Posts: 11,019
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43575
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-01-2021, 02:27 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Is it? I'm genuinely curious now.
Edit - looked into it. Most of the sites I checked that track that kind of thing said center.
That shit was horrifying to watch. As to it's lack of coverage, I can't speak on that. That video alone has made people from every political lean in this country unite in condemnation of it, so it's not like it wouldn't get clicks on every news site.
BTW, you are correct. I was thinking of USA Today, not Newsweek, when I made the left of center comment.
Posts: 11,832
Threads: 131
Reputation:
32591
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-01-2021, 06:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Interesting. Then I pose to you the same question I asked above, should the LEO's in Portland have been able to shoot the mob that was lighting on fire an occupied police precinct?
My answer is perfectly predictiable--according to the circumstances of such arson.
If police are inside and a "mob" is trying to break in to burn down a police station with police inside, then I won't whine if police shoot people breaking through the door. I wouldn't condone firing indiscriminately into a crowd massing outside, though, even if some are carrying torches and shouting "burn the place down."
If people milling around outside break up a park bench and set it on fire on the doorstep, then tear gas and rubber bullets.
Posts: 11,019
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43575
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-03-2021, 12:06 PM)Dill Wrote: My answer is perfectly predictiable--according to the circumstances of such arson.
If police are inside and a "mob" is trying to break in to burn down a police station with police inside, then I won't whine if police shoot people breaking through the door. I wouldn't condone firing indiscriminately into a crowd massing outside, though, even if some are carrying torches and shouting "burn the place down."
If people milling around outside break up a park bench and set it on fire on the doorstep, then tear gas and rubber bullets.
Who said anything about shooting indiscriminately into a crowd? If people outside the building are attempting to light the station on fire are you ok with the officers shooting the people attempting to start the fire?
Posts: 11,832
Threads: 131
Reputation:
32591
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-03-2021, 02:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:
Who said anything about shooting indiscriminately into a crowd? If people outside the building are attempting to light the station on fire are you ok with the officers shooting the people attempting to start the fire?
You did say "shoot the mob," right?
As I said, if the "mob" is breaking into the building with fire, then I don't have a problem with taking out those breaking into windows and doors, i.e., entering the building.
If "outside" means people running around in the streets then, no.
These police should have rubber bullets, tear gas, and flashbangs, right?
Posts: 11,019
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43575
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-03-2021, 03:45 PM)Dill Wrote: You did say "shoot the mob," right?
Don't parse hairs, it's boring.
Quote:As I said, if the "mob" is breaking into the building with fire, then I don't have a problem with taking out those breaking into windows and doors and windows.
So, anyone attempting to light the building on fire should be shot?
Quote:If "outside" means people running around in the streast then, no.
Yes, Dill, no one is advocating for shooting people who are just "running around in the streets".
Quote:These police should have rubber bullets, tear gas, and flashbangs, right?
Sure. Now, should they use them on the people attempting to burn down the building? Or should they shoot them?
Posts: 11,832
Threads: 131
Reputation:
32591
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-03-2021, 03:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Don't parse hairs, it's boring.
So, anyone attempting to light the building on fire should be shot?
Yes, Dill, no one is advocating for shooting people who are just "running around in the streets".
Sure. Now, should they use them on the people attempting to burn down the building? Or should they shoot them?
if you don't like "parsing" then don't inivite it with incredibly general statements like "shoot the mob."
And then right after complaining about "parsing hairs," don't ignore precise descriptions like "breaking windows and doors, i.e.,entering the building."
As to the last question, I'd say use rubber bullets if you have them. If "the mob" is throwing torches at the building from outside then I'd say
no, don't shoot them--unless you've got some rubber bullerts.
Posts: 27,982
Threads: 40
Reputation:
121859
Joined: May 2015
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Mood:
Side note, if a democrat controls the National Guard and the capitol the next time Trump "totally doesn't inspire a riot" we may actually see how liberals really respond to seeing lethal force being used on civilians.
Posts: 11,019
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43575
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-03-2021, 04:24 PM)Dill Wrote: if you don't like "parsing" then don't inivite it with incredibly general statements like "shoot the mob."
Or I could just assume I'm discussing things with an adult who understands what's being discussed.
Quote:And then right after complaining about "parsing hairs," don't ignore precise descriptions like "breaking windows and doors, i.e.,entering the building."
I didn't ignore it, I asked for clarification. You don't have to bust windows or enter a building to set it on fire. Hence my question.
Quote:As to the last question, I'd say use rubber bullets if you have them. If "the mob" is throwing torches at the building from outside then I'd say
no, don't shoot them--unless you've got some rubber bullerts.
So, based on this logic you'd have to conclude that the use of lethal force on Babbit was not warranted. She was certainly less of a danger than a person throwing a Molotov cocktail at an occupied building.
Geez, Dill. It's almost like we're discovering how difficult it is for LEO's to make these types of split second decisions. You can't be consistent in this regard with hours to mull the scenario over.
Posts: 38,552
Threads: 1,701
Reputation:
55458
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
This was in Washington (State). Some reports said the crowd was banging on the windows and yelling at the people inside. I have not confimred this myself.
I wonder if the police could just "shoot the mob" to protect the children? 
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 11,832
Threads: 131
Reputation:
32591
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-03-2021, 04:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Or I could just assume I'm discussing things with an adult who understands what's being discussed.
I didn't ignore it, I asked for clarification. You don't have to bust windows or enter a building to set it on fire. Hence my question.
"Adults" understand that "shoot the mob" can't mean shoot indiscriminately,
but they can't understand that "breaking into windows and doors" is a limiting determination--clarification?
Especially if another option is offered for those running around out side--even if they present as arson threats?
(09-03-2021, 04:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, based on this logic you'd have to conclude that the use of lethal force on Babbit was not warranted. She was certainly less of a danger than a person throwing a Molotov cocktail at an occupied building.
Geez, Dill. It's almost like we're discovering how difficult it is for LEO's to make these types of split second decisions. You can't be consistent in this regard with hours to mull the scenario over.
If I think it's ok to shoot someone breaking into a police station with possibly lethal intent,
By that logic I'd have to conclude that lethal force agains Babbit was not warranted,
like arson is the only potential danger there can be?
Posts: 11,019
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43575
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-04-2021, 10:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: This was in Washington (State). Some reports said the crowd was banging on the windows and yelling at the people inside. I have not confimred this myself.
I wonder if the police could just "shoot the mob" to protect the children?
Why, was someone's life in danger? Or are you just talking inane shit because that's all you've got?  Maybe you can confimred this for me? OOoooo, typo smack!!! 
(09-04-2021, 07:42 PM)Dill Wrote: "Adults" understand that "shoot the mob" can't mean shoot indiscriminately,
but they can't understand that "breaking into windows and doors" is a limiting determination--clarification?
Especially if another option is offered for those running around out side--even if they present as arson threats?
You're tap dancing around the question and it's blatantly obvious.
Quote:If I think it's ok to shoot someone breaking into a police station with possibly lethal intent,
So you're just going to ignore the question about Molotov cocktails being thrown at an occupied building? I wonder why?
Quote:By that logic I'd have to conclude that lethal force agains Babbit was not warranted,
Interesting, so you're calling for the officer who shot her to be charged with a crime then?
Quote:like arson is the only potential danger there can be?
Who said that? This statement is silly.
Posts: 11,832
Threads: 131
Reputation:
32591
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-05-2021, 12:28 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're tap dancing around the question and it's blatantly obvious.
So you're just going to ignore the question about Molotov cocktails being thrown at an occupied building? I wonder why?
Interesting, so you're calling for the officer who shot her to be charged with a crime then?
Who said that? This statement is silly.
I answered your question.
Now you are trying to shape my response into the one you wanted.
And trying too hard.
Posts: 11,019
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43575
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(09-05-2021, 12:29 PM)Dill Wrote: I answered your question.
Now you are trying to shape my response into the one you wanted.
And trying too hard.
No, you didn't. But if we've reached the point when you start being silly then we're done.
Posts: 38,552
Threads: 1,701
Reputation:
55458
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
Well...
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 38,552
Threads: 1,701
Reputation:
55458
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/08/politics/white-house-privilege-january-6-committee/index.html
Quote:Biden refuses to assert privilege over Trump documents sought by January 6 committee
Updated 9:20 AM ET, Sat October 9, 2021
(CNN)The White House has informed the National Archives that it is not asserting executive privilege on an initial batch of documents related to the January 6 violence at the US Capitol, paving the way for the Archives to share documents with the House committee investigating the attempted insurrection.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters Friday afternoon that President Joe Biden declined to assert privilege over documents pertaining to former President Donald Trump's administration sought by the January 6 select committee. During the White House press briefing, Psaki said that "the President has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not warranted for the first set of documents from the Trump White House that have been provided to us by the National Archives."
"As we've said previously, this will be an ongoing process and this is just the first set of documents," she said. "And we will evaluate questions of privilege on a case-by-case basis, but the President has also been clear that he believes it to be of the utmost importance for both Congress and the American people to have a complete understanding of the events of that day to prevent them from happening again."
The National Archives has already identified documents in response to the committee request and shared them with the Trump legal team and the White House, according to a source familiar with the matter. NBC was first to report on the White House's decision.
The Archives did not immediately respond to CNN's request for comment and has previously said it considers the process as outlined by the Presidential Records Act to be "deliberative until a final decision is made."
"The documents are Trump-era White House records responsive to the select committee's request to the archivist. And so, there is a process where the former President would have a period of time to assess executive privilege and then the current President and team would have a period of time to review that request," Psaki said during Friday's White House press briefing.
Psaki would not say what the form of documents were, such as phone records or visitors' logs.
In a letter to the David Ferriero, the archivist of the United States, White House counsel Dana Remus writes that the decision to not assert executive privilege applies to an initial tranche of documents that were provided to the White House and Trump's attorneys in September. Remus writes that there are other documents the National Archives has provided to the White House for review and a decision about invoking executive privilege on those documents has not yet been made.
Remus wrote in the letter that the request comes amid "unique and extraordinary circumstances."
"Congress is examining an assault on our Constitution and democratic institutions provoked and fanned by those sworn to protect them, and the conduct under investigation extends far beyond typical deliberations concerning the proper discharge of the President's constitutional responsibilities," Remus wrote. "The constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield, from Congress or the public, information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself."
The letter concluded: "We understand that the former President believes that executive privilege should be asserted with respect to a subset of the Documents. When you notify us of such an assertion, we will respond accordingly."
Trump also sent a letter to the National Archives on Friday, arguing that approximately 40 of the documents initially requested by the committee are subject to executive privilege -- a claim that conflicts with Biden's determination.
"I hereby formally assert executive privilege over these records," Trump wrote, noting that the committee has requested "an extremely broad set of documents and records, potentially numbering in the millions" that he believes contain information either protected by executive privilege or others, like attorney-client privilege.
"Should the committee persist in seeking other privileged information, I will take all necessary and appropriate steps to defend the Office of the Presidency," Trump added.
The National Archives and Records Administration told CNN it was in receipt of both letters but declined to comment further.
Legal experts say Biden has the ultimate say over whether these documents are covered by executive privilege, and considering the committee is led by members of Biden's party, Trump's power to sway the outcome is an open question, something Psaki acknowledged on Friday.
"The process is one that has been outlined through history ... the former President has the ability -- not that there is a lot of past precedent here -- I will acknowledge, has the opportunity to exert executive privilege to documents that are in the National Archives. And then this President and this White House has the opportunity to review that," Psaki said.
The House select committee has launched a sweeping investigation into January 6. As part of that, the panel has sent requests for information to a number of federal agencies, including the National Archives, the custodian of the Trump administration White House records.
The committee asked for "all documents and communications within the White House" on that day, including call logs, schedules and meetings with top officials and outside advisers, including Rudy Giuliani.
The White House indicated last month that Biden did not expect to assert executive privilege to shield those records from being seen by the committee.
"We take this matter incredibly seriously," Psaki said during a press briefing on September 24. "The President has already concluded that it would not be appropriate to assert executive privilege."
Psaki noted Friday that "the first set of documents (was) reviewed on a case-by-case basis" but underscored that what the January 6 committee is investigating "is not the normal course of government business."
In August, Trump threatened to invoke executive privilege in an effort to block the House select committee from obtaining the massive tranche of documents it has demanded from several US government agencies, despite his successor having the ultimate say over whether the information can be shared.
To date, the former President has not been as aggressive legally in trying to assert that privilege as his public statements might suggest and the White House's announcement Friday indicates he will likely have trouble preventing the initial batch of documents from being released to the committee.
That said, Trump can still attempt to protect his records by suing relevant agencies -- assuming he can pull together enough legal firepower for a pricey and complex court battle.
If Trump files a lawsuit, that could, at very least, slow down the process of handing over the documents, but the former President only has a limited amount of time to take that step, according to Deborah Pearlstein, a constitutional law professor at Cardozo Law School and expert on presidential powers.
"If the sitting president has said he's not going to assert privilege, then there's a certain amount of time (before) the documents then have to be released unless the former President succeeds in getting a court order, an injunction, for example, prohibiting their release," she told CNN. "That would require a pretty significant ruling by a federal court."
"It's not impossible but all of this is now under a ticking clock," she added, noting we could see activity "if the former president and his team are aggressive legally, sooner rather than later."
This story has been updated with additional reporting and reaction.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 38,552
Threads: 1,701
Reputation:
55458
Joined: May 2015
Location: SW PA
Mood:
I must have missed the video DJT released about the officers who were harmed and died.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Posts: 11,019
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43575
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(10-11-2021, 01:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: I must have missed the video DJT released about the officers who were harmed and died.
Don't act like you actually care about them.
Posts: 5,171
Threads: 62
Reputation:
23301
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(10-11-2021, 02:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Don't act like you actually care about them.
Why is this about Dino and not about Trump?
Here's why I ask. Dino and Dill or whoever could be the most blatantly biased, inconsistent, selective, partisan liberal hacks on this whole world. I'd say they are not, but whatever. When they post something and there is a valid point included in that post, or when they just seem right, it makes no difference. In this case, Trump behaves incredibly shitty (not least towards police), and that seems like a more important point than Dino's alleged shittyness that makes him unfit to post about it in your perception. In general, it is getting tiresome to read about Dino's/... alleged shittyness time and again. Even more so since although like all of us they are probably not perfect individuals, the cases you make for that are often quite thin. Eg. that Dino does not care about policemen's lifes, that just takes it a step too far.
Here's why I mention all that. It appears making all debates so personal so quickly, and that this board seems mainly about board members' opinions about other board members, drives more and more people away. In this case, it also has quite the appearance of deflecting away from Trump's sins, even though I don't think that is the motivation - but if it were, the result would be the same. This doesn't make the board less tilted, it just makes it emptier.
Speaking of imperfect individuals, Bill Maher has his flaws, bit I'd say he makes a valid point here. Since that clip apparently at least gained some attention, I wanted to know if anyone has thoughts about it.
Posts: 27,982
Threads: 40
Reputation:
121859
Joined: May 2015
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Mood:
I'm a cynic, but Ashli Babbit proudly signed up to be one of Trump's faceless, expendable henchmen. It's like riding a motorcycle without a helmet, every now and then someone has to get killed so it can continue to be edgy and cool.
Didn't she post that she might not be coming back, as did a lot of participants?
Posts: 11,019
Threads: 59
Reputation:
43575
Joined: May 2015
Mood: None
(10-11-2021, 04:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: Why is this about Dino and not about Trump?
Here's why I ask. Dino and Dill or whoever could be the most blatantly biased, inconsistent, selective, partisan liberal hacks on this whole world. I'd say they are not, but whatever. When they post something and there is a valid point included in that post, or when they just seem right, it makes no difference. In this case, Trump behaves incredibly shitty (not least towards police), and that seems like a more important point than Dino's alleged shittyness that makes him unfit to post about it in your perception. In general, it is getting tiresome to read about Dino's/... alleged shittyness time and again. Even more so since although like all of us they are probably not perfect individuals, the cases you make for that are often quite thin. Eg. that Dino does not care about policemen's lifes, that just takes it a step too far.
Here's why I mention all that. It appears making all debates so personal so quickly, and that this board seems mainly about board members' opinions about other board members, drives more and more people away. In this case, it also has quite the appearance of deflecting away from Trump's sins, even though I don't think that is the motivation - but if it were, the result would be the same. This doesn't make the board less tilted, it just makes it emptier.
I'll tell you exactly why and I'll use Trump as an example. If Trump made comments about people being mean on twitter he would be roundly, and correctly, mocked for his blatant hypocrisy. So, when Dino makes a post about caring about law enforcement when he's literally shit on law enforcement for years I'm going to give him the same treatment. The guy's literal introduction to this sub forum was criticizing an officer for a bad shoot when there was actual video showing the suspect pulling a gun on the officer. Since then he's made scores of threads and posts that consistently portray law enforcement in a horrible light. So, when you couple that with the general shit we get on a daily basis, no, I am not going to let him make such a comment without pointing out the insane level of hypocrisy behind it. If you don't agree, that's fine, but from what I've seen from him for years it irrefutable fact.
Quote:Speaking of imperfect individuals, Bill Maher has his flaws, bit I'd say he makes a valid point here. Since that clip apparently at least gained some attention, I wanted to know if anyone has thoughts about it.
I actually think it's much more likely now then it was several months ago. Not a fan of it, he needs to go away. I've consistently said I hope Haley runs in 2024 and gets the nod. I think she'd be a shoo-in.
|
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
