EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2605
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On September 05 2020 19:47 Gahlo wrote: Too bad there's no evidence of that being true and of course the cops all conveniently had no cams running. There are supposed eyewitnesses, anonymous of course and eyewitness testimony isn’t exactly reliable. I’m not sure I’d trust myself here given I’m not accustomed to gunfire, nor would it be a situation I’d be expecting prior to it developing. I mean if it was a prolonged standoff I could maybe figure out what was going on, observe and see the chronology having parsed that. If it went down quickly and chaotically, not so much. Aside from it being a good idea in general in reliable accountability, given the current climate how bodycams are ever off is a damning indictment on how the issues aren’t being taken with a modicum of seriousness. I don’t particularly like the ‘if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear’ line of reasoning on the wider encroachment of surveillance and privacy invasion, but in the case of an institution that can legally employ lethal force and has such a slew of accusations against it abusing its state-sanctioned power it’s entirely appropriate in that world. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/515244-dhs-to-label-white-supremacists-as-the-most-persistent-and-lethal https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-terror-threat-dhs-409236 The language used to describe far-right/white nationalists has been toned down in each iteration of the draft, to bring it more in line with other kind of violent activity. Might be easier to acknowledge for the government that way. Or... All three documents agree that “Among DVE [domestic violent extremist] actors, WSEs [white supremacist extremists] conducted half of all lethal attacks (8 of 16), resulting in the majority of deaths (39 of 48),” | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 05 2020 21:18 Nouar wrote: So DHS has been asked to provide a report on threats to the US. All three drafts of the documents are assessing that white nationalists are the most dangerous threat to the US, even more than foreign threats. Antifa are not listed, though there are some mentions about exploitations of lawful protests. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/515244-dhs-to-label-white-supremacists-as-the-most-persistent-and-lethal https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-terror-threat-dhs-409236 The language used to describe far-right/white nationalists has been toned down in each iteration of the draft, to bring it more in line with other kind of violent activity. Might be easier to acknowledge for the government that way. Or... All three documents agree that Of course Antifa aren't mentioned. They're a convenient and exaggerated bugbear that the right use to manufacture outrage and victimhood, who are only kicking up a fuss because of all the absurdly far right domestic and political activity in the USA right now. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On September 05 2020 21:32 iamthedave wrote: Of course Antifa aren't mentioned. They're a convenient and exaggerated bugbear that the right use to manufacture outrage and victimhood, who are only kicking up a fuss because of all the absurdly far right domestic and political activity in the USA right now. Antifa are the migrant caravan of this election. Just like how the Trump people talked about the migrant caravan and all their ridiculous claims about that, when asked for evidence of their increasingly ridiculous claims about antifa, the Trump people either dodge responding or resort to fear mongering. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On September 06 2020 00:49 Ben... wrote: Antifa are the migrant caravan of this election. Just like how the Trump people talked about the migrant caravan and all their ridiculous claims about that, when asked for evidence of their increasingly ridiculous claims about antifa, the Trump people either dodge responding or resort to fear mongering. Trump people have been quite clear about how they think about ANTIFA. They think that ALL leftist violence is ANTIFA and that all ANTIFA is violence. It doesn't matter that they are factually wrong about this and that the opinion comes directly from Fox News without a single piece of evidence. If they keep repeating it its true in their minds and then Trump can use the lie to get elected. It just goes to show how incredibly easily manipulated they are. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On September 05 2020 22:53 JimmiC wrote: More people confirming Trump called soldiers losers and suckers including fox news reporters Trump is trying to get fired. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/newspolitics/trump-calls-for-fox-news-journalist-to-be-fired-for-report-on-war-dead-scandal/ar-BB18JI2q?li=AAggFp5 It's just amazing to me because generally his supporters are the hardest core "support the troops" people who are super sensitive to anyone criticizing the military, much less veterans. I have no idea how these people reconcile this stuff in their head. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22705 Posts
