Michigan Governor Reinstates State of Emergency as Protests Ramp Up

ooooo good for Whitmer, She signed an emergency declaration extending the stay at home orders in michigan anyway. yay

Most of the complaining is just obv sexism anyway

it's called white privelege, aren't you paying attention?

granted if they were kids on a college campus that'd be different i suppose

All of these Michigan protests look to me like "I don't save money" parades. I grew up in Michigan, and I'm downright ashamed of what I'm seeing with things like these protests in that state. I hardly consider it home anymore.

Oh, we have a confirmed "very good people" sighting! How fun.

Hmmm. I have noticed the word "racist/racism" isn't used as much anymore. So trying to define terms seem to work well. Let's do define "troll".

Internet troll - Wikipedia

Also let's keep this in mind ...



But let's define another term that applies here also.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

I haven't been back long enough to know the new lay of FOFCland, but I'm thinking they might want you to check the definition for "concern troll".

SI

Exactly. It's an attempt to intimidate through their firearms.

An regarding the absurd amount of white privilege displayed here, hell, we don't have to have think about Muslims wearing traditional garb armed to the teeth, state houses were very active when Black Panthers decided to show up to protest with automatic weapons - in California in 1967 they were disarmed and marched away by the police.

Is he ever not on the wrong side?

I couldn't find a definition in Wikipedia but did find one in urban dictionary

Urban Dictionary: concern troll

I'm not sure how it applies here but feel free to share a different definition?

No, no. I think that's probably the right one.

Another one that dovetails nicely with that is sea-lioning: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning (for some reason, I get a 403 about half the time on that link so you can try this, too: knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning)

SI

We're not in 1967

Yeah, we tend to be far more sensitive to guns in public since '67 after all the mass shootings.

Honestly, this is a fascinating gambit for team Trump. His instinct to side with the most rotten and debased side of divisive issues is strong, but he doesn't often do so when the numbers are really the other way. Presumably, their calculus is that by November, there will be more pissed off people, and having been the "free Michigan" guy for months will play well.

Honestly, keep in mind that literally all they care about is the election. So, deaths and other incidental trivia is just stuff dummies like us worry about. They are full-on "eyes on the prize" mode in Cult 45.

So you think protesters should be afraid that the government will shoot them?

Maybe we need a few more Kent State massacres? THAT'll put the fear of government into them!

But seriously, why on Earth do you think that this is a good line of thinking?

Deep down, we all knew this was coming, right?

The president's re-election campaign has ordered red, Trump-branded face masks for supporters. Campaign officials have discussed giving away the masks at events or in return for donations.
w/ @KThomasDC: https://t.co/GTwP0XZPrz

— Michael C. Bender (@MichaelCBender) May 1, 2020

I think that people who openly carry arms in public should be afraid that other people will want to kill them yes. Whether those people are law enforcement, military, or some freaking vigilante. Why is it ok for people to feel comfortable carrying like that? They don't want their own rights trampled, but they care not for openly infringing on the safety of others. If the counter to that is, if they don't want to be near them, then they should go there, well then, let me introduce you to my even bigger gun.

The government, for all it's wonder and ills is still the authority. It is charged with keeping peace, control, and the overall safety of it's populace. They should be the ones who have the power and the authority to execute it. They have a legit reason, and lawful execution of that authority over it's citizens.

In this case, you've got regular citizens, attempting to use a show of power to exert force, authority to get their way, then you reason, that the equal and opposite response is also valid. You arm, I arm. We're equals, dancing in the potential of mutually assured destruction. It effects your behavior and it changes your negotiation. I can either defer to your power, or I can attempt to overwhelm you with mine, or I can convince your allies that it's in their best interest to shoot you instead of me for whatever reasoning.

That is the point that I am getting at. They should FEAR the potential that they might actually be shot, for whatever reason. That is a power dynamic that is not on display here. Nor any of the Capitol houses that have let heavily armed, para-military protesters in. In that regard, any issue I wish to see fulfill my own personal needs, should be supported by my own para-military 'supporters'. Of course, in reality, that is a position I completely oppose, but if that's the nature of the beast, then I'm all in, if that's what it takes to get things done.

So you think it is OK for these guys to be packing heat to the gills in a government building shouting angrily at police officers while black parents have to teach their kids how to act if they get pulled over so they aren't shot?

