RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Saying that, getting rid of people like this whichever side they appear to be fighting for is at least entertaining.

The sad thing about legitimate protests is that they are often hijacked. Good on the actual protestors for stopping a dickhead.

I've heard tales of right-wing racist internet weirdos (as in 4-chan incel types, not the police) making plans to accelerate their prophesied "race-war" by instigating violence at these protests by starting vandalism, etc . I've not known how much credence to give them as many people talk a lot of shit on the internet.

However, that guy was weird, right? Just randomly deciding to ostentatiously smash a bit of kerb with a hammer in front of the police line, so white that you suspect his only light comes from a computer screen, completely without friends or compatriots when the protestors go for him.

I mean, he could just be a garden-variety idiot, but it does seem weird.

Puja

I've avoided posting a bunch of these instances that look incredibly suspect, because as you say there are so many waves of disinformation coming from every angle it's hard to trust much of it, but many of the same alt-right grifters crop up again and again as being behind these schemes. This one particularly sticks in my mind. https://www.newsweek.com/trump-retweets ... lly-781108 Once people have seen something it doesn't seem to matter that it gets debunked or turns out later to be a fraud. I'd be absolutely amazed if there aren't several of them co-ordinating some of these groups of rioters that we've seen.

With Trump so desperate to take charge of the media perception of these events, and so many journalists/reporters being shutdown or even attacked, it's hard to hold out much hope of this really being shown for what it is.

It's amazing that a clip like this now feels something like a win?

Puja wrote:
I don't believe anyone has died in the protests so far (which is a frigging miracle given the number of guns in that sodding country), but the police are spraying around less-lethal ammunition and chemical weapons like they're completely harmless, so it is only a matter of time.

There's a dead 19 year old. He was part of a crowd protesting, probably peacefully, when some piece of shit decided to protest the protest and pulled up the crowd in a car before firing into the crowd. And there's now a journalist reporting she's blind in one eye having been hit with a projectile whilst covering the protests. I assume there are other serious incidents too.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
"Safe actions for a society" "Prefer that people were not hurt"

In 2019, there were 996 people fatally shot by police. In 2019, there were 1,004. So far in 2020, the number is 228 (which is above the total that there was this time last year). 12% of the population is black, but 40% of the death from police are black. A black man in the USA has a 1 in 1000 chance of dying from a police officer - that makes it the 7th highest cause of death, beating out diabetes, influenza, and cerebrovascular diseases. George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Dominique Clayton, Eric Reason, Atatiana Jefferson, Botham Jean, Philando Castile, Bettie Jones, Walther Scott.

People were already not in a safe society. People were already being hurt. There have already been peaceful protests, including those mocked and coerced out of existence by the President. These aren't people who have decided they fancy burning down a building - these are people who are being regularly murdered by those who are supposed to protect them and who have been systematically dismissed and unheard.

I would also like to note that, while I don't like riots, not-violence has resulted in the problem being utterly ignored, whereas violence has a history of bringing about universal suffrage, recognition of basic gay rights and civil rights, regime change, law change - I don't like it, but it does have a history of getting shit done with a much higher success rate than asking politely.

"Violence doesn't solve violence" is something someone who is not getting violence perpetrated on them can comfortably say. There was already violence on one side of the equation - it was regular, systemic, and consistent. It wasn't being solved by non-violence and, while I don't like it, I'm not surprised that people have decided to field test whether they get better results with a riot than with a kneel.

Puja

The problem wasn't being utterly ignored, nor is the problem now being utterly addressed. There are issues which trigger all of us for some valid and less valid reasons that I'm sure we'd be only too happy to escalate citing our frustrations as just cause, but I simply don't share your faith in violence being part of the answer.

"Issues which trigger all of us." They're talking about being terrified of the police. About a society where getting pulled over for speeding puts you in genuine fear of your life. Where any interaction with the police has a statistically real chance of ending their life.

I'm not saying violence is part of the answer. I am saying that that list of names I gave you is a very small part of a litany that goes back decades where the rate isn't getting slower, but faster. The problem was being utterly ignored cause nothing was changing and people were still being murdered. Peaceful demonstrations, lobbying, partaking in the democratic processes (who was President during Ferguson?) have been going on for years and nothing has changed with the US police.

I'm not saying violence is part of the answer. I'm saying that I'm unsurprised that people have turned to it after so many yeara of achieving nothing with non-violence.

Puja

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
I don't believe anyone has died in the protests so far (which is a frigging miracle given the number of guns in that sodding country), but the police are spraying around less-lethal ammunition and chemical weapons like they're completely harmless, so it is only a matter of time.

There's a dead 19 year old. He was part of a crowd protesting, probably peacefully, when some piece of shit decided to protest the protest and pulled up the crowd in a car before firing into the crowd. And there's now a journalist reporting she's blind in one eye having been hit with a projectile whilst covering the protests. I assume there are other serious incidents too.

I'd heard about the journalist (rubber bullet from police, I understand), but not about the 19 year old. Fucking shame. There was also the MAGA lunatic who brought out a bow and arrow to fire into the crowd before getting swarmed by protestors.

I cannot believe not a one of the protestors has brought a firearm yet. Not that it'd be at all a good idea, but I'm amazed that out of thousands there's not a single idiot who has decided to tool up against the militarised cops. Speaks well for everyone going out there to be peaceful.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
Obviously, I would prefer that personal property wasn't damaged, especially that of local businesses. However, there's a great deal more going on here than looking at the microcosm of one business and one person.

Plus, were it my life's work gone up in flames, I would at least have the insurance money with which to start again. George Floyd's siblings can't start a new brother with insurance money.

Puja

Oh yes, insurance companies pay out really quickly and any business can recover from being torched.

Yes there is no replacing human life. Do you see anyone who gets killed in a riot as a useful sacrifice? I don't. Peaceful protest is all well and good, violent protest has no place and any government will crack down on it. Demonstrators are at risk of losing public sympathy.

I don't want violent protest. I also don't want there to be a country where the police can randomly kill someone and rarely if ever suffer any repurcussions. The latter has historically only got better when the former has happened - I am not surprised that people have turned to it again once pushed far enough.

I don't believe anyone has died in the protests so far (which is a frigging miracle given the number of guns in that sodding country), but the police are spraying around less-lethal ammunition and chemical weapons like they're completely harmless, so it is only a matter of time.

I don't have answers - I can't solve the trolley problem of "Is this person a 'useful sacrifice'" (appalling turn of phrase, btw). I do know that a simple answer of "violent protests are wrong, no matter what" or "these violent protests are justified, no matter what" is reductive and shouldn't be subscribed to.

Puja

I believe one person has died, they were shot by an unknown assailant during a protest.And it is a miracle that more haven't died, or been seriously hurt.

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
"Safe actions for a society" "Prefer that people were not hurt"

In 2019, there were 996 people fatally shot by police. In 2019, there were 1,004. So far in 2020, the number is 228 (which is above the total that there was this time last year). 12% of the population is black, but 40% of the death from police are black. A black man in the USA has a 1 in 1000 chance of dying from a police officer - that makes it the 7th highest cause of death, beating out diabetes, influenza, and cerebrovascular diseases. George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Dominique Clayton, Eric Reason, Atatiana Jefferson, Botham Jean, Philando Castile, Bettie Jones, Walther Scott.

People were already not in a safe society. People were already being hurt. There have already been peaceful protests, including those mocked and coerced out of existence by the President. These aren't people who have decided they fancy burning down a building - these are people who are being regularly murdered by those who are supposed to protect them and who have been systematically dismissed and unheard.

I would also like to note that, while I don't like riots, not-violence has resulted in the problem being utterly ignored, whereas violence has a history of bringing about universal suffrage, recognition of basic gay rights and civil rights, regime change, law change - I don't like it, but it does have a history of getting shit done with a much higher success rate than asking politely.

"Violence doesn't solve violence" is something someone who is not getting violence perpetrated on them can comfortably say. There was already violence on one side of the equation - it was regular, systemic, and consistent. It wasn't being solved by non-violence and, while I don't like it, I'm not surprised that people have decided to field test whether they get better results with a riot than with a kneel.

Puja

The problem wasn't being utterly ignored, nor is the problem now being utterly addressed. There are issues which trigger all of us for some valid and less valid reasons that I'm sure we'd be only too happy to escalate citing our frustrations as just cause, but I simply don't share your faith in violence being part of the answer.

"Issues which trigger all of us." They're talking about being terrified of the police. About a society where getting pulled over for speeding puts you in genuine fear of your life. Where any interaction with the police has a statistically real chance of ending their life.

I'm not saying violence is part of the answer. I am saying that that list of names I gave you is a very small part of a litany that goes back decades where the rate isn't getting slower, but faster. The problem was being utterly ignored cause nothing was changing and people were still being murdered. Peaceful demonstrations, lobbying, partaking in the democratic processes (who was President during Ferguson?) have been going on for years and nothing has changed with the US police.

I'm not saying violence is part of the answer. I'm saying that I'm unsurprised that people have turned to it after so many yeara of achieving nothing with non-violence.

Puja

I'm not surprised people are turning to violence either, but again whilst I they are angry (which I intend to be different to saying I understand their anger) I would still condemn any violent protests. And for all years of achieving nothing have wrought they simply need to work more.

Also we talk about years of achieving nothing, black % of voting in general elections tends to be around 60% and actually fell a little in the last general election, hispanic and asian voters are even worse with a normal showing in a general election of something just shy of 50%. So just within those communities they wield enormous power they haven't been using. And I don't know the stats for local and state elections but I rather suspect like us voting doesn't go up at the local level.

Now obviously non white voters aren't all going to vote for the same thing, but if you're not putting forward candidates, if you're not registering to vote, and if you're not actually voting please don't tell me you've done all you can, and certainly not before then saying the only option left is violence. Decisions are made by those who show up, get organised and push the candidates you want (or accept the compromise candidate you dislike the least like many others)

Sandydragon wrote:

cashead wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Would you hold that view if you life's work had just gone up in flames? Do you think that burning out a local stores bothers anyone in Washington that much? The people hurt are routine people trying to make a living.

Would you hold that view if you were shot to pieces because you happened to have the wrong skin colour? Do you think that shooting up a local black man bothers anyone in Washington that much? The people hurt are routine people trying to make a living.

Besides, I'm sure the police will be happy to reimburse them.

What about a black man who owns a business that's been burnt out? I understand the anger; but the protesters are hurting innocent people and that just cannot be right. Don't they deserve protection from the police?

I would say they do deserve protection from the police, but by who?

While protestors raged outside the white house last night, the fearless leader was whisked to an underground bunker, the lights were turned off at the white house (I'm not here! Go away!), and he rage tweeted tough guy bollocks, like:

Get tough Democrat Mayors and Governors. These people are ANARCHISTS. Call in our National Guard NOW. The World is watching and laughing at you and Sleepy Joe. Is this what America wants? NO!!!

What a clueless coward.

The decision to go to the bunker probably wasn't his. The weirdness in attacking other political leaders is all on him, and very odd when some of the mayors/governors have called in the guard before he's started slating them for not doing so, or odd because he's got to find a more nuanced way to disagree if local leaders think they're making the best decisions in their community by not relying on the national guard

The World is watching and laughing at you and Sleepy Joe.

Donster, I have absolutely no doubt that there's a few leaders laughing at America right now. Putin, Xi, Assad, Kim Jong-Un, all no doubt having a chuckle, and I wouldn't be surprised if Macron wasn't a little amused considering how "helpful" you were during his own country's protests.

However, I can guarantee you that it's not Joe Biden they're laughing at. He's not President during this debacle.

Puja

morepork wrote:While protestors raged outside the white house last night, the fearless leader was whisked to an underground bunker, the lights were turned off at the white house (I'm not here! Go away!), and he rage tweeted tough guy bollocks, like:

Get tough Democrat Mayors and Governors. These people are ANARCHISTS. Call in our National Guard NOW. The World is watching and laughing at you and Sleepy Joe. Is this what America wants? NO!!!

What a clueless coward.

Out of interest, what could a US President do? Aside from saying the right thing in public, what actual difference could a president make to state law enforcement? If a president who actually gave a toss tried to interfere too strongly, would the state governors kick back about central interference?

Just watched a concurrently humorous and heart breaking video of two white police officers handcuffing a black man at the riots, only to quickly let him go when they checked his id wallet and found out he's FBI! If that isn't just a stark portrait of America right now.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:While protestors raged outside the white house last night, the fearless leader was whisked to an underground bunker, the lights were turned off at the white house (I'm not here! Go away!), and he rage tweeted tough guy bollocks, like:

Get tough Democrat Mayors and Governors. These people are ANARCHISTS. Call in our National Guard NOW. The World is watching and laughing at you and Sleepy Joe. Is this what America wants? NO!!!

What a clueless coward.

Out of interest, what could a US President do? Aside from saying the right thing in public, what actual difference could a president make to state law enforcement? If a president who actually gave a toss tried to interfere too strongly, would the state governors kick back about central interference?

He could commit to looking into reform that the rest of the country knows has been needed for decades. He could reinstate the checks and balances on law enforcement that were started 4 years ago to make police more accountable to the rule of law, and that his own attorney generals have worked hard to roll back. He could acknowledge that there is a racism pandemic in this country. He could engage leaders and spokespeople for social reform groups such as Black Lives Matter. He could stop this ridiculous macho posturing that incites more violence. He could desist with spinning conspiracy narratives that are painfully obviously an attempt to deflect responsibility.


Just off the top of my head.

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:While protestors raged outside the white house last night, the fearless leader was whisked to an underground bunker, the lights were turned off at the white house (I'm not here! Go away!), and he rage tweeted tough guy bollocks, like:

Get tough Democrat Mayors and Governors. These people are ANARCHISTS. Call in our National Guard NOW. The World is watching and laughing at you and Sleepy Joe. Is this what America wants? NO!!!

What a clueless coward.

Out of interest, what could a US President do? Aside from saying the right thing in public, what actual difference could a president make to state law enforcement? If a president who actually gave a toss tried to interfere too strongly, would the state governors kick back about central interference?

He could commit to looking into reform that the rest of the country knows has been needed for decades. He could reinstate the checks and balances on law enforcement that were started 4 years ago to make police more accountable to the rule of law, and that his own attorney generals have worked hard to roll back. He could acknowledge that there is a racism pandemic in this country. He could engage leaders and spokespeople for social reform groups such as Black Lives Matter. He could stop this ridiculous macho posturing that incites more violence. He could desist with spinning conspiracy narratives that are painfully obviously an attempt to deflect responsibility.


Just off the top of my head.

He could have engaged with Kaepernick and the peaceful kneeling protests instead of coercing the NFL and saying those who knelt should be fired.

Of course, all of the above would require him to not be actively racist himself, which is basically requiring an entirely different human being to be President.

Puja

For example:

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:While protestors raged outside the white house last night, the fearless leader was whisked to an underground bunker, the lights were turned off at the white house (I'm not here! Go away!), and he rage tweeted tough guy bollocks, like:

Get tough Democrat Mayors and Governors. These people are ANARCHISTS. Call in our National Guard NOW. The World is watching and laughing at you and Sleepy Joe. Is this what America wants? NO!!!

What a clueless coward.

Out of interest, what could a US President do? Aside from saying the right thing in public, what actual difference could a president make to state law enforcement? If a president who actually gave a toss tried to interfere too strongly, would the state governors kick back about central interference?

He could commit to looking into reform that the rest of the country knows has been needed for decades. He could reinstate the checks and balances on law enforcement that were started 4 years ago to make police more accountable to the rule of law, and that his own attorney generals have worked hard to roll back. He could acknowledge that there is a racism pandemic in this country. He could engage leaders and spokespeople for social reform groups such as Black Lives Matter. He could stop this ridiculous macho posturing that incites more violence. He could desist with spinning conspiracy narratives that are painfully obviously an attempt to deflect responsibility.


Just off the top of my head.

Lots of that is symbolic, what can he do if a state refuses to reform its police services? A president can make things worse with stupid comments, but what can he legally do if a governor doesn’t want change in their state?

morepork wrote:For example:

So it’s local change that’s the most important. Fair enough.

Sandydragon wrote:
Lots of that is symbolic, what can he do if a state refuses to reform its police services? A president can make things worse with stupid comments, but what can he legally do if a governor doesn’t want change in their state?

For sure the governors and local mayors have a lot of power too, and for all Trump's talks about having all these powers he is quite limited in his role. But his limited role is still huge given the size of the federal government, he can direct almost all the the administration of the federal government, but until now he's tended to do so in a way that annoys minorities with his work on things like DACA.

Trump did actually do some good once upon a time with his work on reforming mandatory minimum sentences in federal cases, it perhaps didn't go far enough, but Obama didn't get it done. And Trump could have tried to build on that because most prisoners are held by the various states not the federal government, but he didn't want repeat, long, boring conversations at a state level trying to drive a change he might not get and that morons wouldn't like anyway.

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Out of interest, what could a US President do? Aside from saying the right thing in public, what actual difference could a president make to state law enforcement? If a president who actually gave a toss tried to interfere too strongly, would the state governors kick back about central interference?

He could commit to looking into reform that the rest of the country knows has been needed for decades. He could reinstate the checks and balances on law enforcement that were started 4 years ago to make police more accountable to the rule of law, and that his own attorney generals have worked hard to roll back. He could acknowledge that there is a racism pandemic in this country. He could engage leaders and spokespeople for social reform groups such as Black Lives Matter. He could stop this ridiculous macho posturing that incites more violence. He could desist with spinning conspiracy narratives that are painfully obviously an attempt to deflect responsibility.


Just off the top of my head.

Lots of that is symbolic, what can he do if a state refuses to reform its police services? A president can make things worse with stupid comments, but what can he legally do if a governor doesn’t want change in their state?

Ultimately, state attorney generals will be required to enact change, but such people liase with their representatives in government and these representatives can get things rolling with the encouragement and support of the executive and judicial arms of government. There are also federal police forces that are the responsibility of the federal government, and it would be a relatively simple matter to compel these forces to weed out any anti-diversity sentiment and practice....I'm thinking border control could really use some of this right now. Also, the increasing militarisation of police forces, right down to the local level, needs to be reigned in. There was a department of defense program that mandated the transfer of surplus military equipment to all levels of police. The government can easily regulate this, as they did after the 2014 Fergusson riots. William Barr has been working furiously to reinstate it. Finally, the concept of qualified immunity needs to be revisited as it pertains to police accountability. This is a job for the supreme court and is a hangover from the civil rights movement and the immunity afforded police in response to riots (sounds familiar). This doctrine needs to be dramatically narrowed.

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote:

Stom wrote:
So you’re saying humor is only good when it’s about something you agree with?

Reminder that Digby admitted that he had a chuckle at the Christchurch shooting last year.

Are you another Fausty parachute account?

Yes I did, though I think I said something like that wasn't the whole of my reaction, that that part of my reaction wasn't creditable, and the act itself was actually disgusting, so a little context wouldn't go amiss rather than seizing on one part. Actually its a good point because people in essence that's what we have here again, people laughing at that they find unacceptable, only here Vs in my case it's being defended my those laughing, I accepted my laughter was not of an appropriate standard

"No you see, it's OK when I do it because I backpedalled an appropriate amount"

Fuck off. Don't you have a racist organisation to go defend?

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote: Reminder that Digby admitted that he had a chuckle at the Christchurch shooting last year.

Are you another Fausty parachute account?

Yes I did, though I think I said something like that wasn't the whole of my reaction, that that part of my reaction wasn't creditable, and the act itself was actually disgusting, so a little context wouldn't go amiss rather than seizing on one part. Actually its a good point because people in essence that's what we have here again, people laughing at that they find unacceptable, only here Vs in my case it's being defended my those laughing, I accepted my laughter was not of an appropriate standard

"No you see, it's OK when I do it because I backpedalled an appropriate amount"

Fuck off. Don't you have a racist organisation to go defend?

I don't know what you're alluding to in regards to taking back comments. If that's with regards to comments given around Chistchurch then that's not back peddling, that's perhaps not verbatim what I wrote but it's far closer than your very particular take on what I wrote.

And no, no I don't have a racist organisation to defend. Just because I'm against the destruction of property that doesn't actually make me a white supremacist. There is substantial middle ground betwixt the two positions.

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Out of interest, what could a US President do? Aside from saying the right thing in public, what actual difference could a president make to state law enforcement? If a president who actually gave a toss tried to interfere too strongly, would the state governors kick back about central interference?

He could commit to looking into reform that the rest of the country knows has been needed for decades. He could reinstate the checks and balances on law enforcement that were started 4 years ago to make police more accountable to the rule of law, and that his own attorney generals have worked hard to roll back. He could acknowledge that there is a racism pandemic in this country. He could engage leaders and spokespeople for social reform groups such as Black Lives Matter. He could stop this ridiculous macho posturing that incites more violence. He could desist with spinning conspiracy narratives that are painfully obviously an attempt to deflect responsibility.


Just off the top of my head.

Lots of that is symbolic, what can he do if a state refuses to reform its police services? A president can make things worse with stupid comments, but what can he legally do if a governor doesn’t want change in their state?

Quite a bit. After the 1991 riots after the Rodney King beating, Congress gave Congress gave the federal government the power to investigate police departments for civil rights abuses. Investigations can lead to an agreement with the local agency to change its ways, but they can also end in a “consent decree,” a more confrontational court-mandated plan for reform that is closely monitored by the DOJ. Obama used these widely, especially in places where unarmed black men were shot by police.

Of course one of the first things Trump did was get his Justice Department to revoke as many of them as they could.*

Symbolism also has quite a bit of power. He pardoned Arpaio (the archetypical "I bend rules to see (my version of) justice done" sheriff), he denigrated BLM and Kaepernick as traitors, he talked up unshackling the police from rules and regulations that liberals were putting on them ("Who cares if a criminal bumps his head going into a cop car. I mean I think you could rough em up a bit more, not protect em"), he reversed all of the reform agreements that Obama's administration had put in place with problematic police forces, he reversed Obama's limitations on police forces receiving military gear (some police forces own Armoured Personnel Carriers that are one step down from a tank), he failed to condemn literal Nazis in Charlottesville - at every step he has made public that he regards BLM as troublemakers without a valid point and that the police are oppressed by liberals and stupid rules that stop them serving some hot fresh justice, cracking heads and taking names, and he's instructed his justice department to revoke all of the Obama era policies that even slightly nudged the police towards being less militaristic, more accountable, and less of a law unto themselves.

Basically, he encouraged everyone in the police with a Dirty Harry/Judge Dredd/The Punisher fantasy that thought they had their hands tied by "oppressive" civil rights that the President was on their side and that, just as importantly, not on the side of those BLM traitors to the flag.

Puja


*Not that that was part of any grand plan, that was just because everything Obama put his name to got revoked, on principle.

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:
Yes I did, though I think I said something like that wasn't the whole of my reaction, that that part of my reaction wasn't creditable, and the act itself was actually disgusting, so a little context wouldn't go amiss rather than seizing on one part. Actually its a good point because people in essence that's what we have here again, people laughing at that they find unacceptable, only here Vs in my case it's being defended my those laughing, I accepted my laughter was not of an appropriate standard

"No you see, it's OK when I do it because I backpedalled an appropriate amount"

Fuck off. Don't you have a racist organisation to go defend?

I don't know what you're alluding to in regards to taking back comments. If that's with regards to comments given around Chistchurch then that's not back peddling, that's perhaps not verbatim what I wrote but it's far closer than your very particular take on what I wrote.

And no, no I don't have a racist organisation to defend. Just because I'm against the destruction of property that doesn't actually make me a white supremacist. There is substantial middle ground betwixt the two positions.

It might not have been your only reaction to the shootings last year, but it sure as hell was the one you felt most appropriate to share with others.

And do you even know who the Daughters of the Confederacy are? "I'm not defending them, I'm just lamenting that they've copped it hard."

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:

He could commit to looking into reform that the rest of the country knows has been needed for decades. He could reinstate the checks and balances on law enforcement that were started 4 years ago to make police more accountable to the rule of law, and that his own attorney generals have worked hard to roll back. He could acknowledge that there is a racism pandemic in this country. He could engage leaders and spokespeople for social reform groups such as Black Lives Matter. He could stop this ridiculous macho posturing that incites more violence. He could desist with spinning conspiracy narratives that are painfully obviously an attempt to deflect responsibility.


Just off the top of my head.

Lots of that is symbolic, what can he do if a state refuses to reform its police services? A president can make things worse with stupid comments, but what can he legally do if a governor doesn’t want change in their state?

Quite a bit. After the 1991 riots after the Rodney King beating, Congress gave Congress gave the federal government the power to investigate police departments for civil rights abuses. Investigations can lead to an agreement with the local agency to change its ways, but they can also end in a “consent decree,” a more confrontational court-mandated plan for reform that is closely monitored by the DOJ. Obama used these widely, especially in places where unarmed black men were shot by police.

Of course one of the first things Trump did was get his Justice Department to revoke as many of them as they could.*

Symbolism also has quite a bit of power. He pardoned Arpaio (the archetypical "I bend rules to see (my version of) justice done" sheriff), he denigrated BLM and Kaepernick as traitors, he talked up unshackling the police from rules and regulations that liberals were putting on them ("Who cares if a criminal bumps his head going into a cop car. I mean I think you could rough em up a bit more, not protect em"), he reversed all of the reform agreements that Obama's administration had put in place with problematic police forces, he reversed Obama's limitations on police forces receiving military gear (some police forces own Armoured Personnel Carriers that are one step down from a tank), he failed to condemn literal Nazis in Charlottesville - at every step he has made public that he regards BLM as troublemakers without a valid point and that the police are oppressed by liberals and stupid rules that stop them serving some hot fresh justice, cracking heads and taking names, and he's instructed his justice department to revoke all of the Obama era policies that even slightly nudged the police towards being less militaristic, more accountable, and less of a law unto themselves.

Basically, he encouraged everyone in the police with a Dirty Harry/Judge Dredd/The Punisher fantasy that thought they had their hands tied by "oppressive" civil rights that the President was on their side and that, just as importantly, not on the side of those BLM traitors to the flag.

Puja


*Not that that was part of any grand plan, that was just because everything Obama put his name to got revoked, on principle.

Word

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote: "No you see, it's OK when I do it because I backpedalled an appropriate amount"

Fuck off. Don't you have a racist organisation to go defend?

I don't know what you're alluding to in regards to taking back comments. If that's with regards to comments given around Chistchurch then that's not back peddling, that's perhaps not verbatim what I wrote but it's far closer than your very particular take on what I wrote.

And no, no I don't have a racist organisation to defend. Just because I'm against the destruction of property that doesn't actually make me a white supremacist. There is substantial middle ground betwixt the two positions.

It might not have been your only reaction to the shootings last year, but it sure as hell was the one you felt most appropriate to share with others.

And do you even know who the Daughters of the Confederacy are? "I'm not defending them, I'm just lamenting that they've copped it hard."

It was a one posting that detailed a number of thoughts in response to the shootings in NZ, part of that got picked up on and the rest was ignored. Tbh I could have stressed that more at the time but I was amused by the virtue signalling so what the hell. There are actually posts I've made that I think would be much more deserving of criticism than the NZ one, but maybe people didn't see those or didn't consider some of the ramifications, I know I made one recently noting there should be a push to end wet markets, and actually if one takes a step back and considers that if it were actually acted on that would have some brutal consequences, and there's no saving context in that post unless one considers 1st world entitlement a saving grace.

I know a little about the Daughters of the Confederacy, and that little would be enough to suggest it's not my cup of tea. But if we're going to start letting things get destroyed because some people take issue with them it's a slippery slope, society just cannot function in that manner. It's almost immaterial what the property is, for instance I don't like gun stores, but I don't think people with legal businesses should be attacked just because I don't like them, nor reporters from news channels I don't like attacked. And the violence does spread, police stations have come under attack, fire departments, private businesses