178
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  4  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 08:27 am
@Lash,
I have no sock puppets not one. Don't you think a2k would have dug them up.

Did you ever stop to think how out numbered and how outspoken you are with dismal views?

Why do you want to interfere with our free speech and our right to disagree with you? My posts don't get much up voting and I agree 90% of the time with Izzy, Set, snood, engineer, Glitter, Region, CI, Rabal, ehbeth, blatham, Roger, real music, Farmerman, tarstepan, Walter, revlette, neptuneblue, Oliver, and on and on and then there's you,cj, orraloy, livinglava, builder.

You do the math. You're allowed to say your piece and we're allowed to have none of it.
Real Music
 
  12  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 08:40 am
@Lash,
Donald Trump criticized by religious leaders after protesters forcefully
removed for President's (photo opportunity).



Published June 1, 2020


Quote:
Protesters have been cleared from a park by tear gas, moments before US President Donald Trump marched through to a Washington DC church.

The forced removable of demonstrators from Lafayette Park, allowed Donald Trump to stage a walk to St John's Church following an address at the White House.

Moments before Mr Trump's address, US Secret Service agents, Park Police and National Guardsmen suddenly marched forward, directly confronting the protesters as many held up their hands, saying, "don’t shoot".

Law-enforcement officers then aggressively forced the protesters back, firing tear gas and deploying flash bangs into the crowd to disperse them from the park for seemingly no reason.

The park was cleared for the President, who walked through it minutes later to the church, for a photo opportunity in which he posed with a Bible.

Mr Trump, standing alone in front of cameras, raised the black-covered Bible for reporters to see.

"We have a great country," Mr Trump said. "Greatest country in the world."

Religious leaders slam Trump's 'lack of compassion'

The Right Reverend Mariann Budde, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, to which St John’s belongs, said she was "outraged" by the moment and noted that Mr Trump didn't pray during his visit.

"He took the symbols sacred to our tradition and stood in front of a house of prayer in full expectation that it would be a celebratory moment," Rev Budde told The Associated Press.

"There was nothing I could do but speak out against that."

Rev Budde said the church was "just completely caught off-guard" by the visit, with "no sense that this was a sacred space to be used for sacred purposes".

In order to facilitate Mr Trump's statement there, she said, she believed tear gas was used in the area between the White House and the church.

Rabbi Jack Moline, the president of Interfaith Alliance, slammed the fact peaceful protesters near the White House were gassed and shot with rubber bullets so Mr Trump could hold his photo opportunity.

"Seeing President Trump stand in front of St John’s Episcopal Church while holding a Bible in response to calls for racial justice — right after using military force to clear peaceful protesters out of the area — is one of the most flagrant misuses of religion I have ever seen," Rabbi Moline said in a statement.

"This only underscores the President's complete lack of compassion for Black Americans and the lethal consequences of racism."

Biden, Pelosi, call clearing of Lafayette Park a disgrace

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden accused the President of "using the American military against the American people".

"He tear-gassed peaceful protesters and fired rubber bullets. For a photo," he tweeted.

Meanwhile. US Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said the actions against protesters were a dishonor to "every value that faith teaches us".

Officers withdrawn from Washington DC

Police officers from Arlington, Virginia, which borders Washington DC, have been withdrawn from the national capital.

In a statement released to media on Monday night local time, administrators and the police chief ordered their officers to cross the Potomac River and return to Arlington.

An arrangement between Arlington and Washington DC, allowed the Virgina-based officers to police the city, however the safety concerns led to the withdrawal.

"At the direction of the County Board, County Manager and Police Chief, all ACPD officers left the District of Columbia at 8:30 tonight," the statement read.

"The County is re-evaluating the agreements that allowed our officers to be put in a compromising position that endangered their health and safety, and that of the people around them, for a purpose not worthy of our mutual aid obligations."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-02/george-floyd-protesters-tear-gassed-trump-photo-opportunity/12311628
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  6  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 08:41 am
Too long to post more than a few excerpts, but I thought this article by Marilynne Robinson was excellent. The whole article is posted on the NYRB website and it's really worth a read.

Quote:
(...)

In recent decades, which have been marked by continuous, disruptive change and by technological innovation that has reached assertively into every area of life, a particular economics has become a Theory of Everything, subordinating all other considerations to some form of cost-benefit analysis that silently insinuates special definitions of both cost and benefit. If neither of these is precisely monetizable—calories might have to stand in for currency in primordial transactions—personal advantage, again subject to a highly special definition, is seen as the one thing at stake in human relations. The profit motive has been implanted in our deepest history as a species, in our very DNA.

(...)

Much American unhappiness has arisen from the cordoning-off of low-income workers from the reasonable hope that they and their children will be fairly compensated for their work, their contribution to the vast wealth that is rather inexactly associated with this country, as if everyone had a share in it. Their earnings should be sufficient to allow them to be adequate providers and to shape some part of their lives around their interests. Yet workers’ real wages have fallen for decades in America. This is rationalized by the notion that their wages are a burden on the economy, a burden in our supposed competition with China, which was previously our competition with Japan. The latter country has gone into economic and demographic eclipse, and more or less the same anxieties that drove American opinion were then transferred to China, and with good reason, because there was also a transfer of American investment to China.

