Illinois teen arrested in fatal shooting at Kenosha protest, police say

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Simple, both are Senator Scott
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim: Trump helped Senator Scott create economic opportunity zones in urban areas, incentivizing businesses to invest there.

Pete: No, because Senator Scott knows how it feels to be pulled over by police without justification.

Yes Pete, a withering rebuttal.

[Pete F.]

There’s no way to prove that the tax break for wealthy investors who buy a stake in a business or property in the zones has created jobs or helped minority businessowners. The federal government chose not to collect information on projects attracting investments in the more than 8,700 zones, leaving policymakers and advocacy groups to rely on anecdotes and self-reporting.

But critics have long said the tax break, which encourages building in designated low-income communities, may end up accelerating gentrification and that it’s unlikely to help Black businessowners.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

But hes no authoritarian

Who said he's not an authoritarian? It is a part of human nature to have authoritarian tendencies. We are all potential authoritarians. Even the notion of individual liberty is ingrained in the belief that a person has the authority to dictate the governance of his own life--has the natural (or God given) "agency" to direct his fortune.

The problem with our authoritarian tendencies is when they are unjustly imposed on the lives of others.

Parents are normally authoritarian in the raising of their children. For the most part we accept that this is justified.

Owners are authoritarian in the operation of their business. For the most part we accept this as justified.

We accept as right that military commanders have tremendous authoritarian power over their soldiers.

When we speak of authoritarianism in politics, we mean a politician's use of power that is not legally his, which is an unjust use of authority. With politicians, unfortunately, but predictably, this happens often. Usually it's the common seemingly unstoppable petty corruption that is often allowed by the people when they view their politician as someone, even if corrupt, who will make their lives better.

When political authoritarianism is most onerous, even dangerous to the notion of individual freedom, to personal agency, is when the political system itself is authoritarian. There is no remedy to this for the individual other than disobedience or revolt.

When a governmental system is crafted, by the consent of the governed, to limit political authority to the least oppressive but necessary functions in order to maintain stability and harmony, governing authorities are limited only to the powers the system grants them. The most dangerous threat to individual freedom in such a system is its destruction and its replacement with one that grants total authoritarian power of the ruling regime over the people--which is far more destructive to liberty than the personality of a given politician, even one of the highest rank.

Those who seek political office may well have more of a desire, than most, to have authority over others. So it is most important to assure that the system of governance limits them to the agreed upon and fewest powers necessary.

There is wisdom in such platitudes or slogans such as "don't hate the player, hate the game." It's what the game allows more than what the player does within the rules that is the problem.

What has been happening over the course of a century is the government "game" has been changing. This game has incrementally been changed from one of limited government to one of growing government power with a vector toward unlimited government.

This election, as have been most over this last century, is about the nature of the "game," not the character of the player.

The government "game" started as a constitutional republic with very limited central government power, and has gradually, continously, been transformed into one of unlimited government power.

The basic nature of Progressivism, the "game" into which we are being made to play, is the unhampered (unlimited) power of government to govern our behavior. The stated intention is that this is all for the good of the people.

That may be so. Personally, I believe the intention, no matter how sincere, cannot withstand the force of human nature. We are all potential authoritarians. Given the legal authority, it is inevitable that the "players" in the Progressive game will rule us to be what they want, rather than the "game" allowing us to be whom we wish.

This election, as much as, if not more, is about the game we wish to play--limited constitutional government, or an unlimited Progressive one.

[Pete F.]

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

This is propaganda at its slick best. It's the way you roll.

[Pete F.]

1. The economic opportunity zones, disproportionately help blacks.
Black Businesses Largely Miss Out on Opportunity Zone Money
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...ity-zone-money

2. criminal justice reform, disproportionately helps blacks.
That is one plus, here are some of the minuses.
Restricted clemency to only those who are celebrities, well-connected individuals, or have a personal affiliation with the president

Restarted federal executions after a 17-year informal moratorium on federal capital punishment

Secretly altered the risk assessment authorized in the FIRST Step Act to drastically reduce the number of federally incarcerated people eligible to be released to subdue the spread of COVID-19

Denied federal coronavirus relief funding to small business owners with a criminal record

Argued in court against people eligible for sentence reductions under the FIRST STEP Act

Jeopardized the FIRST STEP Act by underfunding its programs

Reinstated DOJ contracts with private prisons

Disbanded a program to create federal prison education systems

Closed halfway houses that help those incarcerated transition back to the community

Prohibited federal investigations of patterns of unconstitutional policing

Stopped assistance to police departments that voluntarily wanted reform

Eliminated restrictions preventing police departments from obtaining military equipment

Eliminated community-based violence prevention programs

Condemned public criticism of police by threatening that protestors “might find themselves without the protection they need”

Eliminated DOJ community policing program grants in proposed executive budget

Attacked prosecutors who are pursuing criminal justice reform in their communities

Ordered federal prosecutors to pursue the harshest punishments possible

Attempted to resume use of the federal death penalty and encouraged expansion of the death penalty in drug cases

Waged the same failed war on drugs from the 80s

Attempted to force federal job candidates to disclose participation in diversion programs

Failed to report on deaths in police custody as required by Congress

Disbanded the DOJ Science Advisory Board that provided evidence-based rigor to DOJ policies

3. School choice, disproportionately helps blacks.
That's quite a claim to make, do you have any supporting evidence or did you just hear that from Tucker?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

1. The economic opportunity zones, disproportionately help blacks.
Black Businesses Largely Miss Out on Opportunity Zone Money
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...ity-zone-money

2. criminal justice reform, disproportionately helps blacks.
That is one plus, here are some of the minuses.
Restricted clemency to only those who are celebrities, well-connected individuals, or have a personal affiliation with the president

Restarted federal executions after a 17-year informal moratorium on federal capital punishment

Secretly altered the risk assessment authorized in the FIRST Step Act to drastically reduce the number of federally incarcerated people eligible to be released to subdue the spread of COVID-19

Denied federal coronavirus relief funding to small business owners with a criminal record

Argued in court against people eligible for sentence reductions under the FIRST STEP Act

Jeopardized the FIRST STEP Act by underfunding its programs

Reinstated DOJ contracts with private prisons

Disbanded a program to create federal prison education systems

Closed halfway houses that help those incarcerated transition back to the community

Prohibited federal investigations of patterns of unconstitutional policing

Stopped assistance to police departments that voluntarily wanted reform

Eliminated restrictions preventing police departments from obtaining military equipment

Eliminated community-based violence prevention programs

Condemned public criticism of police by threatening that protestors “might find themselves without the protection they need”

Eliminated DOJ community policing program grants in proposed executive budget

Attacked prosecutors who are pursuing criminal justice reform in their communities

Ordered federal prosecutors to pursue the harshest punishments possible

Attempted to resume use of the federal death penalty and encouraged expansion of the death penalty in drug cases

Waged the same failed war on drugs from the 80s

Attempted to force federal job candidates to disclose participation in diversion programs

Failed to report on deaths in police custody as required by Congress

Disbanded the DOJ Science Advisory Board that provided evidence-based rigor to DOJ policies

3. School choice, disproportionately helps blacks.
That's quite a claim to make, do you have any supporting evidence or did you just hear that from Tucker?

Senator Scott, who you quoted as legitimate before, says they have been a huge help.

You're dancing all over the place, bitch slapped boy. You're really coming unglued.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

1.

3. School choice, disproportionately helps blacks.
That's quite a claim to make, do you have any supporting evidence or did you just hear that from Tucker?

You're seriously denying this?

Try to follow along, I'll try to use small words...

Rich people don't need school choice, they can afford to send their kids to great schools.

Rich people are disproportionately white.

So, people who aren't that rich, are disproportionately black.

