The Trump Presidency

[arfa brane]

I watched some of the rally in Tulsa, but didn't see Trump cough or sneeze, even once.

Then again, he is going to hold more rallies, so I'll just have to keep my hopes up.

 

[sculptor]

...
Yes, most Democrat politicians nowadays want to remove gun rights, ... .

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

When the elite exceptionalists think that it is in their best interests to disarm the citizenry, one must seriously question what exactly they consider their best interests to be.

 

[iceaura]

When the elite exceptionalists think that it is in their best interests to disarm the citizenry, one must seriously question what exactly they consider their best interests to be.

In the US since Reagan (since Nixon if traced, off and on since the Civil War began if traced carefully and the Confederacy/Klan discounted or properly labeled) actual disarmament of American citizens has been done disproportionately by Republican Party governing administrations at various levels. Not Democratic: Republican.

Disarmament of the citizenry is an authoritarian policy, and the modern Republican Party (since Nixon captured the Confederacy's racial bigotry vote formerly owned by the Democratic Party) is significantly more authoritarian than the Democratic Party. The Republican rhetoric of law and order, the calls for death penalties and militarization of law enforcement, the advocacy of interrogation by torture and harsh treatment of the incarcerated and always increasingly severe penalties for street level violations of regulation and criminal acts committed by the poor, the reflexive advocacy of martial law during times of public disorder or mass political demonstration, etc etc etc, demonstrate that ideological disparity beyond reasonable doubt.

Republican disarmament was flagrant and done openly after Katrina, for example, more secretively or indirectly in several other times of riot or crisis, and more or less as underlying or de facto policy enforced by Republican staffed and supervised police, ubiquitously throughout the US and continuously wherever the police are predominantly (personally) Republican in ideology or political allegiance. (That would be most of the country).

That last is easily seen in the standard official justifications of police killings of black men - always in these events a great deal hinges on whether or not the black man (or child, or woman) was or might have appeared to be armed. Usually, any chance of prosecuting or otherwise adequately holding to account a policeman for their killing of a black American citizen rests first and most significantly on whether or not the citizen was clearly and obviously unarmed.

That is: An armed black American citizen can be shot by the police more or less at will without risking much in the way of consequences; that publicly proclaimed and common knowledge is a de facto disarmament of black American citizens, and by far the most significant and influential disarmament of American citizens that has ever taken place in the US.

Meanwhile, the intentional and by now rhetorical boilerplate-employing confusion of ordinary and reasonable gun control regulations with "disarmament" has long been a standard Republican Party media feed gutter meme, a specimen of continually revived slime and dishonest cant we have grown accustomed to encountering in the last few months of every national campaign season. Imho it has trashed more elections and installed more bad public officials than abortion, in large part because it taps into the structural "white" American racial prejudices and fears.

 

[CptBork]

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

When the elite exceptionalists think that it is in their best interests to disarm the citizenry, one must seriously question what exactly they consider their best interests to be.

You don't allow Americans to wire their cars and trucks with high explosives, and they're not allowed to have machine guns, artillery, armoured fighting vehicles, drones and rocket launchers. Don't you want Americans to be able to protect themselves from tyranny? What good is a bunch of rifles in the hands of people who can't maneuver in their Walmart scooters, and can't hit moving targets that shoot back? If you can't use an air burst, how the hell are you supposed to shut up that annoying dog next door?

On the other hand, most "disarmed" societies already do have armed citizenry. They're called police. In normal societies, the police are trained as members of the community with certain special responsibilities, as opposed to commandos trained to fight drug dealing space invaders from Pluto and prove that tiny peepees are nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[douwd20]

Then compare US to Western Europe:

The combined death count in those 16 European countries (about 121,000) remains higher than in the U.S. (about 117,000).
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/17/...hina-john-bolton-your-wednesday-briefing.html​

US trends are up not down like the EU which was hit first with the virus by at least two months.
You forgot that part or did you? By year end we will have the crown in both cases and deaths though we will duke it out with underdeveloped Brazil which like the US is run by similar science denying homophobic bigoted sadist.

The world watches in sympathy and horror was a once proud superpower tanks. No one should be surprised though. It’s fate was written when it elected a p* grabbing, climate-denying, NATO-sneering, China-taunting, nuke-happy, Putin-fellating, woman-hating, neo-Nazi con-artist gameshow-host troll king as it’s president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/19/whole-world-is-watching-americas-failure/

 

[douwd20]

I also said that police kill more unarmed whites than blacks, even though they have more interactions with black criminals, as a proportion of their population. Again, where are cops getting away with unjustified killings? All the latest incidents have been charged. You're being duped by race-baiters.

