By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 16 November 2021
EricHiggin said:

I tend to wonder the same thing much of the time, but not everyone speaks or understands every word and phrase of every language. It's been implied that's it's better to just shut up instead of ever responding, but it seems that only applies to specific side. I've also been told silence is violence though.

If the media can't be used, then we're at a standstill. A form of media as a point for you but not for me? Then again, unless you think instant information without explanation of the context is always a good thing, since everyone always understands everything, especially when many only bother to consume a small portion at the start or finish, then instantly comment on it, not even attempting to understand the whole, then maybe it's good it was brought up.

Social media doesn't mean much as to anyone having to change. Plenty have given the middle finger to social media and continue on doing whatever they did prior, regardless. Some face a form of punishment for what they did, but how many people, groups, or businesses actually change? How many change and change back, like defunding then refunding the police? Not to mention how little good it does overall when it comes to changing politicians for the better. The growing alternative social media platforms also tend to have a different take on many matters. It's unwise to disregard the minorities point of view.

So, I think all police are great and shouldn't be punished like defunding, and you think some might be bad apples? What? Didn't you highlight where I said, "some police take things to far, others are basically useless". "Now how to make them all perfectly balanced individuals?" What's unclear about that? 

Because I have no clue what that actually means "Make them balance".  Its way to vague for me to understand what you mean by balance when you can just list the actual things you believe should be done to make police accountable for their actions and thus provide a way for them to do their job and for us as citizens to be secure they are doing their job without abusing it.

As for this idea that's been going around where you send someone other than a police officer, how many unarmed professionals have to show up to help, leading to their injury or death, before they require a cop by their side at all times anyway? How long before the unarmed professionals won't do it at all, or unless they have weapons and basic training? How long before you've basically got two cops dealing with situations again anyway?

Why don't we try it first and see.  There are multiple incidents that did not require a police officer to show up that turned into some BS because they came with trigger happy individuals.  People call the police for everything but everything does not require a person who think of shooting first and asking questions later.  There was an incident not to long ago where someone called the cops because a neighbor was playing their music to loud.  Cops showed up, guy comes out of the garaged with his cellphone and get shot, because they though he had a gun.  There are a number of cases like this where did we really need to send trigger happy police to something as simple as a domestic disturbance and the result is someone dead.  Most domestic incidents do not require someone looking to shoot first and ask questions later but that is how the current police force is structured.

Think about it this way. You pretty much have to send a cop to make a judgement call initially just in case it requires deadly force, potentially immediately. You can't send someone unarmed who get's blown away instantly. Ok, so now you want a potentially stupid, useless, racist cop, to make a decision on whether the police or another professional should handle the situation? You really trust them to make the right judgement call? If the cop chooses a professional, and that person shows up but unexpectedly get's blown away anyway, is it the cops fault? What if social media decides it is? What's the next policing solution?

No you do not have to send a cop to have to make a judgment call, you first figure out the incident in question and then send the correct personnel to help with that situation.  Most domestic situations absolutely do not require someone who is not trained to handle the situation but instead is just a waste of time.  In the US police are trained for at the most 6 months but a lot of states barely over a month and what they are trained for does not even come close to the amount of stuff they get called for.  In the US, the Police is probably the least trained individuals in the developed world because we accept anyone send them to everything only to be ineffective because they have no clue what to do and thus they just fall back on is it a shooting situation or not.

If you ban guns, people just start using knives. You ban knives, and people start using bow and arrow. Eventually it ends up sticks and stones. The answer is to understand and respect guns, just like better understanding and respecting of the police. That's about as good as it get's. You go after the police or guns, you get sky high crime and stabbings that just replace them.

If you ban guys and people use knives, I have a much better survival rate with a knife then a gun.  If someone is using a bow and arrow my survival rate still is way higher than a gun.  If its stick and stones, I get to live another day even higher.  The thing is, guns become more deadly as the years progress and your survival drops just as much.  The more guns in play means that people will use it for everything.  Not to long ago, a off duty police officer was in an argument in Costco got push down, pulled out his gun and shot up the whole family not just the person who pushed him.  This is pretty much were the US is going.  If someone push me I get to kill everyone, I get to kill you because I can easily say I feared for my life.  As more of these incidents happen, you will see more people becoming armed and if any incident or argument happen its going to be like the good old western days again where who draws first gets to live another day.

