Is it possible for Trump to remove the mayors on grounds...

Page 2 of 3 [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 1,951
Location: canada

17 Oct 2020, 1:57 pm

Oh okay, I just thought if the authority was bigger, such as military, that criminals would be more reluctant to challenge it therefore.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,323
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

17 Oct 2020, 3:13 pm

ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, I just thought if the authority was bigger, such as military, that criminals would be more reluctant to challenge it therefore.


The military isn't particularly well-suited for confronting crime and if they respond too heavy-handedly they will make things worse and likely increase support for the people they're trying to crack down on.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 1,951
Location: canada

17 Oct 2020, 3:40 pm

Oh okay, what if the send in someone else, like the FBI perhaps, or national guard? But if the military does have a heavy handed response, won't that scare criminals more, and get them to back down more, not wanting to have to deal with a heavy handed response? What kind of increased support would you get?

But all I am talking about really is sending in someone to arrest people they see rioting. Since the police seem to be unable to arrest a lot of them, all I am talking about is being able to arrest more of them on site, if they see it. That's not so bad, is it?



roronoa79
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: Indiana

17 Oct 2020, 4:03 pm

ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, what if the send in someone else, like the FBI perhaps, or national guard? But if the military does have a heavy handed response, won't that scare criminals more, and get them to back down more, not wanting to have to deal with a heavy handed response? What kind of increased support would you get?

But all I am talking about really is sending in someone to arrest people they see rioting. Since the police seem to be unable to arrest a lot of them, all I am talking about is being able to arrest more of them on site, if they see it. That's not so bad, is it?

They protesters are as pissed as they are because they are tired of excessive government violence. More government violence is just going to make them more determined. Unless you want to start killing them en masse until they're too terrified to protest anything. How many hundreds or thousands of protesters do you think would have to die before that happens? That's not a solution. That just kicks the can down the road. Because they will not be afraid of the government forever.
They protest excessive government violence because it creates more problems than it solves. It's like the police saying they need more water to put out an oil fire. They've already tried putting the oil fire out with water and it only got bigger. They're just too stupid to put two and two together and realize that maybe their usual way of doing things is the problem, not the solution.


_________________
Diagnoses: AS, Depression, General & Social Anxiety
I guess I just wasn't made for these times.
- Brian Wilson

Δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν
Those in positions of power do what their power permits, while the weak have no choice but to accept it.

- Thucydides


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,577

17 Oct 2020, 4:09 pm

ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, what if the send in someone else, like the FBI perhaps, or national guard? But if the military does have a heavy handed response, won't that scare criminals more, and get them to back down more, not wanting to have to deal with a heavy handed response? What kind of increased support would you get?

But all I am talking about really is sending in someone to arrest people they see rioting. Since the police seem to be unable to arrest a lot of them, all I am talking about is being able to arrest more of them on site, if they see it. That's not so bad, is it?

I agree completely.

- Deng Xiaoping, June 4, 1989


_________________
Omit needless words.


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 1,951
Location: canada

17 Oct 2020, 4:17 pm

roronoa79 wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, what if the send in someone else, like the FBI perhaps, or national guard? But if the military does have a heavy handed response, won't that scare criminals more, and get them to back down more, not wanting to have to deal with a heavy handed response? What kind of increased support would you get?

But all I am talking about really is sending in someone to arrest people they see rioting. Since the police seem to be unable to arrest a lot of them, all I am talking about is being able to arrest more of them on site, if they see it. That's not so bad, is it?

They protesters are as pissed as they are because they are tired of excessive government violence. More government violence is just going to make them more determined. Unless you want to start killing them en masse until they're too terrified to protest anything. How many hundreds or thousands of protesters do you think would have to die before that happens? That's not a solution. That just kicks the can down the road. Because they will not be afraid of the government forever.
They protest excessive government violence because it creates more problems than it solves. It's like the police saying they need more water to put out an oil fire. They've already tried putting the oil fire out with water and it only got bigger. They're just too stupid to put two and two together and realize that maybe their usual way of doing things is the problem, not the solution.


Oh okay. But letting the rioting and crime continue is not going to solve anything either, is it? There have been murders as a result of these riots, and should the government just let the murders and crime continue and get worse?

Plus I am not talking about comparing this to Tiananmen square I don't think. I am just talking about ordering the rioters to surrender and arresting them.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,102
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

20 Oct 2020, 6:54 am

The short answer is no, the President doesn't have the authority to remove mayors. He doesn't even have the authority to send troops into these areas. It's up to the people who live there as to whether that can happen. The problem is that governors and mayors are elected officials who make decisions on behalf of their constituents. Even President Trump has publicly acknowledged that he has offered to send in the FBI and military to deal with problems and the states have rejected these offers.

