Electors are being harassed, threatened in bid to stop Trump

That apparently should be against the law for you to say that. It's harassment.

double

a reply to: GuidedKill sorry, but you are really interpreting the law very loosely. Sending an email encouraging someone to change their vote (even if the email is unwelcome) hardly qualifies as harassment.

If, the person receiving said email responds and requests that the person sending the request not contact them again, well then maybe future emails could be considered harassment.

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?

LOL

question answered

this isn't about free speech

I think all people should talk all they want about what ever they want

Your Point IS?

a reply to: GuidedKill Now on this you are 100% correct. I have no idea what in the world any of that stuff has to do with the subject of this thread

a reply to: toolgal462

Just making the point that people on the right are just as bad as people on the left - or worse.

Seeing as how the whole purpose of the OP is to bash the left for not accepting Trump, just though I'd remind everyone that the right is NO better in their lack of accepting Obama.

a reply to: toolgal462

They will have the option to defend themselves in court.....It's not up to law enforcement to attempt to interpret the law only use reasonable judgement in enforcing and applying the law....

AKA you can beat the charge but you won't beat the ride....

Oh and if you couldn't tell by some of my past posts and lingo I kind of know what I'm talking about when it comes to law enforcement.....but hey it's a free country so get on out their and interpret it how you think....best of luck chuck!!!

a reply to: GuidedKill
Well, I'm sure you know better than my in law who was a supreme court justice then .....I'll be sure to tell him he is wrong.

a reply to: toolgal462

Yea but what do you do?? I'm not talking to your inlaws am I??

I have a uncle who is a rocket scientist but I don't go on the internets making claims I can take everyone to space do I??

But hey intelligence by association may just be a new thing I know nothing about.....THANK GOD!!!

a reply to: kaylaluv

Another loose interpretation of the subject matter. But I guess one can draw parallels to just about any two things if they try hard enough. But you seem to be completely missing the point of the entire discussion. It's not about what side is worse. It's about attempting to circumvent the results of a legit and legal election by intimidation, harassment, bullying, strong arming, threats or just plain sending thousands of emails. That is ALL.

a reply to: GuidedKill I''m telling you what the former SC Justice says qualifies as harassment. I just happen to agree with him.

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: GuidedKill I''m telling you what the former SC Justice says qualifies as harassment. I just happen to agree with him.

Sweet!! Can you do me a favor and point him out when he creates a profile, proves he was a justice and then shows us his current case law showing this isn't harassment??


I'll just be quietly waiting over here......

a reply to: GuidedKill OH give us a break already. Do you think I really care if you believe me about this? I think you might need to grow up a little bit yourself.

Do you feel it necessary to harass me now? Because I feel your responses to me qualify as harassment based on YOUR own definition of it.

a reply to: toolgal462
##snipped##

An individual should have the legal right to communicate their opinion to anyone they want. If that means sending a letter or an email to an elector regarding their vote, so be it. That individual should not have the right to threaten death or any other kind of harm. That's not what I'm talking about.

We are in big trouble if we decide as a country that someone is not allowed to communicate their opinion to someone else.

a reply to: toolgal462

HAHA actually when you bring yourself into and onto public sites and properties and invite open discussion by giving your opinions in public domains you are no longer protected by the same laws that apply to a private person who is not looking for an open discussion...If I call or email you privately then you maaayyy have a case to stand on...Good luck on that extradition LMAO

Same way a public official or police officer cannot be harassed or at least the burden of proof is way more difficult to prove. They are paid to deal with it and because they are public figures are not protected by the same laws.

Sheesh I thought your in laws would have told you this!!!

a reply to: kaylaluv
I agree with you

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: toolgal462

Just making the point that people on the right are just as bad as people on the left - or worse.

Seeing as how the whole purpose of the OP is to bash the left for not accepting Trump, just though I'd remind everyone that the right is NO better in their lack of accepting Obama.

As I remember, there was not this level of animosity in 2008 or 2012. Was there evidence of widespread attempts to turn electors during those elections?
I also remember a lack of riots by the GOP when their candidates lost. There may have even been a collective sigh of relief when Palin was kept away from the VP slot, although she missed her chance to go down as the most cluelessVP in history. There was some animosity toward Obama when he won the Nobel prize for being elected while black [or half-black, to be more accurate] and his race was a problem for some, but white voters elected him, twice.

a reply to: pteridine

It comes down to control.

Big government, nanny-state socialism lost.

But they won't go quietly.

They will threaten, kill, destroy, harm, lie, cheat to gain power.