Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is no false dichotomy about what you are proposing. The absence of a policed state with police authority is anarchy and vigilantism.
either people have the right to protest, or the police have the right to shut down any protest they want. The concepts are mutually exclusive. If the police can shut down your protest on a whim, then you don't actually have a right to protest because you can only do it when the police give you permission to. That isn't a right. Especially when it is the police and their abuse of power that you are protesting against.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Then what about the moral philosophy of individualism which preserves your description of subjective?
I'm not certain I understand your question, so if this doesn't answer it, please clarify for me. morality is in the eye of the beholder. it is individualistic by nature. Society, by it's nature, is collectivist. We are all parts of a much greater whole. The only way to prevent this is to destroy society and keep everyone in their own separate bubbles where they don't interact in a meaningful way. since this is obviously impossible, we can only proceed with reality the way it is.
So using my example from before, you're stating that in any and all decisions involving political participation, it is better to submit to the whim of the majority even if that whim involves rape (or any immoral act?) Why should any individual invest in a political process where he or she will fall through the cracks and be excluded? As you said, "the best [one] could hope for is to do the most good for the most people"? What if one is not part of the "most people"?
what alternative is there? either we have communally agreed upon rules of conduct, which will necessarily fail some people, or we don't have any communally agreed rules of conduct and people are free to injure each other at will (which fails virtually everyone).
Every action one considers, one must consider the consequences "rules" or "no rules."
ok, and if lots of people decide they do want to harm their neighbor, what does your hypothetical society do about it? For that matter, what happens if a large group in this society decide to band together to harm a smaller group in this society? Who is going to stop them?
That is simply not true. No one is ever entirely sovereign. You will always be beholden to others. You will have a boss, a neighbor, a co-worker, etc who will have power over you.How?
you will always be beholden to others because you have indivisible ties to them. you are beholden to your boss because you need money to survive. if you piss off your boss you will be punished. You are beholden to your bank. They hold the loan on your house. If you piss them off they take your house or your car. You are beholden to the other members of your community. You need to be able to live and work together. If you piss them off they may decide to beat the shit out of you. You can't ever be totally sovereign. Other people will always have a say in what you do and how. The only way to change that is to cut yourself off from all others so that no one cares what you do.
If the society is evil, why would members of government be any less evil?
because governments need to consider the wishes of as many of their citizens as possible in order to win an election. a minority is by definition, not going to be enough to win. But they may certainly be a large enough block to be important in an election. It is dangerous to ignore the suffering of voters. In a society where the people with power don't need to worry about an election, they don't have to give a shit what people think.
How are members of government immune from this proclivity?
they aren't. but that is why we insist on laws to try to prevent them from abusing this power. And if they do abuse it we vote them out of office or arrest them. In a society without these sorts of levers for average people to use, they would be powerless to push back on this sort of abuse.
These two statements contradict. You're stating that in a system where there isn't an organized source of power, someone will use their wealth to bribe an organized source of power.
no, you haven't explained precisely how your hypothetical society would function so it is hard for me to generalize. If your proposed society included any sort of rule making, then people could be bribed. If there is no formal rule making, then all they have to do is hire thugs and they are now king.
Maybe they will simply pay lots of people to do what they want thus making them self a de facto king.How does a democratic government prevent this now?
using formalized power, ie police, the military.
So the imposition of rules are useless because "they'd" always find a way, right?
i'm still trying to get a firm handle on exactly how you think this society would function. so if this isn't relevant to your idea, then you may need to clarify.
And in anarchy, resolution of disputes would be handled through mediation and contracts.
ok, and who enforces those contracts or the results of the mediation. if the mediator says i'm wrong and I say "fuck you" and hire 30 guys to go burn their house down or just threaten his family, who is going to stop me? Or for that matter, what if I just bribe the mediator? You said there is no laws so it would presumably be fine to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Believe me, the last thing a soft SJW needs right now is an atmosphere where the people who gather together in mobs have the authority to uphold the law as they see it, and that it's okay to physically resist the police if you call yourself a "peaceful protest"
no one has ever claimed that protesters should be allowed to uphold the law "as they see it". The question is do people have the right to protest or don't they. If the police have veto power over every protest, then there is no right to protest. Because the police can choose to not let you. at that point, protesting is no longer a right and only available when the police choose to let you.
