--Boogie: I never said that the kind of people I talked about were good, or doing good things, or were in any way admirable. I was only trying to understand why they are that way.
In my US experience, the term "righteous anger" tends to refer to a person's deep feeling that they are right, and justified, and no one had better get in their way. There tends to be a sub-text to the term that the person is wrong, and at least a little out of control, or heading that way.
Absolutely, many people who are poor are generous and kind. I'm talking about a particular set of people in the US, many of whom are in the situations I mentioned. I've seen news coverage, over many years, about people in those situations. Some of them are lost in pain, and anger, and hate. And some of those focus that on others they deem responsible, or who have a (seemingly) better situation.
There are always reasons why people do things, why they are the way they are. If those reasons are addressed, there's a better chance of changing their attitudes and behavior.
--Simon Toad: I get what you're saying. But FWIW I'm not excusing bad behavior. I'm saying there are reasons for it, and dealing with the reasons is the best chance for changing the behavior.
@Golden Key - righteous anger has mercy and grace at its root. It looks for the well being of all.
So using it to describe the feelings of far right nutjobs really doesn’t help your arguments.
Yes, they have feelings, yes - they are completely allowed their feelings. But how they act on them can never be excused or given ‘oh it’s their culture, they have no choices’ justifications.
They need calling out on it every. single. time.
Now, imagine the police decide they’ve gone too far. What then? They start using those guns in their righteous unbelievably selfish anger?
It's not quite inciting Civil War but it's moving into that territory.
I disagree. I think we're already in that territory. The President of the United States (who frankly doesn't have a f**king clue what a federation is) is trying to disrupt the governance of several of the States.
Good grief. Trump is inciting protest, not civil war. This is not a good thing, and it's an escalation of previous nutjobbery on his part, but encouraging some astroturfed protests is no more inciting civil war than politicians who encouraged the Tea Party movement were inciting civil war. Small protests against state policies are hardly akin to firing on Fort Sumter. Only 10% of Americans think the country should be re-opened right now (source). We're hardly going to break up the republic over this.
It's not quite inciting Civil War but it's moving into that territory.
I disagree. I think we're already in that territory. The President of the United States (who frankly doesn't have a f**king clue what a federation is) is trying to disrupt the governance of several of the States.
Good grief. Trump is inciting protest, not civil war. This is not a good thing, and it's an escalation of previous nutjobbery on his part, but encouraging some astroturfed protests is no more inciting civil war than politicians who encouraged the Tea Party movement were inciting civil war. Small protests against state policies are hardly akin to firing on Fort Sumter. Only 10% of Americans think the country should be re-opened right now (source). We're hardly going to break up the republic over this.
From what I read and posted about above, exactly - it's protest. Stupid protest, but it isn't more than that. Completely stupid and infectious in both physical and psychological ways, but protest. I'd go for the 1969 riots in America over these, because there was actually a legit point about them.
From what I read and posted about above, exactly - it's protest. Stupid protest, but it isn't more than that. Completely stupid and infectious in both physical and psychological ways, but protest. I'd go for the 1969 riots in America over these, because there was actually a legit point about them.
The riots in 1969? The Stonewall riots or the Weathermen's Days of Rage in Chicago? Maybe you meant 1968, when there were riots across the country following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. and in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention.
There's a big difference between peaceful protests -- and much as I disagree with the protestors saying we should re-open the country, I will emphasize that the protests were peaceful -- and riots. People died in multiple cities in the riots following MLK's death. In Washington DC there were pitched battles between rioters and police. The National Guard was called out, Marines guarded the Capital, and the Army guarded the White House. There was millions of dollars of property damage done, and some city blocks were reduced to rubble. The economic devastation drove a lot of people out of the city, the crime level went through the roof, and it took decades for the city to recover. And that was just DC.
So I'll go for some little Astroturfed protests rather than riots. In the protest that took place just down the freeway from where I live (and very close to where my best friend lives), no one got shot, and no one's business was burned to the ground. They waved their signs and their flags and they went home.
Chances are they won't get sick. They're middle-class suburban white people living in a place that hasn't suffered all that much, comparatively. Over 3,100,000 people live in Orange County, and they've had 32 deaths so far. (Compare that to Los Angeles County, where I live just to the north, which has 10,000,000 people and 577 deaths so far.) About 200 people, some of them spectators, some protestors, were scattered on the corners of a fairly large street intersection.
Covid-19 is not a great equalizer, and we're not all in this together. These people have privileges not afforded to every American, and on top of that they're benefiting from the fact that most people in Orange County are doing the social distance thing. If I had to bet, I'd put money on these folks not getting sick from this stupidity.
I posted something about this in the Coronavirus thread, but I am seeing some big money behind this Liberate Movement. This has the earmarks of the Koch Brothers who have been known to fund Neo-Nazi or Ultra right-wing nut jobs for years.
I have been communicating with a retired Episcopalian priest who has gotten an invitation to participate in one of the local protests. She is saying the invite was pretty slick. It appears to be targeting counties that have below average infection rates. Yet, the county to the south of us has listed 22 identified cases with 11 known deaths from the virus. That county has a large Native American reservation in it and they have been hit very hard.
You seem to be missing many of the things I actually said, and reading in things I neither said nor meant.
--I've specifically said I'm not excusing what they do, but trying to understand it. Because recognizing the reasons can help in getting them to stop their behavior.
Recognizing why a bully or abuser bullies or abuses can help in figuring out how to stop the behavior--and, sometimes, can help the bullies/abusers themselves understand themselves enough to change.
--I specifically said my usage of "righteous anger" is a US usage that I'm familiar with. Generally accompanied by eyerolls, and maybe a dramatic tone of voice.
--I never said to not call them out. I never said they should be protesting--particularly with guns. Given precedents and various laws and interpretations of the Constitution, I doubt they can legally be stopped, or that they will be. To safely remove them from the place of protest might take a SWAT team. (A special police team for extreme situations.) SWAT's presence would also exacerbate the immediate situation. Given attitudes about guns, and the fact that many people bought guns when COVID-19 came to the US...more problems could be triggered.
Is the national cabinet you mentioned separate from representation in parliament?
Yes. It involves the Prime Minister and each of the Premiers (State leaders) and Chief Ministers (Territory leaders). So they come from 9 different governments and hence 9 different parliaments.
It's not quite inciting Civil War but it's moving into that territory.
I disagree. I think we're already in that territory. The President of the United States (who frankly doesn't have a f**king clue what a federation is) is trying to disrupt the governance of several of the States.
Good grief. Trump is inciting protest, not civil war.
How is calling to "Liberate" a incitement to protest?
It's not a clear incitement to do anything specific because it's so vague. But it was read by its audience as an incitement to protest. How is it an incitement to civil war?
It's not a clear incitement to do anything specific because it's so vague. But it was read by its audience as an incitement to protest. How is it an incitement to civil war?
Well, "liberate" might imply that the person or place is being held against their will, which might in turn imply that we need to use force to free them.
Though you do have phrases like "women's liberation" which are not generally thought of as a call to arms.
It's not a clear incitement to do anything specific because it's so vague. But it was read by its audience as an incitement to protest. How is it an incitement to civil war?
Oh, I see, so you're not focusing on what he said, but on the current result? There were protests, and so therefore what he said was an incitement to protest?
No. That's illogical. Because that means no-one can ever be accused of trying to incite a rebellion until the moment they succeed in inciting one. The whole notion of 'attempt' disappears in that scenario.
And are you seriously asking me how language of liberation is associated with revolution? Um, how about just about every revolution in the last couple of centuries.
People are going to keep rationalising Trump's words, thinking he couldn't possibly mean extreme things, and then he'll nudge it just a little bit further, then a little bit further.
It's not a clear incitement to do anything specific because it's so vague. But it was read by its audience as an incitement to protest. How is it an incitement to civil war?
Oh, I see, so you're not focusing on what he said, but on the current result? There were protests, and so therefore what he said was an incitement to protest?
No. That's illogical. Because that means no-one can ever be accused of trying to incite a rebellion until the moment they succeed in inciting one. The whole notion of 'attempt' disappears in that scenario.
I did focus on what he said. What he said was vague. "Liberate Michigan/Minnesota/Virginia" could mean a lot of things. It could be read as a call to the governors of those states to lift the stay-at-home orders. More likely, Trump didn't have any very clear intention when he tweeted "Liberate Michigan/Minnesota/Virginia." He was doing what he spends hours and hours doing: watching Fox News and reacting. Two minutes before those tweets, Fox reported on small protests in Minnesota and Virginia, and they had been reporting on protests in Michigan all week (source). From that Vox article:
But asked on Thursday if he thinks protesters in Michigan should listen to local officials like Whitmer, Trump said that such people listen to him instead.
