The All Things Political Topic - A politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen

[Gfted1]

Probably the poor thoughtful democrats are being picked on by the meanie-weenie republicans.

Now, any sitting president can simply use the Voice (executive order), or one of my favs, the nuclear option (senate).

Yang was my best shot.

[Gromnir]

executive orders do not give a President the power to create or redistribute monies already allocated by Congress. obama and trump pulled some shiesty bs with executive orders, but even trump when trying to get his wall boondoggle funded needed to pilfer discretionary funds. fema, dod and other fed bodies has considerable money not specific allocated 'cause o' the need to be flexible in case o' emergencies and unexpected situations, but is not trillions o' dollars in discretionary money even if a President declared a state of emergency and scrapped together ever spare penny daring Congress to impeach him/her. ubi amounting to $12k per year would require more than three trillion dollars o' additional money, which is near doubling what the US collected in tax and other sources in 2020.

manchin and sinema alone should make clear makes the nuclear option is pointless for something such as ubi as there would be additional moderate democrats opposing a paradigm altering scheme with a dubious chance o' success given all the previous fails.. 

as the US and the world grudging moves incremental and sloth-like towards full automation while ai replaces the need for many highly educated professionals, ubi will become a need as 'posed to a pipe dream. not today. not tomorrow. regardless, you don't experiment on a national scale and even if you chose to do so, you can't abracadabra/hocus pocus ubi into existence.

rinse and repeat... again. nevertheless, veruca wants what she wants, eh?

HA! Good Fun!

ps @alanschu am gonna suggest you are indulging in a bit o' hyperbole. one need not look far to find libs who see republicans as an existential crisis much the same way trumpers does when describing democrats. converse, during the 2016 Presidential run, every major gop candidate pushed back on the bannon and trump narrative. paul ryan, while clear an enabler not deserving o' any medals for courage, were most certain not describing democrats in language otherwise reserved for fantasy novel villains.

john mccain died in 2018 and at the time he were not alone in his calls for sanity and a return to pre-obama civility

ff to ~7:00 and listen 'til at least 10:00... and keep in mind, since the nuclear option were mentioned already in this thread/post, harry reid and obama were the folks who flipped that switch. their validation were the obstinacy o' the opposition party and the impossibility o' working cooperative. 

you ain't gonna bring back better days just as long as you see conservatives as irredeemable enemies while simultaneous refusing to acknowledge lib complicity in the mess we got in 2022.

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Gromnir

[Pidesco]

More fun stuff for Gromnir to comment on:

The Clarence Thomas Cinematic Universe

The post-legal Supreme Court

By fun I mean not in any way good for anyone. 

 

@Gromnir

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Pidesco said:

 

 

@Gromnir

have mentioned more than once, previous to 2019/2020, we thought clarence thomas were an admirable judge if not a noteworthy Justice. bit more explanation via the way-back machine.

the vox article repeats more than a few o' our recent criticisms o' the current majority: their willingness to ignore the rule o' law to arrive at transparent partisan conclusions; the terrible history and tradition analysis o' thomas  and Alito; the shadow docket being used to alter fundamental rights, etc. am finding our self making the same or similar arguments as vox authors and Sotomayor, which even five years ago woulda' been blue moon exceptions. 

...

unrelated, but am gonna repeat our disappointment in Ginsburg. the Court is in this mess in no small part due to J. Ginsburg arrogance. a septuagenarian three-time cancer survivor is cheating death every additional day they keep breathing, and ordinarily there would be people 'round her whom she trusted and respected capable o' telling her such truth. unfortunate, a Justice always believes they know best-- is practical a prerequisite for the job. obama asked J. Ginsburg to consider retirement and she refused with a snarky comment requesting the President name any candidate superior to herself. 

am not a fan o' what ifs, but this current partisan Court, while admitted a virtual worst case scenario if you had asked us pre death o' Scalia, were not complete unforeseeable... and it coulda' been avoided. one person had the power to stop all o' this. chose not to. 

HA! Good Fun! 

