Author Topic: Trump outrage of the day  (Read 297525 times)

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3850 on: August 28, 2020, 11:04:43 AM »
As the video shows, the shooter was retreating. The man here was chasing after him. He cannot claim self defense if he the aggressor.

In Florida, he could.

That's.... Great.

bloodaxe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 204
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3851 on: August 28, 2020, 12:41:18 PM »
Lynching is already a crime, it falls under murder 1. It also has been considered a hate crime in the past.
This is a non-sequitur. The bill is to make lynching a federal crime. This has nothing to do with Paul's objections either.

Quote
The most recent incident of lynching in the US occurred in 1998
Again, non sequitur and irrelevant. 

Quote
Paul has said he is concerned it could allow more minor altercations to be punishable as lynchings.

"Bruises could be considered lynching," Paul told reporters Wednesday. "That's a problem, to put someone in jail for 10 years for some kind of altercation," referring to the measure's penalty for conspiring or attempting to conspire to commit a lynching.
Meh, that code already exists

Quote
Please don't spread misinformation.
Feel free to point any concrete information I provided that is incorrect. If you are taking issue with the word "supposed" in my reference to Paul objecting to the bill, feel free to Google the definition. I would also encourage you to read about the history of the bill and similarities to another bill passed by both the Senate and House unanimously in 2019.

My issue was the trivialization of Rand's objection to the bill. You may disagree with his objection, but there was more reasoning to it than what was originally suggested, "he didn't like that it was renamed".
« Last Edit: August 28, 2020, 12:50:28 PM by bloodaxe »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4094
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3852 on: August 28, 2020, 12:42:54 PM »
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6184852089001#sp=show-clips

"It could have been a dozen other places in this country; the violence has been building unabated for three months now. Every day the mob becomes more radical."
- Lie, lie, and lie.

You left out the rest of that quote. "By some accounts 30 Americans have died so far in these riots. Democrats have openly encouraged them. Republican leaders have been too fearful to stop them. Some have applauded it all."

Now you may disagree with the wording here, which is certainly loaded with Tucker's biases. That's fine, but isn't your central argument is to counter what I stated?
Maybe conservatives do care about the unnecessary loss of life..
It's pretty clear that Tucker does care that 30 Americans have been killed during these riots and wants them to stop.

"The riots have been personal and painful for this country."

"A party that tolerates rioting, has no future in a democracy. Human beings crave order, it's a prerequisite for life. They fear uncertainty above all. People will trade virtually anything for a relief from chaos. That's a fact of human nature; it's always true. And politicians who understand that, win. Rudy Giuliani got elected twice in an overwhelmingly Democratic city twice because he knew, that underneath it all, everyone hates lawlessness. Everyone."

I don't need to insert my own opinions to interpret his words. You can decide for yourself if what Tucker said broadcasts to his audience that conservatives don't care about the unnecessary loss of life.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

"Democratic have openly encouraged encouraged them."
- Lie. Democrats support solving the problems at the base of the protest, not "looting".
- “The needless violence won’t heal us.” -Joe Biden

No, it's "pretty clear" that Tucker only cares about the loss of life so he can use it as a fear-mongering tool to help Trump get re-elected.

Which is why he (and all conservatives that I see) are simultaneously glorifying and excusing the murderer, while attempting to blame Democrats for the murders.

That is entirely consistent with the general trend of Tucker's (and Trump's, and all other conservative's) love of fear-and-hate-mongering, and not at all consistent with a regard for life. Or else, you know, conservatives would be condemning the right-wing domestic terrorists too.

And Democrats do not "tolerate rioting". That's yet another blatant lie. Democratic leaders have been speaking out against violence in the protest for months. Democrats have been attempting to de-escalate. It's Republicans that have consistently been pro-political violence. It's Republicans who have been attempting to escalate every situation to violence to provide more fuel for their "law and order" rhetoric.
"The military is on the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts!"
"Let's just shoot people trying to cross the boarder."
"When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just seen them thrown in, rough. I said, 'Please don't be too nice,'"
<About Republican Representative Gianforte, who famously assaulted a reporter who dared ask him about his position on health care> "'Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!' Trump said on Thursday to cheers."

I mean we could go on and on. Republicans (president, congresspeople, talking heads on TV) are regularly calling for and glorifying violence. Tucker included, in this video, by implying that vigilante murders are good and necessary to stop the "violent rioters" (never mind that the violence is being instigated/committed by the vigilantes).

Democrats are not, Democrats are universally condemning it. I'm sure you can find some internet idiot on the left that's glorifying it, but you know that's not a fair comparison.

Tucker is not stating a neutral fact that "everyone hates lawlessness". He is saying that people should vote for Trump, because apparently Trump's re-election to the presidency will allow him to stop the "lawlessness" that he is unable to stop now. Tucker is not sad that these murders happened, he is very explicitly saying that they are justified and righteous, and that more people should be like Rittenhouse.

So no, this video does not back up your claim that conservatives [in general] are sad about unnecessary loss of life.

Yeah dude, we're not gonna agree on anything here. People can watch the video, listen to his own words, and decide for themselves. I sincerely feel pity for you that you have come to conclusion that conservatives don't care about the unnecessary loss of life.

I have seen many callous comments from conservatives on Facebook. I only see them because a couple relatives are conservative. Just today one (who actually is a decent guy) happened to post about Rittenhouse shooting 3 and killing two, being arrested, no other comment. These are the comments he got:
"Play stupid games";
"Only 5 times? And he has 30 rounds available? Damn good trigger control"
"Since Blake has a knife in his car and he was going for it I post this. HOW NOT TO GET ARRESTED by Chris Rock" Common sense 101;
and a #Blue Lives Matter #Cops (american flag) hashtag.

Not a word about the two dead and injured, other than the subtext: they got what they deserved, he was justified to shoot them and should have shot more.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5649
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3853 on: August 28, 2020, 12:49:28 PM »
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6184852089001#sp=show-clips

"It could have been a dozen other places in this country; the violence has been building unabated for three months now. Every day the mob becomes more radical."
- Lie, lie, and lie.

You left out the rest of that quote. "By some accounts 30 Americans have died so far in these riots. Democrats have openly encouraged them. Republican leaders have been too fearful to stop them. Some have applauded it all."

Now you may disagree with the wording here, which is certainly loaded with Tucker's biases. That's fine, but isn't your central argument is to counter what I stated?
Maybe conservatives do care about the unnecessary loss of life..
It's pretty clear that Tucker does care that 30 Americans have been killed during these riots and wants them to stop.

"The riots have been personal and painful for this country."

"A party that tolerates rioting, has no future in a democracy. Human beings crave order, it's a prerequisite for life. They fear uncertainty above all. People will trade virtually anything for a relief from chaos. That's a fact of human nature; it's always true. And politicians who understand that, win. Rudy Giuliani got elected twice in an overwhelmingly Democratic city twice because he knew, that underneath it all, everyone hates lawlessness. Everyone."