Any word on whether they'll be in swastika red, confederate flag red, or just "both sides" red?

SI

Stop right there.
A harmless protester would never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever bring weapons with him. Carrying a swiss army knife already disqualifies yourself from being part of a harmless protest. If you're walking around proudly showing off your 10-year old sized automatic rifle, you send the signal that you're there with only one thing in mind: to create a bloodbath while hiding behind an unarmed human shield or as hostages.

And yet despite all those guns there was no bloodbath. Maybe they forgot to bring their ammo that day?

Or perhaps a bloodbath wasn't their intent and maybe they have legitimate grievances (in their eyes) against the government?

You're coming up with pointless questions.
Protesting and waving a gun are two completely incompatible things.
Those people are terrorists. Arrest them and prosecute them as is.

You claimed that everyone who carried a rifle was intent on creating a bloodbath. Yet there was no bloodbath. Now why was that?

Either they couldn't fire their guns for some reason or you have completely irrational ideas regarding their intent.

It is in wikipedia.

Sealioning - Wikipedia

To be fair, I really don't think Miked is either sea-lioning or concern troll. People have different backgrounds and see things in different filters. Its good to have alternate pov's in discussions.

However, I did find another word that may apply ... ranthoneous. But then we would be getting off on a tangent from the main point and instead calling people names. That would be ad hominim.

Good trigger finger discipline :)

Let's relax for a bit here, I did not claim any such thing.

The irrational people are the ones that carried guns while invading a building.

We're back to the old assumption-of-motives fallacy here, which can be used to justify literally anything. The bottom line is that I don't know what their intent was and neither do you. I don't think you are a terrible person. I think the idea that what you yourself describe in the next paragraph as a legal protest is an activity that people should worry about being shot for doing is what is thoroughly, completely, and in all other ways disgusting and indefensible.


Because they have a legal right to do it, full stop - unless I've missed something, in which case please enlighten me. Otherwhise, they are infringing on nobody's safety. This isn't a matter of opinion - it's a matter of law.


Under what law? Surely you aren't suggesting prosecuting people as terrorists who didn't actually break the law … or are you? I'm totally, 100% with NobodyHere on this.


One, white priviledge is a blatantly racist concept that I totally disregard every time it is brought up, except on those rare occasions where I find people interested in a reasoned discussion of its validity. Secondly, your total lack of response to the actual question posed is noted. What's really going on here is that I disagree, in the strongest possible terms, with the baked-in assumptions on race relations in general. No willful ignorance is involved there.


And that was wrong, but if the last time it happened was over 50 years ago I think we can feel free to not draw conclusions about modern American based on that event.

I for one am all for large gatherings by the militia, angry white GOP gun toters. I'd like nothing more for there to be Trump rallies and huge large gatherings all over the country because we need for the whole fo the country to be open for bidness. Exercise those freedoms boys and girls... the hospitals are starting to lighten up on their load.

Call me naive, but I honestly doubt that either of you actually is in favor of a mob invading any building that isn't their own property while doing so with what they were walking around with.

Unless you are saying that in that particular state you're actually allowed to do just that.

If you don't think it would happen exactly the same way today, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...

The police may treat black folk better than they did the 1960s, but it isn't that much better.

Then you live in a completely different fucking world than I do and I can safely disregard any opinion you have on race because in Swartzville white privilege is a racist concept - I guess blacks must be the dominant race in that world.

It wasn't a random building that wasn't theirs. It was the State Capitol. Moreover, the state police came out and said that it's legal in Michigan to carry weapons so long as they are visible and carried with lawful intent.

You heard that right, the Michigan State Police say the protest was legal.

Nope. It's more that I refuse to use race as the defining characteristic of priviledge which is far more nuanced than that, inasmuch as using race in that way is as definitionally racist as it is possible to get.

Is it germane to ask WHY they brought weapons?

And I'll applaud Whitmer for recognizing that we still have a 1st amendment right to protest and not shutting it down.

generally when that question is asked the only answer you will get is because it is their right.

Sure, that's a very germane question. My answer is that I don't know, I think it was stupid, and it's not what I would have done. Mostly likely though IMO is not the reasons already mentioned here, but to assert their right to do so. It's the same idea expressed by Tom Hanks in The Post; the only way to assert your right to publish effectively is to publish.

