Let's fire Trump

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

He also said that he would send in the National Guard. What a loon. He must live in an echo chamber--the governors control the National Guard in such a situation, and they've already been called up. He knows how to stir **** up, but that's about all he knows.

The President has the power and authority to take control of the National Guard if he chooses to do so.

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

He is a failed President.

Mr. Trump is doing pretty good as far as I can see. He has protected America from progressives for more than three years now.

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

why citizens are calling cops on other noncriminal, nonthreatening, nonarmed other citizens specifically to get them shot or arrested?

Threatening to kill a woman's pet is, well, threatening.

That guy would be looking down the barrel of a gun had he made a grab at one of my cats. And I'd be quick to shoot if he didn't back off immediately.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Calling out the National Guard doesn't help, either.

I disagree. The National Guard has more than enough firepower to crush these rioters.

0 Replies

Quote:

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

This morning Trump tweeted 'you start looting we start shooting' -- and with this he played straight into one of the white privileged instincts of the out of control looting 'scary black folks' coming to get them, and that only he can save them from such a terrible fate.

Self hatred and manufactured guilt. Looting is a crime no matter what color does it. Trump enforcing the law will save everyone except the criminals. Then the progressives can let them out of jail and defeat the purpose and **** on law abiding citizens again.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

bobsal u1553115 wrote:
He is a failed President.

Mr. Trump is doing pretty good as far as I can see. He has protected America from progressives for more than three years now.

bobsal u1553115 wrote:
why citizens are calling cops on other noncriminal, nonthreatening, nonarmed other citizens specifically to get them shot or arrested?

Threatening to kill a woman's pet is, well, threatening.

That guy would be looking down the barrel of a gun had he made a grab at one of my cats. And I'd be quick to shoot if he didn't back off immediately.

You’re a liar. The only one doing any threatening was that woman - threatening to have the cops come after a man because he asked her to leash her dog. She’s now lost her job and her dog. Because the video showed the truth.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

Hillary Clinton wrote:

The president of the United States is calling for violence against American citizens.
That is so wrong. We need honest reckoning and reconciliation.

Use of police force against criminals is not wrong in any way.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

Talking Points Memo wrote:

Walz said that Trump's tweets threatening to sic the military on the protesters and invoking violent rhetoric only serve to further exacerbate the situation, which was brought about by the death of George Floyd, a black man who was killed by law enforcement.

The National Guard has enough firepower to end these riots.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

on the protesters

They are now rioters and looters.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

I'd say they always were rioters and looters. Did they ever try to protest peacefully?

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

You're a liar.

You are not capable of pointing out anything untrue in my posts.

snood wrote:

The only one doing any threatening was that woman

Wrong. When he told her that he was going to do something and she wasn't going to like it, that was a threat.

When he then tried to lure her pet away from her, he was acting to carry out that threat.

snood wrote:

threatening to have the cops come after a man because he asked her to leash her dog.

No. Because he told her that she was not going to like what he was about to do and then tried to lure her pet away from her.

snood wrote:

She's now lost her job and her dog.

She made a big mistake by not killing the guy, taking his phone, and slipping away before anyone noticed.

The three S's seem to be the least-bad option when a minority attacks someone.

snood wrote:

Because the video showed the truth.

No. Because progressives lynch anyone who gets caught protecting themselves from a black person.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Trump is a real car wreck. Can he do anything even stupider than this? I thought that hed break his neck from patting himself on th back for his ******* up a strategy to deal with covid, but each day, I see new and farther horizons of dumb from this guy.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Anything stupider than what?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Hillary Clinton wrote:
The president of the United States is calling for violence against American citizens.
That is so wrong. We need honest reckoning and reconciliation.

Use of police force against criminals is not wrong in any way.

Use of police force always has to be justified and restrained as much as possible. I understand you want there to be strong deterrence for crime, and I agree with that; but the constitution contains the principle of minimizing governmental intervention as much as possible.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

I'd say that "criminals going on a violent rampage" is justification for the use of police force.

If you want to restrain the use of force to the minimum required to put an end to the criminal rampage, fine with me. But the National Guard should ensure that they reach that minimum.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

snood wrote:
You're a liar.

You are not capable of pointing out anything untrue in my posts.

snood wrote:
The only one doing any threatening was that woman

Wrong. When he told her that he was going to do something and she wasn't going to like it, that was a threat.

When he then tried to lure her pet away from her, he was acting to carry out that threat.

snood wrote:
threatening to have the cops come after a man because he asked her to leash her dog.

No. Because he told her that she was not going to like what he was about to do and then tried to lure her pet away from her.

snood wrote:
She's now lost her job and her dog.

She made a big mistake by not killing the guy, taking his phone, and slipping away before anyone noticed.

The three S's seem to be the least-bad option when a minority attacks someone.

snood wrote:
Because the video showed the truth.

No. Because progressives lynch anyone who gets caught protecting themselves from a black person.

If what you're saying here is factual, then it suggests that the whole story has been chosen for media coverage in order to stimulate the audience/public to question the bait-narrative, which was "white woman calls police on black man for telling her to leash her dog."

From reading what you say here, the conclusion readers are supposed to make is, "it's not always bad for a white person to call the police on a black person if what they are doing is really threatening to the point of warranting a call for help."

I would think that would be obvious, but maybe it's not for people who can only think about protecting themselves from accusations of racism, to the point it impairs their ability to think rationally about how to handle situations independently of racism. Yes, it may be frustrating to know that the moment you call the police, a racist cop could end up showing up and bullying the person instead of just doing their job, but are you going to let someone steal your dog to protect them as an attacker from possible police harassment? Is it at all possible that police can just show up and treat a person fairly regardless of skin color? I understand people will say that's naive, but how are we supposed to function if you don't hope for sanity when dealing with civil servants? Are you supposed to call the police if the person who's stealing your dog is white but not if they're black?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

The least-bad option these days seems to be for people to pursue the three S's if they are unfortunate enough to be attacked by a minority.

I really don't see what other option people have.

0 Replies

Quote:

Battlefield America: As The COVID Story Falls Apart, A New Crisis Takes Over

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I'd say that "criminals going on a violent rampage" is justification for the use of police force.

If you want to restrain the use of force to the minimum required to put an end to the criminal rampage, fine with me. But the National Guard should ensure that they reach that minimum.

Force usually has to be at least proportional to the crime that must be stopped. It would be nice if criminals would just back down with a warning, but if they don't, at what point is it justifiable for police to back down, knowing that doing so will embolden criminals? This is how wars escalate, so it would be really great if criminals would recognize that no good can come from trying to overpower/overwhelm police, but if/when they don't, it's also really terrible that they are destroying hope for the future each time they stoke the fires of oneupmanship to new heights/lows.

I can't say that police should take the initiative of backing off to stop the escalation, even though that is what Jesus said, because Holy Spirit works differently in every situation and it might be one or more criminal individuals who feel the calling to turn the other cheek and back down. If/when they do, it is of course a huge victory for peace but you also realize that if the impulse doesn't come from their own inspiration, it is just another form of external authority manipulating them spiritually for the purpose of controlling them. So criminals and police are basically just condemned to fight until Holy Spirit intervenes and delivers them in some way from the struggle. We can only pray that divine mercy and grace will come from one or both sides sooner than later.

1 Reply

Take a look at what the media wants more of. Shameful.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Force usually has to be at least proportional to the crime that must be stopped.

The destruction going on in Minneapolis these past few days allows for quite a lot of proportion to be waged against the rioters.

0 Replies

Let's fire Trump

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know