I don't need to insert my own opinions to interpret his words. You can decide for yourself if what Tucker said broadcasts to his audience that conservatives don't care about the unnecessary loss of life.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

"Democratic have openly encouraged encouraged them."
- Lie. Democrats support solving the problems at the base of the protest, not "looting".
- “The needless violence won’t heal us.” -Joe Biden

No, it's "pretty clear" that Tucker only cares about the loss of life so he can use it as a fear-mongering tool to help Trump get re-elected.

Which is why he (and all conservatives that I see) are simultaneously glorifying and excusing the murderer, while attempting to blame Democrats for the murders.

That is entirely consistent with the general trend of Tucker's (and Trump's, and all other conservative's) love of fear-and-hate-mongering, and not at all consistent with a regard for life. Or else, you know, conservatives would be condemning the right-wing domestic terrorists too.

And Democrats do not "tolerate rioting". That's yet another blatant lie. Democratic leaders have been speaking out against violence in the protest for months. Democrats have been attempting to de-escalate. It's Republicans that have consistently been pro-political violence. It's Republicans who have been attempting to escalate every situation to violence to provide more fuel for their "law and order" rhetoric.
"The military is on the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts!"
"Let's just shoot people trying to cross the boarder."
"When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just seen them thrown in, rough. I said, 'Please don't be too nice,'"
<About Republican Representative Gianforte, who famously assaulted a reporter who dared ask him about his position on health care> "'Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!' Trump said on Thursday to cheers."

I mean we could go on and on. Republicans (president, congresspeople, talking heads on TV) are regularly calling for and glorifying violence. Tucker included, in this video, by implying that vigilante murders are good and necessary to stop the "violent rioters" (never mind that the violence is being instigated/committed by the vigilantes).

Democrats are not, Democrats are universally condemning it. I'm sure you can find some internet idiot on the left that's glorifying it, but you know that's not a fair comparison.

Tucker is not stating a neutral fact that "everyone hates lawlessness". He is saying that people should vote for Trump, because apparently Trump's re-election to the presidency will allow him to stop the "lawlessness" that he is unable to stop now. Tucker is not sad that these murders happened, he is very explicitly saying that they are justified and righteous, and that more people should be like Rittenhouse.

So no, this video does not back up your claim that conservatives [in general] are sad about unnecessary loss of life.

Yeah dude, we're not gonna agree on anything here. People can watch the video, listen to his own words, and decide for themselves. I sincerely feel pity for you that you have come to conclusion that conservatives don't care about the unnecessary loss of life.

I have seen many callous comments from conservatives on Facebook. I only see them because a couple relatives are conservative. Just today one (who actually is a decent guy) happened to post about Rittenhouse shooting 3 and killing two, being arrested, no other comment. These are the comments he got:
"Play stupid games";
"Only 5 times? And he has 30 rounds available? Damn good trigger control"
"Since Blake has a knife in his car and he was going for it I post this. HOW NOT TO GET ARRESTED by Chris Rock" Common sense 101;
and a #Blue Lives Matter #Cops (american flag) hashtag.

Not a word about the two dead and injured, other than the subtext: they got what they deserved, he was justified to shoot them and should have shot more.

I have a lot of conservatives of my feed. Same stuff. 1) he is a hero; 2) he should have shot more people and done more violence/damage.

Oh, yeah, and 3) The people he shot wouldn't have gotten shot if they weren't out after curfew. (Of course, no mention of the fact that Rittenhouse was also out after curfew, and that he was illegally open carrying.)

MilesTeg

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3854 on: August 28, 2020, 04:21:12 PM »
Vigilantism wherr deadly force is used is a criminal act for a reason.

This idiot kid was committing a crime by seeking out and attempting to enforce laws. looking for an excuse to shoot someone. His criminal action is what instigated the confrontation and is the primary reason people are dead. He is not an innocent law abiding citizen just defending himself.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2020, 06:35:14 PM by MilesTeg »

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3178
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3855 on: August 29, 2020, 05:35:14 AM »
ixtap is right tough. That's not a straw-man. Heck you can look up statistics and find that the bulk of Conservatives don't even see racism as an issue. Why would the current administration deal with something it doesn't even perceive as an issue? Cities are in chaos and the man in charge thinks the only solution is more armed people.

Tucker literally even says that racism is not an issue at the end of that video.

Well, it isn't for him and those who sign his paychecks, so then it must not be an issue at all, right?

Regardless of political stripe, I find that people who get their news by "watching the news" instead of reading are less informed. The extent to which Fox substitutes outright editorial content for actual coverage is somewhat jaw dropping, though.

Keeps them safe in court, though!

Carlson's lawyers recently argued that he is an entertainer and his program is not analogous to print journalism. 
« Last Edit: August 29, 2020, 05:39:45 AM by Travis »

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3856 on: August 29, 2020, 06:07:35 AM »
Vigilantism wherr deadly force is used is a criminal act for a reason.

This idiot kid was committing a crime by seeking out and attempting to enforce laws. looking for an excuse to shoot someone. His criminal action is what instigated the confrontation and is the primary reason people are dead. He is not an innocent law abiding citizen just defending himself.

Criminal complaint has been released. Witnesses state the initial victim had attempted to grab the gun. No shots had been fired previous to this confrontation.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2628
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3857 on: August 29, 2020, 06:14:42 AM »
Vigilantism wherr deadly force is used is a criminal act for a reason.

This idiot kid was committing a crime by seeking out and attempting to enforce laws. looking for an excuse to shoot someone. His criminal action is what instigated the confrontation and is the primary reason people are dead. He is not an innocent law abiding citizen just defending himself.
He was committing a crime by being out past curfew and illegally armed. Had he obeyed the law, 2 people would still be alive. Let's think about this for a minute. Let's pretend this was a black kid walking down the street, out past curfew, armed with a semi-automatic rifle. Do you think the police would be thanking him and tossing him water? Hell no! This is a good read on the subject.

How was the shooter taken into custody? Did the police surround him with guns drawn? Nope, they drove right by him even though multiple people are heard shouting to the police that he just shot someone. He even appears to be giving himself up. Let's compare that to how Jacob Blake was taken into custody. An unarmed black man who didn't shoot anyone. He was taken with 7 bullet holes in his back.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2020, 08:19:07 AM by MasterStache »

Little Aussie Battler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 229
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3858 on: August 29, 2020, 07:24:24 AM »
As an Australian I don’t even pretend to understand US gun culture, but I do find it fascinating to read the wildly divergent views whenever an incident like this occurs (which is unfortunately far too often at the moment).

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3859 on: August 29, 2020, 08:09:13 AM »
I like to think of it as the second amendment in action.

An ad hoc militia arms themselves and goes out to defend some businesses in a town where they don't even live.    In this town there are an awful lot of people upset because police shot an unarmed person of colour to death for no apparent reason.    What could go wrong?   

The only surprise is that it took so long to happen.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16568
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3860 on: August 29, 2020, 12:33:41 PM »
Vigilantism wherr deadly force is used is a criminal act for a reason.

