|
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 July 23 2020 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 08:52 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 23 2020 08:38 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 08:03 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 07:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 00:17 Simberto wrote:
I just listened to a podcast (and afterwards read up on) the stuff currently happening in Portland. (No source because the sources were in German)
With Homeland Security forces escalating stuff, and unmarked forces just grabbing people of the streets without giving reasons as to why that is happening, it sounds really, really scary to me. That sort of stuff shouldn't be happening in democracies, and it is really scary how easy it seems to be for stuff that shouldn't be happening in democracies to start happening. It sounds really, really like autocratic secret police terror strategies.
Four years ago, the US, while having a slightly strange system and a lot of weird stuff like not having healthcare, still seemed like a democratic country with rule of law and some human rights. Now, it seems closer to some autocratic banana republic hellhole every day.
It really makes me wonder if you even have elections again if you manage to somehow elect Trump again. Or if you will have a chance for fair elections this November. What do you americans think about this? How can this happen? And why is there not a giant uproar going through all institutions against this? Did you notice how the response to who is going to stop the unmarked forces kidnapping people (I doubt these assholes even know the Miranda warning) was the national guard (also under the presidents command)? + Show Spoiler [snip] +
The Democratic party and their supporters are big on rules and process and simply don't have a vector for dealing with people like Trump that 'break the game' so to speak.
I suspect there will be another "no one saw this coming" moment like we've had the last few times liberals are confronted with realities they denied the possibility of and refuse to acknowledge that people told them this was happening the whole time. Trump's election, Police brutality, Iraq, 08 market crash, etc.
If the state governor activates their national guard then they aren't under the command of the president. Until he wants them to be, sure. Ultimately they serve the president though. You'll find references to "dual control", but obviously there is a power dynamic at play. The president can use title 10 to activate guard units to federal command, but it is completely different than the governor activating. I'm not sure what you're referencing with "dual control" but there is exactly one commander and that is the governor when the governor activates their national guard. The wiki sums it up decently. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the Organized Militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state governments and the federal government.
In 2006, Congress passed the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the president the authority to mobilize National Guard units within the U.S. without the consent of state governors.
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109–364
Federal law was changed in section 1076 so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States could then take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent en.wikipedia.org Was not aware of that. I'm curious if that doesn't run afoul: the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection More likely to be the latest constitutional crisis if it happens. How can you be failing to protect your citizens against un-named federal authorities. On July 23 2020 08:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
I would argue its much more justified to defend yourself in these circumstances than it is when someone is robbing your house (unless they are threatening/violent of course).
Problem being that the federal authorities you shot are the ones pressing charges on you for murdering one of theirs. Justified, but that won't stop them from making an example of you. Even if you're found non guilty by a jury of your peers, I'm sure you'll be detained without bail until your trial. I'm not suggesting people start shooting at these guys, i'm just curious about what is/is not legal. Do you have an alternative suggestion to self-defense? I personally think Kwame Ture was right about the American conscience and pacifism.
Maybe I'm aware that what i said could be taken as a recommendation for people to shoot at government officials and thought it was best to clarify 
|
On July 23 2020 09:36 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 08:52 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 23 2020 08:38 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 08:03 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 07:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 00:17 Simberto wrote:
I just listened to a podcast (and afterwards read up on) the stuff currently happening in Portland. (No source because the sources were in German)
With Homeland Security forces escalating stuff, and unmarked forces just grabbing people of the streets without giving reasons as to why that is happening, it sounds really, really scary to me. That sort of stuff shouldn't be happening in democracies, and it is really scary how easy it seems to be for stuff that shouldn't be happening in democracies to start happening. It sounds really, really like autocratic secret police terror strategies.
Four years ago, the US, while having a slightly strange system and a lot of weird stuff like not having healthcare, still seemed like a democratic country with rule of law and some human rights. Now, it seems closer to some autocratic banana republic hellhole every day.
