Total posts: 2,799
-->
@dustryder
Which just means that gun violence is a complicated issue that can't simply be explained by pointing at numbers and latching on random correlations
Absolutely. But homicide in general is a complex issue. The presence or lack of guns doesn’t have much bearing on the homicide rate.
The original poster ended by saying “Japan has few guns and little homicide” as if that was indicative of anything at all.
There are safer countries (not necessarily just homicide-related) with more guns than them, such as Switzerland
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, and Wyoming have some of the lowest murder rates on the list and also some of the highest gun ownership rates
Delaware has the lowest gun ownership and 13th highest rate
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The only way to stop stomping and punching is to cut off peoples’ hands and feet at birth.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Who wants to tell him more people died by stabbings than by rifles.
More people also killed by hands and feet than rifles.
In your opinion, would you say that hands and feet are the real problem?
I certainly don’t feel safe knowing that people are walking around with hands and feet now that I know the facts
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
-japan. they literally have barely any murders, and barely any guns. they have a rigorous process for allowing guns
They also have one of the highest suicide rates out there.
Maybe not having fun guns to shoot is driving that high rate.
Obviously correlation equals causation.
And Switzerland has the 18th highest gun ownership rate in the world, but is ranked 211th/230 in the world for highest murder rate.
Finland has the 10th highest gun ownership and is ranked 173rd
The Falkland Islands have also supposedly had one murder over the past 30 years (super hard to find homicide data from there https://en.mercopress.com/2012/10/05/residents-leave-doors-open-round-the-clock-in-crime-free-falkland-islands). They also have the second highest gun ownership rate!
Wow, I wonder how these countries with so many guns have such low murder rates! I wonder if something other than guns is responsible.....
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
kek
I will say that we are great at cracking down on beheadings in the US. I wonder why Europe has such a big beheading problem.
Eh, the knives must be at fault- nothing else
Japan is culturally homogenous
It is almost as if East Asians have low murder rates in every place they go.
Huh, I wonder if other groups also carry their murder rates with them as they migrate.... 🤔
That’d be something interesting to look into!
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Yes, the C.I.A. says China has been acquiring advanced military technology from Israel for more than a decade on programs for jet fighters, air-to-air missiles and tanks. The agency said the sale of Israeli military technology to China "may be several billion dollars."
For sure. If that is what our "gReAtEsT aLlY" does, I'd hate to see what our enemies do!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Really, it isn’t luck. The power comes from the ignorance of most people (rational ignorance, mind you. Most people don’t have time to look into these shenanigans).
But the fact that anyone can just cite some organization and have no clue how that stat was doctored to fit some silly narrative is just nuts to me. More than half of people will believe a completely meaningless stat.
Just like how they get the “most mass shooters are White”. The little hidden note at the bottom will tell you that family disputes and gang violence are excluded, conveniently things that whitey is underrepresented in. (I believe that was how Mother Jones got their conclusion)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The ADL is a libtard organization that is very commonly cited for extremist attack accounts. Next time you hear that "White supremacists" commit x% of extremist murders, note that this comes from their extremism count:
"Moreover, some far right extremist movements engage in non-ideological violence as well as ideological violence. Over the past 10 years, the number of ideological-related killings and non-ideological killings by extremists has been virtually equal (218 versus 217), with the majority of non-ideological killings coming from right-wing extremists, especially white supremacists. These killings include murders of informants, domestic violence murders, drug- and gang-related murders, and other murders connected to traditional crime."
So, if a gang member who is a white supremacist kills a rival gang's member or they kill their wife because they are just a violent person, it is considered a death from a "white supremacist".
Obviously a lot of selection bias there (considering the type of people that generally join white supremacist gangs), and I'd bet if they started considering the racial attitudes of black gang members, they would find a sudden rise in "black supremacist murders"
So in other words, they aren't often motivated by their white supremacist beliefs to kill people. They are just poor, racist guys in gangs that kill people because.... well, they are in gangs, and the racism is totally unrelated to many of their killings.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Convenient to ignore the billions we have given to the Middle East. And the Middle East, including Palestinians, considers we do 't respect them for also giving aid to Israel? Why don't Arab nations do more in support of Palestinians? Your argument is a red herring.