[BruceVC]

10 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

 

ps @alanschu am gonna suggest you are indulging in a bit o' hyperbole. one need not look far to find libs who see republicans as an existential crisis much the same way trumpers does when describing democrats. converse, during the 2016 Presidential run, every major gop candidate pushed back on the bannon and trump narrative. paul ryan, while clear an enabler not deserving o' any medals for courage, were most certain not describing democrats in language otherwise reserved for fantasy novel villains.

john mccain died in 2018 and at the time he were not alone in his calls for sanity and a return to pre-obama civility

ff to ~7:00 and listen 'til at least 10:00... and keep in mind, since the nuclear option were mentioned already in this thread/post, harry reid and obama were the folks who flipped that switch. their validation were the obstinacy o' the opposition party and the impossibility o' working cooperative. 

you ain't gonna bring back better days just as long as you see conservatives as irredeemable enemies while simultaneous refusing to acknowledge lib complicity in the mess we got in 2022.

 

@alanschu

You do come across sometimes   as someone who ideologically aligns with the progressive Democrats or the radical left 

You probably not even aware of it but your  comments create that impression when you suggest the US police automatically lie and cant be trusted and that only the GOP play the existential threat card 

The best way forward to all our political systems is dont get pulled into culture wars as a voter and dont generalize when the evidence on the ground doesnt support that 

Try not to think of politics as " us vs them ". Consensus and bipartisan agreement is the best way forward 

I also sometimes get influenced by culture wars unnecessarily so you not alone 

[alanschu]

11 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Probably the poor thoughtful democrats are being picked on by the meanie-weenie republicans.

To be clear I'm not framing this as an example of "Republicans being terrible" or anything like that. I just laugh that for all the whinging about Democrats ramming through Obamacare, it's ironic that it was so much worse than it could have been because of a insistence on trying to work across the aisle. It's one thing (especially today) that a lot of lefties point to as an example of them utilizing their opportunities to help people super poorly while Republicans arguably use their positions (minority or otherwise) more effectively. I think Republicans arguably can benefit from this a bit more because conservatives a largely fine with limited opportunities to actively govern (ostensibly they are about small government!) while simultaneously recognizing that their dominance of SCOTUS gives them the ability to do things without worrying about the Legislative or Executive branches.

11 hours ago, Gromnir said:

am gonna suggest you are indulging in a bit o' hyperbole. one need not look far to find libs who see republicans as an existential crisis much the same way trumpers does when describing democrats. converse, during the 2016 Presidential run, every major gop candidate pushed back on the bannon and trump narrative. paul ryan, while clear an enabler not deserving o' any medals for courage, were most certain not describing democrats in language otherwise reserved for fantasy novel villains.

Recency bias plays a role I suspect, yes. I definitely won't dispute that there are indeed a whole bunch of liberals that do believe that Republicans are up to some sketch stuff - you do have high profile Democrats like Pelosi and Biden suggesting that the US needs a strong Republican Party - just one that is somehow significantly different than what the party currently is. I also feel that this type of messaging has greater risks of disengaging otherwise supportive voters for limited gain in appealing to conservatives. January 6th investigations are revealing with some of the curtain pulled back shows people disagreeing and pushing back against Trump. I suspect it was always there to some extent, but ranks were definitely closed in party solidarity IMO.

And while Trump received a ton of criticism from a lot of the GOP opponents in the primary, that all very much disappeared once Republicans recognized it as a path to victory. IMO I'm not 100% sure how genuine a lot of those criticisms prior to election were and if they would have been brought up if the likes of Lindsey Graham and whatnot felt that Trump would definitely win (i.e. I believe a lot of the critiques were brought up because they were worried he'd tank the GOP chances of winning). That said, it's juxtaposed with their support afterward that I can't be certain if it is just closing ranks (again, Jan 6th investigation seems to indicate that that is the case on some level), or a reflection of "oh damn, we can actually just say this stuff out loud now?" after the GOP was rewarded with a victory with Trump as the candidate.

I'm curious what will happen leading into 2024 with someone like DeSantis and Trump squaring off as DeSantis will definitely be looking to secure away a swath of Trump's base. But how will he be doing so? I'm not convinced his path to securing the nomination would necessarily come from taking a higher ground relative to Trump.

EDIT:

Quote

you ain't gonna bring back better days just as long as you see conservatives as irredeemable enemies while simultaneous refusing to acknowledge lib complicity in the mess we got in 2022.

