|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 02 2020 20:34 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2020 14:55 Zealously wrote:On June 02 2020 14:04 Arceus wrote:On June 02 2020 13:00 Starlightsun wrote:On June 02 2020 12:06 Salazarz wrote:On June 02 2020 11:33 iamthedave wrote:On June 02 2020 11:14 Salazarz wrote:On June 02 2020 10:12 NewSunshine wrote:On June 02 2020 09:52 farvacola wrote:
Force will probably be used against peaceful demonstrators regardless, particularly if Trump is allowed to escalate things. Force above and beyond firing cans of teargas directly at demonstrators, shoving them to the ground, and running cars into them, you mean. Can't wait to see what's next. I'm also positive our resident fans of the 2nd amendment will support the peaceful protesters in their endeavors if the government suddenly comes down on them with full military might. This is precisely such a situation where its invocation makes real sense. Pretty sure making use of the 2nd amendment in a situation like this would be an absolutely terrible idea. It is LITERALLY what the 2nd amendment is for. This situation is WHY the 2nd amendment exists. It's the defense Americans trot out whenever people talk about taking their guns away. I hope people do. If the American government wants real anarchy, I think the people of the US should give it to them. Reading comments like this is truly frightening. A live-fire exchange between civilian protesters and the military here would not lead to anything good. There are already tons of people who believe that the protests are going way overboard, and that police action against them is mostly justified. Actually shooting at cops / military would only serve to further solidify such beliefs, while also leading to a lot of completely meaningless deaths. The point of the second amendment isn't to avoid conflict, it is to meet it head on and end oppressive practices. It is why all the y'allqaeda folks brought it to their haircut rallies in Michigan etc I mean, if it comes to an actual confrontation, who is stronger kind of thing rather than using whatever means to make a point -- there is absolutely no way civilian militias of any sort have any chance at all to win. And actually shooting at the cops / military isn't very likely to make a good talking point, so... I agree with you for the time being but I have to ask, do you think it's ever justified for the citizens to take up arms against the state? Just a month ago I found those scenarios by gun owners ridiculous, but now that the state is actively murdering and terrorizing citizens, and the president is mobilizing the military to "dominate" citizens, I'm not so sure anymore. Can you give some examples of the state "actively murdering and terrorizing citizens"? Don't go around throwing words like that. There are ways more videos of rioters and looters savagely destroy businesses (and neighborhoods). About time that business owners and the citizens, not the forces, shoot back and murder those rioters. Waiting until those "protests" come to your area. Is this a serious question? The US has a long, LONG history of deadly force against its own citizens. So long, in fact, that it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one should feel a need to question it as a general phenomenon. The police uses state-sanctioned violence - that is the function of police. When police officers harm or murder someone (especially without consequences), then, that is the state murdering and terrorizing its citizens. Driving cars into crowds at speed qualifies. Shooting and tear-gasing unarmed and non-violent citizens qualifies. The very thing that kick-started these riots was such an event. News and social media has been so crowded with reports of these events that I have a hard time believing you actually need to ask. Also, why are you advocating for murder? It boggles the mind that you seem to think the punishment for destroying property should be "being murdered" - is the only resolution to conflict you can envision killing the protesters? Well, "destroying property" is probably the worst crime there is according to liberal societies as there is nothing more holy than this. Moreover, he can advocate murder because he got weapons. In fact, there are fucking 300 millions weapons in your country of "freedom", for god sake, independantly of this most likely racist crime, I would freak out too if I was a cops in a country where everybody has a weapon. Add to this that USA is not like France in which the police is quite a old institution which represents since the beginning the hand of the state "la justice du roi" founded by Louis XIV. In the us, it is derived from militias in which the culture is way more focused on private justice which creates a culture of a conflict between two individuals rather than between the state and a citizen. Arceus embodies very well this conception which is still prevalent and leads to more violence. And obviously, this militia culture gives more freedom for racists cops in some departments of police. Anyway, in the country in which sometihng like the Pinkerton National Detective Agency has existed, the roots of police violence are deep and way larger than this identitary conflict.
When it’s your livelihood, the means by which you feed your family, you had better believe citizens expect someone they pay through taxation to show up with deadly force to defend their business. Some of these immigrant owned shops are not coming back in LA. There was no savings, every dime they had was in that place.
The hope is that deployment of nonlethal means is enough to dissuade looters and arsonists. I’m talking about people that couldn’t give two shits about who George Floyd was or what happened, but know there will be enough lawlessness on the streets that night to pick up some sweet new shoes. Thankfully, sometimes peaceful protestors find and stop these people. Right now, it’s not the larger, peaceful crowd that’s setting the scene. It’s the looters.
Everything about this smacks of Nixon coming to power in the wake of urban riots. You don’t think people back then had higher ideals of change too? People knew about injustice then too, but something about homes and businesses destroyed just down the street directed their vote. I’m becoming more pessimistic about any real change coming from whatever day it is of the riots and bodily injury from looters and police. Opportunists own this now, not that I’m satisfied coming to that conclusion.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On June 02 2020 15:00 puppykiller wrote:
I just got this email from my mom. My parents live right in the thick of it. My mom is a doctor at a city clinic and my Dad manages a non-profit organization dedicated to restorative justice programs and helping people sue police for malpractice:
We are both physically fine and so is our dwelling. Psychologically, we are pretty tired, but we have had two nights of sleep that were quieter.
The National Guard is here. They are not letting anyone remain outside after 8pm. Those that do get asked to leave or, if there are issues, arrested.
Steve and I went down to ground zero yesterday to help with some clean up and saw what looked like an area hit by bombs in a war.
It’s been a bit overwhelming.
Dad is working hard on supporting his lawyers and the ACLU calling for a more accurate charge of second degree murder. And to get the rest of them arrested.
I am busy supporting overly stressed residents and patients.
One of our community clinics was destroyed completely, at ground zero. Ours and another had our pharmacies looted.
We are safe. Things are quiet.
We love you all, we know we raised responsible, moral humans. And two of you have chosen responsible, moral partners.
We will come out at the end of this intact.
Mom
Despite disagreeing on the necessity/justification of rioting, this stuff is preferable and crucial to having a more just, kind society.
Your folks sound like great people, hope everyone stays safe in this stressful time.
|
On June 02 2020 21:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2020 20:34 stilt wrote:On June 02 2020 14:55 Zealously wrote:On June 02 2020 14:04 Arceus wrote:On June 02 2020 13:00 Starlightsun wrote:On June 02 2020 12:06 Salazarz wrote:On June 02 2020 11:33 iamthedave wrote:On June 02 2020 11:14 Salazarz wrote:On June 02 2020 10:12 NewSunshine wrote:On June 02 2020 09:52 farvacola wrote:
Force will probably be used against peaceful demonstrators regardless, particularly if Trump is allowed to escalate things. Force above and beyond firing cans of teargas directly at demonstrators, shoving them to the ground, and running cars into them, you mean. Can't wait to see what's next. I'm also positive our resident fans of the 2nd amendment will support the peaceful protesters in their endeavors if the government suddenly comes down on them with full military might. This is precisely such a situation where its invocation makes real sense. Pretty sure making use of the 2nd amendment in a situation like this would be an absolutely terrible idea. It is LITERALLY what the 2nd amendment is for. This situation is WHY the 2nd amendment exists. It's the defense Americans trot out whenever people talk about taking their guns away. I hope people do. If the American government wants real anarchy, I think the people of the US should give it to them. Reading comments like this is truly frightening. A live-fire exchange between civilian protesters and the military here would not lead to anything good. There are already tons of people who believe that the protests are going way overboard, and that police action against them is mostly justified. Actually shooting at cops / military would only serve to further solidify such beliefs, while also leading to a lot of completely meaningless deaths. The point of the second amendment isn't to avoid conflict, it is to meet it head on and end oppressive practices. It is why all the y'allqaeda folks brought it to their haircut rallies in Michigan etc I mean, if it comes to an actual confrontation, who is stronger kind of thing rather than using whatever means to make a point -- there is absolutely no way civilian militias of any sort have any chance at all to win. And actually shooting at the cops / military isn't very likely to make a good talking point, so... I agree with you for the time being but I have to ask, do you think it's ever justified for the citizens to take up arms against the state? Just a month ago I found those scenarios by gun owners ridiculous, but now that the state is actively murdering and terrorizing citizens, and the president is mobilizing the military to "dominate" citizens, I'm not so sure anymore. Can you give some examples of the state "actively murdering and terrorizing citizens"? Don't go around throwing words like that. There are ways more videos of rioters and looters savagely destroy businesses (and neighborhoods). About time that business owners and the citizens, not the forces, shoot back and murder those rioters. Waiting until those "protests" come to your area. Is this a serious question? The US has a long, LONG history of deadly force against its own citizens. So long, in fact, that it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one should feel a need to question it as a general phenomenon. The police uses state-sanctioned violence - that is the function of police. When police officers harm or murder someone (especially without consequences), then, that is the state murdering and terrorizing its citizens. Driving cars into crowds at speed qualifies. Shooting and tear-gasing unarmed and non-violent citizens qualifies. The very thing that kick-started these riots was such an event. News and social media has been so crowded with reports of these events that I have a hard time believing you actually need to ask. Also, why are you advocating for murder? It boggles the mind that you seem to think the punishment for destroying property should be "being murdered" - is the only resolution to conflict you can envision killing the protesters? Well, "destroying property" is probably the worst crime there is according to liberal societies as there is nothing more holy than this. Moreover, he can advocate murder because he got weapons. In fact, there are fucking 300 millions weapons in your country of "freedom", for god sake, independantly of this most likely racist crime, I would freak out too if I was a cops in a country where everybody has a weapon. Add to this that USA is not like France in which the police is quite a old institution which represents since the beginning the hand of the state "la justice du roi" founded by Louis XIV. In the us, it is derived from militias in which the culture is way more focused on private justice which creates a culture of a conflict between two individuals rather than between the state and a citizen. Arceus embodies very well this conception which is still prevalent and leads to more violence. And obviously, this militia culture gives more freedom for racists cops in some departments of police. Anyway, in the country in which sometihng like the Pinkerton National Detective Agency has existed, the roots of police violence are deep and way larger than this identitary conflict. Everything about this smacks of Nixon coming to power in the wake of urban riots. You don’t think people back then had higher ideals of change too? People knew about injustice then too, but something about homes and businesses destroyed just down the street directed their vote. I’m becoming more pessimistic about any real change coming from whatever day it is of the riots and bodily injury from looters and police. Opportunists own this now, not that I’m satisfied coming to that conclusion.
Nixon wasn't the incumbent during the riots. Trump just gassed priests of a church who were serving people water there, so he could walk there for a photo with a bible. I doubt his awful responses will strengthen his position.
|
IMO this is definitely helping Trump. More solidarity with right than left, and the right love “law and order” responses. Isolated incidences like the church are white noise at this point. Turn on Fox News to get an idea of what 45-50% of the population thinks about the situation (Hannity’s talking point last night was “Everyone agrees Floyd’s death was heinous and cruel, but the cops are being punished so protesting is unnecessary and violence/riots should be met with overwhelming force by police “).
Combined with disillusionment with the political process by large swaths of the left, next election is looking like a slam dunk for him. It’s quite depressing.
|
On June 02 2020 21:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2020 20:34 stilt wrote:On June 02 2020 14:55 Zealously wrote:On June 02 2020 14:04 Arceus wrote:On June 02 2020 13:00 Starlightsun wrote:On June 02 2020 12:06 Salazarz wrote:On June 02 2020 11:33 iamthedave wrote:On June 02 2020 11:14 Salazarz wrote:On June 02 2020 10:12 NewSunshine wrote:On June 02 2020 09:52 farvacola wrote:
Force will probably be used against peaceful demonstrators regardless, particularly if Trump is allowed to escalate things. Force above and beyond firing cans of teargas directly at demonstrators, shoving them to the ground, and running cars into them, you mean. Can't wait to see what's next. I'm also positive our resident fans of the 2nd amendment will support the peaceful protesters in their endeavors if the government suddenly comes down on them with full military might. This is precisely such a situation where its invocation makes real sense. Pretty sure making use of the 2nd amendment in a situation like this would be an absolutely terrible idea. It is LITERALLY what the 2nd amendment is for. This situation is WHY the 2nd amendment exists. It's the defense Americans trot out whenever people talk about taking their guns away. I hope people do. If the American government wants real anarchy, I think the people of the US should give it to them. Reading comments like this is truly frightening. A live-fire exchange between civilian protesters and the military here would not lead to anything good. There are already tons of people who believe that the protests are going way overboard, and that police action against them is mostly justified. Actually shooting at cops / military would only serve to further solidify such beliefs, while also leading to a lot of completely meaningless deaths. The point of the second amendment isn't to avoid conflict, it is to meet it head on and end oppressive practices. It is why all the y'allqaeda folks brought it to their haircut rallies in Michigan etc I mean, if it comes to an actual confrontation, who is stronger kind of thing rather than using whatever means to make a point -- there is absolutely no way civilian militias of any sort have any chance at all to win. And actually shooting at the cops / military isn't very likely to make a good talking point, so... I agree with you for the time being but I have to ask, do you think it's ever justified for the citizens to take up arms against the state? Just a month ago I found those scenarios by gun owners ridiculous, but now that the state is actively murdering and terrorizing citizens, and the president is mobilizing the military to "dominate" citizens, I'm not so sure anymore. Can you give some examples of the state "actively murdering and terrorizing citizens"? Don't go around throwing words like that. There are ways more videos of rioters and looters savagely destroy businesses (and neighborhoods). About time that business owners and the citizens, not the forces, shoot back and murder those rioters. Waiting until those "protests" come to your area. Is this a serious question? The US has a long, LONG history of deadly force against its own citizens. So long, in fact, that it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one should feel a need to question it as a general phenomenon. The police uses state-sanctioned violence - that is the function of police. When police officers harm or murder someone (especially without consequences), then, that is the state murdering and terrorizing its citizens. Driving cars into crowds at speed qualifies. Shooting and tear-gasing unarmed and non-violent citizens qualifies. The very thing that kick-started these riots was such an event. News and social media has been so crowded with reports of these events that I have a hard time believing you actually need to ask. Also, why are you advocating for murder? It boggles the mind that you seem to think the punishment for destroying property should be "being murdered" - is the only resolution to conflict you can envision killing the protesters? Well, "destroying property" is probably the worst crime there is according to liberal societies as there is nothing more holy than this. Moreover, he can advocate murder because he got weapons. In fact, there are fucking 300 millions weapons in your country of "freedom", for god sake, independantly of this most likely racist crime, I would freak out too if I was a cops in a country where everybody has a weapon. Add to this that USA is not like France in which the police is quite a old institution which represents since the beginning the hand of the state "la justice du roi" founded by Louis XIV. In the us, it is derived from militias in which the culture is way more focused on private justice which creates a culture of a conflict between two individuals rather than between the state and a citizen. Arceus embodies very well this conception which is still prevalent and leads to more violence. And obviously, this militia culture gives more freedom for racists cops in some departments of police. Anyway, in the country in which sometihng like the Pinkerton National Detective Agency has existed, the roots of police violence are deep and way larger than this identitary conflict. When it’s your livelihood, the means by which you feed your family, you had better believe citizens expect someone they pay through taxation to show up with deadly force to defend their business. Some of these immigrant owned shops are not coming back in LA. There was no savings, every dime they had was in that place. The hope is that deployment of nonlethal means is enough to dissuade looters and arsonists. I’m talking about people that couldn’t give two shits about who George Floyd was or what happened, but know there will be enough lawlessness on the streets that night to pick up some sweet new shoes. Thankfully, sometimes peaceful protestors find and stop these people. Right now, it’s not the larger, peaceful crowd that’s setting the scene. It’s the looters. Everything about this smacks of Nixon coming to power in the wake of urban riots. You don’t think people back then had higher ideals of change too? People knew about injustice then too, but something about homes and businesses destroyed just down the street directed their vote. I’m becoming more pessimistic about any real change coming from whatever day it is of the riots and bodily injury from looters and police. Opportunists own this now, not that I’m satisfied coming to that conclusion.
Nixon or Bush? Using the military to quash the LA riots wasn't a good move.
|
On June 02 2020 21:37 Ryzel wrote:
IMO this is definitely helping Trump. More solidarity with right than left, and the right love “law and order” responses. Isolated incidences like the church are white noise at this point. Turn on Fox News to get an idea of what 45-50% of the population thinks about the situation (Hannity’s talking point last night was “Everyone agrees Floyd’s death was heinous and cruel, but the cops are being punished so protesting is unnecessary and violence/riots should be met with overwhelming force by police “).
Combined with disillusionment with the political process by large swaths of the left, next election is looking like a slam dunk for him. It’s quite depressing. Would any of those people not have voted Trump anyway?
How many genuinely 'independents' go to Fox for their news?
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On June 02 2020 21:37 Ryzel wrote:
IMO this is definitely helping Trump. More solidarity with right than left, and the right love “law and order” responses. Isolated incidences like the church are white noise at this point. Turn on Fox News to get an idea of what 45-50% of the population thinks about the situation (Hannity’s talking point last night was “Everyone agrees Floyd’s death was heinous and cruel, but the cops are being punished so protesting is unnecessary and violence/riots should be met with overwhelming force by police “).
Combined with disillusionment with the political process by large swaths of the left, next election is looking like a slam dunk for him. It’s quite depressing.
You think so? We're coming away with very different conceptions of public sentiment at this point. This is the president who has been harping about being "the best president ever for black people" or some such, while it's quite evident that "racial tensions" (clunkily put) are running extremely high. Fox News can always be relied upon to present their own pro-state take on any kind of conflict between anti-fascists/anti-racists/mildly left-wing protesters and police, but both news media generally and especially social media seems inundated with reports on how police are escalating violence in many places. Obviously very difficult to tell what the conclusion to this will be, but I unfortunately lean in the direction that the later Trump succumbs to protesters' demands, the stronger the anti-Trump case will be come the election (which sadly means more people will have to suffer first). Additionally, there's always a large part of the electorate that chooses not to vote. The more dramatic and brutal the circumstances, the harder neutral voters will find it to remain neutral.
There's definitely going to be a reckoning about riots/looting as a phenomenon in response to police brutality, but I think it's far from determined that the end point will be "the rioters were wrong and Trump was right to call in the heavy troops"
|
On June 02 2020 21:37 Ryzel wrote:
IMO this is definitely helping Trump. More solidarity with right than left, and the right love “law and order” responses. Isolated incidences like the church are white noise at this point. Turn on Fox News to get an idea of what 45-50% of the population thinks about the situation (Hannity’s talking point last night was “Everyone agrees Floyd’s death was heinous and cruel, but the cops are being punished so protesting is unnecessary and violence/riots should be met with overwhelming force by police “).
Combined with disillusionment with the political process by large swaths of the left, next election is looking like a slam dunk for him. It’s quite depressing.
Smashing stuff and bringing down the current order, in this case let's say because it's oppressive, will always be associated with the extreme left and Antifa. The Jewish synagogues were vandalized with Free Palestine and Fuck Israel. Maybe that's not fair, but let's go to far right. Control, order, anything for the preservation of property, individualism, the nation. If you think white supremacists are in these riots (I mean beyond the 2-9 loudmouths every city has), it's to pretend to be far left to discredit the enterprise.
Widespread destruction caused by rioters and unable to be stopped by police immediately supports anyone who says the police need better leadership or greater numbers or show greater force. The better leadership isn't really a big knock on Trump, since his involvement is just verbal leadership, and I don't know what you're smoking if you think whatever Trump says will be listened to protestors or violent looters. See Tom Cotton for what kind of side does a better job saying they're in support of greater numbers or greater force of police. And then people rush to buy guns, and guess which side has a better argument that they're preserving your right to access a gun.
I would really step back and think if you're of the opinion that longer protests favor lasting change. And common disclaimers apply: this isn't to say Trump's had anything good of a response, which will still hurt him. Shows of peaceful protestors stopping violent protests, like in LA with several videos of young black men stopping small white gangster-wannabes, really helps recapture the image of what protestors should be about.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On June 02 2020 21:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2020 20:34 stilt wrote:On June 02 2020 14:55 Zealously wrote:On June 02 2020 14:04 Arceus wrote:On June 02 2020 13:00 Starlightsun wrote:On June 02 2020 12:06 Salazarz wrote:On June 02 2020 11:33 iamthedave wrote:On June 02 2020 11:14 Salazarz wrote:On June 02 2020 10:12 NewSunshine wrote:On June 02 2020 09:52 farvacola wrote:
Force will probably be used against peaceful demonstrators regardless, particularly if Trump is allowed to escalate things. Force above and beyond firing cans of teargas directly at demonstrators, shoving them to the ground, and running cars into them, you mean. Can't wait to see what's next. I'm also positive our resident fans of the 2nd amendment will support the peaceful protesters in their endeavors if the government suddenly comes down on them with full military might. This is precisely such a situation where its invocation makes real sense. Pretty sure making use of the 2nd amendment in a situation like this would be an absolutely terrible idea. It is LITERALLY what the 2nd amendment is for. This situation is WHY the 2nd amendment exists. It's the defense Americans trot out whenever people talk about taking their guns away. I hope people do. If the American government wants real anarchy, I think the people of the US should give it to them. Reading comments like this is truly frightening. A live-fire exchange between civilian protesters and the military here would not lead to anything good. There are already tons of people who believe that the protests are going way overboard, and that police action against them is mostly justified. Actually shooting at cops / military would only serve to further solidify such beliefs, while also leading to a lot of completely meaningless deaths. The point of the second amendment isn't to avoid conflict, it is to meet it head on and end oppressive practices. It is why all the y'allqaeda folks brought it to their haircut rallies in Michigan etc I mean, if it comes to an actual confrontation, who is stronger kind of thing rather than using whatever means to make a point -- there is absolutely no way civilian militias of any sort have any chance at all to win. And actually shooting at the cops / military isn't very likely to make a good talking point, so... I agree with you for the time being but I have to ask, do you think it's ever justified for the citizens to take up arms against the state? Just a month ago I found those scenarios by gun owners ridiculous, but now that the state is actively murdering and terrorizing citizens, and the president is mobilizing the military to "dominate" citizens, I'm not so sure anymore. Can you give some examples of the state "actively murdering and terrorizing citizens"? Don't go around throwing words like that. There are ways more videos of rioters and looters savagely destroy businesses (and neighborhoods). About time that business owners and the citizens, not the forces, shoot back and murder those rioters. Waiting until those "protests" come to your area. Is this a serious question? The US has a long, LONG history of deadly force against its own citizens. So long, in fact, that it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one should feel a need to question it as a general phenomenon. The police uses state-sanctioned violence - that is the function of police. When police officers harm or murder someone (especially without consequences), then, that is the state murdering and terrorizing its citizens. Driving cars into crowds at speed qualifies. Shooting and tear-gasing unarmed and non-violent citizens qualifies. The very thing that kick-started these riots was such an event. News and social media has been so crowded with reports of these events that I have a hard time believing you actually need to ask. Also, why are you advocating for murder? It boggles the mind that you seem to think the punishment for destroying property should be "being murdered" - is the only resolution to conflict you can envision killing the protesters? Well, "destroying property" is probably the worst crime there is according to liberal societies as there is nothing more holy than this. Moreover, he can advocate murder because he got weapons. In fact, there are fucking 300 millions weapons in your country of "freedom", for god sake, independantly of this most likely racist crime, I would freak out too if I was a cops in a country where everybody has a weapon. Add to this that USA is not like France in which the police is quite a old institution which represents since the beginning the hand of the state "la justice du roi" founded by Louis XIV. In the us, it is derived from militias in which the culture is way more focused on private justice which creates a culture of a conflict between two individuals rather than between the state and a citizen. Arceus embodies very well this conception which is still prevalent and leads to more violence. And obviously, this militia culture gives more freedom for racists cops in some departments of police. Anyway, in the country in which sometihng like the Pinkerton National Detective Agency has existed, the roots of police violence are deep and way larger than this identitary conflict. When it’s your livelihood, the means by which you feed your family, you had better believe citizens expect someone they pay through taxation to show up with deadly force to defend their business. Some of these immigrant owned shops are not coming back in LA. There was no savings, every dime they had was in that place. The hope is that deployment of nonlethal means is enough to dissuade looters and arsonists. I’m talking about people that couldn’t give two shits about who George Floyd was or what happened, but know there will be enough lawlessness on the streets that night to pick up some sweet new shoes. Thankfully, sometimes peaceful protestors find and stop these people. Right now, it’s not the larger, peaceful crowd that’s setting the scene. It’s the looters. Everything about this smacks of Nixon coming to power in the wake of urban riots. You don’t think people back then had higher ideals of change too? People knew about injustice then too, but something about homes and businesses destroyed just down the street directed their vote. I’m becoming more pessimistic about any real change coming from whatever day it is of the riots and bodily injury from looters and police. Opportunists own this now, not that I’m satisfied coming to that conclusion.
The state, if private insurance isn’t a factor should help those businesses.
Hell, crowdfunding should be employed if that’s absent. Nobody involved, or supporting from afar these protests outside of the looters dragged up with the rising tide wants local businesses and families left destitute
Yes there are parallels to Nixon, Trump’s already in place and is temperamentally at least worse than Dick but unlike those days there is so much more access to information from so many different sources.
People like to LARP about what great people they would have been transplanted back to totally different eras, but they are completely different eras.
Perhaps transplanted me would have got with the right side of history, perhaps I would have been one of the ones freaking out at a bit of property damage and buying into Nixon’s law and order shtick, who knows?
Today we have endless, sickening video footage of police malfeasance, the same stuff black people have complained about forever they could hand wave with ‘they commit crimes we’re just about law and order’ and be swallowed by many people is absolutely out there in the open.
The segment of society who got pissy at NFL players taking the knee were long ago lost to this cause, although they’ll try to frame it as being ok with BLM etc up to the point they rioted despite it being patently false. Remains to be seen where wider public sentiment goes from here though, don’t think anyone can really accurately predict something with so many moving parts.
|
On June 02 2020 21:48 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2020 21:37 Ryzel wrote:
IMO this is definitely helping Trump. More solidarity with right than left, and the right love “law and order” responses. Isolated incidences like the church are white noise at this point. Turn on Fox News to get an idea of what 45-50% of the population thinks about the situation (Hannity’s talking point last night was “Everyone agrees Floyd’s death was heinous and cruel, but the cops are being punished so protesting is unnecessary and violence/riots should be met with overwhelming force by police “).
Combined with disillusionment with the political process by large swaths of the left, next election is looking like a slam dunk for him. It’s quite depressing. You think so? We're coming away with very different conceptions of public sentiment at this point. This is the president who has been harping about being "the best president ever for black people" or some such, while it's quite evident that "racial tensions" (clunkily put) are running extremely high. Fox News can always be relied upon to present their own pro-state take on any kind of conflict between anti-fascists/anti-racists/mildly left-wing protesters and police, but both news media generally and especially social media seems inundated with reports on how police are escalating violence in many places. Obviously very difficult to tell what the conclusion to this will be, but I unfortunately lean in the direction that the later Trump succumbs to protesters' demands, the stronger the anti-Trump case will be come the election (which sadly means more people will have to suffer first). Additionally, there's always a large part of the electorate that chooses not to vote. The more dramatic and brutal the circumstances, the harder neutral voters will find it to remain neutral. There's definitely going to be a reckoning about riots/looting as a phenomenon in response to police brutality, but I think it's far from determined that the end point will be "the rioters were wrong and Trump was right to call in the heavy troops"
Trump succumbing to protester demands is like saying Oregon succumbing to French demands. He doesn't lead a national police force, he leads the military, and they're flailing at 200 year old laws to bring them up. The governors don't conduct foreign policy, so blaming them about US-French relations won't happen. The governors deploy the national guard in times of riots. Trump just isn't involved in reforming policemen, police departments, or police union protections. There isn't much yielding a president can do in terms of any normal demands protesters would make regarding what's the problem.
Unless protesters are demanding Trump change the way he speaks from the bully pulpit, in which case he's absolutely at fault, but that would be a hilarious demand on its face.
|
On June 02 2020 21:37 Ryzel wrote:
IMO this is definitely helping Trump. More solidarity with right than left, and the right love “law and order” responses. Isolated incidences like the church are white noise at this point. Turn on Fox News to get an idea of what 45-50% of the population thinks about the situation (Hannity’s talking point last night was “Everyone agrees Floyd’s death was heinous and cruel, but the cops are being punished so protesting is unnecessary and violence/riots should be met with overwhelming force by police “).
Combined with disillusionment with the political process by large swaths of the left, next election is looking like a slam dunk for him. It’s quite depressing.
The "law and order" right was already fervent and Trump looks weaker now than ever before. The moment he turned out the lights at the White House to hide in his bunker will come back to haunt him, mark my words.
|
On June 02 2020 21:56 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2020 21:03 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2020 20:34 stilt wrote:On June 02 2020 14:55 Zealously wrote:On June 02 2020 14:04 Arceus wrote:On June 02 2020 13:00 Starlightsun wrote:On June 02 2020 12:06 Salazarz wrote:On June 02 2020 11:33 iamthedave wrote:On June 02 2020 11:14 Salazarz wrote:On June 02 2020 10:12 NewSunshine wrote:
[quote]
Force above and beyond firing cans of teargas directly at demonstrators, shoving them to the ground, and running cars into them, you mean. Can't wait to see what's next.
I'm also positive our resident fans of the 2nd amendment will support the peaceful protesters in their endeavors if the government suddenly comes down on them with full military might. This is precisely such a situation where its invocation makes real sense. Pretty sure making use of the 2nd amendment in a situation like this would be an absolutely terrible idea. It is LITERALLY what the 2nd amendment is for. This situation is WHY the 2nd amendment exists. It's the defense Americans trot out whenever people talk about taking their guns away. I hope people do. If the American government wants real anarchy, I think the people of the US should give it to them. Reading comments like this is truly frightening. A live-fire exchange between civilian protesters and the military here would not lead to anything good. There are already tons of people who believe that the protests are going way overboard, and that police action against them is mostly justified. Actually shooting at cops / military would only serve to further solidify such beliefs, while also leading to a lot of completely meaningless deaths. The point of the second amendment isn't to avoid conflict, it is to meet it head on and end oppressive practices. It is why all the y'allqaeda folks brought it to their haircut rallies in Michigan etc I mean, if it comes to an actual confrontation, who is stronger kind of thing rather than using whatever means to make a point -- there is absolutely no way civilian militias of any sort have any chance at all to win. And actually shooting at the cops / military isn't very likely to make a good talking point, so... I agree with you for the time being but I have to ask, do you think it's ever justified for the citizens to take up arms against the state? Just a month ago I found those scenarios by gun owners ridiculous, but now that the state is actively murdering and terrorizing citizens, and the president is mobilizing the military to "dominate" citizens, I'm not so sure anymore. Can you give some examples of the state "actively murdering and terrorizing citizens"? Don't go around throwing words like that. There are ways more videos of rioters and looters savagely destroy businesses (and neighborhoods). About time that business owners and the citizens, not the forces, shoot back and murder those rioters. Waiting until those "protests" come to your area. Is this a serious question? The US has a long, LONG history of deadly force against its own citizens. So long, in fact, that it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one should feel a need to question it as a general phenomenon. The police uses state-sanctioned violence - that is the function of police. When police officers harm or murder someone (especially without consequences), then, that is the state murdering and terrorizing its citizens. Driving cars into crowds at speed qualifies. Shooting and tear-gasing unarmed and non-violent citizens qualifies. The very thing that kick-started these riots was such an event. News and social media has been so crowded with reports of these events that I have a hard time believing you actually need to ask. Also, why are you advocating for murder? It boggles the mind that you seem to think the punishment for destroying property should be "being murdered" - is the only resolution to conflict you can envision killing the protesters? Well, "destroying property" is probably the worst crime there is according to liberal societies as there is nothing more holy than this. Moreover, he can advocate murder because he got weapons. In fact, there are fucking 300 millions weapons in your country of "freedom", for god sake, independantly of this most likely racist crime, I would freak out too if I was a cops in a country where everybody has a weapon. Add to this that USA is not like France in which the police is quite a old institution which represents since the beginning the hand of the state "la justice du roi" founded by Louis XIV. In the us, it is derived from militias in which the culture is way more focused on private justice which creates a culture of a conflict between two individuals rather than between the state and a citizen. Arceus embodies very well this conception which is still prevalent and leads to more violence. And obviously, this militia culture gives more freedom for racists cops in some departments of police. Anyway, in the country in which sometihng like the Pinkerton National Detective Agency has existed, the roots of police violence are deep and way larger than this identitary conflict. When it’s your livelihood, the means by which you feed your family, you had better believe citizens expect someone they pay through taxation to show up with deadly force to defend their business. Some of these immigrant owned shops are not coming back in LA. There was no savings, every dime they had was in that place. The hope is that deployment of nonlethal means is enough to dissuade looters and arsonists. I’m talking about people that couldn’t give two shits about who George Floyd was or what happened, but know there will be enough lawlessness on the streets that night to pick up some sweet new shoes. Thankfully, sometimes peaceful protestors find and stop these people. Right now, it’s not the larger, peaceful crowd that’s setting the scene. It’s the looters. Everything about this smacks of Nixon coming to power in the wake of urban riots. You don’t think people back then had higher ideals of change too? People knew about injustice then too, but something about homes and businesses destroyed just down the street directed their vote. I’m becoming more pessimistic about any real change coming from whatever day it is of the riots and bodily injury from looters and police. Opportunists own this now, not that I’m satisfied coming to that conclusion. The state, if private insurance isn’t a factor should help those businesses. Hell, crowdfunding should be employed if that’s absent. Nobody involved, or supporting from afar these protests outside of the looters dragged up with the rising tide wants local businesses and families left destitute Yes there are parallels to Nixon, Trump’s already in place and is temperamentally at least worse than Dick but unlike those days there is so much more access to information from so many different sources. People like to LARP about what great people they would have been transplanted back to totally different eras, but they are completely different eras. Perhaps transplanted me would have got with the right side of history, perhaps I would have been one of the ones freaking out at a bit of property damage and buying into Nixon’s law and order shtick, who knows? Today we have endless, sickening video footage of police malfeasance, the same stuff black people have complained about forever they could hand wave with ‘they commit crimes we’re just about law and order’ and be swallowed by many people is absolutely out there in the open. The segment of society who got pissy at NFL players taking the knee were long ago lost to this cause, although they’ll try to frame it as being ok with BLM etc up to the point they rioted despite it being patently false. Remains to be seen where wider public sentiment goes from here though, don’t think anyone can really accurately predict something with so many moving parts.
You're missing what Manifesto brought up earlier. You can find videos of all groups behaving badly. Pair each "sickening video of police malfeasance" with cops getting run over in New York City and Buffalo, or cops shot in St Louis. You show Americans that police are putting their lives on the line on these protests, and suddenly the bad instances are halved in their power. Just loop the videos of a cop crossing the street and being bounced in midair by a car side-by-side with police going way crazy with pepper spray and rubber bullets, and then tell me the sickening video footage of police malfeasance will surely carry the day.
I don't have to actually love the way things are to deduce what comes from this. When police fail to protect businesses, a good chunk of reactionary citizens will wonder if police did do more and quicker, if their friend's liquor store might have been saved.
I was already pretty outspoken about what I thought about the anthem kneeling at the time in this thread, so I'm holding my tongue on that. It seems so long ago when symbolic meaning and symbols were the battle lines.
|
On June 02 2020 21:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2020 21:37 Ryzel wrote:
IMO this is definitely helping Trump. More solidarity with right than left, and the right love “law and order” responses. Isolated incidences like the church are white noise at this point. Turn on Fox News to get an idea of what 45-50% of the population thinks about the situation (Hannity’s talking point last night was “Everyone agrees Floyd’s death was heinous and cruel, but the cops are being punished so protesting is unnecessary and violence/riots should be met with overwhelming force by police “).
Combined with disillusionment with the political process by large swaths of the left, next election is looking like a slam dunk for him. It’s quite depressing. Would any of those people not have voted Trump anyway? How many genuinely 'independents' go to Fox for their news?
A lot of self-proclaimed independents love to watch Fox News, at least. I even had one as unchosen family. There's never a whiff of irony when they talk about how they're independent free thinkers for doing so, either.
There's a massive outrage stemming from very real issues in this country right now, and Trump is trying to strongarm them. That's a bad look. He's living out his fantasies of being a dictator, and at this point that only looks good to his base. Whoever is still on the fence is hopefully coming away with a different take.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On June 02 2020 22:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2020 21:48 Zealously wrote:On June 02 2020 21:37 Ryzel wrote:
IMO this is definitely helping Trump. More solidarity with right than left, and the right love “law and order” responses. Isolated incidences like the church are white noise at this point. Turn on Fox News to get an idea of what 45-50% of the population thinks about the situation (Hannity’s talking point last night was “Everyone agrees Floyd’s death was heinous and cruel, but the cops are being punished so protesting is unnecessary and violence/riots should be met with overwhelming force by police “).
Combined with disillusionment with the political process by large swaths of the left, next election is looking like a slam dunk for him. It’s quite depressing. You think so? We're coming away with very different conceptions of public sentiment at this point. This is the president who has been harping about being "the best president ever for black people" or some such, while it's quite evident that "racial tensions" (clunkily put) are running extremely high. Fox News can always be relied upon to present their own pro-state take on any kind of conflict between anti-fascists/anti-racists/mildly left-wing protesters and police, but both news media generally and especially social media seems inundated with reports on how police are escalating violence in many places. Obviously very difficult to tell what the conclusion to this will be, but I unfortunately lean in the direction that the later Trump succumbs to protesters' demands, the stronger the anti-Trump case will be come the election (which sadly means more people will have to suffer first). Additionally, there's always a large part of the electorate that chooses not to vote. The more dramatic and brutal the circumstances, the harder neutral voters will find it to remain neutral. There's definitely going to be a reckoning about riots/looting as a phenomenon in response to police brutality, but I think it's far from determined that the end point will be "the rioters were wrong and Trump was right to call in the heavy troops" Trump succumbing to protester demands is like saying Oregon succumbing to French demands. He doesn't lead a national police force, he leads the military, and they're flailing at 200 year old laws to bring them up. The governors don't conduct foreign policy, so blaming them about US-French relations won't happen. The governors deploy the national guard in times of riots. Trump just isn't involved in reforming policemen, police departments, or police union protections. There isn't much yielding a president can do in terms of any normal demands protesters would make regarding what's the problem. Unless protesters are demanding Trump change the way he speaks from the bully pulpit, in which case he's absolutely at fault, but that would be a hilarious demand on its face.
Given the tendency of the most recent presidents to legislate in greater degree via executive action, I would say that you're definitely right that the president doesn't *technically* lead the police, but he also doesn't *technically* lead many other departments that have caved to his whims and demands in the past. There is nothing preventing a president from employing the powers vested in him to try and affect change on a national level. It is not right or democratic that the president has that ability, but it would certainly be called for in this case. It's also questionable in this political climate to think that Donald Trump - who has reshaped the Republican party in his image - could not almost single-handedly push police reform into Congress via his proxies if he wanted to.
And separately but on a related note, doesn't the US military sell plenty of equipment to local and regional police forces? Restricting the transfer of military-grade equipment to non-military institutions would be within the purview of the Defense Department, which is part of the executive branch, correct?
|
When police officers are getting bounded off the hood of the car, the majority of people are wondering where the leadership is. They’re not wondering why police officers are getting attacked, they know why police officers are getting attacked in the middle of a riot. They’re the targets of the protest itself and their departments have so much blood on their hands (shit, the LA riots were 28 years ago and not much has changed) that the presumption that they’re innocent is a little hard for a lot of people to stomach when the “good cops” should have attempted to root out the problem long ago.
When people are getting their property destroyed and stolen, they’re wondering where the police is and why they’re busy attacking the media and protestors. The situation has shifted away from riot police beating back some fired up protestors and into complete chaos.
The problem with this situation is that it’s up to the powers involved to attempt to calm the situation. Even if Trump can’t actually do anything, he can still put out statements and push people in state and local governments to do something. Justin Amash is planning to introduce legislation to end Qualified Immunity, Trump could very easily promote this bill as an example.
Trump has opted to gas the route to the church, gas the church itself and hold a bible up for 30 seconds in the midst of threatening military action whether that be possible or not. That tells the world he’s throwing gas onto the issue rather than trying to reach for the fire extinguisher, he wants people to fight to the point he can potentially justify higher degrees of force.
Edit: And I just read a letter from Bob Kroll, President of the Minneapolis police union, saying that George Floyd was a criminal anyway and that they could have ended these riots if they were allowed to use more force. Is there any wonder why people are beating up police officers when the union thinks like this?
|
On June 02 2020 22:17 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2020 22:02 Danglars wrote:On June 02 2020 21:48 Zealously wrote:On June 02 2020 21:37 Ryzel wrote:
IMO this is definitely helping Trump. More solidarity with right than left, and the right love “law and order” responses. Isolated incidences like the church are white noise at this point. Turn on Fox News to get an idea of what 45-50% of the population thinks about the situation (Hannity’s talking point last night was “Everyone agrees Floyd’s death was heinous and cruel, but the cops are being punished so protesting is unnecessary and violence/riots should be met with overwhelming force by police “).
Combined with disillusionment with the political process by large swaths of the left, next election is looking like a slam dunk for him. It’s quite depressing. You think so? We're coming away with very different conceptions of public sentiment at this point. This is the president who has been harping about being "the best president ever for black people" or some such, while it's quite evident that "racial tensions" (clunkily put) are running extremely high. Fox News can always be relied upon to present their own pro-state take on any kind of conflict between anti-fascists/anti-racists/mildly left-wing protesters and police, but both news media generally and especially social media seems inundated with reports on how police are escalating violence in many places. Obviously very difficult to tell what the conclusion to this will be, but I unfortunately lean in the direction that the later Trump succumbs to protesters' demands, the stronger the anti-Trump case will be come the election (which sadly means more people will have to suffer first). Additionally, there's always a large part of the electorate that chooses not to vote. The more dramatic and brutal the circumstances, the harder neutral voters will find it to remain neutral. There's definitely going to be a reckoning about riots/looting as a phenomenon in response to police brutality, but I think it's far from determined that the end point will be "the rioters were wrong and Trump was right to call in the heavy troops" Trump succumbing to protester demands is like saying Oregon succumbing to French demands. He doesn't lead a national police force, he leads the military, and they're flailing at 200 year old laws to bring them up. The governors don't conduct foreign policy, so blaming them about US-French relations won't happen. The governors deploy the national guard in times of riots. Trump just isn't involved in reforming policemen, police departments, or police union protections. There isn't much yielding a president can do in terms of any normal demands protesters would make regarding what's the problem. Unless protesters are demanding Trump change the way he speaks from the bully pulpit, in which case he's absolutely at fault, but that would be a hilarious demand on its face. Given the tendency of the most recent presidents to legislate in greater degree via executive action, I would say that you're definitely right that the president doesn't *technically* lead the police, but he also doesn't *technically* lead many other departments that have caved to his whims and demands in the past. There is nothing preventing a president from employing the powers vested in him to try and affect change on a national level. It is not right or democratic that the president has that ability, but it would certainly be called for in this case. It's also questionable in this political climate to think that Donald Trump - who has reshaped the Republican party in his image - could not almost single-handedly push police reform into Congress via his proxies if he wanted to. And separately but on a related note, doesn't the US military sell plenty of equipment to local and regional police forces? Restricting the transfer of military-grade equipment to non-military institutions would be within the purview of the Defense Department, which is part of the executive branch, correct?
The President absolutely has the power to stop the wholesale transfer of military equipment to police departments, that is correct.
|
I wonder if Trump knew whether he was holding his favorite version of the bible or not, after gassing the priest of the church. Oh well. At least he looked Christian.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On June 02 2020 22:39 NewSunshine wrote:
I wonder if Trump knew whether he was holding his favorite version of the bible or not, after gassing the priest of the church. Oh well. At least he looked Christian.
I had to go and look up if that actually happened, avoiding much news for my own sanity lately.
A President that Poe’s law applies to, fucking hell.
|
Everytime riots happens in the US, we arrive at the same conclusion. Police forces in the US don't know/aren't trained in deescalating situations. Shooting at protests just make them violents.
|
I've seen some parallels drawn to 1968 and 1992 recently, in particular for how years with civil unrest over race and policing combined with an election will play out for Trump. Nixon to his credit knew how to play reconciliator and the law and order candidate for a country torn by the Vietnam War and the protests. From what I've seen from Trump so far, he's only placating his side and his voters and making no overtures to people who see this as an eruption of injustice and a need for police reform. Will being the incumbent law and order president play out that well when it's his presidency experiencing a convulsion of violence? I'm not so sure yet, and 1968 and 1992 show that the incumbent party suffers when they face this problem during an election year.
I expect Biden to present himself as the empathetic healer of the nation who can pull the country out of its many morasses, while Trump only doubles down on the people and strategy that got him elected. The photo op in front of the church with a Bible did very well with white evangelicals I'm sure. We'll see if the approval polls prove me right or wrong in a few weeks.
Also there's primary races in eight states and D.C. today. It's got some interesting things to watch for as a preview of November with mail-in ballots, Steve King's seat, pandemic voting and how much enthusiasm there is on both parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
