|
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 24 2020 02:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2020 01:21 Danglars wrote: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?
Can you separate personal opposition to something that’s happening, and third person evaluation of whether or not he/she has done enough to stop it, or can’t you? I really don’t care how this “comes across,” if it’s by people that don’t read then respond.
I can play your game. The big thing people on the left should also be doing nonstop is decrying violent rioters in Portland for day 50 something. The extent that this is not happening shows an acceptance of violence from approved individuals, and a whitewashing of dangerous blocking of exits while raining fireworks and molotovs outside.
Did not one of them think to bring any tools, maybe a hammer or a crowbar?" asks my friend. While one imagines what kind of trouble this might bring from the cops, there's no reason to worry about the Portland police, not one of whom I've seen in three-plus hours. There is zero police presence, the mayor having years ago instructed the police that protesters are not to be arrested, the definition of protestor apparently being fungible. And so the battering, the rave-like mania, carries on.
"What will we do if we do get inside?" a young woman asks her friend. I tell her that I don't think people have thought that far ahead; that it's about the show out here, not about carrying forth any particular plan. Reason
|
On July 24 2020 02:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2020 02:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 24 2020 01:21 Danglars wrote: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? Can you separate personal opposition to something that’s happening, and third person evaluation of whether or not he/she has done enough to stop it, or can’t you? I really don’t care how this “comes across,” if it’s by people that don’t read then respond. I can play your game. The big thing people on the left should also be doing nonstop is decrying violent rioters in Portland for day 50 something. The extent that this is not happening shows an acceptance of violence from approved individuals, and a whitewashing of dangerous blocking of exits while raining fireworks and molotovs outside. https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1286187623258628097https://twitter.com/marshablackburn/status/1286331813498171393Show nested quote + Did not one of them think to bring any tools, maybe a hammer or a crowbar?" asks my friend. While one imagines what kind of trouble this might bring from the cops, there's no reason to worry about the Portland police, not one of whom I've seen in three-plus hours. There is zero police presence, the mayor having years ago instructed the police that protesters are not to be arrested, the definition of protestor apparently being fungible. And so the battering, the rave-like mania, carries on.
"What will we do if we do get inside?" a young woman asks her friend. I tell her that I don't think people have thought that far ahead; that it's about the show out here, not about carrying forth any particular plan. Reason
Stop deflecting from the fact that your dear leader is currently in the process of sending goons into cities and states which do not want them there to incite violence, and your party as a whole seems to be totally okay with that.
I know that deflecting is what you love to do, but just evaluate what is happening before going into the instinctive "but the left! but antifa!"
Seriously look at what your leader is doing, and ask yourself if you are okay with that. If that is what you want for the future of the US. If that is in line with your values. Don't deflect. Don't look for something on the left to complain about. Look at what Trump is doing. Look at what he is turning the US into. Is that the country you want to live in? An autocratic banana republic?
Also, think about if you actually care about the stuff you claim to care about. States rights. Democracy. Freedom. Constitutional rights. Is this stuff important to you? Then there really isn't any chance but to do whatever you can to stop this.
|
The protests in Portland were actually ratcheting down because the protestors and police eventually got to some degree of an understanding.
The fed involvement is actually just sparking tensions again. Which is why their involvement is one that only exists to provoke a reaction, not one to actually maintain law and order. The states were already dealing with the issue but the feds then bust through the door and scream that the opposition called your mom a whore and dad a bastard. Like, there’s no reason to send feds to Ohio right now to maintain law and order because everything’s relatively calm, but guess what? Fed involvement is just going to encourage disorder.
