The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Biggles]

S
Yeah, I wish he wouldn't say stuff like that, but what are you gonna do?

Vote him out?

 

[McLaren]

Guys stop, please. If he said he's gonna go ahead and authorize protesters be shot on sight, it doesn't mean anything until it actually happens.

/s

 

[UKMikey]

Guys stop, please. He just said he's gonna go ahead and authorize protesters be shot on sight.

What? Stop, it doesn't mean anything until he actually does it.

/s

This is the guy who said he could shoot someone in the street and get away with it without facing prosecution. This isn't the kind of thing presidents say. Mob bosses maybe. No wonder his name is Don.

 

[Joey D]

At least he didn't drone an American and his kid.

We don't actually know if he did or not, mainly because Trump rolled back the need to report civilians killed via drone strikes. Trump also has used drone strikes just as much as Obama did, if not more. The likelihood that a drone strike, approved by Trump, killed civilians.

 

[NotThePrez]

So your beef is not that he is actually denying people their rights, your beef is just that he said it. Well that's very different.

The President of the United States (aka a government official) publicly stated that if you're a suspect of a violent crime (which Michael Reinoehl was at the time of his death), your 5th Amendment rights get waved, and that's how it has to be.

That is denying American citizens their 5th Amendment rights! That's the president denying your own 5th Amendment rights. The fact that you not only still don't get this (or are going out of your way to be being willfully ignorant), but are also going through hoops to defend this man who has demonstrated a clear-as-day disdain for your constitutional rights is mind-blowing.

Again, genuinely, why do you try so damn hard to defend someone who clearly does not give a 🤬 about your personal rights as an American?

Yeah, I wish he wouldn't say stuff like that, but what are you gonna do? At least he didn't drone an American and his kid.

Hol up, so let me get this straight:

Obama: Uses the Air Force under his command to execute drone strike to perform an extra-judicial killing on an American teenager who was suspected of being a terrorist, and in doing so denies said teenager of his right to due process. "Yeah, that's bad!"*

Trump: Publicly gloats about Federal Agents under his command killing a suspect of a violent crime, denying said suspect his right to due process. Also publicly gloats that the Federal Agents under his command had no intention of arresting said suspect, and that if you're suspected of a violent crime, that's just the way it has to be. "Well, he's not actually doing that...."

And you seriously don't get how both of these are problems?

*I also think that that is bad, and from what I've read on the matter, I do think Obama did not face nearly as much heat as he should've for that action.

 

[ryzno]

TBH if they send the National Guard, I look at it as a death sentence per se.
They don't just send them out to pick up anyone, we have Marshalls and Sheriffs for that.
You don't send in the military unless you think poop is gonna hit the fan...
I know rights blah blah, I'll say it again, some people aren't willing to go quietly if at all...
It's the nature of the beast when you are a criminal...

Edit: Does anyone here actually know if he resisted or faught or had a gun? Or is this just Orange Man Bad cause he said something stupid? Also what the hell was he actually wanted for?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I know rights blah blah, I'll say it again, some people aren't willing to go quietly if at all...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights blah blah...

@ryzno sometimes I swear you're a parody writer. I mean this is like genuine comedy right there.

 

[Danoff]

So your beef is not that he is actually denying people their rights, your beef is just that he said it. Well that's very different.

He swore an oath to uphold the constitution. He is now openly advocating and instructing that the government and agencies he runs should violate the constitution. He is commander in chief and the commander in chief just said that that the constitution was and should be violated.

He is actually denying the right. He is saying you don't have it, and he is saying the people he is in command of should ignore it.

Yeah, I wish he wouldn't say stuff like that, but what are you gonna do?

Impeach and remove from office for violating his oath of office?

At least he didn't drone an American and his kid.

It's worse.

 

[ryzno]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights blah blah...

Honest question, if someone killed someone very important to you do you:
A: Want to see the killer dead as soon as possible?
Or
B: Wait 5 years for the court to sentence them to a death sentence they'll probably die from old age before the state gets around to them because it's more about the prison making money than about actual justice?
Or
C: Hood justice and do it yourself?

