US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

Honey, we're all years behind when it comes to presidential decorum or the lack thereof concerning Trump! From day 1 it was lost! He had his aides go out there to lie to the entire world saying his inaugural was attended by not only more people than Obama's, but the entire history of the ceremony! The latest has him renaming the Kennedy Center "ad hoc" & fk. the Constitution! This is the same man who wanted missiles to be paraded down Penn. Ave. like we were celebrating Bastile Day or a Communist regime (Russian & Chinese)! I still can't believe Congress allowed him to tear down the East Wing while the gov't was shutdown! Again, there needed to be "a Bill" passed! WTF? I'm afraid to see or hear the true latest really as I obstain from watching the NEWS!

While it's not the most important thing going on, it broke my heart that he bulldozed the East Wing.

Also on my list of not very important but eyebrow raising: Trump has declared (because he does a lot of "declaring" these days,) that Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (this coming Monday,) and Juneteenth (19 June) will no longer be free to enter the National parks. Any idea why these days? For a guy who constantly dog whistles to his white supremacist friends?

Oh, but note that he has added Flag Day as a free day. Anyone remember when Flag Day is? Not a national holiday. No one has ever marked it. June 14th. Which also happens to be Trump's birthday. To me, that sounds rather dictatorial. Last year he threw himself a military parade on his birthday. In honor of "Flag Day." SMH.

 

[lomaha]

While it's not the most important thing going on, it broke my heart that he bulldozed the East Wing.

Also on my list of not very important but eyebrow raising: Trump has declared (because he does a lot of "declaring" these days,) that Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (this coming Monday,) and Juneteenth (19 June) will no longer be free to enter the National parks. Any idea why these days? For a guy who constantly dog whistles to his white supremacist friends?

Oh, but note that he has added Flag Day as a free day. Anyone remember when Flag Day is? Not a national holiday. No one has ever marked it. June 14th. Which also happens to be Trump's birthday. To me, that sounds rather dictatorial. Last year he threw himself a military parade on his birthday. In honor of "Flag Day." SMH.

The man is a narcissist. He acts like an overprivileged little kid in a candy store. He is a bully.

 

[Kieran]

Honey, we're all years behind when it comes to presidential decorum or the lack thereof concerning Trump! From day 1 it was lost! He had his aides go out there to lie to the entire world saying his inaugural was attended by not only more people than Obama's, but the entire history of the ceremony! The latest has him renaming the Kennedy Center "ad hoc" & fk. the Constitution! This is the same man who wanted missiles to be paraded down Penn. Ave. like we were celebrating Bastile Day or a Communist regime (Russian & Chinese)! I still can't believe Congress allowed him to tear down the East Wing while the gov't was shutdown! Again, there needed to be "a Bill" passed! WTF? I'm afraid to see or hear the true latest really as I obstain from watching the NEWS!

Hey, don’t forget the decorum of Bubba, taking bj’s in the Oval Office. Low level stuff indeed. Do better, politicians! We need you all as our moral guide!

 

[Federberg]

Hey, don’t forget the decorum of Bubba, taking bj’s in the Oval Office. Low level stuff indeed. Do better, politicians! We need you all as our moral guide!

lol! You really think he was the only one to get treats in the Oval Office? C'mon mate!

 

[Kieran]

You've said this shows she was blocking the road? You said this, above: "Secondly, they weren’t protesting, they were obstructing. They were blocking the road. You can see that clearly from the last video I posted."

No, as I've said before, they were not blocking the road, or preventing anyone from passing on either side, as I said. You can see that in YOUR video. It's a wide road. It would take 3 SUV's to block it.

Anyway, we've all looked at the videos and see what we see. Nothing left now but to see how it plays out, legally. Vance has said that ICE has "absolute immunity," which is not true. It would be dangerous and ludicrous in a lawful society, if that were true. And Vance knows, or should know that. He earned a law degree from Yale.

Oh dear. It really is difficult to discuss politics with you, because you see only what you want to see, through the only lens you ever use. If this Renee Good was Maga, the conversation would be over.