So true.



Right Trayvon Martin?


Oh.  Wait.  The vigilante who stalked and killed you (after being told not to by the 911 operator he called) was fully exonerated for his actions.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3861 on: August 30, 2020, 08:24:18 AM »
Now a person was shot to death at the Portland riots. This is awful.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3196
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3862 on: August 30, 2020, 10:16:51 AM »
Not that this an outrage, per se, given how high Trump has set the bar, but WTF - https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/29/economy/trump-treasury-new-guidance-tax-holiday/index.html

Quote
The US Treasury Department released guidance Friday evening informing companies and workers how Trump's proposed tax holiday will apply to them.

Companies can stop withholding employees' payroll taxes starting September 1, although workers will have to pay the taxes by the end of April 2021. The new guidance, released together with the IRS, applies only to those whose bi-weekly paychecks are less than $4,000, the equivalent of $104,000 a year.
The guidance comes after President Donald Trump's August 8 executive action giving workers a tax holiday. It left open the possibility of forgiving the deferred tax later on.  But only Congress has the power to waive taxes, so all the president can do is postpone when they are due.

Great idea Trump, put more money in the pockets of middle / mid-upper income class workers now and screw them over next year when they have to pay it back.  Fortunately it is not a full year of federal tax, otherwise that could really cause whiplash!
« Last Edit: August 30, 2020, 10:18:23 AM by EscapeVelocity2020 »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4990
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3863 on: August 30, 2020, 10:24:01 AM »
Not that this an outrage, per se, given how high Trump has set the bar, but WTF - https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/29/economy/trump-treasury-new-guidance-tax-holiday/index.html

Quote
The US Treasury Department released guidance Friday evening informing companies and workers how Trump's proposed tax holiday will apply to them.

Companies can stop withholding employees' payroll taxes starting September 1, although workers will have to pay the taxes by the end of April 2021. The new guidance, released together with the IRS, applies only to those whose bi-weekly paychecks are less than $4,000, the equivalent of $104,000 a year.
The guidance comes after President Donald Trump's August 8 executive action giving workers a tax holiday. It left open the possibility of forgiving the deferred tax later on.  But only Congress has the power to waive taxes, so all the president can do is postpone when they are due.

Great idea Trump, put more money in the pockets of middle / mid-upper income class workers now and screw them over next year when they have to pay it back.  Fortunately it is not a full year of federal tax, otherwise that could really cause whiplash!

So how long can a President delay taxes? Could she/he delay taxes for all 4 years, creating a poison pill for the next President?

Congress has created an autocratic state by acceding power to the executive branch.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 742
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3864 on: August 30, 2020, 11:11:49 AM »
Not that this an outrage, per se, given how high Trump has set the bar, but WTF - https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/29/economy/trump-treasury-new-guidance-tax-holiday/index.html

Quote
The US Treasury Department released guidance Friday evening informing companies and workers how Trump's proposed tax holiday will apply to them.

Companies can stop withholding employees' payroll taxes starting September 1, although workers will have to pay the taxes by the end of April 2021. The new guidance, released together with the IRS, applies only to those whose bi-weekly paychecks are less than $4,000, the equivalent of $104,000 a year.
The guidance comes after President Donald Trump's August 8 executive action giving workers a tax holiday. It left open the possibility of forgiving the deferred tax later on.  But only Congress has the power to waive taxes, so all the president can do is postpone when they are due.

Great idea Trump, put more money in the pockets of middle / mid-upper income class workers now and screw them over next year when they have to pay it back.  Fortunately it is not a full year of federal tax, otherwise that could really cause whiplash!

So how long can a President delay taxes? Could she/he delay taxes for all 4 years, creating a poison pill for the next President?

Congress has created an autocratic state by acceding power to the executive branch.

Don't give him ideas!

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3865 on: August 30, 2020, 11:50:49 AM »
I like to think of it as the second amendment in action.

An ad hoc militia arms themselves and goes out to defend some businesses in a town where they don't even live.    In this town there are an awful lot of people upset because police shot an unarmed person of colour to death for no apparent reason.    What could go wrong?   

The only surprise is that it took so long to happen.

Echoes of the Jim Crow era...

Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3866 on: August 31, 2020, 09:55:59 AM »
So why are they against policies which might start to put the preservation of the lives of black men into practice?

Another serious question:

Do you believe that defunding the police will reduce the number of lives lost (black, male, or otherwise)?

To me it seems pretty likely that it would do the opposite and that the cost will be disproportionately paid by poor people and people of color.

Sadly, I think you're right.

I'm a bit baffled why we on the left have apparently decided BLM activists have a better plan to fix policing issues than President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing did. We seem to be intent on running this Defund experiment in some of our more liberal cities, though. I'm also pretty sure the least well off will bear the brunt of the consequences but we shall see.

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I think it's about the electoral math.

I think the Democratic Party is worried that leftists and progressives will stay home (again?) since they went with another super-establishment candidate (maybe as a McCain-like sacrificial candidate since the economy was still doing well when they told the other candidates to fold up shop).

My guess is that Democratic support for these things stops the day after the polls close and the election is won.

If that's the case I'm even more worried. I suspect that in the states that will decide this election there are more potential Biden voters to lose from the middle than from the far left. Trump is terrible enough to motivate all but the most extreme of the left to vote for Biden but to pick up votes from the frustrated middle he needs to be careful how hard he embraces the ideological left. He needs to be seen as from the practical left.

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1639
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3867 on: August 31, 2020, 10:35:04 AM »
I agree, we need to be careful. Defunding the police just sounds like anarchy, regardless of what the actual plan is, and the Republicans will continue to run with it. Should've gone with "more funding for social work!", which was a major part of the Taskforce's overall plan, but I guess that's not as catchy in a chant or hashtag. These cities also need to get the riots under control. More burnt buildings = 4 more years for Trump. Unless they're trying to go for a federal over-reach to make Trump look like an autocrat. Again I doubt that will fly with swing voters, they may even approve (Americans love us some military show of force). Regardless, wording is everything since a lot of people just inherently catch onto soundbites without thinking things through.

NorthernBlitz

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 485
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3868 on: August 31, 2020, 10:47:10 AM »
So why are they against policies which might start to put the preservation of the lives of black men into practice?

Another serious question:

Do you believe that defunding the police will reduce the number of lives lost (black, male, or otherwise)?

To me it seems pretty likely that it would do the opposite and that the cost will be disproportionately paid by poor people and people of color.

Sadly, I think you're right.

I'm a bit baffled why we on the left have apparently decided BLM activists have a better plan to fix policing issues than President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing did. We seem to be intent on running this Defund experiment in some of our more liberal cities, though. I'm also pretty sure the least well off will bear the brunt of the consequences but we shall see.

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I think it's about the electoral math.

I think the Democratic Party is worried that leftists and progressives will stay home (again?) since they went with another super-establishment candidate (maybe as a McCain-like sacrificial candidate since the economy was still doing well when they told the other candidates to fold up shop).

