Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-business-of-war dept.

President Trump will sign an executive order to allow local police departments to receive or purchase military surplus equipment:

Police departments will now have access to military surplus equipment typically used in warfare, including grenade launchers, armored vehicles and bayonets, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Monday, describing it as "lifesaving gear."

The move rescinds limits on the Pentagon handouts that were put in place by President Barack Obama in 2015 amid a national debate over policing touched off by a spate of high-profile deaths of black men at the hands of the police, including the shooting death in 2014 of 18-year-old Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Mo., by a white officer. Some local residents viewed police use of military equipment during the ensuing protests as an unnecessary show of force and intimidation.

In a speech to the Fraternal Order of Police in Nashville, Mr. Sessions said Mr. Obama had made it harder for the police to protect themselves and their neighborhoods. "Those restrictions went too far," Mr. Sessions said. "We will not put superficial concerns above public safety."

Mr. Sessions said that President Trump would sign an executive order on Monday fully restoring the military program, called 1033, and that the president was doing "all he can to restore law and order and support our police across the country." [...] The program was started in the 1990s as a way for the military to transfer surplus equipment to federal, state and local police agencies fighting the drug war. More than $5 billion in surplus gear has been funneled to law enforcement agencies.

Organized gangs get to play soldier.

1033 Program.

Also at The Hill and USA Today.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:21PM (20 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:21PM (#561096)

    It's not an awful start, but things should have been better. For instance, construction should already have started on the border wall, and healthcare should have been dealt with long ago. Of course, we can't blame President Trump for this slow start. Republicans, and to a lesser extent Democrats, are responsible for the obstruction he's faced in accomplishing these important tasks.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Disagree=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:39PM (16 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:39PM (#561108)

    Things would have been better had the DNC not rigged the primaries in favor of that stupid bitch. The voters had a right to choose the better candidate and we've more than adequately established that the DNC did everything within their power to screw him over. Even then, he put on a shockingly strong showing.

    It should have been a huge sign that things were going wrong that they had to rig the primary to get her nominated. If she couldn't even win against Democratic candidates, what made them think that she could win against any of the GOP ones?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:55PM (15 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:55PM (#561115)

      Sanders would not have beaten President Trump. Even among the political left, Sanders had very little support. He had essentially no support among moderates and the political right.

      If Americans had to choose between him and President Trump, President Trump would probably have gotten over 460 electoral votes. It likely would have only been California, and perhaps New York, that would have supported Sanders.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:13PM (#561139)

        Someone's been sucking on an orange cock just a weeee bit too much.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:34PM (7 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:34PM (#561198)

        Wrong! Literally anyone else with a D nomination would have gotten 300 electoral votes on Trump. De La Fuente, Webb. O'Malley, Chafee, Sanders, Warren, Biden, etc., they all would have trounced Trump. Only the damaged goods and 25-years-vilified that was Hillary Rodham Clinton could have lost to him. Congrats, neo-liberal, third-way, GOP-lite Democrats, you definitely showed all of us.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:09AM (6 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:09AM (#561233)

          Will you still be making that claim in 2020 after President Trump wins against some other non-Clinton candidate?

          • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:13AM (4 children)

            by Mykl (1112) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @12:13AM (#561234)

            I very much doubt that Trump will run for 2020. Either he'll already have been impeached, or will frankly be sick of how hard it is to get what you want when you have a pesky congress and judiciary in the way all the time.

            • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:57AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:57AM (#561299)

              Will you still be making that claim in 2020 after President Trump wins?

            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:35PM

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:35PM (#561483) Journal

              I very much doubt that Trump will run for 2020.

              Trump won't have to run for 2020. Campaigns will be unnecessary. Voting will be a mere formality that we go through. Like other countries that have a single candidate which the entire population joyfully votes for in mandatory elections.

              Meanwhile, expect Trump to step up and learn how to be somewhat more presidential. I believe he will have it down pat after about his 5th term in office.

              Putin can mentor Trump.

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:40PM

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:40PM (#561487) Journal

              In the 2020 inauguration, and every inauguration after that, Trump will have the biggest crowd size EVAR!!!! And the biggest election turnout. And the biggest electoral college vote margin EVAR!!! And forever after.