Aid isn't the only measure. We have spent trillions fighting pointless wars in Iraq and elsewhere, recognized their expanding land claims, etc. Our Israeli positions are clearly not the only thing holding us back over there, but that is definitely a big one.
All nations getting along is an absurdity? Nice attitude. Tell me what is better. Anarchy? Personally, I'd rather have 3 friends
I don't know if I can have a serious conversation with you if you keep pushing this ridiculous "we can all get along if we have a good attitude" nonsense. Everyone would rather have 3 friends. Now, if two of those potential friends don't like another friend, will you make 3 friends by favoring the one the other two hate and being unfairly in favor of that one friend? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Get a life, bud, one that is inclusive. You've been hating Trump for so long, now that he's gone, you don't know what to do with it. It's a wish balloon. Let it go.
I voted for Trump in 2020 and all Republican in the 2018 midterms. I just think that it was a silly move on his part considering it gains us nothing and pisses other countries off. Israel already likes us. There are no inroads to be made with them beyond what we already have.
Just a heads up: being pro-Israel isn't a litmus test for conservatism. Neither is supporting Trump's policy failures.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
every other hairbrained dick idea we've had has not worked,
I think there are plenty of things we haven't tried. Things such as treating other countries in the Middle East with some respect so that not all of their citizens hate us.
Is the following a riddle? "Why isn't any nation in support of all other nations? Isn't that the goal?"
That's not a riddle, that is just an absurdity. "Why can't all nations get along"?????
I have some further questions: Why can't people just not commit crime? Why can't mental illness just not exist? Why can't people just stop being poor? Those are all equally valid and equally reasonable questions to the one you posed. Sure it would be fine and dandy if people all got along, but newsflash: they don't and never will beyond some small extent. Therefore, you make the best of things, and a $7 billion sunk cost per year is far from being the "best of things".
So the Arab world out-populates Israel? Is relative population important to the discussion?
Yes, it is. Would you rather have 1 friend and 2 enemies or one enemy and 2 friends? And that is assuming that Israel would become an "enemy" if we started at least pretending to care about nations other than them in the region. Already they sell our military tech to China and spit in our face while doing so. But their existence is entirely dependent on our assurances. They need us and will be forced to play along with us if we extend an olive branch to other Middle Eastern countries.
Isn't it time to consider it is the paradigm that is wrong?
I don't see how you plan to make people stop disliking each other. How do you escape that paradigm? Genocide the people who refuse to get along with your order?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The government is run by people, so yes, they need held accountable too
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
No riddle. You're asking the wrong question. The correct question is: Why isn't the Arab world pro-Israel? Why aren't the Democrats? Why isn't any nation in support of all other nations? Isn't that the goal? Then why don't we start asking ourselves those questions, and answering them? But, no, you want to prove a point. Well, my friend, that point is a little obtuse and short-sighted.
I’ll tell you what is short-sighted: to tell the Muslim world to go pound sand when their cumulative GDP and population are vastly larger than Israel’s.
You have given not one reason for this. All you have done is speak cryptically while saying nothing.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Perhaps not but 99% of conservatives support that...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If we need to impose restrictions on people, then you need the government to do that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think it is both. Governmental policies can change society from the top down and society can change government from the ground up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I don’t think people really grasp how pathetically small $7.25 is. It’s hard for me to even imagine what kind of work you’d be willing to pay for that doesn’t return you more than a McDonald’s combo meal in marginal utility. I don’t think anyone should have to work for those kinds of wages in such a rich country.
In high school, I worked at Pizza Hut starting at $7.25. After a year and a half when I left, I was still only making $8.65. The term “living wage” gets thrown around an awful lot, but honestly, do we expect businesses to be giving out living wages for flipping burgers?
Some jobs are just very low skilled and should be reserved for teenagers. I definitely think people should be able to make decent livings without a college degree, but I’d expect them to apply themselves a little more than that.
Also, restaurants only make a few percentage profit margins, so I’d expect a rather steep increase in prices if it was raised to $11/hr
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
that doesn't justify anything- just because mcdonalds rose to fame doesnt mean it can morally destroy our nation
According to libertarians, it does.
I remember a funny meme about Jo Jorgensen. It said something like “don’t you hate when corporations pollute your drinking water? Well I have great news! Under my plan, when corporations pollute your water, you can smoke weed”
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Screw the rest of the Muslim world. Who’s with me?
Why? I will never understand the conservative knee-jerk reaction to give the middle finger to hundreds of millions of people to gain favor with a few million. Reminds me of Russell Kirk saying "Not seldom has it seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States."
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
"Delegitimizes our positions" refers to the fact that any deal we might cook up won't be trusted (we have lost legitimacy in the eyes of hundreds of millions of people that we probably shouldn't try to be enemies with), and honestly, no Arab nation should trust it. If we make a promise, they won't believe it. We screwed over Saddam by lying about WMDs and lying about his connection to 9/11. It just so happens that Israel didn't like the guy. Such a coincidence that we kill off anyone who doesn't like Israel!
So stop speaking in riddles and actually address what I say. Would you say that being blatantly pro-Israel is helping or hurting our relationship with the majority of the Arab world? A simple one-word answer will suffice.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pro-Iran policy?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
That wasnt even close to what I said. I don’t know how you got that out of my comment.
The meaning of my comment is that if you want to have any chance at having a good relationship with most of the Arab world, you can’t be one-sided in all of your policy actions towards one side. (A side they aren’t on great terms with, in fact)
Instead the US positions over the past 60 years have proven that they are untrustworthy and can’t be an objective party to help in disputes.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Huh, it is almost as if being blatantly pro-Israel on literally every issue delegitimizes our positions to the vast majority Middle Eastern world
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you sure it wasn't a Cosplay Shaman? Those are the worst insurrectionists.
I did not see the Grand Shaman of the KKK there, but I wasn't looking for him
I don't know. it seems like an insanely weird flex to claim you know an active KKK member these days when there are only 3000 of them.It's like touching a celebrity for the rabid left I guess.
The fact that most lefties seem to know a KKK member proves what we have all known for years: the Dems are the REAL racists
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
bud
I'm glad you consider us buds ^_^
Indeed, but if you'd been paying attention, you would know that I elaborated... because, ya know - you can elaborate on a position that is only expressed in two words bud, remember post #15?
Ok, so you just grossly misrepresented your position in the OP. That's the answer I was looking for.
Like, you can try to misconstrue - but I know what I mean better than you do bud. What? I said basic in elaboration, you're "poking holes" was your poor attempt at a "gotcha", but it's pretty easy to implement a limit and then pay the extra - we have a similar but inverse concept with rent cost - rent caps and all - its neither not a valid response, nor something that's hard to implement. Stop with the gotcha and actually try to argue.
Well the thing is, I'm not trying to argue. I said that what was listed in the original post was a bad idea for "x" and "y" reasons. You responded with an elaboration of that point, which was what I wanted(it is an AMA). So now that I know your position is a subsidized limit, that's fine. As long as excessive use (however you want that to be calculated) is in some way discouraged, that is fine. The calculation of "what is excessive" would be the biggest point of argument, but that is out of the scope of what we can really argue substantively.
And no - the only difference between formal police instruction is how in-depth they go with military strategy.
That sounds like a talking point that cannot be proven nor disproven. Some states do in-depth training on all of those fruity concepts like "bias training" even though they are not proven to work in any capacity, and the most likely conclusion is that they are a waste of taxpayer money. Some don't do those. There are differences in types and extent of training by state and locality. Some training techniques work, some don't. To pretend that there is not a huge difference between departments across the country is naive to put it lightly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am constantly amazed at how many KKK members people on the left claim to personally know. I have never met a single KKK member in 50 years across 15 different states.Not only that, I haven't personally met anyone who has personally met an actual KKK member.
Well since all Trump supporters are Nazis, I guess I saw a few hundred Nazis when I went to one of his rallies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- I note that your statistic effectively disproves coal's claim that racial persecution is an American "delusion." Obviously, only a very small proportion of racial persecutions would even qualify as hate crime (which generally requires conviction of a violent crime) but we should agree that any and every racially motivated hate crime documented by the FBI is an example of real and actual racial persecution, disproving coal's claim "delusion" and reinforcing my skepticism.
I don't think it is fair to say that generally a violent crime is involved in a hate crime. That is a more salient type of hate crime and that is more common, but the stats show a decent percentage of hate crimes being against property and a small amount being "against society" (whatever that means). For instance, a couple got charged with a hate crime for painting over a BLM street "mural".
As for whether you think it is a delusion, that is a more subjective measure. I clearly think it is overhyped based on my explanation of the stats. There is no statistical basis for a huge prevalence of White supremacist violence like the media claims, unless you think the few thousand per year (that number including property crimes and crimes against people) is representative of those claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
1. Why do you call yourself "historybuff"?2. Do you contend you're a "buff" in "history"?3. All history, or just some specific type or category of history? If so, which type or category?4. Am I correct in assuming you're between the ages of 13 and 17? If not, are you in college?5. Did you do debate in high school? If so, what type of debate (public forum, LD, etc.)?6. Do you believe you're an expert in terrorism, or political science-related topics?7. Do you have any background in policy issues relevant to law enforcement or terrorism, domestically or internationally? If so, explain.
Lmao goteem.
Pro tip: do not engage with that fella unless you want gross mischaracterizations of your positions spewed at you so that he can own them and talk in circles. I've tried being witty, nice, and rude. None work
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- Again, that's not just the media. Most observant folks will readily agree that racial hostility is not a delusion and would probably agree that public displays of racism have increased in recent years although I think most would also agree that racial harmony has improved over the long term. I've known too many white supremacists and witnessed to much racial persecution to pretend to buy the characterization "delusion."
In a country of over 300,000,000 there were only 8,552 hate crimes in all of 2019 (a rate of about 2.6 per 100,000). Of those, just about half were racially-motivated.
As for the offenders, White people are underrepresented quite vastly (it appears to include Latinos/Hispanics with Whites). The racial breakdown of perpetrators was:
- 52.5% were White (underrepresented)
- 23.9% were Black or African American (almost double portion of population)
- 14.6% race unknown
Even assuming that all race unknown were White (quite an unrealistic assumption), they would still be underrepresented. In a country this large, this is hardly what you could call an epidemic of h-White supremacist violence.
So, assuming that rates are constant for each type of hate crime 8,552*.525 (known white commission)*.576(racially-motivated)= 2,586 Whites committing racial hate crimes in a whole year. Based on the White population, that is about 1 hate crime per 100,000 of their population. So, in an area with the population of Wyoming, there would be less than one racial hate crime by Whites every two months.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
I couldn't agree more. However, I don't think there are really any ways around the media's shenanigans. It will always be profitable to push sensationalist bullshit. They always need their boogeyman. Now that boogeyman is White people and "White nationalism".
As for the new harmful legislation that comes out of this, I am expecting a "Patriot Act 2.0" like many others right now. Gotta keep an eye on those crazy folks that dislike illegal immigration and want vote audits.
Conversely, any attempt to crack down on the news would be super unpopular and portrayed as violating "freedom of the press".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I said basic utilities are free, basic necessarily implies "standard" and in this case, I quite clearly framed it as what you need to live comfortably, there was indeed a limit - you weren't paying attention.
This is not a debate. Lying will not score you points. Your original post says:
- Progressivism
- Free-Utilities
There is no "free, for some use" implication whatsoever. It's fine to just admit that you poorly represented your actual position in the original post. Either that or maybe you just figured it out along the way. I won't hold it against you.
The first time you mentioned "basic" related to it was in the second response and the first time any limit was mentioned in any capacity was in the first response and that was only after I poked holes in your "free utilities" position.
No, we don't, these people are not trained separately, not formally anyways, and the rates of killing innocents are only higher - because they receive no training in deesculation that they use, and they don't know how to handle mental health emergencies. Not to mention the killing and corruption, oh wait, that's the point.
We absolutely have different divisions. Those divisions many times do have specialized training, but that obviously differs based on the city. A small town has different resources and needs than NYC.
There is no proof that deescalation training would help cops.
What killing and corruption are you referring to? Should cops let themselves be shot instead or......?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I said basic utilities are free- and the amount of one utility, say, water - is free until you use more than what's provided. The basics are still free, extra, just isn't. The semantics here isn't convincing.
Im not using semantics arguments (or arguing at all), I’m explaining what you said. You are now suggesting subsidizing it in the form of an allowance. Your original post made no mention of any limit (“free” was the term used)
A unique department - different departments for different sorts of crime - no not social workers. Though in the case of incidents that are best resolved through deescalation, yes, the responders ought to have training in de-escalation.
We already have that. We have homicide divisions, organized crime, narcotics, etc.
There is no need to make 15 new agencies per city. Sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare coordinating different departments when you can just have one
That’s like saying we should have a different school for every subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because some people overusing utilities doesn't matter as much as people starving, or having no shelter, etc, etc - but if you want to hear my solution, just a fine. Cause ya know, if you don't have to pay that base amount, you have a lot more spare cash. Just pay enough to make up for what you used more of.
So if you have a fine for overuse, then it sounds like you want to subsidize utilities, not make them “free” as in no fee tied to use.
To the last question - nope - I don't think the police department should be the ones to do it - I've said over and over again that I don't think that the just having zero enforcement of the law is necessarily a good thing, just that I think that the current institution is much too corrupt and discriminatory in how it works.
Then who arrests criminals? Social workers?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you like to cook?
Do you like turtles?
If you insist I ask political questions:
- Free-Utilities
How do you curb overuse of utilities? If I didn't have to pay for water, I'd take 30 minute showers every day. If I didn't pay electric bills, I'd keep my house at a cool 65 in the summer when it is 90+ outside and at a toasty 75 when it is 30 outside in the winter. If you don't put some financial incentive to limit use to only needs and not wants, how do you plan to stop people from overusing limited resources and imposing massive costs on other people?
- Police Abolishment
What does this even mean? Because it seems like the only people that support actually getting rid of cops are vastly overprivileged lefties. I have seen semi-rational arguments made for "defunding police" (partially, not entirely) and using some of the funds in other ways to fix the same problems. Merriam Webster says abolish means "to completely do away with (something)". Are you actually saying that we shouldn't have men and women patrolling and arresting people that murder and rob people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
The strange obsession media seem to have with "mass shootings," where a "mass shooting" is defined as the public discharge of a firearm anywhere in the United States where at least two people are injured (see CNN's chart on the same, from a few weeks ago).
Yes, there is definitely a strange obsession with mass shootings, unless they are located in certain areas like Baltimore or Chicago (I haven't the slightest clue why those are ignored.....)
And it is weird, sometimes I hear about a mass shooting all over the news, but then it is as if all attention fades. I never get to see the mug shots on those shooters. I wonder what their characteristics are.
I really, really do not like being in the position of defending right wing nut jobs. But as much as I loathe that exercise, my contempt for government branding political dissent as "terrorism" exceeds my contempt for defending right wing nutjob
Thank you for defending me and my side's nut jobs, friend.
While I certainly don't agree with breaking and entering into the Capitol building, that was nothing resembling an armed insurrection.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The economic scale should be measured in authoritarian vs libetarian. Economically left is the same thing as economically authoritarian
No it isn't. You can have authoritarian lefties and anarchist lefties.
You can enforce equality (auth) or you can have an anarchist society where everyone has equal power to vote on things and sharing of resources.
The right-wing is all about hierarchies, and that can be authoritarian or libertarian as well. You can have authoritarian, enforced hierarchies (caste system) or you can have naturally-occurring (libertarian) hierarchies (people are all different and will achieve different outcomes).
Since lefties want to close hierarchal gaps (egalitarianism), they are generally considered more authoritarian because the government is the usual tool by which to achieve/enforce that. However, that is not always the case. It just depends on the system under which they are operating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
And what's so good about him? Why do you want him to be president?
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
Just like any good friendship or relationship, we should have as little in common as possible
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
We should import the entire population of Mexico and Somalia into America
I'm intrigued. Go on
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
@Double_R
Earlier in this thread I've asked for statistics and was told I should instead listen to peoples experiences
The way I look at this is, when someone says "listen to their experiences", I think of it like being an insurance office.
If someone comes in and says "my house got burned down. I didn't do it, though" should you just dole out money to them? Absolutely not. You should look for actual evidence.
And that is essentially what this is. When someone or a group claims "discrimination" or whatever, they are doing so because they want some type of handout (ie. affirmative action, reparations, etc.)
So, should you just take the word ("listen to their experience") of someone who benefits if you believe them, or should you approach that with a critical mind? I'd argue the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Really, it is a vicious cycle. When the media spreads more lies about “cops patrolling to find black people to kill”, you’re going to have more people being aggressive with cops and resisting arrest.
Then more people get killed by cops and so on. Although I’d bet that’s what BLM wants. Criminals are worth more to them dead
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So what? This is your evidence that the BLM protests are about how perfect of a human being the protesters think George Floyd was, and not about the perceived injustices people who share his skin color have to deal with in this country?Do you understand what it means when a person becomes a symbol, and how it impacts the way people view that individual?
How you depict someone is how you view them. When people put a Hitler moustache on Trump, they are comparing Trump to Hitler. When BLM puts a halo and wings on Floyd, they are comparing him to angels.
Do you believe these two things are mutually exclusive?
No, justice and convictions are not mutually exclusive. However, it isn't up to an angry mob that watched a small part of an arrest to determine if he is guilty or not. It isn't my part or yours, either. We can have an opinion, but that is quite different from an angry mob threatening violence if their opinion gets contradicted. I'm not going to loot a target over what I think was a faulty conviction. I just have to hope that the appeals process works. (but it probably won't. No judge wants to kill their political career and get doxxed by mobs to protect a low-level cop).
Not optimal… ok. This was kind of the heart of our entire discussion, is this all you have to say in response? Do you not understand how this would set some people off, especially if every time they turn on their TV or scroll through their phone there seems to be another example of this and every time it occurs the victim happens to look just like them?
I can understand why people are pissed, yes. That doesn't mean that they should be. The media constantly lies about every major case like this, and if they believed all of them (Breona Taylor "was shot in bed", "hands up don't shoot", etc.), they would be understandably mad.
The only reason it is on 24/7 is because the media wants you to see it. And barely anyone has heard of Daniel Shaver, who was following police orders, begging for his life. and crawling toward the cop on his hands and knees, yet got shot many times in the back and killed. Reason everyone knows about Floyd? They want to push a bullshit racist cop agenda. Reason they don't care about Daniel Shaver? Because they don't actually care about police misconduct, unless it can painted as racially-motivated.
More White men are killed by cops every year, but I'd bet you cannot name two from the last decade off the top of your head.
Your argument is a complete contradiction. You claim that police officers are not “violent cops just jumpy to beat a stranger”, but yet you have to accept that in order to blame their actions on the suspect.To determine fault you must begin by looking at what the reasonable expectations should have been at the outset. If we begin with the presumption that police officers are public servants who are sworn to protect, then that is incompatible with officers using force beyond what is necessary to make an apprehension (the literal definition of police brutality).So which is it, are cops violent stranger beating thugs which we all must be aware not to piss off, or are they public servants that we should expect better from? Because it seems to me like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.
I don't understand why you believe they are mutually exclusive. They are both true. They are public servants, but they aren't robots. They are people. People under stress can make poor decisions like shooting someone who didn't have a gun, but they thought they did because they were yelling and digging in a glove box.
Most don't ever commit brutality, but some do. And since police are imperfect, I think it is up to us and them to do everything to avoid that. That means keep your hands on your wheel, be respectful, let them know where you are grabbing for your wallet, etc. That also means that they should attempt to deescalate situations if possible.
However, maybe not from you, but from these anti-cop movements in general, they remove all fault from perpetrators and, when applicable, blame it on conscious racist motivations. There is no such thing as an honest mistake when a White cop and a Black perp are involved.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
You said "no moves." Corey Booker has written the bill and they are waiting for the optimal moment to submit so that is not "no moves."
Ok, I see. Trying to use weed legalization as their metaphorical carrot on the stick for the midterms. I guess that to some degree counts as a move.
Well, the black vote is not monolithic but I don't think any institution represents the constituency more comprehensively than the NAACP.As a former smoker who voted for every tax increase on tobacco that came along, I think the psychology of addiction may be more complicated than you suppose. Still, I think your point is worthy from an electoral stand point. The ALCU argues that now is not the time to give cops another reason to target black people and Al Sharpton points out the hypocrisy of legalizing weed once it is popular with white people while criminalizing tobacco products popular with the black community. The CDC says such a ban could save 45,000 lives a year but black smokers already smoke less than white smokers and nevertheless die from smoking at higher rates, demonstrating that quality of healthcare and lifestyle are probably way more significant than menthol vs non-menthol. Even so, I can't see Sharpton voting Republican anytime soon.
Yes, I certainly don't think it will turn anyone into Republicans. This is just the kind of typical discouragement that keeps people home during election-time. Nobody is likely to switch parties in order to get mint-flavored cigarettes back.
I definitely support the ban because it will save people. I support tobacco taxes as well (although I do complain about the cost of my ~1 cigar per quarter). I can see there being a vast increase in illegal menthol sales and related incarceration (or fines. I didn't look at the punishment for the sales yet), which won't be a good look.
The NAACP is generally pretty representative of the black vote, but I think in this case, it is just an example of an unpopular policy that stands to do a lot of good. It would be nice if more unpopular, principled positions would be taken, but they aren't for a reason. Do enough unpopular things and your enemies get elected, and they will do much worse things for the communities you wish to help.
I think Biden should be proceeding as if he is past his expiration date because statistically he is. That means taking the unpopular moves onto his reputation while burnishing Harris with the popular shit (that's assuming that BIden likes Harris for 2024 which may be quite presumptious). To that end, giving Harris the lead on infrastructure is a good move but giving Harris border policy oversight was a mistake.
I definitely agree. Since he is projected to not run again, the VP and President roles should be reversed. Normally the VP needs to take the heat for everything. Since the border policy is not as big of a concern for democrats, I don't see that issue in particular hurting her chances for reelection unless it is horrendously botched (which it may be, based on the current state of the border)
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
And how many weed smokers are likely to turn out Republican
A decent amount of young Republicans are much more moderate on weed issues. They like weed, guns, are pro-life, etc. Essentially somewhat libertarian but don't want to throw their vote away
I would suggest that there are bigger issues, that are more definitive of the base...... Health, welfare, housing, education etc.
I agree those are much bigger issues. We are only 100 days in, so it is hard to determine how things'll turn out on that end. But as of right now, I haven't seen more than talk about a lot of those issues.
Time is dwindling until the midterms when, historically speaking, the margins generally move further out of the favor of the current president.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Most prominently, Harris broke the tie which saved the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 which 68% of Independent voters support. The same poll had Independents giving Harris an improving 39% approval vs a declining 23% approval for Republicans in Congress.
That's a fair point.
There will be dozens of incidents that she will be in charge of from now until 2024, which she will fall on both sides of in terms of popularity. If 68% like one policy from 2021, I don't know if that'll bring people out. I'm sure the recency bias will kick in and everyone will forget about the stimulus and mishandling of the border crisis (assuming that is under control by then). Plus, just because 68% support something doesn't necessarily mean they support it a lot.
Likely, a lot of what she will get roasted for won't even be things she did. More or less going to be anything Biden did wrong, she will get blamed for and vice versa. That will determine if she gets the 2024 nomination.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
That's false.Chuck Schumer has has the lead on national weed reform and has promised to submit a bill (over Biden's objections) before 4/20/22 (Schumer considers the bill popular with the people but hard to pass so I suppose he wants it as close to mid-terms as he can get). He may need Harris's tie-breaker and Biden won't commit to signing so Harris may face a difficult choice.
So nothing other than an unenforceable promise by Chuck Schumer has been made. Has she made an official promise since gaining office that she would vote for legalization in the Senate?
And, if it is objected to by Biden, I highly doubt she will defy the president on the matter. Especially based on her flip-flop on Medicare for All in an interview when she was asked about whether she would still fight for it after being chosen as his VP. (Response being a cringe-y laugh and a no).
That's false.NAACP: "The NAACP has been calling for a ban on menthol cigarettes and flavored e-cigarettes for years now, and we applaud the FDA’s latest plan to do just that. It’s about time we prioritize the health and well-being of African Americans."
That's not false. The NAACP might like the move, but that doesn't mean that black voters like the move. From a policy standpoint, it is a good policy that I could see the NAACP liking. However, if you ban a product that many black voters enjoy, then you are probably not winning them over.
Just like if you banned flavored alcohol- do you expect that to make voters happy or angry?
Probably angry. You won't win many points from non-smokers (banning cigarettes isn't an issue that gets people out to vote) and you will lose points from smokers who now have to smoke cigarettes that taste like pure tar.
Created:
@RM
I don't know how I'm dreaming. Are you saying that decriminalizing weed wasn't a campaign promise and/or isn't popular among Democrats?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Go on. What has she done that you think energizes the base and attracts moderates?
Created:
@RM
With no moves on weed legalization and outlawing menthol cigarettes, she is disappointing her base.
Mishandling the border crisis will probably turn away moderates (that is more of an issue for conservatives, but a decent chunk of centrists care too)
Created: