Total posts: 934
-->
@Danielle
I agree with History that Warren isnt really a good pick for VP at this point, let alone the best.
She does not have the progressive vote behind her as the primary clearly indicated. Hell, just by moving from a Medicare-For-All plan to a transitional plan she hemorrhaged at least half the people who were supporting her up until that point and went to Bernie's camp. There also wasnt a bloc in Warren's base that Biden didnt already do decent with himself, so a Warren selection hardly adds anything to the ticket he doesnt already have.
On the opposite side, Warren would immediately push the GOP to rally more around Trump then consider switching to Biden or staying home. Apart from Pelosi, Hillary, and Bernie, I cant think of anyone else who as VP would piss off Republicans more just by being on the ticket. Part of the equation of selecting a VP is to bring more people to your side then you push to the other side, Warren is definitely one of the people that would push people more to the GOP then they would bring anyone towards Biden.
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.
Created:
Short version: Kingdom, the first Korean-language original series on Netflix about a zombie breakout in 1600's Southern Korea, is one of the best damn zombie shows/movies/stories ever.
Long Version: I fell off the Walking Dead a while ago, right around the Terminus story arc well into when the show became focused entirely on human drama in the midst of a zombie apocalypse rather then a struggle against zombies themselves. Outside of the Walking Dead, zombies only really have a presence in movies that have one of two possible story routes: 1) Its the beginning of an outbreak and people just keep trying to stay alive, movie ends open-ended with the zombie apocalypse still happening and not much has changed from the beginning, or 2) A zombie outbreak happens and is contained all within the movie where the bleakness of the situation never really sets in and you assume some sort of cure will be found just because it always does...... The exception to both of these types is Shaun of the Dead, which is basically a movie that expertly spoofs other zombie movies and motifs (It's title is almost exactly the same as Dawn of the Dead ffs) that gets somewhat resolved by the time everything ends. There's Shaun of the Dead, and then there's everything else.
Then 'Kingdom' came along.
Here's some of the reasons why Kingdom is such a unique take on the zombie genre
- In the 1600's, the idea of zombies naturally would not be in anyone's consideration, so when zombies do start popping up or when people try to warn others that the dead wake up at night, they naturally dont believe/dont understand whats happening. In modern movies when people dont know how zombies work, its an indication of stupidity because just about everyone in modern society has some concept of how zombies work. But in the 1600's, fucking nobody would know anything about that, so when the situation does deteriorate and people dont know what is happening, rather then being angry at how stupid people are being you get more tense because there's no way people in this time could know whats going on
- In the 1600's, the idea of zombies naturally would not be in anyone's consideration, so when zombies do start popping up or when people try to warn others that the dead wake up at night, they naturally dont believe/dont understand whats happening. In modern movies when people dont know how zombies work, its an indication of stupidity because just about everyone in modern society has some concept of how zombies work. But in the 1600's, fucking nobody would know anything about that, so when the situation does deteriorate and people dont know what is happening, rather then being angry at how stupid people are being you get more tense because there's no way people in this time could know whats going on
- In the 1600's, zombies are a lot harder to kill..... Damn near every zombie movie or show gives humanity a fighting chance due to the existence of firearms, vehicles, explosives, etc that gives mankind a 50-50 fighting chance when fighting a hoard, no matter how outnumbered they may be. In the 1600's though, when best case scenario you have a sword and a horse, a zombie hoard is almost unstoppable, especially if you're outnumbered with not much strategic advantages. Instantly this raises the tension up 5 fold, as now those 50-50 odds of surviving or at least doing a decent amount of damage to a zombie hoard is now down to 10%. By setting the series in a time period when weapons are not capable of mass-destruction, it becomes way fucking harder for humans to survive even isolated encounters compared to horde's, which makes the stakes that much higher
- In the 1600's, people were far more ruthless..... The most extreme decision that gets made in most modern zombie stories is whether or not a person kills another person when its revealed theyve been infected, or when someone tries to conceal theyve been infected from others in the group. A close third is when people decide to turn away healthy people who need help because you dont have enough supplies for everyone. These are motifs/plot points that have been used time and time again, with no adaptation really standing out in terms of how deep they go into the ethics of the circumstances. But this is medieval Korea now, where you have peasants already pushed to the extreme just to stay alive on a day-to-day basis, and higher up nobles and kings willing to do anything they can to maintain power since its their belief that they have been chosen by God to retain power. The level of dark shit that people in this time period are willing to do is substantially darker then what we could imagine in modern times, since modern people have greater inclination to maintain civility and humanity when possible while medieval people are far more inclined to value survival at all costs. Just being alive and being infected is not a unifying force among people as they face zombies, humanity is divided among class and status where each side resents each other nearly as much as they resent zombies, which makes things substantially more interesting.
- You cant really guess what will happen next..... In modern takes on the zombie genre, a zombie apocalypse is solved in one of two ways: Heavy firepower if deployed at the last moment that literally just wipes them all out, or some sort of highly scientific cure is found just in time to cure or prevent people from becoming zombies. Again, nether of which can really apply to the 1600's, since overwhelming firepower isnt a thing, and people havent figured out that you shouldnt shit upstream in a river you drink your water from. As things get worse, the odds of fixing the situation immediately plummets down to single digits because humanity simply lacks the military capacity, scientific capacity, and general knowledge about zombies to be able to effectively react to such an outbreak. Its completely unpredictable how things will go or how people will react, whereas modern adaptations usually have up to two or three outcomes that can be predicted based on information obtained 10 minutes earlier.
If you are willing to view this series via subtitles and dont mind the audio being in Korean, this is one of the most enthralling takes on the zombie genre you will ever watch. If Train to Busan got your attention and you enjoyed it, this will be right up your alley as well. I cannot endorse it enough
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sick of everything being about playing a game with optics and pseudo-value reputation.
It was arguably optics and pseudo-value representation to begin with though
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Im not questioning the competency of Harris. Im saying that fundamentally, the first quality for the VP selection next to Biden was that whoever the selection was, she would have to be a woman. It was already implied that the VP selection also had to be a competent person who could stand in as Prez should something happen to Biden, but the field was narrowed down specifically on the issue of gender, so my belief is that in light of all that is going on, it would not be such a big issue if that parameter to narrow down the field instead be based on race
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
however this direct and blatant an alteration of hiring based solely on appealing to masses as a non-racist
Couldnt you frame the previous decision of hiring a VP based solely on gender as an appeal to the masses as being a non-sexist? The DEM VP selection from the start has been aimed at representing diversity, switching from selecting a female VP to a black male VP would be roughly the same in terms of pandering. The only difference is that society issues with one of those two (race) has taken far more precedence over society issues faced by the other (gender)
Created:
-->
@Marko
Firstly, we don’t need a medical diagnosis to assess whether a person, who so happens to be a presidential candidate, has completely lost it. The visuals are unambiguous
I literally cited how actual mental-health specialists not only dont see any problems with Biden, but that Trump's mental issues are far more advanced and concerning. The fact that you think you would know better then actual professionals is a clear indication that you way over-value your below average knowledge on the issue.
Explain how a 13 percent representation is an acceptable substitute for a 50 percent representation (black Americans vs females)?
For starters, half that 50% female margin arent automatically democrats. Its roughly 1/4th to 1/2 of that since some are Republicans or Independents, so the overall percentage of women who would even consider such a selection is closer to 15% to 25%, while upwards of 90% of black voters are Democrats and have been for a long time..... Second, Of the 15% to 25% of females who are Democrats, you can make the argument that not a lot of them are as concerned with gender representation at the moment since nationally and even internationally, the focus has shifted to race relations and race issues here in the United States
If you had any understanding of what the word 'context' meant, then you might be able to pick up on what is being said since you seem to be very confused on everything that cant be described with one syllable words.