My guess is that Democratic support for these things stops the day after the polls close and the election is won.

If that's the case I'm even more worried. I suspect that in the states that will decide this election there are more potential Biden voters to lose from the middle than from the far left. Trump is terrible enough to motivate all but the most extreme of the left to vote for Biden but to pick up votes from the frustrated middle he needs to be careful how hard he embraces the ideological left. He needs to be seen as from the practical left.

I see it pretty much this way exactly.

And while I don't think Ted Wheeler is some kind of double-secret Trump supporter, abdicating responsibility (re: 100 days of riots and now vigilante murder) as both the mayor and police chief seems to be making it easy for Trump to point out that those in the Democratic camp are strongly embracing the authoritarian left even if it's "just" by refusing to condemn them / allow for larger police presence to dissuade riots. There's a video of Ted Cruz doing that in the Kabuki theater of a senate committee already. And those kinds of words will continue to ring true while governments fail to even pretend to be preventing riots.

I'll also preemptively point back to my previous post about throwing the fucking book at vigilantes to show that I thought we should be doing that to Rittenhouse (before the shooting in Portland). I also said that I think we should be doing that to violent rioters (who are also trying to take the law into their own hands). I also think we should do that with the shooter in Portland (although I don't think they'be been ID'd yet).

Vigilantism is super-fucking dangerous and it shouldn't be tolerated in a functioning society (and while we seem to be teetering, we're still at least mostly in that category IMO). And I think it's stupid for anyone to turn a blind eye to it in cases where they agree with the supposed political ends.

And I think the best way to avoid vigilantism is for governments to enforce the law so citizens don't have a rational argument for taking the law into their own hands. Note that I also said that this includes prosecuting police when appropriate.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2020, 10:51:48 AM by NorthernBlitz »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16568
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3869 on: August 31, 2020, 12:49:24 PM »
And I think the best way to avoid vigilantism is for governments to enforce the law so citizens don't have a rational argument for taking the law into their own hands. Note that I also said that this includes prosecuting police when appropriate.

I don't disagree with you in general principal . . . but if police were prosecuted when appropriate, there would be no reason for protests at all.  The whole problem currently going on is fundamentally caused by systemic and long standing unwillingness to do this.

Because we currently treat police as above the law the majority of the time, adding more police to 'enforce the law' as a solution is unreasonable and untenable.  This will continue to be true until the problem identified with law enforcement has been rectified.

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2434
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3870 on: August 31, 2020, 12:50:44 PM »


And I think the best way to avoid vigilantism is for governments to enforce the law so citizens don't have a rational argument for taking the law into their own hands. Note that I also said that this includes prosecuting police when appropriate.

In this case, the rest wouldn't have come about if we were doing that last bit consistently.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2020, 01:14:45 PM by ixtap »

NorthernBlitz

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 485
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3871 on: August 31, 2020, 01:07:37 PM »
And I think the best way to avoid vigilantism is for governments to enforce the law so citizens don't have a rational argument for taking the law into their own hands. Note that I also said that this includes prosecuting police when appropriate.

I don't disagree with you in general principal . . . but if police were prosecuted when appropriate, there would be no reason for protests at all.  The whole problem currently going on is fundamentally caused by systemic and long standing unwillingness to do this.

Because we currently treat police as above the law the majority of the time, adding more police to 'enforce the law' as a solution is unreasonable and untenable.  This will continue to be true until the problem identified with law enforcement has been rectified.

I agree with you and tried to say as much in both posts.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make making in my original post and in the post that you quoted (note the red text).

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3872 on: August 31, 2020, 02:07:41 PM »
And I think the best way to avoid vigilantism is for governments to enforce the law so citizens don't have a rational argument for taking the law into their own hands. Note that I also said that this includes prosecuting police when appropriate.

I don't disagree with you in general principal . . . but if police were prosecuted when appropriate, there would be no reason for protests at all.  The whole problem currently going on is fundamentally caused by systemic and long standing unwillingness to do this.

Because we currently treat police as above the law the majority of the time, adding more police to 'enforce the law' as a solution is unreasonable and untenable.  This will continue to be true until the problem identified with law enforcement has been rectified.

I agree with you and tried to say as much in both posts.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make making in my original post and in the post that you quoted (note the red text).


NorthernBlitz

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 485
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3873 on: August 31, 2020, 02:53:49 PM »
And I think the best way to avoid vigilantism is for governments to enforce the law so citizens don't have a rational argument for taking the law into their own hands. Note that I also said that this includes prosecuting police when appropriate.

I don't disagree with you in general principal . . . but if police were prosecuted when appropriate, there would be no reason for protests at all.  The whole problem currently going on is fundamentally caused by systemic and long standing unwillingness to do this.

Because we currently treat police as above the law the majority of the time, adding more police to 'enforce the law' as a solution is unreasonable and untenable.  This will continue to be true until the problem identified with law enforcement has been rectified.

I agree with you and tried to say as much in both posts.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make making in my original post and in the post that you quoted (note the red text).



Not sure how useful it is. I can't vote (but will probably have citizenship by 2024). I think Steve is also Canadian.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3874 on: August 31, 2020, 04:11:41 PM »
Just take the win :-p

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 742
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3875 on: August 31, 2020, 04:21:34 PM »
I agree, we need to be careful. Defunding the police just sounds like anarchy, regardless of what the actual plan is, and the Republicans will continue to run with it. Should've gone with "more funding for social work!", which was a major part of the Taskforce's overall plan, but I guess that's not as catchy in a chant or hashtag. These cities also need to get the riots under control. More burnt buildings = 4 more years for Trump. Unless they're trying to go for a federal over-reach to make Trump look like an autocrat. Again I doubt that will fly with swing voters, they may even approve (Americans love us some military show of force). Regardless, wording is everything since a lot of people just inherently catch onto soundbites without thinking things through.

I agree that the name sounds poor. I do have to comment that in regards to the discussions on this - most everyone on here that I have read have not said defund the police to mean abolish the police (and in fact have taken offense at it and/or denigrated people that felt the phrase defund the police could be interpreted that way meant there could be problems). Last night, I saw a lively FB debate between one liberal person who posted along that line - defunding=/eliminate and was swamped by several far left people who were very literally saying eliminate all prisons, eliminate all police. There is a non-zero group of people that despite all rationale and reason think that a society can exist without a police force whatsoever, and I can't fathom how odd their world view must be to think that way.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4259
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3876 on: August 31, 2020, 04:28:02 PM »
I sometimes wonder if far left organizations/individuals actually want 4 more years of Trump. I mean, burning cars on TV every night, and dumb slogans like "defund the police" and various no-police protest zones turning into warlordism/anarchy/disaster (which again gets broadcast on the news constantly) is pretty much a recipe for re-electing Trump in my book. Surely people recognize this, but they keep doing the same dumb crap anyway.

Then again, maybe it's rational. It's easy to raise money/interest with Trump available as a bogeyman. There could be some institutional level logic (ie, Trump=easier to raise funds/more money) for left wing organizations to want him to stay in office, even if that runs counter to their actual policy goals. It wouldn't be the first time bureaucratic inertia overcame actual policy goals.

