Politics Thread: Edge of Seventeen

[Drowsy Emperor]

Nobody is going to budge on anything substantial. There is no way in hell NK will give up nukes, nor will the U.S. give up a single soldier in what is increasingly the most important 'battlefield' in the world.

 

What NK wants is security for their government and there is no way to achieve that which does not include the double threat of nukes and the conventional failsafe of an army near the border. Perhaps when they achieve a good level of redundancy (potential for launching and thus retaliation in any scenario of U.S. assault) and reliability (of the ICBM's) with the nuclear arsenal the army will no longer be as necessary. In practice they have it - RAND studies have shown that there is no reliable way to attack NK and be sure that all the secret missile sites have been destroyed in a first strike, which means a low risk attack is not feasible. However, in other aspects NK's nuclear potential 'not quite there yet'. They still need to miniaturize the nukes as warheads (not easy) and a reliable launch potential to hit U.S. mainland (including things like solid fuel for quick launches, more rockets, a good level of precision etc.).

 

On the other hand they're not going to attack SK on their own volition, even if the U.S. failed to lift a finger about it. That's not, nor it has been for decades, a credible threat. SK is an extremely populous country and would require a massive army to take and control. Attacking it would cause massive international condemnation and a war which would be extremely unpredictable and likely devastating for the NK government even if they eventually won. 

 

I see Kim's recent acts more as a way of  maneuvering into a NK-SK deal that would push the U.S. out of the talks and make it very difficult for Trump to engage in outward hostility. If there is the appearance of a credible peace deal between NK-SK, even on the distant horizon, it's very hard to bomb the talks without suffering a reputational blow. NK gets massive stalling power from it, SK gov gets political points as well. And Trump has to play along, perhaps even more so in the situation of permanent scandals rocking his administration.

Edited April 30, 2018 by Drowsy Emperor

[Guard Dog]

A pledge by the US not to invade should be taken seriously. We've promised never to invade Canada & Cuba. So far so good.

[smjjames]

A pledge by the US not to invade should be taken seriously. We've promised never to invade Canada & Cuba. So far so good.

 

I don't recall any sort of explict promise to never invade Cuba, don't know if one was ever made after the failed proxy invasion of the Bay of Pigs. Actually, maybe we did after the Cuban missile crisis.

 

As for Canada, we certainly became good friends (along with the usual neigborly disputes) after the War of 1812 when both Britian and Canada (still a British colony at the time) gave us a smackdown. Probably a good thing that Britian was busy with Napoleon at the time or it would have been worse than a black eye and generally beaten up and told to behave.

[Guard Dog]

 

A pledge by the US not to invade should be taken seriously. We've promised never to invade Canada & Cuba. So far so good.

 

I don't recall any sort of explict promise to never invade Cuba, don't know if one was ever made after the failed proxy invasion of the Bay of Pigs. Actually, maybe we did after the Cuban missile crisis.

 

As for Canada, we certainly became good friends (along with the usual neigborly disputes) after the War of 1812 when both Britian and Canada (still a British colony at the time) gave us a smackdown. Probably a good thing that Britian was busy with Napoleon at the time or it would have been worse than a black eye and generally beaten up and told to behave.

 

We made a promise to the USSR not to invade Cuba following the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The promise not to invade Canada came after the war of 1812. It was not in the Treaty of Ghent but one that came a few years later that demilitarized the border. The war was a total waste of everyone's time and the status quo was restored afterwards. The British did not give us a "smackdown" although they did come off a little lighter on losses. But it was close. No one walked away from that with anything to show for the nearly 6K KIA.

 

Although it did set into motion the events the led to us getting Florida so... I guess that's a positive right? Old New Yorkers gotta retire somewhere.

[ShadySands]

Creepy or Not? Your Privacy Concerns Likely Reflect Your Politics  

 

A new study on surveillance finds that Republicans tend to feel pleased about tracking, both online and in real life, while Democrats often feel bad about it.

 

[Valsuelm]

 

Creepy or Not? Your Privacy Concerns Likely Reflect Your Politics  

 

A new study on surveillance finds that Republicans tend to feel pleased about tracking, both online and in real life, while Democrats often feel bad about it.