It really makes me wonder if you even have elections again if you manage to somehow elect Trump again. Or if you will have a chance for fair elections this November. What do you americans think about this? How can this happen? And why is there not a giant uproar going through all institutions against this? Did you notice how the response to who is going to stop the unmarked forces kidnapping people (I doubt these assholes even know the Miranda warning) was the national guard (also under the presidents command)? + Show Spoiler [snip] +
The Democratic party and their supporters are big on rules and process and simply don't have a vector for dealing with people like Trump that 'break the game' so to speak.
I suspect there will be another "no one saw this coming" moment like we've had the last few times liberals are confronted with realities they denied the possibility of and refuse to acknowledge that people told them this was happening the whole time. Trump's election, Police brutality, Iraq, 08 market crash, etc.
If the state governor activates their national guard then they aren't under the command of the president. Until he wants them to be, sure. Ultimately they serve the president though. You'll find references to "dual control", but obviously there is a power dynamic at play. The president can use title 10 to activate guard units to federal command, but it is completely different than the governor activating. I'm not sure what you're referencing with "dual control" but there is exactly one commander and that is the governor when the governor activates their national guard. The wiki sums it up decently. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the Organized Militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state governments and the federal government.
In 2006, Congress passed the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the president the authority to mobilize National Guard units within the U.S. without the consent of state governors.
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109–364
Federal law was changed in section 1076 so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States could then take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent en.wikipedia.org Was not aware of that. I'm curious if that doesn't run afoul: the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection More likely to be the latest constitutional crisis if it happens. How can you be failing to protect your citizens against un-named federal authorities. On July 23 2020 08:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
I would argue its much more justified to defend yourself in these circumstances than it is when someone is robbing your house (unless they are threatening/violent of course).
Problem being that the federal authorities you shot are the ones pressing charges on you for murdering one of theirs. Justified, but that won't stop them from making an example of you. Even if you're found non guilty by a jury of your peers, I'm sure you'll be detained without bail until your trial. I'm not suggesting people start shooting at these guys, i'm just curious about what is/is not legal. Do you have an alternative suggestion to self-defense? I personally think Kwame Ture was right about the American conscience and pacifism. Maybe I'm aware that what i said could be taken as a recommendation for people to shoot at government officials and thought it was best to clarify
I can understand that. I'm just trying to clarify the alternatives you're imagining to see how they compare. If it is "*shrug*" then I'm not sure that's more humane advice than recommending self-defense against unconstitutional kidnappings?
|
On July 23 2020 08:26 Jockmcplop wrote:
Am I right in saying that in some states if unidentified people jumped out of an unmarked van and tried to kidnap you you would be within your rights to shoot them in self defence?
Absolutely. States that prohibit you, expressly or effectively, from carrying out and about the town are a sad travesty.
It should be a check against the Feds, State marshals, county sheriffs, or city police or sheriffs from acting suddenly and aggresively against you without identification and statement of intention.
|
|
|
United States6959 Posts
On July 23 2020 07:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 07:22 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 22 2020 15:06 Danglars wrote:On July 22 2020 14:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 22 2020 09:45 Nevuk wrote:
Obvious answer is the national guard. There isn't any other group capable of it with anything close to the legal right.
We don't really know who these people are in the first place - federal government is a good guess, but for all we know it is the proud boys.
But if the guess is correct, national guard being deployed against the feds would be a giant constitutional crisis. BuT sTaTeS' rIgHtS! What a fucking joke this is. States rights is precisely why states should demand identification, notice of rights, access to a lawyer, and members of their police overseeing the process. If you routinely denigrate state rights, then stand the fuck aside when the feds intrude on them to do something involving a federal courthouse. You’re no help at all, go pretend you’ll get the president you want every election until you die. Added an edit to my post. The point is that the people that throw out "states rights" are very conspicuously silent during all of this. We probably listen to different circles, but I heard widespread conservative condemnation. They also aren’t too pleased with the inaction of Portland PD regarding attempted firebombing, blocking of fire exits, and destruction/tagging of federal courthouses by Antifa and related groups. But that’s cause for a legitimate federal response, as I’ve already posted beforehand.
I've heard plenty of condemnation from libertarians.
I've heard absolutely zero from traditional conservatives/Republicans. Not only this, but I've heard many blatantly supporting the federal response.
|
The problem is that federal officers do not expect left wing activists to own their Second Amendment rights. All the Antifa apologists on this forum should go spread the word.
|
On July 23 2020 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 08:52 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 23 2020 08:38 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 08:03 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 07:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 00:17 Simberto wrote:
I just listened to a podcast (and afterwards read up on) the stuff currently happening in Portland. (No source because the sources were in German)
With Homeland Security forces escalating stuff, and unmarked forces just grabbing people of the streets without giving reasons as to why that is happening, it sounds really, really scary to me. That sort of stuff shouldn't be happening in democracies, and it is really scary how easy it seems to be for stuff that shouldn't be happening in democracies to start happening. It sounds really, really like autocratic secret police terror strategies.
Four years ago, the US, while having a slightly strange system and a lot of weird stuff like not having healthcare, still seemed like a democratic country with rule of law and some human rights. Now, it seems closer to some autocratic banana republic hellhole every day.
It really makes me wonder if you even have elections again if you manage to somehow elect Trump again. Or if you will have a chance for fair elections this November. What do you americans think about this? How can this happen? And why is there not a giant uproar going through all institutions against this? Did you notice how the response to who is going to stop the unmarked forces kidnapping people (I doubt these assholes even know the Miranda warning) was the national guard (also under the presidents command)? + Show Spoiler [snip] +
The Democratic party and their supporters are big on rules and process and simply don't have a vector for dealing with people like Trump that 'break the game' so to speak.
I suspect there will be another "no one saw this coming" moment like we've had the last few times liberals are confronted with realities they denied the possibility of and refuse to acknowledge that people told them this was happening the whole time. Trump's election, Police brutality, Iraq, 08 market crash, etc.
If the state governor activates their national guard then they aren't under the command of the president. Until he wants them to be, sure. Ultimately they serve the president though. You'll find references to "dual control", but obviously there is a power dynamic at play. The president can use title 10 to activate guard units to federal command, but it is completely different than the governor activating. I'm not sure what you're referencing with "dual control" but there is exactly one commander and that is the governor when the governor activates their national guard. The wiki sums it up decently. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the Organized Militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state governments and the federal government.
In 2006, Congress passed the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the president the authority to mobilize National Guard units within the U.S. without the consent of state governors.
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109–364
Federal law was changed in section 1076 so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States could then take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent en.wikipedia.org Was not aware of that. I'm curious if that doesn't run afoul: the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection More likely to be the latest constitutional crisis if it happens. How can you be failing to protect your citizens against un-named federal authorities. On July 23 2020 08:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
I would argue its much more justified to defend yourself in these circumstances than it is when someone is robbing your house (unless they are threatening/violent of course).
Problem being that the federal authorities you shot are the ones pressing charges on you for murdering one of theirs. Justified, but that won't stop them from making an example of you. Even if you're found non guilty by a jury of your peers, I'm sure you'll be detained without bail until your trial. I'm not suggesting people start shooting at these guys, i'm just curious about what is/is not legal. Do you have an alternative suggestion to self-defense? I personally think Kwame Ture was right about the American conscience and pacifism.
Of course America has a conscience. Look at the fit of conscience going on right now.
|
On July 23 2020 13:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 08:52 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 23 2020 08:38 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 08:03 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 07:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 00:17 Simberto wrote:
I just listened to a podcast (and afterwards read up on) the stuff currently happening in Portland. (No source because the sources were in German)
With Homeland Security forces escalating stuff, and unmarked forces just grabbing people of the streets without giving reasons as to why that is happening, it sounds really, really scary to me. That sort of stuff shouldn't be happening in democracies, and it is really scary how easy it seems to be for stuff that shouldn't be happening in democracies to start happening. It sounds really, really like autocratic secret police terror strategies.
