Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

311 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      99
    • No
      129
    • Maybe
      83
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      57
    • No
      133
    • Indifferent
      50


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

And remember that the next time a Bernista tells you there’s no difference between a Republican and a Centrist Dem.

That and the racist fucks vs good people on both sides 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

Have some nice footage of a cop killing someone

While the video does not seem graphic, I would ask a mod first before posting a video just in case. I would just tell people to look up the "Shooting of Rayshard Brooks Body Camera" on Google or YouTube or something in the meantime. I got a warning last time making a thread containing George's footage, so I do not want you to get into the same trouble I did for bringing awareness.

But yeah, trigger happy cops are just violating their oaths to serve and protect. Good thing body cameras and cellphones are much more prevalent now. Hope they face swift justice just like George's murderer. I assume the charges in this scenario will be second degree murder or maybe first degree? If choking people was not obvious that it can be lethal, then I hope shooting people should be obvious that it could be lethal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, XRay said:

But yeah, trigger happy cops are just violating their oaths to serve and protect. Good thing body cameras and cellphones are much more prevalent now. Hope they face swift justice just like George's murderer. I assume the charges in this scenario will be second degree murder or maybe first degree? If choking people was not obvious that it can be lethal, then I hope shooting people should be obvious that it could be lethal.

*italics mine*

There's certainly less nuance in shooting people (i.e, you need only check where the errant cop is aiming) as opposed to choke holds, where the giveaway (kinda crappy term to use, my apologies) would be the amount of time the target is in the hold, which makes the nature of the hold (blood vs air) irrelevant the longer it goes.

Edited by Karimlan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, XRay said:

While the video does not seem graphic, I would ask a mod first before posting a video just in case. I would just tell people to look up the "Shooting of Rayshard Brooks Body Camera" on Google or YouTube or something in the meantime. I got a warning last time making a thread containing George's footage, so I do not want you to get into the same trouble I did for bringing awareness.

That's why the video went poof.

Anyway, the facts of this case seem a little more at odds.  I don't think shooting the guy was the right thing to do, but from what I've read, the suspect grabbed a taser and ran.  Anyone have any ideas how this could've been handled in a more appropriate manner?  Besides "don't get your taser grabbed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, eclipse said:

 

Anyway, the facts of this case seem a little more at odds.  I don't think shooting the guy was the right thing to do, but from what I've read, the suspect grabbed a taser and ran.  Anyone have any ideas how this could've been handled in a more appropriate manner?  Besides "don't get your taser grabbed".

Call for backup and update your colleagues on the situation? You might be reprimanded, but you won't be the one who killed him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

Call for backup and update your colleagues on the situation? You might be reprimanded, but you won't be the one who killed him.

I think this would be covered in standard police training in this kind of situation, which I have zero experience in.  That's why I'm not throwing my hat into the insta-judge ring.  I'm pretty sure there's something between "hope that the suspect trips as he runs away with a taser" and "bullets to the back", though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I think this would be covered in standard police training in this kind of situation, which I have zero experience in.  That's why I'm not throwing my hat into the insta-judge ring.  I'm pretty sure there's something between "hope that the suspect trips as he runs away with a taser" and "bullets to the back", though.

He took a Taser, the cop still has his car keys (presumably). Besides, most departments should have a K-9 unit or a helicopter if they're rich enough.

 

Note that I'm not a cop and most of this stuff is public knowledge.

Edited by Armchair General

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I as a British person find incredibly scary is that, given how Brexit is basically like shooting yourself in the foot with a grenade launcher, our government is pinning all of its hopes for future trade deals on the US on Trump.

Which means that, if we want to get a decent bargain, we need to suck up to a man who is constantly rolling back protections for his own people on top of all the other horrible things he keeps doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

He took a Taser, the cop still has his car keys (presumably). Besides, most departments should have a K-9 unit or a helicopter if they're rich enough.

 

Note that I'm not a cop and most of this stuff is public knowledge.

I mean, if you know how this should've been handled via whatever procedures were outlined in Atlanta's training book, then go ahead and judge.  I think it's a much wiser decision to reserve judgment due to a lack of knowledge than pretend that I know how to solve the world's problems.  After all, the police are in the public eye right now, and I can imagine how badly this could be spun if they elected to go the route that you suggested.

