Perfect time to leave the "woke" WHO...
the most depressing thing about that graph is that the scale starts at zero.
I see he’s off on his Middle Eastern crusade again.
If you look at the damage the US has done to the WHO, the watering down and changes to health messages and actions for the sake of US business interests, long before Trump even ran for president the first time, frankly its good riddance to them.
The Marsh family and Springsteen on Minnesota
.
Impede them from doing what? You can pretend anything is "impede" if you want. State violence reframed as 'order'.
As I said, I wasn’t condoning them, but Pretti did impede them - he wasn’t just monitoring them as was suggested. I was merely correcting that fact. If we try to twist the truth to suit our argument, we are no better than them.
Double post..
As I said, I wasn’t condoning them, but Pretti did impede them - he wasn’t just monitoring them as was suggested. I was merely correcting that fact. If we try to twist the truth to suit our argument, we are no better than them.
And if we accept that going to the aid of a woman being violently assaulted constitutes “impeding federal officials”, then what? Your framing seems to accept the claim that these thugs can do whatever they want.
Impede them from doing what? You can pretend anything is "impede" if you want. State violence reframed as 'order'.
As I said, I wasn’t condoning them, but Pretti did impede them - he wasn’t just monitoring them as was suggested. I was merely correcting that fact. If we try to twist the truth to suit our argument, we are no better than them.
Don’t get caught up in the semantics of the language,impeding their actions doesn’t allow you to effectively execute the the person doing the impeding.
There’s a whole world of using force relative to the threat in response to the impediment that seems to be being swept aside.
The Trump admin are already putting out a video of him kicking a car and not being a ‘peaceful protestor’.
Unlike Trumps insurrection mob
Don’t get caught up in the semantics of the language,impeding their actions doesn’t allow you to effectively execute the the person doing the impeding.
I never said that they should be allowed to execute anyone, and I said from the start that I don't condone what they did.
As I DID say, if we start to twist the truth, then we are no better than them. We can't say 'he didn't impede them, because he was going to the aid of someone'. He impeded them *BECAUSE* he went to the aid of someone. Whether what the people did that he impeded was legal, lawful or was using reasonable force or whatever is not the point. The point is - he impeded them, he was not a bystander.
Don’t get caught up in the semantics of the language,impeding their actions doesn’t allow you to effectively execute the the person doing the impeding.
I never said that they should be allowed to execute anyone, and I said from the start that I don't condone what they did.
As I DID say, if we start to twist the truth, then we are no better than them. We can't say 'he didn't impede them, because he was going to the aid of someone'. He impeded them *BECAUSE* he went to the aid of someone. Whether what the people did that he impeded was legal, lawful or was using reasonable force or whatever is not the point. The point is - he impeded them, he was not a bystander.
He wasn’t impeding them doing their job, he was stepping in to stop a crime.
The MAGA narrative that he was there to try and massacre law enforcement is a lie. The dem narrative that he was just some peaceful guy helping people is also a lie.
I think we all understand that Pretti went with the intention of getting in the way, and as @kelvin points out, to prevent crimes happening. I think we all understand that that wasn't grounds for him to be murdered by an ill-disciplined, barely trained mob of 'officers'
The dem narrative that he was just some peaceful guy helping people is also a lie.
The "dem narrative"? What do you think happened? Who looked and acted "peaceful" to you? Who attacked someone? Who drew a gun?
Whether what the people did that he impeded was legal, lawful or was using reasonable force or whatever is not the point. The point is - he impeded them, he was not a bys
It’s exactly the point. Or shall we also say that it’s illegal to stand in front of a federal officer in the queue at McDonalds ?
Yup, he wasn’t impeding them in their work. He was there to voice his concern and support. When another bystander was attacked he put himself in harm's way. Stopping that attack was not impeding ICE in their work, unless you think that attacking bystanders is their work.
Short answer, this guy didn’t deserve to be shot.
Long answer, it’s hard to say, I’m obviously biased and generally support deporting illegals. I’ve also seen many reports and videos of “peaceful protesters” roaming the streets in mobs, battering anyone who looks a bit trumpy, pulling cars over demanding papers, blockading streets, shouting about killing ICE. I can see why these guys might be on edge.
You have the news photoshopping this guys picture to make him more handsome, the leaked signal groups showing these aren’t organic protests and state officials are involved. Is any of the above true? It’s hard to be sure these days, maybe I’ve fallen victim to propaganda.
The video itself isn’t that clear, there’s a scuffle, a man is resisting, he seems to have been disarmed and then shot. There’s reports the guys gun may have misfired and looking at the video frame by frame it’s possible but the quality isn’t great so who knows what the truth of it is. It would also be rather convenient for the MAGA side so I’m leaning towards probably not.
I always try my best not to jump to conclusions about these things because I’m biased and there’s just so much bullshit out there it’s hard to find the actual truth.
reports and videos of “peaceful protesters” roaming the streets in mobs, battering anyone who looks a bit trumpy, pulling cars over demanding papers, blockading streets, shouting about killing ICE
Sources?
news photoshopping this guys picture to make him more handsome
Source?
the leaked signal groups showing these aren’t organic protests and state officials are involved
Source?
There’s reports the guys gun may have misfired
Source?
He wasn’t impeding them doing their job, he was stepping in to stop a crime.
By impeding them.
As I say (again), I am not condoning them. I am saying he was not a bystander (which was the comment ages ago that made me take the bait), he stood in between them and the woman, which impeded them. Whether what they were doing or subsequently did was illegal is a moot point – he impeded their actions.
- Definition: To hinder, obstruct, or slow down progress.
- Synonyms: Hinder, obstruct, hamper, slow (down), check, delay, thwart, frustrate.
You are the one twisting the truth.
How? Was he a bystander, or did he step in between the ICE officers and the woman they threw to the floor?
He wasn’t impeding them doing their job, he was stepping in to stop a crime.
See above ^^^
Or shall we also say that it’s illegal to stand in front of a federal officer in the queue at McDonalds ?
It's not illegal (I have already made my position clear that I don't condone what happened and I have separated that from the facts), but it would impede their progress of buying a Big Mac.
Give it up johndoh. We’re into the semantics of the semantics now. Try ‘disproportionality’ instead.
Key Details from Collins:
The key bit you are missing is "in the execution of their duties", or some such verbiage. Did their duty require throwing a woman to the ground? Does a "bystander" not have a duty of care to help someone in need? I'm sure many people will be arguing that beating the public is all part of a normal copper's lot, but we're not in Iran, or Israel, quite yet, and I refuse to accept that it's acceptable for people in power to abuse that power in this way.
Give it up johndoh.
This. I know what you meant, but I'd probably have refrained from posting because of the inevitable pile-on from some of the bungalows.
The key bit you are missing is "in the execution of their duties"
Where does it say that? Impeding someone does not rely on legality.
Shall I say 'he impeded their illegal activity in murdering someone in cold-blood?' Does that make it sound any better?
Where does it say that? Impeding someone does not rely on legality.
Shall I say 'he impeded their illegal activity in murdering someone in cold-blood?' Does that make it sound any better?
Hmm. I'm beginning to think that you've missed the point being made when people say he was "impeding" ICE.
Hmm. I'm beginning to think that you've missed the point being made when people say he was "impeding" ICE.
I was correcting the point where someone said he was just a bystander. Keep up.
Edit, sorry, the wording the poster used was "monitoring"
As a statement it still portrays that he was "impeding" ICE, he wasn't he was monitoring them and ICE agents attacked them,
I was correcting the point where someone said he was just a bystander. Keep up.
Thanks, I think I'm pretty much abreast of the subject. As I said, you don't seem to understand what "impede" means in the context of this discussion. But educating you is getting boring, so crack on with your own version.
As I said, you don't seem to understand what "impede" means in the context of this discussion.
The meaning of "impede" is not contextual in regards to this discussion – Alex Pretti deliberately put himself between the ICE agent and the person they were assaulting, thereby impeding (ie, hindering, obstructing or slowing down) the assault. I am not sure how (or why) you are trying to suggest it can be contextualised in a way to say he didn't impede the assault.
The meaning of "impede" is not contextual in regards to this discussion
Of course it is. Just as “arrest” is.
Impeding an officer means something specific, blocking or preventing them from performing their duty. Stopping a crime, defending an innocent fellow bystander under attack, isn’t impeding an officer. Stopping an officer trying to arrest someone is impeding them. “Impede” and “arrest” here mean something quite specific.
Bloody hell, it's still going.
I'm with Johndoh here and I think you lot are being determined to pile on to anybody who offers even the slightest bit of counter-narrative. Johndoh was factually correct to point out that MSP's assertion that Alex Pretti was only ever monitoring ICE was wrong, and that we should not be sloppy with the truth.
Alex Pretti impeded ICE in the same way that Oscar Schindler impeded the Nazis. They made it harder to do whatever each organisation was aiming to do. Each got in the way (figuratively or literally) while people were being bastards. Neither Alex Pretti nor Oscar Schindler were only monitoring.
Arguably, suggesting that Alex Pretti was only "monitoring" is a bit disrespectful, he was much braver than that, he had got involved to protect a woman who was on the floor and about to be battered.
Just my personal take on Pretti and the 2 incidents caught on video.
In the first video, he's definitely doing more than monitoring those thugs and he's a far braver man then I to be honest, particularly knowing how ICE seem to relish physical violence. Most importantly though, it's a totally different incident to the second one so, effectively it's completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
In the second incident he was simply helping a woman being pushed over by those agents and paid the ultimate price for standing by his principles against those thugs.
Again, he was a bloody brave guy and he never deserved to be murdered but those utter ****s.
I think we might be getting caught up in the minutiae but missing the bigger picture here?
Anyway, just my thoughts.
I think we might be getting caught up in the minutiae but missing the bigger picture here?
Well, you're right. There is no "narrative" - we can see exactly what happened, unfortunately for the Trumpians. We can see what he did and what he didn't do. He was observing and filming up until the last moments when he went to help a woman in trouble. You can call that "impeding" if you want. Maybe he scared a cat, so you can call him a "terrorist" as well. Whatever. But in your own little way you (johndoh et al) are adding to the story that somehow he deserved to die because he impeded justice. At the same time you're drawing a moral equivalence between people who claimed he was waving a gun and people who describe what they saw.
I’d be interested to know how many people here are against the idea of deporting illegals in general and how many people are just against the methods Trump is using?
If we go back a few years to the 2010s many prominent democrats were saying things that would be considered hardline MAGA positions today. You can look at speeches made by Obama, Hilary Clinton and even Bernie Sanders that sound exactly like what Trump is saying now.
I’d be interested to know how many people here are against the idea of deporting illegals in general and how many people are just against the methods Trump is using?
Obama deported masses of "illegals" (as you charmingly put it). He didn't bring blood to the streets though. Nor did he imprison toddlers.
adding to the story that somehow he deserved to die because he impeded justice.
I think this might be the cause of confusion. Nobody has suggested he impeded justice. He impeded ICE agents. Who were being bad. We all agree he was not impeding justice.
Personally I am massively against the methods (roaming about giving hassle to anyone with the wrong colour skin and demanding to see their papers).I’d be interested to know how many people here are against the idea of deporting illegals in general and how many people are just against the methods Trump is using?
If we go back a few years to the 2010s many prominent democrats were saying things that would be considered hardline MAGA positions today. You can look at speeches made by Obama, Hilary Clinton and even Bernie Sanders that sound exactly like what Trump is saying now.
On the idea of deportation in principle, and assuming they are not claiming asylum, nuanced. If they only just came in, deport them. If they break laws, deport them. But if, for example, they have been in a country for years, contributed well to soceity, and/or have children who have lived in the country for a few years and become settled, I'm more inclined to let them stay.
Seems reasonable to me.
The issue with the current Deportation is that it’s a performative show of utter Thuggery and disregard for the normal societal norms.
Invading a state with heavily armed masked people hammering around in suvs picking people off the street and disappearing them with excessive force and also using the same type of force against anyone standing in their way.
This is not normal.
Unless your in the U.S of course 🙂
But if you like this sort of society you’re welcome to immigrate to there and enjoy your new found freedoms.
Going thru the actual steps of getting residency in Spain and being in the system (for years )as an actual immigrant has given me an interesting viewpoint on this 🙂
On the idea of deportation in principle, and assuming they are not claiming asylum, nuanced. If they only just came in, deport them. If they break laws, deport them. But if, for example, they have been in a country for years, contributed well to soceity, and/or have children who have lived in the country for a few years and become settled, I'm more inclined to let them stay.
Ah so your condoning illegal immigration that regularises you if you don't get caught for at least two years and work cash in hand without paying any tax. 🙂
Oddly Spain are planning to do this
The Spanish government has announced a plan to legalise the status of undocumented migrants, a measure expected to benefit at least half a million people.
Regularisation will be available to foreign nationals who do not have a criminal record and can prove they lived in Spain for at least five months prior to 31 December 2025.
Oddly Spain are planning to do this
Probably easier and less damaging than trying to round up half a million people and deport them.
And draws a line in the sand for those wanting to get a right to stay, and a date from which illegal migrants/failed asylum seekers can be removed, which puts a spoke through the wheels of all the right wing anti immigrant rhetoric.
I think you lot are being determined to pile on to anybody who offers even the slightest bit of counter-narrative.
Yep – thats STW for you. In many ways it's like being at school, where everyone gangs up on one kid because, well, everyone else is doing it.
But I outgrew being afraid of that when I grew up.
I’d be interested to know how many people here are against the idea of deporting illegals
You may or may not know that word is massively loaded and demeaning. At least add the word "immigrant" after "illegal" if that's what you mean. Calling a person "illegal" without qualifying it, implies that everything about them is illegitimate. Their very status as another human of equal status is questioned.
That kind of dehumanising and othering leads to a very dark place. Really surprised to see it used on here, I associate it with toxic social media posts laughing at small boats sinking. Perhaps in some cases it is just lazy language or lack of awareness and not outright racist shithousery. Benefit of the doubt. But please, consider not using it.
I said from my very first post that I do not condone what happened
So maybe try not to use the language of those who do - it's been explained to you many times.
this is about creating the conditions for Trump to cancel elections. Nothing else
While I don't necessarily disagree that this is about the mid-terms, I think the aim is fear rather than a plan to cancel. Dem's voter base includes immigrants and working class and black citizens; if those people are too afraid to go to the polling stations because ICE, you've achieved your aim (low turn out) without having to do anything as dramatic as cancel anything.
Personally I am massively against the methods (roaming about giving hassle to anyone with the wrong colour skin and demanding to see their papers).
This. It could be done quite adequately, quietly, by officers in plain clothes.
But they have taken a very deliberate, overt and aggressive stance with plate carriers, crye uniforms and helmets. And in some cases long-barreled weapons.
A stance often taken by law enforcement conducting high risk interventions (rightly so).
I understand it was a 'worst first' policy, but it seems they've deliberately not downgraded their stance, but gone in a very different direction indeed.
Poorly trained and with a presidential mandate to do whatever is necessary is a lethal combination for citizens. Arguably the very thing the 2A was written for.
Unless we think Trumps government does not yet meet the criteria for 'tyrannical'?
But in your own little way you (johndoh et al) are adding to the story that somehow he deserved to die because he impeded justice.
That's not how I took it at all. He's just being pedantic, but also he's technically correct..he did try to 'impede' ice from beating up an innocent woman.
I don't think saying that adds in any way to the narrative that he deserved to die.
I think that's a fair point @nickc. He would still have the option to cancel them, but this way would give a veneer of democracy, whilst making sure that you tilted things in your favour.
IMHO the ‘steal’ by Trump will be legal.
I think we just have to see how it pans out , they could be delayed or play out but the results are disputed.
What happens or doesn’t is probably the indicator of just how far Trump will go.
It's amazing how they manage to find new ways to create a totalitarian landscape;
"Here’s everything we know about the arrest of former CNN anchor Don Lemon, from the Guardian’s Sam Levine, Jeremy Barr and Anna Betts:
Don Lemon, the former CNN anchor, was arrested late Thursday on charges that he violated federal law during a protest at a church in Minnesota earlier this month, according to his lawyer.
Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Lemon, said that Lemon was “taken into custody by federal agents last night in Los Angeles, where he was covering the Grammy awards”.
“Don has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done,” Lowell said. “The first amendment exists to protect journalists whose role it is to shine light on the truth and hold those in power accountable.”
And this after a federal magistrate declined to sign off on a prosecution.
What are the details of the “allocations” against him?
2 Italian journos were arrested by the way… I think it’s only blonds who only ask positively framed questions that are allowed to work in the USA now (I wrote that as huge exaggeration to make a point/joke, but reading it written down it’s too close to the truth to be even slightly amusing).
I saw a short YouTube on this the other day and it is essentially this. He repeatedly identified himself as a journalist during the protest (as in was not part of it), but this does not seem to matter. The legal wrangling to arrest someone for this on federal charges (as in _not_ state misdameaners(spelling?)) is crazy...
That is a reasonable explanation of how messed up things are.
Oddly Spain are planning to do this
America has done it in the past. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was an amnesty on anyone who'd arrived illegally before 1982
Donate to King Donald to prove you’re not an “illegal alien” and protect yourself from ICE harassment, possible deportation, and, I suppose, being killed in the street…
[ obviously all opponents of Trump are the enemy, not just “illegals”, and suppressing and attempting to scare them is the real point of the scale and deployment orders of ICE… this weird shake down email is about reassuring his supporters of that, it’s not meant to scare “them”, it’s reminding them that he’ll use force to remake America how they want it to be… and asking for the reward and funds for doing so ]
When you dance with the devil...
Although I am sure there are many members of the jewish community who could also foresee how dangerous it was to align with the far right, how much damage would come to them when that alliance had served its purpose for Trump and co.
Jews voted overwhelmingly for Kamala Harris at the last presidential election. That piece of journalism is about how Jews do not feel safe with Trump in charge. They are not, and were not, aligned with the Far Right. Jews in the USA are far more likely to vote against not for Trump and his ilk.
That piece of journalism is about how Jews do not feel safe with Trump in charge.
Yes, that's why I posted it.
But what’s this “alliance with the far right” that you accuse USA Jews of? Is it in the room now with you now?
I have to admit, the impression I got during the run up to the US election was of majority support for the republicans from the Jewish community, but searching for the figures they do support that actually voted quite overwhelmingly for the democrats.
I don’t think you’re at fault there, USA news bodies (including those that partner with the key UK ones) gave that impression during the election campaign IMHO. It’s not the truth though. Most Jews in the USA are staunchly against Trump, and many fear him and what he wants to transform the USA into. That was true before he was elected, not something that has come to pass since. Many have family reasons to be more aware of the coming threat than other long standing multi generational USA citizens.
None of what I am going to say makes it in any way a justification for Pretti to be shot and killed. Just be clear on that.
But there is a difficult ethical line that journalists tread when covering wars and conflicts, that they are there to document and record what is happening, and while they are (in wars at least) embedded within operating units, and doubtless form attachments and friendships, they are essentially impartial. It must be desperately hard to watch as soldiers are killed, sometimes soldiers who have been assigned to take you into war zones to do your job, and then not intervene. Whether intervene means picking up a rifle, or whether it's interpreted as treating a casualty or pulling one handle of a stretcher, I genuinely don't know, but at the point you start to influence outcomes, you're no longer just witnessing and documenting.
What's relevant to Pretti? I refer to the opening remark, nothing he did justifies the actions taken, but as soon as he stepped in, whether morally right or not (FWIW, incredibly courageous), he's no longer just documenting events.
Citizen journalists are not trained journalists and would not be expected to know this.
Jews in the USA are far more likely to vote against not for Trump and his ilk.
How does this dove-tail with Trump supporting Netanyahu? I can't get my head around the Jewish/Israeli politics! 🤷
What's relevant to Pretti? I refer to the opening remark, nothing he did justifies the actions taken, but as soon as he stepped in, whether morally right or not (FWIW, incredibly courageous), he's no longer just documenting events.
I don’t think anyone here would contest that. Kelvin put it perfectly
Yup, he wasn’t impeding them in their work. He was there to voice his concern and support. When another bystander was attacked he put himself in harm's way. Stopping that attack was not impeding ICE in their work, unless you think that attacking bystanders is their work.
That first quote is nothing to do with me.
Poorly trained and with a presidential mandate to do whatever is necessary is a lethal combination for citizens.
You mean this isnt how you were taught to throw a grenade in basic training? At 3:05 (safe for work).
The evident confusion when he thinks a)I am holding a shotgun b)I want to throw this teargas grenade and c)the shotgun doesnt have a sling and the way he solves the problem should bring as many tears as the teargas did.
The attitude difference between him and the cop is startling.
Poorly trained and with a presidential mandate to do whatever is necessary is a lethal combination for citizens.
You mean this isnt how you were taught to throw a grenade in basic training? At 3:05 (safe for work).
The evident confusion when he thinks a)I am holding a shotgun b)I want to throw this teargas grenade and c)the shotgun doesnt have a sling and the way he solves the problem should bring as many tears as the teargas did.
The attitude difference between him and the cop is startling.
Absolutely not. That made this old skill at arms instructor grumpy.
That sort of ****ery would get you beasted if a weapon was wedged between legs to prep a grenade. Slings/weapon retention devices exist for a reason.
That cop wanted absolutely nothing to do with that.
Absolute clown show. I've watched quite a few videos of these ICE types. I'm more than happy to armchair QB them. Skills and drills wise, they're abysmal, I can fully see why low risk civilians are getting killed.
This is a very encouraging sign for the Democrats in the mid-term elections. Massive swing against the Republicans.
https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/2017826897430811025
as soon as he stepped in, whether morally right or not (FWIW, incredibly courageous), he's no longer just documenting events.
This is what happens with people. It's not wildlife photography, where you should leave the gazelle to be eaten by the lion. It's humanity - the weak beaten by the strong.
If you have a moral compass that points the right way, you will help.
If enough do, the evil forces don't have enough bullets to take the whole community down.
You start your post by saying 'none of this is a justification' and then proceed to do just that. Once you start with 'yes, but...' you're normalising murder by a govt
This is a very encouraging sign for the Democrats in the mid-term elections. Massive swing against the Republicans.
On the other hand I saw that the DoJ had demanded voter roles from states to "protect from voter fraud", 24 states have refused. What isn't covered in the story I saw was whether that is the number of states that have had the demand for the information, or if 26 states have conceded to the demand.
The republicans were already worried enough about Texas to redistrict (in a state where plenty of gerrymandering had already happened) and of course when California did the same to try and rebalance the DoJ are suing to prevent California.
It is clear the Trumpeters are going to try and rig the election, and it isn't clear whether they are going to get away with it or not, with the partisan SC and control of both houses, I am not confident.
He’s closing the Kennedy Centre for two years.
Willing to put money on the following:
- It will be torn down.
- The creative staff will be fired (filthy commies, the lot of ‘em).
- It will be re-built as some tacky golden temple with Trump’s name above the door.
- Construction contracts handed out to his supporters.
- Opening act will be a gala concert featuring KISS, Kid Rock, Jason Aldean and Kanye West.
I am curious - I have seen a few things about Trump & underage girls appear on social media in the latets tranch of Epstien files. However no 'mainstream' media are mentioning them.
Not wanting to go down conspiracy theory - are they not reporting on them as they are baseless allegtions? Or is there something a little more sinister going on?