A master of statesmanship is at work in the Vatican. TGIF and welcome to the Vic Eldred Cast.

Yesterday Iran made the mistake of firing at US warships and the US Navy quickly responded

Q - what's the difference between the vietnam war and trump's iran war?

A - trump knew how to get out of the vietnam war.

Wow!  A comparison of Iran's 2-month emasculation with the Vietnam War.

Anyone?

A master of statesmanship is at work in the Vatican.

You do have some zingers. Thanks Vic.

Anytime.

A master of statesmanship

Uh...based on what?

The view from deep in the forest...

So, someone is imagining Rubio will be successful at blowing smoke up the. . . of a Pope.  Well, that would not speak well of the Pope if it can be done. After all, the office of Pope is a storehouse of the wisdom of the ages literally and has seen many empires come and go. Furthermore, a man who has been in ministry for 44 years as Pope Leo has great experiences of his own and that of the Vatican grottos (royals and popes buried there for reflection on) and its archives of knowledge (including science).

And unlike a transactional president like MAGA supporters adore and give devotion to, an honest pope can not be so easily moved by 'simple' gifts and 'swag' no matter its worth - that always come there way as authority figure.

. In both chambers of the Tennessee legislature democrats blared airhorns, waving signs and acted as an unruly mob before walking out.

Hard to tell the difference between elected democrats and a mob sometimes.

Hard to tell the difference between elected democrats and a mob sometimes.

Easy to tell with republicans however.  Elected republicans hide under their seats while mobs wander around looking for them.

They were after reps?

Prove it.

Ashli Babbitt died for the right to go after the reps. 

That is not true. She was murdered by a reckless loose cannon that the dems porotected.

When Ashley Babbitt was killed she was violently breaking into the House of Representatives. 

They were after reps?

Of course not.  They were simply republican tourists...

She was murdered by a reckless loose cannon that the dems porotected.

If someone were trying to break into your house to get to your family that you protect, would you shoot that person?

Elected republicans hide under their seats

You left out the part about Democrats shooting at them.  

That is not true.

They don't care.  

You left out the part about Democrats shooting at them.

Because democrats wanted to stop the certification of Joe Biden as POTUS? 

Makes perfect sense.

Because democrats wanted to stop the certification of Joe Biden as POTUS?  Makes perfect sense.

You lable it as sarcasm, but actual actions show otherwise.

You lable it as sarcasm, but actual actions show otherwise.

And the Earth is flat, astrology is science based, ghosts are real, and Trump won the 2020 election....

Easy to tell with republicans however.

Right. elected democrats act no differently than violent mobs that try to disrupt democracy.  Elected republicans do act differently than a violent mob.   I'm glad we agree. 

What do you think they were doing? Looking for restrooms? Trying to get their parking validated? Kind like the guy they caught at the correspondents dinner? Just innocent citizens who stumbled into the wrong place, right?

If you think the officer guarding a barricade was a loose cannon (BTW: I believe he should have fired a warning shot), then surely, surely you condemn the unnecessary and outrageous killing of Renée Good and Alex Pretti.

Right?

They are similar in that none of them should have been shot.

They differ in what the officers were facing. For example:

"Car attacks on ICE officers  have spiked — surging by some 3,200% over the past year, according to shocking data released Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security.

Federal officials said violent “radical rhetoric from sanctuary politicians” is to blame for vehicular attacks targeting ICE agents skyrocketing between Jan. 21, 2025, and Jan. 7, 2026, DHS data provided to The Post revealed. Agents reported 66 attacks compared to only two during the same period in 2024, the data showed."

Exclusive | Car attacks on ICE agents spiked by more than 3,000% over past year


I guess coming through a window unarmed might be a bit different than being behind the wheel of a car.

Good did NOT attack the ICE officer with her car.   After all the video that has been shown, it is incredible that people like you still cling to the absolute bullshit of Noem and company.   This distortion of reality by those who vote is dangerous to our nation.

I guess coming through a window unarmed might be a bit different than being behind the wheel of a car.

Babbitt was killed as she, in the middle of Trump supporters breaking and entering the Capitol, breached a barricade.   The Capitol was under attack.   The officer was defending against an attack by a mob.   IMO he should have fired a warning shot, but Babbitt was inside the Capitol and actively involved in an insurrection.   Good was driving away from the scene.   Pretti was capturing video with his camera and helping up a woman who had been shoved by an ICE agent.

You actually defend these ICE agents who were NOT in danger and used obvious excessive, deadly force???

And stop ignoring the part in blue.

I guess coming through a window unarmed might be a bit different than being behind the wheel of a car.

Agree.  It has to be looked at was it reasonable for the agent to think she was going to run him down.  No such thing in the Babbitt scenerio

Why was his remarkably dumb ass angling toward the front of her car anyway? Is it standard operating procedure to stand in front of a car that is "ON" in a dynamic situation? (I am pretty sure you won't answer, so the questions are rhetorical.)

Good did NOT attack the ICE officer with her car.

Nobody said she did, but plenty of people have. A car is a weapon. That is the difference.

Law enforcement  is not allowed to fire warning shots. 

Nobody said she did, but plenty of people have

Not to mention that her intent  is both unknowable and completely irrelevant.  The only thing that matters is whether the officer reasonably felt himself in danger with an SUV driven by someone refusing to follow instructions  bearing down on him.

Much different than shooting an unarmed woman across a room. 

Law enforcement  is not allowed to fire warning shots. 

I asked ChatGPT to verify this and it could not find any policy for Capitol police that precludes them from firing a warning shot.

This does not mean much other than we do not yet know if it is allowed for Capitol police (who operate under their own policy).

The only thing that matters is whether the officer reasonably felt himself in danger with an SUV bearing down on him.

The SUV was NOT bearing down on him.   He had no legitimate cause to believe he was in danger.   And what matters is not what he believed but what was reasonable to believe.

He had no legitimate cause to believe he was in danger.

That's insane. The vehicle impacted him.

You think it's safe to stand in front of a moving vehicle on a collision course with you?   That's like the first thing you teach kids about safety. 

People have indeed claimed she did.   Noem and Trump started that.   

But of course a car can be a weapon.   You are deflecting into generalities.   A ballpoint pen can be a weapon too.   So can a pair of scissors.

What matters is how the car was used.   That, Vic, is the difference.   Good did not try to run over the ICE officer.

That's insane. The vehicle impacted him.

What is insane is your clear refusal to NOT look at the many videos that showed her car not only did not impact him, but that it was headed away from him.

You think it's safe to stand in front of a moving vehicle on a collision course with you? 

The ICE agent positioned himself in front of the driver front corner, drew his weapon, readied his aim, fired, stepped back, and then fired again into the driver's window.   He had plenty of time to be entirely clear of her vehicle, and he was indeed clear, and if he had not shot her, he would have had even more time.

Watch the videos.

Oh, never mind, you are not going to ever acknowledge the obvious reality of this situation.

Law enforcement  is not allowed to fire warning shots. 

Or aim for the legs. They are trained to aim at center mass. Sometimes that center mass is the head when there is nothing else and a murderous suspect can't be stopped any other way. 

That's what I was taught many years ago.

Your opinions of history are sad.

Exclusive | Car attacks on ICE agents spiked by more than 3,000% over past year

I thought the New York Post was only good for lining bird cages?

Vic, are police officers taught to move out of the way of moving vehicles and not to fire into moving vehicles? Yes or No.

Are law enforcement officers taught to move out of the path of a moving vehicle and to not fire into a moving vehicle?

What right did the officer have to position himself in front of a moving vehicle? Is it part of his/her training to 'set up' in front of a moving vehicle? Is it official police department policy to shoot into driver side windows at drivers and where passengers sit?

are police officers taught to move out of the way of moving vehicles and not to fire into moving vehicles?

They are taught to eliminate the threat. If the threat was someone inside of a car (not the car itself) that is a threat to officers or the public at large, then that threat needs to be eliminated. 

Imagine if black lives matter rioted, broke into the capitol building while congress was in session, and then bashed down the door leading to the House , and one of their number climbed through a bashed in window to try and get at the Representatives. Does anyone in their right mind think Vic would not be applauding the cop for shooting? 

Imagine if black lives matter rioted,

They did, multiple cities, in 2020. Then grifted and harassed elected officials to give them money, much of which the "leaders" siphoned millions and bought luxury items, including land, homes, cars and jewelry..for themselves. 

Duck AI:

   Use of Warning Shots by Capitol Police

General Policy on Warning Shots

Capitol Police officers are trained to use force, including firearms, when necessary to protect lives and property. However, the use of warning shots is generally discouraged. This is due to several reasons:

Risk of Unintended Harm: Warning shots can pose a danger to bystanders and can lead to unintended injuries or fatalities.

Potential for Escalation: Firing a warning shot may escalate a situation rather than de-escalate it, potentially leading to more violence.

Training and Guidelines

Capitol Police officers are instructed to use the minimum force necessary to resolve a threat. This means that while they have the authority to use their firearms, they are trained to assess situations carefully and to prioritize de-escalation whenever possible.

Conclusion
In summary, while Capitol Police officers can use their firearms in the line of duty, the practice of firing warning shots is not standard protocol due to the associated risks and the emphasis on using the least amount of force necessary.

NOTE: Because of all the 'troubles' connected to shooting injuries and deaths from not firing a warning shot. . . as I researched this question. . . I have come across numerous recent articles where law enforcement authorities are RETHINKING the need for a warning shot in certain situations.

You think it's safe to stand in front of a moving vehicle on a collision course with you?   That's like the first thing you teach kids about safety.

justsecurity

DHS, DOJ and Customs & Border Patrol Policies: Use of Deadly Force and Moving Vehicles

2. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas,   Update to the Department Policy of the Use of Force   (Feb. 6, 2023) [Policy Statement 044-05 (Revision 1)]

III. General Principles
…
C. Use of Safe Tactics

1. DHS LEOs should seek to employ tactics and techniques that effectively bring an incident under control while promoting the safety of LEOs and the public, and that minimize the risk of unintended injury or serious property damage. DHS LEOs should also avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force.
…

VI. Deadly Force

A. General Guidelines

1. …

a. DHS LEOs may use deadly force only when necessary, that is when the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the LEO or to another person.

b. Fleeing Subjects: Deadly force shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject. However, deadly force is authorized to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject where the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the LEO or others and such force is necessary to prevent escape.

…

B. Discharge of Firearms
…
2. Moving Vehicles, Vessels, Aircraft, or other Conveyances

a. DHS LEOs are prohibited from discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other conveyance unless the use of deadly force against the operator is justified under the standards articulated elsewhere in this policy. Before using deadly force under these circumstances, the LEO must take into consideration the hazards that may be posed to law enforcement and innocent bystanders by an out-of-control conveyance

First you need to answer the question properly as it is asked, before you qualify your explanation. The officer clearly 'planted' his feet in the path thereabouts of a car with a driver behind the wheel with engine running.

(The question of threat is a separate issue.) 

 Are police officers taught to move out of the way of moving vehicles and not to fire into moving vehicles?