It’s the whole self-fulling prophecy again. We believe lockdowns are not effective so we’re going to do everything possible to make sure the lockdown won’t work so we’re proven right about lockdowns being ineffective. Same deal here, protestors are all Antifa who only want to burn things down, let’s send in unmarked feds to provoke them into retaliating and use that as proof that they’re only here to be violent. The beauty of this way of thinking is that you’re never wrong and never have to admit to being wrong.
|
On July 24 2020 02:29 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2020 02:18 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2020 02:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 24 2020 01:21 Danglars wrote: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? Can you separate personal opposition to something that’s happening, and third person evaluation of whether or not he/she has done enough to stop it, or can’t you? I really don’t care how this “comes across,” if it’s by people that don’t read then respond. I can play your game. The big thing people on the left should also be doing nonstop is decrying violent rioters in Portland for day 50 something. The extent that this is not happening shows an acceptance of violence from approved individuals, and a whitewashing of dangerous blocking of exits while raining fireworks and molotovs outside. https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1286187623258628097https://twitter.com/marshablackburn/status/1286331813498171393 Did not one of them think to bring any tools, maybe a hammer or a crowbar?" asks my friend. While one imagines what kind of trouble this might bring from the cops, there's no reason to worry about the Portland police, not one of whom I've seen in three-plus hours. There is zero police presence, the mayor having years ago instructed the police that protesters are not to be arrested, the definition of protestor apparently being fungible. And so the battering, the rave-like mania, carries on.
"What will we do if we do get inside?" a young woman asks her friend. I tell her that I don't think people have thought that far ahead; that it's about the show out here, not about carrying forth any particular plan. Reason Stop deflecting from the fact that your dear leader is currently in the process of sending goons into cities and states which do not want them there to incite violence, and your party as a whole seems to be totally okay with that. I know that deflecting is what you love to do, but just evaluate what is happening before going into the instinctive "but the left! but antifa!" Seriously look at what your leader is doing, and ask yourself if you are okay with that. If that is what you want for the future of the US. If that is in line with your values. Don't deflect. Don't look for something on the left to complain about. Look at what Trump is doing. Look at what he is turning the US into. Is that the country you want to live in? An autocratic banana republic? Also, think about if you actually care about the stuff you claim to care about. States rights. Democracy. Freedom. Constitutional rights. Is this stuff important to you? Then there really isn't any chance but to do whatever you can to stop this.
You can and should hold more than one opinion in your head. Speaking on federal responsibility does not preclude speaking about violent riots. And hold yourself to higher standards than accusing people of deflecting should then stray from the ... designated two minutes of hate is what comes to mind.
Lesson for others: posting to condemn something will do absolutely nothing, it will be forgotten, and people will accuse you of deflecting should any other subjects or nuance be raised. The people doing this earn their society and leadership and dialogue, make no mistake.
|
On July 24 2020 02:31 StalkerTL wrote:
The protests in Portland were actually ratcheting down because the protestors and police eventually got to some degree of an understanding.
The fed involvement is actually just sparking tensions again. Which is why their involvement is one that only exists to provoke a reaction, not one to actually maintain law and order. The states were already dealing with the issue but the feds then bust through the door and scream that the opposition called your mom a whore and dad a bastard. Like, there’s no reason to send feds to Ohio right now to maintain law and order because everything’s relatively calm, but guess what? Fed involvement is just going to encourage disorder.
It’s the whole self-fulling prophecy again. We believe lockdowns are not effective so we’re going to do everything possible to make sure the lockdown won’t work so we’re proven right about lockdowns being ineffective. Same deal here, protestors are all Antifa who only want to burn things down, let’s send in unmarked feds to provoke them into retaliating and use that as proof that they’re only here to be violent. The beauty of this way of thinking is that you’re never wrong and never have to admit to being wrong.
Major citation needed. The feds were not deployed to a nightly riot losing steam. If it was getting more dangerous to those inside, I’d expect equal evidence.
|
On July 24 2020 02:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2020 02:29 Simberto wrote:On July 24 2020 02:18 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2020 02:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 24 2020 01:21 Danglars wrote: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? Can you separate personal opposition to something that’s happening, and third person evaluation of whether or not he/she has done enough to stop it, or can’t you? I really don’t care how this “comes across,” if it’s by people that don’t read then respond. I can play your game. The big thing people on the left should also be doing nonstop is decrying violent rioters in Portland for day 50 something. The extent that this is not happening shows an acceptance of violence from approved individuals, and a whitewashing of dangerous blocking of exits while raining fireworks and molotovs outside. https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1286187623258628097https://twitter.com/marshablackburn/status/1286331813498171393 Did not one of them think to bring any tools, maybe a hammer or a crowbar?" asks my friend. While one imagines what kind of trouble this might bring from the cops, there's no reason to worry about the Portland police, not one of whom I've seen in three-plus hours. There is zero police presence, the mayor having years ago instructed the police that protesters are not to be arrested, the definition of protestor apparently being fungible. And so the battering, the rave-like mania, carries on.
