The Trump Presidency – 2016

[molson]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I still can't wrap my head around how masks are tyranny and a dangerous loss of rights but federal troops that refuse to say who they are driving around in unmarked rental vehicles taking people off the streets for detainment is ok.

I think I figured at least some of the first one.

The anti-maks sentiment isn't really about a loss of rights. They feel masks are unnecessary, an attack on Trump, and a political stunt. They think masks are mandated by liberals who want to build up the pandemic so it will hurt Trump and the Republicans in November. That the mask policies are scare-tactics to create that appearance of instability that brings about change they don't want. I think a lot of them get worked up over the media and society being "unfair to Trump", and the masks, to them, are a symbol of that. So requiring them to wear a mask is requiring them to take part in that attack on Trump. (And, a lot of other people just don't like to be told what to do and lose their shit when someone tells them to wear a mask. But that's separate from the political resistance).

I don't think it makes much difference to them how protesters are dealt with. Though I think I understand part of the federal government perspective on it. Large scale clashes between poorly-trained and inexperienced local officers and protesters really is a bad thing. The only thing it creates is viral memes. I think there's be fewer and more peaceful protests if there was less police response, and that part of the goal of some of the protests is getting the police there and creating that chaotic scene that's very existence supports the message of the protests. In my town the police response is restrained, and those that do arrive just stand around, and there's very little property damage or violence because there isn't that outlet for the anger to become something more destructive. The worst we've had is some shouting and shoving between groups of protesters, but even though there were calls for arrests and charges for minor batteries and things like that, police have largely sat back and I think that's been a very smart move.

Going in quietly and whisking suspects away for questioning off-site is a lot cleaner and less destructive than what some of these local agencies were doing. Of course, that's creating those viral memes and playing into the protesters' goals too, and marked vehicles and identifiable officers would be better. But they don't really have those to a great degree because federal police aren't really a thing in regular American cities, usually. So I wonder if that's just an issue of rushed implementation. They're sending agents in on planes and it's not like there's this parking lot of federal police vehicles waiting for them. But, I definitely think there's a place for this kind of enforcement, (if done a little less subtly), particularly when federal buildings are in danger. It's better than than confronting protesters with masses of untrained humanity in the middle of the protests themselves. I'm pretty sure I've read calls for police to do kind of what these federal police are doing, though without the secrecy.

I also kind of wonder if the local governments are complaining about this practice publicly and requesting the assistance privately. Life is easier for local governments when they have someone else to blame. They want to distance themselves from their own law enforcement agencies to appease the public, but they also want some degree of law and order and protection of property. So it makes a lot of sense for the them to hope or request the feds to do some of their dirty work so they don't have to be held accountable for it. Maybe the endgame of that is defunded local agencies and more prominent federal law enforcement like a lot of countries have. The feds don't have the same jurisdiction that they would in a lot of countries, but, it's easy to see that evolving.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Trump 2020 - It's worse than Afghanistan - By Far!

No no its not our country they hate its you they hate.

[PilotMan]

OK, so amazing sound bites aside. Anarchists do suck. They are against the common order of society and my short time that I've spent in Portland, the general prevailing notion is to just stay out of their way so you don't get hurt. Frankly, that's bullshit. Put it off, say what you want, but separating out their behavior from those of protestors should be a major platform on both sides. This idiots problem however, is that he's called Wolf on a litany of things, and frankly, people just don't care to listen to him any more.

I haven't run across Anarchists in any other city as a major problem, just Portland, where they have been entrenched for years and years, from what I understand. The city has typically let them do their thing and tolerated them, but my opinion is that yes, they are a threat to people and the order of society. Governments shouldn't have to allow a group whose entire purpose is the downfall and destruction of 'said' government. That's a bit too far in terms of 'freedom' that I am comfortable with. You can't have freedom, if the freedom means abandoning all structure and form of government and society. That's just barbarism, and we have plenty of examples from hundreds of years that it is the enemy of an orderly, civic minded society.

[I. J. Reilly]

Cities in Chaos!!!! Is that the caravan story of 2020, or do they have something else for later in the race?

[Ksyrup]

I'm still amazed at the "don't vote for Biden or this is what you're going to get" ads with footage of Trump's America.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Judge apparently oversaw an Epstein-related case which is probably going to ramp up the conspiracy theories. But the husband is a criminal defense attorney, so figuring out the true target may be a bit more difficult than you'd think.

And now they're saying the killer committed suicide.

Tin Foil hats on!