The terrible joke is that American workers have been competing against expatriated American capital, a flow that has influenced, and has been influenced by, the supposed deficiencies of American labor. New factories are always more efficient than those they displace, and new factories tend to be built elsewhere. And as the former presidential candidate Mitt Romney remarked, workers in China sleep in factory dormitories. Employing them in preference to American workers would sidestep the old expectation that a working man or woman would be able to rent a house or buy a car. The message being communicated to our workers is that we need poverty in order to compete with countries for whom poverty is a major competitive asset. The global economic order has meant that the poor will remain poor. There will be enough flashy architecture and middle-class affluence to appear to justify the word “developing” in other parts of the world, a designation that suggests that the tide of modernization and industrialization is lifting all boats, as they did in Europe after World War II.

(...)

All the talk of national wealth, which is presented as the meaning and vindication of America, has been simultaneous with a coercive atmosphere of scarcity. America is the most powerful economy in history and at the same time so threatened by global competition that it must dismantle its own institutions, the educational system, the post office. The national parks are increasingly abandoned to neglect in service to fiscal restraint. We cannot maintain our infrastructure. And, of course, we cannot raise the minimum wage. The belief has been general and urgent that the mass of people and their children can look forward to a future in which they must scramble for employment, a life-engrossing struggle in which success will depend on their making themselves useful to whatever industries emerge, contingent on their being competitive in the global labor market. Polarization is the inevitable consequence of all this.

The great error of any conspiracy theory is the assumption that blame can be placed on particular persons and interests. A chord is struck, a predisposition is awakened. America as a whole has embraced, under the name of conservatism and also patriotism, a radical departure from its own history. This richest country has been overtaken with a deep and general conviction of scarcity, a conviction that has become an expectation, then a kind of discipline, even an ethic. The sense of scarcity instantiates itself. It reinforces an anxiety that makes scarcity feel real and encroaching, and generosity, even investment, an imprudent risk.

(...)

The minimum wage has become the amount an employer can get away with paying. It is neither the amount a worker needs to sustain a reasonable life nor, crucially, to be important enough as a consumer for his or her interests to align with other interests. Because workers are underpaid, they are often treated as dependents, as a burden on the “safety net,” which is actually a public subsidy of the practice of underpayment. Workers often do not fall into the category of “taxpayer,” a word now laden with implication and consequence. It implies respectability, a more robust participation in citizenship, and, fairly or not, an extreme sensitivity to demands made on his or her assets for the public benefit. Equitable policies are often precluded in the name of the taxpayer so forcibly that the taxpayer—that is, a fair percentage of the public—is never really consulted. In this time of polarization, such language reflects an ugly, alienating division in our society, with bad faith at the root of it. Proud people are insulted, those same people we now call “essential” because they work steadily at jobs that are suddenly recognized as absolutely necessary.

As adapted for what was recently the present, this wealth is still a product of national policies—favorable taxation, imaginative banking regulations, and low production costs, including depressed wages and lowered safety and environmental standards. The cinch that tightens such slack as remains in the lives of the underpaid is called “austerity” or “fiscal discipline.” Austerity has not touched the beneficiaries of these arrangements, nor has fiscal discipline. These policies amount to continuous downward pressure on the accommodations made to the fact that wages are not sufficient to meet basic needs. “Austerity” and “discipline” retain their brisk, morally coercive force, amazingly. The work ethic persists through impoverishment, unemployment, deindustrialization driven by pools of cheap labor elsewhere, and the de-skilling that is the effect of all these declines.

(...)

And we have to get beyond the habit of thinking in terms of scarcity. We live in the midst of great wealth prepared for us by other generations. We inherited sound roads and bridges. Our children will not be so favored. Since the value of basic investments is not realized immediately, we cannot rationalize the expenditure. We are the richest country in history, therefore richer than the generations that built it, but we cannot bring ourselves even to make repairs. Our thrift will be very costly over time. The notion or pretense that austerity is the refusal to burden our children with our debts is foolish at best. But it is persuasive to those who are injured by it as surely as to those who look at a pothole and see a tax cut. Hiding money in a hole in the ground has seemed like wisdom to some people since antiquity. And there are many who are truly straitened and insecure, and are trusting enough to assume that some economic wisdom lies behind it. Legislators all over America, duly elected, have subscribed to this kind of thinking and acted on it.

(...)

nyrb
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 08:45 am
@bobsal u1553115,
I forgot Hightor, add him to the list of those I agree with 90% 0f the time.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 09:09 am
@Setanta,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255; prior to 2016, 10 U.S.C. §§ 331–335) that empowers the president of the United States to deploy military troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.

The act provides the "major exception" to the Posse Comitatus Act, which otherwise limits the use of the U.S. military for law enforcement within the United States.[1]

Purpose and content

The Act empowers the U.S. president to call into service the armed forces and the National Guard:

when requested by a state's legislature, or governor if the legislature cannot be convened, to address an insurrection against that state (§ 251),
to address an insurrection, in any state, which makes it impracticable to enforce the law (§ 252), or
to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of Constitutionally-secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253).

Per 10 U.S.C. § 254, the President must first issue a proclamation ordering the insurgents to immediately disperse.

The 1807 Act replaced the earlier Calling Forth Act of 1792, which had allowed for federalization of state militias, with similar language that allowed either for federalization of state militias or use of the regular armed forces in the case of rebellion against a state government.[2]:60

In 1871, the Third Enforcement Act supplemented the Insurrection Act with a new section designed to protect African Americans from attacks by the Ku Klux Klan. The language added at that time allows the federal government to use the National Guard and armed forces to enforce the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution against the will of the state government.[2]:63-64 This section of the act (§ 253) was invoked during the Reconstruction era, and again during desegregation fights during the Civil Rights Era.[3]
Application

The Insurrection Act has been invoked infrequently throughout American history. Governors have requested and received support most recently following looting in the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.[4][5] Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy also invoked the act, without requests from the affected states, to enforce court-ordered desegregation.[6]

In 2006, the George W. Bush administration considered intervening in the state of Louisiana's response to Hurricane Katrina despite the refusal from its governor, but this was inconsistent with past precedent, politically difficult, and potentially unconstitutional.[2]:73-75 In response, an amendment was made to the Insurrection Act by the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 to explicitly allow any emergency hindering the enforcement of laws, regardless of state consent, to be a cause for use of the military. Bush signed this amendment into law, but some months after it was enacted, all 50 state governors issued a joint statement against it, and the changes were repealed in January 2008.[1]

On June 1, 2020, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Act in response to the nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd in police custody.[7][8]


Kind of an amazing state of affairs. It puts Democratic States arguing against a Republican President arguing Federal mandate.

The laws are contradictory and what happens if he gets the military to enforce what becomes military law? When this is over and we have a Democratic President and Congress we had better deal with this so it never happens again. One would think then the 10th amendment and the Posse Comitatus Act would be enough but somehow several acts interceded without a SCOTUS challenge. No active duty troops including activated National Guard should be used to resolve civil disorder short of the explicit request of the Governor involved.

I defer to your opinion on this because I really hate the idea of regular Army or activated NG patrolling my streets. REALLY REALLY HATE IT!
revelette1
 
  5  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 09:18 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
. Bush signed this amendment into law, but some months after it was enacted, all 50 state governors issued a joint statement against it, and the changes were repealed in January 2008.[1]



So as of right now, Trump has no power to order troops into states without the Governors request.

I'm guessing it won't stop him nor will it stop his supporters from defending it.

The whole strongman act was brought about because Trump got his feelings hurt with taunts about him hiding in the bunker. Now Trump is encouraging civil war with between those justifiable protesting and all the 2nd amendment nuts. What an awful time we live in.
Below viewing threshold (view)
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 09:31 am
@livinglava,
he had no desire to do ANYTHING wrt helping states with the pandemic> ( He actually threatened to confiscate all of the covid masks that Maryland had purchased through the offices of the Governors wife).

So he gives a rats ass about the health of the citizens but wants to show what a "Capo di tuti capo" he really is.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
revelette1
 
  4  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 09:38 am
@livinglava,
Trump grandstanding with a Bible in his hand making threats was a definite reaction to the widespread taunts of him being a coward hiding in his bunker.

Moreover, there is no question from what I can see from Bobsol post on authority of military use in the states.

Quote:
In 2006, the George W. Bush administration considered intervening in the state of Louisiana's response to Hurricane Katrina despite the refusal from its governor, but this was inconsistent with past precedent, politically difficult, and potentially unconstitutional.[2]:73-75 In response, an amendment was made to the Insurrection Act by the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 to explicitly allow any emergency hindering the enforcement of laws, regardless of state consent, to be a cause for use of the military. Bush signed this amendment into law, but some months after it was enacted, all 50 state governors issued a joint statement against it, and the changes were repealed in January 2008.[1]


bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 09:44 am
Pastors in front of St. John's Church address Trump: "...your hands are too small to box with God"

https://twitter.com/hthompson/status/1267823010322341888

Heidi Thompson
@hthompson

Pastors on the steps of #StJohnsChurch calling for end to police brutality, solidarity with #DCProtests. “God is always on the side of the oppressed. Mr. President, I promise your hands are too small to box with God.”
67
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  7  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 09:45 am
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:

Now Trump is encouraging civil war with between those justifiable protesting and all the 2nd amendment nuts. What an awful time we live in.


If Trump does start a civil war I don’t expect Putin to be idle. While America goes up in flames he’ll be massing his tanks ready to move into Eastern Europe.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
bobsal u1553115
 
  5  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 10:00 am
@livinglava,
You are confusing a war with civil unrest. And a war the US started for purely imperialistic goals.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2020 11:11 am
@coldjoint,
I don't know, cj, how many times was Washington and the WH burned in a war. Pay attention.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/03/2020 at 08:12:55