President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Non Sequitur]

2020-08-27_17-07-37.jpg

I’m on the Trump email list and he keeps sending me warnings about Antifa. What a let down. It’s been the Nazis and the ilk who have been doing the extremists killings.

I got this text from Nikki "Hotlips" Haley the other day. I'm not proud of my response to her.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I've said this before, but if Trump wins again there will be open insurrection, and not just pockets of insurrection. There will be a wave throughout the country, and you will be surprised at how easily people will be radicalized. Helter Skelter, baby.

Let me join you under the table for a moment and say that, while I don't fear a wave of anti-Trump insurrection across the country, I'm deeply concerned about post-election behavior on all sides. Given Biden voters are much more likely to vote by mail than Trump voters, it's very possible election night will end with Trump holding a narrow edge in the voting,. But as mail-in ballots are counted over the ensuing hours (days?) (weeks?), and Trump's lead dwindles or vanishes, the Trumpist reaction will not be pretty.

In past elections that were very close (e.g., JFK/Nixon, Bush/Gore, etc.) the loser ultimately conceded graciously and, to some extent, unitingly. With this snowball and acetylene torch I shall now demonstrate the likelihood of Trump conceding anything graciously, let alone unitingly.

[myboynoah]

Everything associated with that story just seems crazy.

Who was this kid "protecting the business" with? Anyone he knew? Or did he just show up on his own? If my kid says he needs to take a gun to go help a bunch of guys "protect a business", either I'm going with him or he isn't going. But I can't imagine a parent letting a kid take a gun to a riot zone to help "protect a business" without knowing who he'll be there with and what the plan is.

He demonstrates everything that can go wrong with the tough-guy "protect my property" crowd. Are you really prepared to shoot someone? I suspect this kid thought he could just show up and look tough with the rest of his group and the rioters would leave them alone.

In the videos I've seen - at some point, some how, he gets separated from the rest of the "militia"-types. He's getting chased by the first victim, who is throwing stuff at him, making threats, and earlier is on video taunting and challenging the militia-types with stuff like "shoot me, n***a!" There was a confrontation brewing, for sure.

So he's a 17 year-old kid getting chased by a 37 yr old man who has been antagonizing him and his group all night, and now he's on his own and probably terrified. There are gun shots going off while he's being chased, as is pointed out in one video, and he looks back. Some have speculated that maybe he thought he was being shot at. I supposed it's just as likely he could've thought one of his buddies was coming to the rescue. Either way - if he doesn't have a gun, who knows what happens. Is he still a target of this guy chasing him? Or does he get ignored? Does he get beat up, or just chased off? We'll never know, because he has a gun and shoots the guy.

He goes up to the guy, makes a phone call to someone and watches while others initially administer first aid. Then you see others coming running into the scene, and he hangs up and runs away. Apparently someone is shouting "there's the shooter, get him."

Running down the street, a group is chasing him. He gets hit in the back of the head. Trips and falls and takes a flying kick to the head, then the guy with the skateboard hits him, tries to grab his gun, and gets shot in the chest. The other guy who was shot in the arm comes up to him, pauses as they seem to size each other up, then charges in and gets shot in the arm that he's holding the pistol.

Everyone scatters at that point, and the kid walks down to the police, who apparently don't seem to interested in him.

Obviously these people would not have been shot had he not had a gun. That's on him. I'm sure some people think he was there to shoot people. I think it's just as likely that he was there to be a tough guy, but never anticipated pulling his trigger.

I don't know what to make of the "self-defense" claims. He was obviously attacked. But he was also in a riot zone - he had to expect that was a possibility. I'll admit that I'd be happy to see someone kick the asses of anyone attacking people and getting violent as part of the protests - but the shooting crosses some boundaries for me.

I have a hard time answering for myself to what extreme would I go to protect property. My family? Yeah...I have no problem shooting you. But breaking windows and burning things downtown away from my home? I like to think I'd just walk away from that.

