Presidential Poll 2020

[thormas]

9 hours ago, PaulS said:

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

No empathy, no respect..................there is nothing else!

[thormas]

9 hours ago, PaulS said:

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. 

Well said..............and healthy skepticism and questioning is essential to freedom: always has been, always will.

 

 

 

Note: highlight is added for emphasis.

Edited June 10, 2020 by thormas

[JosephM]

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

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.  

They did not attack everybody. Most peaceful protesters left when they were given the order. Only those who defied the order were cleared out. More like a hundred than a thousand from the videos. The protesters are now more organized and policing their own protesters that have been  ruining the message and appearance of a peaceful protest. That's positive action and i think it will better promote their cause. I have seen videos of them now stopping non-peaceful protesters by words and force and turning them over to police.

No argument from me on whether it was a lawful order or not. If you exclude biased and partisan newspapers on both sides, i think you will find a large majority of American citizens believe comply with the police now and sort out things (lawful / unlawful order) later is the best route to take. Also everyone i know personally and have been in contact with denounce the action of the police in George Floyd's case and say that the majority of police should not be condemned over the actions of a minority of ones that should not be wearing a badge. 

On the old man Martin Gugino, forget what trump said , the old man was past curfew and looking for trouble touching the police with what looked like his ( phone?) and reaching close to one officers waist all while instructed to leave and  while they were clearing after curfew and they didn't just walk away from him as news reported.  After he fell the supervisor told the officer who stopped to continue on and he radioed for medical help and had others attend to the man when you viewed it from a video taken from across the street. News here paints a saint picture of victims to support the media's  partisan cause. The picture they put in the paper of Martin (the old man) was from another protest in 2019  that was peaceful and had a saintly look. Some so called 'victims' actions i have found invite trouble. While the action of the Police with George Floyd is inexcusable, it would not have happened if he had not been passing counterfeit bills or been high on illegal drugs. That of course is a 'red herring' and has nothing to do with the improper actions the police  took but it makes a point that we are largely responsible for ourselves and when we knowingly place ourselves in certain conditions of lawlessness,  we may be inviting drama, harm and pain in our lives.

The majority of Americans are law abiding and peaceful and sympathize with peaceful protests but even among those a few bad apples screaming crazy things like defund and abolish the police  and rioting and looting do nothing to convince us of their cause. Crime in America by police against unarmed whites and blacks and others has been getting better since 2013. It's impossible to solve overnight but it is improving as more police departments use citizens as an oversight committee along with other improvements in training , etc.  It takes time but it will get better.

[JosephM]

Paul,

BTW. The old man Martin Gugino has been a lifelong protester if you study his background. His own blogs show him arrested 4 times but never convicted. He believes curfews are a violation of our right to assemble and curfews are illegal. That is why he defies police orders.  The curfew law has been challenged many times.  Here is what our Supreme court has said .....

The Supreme court stated: "the real question is whether an ordinance such as this bears a sufficiently close relation to the peace, safety and welfare of the public so far as to justify the inconvenience to which law abiding citizens may occasionally be submitted." The court found that the ordinance bears a reasonable relation to the evil at which it is directed. 

Not everyone will agree with the Supreme courts assessment and its assessment depends on whether the ordinance fits into this category . In this case, the curfews didn't start til after the rioting and looting and welfare of the public justified it. But protesters who disagree have the right to afterwards challenge through the court system  or they can defy the curfew order as Martin did and put themselves in harms way where it is possible they will be hurt as in this case.

[thormas]

3 hours ago, JosephM said:

Paul,

BTW. The old man Martin Gugino has been a lifelong protester if you study his background. His own blogs show him arrested 4 times but never convicted. He believes curfews are a violation of our right to assemble and curfews are illegal. That is why he defies police orders.  The curfew law has been challenged many times.  Here is what our Supreme court has said .....

The Supreme court stated: "the real question is whether an ordinance such as this bears a sufficiently close relation to the peace, safety and welfare of the public so far as to justify the inconvenience to which law abiding citizens may occasionally be submitted." The court found that the ordinance bears a reasonable relation to the evil at which it is directed. 

