America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

"The federal government has denied a request from the state of Minnesota for a disaster declaration and accompanying financial support, to help clean up and repair fire damage from unrest following the police killing of George Floyd."

I'm sorry, you'll need to help me out a little more. Are we talking about private property (like a FEMA style thing) or public state property or public federal property?

How did Minnesota "crap" in their own bed? They allowed the looting and rioting to happen. Some say, they encouraged it by doing nothing.

So how do you think they should have stopped the rioters? Just out of curiosity.

 

[WFO Krypto]

I'm sorry, you'll need to help me out a little more. Are we talking about private property (like a FEMA style thing) or public state property or public federal property?



So how do you think they should have stopped the rioters? Just out of curiosity.

Read the article for yourself https://www.startribune.com/with-fe...s-denied-minnesota-looks-elsewhere/571731112/

How do I think they should have stopped the rioters?

First and foremost, by doing nothing they had no chance of stopping it, or keeping it under control. If you don't buy a lottery ticket, you can't win.

I am not an expert on crowd control. Maybe they could have gotten some crowd control experts involved. Maybe they could have limited the fires and looting? The protesting was/is not the issue. It's the violence that a certain few within the protests seem to feel compelled to carry out.

 

[Danoff]

Read the article for yourself https://www.startribune.com/with-fe...s-denied-minnesota-looks-elsewhere/571731112/

How do I think they should have stopped the rioters?

First and foremost, by doing nothing they had no chance of stopping it, or keeping it under control. If you don't buy a lottery ticket, you can't win.

I am not an expert on crowd control. Maybe they could have gotten some crowd control experts involved. Maybe they could have limited the fires and looting? The protesting was/is not the issue. It's the violence that a certain few within the protests seem to feel compelled to carry out.

The lottery example is a terrible one to lead with. Lottery tickets are a loss of value. From your article:

While there are no recent examples of FEMA aiding cities hit by rioting, its response in 1992 to Los Angeles was a major counterexample. Within a week of the riots, President George H.W. Bush had declared Los Angeles a federal disaster area, and within a month the government began distributing $638 million in assistance to the city, according to the New York Times. Adjusted for inflation, that’s $1.2 billion in today’s dollars.

In 2015, however, FEMA, under the Obama administration, denied aid to the state of Maryland after rioting in Baltimore over the death of Freddie Gray, a Black man who died in police custody. Maryland appealed the decision and was again rejected.

In Minnesota, the Walz administration conducted a preliminary damage assessment riot that found nearly $16 million of eligible damages related to fires. That led the state to request that amount.

This is decent analysis. $16M is pretty small. It seems that FEMA has come in with repair money for riots in the past, but has also rejected it in the past. FEMA said that this was within the realm of the state budget, and it does seem decidedly within their capability. So their analysis seems decent, but it has nothing to do with your analysis, which does not seem decent.

So you're not sure what they could have done, but you blame the state for the riots, and you think they should be punitively denied FEMA money even though FEMA has made it their business in the past to offer money for exactly this sort of thing.

Are you seeing how none of that makes sense?

 

[WFO Krypto]

The lottery example is a terrible one to lead with. Lottery tickets are a loss of value. From your article:



This is decent analysis. $16M is pretty small. It seems that FEMA has come in with repair money for riots in the past, but has also rejected it in the past. FEMA said that this was within the realm of the state budget, and it does seem decidedly within their capability. So their analysis seems decent, but it has nothing to do with your analysis, which does not seem decent.

So you're not sure what they could have done, but you blame the state for the riots, and you think they should be punitively denied FEMA money even though FEMA has made it their business in the past to offer money for exactly this sort of thing.

Are you seeing how none of that makes sense?

Yes, I do blame the state. They did NOTHING to try to control it.

Are you stating that there was absolutely nothing that could have been done to control the rioting, looting, and setting of fires? Are you seeing how this makes no sense?

 

[Danoff]

Yes, I do blame the state. They did NOTHING to try to control it.

Are you stating that there was absolutely nothing that could have been done to control the rioting, looting, and setting of fires? Are you seeing how this makes no sense?

I'm actually not trying to criticize or defend. I'm just asking you about what you're saying, and you're struggling to explain it.

 

[WFO Krypto]

I'm actually not trying to criticize or defend. I'm just asking you about what you're saying, and you're struggling to explain it.

This is what I am trying to say:

1) I, in no way shape or form, have any sympathy for the State and Local government in Minnesota. This was their mess, and they can clean it up!

2) When people do NOTHING to try to help situations like this, they are as much to blame as the rioters and looters.

3) If, and that's a big IF, Minnesota deserves any funds to help clean this up, they should get it from Black Lives Matter and the likes.

 

[Danoff]

This is what I am trying to say:

1) I, in no way shape or form, have any sympathy for the State and Local government in Minnesota. This was their mess, and they can clean it up!

It was actually caused by rioters.

2) When people do NOTHING to try to help situations like this, they are as much to blame as the rioters and looters.

Actually that's not how responsibility works. The Minnesota government could be to blame for something, depending on what they did and what happened, but it wouldn't be the actions of others. It would be failing to live up to their own obligations.

3) If, and that's a big IF, Minnesota deserves any funds to help clean this up, they should get it from Black Lives Matter and the likes.

That would be a lawsuit. Think about how that would play out for a sec.

 

[Dotini]

Portland is still suffering from riots. If I recall, damage to their downtown, courthouse and federal building alone is over $23 million.

In response to the riots in Seattle, the city council is 7-2 in favor of a ~$200 million (50%) cut in police funding. That's enough to override a mayoral veto. But the mayor could delay this in other ways.

 

[WFO Krypto]

Portland is still suffering from riots. If I recall, damage to their downtown, courthouse and federal building alone is over $23 million.

In response to the riots in Seattle, the city council is 7-2 in favor of a ~$200 million (50%) cut in police funding. That's enough to override a mayoral veto. But the mayor could delay this in other ways.

Hey Seattle, let us know how that works out for you. By the way, don't bother calling for help when your city turns into a war zone.

 

[Tornado]

Not even gonna properly defend yourself?

Too busy watching Gone With the Wind on repeat.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Can someone explain what this accomplishes? I mean genuinely, can someone give me a plausible reason for doing this? (Other than making Stephen Miller hard I mean)

International Students Blindsided By ICE Rule Change

I guess nobody could?

Trump administration rescinds rule on foreign students amid pressure from colleges

Hey Seattle, let us know how that works out for you. By the way, don't bother calling for help when your city turns into a war zone.

Bad faith argument.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Not even gonna properly defend yourself?

Defend myself from what?

Which makes it all the more strange that your justification was "I don't know anything about the event in question, but since Trump is too smart to be corrupt he must not be and therefore I have no reason to take issue with it."

He lied about what I said.

 

[Biggles]

So RBG is hospitalized with an "infection".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53412407

What would happen if she should die & the Trump administration tries to ram another SCOTUS appointment through before the election? It seems to me that this might precipitate a constitutional crisis.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

So RBG is hospitalized with an "infection".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53412407

What would happen if she should die & the Trump administration tries to ram another SCOTUS appointment through before the election? It seems to me that this might precipitate a constitutional crisis.

I am sure he will appoint another racist rapist.

 

[Rallywagon]

After how hard the GOP cried about Obama trying to select a justice at the end of his term one could only hope they wouldn't be hypocrites about it and wait until after the election.

 

[TetsuKobura]

RBG ain’t dying, and she’s been in and out of hospitals for a while. Nothing new.

 

[Biggles]

After how hard the GOP cried about Obama trying to select a justice at the end of his term one could only hope they wouldn't be hypocrites about it and wait until after the election.

The way things are right now, I wouldn't expend too much energy hoping.

 

[Tornado]

He lied about what I said.

I am not really familiar with the case against Stone. I know the Republican talking points about the case, but that's about it.

"I don't know anything about the event in question"

Being aware of something through vague, heavily filtered "talking points" isn't the same as actually knowing something; and in fact mattered so little to you regardless that your reasoning for why it couldn't be a corrupt act had nothing to do with it.

In fact, it seems to me that if this were a corrupt act, Trump would have waited until after the election. He is savvy enough consider the optics of the situation.

"but since Trump is too smart to be corrupt he must not be"

"Savvy" is a synonym for "smart," if you weren't aware.

Since I don't buy into the notion that everything Trump does is for some nefarious reason, I don't have a problem with the commutation.

"therefore I have no reason to take issue with it."

Thanks for playing. I'll thank you not to accuse me of lying again just because you have so little self-reflection that you forgot the words you used in your rush to defend Trump over a topic you didn't actually know the details of; and will also note that no one here missed that you're changing the subject rather than acknowledging any of the details of the case even after they were given to you. You're not that slick.

 

[huskeR32]

After how hard the GOP cried about Obama trying to select a justice at the end of his term one could only hope they wouldn't be hypocrites about it and wait until after the election.

They absolutely will be. And not one of the Republicans on this site (or anywhere else) will stand up and repeat the “convictions” they had when they supported the theft of Merrick Garland’s seat. Suddenly, their precious “Biden Rule” won’t mean a thing.

 

[Dotini]

They absolutely will be. And not one of the Republicans on this site (or anywhere else) will stand up and repeat the “convictions” they had when they supported the theft of Merrick Garland’s seat. Suddenly, their precious “Biden Rule” won’t mean a thing.

Politics is war by other means. Supreme Court appointments are highly prized long-lasting accomplishments in the road to power.
But even if RBG were to die tonight and Trump make a new appointment tomorrow, confirmation would be opposed at very point possible and probably blocked.

 

[TexRex]

I said I know the story behind Seattle statue and I mean official story as presented on Wiki, which sound to me like bollocks anyway. One don't attract people who fled from eastern block to restaurant with Lenin statue, that's beyond ridiculous.

It's a curiosity. Curiosities attract attention, and things that attract attention also frequently attract patronage. I particularly like the idea that an effort to mock Lenin is made--in addition to the story the artist wished to tell in the statue's creation--by dressing the statue up in drag during Pride.

There's also no mention of the statue being intended to attract people specifically from the Eastern Bloc. I'm not quite sure where you got that. Of course that isn't to say these people would explicitly not be attracted to the statue or the area in which it is located, particularly on the occasion that I mentioned above.

So I used a bit of sarcasm and labeled him as I see fit. You know opinions, everybody have them. It goes without saying that I don't know him so truth can be anywhere.

That's not sarcasm. There's no irony there.

What I suspect you mean is that you jumped to a conclusion. You took one bit of information (that an individual purchased a statue depicting a notable communist) independent of all other information to which you don't have access and formed an opinion from the incomplete picture you have. It's sort of like you saying I must be for open borders because I don't think people should be hunted down for unlawful entry into the United States (though, to be fair, a certain Trumpkin parroted this particular inane assertion) when immigration laws don't actually secure the border, or like you suggesting I'm an anarchist because I don't approve of laws for which there is no reasonable justification, nevermind that I'm generally in favor of the concept of governance, even if I do feel those in power take it too far too much of the time.

So it's apparent that you don't know what sarcasm, open borders or anarchy are, but now I'm wondering if you even grasp the concept of communism.

Thank you Mr. Schiff.

That's "Mr' Schiff"; you left out the hyphen.

After how hard the GOP cried about Obama trying to select a justice at the end of his term one could only hope they wouldn't be hypocrites about it and wait until after the election.

They absolutely will be. And not one of the Republicans on this site (or anywhere else) will stand up and repeat the “convictions” they had when they supported the theft of Merrick Garland’s seat. Suddenly, their precious “Biden Rule” won’t mean a thing.

If it wasn't for double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

 

[BobK]

Politics is war by other means. Supreme Court appointments are highly prized long-lasting accomplishments in the road to power.
But even if RBG were to die tonight and Trump make a new appointment tomorrow, confirmation would be opposed at very point possible and probably blocked.

I don't know how much the Democrats could do to delay it, since it's up to the Republican-controlled Senate. I'm sure there are a couple things they'd try. though.

 

[huskeR32]

Politics is war by other means. Supreme Court appointments are highly prized long-lasting accomplishments in the road to power.

That doesn't justify what they did with Garland, or their inevitable hypocrisy if a seat vacates before November.

But even if RBG were to die tonight and Trump make a new appointment tomorrow, confirmation would be opposed at very point possible and probably blocked.

Opposed by who, exactly? The Republican-controlled Senate? We both know that will never happen, and nobody else is in a position to oppose anything.

--

If it wasn't for double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

Indeed.

 

[novcze]

That's not sarcasm. There's no irony there.

What I suspect you mean is that you jumped to a conclusion. You took one bit of information (that an individual purchased a statue depicting a notable communist) independent of all other information to which you don't have access and formed an opinion from the incomplete picture you have. It's sort of like you saying I must be for open borders because I don't think people should be hunted down for unlawful entry into the United States (though, to be fair, a certain Trumpkin parroted this particular inane assertion) when immigration laws don't actually secure the border, or like you suggesting I'm an anarchist because I don't approve of laws for which there is no reasonable justification, nevermind that I'm generally in favor of the concept of governance, even if I do feel those in power take it too far too much of the time.

So it's apparent that you don't know what sarcasm, open borders or anarchy are, but now I'm wondering if you even grasp the concept of communism.

oh wow, someone is still mad because some stranger on the interwebz suggested that people who oppose immigration laws are for open borders or people who ignore laws are anachist

Just to be clear, sarcasm and irony are two different things. Open border is a border that enables free movement of people between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions on movement. And anarchists rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. The laws (including immigration laws) are manifestation of hierarchy and as I said before: 'change the laws don't ignore them'.

Are you always so serious? Do you think your posting here have higher purpose? Do you think I get mad when you make certain assumptions about me?

btw. I still think that someone who moves a statue accross half of globe have either lots of money or is ideologically driven.

 

[DesertPenguin]

some stranger on the interwebz

Are you always so serious? Do you think your posting here have higher purpose? Do you think I get mad when you make certain assumptions about me?

@TexRex

 

[TexRex]

oh wow, someone is still mad because some stranger on the interwebz suggested that people who oppose immigration laws are for open borders or people who ignore laws are anachist

Just highlighting your propensity to jump to conclusions, which you do while seemingly misunderstanding the circumstances of those conclusions.

Just to be clear, sarcasm and irony are two different things.

The absence of irony suggests that it's not likely to have been sarcasm. It was, however, a conclusion founded upon incomplete information.

Open border is a border that enables free movement of people between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions on movement.

I'm aware. Armed with that knowledge, perhaps now you understand how the words I was using did not themselves suggest open border advocacy. I'm in favor of border security, of which hunting down those who have committed no criminal act unrelated to how they came to be in the country most definitely is not an example.

And anarchists rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy.

Yeah, and my opposition to laws for which there is no reasonable justification, which I highlighted explicitly so that they wouldn't be confused with laws for which there is reasonable justification, would suggest that I'm not one.

The laws (including immigration laws) are manifestation of hierarchy and as I said before: 'change the laws don't ignore them'.

Sure, but those who advocate for changing these laws are then baselessly accused of being in favor of open borders and/or of being anarchists by individuals who lack a logical argument against.

Are you always so serious?

I'm serious when I'm serious and I'm not when I'm not. What does it matter?

Do you think your posting here have higher purpose?

What does it matter? This is just deflection.

Maybe put a little more thought into the arguments you make in discussion rather than the thoughts and motives of those with whom you're engaging, and then you might not have others highlighting the inanity of the arguments you make.

Do you think I get mad when you make certain assumptions about me?

Hang on, hasty pudding. Can you cite anything I have said that might indicate my having made assumptions about you? I'd first have to have an inclination to do so prior to pondering how you might feel about it. Or is this a continuation of your attempt to deflect from the inanity of your arguments?

btw. I still think that someone who moves a statue accross half of globe have either lots of money or is ideologically driven.

I find it humorous that you've tacked a "by the way" onto your response to the actual topic of discussion, as though you were stymied by your own attempts at deflection.

Of course, neither being rich nor being driven by ideology explicitly indicates an individual as being a communist. They could be, but one can't reasonably infer that from the information available.

 

[Biggles]

Trump today.

Just over 4 months of this left to go ...

 

[ryzno]

Trump today.

View attachment 941063

Just over 4 months of this left to go ...

Are you sure?

 

[Northstar]

Trump today.

View attachment 941063

Just over 4 months of this left to go ...

"See, I told you I had a friend!" - Presumably Trump.

 

[TexRex]

"See, I told you I had a friend!" - Presumably Trump.

"The failing leftist media, the enemy of the people, want you to think I don't have any friends. Many people tell me I'm the best friend they have ever had. Believe me."