Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Undefined discussion subject.

2456

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 41,077

    The White House has just announced that the president will address the nation in 10 minutes' time.


  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 2,712
    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought?
    WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/spate-of-possible-uk-coronavirus-cases-from-2019-come-to-light

    An interesting tale. Slightly ironic that a member of The Gang of Four died after a trip to China.

    Retrospective antibody analysis of retained samples would be interesting.
    The other interesting work is the genetic history stuff from the University of Cambridge. You can see - from mutations - which strains evolved from which, and can therefore identify the oldest strains in existence.

    The Wuhan strain is not the oldest, which is extremely curious. It suggests the virus was active in the rest of China, killing people at a fairly low rate, until it had a superspreader event in Wuhan and exploded.
    Hang on - weren't we told by SeanT and DonaldT that it escaped from a Wuhan lab?
    That was a lab to which people brought already-existing viruses to study and modify, so the escape theory actually requires that the Wuhan strain is not the oldest.
    It's a bit more complex than that, surely.

    Let's call the first strain the Shanghai strain.

    If it has two children, the South Korea strain and the Wuhan strain, then we know that the South Korea strain could not have come from the Wuhan one.
    That's possibly relevant, depending on how successful the progeny of the 2 strains are. It's more complicated than it looks: Wuhan is home both to the A variant which is closest to the original bat virus and to a B strain which works better in East Asia than elsewhere. What isn't clear is whether the C strain which the rest of the world has, descends through Wuhan.

    https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/covid-19-genetic-network-analysis-provides-snapshot-of-pandemic-origins
  • PastoralSignPastoralSign Posts: 30
    Andy_JS said:

    Jonathan said:

    The mind boggles how monumentally fucked we are.

    In what regard?
    Second highest number of dead in the world with the 22nd largest population.

    No ability or authority from Government to enforce a continued lockdown.

    Leaving lockdown with large scale community transition still taking place - and unusually large numbers of fatalities (556 today)

    Double counting testing to satisfy political goals.

    The rest of the world looks at the UK as a case study of how not to do it - how to botch every stage of the response. We're the oddity. All the moreso as they have higher expectations of us.

    We didn't have sight of scale of transmission, no testing apparatus, moved too late and had to remain in lockdown much longer - and blew that up for one officials job. That's despite (possibly) having a few weeks grace on our neighbours - we didn't learn any lessons.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964
    edited June 1
    Its quite funny watching the US liberal news stations now trying to blame the trouble at these protests on "white anarchist extremist groups", but they can't find it in themselves to say well the broad umbrella is ANTIFA, because of Trumps comments.

    It reminds me a bit of the grooming gangs, because the likes of Nick Griffin was pushing that agenda, certain sections of the media just couldn't tell it how it was, and when the Times reporter did, he was smeared as a massive racist.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,884
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Could Covid-19 have reached the UK earlier than thought?
    WHO is urging countries to investigate any suspicious deaths so virus can be better understood"

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/01/spate-of-possible-uk-coronavirus-cases-from-2019-come-to-light

    An interesting tale. Slightly ironic that a member of The Gang of Four died after a trip to China.

    Retrospective antibody analysis of retained samples would be interesting.
    The other interesting work is the genetic history stuff from the University of Cambridge. You can see - from mutations - which strains evolved from which, and can therefore identify the oldest strains in existence.

    The Wuhan strain is not the oldest, which is extremely curious. It suggests the virus was active in the rest of China, killing people at a fairly low rate, until it had a superspreader event in Wuhan and exploded.
    Hang on - weren't we told by SeanT and DonaldT that it escaped from a Wuhan lab?
    That was a lab to which people brought already-existing viruses to study and modify, so the escape theory actually requires that the Wuhan strain is not the oldest.
    It's a bit more complex than that, surely.

    Let's call the first strain the Shanghai strain.

    If it has two children, the South Korea strain and the Wuhan strain, then we know that the South Korea strain could not have come from the Wuhan one.
    That's possibly relevant, depending on how successful the progeny of the 2 strains are. It's more complicated than it looks: Wuhan is home both to the A variant which is closest to the original bat virus and to a B strain which works better in East Asia than elsewhere. What isn't clear is whether the C strain which the rest of the world has, descends through Wuhan.

    https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/covid-19-genetic-network-analysis-provides-snapshot-of-pandemic-origins
    Thanks for the link
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 27,176

    Andy_JS said:

    Jonathan said:

    The mind boggles how monumentally fucked we are.

    In what regard?
    Second highest number of dead in the world with the 22nd largest population.

    No ability or authority from Government to enforce a continued lockdown.

    Leaving lockdown with large scale community transition still taking place - and unusually large numbers of fatalities (556 today)

    Double counting testing to satisfy political goals.

    The rest of the world looks at the UK as a case study of how not to do it - how to botch every stage of the response. We're the oddity. All the moreso as they have higher expectations of us.

