The state of the republican party

Under normal self-defense law, if someone is at my driver's side door threatening me, and there are people directly in front of and behind my car that are not threatening me, they are just protesters that refuse to let traffic through, the argument for self-defense in running over the protesters to save myself from someone else is dubious. I can't harm you to save myself from someone else. The guy who drove into the protests on the I-35W bridge was pulled from his truck. Other people that have been pulled from their vehicles have been severely beaten, think like Reginald Denny. The law would say that you are allowed to drive away and that the people blocking you in would do so at their own risk, you would not be liable for hitting them. Basically, what one would hope is the effect of the law is protesters would not block in a car and would allow them to drive on their way. It removes the protection of the law from people that would surround and trap people in their cars.

Did you notice in the video you posted that everyone could have easily gotten out of the way of the truck? Most of the people did, but some intentionally stood in the way to force him to stop. That other protesters came to his rescue and stopped the mob from beating or killing him is good, but we should not be dependent upon the hope that maybe the group will split and some will protect you from others. Is there a good reason that protesters should be able to stop a car travelling freely on a public road? What is the benefit of that?

 

Can you cite current law that says that if you are in an accident that you have to stop even if you aren't feeling safe?

Further you say that the argument for self-defense in running over protesters is dubious so doesn't this law just add to that?

Also to add in the same day that truck drove into protesters in Minneapolis a truck also drove into protesters in OK with two people injured. The driver in that wasn't charged either as it was considered not intentional.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...through-crowd-protesters-minneapolis-n1220586
"
In a separate incident in Oklahoma on Sunday, a truck carrying a horse trailer also drove through a crowd of protesters on a highway overpass in Tulsa, hitting two people and causing minor injuries, said Oklahoma Public Safety spokeswoman Sarah Stuart.

A third person who was standing on an overpass wall either fell or was pushed after the truck plowed through the demonstration and the crowd parted, she said. The man fell roughly 20 feet and was taken to a local hospital in critical condition, she said."

Stuart said state troopers were still interviewing the driver, who she said was with his family and became scared after protesters surrounded his car before authorities closed the road. He had not been charged with a crime in the incident, she said."

So apparently under OK law previously you could still hit someone and not be charged if you were afraid for your safety.

 

I never claimed such a law existed. I don't understand the relevance of the question. This isn't about stopping after an accident, it is about what options are available when you are being menaced.

No, it would absolutely clarify it. If you are in a group of protesters and one of them starts attacking you, you hit the gas and go, no matter who is in the way. Very clear. Will encourage protesters to get out of the way of cars instead of blocking them in and harassing them.

Then this law would just be a clarification and not cause any actual changes. So it would hardly be a big deal.

 

So this is gonna be your thing now?

Find a counter argument for everything no matter if it makes sense or not.

Who needs to flee a demonstration. We already have laws for self defense.

 

Wow Rubio is really leaning to this Woke talking point.

Keep at it so it's tired by 2022.

 

Exactly.

It's the financial incentive that is driving this, Capitalism at its finest and most evil.

 

It's relevant because under current law you don't have to stop right after an accident if you feel it's unsafe. You are required to stop as soon as reasonable and report what happened.

So in this case if a driver hit a protester wouldn't have to stop if they felt they were threatened by the rest of the protesters.

As we've discussed before under current self-defense laws you can use lethal force in response to a lethal threat. If the threat of a crowd of a protesters were actually attacking and trying to pull you from the car and you gunned it hitting another protester. That seems like that would be a matter of determining if this was appropriate to the threat.

A crowd harassing a driver doesn't sound like a lethal threat so would this law then be lowering the standard of use of lethal force to make a statement to protesters?

You've stated you lean Libertarian. That seems a rather odd argument to take from a Libertarian standpoint.

 

I am really starting to think most republicans really don't care if they get elected and just want the revenue stream that comes with being the loudest flame thrower.

They are all lining up for that sweet cable, pac and speaking money.

It's the only thing that I can think of,especially a smart guy like Rubio.

 

Well they don't really care to legislate anymore. And when they do get power, its just a combination of bills written by corporate lobbyists (and well connected donors) and culture war red meat legislation.

At the end of the day, people like Rubio, Hawley, etc.. are all opportunists looking for the right angle to advance their own standing. Rubio has gone from the guy who tried to pass bipartisan immigration reform to going full nativist.

And the scary part is that we're running out of Republican legislators who actually served in Republican caucauses that passed legislation. Go back to even the Bush administration, and you'll find tons of legislation that they passed. Yeah a lot of it was terrible but they at least attempted to address issues (No child left behind, Medicare Part D, Genetic Nondiscrimination act, Sarbanes Oxley, etc..). I'm not sure the current Republican Congress could ever pass a piece of legislation like those items (other than more tax cuts). They just fundamentally don't know how to write legislation anymore. None of the basic functions of Congress like drafting legislation in committee and markups even occur anymore. Congress during the Bush administration still continued to follow regular order for all legislation. Good luck ever seeing that again.

All they do now is have a small group of staffers and lobbyists draft legislation in secret and then Mitch McConnell rushes it to the floor for a vote. The process is so bad now that Republicans literally can't draft serious legislation anymore and the loss of expertise and brain drain (as more experienced members of Congress retire) will accelerate this problem.

 

Ted pushing the crap his oil lobbyists pay him to say.

 

That would be about avoiding hit and run liability in the event of an accident. I don't think the new law presupposes that you have already hit a protester when the protesters move in around you.

