monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Why do you subject yourself to them?

how do you even start writing about this event?

Finn, are you really asking "why do subject yourself to a rally speech by the President of the United States of America?"

Quote:

Free speech and civil war statue aficionados advocate at a city council meeting in San Antonio

Quote:

When the city council opened debate on a proposal to relocate Confederate statues from San Antonio’s Travis Park, about 10 men showed up wearing kevlar vests and carrying assault rifles. According to the Rivard Report, a local online news site, the men were escorting Brandon Burkhart, vice president of This Is Texas Freedom Force (“committed to protecting Texas and Texas history").

This appears to be, in part, simply a group of 30 Something boys playing commando. Of course desert camo is very practical in San Antonio and the shemagh the guy in the shades on the right is wearing probably would have come in handy if tear gas canisters were thrown, but these guys all spent a lot of money on their gear and the chance to wear it to town was too good pass up.

However, do you imagine that Burkhart has not received death threats of that if his gang met up with an Antifa crew the possibility of violence would be considerable?

Quote:

In his comments, Burkhart did not conceal his intention: to personally intimidate the two council members, Roberto Treviño and William “Cruz” Shaw, both people of color, who sponsored the relocation proposal:

“I’m going to address you guys again, especially you two, Shaw and Treviño,” Burkhart said, his voice echoing through the chamber. “Do you guys see the problems that you’re causing? … Do you know the death threats that I’ve received?”

I'm not going to suggest that it's impossible that Burkhart was trying to intimidate the two people of color, but I guess my sympathy for white supremacists prevents me from seeing what he said as obvious intimidation or, for that matter, a threat. Did he say anything else to the gentlemen? But then I also don't see why it was necessary for the author to point out that Shaw and Trevino were "people of color." Does that make intimidation with firearms that much worse than had they been white?

Quote:

The two councilmen rejected Burkhart’s threats as "sad" and inappropriate for San Antonio, but there is no disputing that “open carry” intimidation tactics are now becoming normalized, much to the dismay of elected officials and law enforcement officials responsible for keeping the peace.

God but I wish we could ban the word "normalize." I live in an open carry part of the country and I assure you that no one finds it normal when someone walks down the street with a pistol in their hand let alone a bunch of guys dressed and armed like Army Rangers.

I do understand though the difficulty and concern it presents to the police who are charged with protecting the lives of citizens participating in or observing demonstrations. Of course this presupposes that the dismayed elected officials don't issue stand down orders once things start getting hot and even engineer things so it will.

I'm not sure what the answer to the problem is though. With violence now breaking our at nearly every political demonstration that takes place in this country, it doesn't seem wise to rely on the forbearance of armed hotheads to use their weapons only when their lives are truly in danger, and even assuming an armed right-wing demonstrator only uses his when truly in fear for his safety the left-wing demonstrators aren't about to pause and agree "Yeah, our guys went too far and had it coming. They could have killed the Neo-Nazi." Instead it would be far more likely to trigger a blood bath. (BTW - Feel free to switch the political positions of the players in my hypothetical)

I'd have to give it more thought and listen to counter-arguments before I decided, but I can easily imagine supporting laws that prohibit anyone participating in a demonstration to carry a weapon, openly or otherwise. There could be difficulties at times in proving someone charged with a violation was actually participating in the demonstration, but I think the legislators can probably work that out and still not overly restrict 2nd Amendment rights.

Quote:

"In a new age of domestic terrorism, we need to re-examine the balance that we strike between public safety and violent protests," said Charlottesville mayor Mike Signer in the wake of violent protests that led to the death of Heather Heyer.

This is rich since it looks like Signer arranged for the protests in his City to turn violent, but regardless, [i]there is no balance to strike between public safety and violent protests. [/i]The former is paramount and the latter is illegal. What the hell is this idiot talking about? He can't possibly mean that society needs to accept and allow a little bit of violence in our protests (as long as the right side is being violent) can he?

Quote:

"First, the danger is too great of a catastrophic incident," Signer said. "Second, it is intimidating beyond any reasonable standard for citizens, particularly members of vulnerable communities."

Here we go again. Who are the vulnerable communities of which he speaks? The aged and infirm? Pregnant women and kids? Of course not, he means minority communities and while they have every right to be free of intimidation, their right is no greater than any other community, including a community consisting of Burkhart and his commandos. Intimidating death threats are not part of acceptable behavior in our society, no matter who they are directed at.

Signer and others with his mindset seem to want to establish a society where ideology and identity determine the degree of immorality and even illegality of different groups of people committing the same actions, and the degree of virtue, legitimacy and protection assigned to different group of people suffering the same risks and perils.

It is the ideological identity phenomenon Frank Bruni wrote of recently in the NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/opinion/sunday/identity-politics-white-men.html?mcubz=0

Quote:

But I question the wisdom of turning categories into credentials when it comes to politics and public debate. I reject the assumptions — otherwise known as prejudices — that certain life circumstances prohibit sensitivity and sound judgment while other conditions guarantee them. That appraises the packaging more than it does the content. It ignores the complexity of people. It’s reductive.

And I question not only the wisdom but the rightness of using categories as a means of determining privilege. The privilege to decide who is evil and deserves to be silenced. The privilege to decide when it is acceptable for citizens to take the law into their own hands and use violence to silence those they deem evil. Even the perverse privilege of designating your suffering to be greater than that of anyone else and therefore bestowing upon you a unique right to speak when those who disagree with you are to be silenced. That this is occurring in a effort to combat privilege makes it ironic, not just.

Olivier5 wrote:

And my opinion is that your constant harping (like this metaphor better?) on Clinton is unhealthy, illogical and downright obscene. Character assassination is disgusting as a political tool, but here you're assassinating a dead corpse.

This is too easy...What is your opinion about constant harping on Trump?

I was responding directly to a question that called for a comparison.

What???? TRUMP doesn't have the ear and interests of the wealthy on HIS mind.

Mrs Clinton is much more the politician than she is the cohort of the wealthy.

If the system needs fixing handing the system over to Trump was a very bad idea.

I vociferously supported Bernie right up to the final gavel at the convention and tried a short term push to draft Biden, another Dem with a checkered past, I mean Delaware for Pete's sake!

Sitting out an election to punish Clinton or the DNC or the Party itself also kept progressives out of Congress because if a voter doesn't show up specifically because of one candidate, he/she didn't show up for any one else on the ticket/ballot, either.

Lets face it, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken would be a lot more effective under a Clinton Presidency. She was sliding left. She's a politician - she knows how to change her program.

Why is it almost every Democratic politician has felt it necessary to tack right, including Mrs Clinton?

And my opinion is that your constant harping (like this metaphor better?) on Clinton is unhealthy, illogical and downright obscene. Character assassination is disgusting as a political tool, but here you're assassinating a dead corpse.

If you want to compare Trump with prior politicians, compare him with an ex-president. Otherwise it's apple and, well, oranges.

Why is it almost every Democratic politician has felt it necessary to tack right, including Mrs Clinton?

Her cackling laughter, patronizing black DJs by telling them she always carried hot sauce in her purse,....made me squirm in my chair and I can't imagine sitting through an entire speech or interview of hers,

And more than a third of the 2,000 women surveyed in London, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the West Midlands refuse to leave the house without chocolate in their bags.

By Christopher Middleton
8:34PM GMT 18 Dec 2013

The news that Nigella Lawson carries around a tube of English mustard in her handbag has caused a rash of confessions to break out among fellow condiment-users. Far from packing just the odd roll of Polos for minty-breath freshness, it seems we Brits cram our clutch bags and jacket pockets full of the foods and moreish flavours we can’t do without.

At least we’re in good company: Tom Parker Bowles doesn’t leave the house without Tabasco, the Queen has been spotted smuggling sweeteners, and even a skinny minny like Naomi Campbell has a bit of a taste habit. Apparently, the supermodel rarely ventures out in public without a small jar of Jamaican hot sauce to sprinkle over her supper. Not that she carries it about her person. No fashion icon wants to be photographed with a VBL (Visible Bottle Line); she’s been known to have a bodyguard to proffer the liquid as required.

What’s more, it doesn’t take a barrister at Isleworth Crown Court to extract similar confessions from the not-so-famous. Even low-level interrogation of friends and family uncovers a significant level of furtive food-carrying. In fact, frisk the average man on the street, and you may well find a walking pantry.

Not that we’re carrying anything in any way gourmet. No one, it seems, goes round with a jar of Beluga caviar sandwiched between their wallet and their front-door keys. “I’ve got a small tin of Ambrosia creamed rice in my briefcase,” confesses a corporate-type friend. “I usually eat it on the train, if I’m travelling first-class and there’s no one else around.”

“Occasionally, I’ll buy a tin of sild, and eat it in a lay-by if I’m on a long drive,” another male friend tells me (sild, by the way, is a mini-herring). “I don’t tell my wife because she thinks it’s disgusting and won’t allow it in the house. She found the can-opener in the car one day, so now I only get cans with a ring-pull opener.”

Obama shifted to the right and he didn't get my vote in 2012.

And yet there those who blame the Trump presidency on the progressives who would not vote for Clinton.