              And that is what the most important thing. Very bigly. Believe me.

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:44PM

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:44PM (#561492) Journal

              or will frankly be sick of how hard it is to get what you want when you have a pesky congress and judiciary in the way all the time.

              Just curious. What makes you think we'll have a pesky congress or judiciary by 2020?

              --
              People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:19AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:19AM (#561374)

            I'm sure there are other bad candidates the democrats could pick to give Trump another four years. And I wouldn't be surprised if they do, it seems that their current policy is to deliberately lose to some racist asshole and then blame people for being racists for picking the second-worst candidate.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:26AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:26AM (#561284)

        According to polls, Sanders is the most popular politician in the country and is able to get crowds in deep red counties to cheer for him. I'm not sure where you're getting this nonsense from.

        • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Thursday August 31 2017, @05:28AM (1 child)

          by Sulla (5173) on Thursday August 31 2017, @05:28AM (#561973) Journal

          Even with how much I didn't agree with Sander's policies (second comming of William J Brian) I might have considered him an okay choice. I thought he was okay based on character alone until he bent the knee to the Clintons. He should have refused to participate and not given support (and money, the money he promised not to give to Clinton). Some of his staunch supporters I work with have said he had to, but he could have refused and gone down as a true maverick like Ron Paul.

          Instead of having someone imaculate who despite his crazy ideals was still honest and clean, we have just another politican who made an assload of money in exchange for sucking the party dick. Sports car and a vacation home was enough to sell his soul. Not saying he is worse than Trump, just saying he is no better than anyone else.

          I hope Webb gets the nomination just based on the comment he made at the debates about meeting the guy he killed in Nam to kill him again.

          --
          Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @09:12AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @09:12AM (#562879)

            just saying he is no better than anyone else.

            Demonstrably false. Have you looked at his policy record? It's much better than that of the vast majority of other politicians, with him consistently supporting policies such as single-payer. That does not mean he is perfect, but good luck getting a perfect candidate.

        • (Score: 1) by AssCork on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:12PM (1 child)

          by AssCork (6255) on Thursday August 31 2017, @12:12PM (#562076) Journal

          ...and is able to get crowds in deep red counties to cheer for him

          Big woop. Everyone cheered when Hilary left, too.

          --
          Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @09:10AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @09:10AM (#562877)

            They cheered in favor of liberal policies like single-payer health care?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:11AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 30 2017, @07:11AM (#561369)

        Spoken like a true Trump-fan. Trump would have beaten the best candidate the democrats had, even though he only barely beat the worst.

        Even many republican voters think that Trump was a bad candidate, and only able to win because the democrats went with the one that was even worse than Trump.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:52PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @09:52PM (#561176)

    Republicans, and to a lesser extent Democrats, are responsible for the obstruction he's faced in accomplishing these important tasks.

    ????? In case you hadn't noticed Republicans have majorities in both houses of Congress. What more could Trump ask for to ram through his agenda? Super majorities in both houses? Somehow, I suspect that even if the Republicans did have super majorities in both houses, Trump still wouldn't be able to move his agenda forward. I think you and all of your Trump-supporting buddies will soon have to face an uncomfortable reality: both Trump and the Republican party are irreparably broken.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:41AM (1 child)

      by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @03:41AM (#561291) Journal

      He has Republicans who are basically Democrats just as the Democrats are basically Republicans. The difference between the two major parties can basically be summed up in two wedge issues (abortion/gay rights) but when it comes everything else, the bipartisan consensus rules. Trump may actually be more hated by his own party than Democrats.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:51PM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday August 30 2017, @06:51PM (#561642) Journal

        Trump may actually be more hated by his own party than Democrats.

        I'm absolutely certain of that. The Dems couldn't care less about the damage he causes -- they're rich enough that it doesn't hurt them at all. But he makes the "other team" look bad, and get them instant support no matter what THEY do, so they love it. While the Republicans hate him for...pretty much the same reasons. Only the truly insane actually support him for policy reasons...and only the not entirely corrupt (so about three people in all of D.C.) actually oppose him for policy reasons.