Politics XXXVIII (A Nontotient)

[Malcador]

Surprised they left out McVeigh. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Probably to control for big attacks, like how they left out 911 for jihadists. It holds that left-wing violence tends to focus more on property destruction and defacement (the justification for sending in the feds to portland is almost entirely graffiti) while right-wing violence tends towards targeted killings like shooting up places of worship and shopping centers frequented by Black and Brown people or Jews.

[Volourn]

"Oh man is this funny! They were shot by one of their own members accidently! This fool is walking around with a full magazine, locked and loaded, no safety. Bo NOT bring live ammo if you are going to carry a firearm to a protest. And don't even give a firearm to members who don't know WTF they are doing! "

Even funnier is some sites tried to - espciially originally - spin this as some of shootout between two opposing forces. LMAO I wonder if the 'shooter' will be arrested for mishandling the gun. I remember a certain NFLer got crucified when his gun went off accidentally.. and the only victim there was him. It basivcally derailed his career and my team. LMAO

 

"Guardian piece on politically motivated violence in the US. "

 

That guardian article is full of crap. Then again, it's the guardian so that ain't no surprise. It's all about spin. Antifa has murdered people. In fact, we know they've done in the last few days killing at least one black Trump supporter. LMAO

The Guardian is a left/Antifa newspost so why take their reporting seriously? That is like taking Brietbart at face value. L0LZ

 

[HoonDing]

NAzi Antifa

"Some very fine people"

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Volourn said:

"

 

That guardian article is full of crap. Then again, it's the guardian so that ain't no surprise. It's all about spin. Antifa has murdered people. In fact, we know they've done in the last few days killing at least one black Trump supporter. LMAO

The Guardian is a left/Antifa newspost so why take their reporting seriously? That is like taking Brietbart at face value. L0LZ

 

A couple of weeks ago I posted that appalling, racist and inaccurate article written by an Arab women living in the UK from the Guardian where she basically was saying that white women who cry are seeking attention and its very false.....yeah right because suddenly if a white women cry's it cant be for any reason any other women 

She then proceeded  on some tirade against white women being absolved of racism and how they need to be called out.....she is obviously insecure about her own race and gender and somehow thinks people dont know that any person can be racist....including white women....

In the same article she brings up how " Arab men are called sexist when its not reasonable or actually the reality" ....I remember thinking I wonder who she is trying to convince with raising that point. I worked extensively in the ME and I will never say " Arab men are sexist " because that is a generalization but in most ME countries women rights are very limited and women dont have the same legal rights that men receive under certain laws and crimes

I was surprised that the Guardian would be fine with this type of article and I lost some respect for there overall subjectivity, not that I follow this website but its the principle  ...then I went to the website today and noticed there are several articles that make the same uninformed and offensive comments about white people and things like " why are white people taking part in BLM protests " 

Here is the article that discusses the point " white people taking part in BLM protests are doing it for attention " and other similar comments. Its funny because I have never been able to read the minds of thousands of people and I would guess white people are taking part in BLM because they believe in the cause and think the police are being heavy handed.....but thats just me 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/26/portland-federal-agents-teargas-protesters-black-lives-matter

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by BruceVC

[Maedhros]

It's not really relevant that it's from the Guardian. They're just referring to the study from CSIS (centrist thinktank - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies)

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/200616_Jones_Methodology_v3_0.pdf

[Malcador]

https://apnews.com/1dd1bb39093a3691f4e78093787ab877

Sort of an interesting read on the Portland protests, riots or whatever. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Malcador

[Volourn]

There have been all sort sof Antifa/BLM murders but the key for the people who do this type of research is they can spin it away from it. That's how you get '0' Antifa murders. We know that's not true yet they try to gaslight everyone.

[Raithe]

For that randomly divergent quote:

[Malcador]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ed7aJV7XsAArMFj.jpg

 

The brightly coloured uniforms are nice, statement of self confidence to wear that colour.  Contrasts well with the terrified soldato with the gun on the lady.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Malcador

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ed7aJV7XsAArMFj.jpg

 

The brightly coloured uniforms are nice, statement of self confidence to wear that colour.  Contrasts well with the terrified soldato with the gun on the lady.

She's obviously very dangerous. We can't see her red eyes and fangs from this angle...

 

As for bright colours

 

Camouflage is the colour of fear... I have no need to hide from my foes... I have no fear of death. My colours I wear openly, they proclaim louder than any words, "I am proud to live - I am proud to die".

Carab Culln, of the Red Scorpions

 

[Guard Dog]

Sometimes the Civil War you are fighting is not the Civil War you think it is:

 

[BruceVC]

6 hours ago, Maedhros said:

It's not really relevant that it's from the Guardian. They're just referring to the study from CSIS (centrist thinktank - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Strategic_and_International_Studies)

https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/200616_Jones_Methodology_v3_0.pdf

I wasnt aware of this thinktank, how does this align to the Guardian articles?

But what is more interesting is you have confirmed what volo mentioned that the Guardian is a website that is known for some controversial articles.  I didnt know this as I mentioned and I will be honest in SA these types of opinions would be challenged by people  who dont accept this type of biased views on any race ....so we wouldnt consider this meaningful and or appropriate commentary 

 

 

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, Malcador said:

https://apnews.com/1dd1bb39093a3691f4e78093787ab877

Sort of an interesting read on the Portland protests, riots or whatever. 

That was a good read. But Malc what I dont understand is the protesters in the article talk about " not wanting Federal forces in there city " but they constantly provoke a reaction by damaging Federal property.....so why would the Federal agents leave?

What am I misunderstanding because that doesnt seem like the behavior of people who dont want a reaction 

The mayor of Portland was on  CNN and she is blaming Trump for the response as he is the  one who has deployed the troops?

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Sometimes the Civil War you are fighting is not the Civil War you think it is:

 

am suspecting it ain't enough to convince others, or even gd, but video such as the one you share fits poorly with the hasty generalizations we keep seeing 'bout cops on these boards.  we will keep saying: it is a mistake to blame cops en masse for the vast catalog o' wrongs current being blamed on law enforcement.  people should be reassured that when they are in most need o' help, jakhary jackson will show up, or one o' the other hundreds o' thousands decent US cops, and he will be literal the only person you can depend 'pon for help.

cop training makes all too many situations adversarial, and the attitude test is a problem. also, there is bad cops, and the police work environment does have a tendency to lead to ptsd and a disturbing number o' suicides. cops need help, but is little sympathy coming their way 'cause o' situations such as george floyd and the old guy with the cracked skull in buffalo. understandable. cops are armed and therefore dangerous, and you don't know if the cop you are dealing with is jakhary jackson or derek chauvin. 

people fighting to defund police aren't necessarily wrong. cop money is being spent in such a way that tensions 'tween our heavily armed populace and the cops is increased as 'posed to diminished. that said, the malc and vol view o' cops is part o' the problem and not part o' the solution. 

am thinking aoc is a bit naive as well. mistakes causation for correlation. is a gross oversimplification to suggest urban violence and crime will be reduced by spending less on cops and more on vagueness such as, "youth, health, housing, etc."  there is serious socio economic issues at play which is the causes o' crime and redirected cop budgets alone is not gonna fix endemic poverty, hopelessness and the very real but less understood impact o' having millions o' people living in relative small geographic areas. in fact, redirect alone is gonna only lead to crime w/o a sufficient police presence to protect those who need help. 

defund police (a horrible misleading term) is not a solution in and of itself, and it sure as hell ain't a one-size-fits-all cure. am thinking defund police can't be the end of the discussion, but we need to start somewhere, and serious reform is only ever debated in earnest when there is riots and widespread protests, and then the debate is all too quickly forgotten. we will support defund police as long as we believe that its prominent presence in the national consciousness offers meaningful opportunity for police reform. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

6 hours ago, Gromnir said:

am suspecting it ain't enough to convince others, or even gd, but video such as the one you share fits poorly with the hasty generalizations we keep seeing 'bout cops on these boards.  we will keep saying: it is a mistake to blame cops en masse for the vast catalog o' wrongs current being blamed on law enforcement.  people should be reassured that when they are in most need o' help, jakhary jackson will show up, or one o' the other hundreds o' thousands decent US cops, and he will be literal the only person you can depend 'pon for help.

cop training makes all too many situations adversarial, and the attitude test is a problem. also, there is bad cops, and the police work environment does have a tendency to lead to ptsd and a disturbing number o' suicides. cops need help, but is little sympathy coming their way 'cause o' situations such as george floyd and the old guy with the cracked skull in buffalo. understandable. cops are armed and therefore dangerous, and you don't know if the cop you are dealing with is jakhary jackson or derek chauvin. 

people fighting to defund police aren't necessarily wrong. cop money is being spent in such a way that tensions 'tween our heavily armed populace and the cops is increased as 'posed to diminished. that said, the malc and vol view o' cops is part o' the problem and not part o' the solution. 

am thinking aoc is a bit naive as well. mistakes causation for correlation. is a gross oversimplification to suggest urban violence and crime will be reduced by spending less on cops and more on vagueness such as, "youth, health, housing, etc."  there is serious socio economic issues at play which is the causes o' crime and redirected cop budgets alone is not gonna fix endemic poverty, hopelessness and the very real but less understood impact o' having millions o' people living in relative small geographic areas. in fact, redirect alone is gonna only lead to crime w/o a sufficient police presence to protect those who need help. 

defund police (a horrible misleading term) is not a solution in and of itself, and it sure as hell ain't a one-size-fits-all cure. am thinking defund police can't be the end of the discussion, but we need to start somewhere, and serious reform is only ever debated in earnest when there is riots and widespread protests, and then the debate is all too quickly forgotten. we will support defund police as long as we believe that its prominent presence in the national consciousness offers meaningful opportunity for police reform. 

HA! Good Fun!

It's completely logical to hold in low respect the entire profession of policing and still hold individual police officers in high esteem. You yourself have pointed out a number of institutional flaws, training being foremost, in police departments. Even as jaded as I am I still believe the majority of police officers are decent people trying to do a good job. But, while only one man killed George Floyd, three others stood by and watched him do it and said not a word. IMO that is the institutions  2nd largest flaw. They value the careers of other cops over the integrity of the institution. That's why I have said police have only themselves to blame for the anger and distrust they are now facing. 

The other point of me posting this video is to provide a eyewitness account of what BLM actually is. And it is not what it started as. It has been co-opted. Mr. Jackson in the video described confronting a violent BLM mob whose members were mostly white hurling racist epithets at black cops. 

[Gromnir]

58 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

It's completely logical to hold in low respect the entire profession of policing and still hold individual police officers in high esteem.

no, it isn't logical. you may believe it is reasonable, but it ain't logical. is why the hasty generalization fallacy exists. you got it complete bass ackwards. it is illogical to blame all or most in a class/group based on a few examples. do people make such broad judgements all the time? yes. ain't logical even if sometimes it is perfect reasonable and utter commonplace.

however, keep in mind what set this all off were the admitted complete unjustified killing o' the unarmed george floyd by the police. ~90 times each year such happens. 'ccording to admitted questionable numbers the fbi collects from local and state police, there were 10 MILLION arrests in 2017 and over 500k o' those were for violent crimes. shouldn't be 90 corpses, but you are not being at all logical and we would suggest you ain't being reasonable neither.

and actually, one o' the cops in the george floyd situation did question derek chauvin. two o' the cops who stood by while chauvin were killing floyd were n00bs being trained and chauvin were the guy training 'em. even so, one guy actually did say something and questioned chauvin's behaviour. the guy who questioned chauvin and suggested not kneeling on floyds neck were nevertheless charged with murder. 

you got facts wrong and logic backwards. you wanna see officer jackson as an exception, 'cause such fits your preconceptions. you see derek chauvin as a trend? you fail to see the conflict.

and am realizing what your point o' posting the video were, which is why we responded. am knowing you didn't see how officer jackson were punching a big fat hole in your position as well as the blm protesters.

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

A Bernie Sanders campaign co-chair says choosing between Trump and Biden is like having 'a bowl of s--- in front of you, and all you've got to do is eat half of it'

Couldn't agree more. So why is it so hard for people you realize you don't HAVE to eat a half a bowl of s--t? There are other things on the menu. Maybe not much more appetizing... but certainly not a bowl of s--t. 

The Red Rats and the Blue Rats are going to keep giving us terrible candidates until we stop voting for them. 

[Guard Dog]

Jo Jorgensen has had an Aleppo moment. Not as bad because after last time they realized Gary Johnson hurt Hillary Clinton as much a Trump. So Jorgensen is not getting invited to do national interviews, news network shows, etc. So it was only a local newspaper that caught this gaff. She was giving a speech on the LP positions on organized labor and apparently had no clue what "right to work" laws were. 

It was obscure enough I can't even find the link again. 

[Guard Dog]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-lgbtq-civil-rights-act-alito/index.html

@Gromnir am I wrong here or have the constructionists been more than a little activist this term? Particularly Alito & Thomas? 

[Skarpen]

17 hours ago, HoonDing said:

NAzi Antifa

"Some very fine people"

Well the first picture have soldiers of a country that created internment camps for minorities during WW2 and the second one have a guy that killed Hitler. 

[Skarpen]

It's easy to support peaceful protests when protesters are not peacefully protesting near your home:

[Darkpriest]

Narratives... 

Put one side and the other, and usually the truth is in the middle ( on the more rational side) 

https://youtu.be/LQ1YYz4vSfY

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by Darkpriest

[Malcador]

13 hours ago, BruceVC said:

That was a good read. But Malc what I dont understand is the protesters in the article talk about " not wanting Federal forces in there city " but they constantly provoke a reaction by damaging Federal property.....so why would the Federal agents leave?

What am I misunderstanding because that doesnt seem like the behavior of people who dont want a reaction 

The mayor of Portland was on  CNN and she is blaming Trump for the response as he is the  one who has deployed the troops?

Well, guess they just don't want the federal cops there and as for provoking it, I can see why - it's an attractive target for protest, federal cops work for Trump more directly, etc.  Feds know this as well and all this rock throwing and fireworks is what Trump and his campaign would want, all the protests about BLM are now all attempts to destroy America or something that Americans can be scared of (as easy as that is).

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/509172-black-portland-activists-call-federal-crackdown-a-distraction-from

Edited July 28, 2020 by Malcador

[Gromnir]

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-lgbtq-civil-rights-act-alito/index.html

@Gromnir am I wrong here or have the constructionists been more than a little activist this term? Particularly Alito & Thomas? 

am thinking a few decisions from this term is gonna get a whole lotta debate in law schools and 'mongst law school professors. doesn't change nothing, but is gonna be one for the legal history books. 

...

“The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated––the theory that courts should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.”-- J. Alito, bostock v. georgia (2020)

alito weren't wrong. however, his dissent doesn't much help his position as he goes parade o' horribles route w/o mentioning how, for instance, his own textualist interpretations o' second amendment is equal suspect. if we are to do as alito suggests and consider the meaning of "a well regulated militia," and "arms" in the context o' what the text meant in 1787, regardless o' legislator intent, there is nevertheless gonna be a whole lotta gun control which sudden becomes appropriate. wanna make bets on whether alito goes hardline textualits on the next second amendment case?

the article linked does offer insights which is both curious and enlightening. our thinking regarding the gorsuch opinion on bostock were that as kennedy were a mentor for gorsuch, J. gorsuch were doing legal gymnastics to validate kennedy's earlier obergefell opinion, a decision which had been near universal maligned by textualists. if kagan did indeed pull a svengali and convince gorsuch to take the textualist route to defend bostock, and by extension obergefell, we give her much credit for her powers o' persuasion, but am a bit worried that in the future textualism may be applied by more the activist elements o' the Court in creative ways... which also goes a long way in explaining alito's curious opinion. 

roberts is interesting.  am thinking roberts is more concerned with the integrity o' the Court than he is with any single decision. trump threats 'bout Court has actual had the opposite impact o' what the President and his advisors intended as roberts has offered multiple compromise opinions. faith in the Court 'mongst populace is approaching all-time lows and roberts realizes the Court cannot function if The People don't believe in the integrity and independence o' the Court. is perhaps ironic, but roberts, to keep faith with the public in a time o' extreme and hardened polarization, is opting to indulge in the politics which is supposed (but not really) the basis o' public distrust. 

thomas is thomas, save that he asked a question or two. thomas is always gonna be out on an island and while his opinions is legal sound and well-crafted, they is nevertheless complete unpersuasive, which is why so few other Justices join thomas opinions. 

odd term.

HA! Good Fun!