-W

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4990
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3877 on: August 31, 2020, 04:33:45 PM »
Overton Window?

"No police" isn't limited to the far left, of course. There have been far right militias around for years that don't accept authority, whether that authority is the IRS, BLM police and government land, or the local sheriff enforcing traffic laws.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2656
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3878 on: August 31, 2020, 04:50:00 PM »
I sometimes wonder if far left organizations/individuals actually want 4 more years of Trump. I mean, burning cars on TV every night, and dumb slogans like "defund the police" and various no-police protest zones turning into warlordism/anarchy/disaster (which again gets broadcast on the news constantly) is pretty much a recipe for re-electing Trump in my book. Surely people recognize this, but they keep doing the same dumb crap anyway.

Then again, maybe it's rational. It's easy to raise money/interest with Trump available as a bogeyman. There could be some institutional level logic (ie, Trump=easier to raise funds/more money) for left wing organizations to want him to stay in office, even if that runs counter to their actual policy goals. It wouldn't be the first time bureaucratic inertia overcame actual policy goals.

-W

Or maybe it is just as simple as that the system has been so broken for a segment of our citizens for so long that the social contract feels broken. Yes, Biden would be better for social issues. Absolutely. But if you are a person who is weighing which old white guy to vote for vs worrying about literally being shot by the police, which is your priority? Yes the optics for white law and order voters is terrible, but the ask for people to really embrace the pacifism of MLK and John Lewis is a tough ask.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3879 on: August 31, 2020, 06:15:00 PM »
I sometimes wonder if far left organizations/individuals actually want 4 more years of Trump. I mean, burning cars on TV every night, and dumb slogans like "defund the police" and various no-police protest zones turning into warlordism/anarchy/disaster (which again gets broadcast on the news constantly) is pretty much a recipe for re-electing Trump in my book. Surely people recognize this, but they keep doing the same dumb crap anyway.

Then again, maybe it's rational. It's easy to raise money/interest with Trump available as a bogeyman. There could be some institutional level logic (ie, Trump=easier to raise funds/more money) for left wing organizations to want him to stay in office, even if that runs counter to their actual policy goals. It wouldn't be the first time bureaucratic inertia overcame actual policy goals.

-W

The people burning and looting and setting up "autonomous zones" don't have any policy goals. Their aim is to bring down capitalism so they don't align themselves with either major party in the United States because both the Republicans and Democrats are capitalists. They are trying to collapse "the system". That's why it's so confusing. They aren't actually allied with Biden or any other political figure involved with governing on the center left or even the far left.

LaineyAZ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 426
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3880 on: August 31, 2020, 06:28:24 PM »
I'm glad to hear you say that.  So many people are convinced that those who are looting are also actually registered Democrats - my response has been, huh??

Our local newspaper had an editorial chiding Democrats for not condemning this urban unrest.  Again, my response is, those who are damaging property are non-aligned, why are people assuming they are Dems?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5649
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3881 on: August 31, 2020, 06:57:55 PM »
I'm glad to hear you say that.  So many people are convinced that those who are looting are also actually registered Democrats - my response has been, huh??

Our local newspaper had an editorial chiding Democrats for not condemning this urban unrest.  Again, my response is, those who are damaging property are non-aligned, why are people assuming they are Dems?

Because that’s what right-wing media and conservative FB memes are telling them.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3882 on: August 31, 2020, 07:09:23 PM »
I sometimes wonder if far left organizations/individuals actually want 4 more years of Trump. I mean, burning cars on TV every night, and dumb slogans like "defund the police" and various no-police protest zones turning into warlordism/anarchy/disaster (which again gets broadcast on the news constantly) is pretty much a recipe for re-electing Trump in my book. Surely people recognize this, but they keep doing the same dumb crap anyway.

Then again, maybe it's rational. It's easy to raise money/interest with Trump available as a bogeyman. There could be some institutional level logic (ie, Trump=easier to raise funds/more money) for left wing organizations to want him to stay in office, even if that runs counter to their actual policy goals. It wouldn't be the first time bureaucratic inertia overcame actual policy goals.

-W

The people burning and looting and setting up "autonomous zones" don't have any policy goals. Their aim is to bring down capitalism so they don't align themselves with either major party in the United States because both the Republicans and Democrats are capitalists. They are trying to collapse "the system". That's why it's so confusing. They aren't actually allied with Biden or any other political figure involved with governing on the center left or even the far left.

Thank. you. for. this.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3178
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3883 on: August 31, 2020, 07:59:17 PM »
Overton Window?

"No police" isn't limited to the far left, of course. There have been far right militias around for years that don't accept authority, whether that authority is the IRS, BLM police and government land, or the local sheriff enforcing traffic laws.

Funny how the "don't tread on me and my AR" folks like to act scared that a Democrat is going to knock on their door with a SWAT team to take away their assault rifles, but are demanding that those same police crush the protesters in the name of safety and order - protesters that are against violent and overreaching police.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16568
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3884 on: August 31, 2020, 08:09:55 PM »
Overton Window?

"No police" isn't limited to the far left, of course. There have been far right militias around for years that don't accept authority, whether that authority is the IRS, BLM police and government land, or the local sheriff enforcing traffic laws.

Funny how the "don't tread on me and my AR" folks like to act scared that a Democrat is going to knock on their door with a SWAT team to take away their assault rifles, but are demanding that those same police crush the protesters in the name of safety and order - protesters that are against violent and overreaching police.

Armed white folks protesting having to wear masks are protected by the police with nary a problem.  When armed white terrorists take a government office by force, the police calmly discuss the matter and bend over backwards to minimize blood shed.  When armed white people go in with the intent to shoot up black protesters, the police ignore them after they commit murderer - instead focusing on the mostly black crowd.

I can't imagine where white guys with big guns could get their confidence in the police from.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2108
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3885 on: September 01, 2020, 12:31:20 AM »
I agree that the name sounds poor. I do have to comment that in regards to the discussions on this - most everyone on here that I have read have not said defund the police to mean abolish the police (and in fact have taken offense at it and/or denigrated people that felt the phrase defund the police could be interpreted that way meant there could be problems). Last night, I saw a lively FB debate between one liberal person who posted along that line - defunding=/eliminate and was swamped by several far left people who were very literally saying eliminate all prisons, eliminate all police. There is a non-zero group of people that despite all rationale and reason think that a society can exist without a police force whatsoever, and I can't fathom how odd their world view must be to think that way.
How do you know those people were left?

For me there seems to be (in the US) more people on the far right that want to abolish all state institutions (the signal word here is "Free Market") than lefts, even if you count all anarchists as left.


gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3886 on: September 01, 2020, 03:40:36 AM »
I sometimes wonder if far left organizations/individuals actually want 4 more years of Trump. I mean, burning cars on TV every night, and dumb slogans like "defund the police" and various no-police protest zones turning into warlordism/anarchy/disaster (which again gets broadcast on the news constantly) is pretty much a recipe for re-electing Trump in my book. Surely people recognize this, but they keep doing the same dumb crap anyway.