“I think they’re listening. I think they listen to me. They seem to be protesters that like me,” Trump said.
As always, it's all about him. He saw protestors that seemed to like him, and he chimed in, supporting their support of him.
Do you have a better explanation of Trump's intent?
And how do you justify not looking at the context in which such a thing is uttered? Looking at the result, as you call it, of what he said is the only way I can think of to see what his actual audience thought he meant. Are you saying their interpretation of what he said doesn't matter?
And are you seriously asking me how language of liberation is associated with revolution? Um, how about just about every revolution in the last couple of centuries.
The langauge of liberation in the US is associated with a lot of things. People say "give me liberty or give me death" and "live free or die" in all sorts of contexts in which it is entirely clear that they have no intention of taking up arms against the government.
Look, I'm not saying this is all a good thing, and I'm not rationalizing Trump's words. This is bad. It's dangerous. But you're exaggerating. We could get to civil war, but we're not there yet. After the November election we could be a lot closer, if Trump loses in anything but a decisive landslide; then actual incitement to armed rebellion would not surprise me.
Wait a minute. Before, you were claiming "his audience" took it as incitement to protest. But now you're trying to offer up the possibility of the governors being the intended audience?
I'd say you were right the first time as to the audience.
And again, saying re civil war that "we're not there yet" misses the point. I didn't suggest you were in a civil war. I said Trump was attempting to incite one. If he has anything like a rational timetable, his aim is for it to actually start around November.
I'm more cautious. I just think he's close to the line. Sure, he is playing to his base. But he's also playing with constitutional fire.
After the November election we could be a lot closer, if Trump loses in anything but a decisive landslide; then actual incitement to armed rebellion would not surprise me.
Chances are they won't get sick. They're middle-class suburban white people living in a place that hasn't suffered all that much, comparatively. Over 3,100,000 people live in Orange County, and they've had 32 deaths so far. (Compare that to Los Angeles County, where I live just to the north, which has 10,000,000 people and 577 deaths so far.) About 200 people, some of them spectators, some protestors, were scattered on the corners of a fairly large street intersection.
Covid-19 is not a great equalizer, and we're not all in this together. These people have privileges not afforded to every American, and on top of that they're benefiting from the fact that most people in Orange County are doing the social distance thing. If I had to bet, I'd put money on these folks not getting sick from this stupidity.
This is different here in Victoria. Here, the infections are mostly people who have travelled overseas, and people in contact with them. They are mostly comfortably well off, and in some cases (people returning from a party in Aspen Colorado) the hyper-wealthy. That's why there are clusters of infection in wealthy council areas like Stonnington, and down the beach where the rich like to play.
What's the difference between encouragement to protest and incitement to insurrection?
That's basically asking what's the difference between protest and insurrection. At least in the everyday usages of those words, I'd say there's a big difference.
I've picked up a sign and protested on a number of occassoions. But at no point would I say I was involved in an insurrection, which I think is usually regarded as violent.
I agree with what you wrote here...
I just think he's close to the line. Sure, he is playing to his base. But he's also playing with constitutional fire.
My guess is that Trump is thinking that if there are protests against the lockdowns, and he is perceived as leading the protests, then he'll benefit politically if the governors get pressured into ending the lockdowns. Or even if they just end the lockdowns in due time, but he can make it seem like he was the inspiration for it.
This is a somewhat wacky situation, because you've got the president rallying people against their own governors, which is the sort of thing a president isn't supposed to do, as a matter of basic political courtesy. Not sure if it puts the country in an antebellum situation, unless people actually start shooting en masse.
My prediction...
I know most of these yokels aren't in a vulnerable demographic, but in a couple of weeks, a few of them will probably come down with the disease, give it to their eldrly mothers who will subsequently die, and the rest of the protestors will quietly abandon the cause. Trump will tweet something like "Crooked WaPo blames me for old women dying. Sad!", and that'll be the end of it.
Wait a minute. Before, you were claiming "his audience" took it as incitement to protest. But now you're trying to offer up the possibility of the governors being the intended audience?
No. I said the meaning of the tweets was vague. I don't think the governors were the intended audience. I said the tweets could be read that way as illustration of how vague the tweets were.
And again, saying re civil war that "we're not there yet" misses the point. I didn't suggest you were in a civil war. I said Trump was attempting to incite one. If he has anything like a rational timetable, his aim is for it to actually start around November.
But he's not the least bit rational. He doesn't have a master plan. He's simply reacting to the last thing he heard. It's why he's all over the map all the time, contradicting himself.
That may be the legal import of what he said; the legal director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection obviously speaks with knowledge I don't have. But I very much doubt that Trump has thought this through the way she has, and I don't think what the tweets legally mean is as important as what they mean politically. From the Washington Post:
Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) described Trump’s comments defending protesters as unhelpful and nonsensical, while Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) said the president’s claims that the country has enough tests for the virus are “delusional.”
Northam said Trump is focused on protests because he has not been able to deliver on his promise of supplying more tests.
...
Northam, responding specifically to Trump’s calls to “liberate” Virginia, said Sunday: “Our president obviously has been unable to deliver on tests and has chosen to focus on protests.”
My guess is that Trump is thinking that if there are protests against the lockdowns, and he is perceived as leading the protests, then he'll benefit politically if the governors get pressured into ending the lockdowns. Or even if they just end the lockdowns in due time, but he can make it seem like he was the inspiration for it.
Exactly my thought - he's talking to his base. Whatever is passing for ideas go from Fox News to Trump to the Maga-hats to Fox News coverage and so on in a disgusting ouroboros.
My prediction...
I know most of these yokels aren't in a vulnerable demographic, but in a couple of weeks, a few of them will probably come down with the disease, give it to their eldrly mothers who will subsequently die, and the rest of the protestors will quietly abandon the cause. Trump will tweet something like "Crooked WaPo blames me for old women dying. Sad!", and that'll be the end of it.
I don't know what you mean by the protestors abandoning the cause. Trump's base has stood firm thus far. They'll move on to the next faux outrage du jour, though.
Part of the T vs. governors mess is the long-standing American tension about "states' rights".
Granted, vocal assertion of states' rights is often about something bad, like keeping schools segregated. But it can be about other things: federally-imposed student testing, environmental concerns, trying to keep the people in a state safe and getting the resources to do that...
Basically, Americans don't like to be told what to do. The Feds are supposed to work for *us*, help us when we need it, and not bury us in bureaucracy in the process. They should also help Those Deserving People Over There. But not people who don't deserve it (which is in the eye of the beholder). Never mind The States That Are Totally Undeserving, Crazy, And Immoral. (California is a favorite target of that.) That's obviously painting with a broad brush, but the attitude is pretty well rooted. (OTOH, many people give to charities, and/or start them for neglected causes. Go figure.)
Different parts of the country have different issues with the Feds. Here on the West Coast, Washington DC is wayyyy back there; they don't understand us (and often don't like us); ranchers feel stomped on about access to federal grazing lands for their flocks, etc. (And that last contributed to the standoff in Malheur, Oregon, several years ago.)
So it's not wrong for governors to go a different way than DC wants, especially in this situation.
I do wonder if T's minions, or those of the hastier Republicans, are actually prodding, enticing, nudging these "Liberate Us" protestors.
I meant abandoning the anti-lockdown cause, not the overall MAGA cause. And like I said, it'll be a quiet retreat, the rallies will just stop happening, no mea culpas or anything.
It's not a clear incitement to do anything specific because it's so vague. But it was read by its audience as an incitement to protest. How is it an incitement to civil war?
Oh, I see, so you're not focusing on what he said, but on the current result? There were protests, and so therefore what he said was an incitement to protest?
No. That's illogical. Because that means no-one can ever be accused of trying to incite a rebellion until the moment they succeed in inciting one. The whole notion of 'attempt' disappears in that scenario.
And are you seriously asking me how language of liberation is associated with revolution? Um, how about just about every revolution in the last couple of centuries.
Have you ever heard of Liberation theology? They advocated for armed overthrow of oppressive regimes if it had to come to that.
When people come with weapons slung over their shoulders you can expect those weapons to be locked, if not loaded. All it takes is a pull of the chamber or a flip of the safety switch.
While no shots have been fired yet, continued incitement from the president and increasing frustrations due to unemployment and hunger, we are moving to that time when a trigger will be pulled.
I'm interested in the phrase "righteous anger" and the fact that it has negative connotations in the USA. When I use it, it is in recognition that there are issues that are worth getting angry about because they need changing; slavery is an obvious example.
