Jump to content
Crisis

American Politics

Recommended Posts

For large events in DC there is usually stepped-up security planned out ahead of time. Ordinarily this Congressional affirmation of the Electoral votes is not a large event. However, there was ample warning ahead of time that there would be large crowds of Trump supporters there. Trump called them out any number of times and there was plenty of activity on social media that indicated they were planning to respond in force. So, when they arrived en masse why were there only a few members of the Capitol police force there to try to hold them back? There should have been a show of force at least as large as that during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations!

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

The transfer hasn't technically taken place yet, is all.

i mean, i get that.  and i know the new congress was all sworn in on the 4th.... so i guess the new senators hadn't been sworn in yet.  maybe that's today's business?

 

6 hours ago, Confused Cat said:

Seen on Twitter (one word censored by me):

Quote

Impeach, convict, remove. Do NOT let him resign. Do not invoke the 25th. Impeach! The 25th leaves taxpayers on the hook for a traitor to earn a $200k pension, $1 million annual travel budget, health benefits, secret service, and more. Impeach the ****!

Source Tweet

i agree with this tweet. the question is, can congress move fast enough to get it done by the 19th?

 

6 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Kelly Loeffler apparently came out and said she could no longer support someone who would act as Trump has. It's a START, I suppose...

she joins a group of retrumplicans that have said this.  in fact, one of my senators has a new nickname - Too Late Toomey. *sigh*

 

1 hour ago, Astreya said:

He derelicts all of his duties and worse, he tramples the constitution, law and order and seems to be intent to stage a coup.

as Biden says, “I don’t know why he still wants the job — he doesn’t want to do the work.” (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/biden-trump-georgia-runoff-covid-b1782315.html)

 

18 minutes ago, purplehaze said:

There should have been a show of force at least as large as that during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations!

and there's the difference.  this was racism on display.

if it were a BLM demonstration, the NG would have been out there in a heartbeat.  but these terrorists were white people who had selfies taken with the NG.  the reason they were there was trump told them he won the election, and to descend on the capitol and make some noise.  this was their idea of noise.  if it was BLM, or anyone OTHER than white people, there wouldn't be anyone left because they'd all have been carted off to jail or shot.  the terrorists' privilege was showing yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, trystan said:

and there's the difference.  this was racism on display.

if it were a BLM demonstration, the NG would have been out there in a heartbeat.  but these terrorists were white people who had selfies taken with the NG. 

I have seen articles calling it white privilege and that has to be at least part of it. And of course that it was sanctioned by the President himself who refused to take any action against it!

I think it was Capitol police and not NG in the selfies, but the idea is the same.

Share this post


Link to post

Trump has been banned indefinitely from Facebook! Now if only Twitter would do the same.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Only for a month, I heard... But Zuck is terrified FB wil be curtailed.... Butt protection as much as anything. He's gone to parler anyway.

 

 

Edited by Fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Only for a month, I heard... But Zuck is terrified FB wil be curtailed.... Butt protection as much as anything.

 

True but at least it eliminated one of his platforms to incite sedition to his insane cult for the rest of his term.  We need all the help we can get to curb his destructive tendencies. 🤯

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, purplehaze said:

I have seen articles calling it white privilege and that has to be at least part of it. And of course that it was sanctioned by the President himself who refused to take any action against it!

oh yes, i have too.  this whole regime has been about his white privilege, and hating on anyone who is different. 

i'm glad it'll be over soon.

Share this post


Link to post

This is the second time I've been left puzzled by the lack of police response to riots. The first time was the people rioting in the name of BLM, and of course the Capitol riot is now the second time I'm left puzzled. Here's my question, which may be more of an opinion question: in the event police attempt to, but fail to, get a riot under control by arresting people or through other means, at what point is it justified to shoot to kill? Or is there no situation where that's justified, and instead police should just walk away if they can't safely get a riot under control?

Share this post


Link to post

Oof, tough one. It took me a while to write this up, but now I think I can give a coherent answer.

 

The point where it's justified to shoot to kill has nothing to do with the violence of the protestors, and everything to do with the beliefs and priorities of the government the police serve. It's why the responses to protests around the world and within the US are so varied. There are countries where the police can kill you for carrying signs and marching down the street, and countries where the police don't even carry guns. There are protests where simply showing up is enough to get you tear gassed and beaten, and others where showing up with guns and smashing windows will have the police lifting the barriers to let you through.

