Politics - wait for it... wait for it... 2020 isn't over yet

[BruceVC]

11 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

We've had multiple protests in our town in the last couple months and there has been zero property damage. There is nothing to clean up. Also, the communities are the protesters in the vast majority of these cases. That is what happens the vast majority of the time. Of course, the ones that get violent are the ones that make the news. 

I can understand why you would raise this point, you believe that there is far too much attention on violence committed during some protests when in fact most protests are not violent. Ostensibly that is true but it also doesn't help or address the problems that are ongoing in certain US cities like Portland. And the violence and damage to property and people is real. Its societal impact  and how ubiquitous the " violent protests "  are get used by both the left and right to feed political aspirations with normal citizens caught in the middle 

But since most of us dont want another 4 years of Trump I am more concerned how his campaign will embellish this violence and use this to gain votes 

Trump is obviously going to focus on similar sentiment to what you expressed as an example of " Democrats dont care about anarchy and lawlessness .....Democrats  hate oil .....Democrats hate God.....Democrats want to take away your guns " ( despite the fact a person could quite possibly not be a Democrat but share some of theses views in a constructive way )

Two things can be true at the same time in life and I honesty believe this applies to this general debate and we should call them out, so for example

1. The majority of protests are not violent 
2. There is real violence committed by Antifa and other anarchist groups at some protests that needs to be dealt with effectively 

So in summary for people who have there livelihoods and lives directly impacted and irrevocably changed by violence in protests the last thing they want to hear is someone making a well meaning comment  like " not all the protests are violent or disruptive " .....all this does is feed the Trump narrative of  " the left dont care about lawlessness " and could add unintentional support to his campaign 

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by BruceVC

[Gorth]

Australia still has some serious issues with racism, but this clip was too funny to not share. Life as a racist in Australia is getting harder and harder!

 

Warning! Video contains Australian Humour

Edit: Not as bad as the CU in the NT tourist campaign

 

[Gorth]

On the topic of racism and how indigenous people are treated, apparently the executives ordering the destruction of aboriginal heritage is getting hit where it probably hurt them the most... on their wallets

 

"Rio Tinto bosses lose bonuses over Aboriginal cave destruction"

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53885695

 

[Darkpriest]

So this case is causing another set of burning and looting? 

 

This is why i hate the instastory culture and outrage culture so prelevant now in countries, which should know better, and apply correct due process before using that for political battering. 

 

Same story with mr. Floyd. 

Some flash of the whole situation gets viral, and burning and looting in name of some criminal happens. 

Was the police without fault? No. The cop should have a bit cooler head, and open for some ventilation assistance as guy crashed on drugs and asked them for help from the beginnig of the arrest. 

It would probably be easier for police to assist correctly if those people had no extenaive criminal records before those unfortunate events. 

 

It would probably easier if US streets wouldn't be littered with illegal guns. 

 

Perhaps, if people valued more scientists, businessman, doctors, property and family, etc. instead of artists with dubious past shouting about voilence, sexual activities and drugs, then things would go better in communities, which struggle. 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Darkpriest

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

Australia still has some serious issues with racism, but this clip was too funny to not share. Life as a racist in Australia is getting harder and harder!

 

Warning! Video contains Australian Humour

Edit: Not as bad as the CU in the NT tourist campaign

 

Gorthfuscious I have to say that is one of the most brilliant, informative and funny videos I have ever seen when it comes to discussing societal problems like racism. I am going to share it with people  I know 

Are the people in the video part of the point he is intentionally making? For example does he really get beaten up and does he really throw that camera in the sea? I  was amazed by the scene  during Australian day where they run after that guy for " not showing the flag "...did that really happen?

 

[BruceVC]

9 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

So this case is causing another set of burning and looting? 

 

This is why i hate the instastory culture and outrage culture so prelevant now in countries, which should know better, and apply correct due process before using that for political battering. 

 

 

 

 

I like the term the " outrage culture"  ....I am going to use that one 

[Guard Dog]

I paid the Republican convention as much attention as I did the Democrat convention. None. Instead I listened to the Marlins beat the Nats 11-8  on the radio while working on my wood stove restoration project.  But I did  catch up on reading summaries of what was said and who spoke. And chuckled at Gromnir's commentary which is usually worth reading. My they paint quite a dark picture of a Biden victory. 

Do you know what really would happen if Biden wins in November? Not much. Go back to 2012. Suppose Romney defeated Obama. What would be different? Not much. Suppose McCain defeated Obama in '08 what would be different? The ACA wouldn't exist but something similar would. Kagan & Sotomayor would not be on the SCOTUS but McCain would be facing a Democrat controlled Senate so whomever was picked and confirmed they would not be described as "constructionist" . 

Trump's victory in '16 has given us a lot of bad actors in government and a lot of, well, Trump. That was bad. But suppose Clinton won facing a Republican held Congress. What would be different? Anyone who thinks Clinton was on the up and up hasn't been watching the news for the last 30 years. There would be plenty of bad actors and power abuses in that administration. Maybe not so brazen and ham fisted but you are still hip deep in roaches even if they are hiding. 

So suppose Biden wins and has a Democrat congress. You already know how that will go. Just like in '93 & '08 they will declare the Republican Party dead and go batsht crazy and then in '22 the Republicans win one or both houses of congress and gridlock will be gratefully restored. This cycle has been repeating consistently since 1993.

Oh no the Democrats have screwed up the country! Let's vote for the Republicans.

Oh no the Republicans have screwed up the country! Let's vote for the Democrats.

Oh no the Democrats have screwed up the country! Let's vote for the Republicans.

Oh no the Republicans have screwed up the country! Let's vote for the Democrats.

So, what really matters? This does: https://www.usdebtclock.org/

The United States is $26,680,308,992,701 in debt as of now. That number increases at a rate of roughly $20k per second. Under Trump we have exceeded a $2T deficit for the first time ever. Does anyone seriously believe this can just go one forever with no reckoning? Does anyone seriously believe this is going to improve no matter who wins the election? You cannot tax your way out of this. Under Obama the deficit actually fell below $1T because in the 2nd term he put restrictions on some spending. not enough but it was a good move. Trump cut taxes. That's great. It's never the wrong thing to do. But cutting taxes while radically increasing spending is just stupid. And all Biden promises to to is spend more. 

Well, it looks like Biden will win. Let's hope the administration is more pragmatic than the campaign. They usually are. Trump was an exception I hope. 

[Darkpriest]

@Guard Dog

 

I'd be more worried by actions of the FED and electronicly printed money. 

 

[Volourn]

So, have the cops shared a video of a gun being in the car ready to be used? Because, if not, there is absolutely no justification of this latest attempted murder. EVIL.

 

Also, why do people ignore clearly racist comments by black people when the same sort of comments would lead to crucification of others based solely on colour of skin? EVIL.

[BruceVC]

19 minutes ago, Volourn said:

So, have the cops shared a video of a gun being in the car ready to be used? Because, if not, there is absolutely no justification of this latest attempted murder. EVIL.

 

Also, why do people ignore clearly racist comments by black people when the same sort of comments would lead to crucification of others based solely on colour of skin? EVIL.

Yes but in the video provided by Dark there are several considerations mentioned that lead to the police using deadly force, I am not saying it would justify use of deadly force but if you watch the video you will see Blake was not only fighting with the police, he seemed immune to Tazers and he ignored there instructions to not walk away. Do the police need to wait for a person to actually produce a gun before using deadly force under these circumstances?

 

 

[213374U]

15 hours ago, Elerond said:

You said "the felon can vote again after doing their time", which gives impression that felon could vote right after getting out from prison, which is why I posted that information that they don't get automatically get their right to vote back. Also it is important to point out that felons need to pay all their court costs and fines before they can vote and as those may rise to tens of thousands dollars which felons pay often decade or two, which means that many felons who have served their time can't vote even decade after they have served their time. Which is important factor when you look felony charges that are meant to prevent people voting, as over 90% cases are settled out of court so if state wants to use felony charge to prevent people from voting, they just threaten person with 6 years in prison and then offer them 20k-40k fine which makes them felon who can't vote until they pay that 20k-40k and  as the idea is to prevent people voting state will offer person payment plan where they pay that fine for next decade or two.

Well, duckduckgo tells me that a Class E felony carries a maximum fine of $3,000 USD in TN. So, again, no. Neither for "their entire lives" nor for "the next decade or two".

It's hilarious because it almost looks like I'm defending this POS governor, when all I'm doing is adding some context to the latest instance of Outrage From Twitter.

This is a forum, not a court of law or a peer-review journal. When people post stuff, you can expect that there will be irrelevant details left out because people rarely want be hit with walls of text for 999 damage. For instance, I also omitted the fact that in order to regain the right to vote a convicted felon needs to be current on all their child support obligations. Because I judged that it would merit at most an asterisk next to the "automatic" regaining of rights that I didn't say happens, rather than a full bullet point in a list of immaterial facts.

[Malcador]

26 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Yes but in the video provided by Dark there are several considerations mentioned that lead to the police using deadly force, I am not saying it would justify use of deadly force but if you watch the video you will see Blake was not only fighting with the police, he seemed immune to Tazers and he ignored there instructions to not walk away. Do the police need to wait for a person to actually produce a gun before using deadly force under these circumstances?

 

 

Yes.  Also given the distance, I'm surprised they didn't tackle him and wrestle him to the ground before he gets to the car, not as if he was moving rapidly - I guess cops don't receive hand to hand training ?

Edited August 25, 2020 by Malcador

[Chilloutman]

18 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Yes.  Also given the distance, I'm surprised they didn't tackle him and wrestle him to the ground before he gets to the car, not as if he was moving rapidly - I guess cops don't receive hand to hand training ?

I think someone mentioned that he got knife and was on drugs, thats why taser was not working on him. I am not the manliest of man but I am sure very few people would try to mano at mano with knife armed junkie

[Malcador]

3 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

I think someone mentioned that he got knife and was on drugs, thats why taser was not working on him. I am not the manliest of man but I am sure very few people would try to mano at mano with knife armed junkie

The two cops are behind him and are just walking with him, seems odd they couldn't or didn't attack effectively at that point.  I guess gun is easier though, and things were moving quickly.

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, 213374U said:

Well, duckduckgo tells me that a Class E felony carries a maximum fine of $3,000 USD in TN. So, again, no. Neither for "their entire lives" nor for "the next decade or two".

It's hilarious because it almost looks like I'm defending this POS governor, when all I'm doing is adding some context to the latest instance of Outrage From Twitter.

This is a forum, not a court of law or a peer-review journal. When people post stuff, you can expect that there will be irrelevant details left out because people rarely want be hit with walls of text for 999 damage. For instance, I also omitted the fact that in order to regain the right to vote a convicted felon needs to be current on all their child support obligations. Because I judged that it would merit at most an asterisk next to the "automatic" regaining of rights that I didn't say happens, rather than a full bullet point in a list of immaterial facts.

Jury can't give higher fine than $3000 and not less than 1 year in prison or nor more than 6 year in prison, but prosecutors can offer punishments that differ from jury instructions, including suspended sentences with higher fines or mandatory anger council etc.. Although all plea bargains in Tennessee needs to be approved by court and judges need to inform person pleading guilty of minimum and maximum sentences of crimes they are accused of and court can reject any plea bargain.

[BruceVC]

23 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Jury can't give higher fine than $3000 and not less than 1 year in prison or nor more than 6 year in prison, but prosecutors can offer punishments that differ from jury instructions, including suspended sentences with higher fines or mandatory anger council etc.. Although all plea bargains in Tennessee needs to be approved by court and judges need to inform person pleading guilty of minimum and maximum sentences of crimes they are accused of and court can reject any plea bargain.

Elerond do you personally believe people that commit certain capital crimes like murder or a serial rapist should be able to vote....even if the person is serving a life sentence in prison ?

[213374U]

30 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Jury can't give higher fine than $3000 and not less than 1 year in prison or nor more than 6 year in prison, but prosecutors can offer punishments that differ from jury instructions, including suspended sentences with higher fines or mandatory anger council etc.. Although all plea bargains in Tennessee needs to be approved by court and judges need to inform person pleading guilty of minimum and maximum sentences of crimes they are accused of and court can reject any plea bargain.

Even leaving aside that a defendant would have to be nuts to accept such a "deal" that involved harsher punishment than what's prescribed by the Code for the offense in question, I was under the impression that prosecutors aren't at liberty to "offer" worse terms than maximum sentencing either in fines or imprisonment time. Different punishment, yes -- one could agree to plead guilty to a misdemeanor rather than facing felony charges in a dubious jury trial. Worse, no.

[HoonDing]

"Trump's victory in '16 has given us a lot of bad actors in government and a lot of, well, Trump. That was bad. But suppose Clinton won facing a Republican held Congress. What would be different? Anyone who thinks Clinton was on the up and up hasn't been watching the news for the last 30 years. There would be plenty of bad actors and power abuses in that administration. Maybe not so brazen and ham fisted but you are still hip deep in roaches even if they are hiding.  "

i dunno mehbe there wouldn't be 170,000+ dead Amerikans

[BruceVC]

17 minutes ago, HoonDing said:

"Trump's victory in '16 has given us a lot of bad actors in government and a lot of, well, Trump. That was bad. But suppose Clinton won facing a Republican held Congress. What would be different? Anyone who thinks Clinton was on the up and up hasn't been watching the news for the last 30 years. There would be plenty of bad actors and power abuses in that administration. Maybe not so brazen and ham fisted but you are still hip deep in roaches even if they are hiding.  "

i dunno mehbe there wouldn't be 170,000+ dead Amerikans

This is definitely a real criticism of Trump and is one of the main factors he should lose the election, his presidency has horrendously and egregiously mishandled the overall Virus pandemic 

 

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, 213374U said:

Even leaving aside that a defendant would have to be nuts to accept such a "deal" that involved harsher punishment than what's prescribed by the Code for the offense in question

The thought of this  legal outcome  made me laugh.....you never know it could be true.? What if the person being charged is feeling very, very, very guilty and wants to receive a longer prison sentence than prescribed, like  a form of catharsis....then it makes sense 

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, Chilloutman said:

I think someone mentioned that he got knife and was on drugs..

Is there any actual evidence of this?

Because something like that is 'said' every single time there's a police brutality incident- the victim is always said to be drugged up andor going for a weapon, even when they are neither; because saying so establishes the initial narrative which is then hard to challenge. It also, of course, poisons the jury pool on the off chance it actually does go to trial.

[ComradeYellow]

Racist cops killing blacks.  Nothing new.  Nothing will change unless the system changes.

[Volourn]

Evidence that there was racism involved? Or just piece of garbage cops abusing their powers like piece of garbage cops do? Police don't care what your skin colour you are. They enjoy killing people. That's what Nazis do.

[Chilloutman]

51 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Is there any actual evidence of this?

Because something like that is 'said' every single time there's a police brutality incident- the victim is always said to be drugged up andor going for a weapon, even when they are neither; because saying so establishes the initial narrative which is then hard to challenge. It also, of course, poisons the jury pool on the off chance it actually does go to trial.

 

Look, I am the last person defending cops. I got my share of illegal business in my youth. But I have seen footage leaked with Floyd, I have seen this last footage. I am sure you can find many footage of unjust use of force by cops but those are not it. This is fight on wrong grave and in the end it just hurt somewhat rightful cause 

[Zoraptor]

Not talking about the video though. You mentioned someone saying he had a knife and him being on drugs. Is there any actual evidence of that beyond someone 'mentioning' it? And who, specifically, mentioned it? Is it the same people who mention, say, covid19 being caused by 5G because Bill Gates wants to sterilise the world's population? Or is it someone who has read his medical report and has a medical background and might face consequences for lying about it? Big difference in confidence level depending on who is saying it.

As I said, 'people' always talk about the victims in these incidents reaching for weapons or being on drugs, even if neither is true. If there isn't any actual evidence of either being true then it's likely just a smear to demonise the victim and protect the perpetrator.