Speaking truth is never futile. — Questioner

Fair enough.

In fairness, not a Trump supporter. But curiously goes far easier on him and his policies than a Biden or Obama. :chin:

Anyone who takes US domestic politics seriously is beyond redemption. :lol: — Tzeentch

True — unless one is from the US. It matters a little more to me what happens to my friends and neighbors. Mea culpa if that’s “domestic politics.”

Easy for me to tell the Sudanese not to take their domestic politics seriously though, despite the rapes and murders occurring outside their window. Because I’m above that petty stuff, and wicked smaht.

You're knee-deep in tribalism — Tzeentch

:scream:

Thankfully we all have objective observers like you and Risible Guy to set us straight.

Ok! Don’t let me interrupt your charade.

calm down a little. — Tzeentch

Perfectly calm. But thank you.

You even accused me of partisanship! Which was pretty amusing. — Tzeentch

Because it’s true.

For the record, what I’m pointing out here — and reacting to — is the utter hypocrisy of those on the right, yourself included. Yes, I know what the claims are — none of you are “the right,” or Trumpers, or politically aligned; you’re all just cool neutral observers taking in the facts and making judgements based only on that.

But I see through all of that propaganda, as anyone should. Simply look at the emphasis, at what lines and narratives get echoed, what gets downplayed — at what context gets excluded. It’s perfectly predictable how you and several others will react. As obvious as how a Fox News or MSNBC would react.

Why not simply say “this was a mistake— shouldn’t have happened, regardless of party, and they shouldn’t be lying about it.” Even Glenn Greenwald and the Wall Street Journal could do that.

That’s what I would have done if it were the Biden administration. I am politically left and so currently prefer democrats, so I myself wouldn’t have railed against it at length, that’s true — but I also wouldn’t come on here pretending to be beyond partisanship while repeating DNC talking points verbatim, or trying to minimize the killing. You can look back at my history — at Trump’s assassination attempt, at Charlie Kirk’s murder, etc. I didn’t do that. You did, however.

So yeah, stupidity and hypocrisy and fake neutrality are worth calling out I think. And I do it calmly— just perhaps not nicely (which isn’t warranted in my view).

Anyway— carry on with your fair and balanced interpretations.

I have to admit I am somewhat shocked that you would repeat such a stupid falsehood. — Questioner

I’m not. Better not to put any effort into trolls— although your exhaustive explanations are appreciated, if even an exercise in futility. Ignorance eventually shines through though, doesn’t it? They can’t help but give themselves away.

What’s so very sad on this thread, regarding this murder, is how it exposes those who want to think of themselves as objective observers who don’t play party politics as the frauds they really are. Either they’re so uninformed as to he an embarrassment, or know better but surrendered any principles to partisan hackery.

Anyway — you’re right. We’re supposed to ignore the gross lies that reflexively came out of this administration. How Good and Pretti were “domestic terrorists” and “would-be assassins” — despite no criminal record whatsoever, and no evidence to support the claim whatsoever. When now contradicted by video evidence — the human garbage that they are — the claims have changed. No retraction, no apologies.

But we’re supposed to forget all that.

The way things are going look very sinister to me. — ssu

Agreed. It’s actually far worse than what we’re hearing. It’s also deeply unpopular. But something something Obama, so it’s all good.

was apparently fine under Obama — AmadeusD

:rofl:

Fair and balanced, as always.

Translation: a bunch of bullshit that combines bothsideism with blaming the protesters. Just watch Fox News and you’ll get the point.

It’s really stupid, is what it is. Because Trump is 80, and he’s deeply unpopular. They’ll get wiped out in the midterms, beyond a doubt, and then Trump is out of office forever. Then he’ll be dead — hopefully sooner than later, but not long — and what becomes of this weird coalition?

All the precedents they’re setting will be used against them. Just a matter of time. And I look forward to it.

Guess just carrying a gun legally is enough to get you shot 10 times. Look forward to applying those standards in the future. What goes around comes around. :up:

Videos of an event aren’t always definitive, but this is how it looks to us. Pretti attempted, foolishly, to assist a woman who had been pepper-sprayed by agents. Multiple agents then tackled Pretti, and he had a phone in one hand as he lay on the ground. An agent discovered a concealed gun on Pretti, and disarmed him. An agent then shot Pretti, and multiple shots followed.

The Trump Administration spin on this simply isn’t believable. Stephen Miller, the political architect of the mass deportation policy, called Pretti a “domestic terrorist.” He was a nurse without a criminal record.

Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security secretary, said the fact that he carried a gun and (she said) two magazines, meant he “arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement.”

