Politics XXXVIII (A Nontotient)

[Gromnir]

25 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-ad-police-officer-attacked-2014-ukraine-protests-2020-7?utmSource=twitter&utmContent=referral&utmTerm=topbar&referrer=twitter&fbclid=IwAR1zGdkyQTl6Qi7bTNqJgRg2xF5g9hodGQ59cSOK8JvwFSpZ-JHmpvFNVVI

Sooooo stupid.

hardly a surprise. check out our earlier post with the 911 trump ad. took an unrelated biden recorded response and imply it is 'bout defunding cops.

am knowing a few willful ignorant folks hereabout still claim biden supports defund o' cops in spite o' him saying explicit he don't support defund... and no, biden plan to promote redirection o' cop funds is not defund. predictable cherry picking. you know who you are, eh? biden has suggested that those local cop departments which voluntarily redirect funds to programs such as counseling should be awarded additional federal funds. how on earth does such stuff get reinterpreted as biden support o' defund? 

ackjassery.

HA! Good Fun!

ps apologies for double

[Volourn]

Peaceful Protests. LMAO

 

And, why are mayors and governors so anti police they feel the need to lie? Only to be forced to apologize later for it?   The police, and the public in those cities/states should sue them.  I always thought I was anti police but LMAO I wish I was. At least I dont' murder and assault police like Amerikan 'peaceful protestors' do.

Edited July 23, 2020 by Volourn

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

hardly a surprise. check out our earlier post with the 911 trump ad. took an unrelated biden recorded response and imply it is 'bout defunding cops.

am knowing a few willful ignorant folks hereabout still claim biden supports defund o' cops in spite o' him saying explicit he don't support defund... and no, biden plan to promote redirection o' cop funds is not defund. predictable cherry picking. you know who you are, eh? biden has suggested that those local cop departments which voluntarily redirect funds to programs such as counseling should be awarded additional federal funds. how on earth does such stuff get reinterpreted as biden support o' defund? 

ackjassery.

HA! Good Fun!

ps apologies for double

No he said the opposite in fact. Biden himself is not a fool but he has very little going for him that would make you want him as President in normal times. He is bad caricature of a career politician. As dishonest a man as has ever worked in a city of dishonest people. But these are not normal times are they? 

It would bother me more if he actually thought he could. Since the President could no more defund the police than he could flap his arms and fly. Presidents who think they can do anything worry me. Congresses and States and courts who LET them get away with anything worry me more.  

I recall once reading a letter John Adams wrote to his wife describing the original White House. In it he wrote "I pray heaven to bestow the best blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof" Have you ever seen a man more set up for disappointment? 

Of course when the British burned it the blessing probably went with it. 

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

No he said the opposite in fact. Biden himself is not a fool but he has very little going for him that would make you want him as President in normal times. He is bad caricature of a career politician. As dishonest a man as has ever worked in a city of dishonest people. But these are not normal times are they? 

It would bother me more if he actually thought he could. Since the President could no more defund the police than he could flap his arms and fly. Presidents who think they can do anything worry me. Congresses and States and courts who LET them get away with anything worry me more.  

I recall once reading a letter John Adams wrote to his wife describing the original White House. In it he wrote "I pray heaven to bestow the best blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof" Have you ever seen a man more set up for disappointment? 

Of course when the British burned it the blessing probably went with it. 

am gonna admit we were surprised when during the democrat presidential candidate debates, multiple senators claimed they were gonna end various evils by executive order. claims were no less unconstitutional than trump's recent census executive order, but were senators o' all people, bold as our neighbor's cat who p00ps in the sandy soil 'round our gardenias every afternoon, making such claims.

only one senator from whom we would expect such.

and again, we were just as dismayed by lack of pushback from almost any in media or even other candidates regarding what would clear be a violation o' the Constitution. in 2020, if you like gun control, then is ok to violate the Constitution to achieve such an end?  some o' our more liberal acquaintances on the boards may not wanna hear it, but to executive order the 2nd amendment to death is no less repugnant at law than is trump sending troops to portland or making undocumented citizens uncountable in the census. there should be similar outrage at similar violations, 'cause if is ok to do one such executive order, it becomes ok to do the others.

am almost as concerned 'bout post trump US as we is 'bout another four years o' trump. almost. am hopeful sanity prevails and we pull back from the recent excesses o' more than one President, but am not confident biden wins and simple uses executive orders to end trump orders.  will biden reflect on professor yoo's warning 'bout how daca decision could be used and like trump view instead as license? when do we finally say, collective, enough is enough? 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

13 hours ago, Gromnir said:

so you gonna stick with low energy and come up with bs response to excuse?

Peak Gromnir, can't be bothered looking, blames others for his laziness. You like saying you have lots of money, so I'll start charging you $500 for doing your research for you.

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by Zoraptor

[Volourn]

https://nypost.com/2019/06/18/man-nabbed-for-bronx-rape-allegedly-said-she-deserved-it-for-slavery/

 

BLM strikes again!

 

Also, remember folks,  black people can't be racist. :rollseyes:

 

Imagine thinking someone deserves to be raped for something that happened centuries ago. That is the BLM/Antifa/SJW Nazi viewpoint.

 

 

FYI, Chicago mayor has 'agreed' to allow Feds to stay in Chicago after talking with Trump. L0L You know, instead, of taking responsibility for cleaning up her own city but she is too lazy and rather  Trump take the heat. Also, laugh at that white trash  mayor who got attacked  by 'protestors' then got   in the middle of the police  spraying crap then had the gall to claim the 'protestors' were not violent despite video evidence.

 

Also, these 'non violent' protestors continue to mass murder, mass rape, mass assault, mass abuse, mass destroy, mass blind people. SO PEACEFUL. I don't think Amerikans know what 'peaceful protest' is. Come to Kanada, we can teach you what peaceful protest is. We also have violent protests. But, at least we know the difference. L0L

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Peak Gromnir, can't be bothered looking, blames others for his laziness. You like saying you have lots of money, so I'll start charging you $500 for doing your research for you.

 

so we pay you $500 to find youtube or berkeley edu video o' a discussion we already saw in person and described in some detail, a task btw which anybody with firing synapses should be able to accomplish in less than 10 minutes. okie dokie.

is ez to see why is so difficult to have a reasonable discussion with you, particularly as you don't seem to recognize the inherent hypocrisy o' your "can't be bothered looking," observation. 

well, enjoy your tinfoil hats. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps belated recall. am 'mebering how the discussion zor has too low energy to find for self, blix pointed out how fixated were the US on getting iraqi scientists out of the country. once out of iraq, the US believed the scientists became credible. blix made a point 'bout how curious were the US belief that getting scientists out of iraq resulted in intel which were more trustworthy. didn't seem reasonable to blix.

blix talk we reference were 2004. 

'course, as it turns out, at least one o' the scientists providing eye witness intel 'bout iraqi wmds to the Americans were a liar. german and US intelligence interviewed the guy multiple times... in germany.

the t00l were proud he managed to trick the Americans into bringing about regime change. story broke in ~2011 and s'posed the administration discovered the lies in mid 2000s. 'course, as it turns out, the numerous analysts at the cia were never convinced the iraqi were on the up-and-up... and colin powell were s'posed livid when he discovered cia ambivalence 'cause they never bothered to mention their concerns to him.

anyways, is kinda amazing how insightful were blix in 2004, so soon after invasion and w/o benefit o' long-term hindsight.

Edited July 24, 2020 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

Tom Ridge, The First Homeland Security Secretary, Says He’d Likely Resign Before Letting Federal Agents Into American Cities

Agreed.

[BruceVC]

2 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Tom Ridge, The First Homeland Security Secretary, Says He’d Likely Resign Before Letting Federal Agents Into American Cities

Agreed.

Do you think in the cases we are currently seeing, not generally,  that the deployment of federal troops is justified by Trump, I do think law and order needs to maintained and sometimes using Federal agents may be required ?

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Do you think in the cases we are currently seeing, not generally,  that the deployment of federal troops is justified by Trump, I do think law and order needs to maintained and sometimes using Federal agents may be required ?

No. Local policing is the job of the City/County/State as applicable. If they are not doing their job then it doesn't get done. That is between the people of that city/county/state. They voted those dirtbags into office, they can vote them out. Of people can stand up to the mob and defend themselves. 

Of course you know the goddamned Democrats HATE that. The mob is allowed to do as it pleases in their book.

[BruceVC]

21 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

No. Local policing is the job of the City/County/State as applicable. If they are not doing their job then it doesn't get done. That is between the people of that city/county/state. They voted those dirtbags into office, they can vote them out. Of people can stand up to the mob and defend themselves. 

Of course you know the goddamned Democrats HATE that. The mob is allowed to do as it pleases in their book.

But what do you honestly tell people when the " City/County/State " fails to do its job. Quoted from the link you provided

But Acting DHS Secretary Wolf says local police aren’t doing the job.

“What we know is that if we left tomorrow, they would burn thaBt building down,” says Wolf.

Dont you think people who own a business could have a legitimate right to expect the state and the Federal government to protect there business from being damaged so just to repeat my earlier view on this, these are unusual circumstances and in the interest of law and order sometimes Federal intervention may be absolutely required 

We cannot have the mob defining rules and  arbitrarily deciding when they obey the  law and more importantly adhering to virus spread best practice

 

[Amentep]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

But what do you honestly tell people when the " City/County/State " fails to do its job. Quoted from the link you provided

But Acting DHS Secretary Wolf says local police aren’t doing the job.

“What we know is that if we left tomorrow, they would burn thaBt building down,” says Wolf.

Dont you think people who own a business could have a legitimate right to expect the state and the Federal government to protect there business from being damaged so just to repeat my earlier view on this, these are unusual circumstances and in the interest of law and order sometimes Federal intervention may be absolutely required 

We cannot have the mob defining rules and  arbitrarily deciding when they obey the  law and more importantly adhering to virus spread best practice

 

What part of "Local policing is the job of the City/County/State as applicable" didn't you understand?  While the Federal Government, arguably, has the right to protect Federal land (and buildings on it) it has no jurisdictional authority on non-Federal lands.  They do not have the authority to drive blocks away from Federal land/buildings in unmarked Enterprise Rent-A-Vans and abduct people off the street because they think they may or may not have done, or be about to do, something or another.

The business you speak of has a right to expect the municipalities with authority (city-county-state) to protect them, but not the Federal government.  Unusual circumstance does not give the Federal government the ability to do things that it has not the authority to do.  If you accept that, then you've discarded the rules of law we have built up and the Federal government is the mob (or at least, a mob) defining rules and arbitrarily deciding when they obey the law.

[Darkpriest]

Well, you either allow to break the law to everyone, or no one. 

 

You realize it would be a non-issue, if protesters just moved near a city hall instead of targetting voilence against the federal property and federal representatives? 

 

How is targeting the federals helping the cause, if as you say, policing etc is in the hands of locals? 

 

Just move from around that property, and do whatever you please. You won't be creating excuses or scenarios where excuses can be claimed. 

 

Unless your goal is exactly that, to stir chaos and make federals do something, about which you can cry outrage, even though both sides wade in the **** waist deep. 

 

What was the point of breaking the door and attempting to engage with feds? 

[BruceVC]

14 minutes ago, Amentep said:

What part of "Local policing is the job of the City/County/State as applicable" didn't you understand?  While the Federal Government, arguably, has the right to protect Federal land (and buildings on it) it has no jurisdictional authority on non-Federal lands.  They do not have the authority to drive blocks away from Federal land/buildings in unmarked Enterprise Rent-A-Vans and abduct people off the street because they think they may or may not have done, or be about to do, something or another.

The business you speak of has a right to expect the municipalities with authority (city-county-state) to protect them, but not the Federal government.  Unusual circumstance does not give the Federal government the ability to do things that it has not the authority to do.  If you accept that, then you've discarded the rules of law we have built up and the Federal government is the mob (or at least, a mob) defining rules and arbitrarily deciding when they obey the law.

 

8 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Well, you either allow to break the law to everyone, or no one. 

 

You realize it would be a non-issue, if protesters just moved near a city hall instead of targetting voilence against the federal property and federal representatives? 

 

How is targeting the federals helping the cause, if as you say, policing etc is in the hands of locals? 

 

Just move from around that property, and do whatever you please. You won't be creating excuses or scenarios where excuses can be claimed. 

 

Unless your goal is exactly that, to stir chaos and make federals do something, about which you can cry outrage, even though both sides wade in the **** waist deep. 

 

What was the point of breaking the door and attempting to engage with feds? 

Sorry Amentep but if Dp is correct, and Im sure he is, than the protesters were damaging federal property and I would also argue in some cases provocative when it comes to the police and federal agents 

So it still seems justified to deploy a federal response   

[Amentep]

18 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Well, you either allow to break the law to everyone, or no one. 

You realize it would be a non-issue, if protesters just moved near a city hall instead of targetting voilence against the federal property and federal representatives? 

How is targeting the federals helping the cause, if as you say, policing etc is in the hands of locals? 

Just move from around that property, and do whatever you please. You won't be creating excuses or scenarios where excuses can be claimed. 

Unless your goal is exactly that, to stir chaos and make federals do something, about which you can cry outrage, even though both sides wade in the **** waist deep. 

What was the point of breaking the door and attempting to engage with feds? 

I don't know what the mob wants (isn't that kind of the point with mobs, though, that they become a thought process of their own, often with neither rhyme nor reason?)  That's why its so important for people who want peaceful demonstrations to not allow a mob mentality to seize control of the group, and to renounce and remove bad actors.

Two wrongs, don't make a right, though.  The only thing the Feds are really doing IMO is opening themselves (or the personnel) to civil lawsuits when they try to police the city with no authority to do so as they are, themselves, violating the law.  

As an aside, typically when a local municipality is overwhelmed, the course of action is for that municipality to declare a state of emergency and ask the governor to deploy the state's national guard.  Not for DHS to send people in Enterprise Rent-A-Vans to grab people off the street.

 

1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

Sorry Amentep but if Dp is correct, and Im sure he is, than the protesters were damaging federal property and I would also argue in some cases provocative when it comes to the police and federal agents 

So it still seems justified to deploy a federal response   

You are wrong.  They have no legal authority to be deployed past federal land (excepting, perhaps, a nationwide declaration of martial law for example as in the case of an invasion.  Since there is no nationwide declaration of martial law...)

[Darkpriest]

Adding links, just in case

 

I believe the timeline was like this

 

Eescalation of force by protesters

https://nypost.com/2020/07/16/portland-protester-charged-for-attacking-us-marshal-with-hammer/

 

Deployment of additional feds

 

More direct aggression at feds

https://katu.com/news/local/protesters-try-breaking-into-federal-courthouse-federal-officers-respond-with-munitions

 

[Amentep]

Those two links aren't really talking about the things that people are objecting to - ie both of those links are about incidents on Federal property involving Federal personnel.  No one is disputing the use of Federal law enforcement on Federal land.

The dispute is over Federal forces detaining people on city/county/state land, where they don't really have jurisdiction.

Typically US Marshalls have to work with the local police to deliver a warrant on suspects, etc., when dealing with city/county/state lands.

[BruceVC]

11 minutes ago, Amentep said:

 

 

You are wrong.  They have no legal authority to be deployed past federal land (excepting, perhaps, a nationwide declaration of martial law for example as in the case of an invasion.  Since there is no nationwide declaration of martial law...)

Would you support the changing of the law to support the deployment of federal agents under these unusual circumstances?

[Darkpriest]

1 minute ago, Amentep said:

Those two links aren't really talking about the things that people are objecting to - ie both of those links are about incidents on Federal property involving Federal personnel.  No one is disputing the use of Federal law enforcement on Federal land.

The dispute is over Federal forces detaining people on city/county/state land.

Do feds not have authority to capture and detain people, who they identify as ones who comitted a federal offense? 

Genuine question, as i have no knowledge on that. 

[Amentep]

1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

Would you support the changing of the law to support the deployment of federal agents under these unusual circumstances?

I don't think its necessary, but if a law changed in the legally proscribed manner (by duly elected officials and/or the vote of the public as proscribed by law) and meets any local or federal constitutional challenges, I wouldn't be against it.

