US 2024 Presidential Election

[Bedinsis]

That's the same point Silvanus is saying has no bearing.

And that is an opinion he can stand for, if he wants to, though I have not found any post of his containing sentiments to that effect. I am asking you.

And besides that, are you going to let Silvanus dictate what is relevant? You brought the subject up.

 

[tstorm823]

And that is an opinion he can stand for, if he wants to, though I have not found any post of his containing sentiments to that effect. I am asking you.

And besides that, are you going to let Silvanus dictate what is relevant? You brought the subject up.

The current situation here is that everyone in this conversation knows the two women were at least a little out of their minds to go out and deliberately blockade ICE vehicles, but the rest are too concerned that they might be seen as showing consideration or leniency for the "bad guys" that they are entirely unwilling to admit it, and quickly deflect to all and only the things they personally want to criticize.

 

[Gergar12]

I told you guys mainstream AI would be used for porn.

 

[Silvanus]

You're the one saying it has no bearing. Would you care to address something you find relevant?

It has no bearing on the morality of the incident.

The fact you brought it up has bearing on our discussion, in that if you bring it up to undermine her or excuse the officer, I consider it necessary to object. If you're happy to drop that angle and concede that it's indeed irrelevant, then we can move on.

Like, you're all gravitating to that same point, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think any of you has actually defended her mindset or decision making. You've criticized my reasoning to say she's not in her right mind blocking ICE with her car, but has anyone on this board actually stated support for her efforts?

It's not something I would ever do-- partly because I think it's likely to accomplish little, and partly for admittedly self-preservation reasons. But I can't really fault her for doing it. I consider ICE to be carrying out heinously cruel acts, and passively obstructing that isn't something I object to.

But it's bizarre to ask us to state support for her philosophy when we're arguing that's not relevant. You are the only one focusing on her actions-- beyond whether they posed a threat or not-- as a moral factor in the officer's decision to kill.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Future law school bad example Jeanine Pirro has lost yet another case for the Trump administration- this one against a homeless man accused of pointing a laser at Marine One, the President's helicopter.

Man accused of aiming laser at Trump helicopter acquitted in 35 minutes

Swift verdict of not guilty in case of Jacob Winkler another high-profile defeat for Jeanine Pirro, US attorney for DC

www.theguardian.com

The jury deliberated for about 35 minutes before finding him innocent.

 

[tstorm823]

But I can't really fault her for doing it. I consider ICE to be carrying out heinously cruel acts, and passively obstructing that isn't something I object to.

It's not passive by any definition to track people down with your car and blockade them.

But it's bizarre to ask us to state support for her philosophy when we're arguing that's not relevant.

Like a half dozen people have criticized me for stating something you all agree with.

Also, if you care to remember, my estimation of her perspective didn't include any of that, the mention of her nuttiness was from the perspective of the ICE agent, because it is absolutely relevant context that this is not someone he went after that was fleeing arrest, this is someone who came after ICE with the intention of impeding them, who by most people's standards was behaving irrationally.

 

[Hades]

Not shocked in the slightest on wanting to get rid of elections.
​

Its still possible Trump won't be able to get rid of elections. One argument about this isn't convincing though. You often hear Trump won't be able to delay or abolish elections because ''there isn't a legal mechanism for that''. Not even the insurrection act apparently.

The problem with that is that there ALSO was no legal mechanism for Pence to throw out electoral votes and crown Trump as en illigitimate president, yet Trump blindly insisted Pence did have this authority, and if Pence hadn't caved its dubious his stacked corrupt supreme court would have objected. What's legal or not in America isn't really a factor anymore.

The more likely reason Trump won't get rid of elections is because its not fashionable for dictators to do so. These days dictators are less loony corporals, and more politicians in suits who allow rigged elections to borrow the legitimacy of a democracy, while still being a dictator.

 

[Chimpzy]

Donald Trump links Greenland threats to Nobel snub as EU trade war looms

US president tells Norwegian PM he no longer feels obliged to think ‘purely of peace’ as relations with Europe plunge into chaos

www.theguardian.com

Dear Ambassador: President Trump has asked that the following message, shared with Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, be forwarded to your [named head of government/state]

"Dear Jonas:

Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a "right of ownership" anyway? There are no written documents, it's only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.

Thank you! President DJT"

Go pick up grandpa, USA

 

[Silvanus]

Like a half dozen people have criticized me for stating something you all agree with.

? What are you on about?

Also, if you care to remember, my estimation of her perspective didn't include any of that, the mention of her nuttiness was from the perspective of the ICE agent, because it is absolutely relevant context that this is not someone he went after that was fleeing arrest, this is someone who came after ICE with the intention of impeding them, who by most people's standards was behaving irrationally.

You say this isn't your estimation, and then immediately pass a judgement that she was behaving irrationally. And one post ago you say she was "a little out of her mind".

You clearly are passing these judgements yourself, and expecting it to colour our judgements about the incident.

 

[tstorm823]

You clearly are passing these judgements yourself, and expecting it to colour our judgements about the incident.

It's what you already think. I don't need to color anything.

You wouldn't have done what she did because you know it would be risking yourself for a totally ineffectual action, and then to say something as mild as "I can't fault her", you have to characterize stalking and blocking roads in front of law enforcement as 'passive obstruction'. The qualifier there suggests that if you saw it as active obstruction, you might blame her. And that is all while agreeing with her cause wholeheartedly.

Now imagine her actions from the perspective of someone who doesn't have any strong feelings about ICE.
Now imagine her actions from the perspective of someone who supports immigration enforcement.
Now imagine her actions from ICE themselves.

Do you really think it's outrageous for me to suggest that those people think she was nuts? Do you really think the likely possibility is that the shooter in his mind was going "muahahaha! I am so evil! I murder immigrants under the guise of law enforcement! But this lady with her SUV is too logical, she sees through my evil! I must eliminate her before she tells the world my secret evil actions! Muaha!"

 

[Silvanus]

It's what you already think. I don't need to color anything.

This tiresome, arrogant nonsense again.

No, it's not. Your inability to comprehend protest is your own.

You wouldn't have done what she did because you know it would be risking yourself for a totally ineffectual action, and then to say something as mild as "I can't fault her", you have to characterize stalking and blocking roads in front of law enforcement as 'passive obstruction'. The qualifier there suggests that if you saw it as active obstruction, you might blame her. And that is all while agreeing with her cause wholeheartedly.

"Passive resistance" is the term for nonviolent, obstructionist opposition to authority. That simply is what she was doing: there's no inappropriate characterisation or inappropriate qualifier.

I might object to active resistance depending on the form it took or its target. This is totally irrelevant.

Now imagine her actions from the perspective of someone who doesn't have any strong feelings about ICE.
Now imagine her actions from the perspective of someone who supports immigration enforcement.
Now imagine her actions from ICE themselves.

Do you really think it's outrageous for me to suggest that those people think she was nuts?

If they think she's having a "psychotic breakdown" for a pretty mild protest like that, then they've gone well beyond simply "supporting immigration enforcement", and into the territory of extremism and cannot themselves be thinking clearly.

But i'm not talking to these hypothetical people. I'm talking to you-- you're the one making these demeaning insinuations about the victim of a shooting. So i'm going to object to the characterisation you're trying to convince us to accept.

Do you really think the likely possibility is that the shooter in his mind was going "muahahaha! I am so evil! I murder immigrants under the guise of law enforcement! But this lady with her SUV is too logical, she sees through my evil! I must eliminate her before she tells the world my secret evil actions! Muaha!"

Childish strawman.

 

[Agema]

No, I would like you to explain why this is a reasonable authority to oppose in that manner. Or perhaps not even explain, just state that you find it reasonable.

"Sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be watered by the blood of patriots", I believe some famous early American said. This is, essentially, a pithy way of saying it may be reasonable to resist / oppose authority, even to the point of laying down one's own life.

"Reasonable" is really about proportionality. I don't expect someone to set themselves on fire in protest that the font on official documents was changed. But a bit of mild obstruction? Should expect the possibility of arrest and manhandling, but yeah, that's within the bounds of reasonable. So too have people glued themselves to gates to stop people entering a building, chained themselves to trees to stop them being cut down, or just stood/marched in and blocked the road. It's okay, it should be very routine direct action with minor drama. It's certainly not the sort of thing any protestor expects to end with their brains decorating their car.

And if we want to talk about reasonable and proportional, I think whatever you want to say about those women, it was less reasonable and proportional for the agent to get out his gun for the dispute. Still less reasonable and proportional for the authorities to bury any investigation as to whether the agent did the wrong thing.

 

[dreng3]

"Sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be watered by the blood of patriots", I believe some famous early American said. This is, essentially, a pithy way of saying it may be reasonable to resist / oppose authority, even to the point of laying down one's own life.

I do believe there is a second group that must contribute according to the quote, and giving that someone across the pond keeps threatening my country I'm growing less opposed by the day.

 

[thebobmaster]

"Patriots and tyrants" is the full quote, for the record. "From time to time, the tree of liberty needs to be watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 

[Trunkage]

Do you really think the likely possibility is that the shooter in his mind was going "muahahaha! I am so evil! I murder immigrants under the guise of law enforcement! But this lady with her SUV is too logical, she sees through my evil! I must eliminate her before she tells the world my secret evil actions! Muaha!"

Ross has been told that everyone is evil. The immigrants. The protester. The Journalist
HE does not think he is evil. He thinks EVERYONE ELSE is evil.
This is the result. It does not matter if we are in China, Mali, France, Russia or the US.

It's what you already think. I don't need to color anything.

You wouldn't have done what she did because you know it would be risking yourself for a totally ineffectual action, and then to say something as mild as "I can't fault her", you have to characterize stalking and blocking roads in front of law enforcement as 'passive obstruction'. The qualifier there suggests that if you saw it as active obstruction, you might blame her. And that is all while agreeing with her cause wholeheartedly.

Now imagine her actions from the perspective of someone who doesn't have any strong feelings about ICE.

ICE overreacted. This is easy, as only 12% of independents agree with Ross' actions

Now imagine her actions from the perspective of someone who supports immigration enforcement.

I'm pro-redomiciling, and that goes too far. People do not need to get shot for this. This was an easy one as many Trump voters are saying the same thing

Now imagine her actions from ICE themselves.

Ross got scared. I can definitely see that and understand his perspective.
He's a trained officer; having appropriate reactions under stressful situations is his job. He failed
Teachers get hit by students regularly. They are NOT allowed to hit back or they will be fired.
Nurses and Doctors get hit by patients regularly. They are NOT allowed to use excessive force or they get fired
There was a referee at a kids' footy match who was listening to a parent say fucked about things about his kids' opponents. The referee punched him in the face to make him stop. The referee might have been right attitude, but the action is the problem. He was fired (and the parent was banned)
Having an appropriate reaction is part of the job. Failure is dismissal at the very least

 

[tstorm823]

"Passive resistance" is the term for nonviolent, obstructionist opposition to authority. That simply is what she was doing: there's no inappropriate characterisation or inappropriate qualifier.

No, it is not what she was doing. Boycotts are passive resistance. Refusal to comply with certain laws is passive resistance. Protests or sit-ins can be passive resistance. Monitoring the authorities so that you can know their movements enough to blockade the road with your car and create an unexpected physical obstruction to their duties is not passive. It's active to go looking for people in the streets, it is an act of force to create a blockade.

I think whatever you want to say about those women, it was less reasonable and proportional for the agent to get out his gun for the dispute.

That is a reasonable take, but I remain more curious about what you would say about these women. You defend resistance in the abstract, and you condemn the actions of ICE, and that implies a sort of defense of the women's actions, but you are still not saying that outright.

Ross got scared. I can definitely see that and understand his perspective.
He's a trained officer; having appropriate reactions under stressful situations is his job. He failed

Thank you.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Trump has openly stated that he "no longer thinks purely of peace" and is pursuing Greenland because he wasn't given that Nobel Peace Prize he wants.

Trump ties Greenland demands to Nobel Prize in message to Norway leader

The US president insists Norway controls who gets the coveted prize, while the Norwegian government says it has nothing to do with the decision.

www.bbc.com

He's a 5-year-old child throwing a tantrum because he didn't get the gold medal, only he's a 5-year-old child that a bunch of extraordinarily stupid people decided to put in command of the world's most powerful military.

(Also it's seeming like he's confusing Norway with Denmark and boy howdy you Republicans fucked the world over so hard just because you went nuts over a black man running the country for eight years.)

 

[Silvanus]

No, it is not what she was doing. Boycotts are passive resistance. Refusal to comply with certain laws is passive resistance. Protests or sit-ins can be passive resistance. Monitoring the authorities so that you can know their movements enough to blockade the road with your car and create an unexpected physical obstruction to their duties is not passive. It's active to go looking for people in the streets, it is an act of force to create a blockade.

"Passive" in the phrase "passive resistance" does not mean sitting there and doing nothing (it can involve that, but that's not all it's limited to). It can encompass non-violent obstructionism.

Regardless, this is semantics. If you consider that "active resistance", then I am absolutely a-ok with that form of "active" resistance.

 

[tstorm823]

Regardless, this is semantics. If you consider that "active resistance", then I am absolutely a-ok with that form of "active" resistance.

People don't try so hard to downplay things they are ok with.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Ross got scared. I can definitely see that and understand his perspective.

Did he though? I don't know what happened in his brain and neither do you. I think it's just as likely that he shot Renee Good out of anger.

He's getting screamed at all day, he's cold, he's upset, this woman refuses to listen to him and he snaps and he pulls the trigger the moment she gives him an excuse.

It wouldn't be the first time a man has killed a woman out of anger. It wouldn't be the first time a law enforcement officer has killed someone out of anger. There's no reason to be charitable to this guy and make the assumption that he was scared when it's just as likely that he was enraged.