They did murder a woman, but I agree that one murder is far short of a civil war. Even understanding that a single murder can be the spark that starts a fire, I don't think we're even close to that kind of scenario (contrary to the hyperbolic rhetoric which has become normalized from both sides over the past 10ish years.)
Protestors and cops having tussles in the streets falls short of my bar for "brutal violence"; shooting a woman in the face certainly qualifies, but I am not seeing anything like that so widespread that it could motivate a drone ban like some people in this discussion are asserting. The political violence in America right now doesn't even come close to what was normal in living memory in the 20th century. America today is very peaceful, not that you'd think it from following the media.
The DJI ban is about China, not domestic protests.
I think you are correct about the political violence being higher in 20th century USA. For anyone doubting it, just look at the black experience in the south during the civil rights movements. Where I am concerned is that the violence we are seeing today from the federal authorities is being endorsed by the federal government. In fact all leadership is doubling down and turning up the rhetoric whereas during the 50's and 60's it was the federal government stepping in if things got out of hand. With what is happening today, who will step in to cool things down?
I agree that violence from federal agents, who then get backed up by the federal government, is extremely concerning. Nonetheless, it's not a new development; feds have been involved in innumerable fatalities that never got properly investigated by leadership going all the way back to the inception of the FBI.
One example of many, Lon Horiuchi was charge by the state of Idaho for the murder of Vicki and Sammy Weaver. His case was then moved into the federal system which promptly dismissed it and made him a free man. Even today,trying to discuss this case gets bogged down in irrelevant debate about the validity of Randy's political beliefs, which shouldn't matter a single wit.
What's lacking authenticity is your assertion a well informed political cult engaged in gaming the system for its own benefit is not working multiple narratives.
If it was just about China they would not be turning TikTok, CBS into right wing platforms. They would not be announcing intent to violate 4th Amendment and go door to door without warrants.
Trump doesn't actually care about China. He prays on idiots fears with xenophobia. Trump is Palpatine. He's afraid of losing power. See also Steve Bannon at CPAC going on about how, if Dems win midterms a lot of them are going to prison.
Occam's Razor suggests it's not 12D chess they're playing. Just boring biological self selection. Someone in meeting brought up risk to them from drones.
Was working in EE designing motherboards for telco when manufacturing was offshored. It was plainly described as protectionism. Fear Americans with such skills could threaten Intel or copyright cartels. Educated and capable Americans capable of being manifold people who do not kowtow readily to political memes are greatly feared by the generation in charge. They've been working for years to maintain the historical narrative that serves.
Control the imports of technology to control the economy.
I am sharing my genuine opinions and perspectives. I assume you are as well. Let's keep it civil.
As for tiktok/etc, I don't think that has much of anything to do with ICE and has a lot more to do with squelching legitimate anti-zionist speech. That said, it does plausibly have a lot more to do with domestic protests than a DJI drone ban, which is hardly a blanket ban on drones, and really will do next to nothing to stop people from using drones over/with/for protests. By the way, the DJI ban went through the House and Senate with bipartisan support, during Biden's presidency:
I don't agree, but I think there is some reasonable room for disagreement. I think she was merely being reckless, and the shooter didn't earnestly fear for his life but thought he'd be able to argue he was.
First of all it's easy to sit and armchair a situation like that and in hindsight to boot. We weren't there. We shouldn't assume what the federal officer was feeling. Second, same officer _had_ been injured and had his foot in stitches from another "protestor" who had driven into him not long ago.
Driving into someone is what's considered lethal force in law enforcement. The woman got shot after consistently ignoring police commands and then enacted lethal force on a federal officer. There's no ambiguity here.
