Politics 2020

[Gromnir]

18 minutes ago, 213374U said:

 

With that being said, this is going to be my last post about this. I have wasted too much time on you as it is, and my only regret is that I will never get these precious few minutes back. It seems some lessons are harder to learn than others.

oh, this will be the last post. a few posts previous we were told you didn't even bother to read the posts we made. but congrats on your moment o' clarity... a couple pages later and a half dozen posts removed.

the only person talking 'bout reporting a mod or some kinda mod response is you. qq much? nevertheless, 'cause is a mod involved driveby, our little conflict, which started 'cause you didn't like our on-topic response to your misquoting, and then decided to abandon any effort to discuss any topic save you and Gromnir, poor dear, gets a couple extra posts o' mod indifference before the inevitable warning... which should be unnecessary as #s is a mod.

*chuckle*

go figure.

so, "idpol"... we all agree is a shibboleth yes?  is infinitely fungible and largely meaningless in and of itself, but as soon as somebody uses, it is an extreme accurate predictor o' the content o' the remaining post. is a bit like "feminazi."

trying to reduce mlk to better fit the idpol narrative you concocted were a mistake, a blunder. 

your response were to not address the blunder but to qq at Gromnir.

happy. on-topic w/o any additional quotes. didn't make much difference calling out that point, did it?

and us poor mortals down here at the base o' olympus who do not share your grand experience and knowledge o' modding (*snort*) will need do as has always been our rule and ignore what is claimed and instead to observe what is done. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

44 minutes ago, Achilles said:

lol

the one cop who was charged is guilty of accidentally endangering other innocent people while actually killing a different innocent person

apologies for the double-post, but #s is offended by our posting economy.

the problem is the law. if people do not like the law, they should change it. don't get confused by right and wrong. this is grand jury and the grand jury has gotta decide if there is a possibility o' prosecution. the problem is the cops had a warrant and the cops were acting in good faith to execute the warrant. is not as if the cops knew the warrant was bad or that there were insufficient evidence for them to have a legit warrant. is not a dirty cop situation. like it or not, the cops were protected by law when they broke into ms. taylor's house... right or wrong. 

blame state legislature. blame judge for ok o' the warrant. blame investigating cops. dunno, lots o' blame to go around. however, the cops, as far as the law were concerned, were carrying out a warrant and as such they could be in ms. taylor's home and they could act in self defense even if they were otherwise trespassing. maybe that feels wrong, but is not the cop's fault.

once the cops were fired 'pon...

has been a serious disservice done as the public has not been told what is the law. is much easier to focus on right and wrong. we all know that ms. taylor dying were a wrong. problem is that the the only cop who did anything obvious illegal is the guy outside who did the idiotic spray and pray routine once somebody inside the house, somebody not the cops, shot and wounded another cop. 

say the cops shouldn't go to prison for murder is hardly the same as saying law enforcement is blameless or that ms. taylor is undeserving o' justice. were a whole lotta mistakes made, and the law itself is busted, but am thinking people are too focused on the wrong wrongs. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

Not sure why people are surprised. Cops seem to have no contrition at all about it, too.  Funniest layperson justification for the shooting was the cop was deploy "suppressing fire", well, sort of scary someone would think that appropriate as well as funny.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Malcador

[Guard Dog]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/23/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-qanon-congress-invs/index.html
 

“QAnon adherents believe in a baseless conspiracy theory that there is a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who have infiltrated the highest reaches of American government and are working hand-in-hand with other elites in business and Hollywood. They believe President Donald Trump is secretly fighting to destroy this cabal and that messages are being delivered to them in code by an anonymous central character called Q.”

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

apologies for the double-post, but #s is offended by our posting economy.

the problem is the law. if people do not like the law, they should change it. don't get confused by right and wrong. this is grand jury and the grand jury has gotta decide if there is a possibility o' prosecution. the problem is the cops had a warrant and the cops were acting in good faith to execute the warrant. is not as if the cops knew the warrant was bad or that there were insufficient evidence for them to have a legit warrant. is not a dirty cop situation. like it or not, the cops were protected by law when they broke into ms. taylor's house... right or wrong. 

blame state legislature. blame judge for ok o' the warrant. blame investigating cops. dunno, lots o' blame to go around. however, the cops, as far as the law were concerned, were carrying out a warrant and as such they could be in ms. taylor's home and they could act in self defense even if they were otherwise trespassing. maybe that feels wrong, but is not the cop's fault.

once the cops were fired 'pon...

has been a serious disservice done as the public has not been told what is the law. is much easier to focus on right and wrong. we all know that ms. taylor dying were a wrong. problem is that the the only cop who did anything obvious illegal is the guy outside who did the idiotic spray and pray routine once somebody inside the house, somebody not the cops, shot and wounded another cop. 

say the cops shouldn't go to prison for murder is hardly the same as saying law enforcement is blameless or that ms. taylor is undeserving o' justice. were a whole lotta mistakes made, and the law itself is busted, but am thinking people are too focused on the wrong wrongs.

Yep. Agree with everything you said here.

[Malcador]

8 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/23/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-qanon-congress-invs/index.html
 

“QAnon adherents believe in a baseless conspiracy theory that there is a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who have infiltrated the highest reaches of American government and are working hand-in-hand with other elites in business and Hollywood. They believe President Donald Trump is secretly fighting to destroy this cabal and that messages are being delivered to them in code by an anonymous central character called Q.”

The Order of Nine Angles is even better - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Nine_Angles

"It expresses the view that the current Aeonic civilization is that of the Western world, but it claims that the evolution of this society is threatened by the "Magian/Nazarene” influence of the Judeo-Christian religion, which the Order seeks to combat in order to establish a militaristic new social order, which it calls the "Imperium". According to Order teachings, this is necessary in order for a Galactic civilization to form, in which "Aryan" society will colonise the Milky Way. "

It's like some Nazis found Rogue Trader while high.

[Gromnir]

5 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Yep. Agree with everything you said here.

the truly terrible part is that ms. taylor died. am not gonna try and diminish the significance. what we will say is that in spite o' the fact we can all see there were wongs done, is unlikely anything will change. focus will be on the individual cops who executed the warrant. that is good news for the establishment. all the energy o' protesters and celebrity support will go to the perceived injustice o' the cops not going to prison. 

we got a well armed public. no-knock warrants is purposeful designed so as to catch occupants by surprise. people who is surprised or caught off guard tend to act impulsively and mistakes are more likely to occur. 

...

the syllogism writes itself from there, no?

this is all utter predictable. sure, we don't want suspected criminals to get away with destroying evidence, but there is a human cost attached to that legit government goal. we cannot current change the fact that the public is well armed and dangerous. armed public is as much a given as is the increased chances for surprise and accident from no-knock warrants, and no-knock warrants is just one aspect o' the tragedy which is unlikely to change. 

@Guard Dog

we do keep saying that all obsidian message board posts is potential star trek relevant. your efforts is a bit more overt than most, but am appreciating the support... intentional or otherwise.

HA! Good Fun!

[Elerond]

One would thing that having no-knock warrant and stand your ground laws has obvious consequences that will endanger both police and and public and lead needless deaths as both parties have legal right to use lethal force against each other.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Elerond said:

One would thing that having no-knock warrant and stand your ground laws has obvious consequences that will endanger both police and and public and lead needless deaths as both parties have legal right to use lethal force against each other.

The thing you need to understand about people in the United States is that we love our guns. Almost as much as we love the gun-porn fantasies that we've convinced ourselves we're going to get to participate in someday.

Laws and policies that "make sense" or "protect people" aren't nearly as important to us as the laws that allow us to mentally photoshop our faces onto Bruce Willis' body while watching the latest action movie.

[Gromnir]

15 minutes ago, Elerond said:

One would thing that having no-knock warrant and stand your ground laws has obvious consequences that will endanger both police and and public and lead needless deaths as both parties have legal right to use lethal force against each other.

to be fair, stand your ground has little relevance. if you are in your home, and you are confronted by an armed assailant, you got the right to defend yourself with lethal force. period. "duty to retreat" is law in a few jurisdictions, but as far as we know, it does not apply to a person's home. home is different.

castle doctrine is a confusing sub-issue. what the castle doctrine does is that in states where there is a duty to retreat, the home is an exception. castle doctrine is further confused 'cause in a select few states, the castle metaphor is extended to your personal vehicle and possibly even your place o' work.

a no-knock warrant is an issue almost nowheres save a personal residence 'cause cops don't need worry 'bout the knocking save in homes. 

stand your ground sounds like an issue, but isn't.  homes is different. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

 13 hours ago, Achilles said:

No, you have to get 270 electoral college votes. Which Trump did. While losing the popular vote.

You either need to stop using the word "popularity" or tell me how you're using it. Because you not using it as it relates to the popular vote.

You do get the 270 electoral votes by winning individual states' popular votes though, with the few exceptions where the EC votes are done proportionally. It isn't won by having been Secretary of State and a Senator for x years, it's won by mobilising your support in the places that matter.

That's why I brought up the tennis match. Who wins isn't determined by who wins the most points, nor by who wins the most games- though typically the winner will have done both. It's determined by who wins the most sets. You can make an argument that Roger Federer is a better tennis player than Joe Bloggs based on his stellar record and qualifications, or him winning more points and games, but if you're looking at a one off match that Federer lost the only objective measure is that Federer lost.

Similarly the ultimate measure of popularity is winning the election- elections are popularity contests, including the US one. The way the US determines the most popular candidate may be peculiar to you but the rules were known by both sides beforehand. Hillary getting more raw votes nationwide simply doesn't matter, because that isn't how that popularity contest is determined.

7 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3102047/us-spy-planes-posing-airliners-serious-threat-south-china-sea

 

If true, then this is disgusting on US part. This could make a real airliner a target by accident and create some dangerous incident. 

It's probably true, similar stuff happens elsewhere though the SCMP is not a great source and they got at least one 'fact' wrong (the US spy plane involved in KAL007 never intruded into Soviet airspace as they imply in the article, KAL007 intruded on two different occasions). Israel spoofs US ID codes in Syria for example and hides their planes behind commercial airliners, and they're not alone in such things either. OTOH, it's kind of pointless if you're going to spoof a code of an aircraft that you've kept on the same altitude and heading and it's pretty simple (well, unless you're on the Vincennes) to look up commercial timetables. And they are spy planes, the expectations for their conduct are more relaxed than for others even if they aren't supposed to break the rules overtly.

Buzzing Iranian passenger jets over Syria and setting off their tcas is definitely more egregious recent conduct.

[HoonDing]

this is hilarious

conquer that pos island already

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

You do get the 270 electoral votes by winning individual states' popular votes though, with the few exceptions where the EC votes are done proportionally.

You are still trying to have it both ways. Popular...with the electoral college...in the states that "matter".

You've made your point, but you're still using "popularity" very differently than I would.

Quote

It isn't won by having been Secretary of State and a Senator for x years, it's won by mobilising your support in the places that matter.

Right, but back to one of the points I was trying to make earlier, the world in which the candidate who wins is qualified and the world in the candidate who wins is "popular" should be the same world. In other words, it sure would be nice if we decided to value competence.

[ComradeYellow]

It's definitely a goal to get rid of the electoral college.  It's an outdated elitist system. 

[Guard Dog]

@Achilles OK if this s--t actually happens THEN I'll agree our democracy is in real danger. This isn't spamminmg the internet with BS. This is actually plotting to subvert an election: https://theweek.com/speedreads/939191/trump-campaign-reportedly-discussing-contingency-plans-bypass-election-results

Of course I still find this a little hard to swallow. Not that Trump and his ilk are not capable of it. Rather I find it hard to believe any state government would go along with it. 

[Zoraptor]

35 minutes ago, Achilles said:

You are still trying to have it both ways. Popular...with the electoral college...in the states that "matter".

You've made your point, but you're still using "popularity" very differently than I would.

I know, but there isn't really a better term to use without making one up like 'effective electoral popularity'. It's a peculiarity of the US and similar systems that overall popularity with voters is not always the deciding factor, but sufficient popularity in certain areas is.

Quote

Right, but back to one of the points I was trying to make earlier, the world in which the candidate who wins is qualified and the world in the candidate who wins is "popular" should be the same world. In other words, it sure would be nice if we decided to value competence.

Don't really agree there, though I'd suspect that's due to a perspective difference. I'd broadly regard the US system as being in need of reforms, and when the qualifications for office tend to include a lot of roles that requires you to have been part of that system you're unlikely to get said reform- because those insider roles are what the winner relied on to win. Most qualified always winning reinforces the status quo so is great if you think the status quo is great, not so much if you don't.

(Having said that, I will freely admit that Donald J Trump is... not exactly the best advertisement for promoting the benefits of political outsiders/ the less qualified winning. Arguably, Barack Obama would be though, he was a lot less qualified than McCain albeit a lot more qualified than Trump)

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Rather I find it hard to believe any state government would go along with it. 

I hope you're right.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

16 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Rather I find it hard to believe any state government would go along with it. 

Why? The same type of people who make up Trump's ilk are the same type of people in charge of state governments. They don't have problems subverting elections by gerrymandering, voter purges, id laws, closure of polling centers, and other methods designed to curtail certain people's ability to vote. Is it really that much of a stretch for them to subvert in the ways the article suggests?

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Don't really agree there, though I'd suspect that's due to a perspective difference. I'd broadly regard the US system as being in need of reforms, and when the qualifications for office tend to include a lot of roles that requires you to have been part of that system you're unlikely to get said reform- because those insider roles are what the winner relied on to win. Most qualified always winning reinforces the status quo so is great if you think the status quo is great, not so much if you don't.

At the risk of making another argument that's going to get flagged as reductionist...

Surgeons should be able to operate on people. Pilots should be able to fly airplanes. Presidents of the United States should be able to govern.

The whole thing where we choose Presidents over who we'd most like to have a beer with is a little surreal.

[Malcador]

35 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

@Achilles OK if this s--t actually happens THEN I'll agree our democracy is in real danger. This isn't spamminmg the internet with BS. This is actually plotting to subvert an election: https://theweek.com/speedreads/939191/trump-campaign-reportedly-discussing-contingency-plans-bypass-election-results

Of course I still find this a little hard to swallow. Not that Trump and his ilk are not capable of it. Rather I find it hard to believe any state government would go along with it. 

Believable some would fall in line.

 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Malcador

[Guest]

Podcast recommendation for people who listen to such things:

The Lincoln Project - Agents of Chaos: Russian Election Interference in 2016 and Now (58 minutes)

[Gromnir]

53 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

It's definitely a goal to get rid of the electoral college.  It's an outdated elitist system. 

it's actual a perfect fine and reasonable system for what the President is s'posed to be. 

1787 President had no armies to command and the bureaucracy was almost non existent... weren't even a post office 'til 1791 or maybe 1792. whatever.

President were not s'posed to be democratic elected anymore than were the Supreme Court. elitist? perhaps, but our Constitution were a rejection o' athenian democracy and an acknowledgement o' the dangers o' the tyranny o' the masses. Congress were the perceived real danger and the founders found multiple systemic ways to check the power o' Congress.

have a President chosen by wise men from every town and burg in the nation? those wise men could not serve public office and could not repeat as electoral college members. electoral college were never intended to be democratic and were purposeful insulated from the potential tyranny o' the masses. fact the electoral college were eletist were viewed as its strength. we didn't want a philosopher king here in the US, but the President could kinda embody some o' the best aspects o' such in a much diminished capacity. sure, Congress would have all the real power, but when dealing with foreign nations it made sense to have a singular voice acting on our behalf. have the President be the wisest of wise men chosen by the wisest and most incorruptible men in the US? President wouldn't have much real power anyway, so...

the founders likely never woulda' imagined Congress willingly ceeding powers to the office o' the Presidency to the degree which has occured. am one o' those folks who has actual read the federalist papers wherein the dangers o' the new government is explored and reflected 'pon.  our modern Presidency is just so utter alien to the founders notions o' that office that am thinking is unfair to blame the them for their missteps regarding the electoral college.

the Presidency evolved through an organic alchemy o' a thousand act o' Congress and subsequent decisions by the Court. unfortunately, the electoral college needs be changed by an Amendment or by a new Constitutional Convention. 

with the nation as polarized as it is today, good luck getting an Amendment or Constitutional Convention to change the electoral college. from a practical pov, is much easier to take power away from the President and return the office to its origins.

@Guard Dog should be lobbying for a democrat clean sweep, 'cause as much as he fears the democrats, am suspecting one o' their first orders o' business will be to serious diminish the office o' the President. emergency powers nonsense? gone. acting appointments? gone. doj independence? gone. etc. heck, am suspecting the best scenario for gd is a continued trump Presidency and a Democrat house and senate. am personal terrified o' such, but we can see the Democrats near complete shutting down the office o' the President, and just as with the appointment o' Ginsburg's replacement in the last month before an election, it will be Constitutional and legal to do so, regardless o' the consequences.

putin is laughing his arse off.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

 

[ComradeYellow]

Didn't Hitler also warn against the "Tyranny of the masses"?

You're reasoning seems a bit elitist sometimes.  Almost reactionary in nature.

[Malcador]

Two cops got shot in Louisville

https://mobile.twitter.com/charliegilenbc/status/1308935831684612098?s=21

Anarchy for sure

[Gromnir]

18 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Didn't Hitler also warn against the "Tyranny of the masses"?

You're reasoning seems a bit elitist sometimes.  Almost reactionary in nature.

hitler? he was a populist who used police state efforts to not only marginalize minority groups but to brutally murder millions. you are offering up the 20th century's most glaring example o' why we should fear a tyranny o' the masses and somehow take a single quote you kinda recall and use it to complete spin what happened in nazi germany?

not a good chance for baldwin or bellafonte. next time perhaps.

what is in the water 'round here? first numbers reinvents mlk and now you wanna do same with hitler? who is next? find out mother teresa didn't care about the poor but secretly she had a garbage fetish. truth is she just loved the sound of flies buzzing and the stench from open latrines. 

HA! Good Fun!