AOC DISMANTLED As Just Another Dem | Breaking Points

My question for the people who want to say that the Democratic Party is in anyway "Socialist":

Why didn't they run Bernie Sanders in 2016 (and 2020)?

Seriously. They fact that they went with Hillary Clinton, and, even worse, ran JOE BIDEN should show that the Democratic party is in no way Socialist.

I liked AOC at first since she said she was a Berner, but she went with the Democratic Party. And now she is doing things like this. I'll let this person dissect her and the Democratic party, but the Democratic Party is not in any way a left leaning party.

.

Meet Pascal Bruckner, author of The Tyranny of Guilt

This interview is in English, please listen to it. 

I learned about this philosopher from an article in Le Figaro about the shooting of Nihel last month and have been reading his books. I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but his positions on racism and "western guilt" totally resonate with me. 

I like that you can hear him speak because I think that he is someone who needs to be more widely publicised in the Anglophone world. I think it is especially important for a lot of white people to hear what he has to say because the "western guilt" of this book has led to a lot of bad results.

Also take a look at "Enlightenment Fundamentalism or Racism of the Anti-Racists?" for a conversation starter. He has some interesting thoughts on race and multiculturalism.

The more I listen to him, the more I like his thoughts on this subject.

President WHAT???

 One of the interesting things about getting your news from France is that there are a lot of stories about Africa. In this case there has been a coup where President Mohamed Bazoum has been deposed in Niger.

Which is interesting if you are listening to the news...

But it's not spelled the way it sounds or it would be really interesting--especially for Anglophones.

"President Bazoom has been captured in the capital city of Brassiereville...."

I just had a very bizarre revelation...

High capacity magazines are banned in Vermont.

Seriously! "Gun friendly Vermont" won't let you buy high capacity magazines as of 1 October 2018. On the other hand, it seems that possession of one is legal? I'm going by this:
https://tinyurl.com/vermontgunlaws

And the word of politicians.

I could get it if there was a lot of gun violence in Vermont. Well, other than the state has the highest rate of gun death in New England.https://vtdigger.org/2021/04/01/allie-breyer-vermont-has-the-highest-rate-of-gun-deaths-in-new-england/ OK, this is suicides, not the type of gun violence most other places see.

It also has had 1 mass shooting in the period from 2013-2019: https://www.gvpedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Vermont-Mass-Shootings-State-Fact-Sheet-1.pdf

I am dead certain that the High Capacity Magazine ban has prevented a steep rise in mass shootings.

Did I forget to mention that "assault rifles" are still legal? And you don't need a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

And this mess passed the Vermont Supreme Court. I have this weird feeling that the only person charged under this law will try to take it to SCOTUS, which will probably side with him since he is the stereotypical republican. In fact, he's the stereotypical gun owner.

While I support gun laws: I would like them to make sense.

And this is as out to lunch as you can get. 

Hey, wait!!! Vermont also has recreational cannibis...

I guess we know what the Vermont lawmakers were on when they came up with this.

This: https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/?source=emne_states_courts_20230725&refcode=emne_states_courts_20230725

is what started this. I'm not sure how they came up with their rankings, but this is one of the many reasons I am on the outs with a lot of the "gun violence prevention" organisations. 

The parliamentary system explained--it's real simple

The English civil war in the middle of the 17th century was about where the power would like: With the executive (king)? Or the Legislature (parliament)? So, as I said, the system is pretty simple and easy for the US to "adopt".

It just comes from the admission that the power to run the government, as in making laws and that lies in the legislature. The legislature is the body which is the closest to the people. This is why I like it.

It's easier for a third party to gain traction locally than nationally: especially with the current duopoly in power. Likewise, having a true multi-party democracy will require that there are compromises. This is in contrast to the ultra-partisan bullshit in the US. Coalitions need to be formed.

Or a new election is called.

Sure, this may show up the US for the disunited states that it actually is, but those would be better teething pains than what is happening now.

The executive does what it should do: run things. It's the career civil service who administer the government.

And the courts can do what courts should do: decide legal cases like umpires in a game.

Supreme Court needs to follow the same ethics rules as other judges (It's bipartisan)

Wow, you would think the people at Fox News would glom onto this like flies on shit, but no...

Yes, indeed, RBG was like all the other pigs on SCOTUS and at the trough. The problem is that anyone familiar with the court knows that they do shit that would get them impeached or at least hit with an ethics violation. But they get away with it.

Just imagine what the Supreme Court might be like if it weren't (1) Political or (2) corrupt.

Get some ethics rules, assholes, because this is well known in the legal community. It's the poor schmucks who think you are worthy of respect that are clueless.

Oh, and I would welcome the legal circus that I would make if you decide to come after me: especially since you know I am right. And so do a lot of other people.

Do you really want this coming to light? A little late: https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/why-doesnt-the-supreme-court-have-a-formal-code-of-ethics/

What do you think the ABA will do?

What could be more American than a mass shooting in Philadelphia on Independence Day?

 Or what don't you get about:

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.

Don't say "well regulated means well trained" since Shays' rebels were well trained. Well regulated is defined as: "in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." (Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776) In fact, that document pretty much sums up what the Second Amendment is about:

Section 13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

A miltia isn't whatever the fuck you want to pretend you are--it is a body which is defined by law and under strict subordination to the civil power.

You are committing treason if your militia isn't set up under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 and acting under authority of clause 15. In fact, Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution, Article III, Section iii:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

The definition of Treason in US law is very specific.

So, if you want to pretend that you are an "oathkeeper" or that you are within the constitution, I would like you to pause and consider if you are truly acting under lawful authority?

Or are you just being a total fuckwit and acting like a fool?

I don't give a shit what those clowns on the "supreme court" want to say since they don't have the constitutional authority to rule on the subject.

And they sure as fuck don't have the authority to invalidate laws which are for public safety.

But as I said in the title: "What could be more American than a mass shooting in Philadelphia on Independence Day?"

I hope the fuckwits on the supreme court can get that through the shit that clogs their skulls.

My ancestors shouldn't have capitulated at Morristown. They were "well trained" too.

And if you want to understand what the Second Amendment is about, then you should know about this forgotten bit of history. It's not the statue in Massachusetts, it's the lack of memorial to the militia soldiers who sacrificed for your freedom to be an asshole:

The Pennsylvania Line Mutiny, its Origins and Patriotism

read it and learn what you have been misunderstanding all this time.

Want to watch people in the US Freak out? PART 2

I saw a clip which featured John Oliver bemoaning the "militarised police" in the US. It made me wonder if he had ever traversed La Manche. Or is he like his insular Amerloque cousins and stuck in a place where police never carry guns, which is actually a myth since British Police are armed. They just aren't armed to the extent of the French. The headline from Le Monde states: 

Urban riots: the use of elite police and gendarmerie units, a "conscious" strategy

BRI, RAID, GIGN... by calling in these intervention units, the Minister of the Interior wanted to make an impact. According to his entourage, this is a choice that has been "assumed and asserted".

I've already mentioned GIGN, Groupe d'intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale, which is the internal version of something akin to the US's Delta Force. The other two, the brigade de recherche et d’intervention (BRI) and Recherche, Assistance, Intervention, Dissuasion (RAID) are similar units from the Police Nationale. Since 2009, RAID and the Paris Research and Intervention Brigade (BRI), a separate National Police unit reporting directly into the Paris Police Prefecture (French: Préfecture de police de Paris), have formed a task force called National Police Intervention Force (French: Force d'intervention de la Police nationale) or FIPN. When activated, the task force is headed by the RAID commander.

Renault Sherpa

This is a definite show of force as the Le Monde article points out:

"Show of force

The tone and method are changing. "Systematic intervention instructions have been given to the police", he tweeted on Thursday 29 June. That very morning, as part of the Reinforced Operational Coordination in Conurbations and Territories initiative, an initial decision authorised the gendarmerie's security and intervention platoons to take action in police zones. Then came the decision to deploy elite police and gendarmerie units in the field. According to the minister's entourage, this was a "demonstration of force that was fully assumed and claimed, with a dual operational and psychological objective".

The aim was to regain the initiative by pushing the rioters, far from the usual policing strategy, which theoretically consists of keeping the demonstrators at a distance. RAID and BRI armoured vehicles were deployed as close as possible to the clashes. At the request of the public authorities, three additional vehicles have even been loaned urgently by the manufacturer, Arquus, without the company having had time to repaint their sand-coloured livery, which is more reminiscent of military operations in the Sahel than the urban maze of the housing estates in the Paris region. For its part, the gendarmerie is lining up its brand new 4 × 4 Centaure, behemoths measuring 7.4 metres long and 14.5 tonnes, and instructing its helicopters to take off at 7pm, before nightfall, to fly over sensitive areas and provide information.

I also find that the concepts in Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen de 1789, which was the original constitution of the First French Republic and has remained in spirit in later constitutions, to be very interesting in how they relate to the obligations between the citizen and the government.

Article XII – The guarantee of the rights of man and of the citizen necessitates a public force: this force is thus instituted for the advantage of all and not for the particular utility of those in whom it is trusted.

The concept here is the maintenance of order which is also mentioned in the US Constitution (i.e.: insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence). The US Constitution makes it clear that it has a similar attitude toward insurrection, but the force charged with suppressing insurrections is the Militia (Article I, Section 8, clause 15) which is theoretically closer to the "people" than that of the French system.

There is another post on the difference between US policing and French policing, but I will say that the founders were well aware of the French system. The founders chose to stick with the British system for the most part. But there weren't organised police forces at that time in the British world.

On the other hand, the US Second Amendment has been reinterpreted in such a way that it is removed from its original context. One can arm themselves legally to a level equal to the police: maybe not that of the French Police. Does such an arms race mean that the British system is obsolete and that the police do need to be militarised?