Trump 2.0

Sarkus said:
According to the mighty Google (he who must be believed), there are c.250,000 civilian injuries caused by law enforcement each year, with more than 600 killed.
policeepi.uic.edu

U.S. Data on Police Shootings and Violence | Law Enforcement Epidemiology Project | University of Illinois Chicago

Data on police shootings and violence impacting civilians in the United States, as prepared by the Law Enforcement Epidemiology Project.
policeepi.uic.edu policeepi.uic.edu

Maybe they weren't always "bystanders", but, still, the stats are worth noting. ;)
Click to expand...
The time that I was nearly killed by a cop, we had actually called the cops for help--to report a violent, drunken neighbor who had put his fist through the window of our front door and tried to attack me. Turned out, the neighbor was a friend of the cop, and the cop had a, uh, substance abuse problem and was a known psychopath (to the non-LEO public, at least).

Funnily, I've always considered the two other cops who just, well, stood by as bystanders of a sort--they didn't seem to be entirely on-board with his actions (according to my girlfriend and another witness) but they didn't make any effort to intervene either.
 
Tiassa said:
Same reason they get upset when someone talks about who needs a bullet.
Click to expand...
I’m sure Trump and his staff are shitting themselves reading keyboard warrior Tiassa’s blogs.
When are you going in with the real bullets Tiassa, or is it just pictures and keyboard with you?
 
Ha! Unlike me, Tiassa doesn't get to be perceived as a legitimate threat, i.e., clear and present danger.

Again, there's a term for the very particular variety of idiot who consistently makes their opponent's argument for them. Drives me nuts that I can't recall that.
 
smbc-20150612-unconventionalwarfare-detail-bw1.png

Zach Weiner, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, 12 June 2015↱.​

"They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert."

― Albert Camus​

foghorn said:
I’m sure Trump and his staff are shitting themselves reading keyboard warrior Tiassa’s blogs.
When are you going in with the real bullets Tiassa, or is it just pictures and keyboard with you?
Click to expand...

You never did answer the question↗ , and while, no, you're not the only one↗ who ducked out, you're also the one who actually went and started a thread about it.

So, let's think this through: Answering the question honestly would have undermined all your hand-wringing. However, that suggests an act of will on your part, while a discursive Principle of Charity↗ suggests an obligation to seek a less sinister explanation. But in this case, that boils down to your poor reading comprehension.

To the other, we already know you aren't to be taken seriously↗. (When people tell us who they are, we ought to believe them; you're an easy example of that.)

We get it: The distraction is a feature↑, not a bug; the spectacle is its own purpose↗, the distraction↑ is the point↑.

Sometimes it doesn't really matter whether the problem is that you are unwilling or unable, because the meaning comes through pretty clearly, anyway.
 
Where were any and all of you protesting that Hillary R. C. was using her own personal server (in her closet, her bathroom; don't remember) to conduct FOIA resistant government business e-mail (not even Signal) communications before she deleted them all and physically destroyed the evidence?

You folks all are such lightweight panty-wads.

Embarrassing.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
 
parmalee said:
Tiassa doesn't get to be perceived as a legitimate threat
Click to expand...
That would be the bullet thing? People get twitchy about things like that on platforms but it's done now I think.

Tiassa is more like the Witchsmeller Pursuivant only with a supremacist agenda.
An irritation rather than a threat and now on ignore.
 
parmalee said:
Because "terrorists" are always concerned over the welfare of bystanders.
Click to expand...

Well, sure, but I was thinking more about how many of the people who fret that something is against the law would also rather not rock the boat. Probably not so much Liberty↑ and Safety↑ as pride and disbelief.

There are things, for instance, people have talked about, all our lives, and now certain ideas are in a certain way becoming real. It's one thing if there's always a question of fighting back, but whether it's curbstomping or throatcutting or actually picking up a gun, I've never had to think seriously, before, about thresholds.

For instance, think of a story that might go here, and the idea that I wouldn't tell it has more to do with protecting other people who aren't even at this site. And while I already know how the government will come for that person, it is as frustrating as it ought to be enlightening to see other people abandon colloquial cynicism in order to pretend confusion about the danger.

And for as many times, in recent months, I have had actual, living discussions with people about why it matters what a court said or did even if, as they complain, the law doesn't seem to matter—

(i.e., Billvon↑, "Not sure why people think 'but that's against the law' means anything any more.")​

—it is absurd to hear some people pretend certain dangers aren't real simply because the law says, or that's not how it's supposed to work, and so on.

It's easy enough to pretend that the question of what I am going to do will be answered in the moment that demands, but normally that threshold of demand feels much more distal and a whole lot more abstract.

We're already at the Snatchers stage. Inasmuch as they have no intention↑ that the country gets out of this without a ruckus, we'll know when the collaborator-informer stage evolves into the Rowling-Umbridge Inquisitorial stage.

And then maybe the delicate sensitivities↑ can discover the meaning of the answer they already had.

 
Mr. G said:
Where were any and all of you protesting that Hillary R. C. was using her own personal server (in her closet, her bathroom; don't remember) to conduct FOIA resistant government business e-mail (not even Signal) communications before she deleted them all and physically destroyed the evidence?

You folks all are such lightweight panty-wads.

Embarrassing.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Click to expand...
HRC got the political axe for her security blunders. Don't you think for the sake of "lock her up" consistency, the current cast of security hypocrites deserve the same fate?

Regarding closets and bathrooms, who'd of thought that DJT would go on to follow HRC's lead in the mishandling of classified information.
 
