Cancel culture strikes again

[Catseye3]

From Connecting Vets.Radio.com:

"The Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of 2003 establishes criminal penalties for anyone who "willfully injures or destroys, or attempts to injure or destroy ...veterans' memorials" including "any structure, plaque, statue or other monument on public property commemorating the service of any person or persons in the armed forces of the United States."

Under that statute, anyone convicted of those acts could be fined and/or imprisoned for no more than 10 years, or both."

Oh, well. His heart's in the right place.

[Ivorythumper]

Robert Downey Jr remains untouchable... good.

[LuFins Dad]

@Catseye3 said in Cancel culture strikes again:

From Connecting Vets.Radio.com:

"The Veterans' Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act of 2003 establishes criminal penalties for anyone who "willfully injures or destroys, or attempts to injure or destroy ...veterans' memorials" including "any structure, plaque, statue or other monument on public property commemorating the service of any person or persons in the armed forces of the United States."

Under that statute, anyone convicted of those acts could be fined and/or imprisoned for no more than 10 years, or both."

Oh, well. His heart's in the right place.

Cats, I don’t get your point. Trump says they can be sentenced up to 10 years, which is what the law states as well...Your post reads like you believe the law expired in 10 years. It didn’t, that was just the sentencing limit.

[Catseye3]

@LuFins: No, that's not it. His tweet reads "I have authorized the Federal Government . . . " His authorization isn't needed. The authorization was in force at the moment the VMPA passed into law. He makes it sound like he reintroduced it somehow. He had nothing to do with it.

The vandals committed criminal acts, and have not been apprehended. Unless they are identified and caught, his tweet is doubly pointless -- as is the threat of 10 years imprisonment.

Sure sounds presidential, though!

[89th]

I think his tweet says he authorizes the ARREST, and then from there the charges would follow the Act's punishment guidelines.

[Catseye3]

His authorization for the arrest isn't needed; it's already in the law.

[89th]

Then it reemphasizes it.

[LuFins Dad]

@Catseye3 said in Cancel culture strikes again:

His authorization for the arrest isn't needed; it's already in the law.

Correct, but as the executive, the agencies generally follow his guidance regarding enforcement. To this point they have refrained from enforcing the law. Now he is instructing them to actively enforce and prosecute.

[Catseye3]

@ 89th: I'd go along with that if he hadn't said "I have authorized". If he'd reminded us of the act and that he wants it enforced more strongly or something, I'd be fine. But to me it sounds like he's trying to get credit for something he had nothing to do with -- trying to look all proactive and powerful and presidential.

[Catseye3]

@LuFins-Dad How do we know they've refrained from enforcing the law? Why would they? Can it be that they don't know who to arrest because they don't know who the perps are?

[Larry]

Who gives a flying fuck whether he needed to authorize it or not. The issue is there are people destroying our historical monuments, and so far nothing is being done to stop it. If it will help put a stop to this I don't give a rat's ass WHAT the man says.

Jesus.

[89th]

@Catseye3 said in Cancel culture strikes again:

@LuFins-Dad How do we know they've refrained from enforcing the law? Why would they? Can it be that they don't know who to arrest because they don't know who the perps are?

Have you seen any of the hundreds of videos? Heck, just the other night a line of cops stood a block away watching them tear down the Albert Pike statue in DC. Trump's tweet/whatever provides clearer instructions, as @LuFins-Dad said.

[Jolly]

@Catseye3 said in Cancel culture strikes again:

His authorization for the arrest isn't needed; it's already in the law.

It's simple enough. POTUS is prodding elements of the government to follow the law, not ignore it.

[jon-nyc]

Yeah, “authorized” is the wrong word. But good on him all the same.

[Catseye3]

Okay, y'all win.

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in Cancel culture strikes again:

Yeah, “authorized” is the wrong word. But good on him all the same.

Twitter flagged for being "threatening."

[Catseye3]

Spoken like a true prez of the people!

[89th]

I have a (quite liberal) friend who was freaking out about how bad that tweet was. I'm sorry, what am I missing? Even as someone who often finds alignment with the libertarian side of things...I 100% support the president preventing an "autonomous" zone being established in DC.

[Larry]

It's called Trump Derangement Syndrome. They can't see the obvious because they're nuts.

Of course, some of them were nuts already, so...

[Catseye3]

@89th said in Cancel culture strikes again:

I'm sorry, what am I missing?

It's not the frowny face at the autonomous zone; it's the threat of "serious force".

But I'm letting it go. I was doing so well of late staying out of the good-Trump/bad-Trump brouhaha, until I foolishly re-entered. This has to be the dumbest waste of time evah. I think it must be a guy thing, to endlessly argue over politics toward no practical destination.

No one's mind has ever been changed, or will be. Not the smallest point will be conceded. If anything, the exchanges become ever more furious and nasty -- for some participants, anyway. Brangling endlessly over Left vs Right is like being stuck in hell's hamster wheel. As far as I can see, maintaining the righteousness of one side over the evil of the other might do something for the arguers, but if it's extreme enough it is assinine no matter which side is evangelizing, and does damn-all for humanity.

I can't promise to stay out of it, but I'm gonna try. Cuz this shit is depressing.

I