I find it interesting because I agree with the sentiment with respect to conservatives although I admit I'm skeptical wrt to politicians within the Republican Party. Especially given a lot of the farther right, Tea Party and beyond influences within the party. But I actually dislike a lot of the blanket vilification of people, especially poorer ones, that are definitely not immune from the anxieties the world provides. I think the Democrats would benefit from more outwardly championing policies they've done that have been helpful, and absolutely should have a national effort to have on some level grassroots efforts in every congressional district of every state. I think we see some of this with ACA (which some people do not even realize is Obamacare due to aggressive and effective messaging making them feel they are something different), saw increases in its favorability over time and anxiety even among conservative individuals at its potential repeal and the impacts it would have on them and their families. I think there's a lot of challenges to getting this messaging out there beyond the DNC's control, but part of the frustration about a willingness to get Republicans on board for ACA 12+ years ago is that I wouldn't be surprised if a better solution that actually helped people, even conservatives, moreso got passed along because of a willingess to work with GOP politicians.

  

5 hours ago, Gromnir said:

unrelated, but am gonna repeat our disappointment in Ginsburg. the Court is in this mess in no small part due to J. Ginsburg arrogance. a septuagenarian three-time cancer survivor is cheating death every additional day they keep breathing, and ordinarily there would be people 'round her whom she trusted and respected capable o' telling her such truth. unfortunate, a Justice always believes they know best-- is practical a prerequisite for the job. obama asked J. Ginsburg to consider retirement and she refused with a snarky comment requesting the President name any candidate superior to herself. 

I 100% agree with this and it's one of the ways I feel we've seen Republicans leverage this particular aspect more capability than the Democratic Party.

Edited July 12, 2022 by alanschu

[Gromnir]

9 hours ago, alanschu said:

And while Trump received a ton of criticism from a lot of the GOP opponents in the primary, that all very much disappeared once Republicans recognized it as a path to victory.

could say the same 'bout the sincerity o' moderate democrats asking for unity seeing as their own party is fractured and they cannot get anything done w/o at least some republican support. to suggest politicians is transactional actors first and foremost should come as little surprise, yes?

am also gonna suggest you is attempting to rewrite history a bit. trump were not popular in 2016, not even with republicans. clinton and trump were two o' the least popular candidates in recent history. exit polls made it clear that the majority o' republicans who voted for trump did so grudging and as a lesser of evils choice. is just one reason why trump, in spite o' having majorities in both houses were unable to achieve anything in two years save for his tax cut, a tax cut which helped mostly the rich but did indeed benefit small business owners in a big way. few Presidents has achieved so little with so much during the course o' their first two years, and first half o' first term is when most presidents get their signature programs passed. 

"and what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards bethlehem to be born?"

it did indeed take decades for folks such as rush limbaugh and steve bannon to create what would become the trump base, but what our liberal friends like to forget is just how many o' those future trumpers voted for obama.

 

the dougs is in the same economic foxhole as inner city and rural minorities. is no shock so many voted obama particularly in 2008.

sure, the trump base is easily exploited in large part 'cause o' their unjustified prejudices. is hardly as if bigotry disappeared for generations o' americans and then sudden reappeared with the coming o' the trump Presidency. us v. them were so easily magnified by fox news and trump precise 'cause o' long standing grudges and willful ignorance.

even so, the republican party had for decades been dedicated to the "big tent" metaphor. tell us the support for big tent weren't sincere? your revisionism ignores the fact big tent were the republican goal for decades. serious, do self a favour and add big tent + republican into your favorite search engine. not new and even if you convince self the goal were mere transactional, it were a guiding principle o' the party since before reagan. 

that said, the popularity o' trump in spite o' all the controversies and his largely ineffectual Presidency is a baffling outlier in recent (post ww2) American politics. explain how an unpopular President not much liked by the majority o' his party and who set fire to near everything he touched became more popular with republicans since 2016 is improbable. europeans is not the least bit surprised by trump, but nothing like him existed in post ww2 american politics save at the local level, and for good reason. republicans and democrats has for a long time been functional two shades o' the same neoliberal ideology. bill clinton's championing o' bank deregulation and his friendliness with wall street is convenient ignored by today's democrats. turn back the clock to as recent as the eighties and it were republicans who were supporting the relaxation o' immigration policies while democrats lamented the jobs threatened by undocumented aliens. conservative and liberal means something much different to euros. a demagogue who would rise to power selling nothing but grievance and fear and who routine failed but stayed popular 'cause he could sell us v. them to a fearful electorate? european and not american neoliberal republicans. 

that said, am not gonna argue against the proposition that the current republican leadership has gone all-in on trumpism. am suspecting republicans believe they need the trump base. how many times has we shown the video o' lindsey graham being chased outta an airport by trump supporters calling him a "traitor" 'cause after january 6 the south carolina senator said, "count me out" and that he were done with trump? the increasing radicalized trump base represents at least 1/3 o' the republican party and is likely closer to 1/2. moderate republicans know they cannot win elections w/o the support o' the trump base, so they is functional making themselves willing hostages to those formerly fringe elements they spent decades attempting to marginalize.  

