Politics XXXVI (will catch up to superbowls soon)

[Skarpen]

41 minutes ago, KaineParker said:

When I was told video games would rot my brain, I wasn't expecting that it would be because of reading massive cope on a videogame forum in support of cops who killed someone after being unable to locate the right address.

Can't help but have the image of a thug crying and wetting himself the moment the handcuffs are closing reading stuff like that.

[Guard Dog]

5 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

But what if in revoking that power you would increase the number of people being hurt?

Qualified immunity sounds like something completely idiotic.

In the 20 or so years it has been a thing there is no statistical decrease in violent crime that can be attributed to it. The notion that while what you have is bad it "might" be worse without it just fails logic. 

No argument from me on your second statement. 

[213374U]

6 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

But what if in revoking that power you would increase the number of people being hurt?

You have it backwards. When considering whether that power should be vested on law enforcement officials, it rests on those arguing for it to prove that the needs sufficiently justify the accidental deaths that will inevitably result. So what is the evidence that no knock warrants substantially help save lives or better enforce laws vis-à-vis the alternatives?

It's baffling how an increasing amount people don't realize that state power isn't all encompassing except for whatever restrictions are placed on it when it's actually the other way around -- the state must be explicitly be empowered to regulate and enforce, and each of those endowments must be carefully considered before and closely monitored for abuse and effectiveness after.

[Malcador]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

They can know for example there are drug dealers but not all the details. 

If there is situation that always play the same then you can have narrow instructions. Entering an unknown house is not such situation.

A protocol isn't them turning off their brains, but in the context of having to announce their presence, I don't see what is lost by having to do so when raiding a suspected drug storage area.  Entering an unknown house is what they get all the training and fancy kit for, after all.   Why not have SWAT carry out EVERY search warrant.  You never know, after all.

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

38 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Can't help but have the image of a thug crying and wetting himself the moment the handcuffs are closing reading stuff like that.

That's a strange fetish, but I suppose it explains the cop cope.

[Skarpen]

29 minutes ago, 213374U said:

You have it backwards. When considering whether that power should be vested on law enforcement officials, it rests on those arguing for it to prove that the needs sufficiently justify the accidental deaths that will inevitably result. So what is the evidence that no knock warrants substantially help save lives or better enforce laws vis-à-vis the alternatives?

It's baffling how an increasing amount people don't realize that state power isn't all encompassing except for whatever restrictions are placed on it when it's actually the other way around -- the state must be explicitly be empowered to regulate and enforce, and each of those endowments must be carefully considered before and closely monitored for abuse and effectiveness after.

Isn't the power already in place? The argument is to remove it so the argument have to come from someone who wants to change the existing law. 

Well, yes. I don't see any problem with that.

10 minutes ago, Malcador said:

A protocol isn't them turning off their brains, but in the context of having to announce their presence, I don't see what is lost by having to do so when raiding a suspected drug storage area.  Entering an unknown house is what they get all the training and fancy kit for, after all.   Why not have SWAT carry out EVERY search warrant.  You never know, after all.

Maybe they should. Could solve some problems.

[213374U]

Yeah -- let's see if we can keep the bashing limited to cops and not extend it to each other...

[Malcador]

20 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Maybe they should. Could solve some problems.

And what problems you think would be solved ?

 

 

[Skarpen]

55 minutes ago, Malcador said:

And what problems you think would be solved ?

Less internet edgelord bedwetters attacking the police like they straigth from Compton.

[majestic]

 

  

 

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

And what problems you think would be solved ?

SWATs are too busy raiding streamers these days. Ain't nobody got time for that.

[Amentep]

3 hours ago, 213374U said:

Yeah -- let's see if we can keep the bashing limited to cops and not extend it to each other...

Quote for reminder.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

As the supposed internet edgelord bedwetter, I can say that sending in SWAT to enforce every warrant would probably make me attack the police more rather than less, because there would inevitably be examples of needlessly dead bodies to attack them for. I'll stop clapping back at the guy whose previous account had to be monitored for objectionable content to please the mods and clear up the thread.

[ComradeYellow]

3 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Less internet edgelord bedwetters attacking the police like they straigth from Compton.

Would you attack the Soviet police if this were still the Soviet era?

I'm wondering if people attack authority based on the society they govern rather than attacking guardsman just for the sake of attacking guardsman.  It makes no sense to attack a tin suit wielding a halberd just for the sake of it.

[Malcador]

6 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Less internet edgelord bedwetters attacking the police like they straigth from Compton.

 

Doesn't follow, though. More people will be critical of police and be as you say "edgelord bedwetters".  Not sure why you are getting so wound up over being people being critical of cops.

[Skarpen]

6 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

Would you attack the Soviet police if this were still the Soviet era?

I'm wondering if people attack authority based on the society they govern rather than attacking guardsman just for the sake of attacking guardsman.  It makes no sense to attack a tin suit wielding a halberd just for the sake of it.

Depends which kind of police we talk about. The regular kind or the political represion kind. Still I would be more focused on the government who uses police rather than police themselves. Police is usually reflection of government and politicians. As we now know even FBI can be corrupted to frame and destroy political opponents when corrupted government tells them to.

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

 

Doesn't follow, though. More people will be critical of police and be as you say "edgelord bedwetters".  Not sure why you are getting so wound up over being people being critical of cops.

I would hardly describe calling them murderers as being critical.

[Guard Dog]

4 hours ago, Skarpen said:

I would hardly describe calling them murderers as being critical.

Well, it has happened. It may not be fair to paint them all with the broad brush but far to often even the ones that are "good" examples of policing rally around the ones that are not in order to protect the integrity of the institution. Even when the actions are inexcusable. There was a case in Minnesota where a woman witnessed a sexual assault in progress. She called the police. When they showed up she approached them to direct them to the location. One of the cops pulled his weapon and shot and killed the witness. Why he did it is a matter of speculation. I think he was tense and panicked. But as vile as the action was the way his fellow officers defended him and made excuses for him was every bit as repugnant.  Up to the point he was fired and charged with murder. Then they just pretended it never happened. 

Police officers do not engender a great deal of respect and the truth is they have only themselves to blame. If you don't want to be viewed at thick necked, heave handed sadists the first step is to stop being that and stop defending it when it happens. 

[Orogun01]

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Well, it has happened. It may not be fair to paint them all with the broad brush but far to often even the ones that are "good" examples of policing rally around the ones that are not in order to protect the integrity of the institution. Even when the actions are inexcusable. There was a case in Minnesota where a woman witnessed a sexual assault in progress. She called the police. When they showed up she approached them to direct them to the location. One of the cops pulled his weapon and shot and killed the witness. Why he did it is a matter of speculation. I think he was tense and panicked. But as vile as the action was the way his fellow officers defended him and made excuses for him was every bit as repugnant.  Up to the point he was fired and charged with murder. Then they just pretended it never happened. 

Police officers do not engender a great deal of respect and the truth is they have only themselves to blame. If you don't want to be viewed at thick necked, heave handed sadists the first step is to stop being that and stop defending it when it happens. 

Policy always come down from the top, if they don't feel safe giving their opinion on something is likely because they're not allowed to give their opinion on something.

[ShadySands]

They don't want to get Serpicoed

[ComradeYellow]

I'm really starting to despise this whole NATO thing.

How about China can have Europe and we can have Russia?  Time for a massive geopolitical realignment methinks.

[Malcador]

On 5/16/2020 at 1:48 AM, Skarpen said:

I would hardly describe calling them murderers as being critical.

Eh, it may be extremely so but it is still criticism nonentheless, and at its core is that cops do seem to get away with killing people or recieve very favourable treatment.

[Amentep]

I've just deleted some posts. If you can't post without calling someone an idiot, or being generally uncivil then you are doing it wrong.

[Gorth]

6 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

I'm really starting to despise this whole NATO thing.

How about China can have Europe and we can have Russia?  Time for a massive geopolitical realignment methinks.

I was about to crack some bad joke about China not being able to afford it, already owning 1.1 trillion dollars of US debt (bonds). But then I realised, that is only a drop in the ocean when it comes to US debt (more than 30 trillion dollars iirc.).

While checking the numbers, I ran into an interesting list of countries with the least debt. A surprising list, that if anything, convinced me, debt free does not equal a good place to live.

 

http://poweredbyorange.com/10-countries-with-the-lowest-debt-available/

 

Unless you really fancy migrating to Afghanistan, Russia, Botswana, Congo, UAE etc.

[ComradeYellow]

5 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I was about to crack some bad joke about China not being able to afford it, already owning 1.1 trillion dollars of US debt (bonds). But then I realised, that is only a drop in the ocean when it comes to US debt (more than 30 trillion dollars iirc.).

National debt is not an indicator of a country's strength.  GDP + military power is usually the best guess.

And considering all these countries who claim to hate the U.S. unless its Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama running it (ultra capitalist-but-socially-liberal), it leaves me wondering why we're still protecting these countries, so maybe I agree with Trump on this particular issue regarding NATO.

[Gorth]

I think we can quickly agree, Nato is a relic of the past. Like all obsolete things, it's struggling with it's own identity crisis. Europe would be better off with their own military superstructure. Would also mean getting Turkey out of the club.

 

Edit: Since Australia is already part of the Eurovision Song Contest, I can't see why they couldn't join a European military alliance too

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

I was about to crack some bad joke about China not being able to afford it, already owning 1.1 trillion dollars of US debt (bonds). But then I realised, that is only a drop in the ocean when it comes to US debt (more than 30 trillion dollars iirc.).

While checking the numbers, I ran into an interesting list of countries with the least debt. A surprising list, that if anything, convinced me, debt free does not equal a good place to live.

 

http://poweredbyorange.com/10-countries-with-the-lowest-debt-available/

 

Unless you really fancy migrating to Afghanistan, Russia, Botswana, Congo, UAE etc.

It depends on what that debt is. The majority of US debt is unfunded future obligations. Although the government does pay for things on credit. That is what bonds are. China owns a goodly amount of it. But that kind of debt is the least worrisome because it can be monetized by devaluation of the currency. Of course that option is only on the table so long as the currency is stable. Right now the US Dollar is still the place to be. That will likely change at some future point. Whether the US economy implodes after that will depend of the political leadership of the day understanding what is happening and adjusting appropriately. If that does not inspire a great deal of confidence you are not alone there.