"What will we do if we do get inside?" a young woman asks her friend. I tell her that I don't think people have thought that far ahead; that it's about the show out here, not about carrying forth any particular plan. Reason Stop deflecting from the fact that your dear leader is currently in the process of sending goons into cities and states which do not want them there to incite violence, and your party as a whole seems to be totally okay with that. I know that deflecting is what you love to do, but just evaluate what is happening before going into the instinctive "but the left! but antifa!" Seriously look at what your leader is doing, and ask yourself if you are okay with that. If that is what you want for the future of the US. If that is in line with your values. Don't deflect. Don't look for something on the left to complain about. Look at what Trump is doing. Look at what he is turning the US into. Is that the country you want to live in? An autocratic banana republic? Also, think about if you actually care about the stuff you claim to care about. States rights. Democracy. Freedom. Constitutional rights. Is this stuff important to you? Then there really isn't any chance but to do whatever you can to stop this. You can and should hold more than one opinion in your head. Speaking on federal responsibility does not preclude speaking about violent riots. And hold yourself to higher standards than accusing people of deflecting should then stray from the ... designated two minutes of hate is what comes to mind. Lesson for others: posting to condemn something will do absolutely nothing, it will be forgotten, and people will accuse you of deflecting should any other subjects or nuance be raised. The people doing this earn their society and leadership and dialogue, make no mistake.
So, you have come to the conclusion that what Trump is doing in Portland is totally fine? Or would you just rather not have people talking about it, and thus try to deflect again and again?
Also, don't tell me that you wouldn't be totally fine with the "two minutes of hate" if that hate was directed towards anyone on the left. You would be utterly willing to talk for weeks exclusively about a single bad thing anyone you can loosely associate with "the left" did. But you are incapable of even replying once without deflecting to your president breaking any and all principles you claimed to care about, one by one.
You claim to have condemned something. I cannot find any sign of that in the quote chain, and i cannot recall a single time that you condemned anything a republican politician did. Your ethics and principles fall exactly onto party lines.
I just told you to take a look at what is happening, and asked you to think about whether that is something that you actually want to support. To me, it seems like pretty major authoritarian moves with the goal to break any checks and balances and concentrate more power in the hands of a president who already looks pretty fascist to begin with.
And yet you seem to be utterly incapable of any critique of any move that Trump does. And if you cannot do anything against the argument, you try to bring up any other topic you can find to avoid talking about the trial run of a fascist coup that is currently going on.
|
On July 24 2020 02:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2020 02:31 StalkerTL wrote:
The protests in Portland were actually ratcheting down because the protestors and police eventually got to some degree of an understanding.
The fed involvement is actually just sparking tensions again. Which is why their involvement is one that only exists to provoke a reaction, not one to actually maintain law and order. The states were already dealing with the issue but the feds then bust through the door and scream that the opposition called your mom a whore and dad a bastard. Like, there’s no reason to send feds to Ohio right now to maintain law and order because everything’s relatively calm, but guess what? Fed involvement is just going to encourage disorder.
It’s the whole self-fulling prophecy again. We believe lockdowns are not effective so we’re going to do everything possible to make sure the lockdown won’t work so we’re proven right about lockdowns being ineffective. Same deal here, protestors are all Antifa who only want to burn things down, let’s send in unmarked feds to provoke them into retaliating and use that as proof that they’re only here to be violent. The beauty of this way of thinking is that you’re never wrong and never have to admit to being wrong. Major citation needed. The feds were not deployed to a nightly riot losing steam. If it was getting more dangerous to those inside, I’d expect equal evidence.
As a Portland resident, who knows many other Portland residents, the protests were massively dying down and significantly less rowdy. They were just not really an issue anymore. I understand that you do not live in Portland, but I think you should wonder why Portland as a whole, including government leadership, seems totally against the feds doing what they are doing.
