The Swamp

Mr. D calling someone condescending is the very height of irony. That's your entire brand™

Agreed.

I like Julian Castro and he's eating it for the same reason:

Despite military rules of engagement being far more strict than police officers, I can still shoot the person depending upon the sequence of events and the threats I'm facing. It's a high as fuck threshold, but it exists.

https://taskandpurpose.com/community/ru ... ves-combat

So, if you want to be pedantic about the Castro plan, sure. But what I don't see there is extensive and routine RoE Training. There's my shortfall.

Put the officers in a stress-induced situations often in a simulated environment. Maybe Irene can be a volunteer asshole in this simulated environment instead of snarky Twitter asshole instead?

I mean, where's the training? That's my biggest beef with the Small Dick Energy 2A crowd. They buy high powered rifles and outfit them with all the bells and whistles and then don't actually train with them.

Not being snarky, but there's no proper way to train a white supremacist to police a diverse area.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:23 pm Not being snarky, but there's no proper way to train a white supremacist to police a diverse area.

Yes, but that hardly means these steps shouldn't be undertaken. Trying to root out bad actors is a completely different step. As is trying to vet potential hires in the first place for racial bias yet another.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:40 am Agreed.

I like Julian Castro and he's eating it for the same reason:

That 72% is if your local law enforcement outpost uses zero of those tactics. Many of the ones that have been highlighted in recent days for their, uh, "work", allegedly use four or more of those tactics.

One problem here is that police work inherently involves violence. It forcing people to go places they don't want to go or do things they don't want to do.

The most obvious example is criminal arrest. When an arrest warrant is issued, the subject of the offender usually doesn't want to be arrested. He'd rather remain free. Some people will agree to be arrested anyway, but a significant percentage will not. So they have to be either brought in against their will, or allowed to remain free. Bringing someone in against their will necessarily involves physical force.

As far as I know, no one is seriously claiming that the police cannot be allowed to arrest anyone or to defend themselves when violence is being directed against them by someone who doesn't want to be arrested. (Yes, there are some people calling for abolition of the police, but c'mon.)

So there is really no way to eliminate violence by police. And because some times the would-be arrestees will use lethal violence, there's no real way to eliminate shootings by police.

So any discussion will always have to be about "reducing" violence and shootings, instead of eliminating them. Any discussion will necessarily be about the frequency and degree of police violence: When can police use violence, and what types of police violence are allowable in what types of situations.

So I don't know if we can take seriously any criticism based on the idea that someone's proposal would not eliminate authorized violence.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:40 pmOne problem here is that police work inherently involves violence.

"Here" meaning the US? Because its not inherently violent everywhere.

You can skip the first 2:30 of the Australia one where Jim gives his brother some shit.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:01 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:40 pmOne problem here is that police work inherently involves violence.

"Here" meaning the US? Because its not inherently violent everywhere.

Someone asked upthread about police shooting in other countries, but in many first world countries, police don't carry guns most of the time.

I get how most of the comments here are chalking Biden's quote as being misinterpreted, but when he is talking about something so explosive at the moment, precision matters. If Trump said the same exact quote, especially the "unarmed man coming at you with a knife," I think we'd all be making fun of him. On the flip side, suggesting police shoot for the leg is extremely stupid and dangerous. It's very difficult to hit a moving target in the leg, and during a confrontation, even trained LEOs are extremely inaccurate with a handgun. They are taught to fire two rounds to the chest (center mass) because it's the largest target, and when a person is running, the chest stays mostly in the same spot. Hitting a moving persons leg is a really difficult shot, and there is a much more likely chance of a hit grazing the leg and not stopping them. There is a high threshold for an officer to use deadly force, and if that threshold is met, you can't fuck around. Shoot for the chest, put the bad guy down.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:01 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:40 pmOne problem here is that police work inherently involves violence.

"Here" meaning the US? Because its not inherently violent everywhere.

I don't think that's true. Is there a place where police don't use force (i.e. violence) to arrest people who don't want to be arrested?

My point is it's all a matter of degree. But a fundamental aspect of police work is using force on people.

I think you have to separate using force and guns. In other countries, police don't carry guns

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 7:30 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 5:01 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 4:40 pmOne problem here is that police work inherently involves violence.

"Here" meaning the US? Because its not inherently violent everywhere.

Someone asked upthread about police shooting in other countries, but in many first world countries, police don't carry guns most of the time.

Yes but most of the time the perpetrator isn't carrying a gun either. So usually they can talk it out. Having guns just makes both sides scared and anxious.

Is this me being high and irrational but does anyone else think that short of some kind of catastrophic beyond even the most imaginable possible Biden meltdown that the only thing that could fuck up beating Trump is if Biden dies before he actually gets the nomination and the whole convention is thrown into chaos? Is that just me? After the convention there's a VP. Not much you can say about that. Before? Things get dicey.

I hate to tempt 2020 like that.

If 2020 is going to take that kind of fucked up left hand turn I'd much rather Trump died. That would be chaos too possibly. Lots of Tom Cotton-y, Ted Cruz-y guys who might get ideas for a palace coup for the shot to face off against Joe Biden, pandemic or not.

Vaccine and economic rebound would go a very long way toward putting him back in the chair. There will be questions about the safety and availability of a vaccine that will undoubtedly be trotted out before the election. Stock market is somehow already 2/3 of the way back. Lots of time for both. Probably not jobs though. That horse left the barn and is running like a throroughbred. Can't see any scenario bringing back disposable incomes before November. No consumer money means no corporate investment means no economic rebound beyond stock prices which apparently have no basis in reality.

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 7:24 am Vaccine and economic rebound would go a very long way toward putting him back in the chair. There will be questions about the safety and availability of a vaccine that will undoubtedly be trotted out before the election. Stock market is somehow already 2/3 of the way back. Lots of time for both. Probably not jobs though. That horse left the barn and is running like a throroughbred. Can't see any scenario bringing back disposable incomes before November. No consumer money means no corporate investment means no economic rebound beyond stock prices which apparently have no basis in reality.

Yeah, I'd be short the US indices in the short term. I'd be very, very, very surprised if any of them are where they are now at the end of the year.

Not sure. Wish I knew. Lots of money on the sidelines though. Vaccine results/deliveries and Biden election would be confidence boosts and both seem likely before the end of the year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... JySkmq-urQ

I'm sure you guys won't by any of this, but just dropping it here as a piece of information.

Carry on with the worst version of Groundhog Day imaginable. :D

Also, admittedly, he's very sparse on details.

Time will tell.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:02 am https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... JySkmq-urQ

I'm sure you guys won't by any of this, but just dropping it here as a piece of information.

Carry on with the worst version of Groundhog Day imaginable. :D

I buy it but I'm not sure that's a good idea. More government to solve more things seems to be rejected by most, even by democratic voters, ie. Bernie can't get more than 30%.

If it is determined that Biden is in a winning position now, I'm not sure this pivot will be helpful. It may be seen as politicizing the Floyd situation.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:13 am

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:02 am https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... JySkmq-urQ

I'm sure you guys won't by any of this, but just dropping it here as a piece of information.

Carry on with the worst version of Groundhog Day imaginable. :D

I buy it but I'm not sure that's a good idea. More government to solve more things seems to be rejected by most, even by democratic voters, ie. Bernie can't get more than 30%.

If it is determined that Biden is in a winning position now, I'm not sure this pivot will be helpful. It may be seen as politicizing the Floyd situation.

OK?

I just disagree with your premise, degen.

People are seeing that they NEED the government to step up to fix the economy, as opposed to the do-nothing bullshit no plan Trump is going with. I mean, not to mention that he completely ceded all leadership on COVID to the governors. Total lack of leadership.

Likewise, citizens are angry with the system, and realize the only way to address systemic issues is for LEADERSHIP from the top to take the reins and do something.

There's a role for qualified leadership to play. What we've seen from Republicans is an abject failure to lead on two massive fronts. It's not going to end well for them.

I know people like to speculate that degen is trolling us, but has anyone ever considered he's just the American mainstream media pretending to be one of the guys to blow off steam and shoot the shit about sports and every once in a while just slips up and blurts out something telling?

A compelling point to make to the voters this fall is that a core tenet of the Republican Party is less government and if Biden can tick off really clear specific examples of how that has hurt the American people (which frankly, shouldn't be too hard because there's literally thousands of examples), then that's a compelling argument across a huge swath of the electorate. It'll be attacked as just free-spending liberals blah blah blah but people REALLY see how what Trump and the GOP are doing is hurting people. The COVID response being delegated to the governors and the difference from that approach in deaths and financial cost compared to what South Korea or Germany or other democracies did is the most obvious and compelling right now.

rass wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:33 am I know people like to speculate that degen is trolling us, but has anyone ever considered he's just the American mainstream media pretending to be one of the guys to blow off steam and shoot the shit about sports and every once in a while just slips up and blurts out something telling?

:D

I think degen is mixing in some Fox stuff, because he's trying to stay informed of what both sides are up to. Correct me if I'm wrong degen. The problem is that it's VERY difficult to take in Fox and not get disinformation and distortions.

In any event, the bottom line is that you can't draw such strong conclusions from a factoid like "Bernie only gets 30 percent." That, in no way, allows you to draw the conclusion that a majority of Democrats want smaller or less government. Most Dems don't view the govt as inherently bad or evil, we just want it to be set on the correct path.

brian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:37 am A compelling point to make to the voters this fall is that a core tenet of the Republican Party is less government and if Biden can tick off really clear specific examples of how that has hurt the American people (which frankly, shouldn't be too hard because there's literally thousands of examples), then that's a compelling argument across a huge swath of the electorate. It'll be attacked as just free-spending liberals blah blah blah but people REALLY see how what Trump and the GOP are doing is hurting people. The COVID response being delegated to the governors and the difference from that approach in deaths and financial cost compared to what South Korea or Germany or other democracies did is the most obvious and compelling right now.

That's still a tricky one to me. Do people really see and really want more government? Are people really angry with the system or just the subset that we see. Germany shutdown really fast and really early. Did Americans really want that back in Feburary? South Korea forced an app on every phone to tell you where COVID positive people were moving around. Patients were numbered. Patient 31 was the church going person who was the super spreader. Do people want that? Do they want to be mandated masks, or mandated temperature taking?

Brian is right, Biden needs to tick off those points of useless Trump and useless GOP, but what are those points and does the majority of the electorate agree?

Nonlinear: I don't watch Fox or CNN or much tv, but my social media feeds do grab from both sides. And I do think that Bernie at 30% number is telling. I mean Warren should have walked away with that primary but i think the democrats voters aren't as progressive and pro-government as we'd like to think.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:49 am

rass wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:33 am I know people like to speculate that degen is trolling us, but has anyone ever considered he's just the American mainstream media pretending to be one of the guys to blow off steam and shoot the shit about sports and every once in a while just slips up and blurts out something telling?

:D

I think degen is mixing in some Fox stuff, because he's trying to stay informed of what both sides are up to. Correct me if I'm wrong degen. The problem is that it's VERY difficult to take in Fox and not get disinformation and distortions.

In any event, the bottom line is that you can't draw such strong conclusions from a factoid like "Bernie only gets 30 percent." That, in no way, allows you to draw the conclusion that a majority of Democrats want smaller or less government. Most Dems don't view the govt as inherently bad or evil, we just want it to be set on the correct path.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Democrats want "more government". They just generally don't want as much government (or taxation) than Sanders is calling for, or they are more concerned that those positions will lead to a loss in November.

The people who say they don't want more government are typically upper middle class or higher who just don't want to see their taxes go up.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:55 am

brian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:37 am A compelling point to make to the voters this fall is that a core tenet of the Republican Party is less government and if Biden can tick off really clear specific examples of how that has hurt the American people (which frankly, shouldn't be too hard because there's literally thousands of examples), then that's a compelling argument across a huge swath of the electorate. It'll be attacked as just free-spending liberals blah blah blah but people REALLY see how what Trump and the GOP are doing is hurting people. The COVID response being delegated to the governors and the difference from that approach in deaths and financial cost compared to what South Korea or Germany or other democracies did is the most obvious and compelling right now.

That's still a tricky one to me. Do people really see and really want more government? Are people really angry with the system or just the subset that we see. Germany shutdown really fast and really early. Did Americans really want that back in Feburary? South Korea forced an app on every phone to tell you where COVID positive people were moving around. Patients were numbered. Patient 31 was the church going person who was the super spreader. Do people want that? Do they want to be mandated masks, or mandated temperature taking?

Brian is right, Biden needs to tick off those points of useless Trump and useless GOP, but what are those points and does the majority of the electorate agree?

Nonlinear: I don't watch Fox or CNN or much tv, but my social media feeds do grab from both sides. And I do think that Bernie at 30% number is telling. I mean Warren should have walked away with that primary but i think the democrats voters aren't as progressive and pro-government as we'd like to think.

I don't really think any of this is all that complicated. Vast majority want a competent government, run by reasonable and competent people. You are drawing conclusions from a primary process where two candidates ran on highly progressive platforms and however you washout the votes (many of which we'll never really know because of how things played out), Bernie and Warren are well over 30 percent.

You are also engaging in a zero sum argument, where it's incredibly unclear what's driving Democratic voters in this cycle. A ton of people are voting because Fuck Trump. Many are voting for Biden because he was viewed, at the end of the day, as the most likely to defeat Trump. Even if they hold more progressive views, they were worried Bernie or Elizabeth weren't a good candidate to deal with Trump (for a whole host of reasons, I'm not saying they are valid.)

I'm just cautioning you from drawing conclusions when there are a lot of factors you're not really considering.

Giff wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 12:47 pm The people who say they don't want more government are typically upper middle class or higher who just don't want to see their taxes go up.

Yup. And while while almost all of the Democratic pundits on TV or the NYT/WaPost editorial boards fall into this demographic, it’s not the majority of Democratic voters. Most Democratic voters think they would be the ones helped by “big government” policies and not the ones paying for others to be helped.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 12:52 pm

degenerasian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:55 am

brian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:37 am A compelling point to make to the voters this fall is that a core tenet of the Republican Party is less government and if Biden can tick off really clear specific examples of how that has hurt the American people (which frankly, shouldn't be too hard because there's literally thousands of examples), then that's a compelling argument across a huge swath of the electorate. It'll be attacked as just free-spending liberals blah blah blah but people REALLY see how what Trump and the GOP are doing is hurting people. The COVID response being delegated to the governors and the difference from that approach in deaths and financial cost compared to what South Korea or Germany or other democracies did is the most obvious and compelling right now.

That's still a tricky one to me. Do people really see and really want more government? Are people really angry with the system or just the subset that we see. Germany shutdown really fast and really early. Did Americans really want that back in Feburary? South Korea forced an app on every phone to tell you where COVID positive people were moving around. Patients were numbered. Patient 31 was the church going person who was the super spreader. Do people want that? Do they want to be mandated masks, or mandated temperature taking?

Brian is right, Biden needs to tick off those points of useless Trump and useless GOP, but what are those points and does the majority of the electorate agree?

Nonlinear: I don't watch Fox or CNN or much tv, but my social media feeds do grab from both sides. And I do think that Bernie at 30% number is telling. I mean Warren should have walked away with that primary but i think the democrats voters aren't as progressive and pro-government as we'd like to think.

I don't really think any of this is all that complicated. Vast majority want a competent government, run by reasonable and competent people. You are drawing conclusions from a primary process where two candidates ran on highly progressive platforms and however you washout the votes (many of which we'll never really know because of how things played out), Bernie and Warren are well over 30 percent.

You are also engaging in a zero sum argument, where it's incredibly unclear what's driving Democratic voters in this cycle. A ton of people are voting because Fuck Trump. Many are voting for Biden because he was viewed, at the end of the day, as the most likely to defeat Trump. Even if they hold more progressive views, they were worried Bernie or Elizabeth weren't a good candidate to deal with Trump (for a whole host of reasons, I'm not saying they are valid.)

I'm just cautioning you from drawing conclusions when there are a lot of factors you're not really considering.

Also, former VPs have historically done really well in primaries, irrespective of where they fall on their party’s ideological spectrum. Familiarity matters a lot.

Absolutely, and then you add in that he was the Veep for the most popular politician in the country right now.

Then you add in that the most popular politician will turn tricks for him in Sept and Oct and turnout tens of millions of otherwise possibly absent voters is a big reason for "electability" when some said it was media driven.

Ha! I just transcribed a 30 second political ad, this is word for word what it says.

Kentucky has been hit hard. We can't afford radical politicians like Karen Berg, who would make things worse. Berg supports taxpayer funded benefits and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants who broke the law and take Kentucky jobs. And Berg supports a radical government takeover of healthcare that would effectively ban private health insurance, cause taxes to skyrocket, and destroy Kentucky's economy. Liberal politician Karen Burg and her radical agenda are just too risky for Kentucky.

Pretty crazy.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 5:06 pm Ha! I just transcribed a 30 second political ad, this is word for word what it says.

Kentucky has been hit hard. We can't afford radical politicians like Karen Berg, who would make things worse. Berg supports taxpayer funded benefits and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants who broke the law and take Kentucky jobs. And Berg supports a radical government takeover of healthcare that would effectively ban private health insurance, cause taxes to skyrocket, and destroy Kentucky's economy. Liberal politician Karen Burg and her radical agenda are just too risky for Kentucky.

Pretty crazy.

Sounds almost exactly like Kelly Loeffler ads here. Very long way but a Dem wave needs to wash her away.

I live in kentucky who the hell is karen berg?

A_B wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 9:09 pm I live in kentucky who the hell is karen berg?

There is an election on June 23. Kentucky State Senate District 26.

14 point lead for Biden in latest CNN poll. RCP average is +7.8. Considering Trump is the incumbent, this is about the same as having a 28-3 lead in the third quarter of the Super Bowl.

brian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 7:39 pm

I don't think Cory Gardner is in a dead heat?