 

Given our nation's ongoing history of white supremacy, as well as the fact that 84% of police officers voted for Trump back in 2016, I find that the police's inaction at the Capitol, as well as their negligence during the Charlottesville Unite The Right riot in 2017, comes as no surprise. The response to the BLM protests/riots, on the other hand, was plenty active. 14,000 people were arrested nationwide, several people were grievously injured from being beaten, shot, or gassed by police, and the National Guard was called down to multiple cities to curb potential violence. I attended an entirely peaceful march in June, and nearly every block I passed had NG officers lined up and their armored vehicles sitting at every corner. Seemed a bit like overkill for a protest that had people handing out turmeric wellness shots and pizza, for crying out loud.

 

So, for America, it seems that where the line for a riot is drawn depends on the color of your skin. Our society organizes the world according to race, and the BLM riots threatened the status quo in a way the pro-Trump riots just don't. The actions of the police reflect the wishes of the government, both its direct orders and its underlying biases.

 

But, where do I think the line be drawn? In my opinion, riots are a symptom of a failure of the government to uphold its half of the social contract, I don't think people riot just to be pigheaded. Happy, secure citizens don't riot, disenfranchised, frustrated ones do. I believe that a government that resorts to killing its own citizens in order to justify itself as an institution is a failing one, and that property can be replaced while human lives cannot, and to prioritize deescalation and negotiation above suppression. However, social unrest is inevitable and it's unreasonable to believe that with My Shiny New Political System, riots and all dissatisfaction will disappear, because that way lies totalitarianism. I don't think there's one perfect answer on where using force becomes acceptable, especially when fascists enter the equation and the tolerance paradox comes in to play.

 

(Note: I can find more/other sources on these incidents if anyone takes issue with the reporting quality on any of the provided articles.)

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/7/2021 at 12:38 PM, AngelsSin said:

Trump has been banned indefinitely from Facebook! Now if only Twitter would do the same.

Banned from Twitter today - and then alts attempting to get around the ban were banned...

Share this post


Link to post

And posts deleted from the official POTUS account.

 

@soullessheartofsteel Just because something is legal in one country does not make it morally OK. And this particular mob were quite deliberately whipped into action by Trump. Sure many cops voted for him - that was before they saw what he was like, and also because he promised them a pay rise. But that also speaks volumes about the kind of person who applies to be a cop in some states. I have never forgotten that line in Private Benjamin: Lewis to Tina Gianelli,: So it was the Army or jail, huh ?

 

If that's the kind of way you get into the army, lord knows what you  do to get into the police.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, KrazyKarp said:

This is the second time I've been left puzzled by the lack of police response to riots. The first time was the people rioting in the name of BLM, and of course the Capitol riot is now the second time I'm left puzzled. Here's my question, which may be more of an opinion question: in the event police attempt to, but fail to, get a riot under control by arresting people or through other means, at what point is it justified to shoot to kill? Or is there no situation where that's justified, and instead police should just walk away if they can't safely get a riot under control?

 

If you are actually interested in the nuances that are involved in law enforcement and how police response is determined-- that isn't laden with preconceived bias regurgitated by mainstream media or very misguided morals-- I strongly suggest looking for information closer to the source: various law enforcement websites, people who work closely with law, etc. It's not easy to find nonpartisan info and never was, but if you find something that condemns both the BLM riots and these latest ones then it's probably on the right track.

I doubt many people who visit the Dragoncave forums let alone this thread have much experience with (U.S) law enforcement, their protocols, laws, or pretty much anything else of relevancy. But everyone sure has an opinion on these things nowadays, lol. Don't have the time to write up a response refuting some things people here have said, but I can assure you there are reputable sources out there that can help explain things beyond the expected knee-jerk "it's because of racism".

 

Or maybe you've already made up your mind on the matter, idk. I could have misinterpreted this post. I never know for sure if these kinds of threads are actually open to alternate viewpoints, or if it's just another void to scream alongside like-minded people. I know there are plenty of genuinely confused people out there though =/

 

Just a quick aside, "shoot to kill" is not a tactic employed if things get out of hand and it is not a way to restore order so to speak-- at least in the U.S. It is a last resort to ensure the safety of the targeted police officer, their force, and nearby civilians being threatened. Whether it is justified is not solely dependent on how out of control a situation is or how large the riot has gotten, it's a very personal case-by-case basis on level of threat-- perceived or real-- to police officers and/or nearby civilians at a crucial moment in time. Having the right to defend oneself from bodily harm is practical and innate, and for law enforcement this responsibility tends to be extended by nature of their occupational position. There are always going to be situations where shooting and killing a perp is justified because there are always going to be situations where it is either your life or an innocent civilian's, or their's, and there are no alternative options available or time to reconsider.

There are always going to be mistakes and errors in judgement of course, LEOs are human as some like to forget, and I know nothing about what went on in Washington so I can't speak on whether the use of force there was justifiable. Police are often instructed to walk away, happened a lot during the 2020 riots, but even outside political interference and bureaucratic tape there may be an overlying necessity to protect innocent lives (including those of the rioters) that prevents total withdrawing from the situation. Honestly, since this rioting happened at the capitol I am sure there is a plethora of additional legalese to complicate the matters, and I'm sure the city council hamstrung efforts to do anything because that's what politicians do. I don't know or care much about what happened in Washington though, just speaking in general terms here about law enforcement. Almost absolutely no one wants to shoot and kill another person, and despite the heightened level of responsibility we apply to law enforcement I always have to remember that I am a third party assessing a situation I wasn't involved in.

 

That wasn't a "quick aside", oh well.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

I wasn't there either. But in the case of Ashli Babbitt, a REPUBLICAN (I think that's worth pointing out !) member of congress who was actually there watching said the officer really had no option, and saved lives by his actions. And he wasn't shooting to kill, just to stop her - but when someone is climbing through a broken window as fast as she can, aiming is hard... and another demonstrator says she was warned to get back, several times.

Edited by Fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

@soullessheartofsteel Just because something is legal in one country does not make it morally OK. And this particular mob were quite deliberately whipped into action by Trump. Sure many cops voted for him - that was before they saw what he was like, and also because he promised them a pay rise. But that also speaks volumes about the kind of person who applies to be a cop in some states. I have never forgotten that line in Private Benjamin: Lewis to Tina Gianelli,: So it was the Army or jail, huh ?

 

Oh, I know! When I was talking about governments' priorities, I wasn't trying to say that any of them are right or wrong, just that the government will try to protect their interests by using police to control riots, whether that's defending themselves against fascism or questions about embezzlement in their national budget. And you're right that legality =/= morality and that Trump did encourage that riot, not just when he spoke earlier on the 6th but for the last 5 years in disregarding the US's checks and balances and refusing to disown the white supremacists who made up a significant fraction of his base. But they wouldn't have done it if they didn't feel angry enough about something, anything, for Trump to play on it and channel it towards Capitol Hill. The dissatisfaction they felt came from decades of growing inequality

 

And yes, I do think it's quite inappropriate that being an officer requires almost no training in civics and psychology, little emphasis on de-escalation, and a huge amount of military hand-me-downs. Like nurses, lawyers, and CEOs, law enforcement is a job that gives you a lot of power over a lot of vulnerable people, and while I don't think every single cop out there is a sociopath, the position is definitely attractive to that personality type, especially ones that might not have the smarts, resources, or connections to become a surgeon or lawyer. And I can't say I quite agree with the idea that no one was expecting what Trump would do when he got elected. I don't want to let cops off the hook here. Everyone knew just what kind of person Trump was when he first appeared as a candidate in 2015. He's been a public figure for decades, and has had plenty of scandals then. He had more once he started running, and they just kept coming. Everything from the Central Park Five, to "locker room talk", to hiding his tax returns-- this is more than just being distracted by a shiny new pay raise. People on the left, a lot of minorities, and even some old-school Republicans like Mitt Romney, sounded the alarm when he won the primaries. For someone to hear those concerns, ignore them, and witness the next four years and then vote for him again during 2020 isn't ignorance, that's malice. 

 

3 hours ago, Nine said:

I strongly suggest looking for information closer to the source: various law enforcement websites, people who work closely with law, etc.

 

Law enforcement officers aren't unbiased, neutral third parties, because as you said, they're human, and they make mistakes, and so are the people who employ them and work with them. So why would they be the best source of info? An institution's policies don't always reflect their actions, and I trust eyewitness accounts and on-the-ground video recordings of police behavior more than statements released by police departments. I agree that mainstream media, and media in general, has incentive to be biased and inflammatory in order to increase viewership, but the idea of what is a fact or not gets complicated when we have to analyze the physical manifestations of subjective individual experiences that may or may not be empirically measurable (ie things like racism and economic disenfranchisement). Race and the economy are not forces governed by natural laws like gravity and the speed of light, they're something we create. It's the very nature of the situation that makes finding unbiased information difficult, if not impossible. It's why "fake news" is such a popular accusation on both the left and right. It's why I'm biased, and why you, and everyone else here, is biased.

 

(Oh, and me saying that racism and economic inequality are social constructs isn't me saying that they don't matter, though. We all live and participate in society so it does have a tangible and measurable effect on us. And this isn't to say that the desire for white supremacy is the same as the desire for black equality.)

Share this post


Link to post

My opinion, just my opinion. Not intending to speak for anyone else.

 

In the 1960's, with the Civil Rights Movement, I learned that the country I live in is not the country I thought it was. Since then, I have often seen/heard things that show me that changes I thought had happened had not. When Trump was campaigning, I could not believe he could win. Partly because I didn't believe the people I thought he was speaking to were numerous enough to elect him. Once again I was proven wrong.

 

Through recent reading I have come to the conclusion that there are several, differing ideologies about ideal/utopian societies and at least some of them are much different from the one I believe in. I don't really know what the other ideas are and at this point, I don't know whether they can survive together. I have long believed that education would answer a lot of our problems, right now I'm not so sure.

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

14 minutes ago, RainDear said:

 

Through recent reading I have come to the conclusion that there are several, differing ideologies about ideal/utopian societies and at least some of them are much different from the one I believe in. I don't really know what the other ideas are and at this point, I don't know whether they can survive together. I have long believed that education would answer a lot of our problems, right now I'm not so sure.

One big stumbling block is the Republican dominated Texas State Board of Education. Their decisions Do Not stay in Texas. They have a great deal of influence over what goes into textbooks that are distributed across the nation, and they influence school curriculums. (California also does this.) They voted in November to leave out LGBT+ and consent issues out of sex education. They are Not going to open to the idea of educating children to build a better world for everyone to live in. They'll continue to push the toxic Republican agenda into US education. 

 

 

Edited by Long_Before_Sunrise
A word

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Long_Before_Sunrise said:

One big stumbling block is the Republican dominated Texas State Board of Education. Their decisions Do Not stay in Texas. They have a great deal of influence over what goes into textbooks that are distributed across the nation, and they influence school curriculums. (California also does this.) They voted in November to leave out LGBT+ and consent issues out of sex education. They are Not going to open to the idea of educating children to build a better world for everyone to live in. They'll continue to push the toxic Republican agenda into US education. 

 

 

Again, just my opinion.

 

While that may be true, I fear that just blaming the Republicans (or Democrats) may be oversimplifying the problem. I think that if all Republicans really knew the whole of their agenda, many would be appalled, but then I begin to fear that the same could be said of Democrats understanding the Democratic agenda. Right now, I think that the Democrats are closer to what I actually believe, but they could be much farther from the mark than I presently suspect. What I really know right now is that I really need to know much more than I do.

Share this post


Link to post

On the topic of racism, I'm rather unconvinced that racism plays as big of a part in this as people think it does. BLM rioters destroyed A LOT, there was certainly no double standard there. There were issues with the peaceful protests, unfortunately, and that's possibly where the racism may reside. I say possibly because I'm not convinced that racism should be the knee-jerk reaction to everything that happens. Obviously, racism still exists in this country, and it's an issue we need to continue to fix. However, I don't believe racism is as widespread as the media would like you to think. We're only as good as what the major news networks spoonfeed us, so it seems.

 

As far as I can see, the right to riot seems to be with both black and white people.

Edited by purpledragonclaw
Inappropriate content removed.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, RainDear said:

Again, just my opinion.

 

While that may be true, I fear that just blaming the Republicans (or Democrats) may be oversimplifying the problem. I think that if all Republicans really knew the whole of their agenda, many would be appalled, but then I begin to fear that the same could be said of Democrats understanding the Democratic agenda. Right now, I think that the Democrats are closer to what I actually believe, but they could be much farther from the mark than I presently suspect. What I really know right now is that I really need to know much more than I do.

