American Politics

[Pat]

It's not when we have far too many cops behaving horribly because there's little to no accountability. It's not unfair when they're constantly in the news for killing someone because they were "scared" or used excessive force. These people are in position of authority, there's no excuse for them, and they should be held to a higher standard instead of having their actions justified. I mean, Chicago (I think?) cops were recently caught planting evidence to throw people in jail.


No it is not. It's me defending guns/looking at both sides. We need stricter gun laws, but at the same time guns can be useful in defending someone. And what if it's just one robber who may not even be expecting the gun? Obviously if there are more than one robber, then you shouldn't be fighting back, but that depends on the situation as well.

I guess those who do their jobs properly aren't news material which results in selective perception. Their public image isn't as dire IMHO.

A gun is a tool of defense if and only if it deters people from committing crimes, fighting fire with fire isn't defense, it's mutual destruction IMHO. When everybody has guns, it's much more likely that some criminal you encounter will also have a gun and it's much more likely that he will expect you have a gun. These criminals are often under the influence of drugs or aren't thinking clearly either way, if you bet your chances on them being scared away, that will rarely work IMHO and more often than not, someone will get hurt because of the threat of gunfire. Also people usually rob houses when owners aren't at home and you can't carry your gun everywhere, so however I do the math, widespread use of guns doesn't make the society better IMHO.

That said, it's not as if some random guy's opinion will have any bearing on gun policy and if other people have guns, it's your constitutional right to get one for whatever reason. I don't criticize you or anybody just because you exert your right, I just state my overall view on guns and it's probably very optimistic for the current conjuncture. Strict gun laws are certainly for the better but it's difficult to stop guns from falling into the wrong hands, so they may not have the intended result IMHO.

 

[M3J]

I guess those who do their jobs properly aren't news material which results in selective perception. Their public image isn't as dire IMHO.

A gun is a tool of defense if and only if it deters people from committing crimes, fighting fire with fire isn't defense, it's mutual destruction IMHO. When everybody has guns, it's much more likely that some criminal you encounter will also have a gun and it's much more likely that he will expect you have a gun. These criminals are often under the influence of drugs or aren't thinking clearly either way, if you bet your chances on them being scared away, that will rarely work IMHO and more often than not, someone will get hurt because of the threat of gunfire. Also people usually rob houses when owners aren't at home and you can't carry your gun everywhere, so however I do the math, widespread use of guns doesn't make the society better IMHO.

That said, it's not as if some random guy's opinion will have any bearing on gun policy and if other people have guns, it's your constitutional right to get one for whatever reason. I don't criticize you or anybody just because you exert your right, I just state my overall view on guns and it's probably very optimistic for the current conjuncture. Strict gun laws are certainly for the better but it's difficult to stop guns from falling into the wrong hands, so they may not have the intended result IMHO.

Those who do their jobs properly do get some attention as well. A story of a cop who shot a Black man who lunged at him with a knife was spread around on Twitter or Facebook, but no one had an issue because it was nonlethal, and the man was actually the armed aggressor. You also have the news or people sharing cops doing good things like pulling over black people only to give them ice cream or whatnot. An example. Their public image is bad, at the very least, at least for the majority who are black and the whites who are aware.

It can be defense though, especially if the other side doesn't know about the gun and can't defend themselves or aren't going to attack because of the gun. A lot of these criminals aren't really under the influence of drugs though, where did you get that? Likely angry or normally volatile, but not necessarily under the influence. And for the record, I'm against arming people for defensive purposes for the reasons you stated, and a lot of defense for guns is stupid and illogical.

But it's also harder for the wrong hands to get guns if gun laws are stricter. Buying it illegally could increase their chances of getting caught by undercover cops or whatnot.

 

[xi0]

I kinda do and I kinda don't. It's hard not to think something's up when the cops make the news for shooting unarmed Black people and even white people, or beating up an Indian elderly because he can't speak English, or planting evidence or whatnot.

And as I said, people who have authority the way the law enforcements do should be held to higher standards and be held accountable. One of the reasons why Black Lives Matter gained traction and started protesting is because cops have often been found not guilty and allowed to get away with murder or w/e crime, and they were able to keep their job or get a new job in law enforcement elsewhere.

You really think that's what is going on the majority of the time?

Yeah and many of those cases were completely mishandled by the investigators or prosecutors. It's not simply a case where cops can go around killing whoever they want with impunity.

 

[M3J]

You really think that's what is going on the majority of the time?