7 minutes ago, Samven said:

Something I as a British person find incredibly scary is that, given how Brexit is basically like shooting yourself in the foot with a grenade launcher, our government is pinning all of its hopes for future trade deals on the US on Trump.

Which means that, if we want to get a decent bargain, we need to suck up to a man who is constantly rolling back protections for his own people on top of all the other horrible things he keeps doing.

We have a thread for global politics, so feel free to elaborate there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, either way it could've went, the media would've had a field day with it. But a guy running around with a stolen taser until the cops catch him is less embarrassing than just shooting him on the spot.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eclipse said:

I think this would be covered in standard police training in this kind of situation, which I have zero experience in.  That's why I'm not throwing my hat into the insta-judge ring.  I'm pretty sure there's something between "hope that the suspect trips as he runs away with a taser" and "bullets to the back", though.

There's a million ways you can solve a drunk with a taser, many of which don't involve shooting them and then trying to destroy the bodycam.

Edited by Excellen Browning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Excellen Browning said:

There's a million ways you can solve a drunk with a taser, many of which don't involve shooting them and then trying to destroy the bodycam.

Running guy with a taser?  Though screwing the bodycam tells me that there was probably something between "let the guy go" and "bullets".

Again, if you're familiar with other ways, then by all means share.  But for those that feel that they don't have the information necessary to make a judgment, that is something that should be respected.  Better to keep silent and have people think that you're an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt, as the saying goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6-3 opinion with Gorsuch and Roberts in the majority.

Thats HUGE.

Thats a full 180 from 6 decades of caselaw--that completely reshapes the landscape of anti-discrimination law in this country.
 
LGBT persons now have protection from termination on the basis of their LGBT status under FEDERAL law.

 

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly thought that ruling would go the other way, considering Masterpiece, the makeup of the court, the stance of the DOJ and the timeline we find ourselves in. Good on Roberts and Gorsuch for interpreting the law correctly in what should have been a slamdunk case.

 

In other news: black people keep turning up hanged from trees.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-man-found-hanged-tree-inwood-park-20200609-irhvgdkizzbpfnkyulxzm2n2tq-story.html

http://theavtimes.com/2020/06/11/suspected-suicide-body-found-hanging-from-tree-in-poncitlan-square-palmdale-issues-statement/

Edited by Excellen Browning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:
6-3 opinion with Gorsuch and Roberts in the majority.

Thats HUGE.

Thats a full 180 from 6 decades of caselaw--that completely reshapes the landscape of anti-discrimination law in this country.
 
LGBT persons now have protection form termination on the basis of their LGBT status under FEDERAL law.

 

 

I thought that was already covered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like Lisa Simpson saying: "I can't believe it, the system works.". This is incredible news. Maybe the first good news of 2020? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sheer amount of support and the waking of white America to black America has also been generally great. The protests are people of every race, not just black people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Armchair General said:

I thought that was already covered?

It was covered under some state antidiscrimination laws, but its always been purposefully excluded from the federal ones. 

Federal law covered "sex discrimination."

But the caselaw has always been very explicit: sex discrimination means treating women differently then men, and workplace sexual harassment. Thats it. Sex discrimination does NOT mean discrimination on the basis of sexual identity or orientation; thats not covered.

This is the first time since the federal antidiscrimination laws were passed back in 1964 that The Feds have recognized discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation an identity as actionable.  

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

It was covered under some state antidiscrimination laws, but its always been purposefully excluded from the federal ones. 

Federal law covered "sex discrimination."

But the caselaw has always been very explicit: sex discrimination means treating women differently then men, and workplace sexual harassment. Thats it. Sex discrimination does NOT mean discrimination on the basis of sexual identity or orientation; thats not covered.

This is the first time since the federal antidiscrimination laws were passed back in 1964 that The Feds have recognized discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation an identity as actionable.  

Would it be wise to completely outlaw discrimination and only allow a handful of exceptions?

Or is the current system's wording better in that discrimination is completely legal unless it is on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc.?

If we switch the wording to make discrimination illegal, then we do not have to keep adding vulnerable groups to the law and just to have assholes shut the effort down. Discrimination would then be illegal, period. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:
6-3 opinion with Gorsuch and Roberts in the majority.

Thats HUGE.

Thats a full 180 from 6 decades of caselaw--that completely reshapes the landscape of anti-discrimination law in this country.
 
LGBT persons now have protection from termination on the basis of their LGBT status under FEDERAL law.

 

 

Good, though the 3 pieces of trash that voted against it should stop kissing Trump's butt and do their job.  Or they are just bigots themselves.  

3 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

The sheer amount of support and the waking of white America to black America has also been generally great. The protests are people of every race, not just black people.

Yes it seems the vast majority are in support, so now those that oppose this are in the minority and get called out like the scum they are.  Or fired, humiliated...as they should be.  Racism has no place in America.  

Now just has to get that fat KKK loving orange guy out of office and we can look forward to a better world.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lewyn said:

Good, though the 3 pieces of trash that voted against it should stop kissing Trump's butt and do their job.  Or they are just bigots themselves.  

They probably are in the camp that believes allowing such discrimination falls under "Religious Liberty" and "Free Speech". Conservatives didn't take kindly to this outcome and are pissed off at Gorsuch... some examples:

 

Gotta love that last one, THIS is THE reason to stay home and not vote Trump, completely ignore everything the man's been doing wrong that conservatives claimed they cared about like the deficit and the economy lol.

Shit like this makes me lean to think that perhaps certain Conservatives in the US NEED a period of time in which they're disparaged and truly silenced.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XRay said:

Would it be wise to completely outlaw discrimination and only allow a handful of exceptions?

Or is the current system's wording better in that discrimination is completely legal unless it is on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc.?

If we switch the wording to make discrimination illegal, then we do not have to keep adding vulnerable groups to the law and just to have assholes shut the effort down. Discrimination would then be illegal, period. No ifs, ands, or buts.

In a way it could be. But let's face it, our legislative branch isn't that reliable and the few exceptions (take s lack of proficiency, for instance) could still lead to accusations down the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

They probably are in the camp that believes allowing such discrimination falls under "Religious Liberty" and "Free Speech". Conservatives didn't take kindly to this outcome and are pissed off at Gorsuch... some examples:

 

Gotta love that last one, THIS is THE reason to stay home and not vote Trump, completely ignore everything the man's been doing wrong that conservatives claimed they cared about like the deficit and the economy lol.

Shit like this makes me lean to think that perhaps certain Conservatives in the US NEED a period of time in which they're disparaged and truly silenced.

Yeah let's be honest it has nothing to do with 'freedom' or 'free speech' it is about bigotry and being able to be prejudiced without any consequences.  It has as much weight as the South saying they have the freedom to keep slaves.  Wonder what Ben Shapiro, that tool, would say if people are about to fire people cause they were Jews?  Freedom right?  God wished someone would call into his dumb brainwashing show and ask him that question.  

You are right Conservatives don't deserve a voice.  The Democratic party can split between progressive and liberals.  Country would be much better.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:
6-3 opinion with Gorsuch and Roberts in the majority.

Thats HUGE.

Thats a full 180 from 6 decades of caselaw--that completely reshapes the landscape of anti-discrimination law in this country.
 
LGBT persons now have protection from termination on the basis of their LGBT status under FEDERAL law.

 

 

I have been summoned.  Good to have it codified, I'll have to read the actual opinion and maybe get it translated .  Didn't expect 6-3.  I sent an email to the company I contract with.  Guess we'll see how all this goes.

1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Shit like this makes me lean to think that perhaps certain Conservatives in the US NEED a period of time in which they're disparaged and truly silenced.

 

9 minutes ago, Lewyn said:

You are right Conservatives don't deserve a voice.  The Democratic party can split between progressive and liberals.  Country would be much better.  

I don't think silencing people is ever going to solve anything.  Making something verboten to even talk about just leads people to go underground and become more radical.  And it leaves who is remaining to become more radical in the opposite direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Rezzy said:

I don't think silencing people is ever going to solve anything.  Making something verboten to even talk about just leads people to go underground and become more radical.  And it leaves who is remaining to become more radical in the opposite direction.

Indeed, however, perhaps it's about time they get treated the same way they want to treat minorities so they truly experience it and not just claim "MUH FREE SPEECH RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED WORSE THAN MINORITIES".

It gets worse when you think about how douchebags like Shapiro help perpetuate the time people like Mitch McConnell are in power. Trump said the quiet part out loud when he ranted about how the country will never see a Republican elected if people could vote by mail and as long as the politicians on the Republican side continue to function as they do, the extinction/endangerment of the Republican party as it is today becomes that much sweeter.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...