Electors are being harassed, threatened in bid to stop Trump

If I were an EC voter, this would do everything except convince me to vote how they want. I don't negotiate with terrorists.

a reply to: ketsuko

ISIS is probably looking in and saying, "Woah! These guys are extreme!"

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Restricted

Death threats because Hillary didn't win. Are you people serious?

And just like their friends the 'moderate Muslims' you hear nothing from our liberal friends on ATS condemning this insanity. They are complicit in their silence.

I'm as left as they come, pretty damn near socialist - and I have never issued a death threat in my life. All my liberal friends in Austin, Texas haven't either - and I have a LOT of liberal friends.

Now, sending a letter that encourages the electors to vote against Trump? Nothing wrong with that - unless you want to ban free speech.

We had a liberal friend, and he went into such a froth after the election that death threats were the least of it. Despite me having known him since high school and couple of the rest of our circle having known him since college, he either cut himself off from a few of us or was cut off by others because he was just too toxic to keep in our feeds.

I could well believe he'd send death threats to someone because he was spewing them over social media to all and sundry through some of the links he was posting and reposting.

originally posted by: Ohanka
So when will the people responsible for these actions face charges of treason and terrorism?

Somebody want to start a White house Petition that will end after inauguration on this?

originally posted by: ketsuko


We had a liberal friend, and he went into such a froth after the election that death threats were the least of it. Despite me having known him since high school and couple of the rest of our circle having known him since college, he either cut himself off from a few of us or was cut off by others because he was just too toxic to keep in our feeds.
.

I had a group of liberal friends that I've known since high school (im 38) and after the election one of them called me a white supremacist racist and convinced all the others that I am "lost". Good riddance I say.

a reply to: ketsuko

Everything the crybaby losers do seems to have the exact opposite effect than what they intended. I bet a LOT of the EC feel the same way.

If I were one of them, I'd have an email response on automatic that would say something to the effect of, "Get over it, your side lost. Do something productive with your time". Well, that is actually much nicer than what I would actually say....

Hell, even on facebook I've had to just STOP discussing the election because although I didn't even vote for Trump, I don't sufficiently despise him enough for some of my leftie friends and they go nuts if I even suggest to them that they need to calm down. I've actually been unfriended for trying to tell my gay friend's that there is absolutely no chance in hell that Trump will take away their right to marry. Same goes for Roe v Wade. But alas, being reasonable means I'm the enemy I guess.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Restricted

Death threats because Hillary didn't win. Are you people serious?

And just like their friends the 'moderate Muslims' you hear nothing from our liberal friends on ATS condemning this insanity. They are complicit in their silence.

I'm as left as they come, pretty damn near socialist - and I have never issued a death threat in my life. All my liberal friends in Austin, Texas haven't either - and I have a LOT of liberal friends.

Now, sending a letter that encourages the electors to vote against Trump? Nothing wrong with that - unless you want to ban free speech.

Do you think we should have elections or should Democrats and the media just install whoever they want?

So you DO want to ban free speech.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Restricted

Death threats because Hillary didn't win. Are you people serious?

And just like their friends the 'moderate Muslims' you hear nothing from our liberal friends on ATS condemning this insanity. They are complicit in their silence.

I'm as left as they come, pretty damn near socialist - and I have never issued a death threat in my life. All my liberal friends in Austin, Texas haven't either - and I have a LOT of liberal friends.

Now, sending a letter that encourages the electors to vote against Trump? Nothing wrong with that - unless you want to ban free speech.

Do you think we should have elections or should Democrats and the media just install whoever they want?

So you DO want to ban free speech.

This is not a free speech issue.

Death threats are being investigated by the FBI.

originally posted by: toolgal462

Hell, even on facebook I've had to just STOP discussing the election because although I didn't even vote for Trump, I don't sufficiently despise him enough for some of my leftie friends and they go nuts if I even suggest to them that they need to calm down. I've actually been unfriended for trying to tell my gay friend's that there is absolutely no chance in hell that Trump will take away their right to marry. Same goes for Roe v Wade. But alas, being reasonable means I'm the enemy I guess.

My mom's been unfriended by a few of her rightie friends because she has defended Obama against some of their hateful "fake" claims (he's a Muslim/he was born in Kenya/he's a gay, crack-smokin' fiend/he's gonna put us all in fema camps or chop off our heads/his wife's a man, etc., etc.).

Being unreasonable goes both ways, I guess.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Restricted

Death threats because Hillary didn't win. Are you people serious?

And just like their friends the 'moderate Muslims' you hear nothing from our liberal friends on ATS condemning this insanity. They are complicit in their silence.

I'm as left as they come, pretty damn near socialist - and I have never issued a death threat in my life. All my liberal friends in Austin, Texas haven't either - and I have a LOT of liberal friends.

Now, sending a letter that encourages the electors to vote against Trump? Nothing wrong with that - unless you want to ban free speech.

Do you think we should have elections or should Democrats and the media just install whoever they want?

So you DO want to ban free speech.

This is not a free speech issue.

Death threats are being investigated by the FBI.

Not talking about death threats. Talking about sending letters/emails/voice mails with their opinions about voting against Trump. Do YOU want to ban opinions against Trump?

a reply to: kaylaluv

Why are they trying to sway the electors in the first place? Their candidate lost. They had their shot on election day and their candidate lost.. Now they want to change the rules of the game after the fact?

It's not about free speech, it's about accepting the outcome of fair election and doing something productive with your time and energy. I was bummed when Bush won over Gore but I accepted it and got on with my life.

Taking temper tantrums and refusing to accept reality may be free speech to you, but to me it's just sour grapes and immaturity.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Restricted

Death threats because Hillary didn't win. Are you people serious?

And just like their friends the 'moderate Muslims' you hear nothing from our liberal friends on ATS condemning this insanity. They are complicit in their silence.

I'm as left as they come, pretty damn near socialist - and I have never issued a death threat in my life. All my liberal friends in Austin, Texas haven't either - and I have a LOT of liberal friends.

Now, sending a letter that encourages the electors to vote against Trump? Nothing wrong with that - unless you want to ban free speech.

Do you think we should have elections or should Democrats and the media just install whoever they want?

So you DO want to ban free speech.

This is not a free speech issue.

Death threats are being investigated by the FBI.

Not talking about death threats. Talking about sending letters/emails/voice mails with their opinions about voting against Trump. Do YOU want to ban opinions against Trump?

Thousands and thousands of unsolicited emails coming to a persons private email about an opinion they do not share or even a conversation they did not welcome is not freedom of speech or opinion....It's HARRASSMENT!!! There are actual laws against harassing another individual....Harassing an elector in an effort to sway them from the popular vote is ANOTHER crime and has nothing to do with free speech or opinion.....These harassers need to be hunted down and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their disregard of the constitution and their disgusting disregard of the laws protecting both private citizens and electors....

PERIOD!!

a reply to: GuidedKill The death threats are surely harassment but I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that all of them are harassment. However, the entire effort to sway the EC in the first place is en exercise in futility if you ask me. Some people need to get a life.

I certainly hope that people don't confuse targeted death threats with free speech.

It's okay to say, "I hope you die".

It is not okay to say, "If you vote a certain way, I will kill you."

If anyone is using the direct threats of violence as an example of free speech, then I think you'll be disappointed.

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: GuidedKill The death threats are surely harassment but I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that all of them are harassment. However, the entire effort to sway the EC in the first place is en exercise in futility if you ask me. Some people need to get a life.

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.

(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.

(d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.

(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe has violated this section.

(7) A person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).


(9)(a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the victim.

(b) The order may be issued by the court even if the defendant is sentenced to a state prison or a county jail or even if the imposition of the sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.

History.—s. 1, ch. 92-208; s. 29, ch. 94-134; s. 29, ch. 94-135; s. 2, ch. 97-27; s. 23, ch. 2002-55; s. 1, ch. 2003-23; s. 3, ch. 2004-17; s. 3, ch. 2004-256; s. 17, ch. 2008-172; s. 2, ch. 2012-153.

This is just my states law but they are all pretty similar....What these people are doing is harassment per definition of the law.

PERIOD!!!

. . . his wife's a man . . .

Obama's wife IS a man.

a reply to: toolgal462

Well, I think it was sour grapes and immaturity that caused people on the right to say such horrible things like Obama lied about his birth certificate, so he should be kicked out of office (remember all those lawsuits by that crazy woman lawyer?). Those claims are not an issue of free speech, they are just nasty lies due to not accepting Obama, so no one should be allowed to say those things. Right?

That is not even the subject of this thread and I really don't see why you keep bringing it up.

a reply to: kaylaluv

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: toolgal462

Well, I think it was sour grapes and immaturity that caused people on the right to say such horrible things like Obama lied about his birth certificate, so he should be kicked out of office (remember all those lawsuits by that crazy woman lawyer?). Those claims are not an issue of free speech, they are just nasty lies due to not accepting Obama, so no one should be allowed to say those things. Right?

What does this have to do with the OP again?? You should stay on topic or even start your own topic about Obama's feelings and his "harassment"

This is about electors and our current President Elect......Not some washed up has been who represents something most of the country voted to replace....

GL with that new thread though...

a reply to: xuenchen

Electors are being harassed, threatened in bid to stop Trump

Indeed. This is a last ditch effort to prevent Trump from office.
The biggest problem, though, will be once he is in office and the George Soros movement goes into hyper-spin and leads the world to a war the likes of which has not been seen since WW2.

On the flip... if Hillary had been elected, the SCotUS would have been stacked so that the first and second amendments would have been set aside... and it would have all about come out about the same... just with a differing lead-up.

Pack your kitchen cabinets, stock up on water... the end is indeed, near.

Oh, BTW, I hope I am wrong and we survive another four years but... just don't see that happening no matter who was/is elected.

...