So, do you believe that people have a right to protest, or do the police have the power to choose whether you can protest or not? So far, you have been arguing the latter, which is a police state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I want one entity to have the authority to enforce the law. No vigilantism. If a protester wants to specifically protest the police, they can do it in the courts, not on the streets with bodily violence.
ok, but to clarify. do you believe that one authority should have the power to decide when a protest should be shut down and then shoot anyone who disagrees?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Better them than a violent mob. I don't want the security of the nation to be in the authoritative hands of mouth breathing CNN sheep along with frozen water bottles and bricks.
so just to clarify, you want the police to have the power to shut down any protest they want, whenever they want, and to have the authority to shoot anyone who resists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
These numbers hardly describe a pandemic that must be solved by defunding police departments or systematically changing their mode of operation. As I said, prosecute the bad apples, and let justice do its its proper work. The alternative as being suggested will create so much chaos, you will not have a system of anything anymore.
your own source says they are several times more likely to be killed by police than white people. That is a big problem. and for it to be 2.5 times higher, that certainly sounds systemic to me.
But your stats are only focusing on deaths. That is only one piece of the problem. Police regularly harass or assault black people too. Take that 75 year old man the police pushed down and hospitalized. That was obvious police brutality, but he didn't die. So the stats you keep parading out don't include it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't want a fundamentally transformed America where people have the right to assemble a violent mob and protest.I want an America where people have the right to peaceably assemble, you know back when America was great.
Ok, you are saying you want people to have the right to protest, but that you also want the police to have the unquestioned power to shut down a protest and shoot anyone who disagrees with them. Those 2 things are not compatable.
either people have the right to protest and not be attacked by the police, or they don't.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Experience is subjective. Therefore, morality is subjective as well. However, my claim wasn't that it wasn't subjective; my claim is that it isn't subject to consensus. Now if you're attempting to use the term "subjective" in a manner synonymous to the description "prone to whim," then you are incorrect.
I mean subjective in the sense that it is different and unique to every person. That means that no matter what system you come up with, someone will always feel it is immoral. someone will always feel the system is antithetical to what they believe/want.
Would it then be "better" to be subject to the whims of multiple individuals?
if it is what the majority of people in the country believe is the right and moral thing to do, then yes. What other possibility is there? You cannot have a system where everyone is happy with it. There will always be people who disagree with the system. The best you can hope for is to do the most good for the most people.
And if they can't convince enough people? What if most of the group endorses the engagement of cruel act as exampled by my hypothetical above?
then this is extremely unfortunate. The people who being oppressed should either work to convince people that their position is correct. If they cannot and do not wish to live with the consequences, then they would need to try to find a place somewhere more tolerant to their views. But I fail to see how anarchy would prevent the situation you described. Someone is going to have to decide what the rules are for the society, and if there are no rules then they can rape whoever they want whenever they want without consequences.
In anarchy, one would be able to serve one's benefit because one is one's own sovereign.
That is simply not true. No one is ever entirely sovereign. You will always be beholden to others. You will have a boss, a neighbor, a co-worker, etc who will have power over you. The only way to be truly sovereign would be to have no meaningful interaction with others. As long as humans are interdependent (which is always going to be the case) then you can't ever be truly sovereign.
How is this the case when you say "no 2 people agree on exactly what that would be." So whose wishes are being represented? And what if that wish is evil?
like i said, you can only ever try to do the most good for the most people. so you represent the wishes of as many people as you can. If those wishes are evil, then the society is evil and it certainly wouldn't be an improvement to have an evil society without a central government to restrain that evil.
