Presidential Poll 2020

[thormas]

Straight from the man's mouth -  no slanting:

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try,” Mattis wrote in a statement published by the Atlantic. “Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort.”

[JosephM]

Most republicans rejected the notion that protesters were acting peacefully since protesters can't ignore what law enforcement officers are telling them to do for the security of the president or anybody else. Should the President  have gone to the church for a photo-op that led to tear gas and other measures to be used on the protesters?  The media and others who are never going to find any good or any positive development in anything Trump does. So you can characterize it the way you want, but obviously the President is free to go where he wants and to hold up a Bible if he wants," calling it a "civil message." Videos showed most protesters left and others stayed on and taunted police. . The video is worth a thousand words.

[thormas]

Most republicans? 

You continually miss that this was all at the trumpeter's behest: he 'needed' to walk to the church to show how brave he was after being taken to the bunker (which was not a problem for many people) because he seemingly thought his manhood was being questioned and he needed to 'dominate' the protestors - so prior to the curfew's start and in spite of a legal protest, they 'sent in the troops.' 

They were acting peacefully and caught totally off guard by the forced march of the police - even reporters were caught off guard. This was totally unnecessary. These were American citizens Joseph in a legal protest, prior to a curfew. Don't try to recreate history or spin the facts.

And in answer to your question: "Should the President  have gone to the church for a photo-op that led to tear gas and other measures to be used on the protesters?" The answer is no given it was just a photo-op and people, Americans, had to be harmed so he could take a totally unnecessary walk - unnecessary for all except his ego and need to dominate.

Good god, I have not seen such pseudo rationalization in ages. Now the Bible is a civil message - is that the case when it is even held upside down? It was a prop!, The church was a prop. And, once again for those who cannot see, hear or understand, American citizens were hurt in a lawful protest! 

 

You do see how you contradicted yourself, don't you?: "republicans reject that most were acting peacefully" yet 3 short sentences later you state, "most protesters left" so they were peaceful and did listen - they left! 

This had to come from the trumpeter's playbook since it is contradictory, illogical. self-serving and un-empathetic.

 

[thormas]

And this from another General:

Retired Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs: “I am deeply worried that as they execute their orders, the members of our military will be co-opted for political purposes.” 

Retired Marine Force General John Kelly: said Friday he agrees with former Secretary of Defense Gen. Jim Mattis' stark warning this week that President Donald Trump is "the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people: "I agree with him."

 

No slant, no interpretation just the words of 3 Generals who served the nation

[JosephM]

22 hours ago, thormas said:

You do see how you contradicted yourself, don't you?: "republicans reject that most were acting peacefully" yet 3 short sentences later you state, "most protesters left" so they were peaceful and did listen - they left! 

This had to come from the trumpeter's playbook since it is contradictory, illogical. self-serving and un-empathetic.

 

Sorry Thomas,

I don't mean to ignore your posts but your view is clearly stated so i know where you stand. Unfortunately,  its difficult  for me to communicate with you since you seem to me, to pull my words out of context, misquote me, and fail to get my meaning in my post. I said "Most republicans rejected the notion that protesters were acting peacefully" I did not say they rejected MOST protesters were acting peacefully. We are talking about the ones who didn't leave when the order was given to clear the street . At that point the peaceful ones (most) complied and the others dared them to remove them. 

And since you see a contradiction where i see none and obviously believe my comments  "come from the trumpeter's playbook since it is contradictory, illogical. self-serving and un-empathetic." , there is no need for discussing it further with you. You  obviously  must know everything i would have to say.

[thormas]

On 6/5/2020 at 1:32 PM, JosephM said:

Most republicans rejected the notion that protesters were acting peacefully

I actually do try to quote others accurately and It is valid to look at different quotes and comment on them if the context is valid (example trumpster as a unique leader and not knowing whether (such a unique leader) has a plan speaks volumes. I did not intentionally transpose the word most on purpose. It was a mistake. Heh, that's something you never hear from the trumpster or his offspring or his cronies and toddies.

However, your actually words that what "most republicans rejected" was not that most protestors were acting peacefully but that "protestors" were acting peacefully contains no qualifier so what you communicated was that most republicans didn't reject that a few or some or many or most protestors but protestors acted peacefully - you did not modify the word protestors which is inclusive. If you didn't mean all protestors then the onus is on you or republicans to qualify the (few, some, many, most, etc.) protestors.  

However, there was no curfew (since it was before 7pm) and the protestors (and on street reporters) didn't know what was going on (given the videos and reporting) and the police did not discriminate between peaceful and resistant protestors. But this is what you get when the trumpster tried to convince us he is the 'law and order' president and unleashed armed troops/police against American citizens. 

Your words do mirror all things trumpster.

Oh, Joseph, don't get testy, no one knows everything another has to say. The impeached trumpster surprises us all, each new day, with ever new lows that he reachers for and embodies:+}

 

[PaulS]

On 6/5/2020 at 8:45 PM, JosephM said:

Also, it is not uncommon for  the police typically try to clear out people ahead of the curfew so the streets will be clear by curfew time. Most peaceful protesters leave peacefully when asked. Troublemakers stick around and taunt the police. Police  provide them 3 warnings and and state their non-compliance is a violation of law then start to clear the street . A direct order from a law enforcement officer or public safety officer will trump a curfew law.  So those who remained were breaking the law.

 

Actually, a direct order from a law enforcement officer (even in bold) doesn't trump a curfew law.  Any instruction from authority needs to be a 'lawful' instruction.  So typically when an innocent person isn't breaking the law, usually the police are powerless to take action against them.  Typically, an innocent person not breaking the law is not allowed to be punched, hit with a baton, or have teargas used against them when they are not breaking any laws, just because the police want to make sure they don't break any law in the future.  That is usually a stipulation most democracies try to adhere to.  The dictatorial power you are referring to is more Russian or Chinese than American, but I guess the people get the type of government they want.

I can't help but be reminded of the famous saying of Martin Niemöller's:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[thormas]

From the trumpster: "I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults and the wanton destruction of property. We are putting everybody on warning, our 7 o’clock curfew will be strictly enforced.”

However it wasn't strictly enforced, they 'jumped the gun." And that night prior to 7PM it was a peaceful demonstration. And we all know that the impeached one wanted it cleared not to protect lives and property but so he could take a stroll and use a Bible safely tucked away in his daughter's pocketbook for a .........photo op. 

I didn't hear or read of any warnings that night but I have been looking.........this sounds like trumpster speak.

"When an innocent person isn't breaking the law, usually the police are powerless to take action against them." Well said: if only the trumpster and his lackies understood this and how it is American to protest.

 

You are right about the trumpeter's action being likened to that of dictators (whom he so admires). What is more than shameful is those who have not yet understood or recognized his disregard for law, constitution, justice and those who, recognize it and lack the courage to say, "Enough!" 

Thankfully some generals, former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former Republican President and a Republican Senator have so far taken such a stance. Contrast this to Republican senators with heads down, avoiding questions about that night in the Park. Do the trumpeters' lackies and followers accept his vision of America and disregard for constitution, decency and law?

Edited June 8, 2020 by thormas

[JosephM]

Paul, 

The context was for the protesters to move back out of the park where fires and damage had raged the night before. The order to clear that area and the warnings that were given have legal jurisdiction over the curfew law. Maybe its different in Australia?  Most cleared. The ones who stayed were not peaceful but rather breaking the law here but you won't see that in the news. Here are the results after cleanup of some so called "peaceful protests in NY city. You don't see this side much shown in the NY Times.   

 https://www.facebook.com/djalexpushkin/videos/2852225351542899/?t=414 

Here is what Democrats are proposing we replace Trump with.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1265106469579444224/pu/vid/640x360/Nr0RnWjkA6NmDX6N.mp4?tag=10

[thormas]

29 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Paul, 

The context was for the protesters to move back out of the park where fires and damage had raged the night before. The order to clear that area and the warnings that were given have legal jurisdiction over the curfew law. Maybe its different in Australia?  Most cleared. The ones who stayed were not peaceful but rather breaking the law here but you won't see that in the news. Here are the results of some so called "peaceful protests in NY city. You don't see this side much shown in the NY Times.   

 https://www.facebook.com/djalexpushkin/videos/2852225351542899/?t=414 

Here is what Democrats are proposing we replace Trump with.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1265106469579444224/pu/vid/640x360/Nr0RnWjkA6NmDX6N.mp4?tag=10

Ah Joseph, how desperate: you poor thing, you're reaching for the orange make-up to gloss over the history of the obese orange man (with women) and the now famous quotes that the impeached trumpster has made about groping women.

And that's on top of all his lies, bullying, name calling (3rd grade much?), disregard for the constitution, ignorance, narcissism, dismissal of science and failure dealing with the virus. 

Desperation!

 

And you continue to beat the dead horse of the police attacking citizens. Tell us about the warnings. And you only assume that those who stayed were not peaceful - it was obvious that many, many people were caught completely off guard. What is the source of your news, specifically?

Joe, we know that all the protests were not peaceful, that some looted, burned and destroyed - and no one here is saying 'let it burn" - certainly not me and I haven't seen Paul write that. So stick to the subject at hand.........the Park on 6/1.

Edited June 8, 2020 by thormas

[thormas]

26 minutes ago, JosephM said:

 https://www.facebook.com/djalexpushkin/videos/2852225351542899/?t=414 

Did I get that right " Russian speaking Americans for Trump 2020?" I do love your humor, is this a play on the 'Russian hoax?"

[JosephM]

Paul,

Rather than approaching the DC thing from a legal angle let us reason together.

I was raised to obey my parents and law enforcement people . As i grew i have come to realize things are not so black and white as i once thought so i have modified my behavior concerning obeying both parents and law enforcement with what i believe is wisdom. I have been personally involved in peaceful protests as a protester  in the 80's so i am not unfamiliar with them. I respect the rights of others and am thankful for the great majority of police and law enforcement personnel who put their lives on the line to serve and protect society and me. Certainly we can agree there are those who wear the badge who as a society we would be better off if they didn't. That is a complex problem to be remedied and worked on.

However, wisdom tells me that if an officer gives me an order whether there is a curfew or not and that if that order does not put me in personal danger or harm i will always give the officer the benefit of any doubt i may have of his legitimacy or of a violation of my rights, I will comply and take up the issue with my elected officials later if i believe my rights were violated.  I will not second guess the issue of legitimacy  after i have been warned to move or that action will be taken if i don't comply.To me it would be foolish to stick around with the threat of arrest or bodily harm when i can walk away from it. So lets forget the falacious  'red herring' of a photo op some people use and follow police instructions if those instructions are not harmful to us. Not following them is in my view, inviting unnecessary trouble. And that is a change that we as protesters can bring change to right now.

PS Interesting video of Black lady in NYC scolding 'peaceful protesters' who had more than peaceful protests on their mind. (Graphic language)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8380231/You-profiting-pain-New-Yorker-blasts-rioters-powerful-speech-amid-devastation.html

[thormas]

Nobody is denying the complexity of the problem and the idea of 'defunding or disbanding' needs to be better defined even by those who use the terms.

However, you speak from the experience of a white man, correct?. I am one and grew up with cops and detectives as my coaches, the fathers of my best friends, neighbors and later some of those kids grew up to be cops and in two cases, hero cops and we are friends to this day. However neither of us has the experience of being stopped because we are black and the assumptions that go with that. Given the number of stops, harassment, simply because someone is black............how can many give that benefit of the doubt given what has continually happened throughout the country? Good God look at the story of a women calling the police on a black bird watcher in Central Park when she 'illegally' had her dog off the lease. Would that have happened to you or me? Perhaps but I really, really doubt it!

The odds of you or me being treated respectfully or with 'kid gloves' is much more probable because we are white; it is not the experience of many black citizens. And the idea of taking it up with your elected official is actually laughable in the experience of many black citizens. It is obvious that that the legitimacy or benefit of the doubt ends tragically for many black citizens - yet not for whites! I too have experience in protest and in a black community, having taught in the Ironbound section of Newark, NJ where we teachers were the only white faces to be seen in entire neighborhoods. it was humbling and the shoe was on the other foot. I remember taking our kids on a bus to a park where other schools were also going and when we got off the bus, the 'looks' we got were amazing and shameful. I say we because for a short while, being in a sea of black faces, with kids whom I grew to love, with kids under my protection, when all you see is black, you forgot for a moment who and what you are. To say that was just a weird little thing is to not honor the depth of the experience, it was revelatory. 

To you it would be foolish but for many citizens protesting it is literally life and death of their kids, their family members, their friends, themselves. I have a friend, an ex=Marine who had a career with a Fortune 10 company and, as a black man, he is petrified for his sons every damn day of his life. I have never so feared for my kid. Life and death of your family and friends is not a foolish topic.

As for the night of 6/1 give us sources that there were warnings. And there is no red herring: if the trumpster didn't want to go for his walk the curfew wouldn't have been violated by the cops and we simply don't know what would have happened at 7PM. You give excuses for a strongman move, the move of a dictator: clear the streets and preen for the cameras, look whose in charge. For a President to make such a move at the expense of a legitimate protest and endanger the people is, as one Republican operative put it, "IMMORAL!'

 

Your wisdom is limited by your whiteness.........in this case! Allow Wisdom to speak more inclusively.

Edited June 8, 2020 by thormas

[JosephM]

3 hours ago, thormas said:

To you it would be foolish but for many citizens protesting it is literally life and death of their kids, their family members, their friends, themselves. I have a friend, an ex=Marine who had a career with a Fortune 10 company and, as a black man, he is petrified for his sons every damn day of his life. I have never so feared for my kid. Life and death of your family and friends is not a foolish topic.

As i said Thomas...    Not trying to ignore you but your responses as the one above seem to me to be totally misreading the context of my posts so i will not respond to you.

[PaulS]

5 hours ago, JosephM said:

I was raised to obey my parents and law enforcement people . As i grew i have come to realize things are not so black and white as i once thought so i have modified my behavior concerning obeying both parents and law enforcement with what i believe is wisdom. I have been personally involved in peaceful protests as a protester  in the 80's so i am not unfamiliar with them. I respect the rights of others and am thankful for the great majority of police and law enforcement personnel who put their lives on the line to serve and protect society and me. Certainly we can agree there are those who wear the badge who as a society we would be better off if they didn't. That is a complex problem to be remedied and worked on.

Likewise

5 hours ago, JosephM said:

However, wisdom tells me that if an officer gives me an order whether there is a curfew or not and that if that order does not put me in personal danger or harm i will always give the officer the benefit of any doubt i may have of his legitimacy or of a violation of my rights, I will comply and take up the issue with my elected officials later if i believe my rights were violated.  I will not second guess the issue of legitimacy  after i have been warned to move or that action will be taken if i don't comply.To me it would be foolish to stick around with the threat of arrest or bodily harm when i can walk away from it. So lets forget the falacious  'red herring' of a photo op some people use and follow police instructions if those instructions are not harmful to us. Not following them is in my view, inviting unnecessary trouble. And that is a change that we as protesters can bring change to right now.

Here maybe we differ - you are welcome to give that officer the benefit of the doubt, I probably would too in most situations, but this was a known situation with a known purpose (to protest and make a point)  and known rules around curfew.  These protesters are obviously trying to make a point, so if one is going to 'safeguard the people' and take the high moral ground (i.e. we have a right to protect our President from unruly protesters) then those people need to be squeaky clean and make decisions based on the rules and not simply their view that they want to enforce at the time.  Anything else simply diminishes their authority.  It's also not very smart because it just feeds this view of an abuse of power.  You find that a totally acceptable way to police - I don't.  I think it is an abuse of power and an abuse of the men and women who have sworn to 'uphold the law'. 

I don't think the people were being foolish not to move on as they weren't breaking any laws and they were not causing any harm - they were peacefully, although loudly, making their protest heard.  You might even argue that they weren't going to be bullied by authorities prepared to abuse their power.  They were standing up for what the believe, totally within the legal constraints in place.

5 hours ago, JosephM said:

PS Interesting video of Black lady in NYC scolding 'peaceful protesters' who had more than peaceful protests on their mind. (Graphic language)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8380231/You-profiting-pain-New-Yorker-blasts-rioters-powerful-speech-amid-devastation.html

Yes, there are all sorts of views, as there are all sorts of protesters.  We can agree there are a range of participants in general across your nation right now - genuine peaceful protesters that want to be heard, antagonists and anarchists from both the right and the left, and those that couldn't give a damn but are happy to loot and burn.  I'd like to think that the land of the free and the home of the brave is filled primarily with the former.  In any event, they shouldn't all be put into the same box and treated by the authority in DC as though they are.  Like I insinuated before, you start encouraging authority to step outside the law for 'good' reasons but not strictly in accordance with the rules, and you begin to open a pandora's box for abuse of power.

In any event, hopefully your President will eventually start to say some things and make some moves that actually try and heal your nation and bring it together for good.  I have to say though, all I see at the moment is division, and the associated frustration voicing itself.

[thormas]

31 minutes ago, JosephM said:

As i said Thomas...    Not trying to ignore you but your responses as the one above seem to me to be totally misreading the context of my posts so i will not respond to you.

Rather you have no real answers given the trumpster's actions and immorality. But that you don't even give some acknowledgement to 'white privelege' and recognize that your situation, described above, is not the situation that many/most/all (?) black men and women find themselves in, is stunning, tragic and speaks volumes in this ongoing societal inequality So much for wisdom.

I have no problem with you're ignoring me or stating, conveniently, that I misread what is plain in your posts.

As you continue to push the orange obese one, I will simply provide an alternative"+} 

[thormas]

3 minutes ago, PaulS said:

In any event, hopefully your President will eventually start to say some things and make some moves that actually try and heal your nation and bring it together for good.  I have to say though, all I see at the moment is division, and the associated frustration voicing itself.

Some of us have prayed for that since inauguration day but alas..................it has not and will not happen with one such as the trumpster.

Edited June 8, 2020 by thormas

[JosephM]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

You find that a totally acceptable way to police - I don't.  I think it is an abuse of power and an abuse of the men and women who have sworn to 'uphold the law'. 

Never said it is a totally acceptable way to police.. Only said it is wiser to comply rather than second guess and risk harm. It seems to me wiser to  not  assume the leaders possible misguided intentions and follow orders rather than risk harm in such a case . Things can be sorted out later and more peaceable actions taken.

[PaulS]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Never said it is a totally acceptable way to police.. Only said it is wiser to comply rather than second guess and risk harm. It seems to me wiser to  not  assume the leaders possible misguided intentions and follow orders rather than risk harm in such a case . Things can be sorted out later and more peaceable actions taken.

I am referring to your opinion that it was an okay thing for the police to be instructed to do (i.e. attack the protesters).  Your previous posts seem to argue that the action of clearing the protesters out, before the curfew was due, was an acceptable and appropriate action for the authorities.  I am saying that it is not, in my opinion, for the reasons that the law wasn't being broken, the curfew wasn't in effect, and the police effectively had no legitimate reason to take to the crowd. 

Do you think that using the police to drive the protesters back, using batons/teargas/rubber bullets, before the curfew was in effect, was an acceptable way to police?

[JosephM]

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

I am referring to your opinion that it was an okay thing for the police to be instructed to do (i.e. attack the protesters).  Your previous posts seem to argue that the action of clearing the protesters out, before the curfew was due, was an acceptable and appropriate action for the authorities.  I am saying that it is not, in my opinion, for the reasons that the law wasn't being broken, the curfew wasn't in effect, and the police effectively had no legitimate reason to take to the crowd. 

Do you think that using the police to drive the protesters back, using batons/teargas/rubber bullets, before the curfew was in effect, was an acceptable way to police?

In context of the days of violence before and in using force to clear the area of the park they were in whether before or after curfew makes no difference to me. I will not second guess the reasons of the authority. They also extended the buffer areas protecting the Whitehouse  from a rush by those who would damage it as they did other memorials in DC the previous days.  A lawful order and warning was given to clear the area before curfew and it is lawlessness that kept the ones there that had to be cleared out by force. The order and warning was given 3 times and those remaining defied authorities and left them in my opinion no reasonable option. After billions of dollars in damage nationwide and many police injured and killed trying to protect the property of American business owners and citizens i do not object to the use of force shown to remove those so called 'peaceful protesters'  who refuse to comply with orders. that pose no real danger or harm to them such as the one to clear that area of the park.

In fact, some were still filling the streets beyond that point well after curfew was in effect and had to be cleared for traffic. The videos go on for an hour after curfew. 

 

[thormas]

49 minutes ago, JosephM said:

makes no difference to me

 The circumstances on the ground makes no difference?

Edited June 9, 2020 by thormas

[thormas]

38 minutes ago, JosephM said:

I will not second guess the reasons of the authority.

A statement that a white man might make but given history, it is not a statement that a large number of black men and women can make. Therein lies the problem.

Many , including prominent generals and former cabinet members (white and black) are questioning the reasons of Barr and the trumpster who gave the police the 'go ahead' 

[thormas]

In a tweet, the trumpster wrote that the old guy in Buffalo, shoved to the ground and hospitalized could be..........wait for it........ an ANTIFA provocateur. 

Yeah, this helps: the divider in chief.

 

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by thormas

[PaulS]

14 hours ago, JosephM said:

In context of the days of violence before and in using force to clear the area of the park they were in whether before or after curfew makes no difference to me. I will not second guess the reasons of the authority. They also extended the buffer areas protecting the Whitehouse  from a rush by those who would damage it as they did other memorials in DC the previous days.  A lawful order and warning was given to clear the area before curfew and it is lawlessness that kept the ones there that had to be cleared out by force. The order and warning was given 3 times and those remaining defied authorities and left them in my opinion no reasonable option. After billions of dollars in damage nationwide and many police injured and killed trying to protect the property of American business owners and citizens i do not object to the use of force shown to remove those so called 'peaceful protesters'  who refuse to comply with orders. that pose no real danger or harm to them such as the one to clear that area of the park.

In fact, some were still filling the streets beyond that point well after curfew was in effect and had to be cleared for traffic. The videos go on for an hour after curfew. 

 

For me, the reason it should make a difference to you whether there was a curfew or not, is that I wouldn't want to live under a regime that decides willy nilly when it will use force against its citizens and when it won't.  There were hundreds if not thousands of innocent people legitimately protesting and obeying the law (i.e. not in breach of any curfew), yet because of the previous actions of some others, your government decided to attack everybody, whollus bollus. I understand that elsewhere and at other times there were laws broken, but to act against a peaceful protest in such a fashion smacks of dictatorial standards more akin with communist Russia or China.

I think a healthy skepticism is right for questioning the reasons of authority.  With great power comes great responsibility and to me, your government let down many of its own citizens that day - the very ones that Trump said he was an ally of - peaceful protesters. 

We will have to beg to differ on whether it was a lawful instruction or not to disperse protesters prior to any curfew being implemented.  

[PaulS]

7 hours ago, thormas said:

In a tweet, the trumpster wrote that the old guy in Buffalo, shoved to the ground and hospitalized could be..........wait for it........ an ANTIFA provocateur. 

Yeah, this helps: the divider in chief.

Not just that the old guy was an ANTIFA provocateur, but further that he was was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment! 

According to trump, the frail old man fell harder than he was pushed!  Apparently it could be a set up!

Those dastardly old people are planning to overthrow the government I tell you!

No empathy, no respect for alternate opinion, no regard for non-Trumpers.