Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Reading through it all on the Guardian site and the one sentence jumps out:



Why? Why is that in anyway needed?

[IMG][/img]https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=511506&d=158829283

I'm sure they needed those assault weapons, what was it, in case someone bigger and fitter than them attacked them... Yeah, that's the oft trotted out excuse on here.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/30/michigan-protests-coronavirus-lockdown-armed-capitol

2nd Amendment was relevant in 1776

Corben Dallas

extra gravy wrote: »

Armed militia storming a State House. What's the likelihood of an armed uprising if he loses the election?

Exactly this... we could have another Charlottesville before Trump's term is up. Plus the way he's goading the Open Carry nutters into action, with his 'Liberate Wisconsin, Michigan' etc tweets. (<He only targets Democrat Governors)

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, he has only ordered Orange County beaches to be closed. One can still go to the beach in nearby San Diego county, for example. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/30/newsom-beaches-to-close-but-only-in-orange-county/

There is starting to be a bit of pushback even in some liberal areas about the complete lack of 'common sense filter' being applied. For example, drive-in movie theaters. you'd think it's safe enough, you never as much as get out of your car are being told to shut down such as in Vegas. (A drive-in church, would you believe there is such a thing, also was shut down in FL or LA)

A family at a playground which is utterly empty of any other people leads to a police citation (Ohio). The articles about the folks at the California beach which I've read (unlike the Spring Break idiots last month) generally observed that though the folks were at the beaches, families were still maintaining physical distance from each other. It is not permitted to take your jetski out on the lake in some areas (Michigan). What, are you going to give COVID to the fish? Gym is closed, fine. Take your aerobics class to the park, spread everyone out ten feet apart, and get a cease-and-desist from the local government (Texas).

It's part of the reason that the various 'open' protests are happening. Sure, some of the folks are.... of questionable morals, but a lot of folks are just tired of the extent of it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/quarantine-fatigue-researchers-find-more-americans-venturing-out-against-coronavirus-stay-at-home-orders/2020/04/25/fa1f01b2-84a3-11ea-a3eb-e9fc93160703_story.html?fbclid=IwAR1nb2GavlU-__lBkYaFU8FqnKKYgaxGz8VRbr5Ih_lnuKQQb9LHG1PNkEE

Ta for the info on the beaches. I can see no reason to cite a family for using a playground when there is no one else there other than if it was included on the list of public places the closure order applied to, say the P/ground is a local authority property & the adults argued the toss with the cops. Maybe that is why. Re the Jetski, again a public places closure order might apply there, if the lake is part of/within a state park which was closed. Without specifics, who can really say?

I read something about the closure of a drive-in church session where some of the congregation did not comply with the rules of the permit issued to the church leading to police officers present having to call a halt to the session. If I recall right, the Rev was upset with the members of his flock who caused the closure. The article also mentioned another church which had a similar event & all went OK.

I know nowt about the drive-in theatres closure. One could surmise it might be in reference to occupancy numbers & positioning in the vehicles. Here we've got strict about that with workers being told 2 to a car, the driver and 1 back seat passenger maximum load to comply with social spacing orders. I've only seen one taxi out and about in my town since the public transport spacing strictures came in over here some weeks ago. Playgrounds in my county area are all closed down.

Manic Moran

Apparently the Vegas drive-in was an arbitrary closure.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/entertainment/movies/las-vegas-drive-in-closes-a-day-after-reopening-2014631/

Armed militia storming a State House. What's the likelihood of an armed uprising if he loses the election?

They obeyed the law, were peaceful, and nobody got hurt. No more disastrous an incident than the Black Panthers "taking over" the state legislature in Sacramento in the '60's. Wasn't much of a "storming." Certainly, however, one may question their lack of physical distancing or masks.

Why? Why is that in anyway needed?

It's probably not needed. However: Article I of the Michigan Constutition, "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State." It brings us back to the principles of American constitutional laws: The traditional onus is not on the individual to express a need to do anything, the onus is on the government to explain why it should be prohibited. I can carry a firearm in the State House here in Texas as well. Remember, the principle applies to all rights, not just firearms, so speech, protection against seizure, etc, so the protections are fairly strong.

New Hampshire is an interesting one. Depending on which party is in charge, firearms are banned or not banned in the legislative chamber (The rest of the building and grounds are normally fine). It seems to be more a matter of stating principles, some lawmakers were known to ignore the ban. Since the Democrats control the NH house right now, it was the very first thing they changed after starting the session in Jan 2019. Immediately, Republicans declared non-compliance again, as they have in the past. https://www.concordmonitor.com/Group-of-New-Hampshire-lawmakers-vow-to-resist-House-gun-ban-22616660 They rely on Article 2a, Part 1 of the Constitution: "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state." The long-running dispute has not yet been tested in court.

Billy Mays

extra gravy wrote: »

Armed militia storming a State House. What's the likelihood of an armed uprising if he loses the election?

Donnie won't accept losing the election. His ego won't allow it.

He'll claim voter fraud, whip up the deplorables into a frenzy then claim no responsibility at all if that results in violence.

His clapping seals on here will absolve him of any blame and say it's all the media's fault as they are the enemy of the people etc...

Billy Mays

extra gravy wrote: »

Armed militia storming a State House. What's the likelihood of an armed uprising if he loses the election?

Donnie won't accept losing the election. His ego won't allow it.

He'll claim voter fraud, whip up the deplorables into a frenzy then claim no responsibility at all if that results in violence.

His clapping seals on here will absolve him of any blame and say it's all the media's fault as they are the enemy of the people etc...

Christy42

Just because you are allowed do something does not mean you have to do it or that doing it is not unbelievably thick.

You show up with guns to a protest and suddenly all the police are on ultra high alert in case of one nutter. Certainly the crowd doesn't have a clue if one of their members is a nutter either. I doubt they vetted each other. So you end up with two very twitchy sides facing off against each other. Nothing happened. I am delighted but if this gets repeated then something will. And organisers will say they didn't want it to happen and other such excuses for getting people killed.

Finally anyone in that building was likely worried for their own safety as well. You have to question the motives of people with guns when emotions are high.

If you don't need a gun don't bring the damn thing. You don't bring guns and you send a message as to why you are there. You do and some people are going to take it as a threat and even it is not meant to be it is indistinguishable from someone who does bring a gun as a threat. Instead of protesters you are "armed protesters" and your message is entirely lost.

Why does I can do this thing get translated to I must do this thing even if it is really dumb so often.

*a lot of you used in this post, not meant you specifically

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote: »

They obeyed the law, were peaceful, and nobody got hurt. No more disastrous an incident than the Black Panthers "taking over" the state legislature in Sacramento in the '60's. Wasn't much of a "storming." Certainly, however, one may question their lack of physical distancing or masks.

The Black Panthers were just the example I was thinking of. Apparently the pointing the gun in the air thing was as much to do with not being accused of threatening anyone as it was a power pose for the cameras.
The liberate crowd seem to be quite careful too. They're not looking to turn these things violent as much as they're trying to make a statement and get some pictures. It's probably best not to spin the protests into the beginning of some sort of armed uprising story.

Igotadose

There's no point to open carry. In some states, it's legal. At the federal level, nothing can be done due to the 2d amendment. Those that practice it, are doing so for jollies and to get attention. Knowing there'd be a media presence, the open carriers flocked to the statehouse to get their faces on camera and further whatever 'cause' it is they think they're furthering. It's typical NRA-promoted propaganda in action.

Professor Moriarty

I can't think of too many modern European countries where armed militias would be permitted to turn up at government buildings. Whatever way you try to spin it, it's an affront to democracy.

Cookie_Monster

Manic Moran wrote: »

A family at a playground which is utterly empty of any other people leads to a police citation (Ohio). The articles about the folks at the California beach which I've read (unlike the Spring Break idiots last month) generally observed that though the folks were at the beaches, families were still maintaining physical distance from each other. It is not permitted to take your jetski out on the lake in some areas (Michigan). What, are you going to give COVID to the fish?

Damn right the playground involves a citation, what if others use it later and pass the virus on. Just because you are the sole user at a particular time does not mean there is no risk of later transmission. Similar with a jet ski, should anything go wrong you are needlessly calling on emergency services and put them at risk.

NZ banned both as part of lockdown and it makes 100% sense that they did and the outcome because of it is better than nearly anywhere else

duploelabs

Igotadose wrote: »

There's no point to open carry. In some states, it's legal. At the federal level, nothing can be done due to the 2d amendment. Those that practice it, are doing so for jollies and to get attention. Knowing there'd be a media presence, the open carriers flocked to the statehouse to get their faces on camera and further whatever 'cause' it is they think they're furthering. It's typical NRA-promoted propaganda in action.

And anything attached to the NRA these days has a massive bang of astroturfing off it

duploelabs

Igotadose wrote: »

There's no point to open carry. In some states, it's legal. At the federal level, nothing can be done due to the 2d amendment. Those that practice it, are doing so for jollies and to get attention. Knowing there'd be a media presence, the open carriers flocked to the statehouse to get their faces on camera and further whatever 'cause' it is they think they're furthering. It's typical NRA-promoted propaganda in action.

And anything attached to the NRA these days has a massive bang of astroturfing off it

hetuzozaho

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's probably not needed. However: Article I of the Michigan Constutition, "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State." It brings us back to the principles of American constitutional laws: The traditional onus is not on the individual to express a need to do anything, the onus is on the government to explain why it should be prohibited. I can carry a firearm in the State House here in Texas as well. Remember, the principle applies to all rights, not just firearms, so speech, protection against seizure, etc, so the protections are fairly strong.

Why do you think they brought them in this instance?

Leroy42

With rights comes responsibilities, something which seems to have escaped the some citizens of the US who want the right but not the responsibilities.

I do wonder what would be the response if a group of African Americans, or Mexicans or something else were to organise like that. Would the police stand idly by, would the public accept it as their right to walk around their neighbourhood with a gun?

Manic, you have stated before that guns are needed due to animals, defence etc. What possible purpose is their to bringing a gun to government buildings. I can only see it as a show of potential force, an attempt to intimidate.

looksee

The business about the family in the playground. We don't have the specifics but - The whole point of lockdown is that everyone obeys it. If no-one is using the playground because they have been told to stay home, and one family uses it, why do they get away with breaking lockdown just because its 'only them'? What special excuse do they have that gives them the right to sole use of a playground? And has been said, if another 'special' family had used it previously and left the virus on the equipment, how is that not contributing to the spread?

If for some reason there was no lockdown in the area and the playground was not closed then the police were out of order, but if they were handing out citations it has to indicate that there were some restrictions there? What is the point of having restrictions if people can choose whether to obey them?

Similarly with the jet skis, horrible things should be sunk anyway, but the fact of them zooming around the lake is not the point. To get to the lake it was almost inevitable that they had had to go through a restricted area (beach, recreation area) to get there. If people can jet ski why can't others swim? Then lie on the beach, then mingle to use the showers/restrooms/whatever. Either there are shut downs, or there are not.

spacecoyote

Christy42 wrote: »

Just because you are allowed do something does not mean you have to do it or that doing it is not unbelievably thick.

You show up with guns to a protest and suddenly all the police are on ultra high alert in case of one nutter. Certainly the crowd doesn't have a clue if one of their members is a nutter either. I doubt they vetted each other. So you end up with two very twitchy sides facing off against each other. Nothing happened. I am delighted but if this gets repeated then something will. And organisers will say they didn't want it to happen and other such excuses for getting people killed.

Finally anyone in that building was likely worried for their own safety as well. You have to question the motives of people with guns when emotions are high.

If you don't need a gun don't bring the damn thing. You don't bring guns and you send a message as to why you are there. You do and some people are going to take it as a threat and even it is not meant to be it is indistinguishable from someone who does bring a gun as a threat. Instead of protesters you are "armed protesters" and your message is entirely lost.

Why does I can do this thing get translated to I must do this thing even if it is really dumb so often.

*a lot of you used in this post, not meant you specifically

No need to worry though. If things did go south, and there was an incident and anyone was hurt or killed, the politicians would have all of their thoughts and prayers ready to comfort everyone

hetuzozaho

Shame they didn't act out more of their constitution.

I like this one: "schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

A nice presentation of that would have been good. No chance, just bring the guns!! :pac: and our army outfits

seamus

Terrorists have occupied the Michigan legislature, and the Americans are doing nothing. Many are defending the individuals' right to bring guns into a parliament and threaten and intimidate the democracy within. Trump of course is silent, because these are his people.

I think it's fair to say that if these people were all wearing hijabs, the response would be very different. Wouldn't see many of the "right to bear arms" arguments being trotted out then.

Penn

looksee wrote: »

The business about the family in the playground. We don't have the specifics but - The whole point of lockdown is that everyone obeys it. If no-one is using the playground because they have been told to stay home, and one family uses it, why do they get away with breaking lockdown just because its 'only them'? What special excuse do they have that gives them the right to sole use of a playground? And has been said, if another 'special' family had used it previously and left the virus on the equipment, how is that not contributing to the spread?

If for some reason there was no lockdown in the area and the playground was not closed then the police were out of order, but if they were handing out citations it has to indicate that there were some restrictions there? What is the point of having restrictions if people can choose whether to obey them?

Similarly with the jet skis, horrible things should be sunk anyway, but the fact of them zooming around the lake is not the point. To get to the lake it was almost inevitable that they had had to go through a restricted area (beach, recreation area) to get there. If people can jet ski why can't others swim? Then lie on the beach, then mingle to use the showers/restrooms/whatever. Either there are shut downs, or there are not.

Not to mention that driving to these places means people are more likely to have to go to the shops or petrol stations, it means emergency services are spread more thin, and it makes other people more likely to say "Well if they're going out, I'm going out too!" One family go to a playground, touch stuff, an hour later an other family go in, touch the same thing... transmission.

But I guess some people really, really, really need to jetski.

salmocab

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Damn right the playground involves a citation, what if others use it later and pass the virus on. Just because you are the sole user at a particular time does not mean there is no risk of later transmission. Similar with a jet ski, should anything go wrong you are needlessly calling on emergency services and put them at risk.

NZ banned both as part of lockdown and it makes 100% sense that they did and the outcome because of it is better than nearly anywhere else

This is exactly what I was thinking when I read manics post, those people are being reckless with other people’s lives. Obviously the chances are small but if everyone ignores the rules then the chances increase massively. It’s a country built on the principle that the individuals rights far out weigh the rights of the collective. Ridiculous way to run a country.

kowloon

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do wonder what would be the response if a group of African Americans, or Mexicans or something else were to organise like that. Would the police stand idly by, would the public accept it as their right to walk around their neighbourhood with a gun?

As in Manic's post, the Black Panthers did it in the late sixties. As long as they weren't pointing them at anyone or acting in any other threatening manner it wasn't breaking any laws, at least not at the time.
The response was definitely different: Calling for all African-Americans to arm themselves didn't go down too well at the time. California doesn't have open carry like many other states largely because of this incident. The NRA wasn't anywhere to be seen when it came to protecting gun rights under those circumstances.

banie01

seamus wrote: »

Terrorists have occupied the Michigan legislature, and the Americans are doing nothing. Many are defending the individuals' right to bring guns into a parliament and threaten and intimidate the democracy within. Trump of course is silent, because these are his people.

I think it's fair to say that if these people were all wearing hijabs, the response would be very different. Wouldn't see many of the "right to bear arms" arguments being trotted out then.

Armed and militant White Americans are never terrorists Seamus

Seriously now, they are either patriots defending and exercising the rights enumerated by "the founders", or they are mentally ill!
No middle ground, or honesty in describing their actions or intended impact.

Terrorism is rarely unfortunately how those folks are ever labelled.

Carfacemandog

kowloon wrote: »

As in Manic's post, the Black Panthers did it in the late sixties. As long as they weren't pointing them at anyone or acting in any other threatening manner it wasn't breaking any laws, at least not at the time.
The response was definitely different: Calling for all African-Americans to arm themselves didn't go down too well at the time. California doesn't have open carry like many other states largely because of this incident. The NRA wasn't anywhere to be seen when it came to protecting gun rights under those circumstances.

Actually, the NRA was very much there to be seen - because they fully supported banning firearms when black people were holding them in 1967. And the Governor who brought this (the Mulford Act) in? Why none other than Ronald Reagan, racist dog whistler extraordinaire that he was.

Hopefully Black Lives Matter do similar to this across the nation once the bans are lifted. I wouldn't count on it as of course many of them would probably get killed in doing so, but it might actually lead to some form of legislative action being taken.

Like the NFL protests a few years ago, this has almost nothing to do with 'civil rights' and more or less everything to do with blatant racism, where many white Americans feel they deserve preferential treatment over non white people (both those outright stating it and those quietly going along with the whole sham). Which this incident demonstrates they already have.

Igotadose

Now, this ought to be entertaining. Trump's new Press Secretary to hold a press conference today at 2p.m. EST/7p.m. Ireland time. This could be *extremely* entertaining.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/495613-trumps-new-press-secretary-to-hold-first-formal-briefing-friday

Cody montana

Igotadose wrote: »

Now, this ought to be entertaining. Trump's new Press Secretary to hold a press conference today at 2p.m. EST/7p.m. Ireland time. This could be *extremely* entertaining.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/495613-trumps-new-press-secretary-to-hold-first-formal-briefing-friday

“In 2017, she falsely claimed that President Obama rushed off to a golf game after the 2002 beheading of Daniel Pearl, even though Obama was still a state senator at the time of Pearl's murder.“

Sounds about right.

duploelabs

banie01 wrote: »

Armed and militant White Americans are never terrorists Seamus

Seriously now, they are either patriots defending and exercising the rights enumerated by "the founders", or they are mentally ill!
No middle ground, or honesty in describing their actions or intended impact.

Terrorism is rarely unfortunately how those folks are ever labelled.

They're never terrorists if they're white

Tchaikovsky

Cody montana wrote: »

“In 2017, she falsely claimed that President Obama rushed off to a golf game after the 2002 beheading of Daniel Pearl, even though Obama was still a state senator at the time of Pearl's murder.“

Sounds about right.

She also said on CNN that Trump has *never* lied.

Clownshow masquerading as an omnishambles.

BonnieSituation

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I can't think of too many modern European countries where armed militias would be permitted to turn up at government buildings. Whatever way you try to spin it, it's an affront to democracy.

Yeah, but the second amendment and Murica.

I had written out several apoplectic responses last night. I just can't get my head around it. You know when you just don't have the mental capacity to do something at all? Yeah, like that.

PropJoe10

Cody montana wrote: »

“In 2017, she falsely claimed that President Obama rushed off to a golf game after the 2002 beheading of Daniel Pearl, even though Obama was still a state senator at the time of Pearl's murder.“

Sounds about right.

She sounds absolutely perfect for the job, to be fair. Reaching for the popcorn already!