On September 06 2020 03:41 Starlightsun wrote: Because they don't care about the troops. If they did they would have never joined team Trump in the first place since he was already insulting vets, the military and even the parents of soldiers who died in service back during the 2016 campaign.It's just amazing to me because generally his supporters are the hardest core "support the troops" people who are super sensitive to anyone criticizing the military, much less veterans. I have no idea how these people reconcile this stuff in their head. The only reasons they pretended to care about the military was because the Democrats were generally seen as anti-military. Never assume a 'proud Republican' stands for anything other then pissing of Democrats. Because to be Team Trump they have to ignore all they have ever stood for. Trump is also hardly the first time, didn't Republicans attack Kerry over his service record while supporting Bush, a draft dodger? | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On September 06 2020 03:41 Starlightsun wrote: It's just amazing to me because generally his supporters are the hardest core "support the troops" people who are super sensitive to anyone criticizing the military, much less veterans. I have no idea how these people reconcile this stuff in their head. They used to be religious, but support a cheater that is only religious because it fits his purpose. They used to care about balancing the budget, but don't care that Trump is blowing all the money he can because it's not his, but will artificially better his short-time record on the economy. They used to care about veterans and service to your country, until they elect a draft-dodger disparaging vets and disabled. It's pretty much the definition of being thralls. You don't stand for anything but your guru. What he says is truth, overwrites what you previously thought or believed in. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On September 06 2020 03:57 Nouar wrote: They used to be religious, but support a cheater that is only religious because it fits his purpose. They used to care about balancing the budget, but don't care that Trump is blowing all the money he can because it's not his, but will artificially better his short-time record on the economy. They used to care about veterans and service to your country, until they elect a draft-dodger disparaging vets and disabled. All these things are just beliefs of convenience, especially religion for the US right. They just do exactly the opposite of what Jesus would do in any situation (source: The Bible) and then claim JESUS whenever its convenient for them. Its all secondary to stickin it to the libs. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2854 Posts
On September 05 2020 06:25 micronesia wrote: In that case, is it okay to criticize people for referring to certain more severe protester behaviors as "domestic terror" when simplifying doesn't gain you anything? I think you (in the general sense) can't have it both ways in this discussion. Just wanted to touch on this to clarify why I used the term. I used the term specifically to differentiate between protesters and a third party using the space as a cover to destroy public property. Let's go back to IgnE's hypothetical: On September 05 2020 02:28 IgnE wrote: If a protest assembled outside the Washington Monument in DC and 5 people in the mob attempted to blow it up with a detonated charge at the base would the police be justified in teargassing and dispersing the whole crowd? Five people, as part of the mob of the protest, attempt to blow up the Washington Monument with some kind of engineered explosive device, apparently shielded from scrutiny by said crowd, thus possibly justifying dispersing said crowd. Would you not describe this as an act of domestic terrorism? The hypothetical hasn't aligned them with the protest, merely that they were part of the 'mob'. The hypothetical has set these five up as an organized group with premeditated intention, as you (presumably) don't show up to a protest with an explosive device and no intent to use it. The hypothetical has given no indication that there is considration for the lives of the protesters by the five people attempting to blow up the monument. There are ways for the hypothetical to paint the people trying to blow up the monument as part of the protest and not just adjacent to it. This was not done, and was not IgnE's point with the hypothetical. My response delineating 'domestic terrorists' from the protesters in this way is done intentionally to push back on the idea that the protest itself allowed the space for an act of domestic terrorism, and therefore justified the police in dispersing the crowd via teargas, because that leads to a slippery slope where we end up exactly in this grey area we're now talking about. I want to be very clear in stating that I use the phrase "Domestic terrorism" regarding explicitly this hypothetical and not regarding the actions of protesters in Portland. On September 05 2020 06:06 IgnE wrote: Oh wow, you are ready to describe some protesters destroying a building as terrorism. Trump would love it. Hopefully, I have clarified as well as possible why this was not, and is not, the case, and regarding it as such is just kinda shitty. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