So, why was she sideways parked on the road, beeping her horn and dancing in her seat? Why did cars slow down and stall as they approached her?

Why was she waving them through? Why did she gesture to the ICE car and they stopped and ordered her to get out of her car?

One car can obstruct and block traffic. One car can start what I showed you in the other video, where ICE agents were trapped by a load of cars, begun by a heroic woman honking her car horn and rounding up gentle noble people to become savage kidnappers.

Now, do you remember you called me “maddening” yesterday, liked by @Fiero425 , for “agreeing” to a post, and I showed you that you’d misrepresented me?

I didn’t notice that you addressed your error. But I still agree, that this conversation will go round and round and round forever.

I think we’ve both make it clear enough what we think about it..

 

[lomaha]

Oh dear. It really is difficult to discuss politics with you, because you see only what you want to see, through the only lens you ever use. If this Renee Good was Maga, the conversation would be over.

So, why was she sideways parked on the road, beeping her horn and dancing in her seat? Why did cars slow down and stall as they approached her?

Why was she waving them through? Why did she gesture to the ICE car and they stopped and ordered her to get out of her car?

One car can obstruct and block traffic. One car can start what I showed you in the other video, where ICE agents were trapped by a load of cars, begun by a heroic woman honking her car horn and rounding up gentle noble people to become savage kidnappers.

Now, do you remember you called me “maddening” yesterday, liked by @Fiero425 , for “agreeing” to a post, and I showed you that you’d misrepresented me?

I didn’t notice that you addressed your error. But I still agree, that this conversation will go round and round and round forever.

I think we’ve both make it clear enough what we think about it..

I don't care what the woman did or didn't do. There's no excuse for shooting her in the head - three times. It's an execution.

 

[Federberg]

I don't care what the woman did or didn't do. There's no excuse for shooting her in the head - three times. It's an execution.

I have to agree. The first shot one could have a debate. But shots two and three? That's.... difficult to justify. You're only supposed to shoot if there's a threat

 

[mrzz]

Again...she wasn't blocking the road

Ok, here we go (I won't say that I hate you):

The video shows that she had her car perpendicular to the road direction, with the engine running (don't make me post pictures of the video with smoke coming out of exhaust). Her car is not large enough to completely block the road. She was doing the best possible attempt to block it, with the car perpendicular and the engine turned on.

Given those two facts (engine on and direction of the car), she did pose a security threat to all drivers. That every driver (even the ones protesting and the ones "protesting") felt that way is demonstrated by the fact that she had to wave them past (as you pointed out).

So, to say that she was not blocking the road is much further from the truth than to say that she was blocking it. If we want to be completely accurate, we can say that she was partially blocking the road, or we can say that she was attempting to block the road. Because of that, she was a security threat to everyone, including the ICE officers, who were the target of her actions.

We can agree not to use the term "blocking the road" and use instead the longer, more accurate versions "attempting to block the road" or "partially blocking the road" just because we love you (see, I don't hate 100% of the time).

 

[mrzz]

I don't care what the woman did or didn't do. There's no excuse for shooting her in the head - three times. It's an execution.

Words matter. I do not agree with the shooting, but that is definetely not an execution. Of course the exact meaning of execution objectively implies a legally mandated killing (which is not the case, and by the way I am opposed to the death penalty), so any use of the term here is metaphorical.

The metaphor is then based on either premeditation or cold bloodedness (or both). Premeditation is obvisouly not the case (even if I saw completely bogus argumentation trying to sustain that), and cold bloodedness is definetely not the case, considering that the guy shooting was hit by a car.

 

[Kieran]

I don't care what the woman did or didn't do. There's no excuse for shooting her in the head - three times. It's an execution.

It’s not. She hit him with a car. You might not think that’s not something to care about but I would question your morals if you did: for agents receiving abuse and death threats daily, she was out of control and a reasonable threat to them.

It’s outrageous for you to say that was “an execution.” The man was staggering back after being hit with a car…

 

[lomaha]

It’s not. She hit him with a car. You might not think that’s not something to care about but I would question your morals if you did: for agents receiving abuse and death threats daily, she was out of control and a reasonable threat to them.

It’s outrageous for you to say that was “an execution.” The man was staggering back after being hit with a car…

Still no way is that a justification for shooting 3 times in the head.

 

[lomaha]

Words matter. I do not agree with the shooting, but that is definetely not an execution. Of course the exact meaning of execution objectively implies a legally mandated killing (which is not the case, and by the way I am opposed to the death penalty), so any use of the term here is metaphorical.

The metaphor is then based on either premeditation or cold bloodedness (or both). Premeditation is obvisouly not the case (even if I saw completely bogus argumentation trying to sustain that), and cold bloodedness is definetely not the case, considering that the guy shooting was hit by a car.

I still consider shooting 3 times in the head an execution. You shouldn't use more force than necesseary - and in no way is shooting 3 times in the head nesseceary in this - or any - case.

 

[Kieran]

Still no way is that a justification for shooting 3 times in the head.

That can be argued. Once she hit him, that was assault with a deadly weapon. If she’d gotten away, he could reasonably assume she was a danger to others, civilians and law enforcement alike.

Here’s where we agree: if she wasn’t there, her child would still have a mother.

If she’d followed the law, her child would still have a mother.

Her priorities were different, I suppose…

 

[lomaha]

That can be argued. Once she hit him, that was assault with a deadly weapon. If she’d gotten away, he could reasonably assume she was a danger to others, civilians and law enforcement alike.

Here’s where we agree: if she wasn’t there, her child would still have a mother.

If she’d followed the law, her child would still have a mother.

Her priorities were different, I suppose…

I will never agree on that.

 

[Kieran]

I will never agree on that.

Yep? That’s fine. I thought everybody would agree that if she wasn’t there or if she obeyed the law, her child would still have a mother.

You’re not everybody, I suppose…

 

[Kieran]

San Francisco has edged closer to making reparation payments to black people.

SAN FRANCISCO LAWMAKERS VOTE TO CREATE REPARATIONS FUND FOR BLACK RESIDENTS WITHOUT INITIAL FUNDING​

The vote follows years of work by the city's African American Reparations Advisory Committee, which in March 2023 released a sweeping draft proposal that included over 100 recommendations. Those included one-time lump-sum payments of $5 million to each qualifying Black adult, guaranteed annual income of $97,000, down-payment assistance, tax and debt relief, and affordable housing options such as homes for just $1 - marking one of the most ambitious reparations plans in the country.

The estimated cost? From the Hover Institution, which I believe is conservative. Others may have different estimates.

Eligibility for the $5 million payments is broad (see page 30 of the proposal), so I will assume that all African Americans 18 years and older currently living in the city will be eligible for these payments. Paying $5 million to 35,455 individuals totals about $175 billion. To put this in perspective, the city’s budget for the current fiscal year is $14 billion, while this proposed sum exceeds the current state budgets of all US states except for California, New York, and Texas.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Federberg]

San Francisco has edged closer to making reparation payments to black people.

SAN FRANCISCO LAWMAKERS VOTE TO CREATE REPARATIONS FUND FOR BLACK RESIDENTS WITHOUT INITIAL FUNDING​

The estimated cost? From the Hover Institution, which I believe is conservative. Others may have different estimates.



Any thoughts on this?

It's dumb as fuck. How do you determine if someone is eligible? Some Black Americans WERE paid reparations, so logically their progeny shouldn't qualify. Others are immigrants, how is that determined? In any case these people aren't slaves, were never slaves. Go back far enough and everyone is descended from slaves. When is this shite going to stop??

 

[Moxie]

Ok, here we go (I won't say that I hate you):

The video shows that she had her car perpendicular to the road direction, with the engine running (don't make me post pictures of the video with smoke coming out of exhaust). Her car is not large enough to completely block the road. She was doing the best possible attempt to block it, with the car perpendicular and the engine turned on.

Given those two facts (engine on and direction of the car), she did pose a security threat to all drivers. That every driver (even the ones protesting and the ones "protesting") felt that way is demonstrated by the fact that she had to wave them past (as you pointed out).

So, to say that she was not blocking the road is much further from the truth than to say that she was blocking it. If we want to be completely accurate, we can say that she was partially blocking the road, or we can say that she was attempting to block the road. Because of that, she was a security threat to everyone, including the ICE officers, who were the target of her actions.

We can agree not to use the term "blocking the road" and use instead the longer, more accurate versions "attempting to block the road" or "partially blocking the road" just because we love you (see, I don't hate 100% of the time).

I didn't realize that part of the problem I'm having with Kieran is merely semantic, but yes, when I say she wasn't "blocking the road" I mean she wasn't. When you or Kieran say she was "blocking the road" apparently you mean "partially blocking the road." Now, just below this post, you said "words matter," and they do.

Any, that distinction aside, it's worth remembering that when Kieran originally posted about this event, with the video from "Random Dude" on pg. 498, post #9944 of this thread, both Kieran, and the person who posted the video made comments about the woman preventing ICE from doing their job, or "obstructing" them. There was commentary along those lines initially from the administration/other Republicans, as well, which the NYTimes videos with commentary that I posted was discussing. That it was clear she was not blocking the road, and that the ICE agents were free to move about and do their job. So this is part of what I meant by not blocking them, in that sense. Clearly, she was being a nuisance, which we didn't initially know. And I still don't know who was laying on their horn in a street filled with vehicles, but it could have been her. But so part of the argument, at least from my perspective, we were discussing whether or not she was blocking, or impeding the officers from doing their jobs, and I contend she was not. Surely, she was trying to be an irritation, which we didn't know initially.

 

[Moxie]

That can be argued. Once she hit him, that was assault with a deadly weapon. If she’d gotten away, he could reasonably assume she was a danger to others, civilians and law enforcement alike.

Actually, "assault with a deadly weapon" would be determined by a judge/jury. If she intended to hit him, it would be that. If she didn't, it would more likely be "reckless endangerment," and you did say above, I believe, that maybe yes, maybe no? If you're going to argue this in the court of the internet, at least try to understand the law. As to the 3 shots, and your comment above that it "can be argued." It likely will be, along with her intent, in a court, unless the Fed buries it, which is at LEAST as likely as it going to trial. But, as a few posters, and a lawyer whose comments I posted above, have said, the 2nd and 3rd shots are the ones that are going to be a lot harder to defend.

 

[Kieran]

I didn't realize that part of the problem I'm having with Kieran is merely semantic, but yes, when I say she wasn't "blocking the road" I mean she wasn't. When you or Kieran say she was "blocking the road" apparently you mean "partially blocking the road." Now, just below this post, you said "words matter," and they do.

Any, that distinction aside, it's worth remembering that when Kieran originally posted about this event, with the video from "Random Dude" on pg. 498, post #9944 of this thread, both Kieran, and the person who posted the video made comments about the woman preventing ICE from doing their job, or "obstructing" them. There was commentary along those lines initially from the administration/other Republicans, as well, which the NYTimes videos with commentary that I posted was discussing. That it was clear she was not blocking the road, and that the ICE agents were free to move about and do their job. So this is part of what I meant by not blocking them, in that sense. Clearly, she was being a nuisance, which we didn't initially know. And I still don't know who was laying on their horn in a street filled with vehicles, but it could have been her. But so part of the argument, at least from my perspective, we were discussing whether or not she was blocking, or impeding the officers from doing their jobs, and I contend she was not. Surely, she was trying to be an irritation, which we didn't know initially.

If she was not blocking or impending, why was she parked sideways on the road?

And why were cars stopping before passing her, until she waved them on?

You know what she was doing! This part is very simple. She was using the playbook others used when they hemmed in ICE agents with their cars. It wasn’t an accident that she lined up like that - her intention was clear and this is why the agents told her to get out of the car, which she refused to do, with terrible consequences..