ARIZONA REP. WHO DETAILED TRUMP‘S ILLEGAL PLOT TO STEAL THE ELECTION SAYS HE’D VOTE FOR TRUMP IN 2024

bowers had tears in his eyes as he recounted trump's efforts to undermine American representative democracy. even so, as 'tween democrats and trump, bowers would still vote for and support trump? 

us v. them.

and

 this kinda thing is only shocking to republicans post 2018.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[alanschu]

16 hours ago, Gromnir said:

could say the same 'bout the sincerity o' moderate democrats asking for unity seeing as their own party is fractured and they cannot get anything done w/o at least some republican support. to suggest politicians is transactional actors first and foremost should come as little surprise, yes?

I won't dispute this. My issues lie largely with a concerning amount of long time DNC leadership that at times seem to come across as "once Trump is out of the way, things can get back to normal" without recognizing their own mistakes which (as you point out) helped shift Obama voters to Trump voters as well as the fact that the problem extends well beyond just Trump. I think Obama's 2008 campaign did a lot to help capture people that felt like some level of shakeup was needed, only to IMO see an administration that largely resumed some degree of status quo (including things like not looking to codify Roe despite being a campaign promise). Trump positioned himself as a candidate to shake up the status quo as well.

I agree that a lot of the older school, mainstay long time GOP members recognize they can't speak overly ill of Trump supporters (as well as groups like Evangelicals) without risking electoral backlash. So you'll get someone like Mitch McConnell who will go in and talk about how the recent SCOTUS ruling is Very Good and so forth, even though I suspect he personally is not overly insistent that it was something that had to be overturned.

Quote

republicans and democrats has for a long time been functional two shades o' the same neoliberal ideology.

100% agree. It's "fun" to suggest this on social media which evidently makes me just a closet GOP supporter lol.

As for the rest of the post, I do agree that current GOP cannot alienate the Trump supporting base and have any hope of winning. A chunk of my concern comes from the notion that someone that is a bit better at being an authoritarian is going to come along in Trump's footsteps... and I feel that the GOP is going to close ranks behind whomever that is because it's a path to power and that's what matters. To be clear this is true for all parties*, as you say. it's just in this circumstance I feel there's a lot more at stake than a few terms of some tax breaks and some public policy I don't agree with.

* It is also fun to point out to Liberal Party of Canada supporters that given our voting demographics, an excellent way to insulate Canada from our current Conservative Parties would be for Justin Trudeau to actually fulfill his election promise for electoral reform with some form of ranked ballots and/or proportional representation. Doing so would pretty much guarantee that the CPC never obtain a majority.... but it'd also mean that the LPC would likely never get one as well and that'd forfeit too much power. LPC supporters really love it if you point out that by maintaining the status quo, the LPC are willing to accept the possibility of Conservative majorities in order to secure majorities themselves... while simultaneously a huge chunk of their supporters talk about how the CPC being elected a threat to Canadians. Hmmm. Even Alberta's NDP party waffled after winning their one election and for some reason opted to not implement that campaign promise. The taste of power is too alluring even if you've only tasted it once in half a century I suppose.

Edited July 13, 2022 by alanschu

[Sarex]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/former-senior-us-official-john-bolton-admits-planning-attempted-foreign-coups-2022-07-12/

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, Sarex said:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/former-senior-us-official-john-bolton-admits-planning-attempted-foreign-coups-2022-07-12/

I watched this interview on CNN, its okay. The US was provoked 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, Sarex said:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/former-senior-us-official-john-bolton-admits-planning-attempted-foreign-coups-2022-07-12/

This is like water admitting it is wet, but still funny to just come out and say it.

Edit: Looks like the Uvalde footage got leaked.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2022/07/12/uvalde-school-shooting-video-of-robb-elementary-shows-police-response/65370384007/

 

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by KP wants Blue Velvet

[Malcador]

Sort of interesting bystander effect on that video.

[Gfted1]

Police are totally supposed to charge into oncoming fire and just let the bodies hit the floor.

[Malcador]

20 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Police are totally supposed to charge into oncoming fire and just let the bodies hit the floor.

