Is America burning? (Black Lives Matter protests, civil unrest and riots 2020)

[Pickman's model]

Takes a lot of faith in the US army and those in command of it to peg those two possibilities as equal. Even more of a leap to assume that Trump loyalist Republicans even want them to/believe they will 'calm' the situation.

it's an even greater leap to jump from what people were actually asked to what bimble wants to think they were asked.

 

[Pickman's model]

lol

you've rather a record of looking at things and taking them to mean what you'd like them to mean rather than what they actually say. this could be like belfast in 1969 on the arrival of the british army: or it could be like belfast in 1972. but it doesn't have to be the latter.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

When these various people talk of 'the army', do they mean regular soldiers, or are including the National Guard?

 

[bimble]

Ok Pickmans model. 3/4 of white republicans support bringing in the army , to do whatever it is the army might do. They might for all we know support bringing in the army to hand out snacks, or just the brass band.

 

[Pickman's model]

When these various people talk of 'the army', do they mean regular soldiers, or are including the National Guard?

the army. not the national guard, who i understand have already been deployed in some places.

 

[Pickman's model]

Ok Pickmans model. 3/4 of white republicans support bringing in the army , to do whatever it is the army might do , nobody can guess.

you've already had a guess.

 

[Numbers]

To avoid clogging the thread up with a hundred twitter videos, here's a handy compilation:

That’s just depressing.

 

[bimble]

When these various people talk of 'the army', do they mean regular soldiers, or are including the National Guard?

In this poll national guard was a separate question.

 

[LDC]

Eh? What do you mean what do you think the army supporting the police would look like?

It could mean loads of things. It's happened in the UK very recently for example.

They could guard key points to free up police numbers, they could do joint patrols, they could just do unarmed riot control, all sorts of things. There's no need for 'they're going to murder protesters' nonsense. It's possible, but unlikely. The army are actually likely to be less pleased with this then you'd expect, and it's entirely possible this threat is more just vote winning bluster than anything more serious.

 

[Pickman's model]

here's an article (forbes) about where the national guard had been deployed up to yesterday

 

[YouSir]

it's an even greater leap to jump from what people were actually asked to what bimble wants to think they were asked.

Not really, it's not as if Republic attitudes towards law enforcement and these protests is any great mystery, especially during the Trump era.

 

[MickiQ]

No. This is where he got it from I think. It’s long. https://assets.morningconsult.com/w...9/2005131_crosstabs_POLICE_RVs_FINAL_LM-1.pdf

That document is getting on for 400 pages long, My 3 year old grandson can manage Spot The Dog aided by his Mum but he couldn't cope with that and I get the impression his reading skills and Trump's are on a par.

 

[YouSir]

It could mean loads of things. It's happened in the UK very recently for example.

They could guard key points to free up police numbers, they could do joint patrols, they could just do unarmed riot control, all sorts of things. There's no need for 'they're going to murder protesters' nonsense. It's possible, but unlikely. The army are actually likely to be less pleased with this then you'd expect, and it's entirely possible this threat is more just vote winning bluster than anything more serious.

It could mean lots of things, aye, but there are fair grounds for guessing what those within the Republican faithful want it to mean. That doesn't relate to what the military want to/are capable of doing or how hollow Trump's threats are either.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not really, it's not as if Republic attitudes towards law enforcement and these protests is any great mystery, especially during the Trump era.

so carry on like that, substituting what you think things say for what they actually say with that sort of attitude you're rather trumpian yourself towards evidence.

 

[MickiQ]

When these various people talk of 'the army', do they mean regular soldiers, or are including the National Guard?

Trump is probably talking about the regular Army, the National Guard is under the control of state governors though Trump may not realise this based on some of his past utterances.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Pretty grim. Small sample etc but 3/4 white republicans are well up for the army attacking the protestors according to that poll.


View attachment 215941

The numbers on this poll tell a few different stories, tbh. For starters, they show that those supporting the protests outnumber those opposing them by nearly three to one. Trump's hardcore base isn't really all that big, and these numbers reflect that. Among those who support the protests, the numbers are evenly split regarding supporting military involvement. I think one of the stories that this tells is that there are a lot of rather scared people out there who quite probably trust the military more than the police.

 

[Kaka Tim]

demonstrations growing in defiance of curfews and a president with a hard on for violent repression. All looks to be heading to a bloody sunday/sharpsville/kent state scenario where live ammunition gets unleashed on protestors.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Powerful resignation letter from James Miller, a now former member of Defense Science Board, to Defense Secretary, Mark Esper, worth reading in full -

Dear Secretary Esper,

I resign from the Defense Science Board, effective immediately.

When I joined the Board in early 2014, after leaving government service as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, I again swore an oath of office, one familiar to you, that includes the commitment to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

You recited that same oath on July 23, 2019, when you were sworn in as Secretary of Defense. On Monday, June 1, 2020, I believe that you violated that oath. Law-abiding protesters just outside the White House were dispersed using tear gas and rubber bullets — not for the sake of safety, but to clear a path for a presidential photo op. You then accompanied President Trump in walking from the White House to St. John’s Episcopal Church for that photo.

President Trump’s actions Monday night violated his oath to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” as well as the First Amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble.” You may not have been able to stop President Trump from directing this appalling use of force, but you could have chosen to oppose it. Instead, you visibly supported it.

Anyone who takes the oath of office must decide where he or she will draw the line: What are the things that they will refuse to do? Secretary Esper, you have served honorably for many years, in active and reserve military duty, as Secretary of the Army, and now as Secretary of Defense. You must have thought long and hard about where that line should be drawn. I must now ask: If last night’s blatant violations do not cross the line for you, what will?