What Trump can do is try to pressure these people through media...which they can just simply ignore if they want. But they also run the risk that the people who elected them will side with Trump and vote them out of office at the end of their current term. Mayors in these areas actually sympathize with the protestors and don't want to risk being seen nationally as supporting Trump. The only way Trump can get rid of these leaders right away is show that they have actually committed some crime significant enough to demand their removal from office. However, this would be difficult to do at the federal level, and so the responsibility for getting rid of them bounces back to the local level. They would have to be arrested and prosecuted, which also means trial in a court by a jury who would be willing to convict them and a judge willing to impose harsh sentences. Well...no jury is going to convict a politician they believe in, and even if they did, no judge is going to hit them with anything harder than a slap on the wrist. To get rid of these people against the will of the people who elected them would require something severely heinous. If Trump can't dislodge Nancy Pelosi, he certainly can't get rid of mayors who enable violent protestors.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,323
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

20 Oct 2020, 6:15 pm

ironpony wrote:
roronoa79 wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, what if the send in someone else, like the FBI perhaps, or national guard? But if the military does have a heavy handed response, won't that scare criminals more, and get them to back down more, not wanting to have to deal with a heavy handed response? What kind of increased support would you get?

But all I am talking about really is sending in someone to arrest people they see rioting. Since the police seem to be unable to arrest a lot of them, all I am talking about is being able to arrest more of them on site, if they see it. That's not so bad, is it?

They protesters are as pissed as they are because they are tired of excessive government violence. More government violence is just going to make them more determined. Unless you want to start killing them en masse until they're too terrified to protest anything. How many hundreds or thousands of protesters do you think would have to die before that happens? That's not a solution. That just kicks the can down the road. Because they will not be afraid of the government forever.
They protest excessive government violence because it creates more problems than it solves. It's like the police saying they need more water to put out an oil fire. They've already tried putting the oil fire out with water and it only got bigger. They're just too stupid to put two and two together and realize that maybe their usual way of doing things is the problem, not the solution.


Oh okay. But letting the rioting and crime continue is not going to solve anything either, is it? There have been murders as a result of these riots, and should the government just let the murders and crime continue and get worse?

Plus I am not talking about comparing this to Tiananmen square I don't think. I am just talking about ordering the rioters to surrender and arresting them.


And when the protesters refuse to stop protesting your mindset would escalate and they will persist and you will escalate further and eventually you'll prove them right and disgrace yourself just like authoritarians always end up doing in these situations. Maybe you don't intend on an incident like Tienanmen Square being the result, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't end up with one occurring as a result of the actions you'd support.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 1,951
Location: canada

20 Oct 2020, 6:16 pm

Oh okay, but what is it that the mayors are sympathesizing with violent protestors, if the violent protestors have brought more crime to the cities? Why sympathize with that?



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 1,951
Location: canada

20 Oct 2020, 6:18 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
ironpony wrote:
roronoa79 wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, what if the send in someone else, like the FBI perhaps, or national guard? But if the military does have a heavy handed response, won't that scare criminals more, and get them to back down more, not wanting to have to deal with a heavy handed response? What kind of increased support would you get?

But all I am talking about really is sending in someone to arrest people they see rioting. Since the police seem to be unable to arrest a lot of them, all I am talking about is being able to arrest more of them on site, if they see it. That's not so bad, is it?

They protesters are as pissed as they are because they are tired of excessive government violence. More government violence is just going to make them more determined. Unless you want to start killing them en masse until they're too terrified to protest anything. How many hundreds or thousands of protesters do you think would have to die before that happens? That's not a solution. That just kicks the can down the road. Because they will not be afraid of the government forever.
They protest excessive government violence because it creates more problems than it solves. It's like the police saying they need more water to put out an oil fire. They've already tried putting the oil fire out with water and it only got bigger. They're just too stupid to put two and two together and realize that maybe their usual way of doing things is the problem, not the solution.


Oh okay. But letting the rioting and crime continue is not going to solve anything either, is it? There have been murders as a result of these riots, and should the government just let the murders and crime continue and get worse?

Plus I am not talking about comparing this to Tiananmen square I don't think. I am just talking about ordering the rioters to surrender and arresting them.


And when the protesters refuse to stop protesting your mindset would escalate and they will persist and you will escalate further and eventually you'll prove them right and disgrace yourself just like authoritarians always end up doing in these situations. Maybe you don't intend on an incident like Tienanmen Square being the result, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't end up with one occurring as a result of the actions you'd support.