 

Just now, Darkpriest said:

Do feds not have authority to capture and detain people, who they identify as ones who comitted a federal offense? 

Genuine question, as i have no knowledge on that. 

I'm not an expert, so I'm sure someone here will correct me if I am wrong - my understanding is that they have that ability if the person is on Federal land.  If you're caught spraying graffiti on a fed building, feds can detain you there as they have jurisdiction.  If they get video footage of you spraying graffiti and you are long gone and legally obtain a warrant for your arrest, my understanding is that for that warrant to be served at your home, the local municipality has to do it and turn you over into the custody of the feds, or it has to be done jointly with the Feds joining in on the serving of the warrant with the local municpality.

 

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Amentep said:

I'm not an expert, so I'm sure someone here will correct me if I am wrong - my understanding is that they have that ability if the person is on Federal land.  If you're caught spraying graffiti on a fed building, feds can detain you there as they have jurisdiction.  If they get video footage of you spraying graffiti and you are long gone and legally obtain a warrant for your arrest, my understanding is that for that warrant to be served at your home, the local municipality has to do it and turn you over into the custody of the feds, or it has to be done jointly with the Feds joining in on the serving of the warrant with the local municpality.

 

This is an important point and I would also like clarity from the legal people on this forum  like Gromnir and GD 

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

 

Dont you think people who own a business could have a legitimate right to expect the state and the Federal government to protect there business from being damaged so just to repeat my earlier view on this, these are unusual circumstances and in the interest of law and order sometimes Federal intervention may be absolutely required 

We cannot have the mob defining rules and  arbitrarily deciding when they obey the  law and more importantly adhering to virus spread best practice

 

People should expect each level of government to do it's job. And they probably should also expect to be disappointed. If the Mayors of Chicago, Portland, Seattle, St. Louis, the City Attorney of St. Louis all get re-elected then those folks deserve what they get. My advice to everyone is to buy a firearm, plenty of ammunition, and become very proficient in it's use. In the end the only one you can count on is YOU. 

An no, the Federal Govt does NOT get to step in and just do things it has no power to do just because the lower levels have abdicated their responsibility. Want dictatorships? That is how you get them. A country is not "free" so to speak because you get to vote for who gets to oppress you. It's "free" because the government is no all powerful. When it tried to become that you ignore it at your considerable peril.

[BruceVC]

11 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

People should expect each level of government to do it's job. And they probably should also expect to be disappointed. If the Mayors of Chicago, Portland, Seattle, St. Louis, the City Attorney of St. Louis all get re-elected then those folks deserve what they get. My advice to everyone is to buy a firearm, plenty of ammunition, and become very proficient in it's use. In the end the only one you can count on is YOU. 

An no, the Federal Govt does NOT get to step in and just do things it has no power to do just because the lower levels have abdicated their responsibility. Want dictatorships? That is how you get them. A country is not "free" so to speak because you get to vote for who gets to oppress you. It's "free" because the government is no all powerful. When it tried to become that you ignore it at your considerable peril.

You raise some valid concerns, it is a slippery slope when you  allow the Federal government to just intervene when they deem fit. The states do need to decide this...but those mayors should  not be reelected due to their failure to ensure the general law  

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

People should expect each level of government to do it's job. And they probably should also expect to be disappointed. If the Mayors of Chicago, Portland, Seattle, St. Louis, the City Attorney of St. Louis all get re-elected then those folks deserve what they get. My advice to everyone is to buy a firearm, plenty of ammunition, and become very proficient in it's use. In the end the only one you can count on is YOU. 

An no, the Federal Govt does NOT get to step in and just do things it has no power to do just because the lower levels have abdicated their responsibility. Want dictatorships? That is how you get them. A country is not "free" so to speak because you get to vote for who gets to oppress you. It's "free" because the government is no all powerful. When it tried to become that you ignore it at your considerable peril.

I'm not sure if arming protesters is going to de-escalate the situation.

[Guard Dog]

20 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

I'm not sure if arming protesters is going to de-escalate the situation.

I was actually thinking of folks protecting themselves FROM "protesters" or whatever you want to call the folks who light buildings on fire, drag people out of their cars and beat the hell out of them, or loot businesses.