If you had any understanding of what the word 'context' meant, then you might be able to pick up on what is being said since you seem to be very confused on everything that cant be described with one syllable words.
Really? Where have you heard that—-as a result of recent events, the party cares less about gender than it does about race?
if you really havent figured out yet that the George Floyd protests have shined a light on systematic treatment of African Americans in this country and not systematic treatment of women in this country, then your arguments challenging otherwise are not even worth responding to and Im just going to label them as concessions.
How are African Americans being treated differently?
Yeah you definitely have no idea what is going on. Im not going to sit here and explain it to you like an 8 year old which is where your mental capacity is around, so go watch Zootopia and see if you can pick up some hints.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Why are these places defunding the police. I thought it was about reforming the police, not getting rid of it
There's a big ass translation issue with the saying that is naturally causing a lot of confusion. The short answer is that 'Defund the Police' is an ambiguous statement that could mean completely different goals or objectives depending on which state or city you are in.
Most instances of defunding the police is using funds that would normally go to Police Departments and instead giving that money to 1) Local organizations that would curb crime on a more grassroots level, on the argument that they can do it more efficiently and in a safer manner. or 2) Use that funding to invest in more impoverished communities that often get more policed than other wealthier areas. The degree of how much funding would be transferred varies by department in different cities. Calls to defund police programs and transfer that money to other crime-reducing organizations/poorer community areas could range anywhere from 15% to 75% of funding police departments get, most of the time it does not mean getting rid of the police department entirely.
Some other instances of defunding the police is just pulling funding to police departments meant for specific problems. Boston PD's in particular have been facing a unique call to defund some of the programs that pay overtime wages to police officers, since the overtime system is apparently massively abused in the state (Police officers can make more money then the mayor of Boston himself) https://www.boston25news.com/news/25-investigates-overworked-police-departments-paying-big-money-in-overtime/1010669867/ This also varies by department in addition to the scope of how much funding is being limited.
The most extreme thing Ive heard though happened in Minneapolis where resolutions to flat out abolish the Police Department, which is currently gaining some sort of steam in Minneapolis where all this shit started.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/07/minneapolis-city-council-defund-police-george-floyd The vote to abolish the police department though is still very much in its infancy, with no clear indication what would replace it. If I had to guess, the move appears to be a maneuver to create a new police system that is effectively the same as any regular big-city police department, except with a fresh start that doesnt have all the pre-existing ailments/issues the previous Police Department were unable to reform (Training techniques, eligibility to be an officer, programs the police carry out, etc.).... I don't think the abolition of the police department means it will be replaced with some ultra-hippy community organization that is the wet dream of a 1960's acid dealer, it will probably lead to the implementation of a new police department that just trains officers and carries out different programs than the old one did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I also liked that show a lot until it became 40% filler
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
My question was why? Why was the media all over the riots, but not peace. I looked to discover the answer from various sources. The answers is revenue. Revenue flows from the clicks, views, and likes
Yeah thats been the case ever since 24 hour news networks became a thing.
Before that when news stations had 30 minutes tops to cover things, there would be maybe 3 stories tops that would get attention. They gave a general summary that was basic information about what happened, show some footage if they had it, moved on to the next story, commercials here and there, then the news is over..... Nowadays though with 24 hour news everything gets attention, and then everything gets sensationalized because that drives outrage/revenue/attention/more revenue, and regular facts get left behind.
Ive constantly wondered how many problems would get solved if CNN, Fox, and MSNBC all just vanished at once..... At least 90% of the bullshit sensationalism would go with them, while the other 10% would be stuck on the internet where no major outlet has any outsized amount of clout or power over the medium... We also wouldnt have situations where only half the nation actually knows whats going on while the other half are being duped into believing things that arent happening at all, and we'd all roughly be on the same page which hasnt happened since at least 9/11
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marko
I’m asking for the use of tear gas during riots and protests in general
What specifically are you asking that the mountain of evidence cited previously doesn't explain?
if you could refrain from using completely biased sources as references
Says the guy who hasnt posted any sort of source in the first place outside of a definition
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Greyparrot reached retardation a while ago, you willingly decided to join him by being unable to recognize basic truths.
Did you get around to reading those four links I tagged you in that massively disproved your initial beliefs, or did you blatantly not read those because you are more comfortable being a wrong idiot then someone who alters their views and beliefs based on new evidence?
Did you get around to reading those four links I tagged you in that massively disproved your initial beliefs, or did you blatantly not read those because you are more comfortable being a wrong idiot then someone who alters their views and beliefs based on new evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marko
Do you have any statistics on the claims you just made regarding the use of tear gas?
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/06/03/texas-police-force-protests-george-floyd/
Looting that does occur takes place almost exclusively at night, yet tear gas and rubber bullets are repeatedly fired into protest crowds during the day when no looting or arson has even come close to starting, and this is the case throughout multiple different cities across the whole country where protests are taking place.
Looting that does occur takes place almost exclusively at night, yet tear gas and rubber bullets are repeatedly fired into protest crowds during the day when no looting or arson has even come close to starting, and this is the case throughout multiple different cities across the whole country where protests are taking place.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He does that often.
In fairness we both have a tendency to monologue.
The differences between us is that I back up claims and opinions with facts and tangible evidence, while you're ramblings are so incoherent and baseless that you legitimately should not have the ability to vote or procreate
The differences between us is that I back up claims and opinions with facts and tangible evidence, while you're ramblings are so incoherent and baseless that you legitimately should not have the ability to vote or procreate
Created:
-->
@Marko
"1) Biden has dementia."
Dumb claim number 1. Show a medical diagnosis from someone that actually is trained in a medical field that doesnt rely on some halfassed compilation of Biden just mouth-fumbling words like hes been doing since the 1980's. Hell most medical professionals even indicate that Trump's medical health is far more concerning than Biden's and theyre supposed to stay out of the subject:
https://news.yahoo.com/trumps-mental-state-not-bidens-is-the-real-concern-mental-health-professionals-say-223617342.html"2) Many Democrats are unlikely to forgive the breaking of a promise to choose a female VP."
That can be challenged though...... The promise to pick a female VP was also done over the concern of representation/diversity among the party, so picking a black VP would arguably be an acceptable substitute since that would represent the concern of diversity that led to calls for a female VP in the first place. Picking Bernie Sanders instead of a female VP would be a disaster because as different as his views are from Biden, Sanders is as old and white and male as Biden. Powell doesnt fit that mold and fills the arbitrary quota for diversity that led to calls for a female VP selection in the first place.
That can be challenged though...... The promise to pick a female VP was also done over the concern of representation/diversity among the party, so picking a black VP would arguably be an acceptable substitute since that would represent the concern of diversity that led to calls for a female VP in the first place. Picking Bernie Sanders instead of a female VP would be a disaster because as different as his views are from Biden, Sanders is as old and white and male as Biden. Powell doesnt fit that mold and fills the arbitrary quota for diversity that led to calls for a female VP selection in the first place.
"3) It is a terrible idea to pick a VP based on recent events"
Prior to this point the main driver for the VP selection was that it should be a woman. Recent events indicate that nowadays the party and the people in it cares less about gender/sex being represented in the final ticket and instead that race has become a highlight. At this point even if Biden selected a white female VP, people would question the decision over why he didnt pick someone of color due to the massive attention being devoted to race relations and the treatment of African Americans in the country right now. Picking a VP based on recent events may not be the best idea, but its better then the first decision to pick one based on gender which is what is being argued.
Prior to this point the main driver for the VP selection was that it should be a woman. Recent events indicate that nowadays the party and the people in it cares less about gender/sex being represented in the final ticket and instead that race has become a highlight. At this point even if Biden selected a white female VP, people would question the decision over why he didnt pick someone of color due to the massive attention being devoted to race relations and the treatment of African Americans in the country right now. Picking a VP based on recent events may not be the best idea, but its better then the first decision to pick one based on gender which is what is being argued.