Oh okay, I see what you mean but what would be the best resolution then? The rioting and crime should not keep continuing either, so if you cannot send in anyone to deal with it, out of risk, then what is the best way to stop the rioting?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,323
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

20 Oct 2020, 6:30 pm

ironpony wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
ironpony wrote:
roronoa79 wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, what if the send in someone else, like the FBI perhaps, or national guard? But if the military does have a heavy handed response, won't that scare criminals more, and get them to back down more, not wanting to have to deal with a heavy handed response? What kind of increased support would you get?

But all I am talking about really is sending in someone to arrest people they see rioting. Since the police seem to be unable to arrest a lot of them, all I am talking about is being able to arrest more of them on site, if they see it. That's not so bad, is it?

They protesters are as pissed as they are because they are tired of excessive government violence. More government violence is just going to make them more determined. Unless you want to start killing them en masse until they're too terrified to protest anything. How many hundreds or thousands of protesters do you think would have to die before that happens? That's not a solution. That just kicks the can down the road. Because they will not be afraid of the government forever.
They protest excessive government violence because it creates more problems than it solves. It's like the police saying they need more water to put out an oil fire. They've already tried putting the oil fire out with water and it only got bigger. They're just too stupid to put two and two together and realize that maybe their usual way of doing things is the problem, not the solution.


Oh okay. But letting the rioting and crime continue is not going to solve anything either, is it? There have been murders as a result of these riots, and should the government just let the murders and crime continue and get worse?

Plus I am not talking about comparing this to Tiananmen square I don't think. I am just talking about ordering the rioters to surrender and arresting them.


And when the protesters refuse to stop protesting your mindset would escalate and they will persist and you will escalate further and eventually you'll prove them right and disgrace yourself just like authoritarians always end up doing in these situations. Maybe you don't intend on an incident like Tienanmen Square being the result, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't end up with one occurring as a result of the actions you'd support.


Oh okay, I see what you mean but what would be the best resolution then? The rioting and crime should not keep continuing either, so if you cannot send in anyone to deal with it, out of risk, then what is the best way to stop the rioting?


Dealing with the problem that is motivating the protests.

Among things if there's genuine improvement it will appease many of the protesters, leaving the people who are using them for cover for looting and the 'Boogaloo' types who are dedicated to escalating the violence with fewer people to hide behind.

Deescalating will reduce riotous behaviour by protesters, by anti-BLM counter-protesters and by the police. Escalating serves to legitimize the latter two by placing responsibility for all riotous behaviour on the former. It's a trick they do to justify their violence.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 1,951
Location: canada

20 Oct 2020, 6:38 pm

Oh okay, but aren't the mayors dealing with the problem and the protests are still happening though? For example, I read that the mayor of NYC let go 600 police officers to try to appease the protestors and their are still protests and riots there. So is dealing with the problem actually working therefore?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,323
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

20 Oct 2020, 6:43 pm

ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, but aren't the mayors dealing with the problem and the protests are still happening though? For example, I read that the mayor of NYC let go 600 police officers to try to appease the protestors and their are still protests and riots there. So is dealing with the problem actually working therefore?


The mayors in some places are trying, in other places they're not. Other entities like police unions are working hard to fight any talk of reform, let alone action towards reform. It might take awhile until enough credible evidence of improvement has been seen. Promising improvement isn't the same thing as delivering it.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 1,951
Location: canada

20 Oct 2020, 7:16 pm

Oh okay, but let's say the government ends up giving the protestors what they want. The protestors are not going to stop then, because once they see they have you by the b$#%ls they are just going to want more, and more, and they will never be satisfied, will they? So can you actually negotiate with someone who wants you by the b$%^s, or will those types of people just keep wanting more?

Like let's say the government were to make changes, but they wanted the BLM to sign a treaty or a truce, so that the BLM will hold up their end of it, and not create any more violence. Would the BLM actually be willing to sign on that?



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,577

21 Oct 2020, 7:35 am

ironpony wrote:
Oh okay, but let's say the government ends up giving the protestors what they want. The protestors are not going to stop then, because once they see they have you by the b$#%ls they are just going to want more, and more, and they will never be satisfied, will they?

Do you have any proof of this?


_________________
Omit needless words.


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 36
Posts: 1,951
Location: canada

21 Oct 2020, 7:56 am

No, but it just seems like that's how it will play out, that the BLM will not negotiate. We can see if that's how it will play out, if the government will try to negotiate some sort of terms with them.