Then again, maybe it's rational. It's easy to raise money/interest with Trump available as a bogeyman. There could be some institutional level logic (ie, Trump=easier to raise funds/more money) for left wing organizations to want him to stay in office, even if that runs counter to their actual policy goals. It wouldn't be the first time bureaucratic inertia overcame actual policy goals.

-W

They consider Biden to be weak and think he would be easily swayed to their line of thinking or completely deposed when the time comes.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3887 on: September 01, 2020, 04:05:37 AM »
So why are they against policies which might start to put the preservation of the lives of black men into practice?

Another serious question:

Do you believe that defunding the police will reduce the number of lives lost (black, male, or otherwise)?

To me it seems pretty likely that it would do the opposite and that the cost will be disproportionately paid by poor people and people of color.

Sadly, I think you're right.

I'm a bit baffled why we on the left have apparently decided BLM activists have a better plan to fix policing issues than President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing did. We seem to be intent on running this Defund experiment in some of our more liberal cities, though. I'm also pretty sure the least well off will bear the brunt of the consequences but we shall see.

Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I think it's about the electoral math.

I think the Democratic Party is worried that leftists and progressives will stay home (again?) since they went with another super-establishment candidate (maybe as a McCain-like sacrificial candidate since the economy was still doing well when they told the other candidates to fold up shop).

My guess is that Democratic support for these things stops the day after the polls close and the election is won.

If that's the case I'm even more worried. I suspect that in the states that will decide this election there are more potential Biden voters to lose from the middle than from the far left. Trump is terrible enough to motivate all but the most extreme of the left to vote for Biden but to pick up votes from the frustrated middle he needs to be careful how hard he embraces the ideological left. He needs to be seen as from the practical left.

I see it pretty much this way exactly.

And while I don't think Ted Wheeler is some kind of double-secret Trump supporter, abdicating responsibility (re: 100 days of riots and now vigilante murder) as both the mayor and police chief seems to be making it easy for Trump to point out that those in the Democratic camp are strongly embracing the authoritarian left even if it's "just" by refusing to condemn them / allow for larger police presence to dissuade riots. There's a video of Ted Cruz doing that in the Kabuki theater of a senate committee already. And those kinds of words will continue to ring true while governments fail to even pretend to be preventing riots.

I'll also preemptively point back to my previous post about throwing the fucking book at vigilantes to show that I thought we should be doing that to Rittenhouse (before the shooting in Portland). I also said that I think we should be doing that to violent rioters (who are also trying to take the law into their own hands). I also think we should do that with the shooter in Portland (although I don't think they'be been ID'd yet).

Vigilantism is super-fucking dangerous and it shouldn't be tolerated in a functioning society (and while we seem to be teetering, we're still at least mostly in that category IMO). And I think it's stupid for anyone to turn a blind eye to it in cases where they agree with the supposed political ends.

And I think the best way to avoid vigilantism is for governments to enforce the law so citizens don't have a rational argument for taking the law into their own hands. Note that I also said that this includes prosecuting police when appropriate.

Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

NorthernBlitz

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 485
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3888 on: September 01, 2020, 06:33:19 AM »
...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2020, 06:35:02 AM by NorthernBlitz »

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3889 on: September 01, 2020, 07:13:58 AM »
...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

The rioters and protesters have been using inflammatory rhetoric to goad Trump into sending the National Guard in. In Seattle the CHAZ declared that it was "seceding from the union." What happened last time something decided to secede from the union? Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation. Wandering residential neighborhoods and chanting is provocation.

But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

Ted Wheeler and Governor Kate Brown will never give the okay for the National Guard. They want Trump to March in without authorization.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16568
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3890 on: September 01, 2020, 07:49:46 AM »
...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

Seems to be quite a false dichotomy you've created here.  There are a lot more than two opposite actions that can be taken.

How about:
- Trump publicly acknowledges the problems with policing in the country, and visibly does something to try to fix them.
- Trump stops using inflammatory language intended to increase tensions with protesters.
- Trump stops authorizing illegal detention of US citizens who are protesting peacefully.
- Trump stops indicating his support for police brutality.
etc.

Will that approach work to help diffuse the flames that the current president has fanned into a raging inferno at every possible turn so far?  I honestly don't know.  But the approach so far of angry rhetoric and brutal policing has failed so far.  Maybe it's time to try something that hasn't been attempted instead of continuing with failed policy.



Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation.

Hmm.  What happened the last time armed white people attacked a federal building without provocation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge

Radically softer and more easygoing response on the part of law enforcement, that's what.  That's certainly very different than the steadily climbing injury rate reported by unarmed and peaceful protestors and news media at the hands of the police during the George Floyd protests.  Maybe the problem is that not enough George Floyd protesters are armed?



But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

There's certainly violence going on in the protests across America right now.  I'm certain that some of the violence is coming from far left instigators.  I'm just as sure that there are also people who just want a chance to smash stuff.  There are undeniably a few far right instigators like the 17 year old who arrived at the protests in Wisconsin armed and with intent to commit murder - and was successful in his attempt.

The police have a very difficult job to do.  Their job is to protect peaceful protesters/bystanders/media and prevent violence from anyone who would commit it.  Unfortunately, they haven't been bothering to do this job.  There is ample evidence so far that police have chosen to willfully and violently target peaceful protestors and reporters.  They have continued to kill unarmed black men without cause.  In addition to attacking the people they're charged with protecting, police (and other law enforcement) are not bothering to prevent violence and damage from the protesters who are acting in a criminal manner.  So, while I sympathize with their plight, it's getting increasingly difficult to believe that throwing more law enforcement at this problem is a viable solution.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3891 on: September 01, 2020, 09:29:12 AM »
The police have a very difficult job to do.  Their job is to protect peaceful protesters/bystanders/media and prevent violence from anyone who would commit it.  Unfortunately, they haven't been bothering to do this job.  There is ample evidence so far that police have chosen to willfully and violently target peaceful protestors and reporters.  They have continued to kill unarmed black men without cause.  In addition to attacking the people they're charged with protecting, police (and other law enforcement) are not bothering to prevent violence and damage from the protesters who are acting in a criminal manner.  So, while I sympathize with their plight, it's getting increasingly difficult to believe that throwing more law enforcement at this problem is a viable solution.

This is something I've been considering lately. Not only do they have a difficult job to do, but the protesters they are tasked with managing are there to protest them and their livelihoods, or at least that's the perception of many police officers. Is it any surprise that the police are angry at the protesters?

Not that it excuses beating people who have their hands in the air, but I guess my point is that it makes for a very difficult situation. Local leaders have one tool to directly diffuse the situation and that tool isn't particularly interested in doing it's job*. Big picture, there's no way to address this that will have a perfect outcome. People are going to get hurt and property is going to be destroyed no matter what government decides to do. Hopefully they're making an honest attempt at minimizing that damage but I certainly don't have the expertise to critique their decisions.

And that's before you throw the fuel of left wing extremists who think violence is the answer, right wing extremists who want to make cities look bad, groups like boogaloo who's only goal is violence, opportunistic criminals, and fearmongering politicians who have scared more moderate people into thinking vigilantism and carrying guns is a solution.

*That's not meant to be a criticism of all police, but it's too many to just say it's a few bad apples either. This is a situational problem.




Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2656
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3892 on: September 01, 2020, 09:40:50 AM »
...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

The rioters and protesters have been using inflammatory rhetoric to goad Trump into sending the National Guard in. In Seattle the CHAZ declared that it was "seceding from the union." What happened last time something decided to secede from the union? Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation. Wandering residential neighborhoods and chanting is provocation.

But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

Ted Wheeler and Governor Kate Brown will never give the okay for the National Guard. They want Trump to March in without authorization.

And what is the intent of the pro-Trump supporters (labelled based on the flags in the back of the pickup trucks) who have been driving to the protest areas and shooting people with paintball guns and using mace (or equivalent) on people? Are they also trying to get Trump to bring in the national guard (even though he has no authority to do that on domestic soil as that is the purview of the state governors)? Or are these people who see an opportunity to give it to the 'Libs? Honest question about how you perceive their actions.

gentmach

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3893 on: September 01, 2020, 11:26:40 AM »
...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

The rioters and protesters have been using inflammatory rhetoric to goad Trump into sending the National Guard in. In Seattle the CHAZ declared that it was "seceding from the union." What happened last time something decided to secede from the union? Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation. Wandering residential neighborhoods and chanting is provocation.

But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

Ted Wheeler and Governor Kate Brown will never give the okay for the National Guard. They want Trump to March in without authorization.

And what is the intent of the pro-Trump supporters (labelled based on the flags in the back of the pickup trucks) who have been driving to the protest areas and shooting people with paintball guns and using mace (or equivalent) on people? Are they also trying to get Trump to bring in the national guard (even though he has no authority to do that on domestic soil as that is the purview of the state governors)? Or are these people who see an opportunity to give it to the 'Libs? Honest question about how you perceive their actions.

They were stupid. Complete idiots. At this point conservatives should know that when they protest, any and all violence will be blamed on them. It is better to stay home and watch TV than go out and protest. Without opposition AntiFa will turn on themselves.

...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

Seems to be quite a false dichotomy you've created here.  There are a lot more than two opposite actions that can be taken.

How about:
- Trump publicly acknowledges the problems with policing in the country, and visibly does something to try to fix them.
- Trump stops using inflammatory language intended to increase tensions with protesters.
- Trump stops authorizing illegal detention of US citizens who are protesting peacefully.
- Trump stops indicating his support for police brutality.
etc.

Will that approach work to help diffuse the flames that the current president has fanned into a raging inferno at every possible turn so far?  I honestly don't know.  But the approach so far of angry rhetoric and brutal policing has failed so far.  Maybe it's time to try something that hasn't been attempted instead of continuing with failed policy.



Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation.

Hmm.  What happened the last time armed white people attacked a federal building without provocation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge

Radically softer and more easygoing response on the part of law enforcement, that's what.  That's certainly very different than the steadily climbing injury rate reported by unarmed and peaceful protestors and news media at the hands of the police during the George Floyd protests.  Maybe the problem is that not enough George Floyd protesters are armed?



But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

There's certainly violence going on in the protests across America right now.  I'm certain that some of the violence is coming from far left instigators.  I'm just as sure that there are also people who just want a chance to smash stuff.  There are undeniably a few far right instigators like the 17 year old who arrived at the protests in Wisconsin armed and with intent to commit murder - and was successful in his attempt.

The police have a very difficult job to do.  Their job is to protect peaceful protesters/bystanders/media and prevent violence from anyone who would commit it.  Unfortunately, they haven't been bothering to do this job.  There is ample evidence so far that police have chosen to willfully and violently target peaceful protestors and reporters.  They have continued to kill unarmed black men without cause.  In addition to attacking the people they're charged with protecting, police (and other law enforcement) are not bothering to prevent violence and damage from the protesters who are acting in a criminal manner.  So, while I sympathize with their plight, it's getting increasingly difficult to believe that throwing more law enforcement at this problem is a viable solution.

1. A change in Trump's demeanor will not help. Ted Wheeler has been on the rioters side since the beginning, even going out and getting tear gassed to show solidarity with them, and they still demand his resignation. What went right with Ted Wheelers approach?

2. You are comparing a nature refuge in the middle of nowhere to a courthouse in the middle of a metropolitan area.

For the Nature Refuge you block off the roads and wait them out because they will run out of food. Why risk lives when people would surrender eventually?

The Portland courthouse, people were attempting to seize. People broke in and started a fire. The feds decided to put up plywood. People attempted to break down the plywood. The feds put up a metal fence. People brought angle grinders to cut the fence and then started beating the plywood. These people could leave, get food, sleep and come back night after night.

I would say they were different situations.

3. You decide to try and refute my point about media manipulation with talking points from media manipulation. At this point with videos being available and a statement from his defense attorney explaining his side, you use your mind reading powers to understand his motives.

4.  The instigators are using the protests as cover. Bad actors are slapping "PRESS" on their shirts. The protesters will have to help root out troublemakers.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16568
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3894 on: September 01, 2020, 12:51:25 PM »
...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

The rioters and protesters have been using inflammatory rhetoric to goad Trump into sending the National Guard in. In Seattle the CHAZ declared that it was "seceding from the union." What happened last time something decided to secede from the union? Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation. Wandering residential neighborhoods and chanting is provocation.

But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

Ted Wheeler and Governor Kate Brown will never give the okay for the National Guard. They want Trump to March in without authorization.

And what is the intent of the pro-Trump supporters (labelled based on the flags in the back of the pickup trucks) who have been driving to the protest areas and shooting people with paintball guns and using mace (or equivalent) on people? Are they also trying to get Trump to bring in the national guard (even though he has no authority to do that on domestic soil as that is the purview of the state governors)? Or are these people who see an opportunity to give it to the 'Libs? Honest question about how you perceive their actions.

They were stupid. Complete idiots. At this point conservatives should know that when they protest, any and all violence will be blamed on them. It is better to stay home and watch TV than go out and protest. Without opposition AntiFa will turn on themselves.

...
Trump was supposed to send the national guard to put the riots down. That is why Ted Wheeler refused to do anything.

Do you have a source for that? It's the first time I've heard that.

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that state and local government was strongly against the national guard coming in.

I think that's why there were only federal officers who were there were focused on the federal building.

My understanding was that the agreement for the federal people to leave was that state and local agreed to police the court house. But then the riots moved to other places.

My understanding is that Kenosha has requested and received help from the NG but Portland has not made that request.

But I also admit that I think it's super hard to know what's actually happening in Portland. If someone has a source saying state and local requested having the NG come in I'd be happy to be wrong here.

