• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump Encourages Aggressive Response to Protests

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
zinfamous said:
yep, and how creepy was that, watching him fumble to hold up a prop Bible, as he scowls at the camera.
Click to expand...
Just got in from grocery shopping and turn on the TV, and there's the Orange Menace brandishing a bible for fucking Christ Sake. What's the message numbnuts?
 
fskimospy said:
Hey woolfe, do the police attacking peaceful protesters without provocation here change your opinion on how much this is happening?

Also, does this?
www.latimes.com

LAPD focused on peaceful protesters while ignoring looting, business owners say

Despite efforts by the mayor and police chief to strike the right tone in their response to the protests over the death of George Floyd, many in Los Angeles say they missed the mark.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com

It’s a police riot.
Click to expand...

Did you read all of that?

Police have often found themselves outmanned as they tried to control protests while also trying to chase down the looters, some of whom have moved through demonstration areas in cars hitting numerous businesses. One Los Angeles councilman likened the looting of a computer store on Melrose Avenue to a McDonald’s drive-through, which went unchecked and broadcast live for some time.
Click to expand...

It's way easier for the police to focus on the main mass of protesters than those who split off and go commit crimes. Especially when manpower and other resources are limited. What I get out of that story is that the cops are either outmanned and in a difficult position, or they've been incompetent, or perhaps some degree of each. Evidence of cops violently beating protesters not seen here. This is the meat of your "police riot" claim:

On Sunday, the LAPD found itself caught in the middle, with some protesters saying officers were too aggressive, and some merchants and residents saying they were not aggressive enough.
Protesters have questioned the department’s commitment to deescalation and blamed LAPD officers in riot gear for stoking tensions. They have blasted police for shooting protesters with beanbags and rubber bullets to disperse them, and said clashes between protesters and police skirmish lines were largely the result of police aggression.
Chris Murillo, 36, of Santa Ana, who said he was shot with a projectile in downtown Los Angeles on Saturday evening, said the officers had opened fire without reason or warning. He said the use of force was indicative of a broader trend in law enforcement, of intimidating citizens into compliance without justification.
Click to expand...

But that's a small part of a larger article, and different people are saying different things about police conduct there. Some are saying they are being restrained. Some are saying they aren't aggressive enough. When the dust settles, the best indicator will be how many deaths or serious injuries come out of this. For now, none of either have been identified.

If the riots go on, I'm sure we'll see some more police violence. Possibly much worse than what is described there. There's a lot of cops out there because there's a lot of rioters out there. Just like not all the rioters are good people, not all the cops are either. It's inevitable, especially the longer and longer it goes on.

Do you honestly expect violent rioting to go on for 6 days across the nation and no one gets hurt? Even with the most restrained possible response, and I'm this isn't always as restrained as it should be, harm to people is inevitable. None of this convinces me that this rioting is a good thing.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Did you read all of that?



It's way easier for the police to focus on the main mass of protesters than those who split off and go commit crimes. Especially when manpower and other resources are limited. What I get out of that story is that the cops are either outmanned and in a difficult position, or they've been incompetent, or perhaps some degree of each. Evidence of cops violently beating protesters not seen here. This is the meat of your "police riot" claim:



But that's a small part of a larger article, and different people are saying different things about police conduct there. Some are saying they are being restrained. Some are saying they aren't aggressive enough. When the dust settles, the best indicator will be how many deaths or serious injuries come out of this. For now, none of either have been identified.

If the riots go on, I'm sure we'll see some more police violence. Possibly much worse than what is described there. There's a lot of cops out there because there's a lot of rioters out there. Just like not all the rioters are good people, not all the cops are either. It's inevitable, especially the longer and longer it goes on.

Do you honestly expect violent rioting to go on for 6 days across the nation and no one gets hurt? Even with the most restrained possible response, and I'm this isn't always as restrained as it should be, harm to people is inevitable. None of this convinces me that this rioting is a good thing.
Click to expand...
I did read all of it and to be clear my point is that there is currently a nationwide police riot underway, not just in select cities.

Edit: and while it’s easier to focus on the main mass of protesters that apparently comes at the expense of focusing on innocent people instead of criminals, which defeats the purpose.

Also, that was my secondary claim. My primary claim was that cops just gassed protesters in front of the White House completely without provocation.
 
fskimospy said:
I don’t think anyone doubted he would attempt to do this, my doubts are that it will be effective.
Click to expand...