    We didn't have sight of scale of transmission, no testing apparatus, moved too late and had to remain in lockdown much longer - and blew that up for one officials job. That's despite (possibly) having a few weeks grace on our neighbours - we didn't learn any lessons.

    Certainly we look sure to overtake Spain and become the major country with the highest per capita death rate within the next day or two (there are some smaller countries still worse).

    The testing situation was worse than you describe - we began to create the apparatus, opening drive-thru centres where anyone who wanted a test could go and get one, then after just a few days shut them all down and announced that you couldn’t get a test even if you became ill with symptoms.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,091
    .

    On topic: There seems to be a very strong assumption (not by Ms CycleFree, I hasten to add) that some future enquiry will find the government culpable of neglect at best and most probably deliberate disregard of the risk, especially in the early stages.

    I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:

    https://www.iiss.org/blogs/survival-blog/2020/05/the-uk-and-covid-19

    Come on Richard, the half-baked initial lockdown. Too little too late. We were shouting at the TV every evening desperate for the government to act. They've cost tens of thousands of lives.
    Read Lawrence Freedman's article.

    What some future enquiry might find is that the scientific advice was wrong. Maybe it was. But any old fool can be right in hindsight, and an enquiry - unless it's either just a straight witch-hunt or a Hutton-style whitewash - will focus on advice given and decisions made given the information and uncertainty at the time.

    Which would be a complete waste of time, as the public will have long since rendered their verdict.

    More interesting, and productive, questions might be (for example) ones about our public health capacity (which appears inadequate in various respects); why it is felt necessary for scientific advice to be formulated in private, since good science is conducted in public; whether we might be better subsidising manufacturing capacity for essential goods we otherwise inadequately stockpile, etc.

    Enquiring into the niceties of Matt Hancock’s ability to make decisions, long after his deficiencies have becomes fairly obvious, seems a waste of everyone’s time.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 35,026

    Its quite funny watching the US liberal news stations now trying to blame the trouble at these protests on "white anarchist extremist groups", but they can't find it in themselves to say well the broad umbrella is ANTIFA, because of Trumps comments.

    It reminds me a bit of the grooming gangs, because the likes of Nick Griffin was pushing that agenda, certain sections of the media just couldn't tell it how it was, and when the Times reporter did, he was smeared as a massive racist.

    Do you think Officer Chauvin is a "white extremist"?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 11,720

    On topic: There seems to be a very strong assumption (not by Ms CycleFree, I hasten to add) that some future enquiry will find the government culpable of neglect at best and most probably deliberate disregard of the risk, especially in the early stages.

    I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:

    https://www.iiss.org/blogs/survival-blog/2020/05/the-uk-and-covid-19

    Come on Richard, the half-baked initial lockdown. Too little too late. We were shouting at the TV every evening desperate for the government to act. They've cost tens of thousands of lives.
    Read Lawrence Freedman's article.

    What some future enquiry might find is that the scientific advice was wrong. Maybe it was. But any old fool can be right in hindsight, and an enquiry - unless it's either just a straight witch-hunt or a Hutton-style whitewash - will focus on advice given and decisions made given the information and uncertainty at the time.

    In that process - I hate to break the bad news - some guy on the internet who says he was shouting at the TV is unlikely to be given much weight.
    Bloody long article. I skimmed a lot but read the pertinent bits. My take away is still that our government screwed up its response. And as a result many more people have died. Even locking down 3 days earlier would have saved thousands.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964
    edited June 1
    Seems like the police in Washington are being much more aggressive this evening.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 33,320
    Wow, I saw this tweet earlier and thought it was from a typical alt-righter with a blue tick, but he's actually a congressman.


  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,091

    On topic: There seems to be a very strong assumption (not by Ms CycleFree, I hasten to add) that some future enquiry will find the government culpable of neglect at best and most probably deliberate disregard of the risk, especially in the early stages.

    I think this is extremely unlikely. If you actually look at the most careful analyses of what is already known about the government response to the scientific advice, there's really very little to criticise. For example:

    https://www.iiss.org/blogs/survival-blog/2020/05/the-uk-and-covid-19

    Come on Richard, the half-baked initial lockdown. Too little too late. We were shouting at the TV every evening desperate for the government to act. They've cost tens of thousands of lives.
    Read Lawrence Freedman's article.

    What some future enquiry might find is that the scientific advice was wrong. Maybe it was. But any old fool can be right in hindsight, and an enquiry - unless it's either just a straight witch-hunt or a Hutton-style whitewash - will focus on advice given and decisions made given the information and uncertainty at the time.

    In that process - I hate to break the bad news - some guy on the internet who says he was shouting at the TV is unlikely to be given much weight.
    Bloody long article. I skimmed a lot but read the pertinent bits. My take away is still that our government screwed up its response. And as a result many more people have died. Even locking down 3 days earlier would have saved thousands.
    It’s not a very convincing article, either.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964

    Wow, I saw this tweet earlier and thought it was from a typical alt-righter with a blue tick, but he's actually a congressman.


