'Tis the season. Again. Seriously, it’s the runup to 2020, and our previous thread spanned the previous presidential election up to the beginnings of this one.
Well tem beat mick to it. I’ve already rebooted my share of thread titles.
Sorry guys, didn’t know you wanted to make one. I absolutely did it deliberately to Mike though (spoiler: I didn’t).
Who says the Dystopia can’t be hilarious?
While Trust-fund Donny does like to compare himself to Churchill and Newt Gingrich wrote the foreword a book called Trump and Churchill: Defenders of Western Civilization (sadly, not a joke), I think there is absolutely
Churchill served the UK for more than half a century in the House of Commons, 31 years as a minister and 9 years as PM. He took part in 35 battles and got 14 medals.
The track record of wannabe General Trump is a little less impressive and I don’t remember him serving the country in any capacity.
Are we really having a discussion if police shot canisters of tear or pepper gas at protesters? I am very very not religious, but even I object to the clergy being driven off by police in full riot gear:
Just leave the apologising to Faux News.
One thing I’ve found unusual here is atheists defending a priest. We make up nearly a quarter of the nation, have only one openly admitted member of either chamber of Congress (who still is afraid of publicly using the word atheist), and yet we’re the ones arguing a priest shouldn’t be assaulted. It feels odd.
To be fair, there are certainly many religious voices speaking up against this, but while people from most quarters may be taking a stand, the devoutly religious Republican office holders largely aren’t. I suppose that’s what makes the whole thing feel so odd, the very people who most publicly talk about their religion in politics are so quiet. A comment on hypocrisy I suppose.
Honestly it’s mostly self serving.
Who will sanctify our fences if the priests are all gone?
C’mon tem, use your head.
Heh, true. While not necessarily a fan of priests per se, I liked the idea of a zone of sanctuary in the middle of the protests. From Gerbasi’s report they were providing a place of rest and even washed people’s eyes when they were hit by gas. This, by any definition I know, may fall under love thy neighbour, even after St. John’s was set on fire.
One may argue that the clergy was helping the lawless looters, but somehow that doesn’t wash with me. The government’s line as of now seems to be that there are no peaceful protesters, which is rather obviously wrong.
I guess the next step, though more secular, will be attacking doctors and paramedics because they might help the evil protesters…
If @MickityMike points out that I am naive at that point, so be it, but the Black Bloc tactics of a few idiots out for violence hiding in a much larger mass of peaceful demonstrants is pretty much known here since the 70s. That does not devalue a majority protesting for justice.
The police actually already did assault a medical station. Frankly we’re at the point of asking who won’t they assault and the answer so far seems to be, well… noone. Some of this stuff would’ve resulted in court martials in the military. Which is actually a good point of comparison for a simple reason, namely that we should be holding people with such power more to account, not less.
This has been commented on a lot in the megathreads. Specifically that the NG in DC is on the front lines right now, taking (verbal, no violence that I’ve seen tonight at least) heat that the cops deserve. Shockingly, they’ve gassed… no one?
Really speaks volumes when the military has their civilian ■■■■ together better than police that are supposed to be out there every day.
Honestly, it’s a good point? There are reasons to be seriously worried about such things, but they operate under very different rules. And frankly the military is better at instilling discipline and adherence to those rules. Certainly not perfect (as we’ve seen in the past), but they at least publicly comport themselves more in keeping with them.
I’ve been thinking that really the police ought to operate under something similar to military justice. That is, there should be a body of rules they’re required to follow much more stringently, without all these ways to ignore how they’re expected to behave when doing their duties. It actually makes sense if they’re given such latitude in the completion of their duties, that they be held to a high standard.
Given we’re in a situation where they aren’t even held to the lower standards though, and the political resistance to doing things like externalizing investigations, or removing qualified immunity I’m not optimistic about something like establishing a higher standard.
Damn fine point. Someone should probably protest about it.
Nah, I don’t think you’re naive. But I do think that acts of violence detract and distract from the very reason the protests began. And that’s too bad.
Not apropos of anything, but regarding your last post in the previous version of this thread:
I’ve been thinking something similar since about mid-March. It’s a bit depressing that we’re not even half-way through 2020 yet.
And I’m honestly getting a feeling of dread about November…
True. I just know the situation from over here, when a minority turns a protest into a dumpster fire.
Maybe some remember this:
Some degree of protest and disagreement was normal, she said. “We have to remind politicians visiting our city that they have to work harder,” she said. “But I prefer creative forms of protests, and I am not sure what torching normal people’s cars is meant to achieve. There were a lot of young men on the streets who were mainly out to play cops and robbers with the police. Violence is not my way.”
Most of the protesters didn’t like globalisation, but were just there to show that in a peaceful manner. Later it was discerned that some of the violent ■■■■■■■■ there had no affiliation to any left organisation, no political message and no interest in protest.
But in a land that prides itself of free speech people have a right to take to the streets. That does not change because some criminals highjack said protest. Believe me, if Trump was right and the protesters were all out for violence and insurrection, things would look very different now. Same if the peaceful protesters brought their AR 15s to express their opinion as some right-wing demonstrants were seen to do a month ago. That’s a scenario you don’t want to imagine.
is not what I think of when I hear the words democracy, free country or land of the free.
I’d be willing to bet the police would behave better if they did.
And yeah, I dislike seeing soldiers in front of the Lincoln Memorial. However, it’s my understanding that they were there to keep vandals - ■■■■■■■ vandals!! - away from it as the previous day it was damaged.
I believe I read that someone tagged it with graffiti, yes. But hell if that photo doesn’t look like some alternate dystopian history video game.
@Curmudge0n - same thing in Toronto during the G20 protests here. ■■■■-stirrers came from all over because they knew they’d be able to hide in the crowds of protesters, then play out their violent fantasies.
Like, what if the Nazis had won and taken over the US kinda video game? Yes.
What, the guys Trump called very good people after the Charlottesville car attack?
They won. Their ‘man’ squats in the oval office.
Edit: maybe that was a little drastic, but the similarities abound. Foreigners as scapegoats for, well, everything. Keeping the nation in fear of battalions of Mexican rapists…