More nonsense. As a proportion of the population black and brown people are killed much more than whites. And like that Central Park woman who called the police falsely stating a black man was assaulting her. She knew what the police response would be and she wanted to use that to her benefit.

Black Americans 2.5X More Likely Than Whites to Be Killed By Police​

And study after study proves the point:

There’s overwhelming evidence that the criminal justice system is racist. Here’s the proof. ​

"Race baiter"? That's the old trick that has been totally exposed as a tired bogus attempt to not believe what your eyes can plainly see. An 9 minute execution videotaped has nothing to do with race or a kid going to get candy ends up dead or a kid playing with a toy gun all dead. China and Russia are laughing at US hypocrisy.

China, Russia And Iran Mock U.S. Handling Of Protests: ‘I Have A Dream, But I Can’t Breathe’​

 

[Vociferous]

But if someone shoots a cop for trying to confiscate their weapons, they deserve to be convicted of a felony crime no matter what excuse they had for resisting, correct? And people deserve to be charged even if they only make vague threats about it, since threatening violence is itself a crime yes?

That depends on if the confiscation were legal, or at least, could be legally redressed. If it were against the Constitution and there were no legal means to address the violation of rights, resistance would be the only recourse. And no, people saying they would protect their Constitutional rights is not against any law.

US trends are up not down like the EU which was hit first with the virus by at least two months.
You forgot that part or did you?

No, that graph of deaths clearly shows it trending downward. Can't you read? Yes, the cases is trending up, but cases don't mean much, especially when some blue states have been adding tests of samples, as opposed to current tests, and unrelated deaths that happen to test positive to their numbers.

The world watches in sympathy and horror was a once proud superpower tanks. No one should be surprised though. It’s fate was written when it elected a p* grabbing, climate-denying, NATO-sneering, China-taunting, nuke-happy, Putin-fellating, woman-hating, neo-Nazi con-artist gameshow-host troll king as it’s president.

What sad fantasies you have.

More nonsense. As a proportion of the population black and brown people are killed much more than whites. And like that Central Park woman who called the police falsely stating a black man was assaulting her. She knew what the police response would be and she wanted to use that to her benefit.

Black Americans 2.5X More Likely Than Whites to Be Killed By Police​

When 13% of the population commits about 50% of the homicides and a disproportionate percent of all violent crimes, yes, police will have to use potentially deadly force disproportionately. So maybe you need to look past headlines and learn the whole story.

And study after study proves the point:

There’s overwhelming evidence that the criminal justice system is racist. Here’s the proof. ​

When 13% of the population commits about 50% of the homicides and a disproportionate percent of all violent crimes, yes, police will come to expect that demographic to be more dangerous and much more likely to be involved in crime. That's decades of real life experience, backed by all available statistics. The only way to address that is to address the black community. But the overwhelming majority of black deaths (93%) doesn't seem to interest you unless there is a white person or cop involved.

"Race baiter"? That's the old trick that has been totally exposed as a tired bogus attempt to not believe what your eyes can plainly see. An 9 minute execution videotaped has nothing to do with race or a kid going to get candy ends up dead or a kid playing with a toy gun all dead. China and Russia are laughing at US hypocrisy.

China, Russia And Iran Mock U.S. Handling Of Protests: ‘I Have A Dream, But I Can’t Breathe’​

Well, at least China and Russia agree with you. What great allies you have.

 

[CptBork]

That depends on if the confiscation were legal, or at least, could be legally redressed. If it were against the Constitution and there were no legal means to address the violation of rights, resistance would be the only recourse. And no, people saying they would protect their Constitutional rights is not against any law.

So if a police officer illegally violates a black person's constitutional rights with no reasonable hope of legal redress, they're allowed to shoot the cop right?

 

[Vociferous]

So if a police officer illegally violates a black person's constitutional rights with no reasonable hope of legal redress, they're allowed to shoot the cop right?

Which Constitutional rights?
Why couldn't they be redressed?
Who said anything about "no reasonable hope"? That would seem to imply the individual's subjective feeling would suffice.

Now, if the black person knows the cop personally, and has any reason to believe that particular cop means to kill them, legal or not, they will likely act to defend themselves. If they are unable to, like being drunk, on drugs, or subdued, others should intervene, whether other officers directly or bystanders calling 911 to get a supervisor on site.

 

[CptBork]

Which Constitutional rights?
Why couldn't they be redressed?
Who said anything about "no reasonable hope"? That would seem to imply the individual's subjective feeling would suffice.

Now, if the black person knows the cop personally, and has any reason to believe that particular cop means to kill them, legal or not, they will likely act to defend themselves. If they are unable to, like being drunk, on drugs, or subdued, others should intervene, whether other officers directly or bystanders calling 911 to get a supervisor on site.

So given that America has supreme courts and all the rest, you would agree that there's never a situation where a person has a legal right to resist the confiscation of their arms by designated authorities, right? Even if they might potentially be violating the laws of the land, you don't have the right to decide that for yourself, do you?

In George Floyd's case, you are arguing that someone should have shot all the officers because there was no chance of him having his day in court once he's dead. Also I forgot to ask, what's the rule for purple and green people?

 

[Vociferous]

Which Constitutional rights?
Why couldn't they be redressed?
Who said anything about "no reasonable hope"? That would seem to imply the individual's subjective feeling would suffice.

Now, if the black person knows the cop personally, and has any reason to believe that particular cop means to kill them, legal or not, they will likely act to defend themselves. If they are unable to, like being drunk, on drugs, or subdued, others should intervene, whether other officers directly or bystanders calling 911 to get a supervisor on site.

So given that America has supreme courts and all the rest, you would agree that there's never a situation where a person has a legal right to resist the confiscation of their arms by designated authorities, right? Even if they might potentially be violating the laws of the land, you don't have the right to decide that for yourself, do you?

Many states have tried to illegally violate the Second Amendment. As long as there is legal recourse, most people don't resist.
You have the basic human right to life and the defense of life, including the means to do so. Basic human rights supersede laws.

In George Floyd's case, you are arguing that someone should have shot all the officers because there was no chance of him having his day in court once he's dead. Also I forgot to ask, what's the rule for purple and green people?

Of course not, as I JUST said, "bystanders calling 911 to get a supervisor on site". I say the same thing to white people or anyone else. Violence would likely cost more lives.
The bad cops in Floyd's death should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. He was already subdued.

 

[CptBork]

Many states have tried to illegally violate the Second Amendment. As long as there is legal recourse, most people don't resist.
You have the basic human right to life and the defense of life, including the means to do so. Basic human rights supersede laws.

Ok, so if a licensed police officer comes to someone's house and wants to confiscate their weapons because of an erroneous interpretation of the law, and they shoot the officer in resistance, there is no situation where they don't deserve felony charges, right?

Of course not, as I JUST said, "bystanders calling 911 to get a supervisor on site". I say the same thing to white people or anyone else. Violence would likely cost more lives.
The bad cops in Floyd's death should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. He was already subdued.

So if a black officer has his knee on a white man's neck, you must call 911 and wait 10 minutes for another officer to arrive. If 911 tells you the situation is being dealt with and not to get involved, you must patiently step aside and tell the perp that it's his fault for resisting arrest, right?

 

[Quantum Quack]

That depends on if the confiscation were legal, or at least, could be legally redressed. If it were against the Constitution and there were no legal means to address the violation of rights, resistance would be the only recourse. And no, people saying they would protect their Constitutional rights is not against any law.



No, that graph of deaths clearly shows it trending downward. Can't you read? Yes, the cases is trending up, but cases don't mean much, especially when some blue states have been adding tests of samples, as opposed to current tests, and unrelated deaths that happen to test positive to their numbers.


What sad fantasies you have.


When 13% of the population commits about 50% of the homicides and a disproportionate percent of all violent crimes, yes, police will have to use potentially deadly force disproportionately. So maybe you need to look past headlines and learn the whole story.


When 13% of the population commits about 50% of the homicides and a disproportionate percent of all violent crimes, yes, police will come to expect that demographic to be more dangerous and much more likely to be involved in crime. That's decades of real life experience, backed by all available statistics. The only way to address that is to address the black community. But the overwhelming majority of black deaths (93%) doesn't seem to interest you unless there is a white person or cop involved.


Well, at least China and Russia agree with you. What great allies you have.

can I ask?
When are you going to nominate for the Presidency?
For surely you would do a better job than the current one...

 

[douwd20]

No, that graph of deaths clearly shows it trending downward. Can't you read? Yes, the cases is trending up, but cases don't mean much, especially when some blue states have been adding tests of samples, as opposed to current tests, and unrelated deaths that happen to test positive to their numbers.

Its' obvious you can't read so lets try pictures. The US is #1 for deaths in the world. And with cases raging all over the country that title will be ours for quite sometime. This is Trump's legacy.

When 13% of the population commits about 50% of the homicides and a disproportionate percent of all violent crimes, yes, police will have to use potentially deadly force disproportionately.

When 13% of the population commits about 50% of the homicides and a disproportionate percent of all violent crimes, yes, police will come to expect that demographic to be more dangerous and much more likely to be involved in crime. That's decades of real life experience, backed by all available statistics. The only way to address that is to address the black community. But the overwhelming majority of black deaths (93%) doesn't seem to interest you unless there is a white person or cop involved.

Another big fat lie. The police need to kill a kid with a toy gun as they did in Ohio? Or shoot a drunk man in the back running away as they did two weeks ago? in Atlanta Why are the victims always one particular color? I'm sure you don't care.

MORE THAN 1,000 UNARMED people died as a result of police harm between 2013 and 2019, according to data from Mapping Police Violence. About a third of them were black.

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...nce-disproportionately-affect-people-of-color

You see ‘Law and Order’ is for ‘Blacks and Hippies’ only. Meanwhile back at the ranch the most corrupt president ever is surrounded by criminals and is a criminal himself but that's to be ignored. You have no taste or tolerance for a movement for black lives, only for the instruments to control them and quiet them.

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
​

Today you can substitute "violence" for "heroin" and the plan is brought up to date. You have your canned numbers from whatever white supremacy group you are a member of and spout them off in every venue possible.

 

[pjdude1219]

You don't allow Americans to wire their cars and trucks with high explosives, and they're not allowed to have machine guns, artillery, armoured fighting vehicles, drones and rocket launchers. Don't you want Americans to be able to protect themselves from tyranny? What good is a bunch of rifles in the hands of people who can't maneuver in their Walmart scooters, and can't hit moving targets that shoot back? If you can't use an air burst, how the hell are you supposed to shut up that annoying dog next door?

On the other hand, most "disarmed" societies already do have armed citizenry. They're called police. In normal societies, the police are trained as members of the community with certain special responsibilities, as opposed to commandos trained to fight drug dealing space invaders from Pluto and prove that tiny peepees are nothing to be ashamed of.

i get your point but there are about 40 miniguns legal for civilians to own(40 total guns not types) tanks are legal to own unless the state prohibits it and with the right permits the guns can be operational, also flame throwers are legal. sooooooooooooo..................................

 

[pjdude1219]

Many states have tried to illegally violate the Second Amendment.

just because people like you spent 40 years trying to rewrite history doesn't change the facts. people like you throw temper tantrums over things the people who literally wrote the amendment were ok with. safe storage laws prevalent admittedly for vastly different reasons than now, the forbidding of going armed in populated areas was legal for most of our history, and gun registration met constitutional muster and while not wide spread did occur in places in new england. quit listening to NRA propaganda and start learning history. I mean seriously one of the most famous shoot outs that ever happened was do to the enforcement of a local gun control ordinance. jesus i wish you 2nd amendment cultist actually learned history instead of spouting NRA talking points. if only you knew as much as you thought you did.

 

[douwd20]

MAGA.......

E.U. May Bar American Travelers as It Reopens Borders, Citing Failures on Virus

BRUSSELS — European Union countries rushing to revive their economies and reopen their borders after months of coronavirus restrictions are prepared to block Americans from entering because the United States has failed to control the scourge, according to draft lists of acceptable travelers seen by The New York Times.

That prospect, which would lump American visitors in with Russians and Brazilians as unwelcome, is a stinging blow to American prestige in the world and a repudiation of President Trump’s handling of the virus in the United States, which has more than 2.3 million cases and upward of 120,000 deaths, more than any other country.
​

 

[CptBork]

i get your point but there are about 40 miniguns legal for civilians to own(40 total guns not types) tanks are legal to own unless the state prohibits it and with the right permits the guns can be operational, also flame throwers are legal. sooooooooooooo..................................

Not good enough, I want to keep thousands of Javelin missiles and grenades in muh basement, and they ain't letting me fly muh armed drones around neither. I want to be able to have all that stuff and have it together with muh buddies and form a large gathering that threatens to use them on anyone who sets foot on muh property.

MAGA.......

E.U. May Bar American Travelers as It Reopens Borders, Citing Failures on Virus

BRUSSELS — European Union countries rushing to revive their economies and reopen their borders after months of coronavirus restrictions are prepared to block Americans from entering because the United States has failed to control the scourge, according to draft lists of acceptable travelers seen by The New York Times.

That prospect, which would lump American visitors in with Russians and Brazilians as unwelcome, is a stinging blow to American prestige in the world and a repudiation of President Trump’s handling of the virus in the United States, which has more than 2.3 million cases and upward of 120,000 deaths, more than any other country.
​

They're just jealous because they weren't the first to think of using Clorox. 40 more years!

 

[Vociferous]

Ok, so if a licensed police officer comes to someone's house and wants to confiscate their weapons because of an erroneous interpretation of the law, and they shoot the officer in resistance, there is no situation where they don't deserve felony charges, right?

If the officer was acting outside the law, or even just fails to identify himself, there's a case for self-defense, especially under stand your ground laws.

Man cleared in deputy shooting by 'stand your ground' law​

So if a black officer has his knee on a white man's neck, you must call 911 and wait 10 minutes for another officer to arrive. If 911 tells you the situation is being dealt with and not to get involved, you must patiently step aside and tell the perp that it's his fault for resisting arrest, right?

No, but guess what, the bystanders in that case didn't do anything except video and yell. They didn't call 911, nor did they act to remove the cop from his neck. Granted, although that video didn't help Floyd, it has a good chance of changing police procedure throughout the country. So there's that.

Its' obvious you can't read so lets try pictures. The US is #1 for deaths in the world. And with cases raging all over the country that title will be ours for quite sometime. This is Trump's legacy.

View attachment 3495

That picture might as well be in crayon for anything it does to make your point. It's a faulty comparison to just look at deaths between countries of very different population sizes. Be intellectually honest, for once, and look at the deaths per million of population: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

You'll see that the UK, Spain, Italy, Sweden, and France all have more deaths per million people than the US. Again, so by your own metric, these are all failed states. Right?

Another big fat lie. The police need to kill a kid with a toy gun as they did in Ohio? Or shoot a drunk man in the back running away as they did two weeks ago? in Atlanta Why are the victims always one particular color? I'm sure you don't care.

No lie, FBI and DOJ statistics. Yes, when police feel their lives are in danger, they are allowed to use deadly force. A weapon in the hand of a kid or a desperate fleeing criminal is just as deadly as any other. And no, police don't need to risk their lives until they make sure it's a real gun. The victims aren't one particular color, as the statistics show. The news just likes to promote the most sensational stories, which often includes a racial element.

MORE THAN 1,000 UNARMED people died as a result of police harm between 2013 and 2019, according to data from Mapping Police Violence. About a third of them were black.

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...nce-disproportionately-affect-people-of-color

And? That tracks with the disparity in crime rates, according to victims, as per FBI/DOJ statistics.

You see ‘Law and Order’ is for ‘Blacks and Hippies’ only.

No, that op-ed is demonstrably ignorant or lying. A President cannot mandate, nor fund, changes in local police departments. The federal government doesn't have that power, least of which with an executive order alone. There is no inequity where the arrest rates match the crime rates. And this op-ed quickly devolves into blatant race-baiting. If you believe that, no wonder you can't read statistics worth a damn.

just because people like you spent 40 years trying to rewrite history doesn't change the facts. people like you throw temper tantrums over things the people who literally wrote the amendment were ok with. safe storage laws prevalent admittedly for vastly different reasons than now, the forbidding of going armed in populated areas was legal for most of our history, and gun registration met constitutional muster and while not wide spread did occur in places in new england. quit listening to NRA propaganda and start learning history. I mean seriously one of the most famous shoot outs that ever happened was do to the enforcement of a local gun control ordinance. jesus i wish you 2nd amendment cultist actually learned history instead of spouting NRA talking points. if only you knew as much as you thought you did.

No, you've been duped by the real people rewriting history. I've read the Federalist Papers. You know, the justifications from those who actually wrote the Second Amendment. And if you're getting your info from articles like >this, you're being lied to. And pretending that gun rights supporters don't know the history is ignorant hubris.

 

[CptBork]

If the officer was acting outside the law, or even just fails to identify himself, there's a case for self-defense, especially under stand your ground laws.

Man cleared in deputy shooting by 'stand your ground' law​

No, but guess what, the bystanders in that case didn't do anything except video and yell. They didn't call 911, nor did they act to remove the cop from his neck. Granted, although that video didn't help Floyd, it has a good chance of changing police procedure throughout the country. So there's that.

How come black people don't have the right to stand their ground and shoot deputies who act outside the law, if you believe it's ok for white people? If calling 911 made no difference, it would have been the right thing then to shoot Mr. Chauvin and his fellow deputies before they could kill George Floyd or shoot those coming to his rescue, right? Do purple people also get to stand their ground?