    I don't envy Twitter...your a racist, your a liar, but you are....

  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,263

    Wow, I saw this tweet earlier and thought it was from a typical alt-righter with a blue tick, but he's actually a congressman.


    The obvious mistake is looking at twitter
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,168
    edited June 1

    Wow, I saw this tweet earlier and thought it was from a typical alt-righter with a blue tick, but he's actually a congressman.


    I don't envy Twitter...your a racist, your a liar, but you are....
    From what I've seen today Twitter have been busy removing blue ticks from people guilty of wrongthink, so they must have plenty of time on their hands.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 21,117

    Wow, I saw this tweet earlier and thought it was from a typical alt-righter with a blue tick, but he's actually a congressman.


    “He’s a machine...handsome and going places”

    I think I might have recognised the style even if the congressman hadn't proudly named the author.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964
    Apparently Trump isn't coming out until they have cleared the streets away from the White House.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,469

    Wow, I saw this tweet earlier and thought it was from a typical alt-righter with a blue tick, but he's actually a congressman.


    I don't envy Twitter...your a racist, your a liar, but you are....
    From what I've seen today Twitter have been busy removing blue ticks from people guilty of wrongthink, so they must have plenty of time on their hands.

    What does a blue tick signify?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,238
    edited June 1


    Your mileage may vary. But, yes, the Hutton report did change my mind, Never in my entire life would I have believed a 'distinguished' judge could come out with such an absurdly biased judgment. It was, literally, jaw-dropping.

    No, you're proving my point. You were convinced up to Hutton's report that Gilligan was right. When Hutton found otherwise, you immediately concluded that Hutton was wrong. The finding didn't influence you in the slightest, except to be more sceptical about judges.

    But perhaps there are enquiries whose findings made most people say hmm, OK, I was wrong. Can you think of any?
    No, I wasn't convinced in advance that Gilligan was right at all. It was precisely the evidence uncovered and published by the Hutton enquiry which convinced me. It was the utterly jarring clash between the evidence Hutton published and his bizarre conclusion that gobsmacked me.

    Nor was I alone in this. The reaction from the Blair government made it completely clear that they were as gobsmacked as I was.

    As to your last question, yes, I think for example that the Scarman report of 1981 changed minds.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,168
    Andy_JS said:

    Wow, I saw this tweet earlier and thought it was from a typical alt-righter with a blue tick, but he's actually a congressman.


    I don't envy Twitter...your a racist, your a liar, but you are....
    From what I've seen today Twitter have been busy removing blue ticks from people guilty of wrongthink, so they must have plenty of time on their hands.

    What does a blue tick signify?
    https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/about-twitter-verified-accounts
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 33,320

    Apparently Trump isn't coming out until they have cleared the streets away from the White House.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964
    Andy_JS said:

    Wow, I saw this tweet earlier and thought it was from a typical alt-righter with a blue tick, but he's actually a congressman.


    I don't envy Twitter...your a racist, your a liar, but you are....
    From what I've seen today Twitter have been busy removing blue ticks from people guilty of wrongthink, so they must have plenty of time on their hands.

    What does a blue tick signify?
    That twitter has confirmed you are who you say you are and that you are somebody of importance. Originally it was a good idea to ensure those people are who they appear to be, but now it is a willy waving thing, where people claim look how important I am and plenty of stories of twitter staffers been induced to give them out to people.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964
    Here he comes....
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 26,238


    Bloody long article. I skimmed a lot but read the pertinent bits. My take away is still that our government screwed up its response. And as a result many more people have died. Even locking down 3 days earlier would have saved thousands.

    Yes, if you ignore the detail, you can blame the government without inconveniencing yourself with the facts.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964
    Not sure it is a great look while Trump says he is for peaceful protest as outside the crowd at the moment who is peaceful are being driven back.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 33,320
    And he dog whistles about the 2nd amendment...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964
    edited June 1
    Clear how Trump is playing this, weak useless mayors / governors, now the big bully boy is going to come and "dominant the streets". Dispatching 1000s of heavily armed soldiers.

    Could be pouring flames on the fire.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,091
    As the US president decides to defund the WHO...
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,710
    edited June 1
    445 extra deaths added to cumulative total on Downing Street slides today relating to earlier dates - but only referred to in notes - ie blue bars on chart not adjusted.

    Relate to dates back to 26 April.

    Whatever the explanation, not a good look. I think they really need to adjust blue bars on whole chart tomorrow.

    However problem of course is that chart is date of report, not date of death so I guess arguable how the blue bars should be adjusted!

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,091
    Nigelb said:

    As the US president decides to defund the WHO...

    Many of the replies to that tweet are depressing filth.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,378
    philiph said:

    Wow, I saw this tweet earlier and thought it was from a typical alt-righter with a blue tick, but he's actually a congressman.


    The obvious mistake is looking at twitter
    Yes. There are always complaints. But it is not compulsory.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964
    CNN are losing their shit. Dom Lemon claiming a dictatorship, Wolf saying he is expecting violent response to his speech.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,168
    edited June 1

    CNN are losing their shit. Dom Lemon claiming a dictatorship, Wolf saying he is expecting violent response to his speech.

    As I posted earlier;

    First he's hiding, now he's stoking it. No end to Trump's powers.

    And the left busily preparing themselves to scream "King" once again if he took any measures against Antifa.

    This pantomime is getting dull.
  • SurreySurrey Posts: 190
    edited June 1

    Apparently Trump isn't coming out until they have cleared the streets away from the White House.

    But everyone outside supports him. Or if some are opposing him they're far fewer than those who opposed Barack Obama. They don't exist and they're paid by China. Fake news! And he didn't say he would address the nation. That was Hillary Clinton who said that.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964
    edited June 1
    Trump going to the church opposite the White House. Full on PR mode. Quite incredible stuff.
  • initforthemoneyinitforthemoney Posts: 725

    Its quite funny watching the US liberal news stations now trying to blame the trouble at these protests on "white anarchist extremist groups", but they can't find it in themselves to say well the broad umbrella is ANTIFA, because of Trumps comments.

    It reminds me a bit of the grooming gangs, because the likes of Nick Griffin was pushing that agenda, certain sections of the media just couldn't tell it how it was, and when the Times reporter did, he was smeared as a massive racist.

    Do you think Officer Chauvin is a "white extremist"?
    I doubt he self-identifies as an anarchist
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,076

    Trump going to the church opposite the White House. Full on PR mode. Quite incredible stuff.

    A church partly damaged by a mob today, order needs to be restored.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 41,077
    Did Trump just declare Martial Law?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,378

    Trump going to the church opposite the White House. Full on PR mode. Quite incredible stuff.

    The End Times are here. He is God's chosen sinner as prophesied!
    I am being sarcastic, but this is the PR.
    There are plenty enough who will buy this.
    This isn't about CV, racism or anarchic disorder.
    It is about irrational medieval faith.
    In truth he is simply out of his depth.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 10,961

    Did Trump just declare Martial Law?

    I have no idea what just happened
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,076
    edited June 1

    Did Trump just declare Martial Law?

    He just said he would deploy the US military on the streets to restore order if needed
  • SurreySurrey Posts: 190
    edited June 1
    What is the "very very special place" he said he would pay his respects to?

    Edit: ah, got it: St John's Episcopal Church on Lafayette Square.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,680

    Trump going to the church opposite the White House. Full on PR mode. Quite incredible stuff.

    You'd think (and Trump clearly thinks) that people would rally behind him, repelled by the violent element of the demonstrations. But so far the polls look pretty much the same as usual - Trump rating -5 to -10, Buden led +3 to +10. Presumably this reflects the deep entrenchment of both sides. It'd be interesting to see more detailed polling on what most Americans make of it all.

    I still think that in the end most people will side with the "restore order" message - but tear gassing a peaceful demo is not helping.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,378
    Lol. Reporter in studio "Is the 7pm curfew being strictly enforced?
    Reporter on Scene looks around at vast crowd of peaceful protesters and massed ranks of heavily armed authorities.
    "Not so far no."
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 21,117
    Has Trump pivoted yet?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 8,400
    HYUFD said:

    Did Trump just declare Martial Law?

    He just said he would deploy the US military on the streets to restore order if needed
    This is your wet dream isn’t it?
  • MangoMango Posts: 648
    HYUFD said:

    Trump going to the church opposite the White House. Full on PR mode. Quite incredible stuff.

    A church partly damaged by a mob today, order needs to be restored.

    Deploy the 101st Airborne to Scotland?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,210

    So which PBers do we think took advantage of the relaxation to:

    A. Visit IKEA
    B. Buy a car
    C. Have sex in someone's garden

    I'll go with HYUFD, Dura Ace and the latest incarnation of SeanT.

    I never stopped buying cars. At the height of the lockdown I drove a very long way to buy a written off E46 touring for the interior and a very long way in the other direction to buy an R35 transmission that I don't even particularly need.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 3,461

    Clear how Trump is playing this, weak useless mayors / governors, now the big bully boy is going to come and "dominant the streets". Dispatching 1000s of heavily armed soldiers.

    Could be pouring flames on the fire.

    King Donald 1st :D:D
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964
    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,076

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,076
    edited June 1

    HYUFD said:

    Did Trump just declare Martial Law?

    He just said he would deploy the US military on the streets to restore order if needed
    This is your wet dream isn’t it?
    It is just Trump following what Madrid and Beijing have been doing recently
  • RobDRobD Posts: 47,681
    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,168
    edited June 1

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Frankly Trump should be quite happy with that. Means he doesn't have to follow through and Democrats take the rap for letting their cities burn.
  • SurreySurrey Posts: 190
    edited June 1
    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    In some states there is also a state military, distinct from the National Guard.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,378
    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Posse Comitatus Act. @TSE predicted we'd become experts.
    Good call from someone who can't spot a decent goalkeeper.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964
    edited June 1
    CNN just said found meth & fentanyl in the system of Floyd.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,076
    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Article 2 of the US constitution makes the President head of the armed forces with the power to deploy them to main order and national defence.

    Congress can try and constrain that within limits but the President remains Commander in Chief
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,378
    edited June 1

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Frankly Trump should be quite happy with that. Means he doesn't have to follow through and Democrats take the rap for letting their cities burn.
    If having no control over the country you purport to govern is a metric of success then yeah.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,091
    edited June 1
    stodge said:

    They are advocating using the armed forces against their own countrymen. That's astonishing.

    Why is it astonishing? It ended the LA riots in 1992 almost immediately and with next to no bloodshed.

    Rioters may taunt police, but charging a row of soldiers with armored cars or tanks is another matter entirely.

    Actually I think it should have been done days ago.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,378

    CNN just said found meth & fentanyl in his system of Floyd.

    That's all fine and dandy then.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,168
    edited June 2
    dixiedean said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Frankly Trump should be quite happy with that. Means he doesn't have to follow through and Democrats take the rap for letting their cities burn.
    If having no control over the country you purport to govern is a metric if success then yeah.
    Wait, I thought you lot have spent the last four years opining that the position of president is constitutionally limited?

    If Democrats want to let the hard left burn their cities and loot their businesses then let them.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 35,026
    HYUFD said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Article 2 of the US constitution makes the President head of the armed forces with the power to deploy them to main order and national defence.

    Congress can try and constrain that within limits but the President remains Commander in Chief
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964
    edited June 2
    dixiedean said:

    CNN just said found meth & fentanyl in his system of Floyd.

    That's all fine and dandy then.
    One of the biggest dangers of fentanyl is respiratory arrest. Obviously then somebody restricting your airways is only to exhabiate that.

    It does give some background why the initial autopsy said what it said.

    Obviously the cop doing what he did isn't defendable, especially when he continued even when floyd had stopped breathing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,076
    edited June 2
    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Posse Comitatus Act. @TSE predicted we'd become experts.
    Good call from someone who can't spot a decent goalkeeper.
    Posse Comitatus does not overrule the President's powers under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civil disorder
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,378

    dixiedean said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Frankly Trump should be quite happy with that. Means he doesn't have to follow through and Democrats take the rap for letting their cities burn.
    If having no control over the country you purport to govern is a metric if success then yeah.
    Wait, I thought you lot have spent the last four years opining that the position of President is constitutionally limited?

    If Democrats want to let the hard left burn their cities and loot their businesses then let them.

    I don't have a lot. I rarely take an ideological based position. And therefore am open to criticism for never taking a stand.
    But I'll tell you this. Trump is an arse of the first order. And if you fall for his bollocks then more fool you.
    Strongman who has no power over events...
    My arse.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 7,378
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Posse Comitatus Act. @TSE predicted we'd become experts.
    Good call from someone who can't spot a decent goalkeeper.
    Posse Comitatus does not overrule the President's powers under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civil disorder
    See. Everyone is an expert.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,689
    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. It, with the Insurrection Act of 1807 which Trump is citing, clearly limit the use of the federal military to enforce civilian law. In a nutshell, the state governments may request federal military assistance to civil law enforcement but the federal government cannot do so unilaterally in normal circumstances. The exception under the Insurrection Act is that the federal government can intervene if the insurrection has caused the state government to be unable to function.

    The District of Columbia is a different matter though: it’s not a sovereign entity like the states, and its autonomy is at the pleasure of the federal government.

    tl;dr: Trump can send in the troops on his own authority in DC, but everywhere else he can only do so by request of the state government, unless that government is unable to function, which is clearly not the case anywhere.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,168
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Frankly Trump should be quite happy with that. Means he doesn't have to follow through and Democrats take the rap for letting their cities burn.
    If having no control over the country you purport to govern is a metric if success then yeah.
    Wait, I thought you lot have spent the last four years opining that the position of President is constitutionally limited?

    If Democrats want to let the hard left burn their cities and loot their businesses then let them.

    I don't have a lot. I rarely take an ideological based position. And therefore am open to criticism for never taking a stand.
    But I'll tell you this. Trump is an arse of the first order. And if you fall for his bollocks then more fool you.
    Strongman who has no power over events...
    My arse.
    Trump does nothing. "Trump's losing control!"
    Trump does something. "Tyrant!"
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,689
    edited June 2
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Posse Comitatus Act. @TSE predicted we'd become experts.
    Good call from someone who can't spot a decent goalkeeper.
    Posse Comitatus does not overrule the President's powers under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civil disorder
    Actually it quite specifically does: it was passed at the end of Reconstruction specifically to stop the federal government from enforcing the Reconstruction laws in the Southern states, allowing them to bring in the Jim Crow era.

    Trump can only impose federal troops on the states if a state government has been rendered unable to act by insurrection.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 21,117

    dixiedean said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Frankly Trump should be quite happy with that. Means he doesn't have to follow through and Democrats take the rap for letting their cities burn.
    If having no control over the country you purport to govern is a metric if success then yeah.
    Wait, I thought you lot have spent the last four years opining that the position of president is constitutionally limited?

    If Democrats want to let the hard left burn their cities and loot their businesses then let them.

    Afaicr it was more a plaintive hope that the position of this particular president would be constitutionally limited. Still, I'm loving all the libertarians and gun nuts who've spent years railing against the repressive state getting hard ons now their prez is waving a big stick.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964
    Fox News started the hour pouring fuel a race war showing all the incidents of white individuals being savagely.beaten by black mobs.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,076
    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Posse Comitatus Act. @TSE predicted we'd become experts.
    Good call from someone who can't spot a decent goalkeeper.
    Posse Comitatus does not overrule the President's powers under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civil disorder
    Actually it quite specifically does: it was passed at the end of Reconstruction specifically to stop the federal government from enforcing the Reconstruction laws in the Southern states, allowing them to bring in the Jim Crow era.

    Trump can only impose federal troops on the states if a state government has been rendered unable to act by insurrection.
    Posse Comitatus only limits the power of the President to enforce laws using the military without Congressional approval.

    It does not stop the President's powers under the Insurrection and Enforcement Acts to deploy the military to quell civil disorder.

    Indeed the military were deployed during the 1992 LA riots under the Insurrection Act
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 33,320
    HYUFD said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Posse Comitatus Act. @TSE predicted we'd become experts.
    Good call from someone who can't spot a decent goalkeeper.
    Posse Comitatus does not overrule the President's powers under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civil disorder
    Actually it quite specifically does: it was passed at the end of Reconstruction specifically to stop the federal government from enforcing the Reconstruction laws in the Southern states, allowing them to bring in the Jim Crow era.

    Trump can only impose federal troops on the states if a state government has been rendered unable to act by insurrection.
    Posse Comitatus only limits the power of the President to enforce laws using the military without Congressional approval.

    It does not stop the President's powers under the Insurrection and Enforcement Acts to deploy the military to quell civil disorder.

    Indeed the military were deployed during the 1992 LA riots under the Insurrection Act
    Did the state governor have to approve it?
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,168

    dixiedean said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Frankly Trump should be quite happy with that. Means he doesn't have to follow through and Democrats take the rap for letting their cities burn.
    If having no control over the country you purport to govern is a metric if success then yeah.
    Wait, I thought you lot have spent the last four years opining that the position of president is constitutionally limited?

    If Democrats want to let the hard left burn their cities and loot their businesses then let them.

    Afaicr it was more a plaintive hope that the position of this particular president would be constitutionally limited. Still, I'm loving all the libertarians and gun nuts who've spent years railing against the repressive state getting hard ons now their prez is waving a big stick.
    Well no you remember wrong, the position of president is very limited domestically.

    As far as I can see libertarians and gun nuts seem to be mostly taking the piss out of people in cities who are desperately trying to source guns because the police can no longer respond to emergencies.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,076

    HYUFD said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Posse Comitatus Act. @TSE predicted we'd become experts.
    Good call from someone who can't spot a decent goalkeeper.
    Posse Comitatus does not overrule the President's powers under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civil disorder
    Actually it quite specifically does: it was passed at the end of Reconstruction specifically to stop the federal government from enforcing the Reconstruction laws in the Southern states, allowing them to bring in the Jim Crow era.

    Trump can only impose federal troops on the states if a state government has been rendered unable to act by insurrection.
    Posse Comitatus only limits the power of the President to enforce laws using the military without Congressional approval.

    It does not stop the President's powers under the Insurrection and Enforcement Acts to deploy the military to quell civil disorder.

    Indeed the military were deployed during the 1992 LA riots under the Insurrection Act
    Did the state governor have to approve it?
    Explicit consent of the state governor is not required if the state government is clearly unable to maintain civil order
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964
    And the looting is off and running again...

  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,689
    HYUFD said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Posse Comitatus Act. @TSE predicted we'd become experts.
    Good call from someone who can't spot a decent goalkeeper.
    Posse Comitatus does not overrule the President's powers under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civil disorder
    Actually it quite specifically does: it was passed at the end of Reconstruction specifically to stop the federal government from enforcing the Reconstruction laws in the Southern states, allowing them to bring in the Jim Crow era.

    Trump can only impose federal troops on the states if a state government has been rendered unable to act by insurrection.
    Posse Comitatus only limits the power of the President to enforce laws using the military without Congressional approval.

    It does not stop the President's powers under the Insurrection and Enforcement Acts to deploy the military to quell civil disorder.

    Indeed the military were deployed during the 1992 LA riots under the Insurrection Act
    At the request of the state governor.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,689
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Posse Comitatus Act. @TSE predicted we'd become experts.
    Good call from someone who can't spot a decent goalkeeper.
    Posse Comitatus does not overrule the President's powers under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civil disorder
    Actually it quite specifically does: it was passed at the end of Reconstruction specifically to stop the federal government from enforcing the Reconstruction laws in the Southern states, allowing them to bring in the Jim Crow era.

    Trump can only impose federal troops on the states if a state government has been rendered unable to act by insurrection.
    Posse Comitatus only limits the power of the President to enforce laws using the military without Congressional approval.

    It does not stop the President's powers under the Insurrection and Enforcement Acts to deploy the military to quell civil disorder.

    Indeed the military were deployed during the 1992 LA riots under the Insurrection Act
    Did the state governor have to approve it?
    Explicit consent of the state governor is not required if the state government is clearly unable to maintain civil order
    I dare say Trump might try to argue that, but I doubt the courts would agree.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,076
    edited June 2
    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Posse Comitatus Act. @TSE predicted we'd become experts.
    Good call from someone who can't spot a decent goalkeeper.
    Posse Comitatus does not overrule the President's powers under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civil disorder
    Actually it quite specifically does: it was passed at the end of Reconstruction specifically to stop the federal government from enforcing the Reconstruction laws in the Southern states, allowing them to bring in the Jim Crow era.

    Trump can only impose federal troops on the states if a state government has been rendered unable to act by insurrection.
    Posse Comitatus only limits the power of the President to enforce laws using the military without Congressional approval.

    It does not stop the President's powers under the Insurrection and Enforcement Acts to deploy the military to quell civil disorder.

    Indeed the military were deployed during the 1992 LA riots under the Insurrection Act
    Did the state governor have to approve it?
    Explicit consent of the state governor is not required if the state government is clearly unable to maintain civil order
    I dare say Trump might try to argue that, but I doubt the courts would agree.
    I would not be so sure, the Supreme Court now has a narrow conservative majority after Justice Kavanaugh was appointed under Trump to replace Justice Kennedy
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,469
    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Posse Comitatus Act. @TSE predicted we'd become experts.
    Good call from someone who can't spot a decent goalkeeper.
    Posse Comitatus does not overrule the President's powers under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civil disorder
    Actually it quite specifically does: it was passed at the end of Reconstruction specifically to stop the federal government from enforcing the Reconstruction laws in the Southern states, allowing them to bring in the Jim Crow era.

    Trump can only impose federal troops on the states if a state government has been rendered unable to act by insurrection.
    Posse Comitatus only limits the power of the President to enforce laws using the military without Congressional approval.

    It does not stop the President's powers under the Insurrection and Enforcement Acts to deploy the military to quell civil disorder.

    Indeed the military were deployed during the 1992 LA riots under the Insurrection Act
    Did the state governor have to approve it?
    Explicit consent of the state governor is not required if the state government is clearly unable to maintain civil order
    I dare say Trump might try to argue that, but I doubt the courts would agree.
    Didn't President Johnson send the national guard into Alabama in the 1960s in order to enforce the new Civil Rights laws that the governor of the state was refusing to support?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 74,076
    Andy_JS said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Posse Comitatus Act. @TSE predicted we'd become experts.
    Good call from someone who can't spot a decent goalkeeper.
    Posse Comitatus does not overrule the President's powers under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civil disorder
    Actually it quite specifically does: it was passed at the end of Reconstruction specifically to stop the federal government from enforcing the Reconstruction laws in the Southern states, allowing them to bring in the Jim Crow era.

    Trump can only impose federal troops on the states if a state government has been rendered unable to act by insurrection.
    Posse Comitatus only limits the power of the President to enforce laws using the military without Congressional approval.

    It does not stop the President's powers under the Insurrection and Enforcement Acts to deploy the military to quell civil disorder.

    Indeed the military were deployed during the 1992 LA riots under the Insurrection Act
    Did the state governor have to approve it?
    Explicit consent of the state governor is not required if the state government is clearly unable to maintain civil order
    I dare say Trump might try to argue that, but I doubt the courts would agree.
    Didn't President Johnson send the national guard into Alabama in the 1960s in order to enforce the new Civil Rights laws that the governor of the state was refusing to support?
    As did President Eisenhower in the 1950s using the Enforcement Acts to enforce school desegregation in the Deep South
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 46,964
    edited June 2
    Think they might need an earlier curfew....

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,884
    HYUFD said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Posse Comitatus Act. @TSE predicted we'd become experts.
    Good call from someone who can't spot a decent goalkeeper.
    Posse Comitatus does not overrule the President's powers under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civil disorder
    Actually it quite specifically does: it was passed at the end of Reconstruction specifically to stop the federal government from enforcing the Reconstruction laws in the Southern states, allowing them to bring in the Jim Crow era.

    Trump can only impose federal troops on the states if a state government has been rendered unable to act by insurrection.
    Posse Comitatus only limits the power of the President to enforce laws using the military without Congressional approval.

    It does not stop the President's powers under the Insurrection and Enforcement Acts to deploy the military to quell civil disorder.

    Indeed the military were deployed during the 1992 LA riots under the Insurrection Act
    Did the state governor have to approve it?
    Explicit consent of the state governor is not required if the state government is clearly unable to maintain civil order
    I dare say Trump might try to argue that, but I doubt the courts would agree.
    I would not be so sure, the Supreme Court now has a narrow conservative majority after Justice Kavanaugh was appointed under Trump to replace Justice Kennedy
    I don't think either Gorsuch or Roberts would be particularly biddable. Gorsuch, in particular, has been very sceptical of Federal government overreach.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,469
    Thanks to Cyclefree for the interesting header.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 60,369
    eadric said:

    Think they might need an earlier curfew....

    This will only stop when they start shooting the looters. Which they will
    It'll be deserved
  • TimTTimT Posts: 945
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Governors already saying they won't agree to Trump sending military personnel...setting up the dividing line.

    Trump is Head of the US military as President, governors are only in charge of state police and guards
    Isn't there a law regarding the use of military domestically in the US?
    Posse Comitatus Act. @TSE predicted we'd become experts.
    Good call from someone who can't spot a decent goalkeeper.
    Posse Comitatus does not overrule the President's powers under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell civil disorder
    Actually it quite specifically does: it was passed at the end of Reconstruction specifically to stop the federal government from enforcing the Reconstruction laws in the Southern states, allowing them to bring in the Jim Crow era.

    Trump can only impose federal troops on the states if a state government has been rendered unable to act by insurrection.
    Posse Comitatus only limits the power of the President to enforce laws using the military without Congressional approval.

    It does not stop the President's powers under the Insurrection and Enforcement Acts to deploy the military to quell civil disorder.

    Indeed the military were deployed during the 1992 LA riots under the Insurrection Act
    Did the state governor have to approve it?
    Explicit consent of the state governor is not required if the state government is clearly unable to maintain civil order
    I dare say Trump might try to argue that, but I doubt the courts would agree.
    I would not be so sure, the Supreme Court now has a narrow conservative majority after Justice Kavanaugh was appointed under Trump to replace Justice Kennedy
    I don't think either Gorsuch or Roberts would be particularly biddable. Gorsuch, in particular, has been very sceptical of Federal government overreach.
    And Roberts on more than one occasion has broken with the conservative judges when he thinks the ruling is going to be wrong in the sense that it clearly would thwart the wishes of the electorate as expressed through whom they've elected to do what.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,091
    The Protests Will Spread the Coronavirus

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/06/protests-pandemic/612460/
    ... Ultimately, however, the responsibility to prevent the spread of COVID-19 rests not with protesters, but with the police and government officials, Phelan said: “The state is the one with the duty to protect public health.” Police departments therefore must drop certain tactics that they might normally adopt for crowd-control reasons, she said. “If they are channeling crowds into tight spaces for security and control; if they’re removing their masks; if they’re preventing protesters from using drums or amplified music instead of using their voices, which we know are a vector for transmission; or if they’re arresting protesters and holding them in jail … these potential activities that police are using for security and control of a protest might in themselves increase the risk of transmission of COVID.”

    Simply canceling the protests themselves, Phelan added, would not be a legally legitimate—or particularly constitutional—move. In the 1960s and ’70s, it became clear that governments around the world were using the pretext of public health and safety to limit or violate civil rights. So international jurists developed a set of ideas, called the “Siracusa Principles”—named for the city in Italy where the jurists convened—about when some human rights could be violated or restricted to protect others. Inherent in those rules is that the right to assembly cannot be limited in a discriminatory way and that any restriction must be based on evidence. “Public health is about minimizing risks, and there are other risks we are thinking about minimizing with these protests, beyond COVID,” Phelan said.

    If the protests cause a spike in COVID-19 infections, the data may not fully convey that factor. Minnesota, the epicenter of the unrest, is already a hot spot for coronavirus infection. There were more COVID-19 deaths on average in Minnesota this week than in any previous week of the pandemic, and the state’s hospitalization rate has never been higher since the pandemic began. Because of lags in reporting the data, and because several days pass before someone infected by the virus begins to experience symptoms, those cases and hospitalizations almost entirely represent people who were infected by the virus before the protests began....
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 5,206

    And the looting is off and running again...

    It's very reminiscent of the London riots. It started with a protest, quickly escalated into mass looting, and then looting, robbery and burning began to spread, well, like a virus.

    Just so long as it doesn't start spreading over here again.
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 3,123
    Quickly scanned down the page here. Unless you've been recently to the US and spent some time on your feet in the cities, not in your hired 4x4's, you may not get the divisions, the visceral fermenting cauldron of volcanic anger waiting to erupt.

    None of this surprises me in the slightest. America is a very sad place.

    It's a story, of course, and it's awful. But I suggest the real story is that America's day as a superpower is disappearing down the proverbial.

    Look to Asia. The world is changing.
This discussion has been closed.