I already answered tour question….2.1.34

No you did not. You dodged it, by attempting to bypass it. The question stands OPEN!!!! If you do not answer WE ALL will know why you did not. . . and I do not even have to OPEN my mouth about it!

Vic, are police officers taught to move out of the way of moving vehicles and not to fire into moving vehicles? Yes or No.

Her vehicle wasn't moving when he took position in front of it. Let me refresh your memory. He stood in front of the vehicle as ANOTHER ICE AGENT ASKED HER TO STEP OUT OF THE VEHICLE. That is when she hit the gas. You see, CB, she was resisting arrest when this thing started. I know that when you and others look at the film, it seems to play out in slow motion, but it was all very quick.

Let me refresh your memory. He stood in front of the vehicle as ANOTHER ICE AGENT ASKED HER TO STEP OUT OF THE VEHICLE. That is when she hit the gas. You see, CB, she was resisting arrest when this thing started. I know that when you and others look at the film, it seems to play out in slow motion, but it was all very quick.

Complete bullshit, Vic.   There is no excuse for this crap.   Countless videos clearly show that the ICE officer positioned himself on the front driver's corner of the car.    Good did not 'hit the gas', she just started to leave by turning her car toward the street and away from the ICE officer.   Once she started to move, the ICE agent drew his gun, readied his aim, fired, then stepped back, and fired again directly into the driver's window.

The momentum of her car took it down the street where she had steered it, and thus clearly NOT towards the ICE officer.

The ICE agent never should have fired at her, according to their own rules.   He was never in danger and was not hit.   But a fellow citizen is dead.

Watch:   x

Watch:

As noted, this blind partisan crap is sickening to watch.   No matter what, some will defend this corrupt, incompetent administration.   Even when citizens are killed by the use of outrageous, unnecessary lethal force, Trump supporters defend him and his administration.   As noted, it is sickening.

Supporting Trump is irrational, irresponsible, and unpatriotic.

MAGA abandoned any pretence of intellectual honesty...

That is a fact.   It remains sickening to behold.

I know that when you and others look at the film, it seems to play out in slow motion, but it was all very quick.

Exactly.  It was stupid of him to position himself in front of the car obviously not believing she would try to drive away.  Once she started moving there was no way for him to be sure she was going to try and go around him instead of through him.

Slow motion video, like hindsight , is a lovely thing but when it happened it happened real time, not in slow motion from different angles.

MAGA abandoned any pretence of intellectual honesty...

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.  I am sure there are many whose opinion is many on the left have lost any sanity and integrity they once had.

The video shows that the claim Good tried to run over the agent with her car is complete bullshit.   It shows the agent was not hit and had plenty of time to move even further from the vehicle.   It also showed the excessive use of lethal force, which was both illegal per ICE rules and entirely unnecessary.

In result, Good is dead in the driver's seat while her car slowly proceeds down the street on its momentum away from the agent.

In real time, this ICE agent chose to kill Good and NOT in self-defense.

You are welcome to that opinion.

It was stupid of him to position himself in front of the car obviously not believing she would try to drive away.  Once she started moving there was no way for him to be sure she was going to try and go around him instead of through him.

Slow motion video, like hindsight , is a lovely thing but when it happened it happened real time, not in slow motion from different angles.

And there is no way to know what the agent felt (or any reasonable person) while it was happening in real time.  To suggest otherwise is just partisan bullshit to try and promote what they could not possible know.

Slow motion video, like hindsight , is a lovely thing but when it happened it happened real time, not in slow motion from different angles.

Slow motion video shows exactly what happened.

And there is no way to know what the agent felt (or any reasonable person) while it was happening in real time. 

Irrelevant.   The law does not care what the agent 'felt'.   What matters is if the agent was reasonably in danger.   Feelings are irrelevant.   Facts are what matter.

It is quite easy to see that the agent was NOT in danger and used his time to kill Good rather than step further away from the vehicle.   The use of lethal force was entirely uncalled for.

Why do you continue to pretend otherwise?

We will have to see if the jury agrees with your opinion if it ever comes to trial.

ar refusal to NOT look at the many videos that showed her car not only did not impact him, but that it was headed away from him

  I have. Remember the last time you claimed to have "conclusive proof" there was no impact and presented a video by a progressive saying essentially  "there was no way to tell if the vehicle impacted him."  Good times.  

In the meantime, open your eyes.

Just sickening watching you deny the obvious (and invent a quote from me out of thin air) to defend a corrupt, incompetent administration.

Just sickening watching you deny the obvious to defend a corrupt, incompetent administration.

I think we have to just stop assuming that those carrying water for this criminal President aren't just as corrupt as he is. Trumps lawlessness and bigotry aren't a bug; they're a feature for many folk that seem to love wallowing in Trumps muddy trunks like pig that fell into a used outhouse cesspit.

The lying and dishonesty will still disgust me no matter how many times I witness it.

It has nothing to do with the Trump admin. It's about you making a claim and misrepresenting evidence you provide.  

lying and dishonesty will still disgust me no matter how many times I witness it.

here, here. It's truly amazing to see people make a claim, provide evidence that contradicts their claim and then refuse to admit what their own handpicked evidence concludes.

Thanks for your suggestion but my vision is fine.  Maybe you should concern yourself with a closed mind.

He stood in front of the vehicle as ANOTHER ICE AGENT ASKED HER TO STEP OUT OF THE VEHICLE.

Vic, take another look at 2.1.38. The information is from "Just Security" - if you go to the link it is the official site of Department of Homeland Security.

1. DHS LEOs should seek to employ tactics and techniques that effectively bring an incident under control while promoting the safety of LEOs and the public, and that minimize the risk of unintended injury or serious property damage. DHS LEOs should also avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force.

Was the car on already? Did the officer not hear the car 'turning on' (assuming it need to crank)? Did the LEO intentionally and unreasonably place himself in a position where he had no alternative to use deadly force? 

Additionally, your 'affirming' rationale for why the officer was out of position to begin with according to DHS policy is an order had been given to the driver to step out of the vehicle. . . well, simply put, it PROVES THE POINT OF WHY THE POLICY IS WHAT IS IN THE FIRST PLACE. . . do not stand in front of a vehicle with a driver behind the wheel for 'fear' of the potential of 'ramming.' 

Secondly,

B. Discharge of Firearms
…
2. Moving Vehicles, Vessels, Aircraft, or other Conveyances a. DHS LEOs are prohibited from discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other conveyance unless the use of deadly force against the operator is justified under the standards articulated elsewhere in this policy.

Did the LEO properly DISCHARGE his weapon into the driver side of a moving vehicle. . . a vehicle which due to a shot (or shot) hitting the driver went out of control and rammed a parked vehicle causing damage and potentially could have ran over 'anybody' in its path or sitting in a parked vehicle.

That is no excuse. LEO officers can be given the benefit of a doubt, and still be guilty of committing a crime they cause to be. Law enforcement is not entitled to disobey its own department policies, simply because they are (circular reasoning) law enforcement. Elsewise, how would say. . .even you know how to operate and conduct yourself in their presence?

Additionally, this is the sickening reality of where our politics is today. People are being dehumanized and gunned down due to their politics! The assumption that Ms. Goode was purposefully looking to 'kill' or 'maim' an official of the law. . . goes to motive. . . and from the 'audible' discussion on the video. . .and the smiling face of Ms. Goode. . . there is no display of malice towards any officer. . . the situation became hostile ('war zone') when a gun was unholstered fired directly into the driver side windshield and immediately followed up by shooting through the driver side window. 

And, since the officer is allegedly a trained professional (Ms. Goode is not a trained professional regarding law enforcement) it was on the officer to treat a member of the public with the benefit of doubt. . . instead of treating her like an 'evil' needing subduing by any means necessary!  

You would wish the same benefit of the doubt for yourself (and someone you care about) had you been caught up in a similar situation.

Slow motion video, like hindsight , is a lovely thing but when it happened it happened real time, not in slow motion from different angles.

"Real time" means if the incident is happening so fast that the officer can not REMEMBER HIS TRAINING/POLICY regarding positioning of the body during a "stop" - then he should step his body out of the way and let the driver pass. . . for one obvious reason: Civilians are not "privy" to DHS training or its shoot policy or lack thereof.

If matters are happening too fast for the officer to 'decipher' - discretion means he should BACK UP OUT OF THE PATH OF THE VEHICLE. . . not attempt to stand his ground. . . unless he has CONTEMPT (hostility) towards the 'occupant' in theory or practice! (He in mind that the audio on the officer's body records his word about Ms. Good. . ."Fucking bitch" - as in 'I just shot a fucking bitch.')

Stand for "good" already. I wonder MAGA perspective would weigh factors differently if it had been a MAGA supporter caught up in this situation. Oh wait, no need to wonder that MAGA supporter would have her "supporter card" removed posthumously. She would be declared "RINO!" 

If we lose the fine 'art' of being ashamed we will have loss a valuable tool for the good of humanity.

You are blatantly misrepresenting the evidence.   Who do you think is buying this total bullshit you are peddling?

The videos show exactly what I described and contradict your claims.

You are giving me protocols?

What do you do when a LEO asks you to step out of the car?

What do you do when a LEO asks you to step out of the car?

What should a LEO do when you drive away instead?   

This:  justsecurity

III. General Principles
…
C. Use of Safe Tactics

1. DHS LEOs should seek to employ tactics and techniques that effectively bring an incident under control while promoting the safety of LEOs and the public,and that minimize the risk of unintended injury or serious property damage. DHS LEOs should also avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force.
…

VI. Deadly Force
A. General Guidelines

1. …

a. DHS LEOs may use deadly force only when necessary, that is when the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the LEO or to another person.
b. Fleeing Subjects: Deadly force shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject. However, deadly force is authorized to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject where the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the LEO or others and such force is necessary to prevent escape.

…

B. Discharge of Firearms
…
2. Moving Vehicles, Vessels, Aircraft, or other Conveyances

a. DHS LEOs are prohibited from discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other conveyance unless the use of deadly force against the operator is justified under the standards articulated elsewhere in this policy. Before using deadly force under these circumstances, the LEO must take into consideration the hazards that may be posed to law enforcement and innocent bystanders by an out-of-control conveyance.

In short, do not stand in front of the vehicle and do not just shoot the driver.

What should a LEO do when you drive away instead? 

The left's answer would be let them go. My answer is that when you ignore a LEO's instructions, you are then responsible for whatever happens to you.

That is the conversation that Obama should be having with his kids. The rest of us know better.

Again with this 'the left' crap.   Forget about ideology and politics for a moment and deal with the situation in question.

My answer is that when you ignore a LEO's instructions, you are then responsible for whatever happens to you.

That is disgusting.   In this context, you are saying that Good is responsible for being killed.

In this context, you are saying that Good is responsible for being killed.

I'm afraid she was.

That is a despicable position for someone to take.

That is a despicable position for someone to take.

But par for the course for Trump sycophants and conservative bigots all over the country. Despicable people have to take despicable debate positions to defend their despicable ideology.

That is disgusting. 

Victim blaming... It's biased lazy thinking.

Civilians are not "privy" to DHS training or its shoot policy or lack thereof.

All the more reason to NOT start driving when one agent is in front of the car (or even next to the front bumper) and another one is telling you to get out of the car.  What can you hope to gain, they have your license plate number and can arrest (or give a ticket) at a later time.

My answer is that when you ignore a LEO's instructions, you are then responsible for whatever happens to you.

I would go with partially responsible.  LEO is partially responsible for keeping himself out of the possible situation, especially if the person in the car is not a known criminal that needs to be stopped no matter what.

Of course some will always say it is LEOs fault.  

Of course some will always say it is LEOs fault.  

It is obviously the fault of the officer who killed Good.   He broke protocol, defied training, and unnecessarily and wrongly used lethal force, killing an American citizen.

Yet you, et. al., keep trying to deflect blame away from this rogue officer and, by extension (and per intent), the incompetent Trump administration.

If you feel that strongly about it . . . then you should feel 'violated' by Trump's pardoning of 1,500 individuals that did not drive away from the Capitol in D.C. on January 6 before attacking Capitol Police - Law Enforcement Officers. You don't feel violated by those pardons.

Look, if all you are here to do is lay down punishment (and death) for liberals, your comments are invalid. No one should believe political insincerity!

Do not waste time trying to 'set' the narrative. The officer VIOLATED DHS policy which takes priority because he had a gun and weaponized the situation. As we have all heard before you take down the license plate number and proceed accordingly to go speak to or if needed arrest/apprehend someone who has violated the law and left the scene. 

What is not permissible is to ignore department policy and claim protection under color of some abstract feeling of being threatened. 

Vic, you are one that implies everybody ought to put on their 'big boy and girl pants' and how no one is above the law. . . and then you fall short and break with the spirit and fact of the law for your own personal and private interests. That is not fair. 

MAGA supporters will not get away (here) with trying to MAKE it fair. 

This has been my chief complaint about some republicans and conservatives since joining social media. They're openly two-faced. They come on social media pleading their  misinformation, disinformation, and "alternative facts," . . . and could give a damn about the case liberals make for defense of their rights, privileges, and prosperity as the other 'half' of our society and social experiment in democracy. 

This sh-t needs to end now. We need to keep thrusting RAW TRUTH (as a tonic and medicine for the "Chronic) in each comment we put forward for conservative 'digestion.'

"The Doctors are In."

And, yet none of what you 'recommend' occurred. And yet again, here you are attempting to defend an officer that VIOLATED department policy. . .and violently killed a woman carrying passengers in her vehicle. And we know (or have been told ad-nauseum about how animal lovers love pets) how UPSETTING that ought to be to animal 'parents' everywhere.

Stop trying to ONE-WAY this. It won't succeed. 

As a responsible driver is accountable for his or her actions, a law enforcement officer is accountable for following department policy. A policy which states plain and clear this officer VIOLATED it. (See comments above on DHS policy as part of this discussion.)

Stop trying to ONE-WAY this.

 What part of  "LEO is partially responsible" are you not understanding?

WHat part of "All the more reason to NOT start driving when one agent is in front of the car (or even next to the front bumper) and another one is telling you to get out of the car.  What can you hope to gain, they have your license plate number and can arrest (or give a ticket) at a later time." is not true?

 Interesting.

Of course some will always say it is LEOs fault. 

This part you wrote in an earlier comment: "Of course some will always say it is LEOs fault."  It reads as cynical. 

The officer's motives can be questioned as he is the AUTHORITY figure, authorized to use force, and yet has a company policy dictating when to 'deploy' fire and he disregarded it. He is possessor of the weightier matter in this incident.

: "Of course some will always say it is LEOs fault."  It reads as cynical. 

It is.   Some folks will always say it is LEO's fault just as some will rarely if ever say it is Leo's fault

What part of  "LEO is partially responsible" are you not understanding?

You cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that Good never should have been killed and that this rogue officer violated protocol and training when he engaged in excessive, unwarranted lethal force.

So you try to have it both ways by vaguely claiming he is "partially responsible".

Good never should have been killed for what she did.   While she should never have blocked traffic and should not have left the scene, none of her actions warranted the use of lethal force.

  vaguely claiming he is "partially responsible".

Nothing vague about it.  He is partially responsible.

What, specifically, did the officer do wrong?

See?   That is what is vague about your claim.    The claim of 'partially responsible' could be something like 'he should have let the other officer handle the situation'.    The reality is that this officer violated both protocol and training and should never have positioned himself over the front driver corner, pulled his weapon, readied his aim, fired through the windshield, repositioned himself, fired again (twice) through the driver's window and, in result, killed this fellow citizen.

Your comment is vague ... no doubt intentionally.

Your comment is vague ... no doubt intentionally.

Interesting

Don't try distraction on us. Time to take a deep 'dive' into this:

1. DHS LEOs should seek to employ tactics and techniques that effectively bring an incident under control while promoting the safety of LEOs and the public, and that minimize the risk of unintended injury or serious property damage. DHS LEOs should also avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force.

Was the car on already? Did the officer not hear the car 'turning on' (assuming it need to crank)? Did the LEO intentionally and unreasonably place himself in a position where he had no alternative to use deadly force? 

Right Down the Center. . .in your opinion did the officer involved in shooting and killing Ms. Good utilize a/any DE-ESCALATION technique during this 'stop' (per department policy)?

What part of the officer using his phone to videotape not only the occupants in the video (including the dog), Ms. Good, and her wife. . .he walks around the vehicle and gaining the car tag number (a DMV search or state database) and coming full-circle back around to stand in front of vehicle using his body as a barrier (against department policy)  are you not UNDERSTANDING?

A 'fun' fact: It is conservatives that love to tell us that we should not fear law enforcement because they are the 'good' guys! This is not such an occasion and still conservatives stand with the bad actors masquerading as 'shock troopers' getting away with what appears to be certain 'legalized' murder! Oh the irony!

I am pretty sure there highly probably would be more 'upset' among some conservatives had the DOG been injured, bruised, or killed. /Sarc. Think about it!

All that was called for at worst is a citation, which could be issued by mail. Alas, none of that occurred as he killed her on scene. This is why citizens are wary and distrustful of law officials. . . as it is easy to watch what happens and then have law enforcement attempt to tell us about their 'fear' - even when they are the ones pointing the gun/s!

in your opinion did the officer involved in shooting and killing Ms. Good utilize a/any DE-ESCALATION technique during this 'stop' (per department policy)?

Obviously not.  Did Ms Good utilize good thinking in starting to drive away from the situation where an officer was telling her to get out of the car?

are you not UNDERSTANDING?

I am understanding just fine, thanks for your concern.

What are you not understanding that both folks acted in a way where what could have happened did happen?

Only one is a AUTHORITY sanctioned TO CARRY A FIRE ARM AND USE IT WHEN FOLLOWING DHS POLICY.  A woman is dead do to an OFFICIAL standing in the wrong position IN VIOLATION OF DHS POLICY and FIRING A WEAPON AT HER THROUGH HER FRONT WINDSHIELD AND DRIVER SIDE WINDOW.

When you think deeper about it. . . the 'effort' involved illustrates THIS OFFICIAL INTENTED TO KILL HER because he is shooting with as much aggression as one would use to subdue a FIRING 'CRIMINAL.'  - NOTHING MS. Good did appears to be an act/ion a criminal would have done. 

A woman is dead do to an OFFICIAL standing in the wrong position IN VIOLATION OF DHS POLICY and FIRING A WEAPON AT HER THROUGH HER FRONT WINDSHIELD AND DRIVER SIDE WINDOW.

Yes, and she was in the wrong place doing the wrong thing and then drove away when an agent legally told her to get out of the car..

So killing her was justified???

... when an agent legally told her to get out of the car.

Show us where an ICE agent has legal authority to demand a legal citizen to get out of her vehicle.   

Okay. One-way it then. There is nothing else here to discuss. Thank you.

There is one more thing: If the table was turned. . . I am not sure you would feel the same way. (I will leave it up to you to turn the table in a reasonable and relevant address to the topic). That's rhetorical, so. . . 

Didn't one way it, you are still not understanding what I am saying. Would it help if I said he was eighty percent responsible and she was twenty percent responsible?

If the facts were the same if the tables were turned i would feel exactly the same way.

Nope. She is not responsible in any way for getting herself killed that day. Here is why:

The DHS officer literally WALKED around Ms. Good car with his telephone. . . he 'recorded' her face, her voice, her car, her TAG, her occupants. . . and then broke from DHS policy by returning to a position near the front of her car!

 By now, you should know that DHS has a policy about standing in front of vehicles and firing into moving vehicles.

 'No agent of the DHS and other such agencies should position himself or herself (or an agency dog) in front of a vehicle subject to motion or fire into any vehicle when it is clear that there is no immediate threat. . . ' (paraphrase). . .

Why does DHS have this 'standing policy. . . if it is A-okay to dismiss or ignore it and shoot and kill somebody?

The only rationale for putting in place such a policy in the first place is so that incidents such as this would not happen.

Ms. Good should be alive today. She is not. She did not fire upon vehicle or herself! MAGA king Trump and his minions need to stop lying on innocent Americans. It is wrong and stinks to high-heaven! 

Nope. She is not responsible in any way for getting herself killed that day. Here is why:

You are welcome to that opinion

The DHS officer literally WALKED around Ms. Good car with his telephone. . . he 'recorded' her face, her voice, her car, her TAG, her occupants. . . and then broke from DHS policy by returning to a position near the front of her car!

Yes, it seems he did

 By now, you should know that DHS has a policy about standing in front of vehicles and firing into moving vehicles.

Pretty sure that is correct

 'No agent of the DHS and other such agencies should position himself or herself (or an agency dog) in front of a vehicle subject to motion or fire into any vehicle when it is clear that there is no immediate threat. . . ' (paraphrase). . . Why does DHS have this 'standing policy. . . if it is A-okay to dismiss or ignore it and shoot and kill somebody?

The only rationale for putting in place such a policy in the first place is so that incidents such as this would not happen.

I would think so

Ms. Good should be alive today. She is not.

Correct

She did not fire upon vehicle or herself!

She did not.  What she did do is drive her car forward when an officer was telling her to get out of the car.  Surely you can see if she did not do that she would be alive today.  Ergo she is not totally blameless

MAGA king Trump and his minions need to stop lying on innocent Americans.   It is wrong and stinks to high-heaven! 

I assume you are not new to the world of politics.  

Ms. Good should be alive today. She is not.

Correct

She did not fire upon vehicle or herself!

She did not.  What she did do is drive her car forward when an officer was telling her to get out of the car.  Surely you can see if she did not do that she would be alive today.  Ergo she is not totally blameless

Absolutely true. She should be alive today but she did put herself into that position. She was not forced to use her car to block the street. 

She did not.  What she did do is drive her car forward when an officer was telling her to get out of the car.  Surely you can see if she did not do that she would be alive today.  Ergo she is not totally blameless. 

It depends on how one accesses blame. DHS POLICY is there to prevent 'savage' killing on the streets of this country by Law Enforcement officials-federal agents. Thus, creating controversy and a dead citizen, in this case should have NEVER happened! Additionally, are you abandoning your defense of the federal agent standing near front of Ms. Good's vehicle? It looks that way, in my opinion.

