I mean, probably not.
I know that people are going to want to point to there being undercover actors, and the police infiltrating the protests to cause harm like this -- but do you really think they'd be able to pull this off to this caliber? Without any sort of scrutiny from AG's, internal watchdogs, a fellow cop, politicians, etc. No one wants this to turn violent, there's no reason for it.
If it was to come out, the people involved would go to jail AND lose their careers. Not worth imo.
80% of people could watch a cop briefing in the police department, watch the cops dress up like 'antifa' and stream out of the precinct, then watch the 'fights' which break out and STILL believe that such a thing is impossible. Just like you 'squatz1'. In fact a good number of the agent provocateurs are probably private military of the Blackwater variety. Some are old-school 'communist-revolutionary/meth-head' types running on money from the likes of Soros/state-dept. Lots of Sheriff's department and other 'law enforcement' personnel have trained on junkets to Israel, though I suspect that what they were actually doing in the 'Holy Land' was Epstein type stuff and Freemasonry rituals in order to ensure their continued compliance as we move into a 'new phase'. They surely practiced up their Israeli-esque civilian killing tactical skills at home with all the new IED-proof toys they've been supplied with. Anyway, now the chickens have come home to roost. If more people had researched Sandy Hook then fewer people would fall for the George Floyd stagecraft. Oh well. Glad to be standing aside in a different venue observing how things are going down for the time being. ... Do you really beleive that Sandy Hook was faked? That's the craziest statement I've heard in while. Children died that day, parents lost their children and that's what happened. You can go talk to the principal, teachers, parents, and so on and so forth from the school and you'd see that IT DID HAPPEN. IT HAPPENED. I've seen some of the pictures of their being police officers at the protest, undercover and acting like protestors to ensure that things don't get TOO out of hand. But I couldn't see an entire department setting something like this up -- that all of you are alleging -- and being able to get away with it without getting fired, losing their jobs, and so on and so forth. Why risk the career and pension and all that? |
|
|
|
|
I mean -- threre really should be nothing wrong with cryptocurrencies being started that are backed by some sort of real world asset. The only issue that presents itself to me is the custodial risk of holding these real world assets.
Because in the case of holding securities like Real Estate, Bonds, Stocks, Gold, etc -- you're going to need someone to actually have ownership of these assets in the real world and for them to be held in a secure custody without the ability for any one party to remove the backed assets from custody.
I'd rather be holding some secure backed gold then secure backed dollars though. That's just me.
|
|
|
|
Saw this, doesn't really do anything in the event of the US putting out anti social media regulations because they're going to be forced to follow those regulations when US customers are involved. It's just like the EU's GDPR laws and all their right to be forgotten / deleated stuff -- US companies have to abide by it too, when they're serving EU customers. But yeah, in the event that the US tries to take the company by force or something like that they'd totally be able to flee. But that's not going to happen. All this was was Trumps rhetoric. Nothing will come of this. |
|
|
|
They've done this to try to relax the protests. It is risker to try to prove that this is second degree murder, instead of trying to prove 3rd degree. If they can prove it and convince a jury though, they're going to bring the justice that is required -- plus the fact that they'll springboard their careers (anyone prosecuting this case, etc) -- which is really what most of these people care about. Very risky to go for 2nd degree, as you could get an acquittal which will kill your career and incite further protests. Yet again, they're mostly trying to relax the protests with this sort of thing. It's what MANY were calling for. We'll see if it plays out. Do you think there's a good chance they go to trial? Will there even be a plea deal offered? Chance they go to trial -- yes, but it's not going to be a jury trial, it's most likely going to be a bench trial (as a defendant can elect to have a bench trial, that is decided by the judge, if they want to) That's the best shot these officers have at being acquitted, because a judge is going to look at the facts of the case and decide if this is TRULY 2nd degree Murder (and the others too) While a jury would look more towards emotion. Most people have seen this video and they're going to be disgusted with it. Finding a jury pool that isn't already tainted is going to be hard. I highly doubt any prosecutor is going to want to offer a plea to these guys anyway (maybe Lane, but the rest eh) that would just enrage the protestors because you're letting them get a lesser charge just for admitting that they did wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, nothing wrong with going outside. The air isn't going to kill you guys, it's the people, lol.
Just be smart, honestly, that's what a lot of this ends up pointing towards. If you understand that the Coronavirus can be deadly, and that you should be wearing a mask and all that -- then you'll be fine. Maintain social distancing, keep a mask on, don't be in large crowds. Follow all of that and your chance of getting Corona or being a carrier for it has plummeted.
Stay safe all.
|
|
|
|
|
This topic continues to go on, and some people continue to bend over backwards to try to support more regulations and more government control on the internet. Are we sure that we want that to happen?
Unless this is some sort of regulatory stop on tracking me online -- without my explicit opt in -- like some sort of EU privacy (not sure how that works, just assuming here tbh) then I don't want it.
Government regulation and control is going to ruin the internet, do you guys want that? More government control and agencies running this isn't going to help, its going to hurt. I understand that it may bring short term help to conservatives -- but long term all it does is allow for whoever the President is at the time to run the show.
|
|
|
|
The guy is the nominee, doesn't really matter if the delegate count isn't enough right now. He has enough delegates -- and if needed, enough super delegate support to win on 2nd ballot -- what we're going to be talking about in terms of 2020 democrats is who Bidens VP is going to be. Betting odds is showing Kamala Harris as the front-runner, and Stacy Abrams a bit bit behind. Steve King is gone, good. Both parties are happy. Republicans don't need to be embarrassed by King anymore. |
|
|
|
They've done this to try to relax the protests. It is risker to try to prove that this is second degree murder, instead of trying to prove 3rd degree. If they can prove it and convince a jury though, they're going to bring the justice that is required -- plus the fact that they'll springboard their careers (anyone prosecuting this case, etc) -- which is really what most of these people care about. Very risky to go for 2nd degree, as you could get an acquittal which will kill your career and incite further protests. Yet again, they're mostly trying to relax the protests with this sort of thing. It's what MANY were calling for. We'll see if it plays out. Switching the murder charges to 3rd degree to 2nd degree is no doubt to appease the public but I'm a bit taken back by charging officers involved. One of the guys involved, Thomas Lane, was a rookie that had graduated less than a week from the academy and took orders from Chauvin to keep Floyd on his stomach with knee pressure on his back to subdue him. If Chauvin's a 19 year vet and you're a rookie, you're going to take orders from a more tenured officer. As for the other two, not sure why they should be held liable for their coworkers negligence. They did not know Floyd and the neck position that Chauvin had Floyd under is legal under Minneapolis Police Department's guidelines and policies. They arrested the other 3 officers because of public pressure which is setting an extremely bad precedent for officers to be held liable for something their partner might fuck up on. The charges on the other officers will not stick and the Minnesota AG knows this well which is why it's concerning that these three are in jail right now. Chauvin's responsible, hold him accountable and take him to a trial with all the facts laid out and make a determination. I actually saw the portion about Lane, and I don't think his charges are going to stick. He's most likely going to have to be rehired by Minneapolis PD tbh -- union is going to fight hard for him, and they're going to say that there was no cause to fire him. Only issue in this line of thinking is that he may be in a probationary period, and may be able to be fired without any sort of union protection. We'll see on him. The others -- well I mean, guess they're going to charge them b/c they didn't actively try to stop it or at least verbally try to stop it. No one is going to tell them that they have to fight a coworker, but Lane's response should be good enough (IMO) Neck position that he was put into is LEGAL for certain circumstances, though the circumstances that Floyd was put into was not that. This is going to be the case that legal experts, police departments, police unions, police reform groups, and so on are going to be watching this case INTENSLY. This could set a precedent that changes the police forever. |
|
|
|
They've done this to try to relax the protests. It is risker to try to prove that this is second degree murder, instead of trying to prove 3rd degree. If they can prove it and convince a jury though, they're going to bring the justice that is required -- plus the fact that they'll springboard their careers (anyone prosecuting this case, etc) -- which is really what most of these people care about. Very risky to go for 2nd degree, as you could get an acquittal which will kill your career and incite further protests. Yet again, they're mostly trying to relax the protests with this sort of thing. It's what MANY were calling for. We'll see if it plays out. |
|
|
|
I agree with you but if common sense is applied it is clear Biden is the one who has most to gain from the backlash that was triggered in Minnesota whereas Trump has most to lose simply because he is the actual President. Biden really needs to mostly stay quiet and not attract negative press over the issue then simply let Trump keep going with his press conferences and comments which just might contribute to him being a one-term President when things come to a head in the November 2020 Presidential elections. If Trump can work his way around his words and race-relations improve along with confidence in the Police and the legal institutions across the USA then Trump just might be back for a second term and it might signal the end of the political career of Biden. Just exactly how will both the incumbent (Trump) and his challenger (Biden) manage to utilise these recent troubles in Minnesota to their advantage? Things related to riots after the death of the Minnesota citizen at the hands of their police department have spread way beyond the initial area and now across the country but how will the propaganda merchants hired by both the GOP and the Democratic machinery manipulate and present it to the masses?
Trump is the president so he's expected to actually do something to resolve the crisis. Biden only needs to avoid saying something stupid. History shows that both these things are pretty much impossible for those two geezers so I'm guessing there will be no significant advantage for either one of them. Common sense can't be applied in this day. Most of the things that Biden said throughout his campaign should've sunk it -- based on the weird things that he's said. And the same can be said for Trumps 2016 election and the upcoming 2020 one. We literally broke the common sense theme this year when Biden - who will be the Democratic nominee, lost both Iowa and NH. So yeah, not too much common sense and precedent can be applied. |
|
|
|
this is my concern.. a group of people who actually do not care about George's death using the conditions to create riots.. I saw on the news, the shops around the demo location were looted, I asked myself Is that a form of solidarity to George?? I did not justify the actions of any group but the suspect was already punished and that was enough in my opinion..
I do not condone rioting and violence in any way, but you have to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. The anger comes from a chain of events, not solely from Floyd's death, and they're fueled even more by provocateurs. The past few months have changed a very significant % of people's financial status and put them into quite bad situations so you have to see through their own eyes to know why all the violence is happening. If their economical status will stay this low for a few more weeks/months, the rioting will gradually become larger & larger.. These protests came at the perfect time to fuel the anger of those who have now been put in a bad financial position. That's true. I've been talking to some people regarding the protests -- and some are like "I understand that they're angry, but the person who murdered him has been arrested and is awaiting a trial" But as you said, this isn't a single event and this isn't going to be the last event that is similar to this. Very important for people to note that this was just the boiling over point. If people think this is crazy, imagine what is going to happen if jobs don't come back and the federal unemployment money dries out -- things are going to get BAD. |
|
|
|
|
I mean, probably not.
I know that people are going to want to point to there being undercover actors, and the police infiltrating the protests to cause harm like this -- but do you really think they'd be able to pull this off to this caliber? Without any sort of scrutiny from AG's, internal watchdogs, a fellow cop, politicians, etc. No one wants this to turn violent, there's no reason for it.
If it was to come out, the people involved would go to jail AND lose their careers. Not worth imo.
|
|
|
|
The riots are not justified. Pardoning or declining to prosecute those rioting would amount to treason as these people are trying to overthrow the government. Those that are rioting don’t care about what happened to that guy, they are using what happened as an opportunity to cause problems.
Totally not justified in the least. Imagine the devastation that is going to follow due to these riots for people that don't have insurance on their businesses, cars, homes, etc -- this is going to kill certain peoples financial situations. Even those that do have insurance, they're just going to have to pay higher premiums for the coming years because of this. Rioting does nothing, protesting is what is important. Though yet again -- the news is only going to show the rioting and the extremists here, they're not going to show much else because it isn't really newsworthy if people are sitting in a parking lot peacefully organizing against the death of George Floyd and are standing in solidarity with the protesters (peaceful ones) in Minneapolis. |
|
|
|
There is a lot of pent up frustration with the naiton's history of police brutality and recent events that were never addressed. Occupy, 2008, healthcare, mass shootings, and now a lack of readiness for COVID and a pathetic economic response to the depression where people got 1200 dollars and thats it. We have 40 million unemployed and they didn't even increase food stamps. People are hungry and upset.
None of that justifies burning buildings and cars, let alone killing people. Stop justifying pointless violence, it will not solve anything and will just make matters worse. Unemployed get $600+ a week with no strings attached, that buys a lot of food. +1 to that. 600 per week, plus state unemployment benefits will probably land you in the realm of $800 a week minus taxes = $675 ish once all withholdings are done (if they need to be withheld for these people) Plus stimulus money if eligible. No reason to burn down the entire city to show that you're angry. Though I think it is important to note that the only people who are going to media attention in this movement are the ones that are rioting, not the ones that are peacefully protesting. |
|
|
|
|
While I think this is a horrible action by Derrick, and it is was totally unjust for George Floyd to die. The only issue I see here is that I don't think there could've been any law on the books to stop what happened -- because everything that was done is already unjust and can already be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Another law on the book is just some paper with words on it -- if prosecutors don't use it against the police then it is nothing. We have laws (3rd Degree Murder) which can be used to stop this.
If a person was to have jumped on the officer and stopped this, I'm not sure on if a prosecutor would want to prosecute that -- OR -- if they'd be able to win. Obviously we don't want people attacking the police and stopping them from their work, but I do understand the sentiment on this one.
|
|
|
|
In my earlier post here I had written that Trump is planning to walk out of WHO, but honestly back then I wasn’t expecting him to walk out, but he’s surprised me by officially declaring that US is walking out of WHO. Furthermore he’s targeting China over various issues, and the most notable one is the law passed by China where they have completely curbed Hong Kong’s citizens powers/rights. Lastly i feel that he’s right to step up for Hong Kong’s people rights, but escalating trade wars with China during a Pandemic might not be such a good idea too. However what do you’ll think of Trump’s statements is he walking on a dangerous path, or is he taking well calculated risks.
Trump announced the US will pull out of the World Health Organization even as the global coronavirus pandemic continues to claim lives, claiming that China has "total control" over the organization of 194 member states. He said China had pressured the WHO to "mislead the world" over the origins of the pandemic, which he described as the "Wuhan virus," and said that health funding would be redirected to "other worldwide and deserving, urgent global public health needs."
Trump called out China for "espionage to steal our industrial secrets, of which there are many," announced steps to protect American investors from Chinese financial practices, accused Beijing of "unlawfully claiming territory in the Pacific Ocean" and threatening freedom of navigation.
The President also blasted Beijing for passing a national security law that fundamentally undermines Hong Kong's autonomy, announcing that going forward the US will no longer grant Hong Kong special status on trade or in other areas and instead will apply the same restrictions to the territory it has in place with China.
Sources: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/29/politics/trump-china-announcement/index.htmlhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-china/trump-administration-pushing-to-rip-global-supply-chains-from-china-officials-idUSKBN22G0BZhttps://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/11/politics/us-china-xinjiang-forced-labor-intl-hnk/index.htmlTrump is partially scapegoating here, and he is partially pointing out a real issue. The problem lies in the fact that I don't think the WHO has the ability to self investigate the issues that are going on in different countries. They are simply a mean to exchange and compile information from all of the countries of the world. They help to bring countries together when it comes to medical concerns and joint efforts. But the question remains: Why dump so much money into the WHO when they're exchange of information is flawed and they're not able to stop a pandemic in its tracks. It either has to be improved, or shut down. |
|
|
|
You want to define what facts are, now you want to define what conservatives are too eh? Sure. People who believe in a smaller government, fewer regulations, lower taxes, looser gun laws, stricter immigration laws, pro-life and eliminating federal debt. From what I've experienced personally, compared to Liberals (I mean the American definition of Liberals) Conservatives have a lower tolerance for risk, are more pragmatic, more likely to have a traditional family, better at managing their finances and holding a steady job long term, more likely to be religious, less likely to have a high level of education. less likely to empathize with people from different cultures, and less open to new ideas and change. I consider myself a Democrat but there are plenty of Republicans that I would vote for over plenty of Democrats. Honestly I feel like general Republican characteristics make for a better president. For example I disagree with many of Ben Sasse's votes - but the guy is so sharp, articulate and pragmatic that if he ran there's a decent chance I'd vote for him over any Democrat. Would never vote for him to be my Senator though. Typically they believe in all of those things, though recently (last 10-15 years) people who have been elected on those ideals have jumped ship and abandoned those ideas in favor of far reaching government surveillance, a complete lack of privacy for the citizens, and so on. It's horrid to see the people that you elected to bring small government to Washington, disregard that and continue to expand the power of big government. Both parties have been doing this for a long time, we really need change. |
|
|
|
Just exactly how will both the incumbent (Trump) and his challenger (Biden) manage to utilise these recent troubles in Minnesota to their advantage? Things related to riots after the death of the Minnesota citizen at the hands of their police department have spread way beyond the initial area and now across the country but how will the propaganda merchants hired by both the GOP and the Democratic machinery manipulate and present it to the masses?
Trump is the president so he's expected to actually do something to resolve the crisis. Biden only needs to avoid saying something stupid. History shows that both these things are pretty much impossible for those two geezers so I'm guessing there will be no significant advantage for either one of them. LOL. Here's an article from the NY Times directly going against Biden right now, so yeah -- no one is going to get an advantage out of this. Though if Trump is able to convince his base (they're already convinced most likely) and the moderates that this protest is more riot then anything -- then they'll be able to 'win' the political maneuvering of this. Ny Times Article - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/politics/black-americans-democrats-trump.html |
|
|
|
Facebook, tritter and a few other companies moved a lot of their operations to ireland for tax purposes... What's to say they won't do the same for "intellectual property" purposes (at least to ensure european media isn't corrupted in the same way)...
I don't think the US has the capabilities to take on the EU (in all honesty - there's a point where they won't be able to push them further and that's probably the point)...
There may be a fine line between wrong and partially correct too (and few things are wholly correct)
Not exactly sure on the tax purposes or what they did here, I'm assuming that this surrounds something where Twitter, Facebook (and honestly many large companies around the world) park money in Ireland and wait for then best time to repatriate it when they have a need to use it. Makes sense from a business perspective, But back onto the topic here, the situation when it comes to government legislation is a real horrid one. The last thing all of us want is the big hand of government to try to fix things -- government doesn't fix things, all they'd do is ruin innovation in the social media space. Remember - Government regulation TYPICALLY only helps the big companies that are already established and have the money to deal with regulatory concerns. Don't kill innovation, don't censor companies that are trying to ensure that their platform is what advertisers want it to be. Come on folks. |
|
|
|
I think some sort of regulations are inevitable. I'm not sure what it will look like, but I think it would have to be a long process and include some sort of agreement with many other countries. This EO is a political stunt, but say Trump gets re elected and finds a way to navigate or circumvent the courts and gain the power to actually control social media sites on his own without any actual legislation, why wouldn't they just relocate to another country? If that happened, then what? I guess they could sanction them? The great MAGA firewall? Actual Conservatives^^ Totally a political event, he's trying to convince his supporters that the media is against him again and they're trying to censor him. I know this will go well with his base - most things do - but I'm unsure on how moderates are going to feel about this. I highly doubt that the coal miners in WV, the former factory workers in the rust belt, or the people that are suffering from the Coronavirus really care about his spat on Twitter. They'd much rather that Trump focus his resources and time on things that will help them. Hoping for no new regulations. Last thing gov needs is more regulations. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