TheVat said:
Hehe. Given that Usha is Hindu and vegetarian, the pillow talk must be interesting.
Click to expand...
Unlike JD's phony assertions of legal Haitian immigrants in Ohio eating dogs, the Inuit in Greenland (who make up about 90% of the population) do have a history of such behavior.

“A hunter without dogs can be considered a half hunter,” goes a Greenland folk saying. Because the early Inuit had to get by on what they were able to kill, dogs often meant the difference between survival and starvation. During particularly lean times, the dogs themselves were eaten. “It’s entirely possible that dogs enabled those Pleistocene hunters to colonize the New World,” says Leonard.

I guess when Vance and Co do get control of the island, and learn of the Inuit propensity for dog, they'll likely want give them the old Haitian heave-ho.

Trump ends deportation protection for 500,000 Haitians
 
The US is now warning international suppliers to comply with the US diversity ban. It's no longer sufficient, it seems, if you want to buy product/service X that you simply judge the fulfilling of that contract on the acceptable quantity and quality of X. Now the company also has to show that it is abiding by the US banning of DEI policies?


Admittedly, it's not that far removed from UK firms requiring that the supplier abides by international Human Righs standards, no child labour, no slavery, etc, this is the first time I've seen a country impose such a domestic policy requirement on trade. And is it any different than the EU requiring that eggs not be washed, nor stored in fridges during transport etc? That chickens not be chlorinated to remove disease, and that the chickens are bred and fed in environments that result in chickens without those diseases (prevention rather than cure etc)? These being (some of) the reasons we don't import US chickens and eggs.
 
Sarkus said:
And is it any different than the EU requiring that eggs not be washed, nor stored in fridges during transport etc
Click to expand...
Those measures were introduced via decades of research on food safety, transport of consumables, animal safety etc. We have the global standards we have as a result, these are subject to change if research points that way.

These changes are ideological via yet another executive order. Trump does not want an American Fascist state he wants a global one.
 
Sarkus said:
Admittedly, it's not that far removed from UK firms requiring that the supplier abides by international Human Righs standards, no child labour, no slavery, etc,
Click to expand...
Something we are proud of but we have not acted alone. There is also the ILO, FTA, WHO and the ETI that overlap and have input.
Theresa may put forward the Modern Slavery bill in 2015 which is now part of commercial Law.

Decades of development instilling these standards, policies into our trade and manufacturing practice at home and abroad with our global partners.

It looks like Trump has decided to do the same with his trading partners, different agenda of course.
 
parmalee said:
Ha! Unlike me, Tiassa doesn't get to be perceived as a legitimate threat, i.e., clear and present danger.

Again, there's a term for the very particular variety of idiot who consistently makes their opponent's argument for them. Drives me nuts that I can't recall that.
Click to expand...
That’s because no one can work out WTF he’s on about, most of the time.:)
 
So, what do you do when you're deporting all those criminals, rapists, murderers, who happened to all the undesirable low-paid jobs that noone else wants to do? Well, if you're Florida, you loosen the legislation around child labour. So if you're 16 or 17, you may no longer get a guaranteed lunch break. If you're home-schooled and 14, you may now be allowed to work overnight - even on a "school night" (obviously won't affect your schooling in any way, right?).
So, yeah, the struggling families can now effectively allow their children to forgo education so as to work in all the shitty jobs overnight. And with their education suffering so as to support the family, those children will be further disadvantaged in later life, requiring their own children to work ovenight during the week, and thus the cycle goes on.
Welcome to Florida. Home of the retired, and home to child labour.

That's if the GOP down there get their way.

 
Sarkus said:
Protection? Of NATO? Yes. Because Denmark would, presumably, remain within Denmark. So NATO would continue to protect Denmark/Greenland
Click to expand...
Yes part of article 5 which has been described as "being on life support." In the article cited below.

In the same article.

"For almost 80 years, the cornerstone of European security has been embedded in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an attack on one member state of the alliance is an attack on all."

This BBC article gives some back drop on the contempt Trump (and the loathsome Vance and Hegseth have vocalised inadvertently more recently) regarding European security going back to at least 1987.

He was not alone, even Obama said In 2016 "Europe has sometimes been complacent about its own defence."

Obama was a real president though, so that would have involved some tough meetings with our PM regarding NATO, that is how we thought you did it with global partners as POTUS.

The article also gives a nice historical back drop.

www.bbc.co.uk

How Trump blew up the world order - and left Europe scrabbling

This is the gravest crisis for Western security since the end of World War Two. So which nations will step forward as the new world order emerges?
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
What y'all think you know isn't nearly everything you should know.

But you already know that, no?
 
Capracus said:
"...who'd of thought that DJT would go on to follow HRC's lead in the mishandling of classified information."
Click to expand...

Deflection from the question. Nice try.

Where were any and all of you protesting that Hillary R. C. was using her own personal server (in her closet, her bathroom; don't remember) to conduct FOIA resistant government business e-mail (not even Signal) communications before she deleted them all and physically destroyed the evidence?
Click to expand...

Not Present!

We're not listening; no need to.
 
Mr. G said:
What y'all think you know isn't nearly everything you should know.

But you already know that, no?
Click to expand...
Starting idiotic threads and making idiotic comments on your own idiotic threads is one thing.
If you start polluting multiple existing threads where people are making contributions I will report you.
Then I will continue to report you till a mod kicks you off the thread and maybe off the site.
Think before you post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top