The worst schools are in poor, urban areas, which are disproportionately inhabited by blacks (thanks to liberalism).

I tried to use mostly monosyllabic words. If it's still going too fast for you, I can try to make it into a pop-up book.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You're seriously denying this?

Try to follow along, I'll try to use small words...

Rich people don't need school choice, they can afford to send their kids to great schools.

Rich people are disproportionately white.

So, people who aren't that rich, are disproportionately black.

The worst schools are in poor, urban areas, which are disproportionately inhabited by blacks (thanks to liberalism).

I tried to use mostly monosyllabic words. If it's still going too fast for you, I can try to make it into a pop-up book.

So using small words makes what you think true, now I understand why you believe in Tweety.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You're seriously denying this?

Try to follow along, I'll try to use small words...

Rich people don't need school choice, they can afford to send their kids to great schools.

Rich people are disproportionately white.

So, people who aren't that rich, are disproportionately black.

The worst schools are in poor, urban areas, which are disproportionately inhabited by blacks (thanks to liberalism).

I tried to use mostly monosyllabic words. If it's still going too fast for you, I can try to make it into a pop-up book.

There are plenty of poor white people also. If you're poor getting a tax incentive for paying for private school isn't really going to compute. It would possibly help some in the middle class and be a handout to the rich unless it's phased out by income.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

There are plenty of poor white people also. If you're poor getting a tax incentive for paying for private school isn't really going to compute. It would possibly help some in the middle class and be a handout to the rich unless it's phased out by income.

i said poor people are disproportionately black. is that true, or is that false?

i never said there are zero poor white people. that again, was biden, who said poor kids are just as smart as white kids.

Poor people are disproportionately black. is that true, or is it false?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Poor people are disproportionately black. is that true, or is it false?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It would be more accurate to say that poor people are disproportionately in minority groups.

[Pete F.]

Your statements about "why blacks" are showing just who you are, Tweety's target audience, a suburban housewife

"You know who's going to be in charge of it? Cory Booker. That's going to be nice" -- Trump is barely trying to conceal his racism

Cory Booker, Stanford graduate, Rhodes scholar, Yale Law Graduate, all-around nice guy who once saved a woman from a burning building.
Maybe he tells too many dad jokes. But guessing most Americans would sure as heck rather have Cory as neighbor than one of the Trumps.



Elizabeth Kneebone, a fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, looked at numbers from the 2010 to 2014 American Community Survey and found that 39 percent of African Americans live in the suburbs, 36 percent live in cities, 15 percent live in small metropolitan areas, and 10 percent live in rural communities. That’s a noticeable shift from 2000, when 41 percent of African Americans lived in cities, 33 percent lived in suburbs, 15 percent lived in small metro areas, and 11 percent lived in rural communities.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

"You know who's going to be in charge of it? Cory Booker. That's going to be nice" -- Trump is barely trying to conceal his racism

Ah! criticizing Corey Booker is racist.

How about the liberal criticism of all the blacks who spoke at the RNC? Or Biden saying you ain't black if you ain't for him.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Ah! criticizing Corey Booker is racist.

How about the liberal criticism of all the blacks who spoke at the RNC? Or Biden saying you ain't black if you ain't for him.

Use your big head and think about just what position in Biden's administration would Booker resign his Senate seat to take?

You want to talk about Tweety's Reality show?

25 were members of the Tweety's family or Tweety's administration, and 72 were white, reflecting the white membership of the Republican Party. After rounding up every African-American they could find willing to say anything nice about Tweety, the RNC featured 12 Blacks at the podium, 13 percent of speakers and four times the percentage of Blacks in the Republican Party.

Think of it this way: Most of the white speakers came armed with some agenda. They wanted more farm subsidies or fewer abortions or more Jesus in schools or the right to shoot Black people walking past their homes. But the Black speakers seemingly wanted nothing. There were no additional policies they desired or issues they wanted addressed. They had no goals they wanted the next Tweety administration to accomplish and no legislation they wanted Republicans to pass.

Instead of an agenda, the Black people were just there to say, “Thank you, white folks,” and fade off-screen. Most of the Black speakers had a specific story about how a white man helped them in their life: Tim Scott, for instance, spoke about a Chick-fil-A man who helped him pass high school. The ones who didn’t have nice white man to thank had to thank Tweety directly. Jon Ponder had both: He spoke about a white FBI agent who helped him turn his life around—and then, courtesy of a video recorded at the White House several hours earlier, the world got to see Tweety give him a “surprise” pardon.

Aimed directly at the suburban housewives, hit home with you apparently...........

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Think of it this way: Most of the white speakers came armed with some agenda. They wanted more farm subsidies or fewer abortions or more Jesus in schools or the right to shoot Black people walking past their homes. But the Black speakers seemingly wanted nothing. There were no additional policies they desired or issues they wanted addressed. They had no goals they wanted the next Tweety administration to accomplish and no legislation they wanted Republicans to pass.

.....

I saw that MSNBC went with this narrative. It's just not true. You're making it sound like they all had nothing more to add other than "I'm black, I'm here at the RNC, so Trump isn't racist".

The first TV spot at the RNC, was a very moving story of a black bank robber, pardoned by Trump, who is dedicating his lilfe to helping others He spoke very specifically of the support Trump has given him.

Tim Scott talked about the success of the economic opportunity zones.

The rising star AG of Kentucky destroyed Biden's notion that you ain't black if you ain't for him (I'd love to know your true opinion on Bidens statement there, which I know you'll never share).

The woman who got paroled from prison thanks to criiminal justice reform thanked Trump.

So if you're saying that unless someone says "I want this", they have nothing valid to say, I disagree with. I think showing regular people whose lives have been improved by his policies, is a very effective way to make the case. The polls seem to suggest a tightening of the race after the conventions. I don't think it will be enough. But I'm sure the conventions were a net benefit to Trump.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Sad you would support him as if it's a 2A . And self defense. Argument

Classics. Blame everyone but the guy who pulled the trigger that's a go to message from conservatives... from the women who got shot in a police raid. They blamed her for her boyfriend, or the boy who police shot in the park they blamed him for playing with a toy gun , the man who told police he had a gun and had a permit to carry , then shot by cop he told. The excuse he shouldn't have had it or he moved to fast
Man jogging shoot by 2 guys in a truck.. excuses he shouldn't have been in the neighborhood or in the construction site ..


Yea but god forbid you say this kid shouldn't have the gun or he shouldn't have been there

Or that shooti g someone in the back 7 times is excessive.. funny how that works

Don't recall of of the above, but in the boy with the toy gun, he wasn't "blamed," it was explained why the cops shot, the gun looked real. I'm sure, good man that you are, that if a kid pointed what looked like a real gun at you, you would just wait and see if he would intentionally or accidentally pull the trigger. As for the jogger and 2 guys in a truck, he had been filmed illegally trespassing the uninhabited home which was being repaired a few times before, and that various tools were missing afterwards, when he did it again, I believe an alarm went off, can't remember what the tip off was, or maybe someone observed him and called the two for assistance, they went to check it out, saw him and wanted to question him, but he tried to run away. They drove past him and parked waiting for him to get there. As he approached as if he would run past them on the road, he quickly turned to the passenger side of the truck as if he would run past them on that side, where, if I remember correctly, the younger man was waiting with his rifle, and the "jogger" attacked him and tried to wrestle the gun from him. That's why he was shot.

As far as the shooting in the back, the suspect was trying to get into his car after resisting arrest at which point, if he was allowed to enter he could come out with a gun or drive away and be a threat to the community. Not sure the cop counted how many times his gun was discharged. It was probably very quick with the intention of stopping the resister, whether it killed him or not. Again, you being a stand up really good person would have let him get into the car and see what would happen after that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Don't recall of of the above, but in the boy with the toy gun, he wasn't "blamed," it was explained why the cops shot, the gun looked real. I'm sure, good man that you are, that if a kid pointed what looked like a real gun at you, you would just wait and see if he would intentionally or accidentally pull the trigger.