 

[Danoff]

Honest question, if someone killed someone very important to you do you:
A: Want to see the killer dead as soon as possible?
Or
B: Wait 5 years for the court to sentence them to a death sentence they'll probably die from old age before the state gets around to them because it's more about the prison making money than about actual justice?
Or
C: Hood justice and do it yourself?

It does not matter what @Eunos_Cosmo has to say in response to your question. It is Trump's job, and the job of the police and armed forces, and the job of the judiciary, to uphold the constitution. We don't get to ignore it because someone on the internet says they'd have a hard time with a personal circumstance.

 

[McLaren]

Edit: Does anyone here actually know if he resisted or faught or had a gun? Or is this just Orange Man Bad cause he said something stupid? Also what the hell was he actually wanted for?

Reinoehl was wanted for killing a Trump supporter (or more specifically, I believe a member of a group that supports him), after an altercation.

I believe the main story is that he ran, but the details get muddy after that. I think there's a claim in the official police report he shot back, but 1 witness said he didn't have a gun, another couple witnesses said they heard a gunfight, and then an article says the police claim he had a gun but would not confirm or deny if Reinoehl actually fired back.

But, the issue is Trump is saying as if Reinoehl's death was the proper outcome ("the way it has to be") rather than the unfortunate outcome they want to avoid.

 

[NotThePrez]

I know rights blah blah, I'll say it again, some people aren't willing to go quietly if at all...
It's the nature of the beast when you are a criminal...

If it's demonstrable that the suspect was for sure a fatal risk, and that the only viable option at the time was using deadly force, than that's one thing. What we have here is a (rather, the) government official publicly stating at least twice that Federal Authorities under his command went in to kill a suspect of a violent crime, and they went in with zero intention to bring him to justice. Said official went on to say that's the way things have to be for the sake of "retribution."

If you're an American citizen, you have rights in this country, criminal or not. It's indefensible for any government agency to deny said rights and order an extrajudicial murder.

I know you're talked about your history many a times on this board. While (being honest) I very much disagree with you on the majority of your personal politics, I'm confident in saying that I'd be pretty pissed if I found out that, under command of the president (or any government official with the ability to command law enforcement), you were killed for being a suspect in a crime by law enforcement officials who had no intention of taking you alive.

Edit: Does anyone here actually know if he resisted or faught or had a gun?

At the moment there are a significant number of conflicting statements in regards to the incident. Law enforcement officials are stating that they fired on Reinoehl because he drew a weapon after initial contact, and that he had a handgun on his person. Eye-witnesses have been giving a range of various conflicting reports. One witness claims that Reinoehl unloaded 40+ rounds from a rifle at Federal SUVs before officals returned fire, while another witness claimed that Reinoehl was just walking back to his car with his cell phone and attempted to take cover when he was killed by Federal Authorities. In the latter aritcle, it's also said that several witnesses did not hear police announce themselves or give commands to Reinoehl before openeing fire. If true, a reasonable argument can be made that Reinoehl may have drawn his weapon is slef-defense because he got rolled up on by a bunch of armed men in black SUVs.

The local Sheriff has also stated that he did not believe that federal officials had body cameras of activated dash-cameras at the time of the shooting, which further muddies the waters on this case.

Or is this just Orange Man Bad cause he said something stupid?

See above.

Also what the hell was he actually wanted for?

He was wanted in connection with the killing of Aaron Danielson, a Portland native.

 

[ryzno]

It does not matter what @Eunos_Cosmo has to say in response to your question.

I'll let him speak for himself.
That said, thank y'all for the additional information.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Honest question, if someone killed someone very important to you do you:
A: Want to see the killer dead as soon as possible?
Or
B: Wait 5 years for the court to sentence them to a death sentence they'll probably die from old age before the state gets around to them because it's more about the prison making money than about actual justice?
Or
C: Hood justice and do it yourself?

There's quite a few middle eastern countries where A and C are the normative outcome. What you are describing is actually a key component of Sharia law. Is that where you want to live? What makes US better is that we have a criminal justice system that is dispassionate.