[Ksyrup]

Two sources described the dead man as an attorney who filed various sorts of civil lawsuits over the years; no other details were available.

EDIT: The guy has been identified on social media as Roy Den Hollander, an anti-feminist attorney (with ties to Russia for the tin foil hatters!) who has made a number of appearance on Fox News. Seemed like a swell guy from some of the video clips I saw...

[Noop]

That's one hell of a plot twist.

[RainMaker]

It appears some nutty men's rights activist.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I actually think the thought process is pretty simple.

It's okay to take those "deadbeats" off the street because they have spent 30-40 days causing disruption and so law and order needs to be restored.

The reason why the LEOs-and-like refuse to say who they are is because they don't want reprisals for them & family. They use rental vehicles because they want to monitor the situation and don't want to alert the deadbeats. I assume when they are taken off the streets that they have legal representation per the laws and not hauled away to a black site to be beaten.

I'm okay with the tactics of not identifying and use of unmarked vehicles, makes sense to me.

The real question to me is should they have been deployed to remove the protesters. I'm not sure as to what has been said, done, negotiated, timeline of events etc.

Yes I sure these are the same things German citizens were saying back in 1935

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I actually think the thought process is pretty simple.

It's okay to take those "deadbeats" off the street because they have spent 30-40 days causing disruption and so law and order needs to be restored.

The reason why the LEOs-and-like refuse to say who they are is because they don't want reprisals for them & family. They use rental vehicles because they want to monitor the situation and don't want to alert the deadbeats. I assume when they are taken off the streets that they have legal representation per the laws and not hauled away to a black site to be beaten.

I'm okay with the tactics of not identifying and use of unmarked vehicles, makes sense to me.

The real question to me is should they have been deployed to remove the protesters. I'm not sure as to what has been said, done, negotiated, timeline of events etc.

If you're not identifying yourself as law enforcement in any way then why should I comply with any orders given? Yet, if I don't comply then I'm charged with resisting. If I'm approached by people like this how do I know they're federal police and not random vigilantes taking advantage of the situation? What happens if I exercise my 2nd amendment rights and injure or kill one of these people that are effectively trying to kidnap me?

How do we know they're only taking deadbeats? Who has oversight over these "police" and where are the reports? Does the public get to see them?

And yes, according to those interviewed they are being blindfolded and hauled off to a location that isn't disclosed until afterwards. They're held without legal representation, asked questions, and then eventually released.

The reason why the LEOs-and-like refuse to say who they are is because they don't want reprisals for them & family.

And I want to specifically highlight this comment because I strongly believe it's a bullshit cop out. Federal judges, district attorneys, and other people involved in the federal government don't get this anonymity despite their family being far bigger targets.


EDIT: The right seems to always be whining about loss of rights, but they're also the people that gladly gave over their rights with the Patriot Act, TSA in airports, and now secret police roaming the streets. It does nothing but drive home the stereotype that it's really only about making sure their hobby (guns) isn't touched. I guess you can put not wearing a mask up there with guns now, though.

[thesloppy]

Simply voicing their intent and affiliation doesn't necessitate disclosing personal information. Shit like this is exactly why people are calling for law enforcement reform.

[ISiddiqui]

This is pretty excellent (blends COVID and baseball):

https://twitter.com/dougherty_jesse/...08430408916992

I'm going to assume that some in the WH aren't going to be too happy about this.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This is pretty excellent (blends COVID and baseball):

For some reason I thought this was about the announcement of a new sport.

[Ksyrup]

Not to mention, if these people are coming from out of state there is a lot less fear of being "outed" and people targeting family as opposed to local cops who live in the community they are policing.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If you're not identifying yourself as law enforcement in any way then why should I comply with any orders given? Yet, if I don't comply then I'm charged with resisting. If I'm approached by people like this how do I know they're federal police and not random vigilantes taking advantage of the situation? What happens if I exercise my 2nd amendment rights and injure or kill one of these people that are effectively trying to kidnap me?

How do we know they're only taking deadbeats? Who has oversight over these "police" and where are the reports? Does the public get to see them?

The below link says there are many things left unresolved. But the bottom line is (I think) no requirement.

Can we not assume this issue has come up many, many, many times already, been challenged in court, and its still not a requirement? If so, this means there are good reasons for where we are.

Page not found - Lawfare

Broadly speaking, law enforcement officers do not have a legal duty to disclose either their identities or their agencies of affiliation, even if asked directly. Certain municipalities require police officers to identify themselves if asked, but there is currently no federal statute requiring officer disclosure of such information. Generally, federal law enforcement conduct is guided by the internal regulations of the particular law enforcement agency for whom the officers work—or, when federal officials are not involved, the regulations of local police departments.

And yes, according to those interviewed they are being blindfolded and hauled off to a location that isn't disclosed until afterwards. They're held without legal representation, asked questions, and then eventually released.

Is this illegal? Is there a timeframe where they have to be given legal counsel if requested? Are there laws that can hold an individual for a period of time? I honestly don't know but if it's within the law, then okay. If we don't like the law, then let's change it (or let the lawsuits happen).

And I want to specifically highlight this comment because I strongly believe it's a bullshit cop out. Federal judges, district attorneys, and other people involved in the federal government don't get this anonymity despite their family being far bigger targets.

Yes, I can see this.

EDIT: I'm not sure I agree with "their family being far bigger targets" but assuming they are equally likely targets, I get the point. I tried a long-shot of doing a search for violence committed against LEO's outside while not on-the-job and not able to find anything.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

It's okay to take those "deadbeats" off the street because they have spent 30-40 days causing disruption and so law and order needs to be restored.

Disruption isn't a crime. If you want to arrest someone for graffiti, have at it. I believe it's a misdemeanor in just about every jurisdiction. But protesting for 30-40 days is not a crime.

Originally Posted by Edward64

The reason why the LEOs-and-like refuse to say who they are is because they don't want reprisals for them & family.

They do it because they don't want to be held accountable for actions they are caught doing on camera. There is no threat to them or their families outside of having the world see how they act in their job.

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm okay with the tactics of not identifying and use of unmarked vehicles, makes sense to me.

How very fascist of you.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm okay with the tactics of not identifying and use of unmarked vehicles, makes sense to me

'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party.

— Adrian Bott (@Cavalorn) October 16, 2015

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How very fascist of you.

I'll be glad to start name calling too but know Ben wouldn't appreciate an escalation. Why don't you just ignore me and save us all a lot of grief.

[albionmoonlight]

The violence of the protests petered out more quickly than he expected. This is a notoriously cheap guy who still paid to take out a full page ad in the New York Times calling to kill five black guys. He does not have many actual beliefs. But one of his actual beliefs is that black people are animals.

So, when he saw that Democrats were protesting police violence against black people, he assumed that they would be ongoing violent protests.

But black people aren't animals. And Democrats are not anarchists. So a lot of the violence stopped.

So he's bringing in a bunch of pseudo-soldiers to try to get things going again.

Anything to distract from COVID.

Anything to distract from the fact that Russia puts bounties on our soldiers while he does nothing in response.

[RainMaker]

He's running an old school racist campaign. Already starting on the "if Biden wins, "they" will invade your suburbs and your property values will drop" bit to his speeches. And now that the protests have petered out, he needs to get them going again to make it seem like there is anarchy in the streets.

As you've seen, it plays to an audience of bootlickers who love authoritarianism. Whether it plays to others, who knows? Being the "Law and Order" President is tough when you have pardoned a war criminal, commuted the sentences of buddies, and set up the DoJ to stop looking into your criminal enterprise.

But what else can he run on? The economy is shit. Foreign policy is a disaster. We're ground zero for the pandemic with no signs of it slowing down. And there are no policy plans for the next term outside of bringing up infrastructure a couple times a year and then forgetting by the next morning.

[thesloppy]

"me, your favorite president!" actually made me snort out loud.

[molson]

Better than the alternative, kudos to whoever talked him into that, regardless of their motivation. That has to make some difference to at least some of his followers.

[Brian Swartz]

He has a point. He is your favorite president out of all the people that are President right now. We have no choice in the matter.

[GrantDawg]

Can I ask what federal law that these protestors are breaking to be arrested by federal officers?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

He has a point. He is your favorite president out of all the people that are President right now. We have no choice in the matter.

Emmanuel Macron's title is "President."

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Can I ask what federal law that these protestors are breaking to be arrested by federal officers?

I don't think they're even being arrested, at least the majority of them. From what I'm reading, they are releasing them almost immediately.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He's running an old school racist campaign. Already starting on the "if Biden wins, "they" will invade your suburbs and your property values will drop" bit to his speeches. And now that the protests have petered out, he needs to get them going again to make it seem like there is anarchy in the streets.

About a month ago, Tucker Carlson gave a "they'll come for you next" speech.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He's running an old school racist campaign. Already starting on the "if Biden wins, "they" will invade your suburbs and your property values will drop" bit to his speeches. And now that the protests have petered out, he needs to get them going again to make it seem like there is anarchy in the streets.

.

I hope Biden's team has him go hard at this in the debates since he has always been clear that defunding was not his answer.

Staying positive, relaying a concise plan of action and letting Lincoln Project and others take the low road against Trump should be a winning formula.

I still worry about Biden getting pulled into the Trump vortex during the debates and dampening the enthusiasm so many have to get Trump out of office, to where they may stay home, along with any vote suppression shenanigans Trump and friends may try.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

Better than the alternative, kudos to whoever talked him into that, regardless of their motivation. That has to make some difference to at least some of his followers.

I'm guessing the new campaign manager?

[booradley]

If you think 2020 is the worst, I get the feeling 2021 is warming up to say "Hold my beer."

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by booradley

If you think 2020 is the worst, I get the feeling 2021 is warming up to say "Hold my beer."

Hopefully there's a COIVD vaccine. That's something, right!

If Biden wins, it's "just" the US economy from 1930 and probably a right-wing belief the election was stolen. If Trump wins, the parallels to 1930s Germany write themselves. I'm not saying that it ends the way that did, but we're echoing a lot of those historical notes.

SI

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Can I ask what federal law that these protestors are breaking to be arrested by federal officers?

What they say is highlighted below. Some half-truths mixed in I'm sure.

https://www.opb.org/news/article/fed...nd-protesters/

The tactic appears to be another escalation in federal force deployed on Portland city streets, as federal officials and President Donald Trump have said they plan to “quell” nightly protests outside the federal courthouse and Multnomah County Justice Center that have lasted for more than six weeks.

Federal officers have charged at least 13 people with crimes related to the protests so far, while others have been arrested and released, including Pettibone. They also left one demonstrator hospitalized with skull fractures after shooting him in the face with so-called “less lethal” munitions July 11.

Officers from the U.S. Marshals Special Operations Group and Customs and Border Protection’s BORTAC, have been sent to Portland to protect federal property during the recent protests against racism and police brutality.

But interviews conducted by OPB show officers are also detaining people on Portland streets who aren’t near federal property, nor is it clear that all of the people being arrested have engaged in criminal activity. Demonstrators like O’Shea and Pettibone said they think they were targeted by federal officers for simply wearing black clothing in the area of the demonstration.
:
Pettibone and O’Shea both said they couldn’t think of anything they might have done to end up targeted by law enforcement. They attend protests regularly but they said they aren’t “instigators.” They don’t spray paint buildings, shine laser pointers at officers or do anything else other than attend protests, which law enforcement have regularly deemed “unlawful assemblies.”

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I don't think they're even being arrested, at least the majority of them. From what I'm reading, they are releasing them almost immediately.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with law enforcement. The point is to stir up shit in cities and scare people.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yeah, it has nothing to do with law enforcement. The point is to stir up shit in cities and scare people.

and to try and make it look like he is the law and order president who won't take any shit from socialist commie leftists.

[stevew]

People who wear their masks under the nose must be awesome at using condoms.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Saw something in my FB memories that was interesting to read with hindsight.

This was my post 5 years ago today -- one month after Trump announced his candidacy and right around the time he first ascended to the top of the primary polls.

I'm still not convinced Trump has the necessary portfolio to make himself the best choice for President but with every jab he takes at RINO's like McCain & Graham he takes another step toward becoming a very legitimate contender for the nomination. Similar to Perot from the past, he's also always about a step away from blowing it but until he does ...
He's shown an ability that's been sorely lacking in recent candidates: the ability to generate actual enthusiasm amongst voters. That, combined with the platform & willingness to say things that an awful lot of people have said themselves & would love to hear from politicians, it's a powerful combination. Any candidate that wants to beat him in the primary better either find a way to keep him from getting too far in front of them OR bank on him stepping off a cliff on his own. The third option may just be to figure out how to be picked as his running mate.

Not a bad analysis if I do say so myself.

[Ksyrup]

The missed calculation by the establishment is that there wasn't a cliff steep enough for him to step off that would push away a certain segment of people who love to hear him say in public the things they've said in private. It's been pretty disgusting to watch it all unfold.

[Ksyrup]

Those people are just below the ones who sit it under the chin, or the people who wear it properly - until they need to speak. Then they pull it down. Why didn't I think of that?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Saw something in my FB memories that was interesting to read with hindsight.

This was my post 5 years ago today -- one month after Trump announced his candidacy and right around the time he first ascended to the top of the primary polls.



Not a bad analysis if I do say so myself.

Respect.

And--even now--there are still people who think the whole thing was simply a tactical blunder by the GOP Establishment. Kasich getting back in the news got Dan McLaughlin on Twitter to go on a bit about how Kasich could have done X, Y, and Z during the 2016 GOP Primary to keep Trump from getting elected.

All of this (pardon the pun) inside baseball tactical analysis seem to miss that Republican voters just really like Trump. The Establishment candidates didn't lose to Trump because of tactics. They lost to a guy who excited (and still excites) a ton of GOP voters.

He has trouble with moderates, which is why he's currently an underdog to Biden. But base motivation and mobilization is a pretty good strategy, and at this point, he is right to try and double and triple down on it. It is still his best chance of winning a close EC victory.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Respect.

Thanks. I mean, I take my lumps (from myself) when I get one wrong so I'm gonna enjoy it when I'm reminded that I got one right

He has trouble with moderates, which is why he's currently an underdog to Biden.

If he gets just a little more aggressive on a few issues, he'll beat Biden going away in the EC. The biggest danger I see him facing is failing to motivate that same group that got him there in the first place. If he forgets the dance steps that got him elected Prom King the first time, he'll lose.

If he fails to curb the pandemic paranoia, if he fails to step hard on Antifa/BLM, he can lose enough voters to get himself beat... I'm just praying he figures that out in time.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If he fails to curb the pandemic paranoia, if he fails to step hard on Antifa/BLM,

I think he needs to find enough Americans beyond his base who would characterize these things in this way. That's his real problem.

[Lathum]

I get the people who held their nose and voted him anyway in 2016, especially given the choices. I would have probably considered him had I not been from NJ and had pretty good knowledge of his past and who he was.

After seeing 4 years of this, and his lack of performance in real crisis, anyone that votes for him now does it because they want the hate and suffering he brings other people and he will give it to them. His second term goal, and by his I mean Miller, McConnell, et al., will be to obliterate the left and our system of government. He will just be their puppet.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think he needs to find enough Americans beyond his base who would characterize these things in this way. That's his real problem.

Those folks ARE his base. And without them, he has no chance.

Biden couldn't lead starving dogs to fresh meat, he's not the threat. Stay at home voters will beat Trump more surely than anything else under the sun.

He won because he inspired his voters. If he fails to do so down the stretch -- and those cracks are there (firing Fauci may not be enough to cover the sins in that quarter) -- he's a dead duck.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Lathum

to obliterate the left

I can think of no more noble goal, nor greater achievement, than that.

If he managed that, mfer could be king for life afaic.

edit to add: If he pulled that off, hell, I want him cryo'ed when he dies so he can be rejuvenated & restored to office when they cure whatever killed him.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think he needs to find enough Americans beyond his base who would characterize these things in this way. That's his real problem.

Correct. Just the base won't do it. There were enough people in 2016 who were like "I don't want Hillary, let's give this craziness a try". We did.

Perhaps this extreme voter suppression stuff will do it. Perhaps controlling the postal service and "losing ballots" will do it. Perhaps a combination of all of these things will be enough. Who knows.

[PilotMan]

I think his biggest issue isn't the excitement of his base, it's that the base that elected him in 16 is simply smaller and more dense now. He's lost a considerable amount of support within his own party. The writing is literally in the news and social media every day. These aren't people who would be against the party if they had someone else. They were in his corner 4 years ago, but not now. That's the real story of the voting base. He's done nothing to expand them.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Those folks ARE his base. And without them, he has no chance.

Yes, and that's a relatively small number in a 2-person race. Not small enough for my liking, but perhaps small enough to cost him the election, perhaps by a comfortable margin (outside of any hijinks).

[JPhillips]

I hope his focus stays on BLM and coronavirus paranoia. His polling on those two issues is absolutely terrible. His base may love it, but that's 35-40% at most, and it drives away the educated, suburban voters that used to see themselves in the GOP. Those people don't want to be a part of a white nationalist party that ignores and silences top scientists.

[Brian Swartz]

The argument that Trump won because he inspired his base in '16 just does not fit with the polling evidence. He won because he got some of the rust belt states narrowly, allowing him to overcome the largest popular vote deficit by a loser in modern US history. He won because undecideds broke his way late in the campaign, esp. evangelicals. He won because of people who held their nose and decided Hillary was worse, not because of his own fantastic attributes.

There is no conceivable scenario under which he 'beats Biden going away'. I'm not sure he'd beat Biden if Biden died between now and the election. What vanishingly small chance he has will require him to get votes from unexpected places again, and everything is trending in the direction of that not happening and Trump getting thumped.