An oligarchy is not anarchy. And why would it quickly transform to an oligarchy where the rich control all levels of power?
because money is power. in the absence of another form of power (ie an elected government) that power will go somewhere. It is human nature to want wealth and power over others. It doesn't matter what else you do, you cannot change the underlying fact of human nature. If you create a system where there is not an organized source of power, then someone will find a method to gain that power. Maybe they use their wealth to bribe whatever body makes rules. Maybe they will simply pay lots of people to do what they want thus making them self a de facto king. Since you haven't specified how rules would be decided and enforced I can't say how specifically they would gain power, but they would find a way. They always do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
we would have a nation where no one has any rights and all power is in the hands of the police and state. basically, you want a police state.The alternative is a state of anarchy and vigilantism.
no, the alternative is a democracy where people have the right to protest. That is what america is supposed to be. It is not supposed to be a power given to police to decide they don't like the protesters and to have the unilateral right to make them go away. And even more so, they are not supposed to have the right to shoot at peaceful protesters just because they want them to go away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's sad really because if the students in Marxist schools and children of the 77% fatherless households were taught to comply first and take the police to court after, we wouldn't have nearly as many cases of people killed by cops.
we would have a nation where no one has any rights and all power is in the hands of the police and state. basically, you want a police state.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Disagreements on morality doesn't affect morality. Unlike democracy, morality isn't subject to consensus because it's an expression of logic and reason. How would it look like? Anarchy.
strongly disagree. Morality is inherently subjective. It is very different to different people. There is no such thing as objective morality.
democracy has flaws because humans have flaws.Then why not be the subject of a dictator? What's to stop anyone from justifying the cruel acts of a dictator by claiming, "a dictator has flaws because humans have flaws"?
because in a dictatorship you are subject to the whims of 1 individual. If they are cruel or choose to do bad things, no one has any recourse to do anything about it. In a democracy if a leader does something cruel or evil, a person can attempt to convince enough people that this was wrong and have that leader replaced or the policy changed. You are never going to have a government that can act in the benefit of every single individual in the country because no 2 people agree on exactly what that would be. A democracy gives people the ability to have their say on the policies of the country to try to have their government represent the wishes of as many people as they can.
No one is talking about perfection. Only a system where one is free to and responsible to act his own discretion.
so.... anarchy? you think that is the closest to perfect we can get?
Anarchy (or anarchocapitalism.)
I did a bit of quick reading on precisely what this entails and it sounds terrible. It sounds like a system that, much like communism, cannot possibly work in the real world. It would quickly transform into an oligarchy where the rich control all the levers of power with the fun twist of there being no mechanism to vote them out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
When the police says move back...MOVE THE FUCK BACK.You do NOT have a right to resist the police with bodily force.
What gives the police the right to deny you the right to protest there? What are the limits of those powers? At the moment all I see from you is that you think the police have the right to order you to leave a protest and if you don't comply they can shoot you. That is a police state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
we are talking about the right to peacefully protest. If you believe the police have the right to attack and arrest people who choose to exercise that right, then that is a police state.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Someone mentioned before that Powell is 83 years old which so far is the best piece of evidence Ive heard against selecting him as VP since he would be older than Biden.
i'm not sure about that. One of the things that progressives are concerned about is that biden will pick a young ,right wing, neo-lib running mate. Then biden runs for 1 term and essentially hands power to that neo-lib running mate. That means you are looking at like 12 years where the democratic party continues to actively antagonize and fight against progressives while pandering to republicans.
If biden picks a running mate who is also older and unlikely to make their own run at president in 4 years, it would make people on the left a bit less nervous. They know biden will ignore what they want. They know biden will actively fight against what they want just to show right wing people how "reasonable" he is. If he hand picks another person who will do the exact same thing for years to come, it might further antagonize the left.
Created:
-->
@Athias
So what is my point? If a system of political interaction does not reflect a moral economy, then it is by NO MEANS a "better" system.
what system, in the entire history of mankind, has included a moral economy (and would therefore be better)? What would such a system look like? How would we decide what is moral and what is not? There is some pretty big disagreements about what is moral.
democracy has flaws because humans have flaws. I don't see any way that any hypothetical system could possibly be perfect. I'm not aware of any system that we could implement that would be better than democracy.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Colin Powell would have my vote.