 

[eran0004]

Honest question, if someone killed someone very important to you do you:
A: Want to see the killer dead as soon as possible?
Or
B: Wait 5 years for the court to sentence them to a death sentence they'll probably die from old age before the state gets around to them because it's more about the prison making money than about actual justice?
Or
C: Hood justice and do it yourself?

A and C is pretty much what happens between criminal gangs. Imagine the whole society revolving around the same ideas, it would not end well.

 

[UKMikey]

The thing I don't get about the "he only said it, he didn't mean it" defence is that
a) does it mean The Don being an unrustworthy liar is somehow better?
b) if it is a lie and he told it on purpose, then he knew it would weaken the rule of law by attacking due process and the fifth amendment
c) if he didn't mean to say it then it suggests that he's dangerously incompetent
or
d) it wasn't a lie and an accusation is the same as a declaration of guilt a la the Salem Witch Trials or McCarthyism.

Not sure how anyone could support any of the above unless they think it'll lead to more murderers being killed and prefer vengeance to justice. To say nothing of the actually innocent people who would be shot to death under such a regime.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So it seems that Trump has business accounts in Chaina Chiyna Chaaaina, and pays a lot more tax there than in the US.

Won't change a thing of course. Seems like he really could shoot somebody on 5th Ave and get away with it.

 

[Dotini]

If it's demonstrable that the suspect was for sure a fatal risk, and that the only viable option at the time was using deadly force, than that's one thing. What we have here is a (rather, the) government official publicly stating at least twice that Federal Authorities under his command went in to kill a suspect of a violent crime, and they went in with zero intention to bring him to justice. Said official went on to say that's the way things have to be for the sake of "retribution."

If you're an American citizen, you have rights in this country, criminal or not. It's indefensible for any government agency to deny said rights and order an extrajudicial murder.

I know you're talked about your history many a times on this board. While (being honest) I very much disagree with you on the majority of your personal politics, I'm confident in saying that I'd be pretty pissed if I found out that, under command of the president (or any government official with the ability to command law enforcement), you were killed for being a suspect in a crime by law enforcement officials who had no intention of taking you alive.



At the moment there are a significant number of conflicting statements in regards to the incident. Law enforcement officials are stating that they fired on Reinoehl because he drew a weapon after initial contact, and that he had a handgun on his person. Eye-witnesses have been giving a range of various conflicting reports. One witness claims that Reinoehl unloaded 40+ rounds from a rifle at Federal SUVs before officals returned fire, while another witness claimed that Reinoehl was just walking back to his car with his cell phone and attempted to take cover when he was killed by Federal Authorities. In the latter aritcle, it's also said that several witnesses did not hear police announce themselves or give commands to Reinoehl before openeing fire. If true, a reasonable argument can be made that Reinoehl may have drawn his weapon is slef-defense because he got rolled up on by a bunch of armed men in black SUVs.

The local Sheriff has also stated that he did not believe that federal officials had body cameras of activated dash-cameras at the time of the shooting, which further muddies the waters on this case.



See above.



He was wanted in connection with the killing of Aaron Danielson, a Portland native.

I think this is a reasonable start to documenting this case. It will probably be quite a while before full details emerge. From what I can recall, a few more details can be added:
- The suspect was not shot by federal officers, but by local police and sheriff's deputies assigned to a federally designated task force to locate and apprehend the subject.
- The suspect's location had been provided by members of his own family, probably a sister.
- The deputies had arrived and deployed at the scene.
- When the suspect emerged from his apartment, he was (supposedly) ordered to surrender, but instead resisted arrest by attempting to flee the scene in a car.
- After what then happened, the murder weapon was recovered from either the suspect's car or his person.

Opinion/Comment:
- The suspect had numerous opportunities to receive his full constitutionally guaranteed rights to a fair trial. IMHO, he in effect forfeited these rights by:
- Fleeing the initial scene of the crime with the murder weapon.
- Crossing state lines into hiding.
- Resisting arrest and attempting flight when finally surrounded and ordered to surrender.
- When attempting to arrest a fleeing armed and dangerous suspected killer, in this case an ex-Marine with a large frame 9mm, it is standard operating procedure for arresting officers to take as little personal risk of death as possible so they can go home to their families when the day's work is done.

- Braggadocio and involvement of a sitting US President in such a case is unwarranted and deplorable. Possibly Presidents back in the 1920's and 30's gangster era railed against notorious murderers like Pretty Boy Floyd, Machine Gun Kelly and Bonnie and Clyde. But I don't really know.

 

[Famine]

TBH if they send the National Guard, I look at it as a death sentence per se.
They don't just send them out to pick up anyone, we have Marshalls and Sheriffs for that.

In this case, it was indeed the US Marshals who "didn't want to arrest him".

I know rights blah blah, I'll say it again, some people aren't willing to go quietly if at all...
It's the nature of the beast when you are a criminal...

Sure thing, and responding to deadly force with deadly force is wholly reasonable.

Going in specifically to kill someone when they're merely accused of a crime isn't. It's also a breach of the US Constitution.

Edit: Does anyone here actually know if he resisted or faught or had a gun? Or is this just Orange Man Bad cause he said something stupid? Also what the hell was he actually wanted for?

I've mentioned it more than once in this conversation.

Michael Reinoehl was the lead suspect in the murder of Aaron Danielson, during a Trump 2020 Cruise rally in Portland. The US Marshals say that when they attempted to arrest him in Washington, he shot at them so they shot back and killed him. The President contradicts this, saying they didn't want to arrest him. Eyewitness accounts are, as always, muddied, but most say Reinoehl did not fire a weapon at the US Marshals, and that the Marshals drove up in unmarked SUVs to box Reinoehl's car in, then started firing without even announcing themselves. Reinoehl managed to get out of his car and run, but was killed.

Local police say that there was a rifle in Reinoehl's car - untouched - and that he had a handgun on him, but it was in his pocket and had not been fired.


However, the precise nature of this case is not directly relevant. The problem is that President Trump said that the US Marshals "didn't want to arrest" someone accused of a crime (which the Fifth Amendment is supposed to ensure; it's due process and summary executions by government apparatus is not permitted) and that "this is the way it has to be" (which it isn't; the Fifth Amendment is the way it has to be) and there "has to be retribution when you have crime like this" (yes, retribution as permitted by 5A, not street justice from government). He also appears to have ignored the fact that Reinoehl was a suspect in a crime and convicted him of being "a violent criminal" without due process. What a shock.

Honest question, if someone killed someone very important to you do you:
A: Want to see the killer dead as soon as possible?
Or
B: Wait 5 years for the court to sentence them to a death sentence they'll probably die from old age before the state gets around to them because it's more about the prison making money than about actual justice?
Or
C: Hood justice and do it yourself?

This isn't the appropriate question here. The appropriate question is "Do you wish to see the US Government invading your personal freedoms in contravention of the robust laws set in place by the Constitution".

This is what has actually happened here, and you should be mad as hell that the current administration thinks 5A doesn't exist. It's not just this guy they killed, but every US citizen that's affected by this.

So your beef

I don't have a "beef". I'm pointing out that the President just took away your rights. You... don't seem to care.

is not that he is actually denying people their rights, your beef is just that he said it. Well that's very different.

It isn't. I mean, you understand how your country works, right?

This is the actual President of the USA saying - in the aftermath of what he says was an execution, contradicting the agency's official report - that due process for the accusation of a crime includes summary execution by federal agencies. This is the position of your Executive Branch (which contradicts the due process rulings of the Supreme Court; more on this later). There is no specific restriction to Michael Reinoehl - the President clearly states that "this is the way it has to be".

The President didn't just strip these rights from Reinoehl, but from every American, including you. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is now moot. These are the rights you no longer have:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You now have no right not to be tried twice for the same crime (though since you have no right to trial by jury, two trials is also moot), no right to silence, and no right against being imprisoned, killed, or having your property seized by the state on a whim. You, not a bad man who might have killed a guy once. You.

This is the position of the Executive Branch: the Fifth Amendment does not exist.

Fortunately for you in the USA, the federal government has three branches, each of which serves as a check against the excesses of the other two branches. It's not enough for the Executive Branch to just ignore the Constitution, because the other two branches will act to ensure the Constitution is preserved. They don't automatically kowtow to the President's fiat.

I mean, it's not like you have a Legislative Branch whose upper house is dominated by a Republican Party that's so scared of Donald Trump that it refuses to convict him on an open and shut impeachment is it? And the life terms of the Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch, mean that it's incredibly unlikely that a sitting President in his first term can stuff it with yes-men (and women) and have a two-thirds Republican Party majority

Lucky for you, none of that can happen, eh?

At least he didn't drone an American and his kid.

Great deflection. Or it would be if I hadn't already mentioned it in this very discussion:

Yes, that's the same issue as Obama/al-Awlaki. It gets hand-waved away because he was a terrorist, so who cares that he was executed by drone strike without ever being charged with any crimes - and his 16-year old kid who was also an American shouldn't have been there.

Obama decided that an American citizen accused of terrorism didn't have constitutional rights. That's very bad, and I have mentioned it on numerous occasions on GTPlanet.

Trump decided that no American has 5A rights.

​

Yeah, I wish he wouldn't say stuff like that, but what are you gonna do?

You... do know there's an election on the matter in two weeks, right?


For four years (plus his original election campaign), Trump has played on fears that his opponents will come for your Constitutional rights (mainly 2A and 1A). He's just removed your Constitutional rights (under 5A) in a sentence.

So what are you going to do?

 

[Imari]

So it seems that Trump has business accounts in Chaina Chiyna Chaaaina, and pays a lot more tax there than in the US.

Won't change a thing of course. Seems like he really could shoot somebody on 5th Ave and get away with it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54625422

This can only be a positive. He's clearly a savvy businessman for making so much money in China, and he wouldn't have had to set up business in China if Sleepy Joe hadn't done such a terrible job with the American economy. It's just smart, because he's smart. Only a fool would run a business in America when you could do it in China and make so much more money.

 

[Dotini]

@Chrunch Houston
There is absolutely nothing new about police shooting armed and fleeing murder suspects. IMHO, your constitutional rights are not in jeopardy by intemperate political posturing/remarks of the present occupant of the White House. But you probably already know this.

 

[Famine]

IMHO, your constitutional rights are not in jeopardy by intemperate political posturing/remarks of the present occupant of the White House.

The Executive Branch, with a stacked Judicial Branch and a Legislative Branch that's too scared to slam-dunk a conviction after impeachment, says federal agencies can kill you on purpose with no attempt to arrest you for simply being a suspect in a crime, and you don't think that jeopardises Constitutional rights?


Sweet zombie Jesus. Did cousin Karl tell you that?

 

[Dotini]

The Executive Branch, with a stacked Judicial Branch and a Legislative Branch that's too scared to slam-dunk a conviction after impeachment, says federal agencies can kill you on purpose with no attempt to arrest you for simply being a suspect in a crime, and you don't think that jeopardises Constitutional rights?


Sweet zombie Jesus. Did cousin Karl tell you that?

- The executive branch is a lot more than just the present occupant of the White House. IMHO, sour grapes about the impeachment are irrelevant.

- IMHO, intemperate claims by Trump himself that he ordered an extra-judicial execution of Reinoehl would need to be credibly documented, and even if they were, are clearly of a political nature. That said, the man himself is obviously quite tactless and desperate. Probably has nearly zero chance of reelection.

- The shooting by police of armed and fleeing murder suspects is a quotidian event in America. In the Reinoehl case, it is not at all established that the suspect was not given the opportunity to surrender. Indeed, he appeared to have attempted renewed flight while armed.

- IMHO, there is no need to stir the already boiling pot by claiming our constitutional rights are in jeopardy.

- Admittedly cousin Karl is bit of a caveman, albeit charming and likeable. But I have a nephew who is a practicing Juris Doctor in daily contact with high officials including our Democratic Governor Inslee and Democratic Mayor Durkan who assures me that I need not worry.

 

[Famine]

The executive branch is a lot more than just the present occupant of the White House.

"The White House" is more than just the President. Both also include the Vice-President, and the Cabinet, who are hired and fired by...

... wait, I remember this one.

IMHO, sour grapes about the impeachment are irrelevant.

Less "sour grapes", more fact - and it's the conviction (which didn't happen, thanks to the Republican senate) not the impeachment (which happened, thanks to the not-Republican lower house). It was an open and shut case, but the Republican party is either scared of Trump or scared of looking like a pack of absolute ringpieces if they don't double-down on backing Trump, and failed to convict.

It's relevant because it means that Trump controls the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches. And denies that 5A protections exist.

IMHO, intemperate claims by Trump himself that he ordered an extra-judicial execution of Reinoehl would need to be credibly documented

Trump didn't make that claim, and it's not relevant to the rest of the statements. He said federal agents refused their obligations under 5A and he backs them in doing so.

The shooting by police of armed and fleeing murder suspects is a quotidian event in America.

Yes. That's not relevant.

In the Reinoehl case, it is not at all established that the suspect was not given the opportunity to surrender. Indeed, he appeared to have attempted renewed flight while armed.

Yes. That's not relevant. Trump said federal agents refused their obligations under 5A before attempting to accost a suspect, and he backs them in doing so.

IMHO, there is no need to stir the already boiling pot by claiming our constitutional rights are in jeopardy.

Why?

This is the very first time that Trump has openly stated that a part of the Constitution does not exist if he feels like it. He has arguably broken the law and the Constitution several times, yet even that - never mind all the other lies, gross and offensive behaviour, and outright cons he's pulled - hasn't been enough to wake Trump voters up to how abominable he is.

If there's one thing that Americans, and particularly Trump voters, hold dear, it's the Constitution. We know this because they churn out the same crap Trump does about how the Democrats and even his own rivals in Republican primaries/caucuses wish to take away Constitutional rights. They should hold it dear though, as it's what prevents the US government from over-reaching into their lives and it keeps it from doing what it wants.

Trump has literally just hand-waved 5A away, denying due process, the right to silence, the right to trial by jury, and the right to be safe from government seizure of property, liberty, and life for all Americans. He has taken away Constitutional rights. This cannot be over-emphasised.

It doesn't matter if he was wrong, or if he's lying, or joking. He said that federal agents knowingly refused their obligations under 5A, and he backs them in doing so. This President supports government agencies taking lethal action against citizens. This President supports action that breaks 5A.

Will it be the moment that potential Trump voters finally realise what he really is? It should be, but it's not looking promising right now.

Admittedly cousin Karl is bit of a caveman, albeit charming and likeable. But I have a nephew who is a practicing Juris Doctor in daily contact with high officials including our Democratic Governor Inslee and Democratic Mayor Durkan who assures me that I need not worry.

Park life.

 

[TB]

Maybe Trump is actually a precog and we just can't understand the reason for his actions yet.

 

[Famine]

Maybe Trump is actually a precog

An anagram of c-grope, which he definitely is.

 

[huskeR32]

If this conversation of late has done anything, it has demonstrated quite clearly that the party that has long held itself up as the champion of the Constitution has little understanding of the Constitution.

 

[Dotini]

The constitution is embodied in law, and not in men. Men will come and go, but the constitution endures.

My understanding is that it does not set a number for the justices serving on the Supreme Court. Should it?

In the 1930's, a frustrated President Roosevelt attempted to "pack" the court, but was thwarted somehow.

Democrats have muttered about newly packing the court in a Biden term in order to counter the recent appointment of "conservatives" or strict constructionists on the court. Is this an idea whose time has come again?

 

[huskeR32]

The constitution is embodied in law, and not in men. Men will come and go, but the constitution endures.

That's a nice, if ultimately trite sentiment, but in reality, if the people charged with upholding and protecting the Constitution fail to do so, it becomes a meaningless piece of paper.

 

[Dotini]

That's a nice, if ultimately trite sentiment, but in reality, if the people charged with upholding and protecting the Constitution fail to do so, it becomes a meaningless piece of paper.

If my understanding is correct, the Constitution is upheld and protected by decisions of cases in law tried by the Supreme Court. Servants or executives acting in the name of the law can in theory and practice be ultimately held accountable unless something has changed that I'm not aware of. I see no problem or failure in the law or Constitution, only the fallibility of men, which may be remedied in an orderly and lawful fashion.