V cant we all just get along?

Recommended Posts

 

Also I don't see how this guy can assert his Fifth Amendment rights when the Justice Department has already granted him immunity. 

 

That has back door deal written all over it.

 

Expect to see this guy in Clinton's cabinet if she wins...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

prez of the board has now completely disbanded the facebook group. there will be no further dissent allowed expressed by the rabble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

prez of the board has now completely disbanded the facebook group. there will be no further dissent allowed expressed by the rabble.

 

Yeah, he knows the more people know the worse it looks for him.

You need to look VERY carefully at the rules for special election and oust enough of the board to gain majority status.

This is the only way, then get ready to go to court....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#notatrend

 

Seattle University has apparently caved to the demands of student activists, putting a besieged dean on administrative leave after protesters claimed the liberal-arts curriculum focused too much on classical Western history and philosophy.

“I have taken this action because I believe, based on information that has come forward in over the past several weeks, that successful operations of the college at this time require that she step away from day-to-day management and oversight,” Seattle University’s interim provost wrote in an email announcing the decision.

For more than three weeks, a group of students have staged a sit-in at Seattle University’s Matteo Ricci College. One student complained to the Seattle Times that “the only thing they’re teaching us is dead white dudes.” They have demanded the resignation of Dean Jodi Kelly.

In a written statement, the protesters said that “dissatisfaction, traumatization and boredom” have characterized their time as students, “as well as being ridiculed, traumatized, othered, tokenized and pathologized.” They claim “these experiences have been profoundly damaging and erasing, with lasting effects on our mental and emotional well-being.”

The protesters, who call themselves the MRC Coalition and say they’re “led by ***** folx, womxn of color, and people of color,” issued a lengthy list of demands, including an overhaul of the college’s curriculum that “decentralizes whiteness and has a critical focus on the evolution of systems of oppression.”

They have also called for Kelly’s resignation, arguing that she “personally perpetuates much of the violence embedded against MRC.”

Administrators first tried to compromise, offering cultural-literacy training for faculty and a curriculum review. Kelly herself said she’d also work with an outside consultant to gauge the university’s culture and racial climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they want her back? Does the administration think she did a good job? Does our so called media have the balls to ask about this? I think we all know the answers here....

 

Lawmakers are fuming over what they describe as a "shameful" decision by the Justice Department that could help the former head of the scandal-scarred Phoenix Veterans Affairs hospital get her job back.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in a letter sent Tuesday, notified House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., that the DOJ would not defend a key provision of the Veteran Affairs reform law, passed in the wake of the scandal over officials covering up long patient wait-times.

The provision in question had helped uphold the expedited firing of the Phoenix official at the heart of the scandal, Sharon Helman.

Now, lawmakers say Lynch's decision could put Helman back on the job, as she pursues a lawsuit against the government.  

Helman had been fired in November 2014 amid criticism not only over the wait-time cover-ups at the Phoenix VA but also unreported gifts. Congressional critics warn the DOJ move is a blow to accountability. 

“The effect of this reckless action is clear: It undermines very modest reforms to our broken civil service system supported in 2014 by the president and an overwhelming majority of Congress,” House Veteran Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller, R-Fla., said in a statement Wednesday night.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#notatrend

 

Seattle University has apparently caved to the demands of student activists, putting a besieged dean on administrative leave after protesters claimed the liberal-arts curriculum focused too much on classical Western history and philosophy.

“I have taken this action because I believe, based on information that has come forward in over the past several weeks, that successful operations of the college at this time require that she step away from day-to-day management and oversight,” Seattle University’s interim provost wrote in an email announcing the decision.

For more than three weeks, a group of students have staged a sit-in at Seattle University’s Matteo Ricci College. One student complained to the Seattle Times that “the only thing they’re teaching us is dead white dudes.” They have demanded the resignation of Dean Jodi Kelly.

In a written statement, the protesters said that “dissatisfaction, traumatization and boredom” have characterized their time as students, “as well as being ridiculed, traumatized, othered, tokenized and pathologized.” They claim “these experiences have been profoundly damaging and erasing, with lasting effects on our mental and emotional well-being.”

The protesters, who call themselves the MRC Coalition and say they’re “led by ***** folx, womxn of color, and people of color,” issued a lengthy list of demands, including an overhaul of the college’s curriculum that “decentralizes whiteness and has a critical focus on the evolution of systems of oppression.”

They have also called for Kelly’s resignation, arguing that she “personally perpetuates much of the violence embedded against MRC.”

Administrators first tried to compromise, offering cultural-literacy training for faculty and a curriculum review. Kelly herself said she’d also work with an outside consultant to gauge the university’s culture and racial climate.

Yeah, you cannot and you must not negotiate with hongweibings. Immediate dismissal from the University that's the only way for the sane staff to protect itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they want her back? Does the administration think she did a good job? Does our so called media have the balls to ask about this? I think we all know the answers here....

 

Lawmakers are fuming over what they describe as a "shameful" decision by the Justice Department that could help the former head of the scandal-scarred Phoenix Veterans Affairs hospital get her job back.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in a letter sent Tuesday, notified House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., that the DOJ would not defend a key provision of the Veteran Affairs reform law, passed in the wake of the scandal over officials covering up long patient wait-times.

The provision in question had helped uphold the expedited firing of the Phoenix official at the heart of the scandal, Sharon Helman.

Now, lawmakers say Lynch's decision could put Helman back on the job, as she pursues a lawsuit against the government.  

Helman had been fired in November 2014 amid criticism not only over the wait-time cover-ups at the Phoenix VA but also unreported gifts. Congressional critics warn the DOJ move is a blow to accountability. 

“The effect of this reckless action is clear: It undermines very modest reforms to our broken civil service system supported in 2014 by the president and an overwhelming majority of Congress,” House Veteran Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller, R-Fla., said in a statement Wednesday night.  

Everyone who thought it couldn't be worse than Eric Holder, brace for impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point will Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton call BLM what they really are? When will the press ask them about this?

 

walterhudson-798668980.jpg 

BY WALTER HUDSON JUNE 2, 2016

 

Black Lives Matter Minneapolis had been chomping at the bit for any excuse to join the national fray incited after the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. They found their cause du jour in the person of Jamar Clark, a Minneapolis man killed in an alteration with police after he interfered with emergency medical service attempts to provide care to his domestic abuse victim.

For months, Black Lives Matter Minneapolis has organized criminal activity in protest of the police. They spent 18 days in illegal "occupation" of the Fourth Precinct police station, burning fires in the street and hindering law enforcement service for local residents. They shut down the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on Christmas Eve, preventing families from reuniting for the holiday. They peppered the Twin Cities area with similar disruptions and threats of disruption, all to demand a vaguely defined "justice."

Part of their demand included a federal investigation into Clark's death, premised on the wholly unfounded notion that local and state authorities cannot be trusted. They got their federal investigation. That investigation concluded, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune recently reported the result:

Federal authorities said Wednesday that they would not pursue civil rights charges against two Minneapolis police officers in the shooting death of Jamar Clark, a decision met with both outrage and resignation by activists who for months have demanded prosecution.

 

 

U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger, leaning heavily on whether Clark was handcuffed by police before being shot and other factors, said there was insufficient evidence to bring a federal case.

 

 

“I want you to understand that this is one of the highest legal standards under criminal law,” Luger told reporters at FBI offices in Brooklyn Center. “It is not enough to show the officers made a mistake, that they acted negligently, by accident or even that they exercised bad judgment to prove a crime. We would have had to show that they specifically intended to commit a crime.”

 

 

Critics responded almost immediately to the decision with anger, insisting the case was the latest example of the callousness of the criminal justice system toward blacks. Both officers are white, while Clark was black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they want her back? Does the administration think she did a good job? Does our so called media have the balls to ask about this? I think we all know the answers here....

 

Lawmakers are fuming over what they describe as a "shameful" decision by the Justice Department that could help the former head of the scandal-scarred Phoenix Veterans Affairs hospital get her job back.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in a letter sent Tuesday, notified House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., that the DOJ would not defend a key provision of the Veteran Affairs reform law, passed in the wake of the scandal over officials covering up long patient wait-times.

The provision in question had helped uphold the expedited firing of the Phoenix official at the heart of the scandal, Sharon Helman.

Now, lawmakers say Lynch's decision could put Helman back on the job, as she pursues a lawsuit against the government.  

Helman had been fired in November 2014 amid criticism not only over the wait-time cover-ups at the Phoenix VA but also unreported gifts. Congressional critics warn the DOJ move is a blow to accountability. 

“The effect of this reckless action is clear: It undermines very modest reforms to our broken civil service system supported in 2014 by the president and an overwhelming majority of Congress,” House Veteran Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller, R-Fla., said in a statement Wednesday night.  

This is a dangerous precedent that AGs are starting to use.  They are basically deciding which laws will be enforced or defended which is basically a way for a single person to nullify a duly passed law of Congress.  The California AG did it in the *** marriage case where they refused to defend the law.  The proponents then took up the defense of the law and the Supreme Court bounced them due to a lack of standing.

 

Whether or not you agree with a law it your duty as Attorney General to enforce and defend the duly passed laws of the land.  If you don't like the law then work to get the law changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point will Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton call BLM what they really are? When will the press ask them about this?

 

walterhudson-798668980.jpg 

BY WALTER HUDSON JUNE 2, 2016

 

Black Lives Matter Minneapolis had been chomping at the bit for any excuse to join the national fray incited after the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. They found their cause du jour in the person of Jamar Clark, a Minneapolis man killed in an alteration with police after he interfered with emergency medical service attempts to provide care to his domestic abuse victim.

For months, Black Lives Matter Minneapolis has organized criminal activity in protest of the police. They spent 18 days in illegal "occupation" of the Fourth Precinct police station, burning fires in the street and hindering law enforcement service for local residents. They shut down the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on Christmas Eve, preventing families from reuniting for the holiday. They peppered the Twin Cities area with similar disruptions and threats of disruption, all to demand a vaguely defined "justice."

Part of their demand included a federal investigation into Clark's death, premised on the wholly unfounded notion that local and state authorities cannot be trusted. They got their federal investigation. That investigation concluded, and the Minneapolis Star Tribune recently reported the result:

Federal authorities said Wednesday that they would not pursue civil rights charges against two Minneapolis police officers in the shooting death of Jamar Clark, a decision met with both outrage and resignation by activists who for months have demanded prosecution.

 

 

U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger, leaning heavily on whether Clark was handcuffed by police before being shot and other factors, said there was insufficient evidence to bring a federal case.

 

 

“I want you to understand that this is one of the highest legal standards under criminal law,” Luger told reporters at FBI offices in Brooklyn Center. “It is not enough to show the officers made a mistake, that they acted negligently, by accident or even that they exercised bad judgment to prove a crime. We would have had to show that they specifically intended to commit a crime.”

 

 

Critics responded almost immediately to the decision with anger, insisting the case was the latest example of the callousness of the criminal justice system toward blacks. Both officers are white, while Clark was black.

This is something the DA in Baltimore needed to understand before bringing charges against the officers involved in Freddy Gray's death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something the DA in Baltimore needed to understand before bringing charges against the officers involved in Freddy Gray's death.

 

But that does not fit the left social justice white privilege agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my favorite part of the article:

 

Naturally, Black Lives Matter responded with the claim that justice had not been served. Their pattern of behavior indicates that their sense of "justice" constitutes certain results, rather than a certain process.

Indeed, nearly every demand the group has made has been met, even against the advice of law enforcement policy experts. The county attorney general in charge of the case opted against using a grand jury. After deciding not to charge the officers involved, he released all the evidence used to arrive at his decision. The investigation was joined by the state's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, alongside the federal investigation. Basically, Black Lives Matter got everything they wanted short of a lynch mob execution of the officers. Yet none of it has been good enough.

 

Worst of all, Black Lives Matter Minneapolis has achieved one of their sought-after systematic reforms. A plank of their platform has been an end to so-called "broken window policing," whereby officers crack down on minor violations in an effort to deter and detect major ones. That plank has effectively been fulfilled in recent months by an unofficial but largely recognized work slowdown by the Minneapolis Police Department. Officers, having been all but forsaken by city officials, have taken a less proactive approach to law enforcement. There has concurrently been increased crime in the city, including a series of shootings, some resulting in death.

 

The response from police critics like Black Lives Matter? Why, blame the police, of course. After getting precisely what they wanted, less policing, they turn around and blame the cops for the requisite increase in crime. It's a wonder why anyone chooses to work for the Minneapolis Police Department.

 

 

At least some top city officials seem to have tired of the Black Lives Matter antics:

 

Both Harteau and Hodges had gone out of their way to accommodate the protesters, a stance which won them no friends on either side of the divide. The police in the field have resented being forsaken, and Black Lives Matter will be sated by nothing short of blood.

 

In statements, Police Chief Janeé Harteau and Mayor Betsy Hodges endorsed both the state and federal findings.

 

“We have had two thorough investigations into this matter that arrived at the same conclusion. I am satisfied with the thoroughness of these investigations, am confident in their results, and I hope the public will accept their conclusions,” Harteau said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why is BLM not called out for:

 

Making race relations worse

Making lives more dangerous for both police and the people they say they speak for

Continuing the cycle of blaming anyone but the so called community for their failed state

Hurting the future of black lives

 

BLM has a greater negative impact on black lives today than the Klan does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A smuggling network has managed to sneak illegal immigrants from Middle East terrorism hotbeds straight to the doorstep of the U.S., including helping one Afghan man authorities say was part of an attack plot in North America.


Immigration officials have identified at least a dozen Middle Eastern men smuggled into the Western Hemisphere by a Brazilian-based network that connected them with Mexicans who guided them up to the U.S. border, according to internal government documents reviewed by The Washington Times.


Those smuggled included Palestinians, Pakistanis and the Afghan man who Homeland Security officials said had family ties to the Taliban and was “involved in a plot to conduct an attack in the U.S. and/or Canada.” He is in custody but the Times is withholding his name at the request of law enforcement to protect ongoing investigations.


Some of the men handled by the smuggling network were nabbed before they got to the U.S., but others actually made it into the country, including the Afghan man who was part of a group of six from so-called “special interest countries.”


The group, guided by two Mexicans employed by the smuggling network, crawled under the border fence in Arizona late last year and made it about 15 miles north before being detected by border surveillance, according to the documents, which were obtained by Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican.


Law enforcement asked The Times to withhold the name of the smuggling network.


It’s unclear whether the network succeeded in sneaking other “special interest” illegal immigrants by border officials, but the documents obtained by Mr. Hunter confirm fears of a pipeline that can get would-be illegal immigrants from terrorist hotbeds to the threshold of the U.S.


Just as troubling, the Border Patrol didn’t immediately spot the Afghan man’s terrorist ties because the database agents first checked didn’t list him. It wasn’t until they also checked an FBI database that they learned he may be a danger, the documents say.


“It’s disturbing, in so many ways,” said Joe Kasper, Mr. Hunter’s chief of staff. “The interdiction of this group validates once again that the southern border is wide open to more than people looking to enter the U.S. illegally strictly for purposes of looking for work, as the administration wants us to believe. What’s worse, federal databases weren’t even synched and Border Patrol had no idea who they were arresting and the group was not considered a problem because none of them were considered a priority under the president’s enforcement protocol. That’s a major problem on its own, and it calls for DHS to figure out the problem — and fast.”


Mr. Hunter wrote a letter to to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson this week demanding answers about the breakdowns in the process.


Both U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is the chief agency charged with sniffing out smuggling networks, and Customs and Border Protection, which oversees the Border Patrol and which initially failed to sniff out the terrorist connections, declined to comment. Homeland Security, which oversees both agencies, didn’t provide an answer either.


The group of six men nabbed after they already got into the U.S. — the Afghan and five men identified as Pakistanis — all made asylum claims when they were eventually caught by the Border Patrol. Mr. Hunter said his understanding is that the five men from Pakistan were released based on those claims, and have disappeared.


The government documents reviewed by The Times didn’t say how much the smugglers charged, but did detail some of their operation.


Would-be illegal immigrants were first identified by a contact in the Middle East, who reported them to the smuggling network in Brazil. That network then arranged their travel up South America and through Central America, where some of them were nabbed by U.S. allies.


In the case of the Afghan man with terrorist ties, he was smuggled from Brazil through Peru, then Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala and finally Mexico.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A smuggling network has managed to sneak illegal immigrants from Middle East terrorism hotbeds straight to the doorstep of the U.S., including helping one Afghan man authorities say was part of an attack plot in North America.

Immigration officials have identified at least a dozen Middle Eastern men smuggled into the Western Hemisphere by a Brazilian-based network that connected them with Mexicans who guided them up to the U.S. border, according to internal government documents reviewed by The Washington Times.

Those smuggled included Palestinians, Pakistanis and the Afghan man who Homeland Security officials said had family ties to the Taliban and was “involved in a plot to conduct an attack in the U.S. and/or Canada.” He is in custody but the Times is withholding his name at the request of law enforcement to protect ongoing investigations.

Some of the men handled by the smuggling network were nabbed before they got to the U.S., but others actually made it into the country, including the Afghan man who was part of a group of six from so-called “special interest countries.”

The group, guided by two Mexicans employed by the smuggling network, crawled under the border fence in Arizona late last year and made it about 15 miles north before being detected by border surveillance, according to the documents, which were obtained by Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican.

Law enforcement asked The Times to withhold the name of the smuggling network.

It’s unclear whether the network succeeded in sneaking other “special interest” illegal immigrants by border officials, but the documents obtained by Mr. Hunter confirm fears of a pipeline that can get would-be illegal immigrants from terrorist hotbeds to the threshold of the U.S.

Just as troubling, the Border Patrol didn’t immediately spot the Afghan man’s terrorist ties because the database agents first checked didn’t list him. It wasn’t until they also checked an FBI database that they learned he may be a danger, the documents say.

“It’s disturbing, in so many ways,” said Joe Kasper, Mr. Hunter’s chief of staff. “The interdiction of this group validates once again that the southern border is wide open to more than people looking to enter the U.S. illegally strictly for purposes of looking for work, as the administration wants us to believe. What’s worse, federal databases weren’t even synched and Border Patrol had no idea who they were arresting and the group was not considered a problem because none of them were considered a priority under the president’s enforcement protocol. That’s a major problem on its own, and it calls for DHS to figure out the problem — and fast.”

Mr. Hunter wrote a letter to to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson this week demanding answers about the breakdowns in the process.

Both U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is the chief agency charged with sniffing out smuggling networks, and Customs and Border Protection, which oversees the Border Patrol and which initially failed to sniff out the terrorist connections, declined to comment. Homeland Security, which oversees both agencies, didn’t provide an answer either.

The group of six men nabbed after they already got into the U.S. — the Afghan and five men identified as Pakistanis — all made asylum claims when they were eventually caught by the Border Patrol. Mr. Hunter said his understanding is that the five men from Pakistan were released based on those claims, and have disappeared.

The government documents reviewed by The Times didn’t say how much the smugglers charged, but did detail some of their operation.

Would-be illegal immigrants were first identified by a contact in the Middle East, who reported them to the smuggling network in Brazil. That network then arranged their travel up South America and through Central America, where some of them were nabbed by U.S. allies.

In the case of the Afghan man with terrorist ties, he was smuggled from Brazil through Peru, then Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala and finally Mexico.

 

These are all insinuations of the junta that overthrew the staple leadership of Mrs. Rousseff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my favorite part of the article:

 

Naturally, Black Lives Matter responded with the claim that justice had not been served. Their pattern of behavior indicates that their sense of "justice" constitutes certain results, rather than a certain process.

Indeed, nearly every demand the group has made has been met, even against the advice of law enforcement policy experts. The county attorney general in charge of the case opted against using a grand jury. After deciding not to charge the officers involved, he released all the evidence used to arrive at his decision. The investigation was joined by the state's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, alongside the federal investigation. Basically, Black Lives Matter got everything they wanted short of a lynch mob execution of the officers. Yet none of it has been good enough.

 

Worst of all, Black Lives Matter Minneapolis has achieved one of their sought-after systematic reforms. A plank of their platform has been an end to so-called "broken window policing," whereby officers crack down on minor violations in an effort to deter and detect major ones. That plank has effectively been fulfilled in recent months by an unofficial but largely recognized work slowdown by the Minneapolis Police Department. Officers, having been all but forsaken by city officials, have taken a less proactive approach to law enforcement. There has concurrently been increased crime in the city, including a series of shootings, some resulting in death.