 

 

 

Piss poor survey questions leads to a misleading and piss poor headline...

 

Angry vs. Pleased?

 

I'd give the students behind this survey a F, and fire the professor if it was their idea.

 

That said, no doubt someone's political views likely influence what they think of such things. However, 'Angry' vs 'Pleased', and Republican vs. Democrat in a phone survey is not going to yield a meaningful or accurate survey.

 

'The margin of sampling error for the complete set of weighted data is +/– 2.9 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.' - oh the hubristic bubble these twits live in....

Edited April 30, 2018 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

 

In a dark way... it's comical that he thinks people will believe him. In a sad scary way, some people do.

 

The continued use of cartoonish props tell you everything you need to know about the contempt that he and those he works for have for those this message is aimed at. Note that he's speaking in English....

 

[smjjames]

'those he works for'? Are you insinuating that PM Netanyhu is part of some illuminati conspiracy?

 

Anyways, turns out he was talking about... things we already knew, and it's no secret that he wants the Iran deal scrapped. He's trying to bet on Trump not knowing or figuring out that it's stuff we already knew.

 

 

 

 

Creepy or Not? Your Privacy Concerns Likely Reflect Your Politics  

 

A new study on surveillance finds that Republicans tend to feel pleased about tracking, both online and in real life, while Democrats often feel bad about it.

 

 

 

Piss poor survey questions leads to a misleading and piss poor headline...

 

Angry vs. Pleased?

 

I'd give the students behind this survey a F, and fire the professor if it was their idea.

 

That said, no doubt someone's political views likely influence what they think of such things. However, 'Angry' vs 'Pleased', and Republican vs. Democrat in a phone survey is not going to yield a meaningful or accurate survey.

 

'The margin of sampling error for the complete set of weighted data is +/– 2.9 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.' - oh the hubristic bubble these twits live in....

 

Not sure what you're hitting them over as far as the margin of error goes, because that isn't a bad margin of error rate in and of the number itself.

Edited May 1, 2018 by smjjames

[Zoraptor]

Bibi's presentations are always meme gold, and fact dross.

 

Only thing missing from his powerpoint slides was use of comic sans/ impact font instead of boring old default times new roman.

 

I presume the stats commentary is that you kind of have to have a sensible set of questions to be statistically accurate about. If you ask a load of loaded questions the mathematical statistical accuracy doesn't matter in the slightest because the questions are bad so anything got from them is bad as well.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Zoraptor

[Gfted1]

Im honestly shocked that it took this long but opportunist gonna opportune: Parkland father files lawsuit against 'coward' school resource officer.

 

 

 

The suit asks for...unspecified damages..."has nothing to do with money."

 

[injurai]

It a lot to ask an officer who isn't expecting to field off a shooter on a particular day to take up exemplar action, especially if they aren't in already in danger. Most hero's in these situations are people who are in a situation where to not act heroic may put them in even greater danger.

 

I still think the officer might be in the wrong, but counting on staved officers to be the line of defense against these things I think is imprudent on a societal level. You can't just expect them to go out in a blaze of gunfire in order to mitigate losses. I'm not surprised an officer would become paralyzed with in-action when they don't have a clear grasp of the situation at hand.

[Gfted1]

I still think the officer might be in the wrong, but counting on staved officers to be the line of defense against these things I think is imprudent on a societal level. You can't just expect them to go out in a blaze of gunfire in order to mitigate losses. I'm not surprised an officer would become paralyzed with in-action when they don't have a clear grasp of the situation at hand.

"To Protect and to Serve"

 

I dont expect a police officer to go in all Rambo style but I definitely don't expect them to run away either.

[Hurlshort]

I know all police departments in my area train and train and train for these types of events. They actually spend about half of their careers in training, so the idea he was unprepared for the shooting is pretty weak. They specifically have a plan for schools where they go in immediately without backup if necessary. That has been in place since Columbine. That being said, I don't like the idea that this should be a civil case. You boot him off the force and use it as a way to better train everyone else.

[injurai]

I agree, I don't know the exact details of how cowardly the person actually was. We don't want police officers who can't act, at the same time I can imagine the situation being as such where the cop was simply trying not to be reckless. I'm dubious over post-facto standards being asserted with the weight of law on a difficult situation. If the officer got himself killed he'd be martyred probably, but if he was incapacitated and the shooter continued unobstructed for several minutes more, parents would be livid he tried to play the hero instead of getting results.

 

I'm merely suggesting that the solution probably is not to hold humans to a standard that is above the expected rate of human error.

 

I see two side, there are gun proponents people who like the idea we need to staff armed personnel. They love the idea of the trained officer because they think gun usages is a privilege. Then you have the anti-gun people who want to hold trained personal to higher standards than possible, even though they think the cops should have a monopoly on guns. The solution has to be more than one where we rely on our expectations of people. Lawsuits against less than ideal cops is not going to deter officers from coming out in the wash as lacking in post-facto analysis, they could never predict where the fickle public would draw the line between reckless and cautious. Further such a suit is a mis-appropriation of fault when damages are being pursued. If you instead only care about seeking damages against, you might better seek it against the law enforcement, but then you're just cutting into their funding. The officer should be removed, training should increase, and any damages probably need to come from some sort of social insurance.

Edited May 1, 2018 by injurai

[Fiach]

I don't think it right to sue the officer, but that father is coming from a horrific place of intense grief and assuredly not acting in a rational manner.

 

Here in N Ireland, a man's son was killed in a terrorist attack and he sued the British govt. For the amount of money he paid for his sons education.

 

Grief is a terrible motivation.

 

The cop, well, you never know how you are going to act when actually in the face of combat. Death is a scary proposition for anybody to face, doesn't matter how much you train. Dunno how he was armed , maybe just a handgun, or maybe the extent of gunfire he percieved to be such a threat, that a handgun would have been little use, maybe he figured it was more important to live for his family than to die for someone else's. there's alot of hazy details of what actually happened that day.

 

But, I guarantee you, unless you have been in a gun violence situation and actually in harms way, until that moment, you will not be able to accurately predict your own response, let alone somebody else's.

[Hurlshort]

Huh, I somewhat agree with Sharpie. I mean, there is a reason we used to execute deserters. I'm not saying he deserves to be shot, but a criminal charge would be interesting. It's probably way to hard to prove in court, I saw one argument where the cop didn't know where the shots were coming from, but I think it makes more sense than civil prosecution.

[ShadySands]

I'm with Fiach on this one, training helps a lot but people will still break/freeze/panic. 

 

Part of the reason for executing deserters was to give them something else to fear. Fight and you may die, don't fight and you'll definitely die.

Edited May 1, 2018 by ShadySands

[Fiach]

 

But, I guarantee you, unless you have been in a gun violence situation and actually in harms way, until that moment, you will not be able to accurately predict your own response, let alone somebody else's.

You just undermined thousand of years of military training and preparation. Yes you can be prepared and sure of your responses in actual combat before your first battle. It has been done since first militia was formed.

I agree the cop should not face a civil suit, he should be facing capital punishment for failing his duties.

I'm talkng specifically about the civil suit, it's up to each service branch how they procecute deriliction of duty.

 

I disagree to a large extent with your assertion that you can predict accurately how anybody will react when face with a firearm assault situation, also the guy was a cop, not military, I doubt if the police have as rigorous a training regimen as the army, but military personnel are not exempt either from the fight or flight response inherent to being faced with a life or death situation. I know of military personnel who have committed suicide because they shirked their duty and some who have committed suicide because they followed orders and ignored their gut reaction to intervne.

[smjjames]

The difference is that the police aren't a branch of the military service, so, dereliction of duty isn't going to involve getting the death penalty.

 

Probably should also give the guy a chance to explain himself, as I haven't seen anything stating his reasoning for why he did what he did.

 

Also, wasn't the guy months or a few years from retirement or something? Might be wrong.

[smjjames]

 

 

 

But, I guarantee you, unless you have been in a gun violence situation and actually in harms way, until that moment, you will not be able to accurately predict your own response, let alone somebody else's.

You just undermined thousand of years of military training and preparation. Yes you can be prepared and sure of your responses in actual combat before your first battle. It has been done since first militia was formed.

I agree the cop should not face a civil suit, he should be facing capital punishment for failing his duties.

I'm talkng specifically about the civil suit, it's up to each service branch how they procecute deriliction of duty.

 

I disagree to a large extent with your assertion that you can predict accurately how anybody will react when face with a firearm assault situation, also the guy was a cop, not military, I doubt if the police have as rigorous a training regimen as the army, but military personnel are not exempt either from the fight or flight response inherent to being faced with a life or death situation. I know of military personnel who have committed suicide because they shirked their duty and some who have committed suicide because they followed orders and ignored their gut reaction to intervne.

Yes you can predict how a trained person will react and yes poluce force have extended training. He was no rookie also he had almost 10 years of sercice. Let's not pretend those basic facts you can google in 2.3 seconds are unknown to us.

 

 

Well, for whatever reason, he did break.

 

Maybe we should get his side of the whole thing? I'm not aware of that having been gotten.

[213374U]

I'm with Fiach on this one, training helps a lot but people will still break/freeze/panic. 

 

Part of the reason for executing deserters was to give them something else to fear. Fight and you may die, don't fight and you'll definitely die.

 

I think that's a common view among people who have had training and experienced combat. Even simulated high-stress situations can't truly prepare someone for the real thing because, well, they are simulated and you know you aren't really facing death.

 

The contention that training will allow people to ignore the shock from these situations is also simply bad reasoning at a basic level. "Yes, training can override shell shock, unless they are cowards. In that case, training is no matter, it's the damn cowards." It's just that often you can't tell who is a "coward" beforehand. It's their reaction to that situation that will earn them the hero/coward label. Training helps... except when it doesn't.

[Zoraptor]

I'm reminded of what happens in a lot of air crashes- pilots train and fly for literally thousands of hours then end up crashing and killing everyone on board because they're stalling and despite all their training and experience the most basic of reasoning kicks in: "I want to gain altitude so I have to point the plane's nose up". Yet every pilot knows and trains for the fact that in a stall you have to point your nose down to increase speed first, and hence to overcome the reflexive logic of pointing your nose up to try and gain altitude.

 

Dude shouldn't be a police officer/ security guard any more for sure, but part of the reason for training is to find those who cannot cope or will freeze. On the positive side, it's a lot less likely that guy would have randomly shot a black guy for having a 'dehumanising gaze' or cellphone or failing to obey mutually contradictory instructions etc as seems to happen an awful lot when police do act reflexively, decisively and instinctively.

[Malcador]

 

 

 

But, I guarantee you, unless you have been in a gun violence situation and actually in harms way, until that moment, you will not be able to accurately predict your own response, let alone somebody else's.

You just undermined thousand of years of military training and preparation. Yes you can be prepared and sure of your responses in actual combat before your first battle. It has been done since first militia was formed.

I agree the cop should not face a civil suit, he should be facing capital punishment for failing his duties.

I'm talkng specifically about the civil suit, it's up to each service branch how they procecute deriliction of duty.

 

I disagree to a large extent with your assertion that you can predict accurately how anybody will react when face with a firearm assault situation, also the guy was a cop, not military, I doubt if the police have as rigorous a training regimen as the army, but military personnel are not exempt either from the fight or flight response inherent to being faced with a life or death situation. I know of military personnel who have committed suicide because they shirked their duty and some who have committed suicide because they followed orders and ignored their gut reaction to intervne.

Yes you can predict how a trained person will react and yes poluce force have extended training. He was no rookie also he had almost 10 years of sercice. Let's not pretend those basic facts you can google in 2.3 seconds are unknown to us.

Extended training doing what, though? Storming a building against an unknown number of shooters?

 

Capital punishment for that seems silly as well.

[Valsuelm]

Just arm the teachers already.

 

And the school mascot as well.

[Malcador]

Would be surprised they would run uniforms through that, and especially something like a SRO. Which seems like choice duty, for a cop. And in any case, military training fails, and a soldier is meant for violence far above a mere cop.

 

Could be 17 dead, or 1, it's asinine to want the cop to be executed. Overemotional response. Wonder how many he could have saved, anyway, by the time he hears gunfire people are already dead. Academic, anyway.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Malcador