Not everyone will agree with the Supreme courts assessment and its assessment depends on whether the ordinance fits into this category . In this case, the curfews didn't start til after the rioting and looting and welfare of the public justified it. But protesters who disagree have the right to afterwards challenge through the court system  or they can defy the curfew order as Martin did and put themselves in harms way where it is possible they will be hurt as in this case.

Still, big strong, burly cops need to respect they are dealing with human beings and recognize that a lone. old guy in their midst can be dealt with very effectively without bouncing him on the street. It wasn't the Alamo or Custer's Last Stand, it was an old guy. 

I hope you at least agree and see why the trumpster got such pushback: an antifa provacateur????

[thormas]

4 hours ago, JosephM said:

They did not attack everybody. Most peaceful protesters left when they were given the order. Only those who defied the order were cleared out.

No before the curfew ended and when the police moved, there were still peaceful, confused protestors. They did not leave with the order, the tape makes clear that many didn't hear or understand the order. The cops moved on everyone, they did not discriminate (they even when after a reporting team) and peaceful protestors were included. 

4 hours ago, JosephM said:

i think you will find a large majority of American citizens believe comply with the police now and sort out things (lawful / unlawful order) later is the best route to take.

However this is a white experience, it seems, if we listen to black men and women, that this route is not truly open to them or effective.

4 hours ago, JosephM said:

On the old man Martin Gugino, forget what trump said , the old man was past curfew and looking for trouble touching the police with what looked like his ( phone?) and reaching close to one officers waist all while instructed to leave and  while they were clearing after curfew and they didn't just walk away from him as news reported.  After he fell the supervisor told the officer who stopped to continue on and he radioed for medical help and had others attend to the man when you viewed it from a video taken from across the street. News here paints a saint picture of victims to support the media's  partisan cause. The picture they put in the paper of Martin (the old man) was from another protest in 2019  that was peaceful and had a saintly look. Some so called 'victims' actions i have found invite trouble. While the action of the Police with George Floyd is inexcusable, it would not have happened if he had not been passing counterfeit bills or been high on illegal drugs. That of course is a 'red herring' and has nothing to do with the improper actions the police  took but it makes a point that we are largely responsible for ourselves and when we knowingly place ourselves in certain conditions of lawlessness,  we may be inviting drama, harm and pain in our lives.

Given your research, it might indeed be that he was looking to make a statement and perhaps even be arrested as part of that statement. Whether he was or was not, "look at the guy" - how simple would it have been to stop him, put cuffs on him and 'walk him to the back?' Regardless, the guy didn't deserve or need to be pushed, left there bleeding (and he was left, the one cop couldn't be left to assist - the guy was bleeding from the head!) from the head and taken to the hospital. Please. we should be talking about cops as responsible members of society, with exceptional judgement - not goons knocking old guys to the ground. They cops were rightly charged and if the others didn't get it, they were right to resign.

I would like to see the other video as it might restore some humanity to this debacle. Link?

I have no problem believing your research on the man and I don't have to think him a saint to still be sicken by the actions of the cops and "to say it is wrong." There is no partisan cause: it happened, it didn't have to whether the guy was sinner or saint. The pictures I saw show the guy pushed, stumbling and on his back - regardless of archive photos, the current one is the issue.

Joseph - these are two separate issues about Floyd - bottom line it was police improper actions that directly caused his death. My god, weren't these cops taught how to deal with people who are high on drugs? Most of us are largely responsible for ourselves but others for a variety of reasons are not able to assume such responsibility and direct their lives. Was Floyd an addict, which would further complicate his ability to assume responsibility? 

That is the entire concern of the black community, even when they are not being unlawful, they are stopped, harassed, abused, etc. They don't invite the drama - the drama, harm and pain are brought to them, oftentimes for no valid lawful reason. And if they are breaking the law, simply consider how they are treated compared to most white men and women. 

4 hours ago, JosephM said:

The majority of Americans are law abiding and peaceful and sympathize with peaceful protests but even among those a few bad apples screaming crazy things like defund and abolish the police  and rioting and looting do nothing to convince us of their cause. Crime in America by police against unarmed whites and blacks and others has been getting better since 2013. It's impossible to solve overnight but it is improving as more police departments use citizens as an oversight committee along with other improvements in training , etc.  It takes time but it will get better.

Do you know what is meant by defund? 

Joseph, some of us don't have to be convinced: we already see injustice, we see racism, we see cruelty, we see the deaths and, even though we will never fully understand what it means to be black in America, we see the rightness and the need for the kinds of actions flowing from Floyd's murder and, thanks God, many people of all colors and ages do also.............. and have joined. 

Much could actually be solved overnight: no chokeholds, instituting more demanding hiring guidelines, instituting better vetting of candidates, no immunity, strict rules for stopping and detaining people who are immediately under suspicion because they are black, beginning to rid departments of those who can't change (those who don't, won't or can't assume responsibility for their lives and the lives of all others) and so much more. Some of it doesn't take time and regardless the time is long past. That why Floyd's death has brought the country to this moment.

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by thormas

[PaulS]

12 hours ago, JosephM said:

They did not attack everybody. Most peaceful protesters left when they were given the order. Only those who defied the order were cleared out. More like a hundred than a thousand from the videos. The protesters are now more organized and policing their own protesters that have been  ruining the message and appearance of a peaceful protest. That's positive action and i think it will better promote their cause. I have seen videos of them now stopping non-peaceful protesters by words and force and turning them over to police.

No argument from me on whether it was a lawful order or not. If you exclude biased and partisan newspapers on both sides, i think you will find a large majority of American citizens believe comply with the police now and sort out things (lawful / unlawful order) later is the best route to take. Also everyone i know personally and have been in contact with denounce the action of the police in George Floyd's case and say that the majority of police should not be condemned over the actions of a minority of ones that should not be wearing a badge. 

On the old man Martin Gugino, forget what trump said , the old man was past curfew and looking for trouble touching the police with what looked like his ( phone?) and reaching close to one officers waist all while instructed to leave and  while they were clearing after curfew and they didn't just walk away from him as news reported.  After he fell the supervisor told the officer who stopped to continue on and he radioed for medical help and had others attend to the man when you viewed it from a video taken from across the street. News here paints a saint picture of victims to support the media's  partisan cause. The picture they put in the paper of Martin (the old man) was from another protest in 2019  that was peaceful and had a saintly look. Some so called 'victims' actions i have found invite trouble. While the action of the Police with George Floyd is inexcusable, it would not have happened if he had not been passing counterfeit bills or been high on illegal drugs. That of course is a 'red herring' and has nothing to do with the improper actions the police  took but it makes a point that we are largely responsible for ourselves and when we knowingly place ourselves in certain conditions of lawlessness,  we may be inviting drama, harm and pain in our lives.

The majority of Americans are law abiding and peaceful and sympathize with peaceful protests but even among those a few bad apples screaming crazy things like defund and abolish the police  and rioting and looting do nothing to convince us of their cause. Crime in America by police against unarmed whites and blacks and others has been getting better since 2013. It's impossible to solve overnight but it is improving as more police departments use citizens as an oversight committee along with other improvements in training , etc.  It takes time but it will get better.

I too have seen much of the DC protest footage, including that taken by an Australian news crew who were on the scene when the police attacked (they too were bashed with riot shields and batons because they were on the footpath in that area).  Everybody that the police could get to was attacked and pushed back.  That was the police's job and I don't blame them.  They were following their orders.  They are in between a rock and a hard place themselves, but that is what they are there to do in response to their leadership.

But the people who give the instructions need to be accountable in my opinion and I don't think they acted in a manner respectful of peaceful protesters, as the majority of these were.  Yes, the protesters you are referring to refused to leave even though they were told to do so.  I disagree that the instruction was lawful as the curfew had not been implemented and the people were committing no offences such as violence and damage that had occurred elsewhere at different times.  It was a bad decision from Barr, Trump or whoever pushed that button, in my opinion.  It was unnecessary in this situation and I believe it was only done as a stunt to help promote Trump's 'tough guy' image.

Why forget what Trump said about the old man?  The whole point about what I have been talking about is how Trump behaves and acts.  I don't care about whether the old guy is now portrayed as a saint or an evildoer.  My whole point is that Trump, who has no details about the man, decides to call him an ANTIFA provocateur and makes up some crazy stuff about him trying to block out radio comms.  The point is your President continues to drive wedges and distraction and misinformation to suit his agenda.  It should be called out - always.

I'm not debating the multifaceted issues that concern the current protests - there is a lot I agree with and much I disagree with from many different angles.  I am just talking about the, how I see it, inadequate and even harmful contributions your President is making during his term as President.  If you don't see any reason to speak out against Trump then fair enough - it is a democracy.  I would just say that you get the leadership you deserve when people turn a blind eye to inadequacies, injustices, and manipulations committed by that leadership.

Of course it is a red herring that what happened to George Floyd would not have happened if he had not been passing counterfeit bills or been high on illegal drugs - so I'm not sure why you need to mention it.  But to me the point is that whilst we are largely responsible for ourselves when we knowingly place ourselves in certain conditions of lawlessness and that we may well be inviting drama, harm and pain in our lives when we do, I still want a police force that can respond appropriately without killing the person for a minor offence.  Your country does seem to suffer more violence than any other western country and I think that is essentially what these peaceful protesters are saying they are sick of.  They are saying something needs to change.  

[PaulS]

12 hours ago, JosephM said:

Paul,

BTW. The old man Martin Gugino has been a lifelong protester if you study his background. His own blogs show him arrested 4 times but never convicted. He believes curfews are a violation of our right to assemble and curfews are illegal. That is why he defies police orders.  The curfew law has been challenged many times.  Here is what our Supreme court has said .....

The Supreme court stated: "the real question is whether an ordinance such as this bears a sufficiently close relation to the peace, safety and welfare of the public so far as to justify the inconvenience to which law abiding citizens may occasionally be submitted." The court found that the ordinance bears a reasonable relation to the evil at which it is directed. 

Not everyone will agree with the Supreme courts assessment and its assessment depends on whether the ordinance fits into this category . In this case, the curfews didn't start til after the rioting and looting and welfare of the public justified it. But protesters who disagree have the right to afterwards challenge through the court system  or they can defy the curfew order as Martin did and put themselves in harms way where it is possible they will be hurt as in this case.

Nothing wrong with being a life long protester - some would say thank God we have people so passionate and prepared to make sacrifices to better the lives of others.  Four times charged but never convicted means innocent does it not?  You're still innocent unless proven guilty in the US aren't you?

I don't disagree that curfews can be lawful.  But the curfew wasn't in place in DC at the time the police were ordered to attack the crowd.  So not sure what the point of legitimizing curfews is here.

One thing that I do think about when people quote strict adherence to laws though, is where would we be today is Rosa Parks didn't break the law, if Nelson Mandela remained apartheid compliant, if Martin Luther King never wrote “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” while in prison for protesting against the treatment of the black community in Alabama, if Gandhi never went to prison for civil disobedience and sedition after a protest march turned violent, etc etc.  Nobody wants to encourage the breaking of laws, but it seems some of our major turning points in history have actually been when existing man-made laws have been broken, resulting in these unjust laws being removed and society leaping forward in a monumental change.

It would seem to me that we have to acknowledge (perhaps uncomfortably) that sometimes breaking the law is actually the higher thing to do, don't you think?

[PaulS]

There's a little bit of truth to this I think.

 

[JosephM]

19 hours ago, PaulS said:

Nothing wrong with being a life long protester - some would say thank God we have people so passionate and prepared to make sacrifices to better the lives of others.  Four times charged but never convicted means innocent does it not?  You're still innocent unless proven guilty in the US aren't you?

Nothing wrong with a life long protester especially if peaceful and not in violation of a law. No , it doesn't mean your innocent , it just means they dropped the charges. He wouldn't have been arrested if he wasn't in violation and many big cities just book em and then release em. Too much trouble and backup to prosecute.

Quote

 

I don't disagree that curfews can be lawful.  But the curfew wasn't in place in DC at the time the police were ordered to attack the crowd.  So not sure what the point of legitimizing curfews is here.

No it wasn't in place but disobeying the direct order of Park police is against the law even without a curfew. That can be challenged afterwards but in this case they would lose as it was cleared for the protection of the president by the attorney general and  whether one thinks it is right or wrong for him to do so makes no difference legally..