Mind you, there have been occasions when I have felt "righteous anger". Looking back on them, years later, I've realised that my own feelings had been hurt, as well as there being a genuine issue involved.
The man should resign while he still has an ounce of honor left.
Interesting word, honour (with or without the "u"). Speaking of the Nixon Administration 50 years ago, the now veteran journalist Sy Hersh observed as follows.
The abiding characteristic of this administration is that it lies.
Ditto for the current administration. The difference is that Nixon was covert, Trump is just shameless.
Well, I assume it would be insubordination against the state governments, but incited by the White House.
Though if the protestors aren't breaking any laws, I don't know if it would count as insubordination, in the legal sense. Doesn't the idea entail refusing to follow orders handed down by a superior?
Blocking streets to all traffic for hours, including to emergency vehicles. Is this lawful in those states?
You mean more so than any other protest?
I think these protestors are idiots, but I don't see them doing anything that numerous other protests from both ends of the political spectrum have done.
If we used the expression 'self-righteous anger', would that cover what is meant?
Today's London Times carries a photo of two fully-armed lunatics in combat gear, one wearing a gas mask, the other a death's-head mask. Seems a fairy extreme form of protest. In the UK they would both be arrested, or possibly shot if they moved to use their weapons.
If we used the expression 'self-righteous anger', would that cover what is meant?
Today's London Times carries a photo of two fully-armed lunatics in combat gear, one wearing a gas mask, the other a death's-head mask. Seems a fairy extreme form of protest. In the UK they would both be arrested, or possibly shot if they moved to use their weapons.
I assume you mean they would be arrested for carrying illegal weapons, not simply for wearing combat-gear and scary masks?
Blocking streets to all traffic for hours, including to emergency vehicles. Is this lawful in those states?
You mean more so than any other protest?
I think these protestors are idiots, but I don't see them doing anything that numerous other protests from both ends of the political spectrum have done.
In the U.K. blocking the roads or pavements is not legal.
“By law you must tell the police in writing 6 days before a public march if you’re the organiser.
Tell the police the:
date and time of the march route
the names and addresses of the organisers
The police have the power to:
limit or change the route of your march
set any other condition of your march
If you arrange a march at short notice, you must still tell the police as soon as you can.
The police can also:
change the location
limit how long a rally lasts
limit the amount of people who attend
stop a sit-down protest if it blocks road traffic or public walkways.”
(Gov.UK)
And they do - see the Extinction Rebellion protests.
It's quit a nit upthread now @Ruth. My thoughts re the late 1960s violence is that it at least had some meaning and purpose. These don't. There will be considerably more dead.
Today's London Times carries a photo of two fully-armed lunatics in combat gear, one wearing a gas mask, the other a death's-head mask. Seems a fairy extreme form of protest. In the UK they would both be arrested, or possibly shot if they moved to use their weapons.
The same is true in the U.S., but only if the protestors are non-white.
(t)Rump's approval rating is hitting a new low. According to the Pew Research Center data 65% of Americans are saying (t)Rump has been too slow in handling the COVID 19 pandemic. Significantly, about the same number are also worried that the state governments may open up the economy too quickly.
It reminds me of this photo - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man of an unidentified Chinese man who stood in front of a column of tanks leaving Tiananmen Square on June 5, 1989.
O yes - the Tank Man! What an image that was - and still is. And what a year that was...
I hope, for his own sake, that the Courageous Man in Scrubs (!) is NOT identified. The Screeching Woman in the Truck is only one of many equally brain-poisoned people...
Comments
--Boogie: I never said that the kind of people I talked about were good, or doing good things, or were in any way admirable. I was only trying to understand why they are that way.
In my US experience, the term "righteous anger" tends to refer to a person's deep feeling that they are right, and justified, and no one had better get in their way. There tends to be a sub-text to the term that the person is wrong, and at least a little out of control, or heading that way.
Absolutely, many people who are poor are generous and kind. I'm talking about a particular set of people in the US, many of whom are in the situations I mentioned. I've seen news coverage, over many years, about people in those situations. Some of them are lost in pain, and anger, and hate. And some of those focus that on others they deem responsible, or who have a (seemingly) better situation.
There are always reasons why people do things, why they are the way they are. If those reasons are addressed, there's a better chance of changing their attitudes and behavior.
--Simon Toad: I get what you're saying. But FWIW I'm not excusing bad behavior. I'm saying there are reasons for it, and dealing with the reasons is the best chance for changing the behavior.
Is the national cabinet you mentioned separate from representation in parliament?
I understand the argument, but it remains 'nearly but not quite' for me.
So using it to describe the feelings of far right nutjobs really doesn’t help your arguments.
Yes, they have feelings, yes - they are completely allowed their feelings. But how they act on them can never be excused or given ‘oh it’s their culture, they have no choices’ justifications.
They need calling out on it every. single. time.
Now, imagine the police decide they’ve gone too far. What then? They start using those guns in their righteous unbelievably selfish anger?
Good grief. Trump is inciting protest, not civil war. This is not a good thing, and it's an escalation of previous nutjobbery on his part, but encouraging some astroturfed protests is no more inciting civil war than politicians who encouraged the Tea Party movement were inciting civil war. Small protests against state policies are hardly akin to firing on Fort Sumter. Only 10% of Americans think the country should be re-opened right now (source). We're hardly going to break up the republic over this.
The cops are not going to start shooting white people who are protesting, never mind white right-wingers.
The riots in 1969? The Stonewall riots or the Weathermen's Days of Rage in Chicago? Maybe you meant 1968, when there were riots across the country following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. and in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention.
There's a big difference between peaceful protests -- and much as I disagree with the protestors saying we should re-open the country, I will emphasize that the protests were peaceful -- and riots. People died in multiple cities in the riots following MLK's death. In Washington DC there were pitched battles between rioters and police. The National Guard was called out, Marines guarded the Capital, and the Army guarded the White House. There was millions of dollars of property damage done, and some city blocks were reduced to rubble. The economic devastation drove a lot of people out of the city, the crime level went through the roof, and it took decades for the city to recover. And that was just DC.
So I'll go for some little Astroturfed protests rather than riots. In the protest that took place just down the freeway from where I live (and very close to where my best friend lives), no one got shot, and no one's business was burned to the ground. They waved their signs and their flags and they went home.
When they start coughing?
Covid-19 is not a great equalizer, and we're not all in this together. These people have privileges not afforded to every American, and on top of that they're benefiting from the fact that most people in Orange County are doing the social distance thing. If I had to bet, I'd put money on these folks not getting sick from this stupidity.
I have been communicating with a retired Episcopalian priest who has gotten an invitation to participate in one of the local protests. She is saying the invite was pretty slick. It appears to be targeting counties that have below average infection rates. Yet, the county to the south of us has listed 22 identified cases with 11 known deaths from the virus. That county has a large Native American reservation in it and they have been hit very hard.
Respectfully:
You seem to be missing many of the things I actually said, and reading in things I neither said nor meant.
--I've specifically said I'm not excusing what they do, but trying to understand it. Because recognizing the reasons can help in getting them to stop their behavior.
Recognizing why a bully or abuser bullies or abuses can help in figuring out how to stop the behavior--and, sometimes, can help the bullies/abusers themselves understand themselves enough to change.
--I specifically said my usage of "righteous anger" is a US usage that I'm familiar with. Generally accompanied by eyerolls, and maybe a dramatic tone of voice.
--I never said to not call them out. I never said they should be protesting--particularly with guns. Given precedents and various laws and interpretations of the Constitution, I doubt they can legally be stopped, or that they will be. To safely remove them from the place of protest might take a SWAT team. (A special police team for extreme situations.) SWAT's presence would also exacerbate the immediate situation. Given attitudes about guns, and the fact that many people bought guns when COVID-19 came to the US...more problems could be triggered.
We both want racist behavior stopped, Boogie.
Yes. It involves the Prime Minister and each of the Premiers (State leaders) and Chief Ministers (Territory leaders). So they come from 9 different governments and hence 9 different parliaments.
How is calling to "Liberate" a incitement to protest?
Well, "liberate" might imply that the person or place is being held against their will, which might in turn imply that we need to use force to free them.
Though you do have phrases like "women's liberation" which are not generally thought of as a call to arms.
Oh, I see, so you're not focusing on what he said, but on the current result? There were protests, and so therefore what he said was an incitement to protest?
No. That's illogical. Because that means no-one can ever be accused of trying to incite a rebellion until the moment they succeed in inciting one. The whole notion of 'attempt' disappears in that scenario.
And are you seriously asking me how language of liberation is associated with revolution? Um, how about just about every revolution in the last couple of centuries.
He'll just keep pushing open the Overton window.
I did focus on what he said. What he said was vague. "Liberate Michigan/Minnesota/Virginia" could mean a lot of things. It could be read as a call to the governors of those states to lift the stay-at-home orders. More likely, Trump didn't have any very clear intention when he tweeted "Liberate Michigan/Minnesota/Virginia." He was doing what he spends hours and hours doing: watching Fox News and reacting. Two minutes before those tweets, Fox reported on small protests in Minnesota and Virginia, and they had been reporting on protests in Michigan all week (source). From that Vox article:
As always, it's all about him. He saw protestors that seemed to like him, and he chimed in, supporting their support of him.
Do you have a better explanation of Trump's intent?
And how do you justify not looking at the context in which such a thing is uttered? Looking at the result, as you call it, of what he said is the only way I can think of to see what his actual audience thought he meant. Are you saying their interpretation of what he said doesn't matter?
The langauge of liberation in the US is associated with a lot of things. People say "give me liberty or give me death" and "live free or die" in all sorts of contexts in which it is entirely clear that they have no intention of taking up arms against the government.
Look, I'm not saying this is all a good thing, and I'm not rationalizing Trump's words. This is bad. It's dangerous. But you're exaggerating. We could get to civil war, but we're not there yet. After the November election we could be a lot closer, if Trump loses in anything but a decisive landslide; then actual incitement to armed rebellion would not surprise me.
I'd say you were right the first time as to the audience.
And again, saying re civil war that "we're not there yet" misses the point. I didn't suggest you were in a civil war. I said Trump was attempting to incite one. If he has anything like a rational timetable, his aim is for it to actually start around November.
Ruth, there is serious opinion that Trump incited insurrection, that Trump crossed that line in his LIBERATION tweets.
I'm more cautious. I just think he's close to the line. Sure, he is playing to his base. But he's also playing with constitutional fire.
There you and I agree. Watch this space.
A) It is sarcasm/irony, of the sort that I mentioned.
B ) It's *their* view of what's going on with them, and what they're doing.
C ) It is sarcasm/irony, of the sort that I mentioned.
This is different here in Victoria. Here, the infections are mostly people who have travelled overseas, and people in contact with them. They are mostly comfortably well off, and in some cases (people returning from a party in Aspen Colorado) the hyper-wealthy. That's why there are clusters of infection in wealthy council areas like Stonnington, and down the beach where the rich like to play.
What's the difference between encouragement to protest and incitement to insurrection?
That's basically asking what's the difference between protest and insurrection. At least in the everyday usages of those words, I'd say there's a big difference.
I've picked up a sign and protested on a number of occassoions. But at no point would I say I was involved in an insurrection, which I think is usually regarded as violent.
I agree with what you wrote here...
I just think he's close to the line. Sure, he is playing to his base. But he's also playing with constitutional fire.
My guess is that Trump is thinking that if there are protests against the lockdowns, and he is perceived as leading the protests, then he'll benefit politically if the governors get pressured into ending the lockdowns. Or even if they just end the lockdowns in due time, but he can make it seem like he was the inspiration for it.
This is a somewhat wacky situation, because you've got the president rallying people against their own governors, which is the sort of thing a president isn't supposed to do, as a matter of basic political courtesy. Not sure if it puts the country in an antebellum situation, unless people actually start shooting en masse.
My prediction...
I know most of these yokels aren't in a vulnerable demographic, but in a couple of weeks, a few of them will probably come down with the disease, give it to their eldrly mothers who will subsequently die, and the rest of the protestors will quietly abandon the cause. Trump will tweet something like "Crooked WaPo blames me for old women dying. Sad!", and that'll be the end of it.
But he's not the least bit rational. He doesn't have a master plan. He's simply reacting to the last thing he heard. It's why he's all over the map all the time, contradicting himself.
That may be the legal import of what he said; the legal director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection obviously speaks with knowledge I don't have. But I very much doubt that Trump has thought this through the way she has, and I don't think what the tweets legally mean is as important as what they mean politically. From the Washington Post:
Exactly my thought - he's talking to his base. Whatever is passing for ideas go from Fox News to Trump to the Maga-hats to Fox News coverage and so on in a disgusting ouroboros.
I don't know what you mean by the protestors abandoning the cause. Trump's base has stood firm thus far. They'll move on to the next faux outrage du jour, though.
Granted, vocal assertion of states' rights is often about something bad, like keeping schools segregated. But it can be about other things: federally-imposed student testing, environmental concerns, trying to keep the people in a state safe and getting the resources to do that...
Basically, Americans don't like to be told what to do. The Feds are supposed to work for *us*, help us when we need it, and not bury us in bureaucracy in the process. They should also help Those Deserving People Over There. But not people who don't deserve it (which is in the eye of the beholder). Never mind The States That Are Totally Undeserving, Crazy, And Immoral. (California is a favorite target of that.) That's obviously painting with a broad brush, but the attitude is pretty well rooted. (OTOH, many people give to charities, and/or start them for neglected causes. Go figure.)
Different parts of the country have different issues with the Feds. Here on the West Coast, Washington DC is wayyyy back there; they don't understand us (and often don't like us); ranchers feel stomped on about access to federal grazing lands for their flocks, etc. (And that last contributed to the standoff in Malheur, Oregon, several years ago.)
So it's not wrong for governors to go a different way than DC wants, especially in this situation.
I do wonder if T's minions, or those of the hastier Republicans, are actually prodding, enticing, nudging these "Liberate Us" protestors.
I meant abandoning the anti-lockdown cause, not the overall MAGA cause. And like I said, it'll be a quiet retreat, the rallies will just stop happening, no mea culpas or anything.
Have you ever heard of Liberation theology? They advocated for armed overthrow of oppressive regimes if it had to come to that.
When people come with weapons slung over their shoulders you can expect those weapons to be locked, if not loaded. All it takes is a pull of the chamber or a flip of the safety switch.
While no shots have been fired yet, continued incitement from the president and increasing frustrations due to unemployment and hunger, we are moving to that time when a trigger will be pulled.
One way or the other, this is insubordination.
Mind you, there have been occasions when I have felt "righteous anger". Looking back on them, years later, I've realised that my own feelings had been hurt, as well as there being a genuine issue involved.
Interesting word, honour (with or without the "u"). Speaking of the Nixon Administration 50 years ago, the now veteran journalist Sy Hersh observed as follows.
Ditto for the current administration. The difference is that Nixon was covert, Trump is just shameless.
Well, I assume it would be insubordination against the state governments, but incited by the White House.
Though if the protestors aren't breaking any laws, I don't know if it would count as insubordination, in the legal sense. Doesn't the idea entail refusing to follow orders handed down by a superior?
You mean more so than any other protest?
I think these protestors are idiots, but I don't see them doing anything that numerous other protests from both ends of the political spectrum have done.
Today's London Times carries a photo of two fully-armed lunatics in combat gear, one wearing a gas mask, the other a death's-head mask. Seems a fairy extreme form of protest. In the UK they would both be arrested, or possibly shot if they moved to use their weapons.
I assume you mean they would be arrested for carrying illegal weapons, not simply for wearing combat-gear and scary masks?
I meant the chief of staff. The fartletter-in-chief has negative honor.
In the U.K. blocking the roads or pavements is not legal.
“By law you must tell the police in writing 6 days before a public march if you’re the organiser.
Tell the police the:
date and time of the march route
the names and addresses of the organisers
The police have the power to:
limit or change the route of your march
set any other condition of your march
If you arrange a march at short notice, you must still tell the police as soon as you can.
The police can also:
change the location
limit how long a rally lasts
limit the amount of people who attend
stop a sit-down protest if it blocks road traffic or public walkways.”
(Gov.UK)
And they do - see the Extinction Rebellion protests.
Re protest, a picture is worth a million lives. Nurse blocking a quarantine protester: https://twitter.com/BFriedmanDC/status/1252055898819899393?s=20
The same is true in the U.S., but only if the protestors are non-white.
It's also notable that these DeVos-funded astroturf "protests" don't seem to be happening in any of the states regarded as Trump strongholds. What an amazing coincidence!
Can we speed up the national elections? Please?
It reminds me of this photo - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man of an unidentified Chinese man who stood in front of a column of tanks leaving Tiananmen Square on June 5, 1989.
I hope, for his own sake, that the Courageous Man in Scrubs (!) is NOT identified. The Screeching Woman in the Truck is only one of many equally brain-poisoned people...