Normally, if I am being attacked by party A, I am not allowed to use lethal force against party B just because they are in the way of my route to safety.

A crowd menacing a driver that is fully surrounded could absolutely be a lethal threat. I posted a video example above as well as the historical example of Reginald Denny. Rioters attack people in vehicles. It has happened multiple times. The new law is meant to protect the people in the vehicles from the rioters. I don't know why you would think a libertarian would be opposed to more options for self-defense.

Posting my opinion on a message board. Yep, that is going to be my thing. I assumed that is what everyone was doing here.

People being attacked, pulled from their cars, beaten, etc.

 

A lot of it too is status and ego. Look around the House GOP and you don’t see a lot of the sharpest tools in the shed. Like the dude whose tooth fell out mid speech. Forgot his name. Yet as a Congressman they have the CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies kissing their ass, giving them money, and have young attractive staffers carrying their bags for them. Seriously... what company would hire Matt Gaetz for any leadership position? I don’t think we’d even hire him for a sales role tbh.

So I think it’s about the GOP dark money, the status to fill their ego, and the money that awaits them as lobbyists if they ever lose. To your point I think they definitely prefer the lifestyle of being in office for life but there’s certainly not a ton of anxiety about losing, and the right wing ignorant cult following only incentivizes them to act more and more insane.

 

Democrats in Congress ramped up efforts this week to create a nationwide work program to transition away from fossil fuels, as union leaders representing the country’s coal miners acknowledged the need for a change.

Congressional leaders are moving forward with President Joe Biden’s climate and infrastructure agenda, even as Republicans balk, and some workers in affected industries express skepticism.

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., introduced a bill to create a Civilian Climate Corps, a 1.5 million-strong force that would carry out infrastructure work.

The corps — modeled on the Civilian Conservation Corps that sent young men to work on public works projects during the Great Depression — would help repair blighted areas and build new green spaces, supporters said.

“The Civilian Climate Corps will provide an opportunity for millions of Americans from every walk of life to earn a good wage while serving their communities and training to transform our economy,” Markey said Tuesday in a statement announcing the bill.

Skeptics might imagine the corps as a pie-in-the sky project of progressive lawmakers. But Biden himself backed the idea in his American Jobs Plan, and other affected groups appear to be warming to the idea of an economic transition toward renewable energy.

United Mine Workers of America President Cecil Roberts told reporters his union would endorse Biden’s energy policies, if they include broad measures to protect coal miners’ income and train those who can no longer work in the industry.

“I think we need to provide a future for those people, a future for anybody that loses their job because of a transition in this country, regardless if it’s coal, oil, gas or any other industry for that matter,” Roberts said.

The union proposal includes more funds and tax incentives for renewable energy, jobs for displaced miners and new work in reclaiming and plugging old, dangerous mines and wells. It also seeks more use for coal in steel production, rather than for electricity, and new funding for “carbon capture” technology that could allow for cleaner coal-burning.

Democrats in Congress have pushed for other changes that could smooth the transition away from fossil fuels. A House panel agreed this month on the need to cap abandoned gas wells, of which there are thousands in Pennsylvania.

Backers have proposed hiring laid-off fossil fuel workers to take part in the work.

Economic changes, including environmental regulations and surging natural gas supplies, have hit coal country hard. Fewer than 45,000 people are employed in the industry nationwide, and of those, some 34,000 are hourly workers in the mines.

Coal mine employment in Pennsylvania is at an all-time low, according to federal statistics: Fewer than 4,000 people work in the industry here, down from more than 16,000 in 1990.

https://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2021/04/dems-allies-detail-plans-for-climate/

 

Under current self-defense law you can retreat from a threat so even if you haven't hit a protester already you can still flee from the threat, in fact most self-defense laws still state retreat as the first option.

Except an individual protester isn't likely to be lethal threat to someone in a car, it would take a most of the crowd to act as such a threat. If you're now talking about using lethal force to kill someone else making an escape then this law would lower the standard of the self-defense as your explanation would mean I can kill party B even if they aren't a threat to me.

Let me pose an example following the reason above. If I'm on the street and someone pulls a knife on me. If I turn to run and there is an elderly person right behind me can I shove that person down potentially injuring them or worse to make my mistake?

So is the crowd party A ? If so then under current self-defense laws if you were fully surrounded that would mean the whole crowd is already a lethal threat.

I mean can you show me an example where currently a driver escaping a crowd was held legally liable? I've showed two examples of where a driver did hit a crowd of protesters and wasn't held liable. Can you cite previous law that says that a driver surrounded and threatened by a crowd cannot escape the crowd?

I would think a Libertarian would be against laws that don't do more than "clarify" other laws.

 

This is the intelligent approach. It is making the absolute most of the situation.

Fossil fuels are not unlimited. They are depleting. There is a reason Saudi Arabia paid Michael Flynn to illegally provide them US nuclear plant technology that they are paying Russia to use to build them nuclear plants. Saudi Arabia knows fully well how their oil reserves are trending.

It must be understood how close we are to making this planet unfit for life as we have known it. It is paramount to move to energy sources that do not continue to poison our air, land, and water. I say this as one whose livelihood for the last 31 years has been in the petrochemical industry. Too, moving energy production to renewable sources provides more well-paying jobs. There is every reason to make the change now.

I had uncles who worked in the Youth Conservation Corps, similar to the CCC in Buck's article, but it employed teens, when they weren't needed for family farm production, to perform similar work to revitalize our natural resources and infrastructure. Many happy hours in my youth were filled hearing the tales of their experiences in the YCC.

 

What a total dope