ladallada

5 ms·

1.
by ladallada 5y ago
> if I claim that they can’t use physical force because they (the government) didn’t have the popular support and risk facing overwhelming violence escalation, what is your response to that? I'm not sure I'm following 100% your
2.
by ladallada 5y ago
You're talking to one right now. So let's discuss. My view is that everyone has the right to protest whenever and whatever. And you can also as part of your protest show a little bit of civil disobedience, like break a few windows
3.
by ladallada 5y ago
I'm all for putting more transparency and reasonable bounds on the process formally, but I think you're missing two points: 1. While having formal bounds would be great, in this case, it hasn't been shown yet that they applie
4.
by ladallada 5y ago
Can you explain what you mean a bit more? What things you feel make people lunatics in this case?
5.
by ladallada 5y ago
It's not fake news, they did freeze some accounts, people are arguing which account was frozen, was it only that of people who illegally block major roads and boarder crossings as part of the tricker protest, and/or did they also
6.
by ladallada 5y ago
Do we know there's no public records in this case? I think there might be, the banks aren't in individually being contacted, I'm pretty sure they would have been added to one of the public sanction lists here: https:/&#
7.
by ladallada 5y ago
It's hard to argue without proofs. We can argue so many things when we go the route of conspiracy. The Canadian government isn't known to have lied over and over a thousand times over as far as I know. Yes the government has had s
8.
by ladallada 5y ago
I think the article brings good points, but I also think it ignores something important, the alternatives... You can agree or disagree as much as you want with the current situation, but at some point, there has to be ways for a society to