12 year old boy playing with an airsoft gun. Person who called the police said it was probably fake. Cops fly in and shoot him without nearly any dialogue. City pays 6m for the action.

He was shot because he was black.

As for the jogger and 2 guys in a truck, he had been filmed illegally trespassing the uninhabited home which was being repaired a few times before, and that various tools were missing afterwards, when he did it again, I believe an alarm went off, can't remember what the tip off was, or maybe someone observed him and called the two for assistance, they went to check it out, saw him and wanted to question him, but he tried to run away. They drove past him and parked waiting for him to get there. As he approached as if he would run past them on the road, he quickly turned to the passenger side of the truck as if he would run past them on that side, where, if I remember correctly, the younger man was waiting with his rifle, and the "jogger" attacked him and tried to wrestle the gun from him. That's why he was shot.

Wait, so he was shot *because* he was resisting someone who just chased him down and was threatening him with a rifle? This is a special kind of stupid.

He was out for a jog, he was shot because he was black.

As far as the shooting in the back, the suspect was trying to get into his car after resisting arrest at which point, if he was allowed to enter he could come out with a gun or drive away and be a threat to the community. Not sure the cop counted how many times his gun was discharged. It was probably very quick with the intention of stopping the resister, whether it killed him or not. Again, you being a stand up really good person would have let him get into the car and see what would happen after that.

Multiple cops on the scene can't stop a father with three kids so it's a death sentence? You don't put 7 rounds into someone to slow them down.

He was shot because he was black, and this is why they protest.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

12 year old boy playing with an airsoft gun. Person who called the police said it was probably fake. Cops fly in and shoot him without nearly any dialogue. City pays 6m for the action.

He was shot because he was black.

The kid was pointing the gun at the police. The gun wasn't "black."

Wait, so he was shot *because* he was resisting someone who just chased him down and was threatening him with a rifle? This is a special kind of stupid.

He was out for a jog, he was shot because he was black.

His "jog," as it apparently was before, was temporarily delayed by the necessity of illegally trespassing on private property which had mysteriously (not so mysterious as shown by surveillance cameras in the property) had various tools periodically stolen.

If the men who responded to the illegal trespass had wanted to shoot the "jogger" because he was black, they didn't have to wait until he assaulted one of them and tried to take his gun. He could have been blown away with several shots as he approached or as he was followed, or as he was passed.

Or was it just more exciting, more of an adventure in the "kill the black man game," to wait until he could possibly disarm you and kill you first?

Multiple cops on the scene can't stop a father with three kids so it's a death sentence? You don't put 7 rounds into someone to slow them down.

He was shot because he was black, and this is why they protest.

Yeah that's it . . . intentionally let him escape your grasp so you can shoot him in the back while playing the "kill the black man game."

So when the cops kill white people, who they kill more than black people, are they killing them because they are white?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah that's it . . . intentionally let him escape your grasp so you can shoot him in the back while playing the "kill the black man game."

So when the cops kill white people, who they kill more than black people, are they killing them because they are white?

The facts are very simple. If you’re an African American male, you are 2.5 times more likely to be shot by police, killed by police, than someone who is white,” Scott said during a press availability in Charleston.

Police search black motorists 3x more than white motorists.

But (!), searches of black motorists don't yield more contraband.

Apparently those odds are acceptable to you as a white boy, put you in blackface and drop you off in Grosse Pointe on a dark and rainy night you will likely change your tune
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The facts are very simple. If you’re an African American male, you are 2.5 times more likely to be shot by police, killed by police, than someone who is white,” Scott said during a press availability in Charleston.

How many more times is it likely that African American males will be involved in violent crimes than the number of times White American males are

Police search black motorists 3x more than white motorists.