But he had a license to carry a gun, which was legally concealed, not carried in his hand as some claimed. He was carrying his phone. To hear the ardent gun-rights advocates of the Trump Administration claim he had malicious intentions because he carried a concealed weapon is bizarre.

Pretti made a tragic mistake by interfering with ICE agents, but that warranted arrest, not a death sentence. The agents may say they felt threatened, but it’s worth noting the comments over the weekend by police around the country who say that this isn’t how they conduct law enforcement.

Either many ICE agents aren’t properly trained, or they are so on edge as they face opposition in the streets that they are on a hair trigger. Either way, this calls for rethinking how ICE conducts itself, especially in Minneapolis as tensions build.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/time-for-ice-to-pause-in-minneapolis-e9ecf097?mod=mhp

Wall Street journal editorial page. Even these climate-denying imbeciles have an ounce of integrity at least. Can’t say the same for a few members here— but they still provide laughs.

I have had a disturbing thought - that the ones justifying the murder of Alex Pretti are the ones who would have marched people to the gas chambers. — Questioner

Indeed. But at least that would stick it to the libs.

You make no sense. — Questioner

They would have made great Nazi sympathizers.

New rule:

The penalty for protesting wrong is death. Until a democrat is in office.

Protesting? They are blocking streets, lighting fires, waving foreign flags, — NOS4A2

Let me help you: just picture it’s a bunch of January 6th patriots. There— problem solved.

These principles apply everywhere. All the Palestinians killed were terrorists — or did all the right things to get unjustly shot. But I’m definitely not a defender of state violence. One should just stay home, not protest, not carry a weapon legally, and (if one must go out) not be rude in any way. If you’re told you’re under arrest, for no reason, then immediately fall to the floor and remain motionless— you know, like all the January 6th “patriots” did. Otherwise it’s totally normal to get yourself shot 10 times.

Unless you’re on our side. Then reverse all that. States rights, 2nd amendment, unjust state violence, don’t tread on me, Biden is a dictator, etc etc.

Guy did everything right to get himself unjustly shot - what unparalleled heroism. — Tzeentch

Yeah, like walking around. Not to mention being held down by 4 guys. That definitely deserves being shot 10 times, unarmed.

They want to get hit. — NOS4A2

:rofl:

The Trump bootlicker strikes again with another honest and consistent take.

One says he deserved it, the other says he wanted it. This is what we’re dealing with folks.

so need to misconstrue the position of the first person who doesn't join in the handwringing. — Tzeentch

Right — it’s everyone else’s emotions. Coming in and saying something stupid, then pretending it’s somehow an obvious point, is pretty childish. We get it — you don’t really give a shit and aren’t worried. Next time it’s a Trumper I’m sure you’ll feel the same way. :wink:

Nothing to see here! Just a goon squad murdering protesters.

Now about January 6th being a tour and Ashli Babbitt being a martyr….



Total consistency from the cult.

So Ashli Babbitt had it coming too, just like this guy. And the mother. Right?

How cavalier we are when it’s not someone on our team. Republicans really have no souls.

Oh, okay. Cool. Fair and balanced take.

But you’re right — actions do have consequences. So murdering someone for resisting arrest, when there was no threat (the gun was already removed), should indeed have consequences. But way to defend state power. Really shows the value of your other analyses— as complete garage. But you do you.

Seemed like a classic case of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" to me. — Tzeentch

What a shocker.

I'm not defending anyone nor downplaying anything. — Tzeentch

Yeah, except you really are.

So the latest killing was a straight up execution of a man they pinned down. Video really looks like the kind of violence in war zones. — Christoffer

Looks that way so far. I look forward to Trump supporters spinning this, or simply cheering on executions for resistance.

“If they just complied, they’d be alive.” Fuck you.

This scene encapsulates Trump’s negotiation skills:



Keep in mind: the original agreement was 25%.

Lots of distraction and hand wringing. In the end, nothing changes and he declares victory— and his supporters cheer what a great dealmaker he is. See the renaming of NAFTA, or dozens of other examples.

It's kinda funny that in our interaction on this, I'm the only one who presented facts - with backup, and all he did was attack me. Not a good look for a lawyer. — Relativist

Indeed.

He pulled the gun and fired in one movement in a split second. There was no hesitation, or warning given. The gun wasn’t shown to the victim to indicate that it might be used if she accelerated forwards. — Punshhh

Good point.

Protesters are domestic terrorists. That looks similar to what the regime in Iran would say. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. But the bullshit pretext would be easy to see, given it’s Iran. But if Trump says Good was a domestic terrorist hellbent on running officers over— then it gets taken as fact, despite the video evidence.

you either (1) misunderstood, (2) are approaching in bad faith, (3) are being emotional, or (4) have an unseen liberal bias thanks to your consumption of “mainstream media.” — Mikie

So add to this being “incapable of interpreting the video the same way as I do.”

You’re of course exactly right, and it’s obvious from the video. But when dealing with emotional Trumpers, don’t expect a good faith conversation. Just the usual post hoc justification — or in this case, lashing out and running away. Not a single point you brought up was refuted, just lazy ad hominems about your rationality.

A good Rorschach test of political bias, this is. They’re so in their bubble that to them this is all as obvious as gravity, and to contradict their “objective truth” is as shocking as to question gravity. Amazing to witness.

He fired one shot, through the front windshield, perhaps he felt threatened*, but his next 2 shots were through the side window - when he was clearly not in danger of being hit. After this, he referred to her as a "f*cking bitch". Those 2 shots could not possibly be self-defense, and his attitude suggests anger. — Relativist

There’s is no doubt that he was pissed off and looking for a reason to shoot. Standing in the way of a car gives the perfect pretext to do so— “she was trying to run me over!” No, she wasn’t. She shouldn’t have driven away, no doubt. But she turned the wheel to AVOID him. But as I said before, the consequence isn’t death.

So once again another murderer walks free because of bullshit reasons. Or as the totally objective “I’m left of center but” Trump-lite crowd would say: natural causes.

Excellent synopsis — so of course you either (1) misunderstood, (2) are approaching in bad faith, (3) are being emotional, or (4) have an unseen liberal bias thanks to your consumption of “mainstream media.” Fortunately the guy repeating Kristi Noem talking points is here set you straight.

So once again Trump backs away from a stupid idea and solves the problem he created. What achievements!

I’m loving buying the dips in stocks though. Knowing full well that he’ll just cave makes it rather easy to make some money. For that I applaud his senility.

THe officer was hit with a lethal weapon subsequent to a citizen illegally obstructing him, refusing lawful orders, he suffered internal injuries and had recently been attacked in a similar scneario. — AmadeusD

That’s a cool narrative. Totally wrong, but cool. Carry on.

There are numerous instance of due process violations, detaining citizens who can't provide immediate proof of citizenship, and a recent murder of a woman by an ICE agent. — Relativist

Honestly, anyone who claims the officer who killed Good was within his bounds are either emotional or playing the partisan game. He could have merely stepped out of the way; the intention wasn’t to hit him but to drive away. The consequence for panicking isn’t death. At the very least, given his history, he himself panicked.

But listening to those pretending to be neutral while regurgitating right wing propaganda verbatim is nauseating.

However, It was warranted for the officer who in the course of duty was hit with a lethal weapon by a woman who refused lawful commands. — AmadeusD

Someone’s been watching Fox News.

Nevermind— I meant to say that this description is fair and balanced, and not at all succumbing to hysteria and propaganda like all of you people are doing. How nice to hear someone with the undisputed Real Truth on these culture war issues.

Yes, self-preservation is key, but what does that even mean anymore? — BitconnectCarlos

I think it means preserving its sovereignty. But maybe this is a discussion for another thread — my initial point was only to point out the framework that is being used (in part) in approaching these issues.

Secondly, the defense expenditure has been a far higher percentage of the GDP during the Cold War. Let's remember that also the armed forces were back then larger. There were more men, more ships, more aircraft and more ...nuclear weapons. A way lot more. — ssu

Yes, so what?

And spending has more than kept up with inflation, as I mentioned above.

The United States spending on military is outrageous. The fact that it has been outrageous for decades, or in fact in some ways MORE outrageous in the past (during wars especially), is irrelevant.

That’s true. But the government has more than adjusted for inflation. Much more than your average worker. Seems like yesterday I was talking about the $600 billion dollar allocation.

It just seems to be the idea that the state - or rather, the people running the state - are primarily concerned with the national interest and how to attain it. — BitconnectCarlos

Primarily concerned with security — which makes sense.

I don’t completely agree with realism either, but I’d suggest reading further on it. It’s not as silly as you describe. Most of it is truism. Self preservation is key — although clearly not always rational.

$850 billion is the highest it’s ever been. It’s only gone up.

It’s a ridiculous sum of money. Given our GDP, it should be 1 or 2%, which would still be more than any other country. To argue it’s somehow “lower” is nutty. Look at inflation adjusted spending. To compare to GDP in attempt to make it something other than a monstrosity is absurd.

It’s a realist perspective. Those that are in government are mostly motivated by security and power concerns, as overarching long-term goals. That seems to be the case, especially when looking at something like defense spending, which has only gone up over the years regardless of what the public thinks, and regardless of political party.

But the public do have influence in the short term, beyond question. I think it’s obvious they have long term effects as well (the very fact that the government has to be more cautious or clandestine is itself an effect), but I guess that’s arguable.