Citizens have to do their best to respect the police, and the police have to do their best to respect citizens. If the morals and rules aren't working to accomplish that, besides rare accidents and mistakes, then they need to be adjusted or better enforced by the people. If that somehow can't be accomplished, I'd suggest moving elsewhere that's more receptive, or not a problem to begin with. An out of control fire will eventually burn itself out.

Forget about this respect aspect, what needs to happen is that we need a system in place to hold police accountable for their actions period.  Its long past the point of this mutual respect.  We as citizens need to be comfortable when we call the police, they do their job and can be confident that the situation is going to be handled in a professional manner.  Also forget about this leaving to a new place.  If I put my stake in an area, I am going to fight to make it better.  You can keep running looking for nirvana or you can build where you stand.  Also these cases are not rare, capturing them on video is rare but that is changing.



Around the Network
TallSilhouette on 16 November 2021

Trumpism and hypocrisy going hand in hand isn't news, but this is like Hypocrisy Inception:



EricHiggin on 16 November 2021
Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

I tend to wonder the same thing much of the time, but not everyone speaks or understands every word and phrase of every language. It's been implied that's it's better to just shut up instead of ever responding, but it seems that only applies to specific side. I've also been told silence is violence though.

If the media can't be used, then we're at a standstill. A form of media as a point for you but not for me? Then again, unless you think instant information without explanation of the context is always a good thing, since everyone always understands everything, especially when many only bother to consume a small portion at the start or finish, then instantly comment on it, not even attempting to understand the whole, then maybe it's good it was brought up.

Social media doesn't mean much as to anyone having to change. Plenty have given the middle finger to social media and continue on doing whatever they did prior, regardless. Some face a form of punishment for what they did, but how many people, groups, or businesses actually change? How many change and change back, like defunding then refunding the police? Not to mention how little good it does overall when it comes to changing politicians for the better. The growing alternative social media platforms also tend to have a different take on many matters. It's unwise to disregard the minorities point of view.

So, I think all police are great and shouldn't be punished like defunding, and you think some might be bad apples? What? Didn't you highlight where I said, "some police take things to far, others are basically useless". "Now how to make them all perfectly balanced individuals?" What's unclear about that? 

Because I have no clue what that actually means "Make them balance".  Its way to vague for me to understand what you mean by balance when you can just list the actual things you believe should be done to make police accountable for their actions and thus provide a way for them to do their job and for us as citizens to be secure they are doing their job without abusing it.

As for this idea that's been going around where you send someone other than a police officer, how many unarmed professionals have to show up to help, leading to their injury or death, before they require a cop by their side at all times anyway? How long before the unarmed professionals won't do it at all, or unless they have weapons and basic training? How long before you've basically got two cops dealing with situations again anyway?

Why don't we try it first and see.  There are multiple incidents that did not require a police officer to show up that turned into some BS because they came with trigger happy individuals.  People call the police for everything but everything does not require a person who think of shooting first and asking questions later.  There was an incident not to long ago where someone called the cops because a neighbor was playing their music to loud.  Cops showed up, guy comes out of the garaged with his cellphone and get shot, because they though he had a gun.  There are a number of cases like this where did we really need to send trigger happy police to something as simple as a domestic disturbance and the result is someone dead.  Most domestic incidents do not require someone looking to shoot first and ask questions later but that is how the current police force is structured.

Think about it this way. You pretty much have to send a cop to make a judgement call initially just in case it requires deadly force, potentially immediately. You can't send someone unarmed who get's blown away instantly. Ok, so now you want a potentially stupid, useless, racist cop, to make a decision on whether the police or another professional should handle the situation? You really trust them to make the right judgement call? If the cop chooses a professional, and that person shows up but unexpectedly get's blown away anyway, is it the cops fault? What if social media decides it is? What's the next policing solution?

No you do not have to send a cop to have to make a judgment call, you first figure out the incident in question and then send the correct personnel to help with that situation.  Most domestic situations absolutely do not require someone who is not trained to handle the situation but instead is just a waste of time.  In the US police are trained for at the most 6 months but a lot of states barely over a month and what they are trained for does not even come close to the amount of stuff they get called for.  In the US, the Police is probably the least trained individuals in the developed world because we accept anyone send them to everything only to be ineffective because they have no clue what to do and thus they just fall back on is it a shooting situation or not.

If you ban guns, people just start using knives. You ban knives, and people start using bow and arrow. Eventually it ends up sticks and stones. The answer is to understand and respect guns, just like better understanding and respecting of the police. That's about as good as it get's. You go after the police or guns, you get sky high crime and stabbings that just replace them.

If you ban guys and people use knives, I have a much better survival rate with a knife then a gun.  If someone is using a bow and arrow my survival rate still is way higher than a gun.  If its stick and stones, I get to live another day even higher.  The thing is, guns become more deadly as the years progress and your survival drops just as much.  The more guns in play means that people will use it for everything.  Not to long ago, a off duty police officer was in an argument in Costco got push down, pulled out his gun and shot up the whole family not just the person who pushed him.  This is pretty much were the US is going.  If someone push me I get to kill everyone, I get to kill you because I can easily say I feared for my life.  As more of these incidents happen, you will see more people becoming armed and if any incident or argument happen its going to be like the good old western days again where who draws first gets to live another day.

Citizens have to do their best to respect the police, and the police have to do their best to respect citizens. If the morals and rules aren't working to accomplish that, besides rare accidents and mistakes, then they need to be adjusted or better enforced by the people. If that somehow can't be accomplished, I'd suggest moving elsewhere that's more receptive, or not a problem to begin with. An out of control fire will eventually burn itself out.

Forget about this respect aspect, what needs to happen is that we need a system in place to hold police accountable for their actions period.  Its long past the point of this mutual respect.  We as citizens need to be comfortable when we call the police, they do their job and can be confident that the situation is going to be handled in a professional manner.  Also forget about this leaving to a new place.  If I put my stake in an area, I am going to fight to make it better.  You can keep running looking for nirvana or you can build where you stand.  Also these cases are not rare, capturing them on video is rare but that is changing.

I'll sum up the entirety of what I just read, short and sweet, because going beyond that at this point..

'We should retry defunding the police, but this time take away ever so slightly less, and that might just work this time. Can't know if we don't try right?'

By all means, try another carousel if you want, but they all end where they start. I'm headed to the stands for the demolition derby..



Machiavellian on 17 November 2021
EricHiggin said:
Machiavellian said:

I'll sum up the entirety of what I just read, short and sweet, because going beyond that at this point..

'We should retry defunding the police, but this time take away ever so slightly less, and that might just work this time. Can't know if we don't try right?'

By all means, try another carousel if you want, but they all end where they start. I'm headed to the stands for the demolition derby..

I will sum up my position, we need to reform the police.  Every police officer should be required to have video shooting at all times when engaging the public.  We are past the point of just trusting the word of a police officer to what has occurred and instead have the technology to prove what occurred when they engage the public.  This will allow the public to feel more secure that the police is doing their job and also allow the police to justify their actions.

I really do not care as much about defunding the police as I am about holding them accountable to their actions.  I believe starting there and getting that right will work a hell of a lot better than using these trigger words that just muddies the situation.



Machiavellian on 17 November 2021

So as I was reading about the Rittenhouse trial only because it was brought up in these comments one aspect of the case I was thinking will be something that probably going to come up more is the stand your ground. So the prosecution tried to show through drones that Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at the protestors. The question is does that present enough threat that someone could conceive this a stand your ground situation and shoot or engage Rittenhouse. When does a situation develop where a person is willfully looking for action to use a stand your ground case and when is it true defense.

So the question is, who is in the right. If Rittenhouse did point his gun at the Protestors, are they in their right to engage him. Is Rittenhouse once engage now is in his right to shoot anyone who engages him or are both right and if the guy who had the gun just fired and shot and killed Rittenhouse would it be a case of self defense as well.

The reason I ask this question because I believe it will be something we see often, when faced with a situation like this, its probably best to shoot first then wait to get shot and hope to survive.



Around the Network
Jaicee on 18 November 2021

Whelp, it's been another month so let's check in with how President Biden and the Democrats are doing. Why not?

According to the current moving average of polls, Biden is now underwater by a record 12 percentage points. Just 41.5% of Americans still approve of his job performance, while 53.5% affirmatively disapprove. He's still viewed more favorably as a person than our last president, Trump, but only by a single percentage point. Just three months ago, the president was polling well above water. This can be described as a state of free-fall.

Is there a consequence, you ask? The down-ballot effect is clear. The moving average of polls now shows Republicans leading Democrats by an average of 4.2 percentage points nationwide on a generic Congressional ballot: on average, 46% of Americans want Republicans to control Congress, while just 41.8% want Democrats to retain control. The last time I saw generic Congressional ballots turn this favorable toward Republicans this early on in a new administration was 20 years ago, immediately after the September 11th terrorist attacks. You can do the math on that and figure out the realistic implications for next year's midterm elections. Unless something drastically changes, the Republicans will not only win, but probably win in a wave election. That's the direction things are headed in here.

That's where we are. The next question is why?

To answer the question of why, as those who follow my posts here by now know, I like to look at the most representative poll in the current sample. With Biden currently underwater by 12 points overall, that makes the most recent ABC/Washington Post survey the most representative snapshot of current public opinion in this country, as it finds Biden to be underwater by exactly 12 points amongst the public at large. Here are the demographic details from that survey. As you can see, they're devastating. Biden is now underwater among both men and women alike, amongst every age group (especially the youngest...!!) and religious persuasion (underwater by 10 points even among non-religious people) and in every region of the country, is down by a least 9 percentage points among every income group, and is above water by just 3 percentage points in urban America (you don't even want to know what the rest of the country thinks) and by just 4 points among moderates (compared to a 30-point win among the same group just last year). Even among liberals, he is now down to 70% support and is now down to 80% support even among registered Democrats, with a notable 16% of his own party now affirmatively disapproving and another 4% on the fence. Perhaps most devastating of all though is that Americans now believe that the Democratic Party is more out of touch with the public than the Republican Party. 58% believe the GOP is out of touch with the concerns of most Americans, while a larger 62% say the same of the Democratic Party. Neither institution seems anywhere near agreeable to most people right now.

There is good news for Biden and the Democrats here though: 63% of Americans approve of the recently-signed infrastructure bill (hence why even a few Republican members of Congress were willing to vote for it), 58% support the Build Back Better Act, and immense majorities likewise are clearly on the pro-choice side of the abortion question and staunchly oppose repressive new abortion laws like the one recently passed here in my state of Texas, for example. The thing is that the public doesn't given Biden and the Democrats much credit for these things. For example, just 31% say that President Biden has kept most of his campaign promises so far and in fact only 35% say that he's done much of anything at all as president for that matter. Meanwhile, 70% of Americans say the economy in bad condition; up from 58% in another ABC/Washington Post survey conducted in the spring. The picture one gets from this is of a public that's exhausting its savings trying to get ahead of rapidly rising prices and seeing an administration doing little about it. The infrastructure bill is popular, but not nearly adequate to the immediate task at hand, the public seems to believe.

There's also something else notable here: Democrats only lead Republicans by 3 percentage points on the question of who handles education policy better in this country. Traditionally, the public has favored Democrats in this area by overwhelming, massive double-digit margins. That's because Democrats have favored better funding for schools, lower cost of admission thereto, and better pay and working conditions for teachers. Clearly the concerns of Virginia are resonating nationwide, with Republicans making inroads on the education issue by focusing on the social contents of school curricula. Democrats need an answer to that that doesn't revolve around trying to shut detractors up.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 18 November 2021

Machiavellian on 18 November 2021

The main thing I got from all the stats is that the GOP does it better. When things get rough, they blame the Dems, when things get rough for the Dems, they blame Dems. When all is said and done, the problem with Dems are Dems. The tent is just to big.