There are probably <100 retired four star generals alive right now - it's the highest rank outside of the 5 star which is only Washington, Grant, and Eisenhower - we only ever have 44 at a time. For reference, there have only ever been 245 4 star army generals, and many are posthumous. And other branches have even fewer. Trump has already called on Fox News to fire their reporter who confirmed the story. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On September 06 2020 04:32 Fleetfeet wrote: Just wanted to touch on this to clarify why I used the term. I used the term specifically to differentiate between protesters and a third party using the space as a cover to destroy public property. Let's go back to IgnE's hypothetical: Five people, as part of the mob of the protest, attempt to blow up the Washington Monument with some kind of engineered explosive device, apparently shielded from scrutiny by said crowd, thus possibly justifying dispersing said crowd. Would you not describe this as an act of domestic terrorism? The hypothetical hasn't aligned them with the protest, merely that they were part of the 'mob'. The hypothetical has set these five up as an organized group with premeditated intention, as you (presumably) don't show up to a protest with an explosive device and no intent to use it. The hypothetical has given no indication that there is considration for the lives of the protesters by the five people attempting to blow up the monument. There are ways for the hypothetical to paint the people trying to blow up the monument as part of the protest and not just adjacent to it. This was not done, and was not IgnE's point with the hypothetical. My response delineating 'domestic terrorists' from the protesters in this way is done intentionally to push back on the idea that the protest itself allowed the space for an act of domestic terrorism, and therefore justified the police in dispersing the crowd via teargas, because that leads to a slippery slope where we end up exactly in this grey area we're now talking about. I want to be very clear in stating that I use the phrase "Domestic terrorism" regarding explicitly this hypothetical and not regarding the actions of protesters in Portland. Hopefully, I have clarified as well as possible why this was not, and is not, the case, and regarding it as such is just kinda shitty. Sooo the destruction in Portland is different how? The mob collectively wills it whereas in my hypothetical the mob didn’t? You are reading context into my hypothetical that is not there one way or the other to avoid confronting the actually difficult task of saying why property destruction justifies dispersing a crowd in one case and doesn’t in another. I didn’t describe any known relationship between the aims of the 5 and the aims of the crowd because I don’t think that relationship is a definitely knowable one here or there. What I attempted to provide was a bare description of events, and you’ve projected a certain significance onto it in order to dismiss it. Must stay out of the grey area. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2854 Posts
On September 06 2020 04:41 IgnE wrote: Sooo the destruction in Portland is different how? The mob collectively wills it whereas in my hypothetical the mob didn’t? You are reading context into my hypothetical that is not there one way or the other to avoid confronting the actually difficult task of saying why property destruction justifies dispersing a crowd in one case and doesn’t in another. I didn’t describe any known relationship between the aims of the 5 and the aims of the crowd because I don’t think that relationship is a definitely knowable one here or there. What I attempted to provide was a bare description of events, and you’ve projected a certain significance onto it in order to dismiss it. Must stay out of the grey area. The destruction in Portland isn't a premeditated attack on a structure that risks the lives of dozens of people. Here, let me arbitrarily clarify your hypothetical so you could better understand my position. A protest regarding women's rights forms around the Washington Monument, and five people in the crowd, as part of the protest, show up with a magical acid that only works on minerals but does not harm people in any way. These five people intend to dissolve the phallic structure in a metaphorical show of dissolving the patriarchy. For some reason, the police, despite being aware of the protest and its peaceful nature, fail to set up a perimeter around or post defenses around important structures. Despite this failing, the police still manage to notice beyond reasonable doubt that five people are attempting to use magic acid to dissolve the Washington Monument. Also, inconveniently, none of the police have legs and thus approaching and arresting the culprits is not an option. Thus, we arrive at the question this hypothetical is meant to address: Are the police, in this position, justified in using tear gas to disperse the crowd? See? Now we've isolated enough of the variables in the hypothetical to actually have a meaningful discussion on where anyone stands on the issue. We don't have to approach the position like we're playing a game of chess from memory, where our 'opponent' in the discussion might get to say "AHA, you forgot about my bishop on E6! Checkmate!", we can just have an actual fucking discussion without having to guess where the other person's pieces lie. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
That would seem to bring us back to my initial response to you: “why don’t we just ask why the police aren’t arresting the violent ones and leaving the peaceful ones?” Why didn’t the police set up a perimeter on their midwestern police station and arrest anyone who tried to burn it down? Why can’t we perfectly target those who want to do violence and leave those who don’t? Yes indeed. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On September 06 2020 05:33 Mohdoo wrote: With all this talk of Portland "destruction", please read: https://www.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/in1t0u/portland_is_doing_just_fine_media_makes_it_look/ Yes great. I know. What’s one measly city block anyway? Makes one wonder what all the hubbub is about. | ||
| ||