 

The response from police critics like Black Lives Matter? Why, blame the police, of course. After getting precisely what they wanted, less policing, they turn around and blame the cops for the requisite increase in crime. It's a wonder why anyone chooses to work for the Minneapolis Police Department.

 

 

At least some top city officials seem to have tired of the Black Lives Matter antics:

 

Both Harteau and Hodges had gone out of their way to accommodate the protesters, a stance which won them no friends on either side of the divide. The police in the field have resented being forsaken, and Black Lives Matter will be sated by nothing short of blood.

 

In statements, Police Chief Janeé Harteau and Mayor Betsy Hodges endorsed both the state and federal findings.

 

“We have had two thorough investigations into this matter that arrived at the same conclusion. I am satisfied with the thoroughness of these investigations, am confident in their results, and I hope the public will accept their conclusions,” Harteau said.

Hongweibings at their best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo released the following statement about the violence that occurred after the Donald Trump rally Thursday night at the convention center:

 

 

 

"San Jose police officers performed admirably and professionally to contain acts of violence and protect individuals' rights to assemble, protest and express their political views. While it's a sad statement about our political discourse that Mr. Trump has focused on stirring antagonism instead of offering real solutions to our nation's challenges, there is absolutely no place for violence against people who are simply exercising their rights to participate in the political process."

 

At another point the mayor said that  "At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign,"

 

Sounds like the City of San Jose failed to provide adequate security for this event when they knew that previous anti-Trump protesters had gotten violent.  The rally in Fresno has resulted in at least 4 felony charges against protestors.  But hey, why not just blame Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo released the following statement about the violence that occurred after the Donald Trump rally Thursday night at the convention center:

 

 

 

"San Jose police officers performed admirably and professionally to contain acts of violence and protect individuals' rights to assemble, protest and express their political views. While it's a sad statement about our political discourse that Mr. Trump has focused on stirring antagonism instead of offering real solutions to our nation's challenges, there is absolutely no place for violence against people who are simply exercising their rights to participate in the political process."

 

At another point the mayor said that  "At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign,"

 

Sounds like the City of San Jose failed to provide adequate security for this event when they knew that previous anti-Trump protesters had gotten violent.  The rally in Fresno has resulted in at least 4 felony charges against protestors.  But hey, why not just blame Trump?

 

I wonder how many Sanders's or Clinton rallies have been disrupted by Republican protesters?..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many Sanders's or Clinton rallies have been disrupted by Republican protesters?..

One group of guys actually surrounded a woman and hit her with eggs and tore the Trump sign she was carrying out of her hands.  Disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One group of guys actually surrounded a woman and hit her with eggs and tore the Trump sign she was carrying out of her hands.  Disgusting.

 

The number I saw was 16 Trump rallies interrupted by violent Democrats that ended with damage to either people or property or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo released the following statement about the violence that occurred after the Donald Trump rally Thursday night at the convention center:

 

 

 

"San Jose police officers performed admirably and professionally to contain acts of violence and protect individuals' rights to assemble, protest and express their political views. While it's a sad statement about our political discourse that Mr. Trump has focused on stirring antagonism instead of offering real solutions to our nation's challenges, there is absolutely no place for violence against people who are simply exercising their rights to participate in the political process."

 

At another point the mayor said that  "At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign,"

 

Sounds like the City of San Jose failed to provide adequate security for this event when they knew that previous anti-Trump protesters had gotten violent.  The rally in Fresno has resulted in at least 4 felony charges against protestors.  But hey, why not just blame Trump?

 

 

Wait, did Liccardo just blame Trump for the violence perpetrated by Democrats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, did Liccardo just blame Trump for the violence perpetrated by Democrats?

Yes and.

What difference does it make!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, did Liccardo just blame Trump for the violence perpetrated by Democrats?

And Liccardo is the moderate one, Cortese whom he defeated is supposedly worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is CBFs party of tolerance. Say things we don't like and expect violence against you and your supporters and it will be your fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...