(heavy sigh) that is not the case.Correction: The military never sees a crowd of people as criminals to be punished, because the military does not deal with criminals.They deal with enemy’s/targets. These are federal officers specifically sent by Trump.Long ago we asked people here what would be a bright line that, if Trump crossed it, they would resist.
.
Protests, strikes, and other types of mass demonstrations seem like nothing more like chaos to them regardless of the merits of the mass demonstration.
After she insults him, she moves on.
She makes it worse by fanning the flames with a decorative pillow. Out of a $10 _billion_ budget, of which $3 billion was the police.Shelter (and ideally zoning reform) would deal with that last group, we don’t really know what to do about the others.
“Opportunistic troublemaker” is a good way to describe them but it also sounds like they could also be described as “stupid-supporter”.Some of this is “No true Scotsman” reasoning. Same as it ever was. A lot of the union guys didn’t like the summer help like me, regardless of race, and some white guys didn’t like the fact that some of the white summer help girls hung out with black folk on breaks and such.
They will just cut off disability.Meanwhile, my state will won’t give Medicaid to normal adults…but it will give it to pregnant woman and their children. The Boogaloo Bois have finally started to show up!I’m out covering Portland protests tonight. There just seem to be many people prone to hate this.
Basic income would provide financial security for the most vulnerable 850,000 households.But an "ingreso mínimo vital," literally a "minimum income to live," comes with strings attached. Start escalating the stakes and folks lose their taste for it.Remember, most of our gun control laws come from a desire for the supporters of tyranny (Jim Crow and later racists) to not have to risk much.It seems like this all becomes a self-fulfilling prohecy.Where the very gun that should make the tyrant fearful of the citizens, ends up making the citizens fearful of each other.And tyranny thrives on a divided, fearful citizenry.In this St. Louis case, was the level of freedom and cooperation among citizens increased or eroded by the armed militias?Or did it end up making them both fearful, distrusting, and insecure?The guns didn’t make the counter-protesters distrustful and fearful, they already were that way long before the initial protesters decided to show up armed.Again, and again, you assume the gun is a leading, rather than a lagging, indicator.
I welcome anyone and everyone to that cause. As far as I am concerned, no one there now, peaceful or otherwise, gives one fuck about black lives. It’s all well and good for certain folks to cheer on from their screens police lines dropping the hammer on protests that challenge them, along with tear gas, mace, batons, and other non-lethal means. Hell, it’d be worth having *MORE* of them.Lemme know if the citation to Vox (and the articles that it itself links to) aren’t sufficient citations.Its almost like black people’s attitudes towards Order/Liberty are as complex as white people’s.Their (black folks’) attitudes seem *MORE* complex.You start talking to white people about regulations and they’ll explain why the regulations against selling loosies need to exist and why it’s good that those regulations are enforced and how the people who don’t agree are folks who merely had a problem with the police doing it instead of private security.One thing I have noticed is how white people- both liberal and conservative- have a tendency to project our own desires onto people we don’t understand, like black people.Instead of admitting how parochial and limited our vision is, that we really have no idea what it is like to live as a black person in America. The people starting fires don’t have a legit reason to do that.Another issue is whether all of this goes away if the feds leave.
He pulls a gun under the table.
Are we, as society, really confused at this point?Or are we just pretending we are, because we don’t like the obvious conclusion that the only way to stop crime is to do something about poverty…not just for ‘deserving’ people, but everyone?I’d say that drunkenness is probably a crime best dealt with via social controls rather than policing. It’s that old Ben Franklin quote about ‘a republic, if you can keep it.’…but does nothing to tilt the balance towards freedom.The whole “most genocides are the gov vs unarmed citizens” is actually pretty convincing.Genocides are astonishingly rare and only happen after tyranny has a firm uncontestable grip on the population.Ordinary tyrannies are far more common, and almost always follow the same pattern of fear, dissension, confusion and finally violence between citizens before the victory of the forces of tyranny.Escalating unarmed conflict to armed conflict is an essential component of this pattern.Funny, I just watched a video about gun control in 1930s Germany.