Quote

One thing that I do think about when people quote strict adherence to laws though, is where would we be today is Rosa Parks didn't break the law, if Nelson Mandela remained apartheid compliant, if Martin Luther King never wrote “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” while in prison for protesting against the treatment of the black community in Alabama, if Gandhi never went to prison for civil disobedience and sedition after a protest march turned violent, etc etc.  Nobody wants to encourage the breaking of laws, but it seems some of our major turning points in history have actually been when existing man-made laws have been broken, resulting in these unjust laws being removed and society leaping forward in a monumental change.

It would seem to me that we have to acknowledge (perhaps uncomfortably) that sometimes breaking the law is actually the higher thing to do, don't you think?

I won't disagree with you that there are laws that are prejudicial  and sometimes it takes defiance to lead to change. And yes, civil disobedience has led to change.  But in this case, we get the message and the violence seems a bit of an over reaction to me as i see improvement when i look at the numbers for police brutality on both white , black and other. I am persuaded that the individuals doing alot of the burning and looting have little to do with the message of the majority of protesters . Those responsible for Floyd's death, and other recent ones now have been charged and will have their day in court. Being a policeman has to be a very stressful job dealing with much of the  criminal element.My belief is the great majority of them are outstanding people. The American people are on the whole sympathetic to the issue and official are willing to talk but if violence persists by protesters support will be lost. 

Yes, I agree sometimes breaking the law is not only the higher thing to do but the only thing to do. That's what led to the formation of our nation. Do i think it is the higher thing to do in this case? No.

[PaulS]

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

Nothing wrong with a life long protester especially if peaceful and not in violation of a law. No , it doesn't mean your innocent , it just means they dropped the charges. He wouldn't have been arrested if he wasn't in violation and many big cities just book em and then release em. Too much trouble and backup to prosecute.

I think you're making a large assumption that the fellow wouldn't have been arrested if he wasn't in violation.  I'm not sure your across the facts of the four charges to make that assessment and I can say with certainty, that police do sometimes arrest people in error only later to drop the charges because of lack of evidence.  

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

No it wasn't in place but disobeying the direct order of Park police is against the law even without a curfew. That can be challenged afterwards but in this case they would lose as it was cleared for the protection of the president by the attorney general and  whether one thinks it is right or wrong for him to do so makes no difference legally..

Like I said, lawful instructions need to actually be lawful.  Your First Amendment rights grant people the right to peacefully protest, which these people were, but in this instance their First Amendment rights were trampled on by their ally, because your president wanted to make a show and walk to that Church to hold aloft a bible.  It is being reported that the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups are suing Donald Trump, William Barr and other federal officials over the assault on peaceful protesters, so maybe we'll see whether it was a legal or illegal instruction.

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

I won't disagree with you that there are laws that are prejudicial  and sometimes it takes defiance to lead to change. And yes, civil disobedience has led to change.  But in this case, we get the message and the violence seems a bit of an over reaction to me as i see improvement when i look at the numbers for police brutality on both white , black and other. I am persuaded that the individuals doing alot of the burning and looting have little to do with the message of the majority of protesters . Those responsible for Floyd's death, and other recent ones now have been charged and will have their day in court. Being a policeman has to be a very stressful job dealing with much of the  criminal element.My belief is the great majority of them are outstanding people. The American people are on the whole sympathetic to the issue and official are willing to talk but if violence persists by protesters support will be lost. 

Who is the 'we' that gets the message?  The Black Lives Matter movement and focus on police brutality/killing of black people is just one element of the overall frustration being expressed here.  Yes, there are lots and lots of positive things concerning better policing but thee people are expressing their frustration that not enough is happening, which is why people like George Floyd are still getting killed.  The issue here that I have been pointing to is the inability of your President to bring the nation together and drive any sort of healing.  Instead, he continues to divide because that is the only political strategy he seems to understand.

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

Yes, I agree sometimes breaking the law is not only the higher thing to do but the only thing to do. That's what led to the formation of our nation. Do i think it is the higher thing to do in this case? No.

If you are talking about the DC instance, then I disagree with you.  It was an over-reaction on your governments part to attack those peaceful protesters, at that time, and for the pedantic reason of wanting your President to go for a stroll.  It was a pathetic power-play on his part and I think you will find it has backfired.  Yes, he will continue to garner support from his base for these actions, but I doubt he will have won any hearts from those who otherwise politically sit on the fence.  In fact, I personally think he is going to end up on the wrong side of history in this instance because of his inability to approach the matter in any other way than his Presidency has displayed thus far.  Just my two bobs worth.

[JosephM]

23 hours ago, PaulS said:

But the people who give the instructions need to be accountable in my opinion and I don't think they acted in a manner respectful of peaceful protesters, as the majority of these were.  Yes, the protesters you are referring to refused to leave even though they were told to do so.  I disagree that the instruction was lawful as the curfew had not been implemented and the people were committing no offences such as violence and damage that had occurred elsewhere at different times.  It was a bad decision from Barr, Trump or whoever pushed that button, in my opinion.  It was unnecessary in this situation and I believe it was only done as a stunt to help promote Trump's 'tough guy' image.

It is not up to you or me to say whether an order is or is not lawful. If people questioned up front every order they disagreed with from police we would have serious problems and lawlessness. Accountability comes afterwards not during orders. You being a past policeman must know that if you give a command to someone you perceive breaking the law you can't allow his disagreement to not comply. That leaves the officer with no authority. Comply and take it up with the court system later

Quote

Why forget what Trump said about the old man?  The whole point about what I have been talking about is how Trump behaves and acts.  I don't care about whether the old guy is now portrayed as a saint or an evildoer.  My whole point is that Trump, who has no details about the man, decides to call him an ANTIFA provocateur and makes up some crazy stuff about him trying to block out radio comms.  The point is your President continues to drive wedges and distraction and misinformation to suit his agenda.  It should be called out - always.

Because that is a 'red herring' argument. Trump did not say the man was an ANTIFA provacateur. He only suggested that he "could be". He is a private citizen on twitter and has that right whether you or i like it or not. If you carefully watch 2 videos from different angles you would see the man acting very odd advancing toward police trying to clear the way and actually touching one. The police are trying to do their job andd pushed him away not knowing what he was doing and it appears he touched the police on the right and could have been reaching for a weapon. Who knows? He was in the wrong place at the wrong time messing with the police in my view.

His act as president to clear the area in the first paragraph i quoted you is lawful. Heck, the president has the authority to pardon criminals and even greater authority. His order through Barr was lawful whether we deem it poor judgement or whatever. Truely peaceful protesters that believe in law and order would in my view comply. And the majority did.

[JosephM]

42 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I think you're making a large assumption that the fellow wouldn't have been arrested if he wasn't in violation.  I'm not sure your across the facts of the four charges to make that assessment and I can say with certainty, that police do sometimes arrest people in error only later to drop the charges because of lack of evidence.  

Perhaps it possible but highly unlikely 4 times.

Quote

Like I said, lawful instructions need to actually be lawful.  Your First Amendment rights grant people the right to peacefully protest, which these people were, but in this instance their First Amendment rights were trampled on by their ally, because your president wanted to make a show and walk to that Church to hold aloft a bible.  It is being reported that the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups are suing Donald Trump, William Barr and other federal officials over the assault on peaceful protesters, so maybe we'll see whether it was a legal or illegal instruction.

Fine. Sueing through the court system is the peaceful and proper way to challenge it. Good luck with it. But for now the order was lawful unless proven otherwise and in a law and order society must be obeyed or is subject to consequences.

Quote

Who is the 'we' that gets the message?  The Black Lives Matter movement and focus on police brutality/killing of black people is just one element of the overall frustration being expressed here.  Yes, there are lots and lots of positive things concerning better policing but thee people are expressing their frustration that not enough is happening, which is why people like George Floyd are still getting killed.  The issue here that I have been pointing to is the inability of your President to bring the nation together and drive any sort of healing.  Instead, he continues to divide because that is the only political strategy he seems to understand.

We = Everybody for the last few weeks that read newspapers, watch TV, or talk to others. People like George Floyd and others both black and white and other will for as long as people are not perfect angels, continue. As i said in other posts, it is getting better and yes more can and will be done but as long as humans do the policing there will always be problems such as this. A lot of change has happened that is positive concerning civil rights and police brutality since the 1960's and  Martin Luther King. And it will continue 

Quote

 

If you are talking about the DC instance, then I disagree with you.  It was an over-reaction on your governments part to attack those peaceful protesters, at that time, and for the pedantic reason of wanting your President to go for a stroll.  It was a pathetic power-play on his part and I think you will find it has backfired.  Yes, he will continue to garner support from his base for these actions, but I doubt he will have won any hearts from those who otherwise politically sit on the fence.  In fact, I personally think he is going to end up on the wrong side of history in this instance because of his inability to approach the matter in any other way than his Presidency has displayed thus far.  Just my two bobs worth.

Judge all you want. and disagree. It's your right. I don't see it that way but admit if you read our mainline news it is easy to form that opinion of yours.  Now you have Trump going for a stroll when in fact he went there to make a statement against the backdrop of damage to a historical church in DC the night before which many non-vocal people support as do i. Just my 2 bobs worth. 😄

[PaulS]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

It is not up to you or me to say whether an order is or is not lawful. If people questioned up front every order they disagreed with from police we would have serious problems and lawlessness. Accountability comes afterwards not during orders. You being a past policeman must know that if you give a command to someone you perceive breaking the law you can't allow his disagreement to not comply. That leaves the officer with no authority. Comply and take it up with the court system later

I am not saying that every day people should question police instructions.  I am saying that on this day, people standing there knew they were not breaking the law.  They knew they were not in breach of the curfew.  They knew that the government had no genuine authority to tell them to stop expressing their First Amendment right.  So they stood their ground in protest.  I don't blame the police for following the instructions your government provided them.  The blame rest with your government fir issuing those instructions in the first place and the matter is only worsened when we learn the only reason for those instructions was to allow Trump to walk to a Church for a photo op.  For me, I think that is a disgusting display of what leadership is about, but maybe that's just me.

Quote

Because that is a 'red herring' argument. Trump did not say the man was an ANTIFA provacateur. He only suggested that he "could be". He is a private citizen on twitter and has that right whether you or i like it or not. If you carefully watch 2 videos from different angles you would see the man acting very odd advancing toward police trying to clear the way and actually touching one. The police are trying to do their job andd pushed him away not knowing what he was doing and it appears he touched the police on the right and could have been reaching for a weapon. Who knows? He was in the wrong place at the wrong time messing with the police in my view.

The only red herring here is pretending that Trump's tweets don't matter.  He is utilizing distraction and wedging 101.  Again, I don't blame the police and I doubt the officer intended for the old man's fall to play out the way it did (interestingly enough, two of the police officers have now been arrested and charged with assault in the 2nd degree - where is Trump's tweet of support for the old guy?  Maybe I should blame the police too - after all, the law is the law).  But again, does your President react with empathy and understanding for his 'ally', a peaceful protester, or does he spark innuendo and rumor and distraction in an effort to play to his base rather than bring your nation together?

Quote

His act as president to clear the area in the first paragraph i quoted you is lawful. Heck, the president has the authority to pardon criminals and even greater authority. His order through Barr was lawful whether we deem it poor judgement or whatever. Truely peaceful protesters that believe in law and order would in my view comply. And the majority did.

Sounds more dictator-like than Presidential in my opinion, but if that's the sort of government you are happy with, well it's your country.

[thormas]

32 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Now you have Trump going for a stroll when in fact he went there to make a statement against the backdrop of damage to a historical church in DC the night before which many non-vocal people support as do i. Just my 2 bobs worth.

What was that statement? Do you have a quote? 

It was a photo-op.

 

[PaulS]

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

Perhaps it possible but highly unlikely 4 times.

It's also highly unlikely that with all the checks in place for evidence and the court process with appeals etc that somebody could be jailed for murder whilst actually being entirely innocent, but it happens.  

Quote

Fine. Sueing through the court system is the peaceful and proper way to challenge it. Good luck with it. But for now the order was lawful unless proven otherwise and in a law and order society must be obeyed or is subject to consequences.

Suing is a lengthy, costly process, not available to many.  It is also very difficult to fight against government lawyers who have bottomless resources.  Not to mention that the whole point of the protest and message is long dead and buried by the time a court hearing comes around.  You think it was lawful, I don't.  As I said, some bodies to appear to be taking legal action so I wonder if we will ever get to revisit this discussion and see who was right.

Quote

We = Everybody for the last few weeks that read newspapers, watch TV, or talk to others. People like George Floyd and others both black and white and other will for as long as people are not perfect angels, continue. As i said in other posts, it is getting better and yes more can and will be done but as long as humans do the policing there will always be problems such as this. A lot of change has happened that is positive concerning civil rights and police brutality since the 1960's and  Martin Luther King. And it will continue 

Judge all you want. and disagree. It's your right. I don't see it that way but admit if you read our mainline news it is easy to form that opinion of yours.  Now you have Trump going for a stroll when in fact he went there to make a statement against the backdrop of damage to a historical church in DC the night before which many non-vocal people support as do i. Just my 2 bobs worth. 😄

We?  That's a pretty big call, especially in light of the counter-protests we see such as people kneeling on white men's necks etc.  It seems those people might not quite get the message yet.

Look, you've judged it your way, and I've judged it mine.  I think Trump is doing your nation a disservice and I think this DC protest is just one example of his inability to bring your nation together and heal rather than continue to divide, distract and wedge.  Yes, Trump did take a stroll to make a statement against the backdrop of damage (that had occurred the night before) to a historical church.  But why pick that time, when protesters aren't in breach of any other law?  Why deliberately stir up the trouble other than to hope it makes you look like the 'law and order' President?  It was, in my opinion, just another Trump stunt that divides and wedges your people. I can only say that if he was my President, I would want more and better from him.  If you don't, that's your right.

Look, it's your country, and you're welcome to it.  I just don't see it the same way as you, and it would seem much of your own country might agree with me.  But this is democracy in action I guess.

[JosephM]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

What was that statement? Do you have a quote? 

It was a photo-op.

Paul said it, not me.  Read all the posts if you are going to comment .  It's a few posts above this one.....   

He said ......."If you are talking about the DC instance, then I disagree with you.  It was an over-reaction on your governments part to attack those peaceful protesters, at that time, and for the pedantic reason of wanting your President to go for a stroll.  "

 

[thormas]

6 hours ago, JosephM said:

Paul said it, not me.  Read all the posts if you are going to comment .  It's a few posts above this one.....   

He said ......."If you are talking about the DC instance, then I disagree with you.  It was an over-reaction on your governments part to attack those peaceful protesters, at that time, and for the pedantic reason of wanting your President to go for a stroll.  "

 

I do read the posts, don't get testy.

You wrote "Now you have Trump going for a stroll when in fact he went there to make a statement against the backdrop of damage to a historical church in DC the night before which many non-vocal people support as do i. Just my 2 bobs worth." 

And you even included you supported it and that it was your 2 bobs worth.

So...........the quote??

[thormas]

 

I found it, I found it!  After hours of combing through the literature, I found the famous trumpster statement that he went to St. John's to deliver.

 

Wait for it, wait for it.............here it comes:

 

"It's a Bible."

 

My god the power of that statement along with his terrific delivery - was there a teleprompter??

[thormas]

17 hours ago, JosephM said:

But the people who give the instructions need to be accountable in my opinion and I don't think they acted in a manner respectful of peaceful protesters, as the majority of these were.

Exactly on point.

And it is perfectly valid to question the instruction 'after the fact' - to assess its legality, necessity and morality.

Edited June 12, 2020 by thormas

[JosephM]

Thomas, 

You were just previously warned privately about quoting people by using out of context partial sentences etc. ......Now your carelessness in reading posts and quoting in the post immediately before this one  has me quoted as saying  something someone else said. You have 3 days to think about reading posts more carefully before misquoting.

JosephM (as Moderastor)

[PaulS]

What do you think folks - these are the current odds on offer here in Australia for the election of the next US President.  Is it worth backing Trump or do you think go the surer thing and back Biden?  Who would you put your money on if you were a betting person?your 

[JosephM]

Trump - great payout

One may need to know Biden's running mate before betting. He seems to have a major problem affecting him.

 

 

[Burl]

I would buy Hillary at 1:51   

A good chance she replaces Biden at the convention.  I would sell my wager at a nice profit on her nomination.

[thormas]

On 7/7/2020 at 8:03 AM, JosephM said:

One may need to know Biden's running mate before betting. He seems to have a major problem affecting him.

Perhaps whomever Biden selects can provide aid to the 'orange stable genius' when he needs a drink of water, help walking, help speaking, help with pronunciation or simple help being a decent, caring human being.