I'm not sure what the harm is in detaining a person of interest for the legal amount of time. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I'm sure even in Arizona that the "interest" cannot be - should not be - just any old interest at the whim of the one detaining which along with his identity he keeps a secret. Collective wisdom is that police have broad powers because they need them to do their jobs. It is no wisdom at all to suppose they cannot abuse them.

And when do you get excited? When the one seized disappears? Maybe by then its too late, and maybe even you're next.

And it's odd and ironic that for all the 2d amendment talk of guns to oppose tyranny, when real tyranny appears all those tough talkers shrivel up like dicks in a cold northern ocean. .

Pretty interesting to watch — Xtrix

And what will it take for you to do more than watch? I'm not suggesting there is something you should or could do, because I don't know what that would be, other than by voting. But what would it take? And I'd like here to request, as your Mass. neighbor, that you give me your NH gun if you're sure you have no use for it. When it comes to the pushing and shoving, I'd like to think I could be a pusher and a shover and not just a pushee or shovee. And I can keep Churchill's dictum in mind: "You can always take one with you!"

Oregon, being a gun friendly state that allows for open carry of firearms, I'm surprised no civilian there has decided to defend him- or herself with a gun from being kidnapped. To their credit, I suppose.

Pretty interesting to watch
— Xtrix
And what will it take for you to do more than watch? I'm not suggesting there is something you should or could do, because I don't know what that would be, other than by voting. But what would it take? — tim wood

Good question. I don't just watch and vote. I try organizing people. Right now we have a 180 members in a local group here in New Hampshire, "Seacoast Progressives." I'm getting more involved with people running for state assembly, etc. I try to sign petitions and join protests when I can. My strong suit isn't in protests, however -- I hate them, but recognize their importance.

I think I would start fighting if it came to a civil war type scenario. Say Trump refuses to leave office -- I think at that point we'd have to band together against the military. That's not too far fetched anymore.

Oregon, being a gun friendly state that allows for open carry of firearms, I'm surprised no civilian there has decided to defend him- or herself with a gun from being kidnapped. To their credit, I suppose. — tim wood

Yeah, I think it's strategic. I think that's exactly what Trump wants.

Trump desperately wants the riots to continue, because he hasn't anything else going on than the "Law & Order" thing. — ssu

Yeah, Trump seems to like to manufacture these imaginary crisis situations at election time. I seem to remember something about a caravan of immigrants at the midterm. It's rather pathetic that he ignores the real crisis and manufactures an imaginary one.

I think I would start fighting if it came to a civil war type scenario. Say Trump refuses to leave office -- I think at that point we'd have to band together against the military. That's not too far fetched anymore. — Xtrix

Of course it is. There's no way US military will fight against US citizens. Trump isn't popular worthy the military.

The problem is that they're arresting people without identifying themselves or explaining the reason for the arrest. By Oregon law they need to do that, even if they don't then charge you with anything. — Michael

Do you know for sure that those being detained are actually being arrested and charged with a crime? Or is it assumed if a person is being detained and questioned that they are automatically charged with a crime?

Update: not the most reliable source but I doubt it is completely fake. When I get to my PC I will research it more.

I'm sure even in Arizona that the "interest" cannot be - should not be - just any old interest at the whim of the one detaining which along with his identity he keeps a secret. Collective wisdom is that police have broad powers because they need them to do their jobs. It is no wisdom at all to suppose they cannot abuse them. — tim wood

Abuse of power is, to some degree, in most government. You suggest that "even in Arizona" so I am not sure if you follow our State government, nor do I expect you to but detaining people for illegal reasons was a long standing order made by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa county. Maybe you missed his first evil rein but he is running again so maybe you can watch it this time around.

And when do you get excited? When the one seized disappears? Maybe by then its too late, and maybe even you're next. — tim wood

When do I get excited? Are you asking when I stand up against abuse of power? Or are you referring to the poem "First they came..." ?

And it's odd and ironic that for all the 2d amendment talk of guns to oppose tyranny, when real tyranny appears all those tough talkers shrivel up like dicks in a cold northern ocean. — tim wood

I don't really understand why you said what I quoted above or how it relates to the discussion between you and I but if it makes you feel better, hey go for it. It's certainly not gaslighting nor do I get the shriveled up dick but again if it is your reality, go for it.

I think I would start fighting if it came to a civil war type scenario. Say Trump refuses to leave office -- I think at that point we'd have to band together against the military. That's not too far fetched anymore. — Xtrix

Of course it is. There's no way US military will fight against US citizens. Trump isn't popular worthy the military. — Benkei

I would emphasize this, what our favorite Dutchman is saying here.

The US military will surely not put itself to the side of Trump in this kind of scenario. We already can see this as this has already happened. Do not underestimate the importance of the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff sending this letter to the chiefs of the various branches of military when Trump cleared Lafayette Square to stand with a Bible in his hand. Army troops were withdrawn from Washington DC and now Trump has to rely on private contractors hired by the Department of Homeland Security, which is lead by ONLY BY AN ACTING Secretary, a lobbyist WITH NO background in the judicial sector or the military. The amount of former Homeland Security secretaries that have opposed the use of the department in this way is telling. Yet you still cannot make lobbyists generals in the US.

Hence to think that American people have to fight their own military is as utterly bonkers as the idea that rednecks of the fly-over-USA pose a threat with their shotguns to the latte-drinkers in New York or California. In fact such ludicrous ideas just flame the "culture wars" more and wage the ideological gap between Americans even more.

Do you know for sure that those being detained are actually being arrested and charged with a crime? Or is it assumed if a person is being detained and questioned that they are automatically charged with a crime? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Detaining someone is making them stay where they are (e.g. stopping them in the street). Forcing someone into a car and driving them somewhere else is an arrest (or a kidnapping).

Donald Trump acts to cut prescription drug prices in US

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53534950

That's a good thing! Rarely Trump does something good, but this is one of those cases.



(Another reason why health care is so goddamn expensive in the US.)

Why do you approve of market intervention when pappa Trump does it?

:razz: And by executive order, no less.

You're more likely to find bitcoin in a rock than you are an authentic political position in NOS.

Reelection-purposed political posturing more like.



"the moves are largely symbolic because the orders are unlikely to take effect anytime soon, if they do so at all, because the power to implement drug pricing policy through executive order is limited. Voters will not see an impact before the November elections, and the drug industry is sure to challenge them in court.

...most of the proposals cannot be implemented via executive order. Instead, the administration must complete the rulemaking process, which could take months or years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/24/trump-expected-sign-drug-pricing-executive-orders-friday-angering-pharma/

Political pantomine. Some of it probably in response to stories like this, which more closely reveal the Trump administration's relationship with big pharma.

"Government contracts obtained by consumer advocacy group Knowledge Ecology International show that the Trump administration is giving pharmaceutical companies a green light to charge exorbitant prices for potential coronavirus treatments developed with taxpayer money by refusing to exercise federal authority to constrain costs.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) last week got hold of a number of heavily redacted agreements between the Trump administration and major pharmaceutical companies like Johnson & Johnson, Regeneron, and Genentech."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/07/02/scandal-contracts-show-trump-giving-big-pharma-free-rein-price-gouge-taxpayer-funded

Most likely this is a PR stunt carefully engineered to make sure nothing significant will actually change.

Yesterday, the Mayor of Portland was gassed by the secret police of storm troopers that Donald Trump has sent to occupy the city.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I know of through national news. And not the poem specifically, but roughly that idea. My sole contact point with you lies in yours that I quoted:

I'm not sure what the harm is in detaining a person of interest for the legal amount of time. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

More than that, I've been generally struck by the three+ years' failure of media and people to arrive at the correct language for describing Trump - and it's not easy language to find. There always seems a binary apologetic and opposite implication; always, seemingly, an implied "but." And media mostly reduces him and us to a "reality" show that we watch as spectators, and in which he's the star.

He is a bad, evil, criminal tyrant who in his dysfunction "wages cruel war" against all and any that he can hurt who he feels slighted by. He is without scruple. He corrupts what he touches. I strongly doubt that his potential is Hitlerian; at the same time there is nothing Nazi that I think he would shrink from. He is an enemy of the people. In betraying and abusing any of us, he betrays and abuses all of us. But a nation of spectators just laughs and shrugs.

The irony about the 2d amendment - do you recall when Trump said, "Although the second amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know," implying that maybe someone should shoot Hillary? The irony is that most are "law-abiding" gun owners, meaning that they, those 2d amendment gun owners, have zero understanding of the purpose of the amendment, and that Trump himself is the closest we've gotten to a justification to invoke and use it.

When I ask what excites you, I mean what does Trump have to do to you before you say, "Enough!" You evidently get it with Arpaio, do you get it with Trump?

That’s what I suspected.

No doubt many of the Trump culties believe that they’re somehow already paying half for their Benzos and such, so, mission accomplished as far as that goes.

I think I would start fighting if it came to a civil war type scenario. Say Trump refuses to leave office -- I think at that point we'd have to band together against the military. That's not too far fetched anymore.
— Xtrix

Of course it is. There's no way US military will fight against US citizens. Trump isn't popular worthy the military. — Benkei

I'm not so sure about that. But there's also militias to worry about. In any case, I'm hoping you're right.

There's no way US military will fight against US citizens. — Benkei

You sure 'bout that?

You really need to show more than a picture to make an argument. That something happened in the past isn't proof for it happening again now or it even being likely or possible.

Ah, a Pulitzer prize winning picture.

Perhaps a video clip?



It was a ways back... '71.

Sigh. That it rained yesterday isn't proof it will rain today. What circumstances particular to today do you think will lead to the military shooting us citizens?

Dude, I'm only seeking to undermine your confidence in the moral fibre of the military. I don't want you getting shot. They have history, brother...

@Banno It's not confidence in moral fibre but confidence in insufficient support for Trump among servicemen.

Oh yes, and we should remind ourselves that a Republican President has earlier gone against state authorities, a Democrat governor back then, and deployed the US military and combat troops when he saw it necessary.



So to remind us of history, listen to this Banno.


But I guess for you the American military is more of a threat to American people or something. In truth, it's a different thing for an armed forces to go and fight an enemy than you have when you have an instance where deadly force is used. And National Guard is a bit separate from US Army troops or Marines, which should be clear to people here (as you were referring to Kent State massacre).

What I'd use as a the "canary in the coal mine" is when Democrat politicians starting from Joe Biden start saying that "the state has to deal with domestic terrorism". Then things would be bad. We are not anywhere close to that. We are more closer dealing to something similar as "The Caravan" of 2016 here.

Why do you approve of market intervention when pappa Trump does it?

Why do you disapprove when devil Trump does it?

It's not confidence in moral fibre but confidence in insufficient support for Trump among servicemen. — Benkei

I think this is more or less correct; it's been well reported that military leadership doesn't think highly of Trump and I think a scaled assault by military against US citizens is a fantasy.

Here's a European perspective: I hope Trump wins again.

Eastern European, right? like where NOS’s employer is from.