Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[Hamilton Samuels]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-chicago-weekend-violence-20180820-story.html

Even with 600 more officers on the street, nearly as many people were shot in Chicago over the weekend as earlier this month when a spike in violence prompted the boost in deployment.

At least 58 people were shot in the city from late Friday afternoon through early Monday and seven of them were killed.

They included two boys, 16 and 17, found shot in death in a Far South Side field days after their mothers reported them missing; three men wounded during what witnesses said was a peace picnic at the Near North Side’s Seward Park; a woman and four men hit by gunfire hours after a Sunday afternoon softball game near a South Side grade school; and seven shot Friday evening in West Englewood, including a 3-year-old boy hit in the shin.

Two weekends ago, at least 74 people were shot. On that Sunday, Aug. 5, more people were shot in a single day since at least September 2011, when the Tribune began tracking every shooting in Chicago. At least 47 were hit by gunfire, 40 of them during a seven-hour period.

The bloodshed brought demands from community leaders for action, and the city responded by sending in more than 600 extra police to neighborhoods hardest hit by the violence.

A clearly frustrated police Superintendent Eddie Johnson acknowledged Monday that his department "can only do so much."

"Crime isn't just about what the police do," he said at a news conference at police headquarters to talk about the weekend violence. "Crime is about what the criminals do.

"Let's not forget the police aren't the ones out there doing it. We can only do so much," Johnson continued. "We cannot be on every street corner . . . every moment of the day. We just can't. That's an impossibility. It's unreasonable. There's no police department in this country that can do that."

Someone was shot in nearly every police district this past weekend, a Tribune analysis shows.

So what is really wrong within these communities?

Larry, you have cousins everywhere, and you like to speak for everyone within each community in the nation, what's your take? Do we blame the NRA? The KKK? The police? Institutional racism? Seriously, who is really accountable for these massacres?


And do try to take the question, seriously, and not deflect, Larry.

[whiskeypriest]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/16-nurses-pregnant-banner-desert-medical-center_us_5b7af83ae4b0a5b1febdc155

Thank goodness my wife did not take that job!

[NeedsAdjustments]

But you'll be fine with equating Nazis with Republicans.

Got it.

Goddamn right!

When you have more than one out and out Nazi anti-Semite running for office under the aegis of the GOP...

Its a bit like what kiidcarter8 was saying about the Charlottesville protesters.  Suppose some of them really were there to protest the taking down of a confederate statue (as if, really, the statue can be separated from the message meant to be conveyed when it was put up, but anyway...) When those people looked around while walking and saw all the white shirts, swastika armbands, and heard the antisemitic and racist chanted while they hid behind surplus crowd control shields, wouldn't they say "huh, this isn't what I expected.  I thought this was about appreciating confederate civil war history...I'm leaving."

Whomever was there when the shit went down was there to defend a message of hate.  If a few stragglers were there just to watch, so what?  They don't figure into your evaluation of the whole.

Same for Republicans.  They have had chance after chance to do more than issue a statement or two every time a story comes out about a white supremacist/Nazi/KKK sympathizer in their ranks.  They don't.  Because so much of their message, particularly on immigration, is tied up with the same hateful us/them thinking. 

And even if there are a Republicans that are truly uncomfortable allowing those deplorables under the tent?  So what?  The party speaks with one voice.  And when its Trump delivering the edicts?  They are painted by his words.

Don't like it?  Don't stand by him.  Can't get elected if you don't?  Plenty of good paying jobs out there for lobbyists.

So, were the Democrats, many of whom were women, in the 1990's defending sexual harassment in the work place, and should they all be equated with Harvey Weinstein because Bill Clinton was using the power of his office to seduce a 22-year old intern?

Why would someone be equated with Harvey Weinstein because of Bill Clinton? 

Anyway, while your question is a little garbled I get your gist.  And simple answer is, no, in the same way that no one in politics is associated with the personal flaws of someone who is a member of the party, Republican or Democrat, unless that person fails to denounce that behavior.  Plenty of Republicans have, quite recently, been accused of sexual assault (maybe you missed it, but even the President!) and I don't hear the loudest of the liberals claiming that all Republicans are rapists.

The logic in your comparison is flawed in so many other ways, I won't bullet-point them all.  I'll just ask...are there Democrats marching in the street calling for sexually assaulting women?  Are there Democrats retweeting messages to their constituents that talk about how much fun it is to rape? Are there Democrats who have formed, identified with or otherwise associated with pro sexual assault groups?  Are there Democrats that resorted to false both-sideism when confronted with Weinstein's actions?  Can it be said, in any way, that reforms proposed by Democrats are parallel with a point of view that women exist to be sexually assaulted?  I'm pretty sure...no. 

