Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[BNakagawa]

There are black people serving 68 years in prison for doing far less.

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

5 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I'm not saying this to try to exonerate the guy, but what I'd love to know is what he was thinking throughout 2020?  What led to this, why did he do it, how did he become so willfully blind to the nature of what he was doing?  What can be done to mitigate it from happening again??  Maybe nothing.  If the root causes lie in the decades-long effort to marginalize and dehumanize the "Liberal Establishment"...probably nothing because it's a practical impossibility to muzzle the vicious media elements who create this.  But if we can't identify the causes of radicalization, we can't even start to address them.

 

While in no way denying the factors you identify, I suspect another factor was that he actually believed the election was stolen and that his POTUS was calling on him to do this, and that therefore he would be protected from legal penalties in the aftermath. I've heard and read comments to that effect from several of those rioters.

[unclevlad]

33 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

While in no way denying the factors you identify, I suspect another factor was that he actually believed the election was stolen and that his POTUS was calling on him to do this, and that therefore he would be protected from legal penalties in the aftermath. I've heard and read comments to that effect from several of those rioters.

 

OK, but doesn't that assume he recognizes he's doing, or planning to do, something wrong, such that he needs that protection?  And why didn't even *that* register enough to dissuade him?

 

The answer there might be simple enough...fear, real or stoked by the far right media types.  Frank Herbert was so right:  fear is the mind-killer.

 

[Iuz the Evil]

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/new-jersey-councilwoman-shot-killed-targeted-attack-home/story?id=96844342
 

This is very ugly. We are really struggling as a nation when this sort of thing happens to our elected leadership. She was ambushed and murdered, motive pending…

[unclevlad]

6 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/new-jersey-councilwoman-shot-killed-targeted-attack-home/story?id=96844342
 

This is very ugly. We are really struggling as a nation when this sort of thing happens to our elected leadership. She was ambushed and murdered, motive pending…

 

It's horrific if it was simply random.  If it's in any way political, it's a deep, deep warning cry that we're marching to the abyss.

[Iuz the Evil]

3 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

It's horrific if it was simply random.  If it's in any way political, it's a deep, deep warning cry that we're marching to the abyss.

I don’t disagree, she was a Republican, not that it matters. It’s a huge problem.

[tkdguy]

Kudos, Maxine Waters!

[csyphrett]

Without more information it is hard to say why Mrs. Dwumfour was attacked. The obvious things are it was something personal in her private life, it was something to do with her job, a failed carjacking, she was black, she belonged to a church. Ten shots at close range is not something you usually see in an accidental shooting except by people who think they are being shot at by the target.

CES    

[Iuz the Evil]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/02/politics/us-tracking-china-spy-balloon/index.html

[Lord Liaden]

5 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

OK, but doesn't that assume he recognizes he's doing, or planning to do, something wrong, such that he needs that protection?  And why didn't even *that* register enough to dissuade him?

 

The answer there might be simple enough...fear, real or stoked by the far right media types.  Frank Herbert was so right:  fear is the mind-killer.

 

 

My choice of the word "protected" may have been misleading, but at this point I would only be speculating as to the true rationalizations of a mindset I can't truly grasp. Did he think what he was doing was right, even if technically illegal, and that he would be vindicated? Did he think it was only wrong from the viewpoint of the people trying to "steal the election," so if they were defeated they'd have no power to hurt him? Or was he acting on pure fear and hatred (always closely related) and focused only on the event, never thinking past it?

 

Even if I was qualified to assess his state of mind, I couldn't do it from news clips.

[Tom]

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

OK, but doesn't that assume he recognizes he's doing, or planning to do, something wrong, such that he needs that protection?  And why didn't even *that* register enough to dissuade him?

 

The answer there might be simple enough...fear, real or stoked by the far right media types.  Frank Herbert was so right:  fear is the mind-killer.

 

Tangentially referring back to Hermit’s “oathbreaker” comment, and the rioter’s (likely?) belief he was following the orders of ‘his’ POTUS, he may have believed he was following his oath.  
 

It has been my personal observation that at least some people who claim to closely adhere to a particular text can be very selective in their reading and interpretation. 

[Iuz the Evil]

3 hours ago, Tom said:

Tangentially referring back to Hermit’s “oathbreaker” comment, and the rioter’s (likely?) belief he was following the orders of ‘his’ POTUS, he may have believed he was following his oath.  
 

It has been my personal observation that at least some people who claim to closely adhere to a particular text can be very selective in their reading and interpretation. 

This “oathbreaker” fellow is an excellent example of why I have been saying in this thread politically motivated violence is not acceptable. Whatever your ostensible motivations, when you riot, assault or murder in the name of your beliefs those who disagree with you society must bring the full force of the law to bear. Someone can always justify their actions by saying “What choice did I have?”

 

 You had lots of other options. He is self admittedly guilty of violent insurrection and public mayhem. 68 months is a very reasonable amount of time, more would have been arguable as well.

[TrickstaPriest]

44 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

This “oathbreaker” fellow is an excellent example of why I have been saying in this thread politically motivated violence is not acceptable. Whatever your ostensible motivations, when you riot, assault or murder in the name of your beliefs those who disagree with you society must bring the full force of the law to bear. Someone can always justify their actions by saying “What choice did I have?”

 

 You had lots of other options. He is self admittedly guilty of violent insurrection and public mayhem. 68 months is a very reasonable amount of time, more would have been arguable as well.

 

While I never say never, I agree that there's rarely a good outcome to allowing for this sort of thing.  And an environment where its acceptable is always worse than an environment where it is not.

[Pattern Ghost]

14 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said:

We are really struggling as a nation when this sort of thing happens to our elected leadership. She was ambushed and murdered, motive pending…

 

We're definitely struggling as a nation, but there's no evidence yet that this was politically motivated.

[Pattern Ghost]

6 hours ago, Tom said:

Tangentially referring back to Hermit’s “oathbreaker” comment, and the rioter’s (likely?) belief he was following the orders of ‘his’ POTUS, he may have believed he was following his oath.  

 

I think the rank and file of these guys are just uninformed morons who could use a civics class to learn the difference between a party stance and the law. I believe the leadership know damned well what they're doing is wrong and are twisting the meaning of the oath to their own ends. Frankly, they're the " . . . and domestic" enemies that their rank and file think they're protecting against.

[Iuz the Evil]

1 hour ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

We're definitely struggling as a nation, but there's no evidence yet that this was politically motivated.

Which is why I noted the motive was pending. This thread has many such statements, including about the motivation of entire professions such as law enforcement. Mine certainly not more hyperbolic given the circumstances.

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, Iuz the Evil said:

Which is why I noted the motive was pending. This thread has many such statements, including about the motivation of entire professions such as law enforcement. Mine certainly not more hyperbolic given the circumstances.

 

I'm not saying you were any more or less hyperbolic than average. From time to time, I like to point out when we start to veer in the direction of early assumptions. Not always -- I don't try to run around policing the thread, as that'd be obnoxious. It's not personal, and no offense was intended. I just tend to think like an investigator, both by nature and profession at some points, including recently, so it's a kind of pet peeve. Jumping to ascribing a motive to political, racial, or other reasons that are hot buttons can sometimes obscure the truth, even if they're depressingly accurate assumptions much of the time.

This certainly looks premeditated, and political motives are definitely high up on the list of possibilities.

 

Anyway, sorry if I offended you. I do believe you to be a reasonable sort of person and respect your opinions.

[Pattern Ghost]

On 2/1/2023 at 7:16 AM, Cygnia said:

Lawyers Ask Why the One White Cop in the Tyre Nichols Case Escaped Termination

 

While it could well have been because he's white, it could also be due to the nature of use of force investigations.  There are a lot of factors that come into play from policy, to training, to legal, to the officer's knowledge and perception of the situation, as well as whether there was malice on the part of the officer. Suspension rather than immediate termination was probably the correct call based on what that article states. Further investigation will surely be done, and may lead to termination or criminal charges.

 

According to the article, he pulled the subject (victim) out of the car, and TASED him, as well as contact stunned him. Is pulling someone you intend to arrest out of the vehicle excessive force? The answer is it depends. The act itself is within reason if a) you have cause to arrest or detain the person and b) you give them ample opportunity to get out of the vehicle before yanking them out. Note that the article doesn't ask these questions. That's because the author and editor are more concerned with a catchy headline and getting their article published ASAP to try to keep up with the breakneck speed of online "reporting." And those are just two of the questions that need to be asked on the matter of getting the guy out of the car. The TASER use begs MANY questions, again, beyond the scope of the reporter's expertise. They'd have had to do a deeper dive and get an expert to consult with. But that's slow, and provocative headlines being put out quickly is what the media thrives on.

 

I watched the body cam videos. My take on this guy is that the force he personally applied very likely did not contribute to the subject's(victim's) death. Pulling people out of cars generally doesn't kill them. The TASER use also generally isn't fatal. It's unclear to me if the white officer used any language indicating malice in his intent. There was a lot of inappropriate language, but it's impossible for me to identify the speakers. He also didn't look like the person driving the situation. IMO, the action (benching vs firing) was appropriate based on what very, very little the public knows about the incident, as given on that body cam footage. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the blunt force trauma inflicted by the officers who were fired was the likely cause of the death.

It looks like the black officers were the ones who got fired, because they were the ones who most obviously contributed to the death and who were most egregiously outside the law, policy and their training.

[Ternaugh]

And now its coming out that George Santos apparently told donors that he was a producer on the Broadway show, Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/george-santos-told-donors-produced-spiderman-broadway-1234673529/

[Pattern Ghost]

I tried to edit my last post, but it wouldn't save, so:

 

Here's an update from CNN: https://www.localmemphis.com/article/news/crime/sixth-mpd-officer-raising-questions-in-memphis-tyre-nichols-police-department-traffic-stop-ude-of-force-white-officer-five-fired-indicted-murder/522-621200ce-9170-4d40-a015-74cdafc53c9c

 

Two things noted here:

 

1. White officer wasn't at second scene (where the beating took place)

2. This quote: While regrouping, Hemphill can be heard on his body camera saying to one of the officers, "I hope they stomp his a–". 

 

That second one says something about his mindset. Given that it was made in the heat of the moment, in and of itself, it's probably not enough for an immediate firing. However, I think a deeper dive into this guy's character should be done, with termination being a likely outcome, since he doesn't seem to have the right temperament for the job.

[Logan D. Hurricanes]

41 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

And now its coming out that George Santos apparently told donors that he was a producer on the Broadway show, Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/george-santos-told-donors-produced-spiderman-broadway-1234673529/

 

Of all things to lie about, why that?

[TrickstaPriest]

Meanwhile, the most likely presidential candidate overall has still been reposting people calling for civil war and to literally 'fight and die for him, lock and load'.

 

Given how... problematic things are for Biden, and how short memory/disinterested public are... am I going to be hearing about how the fed or military has to deal with 'that abusive California state' in 2025?  If he wins, are people going to 'stand up to tyranny and protest' and have him 'justifiably' crack down on the protests (extra violently?  like they 'should have done' to those 'race rioters'?)

 

You would not believe how many people I run into think that the george floyd protests should have been met with machine guns.  These are the opinions of the mildly conservative people I know.

 

If he loses, how much are the shootings going to go up?  How many more times are friends of mine going to literally be skirted with death?

 

There's no outcome where things aren't going to get worse.  With poverty, the limits of water usage now, and soon climate change?  The future of a united states (as in the states uniting to not engage in war) are looking grim to me. 😕

[Cygnia]

Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

I tried to edit my last post, but it wouldn't save, so:

 

Here's an update from CNN: https://www.localmemphis.com/article/news/crime/sixth-mpd-officer-raising-questions-in-memphis-tyre-nichols-police-department-traffic-stop-ude-of-force-white-officer-five-fired-indicted-murder/522-621200ce-9170-4d40-a015-74cdafc53c9c

 

Two things noted here:

 

1. White officer wasn't at second scene (where the beating took place)

2. This quote: While regrouping, Hemphill can be heard on his body camera saying to one of the officers, "I hope they stomp his a–". 

 

That second one says something about his mindset. Given that it was made in the heat of the moment, in and of itself, it's probably not enough for an immediate firing. However, I think a deeper dive into this guy's character should be done, with termination being a likely outcome, since he doesn't seem to have the right temperament for the job.

 

That was my take as well.  At the very least, CLOSELY monitored, and given how hard that is to do, termination feels proper.  I could go so far as seeing some secondary charges, maybe.  Not the big charges.

[DShomshak]

7 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I think the rank and file of these guys are just uninformed morons who could use a civics class to learn the difference between a party stance and the law. I believe the leadership know damned well what they're doing is wrong and are twisting the meaning of the oath to their own ends. Frankly, they're the " . . . and domestic" enemies that their rank and file think they're protecting against.

According to one of the NPR stories I heard a year or so ago, this is at least sometimes the case. Supposedly, some of the Jan. 6 insurrectionists, in jail pending trial, were given basic civics courses -- and were surprised (and sometimes embarrassed) to learn that American history, government and the Constitution were not what they'd believed. They realized they'd been living in political Fantasy Land. Either nobody told them the truth, or they hadn't listened before.

 

Dean Shomshak