| Trump and his supporters. 22:16 - Jan 6 with 18956 views | ItchySphincter |
Showed themselves for exactly what they are today.
Indefensible.
Time to pipe down now, you know who you are. |  |
| |  |
| Trump and his supporters. on 09:45 - Jan 13 with 1585 views | AnotherJohn |
I am saying that I am not convinced that Babbit's actions reached the threshold that would justify the use of lethal force by a law enforcement officer (such as a member of the Capitol police force). The internationally accepted rule is that it is only lawful for law enforcement personnel to use a firearm to kill when there is an imminent and proximate threat of death or serious injury. This is a big issue in the US and the fact that some US states do not comply fully with this standard is being strongly contested by human rights campaigners (including in BLM) who are concerned that police officers are shooting civilians when this is not justified. Babbit's home state of California has just changed its rule so that an officer can only use a firearm if he or she “reasonably believes ... that deadly force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury".
This is similar to the Use of Force Policy of the US Border and Customs Police, which states that "use of deadly force is 'necessary' when the officer/agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer/agent or to another person."
It seems to me that if campaigners demand that the USA adhere to international standards more generally then a different rule cannot be applied in the Babbit case. Now I anticipate that people like Groo and Itchy are going to argue that this unarmed (and admittedly foolish) woman did pose an imminent threat of death or serious harm to others, but I think that before people try to justify her killing they should look at what happened and who was where. [Post edited 13 Jan 2021 17:32]
|  | | |
| Trump and his supporters. on 17:18 - Jan 13 with 1505 views | Groo |
| Trump and his supporters. on 09:45 - Jan 13 by AnotherJohn |
I am saying that I am not convinced that Babbit's actions reached the threshold that would justify the use of lethal force by a law enforcement officer (such as a member of the Capitol police force). The internationally accepted rule is that it is only lawful for law enforcement personnel to use a firearm to kill when there is an imminent and proximate threat of death or serious injury. This is a big issue in the US and the fact that some US states do not comply fully with this standard is being strongly contested by human rights campaigners (including in BLM) who are concerned that police officers are shooting civilians when this is not justified. Babbit's home state of California has just changed its rule so that an officer can only use a firearm if he or she “reasonably believes ... that deadly force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury".
This is similar to the Use of Force Policy of the US Border and Customs Police, which states that "use of deadly force is 'necessary' when the officer/agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer/agent or to another person."
It seems to me that if campaigners demand that the USA adhere to international standards more generally then a different rule cannot be applied in the Babbit case. Now I anticipate that people like Groo and Itchy are going to argue that this unarmed (and admittedly foolish) woman did pose an imminent threat of death or serious harm to others, but I think that before people try to justify her killing they should look at what happened and who was where. [Post edited 13 Jan 2021 17:32]
|
people like Groo and Itchy I'm unsure what that means.
Its about opinion and this statement but I think that before people try to justify her killing they should look at what happened and who was where.
So lets look what happened.
1. The Capitol Building (equivalent to the House of Commons) was invaded by large groups of protesters who were trying to stop the the confirmation of a democratic legal election. Maybe even bring about a coup for Trump.
2. These people had forced their way in, none obviously searched.
3. The doorway where this incident happened was the last line of defense before the House Chambers (I believe that's what it was called).
4. The doorway was barricaded and armed officers with their guns drawn were on the other side.
5. This area is where the offices of people like Pence is situated, some representatives were still present and obviously the area would contain many sensitive and confidential files. So my guess of protecting people and sensitive information was not far off the mark.
6. Protesters took advantage of a very short time when the two officers guarding the door moved to the four armed officers who came up the stairs. A man immediately smashes the window.
7. Babbit takes the opportunity to start climbing through the window and is shot.
What happens if she is not shot?
1. She starts pulling the barricades down.
2. Others follow through the window while they are trying to stop her and help remove the barrier and the area is open.
3. The protesters are now in the inner sanctions and more follow.
4. They get to the offices which are now open to access and some steal sensitive government information.
5. Some protesters may be armed, some had restraints ready to use, representatives that are still there are captured and held hostage.
That barricade was there for a reason and they made it as I stated above a line in the sand not to cross. Anyone entering would have been shot. It wasn't only the first person that was the worry, some there may have had darker intentions if they got hostages.
My thought is they wouldn't take the risk and stopped it in its tracks. |  |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 20:48 - Jan 13 with 1470 views | majorraglan |
| Trump and his supporters. on 09:45 - Jan 13 by AnotherJohn |
I am saying that I am not convinced that Babbit's actions reached the threshold that would justify the use of lethal force by a law enforcement officer (such as a member of the Capitol police force). The internationally accepted rule is that it is only lawful for law enforcement personnel to use a firearm to kill when there is an imminent and proximate threat of death or serious injury. This is a big issue in the US and the fact that some US states do not comply fully with this standard is being strongly contested by human rights campaigners (including in BLM) who are concerned that police officers are shooting civilians when this is not justified. Babbit's home state of California has just changed its rule so that an officer can only use a firearm if he or she “reasonably believes ... that deadly force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury".
This is similar to the Use of Force Policy of the US Border and Customs Police, which states that "use of deadly force is 'necessary' when the officer/agent has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer/agent or to another person."
It seems to me that if campaigners demand that the USA adhere to international standards more generally then a different rule cannot be applied in the Babbit case. Now I anticipate that people like Groo and Itchy are going to argue that this unarmed (and admittedly foolish) woman did pose an imminent threat of death or serious harm to others, but I think that before people try to justify her killing they should look at what happened and who was where. [Post edited 13 Jan 2021 17:32]
|
Who is to say that those thoughts weren't already going through the agent/ officers mind? Groo has raised some very pertinent points in hs response. The doors were barricaded, there’s a guy pointing a gun at the people the other side of the door who are trying to break in. Once they have dawn their weapons they are making a big statement and showing they are prepared to use it because they have nowhere else to go, it’s the last resort. Assuming Babbit has seen the gun being phoned at the door she’s asking for big trouble in going through the barricade. Once there’s a breach the agents /cops have very little chance of being able to control the crowd and protecting the people they are there to look after, imagine what would happen if they let the mob through and they attacked VP Pence, there’d be ructions. | | | |
| Trump and his supporters. on 20:56 - Jan 13 with 1466 views | onehunglow |
| Trump and his supporters. on 17:18 - Jan 13 by Groo |
people like Groo and Itchy I'm unsure what that means.
Its about opinion and this statement but I think that before people try to justify her killing they should look at what happened and who was where.
So lets look what happened.
1. The Capitol Building (equivalent to the House of Commons) was invaded by large groups of protesters who were trying to stop the the confirmation of a democratic legal election. Maybe even bring about a coup for Trump.
2. These people had forced their way in, none obviously searched.
3. The doorway where this incident happened was the last line of defense before the House Chambers (I believe that's what it was called).
4. The doorway was barricaded and armed officers with their guns drawn were on the other side.
5. This area is where the offices of people like Pence is situated, some representatives were still present and obviously the area would contain many sensitive and confidential files. So my guess of protecting people and sensitive information was not far off the mark.
6. Protesters took advantage of a very short time when the two officers guarding the door moved to the four armed officers who came up the stairs. A man immediately smashes the window.
7. Babbit takes the opportunity to start climbing through the window and is shot.
What happens if she is not shot?
1. She starts pulling the barricades down.
2. Others follow through the window while they are trying to stop her and help remove the barrier and the area is open.
3. The protesters are now in the inner sanctions and more follow.
4. They get to the offices which are now open to access and some steal sensitive government information.
5. Some protesters may be armed, some had restraints ready to use, representatives that are still there are captured and held hostage.
That barricade was there for a reason and they made it as I stated above a line in the sand not to cross. Anyone entering would have been shot. It wasn't only the first person that was the worry, some there may have had darker intentions if they got hostages.
My thought is they wouldn't take the risk and stopped it in its tracks. |
Jeez.That is some post mate | |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 07:14 - Jan 14 with 1424 views | Lohengrin |
| Trump and his supporters. on 17:18 - Jan 13 by Groo |
people like Groo and Itchy I'm unsure what that means.
Its about opinion and this statement but I think that before people try to justify her killing they should look at what happened and who was where.
So lets look what happened.
1. The Capitol Building (equivalent to the House of Commons) was invaded by large groups of protesters who were trying to stop the the confirmation of a democratic legal election. Maybe even bring about a coup for Trump.
2. These people had forced their way in, none obviously searched.
3. The doorway where this incident happened was the last line of defense before the House Chambers (I believe that's what it was called).
4. The doorway was barricaded and armed officers with their guns drawn were on the other side.
5. This area is where the offices of people like Pence is situated, some representatives were still present and obviously the area would contain many sensitive and confidential files. So my guess of protecting people and sensitive information was not far off the mark.
6. Protesters took advantage of a very short time when the two officers guarding the door moved to the four armed officers who came up the stairs. A man immediately smashes the window.
7. Babbit takes the opportunity to start climbing through the window and is shot.
What happens if she is not shot?
1. She starts pulling the barricades down.
2. Others follow through the window while they are trying to stop her and help remove the barrier and the area is open.
3. The protesters are now in the inner sanctions and more follow.
4. They get to the offices which are now open to access and some steal sensitive government information.
5. Some protesters may be armed, some had restraints ready to use, representatives that are still there are captured and held hostage.
That barricade was there for a reason and they made it as I stated above a line in the sand not to cross. Anyone entering would have been shot. It wasn't only the first person that was the worry, some there may have had darker intentions if they got hostages.
My thought is they wouldn't take the risk and stopped it in its tracks. |
”Maybe even bring about a coup for Trump?”
I somehow doubt that chap who was pictured standing on the Speaker’s rostrum at The House of Representatives with the painted face, wearing Sitting Bull’s party hat, was actually preparing to take up the reins of government.  |  |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 08:15 - Jan 14 with 1407 views | ItchySphincter |
| Trump and his supporters. on 07:14 - Jan 14 by Lohengrin |
”Maybe even bring about a coup for Trump?”
I somehow doubt that chap who was pictured standing on the Speaker’s rostrum at The House of Representatives with the painted face, wearing Sitting Bull’s party hat, was actually preparing to take up the reins of government. |
On the shooting thing though, I know some people are trying to paint different pictures but let’s face it, it’s American and the Capitol Building - a few more of them can count themselves fortunate not to get capped.
When the policeman in Westminster got slaughtered people were up in arms that he only had a piece of wood to protect himself.
Those officers were in a horrific situation, exposed by their president, and as awful as it is they did what would have been expected of them in the circumstances. | |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 11:25 - Jan 14 with 1388 views | onehunglow |
| Trump and his supporters. on 08:15 - Jan 14 by ItchySphincter |
On the shooting thing though, I know some people are trying to paint different pictures but let’s face it, it’s American and the Capitol Building - a few more of them can count themselves fortunate not to get capped.
When the policeman in Westminster got slaughtered people were up in arms that he only had a piece of wood to protect himself.
Those officers were in a horrific situation, exposed by their president, and as awful as it is they did what would have been expected of them in the circumstances. |
British people would rather a brave ,dead Policeman than one who blows away scum.
Police officers who fire a weapon are held to account more savagely than any other profession,especially legal boys | |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 12:04 - Jan 14 with 1381 views | Lohengrin |
| Trump and his supporters. on 08:15 - Jan 14 by ItchySphincter |
On the shooting thing though, I know some people are trying to paint different pictures but let’s face it, it’s American and the Capitol Building - a few more of them can count themselves fortunate not to get capped.
When the policeman in Westminster got slaughtered people were up in arms that he only had a piece of wood to protect himself.
Those officers were in a horrific situation, exposed by their president, and as awful as it is they did what would have been expected of them in the circumstances. |
The shooting was obviously regrettable, by nobody more so than the triggerman, I don’t doubt, but it was also unsurprising; inevitable even in the light of events.
On the wider question of this being an attempted coup then I find that laughable. This was rowdyism that was allowed to get out of hand, nothing more. I’ve already said how repulsive I’ve found Trump’s subsequent behaviour. He brought these people to Washington, he openly incited them, then ran away when it all went South: there’s no excuse for that. Not for him. | |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Trump and his supporters. on 12:09 - Jan 14 with 1379 views | onehunglow |
I agree Loh.
That was not a coup more a posse of Planks believing America is somehow pre eminent in all world affairs .
I just see Trump as nauceating and,frankly,I can't see any further than that.
I find it incredible he has the support he has and that is something America must ask itself. | |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 12:37 - Jan 14 with 1372 views | Lohengrin |
| Trump and his supporters. on 12:09 - Jan 14 by onehunglow |
I agree Loh.
That was not a coup more a posse of Planks believing America is somehow pre eminent in all world affairs .
I just see Trump as nauceating and,frankly,I can't see any further than that.
I find it incredible he has the support he has and that is something America must ask itself. |
I don’t think it’s a surprise at all. Chronic economic and job insecurity, globalisation’s heaped indignity, was the backdrop to his rise in 2016. Trump positioned himself as the man who said ‘ENOUGH!’
None of those fears have gone away, nor are they going to. All the threads are left hanging waiting for hands more adept than his to pick up. | |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 12:43 - Jan 14 with 1363 views | onehunglow |
| Trump and his supporters. on 12:37 - Jan 14 by Lohengrin |
I don’t think it’s a surprise at all. Chronic economic and job insecurity, globalisation’s heaped indignity, was the backdrop to his rise in 2016. Trump positioned himself as the man who said ‘ENOUGH!’
None of those fears have gone away, nor are they going to. All the threads are left hanging waiting for hands more adept than his to pick up. |
I don't agree with that at all mate.
As I say, I 'll admit to not seeing any further than that appalling visage of narcissistic hubris.
However, to see this self centred preening poseur -mask free- spouting divisive drivel when hundreds of thousands of his people have had enough too-of dying .
He is an abomination of a man and America's image abroad has suffered untold harm.
Anyway,it's my birthday today and Ive had no birthday wishes from you nor any other poster some of whom Ive been engaging with for over 10 years. Im off down the beach to walk in the mud and reflect as to how I got this far in life. | |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 12:46 - Jan 14 with 1361 views | Lohengrin |
| Trump and his supporters. on 12:43 - Jan 14 by onehunglow |
I don't agree with that at all mate.
As I say, I 'll admit to not seeing any further than that appalling visage of narcissistic hubris.
However, to see this self centred preening poseur -mask free- spouting divisive drivel when hundreds of thousands of his people have had enough too-of dying .
He is an abomination of a man and America's image abroad has suffered untold harm.
Anyway,it's my birthday today and Ive had no birthday wishes from you nor any other poster some of whom Ive been engaging with for over 10 years. Im off down the beach to walk in the mud and reflect as to how I got this far in life. |
Happy birthday! | |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 12:55 - Jan 14 with 1351 views | AndyCole |
| Trump and his supporters. on 12:43 - Jan 14 by onehunglow |
I don't agree with that at all mate.
As I say, I 'll admit to not seeing any further than that appalling visage of narcissistic hubris.
However, to see this self centred preening poseur -mask free- spouting divisive drivel when hundreds of thousands of his people have had enough too-of dying .
He is an abomination of a man and America's image abroad has suffered untold harm.
Anyway,it's my birthday today and Ive had no birthday wishes from you nor any other poster some of whom Ive been engaging with for over 10 years. Im off down the beach to walk in the mud and reflect as to how I got this far in life. |
Happy birthday. (Trust you're walking to your local beach for local people :-] ) | |
| Pro free speech and alternative opinions -
Anti gang-bullying and poor modding thereof -
Will always make a stand against those who consistently choose to turn a blind eye |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 13:41 - Jan 14 with 1335 views | onehunglow |
| Trump and his supporters. on 12:55 - Jan 14 by AndyCole |
Happy birthday. (Trust you're walking to your local beach for local people :-] ) |
Not today.
For a change ,the soggy farmland around us.
Thanks | |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 13:46 - Jan 14 with 1332 views | Highjack |
| Trump and his supporters. on 13:41 - Jan 14 by onehunglow |
Not today.
For a change ,the soggy farmland around us.
