Wisconsin Governor urges Trump to call off Kenosha visit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nepperhan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nepperhan

Guest
I agree with the governor-- Trump’s visit is ill-timed and would be divisive.

" Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers urged President Trump to call off his trip to Kenosha this week — fearing the president’s visit to the city will “only hinder our healing.”

The governor made the plea in a Sunday letter, portraying Kenosha — where Jacob Blake, 29, was shot seven times by police on Aug. 23 — as a divided community that’s already on the mend.

“I, along with other community leaders who have reached out, are concerned about what your presence will mean for Kenosha and our state,” Evers wrote in his letter.

“I am concerned your presence will only hinder our healing. I am concerned your presence will only delay our work to overcome division and move forward together.”

The governor added: “It is our job as elected officials to lead by example and to be a calming presence for the people we know are hurting, mourning, and trying to cope with trauma. Now is not the time for divisiveness.”"

 
He’s not going to see Jacob Blake. Trump is adding to the wounds in Kenosha.
 
This is Republican leadership. Notice the difference?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Nepperhan said:
He’s not going to see Jacob Blake. Trump is adding to the wounds in Kenosha.
Click to expand...
I am curious - Do you really believe that a President should visit a man who had a domestic abuse warrant for his arrest for third degree sexual assault, that police were attempting to execute when called to this location - and who then resisted arrest and who has admitted to having a knife?

Not enough information is publicly available other than the above facts - So I am not saying whether the shooting was justified or not … Lawyers, prosecutors, juries and judges will make that decision at some future date …

There can be many reasons and many people in Kenosha that a president should visit other than Jacob Blake - and of course - he is not the only victim … and for some - a presidential visit may help heal wounds
 
YADA said:
I am curious - Do you really believe that a President should visit a man who had a domestic abuse warrant for his arrest for third degree sexual assault, that police were attempting to execute when called to this location - and who then resisted arrest and who has admitted to having a knife?
Click to expand...
Trump said he is going to see the family. You tell him what you think about that. Its odd of you to blame a victim.

"Donald Trump is trying to set up a meeting with Jacob Blake’s family during his visit to Kenosha, Wisconsin on Tuesday after the shooting victim’s father said the president should have called earlier this week and mother says she missed his call.

The president’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump revealed to Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace that Trump has reached out to Blake’s family and wants to meet with them this week."


I think Trump will add to the tension in the city.
" On Saturday, the White House confirmed that on Tuesday the president will visit Kenosha, Wis., site of protests since a police officer shot Jacob Blake in the back seven times last week, leaving him partially paralyzed. The purpose? Not to calm the unrest, necessarily, but “to meet with local law enforcement and survey damage from the recent riots,” said White House spokesperson Judd Deere.

Now, whether it’s wise for a president to visit a town still in the midst of protests, some of which have escalated into clashes and looting, is a fair question. Past presidents have often stayed away from such situations, if only because they are unpredictable. Adding a president and his entourage to a volatile situation can inflame tensions."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ing-kenosha-trump-makes-clear-whom-hes-going/
 
Last edited:
You are the person who said he was not going to see Jacob Blake … and connected that to being divisive … I just wondered if visiting a person who had a warrant for 3rd degree sexual assault and who resisted arrest warranted a presidential meeting?

I did not blame a victim … I made no judgement about the shooting - in fact I specifically said that … This man had an active warrant for his arrest - which the police were attempting to execute when they arrived - those are facts … He obviously resisted arrest and failed to comply with police instructions … Obviously you have already made the judgement to criminalize the police and vindicate Mr Blake

Would not this man’s family fall into the category of the “others” a president might meet with? He has met with lots of people and will continue to meet with people … it seems that people who meet with him find him far different that is portrayed in the press as is true for people who have known him for decades … perhaps that is why some dont want his to come visit the area?

Are the lives of Trump supporters less valuable than any other life?
Are the victims of the looting, riots and destruction less valuable or less important?

Are the lives of people who have been accused of crimes and who then resist arrest the only lives that matter? Is this new trend/thought actually teaching people who have committed crimes [or been accused of crimes] to actively resist arrest and thus putting them in danger? Those who resist and then the communities that are destroyed in the aftermath of a confrontation that follows? Or will the result be that law enforcement hesitates to act and their lives are ended … or police will be slower to respond to calls or do as requested and cities are left with "no go zones
and crime rates including murder and assaults with all increase - leaving those neighborhoods devastated by crime, lack of investment and under gang rule? All to further the political ambitions of the BLM Marxist movement and the politicians whose elections they fund?

I think the lives of people in these neighborhoods want investments that bring job opportunities and needed services. I think they want to be able to peacefully enjoy their parks, streets and homes without fear of gangs and crime. They want criminals arrested and off their streets. They want schools that function and hope for the future … In some cities one party has been promising them this for decades - voted in year after year … but they never deliver … I think they dont want the President to come because people might hear what he says - unfiltered and unedited and un-dramatized by the likes of Maddow, Cuomo, Pelosi and Schiff, et al
 
YADA said:
Obviously you have already made the judgement to criminalize the police and vindicate Mr Blake
Click to expand...
Please don’t make assumptions about what I think or believe.

Here’s the thing: Without pointing fingers or saying who is right or wrong, we don’t need more divisiveness in the area where emotions are running high. This is a presidential campaign season and WI is a battleground state. The last things residents need in a highly-charged atmosphere is more partisanship and more photo ops. That’s the point.

That’s what the governor said. I think it is selfish of Trump to insert himself.
 
Last edited:
Governor Evers is a Democrat. He knows dang well the optics look terrible for the Party at this point.

Presidents of both parties have long been known for making trips to disaster-hit areas. Even in election years. So Trump isn’t doing anything different along those lines. Hence the question is, why keep him out? Maybe because they don’t want Trump onsite pointing out the Democrats’ lack of law and order clothing?

On the other hand, the argument could be made that it would be difficult at best to keep the peace when Trump is in town. But it’s going to be hard for his opponents to phrase it without referencing the rogue elements who will endeavor to make such a visit as unsafe as possible.
 
I read some twitter this morning. One commentary was saying that the Democrats don’t like his visiting Wisconsin because they have been vilifying the police and Trump supports them. Makes sense to me.

Also, Blake’s family has already apologized for missing Trump’s phone call. Perhaps, he can meet with them. Blessed are the peacemakers.
 
Last edited:
Zzyzx_Road said:
Presidents of both parties have long been known for making trips to disaster-hit areas.
Click to expand...
When they do, they offer comfort. Trump has never offered comfort to anyone except his devoted followers. Everywhere he does he campaigns for himself and rails at the Democrats. This is not what Presidents have long been known for doing.
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
Presidents of both parties have long been known for making trips to disaster-hit areas
Click to expand...
No, to natural disaster areas. Presidents keep out when the citizenry is tense. Now you have the governor, the AG and the mayor asking Trump not to come; in part because presidential visits take huge local resources in security, traffic and crowd control.

Trump’s coming is bacially to benefit himself, not others.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This is not what Presidents have long been known for doing.
Click to expand...
Obama didn’t talk about “bitter clingers”? Or that he allowed the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative to persist in the face of Eric Holder’s DOJ finding that the Brown shooting was justified? Obama didn’t visit Ferguson, I’ll give him credit for that much. I give Holder credit for that finding, but we still see the “hands up, don’t shoot” baloney all over the place because Obama never repudiated it.

@Nepperhan
That this is a local issue? I can get along with that. But then it’s on the locals to deal with it. That includes the local Democrats, among others. Obama sent Holder to visit Ferguson so I’m sure you won’t object if Trump sends Barr in lieu of coming himself.
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
Obama sent Holder to visit Ferguson so I’m sure you won’t object if Trump sends Barr in lieu of coming himself.
Click to expand...
Obama was not fighting for re-election.

Trump is putting out his own apologia. This is fomenting more divisiveness.

" WASHINGTON – On the eve of his visit to Wisconsin, President Donald Trump defended the 17-year-old who fatally shot two protesters in Wisconsin last week, embracing an attorney’s account that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.

Referring to cell phone video of the incident, Trump told reporters on Monday that Rittenhouse was “trying to get away from them, I guess, it looks like” and said that protesters “violently attacked him.” Trump repeatedly noted the shooting remained under investigation but also appeared to lean into Rittenhouse’s self-defense argument."


Trump won’t see Jacob Blakes’s family. It is a campaign effort and a photo op.
"WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is not planning to meet with the family of Jacob Blake, a Black man who was shot multiple times in the back by a police officer in Kenosha, Wisconsin, when he travels there Tuesday, the White House said.

Trump will travel to Kenosha, amid heightened protests over racial injustice and police brutality, to meet with “local enforcement, some business owners and he’ll survey the damage,” White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters Monday. She added that a detailed scheduled would be released later in the day.

The president told reporters at a press conference Monday evening that he was not planning to meet with the family because they wanted to involve lawyers.

“I thought it would be better not to do anything where there are lawyers involved,” Mr Trump said. “They wanted me to speak but they wanted to have lawyers involved and I thought that was inappropriate so I didn’t do that.” "

 
Last edited:
We can almost always count on lawyers to get in the way and/or shove themselves into the spotlight. Trump has no obligation to give the lawyers a platform.

With respect to Rittenhouse, if you don’t see self defense in the videos, then there is nothing further to discuss with you. I suppose they could try to tag him with a charge around the illegality of the weapon at his age. But even that is open to interpretation as WI laws aren’t as straightforward as one might expect.

Here is a comment from elsewhere that expands on this:
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60 :

948.60(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

BUT

948.60(3)(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

941.28 Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle. (if the barrel was 16" and total length 26" he’s good.)

29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age. (we’re clear here.)

29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval. (not applicable; you don’t need a hunting license for self defense.)

…So the way these statutes interact is if A) you have a rifle or shotgun, B) it is a full-size weapon, C) you are at least 16, and D) you’re not hunting without a license, then 948.60 does not apply to you.
Click to expand...
Further commentary said WI gun codes around minors are convoluted due to the presence of deer hunters in the state who would not take kindly to not being able to take their minor children hunting with them so the WI legislature could not simply ban all under 18 persons from having firearms. If you want to say they didn’t write that code well, you’ll get no argument from me.

So while the progressives scream about the illegal gun, this question is going to have to be decided in the courts in addition to that Rittenhouse has a very good case for self defense.

I find it very interesting that one can hardly find anything reporting that the third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, who was wounded in the arm was himself carrying a handgun. There is at least one photograph that clearly shows Grosskreutz still holding his gun after he was wounded in the arm. It is a nasty looking photo showing the extent of the wound so I will not link it here. But anyone with a strong stomach can find it with some searching. The alternate sites are alleging that Grosskreutz is a felon who is not supposed to able to carry a gun. Some have said Grosskreutz volunteered as a medic. If so, then what is a medic doing with a gun? There does not appear to be any investigation into whether Grosskreutz was carrying illegally.

One more, a friend alleged on social media that Grosskreutz’s only regret was that he had hesitated to shoot Rittenhouse. One can find this on Twitter. Again because the particular Twitter threads include nasty photos of the wound, I will not link them here.
 
The visit is a selfish move by Trump. He doesn’t care if he causes problems – he just wants to campaign in a battleground state. He also is stoking tensions.

" EVERY ACTION, every gesture and every tweet from President Trump is the opposite of what he would do if he were intent on calming cities now seized by protests and violence. No calls to national unity. No pleas for reconciliation. No effort to recognize grievances or address them. Instead, Mr. Trump lionizes vigilantes and demonizes racial justice protesters, thereby inciting the former and enraging the latter.

The president’s weekend tweet storms — toxic eruptions of personal attacks, conspiracy-mongering, vicious threats and false accusation — serve his election strategy of deepening the nation’s divisions. They perfectly distill the idea of an us-vs.-them United States that he believes will galvanize his base and frighten suburban swing voters into his camp.

As rage erupted on the streets of Portland, Ore., and a man reportedly affiliated with a far-right, pro-Trump group was shot to death there, the president did his best to stoke the rage. He gave credence, in a retweet, to the risible theory that racial justice protests are an organized coup attempt led by “well-funded network of anarchists”; endorsed a call to arrest New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D); embraced the teenage vigilante in Kenosha, Wis., charged with two murders after he was shown on video shooting protesters; and repeatedly savaged the mayor of Portland. To the president, his partisans in the streets, some of them armed, are “patriots”; Black Lives Matters activists, whose protests have been mostly peaceful, are “thugs.”"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...9109dc-eba8-11ea-b4bc-3a2098fc73d4_story.html
 
It’s the Democrats New reverse policy.

The US as a rule does not negotiate with terrorists-like behavior. Democrats have been enabling terrorists.

So tit for tat, Democrats have decided not to negotiate with those who do not support terrorist-like behavior.

They aren’t fooling anybody and they are losing votes.
 
It would help a lot if the Democrats could control the rioters in their cities they are in charge of. Not to mention reform their own police departments they accuse of racism. Not to mention stop telling the police to stand down. Not to mention stop the Soros-backed DA’s from putting everyone back on the streets with no charges.

But no, the Democrats insist on projecting their own failures on Trump.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top