• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A Deeply Fractured US

Status
Not open for further replies.
"The crap that happened last night in Washington when the police and national guard cleared peaceful protestors so Trump could have his photo op" ...

...might not be what people believe - or prefer to believe - it was.

A statement from USPP.

 
Brad Sallows said:
"The crap that happened last night in Washington when the police and national guard cleared peaceful protestors so Trump could have his photo op" ...

...might not be what people believe - or prefer to believe - it was.

A statement from USPP.

Don't go bursting anybody's bubble with your facts. The popular account is Trump ordered them to tear gas the people so he could take a stroll. CNN's Don Lemon declared it was the start of a dictatorship. Wait a minute Don, I thought the past 3.5 years have been a dictatorship.
 
CBH99 said:
I think we all knew the US would eventually reach a point like this.  I don't think any of us saw a series of horrible events in such a short period that would lead them to it so lightning quick...although the building blocks of this have been slowly being laid for years now.
...
Between a US President who regularly attacks the institutions that are part of the US foundation (rightly or wrongly, doing it via twitter rants isn't the way to go about it) - the national leadership seeming like a revolving door of officials - the unreal nonsense of the CIVID stuff, the American MSM being a fairly toxic influence on the mindsets and thoughts of most Americans (sadly more of an infotainment source than an unbiased information source) - a MSM that seems to intentionally use it's influence to polarize the population, etc. 

I think we all knew this was eventually going to happen.  We may not have known the catalyst, but the tinder box was being built for a long time.

Looting and rioting?  Move right in and stomp it out, absolutely.

Engaging peaceful protests with force, and escalating situations?  Absolutely the worst possible thing to do right now. 

While law enforcement is used to people videotaping their interactions, American law enforcement has never had more cameras & eyes on them as they do right now.  Deescalating these situations, being compassionate, and showing themselves in a light of 'not your enemy' could not be more valuable than right now.

I agree with the poster above who said, their election in November isn't something I look forward to.  Truly don't.  I honestly Pray that 'America gets back to normal' soon, so that people can go back to being fairly apathetic by then... 

:2c:

I've seen this before in the sixties, seventies and 1992 and in smaller iterations since then.

There have always been divisions in American society: they were born of a revolution and that divided the population; soon after the country formed they were divided along federalist and republican lines and later a more serious division along the lines of slavery which led to a civil war and a racial division that still exists today. More fundamental perhaps is that, in a society that lauds people who make their own way, a deep division has grown between the haves and the have nots which in large part involve race.

Every once in a while the divisions boil over and the State militias have been called out on more than one occasion to put down "insurrection" whether it was the Mormons in the 1840s, or the sputtering rebellions that became the Civil War, or the Reconstruction period black southern militias fighting against the white rifle clubs, or the Colorado Coal Mine Wars or the jobless WW1 veterans Bonus Army in Washington's Hooverville in the 1930s to the Vietnam riots and the race riots of the in the 60s, 70s to 1980 Miami, 1992 Los Angeles, to Cincinnati, Ferguson, Baltimore. The list is near endless.

What's new for all of us is the medium of communication. From inflammatory newspapers of the 1800s to early 1900s; to TV in the last half of the 20th century to the widespread social media and the ubiquitous cell phone cameras.

Where once (except for those who were in the midst of the conflict) we were mostly detached, modern communications, which are tailored to reinforce our pre-existing opinions of events, now feed our outrage in a way rarely done as effectively in the past. While there were always divisions, the extremes of those divisions have grown further apart and both extremes are heavily committed to their respective cause, easily enraged at any perceived slight and prepared to act out to have their voices heard. In a country with a constitutional right of free speech is it any wonder that it is so heavily used or abused on all sides.

As always there are also those who, for their own interest rather than for any altruistic ideals, are prepared to take advantage of such situations to act out in senseless violence at whatever easy targets they can find.

What America needs is leadership that will bridge the current divide and calm the country. Not an easy task at the best of times for the strongest of leader. 'Nuff said.

:coffee:

 
1600 troops are now on installations outside DC. It will be easier to move them into the city if thing get crazy. The entire 82d is available to assist civil authorities. Things are out of control in NYC. The NYPD has over 30000 cops available so the failure is on the Mayor and the leadership of the NYPD.

https://www.newsmax.com/us/troops-floyd-dc/2020/06/02/id/970257/
 
Did anyone see Secretary Esper's press conference this morning?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/politics/esper-insurrection-act-protests/index.html


I don't think he's going to be around for too long.
 
Remius said:
Did anyone see Secretary Esper's press conference this morning?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/politics/esper-insurrection-act-protests/index.html

I don't think he's going to be around for too long.

Wow. Safe to say he's done.

I admire his courage of convictions and his adherence to the principles of democracy.
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/wish-best-us-military-adviser-014003043.html?ncid=facebook_yahoonewsf_akfmevaatca

A Department of Defense adviser has resigned, effective immediately, from the military's science board, citing what he believed to be a violation of conduct from Secretary of Defense Mark Esper...

A letter to Defense Secretary Mark Esper

June 2, 2020

Hon. Mark T. Esper
Secretary of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C., 20301

Dear Secretary Esper,

I resign from the Defense Science Board, effective immediately.

When I joined the Board in early 2014, after leaving government service as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, I again swore an oath of office, one familiar to you, that includes the commitment to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

You recited that same oath on July 23, 2019, when you were sworn in as Secretary of Defense. On Monday, June 1, 2020, I believe that you violated that oath. Law-abiding protesters just outside the White House were dispersed using tear gas and rubber bullets — not for the sake of safety, but to clear a path for a presidential photo op. You then accompanied President Trump in walking from the White House to St. John’s Episcopal Church for that photo.

President Trump’s actions Monday night violated his oath to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” as well as the First Amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble.” You may not have been able to stop President Trump from directing this appalling use of force, but you could have chosen to oppose it. Instead, you visibly supported it.

Anyone who takes the oath of office must decide where he or she will draw the line: What are the things that they will refuse to do? Secretary Esper, you have served honorably for many years, in active and reserve military duty, as Secretary of the Army, and now as Secretary of Defense. You must have thought long and hard about where that line should be drawn. I must now ask: If last night’s blatant violations do not cross the line for you, what will?

Unfortunately, it appears there may be few if any lines that President Trump is not willing to cross, so you will probably be faced with this terrible question again in the coming days. You may be asked to take, or to direct the men and women serving in the U.S. military to take, actions that further undermine the Constitution and harm Americans.

As a concerned citizen, and as a former senior defense official who cares deeply about the military, I urge you to consider closely both your future actions and your future words. For example, some could interpret literally your suggestion to the nation’s governors Monday that they need to “dominate the battlespace.” I cannot believe that you see the United States as a “battlespace,” or that you believe our citizens must be “dominated.” Such language sends an extremely dangerous signal.

You have made life-and-death decisions in combat overseas; soon you may be asked to make life-and-death decisions about using the military on American streets and against Americans. Where will you draw the line, and when will you draw it?

I hope this letter of resignation will encourage you to again contemplate the obligations you undertook in your oath of office, as well as your obligations to the men and women in our military and other Americans whose lives may be at stake. In the event that at least some other senior officials may be inclined to ask these questions after reading this letter, I am making it public.

I wish you the best, in very difficult times. The sanctity of the U.S. Constitution, and the lives of Americans, may depend on your choices.

Sincerely,
James N. Miller

James N. Miller served as under secretary of defense for policy from 2012 to 2014. He provided The Post with a copy of his resignation letter, which he submitted to Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper on Tuesday evening.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/02/secretary-esper-you-violated-your-oath-aiding-trumps-photo-op-thats-why-im-resigning/?arc404=true
 
Remius said:
Did anyone see Secretary Esper's press conference this morning?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/politics/esper-insurrection-act-protests/index.html

I don't think he's going to be around for too long.

But he's absolutely right. It's been a fundamental concept since the Roman Legions were keeping the peace in the empire. You do not threaten to commit or ever commit the national military except as a last resort and then only if you are prepared to go big to the extent of killing your citizens ... because ... if you fail at that point there's no where else to go for help.

That's the big difference between the National Guard and the Active Army. If the National Guard fails, you still have the Active Army to fall back on.

Somebody's made that clear to Esper. If Trump hadn't dodged the Army during Vietnam, maybe he would understand it too.

Esper breaks with Trump to oppose using active duty troops to quell protests

Mike Mullen: I cannot remain silent

:cheers:
 
Yes.  But because he is absolutely right, and has expressed it, he is not long for this administration.

I too admire his convictions.  Glad someone is saying what needs to be said.
 
>A Department of Defense adviser has resigned

He must be feeling pretty good right now, seeing that the USPP has rendered null the premise of his grievance.
 
kkwd said:
Don't go bursting anybody's bubble with your facts. The popular account is Trump ordered them to tear gas the people so he could take a stroll. CNN's Don Lemon declared it was the start of a dictatorship. Wait a minute Don, I thought the past 3.5 years have been a dictatorship.

The popular account is that POTUS cares nothing about optics unless he can manipulate a situation to suit the narrative swimming around his mind at that moment.

Tbh, whether the USPP acted appropriately is altogether irrelevant. (I’m in no way discounting their version of events...I certainly wasn’t there.) What is relevant, and worth questioning, is why POTUS chose that moment in time to take the actions he did. He purposefully chose to use a tumultuous setting to...to what...what point did he actually end up conveying? The entire premise was ill timed and entirely tone deaf.

 
Brad Sallows said:
>A Department of Defense adviser has resigned

He must be feeling pretty good right now, seeing that the USPP has rendered null the premise of his grievance.

Just an Obama hold over.  He has his next gig ready to go. 
 
Brihard said:
Wow. Safe to say he's done.

I admire his courage of convictions and his adherence to the principles of democracy.

Lol... I was just talking to my wife about that as I was logging in and she said exactly those words. 

 
The popular account is that Trump had protestors tear gassed, in order to effect their forcible removal, so that he could stage a photo op.  It's basically the short version of yesterday's (Tue) entire parade of outrage from commentators and politicians.  How - and why, and when - the USPP acted is entirely relevant.  It doesn't play nearly as well if all they have is outrage over Trump using a bible and a vandalized church as a prop.

It would be refreshing if, on those infrequent occasions they get it wrong, Trump's critics would not simply do what he does and throw up a fog of bullshit and refuse to back down from their errors.  All that does is further corrode the credibility of the bullshitters.
 
Re American divisions.      In 1630 Samuel Mavericke left  Plymouth Colony and struck out on his own.  The first of many.
 
Brad Sallows said:
The popular account is that Trump had protestors tear gassed, in order to effect their forcible removal, so that he could stage a photo op.  It's basically the short version of yesterday's (Tue) entire parade of outrage from commentators and politicians.  How - and why, and when - the USPP acted is entirely relevant.  It doesn't play nearly as well if all they have is outrage over Trump using a bible and a vandalized church as a prop.

It would be refreshing if, on those infrequent occasions they get it wrong, Trump's critics would not simply do what he does and throw up a fog of bullshit and refuse to back down from their errors.  All that does is further corrode the credibility of the bullshitters.

I’m assuming you’re referring to my post, since you referenced my specific wording.

My saying that USPP’s actions are irrelevant is due to the fact they’re asserting that they used reasonable measures to dissuade aggression in varying forms among some protestors within the group—that not all were peaceful, and that items were found in the vicinity further substantiating the actions they chose. They are in no way, shape, or form indicating they were given any orders to do so by any other party. I stated plainly that I was not there, so am in no place to debate their statements. Therefore, I am not supporting the media accounts that you (and kkwd) assert the “popular account” is, nor am I indicating that I have any first-hand knowledge to say unequivocally that POTUS gave an order to do so, as media is reporting.

What I made very clear to focus on is questioning the motive behind Trump’s actions and what the end result actually accomplished. You conveniently took a shot at “Trump’s critics” without addressing the reasonable question I posed. So, of equal consideration, it would also be nice if the credibility of his supporters could be upheld as well. I have yet to see/read a justifiable reason for why Trump did what he did—he purposely inflamed a situation needlessly. He could’ve captured the photo after curfew and crowds dispersed, no?

I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt by assuming USPP acted under their own discretion. However, I am not giving him any benefit of any doubt that he couldn’t have chosen a different time to stage his photo-op.
 
1. You quoted kkwd.

2. You posited a different version of something called "the popular account", a phrase used by kkwd.

3. You tried to dismiss the idea that what actually happened is relevant in the context of (1) and (2) and, via (1), to what people are claiming about what happened.

If all you wanted to do was rhetorically ask why Trump did what he did (an unanswerable question by anyone except Trump), why bother with the preamble using kkwd's remark as a launching point?  Why not just ask that question 5 times a day - "why did Trump do what he just did"?  We can all read it and wonder.

PS.  I don't care why Trump did it; I still care (a little bit) about how much further the media collectively poisons its reputation as an institution.  I took a shot at "Trump's critics" because they are indulging in this round of outrage based on a false premise (it's Wednesday, and some still haven't clued in), which was known to be false sometime Monday when someone from the USPP made a verbal statement, easily in time for people to avoid feeding the "fake news" crowd on Tuesday.
 
Brad Sallows said:
1. You quoted kkwd.

2. You posited a different version of something called "the popular account", a phrase used by kkwd.

3. You tried to dismiss the idea that what actually happened is relevant in the context of (1) and (2) and, via (1), to what people are claiming about what happened.

If all you wanted to do was rhetorically ask why Trump did what he did (an unanswerable question by anyone except Trump), why bother with the preamble using kkwd's remark as a launching point?  Why not just ask that question 5 times a day - "why did Trump do what he just did"?  We can all read it and wonder.

1) I quoted him, because it was his post which sparked my reply and who I was addressing.

2) I posted what another “popular account” is. My following statement was accurate among many...excluding those who favour Trump.

3) No. Your interpretation of what I posted is that I tried to dismiss something. My next post should’ve cleared that up.

I’m also not dismissing media reports and what they contain. They certainly exist. I’m acknowledging the fact that (which one would think you and others would be content with) what several reports claim occurred isn’t backed up by those directly involved on the enforcement side. I don’t like Trump. But that doesn’t mean I’m not aware that media bias and inaccurate reporting exists.

Again, optics. That’s what it all comes down to. And to come full circle, clearly Trump doesn’t care if the optics are negative.

As for the “why” I asked? Because this is a forum, and people share thoughts, post information...and ask questions, which generally stimulate further posts—for better or worse...depending on one’s camp.

 
I was kind of worried Hollywood actors and other famous people wouldn't be attacked by outraged fans for not behaving how fans wanted them to.

Much relieved now.

Emma Watson is being criticized for 'performative activism' after altering black squares for Blackout Tuesday to seemingly fit her Instagram aesthetic
https://www.insider.com/emma-watson-blackout-tuesday-black-lives-matter-instagram-reactions-2020-6

"Watson's images drew backlash after fans noticed that the black squares included white borders".

How DARE she  :tsktsk:
 
Well, to save time:

"Why?"

1. To promote Trump.
2. To promote Trump's re-election.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top