Thanks |
Happy birthday. Stay at home. |  |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 14:03 - Jan 14 with 1318 views | onehunglow |
| Trump and his supporters. on 13:46 - Jan 14 by Highjack |
Happy birthday. Stay at home. |
Our home abuts open farmland. Rarely do we encounter anyone.It is within the rules. | |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 15:10 - Jan 14 with 1294 views | Highjack |
| Trump and his supporters. on 14:03 - Jan 14 by onehunglow |
Our home abuts open farmland. Rarely do we encounter anyone.It is within the rules. |
As is not wearing a face mask when you’re exempt. | |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 15:53 - Jan 14 with 1275 views | onehunglow |
| Trump and his supporters. on 15:10 - Jan 14 by Highjack |
As is not wearing a face mask when you’re exempt. |
You trying to provoke ?
Not today,son,not today,ave it for a rainy day | |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 15:32 - Jan 15 with 1190 views | AnotherJohn |
Just to add a bit more on the rules on use of lethal force, I came across what I think is the operative Washington DC legislation. There seems to be a view in the thread that it is realpolitik rather than law and the SOPs that count, but I suspect both will enter the picture when the member of the Capitol police force who shot Babbit is held to account.
D.C. Act 23-336. Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Second Emergency Amendment Act of 2020
SUBTITLE N. USE OF FORCE REFORMS
Note § 5-337.01
Sec. 119. Use of deadly force.
(a) For the purposes of this section, the term:
(1) "Deadly force" means any force that is likely or intended to cause serious bodily injury or death.
(2) "Deadly weapon" means any object, other than a body part or stationary object, that in the manner of its actual, attempted, or threatened use, is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death.
(3) "Serious bodily injury" means extreme physical pain, illness, or impairment of physical condition, including physical injury, that involves:
(A) A substantial risk of death;
(B) Protracted and obvious disfigurement;
(C) Protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ; or
(D) Protracted loss of consciousness.
(b) A law enforcement officer shall not use deadly force against a person unless:
(1) The law enforcement officer reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect the law enforcement officer or another person, other than the subject of the use of deadly force, from the threat of serious bodily injury or death;
(2) The law enforcement officer's actions are reasonable, given the totality of the circumstances; and
(3) All other options have been exhausted or do not reasonably lend themselves to the circumstances.
(c) A trier of fact shall consider:
(1) The reasonableness of the law enforcement officer's belief and actions from the perspective of a reasonable law enforcement officer; and
(2) The totality of the circumstances, which shall include:
(A) Whether the subject of the use of deadly force:
(i) Possessed or appeared to possess a deadly weapon; and
(ii) Refused to comply with the law enforcement officer's lawful order to surrender an object believed to be a deadly weapon prior to the law enforcement officer using deadly force;
(B) Whether the law enforcement officer engaged in de-escalation measures prior to the use of deadly force, including taking cover, waiting for back-up, trying to calm the subject of the use of force, or using non-deadly force prior to the use of deadly force; and
(C) Whether any conduct by the law enforcement officer prior to the use of deadly force increased the risk of a confrontation resulting in deadly force being used. [Post edited 15 Jan 2021 15:36]
| | | |
| Trump and his supporters. on 19:23 - Jan 15 with 1138 views | Groo |
| Trump and his supporters. on 15:32 - Jan 15 by AnotherJohn |
Just to add a bit more on the rules on use of lethal force, I came across what I think is the operative Washington DC legislation. There seems to be a view in the thread that it is realpolitik rather than law and the SOPs that count, but I suspect both will enter the picture when the member of the Capitol police force who shot Babbit is held to account.
D.C. Act 23-336. Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Second Emergency Amendment Act of 2020
SUBTITLE N. USE OF FORCE REFORMS
Note § 5-337.01
Sec. 119. Use of deadly force.
(a) For the purposes of this section, the term:
(1) "Deadly force" means any force that is likely or intended to cause serious bodily injury or death.
(2) "Deadly weapon" means any object, other than a body part or stationary object, that in the manner of its actual, attempted, or threatened use, is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death.
(3) "Serious bodily injury" means extreme physical pain, illness, or impairment of physical condition, including physical injury, that involves:
(A) A substantial risk of death;
(B) Protracted and obvious disfigurement;
(C) Protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ; or
(D) Protracted loss of consciousness.
(b) A law enforcement officer shall not use deadly force against a person unless:
(1) The law enforcement officer reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect the law enforcement officer or another person, other than the subject of the use of deadly force, from the threat of serious bodily injury or death;
(2) The law enforcement officer's actions are reasonable, given the totality of the circumstances; and
(3) All other options have been exhausted or do not reasonably lend themselves to the circumstances.
(c) A trier of fact shall consider:
(1) The reasonableness of the law enforcement officer's belief and actions from the perspective of a reasonable law enforcement officer; and
(2) The totality of the circumstances, which shall include:
(A) Whether the subject of the use of deadly force:
(i) Possessed or appeared to possess a deadly weapon; and
(ii) Refused to comply with the law enforcement officer's lawful order to surrender an object believed to be a deadly weapon prior to the law enforcement officer using deadly force;
(B) Whether the law enforcement officer engaged in de-escalation measures prior to the use of deadly force, including taking cover, waiting for back-up, trying to calm the subject of the use of force, or using non-deadly force prior to the use of deadly force; and
(C) Whether any conduct by the law enforcement officer prior to the use of deadly force increased the risk of a confrontation resulting in deadly force being used. [Post edited 15 Jan 2021 15:36]
|
I understand what your saying, it appears you don't understand what I'm saying or at least don't agree. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 19:31 - Jan 15 with 1126 views | Groo |
| Trump and his supporters. on 07:14 - Jan 14 by Lohengrin |
”Maybe even bring about a coup for Trump?”
I somehow doubt that chap who was pictured standing on the Speaker’s rostrum at The House of Representatives with the painted face, wearing Sitting Bull’s party hat, was actually preparing to take up the reins of government. |
Whereas I agree that it was unlikely to be a coup, the question is when does it become a coup. Who said our horned friend was to be the leader.
The people on the ground wouldn't have known for sure, it appears some officials could have been involved, some police were involved there could be military involvement.
It may have been an attempt to spark a coup.
Anything's possible. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 22:17 - Jan 15 with 1099 views | AndyCole |
| Trump and his supporters. on 12:37 - Jan 14 by Lohengrin |
I don’t think it’s a surprise at all. Chronic economic and job insecurity, globalisation’s heaped indignity, was the backdrop to his rise in 2016. Trump positioned himself as the man who said ‘ENOUGH!’
None of those fears have gone away, nor are they going to. All the threads are left hanging waiting for hands more adept than his to pick up. |
Biden-Harris will fix it, just as the American voters unanimously voted for. They clearly voted for Biden-Harris as those adept hands to pick up the baton and drive economic growth.
The most immediate, direct result of Biden-Harris leadership is China is about to usurp USA as the pre-eminent global economic power.
"Biden-Harris and its supporters" - deserves its own thread. | |
| Pro free speech and alternative opinions -
Anti gang-bullying and poor modding thereof -
Will always make a stand against those who consistently choose to turn a blind eye |
| |
| Trump and his supporters. on 22:32 - Jan 15 with 1091 views | Groo |
| Trump and his supporters. on 22:17 - Jan 15 by AndyCole |
Biden-Harris will fix it, just as the American voters unanimously voted for. They clearly voted for Biden-Harris as those adept hands to pick up the baton and drive economic growth.
The most immediate, direct result of Biden-Harris leadership is China is about to usurp USA as the pre-eminent global economic power.
"Biden-Harris and its supporters" - deserves its own thread. |
I'm unsure how you can claim its the fault of Biden/Harris that China are becoming the Global power.
The fact they have been growing for over a decade with both Republican and Democratic leaders in the USA.
I'm sure at some point there were bans in place to stop the likes of Russia and China stealing Hi Tech information.
Now it appears they use Capitalism against the Capitalists by providing cheaper labour to build these high tech devices, I've always questioned the likes of Apple having their products built in China.
The Capitalist dream has allowed rich companies to consume their smaller rivals and move all production to cheaper locations because their buyers prefer cheaper products rather than protection of home built products.
the UK is the master of this.
Now we have Globalism where the smaller companies have gone, the larger companies make extreme profit which they move to tax havens.
The super rich are basically stealing from the poor. | |
| Groo does what Groo does best |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