Isn't that essentially the training they receive ? Be aggressive and engage the shooter ?

The video as well, you can guess why the audio is so bad.

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Malcador

[Sarex]

28 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Police are totally supposed to charge into oncoming fire and just let the bodies hit the floor.

So fireman should watch people burn until it's safe to enter? I guess that could be the standard procedure, but in reality they are braver than that most of the time. Being a coward is ok, but you shouldn't be a policeman then.

 

edit: or at least not work in the field.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Sarex

[Gromnir]

51 minutes ago, Sarex said:

So fireman should watch people burn until it's safe to enter? I guess that could be the standard procedure...

well yes, in point o' fact such is the training firemen receive and movies and tv gives you the same misguided notions regarding firemen as you appear to have regarding policemen. y'know, ordinary lunch pail police and not give-up-your-life-for _________ secret service detail. the number o' firefighters who died line of duty deaths in 2020 were killed by covid more than anything else. exposure to covid which later resulted in death while responding to medical calls were accounting for 78 o' the total 140 fireman fatalities. 

only 10 2020 deaths o' firemen occurred "on the ground in incidents" not including wildfires. why is numbers so low? 'cause is a safety first occupation. 

btw, fifteen firefighters died in vehicle accidents on the way or returning from an emergency call. 

fireman safety has been made paramount for many decades here in the US. we don't ordinarily send firemen to die in the vainglorious hope they maybe could save persons in danger. we train firemen so they avoid death o' self and fellow firefighters in spite o' being engaged in an inherent dangerous occupation where any mistake could lead to fatalities. where do you people get the notion there is an expectation o' a 1:1 trade where firemen has an unwritten duty to sacrifice selves to save people.

statistically, @Keyrock has a much more dangerous job than does the ordinary US firemen precise 'cause we collective are far more concerned with the safety o' firemen than truck drivers. can't speak to sweden safety numbers so perhaps is different for @Azdeus.

however, am gonna make clear, regardless o' safety precautions, going into a burning building requires bravery. the human animal ordinarily has an instinctual fear o' fire. add noise, smoke, water and general chaos o' any emergency fire scenario and am thinking it should be obvious that doing the job o' a firemen, regardless o' pay, involves courage, which is precise why so many fire fighters gave up their lives on 9/11 in spite o' impossible odds. ~60 cops died on 9/11 btw. 

in any event, as we has said many times, the delay in doing anything for so long were the inexplicable part o' uvalde, but individual cops not rushing into oncoming weapon fire hardly is an example o' cowardice. how many o' our message board heroes would for ~$45k a year have been willing to rush through a closed door to confront a guy armed with an ar-15? the folks in charge during the uvalde situation were indeed negligent in not coming up with a workable plan for the better part o' an hour, but somehow see cops not making a suicide charge as evidence o' cowardice is ridiculous and we suspect is highly dishonest. 

keep bringing up firemen as a comparison. keep being a mistake.

HA! Good Fun!

[Lexx]

Every police officer that runs around with the punisher logo in whatever kind of way should automatically get fired.

[Gromnir]

4 minutes ago, Lexx said:

Every police officer that runs around with the punisher logo in whatever kind of way should automatically get fired.

maybe ain't legal to do so, but we do in fact agree with this observation.

HA! Good Fun!

[Sarex]

@Gromnir How was it a suicide charge? Where did I say they needed to charge one by one? How do you know what is fireman standard procedure? What is the point of all the Military Tacticool equipment? Is being in the military just elaborate suicide? Did I say anywhere that all police officers are cowards, or that all fireman are heroes?

[Gromnir]

19 minutes ago, Sarex said:

@Gromnir How was it a suicide charge? Where did I say they needed to charge one by one? How do you know what is fireman standard procedure? What is the point of all the Military Tacticool equipment? Is being in the military just elaborate suicide? Did I say anywhere that all police officers are cowards, or that all fireman are heroes?

we know the emphasis on safety first for firemen 'cause we has specific addressed the firemen hero myth with a couple captains and a chief in local fire departments. also you may read stats from link we provided and may check elsewhere. relative few on-the-job firemen deaths (during non-covid years) is not a coincidence and has been trending towards fewer in recent years.

point o' military equipment is relevant how? ask our boardie marines if the gear makes one invulnerable or safe from oncoming weapon fire.

and you did indeed imply those cops pictured were lacking bravery, no? we read your post as a response to veruca, a fact you might already have forgotten. "police are totally supposed to charge into oncoming fire and just let the bodies hit the floor." is not as if your post 'bout cowards happened in a vacuum. images o' cops standing around not saving children is hardly evidence o' cowardice particular as you lack other information or at least has failed to provide any. you may make proclamations 'bout shortcomings in bravery from thousands o' miles away sitting safely ensconced behind a computer screen while armed with a keyboard and an opinion. rings a tad hollow.

