He was a servicemember from 1968 to 2011, served under 9 administrations, and was appointed chair of the joint chiefs by GWB in 2007 and retained through Obama's first term.
If we can’t let people peacefully protest here, then we’ve really lost legitimacy as a liberal democracy.
People press the button on a machine in lots of countries, that doesn't necessarily make them a republic. The practical reality of the situation is they are spending every day NOT representing people as much as possible. This isn't an abstract thought experiment in political science definitions, this is the actual reality we are living under.
The longer we keep our head in the sand instead of facing reality, the more delusional we get.
If we, as the public, are unwilling to actually pay our candidates the way that lobbyists are, and if we are unwilling to change the laws that allow lobbyists to continue influencing politicians in this manner, then we effectively have no representation.
If there was a single post about the current situation that I would nominate to be allowed here, this is undoubtedly it.
I reposted a similar article as an experiment, although it's not nearly as good since it isn't the original source. It didn't get flagged but probably because it didn't gain traction quickly enough to garner comments:
I get the comments can be cesspools and maybe that's why the fast flags, but censoring opposing views doesn't erase them, it hides them. I dont come for articles, most are reposted from other aggregators, I come for the comments, the discussions and the views.
Trump's comments about "dominate the battle space" really pierced my heart.
Seeing the president openly violate the first amendment right: "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" made me very sad.
"that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." - I don't think we have a government for the people.
I agree with the first part of statement: Violent rioters should not endanger the life of the President. Which is why, even if I don't like the current president or his methods (or anything, really), I understand the need to support security of white house.
But "Violent Rioters endangering president's life" should not be mixed up with "Capricious president endangers peaceful protesters' life". They are morally and tactically different scenarios.
By all accounts:
- Protesters were peaceful
- They were not approaching or endangering White House
- President decided to have an unannounced photo-op
- Without warning, trips used force to disperse crowds so the president can have his photo op
If you believe this is not a correct framework, I'd be curious to hear your perspective.
> - Protesters were peaceful
From MSNBC's own coverage
0:42 - Visible in the scene are fireworks being launched at cops.
You are being lied to, and by all the reporters of the major networks who were on the scene, no less.
This is not a peaceful protest.
A warning would have been nice.
This comment sounds very disingenuous, because it fails to take into account the fact that Trump's decision to go on an unplanned photo-op was designed to force a scenario devised explicitly to draw a reaction.
And please note that even the priest complained that he felt abused and betrayed by Trump because it was patently obvious that the goal of that stunt was not to visit church or talk to the priest.
In basketball there's taking a charge and flopping. Trump's photo-op at the church was a colossal flop.
Why not? It's clearly low-effort trollbait.
Who in Lafayette Square was a rioter?
The disabled veterans, the people standing around doing nothing, or the elderly female Episcopalian ministers?