For possible reason, see the above stat.

But (!), searches of black motorists don't yield more contraband.

Apparently those odds are acceptable to you as a white boy, put you in blackface and drop you off in Grosse Pointe on a dark and rainy night you will likely change your tune

How many times have blacks been killed by police in Grosse Point? I don't know of any, and our friend google didn't find any either. But it may have happened.

It is more dangerous for anybody, of any color, to be in the streets of Detroit on a dark or rainy night, or any other time, than on the streets of Grosse Pointe.

But that is a different subject than the supposed problem of the police killing blacks because they are black.

[wdmso]

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/02/90862...d-crime-syndic

A man charged with running a drug syndicate was offered a plea deal in July if he would name Breonna Taylor, the 26-year-old Black woman killed by police in her Louisville, Ky. apartment, as a member of his alleged criminal gang, according to the man's attorney.



will we take this with the same Seriousness that some have suggested a that rittenhouse was a lifeguard who cleaned graffiti. it wasn't his gun and basically a good boy and a Patriot to push his self defense argument


yet in kentucky once again the Victim Breonna Taylor is trying to be portrayed as an evil drug dealer to justify the police over her shooting ??

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by wdmso

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/02/90862...d-crime-syndic

A man charged with running a drug syndicate was offered a plea deal in July if he would name Breonna Taylor, the 26-year-old Black woman killed by police in her Louisville, Ky. apartment, as a member of his alleged criminal gang, according to the man's attorney.



will we take this with the same Seriousness that some have suggested a that rittenhouse was a lifeguard who cleaned graffiti. it wasn't his gun and basically a good boy and a Patriot to push his self defense argument


yet in kentucky once again the Victim Breonna Taylor is trying to be portrayed as an evil drug dealer to justify the police over her shooting ??

She was black and you know “How many more times is it likely that African American males will be involved“
Everybody knows that and those women........
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Hopefully you’re well armed Jim, so when this fool in the White House starts the war to get re-elected you can defend yourself.
When I said months ago that he’d start a war to get re-elected, I didn’t imagine that it would be in this country.
Here’s the part you failed to read, sorry if they’re not small words
Here is the thing: One of the boring, hypocritical norms of elite politics over the last 50 years has been the insistence at the top of the political world of going through rote condemnations of bad actors and rote paying of respects to victims of violence. Even if you suspected that the people doing the condemning or paying the respects didn't really care.

Donald Trump broke that norm. He knows that a lot of the people who showed up at Charlottesville and in Lansing are his voters, and he's always going to be loyal to his people. So he refuses to condemn them. And Trump never actually gave a crap about John Lewis or anything John Lewis stood for, so he skipped Lewis's funeral.

Whatever else you want to say about it, this is honesty, of a sort.

But it turns out that those boring, rote, hypocritical norms are pretty important. It's important when George W. Bush comes out and vouches for Islam as a religion of peace. It's important when Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein and Bernie Sanders stand shoulder to shoulder with Steve Scalice.

I happen to think that all four of those people meant what they said, but the point is that it doesn't especially matter whether or not they meant it in their heart of hearts. The fact that they understood they had a duty to say the words meant something.

Because that's how you cut down on the numbers of people in those extremist bases and keep the pyramids of civil conflict to a smaller, less-deadly size.

All of these norms and traditions have (had?) very real functions in society. And as Donald Trump and his enablers break them, we all pay the price.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hopefully you’re well armed Jim, so when this fool in the White House starts the war to get re-elected you can defend yourself.
When I said months ago that he’d start a war to get re-elected, I didn’t imagine that it would be in this country.
Here’s the part you failed to read, sorry if they’re not small words
Here is the thing: One of the boring, hypocritical norms of elite politics over the last 50 years has been the insistence at the top of the political world of going through rote condemnations of bad actors and rote paying of respects to victims of violence. Even if you suspected that the people doing the condemning or paying the respects didn't really care.

Donald Trump broke that norm. He knows that a lot of the people who showed up at Charlottesville and in Lansing are his voters, and he's always going to be loyal to his people. So he refuses to condemn them. And Trump never actually gave a crap about John Lewis or anything John Lewis stood for, so he skipped Lewis's funeral.

Whatever else you want to say about it, this is honesty, of a sort.

But it turns out that those boring, rote, hypocritical norms are pretty important. It's important when George W. Bush comes out and vouches for Islam as a religion of peace. It's important when Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein and Bernie Sanders stand shoulder to shoulder with Steve Scalice.

I happen to think that all four of those people meant what they said, but the point is that it doesn't especially matter whether or not they meant it in their heart of hearts. The fact that they understood they had a duty to say the words meant something.

Because that's how you cut down on the numbers of people in those extremist bases and keep the pyramids of civil conflict to a smaller, less-deadly size.

All of these norms and traditions have (had?) very real functions in society. And as Donald Trump and his enablers break them, we all pay the price.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Hopefully you’re well armed Jim, so when this fool in the White House starts the war to get re-elected you can defend yourself."

Defend myself against whom, exactly? People who don't want Trump to win? Because that's where I see the threat. Clearly from the left. Not the right.

I have little kids, and so I choose not to keep firearms in my house. It's liberal idiots who take their cues from race baiters, who make me want to arm up. Not conservatives.

Who would you rather be marching past your house, Pete? Todays BLM, or ANTIFA, or the Tea Party? You go ahead and say with a straight face you wouldn't want the Tea Party.

How has Trump started this? It's all a left wing reaction, to a wildly distorted (distorted by the left) threat from police. How is this on Trump, exactly? How do you connect those dots to Trump?

"he refuses to condemn them"

How many times does he have to condemn white supremacists, before it sinks in that he condemned them? WHats the number?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Donald Trump broke that norm. He knows that a lot of the people who showed up at Charlottesville and in Lansing are his voters, and he's always going to be loyal to his people. So he refuses to condemn them. And Trump never actually gave a crap about John Lewis or anything John Lewis stood for, so he skipped Lewis's funeral.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just don't know what planet you live on. Here on Earth, there is a left wing magazine called TIME. Here is a TIME magazine article with a transcript of Trumps comments about Charlottesville...

“racism is evil”

"this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America."

"unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry and violence."
the KKK, neo Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."

"Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America"

That's from his transcript of his remarks following Charlottesville.

What more of a condemnation would you like? What does he have to say, before people like you will stop saying he didn't condemn the racists? How can you claim he didn't condemn those people? Where the hell do you get your news from?

How do you look at yourself in the mirror? How are you any different from the right-wing idiots who still claim Obama wasn't born here?

BITCH SLAPPED.

https://time.com/4899813/donald-trum...ks-transcript/

[detbuch]

Actually, at Charlottesville, Trump said there were very fine people on both sides. That was a normative, unifying statement.

And those who call for Trump to be a hypocrite and spout those "boring, rote, hypocritical norms" are reluctant to do the same when it comes to their comments on Trump or his supporters or "the right wing."

John Lewis, as well as other Democrats, didn't do the "boring, rote, hypocritical" norm of attending Trump's inauguration. Obama didn't follow the "boring, rote, hypocritical" tradition of not negatively commenting on his succesor's administration.

I suspect, no, I believe that Trump would be more hypocritically "normal" in his comments about his opponents if they would have the grace to do so about him as well.

[Pete F.]

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

how about commenting on your demonstrably false accusation, that trump didn’t condemn violent racists? are you willing to take that back?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Gee let me just ask a stupid question, if you go into a highly volatile situation like that armed with an AR or for that matter any long rifle, aren’t you putting yourself into harms way and asking for trouble. I still don’t condone these f*ck heads playing right into a Trumps campaign playbook buy destroying property, but if you go looking for trouble your probably going to find it.