"4) Choosing the VP based on the colour of their skin is a terrible idea."
At this point its still a better idea than choosing a VP based on their sex, which is what the policy was up to this point, which Im arguing Biden should go back on in the first place.
At this point its still a better idea than choosing a VP based on their sex, which is what the policy was up to this point, which Im arguing Biden should go back on in the first place.
5) Competence is a virtue.
Neither one of us questioned Powell's competence so this isnt actually one of your arguments.
Neither one of us questioned Powell's competence so this isnt actually one of your arguments.
6) Endorsing a candidate is not a good reason for the candidate to pick them.
That wasnt any of my arguments I made for why Biden should pick him in the first place. Did you read the post or just respond to the headline and start inserting your opinion?
That wasnt any of my arguments I made for why Biden should pick him in the first place. Did you read the post or just respond to the headline and start inserting your opinion?
"7) Personally praised you for coming up with the counter arguments that clinched the deal in my eyes."
You seem to be confused on what my arguments even are about
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I have now a better understanding of the world. I have taken the time to reflect upon the events happening. I have stood on the frontline of peaceful protests in Chicago. I talked to various people. I have gathered knowledge about this situation by reflecting and battling
What is your perspective? Given the blatant idiocy of most of the other people posting in this thread right now, you may very well be the one person capable of having a discussion with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marko
’there is a stronger argument to make against the coronavirus restrictions than curfew.The so-called ‘curfew’ in the case of the coronavirus has no stated hour, week, month, or year for that matter, and is therefore 1) not really a curfew, and 2) a decision that holds up less strongly constitutionally speaking
Thats justifiable though because the Coronavirus is not something that can be shut down in an hour, week, or month, or maybe even in a year given how extensive the outbreak has become.
If the threat is clearly and actively a problem that itself is open-ended without any clear indication of when it will end, then the argument that restrictions to try to contain the threat can also be as open-ended and undefined due to the nature of the threat in the first place.
If the threat is clearly and actively a problem that itself is open-ended without any clear indication of when it will end, then the argument that restrictions to try to contain the threat can also be as open-ended and undefined due to the nature of the threat in the first place.
Youre blatantly ignoring the context the Coronavirus restrictions were made for in the first place to argue that they are somehow questionable
Tear gas, etc....was used after the ‘mostly completely peaceful protests’ went violent
If you are legitimately unable to see the very basics of what is going on then it isnt worth trying to discuss this topic with you. A vast majority of the time tear gas is not being used because 'the protests went violent'. A vast majority of the time instead what happens is that the governor or some official has arbitrarily decided the protest needs to end, and riot police are given the order to start shooting off tear gas to clear it out. Thats what is actually going on. If that is news to you, then frankly you need to become a lot more informed about the issue before you can really participate in discussions about it
Created:
You wrote a long-winded opinion piece. A disagreed with it. Grow some balls and stop taking it personally.
Its the stupidity in your initial response itself that I took issue with more then the fact that you dont agree with Powell as a possible VP pick. If you actually want to discuss the matter, then fire up whatever functioning brain cells you have and actually make respectable counter-points to it
Unfortunately for you, the reasons you gave on why Powell would be a bad pick were greater than the reasons why he would make a good pick
Based entirely on your opinion and nothing else.
My argument was that the drawbacks Powell would have as a VP pick do not outweigh the numerous positives he would bring to the ticket, which I did by citing his likely appeal to moderate conservatives, people who respect the military, African-Americans, as well as the lesser emphasis on gender of a VP candidate in light of the Floyd protests.... Your argument that those cons outweigh the pros amounted to "I believe otherwise" and then you lazily left it at that, so I dismissed your opinion for the lazy attempt that it was rather then legitimately discuss the issue you wrongfully think your response somehow earned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marko
As said before, the stated temporality of a curfew makes the majority of the difference
Not to the degree that they somehow make the Coronavirus restrictions less justified then the curfews imposed over the Floyd protests, which was the point you made that I am challenging in case you forgot.
The Coronavirus restrictions were made because there is literally a once-in-a-hundred-years Pandemic with a fatality rate worse then many other infections diseases society has had to deal with sweeping through the nation and recently topping 6 figures in terms of casualties. Unprecedented measures are justifiable against unprecedented events.... On the other hand, implementing curfews with short notice following mostly completely peaceful protests, after those protests were dispersed with tear gas and unrestrained shows of force, is not nearly as justified even though you seem to be indicating otherwise.
The Coronavirus restrictions were made because there is literally a once-in-a-hundred-years Pandemic with a fatality rate worse then many other infections diseases society has had to deal with sweeping through the nation and recently topping 6 figures in terms of casualties. Unprecedented measures are justifiable against unprecedented events.... On the other hand, implementing curfews with short notice following mostly completely peaceful protests, after those protests were dispersed with tear gas and unrestrained shows of force, is not nearly as justified even though you seem to be indicating otherwise.
Finally, looters and violent criminals will be dealt with using batons and tear gas.
If you ever decide to become informed on an issue, you might see that peaceful protesters during the day are more often then not the ones who get tear gas and rubber bullets shot at them, which is fueling a lot of the anger and resentment that leads to violence and looting in the first place.
Created:
-->
@Marko
I gave you the courtesy of adequately responding to yours.
That dribble that was your reply was hardly any sort of 'adequate response'
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If you have a change of heart and would like to actually be educated on current events for once in your life, feel free to read through any of the links below that proved my previous points you didnt seem smart enough to understand:
"protesters labeled mandatory lockdowns as “tyranny,” while medical workers and health experts cautioned that lifting them too soon risked unleashing a greater disaster."
"You don’t have to be a doctor specializing in infectious diseases to understand that the premature lifting of the stay-at-home orders will end up prolonging the havoc wreaked by the coronavirus, as well as then prolonging the subsequent economic dislocation."
"Medical professionals on the front lines of the battle to curb the pandemic, which erupted in China late last year, have said the United States could face a second and even deadlier wave of infections if the lockdowns end prematurely."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa/as-protesters-decry-us-coronavirus-lockdown-officials-urge-caution-idUSKBN2221P9
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa/as-protesters-decry-us-coronavirus-lockdown-officials-urge-caution-idUSKBN2221P9
"“To be a week into these restrictions and already be talking about abandoning them is irresponsible and dangerous,” said Tom Inglesby, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Removing restrictions now would allow the virus, he said, to “spread widely, rapidly, terribly, and could kill potentially millions in the year ahead with huge social and economic impact.”"
Created:
-->
@Marko
Nah
Had you left your response just at that one word, it would have still been a far superior response compared to the actual idiocy you made from that point on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
@Marko
Ill try to respond to both of your ongoing cluelessness in order for which it popped up
The scale, scope and temporality makes the two difficult to compare
It really doesnt though..... The Coronavirus restrictions were in effect curfews that were just extended over a longer period of time and applied to businesses as well, but largely loosely enforced where the public was asked to regulate themselves instead of the government using police or military force to uphold the restrictions.... The George Floyd protest curfews are more temporary curfews largely implemented without much prior notice, but have been far more viciously enforced with tools such as batons and tear gas.
The only differences between the two are that the length and scope of one was longer and more expansive, all over justified public health reasons, while the other has been more haphazardly implemented while also more viciously enforced in an effort to stifle protests.
If you’re in denial that liberals were claiming that conservatives were spreading corona by protesting
The far bigger criticism liberals were making during that time was that suspending the coronavirus restrictions at a time when testing wasnt and still largely isnt widespread would only make the spread and death count of the coronavirus substantially worse, not that people at the actual protests themselves were at risk of spreading the virus.
show me how mass protests where people are side by side doesn’t spread the coronavirus.