It is oversimplification. The Democrats certainly have some unsavory people among them, and will probably gain more because they're now the 'winning' party in which unscrupulous people can chase after a career of power, money, and fame. 

 

But right now the parties are split into "I don't want more people to die" and "Why would I care if people are dying as long as it isn't me?"

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't know Trump had spoken live to the crowd immediately before they attacked the Capitol. I thought a bunch of Trump supporters had just shown up and things got out of hand somehow. (Turns out that's one of the things he wants people to believe.)

I found an analysis of his speech on Twitter, and... uh, this is bad.

(I did not watch any video of his speech, so I can only assume he actually said everything the journalist is quoting. I think it's safe to assume that, because, well, it is on video. Most normal people do not claim things they know can easily be disproved.)

 

Here's an "unrolled" version for easier reading.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1347908845281095680.html

 

There are lots of names of people I don't know, but the rhetoric alone is scary enough.

One thing I don't understand is how this is the same person who was so proud of being able to remember five words a few months ago. Huh.

Either way, I hope someone has at least taken away his ability to, uh, physically destroy the world. Who knows what he'll do without social media to play with.


 

Oh and yeah, my admiration for the Twitter and Facebook bosses knows no bounds... After Trump's behaviour was clearly totally acceptable and within their rules for years, it's remarkable how they immediately recognized that it stopped being acceptable now, and took action against him. What a lucky coincidence that he will also no longer be in a position to influence any laws that might affect those services.

 

 

... You know what just made me laugh just now, though, in its absurdity? I saw a short video of that crowd, and it showed someone saying "heads on pikes", and someone saying that [whoever] should "pay the ultimate price", and all that. And in that video about a mob attacking a government building in the name of a President, the editors made sure to diligently censor the F word. The world can go up in flames, but that word must be censored!

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Confused Cat said:

I didn't know Trump had spoken live to the crowd immediately before they attacked the Capitol. I thought a bunch of Trump supporters had just shown up and things got out of hand somehow. (Turns out that's one of the things he wants people to believe.)

 

Either way, I hope someone has at least taken away his ability to, uh, physically destroy the world. Who knows what he'll do without social media to play with.

 

His rage will increase ninefold over the social media blocking him. I read he was using @POTUS on Twitter to get around the ban. That is the Denial stage.

 

You have to understand with his personality disorder, He Cannot Accept Losing. Mental health experts would call it 'psychic death.' We plebs call it a 'total nervous breakdown.' He's just going to keep melting down over and over and people rejecting his behavior will push him further over the edge to where he become unreachable. People are trying to talk to the reasonable decent person deep inside him. That person isn't there. He never reaches the Acceptance stage. He just cycles back through Denial, Anger, Bargaining, and Depression. 

 

Don't give the Twitter CEO too much credit, tho - Headline: Hundreds of Twitter employees sign letter asking Jack Dorsey to permanently suspend Trump’s account. The CEO, Jack Dorsey, had have his feet held to the fire even after Trump's tweets became a huge liability for the company.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Long_Before_Sunrise said:

His rage will increase ninefold over the social media blocking him. I read he was using @POTUS on Twitter to get around the ban. That is the Denial stage.

 

He was indeed; here's the tweets (deleted almost at once)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Long_Before_Sunrise said:

Don't give the Twitter CEO too much credit, tho

 

That part of my post was sarcasm, in case that wasn't clear. I think they would not have banned him if he had won the election.

Share this post


Link to post

I think they would if he had carried on posting as he was doing. A momentum was building....

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

I think they would if he had carried on posting as he was doing. A momentum was building....

I would like to think they would, but I don't have any faith in that. Big Business = profit first and bad publicity is still publicity. I agree with @Confused Cat If he had not won the election, the social media companies would have likely continued to let him use their services.

 

*looks at Tweets* He still doesn't get it. I'm sure it has been explained to him over and over, and he doesn't want to hear. The repeal of Section 230 would have had the same result. He'd be banned. 

 

He's the personification of 'destroying what you love.' Self-saboteur extraordinaire.

 

Edit: And he is continuing to carry on that way and the momentum is still building. The Stop The Steal people plan on being back for Inauguration Day.

Edited by Long_Before_Sunrise

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.