Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to end the US Army's controversial Twitch channel

[trparky]

I don't support the destruction and killing under any circumstances and most especially when it is extremists

Why don't you tell the far-left that? Meanwhile you have crowds marching into private gated communities where they are not welcome. See what happened to the two people who defended their property in Missouri only to be charged with a crime. What crime? Defending their property.

Oh, but the far-left believes in socialism where nobody but the state can own stuff.

No one ever passed a law that cops are judge, jury, and executioner. In fact, if they did, it would be constitutional. But some of them should not be cops and should have never been allowed to be cops.

And I agree with that. There are definitely some people who are on the force that have no business being a police officer. They're only there to live out their high school bully days.

You may want to believe that cops are angels, however, they are just as human subject to all the human flaws like I am and every other human being is.

I don't believe that at all, you're putting words in my mouth and I don't like it!

And guess what - The cop charged with killing George Floyd has just been charged with tax evasion.

Good! Put the jacka** away and let him rot!

Does that sound like a person who should be a police officer?

Nope.

 

[wiyosaya]

Why don't you tell the far-left that? Meanwhile you have crowds marching into private gated communities where they are not welcome. See what happened to the two people who defended their property in Missouri only to be charged with a crime. What crime? Defending their property.

Brandishing a firearm - a felony. Read the indictment. They will get their day in court unlike George Floyd.

And this just in -
Judge grants restraining order against federal agents in Portland

Judge grants restraining order against federal agents in Portland

A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order Thursday night against federal agents from arresting or using force against legal observers and journalists in Portland, Oregon, during ongoing violence and protests there.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[wiyosaya]

I don't believe that at all, you're putting words in my mouth and I don't like it!

I suggest that before you the next time you say the left this, or the left that remember this.

 

[trparky]

Brandishing a firearm - a felony.

What ever happened to our right to bare arms? That’s a right that’s enshrined in our very Constitution.

I suggest that before you the next time you say the left this, or the left that remember this.

When I see fires going on in the streets where these massive riots are happening, what else do you expect me to think? I’ve seen footage from responsible journalists and it’s something that Americans shouldn’t be allowing.

 

[mbrowne5061]

How can you say that when the Democrats are literally supporting the angry mob? How will that lead to a peaceful and stable society? Newsflash! It won’t.

If angry mobs are your concern, you're welcome to go live in the woods and vote (R) by mail.

 

[trparky]

If angry mobs are your concern

These nutjobs are lighting Portland, OR on literal fire. How can you stand by and think that nothing should be done? These nutjobs are destroying public property, places of business, people's homes.

I have no problem with people who are legitimately protesting, but that's not what's happening in Portland, OR. What's happening there is a straight-up riot and insurrection against not only the local government but also the federal government and it needs to be swiftly put down. Enact Presidential Directive 51, round them all up, and then ask questions later.

 

[Evernessince]

These nutjobs are lighting Portland, OR on literal fire. How can you stand by and think that nothing should be done? These nutjobs are destroying public property, places of business, people's homes.

I have no problem with people who are legitimately protesting, but that's not what's happening in Portland, OR. What's happening there is a straight-up riot and insurrection against not only the local government but also the federal government and it needs to be swiftly put down. Enact Presidential Directive 51, round them all up, and then ask questions later.

No they aren't and if you actually went there for yourself instead of relying on sources who's income depend on sentimentalization or social media, you'd realize that very quickly.

 

[trparky]

No they aren't and if you actually went there for yourself instead of relying on sources who's income depend on sentimentalization or social media, you'd realize that very quickly.

Give me sources!!! And I'm not talking about big names like Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. None of them are credible sources for news. Do not listen to them, they are nothing more than propaganda for either the left or the right.

I've seen the fires on independent news sources not connected to any of the big names. All of them are reporting that the city is on fire, people's homes have been destroyed. President Trump needs to send in the big guns and take Portland back reestablish LAW AND ORDER!!!

 

[trparky]

Seattle City Council president addresses protests targeting council members’ houses

Protesters have targeted council members who have not committed to 50% defunding of police department.

www.seattletimes.com

Oh, but it's fine if the rioters are somewhere else, but the moment they threaten a mayor's house the mayor's tune changes. CRUSH THEM!!!

 

[ColdDeck]

What ever happened to our right to bare arms? That’s a right that’s enshrined in our very Constitution.

What ever happened to our right to free speech also! Why shouldn't I be able to yell bomb in an airplane or airport, its right there in the Constitution!

 

[wiyosaya]

What ever happened to our right to bare arms? That’s a right that’s enshrined in our very Constitution.

When I see fires going on in the streets where these massive riots are happening, what else do you expect me to think? I’ve seen footage from responsible journalists and it’s something that Americans shouldn’t be allowing.

I think we have established that we do share some principles in common.

As to your first question, what happened to the right to bear arms? Nothing. As decided by SCOTUS over the years, that right has limits.

As I understand it, brandishing involves pointing a gun, functional or not, loaded or not, at someone. Those laws are apparently vague and depend on what state you are in. However, there are times that you can point a weapon at someone and there are times that you cannot.

My guess is that why they were charged is because the prosecutor reviewed the case and determined that there was not just cause for them to have pointed their weapons at the crowd. I am not entirely sure of the political leanings (it seems left oriented to me) of the following site, should you choose to read it, however, IMO, it does discuss the issue and the case with some objectivity. https://www.thetrace.org/2020/07/armed-st-louis-missouri-couple-threat-brandishing-self-defense/

As I see it, democrats do not want to take away guns from everyone; however, there is a limit to their lawful use. What I do not want to see is a return to something like the stories told of the wild west. More guns in the hands of more people, as I understand that some on the right want, might lead to less crime; however, it might also lead to more crime and more innocent people being hurt. I imagine that most gun owners have marginal skill at best with a weapon which means that I would not want to be around anyone who has gun who has little understanding of its use. And for some, a weapon is an object which makes them feel falsely powerful. In the hands of someone like that, a weapon is dangerous, IMO.

But, there are those who run around every time democrats are elected and blow the situation way beyond any semblance of reality thus spreading the typical fear, uncertainty, and doubt to those who are inherently fearful.

To me, that people are fearful is the problem. Though you may not agree (that's OK), I think the fundamental cause of that fear is that, simply put, "if you do not have money, your survival is not guaranteed." Who would not be under such circumstance. I live a comfortable life from an economic standpoint; however, with the current situation, I do wonder whether I will still have a job and be able to support myself and my wife. The future, to me, seems much more uncertain now than it ever has before.

As to your second point, I think we agree that the violence is not acceptable. People, no matter what side, taking the law into their own hands is also not acceptable, either. And with things like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings happening, which, apparently, is happening on both the extreme left and the extreme right, it is difficult to sort out what is happening - except that, for me, I can reasonably assume that this is not the norm and is, perhaps, overblown by both sides of the political spectrum.

These killings by police have been happening for years. Every time it happens, there is outcry for police reform. So far, NOTHING has changed. There comes a point where people, and hominids, will rise up against the bullies. This is what is happening now. Typically, all police have to do is to say "I was afraid for my life" and the law allows that defense as justification for a police shooting. Many police officers have used that defense over the years and have walked from a killing because of it.
Here is an interesting thread on the subject - https://www.resetera.com/threads/ha...ife-is-a-literal-get-out-of-jail-card.218535/

I do think that change is needed, and I agree that it is scary that the change might happen too rapidly. However, no change at all is, IMO, is the worst option. As it so happens, with the legislative situation in most of the US being composed of differing people from different parties, the rate of change is moderated so that change cannot happen at a pace that is too rapid.

Defunding police is not the answer, IMO. Over the years, as has been brought out by past police killings, experts from various areas have stated that police training has to change; however, it did not happen in those past cases.

As such, here is an example of something that should have happened long ago, IMO, with respect to police reform. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/202...ta-police-reform-bill-into-law/5371595575695/

As I see it, at least it is a start, and IMO, it is long, long overdue.