Ms. Good should not have parked her car in the middle of the street in protest or aid of anyone. . . it is not a capital offense, nevertheless. . .and definitely is not worth an official of the state VIOLATING the law he swore to serve by gross disregard of department policies when it comes to the public and 'Stops.' Surely, you can understand this was a egregious violation of what the spirit and the fact of the DHS policy intended!

Being that you are PRO law enforcement. . . can I take for granted you are Pro DHS vehicle stop policy too?

Absolutely true. She should be alive today but she did put herself into that position. She was not forced to use her car to block the street. 

Couldn't the same be said of someone who was assassinated? They put themselves in the line of fire by antagonizing a highly partisan, apparently violent trigger-happy individual. I mean, inching your vehicle forward and CLEARLY not attempting to hurt anyone isn't a crime worthy of the death penalty. And neither is not obeying an officer's instructions. If that were the case, there should have been a few thousand dead on January 6th.

So, the argument that conservatives have desperately framed to make it seem like they're not supporting a violent wannabe conservative authoritarian regime is clearly bullshit, but I'm not surprised they're still trying to sell that narrative. They're not actually fooling anyone but themselves, but at least it keeps them occupied and not murdering another innocent American in the street.

It seems so many folks don't want to take any responsibility for their actions and always blame it 100% on someone else.

It depends on how one accesses blame. 

Probably.  I have always been taught if you don't want bad things to happen to you don't put yourself in the position where you raise that possibility.

are you abandoning your defense of the federal agent standing near front of Ms. Good's vehicle?

He should not have been standing there.  I have never knowingly suggested otherwise.

She was not forced to use her car to block the street.

I am pretty sure that had Ms. Good known that in a matter of seconds she would be shot at through the windshield and shot through an open driver-side window (by an officer not following DHS policy it turns out) she would have stayed put and exited the vehicle. Now then, she could not have known that. . . likely for several reasons: 1. Likely not being privileged to know DHS official policy. 2. Misunderstanding how disproportional her act of driving off would be perceived by an officer STANDING IN A SPOT where he specifically was DIRECTED not to EVER stand by DHS Policy!

Probably.  I have always been taught if you don't want bad things to happen to you don't put yourself in the position where you raise that possibility.

And, 'moms' always tell their kids not to attend protest marches. . . and still it is the only way to get 'lunkerheads' attention to what is egregious to some citizens in society. 

We are all adults, and familiar with what protest is and does. We know why people protest.

A different question:

What DHS policing authority was used by this officer in this incident? Should local police authority been immediately called to the scene? 

Then for goodness sake. . . the officer is in manifest ERROR for not jumping his 'big boy ass' out of the way. . . and NEVER should have followed up by shooting through an open window with a passenger (he knew) was in the next seat over. He fired twice, . . . increasing the chance he would kill Ms. Good. . .and not just her. . .a stray bullet or both bullets had potential to 'lodge' in the body mass of her 'passengers.' 

Potentially those 3 shots fired could have killed everybody (3 passengers) in the car. . . AGAINST stated DHS Policy!!!!!!!

You clearly are PRO-law enforcement. . . are you Pro law enforcement policy as well?

Should local police authority been immediately called to the scene? 

Yes, and based on my understanding the local police were told not to help ICE.  If they did take care of crowd control Ms Good would still be alive today.

If they did take care of crowd control Ms Good would still be alive today.

She was killed, illegally, unnecessarily, and against protocol, by a rogue ICE agent.  That you continue to try to defend this is sickening.

Ms. Good's life can not 'rest' on what inter-agencies in law enforcement are arguing. Considering the unmitigated disaster that occurred that day to Ms. Good. . .local authorities I am pretty sure would have arrived post-haste - in order to stop adverse consequences.

Really though, who knew a DHS federal agent would not know or DISREGARD DHS stated policy of 'Stops"?

Let them go to courts of law for a proper determination of officer 'guilt.'

In any case, Ms. Good's wife has a civil lawsuit case. . . do you agree? It may be that a criminal case can be made and/or interdisciplinary agency actions at DHS and local authorities taken against those involved in her untimely killing.

That you continue to try to defend this is sickening.

Interesting interpretation of my comments

Let them go to courts of law for a proper determination of officer 'guilt.'

Agree

In any case, Ms. Good's wife has a civil lawsuit case. . . do you agree?

Let the courts decide that too.

She was killed, illegally, unnecessarily, and against protocol, by a rogue ICE agent.

I don't know if this guy has been charged yet, but a number of ICE agents have been charged in Minneapolis. Even if the cases get booted to Federal Court the State can still try the case making sure Trump can't pardon any of them.

I think the newest ones (this week) were two agents that shot, but didn't kill, a Venezuelan immigrant legally in the country minding their own business inside a home. The agents claim they were pursuing someone else unrelated to this person and were defending themselves. The Justice Department admitted the two agents lied. Charges against the immigrant were dropped with prejudice.

As usual, you try to run from your own words.  For example:

RdtC@2.1.93 ☞ Yes, and she was in the wrong place doing the wrong thing and then drove away when an agent legally told her to get out of the car..

No, she did not have to comply with an ICE agent demanding she get out of her car.   He had no legal authority to make such a demand.   So your wrong place bullshit is yet again trying to place blame on the victim rather than the rogue ICE agent who illegally and unnecessarily killed her.

I can agree with that!

No, she did not have to comply with an ICE agent demanding she get out of her car.   He had no legal authority to make such a demand.

do you have to listen to ice agents if they tell you get out of your car?

GOOGLE AI:  

Yes, if an ICE agent orders you to get out of your car, you must comply. Legally, ICE agents have the authority to order you out of a vehicle during an encounter. Resisting, trying to drive away, or refusing to exit can escalate the situation and lead to physical removal or criminal charges for resisting arrest. 

While you are required to follow their orders to exit, you still maintain several critical constitutional rights during a traffic or pedestrian stop: 

Is one of them not being executed?

What do you think?

What do you think?

I would think logically that it would be, but that seems to contradict a lot of posters here, so... I could be wrong?

As usual, you try to run from your own words.  For example:

RdtC@2.1.93 ☞ Yes, and she was in the wrong place doing the wrong thing and then drove away when an agent legally told her to get out of the car..

No, I don't .   What I said was a true statement.  

No, she did not have to comply with an ICE agent demanding she get out of her car.   He had no legal authority to make such a demand.   

Not so true

So your wrong place bullshit is yet again trying to place blame on the victim rather than the rogue ICE agent who illegally and unnecessarily killed her.

Interesting interpretation.  All I said was she was partially responsible, and she was.  Nowhere did I say it was not also the fault of the agent.  As a matter of fact I said just the opposite.

Yes, if an ICE agent orders you to get out of your car, you must comply. Legally, ICE agents have the authority to order you out of a vehicle during an encounter. Resisting, trying to drive away, or refusing to exit can escalate the situation and lead to physical removal or criminal charges for resisting arrest. 

Yep

The woman was killed by an ICE agent ... against protocol and unnecessarily.   That should be your first concern.

Instead, you continue with the feeble argument that she was 'partially responsible'.   Bullshit.   She did nothing that would warrant the use of lethal force.   You are using a pathetic tactic to deflect from dealing with the fact that this ICE agent killed an American citizen, and that the Trump administration not only lied about it, but has blocked attempts to bring this killer to justice.

You focus on the dead victim rather than her killer.     Despicable.

Legally, ICE agents have the authority to order you out of

Legally, Capital police have the authority to order you out of the Capital. Resisting or refusing to exit can escalate the situation and lead to physical removal or criminal charges for resisting arrest.

Sadly, Renee Good can't ask for a pardon for daring to try and drive away.

Legally, Capital police have the authority to order you out of the Capital. Resisting or refusing to exit can escalate the situation and lead to physical removal or criminal charges for resisting arrest.

Yes

The woman was killed by an ICE agent ... against protocol and unnecessarily. 

Looks that way

 That should be your first concern.

I can determine on my own what my first concern is.

Instead, you continue with the feeble argument that she was 'partially responsible'.   

She was

Bullshit.   

Nope, fact

She did nothing that would warrant the use of lethal force.   

Ergo the agent bears much of the responsibility as I have said

You are using a pathetic tactic to deflect from dealing with the fact that this ICE agent killed an American citizen

Only in your imagination

, and that the Trump administration not only lied about it, but has blocked attempts to bring this killer to justice.

Good segue to Trump

You focus on the dead victim rather than her killer. 

Again, only in your imagination

   Despicable.

Sigh.

You focus on the dead victim rather than her killer. 

That is despicable.

You focus on the dead victim rather than her killer. 

Can't refute my comment so you make it about what you believe my focus is. 

Interesting.  Sigh

That is despicable.

Well said, for the umpteenth time.

You focus on the dead victim rather than her killer. 

When you secretly support an ideology that is characterized by forcible suppression of opposition, you have to focus attention on turning the victim into the perpetrator. It's fascism 101.

FASCISM Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Yes, if an ICE agent orders you to get out of your car, you must comply. Legally, ICE agents have the authority to order you out of a vehicle during an encounter. Resisting, trying to drive away, or refusing to exit can escalate the situation and lead to physical removal or criminal charges for resisting arrest. 

I double-checked your claim and the answer is 'two-fold' (I chose to delete the NT checker statement posted earlier and go with a complete thought after FINDING your Google AI comprehensive statement. It is below:

GOOGLE AI: Yes, if an ICE agent orders you to get out of your car, you must comply. Legally, ICE agents have the authority to order you out of a vehicle during an encounter. Resisting, trying to drive away, or refusing to exit can escalate the situation and lead to physical removal or criminal charges for resisting arrest.

Important Legal Nuance to Keep in Mind:

While legal experts and organizations (like the ACLU and the Immigrant Defense Project) strongly advise complying with the order to exit the vehicle to ensure your physical safety, there is a subtle legal distinction regarding why you are being ordered out:

• Officer Safety: Under U.S. constitutional law, law enforcement officers (including federal agents) can order a driver or passenger out of a vehicle during a lawful stop for basic "officer safety."

• The "Authority" Catch: Federal immigration agents do not have the same sweeping authority as local traffic police. They cannot pull you over for a broken taillight or speeding. To legally stop a vehicle in the interior of the U.S., ICE agents must have reasonable suspicion—based on specific, objective facts—that the vehicle contains someone violating immigration laws.

Because it is incredibly difficult to argue the legality of a stop on the side of the highway, experts emphasize: comply with the physical command to exit so the situation doesn't escalate, but verbally assert your right to remain silent and refuse searches.

Mr. Frost, please review my modification to the above comment. If you choose to retract your vote, I'd understand perfectly.

Follow-up from Google AI:

The short answer is no, you generally do not have to exit your car just because an ICE agent tells you to, unless you are under arrest. However, how you handle the interaction matters a lot for your safety and your legal rights. (Bolding Google AI.)

Whether you are the driver or a passenger, you have constitutional protections during a vehicle stop.

Your Rights Inside the Car

• You can stay in the vehicle: If ICE agents order you out of your car but haven't placed you under arrest, you can choose to remain inside with the doors locked. You can roll down the window just enough to speak to them and hand over necessary documents.

• The driver must show standard driving documents: If you are the driver, you are legally required to show your driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance upon request.

• Passengers do not have to show ID: Passengers generally do not have to provide identification or hand over documents unless they choose to.

• You have the right to remain silent: You do not have to answer questions about your immigration status, where you were born, or how you entered the country. If you choose to use this right, state it clearly: "I am choosing to remain silent."

• You can refuse a vehicle search: ICE cannot search your car without your permission or a valid warrant signed by a judge (an administrative ICE warrant does not count). If they ask to look inside, say clearly: "I do not consent to this search."

How to Handle the Situation Safely

If you are pulled over or approached by agents who identify themselves as ICE (or are wearing vests that say "Police" but are actually immigration enforcement), legal advocacy groups like the ACLU recommend taking these steps:

1. Stay calm and keep hands visible: Place your hands on the steering wheel (or on your lap if you are a passenger) so the agents can see them. Do not make sudden movements.

2. Ask if you are free to go: You can ask, "Am I being detained, or am I free to leave?" If they say you are free to leave, calmly drive or walk away.

3. Ask if you are under arrest: If they tell you that you cannot leave, ask, "Am I under arrest?" If they say yes, you are legally required to comply with their orders (including exiting the vehicle), but you still retain your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney.

4. Do not flee or physically resist: Even if you believe the agents are acting unlawfully, arguing or physically resisting on the spot can escalate the situation dangerously. State your lack of consent clearly, and document the interaction if possible.

Important Warning: Never provide false documents or lie to federal officers. If you do not wish to provide information, it is legally much safer to remain completely silent than to give false answers.

---

I will leave it to you all to judge (reconcile) why Google AI appears to be 'splitting the baby' on this one.

They cannot pull you over for a broken taillight or speeding. To legally stop a vehicle in the interior of the U.S., ICE agents must have reasonable suspicion—based on specific, objective facts—that the vehicle contains someone violating immigration laws.

This was not a traffic stop.  Whether he had the authority to pull someone over is no relevant, as it didn't happen..  She was not pulled over. She was obstructing a roadway trying to stop an immigration enforcement operation. 

There's no gray area here. 

[deleted][✘]

To legally stop a vehicle in the interior of the U.S., ICE agents must have reasonable suspicion—based on specific, objective facts—that the vehicle contains someone violating immigration laws.

BTW, I am not arguing anything at this point. . .simply pointing out what Google AI is stating on its 'analysis' of YOUR question!   From my perspective, I am still processing what has been 'uttered' (here).

Right is right. . .if MAGA is found to be WRONG then right should prevail. Now then, there is that curious thing MAGA supporters like to 'argue' which is "alternative facts" (as in every issue has a flip side). . . God, if there is a God, is 'tortured' by the flip side/s of human understanding!

Can't refute my comment ... 

Pure projection.

You have no argument, just bullshit.

It is despicable to attempt to blame the victim for her killing just to protect ICE and, by extension, the Trump administration.

He says, apparently completely   unaware of pretty much everything the democrats have done and promise to do if they should regain power.....

You tell yourself whatever you need to in order to continue defending the indefensible, but that's not for me. I know exactly who I support and what I stand for, which is why I don't fall for rightwing conservative's bullshit. If a rightwing conservative's mouth is moving, either another lie is being birthed, or they're French kissing Trumps ass.

BTW, if traditional republicans are not going to take their party back from MAGA conservatives. . . CAN Y'ALL AT LEAST DECIDE TO CALL YOURSELVES SOMETHING ELSE BESIDES REPUBLICAN?!!!!!

It's been 10 years thereabouts. . . and y'all should be tired of wandering in the wilderness. . . . Get a new NAME: ALREADY!

"RINO" - is not a party! 

"RINO" - is not a party! 

They'll need RINOplasty so they can go into witness protection to hide from their former allies.

Pure projection.

Standard tactic when you can't refute a statement

You have no argument, just bullshit.

No argument needed, I just stated a fact.

It is despicable to attempt to blame the victim for her killing just to protect ICE and,

Surprising you are sticking with an obvious untrue narrative

by extension, the Trump administration.

Always back to Trump  Sigh.

Was the ICE agent wrong to shoot and kill Renee Good?

Was it wrong for the Trump administration to lie about the circumstances and claim the agent killed Good in self defense?

Is it wrong for the Trump administration to block bringing this agent to justice?

Did Renee Good's actions warrant her killing?

Did Renee Good's actions warrant her killing?

No, but they did contribute to the circumstances that ended in her death.  That is all I have been saying all along.  The rest is your imagination.

No, but they did contribute to the circumstances that ended in her death.  That is all I have been saying all along. 

Yes that is ALL you have been saying and that is the problem.   You focus on the relatively minor indiscretions of Good  —a fellow American killed by an ICE agent— while refusing to even acknowledge the illegal, protocol-violating actions of the ICE agent who killed her.

Even now, you ignore the balance of my questions.  

You are using your usual tactic of beating around the bush to imply a certain position while running away from probative questions that illustrate the absurdity of your reasoning.

Yes that is ALL you have been saying and that is the problem.    

Not a problem for me

Even now, you ignore the balance of my questions. 

Some questions are not worth answering 

  probative questions

Oh brother

Some questions are not worth answering 

A pathetic excuse for running away from a debate.

A pathetic excuse for running away from a debate.

Just a fact you don't like, yet you do.

Your post is incoherent.

I will try again.

Just a fact you don't like

You don't always answer every question posed to you.

You are running away from the debate.   

You spend all this time playing games rather than answer obvious questions:

Was the ICE agent wrong to shoot and kill Renee Good?

Was it wrong for the Trump administration to lie about the circumstances and claim the agent killed Good in self defense?

Is it wrong for the Trump administration to block bringing this agent to justice?

You are running away from the debate.   

Some debates are not worth having.  Regurgitating the same things over and over is a good example of one.  It is hardly running away, it has more to do with not wanting to waste time answering the same thing until it is said just right.

Bullshit.   You have spent countless words here running away from the debate:   

• Was the ICE agent wrong to shoot and kill Renee Good?
• Was it wrong for the Trump administration to lie about the circumstances and claim the agent killed Good in self-defense?
• Is it wrong for the Trump administration to block bringing this agent to justice?

This is the most common tactic used by Trump supporters.   One cannot defend the administration with facts and logic so instead we see pathetic little games.

What I find to be absolutely hilarious is how one individual's "OPINION" is the ONLY opinion ever to be taken into consideration in these discussions - and that person's opinion is allowed to stand while others are "tagged/ticketed"

FACTS??? What the frick are they to that individual because they will do their damnedest to turn those FACTS against the other commenter.

Sad, eh?

Instead of obvious trolling and meta, deal with the questions posed:

• Was the ICE agent wrong to shoot and kill Renee Good?
• Was it wrong for the Trump administration to lie about the circumstances and claim the agent killed Good in self defense?
• Is it wrong for the Trump administration to block bringing this agent to justice?
• Did Renee Good's actions warrant her killing?

Make an argument using facts and reason.

Bullshit.   

No, just an inconvenient truth

You have spent countless words here running away from the debate:   

• Was the ICE agent wrong to shoot and kill Renee Good?
• Was it wrong for the Trump administration to lie about the circumstances and claim the agent killed Good in self-defense?
• Is it wrong for the Trump administration to block bringing this agent to justice?

Asking the same things again and again and again borders on trolling

This is the most common tactic used by Trump supporters. 

This is the most common tactic used by Trump haters, make everything about Trump and then complain if someone doesn't want to play that game.

 One cannot defend the administration with facts and logic so instead we see pathetic little games.

One does not like the facts presented  or ignored because everything is not about Trump.  So just ignore them and complain about games when someone declines to play whatever game you are playing.  

See 2.1.153

well said

A fellow American?

She left the country with her kids because Trump became President. She returned to partake in protests against Federal Law Enforcement trying to remove criminal aliens from our streets. On the day in question she spent the balance of it setting up road blocks and harassing ICE agents. She tried to flee when her arrest seemed imminent.

Why would you call her a fellow American?

Why are you so sympathetic to such a person?

She... imminent.

Where do you get this utter bullshit?   Do you get it from some source, or do you make shit up and post it here?   Seriously, this is getting ridiculous.

ChatGPT fact-checking your claim:

The statement is partly based on real allegations, but as written it is not reliably true . It mixes verified facts, disputed DHS claims, and unsupported inferences.

Claim	Fact check
“She left the country with her kids because Trump became President.”	Not well established from reliable reporting. Some reports have claimed she and her family moved after Trump’s 2024 election, but more reliable profiles I found say she had recently moved from Kansas City to Minneapolis and do not establish that she “left the country with her kids because Trump became President.” The Guardian says she moved from Kansas City to Minneapolis and had three children; People says she and her wife moved from Kansas City to Minneapolis to “make a better life.” ( The Guardian )
“She returned to partake in protests against Federal Law Enforcement…”	Too strong. Reuters reported that Good was taking part in neighborhood patrols organized to monitor ICE activity. Her wife said they had stopped to support neighbors. That supports “she was present in opposition to or observation of ICE activity,” but not necessarily that she “returned” for that purpose. ( Reuters )
“…trying to remove criminal aliens from our streets.”	Loaded framing. The federal operation was an immigration enforcement surge, and DHS framed it as targeting criminals. But applying that phrase to the specific incident assumes the government’s characterization of the operation and its targets. Reuters describes a large deployment of ICE and Border Patrol agents, not proof that the specific encounter involving Good concerned a “criminal alien.” ( Reuters )
“On the day in question she spent the balance of it setting up road blocks and harassing ICE agents.”	Not proven. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem alleged Good had been “stalking and impeding” ICE agents all day. But that claim is disputed. Reuters reports that Minneapolis officials and activists disputed DHS’s account. A House oversight report concluded her actions could not fairly be described as stalking, impeding, or blocking. ( Fox News )
“She tried to flee when her arrest seemed imminent.”	Partly supported, but framed beyond the evidence. Video reporting says she put the vehicle in reverse and attempted to drive away after agents approached and told her to get out. Calling that “fleeing arrest” is an interpretation. “When her arrest seemed imminent” is also an inference, not a settled fact. ( Fox News )

A more accurate version would be:

Renee Good was a U.S. citizen and mother of three who was killed by an ICE agent during a Minneapolis immigration enforcement operation. DHS alleged she had been stalking, impeding, and obstructing agents that day, but that account is disputed by local officials, her family, activists, and later analyses. Video reporting indicates she attempted to drive away after agents approached her vehicle, but whether that justified lethal force remains contested.

So the original statement is not safe to present as fact . The strongest supported part is that she was involved in monitoring or opposing ICE activity that day and attempted to drive away. The weakest parts are the claims about leaving the country because of Trump, spending the day setting up roadblocks, and “fleeing arrest” as a settled fact.

---

Why would you call her a fellow American?

Because Renee Good was a fellow American.    Why would you object to this accurate fact?

Why are you so sympathetic to such a person?

Because an ICE agent killed her, and then she was the target of blatant lies by the administration.   None of this is appropriate given her actions.    The real question is why you too are trying to discredit and demean her memory.

Is there no limit to how far Trump supporters will go in an attempt to defend this corrupt, incompetent, despicable administration??

More time spent by you playing games rather than addressing debate questions posed to you.

More time spent by you playing games rather than addressing debate questions posed to you.

Are you reading my responses? 

Not sure what you are not understanding.  

Don't really care

Not a problem for me

Me either. I agree 10 percent.

Why?  

Your mind is made up.

It really doesn't do any good for me, or anyone else, to provide evidence/information to "Make an argument".

Your responses are just taking up space - space where true discussions could be conducted.

ChatGPT is your source????

That shouldn't even be allowed with as many false information sources they "smedge" with.

You have been posting a series of personal attacks for weeks now with no redeeming content.    No content, just bitching about me personally based on fabricated allegations.

Now you have the temerity to claim I am the one who is not engaging in true discussion.

If you cannot deal with debate based on differing views, etc. then why do you even bother engaging in a forum?

I suggest you stop complaining and engage honestly.   Maybe with facts and reason.   

I have posed questions.   You want to have a discussion?   Then engage in an honest adult manner.   And do not naively expect that nobody will challenge what you post.   Deal with it.

If you think ChatGPT is wrong then demonstrate it.   Show where it got things wrong.

Mere whining is of no value.

false information sources

Define "false information sources" so we can address them together.

[✘]

If you think ChatGPT is wrong then demonstrate it.   Show where it got things wrong. - TiG.

Yeah, that! Rhetoric is not the same as a demonstration.

Those whose views are routinely shown to be factually or logically wrong by AI seem to take the position that AI is less reliable (or flat out worthless) compared to human sources.   Of course they prefer their own talking heads feeding them bullshit such as "Trump won the 2020 election" or "Good tried to run over the ICE agent" rather than facts and arguments that conflict with their imagined alternate reality.

An indicator of an emotional response due to a lack of an argument is complaining about a source with NO rebuttal to what the source offered.

Such people are not genuine seekers after knowledge, facts, or comprehension. They read the words and analyses found through AI, and when it disagrees with them they do not double-check the information and data through other means, they wonder why 'faulty' sources (on either extreme side) were not allowed to participate or consulted. 

Then, "logically" for them it is time to "shoot the Messenger." Instead of aligning with what is truth in their "In-box". . . they mock, diminish, dismiss, and obfuscate. . . the same playbook they use when the truth is told to them by their fellow humans!

It is an old, tired, self-interests rhetorical game that MAGA King Trump and his minion love to fallback on—daily.

The Washington Post reported today that intelligence sources reveal that Iran's economy can withstand current pressure for three or four more MONTHS.  This means there will be 120 more "truths" from Trump declaring that the war is over. 

We live in an alternate reality. 

We live in an alternate reality. 

They're the ones living in an alternate reality; we just always end up having to clean up their messes.

Source:  trustmebro

Iran can outlast US blockade for three to four more months, says CIA

Iran   is able to withstand the effects of the US   blockade   for   three to four more months and retains significant   missile stockpiles ,   according to US intelligence, casting doubt on Donald Trump’s claim that Tehran needs the war to end imminently.

New analysis by the CIA suggests that the Islamic Republic may be more resilient than expected and could withstand the economic pain of the blockade until later this year.

The confidential report was delivered to officials in the Trump administration earlier this week, four people familiar with the document told The   Washington Post .

By storing some of its   oil   in floating storage aboard tanker ships and decreasing the flows in its oil fields, it has enabled its wells to remain functional, one person said.

“It’s nowhere near as dire as some have claimed,” the source explained about Iran’s economic situation.

It may also be able to smuggle oil through overland routes by truck and rail, the report said, providing the regime with economic backup.

“There’s a belief they could begin moving some oil via rail through Central Asia,” one official said.

And once again, you had to be called out to provide a link to your "source".  Your comment states it was the Washington Post, but you link is an MSM link to The Independent.  

It is hard to believe a source such as the Washington Post. How many times have they lied when it involved Trump?

Does anyone recall how they misquoted Trump on the phone call to a Georgia investigator?  Their unnamed source supposedly got it wrong. Remember?

The Post does the same thing over again: They rely on a single, “anonymous” source, with no confirmation from anyone else. That is the cardinal sin of journalism.

I dont want to call you dumb, but the Washington Post is listed as the source in what I posted. 

The confidential report was delivered to officials in the Trump administration earlier this week, four people familiar with the document told The      Washington Post   .

[deleted][✘]

CIA … trustmebro … tomato … tomahto

Are you disputing the assertion that the Washington Post reported on this? What, exactly, is your point, if you have one?

U.S. intelligence says Iran can outlast Trump’s Hormuz blockade for months

The analysis by the U.S. intelligence community, whose secret assessments on Iran have often been more sober than the administration’s public statements, also found that Tehran retains significant ballistic missile capabilities despite weeks of intense U.S. and Israeli bombardment, three of the people familiar with it said.

They rely on a single, “anonymous” source, with no confirmation from anyone else. That is the cardinal sin of journalism.

The Post is claiming four sources, not one. Also, anonymous sources are a daily feature of journalism, not a cardinal sin. Where did you get that idea?

Such strange times we live in.   Pretty much any mainstream media outlet will be closer to the truth than the sitting PotUS.   That should sicken any patriot.

The president of the United States is provided the best intelligence money and manpower can generate. . . and, he uses it to manipulate the hearts and minds of his citizenry. Worse, it's MAGA supported 'Approved'! Just look at how MAGA supporters support their 'guy'!

Pretty much any mainstream media outlet will be closer to the truth than the sitting PotUS.

I'm not seeing that. The other day after the Supreme Court ruled that section 2 of the voting rights act violated the Constitution, I decided to ask ChatGPT if Section 2 violated the Constitution. I got a lot of left-wing talking points. You see that is the problem the left has created this Orwellian monster out of our free press. I read the New York Times every morning. You probably don't believe that. I happen to like a few things about it. There news coverage is not one of them. I have noted that the Times misleads on a daily basis and they editorialize their so-called news coverage of Trump.

If one is a journalist a Presidential statement is posted this way:

The President said that Iran's nuclear sites were obliterated.

This would be the Times big brother editorializing the same sentence:

The President said that Iran's nuclear sites were obliterated, without any evidence.


Btw if you can, tell whoever programed ChatGPT that section 2 of the voting rights act was always unconstitutional and the legislators who originally put it into the voting rights act knew it and never intended it to last until 2026. It was meant to defeat the efforts of segregationist leaders of the south back in the 1960s. It was always supposed to end at some point. The democrats really came to depend on those racially gerrymandered districts. The Constitution says otherwise.

The other day after the Supreme Court ruled that section 2 of the voting rights act violated the Constitution, I decided to ask ChatGPT if Section 2 violated the Constitution. I got a lot of left-wing talking points.

I sent the above (copy & paste) to ChatGPT and asked it to opine:

That complaint starts from a false premise .

The Supreme Court did not simply rule that “Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution.” In Louisiana v. Callais on April 29, 2026 , the Court said Section 2 “was designed to enforce the Constitution—not collide with it,” and held that lower courts had sometimes applied prior Section 2 precedent in a way that forced states into unconstitutional race-based districting. That is a much narrower and more technical holding than “Section 2 is unconstitutional.” ( Supreme Court )

Neutral news coverage described the decision as gutting or weakening a key part of the Voting Rights Act, not as invalidating Section 2 in full. Reuters called it a ruling that “guts key provision” of the Act, and AP described it as weakening a key tool of Section 2 by striking Louisiana’s second majority-Black district. ( Reuters )

So if ChatGPT answered your question by explaining things like:

• Section 2 has long been treated as constitutional,

• the Court narrowed how it can be used in redistricting,

• and the decision was about the interaction between Section 2 and equal-protection limits on race-based districting,

that would not be “left-wing talking points.” That would be a fair summary of the actual legal situation. ( Supreme Court )

There is another reason the complaint is weak: the Court itself had upheld Section 2’s importance in redistricting as recently as Allen v. Milligan (2023) , where it held Alabama’s map likely violated Section 2. So anyone pretending the law was obviously unconstitutional all along is skipping over the Court’s own recent precedent. ( Supreme Court )

The strongest concise response is:

“You’re accusing ChatGPT of bias for refusing to accept your overstatement. The Court did not flatly hold Section 2 unconstitutional; it narrowed Section 2’s use in redistricting and said lower courts had applied it in ways that can conflict with the Constitution.” ( Supreme Court )

So the real issue is probably not dishonesty. It is that the person wanted a simpler and more partisan framing than the case actually supports.

The problem most likely is that any answer that goes against your desires you see as 'left wing talking points'.

The President said that Iran's nuclear sites were obliterated, without any evidence

Without any evidence is both proper and correct.   Not only did he not provide evidence, but his claim has been shown to be wrong.

Btw if you can, tell whoever programed ChatGPT that section 2 of the voting rights act was always unconstitutional and the legislators who originally put it into the voting rights act knew it and never intended it to last until 2026.

Vic, I do not know how to be clearer to get you to understand that LLM applications like ChatGPT are not 'programmed' to a specific outcome like conventional automation.   They are entirely different;  they are sophisticated mathematical / pattern-matching / statistical systems that can, in effect, read and learn enormous amounts of information and provide answers to questions based on that information.   Nobody programmed the response to the voting rights act.   The response reflected the most common understanding based on ChatGPT's corpora and current information from sources (as shown in its links) like Reuters.

Times misleads on a daily basis and they editorialize their so-called news coverage of Trump.

Trump is a disaster; he is by far the worst PotUS we have ever had in our lifetimes (and very likely in our history).   Given that you think this vindictive, psychopathic buffoon is a good POTUS, it is entirely expected that you will object to negative coverage of Trump.   IMO, the problem is not so much bias in the media but your own personal bias (which I find inexplicable).

The Supreme Court did not simply rule that “Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act violated the Constitution.” In Louisiana v. Callais on April 29, 2026 , the Court said Section 2 “was designed to enforce the Constitution—not collide with it,” and held that lower courts had sometimes applied prior Section 2 precedent in a way that forced states into unconstitutional race-based districting. That is a much narrower and more technical holding than “Section 2 is unconstitutional.”

Yes, that is a leftwing talking point. Here is the problem with that:

"Congress enacted the VRA in 1965 (pursuant to Section 2 of the   15th Amendment ) to prohibit states from disenfranchising blacks through obstacles such as poll taxes, literacy tests, property qualifications, white primaries, and grandfather clauses— not  to create electoral parity, a long-standing position of Justice Clarence Thomas’s that he repeated in his concurring opinion in   Callais . As Justice Alito wrote for the majority, the “Voting Rights Act does not guarantee equal outcomes.”

Contrary to the claims of partisan critics, the decision in   Louisiana v. Callais   does not “ gut ” or “ hollow out ” the VRA. Nor, contrary to Justice Elena Kagan’s hysterical dissent, does the majority in   Callais   “eviscerate” the VRA or render Section 2 “all but a dead letter.” Justice Alito’s meticulous majority opinion merely prevents the VRA from being abused to dictate “proportional representation”—that is, racial quotas—contrary to the express language of Section 2, which states that “nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.”

Justice Alito Cleans the Augean Stable of Faux Voting Rights Precedents - The American Mind

They are entirely different;  they are sophisticated mathematical / pattern-matching / statistical systems that can, in effect, read and learn enormous amounts of information and provide answers to questions based on that information. 

They are programed to go through news sites in a specific order, and I maintain that order is top heavy with the usual msm & legacy news organizations.


Trump is a disaster; he is by far the worst PotUS we have ever had in our lifetimes (and very likely in our history). 

He was much needed.

They are programed to go through news sites in a specific order, and I maintain that order is top heavy with the usual msm & legacy news organizations.

    Seems to me that you refuse to learn about these AI tools and prefer to cling to your preconceived notions.

If you are going to make outrageous claims (especially those that illustrate a complete misunderstanding of what is going on) then you need to provide some very persuasive evidence.

As it stands, you are presenting BULLSHIT.

He was much needed.

Sure, for those who wanted:

• diminished international trust in the USA
• due-process-eroding deportation practices 
• extremely strained relationships with allies
• failure to end the Ukraine war
• plunging the USA into a new war with Iran
• higher prices due to tariffs
• higher prices due to higher energy prices
• the most obvious, egregious lawfare any of us has seen from a PotUS
• an incompetent cabinet of sycophants
• destruction of the East wing, and now $1 billion of taxpayer dollars to build a secure infrastructure
• $39 trillion in national debt exacerbated by continued deficit spending
• a PotUS abusing the influence of the office for self-aggrandizement and personal wealth
• use of the military in civilian settings
• acute divisiveness
• tariff-driven market volatility and business uncertainty
• hack-job reduction of the federal workforce and capacity
• coercive pressure campaigns against law firms, universities, and other private enterprises
• supply-chain damage from war- and tariff-related shock
• a pathological liar, psychopath, vindictive buffoon in charge of the military and the government
• ...

Exactly. And these Fox News/Newsmax/Trinity Broadcast Network types are getting slanted news that favors some conservatives 'consciousness.' A consciousness that ignores civil treatment and respect of non-conservatives. The lengths these people go to just to be (falsely) 'superior' to their fellow Americans. . . and even will throw each other out of the MAGA CULT on a 'dime' when an individual delusion stops.

BTW, I guess it won't be long before AI-Conservative edition will be dreamt up and streaming. . . . I hear discussions are underway. . . what oppressors won't do to take away the livelihood of Others and keep their delusional control over Others stuns the senses!

And if one stares at the (clear) sky long enough one will come to realize there is an "Alternative' way to discuss what 'blue' sky is. This is nothing more than conservatives bent on not understanding the needs of our society. . . because they have no intention of giving up sh-t in themselves to be one with Others. We know this bullsh-t inside and outside. We delve with and been under it for centuries in its many iterations, shapes, sizes, and forms. Some conservatives have been pining away about liberals from the start of this country. . . .and now it is clear to me, some conservatives will never let us alone.

I say split the country. . . we ain't much of one anyway! Time to split it up!

I say time to end this test in democracy. The United States no longer works and its citizens have IRRECONCIABLE differences. End this national 'unity' that is an affront to us all. We are not unified and have never been unified if truth be told.

I say time to end this test in democracy.

What a shock!


 We are not unified and have never been unified if truth be told.

We were looking fairly well before 2008. Is that when old wounds were ripped open and salt poured in? Was then when power required dividing people?

You may have stumbled on to something.

The Washington Post reported today that intelligence sources reveal that Iran's economy can withstand current pressure for three or four more MONTHS. 

"As the US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz tightens  around Iran’s oil trade, exports have plunged in recent weeks and storage is rapidly filling. Already, the country has begun curbing production, according to a senior Iranian official. 

“We have enough expertise and experience,” said Hamid Hosseini, a spokesman for the Iranian Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Products Exporters’ Association. “We’re not worried.”

Those techniques, learned over multiple wars and sanctions regimes, were honed during the first Trump administration, when the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 and imposed sanctions that forced Tehran to slash production. Over the longer term, the curbs proved far from a death knell, with the country’s production rising in subsequent years.

There are, of course, key differences between then and now. Amid Western sanctions, Tehran has in the past  sold oil  stealthily  to China using its own large fleet of tankers and a network of other ships owned by little-known companies and operating outside of international oversight, referred to as a shadow fleet. 

That’s no longer possible as the US is physically seeking to block the waters around the Strait of Hormuz, stranding tens of millions of barrels at sea.

Iranian officials acknowledge their ongoing efforts to keep pumping oil can only work for a period. For them, it’s a question of whether they can outlast the economic pain felt by the US, including from high oil prices."

Iran juggles oil cuts and storage strain to resist U.S. blockade | Fortune



You see, John we are in unchartered waters. We won't know the ending until the last card is played.

President Donald Trump  was skewered online for not understanding the rules of Uno — after he shared what appeared to be an  AI-generated image of himself  captioned: “I have all the cards.”

The seemingly AI-generated image, which was likely meant to signal Trump’s leverage in the Iran war, was shared to Truth Social and on the  White House’s official X account  on Sunday, sparking a big reaction from social media users who had a field day making fun of the president for missing the point of the beloved game, which is won by the player who gets rid of their cards first.

“Dear  @WhiteHouse : If Trump has all the cards, then why are gas prices at record levels? Oh wait, in Uno you win by not having any cards. Your social media person really should get fired,” California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu  responded to the post.

Trump shredded for not understanding the rules of UNO in fresh AI slop meme: ‘I have all the cards’ | The Independent

He does have all the cards. He should bomb Kharg Island and destroy the Iranian economy right now.

Its too late to rehabilitate Trumps image vis a vis this Iran war. He has changed positions so many times his credibility is in tatters.  If the war ends today he will still look like a fool because of this. 

He should bomb Kharg Island and destroy the Iranian economy right now.

You favor fucking over the Iranian population and causing all sorts of bad consequences??

I asked ChatGPT to list the many dimensions in which your wish is wrong and profoundly irresponsible:

That statement is wrong on legal, moral, strategic, economic, and political grounds.

First, it proposes deliberately attacking a country’s civilian economic lifeline . Kharg Island handles about 90% of Iran’s crude exports , so the point of bombing it “to destroy the Iranian economy” is not a narrow military aim; it is to inflict broad economic pain on the state and, inevitably, on civilians who depend on that economy. That is a very different claim from striking a specific military target. ( Reuters )

Second, the law of armed conflict does not allow attacks on civilian objects as such . The baseline rule is distinction: parties must distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives, and attacks may be directed only at military objectives. And even where an object has some dual-use character, attacks that cause excessive civilian harm relative to the concrete military advantage are prohibited. Saying “destroy the Iranian economy” is basically announcing an unlawful objective out loud. ( ICRC IHL Databases )

Third, it is strategically reckless. Reuters reported that damage to Kharg could remove roughly 2 million barrels per day from markets, and JPMorgan warned that seizing or neutralizing Kharg would stall Iran’s exports, cut production sharply, and likely trigger further attacks on regional oil infrastructure. In other words, this is not a clean pressure tactic; it is an escalation ladder. ( Reuters )

Fourth, it would likely hammer the global economy , including Americans. The Strait of Hormuz carries about 20% of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG , and the current war has already pushed oil well above prior levels and strained shipping. Reuters has also reported that inventories are falling and that the supply shock could worsen even if the conflict ends. Deliberately hitting Kharg would be an attack on a chokepoint-adjacent energy system the whole world depends on. ( Reuters )

Fifth, it would worsen a humanitarian disaster that is already severe. Reuters reported thousands have been killed in Iran during the war, including large numbers of civilians. Advocating a strike explicitly meant to crash the economy is advocating more deprivation, more displacement, and more downstream civilian suffering. ( Reuters )

Sixth, it risks environmental catastrophe . Reuters reported a suspected large oil spill near Kharg Island this week. Striking major oil-export infrastructure can create spills, fires, contamination, and long-lived ecological damage that extend far beyond the immediate battlefield. ( Reuters )

Seventh, it would undercut diplomacy at exactly the wrong moment. Reuters reported that Iran is reviewing a U.S. peace proposal and that markets have already reacted positively to signs of a possible settlement. “Bomb Kharg now” is the opposite of leverage; it is a good way to blow up a possible endgame and harden every faction that argues the U.S. cannot be trusted. ( Reuters )

Eighth, even if someone does not care about law or morality, it is still a bad means-ends calculation . Destroying export capacity might hurt Tehran, but it also increases the incentives for retaliation against Gulf shipping, neighboring energy infrastructure, and U.S. interests. That is why serious analysis treats Kharg as an escalation trigger, not a magic button. ( Reuters )

So the clean answer is: it is wrong because it advocates collective economic punishment, flirts with unlawful targeting logic, risks major civilian and environmental harm, threatens a wider regional war, and would likely boomerang against U.S. interests and the global economy.

I disagree with that action. That's a step too far against civilians in my opinion. They are going to be in enough hurt once storage facilities are full and they have to start to shut down wells as the process and cost to restart production is rather high. 

The civilians are already in a world of hurt. Iranian police have detained and killed more civilians since the beginning of this 'war' since the Spring Uprising. They have to clamp down on even percieved decent to keep hardline control. 

better to remove the religious dictators.  If US is unwilling to do that, Israel doesn't seem to be scared to take care of that

Well, we have a wannabe dictator who is using Evangelicals as his religious 'Arm' - his Church endorsement. Does that count for removal? I mean, if you are removing (wannabe) dictators why not all?

We are in a screwed-up situation created by Trump with real damage that people are experiencing right now, and no indication that this "excursion"  (Trump is a perfect example of a "low IQ" individual) will ever result in a net positive for the USA.

I don't see that as a valid comparison 

We are in a screwed-up situation

Do you mean what is being done with Iran?

better to remove the religious dictators. 

Absolutely. They are dedicated to developing and using a nuclear bomb. Despite the tremendous political pressure, the President needs to do just that and I believe he may be closer than anyone thinks.

You don't see WHAT or Which (part) as a valid comparison? 

Well Vic, I have a question for you: Did the United States SHARE its nuclear technology with SELECT foreign countries? If so, which one/s?

So the clean answer is: it is wrong because it advocates collective economic punishment, flirts with unlawful targeting logic, risks major civilian and environmental harm, threatens a wider regional war, and would likely boomerang against U.S. interests and the global economy.

But all the money from what some regard as the 4th or 5th largest oil reserve in the world was simply going into the regime's pocket anyway. The Iranian people were left destitute. It was already baked in, and the money went to build Iran's military and spread terrorism throughout the world. They were also hell bent on building a nuclear bomb to destroy Israel, the US and what remains of western Europe.

It looks like ChatGPT is still using leftist talking points.

Well Vic, I have a question for you: Did the United States SHARE its nuclear technology with SELECT foreign countries? If so, which one/s?

It hasn't given away nuclear technology. It has DEPLOYED nuclear weapons in certain countries, mostly in western Europe and Turkey. 

What is your point?

It looks like ChatGPT is still using leftist talking points.

You simply declare this.   Seems to me that no matter what ChatGPT says, you will merely declare it as "leftist talking points".   You cannot counter the points so you just pretend it is bullshit.   Pathetic.

It is quite amazing that you can look at this situation and somehow twist reality to 'conclude' that the US fucking up the Iranian economy will not fuck over the Iranian people as outlined @3.3.4.   

It hasn't given away nuclear technology.

Of course it has. What planet do you live on?

Some of the information was shared with Allies - The British were involved in the Manhatton Project.

Some was taken by spies within the Manhattan project.

Some was reverse engineered by finding some of the "lost" US & Russian nukes.

The French and Israelis conspired against the US  & UK.

Now 9 countries admit to having them and four have comfortable relations with Iran.

If they want one, it will come. It's inevitable.

GPt 5 mini (AI):

Yes. The United States has shared nuclear technology and weapons in several ways:

"Atoms for Peace" (1950s–60s): civilian nuclear reactors, materials, training and technical assistance were provided to allies and partners (e.g., Iran under the Shah, India, Pakistan, others), intended for peaceful uses but sometimes enabling later weapons programs.

 
Sky HISTORY TV Channel

Bilateral military/cooperative assistance with close allies: extensive U.S.–UK nuclear collaboration (weapon design, materials, delivery systems) and NATO "nuclear sharing" arrangements that stationed or enabled allied forces to host or operate U.S. nuclear weapons. 

Wikipedia

Formal peaceful-cooperation agreements (Section 123 agreements) that govern transfers of nuclear material, equipment, and technology to other countries under nonproliferation conditions (dozens of partners). 

U.S. Department of Energy

The NPT (1968) later restricted transfers of weapons-related technology; U.S. transfers after that were framed as peaceful cooperation with safeguards, though debates continue over unintended proliferation consequences.
 
U.S. Department of State

How America Jump-Started Iran’s Nuclear Program

Thanks to a Cold War strategy called ‘Atoms for Peace,’ President Eisenhower laid the foundations for the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

   Excerpt:

Exactly. The human mind is an irresistible bundle of 'making' the impossible happen!  

Some here may remember I am an expression: "Never say Never.' It's meaning (me): When somebody says they will never do or state that something will never happen. . . the 'Spirit' of the air hears, groans,. . . and turns in flight. . . to see that the very thing spoken comes to pass.

Trump keep repeating: 'Iran will never get a nuclear weapon. . . .' 

That flies in the face of this "expression" and on a more practical level . . . Iran highly probably will view it as a "dare."

Is there any pro Iran story  the  left won’t immediately accept without question?

Is there any pro Iran story  the  left won’t immediately accept without question?

I mean it’s not like they’re claiming people are eating dogs and cats. This story is actually plausible.

This story is actually plausible.

People do eat dogs and cats. Did you not know that? 

People do eat people, too. Just ask yourself about the relative frequency of such events. Then, posit the possibility of people doing this in the US, at a specific county. The more you posit, the further it flies from the truth.

Reminds me of a kid we had in the shop back in the Air Force many many years ago. He took a TDY to Korea and got into a fair bit of trouble when he had a down day, spent it sightseeing and walked into a grocery store (for lack of a better word) and opened some cages. Cost him a fair bit of money, a fast trip back to the states and a fast discharge. 

Omg you will say anything to defend this lunatic president. Anything.

About to do an off topic , but side chuckle to some .

As a hunter i have had issue with non hunters requesting wild game meat , or telling me how i needed to prepare it .

 I came up with a rather unusual and unique way to deter that from happening .

 about 3 years ago i casually said that i had purchased a new meat grinder and it worked very well for what i paid, i then also mentioned that i no longer have a feral cat issue left by a former tenant , and didnt say another word about it even when questioned .

its now like the Yellowstone episode where "some bits"  was cooked up for the bunk house .

I have one for you: A family member used to say she could ground up 'whatever' she wanted to in her recipes. . . so fine that no one would notice that they were eating something they swore they would not! Go figure!

soylent green?

It seems that some democrats must be aware that they will probably lose the redistricting battle.

And in this mornings news...

The  Virginia Supreme Court  on Friday blocked a new Democratic-drawn congressional map from taking effect, delivering a major boost for Republicans as they defend their narrow House majority in the midterm elections.

Weeks after Virginia   narrowly approved the plan   in a statewide vote, the court ruled that Democratic lawmakers did not meet the procedural requirements to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, which was written to pave the way for the redrawn district lines. Democrats were seeking a map designed to give the party up to four new House seats.

This ruling — coupled with GOP map-drawing efforts in other states in the last year and the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling overturning racial gerrymandering regulations in the Voting Rights Act — means that Republicans will head into the midterms with a clear redistricting advantage.

Virginia Supreme Court blocks Democratic congressional map, boosting GOP midterm hopes

I really wish that gerrymandering could be eliminated from this country, but I don't expect to see that change in the years I have left. It's a shame and partisan politics has gotten so bad but there's just too much money and power involved to expect them to change.

But this is sure gonna change November.

That is the big story today. Thank you.

Trump started this round by demanding Texas give him five more sets in the House. 

Texas did it legally, Virginia did not

Hysterical.  At least Virginia involved the public, unlike Gov Hot Wheels who asked how high when Trump said JUMP!

they wasted to public's time and tax money on illegal plot. 

Take That, Gov Spamberger

“We owe it to Tennesseans to ensure our congressional districts accurately reflect the will of Tennessee voters,” Lee said after the meeting.

And what is that will of Tennessee voters? Assure us it is not this:

GPT-5 mini (AI)

From The Southern Quarterly Review (published in Charleston), “

Slavery and Abolition” (July 1836), arguing the paternal duty of masters: “We do not hold our slaves merely as beasts of burden; we hold them in a relation of guardianship — to feed, clothe, instruct, and to civilize. To tear them from this guardianship under the pretext of liberty, would be to abandon them to misery and to invite social ruin.” 

Internet Archive

From The Charleston Mercury, editorial, March 2, 1850:

“The master is the protector and guardian of the slave; his authority secures food, clothing, and moral instruction. The boasted philanthropy of strangers, by sudden emancipation, would be cruelty — an experiment of folly which would plunge the negro and the community into wretchedness.”

furman.edu

In both chambers of the Tennessee legislature democrats blared airhorns, waving signs and acted as an unruly mob before walking out. Some had to be removed.

So democrats acting childishly.  Just another day ending with a "Y".  

Health experts are not particularly worried about a wider outbreak of hantavirus. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said “At this stage, the overall public health risk remains low.” 

But that won't stop the fear mongering dimwits who think the world is ending.

So democrats acting childishly.

Sounds like a great reality show with lots of material.  It could be produced by the creator of Libs of Tic Toc.

But that won't stop the fear mongering dimwits who think the world is ending.

According to many democracy must be over since that was said every year since 2016

Sounds like a great reality show with lots of material.  It could be produced by the creator of Libs of Tic Toc.

The problem is that it's so damn repetitive that it's already stale.  

But that won't stop the fear mongering dimwits who think the world is ending.

Everybody seems to worry about how others make money. . . well, if the 'Game' was different than it is. . . who could 'profit' from it. Do you not understand that we have a Capitalist INDUSTRIAL POLITICAL VICTIM COMPLEX going on in this country. Whether than it being supported by anybody - on any side, why not 'speak' to ending it?!!!

Well gee, and how many times on this very site have I said that the entirety of Washington needs to be removed from office. How many times have I said that politicians do not care for us and their first concern is what to do to be re-elected as that's where the power and money is at. That the two party system we have has a lock on politics because of the money and power in that system. 

Politics in this country is run by fear, both sides push fear in order to make the voter afraid of the other side. We hear from people all over the country about how much they dislike what politicians are doing, yet the re-election rate for Washington is around 98%. How can anybody speak about ending it if nobody is willing to listen?

How many times have I said that politicians do not care for us and their first concern is what to do to be re-elected as that's where the power and money is at. That the two party system we have has a lock on politics because of the money and power in that system. 

Well then, "we" are the problem? The political class is 'disgustingly' bloated and distorted, and still we have to have it - because somebody(ies) have to be the first branch of government! Since that is the case, all we can do is HOPE that has a 'force' the collective body of congress members will come to their damn senses and work together for the good of this country. 

Whoever was the one that stated our congress should be a 'tent of adversaries' was/is a DAMN FOOL. Look at where rivalry in congress has gotten 'us' collectively. . . indebted nationally up the "wazoom," an UNCHECKED so-called "leader" of the free world, and fierce competition and jockeying of bodies and minds trying to run end-run circles around and against each other.

We are stuck in the 'mad- mad - funhouse - of the United States! 

Well then, "we" are the problem?

Yes. Because "we" continue to bitch about politicians yet continue to re-elect "our people" because they "care" about us. 

Since that is the case, all we can do is HOPE that has a 'force' the collective body of congress members will come to their damn senses and work together for the good of this country. 

Sounds like hoping that someone else will fix the problem, yet politicians continue to be re-elected had very high rates. Hoping that Congress will as you put it come to their senses and work together for the good of the country is very much like hoping the fox doesn't raid the chicken coop again. Congress IMO became a tent of adversaries because it allows them to gain a moment on the airwaves where they can yell about how "bad" the other side is. Again, it's pushing fear to remain in power. 

We're stuck in this because most people are more worried about watching football games in the fall, taking a vacation in the summer and purchasing the latest shiny toy to show off to the neighbors. The changes sent down by government are more like the pot of water filled with frogs, heat the water slowly and the frogs won't jump out. The changes around us also move slowly and we just get used to it. So I don't expect to see much change in the time left to me as people are slow to see what is right in front of them. 

Just yesterday I read an article where it was being pushed as a distraction caused by the Republicans and Trump because the elections are coming up.

I could believe it.  The left will believe almost anything.  I just saw an idiotic article here on NT claiming "So *Now* Trumpers Are Wondering If He's The Antichrist"

You have to define 'our people' - and let's be clear: Not all politicians currently serving are a/the problem with congress. . .and nor are the "problem ones" problematic to the same degree.

Get rid of the overly partisan and assertive ones that can't function for the GOOD of all, and are always-always seeking self-interests and their special agendas that DAMN an Other in the citizenry simply wanting to live out their individual lives without somebody's else negative, UNHELPFUL, and UNNEEDFUL judgement and acts/tivities. 

Sounds like hoping that someone else will fix the problem, yet politicians continue to be re-elected had very high rates. Hoping that Congress will as you put it come to their senses and work together for the good of the country is very much like hoping the fox doesn't raid the chicken coop again. Congress IMO became a tent of adversaries because it allows them to gain a moment on the airwaves where they can yell about how "bad" the other side is. Again, it's pushing fear to remain in power. 

Okay, so you have a/the description of the 'issue' at hand. . . any solutions (beside 'barring' the effective working of the Constitution first branch of government?

Neither you or I alone or in small groups can fix the voting public in this country. . . all we can do is learn what truths we can and speak truth to power. . . from there people have to come along in small or large swathes individually and collectively.