Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DonaldD

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 39
The Russian bounty story has been in the public consciousness since at least June - so at the very least, even if he didn't read his briefings at the time, and even if he had managed to avoid being spoken to about the bounties, there's no longer an excuse for NOT having enquired about the possibility that Russia was paying to kill US soldiers, never mind opening a thorough intelligence review on the subject, and making it a priority.

Suggesting that "it didn't reach his desk" is no longer even remotely an excuse - it requires him to have actively decided not to investigate a hugely public issue.  This is rising to the level of dereliction of duty.  If he was anybody's employee, he would have been fired for cause.

Jonathan Swan: (16:28)
Mr. President, different subject, it’s been widely reported that the U.S. has intelligence indicating that Russia paid bounties or offered to pay bounties to Taliban fighters to kill American soldiers.

You had a phone call with Vladimir Putin on July 23rd. Did you bring up this issue?

President Donald J. Trump: (16:42)
No. That was a phone call to discuss other things. And frankly, that’s an issue that many people said was fake news.
Jonathan Swan: (17:14)
And you’ve never discussed it with him.

President Donald J. Trump: (17:15)
I have never discussed it with him. No. I would. I’d have no problem with it.
President Donald J. Trump: (17:36)
A much bigger problem than global warming in terms of the real world, that would be a great thing. No. It never reached my desk.
You know why? Because intelligence, they didn’t think it was real.

Jonathan Swan: (17:48)
It was in your written brief though about it.

President Donald J. Trump: (17:50)
They didn’t think it was worthy. I wouldn’t mind. If it reached my desk, I would have done something about it. It never reached my desk because-
President Donald J. Trump: (18:25)
The world is a very angry place, if you look all over the world. We call up. I see a 22 soldiers were killed in India with China fighting over the border. It’s been raging for many, many decades. And they’ve been fighting and back and forth. I have so many briefings on so many different countries, but this one didn’t reach my desk.

Jonathan Swan: (18:50)
The reason I say this is, even if you don’t believe this particular piece of intelligence, and there is dispute, no doubt, there is dispute in the intelligence committee about it, John Nicholson, former head of forces in Afghanistan said, and this is when he was working for you, that Russia is supplying weapons to the Taliban. Isn’t that enough to challenge Putin over the killings of U.S. soldiers?
Jonathan Swan: (19:30)
But you surely heard that. Right? I mean, it’s well known in the intelligence community, that they’re arming the Taliban, Russia.

President Donald J. Trump: (19:36)
I don’t know. When you say arming is-

Jonathan Swan: (19:38)
Supplying weapons.

President Donald J. Trump: (19:39)
Paying or they-

Jonathan Swan: (19:40)
Russia is supplying weapons and money to the Taliban.

President Donald J. Trump: (19:42)
I have heard that but, again, it’s never reached my desk.

Donald J. Trump, the statesman:

Swan: John Lewis is lying in state in the US Capital.  How do you think history will remember John Lewis?

Trump: I don’t know...  I really don’t know.  I don’t know.  I don’t know John Lewis.  He chose not to come to my inauguration…. he chose - I never met John Lewis, actually.

It was hard to see how Trump could make such a question all about himself, but bravo, sir, I tip my hat to you.  That was exceptionally smooth.

Trump, realizing his geriatric voting block in Florida might be dissuaded from exercising their franchise:

Donald J. Trump

Whether you call it Vote by Mail or Absentee Voting, in Florida the election system is Safe and Secure, Tried and True. Florida’s Voting system has been cleaned up (we defeated Democrats attempts at change), so in Florida I encourage all to request a Ballot & Vote by Mail! #MAGA

You really have to listen to this. It is so cringe-worthy it is physically painful to watch.

Axios on HBO: Swan interviews Trump

We're lower than... the world. We're lower than... Europe. Take a look - right here. Here's case/death.

Look, here is the United States. You have to go by the cases; the people that live from those cases.

This man is literally the head of state of a country.

Looking back at other things that didn't age well, from the Vice President's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal on June 16: Mike Pence claimed "There Isn’t a Coronavirus ‘Second Wave’" and admonished the media for (accurately, it turned out) "sounding the alarm bells over" for a growing catastrophe in the southern states.

In recent days, the media has taken to sounding the alarm bells over a “second wave” of coronavirus infections. Such panic is overblown. Thanks to the leadership of President Trump and the courage and compassion of the American people, our public health system is far stronger than it was four months ago, and we are winning the fight against the invisible enemy.

I can only imagine the state of the country absent all of this "winning".

No, this isn't quite the parallel. Rather, you'd have to agree that if you thought that a person going to an abortion clinic would likely result in an escalation of violence by a mob of people present, and they did so, that you would come to the determination that they are responsible for the violence.
Not what I said at all.  It doesn't matter what 'you' think 'their' expectation was, it matters what 'their' expectation was.

'You' can certainly have a belief about what their expectation was.

If you see the angry mod, and think that by walking to the post office at that time there is a significantly increased chance of triggering an escalation that might lead to people getting hurt, or a building getting torched, then yes, you would be absolutely responsible for the resulting violence if it were to escalate.

I believe your position hinges on this point, ok. I'd like to know if you'd make precisely the same argument for a woman walking past an angry protest at an abortion clinic. If she walks past the protest and they start being violent, she is absolutely responsible for the resulting violence, right?
If a person going to, say, an abortion clinic, thought that the likely result of their action would be an escalation of violence by a mob of people present, or the likely torching of the clinic, and they chose to undertake that action, then yes.  This is self evident. 

Of course, in this hypothetical, the person has to have that expectation. Given that thousands of people have crossed past abortion clinic protesters without triggering explosive violence makes it a tough argument to make, since if thousands of other people do it safely, the likelihood of me triggering such a reaction is slim.

Whereas sending masked, unidentifiable stormtroopers into large protests where there is already friction is a pretty well known commodity.

In response to Deborah Birx observing that COVID-19 is widespread throughout the country, a not exactly controversial point to make, the whinger in chief once again calls the Twitter wambulance:

So Crazy Nancy Pelosi said horrible things about Dr. Deborah Birx, going after her because she was too positive on the very good job we are doing on combatting the China Virus, including Vaccines & Therapeutics. In order to counter Nancy, Deborah took the bait & hit us. Pathetic!

What exactly did Birx say to trigger president snowflake?

"What we are seeing today is different from March and April. It is extraordinarily widespread. It's into the rural as equal urban areas," she said, suggesting that some Americans in multi-generational families should start wearing masks inside their homes.
She did not reject a warning by former Federal Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb that there could be 300,000 coronavirus deaths by the end of the year, saying, "Anything is possible."

It's almost impressive how he can make concern about the spread of a virus all about himself, or that he believes admitting even the most mundane fact must somehow be a personal attack against himself.

If, for instance, I want to walk down the street to the post office to mail a letter, and there's a mob of people who hate the mail system, and you tell me that if I walk to the post office it will rile them up, I do not think there is any world in which I am *responsible* in any way for them throwing bottles if I decide to go anyhow.
If you see the angry mod, and think that by walking to the post office at that time there is a significantly increased chance of triggering an escalation that might lead to people getting hurt, or a building getting torched, then yes, you would be absolutely responsible for the resulting violence if it were to escalate.  Those are foreseeable results of actions you chose to take.

Does that mean the anti-post-office protester who proceeds to go postal is not themselves responsible for their own actions?  Of course not.

Would you be held legally responsible?  Possibly, but not necessarily.  Clearly, the president sending shock troops into an area ostensibly to safeguard some buildings provides him with legal coverage; but that is not the same as the moral responsibility he bears for stirring the pot and the predictable escalations.

It may be Trump's fault that he sent federal officers, but it's not his fault that the presence of federal officers would cause violence.
If I knew that my otherwise completely innocent action would likely lead to violence, then of course I would be at least partly responsible for the resulting violence. This isn't really up for debate, is it?  And if I planned on benefitting from the triggering of the violence that I knew would likely be the result, that makes it worse, although is itself a separate issue.

That doesn't mean the perpetrators of the violence are not themselves responsible for their own acts; of course they are.  But that doesn't magically absolve the president of his own bad actions.

The best case you can make is that their presence was inciting violence. And if anyone has a problem with a LEO simply being present in a public space, especially one they're charged with protecting, there are larger problems that need addressed, and it isn't the LEO.
Yes, this is exactly what people have pointed out - the introduction of the stormtroopers predictably escalated tensions, and the completely predictable actions/reactions on both sides fed into each other.

Knowing that introducing the stormtroopers would escalate tensions and the resulting conflicts is on the administration.  Responsibility for any particular instances of violence in on each protester or stormtrooper. Whether human nature is such that people should automatically respect police authority, and that any resulting lack of respect is something that can be "addressed" is an interesting question, but quite separate from the actions of the administration leading to escalating violence.

Technically, he said it would be signed within two weeks:

Bloomberg News Wire - July 19, 2020:

We’re signing a health-care plan within two weeks, a full and complete health care-plan,” Trump said. “We’re going to sign an immigration plan, a health-care plan, and various other plans.”

Trump on Thursday suggested that the administration would soon be “going into the world of health-care - very complete health-care, and we have a lot of very exciting things to discuss.”

Two weeks is up... today (well,, yesterday, but that was a Sunday...)

The majority of the demonstrators cannot be peaceful.  If they seem to be, they are only "peaceful protesters".

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: July 31, 2020, 09:10:01 PM »
Vanity Fair article:

But the effort ran headlong into shifting sentiment at the White House. Trusting his vaunted political instincts, President Trump had been downplaying concerns about the virus and spreading misinformation about it—efforts that were soon amplified by Republican elected officials and right-wing media figures. Worried about the stock market and his reelection prospects, Trump also feared that more testing would only lead to higher case counts and more bad publicity. Meanwhile, Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House’s coronavirus response coordinator, was reportedly sharing models with senior staff that optimistically—and erroneously, it would turn out—predicted the virus would soon fade away.

Against that background, the prospect of launching a large-scale national plan was losing favor, said one public health expert in frequent contact with the White House’s official coronavirus task force.

Most troubling of all, perhaps, was a sentiment the expert said a member of Kushner’s team expressed: that because the virus had hit blue states hardest, a national plan was unnecessary and would not make sense politically. “The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy,” said the expert.
Putting aside Trump's consistent stupidity concerning how more testing would lead to higher case counts  (although maybe if a. you don't understand what testing is for and b. he believed the virus would soon fade away, you could sorta cut him some slack) it would be mind boggling to think that they actually did the political calculus that a national plan wasn't really needed because the virus was currently killing primarily blue state voters, so the political fallout would damage Democrats more than Republicans.

I said it would be mind-boggling, except it really isn't because this administration has proven itself to be so completely amoral that planning for the deaths of blue staters is almost expected of them now.

Ramping up mail in voting without proper controls will be a challenge.

Evidence of fraud in the states that use mail-in-voting exclusively is almost non-existent.

CBS News

General Comments / Re: covid-19 outside the US
« on: July 31, 2020, 07:21:05 PM »
It's impossible to say for sure, but anti-vaxers have lost a lot of their sway, not just since COVID-19, but in the year before.

We may be pleasantly surprised by the eventual rate of vaccination.

The non-nefarious answer to that is we know mail-in voting is rife for all kinds of abuse and "systemic issues" as witnessed with the whole 20% vote disqualification rate in one (local) race.
Actually - we really do not know this.

General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: July 31, 2020, 08:23:00 AM »
Republicans don't focus on illegal voting. They use legal methods to subtract Democratic Party voters. Including thwarting the return of ex-felons to the voting rolls, removing polling stations from blue counties, or scrubbing out active voters from registration rolls. It also is far from so lopsided as you suggest. You can do your own research.

You'll find Republicans and Democrats in the list, though sadly there are no totals. Even if there were, I'm sure you'd dismiss objective evidence and just state that there are a lot more Democrats getting away with it. An awful lot of these involve mere handfuls of ballots, in the smallest case one guy voting absentee in two states.

Here is an analysis of the Heritage database, focussing on the 5 vote-by-mail states.