Jaicee on 19 November 2021
Machiavellian said:

The main thing I got from all the stats is that the GOP does it better. When things get rough, they blame the Dems, when things get rough for the Dems, they blame Dems. When all is said and done, the problem with Dems are Dems. The tent is just to big.

The Democrats have the House, the Senate, and the presidency right now. Naturally, they're going to be the focus of people's angst in that context. I mean when I turn on the ra-ra Democrats network MSNBC, the headline story every evening is January 6th. I flip over to Hannity or something and it's inflation; something that has an immediate impact on my life at this time. Forget about the difference of solutions, one party just doesn't seem to even want to think about the country's biggest problems right now.

Speaking of that, the main problem here seems to be a perception that the Democrats are proving fairly ineffectual in power, as in not getting much done to improve people's lives. That's something probably most of the Congressional Democrats can't help; it's a problem of a small number of conservative ones using the party's narrow majorities to block almost everything. Most Democrats want to get more done than is being done on the economic policy front and the problem there is just the party's narrow majorities allow the few who don't to block nearly everything. The public writ large is less understanding and forgiving of that than I, and more especially you, probably are.

However, to me, as one of those Democrats in the dissenting column, it's not just a matter of economic policy, where the problem is just a small minority of Democrats blocking stuff. Rather, the Democratic Party at large also has a problem of passiveness in many areas besides economic policy: passiveness regarding the southern border (that's not just a human problem, it's an epic political one in my state that renders Biden underwater here by a staggering 32 points in the latest Civiqs poll, for example), with regard to the fate of Afghanistan, with regard to rising rates of violent crime (hence Biden's increasing struggles even in urban America, increasingly among non-white people too; I mean, even the Biden Administration is now on board with ending cash-bail, seriously?), and hell with the latest uptick in Covid cases, Biden's now even narrowly underwater on his best issue: handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Some of these problems are contradictory. For example, one could get more serious about Covid by like doing what much of Europe does and going back into lockdown or something, but that would make our supply chain crisis worse than it already is, causing consumer prices to rise even faster, and the public regards the latter as the bigger problem in their lives right now, so...you can't really solve everything. Not all at once anyway. You have to pick your battles and focus somewhere. But the point is though that there is an overarching sense of the Democratic Party being passive and ineffectual and something about that can and must change. America has problems in abundance right now. Pick something relatively agreeable and get serious about it instead of just writing it all off because you're that afraid of offending a particular constituency here or there. It's worked well for Eric Adams is all I'm saying.

The other problem though is just coming off as aloof and I don't think I need to explain how that's applied recently to the education issue.

Those are the lessons here in my view. However, you know how I said before that I was thinking about leaving the Democratic Party? Well it actually encourages me that now 20% of Democrats object to the course of this administration or are on the fence about it. That makes me feel less alone than I did when I raised the prospect of leaving the party last month. I might opt to stick around. Like as long as it's not just 3 or 5% of Democrats who have a problem with this, that makes me feel less alone, you know? It makes me feel like there's still a place in the Democratic Party for people like me here. I'm okay with being a rare dissenting Democrat as long as it's not practically just me.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 19 November 2021

KLAMarine on 19 November 2021

Kyle not guilty. Feels right...



Machiavellian on 19 November 2021

Yep, Kyle is not guilty and lets see how this develop. I know myself. If anything jumps off, I am pulling my gun and shooting first and ask questions later and I will be looking at this case as a reference. Doesn't matter if I put myself into harms way, its who ever shoots first is the winner. If I point my gun at you and I believe you are about to pull your gun, well I am going to shoot first. If I want to shoot someone, I just walk up to them make sure to get them to do something to me first and then shoot them fearing for my life in self defense. Dead men tell no tells as the saying goes.