HA! Good Fun!

ps "on-the-job" somehow became one-the job. fail.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

38 minutes ago, Sarex said:

What is the point of all the Military Tacticool equipment?

Well, that budget has to go somewhere. And wouldn't you want to look like a bad ass ? 

Maybe the cops there had been overmanaged to the point they lost all initiative, heh.

[Sarex]

26 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

point o' military equipment is relevant how? ask our boardie marines if the gear makes one invulnerable or safe from oncoming weapon fire.

Exactly and they are still there with bullets zipping pass them, getting ready to charge when the order comes in. I guess the only thing they picked up from the military, apart from the equipment, is shooting unarmed civilians.

26 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

and you did indeed imply those cops pictured were lacking bravery, no? we read your post as a response to veruca, a fact you might already have forgotten. "police are totally supposed to charge into oncoming fire and just let the bodies hit the floor."

When the alternative is to just let the bodies hit the floor? I would say yes, they are supposed to charge in. They are trained and equipped to respond quickly and minimize casualties. But I guess they were too busy drawing straws on who was going to take point on "going through the door".

I repeat, I never said all policeman are bad or that all fireman are good. But you would have to agree that there are plenty of video records that are not painting a good picture about policemen.

26 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

you may make proclamations 'bout shortcomings in bravery from thousands o' miles away sitting safely ensconced behind a computer screen while armed with a keyboard and an opinion. rings a tad hollow.

I am not a police officer nor would I ever be one. Same as with any other profession that would put my life in danger. How I would react in a matter of life and death, I have no idea. I would like to imagine with bravery, but that is just that, imagination.

5 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Well, that budget has to go somewhere. And wouldn't you want to look like a bad ass ? 

Excuse you, but I already look like I have a bad ass. It's from all the sitting.

5 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Maybe the cops there had been overmanaged to the point they lost all initiative, heh.

Could be, it's just that after everything I have seen from the US police officers, it looks like all the bad things that we see from them are either triggered by fear or corruption.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Sarex

[Gfted1]

Hadnt the bodies already hit the floor by the time of the video? Presumably, they heard the at least 22 shots, and had dude bottled up in the classroom? Maybe if they had ballistic shields?

[Sarex]

7 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Hadnt the bodies already hit the floor by the time of the video? Presumably, they heard the at least 22 shots, and had dude bottled up in the classroom? Maybe if they had ballistic shields?

Or this?

[Gromnir]

and 'round we go. at least you ain't pretending no more. 

we have shown previous how there is no duty in fact for cops to rush in and save people.

your expectations do not match reality or legal duty. "When the alternative is to just let the bodies hit the floor? I would say yes, they are supposed to charge in." these guys is trained to hand out parking tickets and break up domestic disputes, both o' which is unfortunate and unnecessarily dangerous in this country. some police departments train for active shooters at schools. some. you know how many different police departments there is in the US? they all got potential different training and standards. how much training does ordinary local cops get for dealing with an uvalde situation? very much depends on the department and department leadership. you know those details? nevertheless, sarex believes not only should those cops in uvalde charge into a situation where they know an individual with murderous intent and an ar-15 lies in wait, but sarex holds such a belief w/o knowing what cop supervisors were telling those individual coward cops at the time. 

as for military gear, we has more than once complained 'bout local departments spending money on such extravagances, but again, even if your local cop has military gear it don't mean they is soldiers. not same training. not same duties and obligations. is an irrelevant observation. 

massive disconnect. am suspecting most folks recognize how the secret service folks is called 'pon to do the extraordinary. nevertheless, whenever an ordinary cop making ~$45k a year fails to meet the same expectations as secret service, we see their bravery questioned. if "charging in" is what we demand o' the guy who has slight more demanding hiring standards than walmart greeter, then the appreciation o' the sacrifice and bravery o' secret service loses its meaning and value. nevertheless uvalde happens and people pretend to be shocked average cop didn't hurl himself into the breech to save all those kids.

unreasonable.

HA! Good Fun!