What if you are being deceived by media sources? What if the situation really is as Portland residents and government leadership says? I have not met someone who wants the feds there, but I am sure 1 or 2 exist. You should be wondering why such an overwhelming majority of Portland leadership is against the feds being there. You link to Tweets, but if that is really what your understanding is based on, you should be significantly more open to other interpretations. It feels like the idea that the Portland situation was just really not nearly bad enough to warrant federal violence just isn't an option to you. I encourage you to listen to Portland residents, we aren't silent.
|
On July 24 2020 02:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2020 02:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 24 2020 01:21 Danglars wrote: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? Can you separate personal opposition to something that’s happening, and third person evaluation of whether or not he/she has done enough to stop it, or can’t you? I really don’t care how this “comes across,” if it’s by people that don’t read then respond. I can play your game. The big thing people on the left should also be doing nonstop is decrying violent rioters in Portland for day 50 something. The extent that this is not happening shows an acceptance of violence from approved individuals, and a whitewashing of dangerous blocking of exits while raining fireworks and molotovs outside. https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1286187623258628097https://twitter.com/marshablackburn/status/1286331813498171393Show nested quote + Did not one of them think to bring any tools, maybe a hammer or a crowbar?" asks my friend. While one imagines what kind of trouble this might bring from the cops, there's no reason to worry about the Portland police, not one of whom I've seen in three-plus hours. There is zero police presence, the mayor having years ago instructed the police that protesters are not to be arrested, the definition of protestor apparently being fungible. And so the battering, the rave-like mania, carries on.
"What will we do if we do get inside?" a young woman asks her friend. I tell her that I don't think people have thought that far ahead; that it's about the show out here, not about carrying forth any particular plan. Reason
Have you ever stopped and think that maybe the feds instigate violence and the protesters respond back to the violence with violence? Cause as a Portlander I’ve seen more violence from the feds and the police.
|
On July 23 2020 23:06 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2020 09:59 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
It does bring up an interesting question about collective self-defense. The Black Panthers were clearly organized in part around this concept. Either the police followed the law in executing their arrests or there were armed people prepared to hold them accountable for failing in that duty.
After local, state, and federal agents cooperated in the brutal assassination of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, Democrats apprehension to the local US attorney that was implicated was so tepid Black people voted Republican out of frustration (Hanrahan won the primary despite no official endorsement from the local party). One of the few times Chicago elected a Republican and interrupted the plans of the Daley Machine.
What's really at issue imo is when or whether Democrats will reach their limit and see the absurdity in Biden's desperation to preserve the Republican party despite their clear failure to uphold even their most core ostensible beliefs.
Considering Biden thinks Trump is the first racist president, I'm not hopeful Democrats are going to 'resist' in any functional way.
|
|
|
The "No opinion" and "Never heard of" numbers are quite troubling on their own.
|
On July 24 2020 03:56 GreenHorizons wrote:The "No opinion" and "Never heard of" numbers are quite troubling on their own.
Yeah. I think a lot of people are just idiots or answer bullshit to polls by default. Apparently it is really hard to get higher than 80-90% consensus on anything, at all.
I like this comic in this regard: https://xkcd.com/2305/
I like "86% Do not trust Kim-Jong-Un to do the right thing", or "89% say fair elections are important to democracy"
|
On July 24 2020 02:57 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2020 02:46 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2020 02:29 Simberto wrote:On July 24 2020 02:18 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2020 02:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 24 2020 01:21 Danglars wrote: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? Can you separate personal opposition to something that’s happening, and third person evaluation of whether or not he/she has done enough to stop it, or can’t you? I really don’t care how this “comes across,” if it’s by people that don’t read then respond. I can play your game. The big thing people on the left should also be doing nonstop is decrying violent rioters in Portland for day 50 something. The extent that this is not happening shows an acceptance of violence from approved individuals, and a whitewashing of dangerous blocking of exits while raining fireworks and molotovs outside. https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1286187623258628097https://twitter.com/marshablackburn/status/1286331813498171393 Did not one of them think to bring any tools, maybe a hammer or a crowbar?" asks my friend. While one imagines what kind of trouble this might bring from the cops, there's no reason to worry about the Portland police, not one of whom I've seen in three-plus hours. There is zero police presence, the mayor having years ago instructed the police that protesters are not to be arrested, the definition of protestor apparently being fungible. And so the battering, the rave-like mania, carries on.