Four years ago, the US, while having a slightly strange system and a lot of weird stuff like not having healthcare, still seemed like a democratic country with rule of law and some human rights. Now, it seems closer to some autocratic banana republic hellhole every day.
It really makes me wonder if you even have elections again if you manage to somehow elect Trump again. Or if you will have a chance for fair elections this November. What do you americans think about this? How can this happen? And why is there not a giant uproar going through all institutions against this? Did you notice how the response to who is going to stop the unmarked forces kidnapping people (I doubt these assholes even know the Miranda warning) was the national guard (also under the presidents command)? + Show Spoiler [snip] +
The Democratic party and their supporters are big on rules and process and simply don't have a vector for dealing with people like Trump that 'break the game' so to speak.
I suspect there will be another "no one saw this coming" moment like we've had the last few times liberals are confronted with realities they denied the possibility of and refuse to acknowledge that people told them this was happening the whole time. Trump's election, Police brutality, Iraq, 08 market crash, etc.
If the state governor activates their national guard then they aren't under the command of the president. Until he wants them to be, sure. Ultimately they serve the president though. You'll find references to "dual control", but obviously there is a power dynamic at play. The president can use title 10 to activate guard units to federal command, but it is completely different than the governor activating. I'm not sure what you're referencing with "dual control" but there is exactly one commander and that is the governor when the governor activates their national guard. The wiki sums it up decently. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the Organized Militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state governments and the federal government.
In 2006, Congress passed the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the president the authority to mobilize National Guard units within the U.S. without the consent of state governors.
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109–364
Federal law was changed in section 1076 so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States could then take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent en.wikipedia.org Was not aware of that. I'm curious if that doesn't run afoul: the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection More likely to be the latest constitutional crisis if it happens. How can you be failing to protect your citizens against un-named federal authorities. On July 23 2020 08:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
I would argue its much more justified to defend yourself in these circumstances than it is when someone is robbing your house (unless they are threatening/violent of course).
Problem being that the federal authorities you shot are the ones pressing charges on you for murdering one of theirs. Justified, but that won't stop them from making an example of you. Even if you're found non guilty by a jury of your peers, I'm sure you'll be detained without bail until your trial. I'm not suggesting people start shooting at these guys, i'm just curious about what is/is not legal. Do you have an alternative suggestion to self-defense? I personally think Kwame Ture was right about the American conscience and pacifism. Of course America has a conscience. Look at the fit of conscience going on right now.
I suppose you're right, technically.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On July 23 2020 11:13 Danglars wrote:
The problem is that federal officers do not expect left wing activists to own their Second Amendment rights. All the Antifa apologists on this forum should go spread the word.
No, the problem is that the republican party is not rebelling against a president creating constitutional crisis after crisis. If you believe that a significant portion of Republicans has done enough to stop it, I would like to hear examples.
|
I’m not sure telling people who go these rallies to use their 2nd amendment rights would achieve anything except encourage the police to start using lethal force in self defence.
Unless starting a violent conflict is the goal and then arguing that them protestors deserved it because the feds were operating in self defence.
Either way, the Trump Administration is itching for a fight trying to goad the protestors. Someone is going to eventually die, I suppose no matter how much time passes not many things truely change. Every generation in the US has to live through their version of the Kent State shootings.
|
On July 23 2020 15:39 StalkerTL wrote:
I’m not sure telling people to go these rallies while using their 2nd amendment rights would achieve anything except encourage the police to start using lethal force in self defence.
Unless starting a violent conflict is the goal and then arguing that them protestors deserved it because the feds were operating in self defence.