Worked pretty well when he was going to be our tough protector by keeping out all the brown rapists and thieves with his mighty wall. Yeah, I know it didn't really work in 2018. That was a mid term. This time we have video of burning buildings on air every day, which we didn't have in 2018 or even in 2016. If memory serves, in 2018 Trump was lying about some ridiculous "caravan" which was supposed to have terrorists with it but it was out of sight, out of mind, and no one gave a crap. We'll see what happens this year.

I'd much rather you be correct about this than me. I'd much rather be wrong and have Trump go away. In fact, I have had to make so many cynical predictions in my life that I very often finding myself wanting to be wrong. If Trumps goes down, I'll gladly congratulate you for being right, and I'll admit I was wrong, in between gulps of champagne.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Worked pretty well when he was going to be our tough protector by keeping out all the brown rapists and thieves with his mighty wall. Yeah, I know it didn't really work in 2018. That was a mid term. This time we have video of burning buildings on air every day, which we didn't have in 2018 or even in 2016. If memory serves, in 2018 Trump was lying about some ridiculous "caravan" which was supposed to have terrorists with it but it was out of sight, out of mind, and no one gave a crap. We'll see what happens this year.

I'd much rather you be correct about this than me. I'd much rather be wrong and have Trump go away. In fact, I have had to make so many cynical predictions in my life that I very often finding myself wanting to be wrong. If Trumps goes down, I'll gladly congratulate you for being right, and I'll admit I was wrong, in between gulps of champagne.
Click to expand...
Oh I know, you’re a smart guy and I really respect your opinion so I’m not trying to talk shit or anything.

I hope you’re horrendously, comically wring too because if you’re not we are all in deep shit.
 
fskimospy said:
I did read all of it and to be clear my point is that there is currently a nationwide police riot underway, not just in select cities.

Edit: and while it’s easier to focus on the main mass of protesters that apparently comes at the expense of focusing on innocent people instead of criminals, which defeats the purpose.

Also, that was my secondary claim. My primary claim was that cops just gassed protesters in front of the White House completely without provocation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, evidence is anecdotal and some has been exaggerated. Like I said, let's see how many deaths and hospitalizations come out of this. That is better evidence than what a protester says, or a business owner, or a cop. They're all blind men touching a small part of the elephant.

I did hear that they tear gassed a peaceful crowd when Trump was giving his "me tough man, me protect you from bad people" speech. It was probably ordered by Trump in some way, even if it was DC Metro who did it.
 
K1052 said:
The bigger point is that he's actively picked the narrowest possible route to re-election by banking on re-creating 2016. This is not sound strategy but try convincing someone who is enamored with their own brilliance which they've mistaken for sheer luck.
Click to expand...
That is his only path to re-election. There tends to be a conservative backlash against riots. Trump isn’t looking to win voters in California. He’s hoping the riots piss off enough voters in Minnesota and Pennsylvania and other swing states so that they tilt red enough for him to win.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
That is his only path to re-election. There tends to be a conservative backlash against riots. Trump isn’t looking to win voters in California. He’s hoping the riots piss off enough voters in Minnesota and Pennsylvania and other swing states so that they tilt red enough for him to win.
Click to expand...

Nixon wasn’t the incumbent in 68 and they lost bad in 70 running on the same thing. People should read history a bit more.

The protests are the new caravan. How did that work out as a referendum on Trump?
 
Starbuck1975 said:
That is his only path to re-election. There tends to be a conservative backlash against riots. Trump isn’t looking to win voters in California. He’s hoping the riots piss off enough voters in Minnesota and Pennsylvania and other swing states so that they tilt red enough for him to win.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's exactly what he's doing. Not even about exciting the base. He's looking at picking up swing voters in swing states who are afraid of the rioting.

We'll see if it works or not.
 
It should be pointed out that the insurrection act only gives him the authority to deploy troops inside the district of Columbia. Sending troops to a state would require an invitation from the governor.

This current president has the full and complete backing of the Justice Department. The concept of "laws" or "constitution" is not applicable to this president or his supporters.

Trump could easily send in federal agents to shoot down protesters, or the media. what the President can do: Anything he damn well wants to do until he is physically stopped and/or an order is refused, and the latter only holds up until the person who refused to follow the order is replaced by someone who will.
 
zinfamous said:
My mom made a good point the other day: Biden needs to go ahead and name his VP, and they both need to just be out there and being leaders. Trump can't do it. He's never lead a fucking thing in his life, and this is plainly obvious.

Biden doesn't even need to mention Trump; he just needs to get out there and be the face and voice of leadership. Do the job of President, because we've only had a steward for the last 3.5 years.

Today Biden was out in the streets at some protest sites and has been visiting churches and speaking to the people. That, alone, shows the stark contrast between the only president that we have and the bunkerFuhrer funneling rage through his tweetfingers.
Click to expand...
The fact he seems hellbent on naming a woman as his running mate concerns me. I have nothing against a woman as VP or POTUS *_IF_* they are the best person for the job. To pick solely on gender (or race) is as stupid as making the choice based on hair color or the color of their eyes.

Biden. Don't fuck this up trying to play to a portion of the population, pick the best people for the job, and when elected that includes every single position in the administration.
 
The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of DC is currently denouncing Trump on the Anderson Cooper show for using a bible and standing in front of a church in their diocese without permission. And saying things contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. And also tear gassing people so he could do the photo op.
 
dbk said:
wow that was just insane... all for a photo op and some gibberish with a bible? WTF was that?
Click to expand...

desperate attempt to follow Biden out on the street on the same day. I think that is all it was.

Trump needs to be seen outside! Give me a way to do it! Make sure I can get outside! No not that way...hold up a what? are you kdding me? the fuck is this...smells like mold. what the fuck let's get out of here. Think I see a black guy over there....

lol, it sounds like Trump was outside of the WH gate for less than 15 minutes.
 
woolfe9998 said:
Yep, that's exactly what he's doing. Not even about exciting the base. He's looking at picking up swing voters in swing states who are afraid of the rioting.

We'll see if it works or not.
Click to expand...

Yep... cracking down on mostly urban protestors in particular is likely a half-assed attempt to curry favor with educated white suburban voters. It's a demographic that's been bleeding away from the Republicans the last couple of years, either in terms of voting against them or just failing to turn out because many of them just plain don't like Trump. The thought is no doubt that worried, nervous suburbanites who hate disruption in any form may respond positively to tough talk about rioters. And Trump can't sell the idea that he's the man you want in charge during a national crisis. We all have seen how well that worked out.

I seriously doubt Trump actually wants a race war; bad for business after all. For the most part disruptions to the economy interfere with him making money, which I imagine is his first, last and only true love. He wants cover for his grifting most of all. He simply seems to be thinking no further than making whatever statements he guesses his supporters want to hear. I'm sure even he recognizes that his favoribility rating among people of color is something like what, 7%? Sure, go ahead and bash 'em, they're a writeoff anyway.

Trump panders to his supporting base every waking moment. He saw the protesters with guns demanding that states be reopened and loved that image. In his brain he sees those same guns being turned on the Floyd protesters, who were conspicuously unarmed. That's a win-win moment for him.

Remember that he has no sense of tomorrow. He doesn't care about consequences. He wants what he wants right this moment. And he wants "law and order." So did Nixon. We know how that turned out.
 
zinfamous said:
My mom made a good point the other day: Biden needs to go ahead and name his VP, and they both need to just be out there and being leaders. Trump can't do it. He's never lead a fucking thing in his life, and this is plainly obvious.

Biden doesn't even need to mention Trump; he just needs to get out there and be the face and voice of leadership. Do the job of President, because we've only had a steward for the last 3.5 years.

Today Biden was out in the streets at some protest sites and has been visiting churches and speaking to the people. That, alone, shows the stark contrast between the only president that we have and the bunkerFuhrer funneling rage through his tweetfingers.
Click to expand...

I’ve said the exact same thing. Biden doesn’t need to be heard, he needs to be seen doing what normal presidents do. Trump will sink himself, let him talk the voters out of supporting him.
 
MtnMan said:
The fact he seems hellbent on naming a woman as his running mate concerns me. I have nothing against a woman as VP or POTUS *_IF_* they are the best person for the job. To pick solely on gender (or race) is as stupid as making the choice based on hair color or the color of their eyes.

Biden. Don't fuck this up trying to play to a portion of the population, pick the best people for the job, and when elected that includes every single position in the administration.
Click to expand...

that doesn't bother me at all. We need a woman as VP. we need a woman as president.

Men make fucking godawful world leaders these days...there's maybe one of them that is of any use to anyone.

besides, VP is all about the election. Always has been since they became a part of party tickets some 100+ whatever years ago.
 
Truck loads of National Guard have been deployed around the White House. Things are going to get worse before they get better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top