And in case you are wondering if I can produce parallel examples of Republicans doing the same for White Supremacists, the answer is...yes.

You seem to be confused about what a political party is.  It isn't like being gay, or being black, or being a latino immigrant as opposed to an immigrant from Norway.  Those people don't have a choice.  A Republican does.  And when you choose to be Republican you choose for your political views to be associated with other Republicans. 

So when any Republican that finds that association to be uncomfortable can freely end it, yeah, you have to wonder how uncomfortable it really makes them.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Sucky world will stay sucky. 

Make America Great Again isn't even still alive in Trumpist circles, huh?

All dreams die, I guess.

[Hamilton Samuels]

But you'll be fine with equating Nazis with Republicans.

Got it.

Goddamn right!

When you have more than one out and out Nazi anti-Semite running for office under the aegis of the GOP...

Its a bit like what kiidcarter8 was saying about the Charlottesville protesters.  Suppose some of them really were there to protest the taking down of a confederate statue (as if, really, the statue can be separated from the message meant to be conveyed when it was put up, but anyway...) When those people looked around while walking and saw all the white shirts, swastika armbands, and heard the antisemitic and racist chanted while they hid behind surplus crowd control shields, wouldn't they say "huh, this isn't what I expected.  I thought this was about appreciating confederate civil war history...I'm leaving."

Whomever was there when the shit went down was there to defend a message of hate.  If a few stragglers were there just to watch, so what?  They don't figure into your evaluation of the whole.

Same for Republicans.  They have had chance after chance to do more than issue a statement or two every time a story comes out about a white supremacist/Nazi/KKK sympathizer in their ranks.  They don't.  Because so much of their message, particularly on immigration, is tied up with the same hateful us/them thinking. 

And even if there are a Republicans that are truly uncomfortable allowing those deplorables under the tent?  So what?  The party speaks with one voice.  And when its Trump delivering the edicts?  They are painted by his words.

Don't like it?  Don't stand by him.  Can't get elected if you don't?  Plenty of good paying jobs out there for lobbyists.

So, were the Democrats, many of whom were women, in the 1990's defending sexual harassment in the work place, and should they all be equated with Harvey Weinstein because Bill Clinton was using the power of his office to seduce a 22-year old intern?

Why would someone be equated with Harvey Weinstein because of Bill Clinton? 

Anyway, while your question is a little garbled I get your gist.  And simple answer is, no, in the same way that no one in politics is associated with the personal flaws of someone who is a member of the party, Republican or Democrat, unless that person fails to denounce that behavior.  Plenty of Republicans have, quite recently, been accused of sexual assault (maybe you missed it, but even the President!) and I don't hear the loudest of the liberals claiming that all Republicans are rapists.

The logic in your comparison is flawed in so many other ways, I won't bullet-point them all.  I'll just ask...are there Democrats marching in the street calling for sexually assaulting women?  Are there Democrats retweeting messages to their constituents that talk about how much fun it is to rape? Are there Democrats who have formed, identified with or otherwise associated with pro sexual assault groups?  Are there Democrats that resorted to false both-sideism when confronted with Weinstein's actions?  Can it be said, in any way, that reforms proposed by Democrats are parallel with a point of view that women exist to be sexually assaulted?  I'm pretty sure...no. 

And in case you are wondering if I can produce parallel examples of Republicans doing the same for White Supremacists, the answer is...yes.

You seem to be confused about what a political party is.  It isn't like being gay, or being black, or being a latino immigrant as opposed to an immigrant from Norway.  Those people don't have a choice.  A Republican does.  And when you choose to be Republican you choose for your political views to be associated with other Republicans. 

So when any Republican that finds that association to be uncomfortable can freely end it, yeah, you have to wonder how uncomfortable it really makes them.

Putting aside how you did not answer the question, answer the question. People who chose to be in the Democratic Party excused the sexual harassment of a 22-year old woman, some even blaming her instead of the POTUS. That's a fact. So, by doing so, were they in fact endorsing sexual harassment? If you wish to condemn an entire party by the actions, or inactions, of some of its members, why doesn't that apply equally to both parties?

[NeedsAdjustments]

Sucky world will stay sucky. 

Make America Great Again isn't even still alive in Trumpist circles, huh?

All dreams die, I guess.

And as an appendix to this:

May 2015: Trump tells Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren that the US has “totally messed up the balance in the Middle East.” When Van Susteren asks him what he would do, Trump replies, “I don’t want the enemy to know what I’m doing. Unfortunately, I’ll probably have to tell at some point, but there is a method of defeating them quickly and effectively and having total victory.”
--
June 2015: Trump says in a meeting with the Des Moines Register editorial board that he doesn’t want to reveal his plan for taking down ISIS because his political opponents might steal it.

"The problem with politics is if I tell you right now, everyone else is going to say, 'Wow, what a great idea.' You're going to have 10 candidates go and use it, and they're going to forget where it came from, which is me. But no, I have an absolute way of defeating ISIS."
--
November 2015: Trump tells a crowd in Fort Dodge, Iowa, that he has been avoiding questions about his plans for ISIS because he doesn’t “want the enemy to know.” He adds, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me."
--
April 2016: At his official speech on foreign policy, Trump makes some menacing threats to ISIS, but again stops short from going into any details.

“I have a simple message for [ISIS]: Their days are numbered. I won’t tell them where and I won’t tell them how,” he says. “We must as a nation be more unpredictable. We are totally predictable. We tell everything. We’re sending troops — we tell them. We’re sending something else — we have a news conference. We have to be unpredictable. And we have to be unpredictable starting now.”

He repeats this message weeks later at a speech in Waterbury, Connecticut.

"We're gonna beat ISIS very, very quickly, folks. It's gonna be fast. I have a great plan. It's going to be great. They ask, 'What is it?' Well, I'd rather not say. I'd rather be unpredictable."

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/3/15904646/trump-syria-assad-russia-iran-secret-generals-military-isis-terrorism

...but I'm sure "Sucky world will stay sucky" would have resonated as well with voters.

[Hamilton Samuels]

"We're gonna beat ISIS very, very quickly, folks. It's gonna be fast. I have a great plan. It's going to be great. They ask, 'What is it?' Well, I'd rather not say. I'd rather be unpredictable."

He'll do it this fall, to distract from what Mueller will produce, and to add confusion to the November election. Nothing like wagging the dog. Hell, Bubba did that, too.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Putting aside how you did not answer the question, answer the question.

I answered your question....

People who chose to be in the Democratic Party excused the sexual harassment of a 22-year old woman, some even blaming her instead of the POTUS. That's a fact. So, by doing so, were they in fact endorsing sexual harassment?

...so you ask a different question.  No, they were not "endorsing" sexual harassment but they were enabling it in an unacceptable way.  I'd point out, not that this is an excuse, but the public was overwhelmingly behind  Bill Clinton throughout this affair.  A lot of us failed victims of sexual harassment back then, and its a positive in the end that this wouldn't happen today.

If you wish to condemn an entire party by the actions, or inactions, of some of its members, why doesn't that apply equally to both parties?

In terms of personal failings, as I've already explained to you, I don't wish to condemn the entire party, and do not.

In terms of political views that they do not denounce and under-gird party platform positions on immigration, social assistance, and gun control, yes, I will condemn the entire party for holding those political views.

[whiskeypriest]

Incompetent cheese dicks use bluster and buffoonery to start losing a winnable war.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b770480e4b018b93e9398b7

I recall when this idiot claimed he had a surefire way to eliminate ISIS, he just didn't want to let anyone know what it is because it would alert the enemy to his plan.

That wasn't so long ago, but I don't know that anyone has called him on that since he became President.  We are all just supposed to expect that the President of the United States talks shit about issues he knows nothing about, and move on.

Shortly after he was nominated Trump said he had a plan to end gun violence in Chicago in 7 days. He has never told us what that plan was. I think he is morally responsible for every gun death since.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Putting aside how you did not answer the question, answer the question.

I answered your question....

I don't think so.

People who chose to be in the Democratic Party excused the sexual harassment of a 22-year old woman, some even blaming her instead of the POTUS. That's a fact. So, by doing so, were they in fact endorsing sexual harassment?

...so you ask a different question. 

Actually, pretty much the same question, just reworded.

No, they were not "endorsing" sexual harassment but they were enabling it in an unacceptable way.  I'd point out, not that this is an excuse, but the public was overwhelmingly behind  Bill Clinton throughout this affair.  A lot of us failed victims of sexual harassment back then, and its a positive in the end that this wouldn't happen today.
A lot of us fail victim of many crimes today. Particularly the white collar ones.

If you wish to condemn an entire party by the actions, or inactions, of some of its members, why doesn't that apply equally to both parties?

In terms of personal failings, as I've already explained to you, I don't wish to condemn the entire party, and do not.

I guess I misread that. Glad to see you agree with me on that point.

In terms of political views that they do not denounce and under-gird party platform positions on immigration, social assistance, and gun control, yes, I will condemn the entire party for holding those political views.

I would agree with that last bit, for sure. Just as I disagreed with Obama's "Race to the Top", and can point clearly to his personal failure to turn out the vote for Mrs. Clinton. He did nothing to help the party continue what he started, and now it is unraveling, as we knew it would, if the GOP took control.

Which is among the reasons I would like to repeal the 22nd Amendment, as it firmly runs counter to a) the voice of the people being heard, b) renders the 2nd term of a POTUS to lame duck status c) reduces accountability to the people in that second term to zero.

Had there never been the mistake of the 22 Amendment (pushed through by the GOP, btw), our history would be a lot different.

And the parties likely more responsive to the will of the people.

[kiidcarter8]

From early 2018


President Trump deserves credit for hastening the downfall of their Caliphate. However, the war is not over. The threat has mutated and will continue to mutate. ISIS 2018 will launch an insurgency in its former territory. While the loss of the “Caliphate” damages the ISIS brand, it maintains sufficient cachet to inspire attacks abroad. ISIS also has options for alternative safe havens that could allow it to recover. Even outside physical domains, ISIS has access to electronic spaces where it can continue recruitment efforts.

Therefore, the Trump administration should celebrate the progress they have made but also accept that a huge amount of work lies ahead in the next three (or seven) years. The military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies will be at the forefront of the response. Yet stopping ISIS from presenting itself as a credible government in areas where it still retains a presence is also an important task. In those areas, the United States must help promote responsive and representative governance.



yep

[NeedsAdjustments]

Incompetent cheese dicks use bluster and buffoonery to start losing a winnable war.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b770480e4b018b93e9398b7

I recall when this idiot claimed he had a surefire way to eliminate ISIS, he just didn't want to let anyone know what it is because it would alert the enemy to his plan.

That wasn't so long ago, but I don't know that anyone has called him on that since he became President.  We are all just supposed to expect that the President of the United States talks shit about issues he knows nothing about, and move on.

Shortly after he was nominated Trump said he had a plan to end gun violence in Chicago in 7 days. He has never told us what that plan was. I think he is morally responsible for every gun death since.

Its a terrible perversion of the political outsider/businessman message that works with voters..."These lifelong politicians are idiots and too out of touch to get things done.  In my business, I've gotten rich by making decisive decisions and getting results, and I'll do the same as your..."  Of course, running a government is not and will never be like running a business.

With Trump of course it was always so much more absurd because he is a terrible business man and was very clearly talking out of his ass like, 100% of the time he was talking about policy.  But some people bought it.

[Hamilton Samuels]

Its a terrible perversion of the political outsider/businessman message that works with voters..."These lifelong politicians are idiots and too out of touch to get things done.  In my business, I've gotten rich by making decisive decisions and getting results, and I'll do the same as your..."  Of course, running a government is not and will never be like running a business.

And don't forget, he promised he would attract and be surrounded by "the best people".

President Donald Trump repeatedly said during the 2016 election that he would “hire the best people” for his administration, but a new poll Monday shows that most Americans don't think he delivered on that promise.

The new Monmouth University Poll found that only 30 percent of respondents believe that Trump has hired the "best people," with 58 percent saying he has not. Twelve percent of those polled responded either that the president’s hiring record was mixed or that they didn’t know about his hiring record.


Trump's White House has experienced higher-than-usual turnover. And several of his hires for his 2016 campaign and White House have made news in recent weeks.

Paul Manafort, who ran Trump’s presidential campaign in the summer of 2016, is awaiting a jury verdict on tax evasion and bank fraud charges as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian election interference. The president has distanced himself from his former campaign chairman but on Friday said that he was a "very good person" and that his trial was a "very sad day."


Meanwhile, longtime Trump loyalist Omarosa Manigault Newman has commanded the airwaves over the last week as she embarks on a press tour to promote her new tell-all book, including the release of secret recordings she made during her time in the White House.

The Monmouth poll found that about three-quarters of respondents were aware of Manafort’s trial and Manigault Newman’s book release.

Respondents held a dim view of how the Trump White House operates in general — just 19 percent said that they were “very confident” in the way that the president’s advisers and staff are handling their jobs, with 23 percent saying they were “somewhat confident” in White House personnel. More than half said they were "not too confident" or "not at all confident."

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/20/trump-poll-administration-staff-turnover-789604

[NeedsAdjustments]

From late 2016

The Obama administration is publicly handing Donald Trump a gift as he prepares to enter the White House: a degraded ISIS. The question is what the President-elect will do with it.

The US has said that US-led airstrikes have killed up to 75% of ISIS fighters and 180 of its leaders, assessing that the international anti- ISIS coalition has choked the group's ability to recruit foreigner fighters, undermined its propaganda efforts and helped Iraqi forces retake territory.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/14/politics/isis-degraded-trump-policy/index.html

From early 2017

But in the Trump administration’s first major announcement of its still-nascent plans to defeat the militants, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson on Wednesday closely parroted Mr. Obama’s strategy. His comments came as talk of fighting the Islamic State was overshadowed by an attack in London that killed four and injured 40. It was not immediately clear who was responsible for the attack, or if the Islamic State was linked to it.

...

In his 20-minute speech, Mr. Tillerson noted that over the past year, the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria had dropped more than 90 percent, and that 75 percent of the Islamic State’s online propaganda had been eliminated. Both gains occurred largely on Mr. Obama’s watch.

“Reflecting on the past year or so, we should be encouraged by the significant progress we as a coalition are making,” Mr. Tillerson said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/world/middleeast/rex-tillerson-isis.html

...

So glad the trends continued into early 2018, but seems now Trump is dropping the ball.

[LarryBnDC]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-chicago-weekend-violence-20180820-story.html

Even with 600 more officers on the street, nearly as many people were shot in Chicago over the weekend as earlier this month when a spike in violence prompted the boost in deployment.

At least 58 people were shot in the city from late Friday afternoon through early Monday and seven of them were killed.

They included two boys, 16 and 17, found shot in death in a Far South Side field days after their mothers reported them missing; three men wounded during what witnesses said was a peace picnic at the Near North Side’s Seward Park; a woman and four men hit by gunfire hours after a Sunday afternoon softball game near a South Side grade school; and seven shot Friday evening in West Englewood, including a 3-year-old boy hit in the shin.

Two weekends ago, at least 74 people were shot. On that Sunday, Aug. 5, more people were shot in a single day since at least September 2011, when the Tribune began tracking every shooting in Chicago. At least 47 were hit by gunfire, 40 of them during a seven-hour period.

The bloodshed brought demands from community leaders for action, and the city responded by sending in more than 600 extra police to neighborhoods hardest hit by the violence.

A clearly frustrated police Superintendent Eddie Johnson acknowledged Monday that his department "can only do so much."

"Crime isn't just about what the police do," he said at a news conference at police headquarters to talk about the weekend violence. "Crime is about what the criminals do.

"Let's not forget the police aren't the ones out there doing it. We can only do so much," Johnson continued. "We cannot be on every street corner . . . every moment of the day. We just can't. That's an impossibility. It's unreasonable. There's no police department in this country that can do that."

Someone was shot in nearly every police district this past weekend, a Tribune analysis shows.

So what is really wrong within these communities?

Larry, you have cousins everywhere, and you like to speak for everyone within each community in the nation, what's your take? Do we blame the NRA? The KKK? The police? Institutional racism? Seriously, who is really accountable for these massacres?


And do try to take the question, seriously, and not deflect, Larry.

The ridiculous drug war ramping up under Jeff Sessions, lax gun laws in the areas surrounding Chicago, endemic and systemic racism in that Chicago PD has little credibility among the citizens the cops are sworn to serve and protect, the profit motive driving the drug trade, (criminalization drives up costs, competition for “corners” lead to conflict, conflict leads to violence) which comes back to the laws of capitalism - supply and demand - no demand, no supply.

Also, let’s face it, crooks gonna crook, just like EVERY ethnic group facing “economic uncertainty” since the founding of the republic.

Everybody is wringing their hands over the “opioid crisis” which is being seen as a public health crisis while for many decades it has been a crime epidemic. Why aren’t you asking about the meth wars raging in Appalachia?

Also, I have a widely dispersed family and yeah a lot of them are public figures because we do shit.
At the same family reunion in Charleston, SC (2006 - the first held at the Middleton Plantation and the first where the entire family, white and black all came together) where I met the late Depayne Middleton-Doctor, I ran into one of my good friends from ROTC. Three years together in college and we find out we’re cousins 26 years after graduation.

He’s from the Garvin side of the family and his great aunt and cousin authored a family history
called, Lemon Swamp and other places.

https://www.amazon.com/Lemon-Swamp-Other-Places-Carolina/dp/0029105501

This came out more than 30 years ago.