Yeah and many of those cases were completely mishandled by the investigators or prosecutors. It's not simply a case where cops can go around killing whoever they want with impunity.

yeah and I've seen little reason to believe otherwise.

seems to be the case, for the most part. Hell, even Zimmerman got off for killing Trayvon despite all but admitting that Trayvon attacked in self-defense because Zimmerman was stalking him.

 

[EternalWinter]

The thing about being a single issue voter, life is very simple

 

[SharkBait]

although i get where she is coming from, i think certain guns dont need to be out there. there are recreational ones that hurt no one.

 

[Reebi]

although i get where she is coming from, i think certain guns dont need to be out there. there are recreational ones that hurt no one.

She is the most whinny co-hosts on The View .

Seriously America, you need to sort out your gun problem.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 7, 2019, Original Post Date: Sep 7, 2019 ---

I thought this article explaining "individual rights theory" and "collective rights theory" to be was interesting. I think anyone who can analyze text or has even a minimum university level education can agree the intent was collect rights to owning guns not individual rights. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

 

[kkck]

Oof, transcript is out... And this is the version that was made by trump's people and by extension suspect.. and it is still THIS damaging. As in, this is pretty much suicide for trump... Does he even realize that?

On the downside... I suppose it will be fun/tragic to watch democrats screw this up.

 

[Newkerzy]

Oof, transcript is out... And this is the version that was made by trump's people and by extension suspect.. and it is still THIS damaging. As in, this is pretty much suicide for trump... Does he even realize that?

On the downside... I suppose it will be fun/tragic to watch democrats screw this up.

That's why I'm not expecting much. If this is supposed to be a tactic for 2020, by all means. But the Dems should really be sure that they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot (which I expect them to).

 

[kkck]

That's why I'm not expecting much. If this is supposed to be a tactic for 2020, by all means. But the Dems should really be sure that they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot (which I expect them to).

I honestly don't know how democrats could bungle this that badly tbh. They might fail at actually removing trump from office because that much at least is not entirely up to them but this is an excellent opportunity to get the message out there with a super easy case of trump doing something comically illegal.

 

[M3J]

Trump's gonna win again if he doesn't get impeached, and that's probably more due to the left only wanting the perfect candidate.

 

[xi0]

The "perfect candidate" could be nearly anyone that isn't Trump at this point...

 

[SonOfDaws]

Democrats eye quick impeachment probe of Trump as freshmen push for focus on Ukraine

WASHINGTON - House Democratic leaders are eyeing a fast-paced investigation into the...

m.stamfordadvocate.com

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 27, 2019, Original Post Date: Sep 27, 2019 ---

Highlights:

Some senior Democrats are even arguing that other committees should forego any potentially explosive hearings that could distract from the intelligence panel's work, complicating other investigative committees' plans for the fall.


"Very few hearings, if any," said a senior Democratic aide, who said the coming investigative work will largely take place in closed-door interviews. The aide spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly.

"The stakes are extraordinarily high politically, and if we do this wrong and we get ahead of the majority of Americans, this could actually lead to a much worse fate, which is Trump getting reelected, Democrats lose in the House and lose in the Senate," the aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly about private concerns. "This process is going to take time. Nobody knows how long it will take to shift public opinion."

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 27, 2019 ---

Why is the "democratic" party trying to conduct Investigations out of the public eye? Why would "representatives" be trying to shift public opinion as opposed to following it? How often does water wait for the tide to come in? It doesn't: It's water.

This isn't a system flowing as it should. It's system of people desperately trying to scape a victory back from the running joke from 2016.

 

[kkck]

That sounds like usual democrat cowardice. They have a clear issue which should be investigated simply because it is the correct and ethical thing to do. The WH presented their version of the conversation. They have information from the intelligence community. They have words from trump himself... And the saddest part is that the political analysis they are doing is as wrong as they are cowardly. They have at least 2/3s of all democrats, their base, on board with impeachment and instead they are clearly worried about what right wingers say. Setting aside that they should follow through with this simply because it is the right thing to do, it's actually good politics to listen to your base.

 

[M3J]

The "perfect candidate" could be nearly anyone that isn't Trump at this point...

Not necessarily, as I've seen some left wingers express doubt in voting for an actual good candidate just because they're pro-Israel.

Andrew Yang though, other than Universal Basic Income, seems to be an iffy candidate with how he defends racism and shit and goes for "BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN" argument. Damn centrists.

 

[xi0]

Not necessarily, as I've seen some left wingers express doubt in voting for an actual good candidate just because they're pro-Israel.

Andrew Yang though, other than Universal Basic Income, seems to be an iffy candidate with how he defends racism and shit and goes for "BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN" argument. Damn centrists.

How does Yang "defend racism"? Is this some sort of reference to the fired SNL cast member or something?

I don't think I would label Yang as centrist either... You could maybe say that about someone like Klobuchar or Biden. But Yang? lol

 

[SonOfDaws]

That sounds like usual democrat cowardice. They have a clear issue which should be investigated simply because it is the correct and ethical thing to do. The WH presented their version of the conversation. They have information from the intelligence community. They have words from trump himself... And the saddest part is that the political analysis they are doing is as wrong as they are cowardly. They have at least 2/3s of all democrats, their base, on board with impeachment and instead they are clearly worried about what right wingers say. Setting aside that they should follow through with this simply because it is the right thing to do, it's actually good politics to listen to your base.

I'm saying this as a person who wants a far better candidate than Trump: The last time I took a look at the polls, Trump had about a 50% approval rating. That's remarkably high for some to be impeached at, especially when there's still no hard evidence of a crime.

 

[kkck]

I'm saying this as a person who wants a far better candidate than Trump: The last time I took a look at the polls, Trump had about a 50% approval rating. That's remarkably high for some to be impeached at, especially when there's still no hard evidence of a crime.

How Popular Is Donald Trump?

FiveThirtyEight is tracking Donald Trump’s approval ratings throughout his presidency.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

That's an aggregate of trump's approval. Not once during his entire presidency has he hit 50%. He is still in one of his more popular moments and it's still the low 40s.... And there is plenty of evidence of at a minimum constant grossly unethical behavior, if not outright crimes. The muller report was in no form or context favorable for trump (10 instances of obstruction of justice which muller wouldn't indict and congress was too cowardly to pursue, and just overall disgusting behavior through people in his campaign) and now you have the ukraine thing...

Add to that that the ukraine thing might not even be the real news in spite of how big it is depending on what exactly trump did with those conversations with other countries which were apparently stored in a different system from the other that they were supposed to be using....

 

[SonOfDaws]

How Popular Is Donald Trump?

FiveThirtyEight is tracking Donald Trump’s approval ratings throughout his presidency.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

That's an aggregate of trump's approval. Not once during his entire presidency has he hit 50%. He is still in one of his more popular moments and it's still the low 40s.... And there is plenty of evidence of at a minimum constant grossly unethical behavior, if not outright crimes. The muller report was in no form or context favorable for trump (10 instances of obstruction of justice which muller wouldn't indict and congress was too cowardly to pursue, and just overall disgusting behavior through people in his campaign) and now you have the ukraine thing...

Add to that that the ukraine thing might not even be the real news in spite of how big it is depending on what exactly trump did with those conversations with other countries which were apparently stored in a different system from the other that they were supposed to be using....

I took a glance through that and I can't say I'm too impressed with it, but the site could be okay. There's a lot of repeat aggregations and a lot of sources I know next to nothing about. It's possible that they have a system that takes that into account, but I'm not sure.

Despite the years worth of claims that it is, "Grossly unethical behavior is not an impeachable offence.

"no form or context favorable for trump"?... The primary focus of the inquiry was determining if he or his team colluded with Russia for political gain. Nothing came out about that. Yes, there were instances where it was noted that the possibility, but nothing hard was presented.

Putting aside what either one of us think about the report itself, if there was something solid, then why would they wait until someone gossiped (true or not, that's exactly what the Ukraine complaint is) about Trump in order to officially start an impeachment attempt? Why would they have to do closed-door investigation with "few hearings [with others] if any"? Cowardice just doesn't seem to cut it.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 30, 2019, Original Post Date: Sep 30, 2019 ---

Again, I'm no fan of Trump.

GOP lawmaker blasts Trump for quoting pastor warning of civil war over impeachment

Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) on Sunday criticized President Trump for quoting a pastor saying impeachment could trigger a “Civil War like fracture” in the country.”I have…

thehill.com

I do not want a president that says things like that, but I'm not going to let some shady figures "shift public opinion," including my own opinion, and lead us to do something stupid for their own political gain.

 

[M3J]

How does Yang "defend racism"? Is this some sort of reference to the fired SNL cast member or something?

I don't think I would label Yang as centrist either... You could maybe say that about someone like Klobuchar or Biden. But Yang? lol

Yeah, and I'm trying to remember if there's any more such instances. He seems to be centrist enough