Scrutable

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:58 pm

This 12-hour curfew starting in a few minutes' time: what are you supposed to do if, say, you're working in an office right now, or shopping in a supermarket? Do you have to stay on the premises until 6 a.m.?

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:58 pm

This 12-hour curfew starting in a few minutes' time: what are you supposed to do if, say, you're working in an office right now, or shopping in a supermarket? Do you have to stay on the premises until 6 a.m.?

monkey wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:07 pm

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:58 pm

This 12-hour curfew starting in a few minutes' time: what are you supposed to do if, say, you're working in an office right now, or shopping in a supermarket? Do you have to stay on the premises until 6 a.m.?

Offices probably would have shut straight away (if they were open), and if it's anything like the curfew we had here, as long as you look like you're heading home and not up to no good, they'll leave you alone. It's there so they can clear the streets of protestors, not normal peeps.

monkey wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:07 pm

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:58 pm

This 12-hour curfew starting in a few minutes' time: what are you supposed to do if, say, you're working in an office right now, or shopping in a supermarket? Do you have to stay on the premises until 6 a.m.?

Offices probably would have shut straight away (if they were open), and if it's anything like the curfew we had here, as long as you look like you're heading home and not up to no good and are white, they'll leave you alone. It's there so they can clear the streets of protestors, not normal peeps.

bolo wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:10 pm

monkey wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:07 pm

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:58 pm

This 12-hour curfew starting in a few minutes' time: what are you supposed to do if, say, you're working in an office right now, or shopping in a supermarket? Do you have to stay on the premises until 6 a.m.?

Offices probably would have shut straight away (if they were open), and if it's anything like the curfew we had here, as long as you look like you're heading home and not up to no good, they'll leave you alone. It's there so they can clear the streets of protestors, not normal peeps.

Yes, this.

My agency got the "go home" email at 3pm. Of course, most of us were already at home teleworking, and my office building had been evacuated for two hours by then anyway.

FlammableFlower wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:28 pm

Generally (as far as I can tell) the US has had a policy of not stirring things up when it came to former presidents (e.g. pardoning Nixon, although at least one other died before it became clear how corrupt he was) and ex-presidents have generally kept out of politics after office. In the first case it avoids seeing a precedent whereby the incoming administration is guaranteed to be prosecuting/jailing/ generally making life difficult for those of the outgoing administration.

But Trump surely can't stop himself doing the latter and also, just as surely, his egregious actions mean he can't avoid the former?

FlammableFlower wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:28 pm

Generally (as far as I can tell) the US has had a policy of not stirring things up when it came to former presidents (e.g. pardoning Nixon, although at least one other died before it became clear how corrupt he was) and ex-presidents have generally kept out of politics after office. In the first case it avoids seeing a precedent whereby the incoming administration is guaranteed to be prosecuting/jailing/ generally making life difficult for those of the outgoing administration.

But Trump surely can't stop himself doing the latter and also, just as surely, his egregious actions mean he can't avoid the former?

monkey wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:37 pm

FlammableFlower wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:28 pm

Generally (as far as I can tell) the US has had a policy of not stirring things up when it came to former presidents (e.g. pardoning Nixon, although at least one other died before it became clear how corrupt he was) and ex-presidents have generally kept out of politics after office. In the first case it avoids seeing a precedent whereby the incoming administration is guaranteed to be prosecuting/jailing/ generally making life difficult for those of the outgoing administration.

But Trump surely can't stop himself doing the latter and also, just as surely, his egregious actions mean he can't avoid the former?

Talk of impeachment has started again, again, as well as that of giving congresspeople and senators who have encouraged the mob the boot.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:54 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:52 pm

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:17 pm

I just watched riot police gently ushering protestors down the steps of the Capitol. I don't think that gentle handling would have happened with BLM protestors.

Hmm. A lot of the twitter left spent months moaning about police violence, but tonight are suddenly upset that the mob isn't being shot and beaten.

The softly softly policing has worked well so far.

Don't be offensively stupid. Twitter is talking about how obvious the bias is, not lamenting the lack of police violence.

Trump tweeted on the 27th July:

"Anarchists, Agitators or Protestors who vandalize or damage our Federal Courthouse in Portland, or any Federal Buildings in any of our Cities or States, will be prosecuted under our recently re-enacted Statues & Monuments Act. MINIMUM TEN YEARS IN PRISON. Don’t do it!"

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:14 am

dyqik wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:54 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 10:52 pm

Hmm. A lot of the twitter left spent months moaning about police violence, but tonight are suddenly upset that the mob isn't being shot and beaten.

The softly softly policing has worked well so far.

Don't be offensively stupid. Twitter is talking about how obvious the bias is, not lamenting the lack of police violence.

Yes, it's more proof of bias, if the various videos of police being chummy with people driving cars into BLM crowds and thanking kid vigilantes for turning up right before they started shooting people wasn't enough.

If police violence has to happen, I'd certainly prefer it to happen to dangerous baddies than people protesting for civil rights. But I'd obviously rather it didn't happen at all. It's actually useful to have high-profile examples of the police peacefully de-escalating a crisis. It's proof that they can do it, so now they just need to afford the same privilege to unarmed black kids.

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:48 am

A nice bit of sauce for the goose, lifted from ISF:

Trump tweeted on the 27th July:

"Anarchists, Agitators or Protestors who vandalize or damage our Federal Courthouse in Portland, or any Federal Buildings in any of our Cities or States, will be prosecuted under our recently re-enacted Statues & Monuments Act. MINIMUM TEN YEARS IN PRISON. Don’t do it!"

Vertigowooyay wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 07, 2021 12:11 am

monkey wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:37 pm

FlammableFlower wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 06, 2021 11:28 pm

Generally (as far as I can tell) the US has had a policy of not stirring things up when it came to former presidents (e.g. pardoning Nixon, although at least one other died before it became clear how corrupt he was) and ex-presidents have generally kept out of politics after office. In the first case it avoids seeing a precedent whereby the incoming administration is guaranteed to be prosecuting/jailing/ generally making life difficult for those of the outgoing administration.

But Trump surely can't stop himself doing the latter and also, just as surely, his egregious actions mean he can't avoid the former?

Talk of impeachment has started again, again, as well as that of giving congresspeople and senators who have encouraged the mob the boot.

25th would be quicker initially though? Let’s just allow ourselves the dream that there’s a chance he couldn’t even call himself a single term President.

Squeak wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 07, 2021 1:50 am

Yougov did a snap poll of 1397 registered voters. 62% see today's activities as a threat to democracy. 32% do not.

Armed protesters storming the Capitol while elected representatives count votes is not a threat to democracy. Of course not. Especially when compared to dreadful things like brown people voting.