Inauguration LIVE

[LSSBB]

It's a prop. The bible is like the Constitution to Trump. Something he's never read.

SNL joked the other Bible was Trump's own, with the shrink wrap still on.

 

[Foolmewunz]

SNL joked the other Bible was Trump's own, with the shrink wrap still on.

I'd check e-Bay. He'll probably be auctioning it off.

 

[Craig B]

Jerusalem Post Fri, 20 Jan 2017
Rabbi Marvin Hier, the first Orthodox rabbi ever to give a benediction at an American president's inauguration, cited psalm 137 at President Donald Trump's inauguration on Friday.

"By the rivers of Babylon," he recited. "We wept as we remembered Zion. If I forget thee, Oh Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill."​

I hope the pious Rabbi didn't forget verses 8,9 of his psalm. How did he handle them I wonder? Or did he prudently confine himself to citing the bit about Jerusalem, presumably to encourage Trump, as ultimate Hegemon, to permit further annexations in the occupied territories.

ETA Well, that didn't take long!

 

[acbytesla]

The mainstream news is having a conniption fit because the White House Press Secretary said Trump's inauguration had the largest crowd in history. It's only a matter of time before POTUS shatters Kim Jong-Il's 38-under par record.

This thing about the size of of the crowds hits Trump like the size of his hands. He keeps telling everyone that they are large, but he forgets that we all have eyes.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Ah, yes. People who proclaim a political viewpoint about voluntary association and collective action who then impose a violent atmosphere on people who object to such (and the violent response that inevitably comes with it, regardless of how you feel about state use of force).

These head-to-toe in black faux-anarchists crack me up.

In Chicago we had a "separation of time and space" agreement to keep violent and non-violent groups from interfering with each other. Once the non-violent people stopped showing up at violent actions (usually to form human shields in front of windows being broken, stop looting, point out ringleaders to police, etc.), they complained about the low turnout and thumbed their noses at us about our 'lack of resolve' or whatever.

So then the violent people started showing up at the non-violent actions once again, leading to more confrontations and internal division.

When they don't have a human chain of peaceful types to hide behind so police can't grab them, they can't seem to sustain their strategy past a few weakly attended events that amount to nothing but some broken windows, 'taggings', and a lot of negative public sentiment.

ETA: Another example is the Chicago NATO protest march. Veterans led a march through the streets to as close as we could get to McCormick Place. Many of them spoke and invited Afghan refugees they had befriended to speak. A number of veterans described the vile deeds they'd committed and took medals received for doing so off of their chests and threw them away. During the wrap-up, the organizers pleaded for everyone to disperse peacefully out of respect for the veterans' message. But no, some dudes in all black brought forth their shield brigade and proceeded to attempt to dismantle the barricades and the head-cracking ensued. Not to mention the number of times I've been a part of 'listen to whoever is shouting loudest and most toxicly for directions' type groups being lead to the most inept strategic movements ever far too many times.

 

[caveman1917]

Ah, yes. People who proclaim a political viewpoint about voluntary association and collective action who then impose a violent atmosphere on people who object to such (and the violent response that inevitably comes with it, regardless of how you feel about state use of force).

Liberal projection is amazing. If anyone is "imposing a violent atmosphere on people who object to such" it would be those supporting violent enforcement of private property.

These head-to-toe in black faux-anarchists crack me up.

Liberals crack me up.

In Chicago we had a "separation of time and space" agreement to keep violent and non-violent groups from interfering with each other. Once the non-violent people stopped showing up at violent actions (usually to form human shields in front of windows being broken, stop looting, point out ringleaders to police, etc.), they complained about the low turnout and thumbed their noses at us about our 'lack of resolve' or whatever.

Could this "whatever" be your collaboration with the state so as to attempt to imprison non-violent protestors for not sharing your belief system?

So then the violent people started showing up at the non-violent actions once again, leading to more confrontations and internal division.

That's all a very cute story. Note how this black bloc was relatively non-violent, other than in direct self-defense against violence or one instance of Spencer getting punched. The group to which your description would apply would be, if anyone, the cops - as they were by far the most violent group at the J20 protests.

When they don't have a human chain of peaceful types to hide behind so police can't grab them, they can't seem to sustain their strategy past a few weakly attended events that amount to nothing but some broken windows, 'taggings', and a lot of negative public sentiment.

Non-violent resistance has managed to shut down major international summits among many other results. Violent resistance has managed to overthrow governments. Can you tell me what singing Kumbaya and wearing silly hats has achieved so far?

Another example is the Chicago NATO protest march. Veterans led a march through the streets to as close as we could get to McCormick Place. Many of them spoke and invited Afghan refugees they had befriended to speak. A number of veterans described the vile deeds they'd committed and took medals received for doing so off of their chests and threw them away. During the wrap-up, the organizers pleaded for everyone to disperse peacefully out of respect for the veterans' message.

One is only allowed to protest NATO in such a way as to have "respect" for the people who chose to perform the activities NATO is being protested for? Have we reached peak liberalism yet?

It reminds me of something I heard in a comedy show: Americans not only come to your country and kill your people, but they'll come back 10 years later to make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.

But no, some dudes in all black brought forth their shield brigade and proceeded to attempt to dismantle the barricades

What barricades?

and the head-cracking ensued.

A black bloc started head-cracking protestors? Well it might have a been a neo-nazi black bloc or a police black bloc. Anarchists don't tend to just go head-cracking non-violent protestors.

Not to mention the number of times I've been a part of 'listen to whoever is shouting loudest and most toxicly for directions' type groups being lead to the most inept strategic movements ever far too many times.

Why would you be part of a group which merely "listens to whoever is shouting loudest and most toxicly for directions"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was talking about right wingers of the liberal variety in this case. I'm not particularly interested in your diversion, though feel free to actually address anything I said.

I did address it, with an analogy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is Trump's obsession with the Obamas? Even the cake at the inauguration was plagiarized.

Not hard to guess, Trump wants to be the most popular and the Obamas are way out in front in that contest. Trump resents the Obama's popularity.

 

[caveman1917]

I did address it, with an analogy.

Which wasn't particularly analogous. One is right-wingers of the liberal variety appealing to the state to violently repress non-believers of one of liberalism's tenets of faith who engage in non-violent protest against that belief system. The other is a couple of right-wingers of the conservative variety occupying some wildlife reserve for who knows why.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Liberal projection is amazing. If anyone is "imposing a violent atmosphere on people who object to such" it would be those supporting violent enforcement of private property.

"Violent enforcement of private property" what an amazing phrase.

What is the proper response to poles and bricks being hurled through the windows of local businesses? A stern, paternalistic lecture?

Liberals crack me up.

I hope you don't intend to keep up the 'I know you are, but what am I' routine up through every line-by-line retort.

Could this "whatever" be your collaboration with the state so as to attempt to imprison non-violent protestors for not sharing your belief system?

I was describing violent protestors damaging the property of businesses owned and staffed by people who live in the community and destroying good-faith efforts of the non-violent protestors to engage in dialogue and present themselves as wanting to help solve community problems, not create them.

So your question contains an incorrect premise.

That's all a very cute story. Note how this black bloc was relatively non-violent, other than in direct self-defense against violence or one instance of Spencer getting punched. The group to which your description would apply would be, if anyone, the cops - as they were by far the most violent group at the J20 protests.

That has not been the bulk of my experience through direct observation or from hunting for live streams of civil unrest. When police agitation does not get a violent escalation from protestors, yes, police are happy to escalate it for them. When protestors start causing damage to seemingly random nearby inanimate objects, the police aren't the ones 'initiating' violence at that point.

Non-violent resistance has managed to shut down major international summits among many other results. Violent resistance has managed to overthrow governments. Can you tell me what singing Kumbaya and wearing silly hats has achieved so far?

There's a time for escalation to that level. Usually towards the peak of a whole series of concurrent campaigns over a decade. Physical occupations of government structures (or other civil institutions that feed into power), seizure of records, targeted actions like that make sense in that case. Note that still has nothing to do with hurling a rock through the window of a local diner or corner drug store for no explicable reason.

One is only allowed to protest NATO in such a way as to have "respect" for the people who chose to perform the activities NATO is being protested for? Have we reached peak liberalism yet?

No, there was an entire week of uncertified marches (and I am a strong opponent of the constant barrage of needed 'permits' to gather in a public place and say things to each other). The anti-bilderbergs, anti-statists and whatnot were not shy about taking every opportunity to make their point (and DHS certainly made theirs, as well with all of their toys). The veterans groups put up the fees and insurance policy requirements and they're kinda relevant to the subject of NATO policy.

A little hint. If you want to win a civil struggle, win the veterans. Forget armed insurrection, that's stupid in today's battlefield. You're picking the one form of conflict where you are disadvantaged worst. Veterans marching down the street in fatigues or dress, cops are on the sidewalks watching quietly, bet on it. They also influence the active military, so if your movement has positive social standing, veterans can tip the scale of the military refusing to deliver a crackdown on flimsy pretense.

It reminds me of something I heard in a comedy show: Americans not only come to your country and kill your people, but they'll come back 10 years later to make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.

Yeah, we're capable of questioning if we've done the right thing or not.

Am I supposed to be snickering...or...?

Seems that with a lot of other entrenched conflicts around the world, the outlook 10 years on is 'we didn't kill enough of those pig-blood half-breeds!'

Is that a better outcome?

What barricades?

At the NATO Summit example I gave, there was a low crowd/event barricade about 10-12 feet away from the flatbed serving as a stage. Beyond the flatbed were the security barricades erected around the grounds beyond McCormick Place where the NATO delegations gathered.

A black bloc started head-cracking protestors? Well it might have a been a neo-nazi black bloc or a police black bloc. Anarchists don't tend to just go head-cracking non-violent protestors.

Are you deliberately confused? :9

Why would you be part of a group which merely "listens to whoever is shouting loudest and most toxicly for directions"?

I should clarify, 'with' as in physically present to observe (or witness via livestream). Not 'with' as in ideologically aligned with. Hard to do in a lot of those kinds of ad-hoc marches, actually. Anyways, I have been 'with' many movements as a video documentarian over the years.

You quickly run into situations that seem like for every 2 people, there's 3 to 5 opinions between them. Anyways, disorganized directionless meandering around downtown did occur night after night. Police couldn't let us go south (to the NATO Summit), couldn't let us go north (the high class shopping district and hotels where many delegates were staying), there's a lake to the east. So out west we ended up night after night, miles from any relevant targets and basically keeping a blue class neighborhood up at 2am. They didn't even need the toys. The 2 peak nights before the big veterans march were such a chaotic mess, and people made victories out of defeats.

This is another area where veterans come in handy. The big key in evading kettles is fast movement and changes of direction. I watched the typical 'stare-down' at the intersection and repeated 'one step forward' countdowns end with the typical result. People cheer when the police line folds, thinking 'we won' and then a block later there's 8 rows deep of turtle suits and shields. All that confrontation a block back was for was to let them move their 12 vans that have been shadowing us for blocks move ahead and deploy their passengers. Say, what's going on a block behind us where that stare-down happened? Oh dear, we seem to be pinned in on all sides.

Morons.

Veterans also teach you things like when and why you set fires. It's for creating a heat wall to lift tear gas over the area where street medics can decontaminate people. They watched a lot of stuff that happens to us also happen in Afghanistan and Iraq...only from the perspective of the police (and in parts of the world with way more advanced resistance movements). Random fires in the street when there's no crowd dispersal agents being used is another one of those 'making us all look bad' blunders.

 

[caveman1917]

"Violent enforcement of private property" what an amazing phrase.

An accurate one.

What is the proper response to poles and bricks being hurled through the windows of local businesses? A stern, paternalistic lecture?

Which local businesses are you talking about? Bank of America, Starbucks, etc are not local businesses. And even if they were, the proper response would still be the expropriation and socialization of the business.

That has not been the bulk of my experience through direct observation or from hunting for live streams of civil unrest. When police agitation does not get a violent escalation from protestors, yes, police are happy to escalate it for them. When protestors start causing damage to seemingly random nearby inanimate objects, the police aren't the ones 'initiating' violence at that point.

Yes they are.

No, there was an entire week of uncertified marches (and I am a strong opponent of the constant barrage of needed 'permits' to gather in a public place and say things to each other). The anti-bilderbergs, anti-statists and whatnot were not shy about taking every opportunity to make their point (and DHS certainly made theirs, as well with all of their toys). The veterans groups put up the fees and insurance policy requirements and they're kinda relevant to the subject of NATO policy.

I see no reason why veteran groups should have special status. The opposite, if any groups should have special status in anti-NATO protests it would be NATO's victims and not their executioners.

A little hint. If you want to win a civil struggle, win the veterans. Forget armed insurrection, that's stupid in today's battlefield. You're picking the one form of conflict where you are disadvantaged worst.

I'm sorry, how did we get from a Starbucks window getting broken to armed insurrection?

Veterans marching down the street in fatigues or dress, cops are on the sidewalks watching quietly, bet on it. They also influence the active military, so if your movement has positive social standing, veterans can tip the scale of the military refusing to deliver a crackdown on flimsy pretense.

The army, the cops and the entire state are going to dissolve themselves if a bunch of veterans walk down the street in military outfit?

 

[3point14]

Not hard to guess, Trump wants to be the most popular and the Obamas are way out in front in that contest. Trump resents the Obama's popularity.

Well, you can't buy class.

From this side of the pond, not in terms of policy but in terms of personality, all I can think when I see the two together is "From the sublime to the ridiculous."

I accept that 'sublime' may be over-praising Obama, but he gave great speech and was always classy in soundbite.

 

[phiwum]

Well, you can't buy class.

From this side of the pond, not in terms of policy but in terms of personality, all I can think when I see the two together is "From the sublime to the ridiculous."

I accept that 'sublime' may be over-praising Obama, but he gave great speech and was always classy in soundbite.

He was a careful speaker. You heard it in his pauses. It turns out that careful, thoughtful statements are not what the American public chose, oddities of the electoral college understood to play a role.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Which local businesses are you talking about? Bank of America, Starbucks, etc are not local businesses. And even if they were, the proper response would still be the expropriation and socialization of the business.

Do the employees teleport in from another planet?

Do you realize that just because there's a national brand name on the facade of the building, chances are it is owned by a local LLC that maybe owns a handful of chains?

Also, let's be thorough with your description of the 'proper response.'

The violent expropriation and socialization of the business through coercive means and without the consent (or even consultation) of the employees. This is a unilateral imposition of punitive action masquerading as 'in the public interest' because that might unravel the cognitive dissonance.

So once again, a complete departure from even the most elementary doctrines of 'anarchism.'

Yes they are.

So despite the protestors becoming violent before the police (in the examples I gave), you maintain the police 'initiated' the violence? You either don't understand what 'violent' means (as pointed out above, it shares a root with 'violate') or you don't understand what 'initiate' means.

I see no reason why veteran groups should have special status. The opposite, if any groups should have special status in anti-NATO protests it would be NATO's victims and not their executioners.

As I described, the veterans also invited Afghan refugees to speak.

I'm sorry, how did we get from a Starbucks window getting broken to armed insurrection?

I'm speaking of the general idea of advocating for violent measures and why it is in the interests of those who are on the short end of the 'asymmetrical warfare' stick to avoid going that direction.

The army, the cops and the entire state are going to dissolve themselves if a bunch of veterans walk down the street in military outfit?

They have a respectability and deference that a bunch of young angsty kids dressed in black hoodies and bandanas don't. One of those shoving a finger in a cop's face and shouting epithets vs. a veteran in formal uniform, medals polished swapping laughs. Totally different result. If your marches have grandmas in their Sunday best and veterans in freshly polished boots, have the grandmas hand the police flowers, have the veterans schmooze them a bit. Next thing you know, the police are escorting the marches down to the city hall. You win social movements by co-opting social institutions one by one until power doesn't actually have a base to draw from any more. Seems to work quite well for defeating social movements, doesn't it (i.e. winning from the other side)?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, you can't buy class.

From this side of the pond, not in terms of policy but in terms of personality, all I can think when I see the two together is "From the sublime to the ridiculous."

I accept that 'sublime' may be over-praising Obama, but he gave great speech and was always classy in soundbite.

And, Barack is surpassed by Michelle. While Trump thought his trophy wife would be loved and admired by all, she appears to be a hollow shell.

 

[aleCcowaN]

... she appears to be a hollow shell.

more like the outer matryoshka

 

[3point14]

And, Barack is surpassed by Michelle. While Trump thought his trophy wife would be loved and admired by all, she appears to be a hollow shell.

You would have thought that someone might have mentioned to Trump (either at some point in his life as a general thing or just before the inauguration) "Don't ignore your wife, half the USA and most of the world think you're a misogynistic tit already, for the love of power, do not leave your wife in the car while Barack's solicitously escorting his wife from the car and up the steps"


You'd think someone might have mentioned it.

 

[caveman1917]

So once again, a complete departure from even the most elementary doctrines of 'anarchism.'

********. You're confusing liberalism with anarchism. Feel free to provide an anarchist publication which supports your contentions about destruction of private property being "violence" or even that property rights of businesses should be respected.

So despite the protestors becoming violent before the police (in the examples I gave), you maintain the police 'initiated' the violence?

The protestors stayed non-violent and the police was violent, therefor the police initiated the violence.

They have a respectability and deference that a bunch of young angsty kids dressed in black hoodies and bandanas don't.

Yes it's called militarism. I'm not particularly interested in it. Have fun with the veterans thing though. But it's clear that your politics is inconsistent with liberatory politics.