The fact that you are still so incredibly far off the mark of what is actually being discussed is really tempting me to not even waste my time with you.
Go back and actually read what has actually been said up to this point.
Go back and actually read what has actually been said up to this point.
Created:
However long ago it was, Biden promised during a debate I think that he would choose a woman as his VP. The big stickler of the point was that Biden as an 'old white guy' alone does not represent the diversity of the Dem party, and picking some other white guy regardless of age as his VP might lead to turnout/enthusiasm issues since Biden himself already had that within his own primary campaign. So he promised to pick a woman as his VP to pacify the portion of the base that values that kind of thing, yatta yatta yatta.
In light of recent events though with the George Floyd killing and subsequent crackdowns, one can argue that race has taken precedent in American's minds over sex/gender. Some Dems who might have pulled for a Biden/Warren ticket or a Biden/Klobuchar ticket are now likely far less enthused about such a combo compared to other potential tickets like Biden/Harris or Biden/Abrams since the national spotlight has shifted HARD to race relations in the US. It is now at the point where if Biden had NOT made his original promise to select a woman as his VP, Biden selecting an African American male as his VP would be much more relevant to all the discussion going on, and by extension a better asset, then if he were to select a white woman as his VP partner.
Lets put a pin on that for right now and focus on another thing going on.
A recent trend among prominent Republicans has taken place in light of the response to the George Floyd protests, where prominent officials and former officials have either flat out said they would not support Trump's re-election, or would even consider voting for Biden instead. Many of these people are ones who were tied to the Bush, Romney, and McCain campaigns stretching back to the year 2000, all of whom Trump has significantly criticized throughout his presidency and presidential run in 2016, sometimes even before he even began campaigning in the first place. Many of these Republicans, who are held in high regard by centrist and moderate republicans, have increasingly voiced their distaste for the President and how he has done things.
One of whom just so happens to be Colin Powell.
The goal of a VP selection is four-fold:
#1 - Be capable of becoming President if something happens to the actual President
#2 - Not be a negative distraction
#1 - Be capable of becoming President if something happens to the actual President
#2 - Not be a negative distraction
#3 - Bring more people/enthusiasm to the ticket
#4 - Not cause more people to go to/become more enthusiastic about the other ticket (Trump/Pence)
#1 - Colin Powell's competence is not an issue, he arguably would be able to handle being president better than Biden could.
#1 - Colin Powell's competence is not an issue, he arguably would be able to handle being president better than Biden could.
#2 - Colin Powell would not be a negative distraction on the scale that Sarah Palin was for McCain in 2008. If anything, a Biden/Powell ticket would see more gaffes coming from Biden himself than Powell. Biden could make 7 gaffes in the time it takes Powell to make anything close to one.
#3 - Would Colin Powell bring more enthusiasm to a Biden ticket? For anyone who really values diversity, Powell would naturally be a plus just by being a person of color. For people who value military service, Powell would also be an attractive selection since he was a 4 star general and has already served in a cabinet-level office. For people who are moderate conservatives or are part of the GOP that are put off by Trump (there are a lot of them), Powell teaming up with Biden would gain much more consideration from this voting bloc to temporarily switch sides then any female-selection as VP would be able to replicate.... African Americans who understandably question Biden's allegiance to the African-American vote would definitely be pacified by a Powell selection as VP, arguably even more so then Kamala Harris since Harris's service as a prosecutor has put off some black voters from liking her since shes been on the side of law enforcement in the past. Powell's national profile is also still large enough where people would be more likely to recognize/remember him compared to some obscure selection made by Biden chiefly on the basis of gender.
In terms of what Colin Powell can bring to a ticket, there is much more he offers to the Biden camp as VP then just about any woman could at this point. Only Michelle Obama or Oprah at this point could bring more people to the Biden ticket than Colin Powell could, and neither of them are going to accept that offer to do so which leaves Powell near the top of the line.
#4 - The clearest drawback to a Powell VP selection among Democrats would be the fact that he is basically a Republican NeoCon. I dont see any Bernie Bros or whatever is left of Warrens base being super-pleased by a Powell selection, Powell would arguably reinforce Biden's more centrist stances on issues compared to the more liberal positions that Bernie or Warren would pull for. The thing about appeasing the super liberal faction of the Dem party is that no one who Biden selects to please this part of the base wouldn't also just push centrist Republicans back to supporting Trump..... If Elizabeth Warren is selected as VP, 9 out of 10 wavering Republicans would go right back to reluctantly supporting Trump, while the other 10% may choose to just stay home instead of flip sides. Warren and Sanders as VP would push away just as many people from considering a moderate/centrist Dem like Biden as it would rally those in the far left to support the ticket. Selecting a very liberal candidate as VP that intends to rally the extreme faction of the base would far more likely become a liability than an asset during the general election, which violates rule #2 of what a VP candidate is meant to do for a President..... For regular Dems who question if Powell is really on their side, the fact that he voted twice for Obama over McCain and Romney, and has become a vocal critic of Trump indicates that he has had at least some change in allegiance that dates all the way back over a decade to 2008.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I'm questioning whether or not you're illiterate based on your response, since almost nothing of what you are responding to is what was initially claimed in the first place
Please show me which mayors put out a curfew while conservatives were protesting
There weren't curfews as a result of the protesting by the right, there was protesting by the right over the curfews..... In Michigan there were coronavirus restrictions that right wingers came out in armed protest over that went on for days before the George Floyd killing took place https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52496514
In case you missed it, which it seems like you did by a mile, the comparison being made was that the right was protesting restrictions and curfews entirely meant for public health and safety, but now they are not protesting curfews entirely meant to silence people peacefully advocating for police reforms.
Also please show where conservatives were looting, rioting, and burning down buildings
They weren't, because in response to the protests local governments didn't call in riot police or the national guard to forcefully and arbitrarily clear out protests. The armed conservatives who showed up to protest Covid restrictions were largely ignored, labeled as loud idiots, and for the most part not treated like any sort of actual threat. People who were peacefully protesting the Floyd killing though are being targeted and treated like a hostile threat, which is only inciting greater anger and leading to looting and arson.
Y’all were saying that we were killing people by coming out of our houses and protesting
Literally nobody has been saying that. Im not going to waste time on make-believe arguments, read and respond to what is actually being said rather then make stuff up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Marko
The Coronavirus restrictions were regulations where people had to remain indoors and not go outside, unless you absolutely had to such as for emergencies or to get supplies
The literal definition of a curfew is 'A regulation where people have to remain indoors and not go outside.'
One could easily and correctly argue that the Coronavirus lockdowns were just curfews extended over the period of days rather then just hours during the night.
Created:
Going back to the year 2000, electoral advantages between the GOP and DEM was split roughly evenly, where either party could effectively guarantee around 220 electoral votes and then the remaining 80-100 were up for grabs. Going back to 2000, the only nominee to not get more than 220 was when McCain had the unfortunate situation of trying to represent the GOP when the economy collapsed near the end of the Bush years..... Because of this near-certainty, a handful of swing states held great importance in national elections where losing 3 or 4 of them effectively ensured defeat, due to how evenly split the electoral power both sides had on average.
That is shifting as we go into 2020 and beyond though.
The states of Texas, Arizona, and Georgia collectively have 65 electoral votes between them. That number is likely only going to climb going into the future as states in the south tend to have greater growth compared to states in the north. The problem though for the GOP is that these 3 states, which have gone Republican in every recent election without the GOP having to sink resources into those states to defend them, are now drifting into swing-state territory, assuming they're not swing states already.
Last 3 polls from Arizona shows Biden +7. Trump +1, Biden +4
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/az/arizona_trump_vs_biden-6807.html
Last 4 polls from Texas shows Tie, Biden +1, Trump +6, Trump +1
Last 4 polls from Texas shows Tie, Biden +1, Trump +6, Trump +1
Sparse polls from Georgia show Trump +7 and Trump +8, but neither of those polls were taken in 3 months, and historically Georgia went Republican by an averega of 15% during the bush years whereas Romney and McCain only carried the state in high single digits
These three states are the three that have historically been the largest safe states for the GOP in presidential elections..... North Carolina usually breaks GOP but in the last 3 elections in a row have been decided by less than 3%, the Great Lakes states like Ohio, Penn, Mich, and Wisc tend to lean blue or be swing states, while no other safe GOP state in the Midwest carries more than 10 electoral votes.
If this trend holds where it currently is, meaning from now on everything stays the same and doesnt change further, this means that the largest 'safe' state the GOP can count on would be Tennessee at 11 electoral votes.
Democrats have SIX states larger or equal to that size that are safe Dem territory. CA at 55, NY at 29, IL at 20, NJ at 14, WA at 12, MA at 11..... Seven if you count Virginia at 13 which even Hillary won by 5% where the last two polls show Biden carrying by a massive 11 points.
If we put Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia into Democrat territory, and throw in Maine in there as well which is only 4 delegates total so whatever, then going into the 2020 election Dems can reasonably rely on 213 electoral votes at minimum, needing only 57 more to hit the magic 270 number..... 213 at minimum is pretty on par for recent presidential elections going back to the year 2000. https://www.270towin.com/
The GOP on the other hand, with Texas, Georgia, and Arizona all drifting towards swing state territory if they arent there already, can only safely rely on 127 electoral votes, less then HALF what is needed to hit 270. Even if you think Georgia will stay with the GOP for at least the next 3 election cycles, Georgia's 16 only puts the GOP at 143, which is barely over halfway to the 270 number needed to win the presidency, and 70 electoral votes behind where Dems are already starting off at 213.
If the GOP win 6 the smaller swing states that have less than 11 electoral votes (Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arizona) That still puts them 40 electoral votes behind the DEMs 213 to 173....... Add in Georgia and North Carolina on top of that and they STILL trail 213 to 204
For those keeping track, the GOP would have to win the 8 of the smallest swing states just to pull about even with Dems that are relying on just safe Dem states.
Of the 5 remaining large swing states: Florida, Texas, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, lets give Ohio to the GOP and Michigan to the Dems.... Ohio went 8 points for Trump in 2016 (the largest margin of this bunch) while Michigan went Democratic 6 of the last 7 elections where the one time it did go GOP it went for Trump by 0.2% (3 most recent polls in Michigan also show Biden leading +8, +2, and +12 so you can argue this state of the 5 mentioned is the one most likely to go Dem)
With Ohio going GOP and Michigan going DEM, that puts the electoral count at 229 to 222 Dems leading. Whoever wins two of the remaining 3 swing states (Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania) would go on to clinch the election.
===============================================================================================================================
To summarize all the info above, the GOP is getting to the point where it would need to win about 8 to 11 swing states just to barely win a presidential election, while the Dems only really need 3 to 5. This is due to the fact that once reliable GOP states of significant size (Arizona, Texas, Georgia) are trending more towards swing state territory or are already in swing state territory, while no other safe Dem state has drifted into swing state status at at the same time (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, nor Virginia were ever guaranteed to go Dem in previous elections,
This is IF things stay the same. If Texas and Arizona continues to get bluer due to population patterns, the way Virginia clearly has, then Dems would only need any 2 additional swing states to clinch an election whereas the GOP would need at least 10. That's just not sustainable going into the near or long term future, and something will need to change in order for the GOP to have a fighting chance in presidential elections going forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
This isn’t a bipartisan issue. This is an affront to the constitution, and to democracy itself
Unfortunately, violations to the Constitution and to Democracy is no longer a bipartisan issue because conservatives will not care as long as the person in the White House has an 'R' next to his name. All those years of vicious and vocal protests to Obama when alleged violations of democracy and the Constitution were taking place were simply for show, not an actual display of the values they hold which are far more self-centered and callous then they would ever openly admit.
The fact that conservatives believe people should abide by curfews when not even 2-3 weeks earlier it was those very same conservatives who were openly protesting against Coronavirus restrictions because they 'took away their freedom' shows their hypocrisy..... Restrictions on the general population to control a national pandemic are somehow against the law, but restrictions and forceful actions to stop people from protesting police brutality just because it reached some arbitrary time of the day somehow isnt?
Created:
-->
@Danielle
why do you keep repeating yourself about race?
Thats all he does..... He enters a thread and insists on repeating the same retarded talking point he set his mind to for that day with no intention of actually participating in the conversation that is taking place.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
This is wrong. Even if you're not found guilty of 2nd Degree Murder, you can still be convicted of 3rd Degree.
Good stuff, I couldnt find evidence that that was the case for Minnesota anywhere
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It doesn't matter what he has done in the past
To the defense attorneys it will though since that helps their case. Even if the Prosecution can convince 80% of the 12 man jury that the past doesnt matter, that still leaves 2-3 jurors that think it does matter, which can help Chauvin get off.
There are many ways this can go wrong for the Prosecution in terms of getting a conviction, upping the charge from Murder 3 to Murder 2 may be their biggest roadblock of all, and the fact that it was self-imposed just adds to the irony of it all
Created:
Posted in:
Is there a time and a place for when members of DDO can pitch policy ideas for these MEEPS or is that basically something members can do at any time as long as they contact an admin/mod in a PM?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Causing someone’s death without intending the death of anyone, while committing a felony other than criminal sexual conduct
^ Thats the issue for why this doesnt really work...... A charge of 3rd Degree Murder would apply to death caused by anything that could be considered a dangerous act, but 2nd Degree Murder requires that act to qualify as some sort of felony.
You can easily argue that Chauvin kneeling down on Floyd's neck for 8 minutes was a dangerous act, because it fucking is, but it is quite a stretch to argue that that qualifies as a felony, especially since what qualifies as a felony is very specific in most state and federal laws. If the trial gets moved to somewhere outside of Minneapolis like it probably will (under the guise of making things fair for Chauvin) I could easily see a jury thinking that his actions dont go that far, and thus conclude that Second Degree Murder doesnt qualify
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It has to be gross incompetence because there isn't any sort of plausible conspiracy that itself isnt stupider then the actual move in the first place.
Lets play conspiracy theory just to see why it wouldnt be the case: If the prosecution decided to they couldnt win the case, but wanted to try to earn goodwill from the public and feign that they tried, then why not jack up the charge to First Degree Murder? By going for Second Degree, the prosecution is shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to actually winning the case by making it more difficult to actually get a conviction, while still falling short of what the public wanted Chauvin to be charged with to begin with, so its a lose-lose situation if this is the route theyre secretly taking.......
If the prosecution just doesnt want to win the case, again, First Degree Murder would have made it that much tougher to actually pull off a conviction. Again though, they still went for Second Degree Murder, which would be easier to tie Chauvin to compared to First Degree Murder, which defeats the entire idea that they may be self sabotaging themselves since theyre not going all the way in actually sabotaging themselves.
if the prosecution is facing some type of blackmail or pressure to throw the case, again, First Degree Murder would have ensured they didnt win, while Second Degree Murder leaves the door a bit more open and leaves them at risk of winning the case if they were intending to lose it.
Lets play conspiracy theory just to see why it wouldnt be the case: If the prosecution decided to they couldnt win the case, but wanted to try to earn goodwill from the public and feign that they tried, then why not jack up the charge to First Degree Murder? By going for Second Degree, the prosecution is shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to actually winning the case by making it more difficult to actually get a conviction, while still falling short of what the public wanted Chauvin to be charged with to begin with, so its a lose-lose situation if this is the route theyre secretly taking.......
If the prosecution just doesnt want to win the case, again, First Degree Murder would have made it that much tougher to actually pull off a conviction. Again though, they still went for Second Degree Murder, which would be easier to tie Chauvin to compared to First Degree Murder, which defeats the entire idea that they may be self sabotaging themselves since theyre not going all the way in actually sabotaging themselves.
if the prosecution is facing some type of blackmail or pressure to throw the case, again, First Degree Murder would have ensured they didnt win, while Second Degree Murder leaves the door a bit more open and leaves them at risk of winning the case if they were intending to lose it.
The only way this move makes sense is if the Prosecution actually believes they have the evidence to prove that Chauvin intended to murder Floyd, and that is a belief that only someone who is grossly incompetent would hold since any idiot could figure out the way Chauvin can get out of a conviction by arguing that what he did was accidental, not on purpose.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If I want to hear the opinion of someone I consider to be a known retard then ill go out and actually tag you in a post next time.
Until then dont feel the need to comment on any post that required actual effort to make.
Until then dont feel the need to comment on any post that required actual effort to make.
Created:
Short Version: Im like 80% sure Chauvin is going to get off and be found not guilty of the main charge against him for killing Floyd
Long Version: Prosecutors in Minnesota recently decided to press charges against the 3 officers that stood by as the main incident happened. Thats fine. They also upgraded the main charge against Chauvin from 3rd Degree Murder to Second Degree Murder. THATS a problem.
1st Degree Murder is premeditated, planned, intentional murder. Imagine a wife killing her spouse after planning to do it for a long time
2nd Degree Murder is an intentional murder that does not require planning or pre-meditation. Imagine a wife killing her spouse because she walked in on him cheating.
3rd Degree Murder in Minnesota is causing the death of another because of an inherently dangerous act. This is the one that applied to Chauvin the most.
Of these 3, 3rd Degree murder is the easiest one to convict him on. Chauvin knelt down on Floyd's neck for a lengthy period of time which can easily be argued to be an inherently dangerous action that directly resulted in Floyd's death. If this was the charge prosecutors stuck with, there would be a 70% to 80% chance they would win a conviction, and then the issue would be how long Chauvin actually goes to jail.......... 2nd Degree Murder though, the new charge that the Minnesota Prosecutor is levying against Chauvin, requires the prosecution to prove that Chauvin intended to murder Floyd, and thats going to be fucking difficult to prove. Chauvin can easily testify that he never intended to kill Floyd, he just wanted to keep him pinned to the ground until he stopped resisting, that he did not realize the danger he was putting Floyd in by keeping his knee on him, and that if he could take it all back he would, all while getting nice and weepy for the jury that in Minnesota is probably going to be 90% white at minimum...... The odds that the prosecution will be able to successfully argue that Chauvin intended to kill Floyd is very low, I think theres now a 20% chance at best that they can pull off a conviction compared to 70/80% if they stuck with a charge of Third Degree Murder.
Chauvin also faces a charge of Second Degree manslaughter, where a person's negligence causes death or great bodily harm to another. That charge will almost surely stick to Chauvin UNLESS he testifies that he was following officer protocol he received from his training by the Minnesota PD. Minnesota PD has claimed they do not train or permit Chauvin's tactic of restraint, so this charge has a pretty good chance of sticking.
The problem is that the MAX sentence for 2nd degree manslaughter is 10 years, TOPS.
If the 2nd Degree Murder charge fails because the prosecution cant prove Chauvin intended to kill Floyd, then even if the 2nd Degree Manslaughter charge is upheld, Floyd is looking at 10 years in prison at a maximum.... Chances are though that a judge may decide 8 years is good enough due to the inherently difficult line of work being a police officer is and the circumstances of the incident. Chauvin starts out in prison with 2 years of good behavior, sentence is reduced later to 5 years instead of 8 when he first started out, and then 1 more year in jail later with 2 years left on his sentence, Chauvin gets out on probation for the remaining 2 years, effectively amounting to 3 years in jail for killing Floyd.
I dont like this at all, I think the 3rd Degree Murder was a better charge more likely to lead to a guilty verdict, which combined with the Manslaughter Charge could have put Chauvin in jail for at most 35 years. Now though by going for the higher charge, prosecutors are betting hard they can prove Chauvin intended to kill Floyd and risk him doing maybe 5 years in jail total. This is going to completely fuck up the protests and riots taking place in the country, it will probably reignite 1-3 months from now when the trial will have finished.
Created:
Posted in:
god dammit did my post not fucking go through after all that
fuck AT&T seriously
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
You gave a couple different posts in response so Ill try to summarize them all into one counter-response
======================================================= For Argument #2 ========================================================
"Total complaints data were imputed for 92 (11.5%) of the 798 large general purpose agencies"
Fuck me for mistaking the word 'imputed' for the word 'inputted' which is evidently spelled with two T's rather than one like I thought for whatever reason (Input)
My objections with under-reporting of instances of use of excessive force is withdrawn, sorry about that mishap XD. Ill focus on just the points about lethal shootings then
======================================================== For Argument #1 ===========================================================
"That study also used information gathered from the WaPost and Guardian. Two agencies that actually got recognized for their work by being used as reference points in Bureau of Justice Statistics reports on this exact issue. They track the presence of weapons and firearms in incidents too. Are you really going to claim the Guardian and WaPost are publications that are going to fudge information on behalf of police"
The two news agencies compiled the data that could be found for shootings of civilians, but its hardly a comprehensive list of all the instances there are lethal encounters with the police in the US...... After the Michael Brown incident in Ferguson Missouri, FBI director Comey began a new initiative to collects statistics from police departments about the number of civilians shot at by cops, since actual data that existed prior to that point was "Embarrassing".... The federal initiative though is only followed by 35 police departments out of nearly 18,000. Which comes out to a whopping 0.195% that are revealing their numbers..... https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwvv3a/shot-by-cops
If the MSU study is claiming that officer diversity does not have any effect on the percentage of people shot by cops is based on numbers divulged by less than 0.2% of all police departments in the country, then that claim cant really be taken as accurate since it is based on such an incredible narrow set of data that could be far different then the actual picture. That other 99.8% of missing data could very easily indicate that racially diverse officers are far less likely to shoot civilians of the same or different race compared to white officers.
"The number [of cases where cops shoot civilians] could be way higher", why yes, it could. Does that mean it is? If so by how much? What evidence would you have to prove the veracity of any estimate you come up with?"
1) Yes
2) Arguably by a factor of 500 since the total number of police departments that say how many civilians are shot at by cops is around 0.2%
3) On the basis that only a fraction of police departments (35 out of more than 18,000) divulge their numbers to either the public or the federal government which are the numbers that the MSU study uses as their whole field of analysis.
==============================================================================================================================
If I concede that instances of police brutality and use of excessive force is not a systematic/widespread problem, then perhaps the same can be said of instances of cops shooting civilians since use of firearms is pretty much an extension of using excessive force. Your initial post makes that arguement pretty well.
The racial element though is still up in the air. The excessive force study by the Justice Department does not divulge details about the race of the officers and the race of those who allege they were abused, while the MSU study is woefully unsubstantiated since their data comes from numbers divulged by just 0.2% of police department admissions about how much cops shoot civilians.
Systematic/widespread?..... Ill concede its probably not a systematic issue based on numbers by the Justice Department regarding instances of excessive force average out to like 0.124% of all civilian encounters with police.
Racist?..... Thats still possible, since the set of reliable numbers from the Justice Department dont mention anything about race, while the MSU study does not have reliable numbers to base conclusions off of
Created:
Steve King, the House Representative from the 4th district of Iowa, the same person who wondered why "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" are considered offensive terms and also has been called "the world's most conservative human being" by President Trump himself, has lost in the GOP PRIMARY race for the Iowa seat he already possessed.