Ignoring the size of the states' populations, the worst rate of fraud was in Colorado, with an annual rate of less than 2.5 fraudulent votes per year. As the authors point out, this is inconsequential; such rates, if concentrated within a single neighbourhood, are unlikely to affect the outcome of even school board elections, never mind state-level or national elections.

And of course, Trump's own voting integrity commission found so little evidence of vote fraud that it was disbanded without even issuing a report...

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: July 31, 2020, 07:35:34 AM »
New daily cases in the USA seem to have plateaued, but the 3-day average for daily deaths is now higher than at any time since May 22.

General Comments / Re: General Barr's Hearing
« on: July 31, 2020, 07:06:31 AM »
In the meantime, I'm wondering about what kind of bizzaro funhouse world we're in right now where Donald Trump is the strongest candidate for law and order rather than mob rule. That's insane
Yes, it is.  Especially given that Donald Trump's actions in instigating violence completely put the lie to his claims to be the law and order candidate.

Is it really so wild to be concerned that Trump might refuse to accept the results of the election, therefore "stealing" it, when he won't stipulate accepting the results?

He did answer that question in June. If he loses, he'll leave. In the meantime he's having fun getting the media to talk about him by complaining about how the Democrats want to use voting methods that are even more prone to fraud and disenfranchisement than the existing in-person voting system.

And then a month later, he had changed his mind, and clearly stated he would NOT commit to accepting the results of the election. Foxnews: Wallace/Trump interview transcript

WALLACE: But can you give a, can you give a direct answer you will accept the election?

TRUMP: I have to see. Look, you – I have to see. No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no, and I didn’t last time either.

So both sides are running hot rhetoric about how the other side is going to steal the election?
You're equating actions taken and words spoken by the president of the country to those of an opinion writer in USA Today... the whataboutism is strong in this one...

You do realize that second quote attribution was from Joe Biden, their presumptive nominee for the Presidency? Both sides are accusing the other of trying to cheat in this upcoming election.
My response was to your link to the USA Today opinion piece.

As to the Biden bit, do you think his concern that "Trump would try to 'steal' the election" is in some way equivalent to Trump encouraging violence in the country and encouraging anger against the violence he himself instigated? Given that Trump continues to waffle on whether he will actually accept the election, encouraging ambiguity on whether he will actually leave the office if and when defeated, is it really a stretch to be concerned that he might refuse to "recognize the result" and "steal" the election?  Sometimes, you need to believe people when they tell you who and what they are.

That's all in addition to Trump's recent attempts to sow distrust in the electoral processes, layered, of course, on top of Republicans' general attempts to disenfranchise non-Republican voters.

An interesting take by Federalist co-founder Calabresi: Federalist Society co-founder says Trump’s tweet about postponing the election is grounds for ‘immediate impeachment’

Federalist Society co-founder Stephen Calabresi said that President Trump’s tweet suggesting to postpone the election is “fascistic” and “grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment.”

“Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats’ assertion that President Trump is a fascist,” Calabresi wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times. “But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate.”

So both sides are running hot rhetoric about how the other side is going to steal the election?
You're equating actions taken and words spoken by the president of the country to those of an opinion writer in USA Today... the whataboutism is strong in this one...

Setting aside the humour - of course it's b) :)

He sent troops to Portland in order to incite violence and to incite anger in his base - those responses were completely predictable, his intent was transparent, but still, it worked on his base. 

He is now stirring up distrust in the electoral process in order to stir up anger in his base. Again, it is completely transparent, and will likely have the same effect.

It would seem at this point he is willing to set the country on fire in order to hold onto power.

With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA

Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???

The president does not have the authority to do so, and the current congress would never implement such a change, so
a) Is he just stupid?
b) Is he laying the ground work to refuse to leave office should he lose the vote?
c) Both a) and b)?

General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: July 30, 2020, 12:21:25 PM »
Currently, there have been 4.6M reported cases in the USA.

Assuming, as one study did last month, that roughly only 1/6 of all cases are reported, that brings the total of likely infections to 27M, or about 8% of the population.

If herd immunity actually works for COVID-19, and if no controls had been put in place (either official, unofficial or personal - which is not a likely scenario) we would likely reach an 80% infection rate.

Given that we have seen 150,000 deaths to date (and not factoring in the recently infected who will eventually die as a result) we would expect to see a death count of about 1.5M people in the USA.  Of course, that number will drop as more effective treatments become available.  But it does look like the initial 1M-2M initial death estimates for unfettered infection was not too far off.

General Comments / Re: covid-19 outside the US
« on: July 30, 2020, 06:48:16 AM »
That's an interesting theory, but do you think any significant number of US residents screaming "my rights!" have done such an analysis and come to that conclusion?  That they accept that millions will die, so it is better to "get 'er done", and cut out the middleman?

General Comments / Re: covid-19 outside the US
« on: July 29, 2020, 10:33:23 PM »
There's a saying - intelligence is learning from your mistakes, but wisdom is learning from other people's mistakes.

What's happening in the USA is something else altogether.

Axios interview: Bounties never brought up with Putin

Swan: John Nicholson, former head of [US] forces in Afghanistan said, and this is when he was working for you, that Russia is supplying weapons to the Taliban.  Isn't that enough to challenge Putin over the killings of US soldiers
Trump: Well, we supplied weapons [to the Taliban] when they were fighting Russia, too.

The president of the United States (not of Russia!) is arguing that the USA (or its president, at least) should not confront the Russian president over bounties Russia has placed on US soldiers' heads, nor about arming the Taliban, because the USA armed the Taliban against Russia 40 years ago.

Let that sink in.

At some point, one has to ask what is the threshold for "adhering"

General Comments / Re: General Barr's Hearing
« on: July 28, 2020, 10:36:07 PM »
Repeated insistence that Federal Troops are assaulting peaceful protesters, even though literally everyone is aware that this is not true. 
It's impressive in just how many ways such a short statement can be anti-factual, Seriati.

Literally NOT everyone is aware of your claim (that "this is not true"), since a number of people here have given separate examples of the stormtroopers assaulting peaceful protesters; assuming you have read any of the posts on the topic, you would know this.  Additionally, those same examples show that your claim that "this is not true", in reference to the "Repeated insistence that Federal Troops are assaulting peaceful protesters" is itself untrue.

You can argue that it is rare, that the vast majority of stormtrooper interactions do not involve them abusing their authority or denying citizens their constitutional rights, but your blanket claim is just silly in being absolute.

From today's press briefing (July 28).

So — you know, it’s interesting: He’s got a very good approval rating, and I like that.  It’s good.  Because remember, he’s working for this administration.  He’s working with us, John.  We could have gotten other people.  We could have gotten somebody else.  It didn’t have to be Dr. Fauci.  He’s working with our administration.  And, for the most part, we’ve done pretty much what he and others — Dr. Birx and others, who are terrific — recommended.

And he’s got this high approval rating, so why don’t I have a high approval rating with respect — and the administration, with respect to the virus?  We should have a very high, because what we’ve done in terms of — we’re just reading off about the masks and the gowns and the ventilators and numbers that nobody has seen, and the testing at 55 million tests; we tested more than anybody in the world.  I have a graph that I’d love to show you — perhaps you’ve seen it — where we’re up here and the rest of the world is down at a level that’s just a tiny fraction of what we’ve done, in terms of testing.

So it sort of is curious: A man works for us — with us, very closely, Dr. Fauci, and Dr. Birx also highly thought of.  And yet, they’re highly thought of, but nobody likes me.  It can only be my personality.  That’s all.

This is getting more than a little sad.

Well, that didn't last long: Trump retweets claim that Fauci misled the public.

Donald J. Trump Retweeted

War Room: Pandemic
Jul 22
Dr. Lee Vliet: Dr. Fauci has misled the American public on many issues, but in particular, on dismissing #hydroxychloroquine and calling Remdesivir the new gold standard

He can't seem to help himself. He's got the self-control of a 4-year-old in a vat of cotton candy.

Funny thing is AntiFa and BLM protesters themselves are amazingly racist, even without the more typical white supremacist groups running around.
This is a generalization that is impossible to support, especially since you think all of the protesters, in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands, are all Antifa.  Did you take a survey?  Did that survey show even a significant minority of protesters are racist?

That statement is as mouth breathy as those put forth by left-wing radicals who decry all Republicans as racists.

False equivalence.
Portland is Known to have a large AntiFa presence, as the Proud Boys vs AntiFa fights in recent years demonstrated.

"Large AntiFa presence" does not mean everyone present at a protest in Portland is AntiFa, but it does mean that depending on the issue, AntiFa is going to be present in numbers.

As to the anti-racist protesters being racist? Look at how they frequently treat minorities who disagrees with them. They get called every racially loaded term in the book. That isn't even touching on the black LEOs.
Making generalizations about things based on your social media feed and preferred media is an exercise in confirmation bias.  You are so sure that Antifa is in Portland, and before that at every other protest, and in numbers more significant than non-Antifa protesters... and all this certainty based on images that have been curated for you specifically to provoke exactly this reaction.

You cannot believe Antifa is not a huge problem exactly because you believe Antifa is a huge problem.

Funny thing is AntiFa and BLM protesters themselves are amazingly racist, even without the more typical white supremacist groups running around.
This is a generalization that is impossible to support, especially since you think all of the protesters, in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands, are all Antifa.  Did you take a survey?  Did that survey show even a significant minority of protesters are racist?

That statement is as mouth breathy as those put forth by left-wing radicals who decry all Republicans as racists.

As for the attempt to tar the Democratic Party with supporting Antifa?  From Pelosi to Bernie Sanders (OK, he may not actually belong to the Democratic Party) they have denounced Antifa violent tactics.

Minnesota AG prior to becoming the AG:

(Portland Mayor) Wheeler getting BBC attention regarding AntiFa, although he wasn't explicitly supporting them then either:

We could also get into the Democrat Governor condemning Trump, not the protesters, or the Oregon (Democrat) AG filing a suit against the Federal Government on behalf of the (AntiFa) protesters which has been dismissed by the judge?
I made a statement that the Democrats have denounced Antifa violent tactics, and you respond with... somebody holding up a book about antifascism, and a link to an article where the mayor is not quoted as supporting Antifa violent tactics, but for not sufficiently supporting the police...

As for your continued conflation of "Antifa" with "all protesters"  - guess what?  At probably every protest for the past 15 years, there have been anarchist or black-block or equivalent agitators.  The vast majority of protesters, however, are not associated with them.  You seem to want to equate all people exercising their first amendment rights to the small number of violent agitators.  Why?

In that respect, AntiFa has a lot in common with the early incarnations of the KKK.
The Godwin is strong in this thread... aside from the fact that Antifa in North America is a belief system and not an organization, the KKK came from a position of power - government officials, law enforcement officers, and yes, farmers and shopkeepers too - whereas the Antifa bogeyman is made up of non-organized underemployed and dispossessed people primarily.

As for the attempt to tar the Democratic Party with supporting Antifa?  From Pelosi to Bernie Sanders (OK, he may not actually belong to the Democratic Party) they have denounced Antifa violent tactics.

Unless Trump is a fascist, the anti-fascists aren't there to attack him even metaphorically.

General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: July 28, 2020, 02:23:40 PM »
Since many IT experts and hackers are Left-wing AntiFa types, the odds that they will work overtime to subvert any system is a no-brainer. Only a fool would say they wouldn't do all they could to scam the vote.
Because... that's what you would do in their position?

When Floyd resisted arrest and threw himself on the ground, a small, timid, and untrained police officer kneeled on his neck and killed him.
It's things like this that make people wonder whether you are actually a parody of a right-wing true believer.  I admit, the rest of that post is almost as questionable, but this is probably the most over-the-top bit.

sorry, but the Portland protests, especially the ones that continue past about 10:00PM, are not about BLM or taking responsibility.

They're about psychological warfare and provoking police response to their criminal behavior in the hopes that they'll get the occasion to catch an officer responding in an inappropriate manner so they can then use that footage generate propaganda to perpetuate their cause and potentially gain more converts to their cause. (respond properly 99 times out of 100, they won't remember the 99, everybody will fixate on the 1; and that 1 event is all the agitators need)
Yes, they are 🙂. However, the media you trust only present those bits that reinforce your predispositions.