He seems pretty clear here about his intent.

Embedded Tweet

[Eddie]

tooblue is right. This isn’t a blurred things kind of thing and if the shooter had been a gang or didn’t look like a suburban white kid I don’t think people would act confounded. This kids and his actions would not be similar to you protecting your home. That’s a big stretch.

If you read what I wrote before deciding how much you disagree with me, you'll see that I very specifically stated that this is NOT like protecting your home. So - I'm not the one making that stretch, thank you.

I know there will be personal differences as far as when self-defense is justified and when it is not. I get that. Rioting aside, I think one could ask the question - under what circumstances is it OK to fire a gun in self-defense? For some people, it is only in your own home if there's a home invasion going on - and even then only if you think they might harm you rather than just rob you. For others, standing up to someone in the street who is attacking you might be OK. What it means to carry a gun and when it can be used in self-defense is part of the conversation, whether there is a riot going on or not.

That doesn't mean it's smart to take a gun into a riot zone - and you'll note I also said that above - while he may not have anticipated actually shooting someone, he had to know it was a possibility if things got crazy. That is on him, obviously.

Now speaking in general terms - and NOT of this specific incident, you and tooblue seem to be saying that anyone having a gun at any time and shooting another person as part of an altercation makes them a vigilante murderer. Yeah - I don't see things that way. Would I personally go to a riot zone with a gun to defend property? Hell no. But I'm not going to say someone who does and then ends up shooting someone is a murderer. That will be up to the prosecutors to decide. But I tend to lean to a belief that people do have the right to defend themselves when attacked. The prosecutor, judge, jury, etc., will have to decide the facts of this case and whether or not this was self-defense. I have no idea. I will say it wasn't smart on his part.

I don't know when or how this kid got separated from his group - but it feels to me like that is a big problem. Let's pretend I did have a business downtown that I wanted to protect from rioters. No way I'm going with a gun to try to protect it myself. I'd be much too worried about being overrun by people and having them use the gun on me or just beat me to death in their anger. This kids "protection", if you want to call it that, was being part of a large armed group. No one was going to attack the large armed group. Once he was on his own, chances of something bad happening increased exponentially. Both because he could then be singled out by the mob, but also because he's a dumb 17 year-old who's brain isn't yet fully developed.

[Moliere]

Let me join you under the table for a moment and say that, while I don't fear a wave of anti-Trump insurrection across the country, I'm deeply concerned about post-election behavior on all sides. Given Biden voters are much more likely to vote by mail than Trump voters, it's very possible election night will end with Trump holding a narrow edge in the voting,. But as mail-in ballots are counted over the ensuing hours (days?) (weeks?), and Trump's lead dwindles or vanishes, the Trumpist reaction will not be pretty.

In past elections that were very close (e.g., JFK/Nixon, Bush/Gore, etc.) the loser ultimately conceded graciously and, to some extent, unitingly. With this snowball and acetylene torch I shall now demonstrate the likelihood of Trump conceding anything graciously, let alone unitingly.

ahem, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/u...ronavirus.html

A new working paper by the Institute for Economic Policy Research at Stanford University concluded that mail balloting modestly increased voter turnout but that both parties benefited more or less equally from the surge. Other academic studies have reached largely similar conclusions.

[frank ryan]

If you read what I wrote before deciding how much you disagree with me, you'll see that I very specifically stated that this is NOT like protecting your home. So - I'm not the one making that stretch, thank you.

I know there will be personal differences as far as when self-defense is justified and when it is not. I get that. Rioting aside, I think one could ask the question - under what circumstances is it OK to fire a gun in self-defense? For some people, it is only in your own home if there's a home invasion going on - and even then only if you think they might harm you rather than just rob you. For others, standing up to someone in the street who is attacking you might be OK. What it means to carry a gun and when it can be used in self-defense is part of the conversation, whether there is a riot going on or not.