Arguably the most detestable being in the GOP, King is notable even for how far he pissed off fellow Republicans with his words. Following the White Nationalist/White Supremacist remarks, King was stripped of his membership on the House Judiciary and House Agriculture panels by the GOP themselves, in an ultra-rare move of shunning within the Republican Party. Even Mitch McConnell, the Majority leader for the GOP in the SENATE spoke up about how King could effectively go fuck himself: "If he doesn't understand why 'white supremacy' is offensive, he should find another line of work"
The final vote in the GOP primary was 36% for King, 45.7% for the actual winner Randy Feenstra, and 18.3% split among three other candidates
King has held the seat since 2003 and was re-elected 8 times despite his numerous moments of dumbfuckery regarding race, multiculturalism, Obama, abortion, etc. He had never received less than 60% of the vote during any of his reelection campaigns until the 2018 midterms this last cycle, where he came dangerously close of losing his seat to the Democrats 50% to 47%....... As a direct result of his vulnerability, voters from within the GOP itself decided narrowly to throw King out of office and instead back a candidate who reached the very low qualification of being more sane than he is.
Whats most interesting about this whole thing though is that this could signal a change for the GOP. Republican voters voted against King because his long history of inflammatory remarks left him at risk of losing an election to a democrat in a 1v1. How many other loud-mouth dumbasses in the GOP House of Representatives could also be ousted from office by conservative voters themselves who want to maximize their chances of winning House elections? By ousting the liability that was King, Iowan conservatives in the 4th district have almost surely secured the seat for the forseeable future. Its quite easy to believe that other conservative voters represented by loud idiots could make similar decisions going into 2022 and beyond. King is the first to be replaced since he was the most controversial and detestable, those next in line behind him on that list could very well be the next ones cast out of office in future elections, paving the way for the GOP to rid itself of its most asinine members and instead represent themselves with people that have things like class and sophistication.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
That works great! Viking Warrior Elsa is a pretty good fit for me XD
Created:
- Stimulants, depressants or hallucinogens?
Depressants. Being able to relax is something I value since small things can agitate me (like going through tons of bullshit paperwork as part of my job)
- Compassion, justice or loyalty?
Loyalty is overrated and ive been just enough of an asshole to not really value compassion at times, so Justice is the best fit
- Between strategic cunning, IQ, creative thinking and fast thinking, which displays intelligence in its finest form?
Had to think about this for a bit, but Strategic Cunning is probably the best with fast thinking a close second.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Let me start off by saying I appreciate the high quality effort in your post which is far greater than the usual stupidity I see put in this forum by idiots I dont have any respect for. However, there are a couple counterpoints I want to make cause they immediately caught my attention when I first read through your post
1) "The vast majority " between 90% and 95% " of the civilians shot by officers were actively attacking police or other citizens when they were shot"
Those numbers came from the police departments reported that the researchers asked for information. This is an issue because if individual cops fudge reports that people they fired on were actively attacking police or other citizens, then this study is taking those claims directly at face value directly from police departments. Part of the entire reason why the public vastly favors cops wearing cameras is because it keeps them honest since in the past cops have been shown to be dishonest, so that 90% to 95% number that police departments gave to the researchers is one I am very highly suspicious of.
Those numbers came from the police departments reported that the researchers asked for information. This is an issue because if individual cops fudge reports that people they fired on were actively attacking police or other citizens, then this study is taking those claims directly at face value directly from police departments. Part of the entire reason why the public vastly favors cops wearing cameras is because it keeps them honest since in the past cops have been shown to be dishonest, so that 90% to 95% number that police departments gave to the researchers is one I am very highly suspicious of.
Its also worth mentioning that the data the MSU research used for the study came from police departments that had already released that sort of information to the public, which is only a fraction of total PD's across the country and hardly a comprehensive total...... "Just 35 police departments participate in federal initiatives to track the number of fatal incidents today, out of 18,000 U.S. law enforcement agencies".... https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/xwvv3a/shot-by-cops
If we cant get any sort of accurate idea of how many people are actually shot by cops/have excessive force used against them in the US, then by extension we cant make any sort of reliable calculation about what actual percentage of police encounters end in a fatality or an improper action taken by a police officer such as excessive force, since Police Departments are flat out refusing to release that information for the most part.
2) "To put that into perspective, there were roughly 65 million people who had public-police interactions in 2015 with state and local law enforcement agencies, or in other words, .00014% of people who had an interaction with a police officer, experienced excessive use of force.
Couple problems with that claim:
First: You're applying the 2015 number of people who had interactions with the police with data that analyzed use of police force that was taken in 2002. The total number of cases about excessive force could have varied wildly in the 13 years between both points, so its kind of hard to quantify what the actual percentage of police encounters lead to excessive force
First: You're applying the 2015 number of people who had interactions with the police with data that analyzed use of police force that was taken in 2002. The total number of cases about excessive force could have varied wildly in the 13 years between both points, so its kind of hard to quantify what the actual percentage of police encounters lead to excessive force
Second: You pull this .00014% out of somewhere and I dont know where you got it...... If you're taking the theoretical 8,060 cases of actual excessive force and dividing that by the 65 million total encounter number, then the total percentage is .0124%, which is about 100 times the number you put forward. And thats not taking into account that the 8,060 number could me much much higher since that 8,060 only comes from a mall percentage of PD's that have actually released statistics.
Third: Most importantly of all, if you look at Page 7 of the 2002 Excessive Force study you cite for your own evidence, it says in the methodology that only 11.5% of the 798large general purpose Police Departments disclosed data to the report about excessive force allegations. That 8,060 genuine number of excessive force cases could in fact be closer to 80,000 cases of excessive force, and thats if we DO assume that the rates are similar between PD's that do report their numbers with those that dont. If we go down the rabbit hole a little and suspect that maybe larger PD's that didnt disclose excessive force complaints stayed quiet because they have a large number of excessive force complaints they dont want to bring attention to, then the actual number of cases where officers use excessive force can be much higher than the 8 to 9 thousand you initially concede.
3) "I'm failing to think of a realm where .00014% of something is a significant percentage point"
There's 2 responses I have to this:
1 - Its probably a lot higher than .00014% for reasons as previously mentioned
2 - More importantly, Even if there are 99,999 good cops for every bad one, that doesnt disqualify implementing sensible reforms that could make that ratio even better just because 1 in 10,000 isnt that often. If putting cameras on officers reduces bad conduct even further and reduces chances of an incident leading to community outrage, then why not go for it? Especially since we dont have a clear picture what the real numbers actually are?
There's 2 responses I have to this:
1 - Its probably a lot higher than .00014% for reasons as previously mentioned
2 - More importantly, Even if there are 99,999 good cops for every bad one, that doesnt disqualify implementing sensible reforms that could make that ratio even better just because 1 in 10,000 isnt that often. If putting cameras on officers reduces bad conduct even further and reduces chances of an incident leading to community outrage, then why not go for it? Especially since we dont have a clear picture what the real numbers actually are?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
This has led to a mentality that when angered, suddenly no rules apply anymore.
The thing is that we at a country are at a point where the rules may not even apply to begin with.... You could write entire books of times where police officers killed African Americans or other minorities, in manners way out of line and unacceptable by rational standards, yet still routinely are found not guilty of their crimes, no fault placed at the hands of police departments, and in some cases declining to charge the officer of a crime in the first place and automatically granting innocence.
If step 0 is realizing that for the most part there are no rules to what police officers can get away with, then step 1 could only result in the subsequent outrage and demonstrations over it that escalate into looting.
If step 0 is realizing that for the most part there are no rules to what police officers can get away with, then step 1 could only result in the subsequent outrage and demonstrations over it that escalate into looting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
There is always an alternative to violence, and the alternatives are far more numerous than you have described.
Such as? from what I can tell, the US has become so jaded and unreliable that there really isnt any effective route that can be taken to achieve reforms, so whatever releases community anger the most is the next best option.
Created:
-->
@Alec
What's wrong with a utilitarian approach; forcing these convicts to give blood every 2 months to save more live in addition to life in jail?
Just to go off the top of my head:
1) It costs a fuckton of money to keep them in jail for life whereas streamlining the death penalty process and how that is carried out could be made way cheaper
2) Some prisoners could carry blood diseases or genetic abnormalities such as having the XYY chromosome package that makes them more aggressive that wouldnt be good for casual use among civilians
3) There's the sticky civil rights issue of whether or not the government could even do such a thing but the death penalty has in most part been cleared in the country
4) There are times where blood donation supply isnt in a terrible state/shortage
5) I really like the death penalty
Not the best arguments but thats where I am on the matter
Created:
I prefer the death penalty for murderers and rapists when its clear they committed the crime
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Does he even want to win?
If he loses re-election he can try to run again in 2024 and spend the meantime trying to manipulate the GOP to his will from the outside. He's too much of a dumbass to realize that, but if someone puts the idea in his head, he wouldnt immediately dismiss the idea of sabotaging himself since it means he gets to stay relevant halfway until almost 2030
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Do you support the violent protests: burning property down, looting, etc or no? Yes or No would suffice. I say no.
Im gonna interject on this one and try to explain things from how I see it.
Lets assume two things. 1) That the justice system will probably drop the ball on holding people accountable and establish reforms since in recent times they almost always do, and 2) That the community/a community has reached a level of anger to the point that such anger cannot be contained. The kind of level of anger where waiting for the justice system to take its course isnt enough, some action has to be taken now to relieve some of the anger being felt...... If the goal is to try to relieve the pressure and anger of the situation given these two conditions as best as possible, there are mainly three main options to be pursued.
The first option is public protest: Marches, blocking roads, protests, etc.... These unfortunately dont often achieve any sort of meaningful policy goal towards greater racial tolerance, outside of token gestures made by local governments that dont amount to much, and a fair number of times those protests are still met with unnecessary hostility from local riot police, while portions of the media actively try to undermine the protests and try to brush over what all is going on by dismissing the reason for protest outright..... Because peaceful protest doesnt usually lead to any sort of result and often times can result in an overly-aggressive counter response from police forces, its not really an option that pacifies those in the community who are livid/enraged, and can lead to further escalation in the future. Peaceful protest sounds good in practice or on paper, in reality it usually isnt effective at obtaining any policy objective or at relieving anger being felt in the community following a bad incident.
So option 1 is mostly ineffective at achieving policy changes, mostly ineffective at relieving anger felt in the community, and not very effective at de-escalating the situation going forward
So option 1 is mostly ineffective at achieving policy changes, mostly ineffective at relieving anger felt in the community, and not very effective at de-escalating the situation going forward
Option 2 is looting and burning property..... Usually this is as far as it gets when a situation does escalate. Looting, the way I see it, is a release of built up frustration that has reached a critical boiling point where if it is internalized it will only lead to something worse. Looting, like a peaceful protest, is something that an entire community can exploit, so in terms of just being a release of anger in order to de-escalate things in the coming days, in a weird way it has its use.... Businesses are damaged, a fair number can retain any lost profits or damages through insurance or settlements with the state/city, and now with crowdfunding businesses can recoup damages they suffer in a matter of hours if neither of the previous options work. (Some black owned business in Minnesota was looted, the guy raised $200,000 in crowd funding to rebuild it almost overnight)..... Looting is definitely less effective at working towards any policy goal compared to peaceful protest, which is why its never the FIRST option that is pursued, but it does serve as a better release for community anger than peaceful protest does. When looting does take place, things usually calm down afterwards now that much of that anger felt in the community has been released, rather than have a 50/50 shot at escalating further when you just have peaceful protest. Just about every racial protest in US history began calming down after things escalated to the point where lootings happened, rather then only get worse and worse after lootings took place.
So option 2 is definitely not effective at achieving policy changes, but it is quite effective at relieving anger felt in the community, and usually de-escalates a situation going forward in the coming days
So option 2 is definitely not effective at achieving policy changes, but it is quite effective at relieving anger felt in the community, and usually de-escalates a situation going forward in the coming days
Option 3, the worst of all, is targeted killings of police officers and politicians..... I can only think of one time where this became an issue, and it was in 2014 when 2 NYC police officers were shot and killed in their own police car. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_killings_of_NYPD_officers This event followed both the death of Michael brown and death of Eric Garner, two racial incidents where one didnt even lead to a Grand Jury Indictment which is unheard of for an event of that caliber..... The killing of the two officers took place 2 weeks after protests already started, but because the justice system already looked like it failed before it could even begin, outrage and anger was higher than usual, with even less hope than usual of achieving any policy change.... The circumstances got to the point that one person, who was mentally unhinged to begin with, sought out police officers to kill them and did. Damages that businesses suffer from looting can largely be replaced or repaid, but dead police officers cannot. In addition to that, targeting police officers only relieves the anger felt by the person pulling the trigger, while the rest of the community still feels outrage.
So option 3 is also definitely not effective at achieving policy changes, but is the least effective at relieving anger felt by the community, and could re-escalate tension going forward.
So option 3 is also definitely not effective at achieving policy changes, but is the least effective at relieving anger felt by the community, and could re-escalate tension going forward.
Picking from these three options, which are the main available options to be pursued by a community that is up in arms over a police brutality incident, if you operate under the (correct) belief that the justice system will probably drop the ball on the whole matter, and that few meaningful reforms can be obtained from the community in response to an incident, then the option that allows the community to release the most anger and has the highest chance of de-escalating things in the days after that is in fact looting..... Peaceful protests achieve little and release little anger while not doing much to escalate/de-escalate in coming days, Looting achieves nothing but releases a lot of anger and usually things calm down going forward, while targeted killings of police officers + politicians achieves nothing and releases almost no anger while at the same time definitely risking a rise in tension after it happens.
Looting is not be the best resort when it comes to achieving positive reforms, but if you acknowledge that positive reforms probably wouldnt be made no matter what happened, and the priority becomes whatever option releases the anger of the situation and de-escalates things going forward after it happens, then in my opinion looting is something that can almost be forgiven/tolerated..... Historically speaking, Los Angeles used to be one of the worst cities in America in terms of cases of police brutality/abuse towards minority citizens. After the Rodney King Riots in 1992 that were the biggest lootings/riotings in national history, a lot of changes were made to the justice system/police trainings in the city, and there hasnt been a high profile incident involving the LAPD that got national attention in close to 30 years now.
For these reasons, while they definitely shouldnt be the first resort pursued, given how flawed and inept the justice system is at settling things, I can see lootings and riots as forgivable and tolerable
(Note this is just my personal belief and rationale, I dont represent the entire liberal population of the United States)
For these reasons, while they definitely shouldnt be the first resort pursued, given how flawed and inept the justice system is at settling things, I can see lootings and riots as forgivable and tolerable
(Note this is just my personal belief and rationale, I dont represent the entire liberal population of the United States)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
DDO used to be more glorious than the present-day DArt. How did it fall apart?
Some say it was the Spambots
Some say it was the lack of debates
Some say it was the lack of interest in making good debates
Some say it was Juggle
Some say it just grew boring after a while
But EVERYONE agrees on one thing:
It started when the Weekly Stupid got canceled
Some say it was the lack of debates
Some say it was the lack of interest in making good debates
Some say it was Juggle
Some say it just grew boring after a while
But EVERYONE agrees on one thing:
It started when the Weekly Stupid got canceled
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
That shit is eye opening into what cops do and how they act *When they know they are being filmed and have a camera crew following them everywhere*
Fixed
Created: