Reply to Re: let's talk martial law, october 1st
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Most of what you're saying is completely new to me, which is surprising because I try to follow the US news a bit. So I looked it up. I'll give you my take on what I found:
George Soros funds BLM. This quotes in the article sound reasonable. He has a charitable organization that tries to make the world better. Funding a protest movement that fights against social injustice is exactly what I would expect such an organization to do. The comments around the quotes are ridiculous. His group OSF clearly states they want to encourage peaceful protests to make society more fair, and the page pretends that they state that OSF wants violent riots. They also do not give links to any of that violence. It does surprise me that Soros claimed he didn't support them, if that is true. Given his quoted response, the question was probably not "do you support BLM?", but "do you support killing police?" or something like that. Looking for BLM and violence I did find this nice explanation from BLM itself, which explains that they neither advocate nor condone violence.
The page mentions that the protesters chant "pigs in a blanket" all the time. I had heard about this once
there's the side screaming about killing all white people and they're very clearly hateful.
While I'm sure there are some hateful people, and obviously there have been police officers killed recently, I did not find any source that gave proof that these were connected with BLM. I've not seen anything about people who want to kill all white people. That seems to be made up by scared white people. Anyway, the police killers probably supported BLM, but as BLM's statement makes clear: having a few crazy supporters doesn't make you an evil organization. BLM is strongly against violence and even included de-escalation of conflicts as part of organizing protests.
I find the young turks a reliable news source; they are obviously liberals, but they clearly state what the facts are and support those with proof, and then give their liberal comments on it. That method feels much more trustworthy than simply claiming things without evidence. Here's a video from them on this issue.
the promise of absolute power is tempting (for corporations)
They don't take power in such an obviously abusive way; as you say, people would start a revolution. Instead, they make "trade deals" which force the country to follow their orders. In particular, the trans pacific partnership (TPP) includes a clause that lets companies sue the country if a new law is bad for their profits. For example, if the government wants to require that employers protect their workers to be protected from fires with a sprinkler installation, companies can sue (and win) to make sure that law is not passed. The companies have bought all the politicians, so they already have near absolute power. With a treaty like the TPP it only gets worse. (The TPP is about the west coast; on the east coast there is TTIP, which is pretty much the same, but luckily Europe is against it so that probably won't be passed.) Here's a video explaining the TPP.
no army even comes close to how many gun owners are in this country.
Not in number of soldiers, but the US army can easily wipe out any dissidents in the country, should they want to. You think you stand a chance when they come with drones and tanks to your house?
But rest assured; they gain nothing from fighting their own population. They want you to work long days for little money, so they can have more profits. A civil war is bad for everyone involved, so they don't want that.
we're apparently gonna have 20,000 or so UN soldiers.
I think you may be referring to this. I wouldn't worry about it.
what a strange/kinda badass name.
Oops, that should have been "Tim", Hillary's vice presidential candidate. So instead of a badass name, it's one of the most common names there is.
how is it even remotely possible to occupy every bit of civilized land in the country with various soldiers?
And what is the purpose? It's not a board game, where you win by occupying land with soldiers. They currently have the land occupied with civilians, which is cheaper and works just as well for making sure other countries don't steal it. (Actually, in a game like civilization it works that way as well: you need to protect your border with soldiers, the land inside you can use for getting work done and making money.)
with the knowledge of that firmly in everyone's mind that hitler did these exact things, i don't think we're in much danger of having that repeat so easily so soon.
I'm afraid I disagree with you on that one. There is a real threat of Hitler-like things happening in the government, but it isn't coming from the black people that get shot and killed. Instead, it comes from the possible future president, Trump. His statements about Muslims have been very similar to Hitler's statements about Jews before he started the war. Now (if I would be allowed to vote) I would personally never vote for Clinton, because I refuse to vote for someone who I believe to be worse than having no president. But I completely understand people who do out of fear for Trump. Because he is very scary.
and again, loads of armed citizens.
Yeah, they're the problem, not the solution. As you may have noticed in the rest of the world, democratic governments in rich countries don't use their military on their own people, so there is no need to prevent that from happening. At the same time, the amount of guns in the US leads to many more killings than for example terrorism (islamic or otherwise). So while terrorism is something to work on, getting rid of the guns should be a much higher priority if you care about people's lives. (Also note that several of the terrorist attacks would not have been as effective if they hadn't had such easy access to guns, so getting rid of guns would be a good idea even if you only care about terrorism.)
George Soros funds BLM. This quotes in the article sound reasonable. He has a charitable organization that tries to make the world better. Funding a protest movement that fights against social injustice is exactly what I would expect such an organization to do. The comments around the quotes are ridiculous. His group OSF clearly states they want to encourage peaceful protests to make society more fair, and the page pretends that they state that OSF wants violent riots. They also do not give links to any of that violence. It does surprise me that Soros claimed he didn't support them, if that is true. Given his quoted response, the question was probably not "do you support BLM?", but "do you support killing police?" or something like that. Looking for BLM and violence I did find this nice explanation from BLM itself, which explains that they neither advocate nor condone violence.
The page mentions that the protesters chant "pigs in a blanket" all the time. I had heard about this once
there's the side screaming about killing all white people and they're very clearly hateful.
While I'm sure there are some hateful people, and obviously there have been police officers killed recently, I did not find any source that gave proof that these were connected with BLM. I've not seen anything about people who want to kill all white people. That seems to be made up by scared white people. Anyway, the police killers probably supported BLM, but as BLM's statement makes clear: having a few crazy supporters doesn't make you an evil organization. BLM is strongly against violence and even included de-escalation of conflicts as part of organizing protests.
I find the young turks a reliable news source; they are obviously liberals, but they clearly state what the facts are and support those with proof, and then give their liberal comments on it. That method feels much more trustworthy than simply claiming things without evidence. Here's a video from them on this issue.
the promise of absolute power is tempting (for corporations)
They don't take power in such an obviously abusive way; as you say, people would start a revolution. Instead, they make "trade deals" which force the country to follow their orders. In particular, the trans pacific partnership (TPP) includes a clause that lets companies sue the country if a new law is bad for their profits. For example, if the government wants to require that employers protect their workers to be protected from fires with a sprinkler installation, companies can sue (and win) to make sure that law is not passed. The companies have bought all the politicians, so they already have near absolute power. With a treaty like the TPP it only gets worse. (The TPP is about the west coast; on the east coast there is TTIP, which is pretty much the same, but luckily Europe is against it so that probably won't be passed.) Here's a video explaining the TPP.
no army even comes close to how many gun owners are in this country.
Not in number of soldiers, but the US army can easily wipe out any dissidents in the country, should they want to. You think you stand a chance when they come with drones and tanks to your house?
But rest assured; they gain nothing from fighting their own population. They want you to work long days for little money, so they can have more profits. A civil war is bad for everyone involved, so they don't want that.
we're apparently gonna have 20,000 or so UN soldiers.
I think you may be referring to this. I wouldn't worry about it.
what a strange/kinda badass name.
Oops, that should have been "Tim", Hillary's vice presidential candidate. So instead of a badass name, it's one of the most common names there is.
how is it even remotely possible to occupy every bit of civilized land in the country with various soldiers?
And what is the purpose? It's not a board game, where you win by occupying land with soldiers. They currently have the land occupied with civilians, which is cheaper and works just as well for making sure other countries don't steal it. (Actually, in a game like civilization it works that way as well: you need to protect your border with soldiers, the land inside you can use for getting work done and making money.)
with the knowledge of that firmly in everyone's mind that hitler did these exact things, i don't think we're in much danger of having that repeat so easily so soon.
I'm afraid I disagree with you on that one. There is a real threat of Hitler-like things happening in the government, but it isn't coming from the black people that get shot and killed. Instead, it comes from the possible future president, Trump. His statements about Muslims have been very similar to Hitler's statements about Jews before he started the war. Now (if I would be allowed to vote) I would personally never vote for Clinton, because I refuse to vote for someone who I believe to be worse than having no president. But I completely understand people who do out of fear for Trump. Because he is very scary.
and again, loads of armed citizens.
Yeah, they're the problem, not the solution. As you may have noticed in the rest of the world, democratic governments in rich countries don't use their military on their own people, so there is no need to prevent that from happening. At the same time, the amount of guns in the US leads to many more killings than for example terrorism (islamic or otherwise). So while terrorism is something to work on, getting rid of the guns should be a much higher priority if you care about people's lives. (Also note that several of the terrorist attacks would not have been as effective if they hadn't had such easy access to guns, so getting rid of guns would be a good idea even if you only care about terrorism.)