That doesn't mean it's smart to take a gun into a riot zone - and you'll note I also said that above - while he may not have anticipated actually shooting someone, he had to know it was a possibility if things got crazy. That is on him, obviously.

Now speaking in general terms - and NOT of this specific incident, you and tooblue seem to be saying that anyone having a gun at any time and shooting another person as part of an altercation makes them a vigilante murderer. Yeah - I don't see things that way. Would I personally go to a riot zone with a gun to defend property? Hell no. But I'm not going to say someone who does and then ends up shooting someone is a murderer. That will be up to the prosecutors to decide. But I tend to lean to a belief that people do have the right to defend themselves when attacked. The prosecutor, judge, jury, etc., will have to decide the facts of this case and whether or not this was self-defense. I have no idea. I will say it wasn't smart on his part.

I don't know when or how this kid got separated from his group - but it feels to me like that is a big problem. Let's pretend I did have a business downtown that I wanted to protect from rioters. No way I'm going with a gun to try to protect it myself. I'd be much too worried about being overrun by people and having them use the gun on me or just beat me to death in their anger. This kids "protection", if you want to call it that, was being part of a large armed group. No one was going to attack the large armed group. Once he was on his own, chances of something bad happening increased exponentially. Both because he could then be singled out by the mob, but also because he's a dumb 17 year-old who's brain isn't yet fully developed.

Eddie bringing up the whole idea of using a gun to defend your home in the context of this issue is ridiculous my friend. This isn’t a tough one.

Also, nowhere did I make a statement using a firearm always equally murder. Knock that off man.

[frank ryan]

ahem, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/u...ronavirus.html

That’s assuming it goes smoothly in all places. For example, there isn’t unusual dearth of needed equipment and manpower all of a sudden in Atlanta or Dade county. That’s what happened with polling places. In red states friendly precincts had plenty of polling stations open when heavily minority areas had people waiting for hours and hours.

[PaloAltoCougar]

ahem, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/u...ronavirus.html

The article addresses something different than what I said. I agree that voting by mail doesn't confer an advantage on one party. But unless one believes that mailed-in ballots will be split evenly between the candidates, watching a lead slowly dissipate as those ballots are slowly counted will set off inapt alarm bells.

I will, however, amend my "Biden voters are much more likely to vote by mail" by deleting the "much more." We don't know yet how successful the Dems will be in garnering mail-in votes. My hypothetical remains: if a narrow Trump lead shrinks due to mail-in ballots, then expect a Category 5 Trump Tweetstorm, and much worse.

[swampfrog]

Everything associated with that story just seems crazy.

I have a hard time answering for myself to what extreme would I go to protect property. My family? Yeah...I have no problem shooting you. But breaking windows and burning things downtown away from my home? I like to think I'd just walk away from that.

Citizens have a moral contract with the state with regard to property. It may not be written in exactly those words, but it has been prominent in the US since the founding.

For example, from the federalist papers number 70:

THERE is an idea, which is not without its advocates, that a vigorous Executive is inconsistent with the genius of republican government. The enlightened well-wishers to this species of government must at least hope that the supposition is destitute of foundation; since they can never admit its truth, without at the same time admitting the condemnation of their own principles. Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy.

If the state refuses to quell anarchy that is resulting in the destruction of property, it is failing one of its contractual obligations. If it is granted that riots are the language of the unheard, which is an understandable phenomenon as eloquently articulated by Dr. King., it should also be understandable that citizens who view the current riots as a failure of government to protect property as an unacceptable situation and an erosion of the principle of the rule of law.

[wapiti]

ahem, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/u...ronavirus.html

Yeah, Trump is fighting it to generally discredit the election.

[Uncle Ted]

He seems pretty clear here about his intent.

Looks like the Sandmann's lawyer team, L. Lin Wood, et. el., are going to represent Kyle Rittenhouse Pro Bono...

Embedded Tweet

Why would they take on a case they don't believe they can win? They must be loaded from the lawsuits they won with CNN and WaPo.

[Commando]

Looks like the Sandmann's lawyer team, L. Lin Wood, et. el., are going to represent Kyle Rittenhouse Pro Bono...

Embedded Tweet

Why would they take on a case he doesn't believe he can win? They must be loaded from the lawsuits they won with CNN and WaPo.

Marketing, duh. Stop being obtuse.

[wapiti]

If you read what I wrote before deciding how much you disagree with me, you'll see that I very specifically stated that this is NOT like protecting your home. So - I'm not the one making that stretch, thank you.

I know there will be personal differences as far as when self-defense is justified and when it is not. I get that. Rioting aside, I think one could ask the question - under what circumstances is it OK to fire a gun in self-defense? For some people, it is only in your own home if there's a home invasion going on - and even then only if you think they might harm you rather than just rob you. For others, standing up to someone in the street who is attacking you might be OK. What it means to carry a gun and when it can be used in self-defense is part of the conversation, whether there is a riot going on or not.

That doesn't mean it's smart to take a gun into a riot zone - and you'll note I also said that above - while he may not have anticipated actually shooting someone, he had to know it was a possibility if things got crazy. That is on him, obviously.

Now speaking in general terms - and NOT of this specific incident, you and tooblue seem to be saying that anyone having a gun at any time and shooting another person as part of an altercation makes them a vigilante murderer. Yeah - I don't see things that way. Would I personally go to a riot zone with a gun to defend property? Hell no. But I'm not going to say someone who does and then ends up shooting someone is a murderer. That will be up to the prosecutors to decide. But I tend to lean to a belief that people do have the right to defend themselves when attacked. The prosecutor, judge, jury, etc., will have to decide the facts of this case and whether or not this was self-defense. I have no idea. I will say it wasn't smart on his part.

I don't know when or how this kid got separated from his group - but it feels to me like that is a big problem. Let's pretend I did have a business downtown that I wanted to protect from rioters. No way I'm going with a gun to try to protect it myself. I'd be much too worried about being overrun by people and having them use the gun on me or just beat me to death in their anger. This kids "protection", if you want to call it that, was being part of a large armed group. No one was going to attack the large armed group. Once he was on his own, chances of something bad happening increased exponentially. Both because he could then be singled out by the mob, but also because he's a dumb 17 year-old who's brain isn't yet fully developed.

I'll be surprised if a jury convicts him on murder charges. I won't be surprised at the riots that will happen if he is acquitted. Maybe they can get a plea deal so it doesn't have to go to a jury. But I'm guessing he'll have quality, well-funded counsel. It won't be a good thing if he gets off clean as it will only embolden the armed citizen protectors.

[frank ryan]

Citizens have a moral contract with the state with regard to property. It may not be written in exactly those words, but it has been prominent in the US since the founding.

For example, from the federalist papers number 70:



If the state refuses to quell anarchy that is resulting in the destruction of property, it is failing one of its contractual obligations. If it is granted that riots are the language of the unheard, which is an understandable phenomenon as eloquently articulated by Dr. King., it should also be understandable that citizens who view the current riots as a failure of government to protect property as an unacceptable situation and an erosion of the principle of the rule of law.

That’s rich. The state wasn’t refusing to do anything. Swampfrog, why do you strain to act there is a moral component for right-wing militias to cross state lines and kill people? You really think sanctioning armed political groups killing people for property damage is justifiable and constitutional?

[Uncle Ted]

ahem, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/u...ronavirus.html

A new working paper by the Institute for Economic Policy Research at Stanford University concluded that mail balloting modestly increased voter turnout but that both parties benefited more or less equally from the surge. Other academic studies have reached largely similar conclusions.

Yeah, I am guessing about same the number of the two party's ballots will end up in the trash and never counted as well...

Postal.jpg