OFFICIAL LRC President Donald Trump SECOND TERM Thread

Hussars 1776.1 wrote:

Nonequals wrote:

I have little doubt that the dynamics above apply to some people in some situations. But as far as what we're currently seeing from ICE - and particularly the 2 murders - I think that it mostly doesn't apply. Quick thoughts:

- Again, the Good shooter had a lot of experience and training. The only counter to that might be that his military experience (especially) and ICE training/experience didn't prepare him terribly well for the policing situation that morning with Good.

- I don't think that either of the 2 murder situations are very well-described by your bolded words above. People around on sidewalks, but not a big, close, immediate crowd during the 2 incidents. In the Good situation, it was only immediately Good and her wife. With Pretti, it appeared to mostly just be him and the 2 women (who, at the end, could barely even stand up on the ice and snow and I don't think were making any agents terribly nervous). And in both situations, agents outnumbered the civilians.

- As I said, the dynamics you describe above no doubt apply SOME of the time. But between what I'm guessing is a fair number of experienced ICE agents who are enjoying being tough guys, a bunch of new, poorly-trained ICE agents enjoying being tough guys, and both of those groups being told very explicitly that they're immune from consequences, I think that right now, in Mpls, at least, they're mostly just enjoying being tough guys, and especially when they're not in significant crowds of protestors, as was obviously the case in the 2 murders.

- Lastly, it was not until later today that I realized that a number of the (up to 10?) shots were taken AFTER that group of agents had stood up and backed up from the victim. At least one of the agents appears to be standing in that line abreast group of agents pumping bullets into his isolated body lying 6-8 feet away. Virtually impossible for me to see that in anyway explained by agents being in a scrum and reacting poorly. It looks much more like a simple firing squad.

1. Being a cop in an angry crowd is absolutely terrifying. Anyone can have a gun or throw a rock at your head.

2. The one thing all cops know is that you don’t shoot someone once in the legs and think you are safe. Once you think there is a theat to your life, you empty your magazine into the perp to make sure he can’t hurt you anymore.
what’s unclear is if the cops didn’t understand he was already disarmed. Not sure why they started shooting if they know he was disarmed.

EqualsA wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

War with Iran is back on the table. Israel and the gulf states likely vetoed the threatened attack a week ago because the US did not have enough assets in the region to adequately protect them from an Iranian response. But USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group and a group of missile carriers are now in the Gulf. This is in addition to movement of a large number of attack aircraft, missile defense systems and refueling tankers for F35s deployed from US soil.

There is always the TACO option here and Iran does some sort of "deal" where Trump announces that Iran will invest in his sh#t coin in exchange for not blowing them up (or each other). But there is just way too much hardware in place for this to end with a TACO.

Tweet:x.com/WarMonitor3/status/2015821070423...

Maybe take out one man and "run" that country, too.

Do they have any oil ?

TheMessage wrote:

A worthwhile articulation of a tendency to both hold up a mirror and to understand MAGA:

"As someone who participates in debate (real debate, not the Charlie Kirk version), I am always researching the psychological underpinnings of why people believe what they do, how to expose flawed reasoning, etc.

Quickly, I learned that what people say they believe isn’t what they actually believe. What they say is a protective mechanism for their deeper, irrational beliefs.
Here, the belief is: “I don’t like him, I don’t care.”

The fact that this is the “most reasonable excuse” illustrates their desperation.

The “most reasonable excuse” fallacy — aka the self-strawman — is intended to provide layers of protection by stating a belief that does not challenge the true belief.

The true belief is, consciously or subconsciously, irrational or indefensible.

When people argued the COVID vaccine wasn’t FDA approved, a normal person would read that to mean: “So once it’s FDA approved, you’ll get it?”

But no. It was, at the time, simply the most reasonable excuse to shield the real belief:
Not getting it, no matter what.

Some of you may find it obvious, others surprising:

The vast majority of MAGA doesn’t think Renée Good had malicious intent, nor that she was using her car as a weapon, nor that the officer felt threatened for his life.

These are all excuses that, in these circumstances, shield the true belief: “I don’t care that the officer shot her.”

But the Pretti case is especially egregious.

When their best excuse is “but he was armed” — something they love — it shows how deeply desperate they are.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, just like with the COVID vaccine being FDA approved, there is nothing that will get these people to change their mind. They simply move the goalposts.

Protection of the belief is more important than valid reasoning.

If Pretti didn’t have a weapon, they’d have simply said his resisting was justification. Or that he reached for an officer’s weapon.

There are no depths too low for these people." - Carl Allen

TheMessage wrote:

A worthwhile articulation of a tendency to both hold up a mirror and to understand MAGA:

"As someone who participates in debate (real debate, not the Charlie Kirk version), I am always researching the psychological underpinnings of why people believe what they do, how to expose flawed reasoning, etc.

Quickly, I learned that what people say they believe isn’t what they actually believe. What they say is a protective mechanism for their deeper, irrational beliefs.
Here, the belief is: “I don’t like him, I don’t care.”

The fact that this is the “most reasonable excuse” illustrates their desperation.

The “most reasonable excuse” fallacy — aka the self-strawman — is intended to provide layers of protection by stating a belief that does not challenge the true belief.

The true belief is, consciously or subconsciously, irrational or indefensible.

When people argued the COVID vaccine wasn’t FDA approved, a normal person would read that to mean: “So once it’s FDA approved, you’ll get it?”

But no. It was, at the time, simply the most reasonable excuse to shield the real belief:
Not getting it, no matter what.

Some of you may find it obvious, others surprising:

The vast majority of MAGA doesn’t think Renée Good had malicious intent, nor that she was using her car as a weapon, nor that the officer felt threatened for his life.

These are all excuses that, in these circumstances, shield the true belief: “I don’t care that the officer shot her.”

But the Pretti case is especially egregious.

When their best excuse is “but he was armed” — something they love — it shows how deeply desperate they are.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, just like with the COVID vaccine being FDA approved, there is nothing that will get these people to change their mind. They simply move the goalposts.

Protection of the belief is more important than valid reasoning.

If Pretti didn’t have a weapon, they’d have simply said his resisting was justification. Or that he reached for an officer’s weapon.

There are no depths too low for these people." - Carl Allen

EqualsA wrote:

TheMessage wrote:

A worthwhile articulation of a tendency to both hold up a mirror and to understand MAGA:

"As someone who participates in debate (real debate, not the Charlie Kirk version), I am always researching the psychological underpinnings of why people believe what they do, how to expose flawed reasoning, etc.

Quickly, I learned that what people say they believe isn’t what they actually believe. What they say is a protective mechanism for their deeper, irrational beliefs.
Here, the belief is: “I don’t like him, I don’t care.”

The fact that this is the “most reasonable excuse” illustrates their desperation.

The “most reasonable excuse” fallacy — aka the self-strawman — is intended to provide layers of protection by stating a belief that does not challenge the true belief.

The true belief is, consciously or subconsciously, irrational or indefensible.

When people argued the COVID vaccine wasn’t FDA approved, a normal person would read that to mean: “So once it’s FDA approved, you’ll get it?”

But no. It was, at the time, simply the most reasonable excuse to shield the real belief:
Not getting it, no matter what.

Some of you may find it obvious, others surprising:

The vast majority of MAGA doesn’t think Renée Good had malicious intent, nor that she was using her car as a weapon, nor that the officer felt threatened for his life.

These are all excuses that, in these circumstances, shield the true belief: “I don’t care that the officer shot her.”

But the Pretti case is especially egregious.

When their best excuse is “but he was armed” — something they love — it shows how deeply desperate they are.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, just like with the COVID vaccine being FDA approved, there is nothing that will get these people to change their mind. They simply move the goalposts.

Protection of the belief is more important than valid reasoning.

If Pretti didn’t have a weapon, they’d have simply said his resisting was justification. Or that he reached for an officer’s weapon.

There are no depths too low for these people." - Carl Allen

Agreed. But don't fail to avail yourself of adolt's training above, which tells us that having a concealed carry permit is also a permit to allow you to be murdered by law enforcement, even if you don't do anything in the least bit threatening towards them. Very useful info for us citizens to have.