Unfortunately, it appears there may be few if any lines that President Trump is not willing to cross, so you will probably be faced with this terrible question again in the coming days. You may be asked to take, or to direct the men and women serving in the U.S. military to take, actions that further undermine the Constitution and harm Americans.

As a concerned citizen, and as a former senior defense official who cares deeply about the military, I urge you to consider closely both your future actions and your future words. For example, some could interpret literally your suggestion to the nation’s governors Monday that they need to “dominate the battlespace.” I cannot believe that you see the United States as a “battlespace,” or that you believe our citizens must be “dominated.” Such language sends an extremely dangerous signal.

You have made life-and-death decisions in combat overseas; soon you may be asked to make life-and-death decisions about using the military on American streets and against Americans. Where will you draw the line, and when will you draw it?

I hope this letter of resignation will encourage you to again contemplate the obligations you undertook in your oath of office, as well as your obligations to the men and women in our military and other Americans whose lives may be at stake. In the event that at least some other senior officials may be inclined to ask these questions after reading this letter, I am making it public.

I wish you the best, in very difficult times. The sanctity of the U.S. Constitution, and the lives of Americans, may depend on your choices.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/02/secretary-esper-you-violated-your-oath-aiding-trumps-photo-op-thats-why-im-resigning/?arc404=true

Yet, both Esper & Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley had no plans to be there, they were heading to the FBI field office in DC when they were called to the White House to give an update to Trump, and had no idea the plan was to forcefully clear the protesters for a photo, op.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper says he 'didn't know' where he was going when he walked with Trump through a park aggressively cleared of protesters moments before

Esper said he thought he was going to look at a vandalized bathroom in the park and had 'no idea' protesters had been forcefully removed.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[YouSir]

so carry on like that, substituting what you think things say for what they actually say with that sort of attitude you're rather trumpian yourself towards evidence.

Attitudes from the US conservative right towards BLM and protests in general are well established, from Fox and the President downwards. Taking that into account in interpreting polling makes sense. Or not, in your opinion. To each their own.

 

[bimble]

The numbers on this poll tell a few different stories, tbh. For starters, they show that those supporting the protests outnumber those opposing them by nearly three to one. Trump's hardcore base isn't really all that big, and these numbers reflect that. Among those who support the protests, the numbers are evenly split regarding supporting military involvement. I think one of the stories that this tells is that there are a lot of rather scared people out there who quite probably trust the military more than the police.

The whole poll doc is interesting like that yes. The numbers saying they approve of the actions of trump during this will not have pleased him at all though he probably has people to pick out the cherries for him,

 

[Idris2002]

It could mean loads of things. It's happened in the UK very recently for example.

They could guard key points to free up police numbers, they could do joint patrols, they could just do unarmed riot control, all sorts of things. There's no need for 'they're going to murder protesters' nonsense. It's possible, but unlikely. The army are actually likely to be less pleased with this then you'd expect, and it's entirely possible this threat is more just vote winning bluster than anything more serious.

When the British Army was deployed to the north of Ireland in 1969, it's troops were initially welcomed by the Catholic minority.

Initially.

 

[LDC]

I was thinking more recently, the army were doing joint patrols in London post-IS attacks.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

When the British Army was deployed to the north of Ireland in 1969, it's troops were initially welcomed by the Catholic minority.

Initially.

Yeah, the poll reminded me of just that - people with no faith in the local authorities looking to force from outside to save them. And yes, be careful what you wish for.

There are other examples where the military has come together with popular protests - the Carnation Revolution in Portugal for instance. Could there be conditions here that might lead to something similar? In Portugal it helped that most of the soldiers were conscripts. But probably most of those in the military will support the protesters in the US at the moment.

 

[bimble]

... But probably most of those in the military will support the protesters in the US at the moment.

Why do you think that?

 

[Pickman's model]

you've rather a record of looking at things and taking them to mean what you'd like them to mean rather than what they actually say. this could be like belfast in 1969 on the arrival of the british army: or it could be like belfast in 1972. but it doesn't have to be the latter.

When the British Army was deployed to the north of Ireland in 1969, it's troops were initially welcomed by the Catholic minority.

Initially.

great minds think alike

 

[Saul Goodman]

I think one of the stories that this tells is that there are a lot of rather scared people out there who quite probably trust the military more than the police.

I'd be thinking along the same lines. When Americans see their soldiers, they see people protecting them, and US service men and women are generally respected. The same can't be said for their cops.
I've not looked at figures but I reckon a massively higher percentage of Americans trust their military than trust their cops.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I'd be thinking along the same lines. When Americans see their soldiers, they see people protecting them, and US service men and women are generally respected. The same can't be said for their cops.
I've not looked at figures but I reckon a massively higher percentage of Americans trust their military than trust their cops.

Cops don't get extra baggage on flights, or asked to board first...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why do you think that?

Nearly two-thirds of those interviewed in your poll supported the protests, numbers that will climb among demographics strongly represented in the military. It's not such a wild thing to suggest - all it would mean would be that the military isn't wildly out of step with the general population on the issue.

 

[bimble]

Nearly two-thirds of those interviewed in your poll supported the protests, numbers that will climb among demographics strongly represented in the military. It's not such a wild thing to suggest - all it would mean would be that the military isn't wildly out of step with the general population on the issue.

I don't think thats true. It looks like having someone in your family who is in the military (or navy etc whatever) makes you less likely to support the protests in general than most other people, and more likely to say you 'strongly oppose' them than almost any other group.

 

[petee]

to Gimigimi 's point above that enlisted servicemen/women are as divided as the population: