|
|
Post by Arwen Oakley on Nov 18, 2016 15:55:53 GMT -6
Responds to Alex
In the article, it said that Mike Evans did not want to stand for the national anthem. He wants to show that he was protesting against the president-elect, Donald Trump. This week we learn about the freedom that we, the people, have: the Bill of Rights. The article state "the Buccaneers said it encouraged all its members to stand but also respected their right to freedom of speech." Even though the National Anthem is played and most people do stand out of respect, Mike Evans has the freedom to express. There are tons of protest and the people are allowed to express the unexpected candidate, Donald Trump, to become president. However, even though we have freedom, Donald Trump is still going to be our president as he won more than 270 electoral votes. We have no way to see what the future holds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kayla Oborny on Nov 20, 2016 19:44:19 GMT -6
In response to Austins current event.
Anti-protests are breaking out against Donald Trump and some are becoming violent. I think many people are wasting their time protesting. Protesting might influence Trump’s future decisions, but it will not change the outcome. Maybe Trump will understand how to be more polite, or change the way he says things so he isn’t considered sexist or racist. People have the right to be able to protest. Except, some of the protests are getting out of hand, and are doing more harm than good. If people want to protest they can, but it is not okay if it is affecting others, such as shooting a man or blocking roads. The democrats are also mad that Trump is president and one of the democratic mayors, Erik Gacetti, was heard to be pushing the protests. Back in 2004, Trump identified himself more as a democrat. It is possible that Trump could make positive changes for everyone. Some things you cannot change, and I think the protesters need to understand that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miranda Decker on Nov 21, 2016 0:19:35 GMT -6
White nationalist bloodied during DC protest www.cnn.com/2016/11/19/politics/donald-trump-protest/index.html In this article Laura Ure speaks about a member of a white nationalist group who was bloodied, or beat, in Washington when he confronted a large group of protesters who were outside of an area used for celebrating Donald Trump's election victory on the night of Saturday, November 19th. This all took place outside of a building (Ronald Reagan Building) that was a block away from Donald Trump's new international hotel and contained hundreds of people protesting with signs that read harsh slurs such as "no Donald, no KKK...". This event withheld many violent confrontations involving a protester knocking a man's video camera to the ground after a brutal disagreement, two men getting arrested, and many other fights that broke out.Hatred was very relevant during this protest, and sadly led to the brutal beating of a white nationalist who was later hospitalized with minor injuries. This issue and topic heavily relate to our unit based on the political caucus, election, electoral college, and more. As the election day has come and gone, with the results that Donald Trump will be our upcoming president in 2017, it has clearly caused an uproar throughout the nation. People's differing views and beliefs have caused extremities to occur out of spite and hatred for opposing parties. This also relates to our current unit based on freedom of speech, and where the line is crossed between what can and cannot be said or done. These protesters have a right to preach their beliefs and thoughts, but when things begin to get physical and others are in danger, officials are needed to get involved,and government/legal action will take place. My opinion on this issue is fairly simple. I believe that the white nationalist most likely should not have gotten involved with the group of protesters although he had the right to.It is easy to predict certain outcomes when people are fired up and passionate about a specific issue, especially when it comes to politics. He should have been aware of certain consequences that could occur and avoided the situation, but those who beat, bloodied, and harassed him should not have gone nearly as far as they did. Harsh words are often said at times like these, but on the physical aspect of things, violence definitely should not be the go to.This is obviously a crazy time in America as a heated election has just been wrapped up and people are adapting to change, and I predict that more events like this will continue to occur throughout the upcoming year. |
|
|
|
Post by Chaseton Ashley on Nov 22, 2016 9:25:38 GMT -6
In response to Miranda's current event
It’s been over two weeks since Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election, but the fires set by rioters protesting Trump’s victory still rage. These riots aren’t being orchestrated in cities that Trump won, nor are they being perpetrated by people who voted for his presidency. The very people who have the power to stop these protests and riots with just a few well-spoken words have been completely silent on the issue. Hillary Clinton could have asked her followers to stop this nonsense, and they probably would have listened out of respect for her. She has done nothing to attempt to calm the situation underlines the fact that she was not fit to govern. Bernie Sanders, the one from whom the Democratic primary was fraudulently stolen, the one who backed up Hillary Clinton anyway, has also been silent. Obama’s only statement of semi-support was on Wednesday, when he said, ““The peaceful transfer of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy. We’re actually all on the same team.” When will these riots end?
|
|
|
|
Post by Paige Stewart on Nov 25, 2016 11:38:32 GMT -6
In response to Miranda's current event
Citizen in Washington were exercising their right to peacefully protest when two people from the NPI (National Policy Institute) who were at a conference being held inside the building, came out to confront the protesters looking to cause problems. They obviously wanted to create problems but didn't necessarily want to be implicated in the event, as seen by the women who wouldn't officially give out her name to CNN. Protests were held all over the country by individuals that were upset with the outcome of the election. An elected official, New York City, councilman Jimmy VanBramer, organized a similar protest near Trump Tower. VanBramer explained that even though Trump grew up in Queens, New York he doesn't necessarily hold the values of the people of New York. That protest was peaceful, giving the protesters a platform in which to be heard, which demonstrates that not all protests have to have violence to make an impact.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tanner Iverson on Nov 26, 2016 0:34:12 GMT -6
Response to Miranda Decker:
I thought this article truly reflected the madness and sadness in the United States at theis time. I am very disappointed in our country. I am not disappointed necessarily on the outcome of the election, but what has come from the outcome. People need to realize Donald Trump is our now new president and nothing is going to change that no matter what we do. I do believe protesting is okay and should be praised upon for people stepping up to give their voice in society. Although, I am against protesting when it turns ugly. There is difference between peaceful and violent protesting. When people severely try to target someone physically or verbally it is not okay no matter where their beliefs stand regarding politics in the United States. Like this article says, I am very sad by how discriminatory our country has become. Skin color should not matter. There should be no protest against it. In conclusion, I think voicing opinions is what democracy is all about and without it, we wouldn't have one in the United States. Although, it is not okay when voicing opinions has a negative effect on another person or the rest of society.
|
|
|
|
Post by Taylor Heyerdahl on Nov 27, 2016 22:35:19 GMT -6
Response to Miranda Decker:
After reading this article, it has become very clear that the Presidential victory of Donald Trump has caused more problems than anticipated. When the article states that "The event drew hundreds of protesters holding anti-fascist signs and yelling chants including, "No Donald Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA!" (Ure). this clearly shows how many people are not in favor of Trump. While the protests started off peaceful, they quickly turned violent when the white nationalist voiced his opinion. When protesting comes to the point of being violent, I believe that officials should step in, but if they are peaceful, they should acceptable. However in this case with Donald Trump being recently elected, I feel as if the increasing number of protests are also going to increase in violence as more people disagree with Trump as President.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kayla Oborny on Nov 27, 2016 22:35:52 GMT -6
Trump supporters target George Soros over protests www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/24/george-soros-blamed-unseen-hand-behind-trump-protests/94334844/ This article is about a Democrat donor named George Soros, an investor and philosopher who founded the Open Society Foundation, which is an international private foundation funded by Soros. Soros has put millions of his own money towards human rights. Soros is being accused by Trump supporters for funding anti-Trump protests during and after the election. Protests have started on social media, such as Instagram and Twitter, against Soros by Trump supporters because they claimed he started the protests that happened around the country during and after the election. Open Society Foundation denies that Soros funded the protests. Except, when looking at the amount of protests that occurred, and their size, some of the groups in Open Society Foundation seem to be involved. One person on social media said, “it seems like he's sending groups to create chaos and disorder for no reason.” Trump supporters are angered that the protests were happening, so they are protesting the protest. Soros has been funding liberals for many years, and there have been reports that he has pledged to go against Trump’s plan. Soros’s Open Society Foundation is a group that “have a right to protest” what they believe. In this case, Soros believes in liberals and his foundation is anti-Trump. During our class we talked about freedom of assembly. Freedom of assembly is in chapter nineteen of the First Amendment freedoms which we have been covering in class. I think this article relates to freedom of assembly because it is a private assembly where people are put together their opinion and “it is not denied to any one group.” The groups associated within Open Society Foundation want to influence the public through their protests. After reading this article, I think that it was okay for Soros to fund anti-Trump protests during and after the election because it was the people's freedom of speech to say what they believe. Even though I think that the Open Society Foundation is okay to be in, I would not get involved in a private foundation. I also think that it is okay for Trump protesters to address Soros on the media because they have the freedom to speech as well. I think it is interesting how Trump protesters are protesting anti-Trump protesters. |
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Neith on Nov 28, 2016 0:15:31 GMT -6
Dakota Pipeline: Army Corps orders protestors out www.cnn.com/2016/11/25/us/dakota-pipeline-access-army-corps/index.htmlRalph Ellis writes a article over the Dakota Access Pipeline. A new pipeline that will go from North Dakota through Illinois creating around 8,000-12,000 jobs. However Native Americans are throwing a fit over the decision of this pipeline. Protesting and creating violence, "protestors set fires while officers tried to disperse crowds with tear gas and rubber bullets." Stating that this pipeline will affect their water as their supplies are now "at risk by oil spills and leaks. However, the technology being used for this pipeline is some of the best being offered to this country. Army Corps has entered the scene and ordered that protestors leave the are and continue their demonstration of free speech at a official campsite set up for them. Stressing public safety Col. John Henderson of the Corps announced how hard it will be for emergency medical services, fire fighters and police to respond to calls from the campsite, yet people continue to come and set up tents and other needs for over a month now. More than 500 people have been arrested in the past month. Tribal leaders have asked President Obama and the Army Corps to change the pipeline route stating that "it is unfortunate and disrespectful that this announcement (of movement) comes the day after this country celebrates Thanksgiving -- a historic exchange of goodwill between Native Americans and the first immigrants from Europe." Although it doesn't seem like the pipeline route will be changed, many protestors have been showing up. In defense of the Natives, protestors are stating that the pipeline will affect burial sites, prayer sites, and significant artifacts. Although the fight looks as though they will lose, Archambault, writes that (he) is not at all surprised given the last 500 years of mistreatment of our people." |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Frederickson on Nov 29, 2016 17:33:50 GMT -6
In response to Kevin:
When looking at how the protesters are acting it seems like they are being the unreasonable ones. Henderson, one of the corps, asked protesters to move to the other side of the river in order to allow emergency and other such things to come to the protesters in order to help. But they refused and have stood their ground. Even with them not moving there is no plan for a forceful removal of the protesters themselves. Although the people staying cant be guarantied emergency help or that they wont be detained.
Even so when looking why they are upset its clear they have a right to be protesting. For instance "Protesters say the pipeline will threaten the environment and destroy Native American burial sites, prayer sites and culturally significant artifacts". Many people feel like this is a just reason to make sure the pipeline isn't built but both sides can't agree. Talks will continue till both sides are happy with the terms or a forceful removal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brandon Russell on Nov 30, 2016 18:45:14 GMT -6
In response to Kevin:
I like how this connects to what we are currently talking about in class right now. I think the protesters are being unconstitutional because they are disrupting plenty of others lives and the fact that they are setting fires is also very disturbing. Some people might say that arresting 500 people is not the answer but I would ask what else do you want them to do? "This decision is necessary to protect the general public from the violent confrontation between protesters and law enforcement officials that have occurred in this area", said John Henderson in a letter to their tribe. I agree 100% with what John Henderson had said. It makes complete sense. Things had gone too far and its on an army corps. The Corps did a great job with handling this situation in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dom Strom on Nov 30, 2016 22:48:50 GMT -6
In response to Kevin:
This seems to be a very unfortunate situation for the Native Americans tribes in which the pipe line is cutting through. The tribe puts out good points as to why the pipeline should not be constructed, or otherwise have its path changed. They aren't taking the best approach to the situation though. In addition to the protests, they have been said to, "destroy construction equipment". Instead, they should peacefully protest legally at a different location that is not prohibited. They are exercising the rights in which every american can do by expressing there rights of expression and free speech, but causing to much trouble which only hurts there cause. They are never going to get anything to change in there favor causing havoc like they are doing. It is only going to get worse for these native american's, who are in troubling times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Austin Hebel on Nov 30, 2016 22:53:29 GMT -6
In Response to Kevin:
The protesters' actions are unconstitutional because they are causing a major disturbance and the safety of others is at risk. This article relates directly to our learning in class and gives us another example of how the First Amendment is being used today. The protesters were even asked to move to a different location, but still some chose to stay. I believe that because of this, the law enforcement had every right to arrest these people. The rights of others were in jeopardy which constitutes lawful action. I do believe that spraying the protesters with water from fire houses in below freezing temperatures is very unnecessary though. Many people could have gotten sick or severely injured because of this. Overall, this is a very strong example of how our freedom of expression rights are being questioned and supported today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex Kopriva on Nov 30, 2016 22:59:05 GMT -6
In response to Kevin:
In North Dakota there is a lot of controversial decisions being made involving the North Dakota Pipeline. The government has decided they have been presented with compelling interest to restrict these citizens' rights to protect the rights of other citizens. This connects to our discussions and class and the back and forth debates on court cases revolving around this topic. We have discussed what supplies the government with the compelling interest to restrict the first amendment of citizens. The irony in this article is the timing, with much of this occurring right around Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving of course being a national holiday celebrating the first interactions between Native Americans and the first European Immigrants. The Army Corps is ultimately making the right decision to prevent any further violence or irrational actions happening at the site on either side. In this case, I believe the government had enough compelling interest to make this decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Neith on Nov 30, 2016 23:21:09 GMT -6
In response to Kayla:
I find it interesting that many individuals are protesting the protest against the election results. Social media has created a insane amount of problems for the election this year. Supporters from both parties across the country find different ways to state their opinions and bring down the other candidate. However, social media is also going after George due to his known status of being a democrat, and funding the Open Society foundation. Looking across the nation, rioting has been flaring up with violent crimes and more being revolved around the election. Certain protest look unorganized while others look like they know what they are doing and how to provoke the people in a certain way. I know it is apart of our First Amendment rights of Freedom of speech, expression, and the right to peacefully assemble. Yet, many hate crimes have been showing up from different states. From KKK sightings, the African Americans pulling a white male out of his car beating him to a pulp and robbing him, this isn't a one sided fight. Soros may or may not be actively supporting these protest underneath the Open Society, however these protests/riots need to stop before more and more individuals get hurt.
|
|