I can see how he makes sense politically to continue to try to peel off voters from moderate republicans. But picking a republican to be VP for an already right wing democrat is a giant middle finger to his own party. It is entirely possible that it will only further convince the left that Biden is a right wing candidate who will do nothing to fight for their interests (and in many cases will actively fight against their interests). In that case, he is likely to lose alot more votes on the left than whatever gains he may get on the right.
But right this minute, that doesn't seem to be likely. Trump's authoritarian crack down on peaceful protesters is doing a pretty good job of showing that trump cannot be allowed to run the country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Physically resisting the police is unlawful and violent. Change my mind.
how is this statement not a police state? Your argument appears to be that the police have a right to do what they want, and if you try to resist them then you are a criminal who should be violently suppressed. You are describing countries like the Soviet Union or China.
Created:
-->
@Athias
All the more reason that democracy is a sham. When ever a system is built on majoritarian consensus, pandering is inevitable.
how is that a sham? Ruling by the consensus of the majority is what democracy is. Yes that involves pandering. Yes that is messy. But I'm not aware of any system that is better. At least in a democracy the rulers have to try to appeal to the people. In other forms of government there is no such requirement.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
No, Biden should pick Elizabeth Warren, but he's going to pick Kamala Harris.
I'm not sure warren adds any value at this point. She couldn't even win her own state. She doesn't really have much in the way of support. most of the left now distrusts her for her moving right during the campaign and her attempts to knee cap bernie (while almost entirely letting biden off the hook).
Stacy Abrams and Kamala Harris are both desperate to be VP, the latter being more experienced and a better asset to Joe. He needs a pitbull on the campaign trail and she's the best candidate for that these days.
Honestly, I don't see how kamala adds anything at all to his campaign. She had very little support and dropped out early. Her history as a prosecutor is probably more of a hindrance than a benefit. I don't see there being very many people who would refuse to vote for biden, but would want to vote for kamala.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
One sub-group of force in one city. My argument holds. you are expanding a single instance to represent the entire country. No, can'rt get aw2ay with that.
these cases are not isolated. We have seen cases of the police attacking and abusing protesters all over the country. The police then lie about the attack. then video comes out proving the attack. then the police admit it happened. It has become an old pattern.
If it wasn't a systemic problem, you wouldn't see the official police position being lies before the video comes out. In this example the official explanation was "he tripped" until the video came out, then suddenly they changed their story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I don’t know why I argue with you. You purposely claim misleading things. You purposely ignore evidence I provide and continue to parrot mainstream media talking points. There’s no use arguing against a sycophant of the media. Have a good day.
funny, i was just thinking that about you. You don't care about people's rights. As long as the police have even the slightest pretext for violence, you are perfectly ok with attacks on both people and the constitution.
If you have ever argued that the constitution is important, you are a massive hypocrite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Why are you so lazy. Here’s link: https://www.nps.gov/obed/learn/management/upload/CFR-2010-title36-vol1-chapI.pdf
lol it is adorable that you think that it is my job to help you provide a coherent argument and back it up. Somehow I am the lazy one when you refused over and over to actually make an argument or provide evidence.
Ok, here is what 1.5 says:
(a) Consistent with applicable legislation and Federal administrative policies, and based upon a determinationthat such action is necessary for themaintenance of public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values, protection of natural or cultural resources, aid to scientific research, implementation of management responsibilities, equitable allocation and use of facilities, or the avoidance of conflict among visitor use
None of these appear to apply as it was a peaceful protest which was not damaging the park.
How tf do you expect police to go and arrest the dude? How do the police know there aren’t more? How do the police know that the liquid in it wasn’t harmful.
so your proposal is that the police should have absolutely no need to respond with a reciprocal level of force? They should be free to shoot people for any reason at all. "Some one spit at me so I shot him in the head". Sounds like a brutal police state.
Police shot pepper spray bullets and smoke canisters that are not lethal.
peppery spray bullets can badly injure and maim people. they are much more dangerous than a water bottle.
Plus the decision to move back the protestors was done in the morning after the burning and vandalism of the church the previous night by Bill Barr.
so they attacked peaceful people at 6:30 pm, because 24 hours earlier things had happened there? That is stupid and makes no sense. It must have just been a massive co-incidence that trump held a photo op there 5 minutes after the police got done shooting peaceful protesters then huh?
But ya keep blaming it on Trump for trying to protect a church that has such a long history.
there is no evidence the church was in any danger at the moment trump order the police to shoot people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There were peaceful protesters out there being hit with the water bottles and luckily the ones I saw on the video it only painfully hit the torso, but there may have been plenty of head impacts caught off-camera.
the only times I saw protesters hit by the bottles when when the soldiers had already started their illegal attack on peaceful people. At which point they were attempting to defend themselves against a hostile force.
Why do you talk about violence like it's some Hollywood movie you watched yesterday?
I don't. You appear to though. Bad Hollywood movies where cops beat down hippies for looking at them wrong. This isn't the movies. This is the real world with real world consequences. When the police opened fire on that crowd they hurt alot of people. many, many times more than would possibly have been hurt in that peaceful protest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Sections 1.5 and 1.6 have nothing to do with the court case lol. They come from the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property. Go read it.
make your point or don't. I'm not doing your research for you. If you are incapable of doing so I will simply assume you had no point.
It’s not “freedom” to throw an object at a police officer during a peaceful protest. I would be saying the same even if Barack Obama was in the White House. Protesting is not an excuse for throwing stuff at cops.
agreed. That guy should have consequences. But one act (which harmed no one and couldn't have possibly harmed a cop anyway) is in no way a justification for shooting people. Police are supposed to use a proportionate response. They can't just shoot a guy for throwing a water bottle. In any other context, if someone shot a guy for throwing a water bottle he would be arrested.
no one was in any danger. They weren't rioting and destroying property. They were peacefully protesting. And trump decided to have them shot for a photo op. that is what dictators do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There were plenty of people pissed at Lincoln for ripping up the constitution, but he was posthumously forgiven of all his transgressions because of the unarguable point that the constitution isn't worth the paper it is on without the rule of law to enforce it, which means eliminating anarchy by any means possible, even if you have to kill 600,000 Americans.
and a group of peaceful protesters (with one water bottle that hit no one) is anarchy to you? that is worth ripping up the constitution and killing american citizens?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think everything you are saying about these water bottles is irrelevant. I have personally suffered a concussion from a 20 oz mug.
were you wearing riot gear? I kinda doubt it. Also, presumably that mug hit you. There is no evidence any police officer was hit by anything, let alone injured.
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
I know that the right to protest is a constitutionally protected right. If the federal government wants to attack protesters, they better have a MUCH better reason than something that couldn't have injured them landed near a cop, so they decided to shoot people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
the case was about whether or not they needed a permit. They did. They didn't need a permit to protest in that park. So how exactly are the cases related?Clearly you haven’t read sections 1.5 and 1.6. Stop being ignorant and read.
you need to tell me what your point is. You can't expect people to go out and do your research for you. I have already pointed out that case is not relevant as it is unrelated. If you disagree tell me why. Don't expect me to do your research for you.
The minute you throw anything at a police officer during a peaceful protest, it’s no longer a peaceful protest. It’s not hard to understand.
wow, freedom really means nothing to you does it? you will sit there and clap as the soldiers stomp on the constitution. as long as they can come up with the tiniest pretext of something that kinda, sorta, maybe was a threat (even though it couldn't possibly have hurt them) then you fully support crushing protesters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If it was a peaceful protest, police wouldn't HAVE to wear riot gear. It was mob violence and was dealt as mob violence.
it was a peaceful protest. But even peaceful protest can have the odd person angry enough to throw things within it. that is why they were wearing the gear. But since they were wearing the gear, they were in absolutely no danger from a water bottle. Especially since the water bottle landed nowhere near them. That does not give them free license to shoot unarmed, peaceful people.
And riot gear doesn't protect against all impacts. Many baseball players had concussions THROUGH A HELMET from a 5 oz ball.
of course they do, because an average pitch is being thrown at 90 miles an hour. That is nothing like what happened here and is therefore completely irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A bottle of water is 3 times heavier than a baseball. Let's see you take one.
those cops are in full riot gear for that exact reason. A water bottle is not a threat to them. Additionally, that bottle landed no where near a cop. No one was injured, no one was in danger. There was absolutely no justification for attacking that protest. They did it so that trump could have a photo op. The government is ordering US soldiers to fire on unarmed protesters for the convenience of the president. If that had happened in North Korea, the US would be blasting them for their authoritarianism. But because it's trump, you applaud him for his tyranny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
that case was about parading without a permit. as far as I know no one needed a permit to protest in that park, so that case is not relevant.A.) Precedents are broad in designB.) Please read Sections 1.5 and 1.6
the case was about whether or not they needed a permit. They did. They didn't need a permit to protest in that park. So how exactly are the cases related?
Can we agree that throwing a bottle of water at a cop is a violent action? If not then I’m done with this conversation.
ok, in the same sense that throwing a tiny piece of candy is technically a violent act. But that doesn't justify shooting someone. Police are supposed to engage in a proportional response. If someone throws a small object at a cop, the cop is not legally justified in drawing their gun. Similarly, if someone throws an open water bottle that lands no where near a cop, they are not justified in opening fire on an entire crowd of people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Are 57 men the entire force? No.
no, they are the entire riot squad though.
You may say tyhey do consst of the entire force, but that's too easy. And t's wrong. So it's 57. It is not "a;;." Stop saying it is. It isn't helping.
you are attempting to imply that it is 1 or 2 bad actors but that everything else is fundamentally fine. 100% of the buffalo riot squad are either "bad actors" or are willing to fight to protect "bad actors". With those kinds of numbers this is not some kind of isolated issue. It permeates the entire force.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, my response is I don't give a fuck what Trump does with a camera, I want him to do his job and secure property and clear the streets of rioters. If protesters want to resist the police, I hope they get a pepper ball in the eye for their violent decision.
They weren't rioters. Why are you lying about them in order to justify an illegal attack on protesters?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
ox v New Hampshire and Sections 1.5 and 1.6.
that case was about parading without a permit. as far as I know no one needed a permit to protest in that park, so that case is not relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
resisting the police isn't peaceful, nor is it lawful.
they had a lawful right to protest. doing so was peaceful and lawful. The police (and soldiers) attacked them and drove them back so that the president could do a photo op. that is the unlawful part of these events.
The government ordering peaceful protesters to be shot and gassed so the president could take a photo with a bible is reprehensible. The right lost it's mind that obama was going to tread on your constitutional rights. He never did anything of the sort. You are now watching trump do it in real time and your response is "but a cop might have gotten wet, so shoot the bastards"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Yes. Notice how conservatives weren’t throwing things at cops a couple of weeks ago. But we also forget to mention that all of them were asked to back up a number of times and they didn’t. “Peaceful.”
wait, so you are redefining peaceful to mean that they have to obey orders that they are not required to follow? So anyone who ever protests and doesn't immediately surrender to the police is now "violent" to you? Again, you are describing a police state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Why restructure for the pitifully small percentage of police who are bad actors? Prosecute the bad actors. That's the only solution needed.
I think a good aid for this is that video of the cops pushing down a 75 year old man in buffalo. 2 of them are directly responsible for hospitalizing an old man. They are "bad actors". But the rest of the cops around them did nothing to help the guy or to tell the "bad actors" they were wrong. You then had 57 members of the riot squad resign to protest the 2 "bad actors" being punished.
The problem isn't one or 2 bad people here and there doing bad things. The entire culture of the police force is that they have the right to push down anyone they want. The entire riot squad thought it was wrong to punish cops for hospitalizing an old man. He was in their way so he deserved to have his skull cracked as far as they are concerned. Punishing some scape goats doesn't fix the underlying problem. You need sweeping changes to change how the police function and view their job and the public or these attacks will continue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Throwing a bottle at a cop isn’t a constitutional right, nor is protected under the 1st Amendment
one person out of thousand did something that didn't harm anyone. So we should violently suppress the peaceful people? How does that make any sense? That is the most flimsy pretext for a police state that I have ever heard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
HB is defending that the protest was peaceful even after a bottle was thrown at a cop😂
one person threw an open water bottle that landed nowhere near a cop. my god, we'd better start murdering people immediately....
does freedom mean so little to you that you will look for literally any excuse to crush people's constitutional rights?
Created:
For someone who spends a lot of hours everyday posting here about equality and respecting the unfairly downtrodden, you sure spit on VP and over-glorify what it means to be a politician of a certain rank vs another when you say some have 'real power' and that the second highest rank in the nation is a fancy placeholder who is essentially enslaved to the ones with 'real power'.
ok. but unless the president dies, the "second highest rank" in america has absolutely 0 power. There is nothing in the job description that makes them important. They cast tie breaking votes and step in if the president is dead. Since those things don't come up very often, their entire role is based on electoral math.
I am done talking to you, you are a poser not a real left-wing lover of equality and mutual respect between all of any rank, background and whatever else. You judge on face value and talk so low and cynical of some things yet you say the right-wing shouldn't do this. Hypocrisy is all I am seeing.
what are you even talking about? how does the position of the VP have anything at all to do with left/right? I am describing how a political position functions. that is not a left/right issue.
Respect all, even a vice president and don't suggest it's a bullshit rank to artificially please people and that you're okay with that if you want to be seriously taken as someone who gives a shit about politics and doesn't see it as a real-life videogame.
Again, i don't know what you mean. Can you dispute what I am saying about the VP? If the president decides he doesn't want the VP to do anything, does he have any power at all?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Vice President does a lot behind the scenes and is a major eyes and ears to stop the President being backstabbed or media-smeared in ways that the President alone could never handle.
no, a VP can be important if important people in the administration decide to let them be. There is absolutely nothing in the job description that makes them important. In the same way an advisor can be critically important if they are listened to, but are nothing if they are ignored. The VP is an empty job unless people choose to let him do stuff.
There is a reason why experience as VP is considered so extreme that 14 VP have later become President (and will be 15 if Biden makes it).
It's not so much about being experience as it is about paying your political dues and name recognition. You support a powerful politician when he runs for president, then a few years later is your turn. You also get the benefit of lots of people knowing who you are already.
This is extremely serious to suggest that they are just a tie breaker and a face on a ticket.
that is exactly what they are, unless someone with real power chooses to let them be more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Wtf are you even saying lol. Tear gas and pepper spray aren’t the same things. Just answer this question with a yes or a no. If a girl pepper sprays me in the eyes, can I say I’ve been tear gassed?
There is a small detail that is off. But the underlying statement is accurate. they used an aerosolized spray to make you tear up. It;s like saying "i got hit by a drunk driver driving a ford truck" when it was actually a chevy. The important points are the drunk driver in the truck. The exact model of the truck is not the critical point. Trying to say they are lying when the underling point is accurate is an attempt at deception. A stupid one at that.
Why are you so lazy dude. Post 130. And it’s not from a different day. It’s from June 1st, 2020.
this is not the video I had seen.
But you are kidding right? One person through one water bottle, which landed nowhere near the police. The crowd immediately yelled at them to stop throwing things. The police attacked about 8 minutes later. All I see is a peaceful crowd being attacked. What exactly is in this video that is supposed to convince me that they were violent and a threat to anyone or anything?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
VP is very significant indeed, it is even an acting president at times and significant player with the chief of staff of the president behind the scenes. Most staff know the VP more than they know the President, it's just in politics series that they've decided to make VP appear far less doing anything than they do in reality.
ok, so what powers does a VP have that makes them significant? Do the write laws? Do they have important votes?
the only power they have is to break ties. Other than that, they do whatever random tasks come up. They don't have any official role that requires skill. That position has always been about "balancing the ticket". And that absolutely includes trump. He chose his VP to appeal to evangelicals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The media is claiming they were tear gassed which is false.
but it isn't. They were attacked by an eye irritant. That is what tear gas is. Everyone knows what tear gas is. Just because the soldiers used a slightly different method to make their eyes tear does not make the statement false.