And here is an interesting story from a former police officer WRT police being trained to fear - https://gen.medium.com/fearing-for-our-lives-82ad7eb7d75f

 

[trparky]

there is a limit to their (gun) lawful use

Yes, but of course I propose this question. What is the limit? And not only that but, who's to say that that limit will be the same from week to week to week? I don't know and that scares me.

Every time we have discussion about curtailing our inalienable rights, I get extremely nervous. Why? See above. Where will it end? And that is a question that I hope to God I never have to answer because I have a feeling that I, and many other people, will not like the answer.

I do think that change is needed, and I agree that it is scary that the change might happen too rapidly. However, no change at all is, IMO, is the worst option.

I also agree that change needs to take place however that change needs to take place when there are much cooler heads in play. Unfortunately, that's not the political environment that we have here. Both sides have a lot of hot heads, we can't have that if we expect society to move forward for both sides.

 

[wiyosaya]

Yes, but of course I propose this question. What is the limit? And not only that but, who's to say that that limit will be the same from week to week to week? I don't know and that scares me.

Personally, I take that even further. I get having fire arms to hunt, and I have no qualms against anyone that wants to use them in that manner.; however, for use against other humans is where the problem comes in.

Like I said in my previous post, the need to survive comes into play. From my view, that has been complicated by centuries of greedy humans taking far more than they need if they have the opportunity to do so.

Though I have occasionally stepped beyond these bounds, my tendency is to take only what I need. In terms of food, that has been fostered by diabetes, but I can say that my wife and I almost never throw out any food. About the only time we do is if it is spoiled, and since we shop every week mostly only buying what we need, we rarely run into a situation where that is necessary.

When is anything enough?

IMO, the culture of more, more, more needs to change.

You might call me an idealist, but feel free to do so. Picture a society where you did not have to fear that you could not obtain the means for your basic survival - where your survival was assured.

I'll quote Paul Atreides from Dune on this:

I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when my fear is gone I will turn and face fear's path, and only I will remain.

Best 'Dune' Movie Quotes

Epic sci-fi film, 'Dune,' rocked the science fiction world in 1984 and the best 'Dune' movie quotes have lived on long since the movie's release.

vocal.media

As I see it, fear IS the mind killer. That we all have to fear for our survival is, for me, one of the base problems, if not the base problem, with modern humanity.

Mark 3:25

If a house divided against itself, it cannot stand.

For me, that we have to fight each other for our basic survival has lead to where we are now. As I see it, it is unsustainable. It cannot continue this way if humanity is to fulfill its deepest levels of promise.

Every time we have discussion about curtailing our inalienable rights, I get extremely nervous. Why? See above. Where will it end? And that is a question that I hope to God I never have to answer because I have a feeling that I, and many other people, will not like the answer.

The US Declaration of Independence listed three inalienable rights that cannot, IMO, be questioned - Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I would not necessarily consider the right to bear arms as an inalienable right. For survival, arms are a necessity to hunt, and, unfortunately, they are required at times to defend one's self in modern society.

I also agree that change needs to take place however that change needs to take place when there are much cooler heads in play. Unfortunately, that's not the political environment that we have here. Both sides have a lot of hot heads, we can't have that if we expect society to move forward for both sides.

I cannot say where that end will be. However, if you read the article I linked about police reforms, there was a balance in that that came from all sides.

That is what our system of government is all about - all the way up to the supreme court. There was wisdom in the way that the government was set up, IMO. So far, it has survived; I hope it continues to do so.

I also saw damage done in my area from the George Floyd protests. It is damage that I see as unnecessary. I also agree that something needs to be done and that those responsible need to be held accountable.

However, to blindly crush any opposition is not, IMO, the answer. IMO, the damage done and the violence that continues is a symptom and not the problem. Crushing the symptom only pushes it down and virtually guarantees the symptoms will reoccur because the problem at the symptom's root is not solved.

I get really nervous when a president has politicized the issue. He has demonized the democratic party in a manner that makes for good sound bites to his supporters, but he has offered no solutions to the problem, and his declaration makes no mention of the fact that crime also occurs in areas that are run by republicans.

As I see it, crime occurs equally across party lines.

List of United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fact check: Big cities have crime and more Democrats, but it's a stretch to link them

A viral Facebook post links “America’s deadliest cities” with having a “Democrat majority,” implying a causal connection. But that's a stretch at best.

www.usatoday.com

So now, it has become politicized by a president who thinks he is above the law and thinks he can do literally anything he wants. IMO, there is a far deeper danger in that, and if it somehow goes unchecked, those inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are in danger.

 

[trparky]

however, for use against other humans is where the problem comes in.

If someone is robbing your home, you'll think otherwise. Remember, the police can't be everywhere, sometimes you have to take things into your own hands.

Though I have occasionally stepped beyond these bounds, my tendency is to take only what I need.

Me too. Anything more is wasteful.

I almost never throw out any food.

I've worked in restaurants and I was sickened by what was thrown out. I consider throwing out food a sin.

IMO, the culture of more, more, more needs to change.

Agreed.

He has demonized the democratic party in a manner that makes for good sound bites to his supporters, but he has offered no solutions to the problem

I would have to agree on that one.

I generally don't like President Trump because I think he's a blowhard that talks too much just to hear himself talk. I swear that he loves the sound of his own voice. However, when it comes to law and order, I have to side with him on that. Law and order is the thin line between an orderly society and chaos.

 

[wiyosaya]

If someone is robbing your home, you'll think otherwise. Remember, the police can't be everywhere, sometimes you have to take things into your own hands.

I have two hands, two feet, two elbows, two knees, and enough things around my house that could be weapons or distract someone long enough to do do some serious damage with those appendages and/or household objects that are not necessarily intended to be used as weapons. Believe me, if it came down to protecting my wife and/or myself, I would not let fear stand in the way.

There's a movie quote - "The warrior uses what is at hand."

I have a friend who went to a meeting about gun ownership that was lead by a police officer. He was told that having a gun in the home, even for self-defense, is more dangerous than not having one.

Guns are not always the answer. Question: Which do think is the best defense, as indicated by research, against a charging bear a gun, or pepper spray? The answer is here - https://www.outsideonline.com/1899301/shoot-or-spray-best-way-stop-charging-bear

And here is another article on the issue of guns making people safe - https://www.kqed.org/science/1916209/does-gun-ownership-really-make-you-safer-research-says-no

Me too. Anything more is wasteful.

I've worked in restaurants and I was sickened by what was thrown out. I consider throwing out food a sin.

Restaurants are a big part of that problem.

I would have to agree on that one.

I generally don't like President Trump because I think he's a blowhard that talks too much just to hear himself talk. I swear that he loves the sound of his own voice. However, when it comes to law and order, I have to side with him on that. Law and order is the thin line between an orderly society and chaos.

As I said before, I think Trump is playing a dangerous game. It will not surprise me if more court rulings come down limiting what those federal officers are able to do.

In the meantime, you may be happy to know that 18 people have been charged with federal crimes in Portland. https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...-people-facing-federal-charges-after-portland
I am not against the people being charged. They will have their day in court; according to the article, all of them have had their first appearance in court.

However, 18 out of roughly 1,000 estimated protestors is about two-percent of the protestors. To me, that indicates that the impression given by various entities like some news outlets and Trump, himself, that there is rampant, uncontrolled or riotous violence is, by far, overblown.

 

[trparky]

In the meantime, you may be happy to know that 18 people have been charged with federal crimes in Portland.

Good! About time!

However, 18 out of roughly 1,000 estimated protestors is about two-percent of the protestors.

Yeah but eighteen people can do a lot of damage. Eighteen people is eighteen too many.

I have no problems with protesting but as soon as they start lighting things on fire, breaking windows, and otherwise causing a mess that shop owners and homeowners have to clean up... that's a line that I cannot condone crossing and that there needs to be arrests.

Perhaps President Trump's rhetoric is a bit bombastic and overblown, but he did run on a platform of being the "Law and Order President". In that regard, I support that. Without the enforcement of the law you have no order and soon the whole of society breaks down into chaos and anarchy. I cannot support that. There must be the order of law to keep society functioning.

 

[wiyosaya]

Good! About time!

Yeah but eighteen people can do a lot of damage. Eighteen people is eighteen too many.

I have no problems with protesting but as soon as they start lighting things on fire, breaking windows, and otherwise causing a mess that shop owners and homeowners have to clean up... that's a line that I cannot condone crossing and that there needs to be arrests.

Except for, perhaps, those who committed it, who will be taken to account for it, no one, NO ONE, is condoning the violence.

IMO, as I have stated numerous times in our "discussion", until the base problems with society are addressed and resolved, violence will always exist - perhaps even if those base problems are solved. It is not possible while there is infighting amongst humans.

To me, you are living in fear. You want to stamp out those that cause you fear rather than reach out to them and work with them to find a neutral ground such that the issues of both sides are resolved in a manner that is acceptable to both parties, and you then wonder why those same people, in return, treat you in an aggressive manner. It seems you want to stamp out violence with violence. Gun them all down without a chance for justice. Gun them all down because they do not support your view of what society should be - it is, essentially what you said here in this thread:

These nutjobs are lighting Portland, OR on literal fire. How can you stand by and think that nothing should be done? These nutjobs are destroying public property, places of business, people's homes.

I have no problem with people who are legitimately protesting, but that's not what's happening in Portland, OR. What's happening there is a straight-up riot and insurrection against not only the local government but also the federal government and it needs to be swiftly put down. Enact Presidential Directive 51, round them all up, and then ask questions later.

You adhere to this even though you are presented with actual evidence from actual Department of Justice arrests that the violence is nowhere near the level you claim.

And here, too, you also imply "stamp out violence with violence" by demonizing those who are, perhaps, the most distant from you ideologically. That tack has been tried by many throughout history; tell me, what has happened to the worst of those?

And by then it's too late to do anything, the damage has already been done.

Hopefully I'm wrong though. A majority of people are starting to wake up to the fact that the far-left is a bunch of loonies. When your store front gets destroyed it usually makes people sit up and take notice.

Though you and I obviously have vastly different opinions, your adherence to this viewpoint somewhat remind me of my own idealism.

Perhaps President Trump's rhetoric is a bit bombastic and overblown, but he did run on a platform of being the "Law and Order President". In that regard, I support that. Without the enforcement of the law you have no order and soon the whole of society breaks down into chaos and anarchy. I cannot support that. There must be the order of law to keep society functioning.

In my opinion, Trump is far worse than bombastic. Those who are in their own way just as destructive as those lighting fires and destroying property will be held accountable. It is human nature.

Also, everyone, that includes democrats, does not support getting rid of police. However, it seems you fail to understand that. Whatever narrative you are listening to is being politicized through either your own perception filter or those who propagate rhetoric for their own ends, IMO.

Here is a story, from Fox News, no less, that says exactly what I said about Biden - https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-pounding-at-defund-the-police-but-biden-is-an-elusive-target

But Biden is a fascinating case study. While he’s certainly more liberal than any past Democratic standard-bearer of the modern era, he’s largely avoided embracing the most controversial proposals from the Bernie/AOC wing of the party. Biden has said repeatedly he doesn’t support defunding the police, he didn’t back the Green New Deal and refused to support Medicare for All, drawing flak from the woke progressives.

Of course, you are free to follow your own instincts.

To quote Benjamin Franklin:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

How The World Butchered Benjamin Franklin’s Quote On Liberty Vs. Security – TechCrunch

One of America’s favorite liberal phrases has been sent through the political spin machine and polished into a Frankenstein of sorts, thus rendering it inaccurate and far from its original intention. You might have heard that American founding father Benjamin Franklin said something like &#82…

techcrunch.com

.

Good luck my friend. You win our debate.