Yeah. That is how you get a civil war. And it seems kind of like what these black squads want to provoke. Do you really think that if someone shot at them, that person gets out of there alive?
The problem is clearly that the republicans are apparently okay with this. If they had any conscience left, you would have large majorities in congress deciding something against this. But the fact is that while some republicans might meekly say that they are against this further shift towards authoritarianism, none of them care enough to risk alienating their great leader Trump, and being the next one purged out.
|
The mayor of Portland yesterday went out to speak with the protestors, instead gets tear gassed by the feds. I’ve been saying for a few months now, the police have absolutely been terrible when it comes to crowd control. Easily pulling triggers to disperse crowds, all in all, it’s just making things worse with the crowd.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/23/us/portland-protests-mayor/index.html
|
On July 23 2020 21:49 ShoCkeyy wrote:The mayor of Portland yesterday went out to speak with the protestors, instead gets tear gassed by the feds. I’ve been saying for a few months now, the police have absolutely been terrible when it comes to crowd control. Easily pulling triggers to disperse crowds, all in all, it’s just making things worse with the crowd. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/23/us/portland-protests-mayor/index.html
Small government, except when it comes to tear gassing political opponents.
|
On July 23 2020 09:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 09:36 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 23 2020 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 08:52 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 23 2020 08:38 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 08:03 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2020 07:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 23 2020 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Did you notice how the response to who is going to stop the unmarked forces kidnapping people (I doubt these assholes even know the Miranda warning) was the national guard (also under the presidents command)? + Show Spoiler [snip] +
The Democratic party and their supporters are big on rules and process and simply don't have a vector for dealing with people like Trump that 'break the game' so to speak.
I suspect there will be another "no one saw this coming" moment like we've had the last few times liberals are confronted with realities they denied the possibility of and refuse to acknowledge that people told them this was happening the whole time. Trump's election, Police brutality, Iraq, 08 market crash, etc.
If the state governor activates their national guard then they aren't under the command of the president. Until he wants them to be, sure. Ultimately they serve the president though. You'll find references to "dual control", but obviously there is a power dynamic at play. The president can use title 10 to activate guard units to federal command, but it is completely different than the governor activating. I'm not sure what you're referencing with "dual control" but there is exactly one commander and that is the governor when the governor activates their national guard. The wiki sums it up decently. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the Organized Militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state governments and the federal government.
In 2006, Congress passed the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the president the authority to mobilize National Guard units within the U.S. without the consent of state governors.
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 Pub.L. 109–364
Federal law was changed in section 1076 so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of their state's National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States could then take total control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent en.wikipedia.org Was not aware of that. I'm curious if that doesn't run afoul: the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection More likely to be the latest constitutional crisis if it happens. How can you be failing to protect your citizens against un-named federal authorities. On July 23 2020 08:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
I would argue its much more justified to defend yourself in these circumstances than it is when someone is robbing your house (unless they are threatening/violent of course).
Problem being that the federal authorities you shot are the ones pressing charges on you for murdering one of theirs. Justified, but that won't stop them from making an example of you. Even if you're found non guilty by a jury of your peers, I'm sure you'll be detained without bail until your trial. I'm not suggesting people start shooting at these guys, i'm just curious about what is/is not legal. Do you have an alternative suggestion to self-defense? I personally think Kwame Ture was right about the American conscience and pacifism. Maybe I'm aware that what i said could be taken as a recommendation for people to shoot at government officials and thought it was best to clarify I can understand that. I'm just trying to clarify the alternatives you're imagining to see how they compare. If it is "*shrug*" then I'm not sure that's more humane advice than recommending self-defense against unconstitutional kidnappings?
Its not so much *shrug* as 'what can you reasonably do when kidnapped by the government?' Resist or don't I guess.
It sucks and people should be making as much noise about it as possible, and there's at least the appearance of that i suppose.
|
On July 23 2020 21:49 ShoCkeyy wrote:The mayor of Portland yesterday went out to speak with the protestors, instead gets tear gassed by the feds. I’ve been saying for a few months now, the police have absolutely been terrible when it comes to crowd control. Easily pulling triggers to disperse crowds, all in all, it’s just making things worse with the crowd. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/23/us/portland-protests-mayor/index.html
But this is not "the police". From what i have heard so far, the Portland police actually handled the situation pretty well and were trying to deescalate, and stuff was getting more under control.
But then Trump sends in his Homeland Security goons to escalate and start more violence, because that fits his narrative far better. Start violence so you need a strong man to deal with the violence.
|
On July 23 2020 23:08 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 21:49 ShoCkeyy wrote:The mayor of Portland yesterday went out to speak with the protestors, instead gets tear gassed by the feds. I’ve been saying for a few months now, the police have absolutely been terrible when it comes to crowd control. Easily pulling triggers to disperse crowds, all in all, it’s just making things worse with the crowd. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/23/us/portland-protests-mayor/index.html But this is not "the police". From what i have heard so far, the Portland police actually handled the situation pretty well and were trying to deescalate, and stuff was getting more under control. But then Trump sends in his Homeland Security goons to escalate and start more violence, because that fits his narrative far better. Start violence so you need a strong man to deal with the violence.
I live in Downtown Portland, and the cops were forced to deescalate, if not, they’d still be using the same tactics. But yes, they were getting better, until Trump decided to send his brown shirts in.
|
Extremely curious what this next round of stimulus checks will end up being. I really think Trump will push against conservatives wanting to strongly decrease the limit of income.
|
So the feds are sending goons down to Cleveland, a city that literally hasn’t had any protestor “issues” for weeks now.
They aren’t really being slick here, the strategy is pretty obvious. If this wasn’t America I’d assume this was happening in some banana republic. But it is America so it isn’t totally surprising, nor the complete lack of political resistance to it, nor the cheerleading from people who deep down don’t mind this happening because they just want to see left wing protestors get bashed.
Yet another Kent State situation is bound to happen this year.
|
On July 23 2020 15:01 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 11:13 Danglars wrote:
The problem is that federal officers do not expect left wing activists to own their Second Amendment rights. All the Antifa apologists on this forum should go spread the word. No, the problem is that the republican party is not rebelling against a president creating constitutional crisis after crisis. If you believe that a significant portion of Republicans has done enough to stop it, I would like to hear examples.
Is this mad libs? I was talking about the second amendment as it applies here, and secondly whether states rights people actually agreed with the actions taken (aka are they totally fine with feds doing this in this way, contrary to states rights, and thus hypocrites). This line of seductive logic concludes that Germans love Uighur genocide, because they haven’t done enough to stop it.
|
On July 24 2020 01:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 15:01 Broetchenholer wrote:On July 23 2020 11:13 Danglars wrote:
The problem is that federal officers do not expect left wing activists to own their Second Amendment rights. All the Antifa apologists on this forum should go spread the word. No, the problem is that the republican party is not rebelling against a president creating constitutional crisis after crisis. If you believe that a significant portion of Republicans has done enough to stop it, I would like to hear examples. Is this mad libs? I was talking about the second amendment as it applies here, and secondly whether states rights people actually agreed with the actions taken (aka are they totally fine with feds doing this in this way, contrary to states rights, and thus hypocrites). This line of seductive logic concludes that Germans love Uighur genocide, because they haven’t done enough to stop it.
Comparing German involvement in China to GOP leadership involvement in a program being led by a republican president is very silly. Don't pretend they are remotely the same thing, it comes across as bad faith. McConnell and other big name republicans doing anything other than screaming about what is happening with these federal officers is a giant failure. This is totally their kinda thing they are supposed to be really against. In your eyes, why are they not speaking against the occupation happening in Portland?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RoMNvKj.jpg)