It’s in this thread. Go take a look :)
by all means provide it. I don't know what video you mean.
do you mean that video that is obviously from a different day? I recall seeing a video at night of 1 guy throwing something. but since the attack being referred to is during the day, that is very obviously not relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Thanks for saying it’s a mistake and therefore wrong. Glad we agree.
no, the statement is true. they were attacked with an eye irritant. They didn't know the exact type of eye irritant they were being attacked with.
There’s video evidence of protestors throwing stuff at cops, which gives them the full right to disperse the crowd.
where is this video? The videos I have seen are of a peaceful crowd being attacked by soldiers. Then a few minutes later trump wanders over the scene of the attack for a photo op.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Tear gassing didn’t happen, pepper spray did. If a girl pepper sprays me and I go around saying I got tear gassed, that’s extremely misleading whether it’s semantically correct.
in both cases they fired an eye irritant at you. So saying "it didn't happen" is far more misleading than getting the exact substance used on you wrong. Saying it didn't happen is an attempt to deny the attack. Saying it was tear gas, as long as you had good reason to think it was tear gas (which the protesters did), then it isn't dishonest. It is a mistake.
But it’s besides the point. The protestors were warned and were being violent.
they were warned about a curfew, which had not come up yet. The soldiers were unleashed before curfew.
There is no evidence they were being violent. The police have provided no evidence of this, and reporters that were in the crowd at the time didn't see any violence. There have been tons of cases of cops lying about protesters to justify their violence against them. Without supporting evidence, there is no reason to believe the police.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
That is corrupt.
how is it corrupt? That is all the position of VP is for. Other than casting a tie breaking vote in the senate, it is doesn't do anything at all. It's almost sole job is to "balance the ticket" to try to get voters that would otherwise dislike the presidential candidate. Since the role of VP has no power and doesn't actually do anything in government, there is no reason for the position to be based on merit. Because they have nothing to do anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Did you gloss over the part where he said “no tear gas was used”?It’s not lying lol. Saying pepper spray bullets are tear gas is misleading.
that's like if I said someone threw an apple at me and they said I was lying (because it was a pear). It is a semantic difference. Either way police fired eye irritants at peaceful protesters. The specific kind of eye irritant they used is besides the point. Saying it didn't happen is an attempt at lying.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
So if there is no such thing as reverse racism and there's only racism if you base on race, then in your semantic world, you call racial affirmative action racist rather than reverse racist?
affirmative action is typically designed to counteract racial bias by ensuring that minorities get to be represented. You could interpret that as racism I suppose, but I wouldn't.
VP should be fundamentally selected based on competence and loyalty, any other reason is corrupt unless to reverse another corruption in a subtle way.
I'm not sure any VP has ever been selected for those reasons. the position of VP doesn't really do anything. They don't have much power. They are almost always picked for what they are or where they are from rather than any skills or loyalty. Some presidents never even really talked to their VPs because they didn't have any use for them.
VPs have traditionally been picked for what state they come from to strengthen a ticket. That isn't fundamentally any different than picking them for gender or ethnicity.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
He will be accused of picking based on reverse racism rather than competence.
there is no such thing as "reverse racism". either you are discriminating based on race or you are not. You can't "reverse" that.
this direct and blatant an alteration of hiring based solely on appealing to masses as a non-racist because of a recent event is so utterly corrupt and will be too obvious to gain more votes than it loses.
VP's are always picked to appeal to a specific demographic. Historically it was because of the state they were from. In Joe biden's case, it was because he was a right wing white guy (when obama picked him). Choosing for race is not unprecedented. Choosing for gender would be. But since the main purpose of a VP pick is to appeal to a segment of society the main candidate struggles with, it is totally normal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
A regulation isn’t a blank check to ban the right to peacefully assemble.
you appear to be arguing that the decision of the supreme court gives the government the power to attack protesters whenever, and wherever they want. That is a blank check to ban the right to assemble. IE, if the police have the right to shoot you anywhere you choose to assemble, then you can't assemble anywhere.
And besides you should be arguing this in court. Oh wait..
why? Obviously there needs to be reasonable limits on the right to protest. Attacking peaceful people with soldiers so the president can have a photo op is obviously, way, way over that line.
Created: