Fascism arrives in full swing (was The most important thing right now....)
terp said:
My position is that if people have been destroying property then perhaps it would be good to keep them off the streets for a bit. I'm uncomfortable with a campaign touting their donations to this cause.
Did you read the article?
nohero said:
I read the article.
The donations are described as follows, in the article from last May: "At least 13 Biden campaign staff members posted on Twitter on Friday and Saturday that they made donations to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which opposes the practice of cash bail, or making people pay to avoid pre-trial imprisonment. The group uses donations to pay bail fees in Minneapolis."
What, specifically, is "disconcerting" about these people from around the country, and who are involved with the campaign, doing this?
What's the basis for your "I'm uncomfortable with a campaign touting their donations to this cause."
Also, I'm not familiar with the "lock 'em up without bothering with a conviction" branch of "libertarianism".
ml1 said:
and btw NJ has essentially eliminated cash bail. Is it your position that our state should reinstate it to keep as-yet not convicted people off the streets?
Just for destroying property. "Libertarians"* are sensitive about injury to property.
*unless you're an architect and they've subverted your vision, in which case property destruction is acceptable.
terp said:
drummerboy said:
Maybe Trump needs to grow a silly mustache to convince terp.
It isn't often discussed, but Hitlers reign allowed quite a few violent demonstrations. These would go on for weeks and he would ask the local governments to control them. He would only step in with his goon squads if invited.
Is there a point in there somewhere?
Secret ******* police dude. Here. In the USA.
All I'm saying is that this destructive behavior needs to stop. People are going to be left living in these places. Am I a fan of cash bail? No. So, maybe I am mistaken on this point.
I'm frankly getting tired of the escalating violence and destruction. We've reached another level of this where people are dying. And it seems to me that both sides in this fight are shirking their own responsibility.
The truth is that the rioters are wrong. I can understand people getting upset and protesting. I support that. I can even understand the occasional riot in the heat if the moment. What I can't understand is how that doesn't dissipate after weeks of this nonsense. And I don't understand why the local governments in some of these cities give so much leeway.
Are the groups on the right who came armed to Kenosha wrong? Absolutely. They are just throwing gas on the fire.
The thing you should consider though when you blame it all on the "other side" is where does this stop? Is this a tit for tat situation? These situations tend to escalate. And the longer they do, the more each side becomes convinced that they are right, and the easier it is to attack the other side.
it's also important to take into account how racist Portland's history has been. A reason why the demonstrations there are more volatile than in other cities, why they've gone on so long, and why they are meeting with violent counter protests is the city's history.
this article was written four years ago:
The Racist History of Portland, the Whitest City in America
It’s known as a modern-day hub of progressivism, but its past is one of exclusion.
drummerboy said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
Maybe Trump needs to grow a silly mustache to convince terp.
It isn't often discussed, but Hitlers reign allowed quite a few violent demonstrations. These would go on for weeks and he would ask the local governments to control them. He would only step in with his goon squads if invited.
Is there a point in there somewhere?
Secret ******* police dude. Here. In the USA.
I'm pretty sure they were DHS and were marked...admittedly poorly. And frankly hey shouldn't exist. But he didn't create them.
I should note that wWe've had nefarious **** go on by secret police for decades in this country. Orders of magnitude more disconcerting than what went on in Portland.
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
Maybe Trump needs to grow a silly mustache to convince terp.
It isn't often discussed, but Hitlers reign allowed quite a few violent demonstrations. These would go on for weeks and he would ask the local governments to control them. He would only step in with his goon squads if invited.
Is there a point in there somewhere?
Secret ******* police dude. Here. In the USA.
I'm pretty sure they were DHS and were marked...admittedly poorly. And frankly hey shouldn't exist. But he didn't create them.
I should note that wWe've had nefarious **** go on by secret police for decades in this country. Orders of magnitude more disconcerting than what went on in Portland.
HUAC comes to mind.
terp said:
All I'm saying is that this destructive behavior needs to stop.
You've said this around 500 times in the past month- who here has disagreed?
Have you spoken out about strongly about riots after sporting events also?
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
Maybe Trump needs to grow a silly mustache to convince terp.
It isn't often discussed, but Hitlers reign allowed quite a few violent demonstrations. These would go on for weeks and he would ask the local governments to control them. He would only step in with his goon squads if invited.
Is there a point in there somewhere?
Secret ******* police dude. Here. In the USA.
I'm pretty sure they were DHS and were marked...admittedly poorly. And frankly hey shouldn't exist. But he didn't create them.
I should note that wWe've had nefarious **** go on by secret police for decades in this country. Orders of magnitude more disconcerting than what went on in Portland.
"orders of magnitude"?
Please tell us the last time the Prez has sent in an unmarked (they were completely unidentifiable) police force into a city without being requested.
I'll wait.
But I will remark, once again, how willing you are to carry water for Trump, while still ******** about Obama drone strikes. (which I've also explained have increased under Trump.)
terp said:
All I'm saying is that this destructive behavior needs to stop. People are going to be left living in these places. Am I a fan of cash bail? No. So, maybe I am mistaken on this point.
I'm frankly getting tired of the escalating violence and destruction. We've reached another level of this where people are dying. And it seems to me that both sides in this fight are shirking their own responsibility.
...
regarding escalation - people are dying as a direct result of the addition of provocative Trump supporters.
You have not once happened to remark on this truth.
drummerboy said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
Maybe Trump needs to grow a silly mustache to convince terp.
It isn't often discussed, but Hitlers reign allowed quite a few violent demonstrations. These would go on for weeks and he would ask the local governments to control them. He would only step in with his goon squads if invited.
Is there a point in there somewhere?
Secret ******* police dude. Here. In the USA.
I'm pretty sure they were DHS and were marked...admittedly poorly. And frankly hey shouldn't exist. But he didn't create them.
I should note that wWe've had nefarious **** go on by secret police for decades in this country. Orders of magnitude more disconcerting than what went on in Portland.
"orders of magnitude"?
Please tell us the last time the Prez has sent in an unmarked (they were completely unidentifiable) police force into a city without being requested.
I'll wait.
But I will remark, once again, how willing you are to carry water for Trump, while still ******** about Obama drone strikes. (which I've also explained have increased under Trump.)
The last president had a kill list and used it to kill Americans. One of them was a 16 year old boy. Do you think the drone was clearly marked?
jamie said:
terp said:
All I'm saying is that this destructive behavior needs to stop.
You've said this around 500 times in the past month- who here has disagreed?
Have you spoken out about strongly about riots after sporting events also?
There are few things dumber than rioting after a sporting event. Does that really need to be said?
terp said:
There are few things dumber than rioting after a sporting event. Does that really need to be said?
It's also "dumb" and counterproductive to riot as part of a protest against injustice, but for some reason posters here are being berated for not commenting on it enough.
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
drummerboy said:
Maybe Trump needs to grow a silly mustache to convince terp.
It isn't often discussed, but Hitlers reign allowed quite a few violent demonstrations. These would go on for weeks and he would ask the local governments to control them. He would only step in with his goon squads if invited.
Is there a point in there somewhere?
Secret ******* police dude. Here. In the USA.
I'm pretty sure they were DHS and were marked...admittedly poorly. And frankly hey shouldn't exist. But he didn't create them.
I should note that wWe've had nefarious **** go on by secret police for decades in this country. Orders of magnitude more disconcerting than what went on in Portland.
"orders of magnitude"?
Please tell us the last time the Prez has sent in an unmarked (they were completely unidentifiable) police force into a city without being requested.
I'll wait.
But I will remark, once again, how willing you are to carry water for Trump, while still ******** about Obama drone strikes. (which I've also explained have increased under Trump.)
The last president had a kill list and used it to kill Americans. One of them was a 16 year old boy. Do you think the drone was clearly marked?
Have you ever said one word about Trump's use of drones, ever? And the fact that he now does it secretively? I certainly can't recall if you did. You certainly don't make a big deal out of it.
I believe I have, but it is largely a continuation of an existing policy. I will give Trump credit for not starting any new wars. This was something his predecessors going back quite a bit failed to muster.
jamie said:
terp said:
All I'm saying is that this destructive behavior needs to stop.
You've said this around 500 times in the past month- who here has disagreed?
Have you spoken out about strongly about riots after sporting events also?
I think I've brought this up too. It isn't to justify or condone what goes on after protests in Portland or Kenosha. But it's for some perspective. Put thousands of people together with very high emotions, possibly alcohol or drug use, maybe some with untreated mental illness, and the result might be acts of violence like arson and looting. The NY Giants arrest about two dozen people at every home game. That's more than the Portland PD were arresting most nights during gatherings they had designated as "riots."
But is anyone using those realities to smear all NFL fans around the country, calling them "thugs" and criminals?
nohero said:
Wisconsin is an Open Carry state.
This helps illustrate why I'm not supportive of gun rights (philosophically anyway -- legal questions around the second amendment are their own discussion). An oft-advanced justification for an armed citizenry is that it is necessary to resist tyranny by the state, but I've always found this to be a poor argument. In the first place, the state will nearly always have an overwhelming advantage in weaponry; more so in the modern era. If successful resistance depends on civilians being able to take on the state in armed conflict, then a tyrant state will win every time.
But in fact, that argument misses how tyranny actually works. Very, very rarely is it truly "the state" against "the people." Rather, it is part of the people against another part of the people, with one faction having control of all or most of the mechanisms of the state. The state is a tool, not the primary actor, and tyranny is imposed by one faction against another not only via the state, but by any and all other means available.
And in fact we see this playing out in real time right now. How would you describe a system that purposely suppresses the ability of one group of people to create, retain, and increase wealth, hampers the ability of that group of people to enter into and participate in the legitimate economy, funnels that group into gray or black market activities, uses the police forces to keep this group in check and, when the group tries to resist, responds with overwhelming and disproportionate force, if not as "tyrannical"?
If we accept the logic put forth by the proponents of open carry and other gun rights positions, black Americans should all have guns and be actively using them in defense of their rights.
And, in fact, there ARE a lot of guns in economically depressed neighborhoods, as the logic of "the police aren't going to help you" is a reality. And do the gun right advocates cheer this and hold it up as an example of an ideal society? Nope. They instead go on about violent crime and "black on black" violence and use the actual reality of a heavily armed populace who the state regularly violent attacks as fodder for their own fantasies of why they, safe in their owner-occupied, gainfully employed, police-guarded communities, need more guns.
And then you get these ridiculous and tragic incidents where everyone shows up with guns and it turns out these white gun owners are not, in fact, joining forces with their black neighbors to resist tyranny, but instead deputizing themselves as partners to the state security forces. And this shouldn't be surprising because, as I noted above, tyranny doesn't come from the state, the state is just a tool. These guys have been on the same side all along, and it ain't the side of freedom.
Guns have made all of these situations worse, not better.
terp said:
I will give Trump credit for not starting any new wars. This was something his predecessors going back quite a bit failed to muster.
He's the Second Coming of Gandhi, for sure.
PVW said:
And then you get these ridiculous and tragic incidents where everyone shows up with guns and it turns out these white gun owners are not, in fact, joining forces with their black neighbors to resist tyranny, but instead deputizing themselves as partners to the state security forces. And this shouldn't be surprising because, as I noted above, tyranny doesn't come from the state, the state is just a tool. These guys have been on the same side all along, and it ain't the side of freedom.
Great point.
terp said:
You couldn't point that out without me answering that question? *sigh*
You seemed to think I believed otherwise, so...
Biden responds to the Trumpist/Anti-Biden ranting that tries to pin the violence on him, and sends it back onto Trump.
PVW said:
nohero said:
Wisconsin is an Open Carry state.
This helps illustrate why I'm not supportive of gun rights (philosophically anyway -- legal questions around the second amendment are their own discussion). An oft-advanced justification for an armed citizenry is that it is necessary to resist tyranny by the state, but I've always found this to be a poor argument. In the first place, the state will nearly always have an overwhelming advantage in weaponry; more so in the modern era. If successful resistance depends on civilians being able to take on the state in armed conflict, then a tyrant state will win every time.
But in fact, that argument misses how tyranny actually works. Very, very rarely is it truly "the state" against "the people." Rather, it is part of the people against another part of the people, with one faction having control of all or most of the mechanisms of the state. The state is a tool, not the primary actor, and tyranny is imposed by one faction against another not only via the state, but by any and all other means available.And in fact we see this playing out in real time right now. How would you describe a system that purposely suppresses the ability of one group of people to create, retain, and increase wealth, hampers the ability of that group of people to enter into and participate in the legitimate economy, funnels that group into gray or black market activities, uses the police forces to keep this group in check and, when the group tries to resist, responds with overwhelming and disproportionate force, if not as "tyrannical"?
If we accept the logic put forth by the proponents of open carry and other gun rights positions, black Americans should all have guns and be actively using them in defense of their rights.
And, in fact, there ARE a lot of guns in economically depressed neighborhoods, as the logic of "the police aren't going to help you" is a reality. And do the gun right advocates cheer this and hold it up as an example of an ideal society? Nope. They instead go on about violent crime and "black on black" violence and use the actual reality of a heavily armed populace who the state regularly violent attacks as fodder for their own fantasies of why they, safe in their owner-occupied, gainfully employed, police-guarded communities, need more guns.
And then you get these ridiculous and tragic incidents where everyone shows up with guns and it turns out these white gun owners are not, in fact, joining forces with their black neighbors to resist tyranny, but instead deputizing themselves as partners to the state security forces. And this shouldn't be surprising because, as I noted above, tyranny doesn't come from the state, the state is just a tool. These guys have been on the same side all along, and it ain't the side of freedom.
Guns have made all of these situations worse, not better.
A couple of reactions to this. First, if you strip out the references to race, and the conclusions you draw regarding gun rights you sound a lot like me.
Second, you are wrong about gun rights advocates. The fact that people need guns to protect themselves when threatened where the police will not show up in time or at all is brought up with quite a bit of frequency. At one point there was a lot of conversations in libertarian circles about security in Detroit when services there essentially ceased a decade ago or so.
You seem to be conflating the comparison of violence within community members with violence between police and community members with gun rights. The fact is that violence is really high in these communities. Although they don't get the same fanfare as when police are involved, people killed by other members of the community are just as dead and are vastly more numerous. It doesn't make the police violence ok, because it's not. But you could argue that it is a more severe problem. And this is why something like 80% of Black people want as much or more police presence in their neighborhoods. Which is odd why many are "peacefully protesting" to cut police funding.
Also, I would agree that these situations are more complex than the state vs the people. However, I would point out that these "white gun owners" probably see the federal government very differently than they see their local police. Especially when their local police are trying to maintain order in their city.
ml1 said:
jamie said:
terp said:
All I'm saying is that this destructive behavior needs to stop.
You've said this around 500 times in the past month- who here has disagreed?
Have you spoken out about strongly about riots after sporting events also?
I think I've brought this up too. It isn't to justify or condone what goes on after protests in Portland or Kenosha. But it's for some perspective. Put thousands of people together with very high emotions, possibly alcohol or drug use, maybe some with untreated mental illness, and the result might be acts of violence like arson and looting. The NY Giants arrest about two dozen people at every home game. That's more than the Portland PD were arresting most nights during gatherings they had designated as "riots."
But is anyone using those realities to smear all NFL fans around the country, calling them "thugs" and criminals?
Totally. They're the exact same situation with the exact same consequences.
terp said:
Totally. They're the exact same situation with the exact same consequences.
if your car was burned after a BLM demonstration or after a Super Bowl win it's just as burned.
Remember when the Giants lost to the Eagles a few years ago and some fans took over a neighborhood in Tallahassee Florida and declared it autonomous? Those crazy Giant fans.
Honestly, I had to think about it. And you know how much I hate thinking. It's like asking your kid to clean their room. It works exactly zero times the first time you ask.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
so you know for sure that these people have been destroying property how? Just because they've been accused?
and btw NJ has essentially eliminated cash bail. Is it your position that our state should reinstate it to keep as-yet not convicted people off the streets?