I'm probably making a mistake getting out in front here, but . . .
- Thread starter Rockfish1
- Start date
Same as Ferguson and everywhere else. It starts as outrage and “well- intentioned” then devolves to an excuse to steal and wreck shit among a certain subset. Duh. Some of you are so crippled in PC nonsense you’ve lost reality.
I've lost reality for asking for an explanation?
Your response doesn't adequately parse what JDB said. Perhaps you should let him answer for himself.
There's a critical difference in regards to Sovereignty. China is blatantly breaking its promise to keep HK's political and economic systems intact.
He does nothing but incite. totally exacerbated the Ferguson mess.
I mean you had a mix of races, ages, backgrounds (white collar, blue collar) all supporting the same thing with protests outside the precinct, city hall, etc.. Now, you are alienating a subset of that group who's property (and potentially health) are endangered and don't find it worth visibly and publicly supporting the cause because another subset wants to just riot and loot.
We are both outside observers. My perspective from what I observe/read is that China is protecting citizens from anarchy. Violent protests. My understanding is that China implemented necessary measures for national security purposes. I don't profess to be an expert on China/HK.
Meanwhile, what i witness in the United States is completely absent leadership and chaos.
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, in 99% of East Asian cities you can walk anywhere at any time safely. This is a very basic human right. Freedom of movement. This is article 13 of UN human rights. Why is it in a country alleged to be the most democrwtic, we are unable to exercise this right in many locales? Precisely how free and democratic are we actually?
So which subset are you seeing as the problem? I assume the problematic subset is defined by some combination of race and age, since a diversity in those two categories are what you contrasted it with, but you could be going multiple directions here, so rather than make assumptions about what you mean, I'm asking you to be explicit.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
I think it is a tragedy that black people and the liberal press rarely get that upset when black people kill black people. I see it all is a sad situation. When black people kill black people there is not as much of a political spin that they can put on it which is why I think they act more like its all ho hum.
I think it's a tragedy that you think this way.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
If Jon Benet wasn't a kid beauty pageant contestant would her death gotten as much publicity? If Natalie Holloway had not been a pretty girl would her murder gotten as much publicity?
The last 50 yrs starts with the Nixon years. I don't know who was Mayor of St Louis in 1970, but in Chicago it was Richard Dailey. Daley had far more in common with Nixon than he did with "liberal" Democrats. Yorty was the Mayor of LA till '73 when Bradley was elected. Yorty was a Republican, and LA actually had a GOP Mayor as recently as 2001. Ridiculous Rudy was the most recent GOP Mayor of NYC, and I really can't think of a lot of "liberals" who were "big-city" mayors...
As an aside, I actually worked one summer as a patrol observer as part of a "police services study" through a class I had at IU circa 1977. It was in conjunction with UNC, Wash U in St Louis, and NYU. We lived in St Ann in a notorious Apt complex and rode along with cops thru out the city and County. So I rode in places like U City, Florrisant, and other downtown districts as well as Kirkwood, Bridgeton, etc... I saw some disturbing things, but one of the things that bothered me most was the way a lot of cops just saw people walking or driving as potential threats. I wasn't inclined to pursue that line of work, but I felt like even if I had been that view of humanity would have been a total turnoff...
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
So the real issue is police brutality not racism. Let's be clear here. This happened in Minneapolis a stronghold of Democratic governance. Why do cops think they can get away with things like this? It has to do with governance. It has to do with philosophy of what government should be able to do.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
What a shame that people would use a sad situation like this and use it to get free stuff. Michigan protestors whether people agree or not did not do this. I applaud them for it.
Well instead of demanding a federal investigation... from the FBI no less (another branch that supposed to be completely independent), why the heck didn't Trump do something to stop this and call in the national guard. Or was he too busy playing golf? I suppose he got involved in the investigation part after Kim K and Kanye called him?
He failed at his most basic responsibility. Protecting the American public. Someone killed last night. Small businesses destroyed in the middle of a pandemic. It should outrage everyone to their core.
Very interesting! You were in quite a few munis. Things have gotten much, much worse here since 1977. I used to have a house in U city directly across the street from wash u.
That's exactly how it works. An actual or potential conflict would undermine public confidence in the impartiality and independence of the investigation, in which case the state AG would need to step in.
Bc some cops are mental. Some are racist. Some are both. Doesn’t matter who’s the chief when you’ve got a mental racist for a cop.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Don't walk around San Francisco unless you bring a clean up kit for your shoes.
I can't figure out what's funnier. That you found a way to let us know how much you liked the Michigan protesters, or that you really don't understand the first thing about looting.
Which specific predecessors are you referring to? Did you condone their actions at the time?
It didn’t in Ferguson. And I think it’s the D’s motion. Again I could be wrong.
You're simply conflating two different things here. A change of venue at trial is generally going to be requested by the defendant, because he doesn't think he can get a fair trial. That has to do with procedural rules during a criminal trial.
However, long before that happens, there is an investigation, and it's not uncommon for localities to request assistance from the state level if they don't think they can handle the investigation themselves, either because they lack the resources, or because they fear there are conflicts of interest that might affect impartiality. A defendant couldn't request this, because there is no defendant yet. It's purely an investigative issue.
Please don't jump in just to refuse to answer JDB's questions for him. He can refuse to answer his own questions just fine.
If you don’t want people to post, take your bellyaches to a PM.
I'd like people to post actual content, rather than just hint at things and then refuse to explain them.
There are a lot of interesting things that could be said about the identity of the violent elements of the MSP protesters, but unfortunately, we can't get to those interesting things when the people bringing up the issue hide behind, "You know the ones I'm talking about."
I think the governor calls in National Guard.
The President has the authority to call in national guard from any state. The governors can say no.
There is also something called the insurrection act which you can google. The president has the authority to deploy troops. The governor cannot say no.
Trump sat on his ass for two nights as minn burned.
Similar threads