"What will we do if we do get inside?" a young woman asks her friend. I tell her that I don't think people have thought that far ahead; that it's about the show out here, not about carrying forth any particular plan. Reason Stop deflecting from the fact that your dear leader is currently in the process of sending goons into cities and states which do not want them there to incite violence, and your party as a whole seems to be totally okay with that. I know that deflecting is what you love to do, but just evaluate what is happening before going into the instinctive "but the left! but antifa!" Seriously look at what your leader is doing, and ask yourself if you are okay with that. If that is what you want for the future of the US. If that is in line with your values. Don't deflect. Don't look for something on the left to complain about. Look at what Trump is doing. Look at what he is turning the US into. Is that the country you want to live in? An autocratic banana republic? Also, think about if you actually care about the stuff you claim to care about. States rights. Democracy. Freedom. Constitutional rights. Is this stuff important to you? Then there really isn't any chance but to do whatever you can to stop this. You can and should hold more than one opinion in your head. Speaking on federal responsibility does not preclude speaking about violent riots. And hold yourself to higher standards than accusing people of deflecting should then stray from the ... designated two minutes of hate is what comes to mind. Lesson for others: posting to condemn something will do absolutely nothing, it will be forgotten, and people will accuse you of deflecting should any other subjects or nuance be raised. The people doing this earn their society and leadership and dialogue, make no mistake. So, you have come to the conclusion that what Trump is doing in Portland is totally fine? Or would you just rather not have people talking about it, and thus try to deflect again and again? Also, don't tell me that you wouldn't be totally fine with the "two minutes of hate" if that hate was directed towards anyone on the left. You would be utterly willing to talk for weeks exclusively about a single bad thing anyone you can loosely associate with "the left" did. But you are incapable of even replying once without deflecting to your president breaking any and all principles you claimed to care about, one by one. You claim to have condemned something. I cannot find any sign of that in the quote chain, and i cannot recall a single time that you condemned anything a republican politician did. Your ethics and principles fall exactly onto party lines. I just told you to take a look at what is happening, and asked you to think about whether that is something that you actually want to support. To me, it seems like pretty major authoritarian moves with the goal to break any checks and balances and concentrate more power in the hands of a president who already looks pretty fascist to begin with. And yet you seem to be utterly incapable of any critique of any move that Trump does. And if you cannot do anything against the argument, you try to bring up any other topic you can find to avoid talking about the trial run of a fascist coup that is currently going on.
I’m not going to repeat condemnations just because someone assumes I support what Trump’s DHS just did. Go reread past posts if you’re so sure you’ve got everyone on the right pegged. Your ignorance is not a big enough deal to make me waste my time posting and reposting.
|
On July 24 2020 03:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2020 02:49 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2020 02:31 StalkerTL wrote:
The protests in Portland were actually ratcheting down because the protestors and police eventually got to some degree of an understanding.
The fed involvement is actually just sparking tensions again. Which is why their involvement is one that only exists to provoke a reaction, not one to actually maintain law and order. The states were already dealing with the issue but the feds then bust through the door and scream that the opposition called your mom a whore and dad a bastard. Like, there’s no reason to send feds to Ohio right now to maintain law and order because everything’s relatively calm, but guess what? Fed involvement is just going to encourage disorder.
It’s the whole self-fulling prophecy again. We believe lockdowns are not effective so we’re going to do everything possible to make sure the lockdown won’t work so we’re proven right about lockdowns being ineffective. Same deal here, protestors are all Antifa who only want to burn things down, let’s send in unmarked feds to provoke them into retaliating and use that as proof that they’re only here to be violent. The beauty of this way of thinking is that you’re never wrong and never have to admit to being wrong. Major citation needed. The feds were not deployed to a nightly riot losing steam. If it was getting more dangerous to those inside, I’d expect equal evidence. As a Portland resident, who knows many other Portland residents, the protests were massively dying down and significantly less rowdy. They were just not really an issue anymore. I understand that you do not live in Portland, but I think you should wonder why Portland as a whole, including government leadership, seems totally against the feds doing what they are doing. What if you are being deceived by media sources? What if the situation really is as Portland residents and government leadership says? I have not met someone who wants the feds there, but I am sure 1 or 2 exist. You should be wondering why such an overwhelming majority of Portland leadership is against the feds being there. You link to Tweets, but if that is really what your understanding is based on, you should be significantly more open to other interpretations. It feels like the idea that the Portland situation was just really not nearly bad enough to warrant federal violence just isn't an option to you. I encourage you to listen to Portland residents, we aren't silent.