There is no question whatsoever that some protesters are there only to provoke, some even violently, and many others are there in response to the stormtroopers that have been deployed (and some of the anti-stormtrooper protesters are also acting provocatively.)

But the vast majority of protesters are non-violent, even after 10:00pm, and yes, some non-violent protesters are also hoping for and even expecting overreactions and violence by the stormtroopers

Whenever you say something like "As we all know", you generally follow that opening with something that most people know to be untrue... your consistency is commendable.

It really isn't a stretch to think that this is exactly the response that Trump wanted when sending in the stormtroopers - violent video that can be used to rile up his base against protesters and especially against BLM which is becoming more and more popular with the general population, video which Trump is now using in campaign spots.

So, because men in camouflage assaulted a man in plain sight, and other men wearing camouflage did nothing to stop the attackers, all camouflage-wearing men in the area should then have immediately dispersed and gone home, so as not to be confused for the attackers - or risk immediate arrest, and detention in unmarked vehicles, correct?

General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: July 25, 2020, 07:14:17 PM »
The Florida legislature had put into place a law restricting the rights of former felons to vote, based on the existence of outstanding debts associated to their incarceration. This was clearly in conflict with the ballot initiative amendment approved by Floridians that guaranteed former felons who had served their sentences the right to vote.

Now it seems like there is a grass roots initiative to pay off those debts in order to allow the disenfranchised former convicts their say in the democratic process.

Although it shouldn't take paying a poll tax in order for the will of the majority of Floridians to be respected by their government, it seems like this particular attempt at voter suppression won't be quite as effective as some people had hoped.

General Comments / Re: China is in a bad, bad way.
« on: July 25, 2020, 02:02:59 PM »
And that's the most likely reason you came up with?


  • Americans do not care about foreign policy, except for brief periods where they like seeing things get blown up.
  • Trump has also talked up getting out of the "international helping" business.  I can't imagine him jumping on this particular natural disaster, but maybe he will.
  • The US just told China to close a consulate.  China retaliated. 
  • Trump signed an executive order holding China accountable for actions taken against Hong Kong.
  • Trump has gone out of his way to label COVID-19 as the "China Virus".
I am not saying these things are all good or all bad - but are you so sure it's the MSM making China into (or keeping China as) the bogeyman, and the evidence of a lack of reporting of a natural disaster is sufficient evidence? 

And what are other Republicans saying about Trump's latest brain-f@rt?

The comment quickly sparked outrage on social media and inside the Department of Justice. [Chip] Roy (R-Texas), among the most conservative members of the GOP, slammed the president's kid-gloves treatment of a woman charged with grooming young girls into a circle of sexual abuse.

“This is unacceptably obtuse for a woman accused of the most morally depraved of crimes, @realDonaldTrump,” Roy wrote on Twitter. “She needs to be severely punished... and justice must be served for the girls she abused. For ALL involved.”

Of course, Roy goes on to drop the requisite "alleged" sentiments by the end of his tweet, which I would have been more careful about.

At any rate, it's pretty clear he doesn't feel there's much ambiguity in the president, the head of the government branch responsible for prosecutions, wishing an accused child predator well...

For context, you know who Trump has also wished well?  Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn.  Who has he not wished well?  Well, most famously, Obama and Clinton.

For those who missed the pattern, some of those people are felons, who coincidentally have dirt on Trump and who Trump would benefit from their silence.

Interestingly, here's someone who was being retaliated against by the current justice department, until a judge ruled that the Department of Justice had sent Michael Cohen back to prison solely in retaliation for writing another of those tell-all books about Trump.  There is seemingly no stopping Trump's personal attorney, current AG William Barr, from abusing the power of his position to assist the president.

This is another of those weirdly ignored news items: the Department of Justice abusing its power against a private citizen for the purpose of politically assisting the president, getting caught, and the story simply not getting any traction because these types of abuse are now expected from this administration.

What's "funny" is that the presence of the stormtroopers actually reinvigorated the protests in general, but the most especially the more radical protesters prone to illegal activities.

Having them leave would improve the situation, but what is the chance that the stormtroopers will be told to leave, even if it would improve the "security" situation?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 39