US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8567

On August 28 2017 02:10 LegalLord wrote:
There's flooding. That's essentially a given since this was that strong of a hurricane, and it's certainly a royal PITA to deal with floods. Compare it to the large-scale disaster that was Katrina though, and frankly Texas can't be said to be doing all that badly.

On August 28 2017 02:53 LegalLord wrote:

And yet if that is all they have to deal with, then they got off easy.

On August 28 2017 02:53 LegalLord wrote:

And yet if that is all they have to deal with, then they got off easy.

On August 27 2017 23:25 Acrofales wrote:

I think you're arguing for two different interpretations of free speech. The American way, which is pretty much "anything goes", with some minor sidenotes about directly instigating violence against a specific person (or group). And the European way, which explicitly excludes "hate speech" from those things that are free to say.

Neo-nazi rallies in (most of) Europe are quite explicitly not included under freedom of speech. Neo-nazis have snuck in some rallies by posing as something other than neo-nazis, but generally they get shut down hard the moment the swastikas come out. The same goes for any other rally promoting a hateful ideology (for instance, ISIS, ETA, IRA). You can have a protest promoting the independence of the basque countries. You cannot have a protest glorifying violence in order to obtain independence.

So if you're discussing freedom of speech from an ethical point of view, you need to first define it (clearly from a legal point of view there is no question: American neo-nazis have the right to demonstrate and promote their ideology), rather than having this bizar back-and-forth, because there is quite clearly a difference between BLM and neo-nazis. BLM does not promote, let alone glorify violence, in pursuit of their goal. Neo-nazis, on the other hand, both promote and glorify violence in pursuit of their goal. In fact, violence is one of the core tenets of the ideology, and in fact, of fascism in general (in fascism, violence is simply one means to an end, no better or worse than any other means to obtain and hold power, and war is generally glorified). So you'd need to argue why the right to glorify violence is worthy of protection. I personally feel it isn't, and neo-nazis should not have the right to promote their ideology. Yes, that is a limitation on the freedom of speech. But no freedom is absolute.

And on a pragmatic note: I will reiterate that if you show up to a rally with riot shields, and open-carrying guns, your intent to "peacefully demonstrate" is highly questionable. Moreso still if the ideology you are demonstrating in favor of promotes violence.

On August 28 2017 00:50 Danglars wrote:

He quoted my response to someone who did as a "Reddit meme."

He said "your posts represent some of the most despicable parts of this country." I think not defending the civil rights of all law-abiding citizens as despicable behavior.

I protest heavily "a lot of people's civil rights are being ignored." I hear more about extensive positive rights not found in the constitution and very little about civil rights. Also, tons of opinion statements declaring the opposite side to be against rights. Political tomfoolery, not rampant rights violations.

In the case of Arpaio, he was a clear example. There's also not dozens of him all over. Anecdotes won't help you. Trump's in the extreme here.

On August 28 2017 03:24 zlefin wrote:
I don't know the particulars on police handling; just some general notes:
1) police policy is generally set by the local level, and a bit by the state level, not really at all at the federal level. So policy will vary by department across the country, and each one will act differently.
2) sometimes police try to avoid engaging the crowds as sometimes that makes things worse (i.e. sometimes mobs of sports fans and such, or other angry groups, won't cause too much damage on their own, but if they meet up with a bunch of police they'll start a major fight). i.e. being careful to avoid escalating the situation, which a police presence sometimes does if it gets more aggressive.
3) if the event is at a smaller town, the police likely don't have the proper manpower to deal with such a temporary surge in numbers. They'll call up all off-duty officers and reserves they have, but that may not be enough to properly police such an event, and the extent to which the state/feds would help bring in manpower is probably low. Those police also might not have had nearly as much crowd control training, both at the officer level, and at the command level, as those in a large city would've.
4) standing between two hostile groups is a terrible defensive position to be in; and US cops put in a lot of effort to make sure they come home alive (rather than maximizing citizen safety). This is even worse if you're short on manpower. To push back against a crowd shoving you need quite a bit of numbers, force, and depth; or to resort to more violent tactics which would seroiusly risk escalation of the situation.

Organizers Cancel Two Rallies in San Francisco Bay Area

SAN FRANCISCO—The organizer of a Saturday event billed as a free-speech rally in San Francisco and the planner of a “No to Marxism” gathering Sunday in nearby Berkeley, Calif., both separately and abruptly canceled their weekend events late Friday citing concerns about violence.

The organizer of the Saturday rally, Joey Gibson, said on a Facebook Live video that his “Freedom Rally” was off because of safety worries.

“Tomorrow really seems like a setup. It doesn’t seem safe; a lot of people’s lives are going to be in danger,” Mr. Gibson said.

Nearby in Berkeley, police and politicians had urged the public to stay away from the “No to Marxism” event on Sunday, and city officials had denied the organizer a permit. Organizer Amber Cummings also canceled late Friday.

“It will be me alone attending, no one else please,” she wrote in a Facebook message, saying counterprotesters would make the event too dangerous.

The Bay Area cancellations underscore how cities across the country are grappling with how to ensure free speech while tamping down violence as the nation is plunged into another series of protests fueled by political and racial divisions. The stakes are high as cities risk criticism for limiting free speech or endangering public safety.

In Charlottesville, Va., the scene of violent protests two weeks ago, Charlottesville Mayor Mark Signer said he would lobby the Virginia Legislature to change the law and allow cities to ban weapons at public events “reasonably deemed to pose a potential security threat.”

But Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group, said his group would fight any attempt to ban weapons at demonstrations or anywhere else they are legally allowed.

The Boston Police Department was hailed for managing to keep protesters and counterprotesters separated just days after the mayhem in Charlottesville. In Phoenix, police are conducting a review after officers deployed tear gas to break up demonstrators gathered to protest President Donald Trump’s rally there Tuesday night.

In Berkeley, the scene of past violence between right-wing groups and counterprotesters, Mayor Jesse Arreguin said the city had learned its lesson from the past and “will ensure that we have enough police to provide security for whatever event happens.”

Officials denied Ms. Cummings a permit for her “No to Marxism” event because her application was late, incomplete and lacked any “explanation of security arrangements,” according to a copy of the denial letter. The event was billed on Facebook as “our chance to speak out and expose the plan of purging our nation from a free nation to a communist nation.”

In San Francisco, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, and San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee urged the National Park Service not to issue a permit to Mr. Gibson’s Patriot Prayer group for his Crissy Field rally. Overseen by the park service, the field is a scenic stretch of lush grass in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area popular with tourists seeking vistas of the Golden Gate Bridge.

Mrs. Pelosi had described the event as a “white supremacist rally” while Mr. Lee had called the event part of a “shameful, anti-American trend.”

In his Facebook Live post, Mr. Gibson blamed that rhetoric for the cancellation of the “Freedom Rally” and said he would hold a news conference in another part of the city instead.

“The rhetoric from Nancy Pelosi, Mayor Lee, the media, all these people are saying we are white supremacist and it is bringing in tons of extremists,” Mr. Gibson said.

Mr. Gibson, of Vancouver, Wash., said earlier this week that his organization isn’t a hate group and that he barred by name several white-nationalist groups from attending, though he acknowledged that violence has broken out at some of his past events.

On Friday, a crowd of a few hundred people gathered in front of San Francisco City Hall for a “Unite Against Hate Rally,” intended as a counterprotest ahead of Mr. Gibson’s rally. A gospel-style band played upbeat tunes and people waved signs, including one that read “compassion matters.”

Steve Carson, 64, a retired public school teacher in San Francisco, said that “it’s important for San Francisco to stand up for its beliefs.”

On August 28 2017 03:24 zlefin wrote:
I don't know the particulars on police handling; just some general notes:
1) police policy is generally set by the local level, and a bit by the state level, not really at all at the federal level. So policy will vary by department across the country, and each one will act differently.
2) sometimes police try to avoid engaging the crowds as sometimes that makes things worse (i.e. sometimes mobs of sports fans and such, or other angry groups, won't cause too much damage on their own, but if they meet up with a bunch of police they'll start a major fight). i.e. being careful to avoid escalating the situation, which a police presence sometimes does if it gets more aggressive.
3) if the event is at a smaller town, the police likely don't have the proper manpower to deal with such a temporary surge in numbers. They'll call up all off-duty officers and reserves they have, but that may not be enough to properly police such an event, and the extent to which the state/feds would help bring in manpower is probably low. Those police also might not have had nearly as much crowd control training, both at the officer level, and at the command level, as those in a large city would've.
4) standing between two hostile groups is a terrible defensive position to be in; and US cops put in a lot of effort to make sure they come home alive (rather than maximizing citizen safety). This is even worse if you're short on manpower. To push back against a crowd shoving you need quite a bit of numbers, force, and depth; or to resort to more violent tactics which would seroiusly risk escalation of the situation.

On August 28 2017 03:41 Simberto wrote:


Regarding 3), why don't cops from other cities come over? This is basically standard here when an overly large event happens in one city. And since they have to announce beforehand if they want to have a major events, it shouldn't be that hard to coordinate things.

And this exchange actually explains a lot of things. I instinctively assumed that the US police does things at least kind of similar to the german police, and actively keep the different groups seperated.