I've been following the news on the riots for 3 months now. It is obvious this was supposed to be a "decision dilemma."

Trump does nothing: people claim the riots are happening under his presidency and he is to blame for them. He appears weak.
Trump sends in the national guard: People will be screaming that he was the dictator they warned everyone about.

Seems to be quite a false dichotomy you've created here.  There are a lot more than two opposite actions that can be taken.

How about:
- Trump publicly acknowledges the problems with policing in the country, and visibly does something to try to fix them.
- Trump stops using inflammatory language intended to increase tensions with protesters.
- Trump stops authorizing illegal detention of US citizens who are protesting peacefully.
- Trump stops indicating his support for police brutality.
etc.

Will that approach work to help diffuse the flames that the current president has fanned into a raging inferno at every possible turn so far?  I honestly don't know.  But the approach so far of angry rhetoric and brutal policing has failed so far.  Maybe it's time to try something that hasn't been attempted instead of continuing with failed policy.



Attacking a Federal Courthouse is a provocation.

Hmm.  What happened the last time armed white people attacked a federal building without provocation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge

Radically softer and more easygoing response on the part of law enforcement, that's what.  That's certainly very different than the steadily climbing injury rate reported by unarmed and peaceful protestors and news media at the hands of the police during the George Floyd protests.  Maybe the problem is that not enough George Floyd protesters are armed?



But if you ask anyone with passing knowledge from the media, they would believe "peaceful protests" are all that is happening. That any violence is the fault of a small, miniscule number of "alt-right instigators."

There's certainly violence going on in the protests across America right now.  I'm certain that some of the violence is coming from far left instigators.  I'm just as sure that there are also people who just want a chance to smash stuff.  There are undeniably a few far right instigators like the 17 year old who arrived at the protests in Wisconsin armed and with intent to commit murder - and was successful in his attempt.

The police have a very difficult job to do.  Their job is to protect peaceful protesters/bystanders/media and prevent violence from anyone who would commit it.  Unfortunately, they haven't been bothering to do this job.  There is ample evidence so far that police have chosen to willfully and violently target peaceful protestors and reporters.  They have continued to kill unarmed black men without cause.  In addition to attacking the people they're charged with protecting, police (and other law enforcement) are not bothering to prevent violence and damage from the protesters who are acting in a criminal manner.  So, while I sympathize with their plight, it's getting increasingly difficult to believe that throwing more law enforcement at this problem is a viable solution.

1. A change in Trump's demeanor will not help. Ted Wheeler has been on the rioters side since the beginning, even going out and getting tear gassed to show solidarity with them, and they still demand his resignation. What went right with Ted Wheelers approach?

Can you point to a time where Trump changed his demeanor towards the protesters that proves your claim here?



2. You are comparing a nature refuge in the middle of nowhere to a courthouse in the middle of a metropolitan area.

For the Nature Refuge you block off the roads and wait them out because they will run out of food. Why risk lives when people would surrender eventually?

The Portland courthouse, people were attempting to seize. People broke in and started a fire. The feds decided to put up plywood. People attempted to break down the plywood. The feds put up a metal fence. People brought angle grinders to cut the fence and then started beating the plywood. These people could leave, get food, sleep and come back night after night.

I would say they were different situations.

Agreed, they're different situations.  The federal building that I mentioned was hijacked by armed gunman . . . who brought firearms, supplies, and ammunition in a large scale and premeditated coordinated attack.  As you mentioned, one or two of the protesters had power tools.


3. You decide to try and refute my point about media manipulation with talking points from media manipulation. At this point with videos being available and a statement from his defense attorney explaining his side, you use your mind reading powers to understand his motives.

Media manipulation has little to do with it.  I believe that the motives of a man who brings an assault rifle to a protest because he violently disagrees with the protesters does indeed have bad intentions.  This seems to have been corroborated by his (very predictable) actions.  But you're right, this is not what the statements he released to the press after the fact to prove his innocence indicate that he was thinking.

So, by that token . . . you've repeatedly claimed that Ted Wheeler and Kate Brown want the president to march his jackbooted thugs into town without authorization.  Can you point to the times they've been quoted saying this?  Or are you using media driven talking points and mind reading powers to understand their motives?

:P



4.  The instigators are using the protests as cover. Bad actors are slapping "PRESS" on their shirts. The protesters will have to help root out troublemakers.

In your opinion . . . if one bad person puts 'PRESS' on their shirt who doesn't work for the press . . . the police should be given free reign to attack the press forevermore?  This includes when the people the police are attacking are:
- clearly marked as press
- obviously not criminal / performing any misdeeds
- obviously not a threat of any kind
- are displaying visible press cards and identification
?


https://twitter.com/i/status/1266546753182056453
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266925551941541890
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266945268567678976
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266910910137995264
https://twitter.com/i/status/1267294124123750402
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266919447970942986

I can find hundreds of video clips of police purposely targeting press who were clearly doing their jobs and not a threat.  Leaving aside the question of whether or not 'fake press' is really a thing as you're claiming . . . do you really argue that this is no problem?



The protesters will have to help root out troublemakers.

If the police rooted out troublemakers, there wouldn't be any protests to begin with.  Why do you believe that protesters have to be held to a much higher standard than police officers?
« Last Edit: September 01, 2020, 02:39:20 PM by GuitarStv »

brandon1827

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 175
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3895 on: September 01, 2020, 02:33:25 PM »
I also wanted to make a small point about using the term "Antifa" to refer to protesters. That term is a complete fabrication of the extreme right wing media, so the point about media manipulation after that just rings a bit hollow

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3896 on: September 01, 2020, 02:39:06 PM »
@brandon1827 , thank you, I've been curious to see who will respond to Sen. Paul's subpoena for financial and travel records of "Antifa"

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2656
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3897 on: September 01, 2020, 02:45:59 PM »
@brandon1827 , thank you, I've been curious to see who will respond to Sen. Paul's subpoena for financial and travel records of "Antifa"
How about the travel itinerary of Dwight Eisenhower during WWII? Pretty sure that was an antifa(cist) trip.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4990
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3898 on: September 01, 2020, 02:46:18 PM »
@brandon1827 , thank you, I've been curious to see who will respond to Sen. Paul's subpoena for financial and travel records of "Antifa"

Lol. That is laughably out-of-touch.


Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #3899 on: September 01, 2020, 03:36:54 PM »
There's certainly violence going on in the protests across America right now.  I'm certain that some of the violence is coming from far left instigators.  I'm just as sure that there are also people who just want a chance to smash stuff.  There are undeniably a few far right instigators like the 17 year old who arrived at the protests in Wisconsin armed and with intent to commit murder - and was successful in his attempt..

So the right wing kid who brings a gun and medical kit to the protests and spent his day standing in front of businesses so they don't get torched, washing off graffiti, carrying around a fire extinguisher and running away from aggressors whenever possible came with the intent to commit murder but the left wing guy who brought a gun and a medical kit to the protests was just prepared to defend himself should he be attacked?