Interestingly, the same people who are so upset about the guns in this case also tend to be those most in favor of the fact that the Pentagon Papers were published by the media. Why that is, is an exercise I leave to the reader.

Is "lawful intent" is at the determination of the police?

Nobody ever seems to want to performatively display their right to a speedy trial.

Thanks for explaining that to me.
I realize I should be more than ever relieved I was not randomly born in a place where an act of aggression like that is legally allowed.

I read this kind of argument a lot and it blows my mind. Officers can act correctly, but they're still racist because different officers, in a different agency, in a different time, acted inappropriate in a similar situation. So, in order for them not to be racist, the current officer has to violate a white person's rights the same way some completely different officer violated someone else's rights. What a world that would be if that's how they were trained or acted.

I don't know Michigan laws, but its certainly legal to carry weapons in the Idaho Capitol Building. And there's protests there very often - some conservative, but definitely liberal ones as well. They're not breaking any laws unless they're blocking traffic or something. The agencies adjust to that by having secure-access offices that you have to be buzzed in for, but the "patriots" can run around the lobby with their misspelled signs and guns all they want.

They are probably breaking whatever gathering regulations are in place, but, those haven't been enforced criminally in any context yet around here (except one lady who demanded to be arrested in playground, but she was actually arrested for regular trespassing.)

Sometimes there's other infractions being committed - a lot open container and noise stuff depending on the type of protest or gathering, but, there's a pretty clear risk/reward component to breaking up protesters and I'd advise against it in any circumstance, for any protest, unless it becomes public safety issue. And I'd think violently breaking up these protests would only encourage more dangerous protesting. Even here everybody just points and laughs at them and they go home eventually.

Do you honestly think if Black Lives Matters showed up to the State Capital armed to the tooth and tried to force their way into the State Legislature it would end the same way? Come on.

In this day and age?

They're allowed to block streets like they were Christ Christie. So yes I think they would be allowed to do the same thing as these protesters.

What do you think would happen?

"Tried to force"? Aren't they allowed in?

Anybody who tried to force their way into say, the secured governor's office in my state would have a problem. But anybody can protest with guns in the lobby or outside. Hell, they let Occupy Wall Street take over a public park for two months even though their actions excluded others' access to the public space. Easier and safer to let it die out than going in and breaking it up. I don't know what happened in Michigan with respect to whether any trespassing occurred or whether other laws were broken. Using "force" is definitely a game changer if that's what they did - meaning using their weapons to obtain access to an area they wouldn't otherwise be allowed to be. That would definitely be unlawful.

I think they should be able to. The game of hypotheticals has no useful end, but I will say this; if it did happen, I'd be just in favor of them being able to exercise their rights. I'd be just as against the idea that they were terrorists for doing it, should be arrested for doing it, should be worried about being shot for doing it, it not being a protest because they did it, etc.

And if it happened and I didn't take that approach, then shame on me.

I think they would be dragged out and arrested if they were unarmed. If armed, likely SWAT and armored police vehicles threatening them to disperse. Perhaps a stand-off and likely violence.

You get shot if they even think you're reaching for a gun. You think having your finger on the trigger in front of them would result in something less?

Sure had a different response when a legal unarmed pro-immigrant protest occurred on the border.

I'd give these folks who bring prop guns to protests the benefit of the doubt if they ever put any effort towards publicly asserting any of their other rights (or those of other folks). They don't care about their rights in general, they care about gun rights specifically. That's not to say they're generally wrong to do so, so much as to say that the insistence on shoe-horning gun rights into any issue makes it easy to dismiss their concern for every other issue.

So because some Border Control were heavy handed, other police in other states HAVE to be also or else they're racist?

I'd personally rather we train our local officers to avoid mistakes made by others.

I see one white guy getting arrested in Rain's picture. What is that suppose to tell me?

Where were the police in riot gear yesterday? What about the police armored vehicles with machine guns on top? Didn't see those either. Just wondering why they show up to certain protests and not others.

They tried to force their way into the actual chamber.

Soo... you don't understand the meaning of the word racism.

Not to mention there is a reason the term intersectionality exists, but I'm guessing you don't like that one either.

Honestly, your talking like this feels literally like a flat earther talking to me. I can't understand how something so obvious, whether its the Earth being round or the existence of white privilege, can be denied in this way.

I know its rhetorical, but we all know why. Some are just playing dumb because it may force them to deal with their privilege. Better to simply ignore it and say pointing it out is racist.

I think I understand the word fine, but I'm open to it being explained to me in a way that makes white priviledge not racist. I'm quite familiar with the term intersectionality, the logical conclusion of which is to recognize the individual as the ultimate minority and therefore take individuals with the specifics of their life, circumstances, etc. instead of dividing people into classes and groups.


Hence my original statement about not agreeing with the baked-in racial assumptions.

They were practicing social distancing.

Armed Black Panthers protest in front of Texas jail where Sandra Bland died: ‘Oink, oink! Bang, bang!’ - New York Daily News

Dozens of heavily armed Black Panthers rallied at a Texas jail Wednesday to protest the jail cell death of Sandra Bland — and oinked their anger at police.

"Oink, oink! Bang, bang!" the group chanted during the nonviolent rally in front of the Waller County Jail in Hempstead. "The revolution has come! Off the pigs!"

About 25 demonstrators led by the New Black Panther Party marched in the two-hour protest. Some of the members carried guns as they circled the jail and chanted their frustrations.

That's about as close as you could get to any extreme I could imagine, and (I am somewhat surprised) it apparently went down without incident, in Texas, FWIW.

Mirriam Webster:
"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

Dictionary.com:
"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others."

Calling out the dominant position or privilege of a racial simply doesn't fit the definition. And intersectionality acknowledges different levels of privilege - race, gender, economic that affect people and they can and do intersect.

Like I edited in my previous comment, this appears to be so obvious to me as a person of color that I feel like those that deny it are akin to flat earthers - a deliberate not seeing.

Nobody deals with their white privilege and biases more than police officers and those who make decisions about police officers do. People in most other lines of work never really have to be concerned with it, which is an aspect of white privilege in and of itself. They can consider themselves progressive heroes and not part of the problem if they point out racism online, or act super polite to the minorities they come across in normal aspects of their day.

Police don't have that luxury. They have be trained on, acknowledge, and confront whatever biases they have. We all have biases we're not even aware of until we're in a situation where it might actually come up. And some biases are truly based on ignorance - like how people raised in different cultures may react to authority (in the U.S., we tend to expect eye contact or it looks like you're hiding something, whereas in other cultures eye contact with authority is considered disrespectful.)

Edit: I'm looking at some of these photos of these masked police officers being screamed at by Michigan protesters. I tend to look at these things from that one officers's perspective. Or the perspective of his supervisor telling him what to do. Should he have opened fire because that's what some other officer have done in the past? Should his supervisor have told him to arrest everyone - a decision which, once made, means that the officers now have lawful authority, and a mandate through their orders, to overcome all physical resistance and see the arrest out, regardless of the force that requires? I sure as hell wouldn't do that, or order that. Regardless of what happened in the 60s, or on the border last week, or in the next town yesterday.

Waller County proceeded to ban guns at the courthouse despite state law saying otherwise.

Sure it does. The bare assertion that there even is such a thing does so. . It defines a person's priviledge (and by extension, any assessment of them, their achievements or lack thereof, etc) by their race. As your Webster definition reads 'race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities'. The literal words of the term 'white priviledge' assign priviledge to a person based solely on their race. It's 2+2=4 territory.

It's the same logic that informs the fact that in certain Twitter circles it is common parlance to say things like 'white people be like … ' 'Watch. Whitness. Work', and so on; when nobody would consider it ok to say 'black people be like ...'. The first is considered racist, the second isn't. This of course has nothing to do with any objective definition of racism to be universally applied, rendering the term meaningless in Orwellian fashion.

It makes more sense when you look at the video:

New Black Panther Party protests at site of Sandra Bland death | Daily Mail Online

Apparently the riot police were called in from Houston (as the article alludes to), and there seems to be like 3 (maybe 4) protesters with guns and 20ish in total against double that number of cops. Also the protesters didn't try to go in anywhere, they just walked around.

And then the county banned guns in the courthouse, LOL (I see Rainmaker has just mentioned that)

Amazing how you completely ignore the superiority aspect of both definitions.

Actually not that amazing. It just demonstrates your white privilege. Feel free to call me anything you want for pointing out that obvious fact.

Our best historical example is California when Black Panthers marched on the state capital fully armed. The NRA and Reagan feverishly rushed to change the law.

It's weird how those 2A heroes found that specific moment to be opposed to gun rights. Wonder why?

So now we're saying whatever priviledge means, it has nothing to do with superiority?

As for what I would call you - simply wrong, and your argument illogical. I'm not in the business of attacking people, merely dealing with arguments. It's hilarious that you think this demonstrates my white priviledge, inasmuch as there are non-whites who have made the same argument. What priviledge causes them to think in such ways?

That may be true and I'm sure that there are some departments that do a good job of doing that sort of training and teaching their officers about their implicit biases. Though it appears to me that a lot of departments (if not the majority) completely fall down on the job in that aspect.

It seemed to me that there could have been an opportunity in recent years for police departments to say, we need to do better here. The Sandra Bland, Philando Castile incidents show that we aren't doing what we need to do. We aren't confronting our inherent biases and racism. And granted, the US is a racist society and police departments can't just fix that themselves.

Though I think that is an argument for restraint - why can't black men be subjected to the same restraint that white men get? I've seen this first hand. It's absolutely shocking the first time you witness it.

Some shame could go a long way. I agree that what the protestors did is legal, but discouraging assholish behavior even when it's legal could go a long way. Part of the reason this kind of thing is happening more often is that too many people are defending it by saying it's legal.

Ha! Of course.

Of course they should be subjected to the same restraint. I think officers show a ton of restraint in all kinds of situations - but when a mistake is made or crime committed by an officer, the consequences can be disastrous. Much more than say, an insurance adjuster who has racial biases or whatever.

I'm just saying that when an officer properly shows restraint, we shouldn't assume they're racist just because some other officer didn't act properly in another situation. What is the first officer supposed to do? Bash the white peoples' heads to even the score? Statistically, that individual officer has never shot anyone. If he's got state house protester duty, I doubt he's done much of anything in law enforcement yet.

Edit: And I don't expect this of others, but I have sympathy for the officers who have to stand there and be yelled at by unmasked spitters all day, and who have to still stay focused every second, knowing that things could deteriorate and and turn violent any second no matter what they do. And to know that if they do their job right, they'll still be considered racist because people will assume they would have opened fire if it was black protesters. They signed up for it, but it's still a shitty day.

Do you... understand "racial differences produce an inherent superiority" or "one's own race is superior"

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or is there is a reading comprehension issue. I'm voting for obtuse. It prevents from confronting your obvious white privilege on this and other issues. As for non-whites who make the same argument, that's great for them. I think they buy into a racist narrative about the lack of white privilege. It's not as if this is the first time you had supporters of the racial status quo from non-whites. Where do you think the (ugly, IMO) term "Uncle Tom" comes from?

Ah. Well, I don't think they should have bashed their heads in - but when the protesters were trying to burst in the House Chambers, I do think they should have been disbursed then. That's a violent provocation.

I do think it's more of an example how white protesters get more restraint than black protesters would. I agree, I don't think they should have gotten their heads bashed in, but rather see the same respect to border protesters, to Black Lives Matter protesters, etc. The juxtaposition is striking and I think a lot of black folk see their experience and think - why can't that respectful posture be shown to us!

It may come out in angry ways due to disparate treatment all of their lives though.

(I can confess I get really annoyed when I go through airport security and a white dude with a long hipster beard who is a bit flip to TSA gets no hassle at all, when I am always hyper-polite and make sure I'm shaven before I go through security due to a few times I was pulled aside)

I also would say that I find our society to be incredibly and obviously racist, so if we consider cops to be regular people in society, it makes sense to consider that they may racist as the rest of our society - and that is where assumptions may come into play. Not the individual but the group that they are a part of and represent.

Is there any reason why that "long hipster beard who is a bit flip to TSA" should get any hassle?

If so, you can then have no justification for assuming what I think is down to white priviledge. If others can come to the same opinion for other reasons, then there are multiple possible ways to come to that conclusion and therefore your conclusion is not valid.

I think I understand what superiority means, but I'm also not sure that when you write things as simple as 'a', 'and', or 'the', that we are talking about the same things. It's clear superior, priviledge, racist, and quite possibly even more basic terms mean totally different things to us.