The critical point to me is if you and friends personally observed the violence after dark on multiple days to make comparisons. Portland residents aren’t required to observe the section of the city containing the federal courthouse late at night.
The feds have a responsibility to protect it from attack, and like I pointed out earlier, it doesn’t extend to chasing down fleeing rioters in rental vans to snatch them. Clearly identified, non-camo federal officers making arrests for federal crimes is clearly called for. See the videos in times past where fireworks were thrown, barricades on doors were erected, and rioters attempted to gain entry. If it was declining and would disperse naturally, then sure, delay what would be justified actions (again for the cheap seats: not what actually happened). If decline means 500 becomes 150 becomes 30, but it still involves lighting fires and throwing fireworks, this is absolutely the case for federal involvement. Also, see article for absence of Portland police.
My previous post questioned your ability to separate distinct issues and attitudes, and I still await an answer, to make sure this is even worth an argument.
|
|
|
On July 24 2020 03:02 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2020 02:18 Danglars wrote:On July 24 2020 02:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 24 2020 01:21 Danglars wrote: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? Can you separate personal opposition to something that’s happening, and third person evaluation of whether or not he/she has done enough to stop it, or can’t you? I really don’t care how this “comes across,” if it’s by people that don’t read then respond. I can play your game. The big thing people on the left should also be doing nonstop is decrying violent rioters in Portland for day 50 something. The extent that this is not happening shows an acceptance of violence from approved individuals, and a whitewashing of dangerous blocking of exits while raining fireworks and molotovs outside. https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1286187623258628097https://twitter.com/marshablackburn/status/1286331813498171393 Did not one of them think to bring any tools, maybe a hammer or a crowbar?" asks my friend. While one imagines what kind of trouble this might bring from the cops, there's no reason to worry about the Portland police, not one of whom I've seen in three-plus hours. There is zero police presence, the mayor having years ago instructed the police that protesters are not to be arrested, the definition of protestor apparently being fungible. And so the battering, the rave-like mania, carries on.
"What will we do if we do get inside?" a young woman asks her friend. I tell her that I don't think people have thought that far ahead; that it's about the show out here, not about carrying forth any particular plan. Reason Have you ever stopped and think that maybe the feds instigate violence and the protesters respond back to the violence with violence? Cause as a Portlander I’ve seen more violence from the feds and the police.
How many days straight has it been? Was day 1-39 in response to police, and 40-50 response to feds? Sustained riots, and even early it was not confined to graffiti, put a lie to this approach.
It isn’t a conditional justification of violence just because you think the balance favors rioters over policemen. “They started it” works for like a week. The rest makes them lack agency.
|
If only there was a way to protect federal buildings without committing unconstitutional acts.
|
On July 24 2020 04:30 JimmiC wrote:
Can you cite where the people of portland called for the Feds to be sent in?
The federal gov is in its right to defend federal buildings. The question is more like does snatching protesters in the streets fall into that ?
|
|
|
On July 24 2020 04:32 Gahlo wrote:
If only there was a way to protect federal buildings without committing unconstitutional acts.
It wouldn’t make much sense to criticize the response, if there was no legal options on behalf of the feds.
Once starting fires and launching fireworks into the building starts, or barricading doors or forcing entry through other doors, then tear gas and arrest/detention is justified. Federal courthouses are not just target dummies for whatever societal angst you need to let out. It’s only a matter of time before a federal officer or rioter gets seriously hurt in this destruction, and I suppose that’s an actual aim if you look hard enough into the media coverage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/i1QaJgj.jpg)