A brown person who looked like that would get PLENTY of hassle from TSA. Hence the reason I always shave and am super polite to TSA. I don't like getting pulled out of line to have my butt patted again or put in the big air blowing thing (is that still around) when the folks ahead and behind me when through the regular magnetic security gate - and that's when I was being pretty polite.

Do you think white people never get their butts fondled by the TSA?

Others have come to the conclusion that the vaccines cause autism for other reasons than they don't trust science, but I can pretty much assume most people who believe that don't trust science. Sorry, a few outliers or models for you or your ilk to hold up does not cleanse you of your white privilege.

"Your reputation is amazing, I will not let you down" - Donald Trump

ALEX JONES WILL EAT YOUR ASS pic.twitter.com/e75kfYVsyB

— ᏔმƦ��ჳ�� (@mooncult) May 1, 2020

I think they get fondled much less as a percentage than brown people do. Wasn't the announcement for random pull asides at the airport a response to concerns that racial profiling was going on by TSA after 9/11?

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/u...cials-say.html

So you're ok with judging by the group so long as it's a group you don't personally belong to/agree with, and also ok with assuming the motives of people even when by your own words it will sometimes not be accurate.

As for me, I stand firmly on the side of the individual. All of them. For example, I'll say clearly that what happened in Texas is wrong. A county doesn't get to break state law and eliminate freedoms of the people just because they don't like something that happened.

I'm fine with assuming the motives of groups I belong to and agree with as well. It's literally something we do all the fucking time as human beings. Why did my party do X - I assume it's because of Y due to what I know about my party and its values.

I believe that our society is way too hyper-individualized. Therefore we fail to notice when groups in our society are doing something wrong. Because we are so focused on the individual (and the "few bad apples") that we lose track our collective action. One can see it with these asinine "FREE X" protests.

So, do you think people are watching his show during this, agreeing, and starting to size up their neighbors or are they wondering, "WTF! This guy is crazy!"?

Can we all at least agree to spell "privilege" correctly?

Only if you spell it my preferred way.

I think that is why the pushback for me is so weird. Despite my bias towards police, I know enough police officers have the restraint that was shown yesterday. That restraint just so happened to be when dealing with protestors that looked a particular way. So when the restraint is not exercised, then questions are going to be asked. Especially when that restraint is missing when dealing with a protestors that look different. When those questions are asked, the people asking the questions are seen as being unreasonable. Yesterday was one of the more extreme protests I have seen recently that did not end up with tanks, water cannons, rubber bullets and tasers. I don't know the rules and regulations that govern law enforcement in that case but I trust those that say that those officers followed them to a tee and probably went above and beyond what they needed to.

Do I want them to bash of the white people to even the score? No. I want them to stop bashing the heads of black people for less than what I saw yesterday and then telling me they were following procedures. If you are telling me they did their job correctly with the restraint they showed in the face of that shitstorm, I will accept that. Why should I expect any less in any other shitstorm? Especially when, given what happened yesterday, people are seeing yesterday's events as a protest precedent.

Agree to disagree.

Considering the GOP in that state banned signs from the protest gallery because "they might fall and hit somebody"

Signs: Bad. Assault Rifles: A-ok!

This made me laugh.

I'll do my best. I stand corrected on this highly important issue, and declare myself ready to receive whatever just punishments must necessarily come my way.


Nah. I make a concerted effort, and have been trained in this regard by multiple employers as well, to not make such assumptions. One of the reasons racism is such a bad thing is because of the whole aspect of judging by the group when no group is homogeneous. If judging by the group is ok, then it actually takes a lot of the sting away from the very charge of racism.

So in this case, we really are in agree to disagree territory. You can never know another person's story.

But that's the thing with open carry nuts... it's a weird juxtaposition where they're kinda playing dress up to show they're tough or something, but they're actually just clowns so while they may partly be taking advantage of skin color privilej they're also not perceived as as threatening as they want to be (and I think they actually understand that the perception they aren't that threatening is part of why they can do this.) Like nobody here actually thought they would intimidate Gov Whitmer into holding off, everyone involved knew this was just a symbolic thing, right?
I don't agree with open carry people, but that's quite the leap of logic there... anyone with a loaded large capacity weapon could try and create a bloodbath but even with America's high mass shootings those psychos go on solo rampages, or sometimes hole up in places & try to fight the government instead of marching on the statehouse & trying to take on a well prepared group of police. Rallies or protests involving Open Carry folks aren't that uncommon, and while none of this makes me comfortable, there's no track record of them turning into massacres.
Actually it's not just Michigan, Open Carry is often more permissive than Concealed Carry by state. A quick googling shows that at least by 2016 only 3 states banned it & 3 more restricted it to "long guns" (presumably hunting rifles & such). About 30 have no restrictions The Trace

Yes, I understand that replacing an "acting" official is a lesser issue than a permanent/career person. Still...given the obvious motivations and the track record this maps perfectly onto... I'm going to still find some room to be outraged. Though virtually nobody else will, I know, I know.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/01/u...-watchdog.html

This is fine.

She's being fired for writing a report that was largely about what hospitals said needed to be done better to save lives.

I actually made this one:

There's a larger issue here going on here on the judicial side. There's a doctrine called "unitary executive" that has really come into vogue in conservative legal circles. Basically, it holds that the President, and the President alone, should have pretty much complete, unfettered, and unchecked control over the entire executive branch. And that any laws that Congress passes to attempt to restrict that authority and/or protect civil servants are unconstitutional.

There are, of course, textualist and originalist justifications behind this theory, but [albionmoonlight editorializing] they are fig leafs. The real engine motivating it is the realization that career civil servants at the level we are discussing are highly competent people who have chosen to forgo large private sector salaries in order to serve the public good. In other words, liberals. But the Presidency alternates between liberal and conservative. So by putting all of the power into one person, you get your guy running things every 4 to 8 years or so.[/editorializing]

Nice

Fixed.

i don't think i can lol

So like when I see a privilege of Karens protesting around state houses?

Well a bit more from the "intelligence" Trump says to have seen.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fiv...p-u-s-findings

I'll reserve judgement until someone other than Fox reports this.

Was anyone arguing that China wasn’t covering stuff up?

Of course China covers stuff up. They are a goddamn authoritarian regime!

That’s why you don’t do things like remove the CDC personnel in China!

They are actually going to manage to get the media to buy into the “if China messed up in any way whatsoever, then Trump cannot be held accountable for anything” framing, aren’t they?

Intelligence report says China lied about origin of coronavirus
Research Dossier by 'Five Eyes' Intelligence Agencies Concludes China Tried to Cover Up COVID-19 Evidence |
China lied to world about coronavirus and hurt vaccine efforts, leaked dossier claims - World News - Mirror Online
Leaked Western intel dossier reveals how China deceived the world about coronavirus
Intelligence dossier confirms cover-up allegations against China - Foreign Affairs - Israel National News
Bombshell spy dossier claims China lied to the world about coronavirus and killed thousands with attempted cover-up – The US Sun
China lied about origin of coronavirus, leaked dossier Five Eyes claims: Bat virus program | Asia News

FWIW, the NY Post and the Sun are owned by News Corp, so really not "other than Fox." (And, um, the MSN link states at the bottom that "Fox News' Bret Baier and Louis Casiano contributed to this report." And the Space Coast link is...a re-report of the Fox story.)

Absolutely with albion on this one. I mean, I remember saying when China first started to report "nope, we got this, all under control" that they were not exactly telling the truth. The propaganda was expected.

I mean, did intelligence actually ever confirm that things ever were under control?

The Trump Presidency – 2016
 

Its amazing what a country like China, you know authoritarian, can do when they control the media. Its kind of like “jeez what would a leader do if they wanted to be able to become a dictator... hmmmmm what night they want to do with the media? Perhaps turn the public against them, sure dont in their authenticity, call them the enemy, threaten to shut them down, etc.” perhaps they could even get millions of people sic. Followers to support this movement. That would only happen in China.

Of course China is controlling the narrative!! Regardless of how the stupid thing started they wanted to control the narrative. Just like our stupid ass President does on the daily. Even if this happened the way the scientific majority thinks it did that doesnt mean the government, an authoritarian one at that, wouldn’t want to control the narrative.

Were treating by the millions
Itll disappear like a miracle
We have it under control
Its like a bad flu
Were the greatest
Fake news
Media can’t be trusted

Sounds like our wanna be dictator is using the playbook perfectly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk