Political Roundtable Part IX

[nate33]

Yes, this is frustrating, but it's also somewhat understandable. The police are a very tight-knit fraternity. They have to depend upon each other and trust each other in life-or-death situations. Their loyalty to each other is going to be much stronger than in other occupations. It goes with the territory.

I agree that it's how it is, but I disagree that it's understandable, let alone justifiable. Yes, police have to depend on each other and trust each other. So, they *should* be hyper-vigilant about expelling any "frat brother" who is willing to stretch the truth, take shortcuts, abuse their authority, etc. -- because subpar and/or corrupt police work makes the rest of the police force's job more difficult and more dangerous.

If I'm a cop working a beat, I wouldn't want to work with a partner who shows a propensity for escalating situations without provocation, because they increase the odds that I'm caught in a violent situation. I wouldn't want a colleague whose shoddy work undermines the public's trust in *my* work. I wouldn't want to serve alongside officers who lie to cover up their own mistakes, because their lies frustrate the ability of the department to function as a meritocracy.

To use a more current example: I wouldn't want to serve alongside an officer who'd tell a handcuffed Black woman in the back of a squad car that White people's fear of Black people is justified because of Black people's "violent tendencies," because that officer is more likely to make bad, unsafe decisions in the field. And, if that officer were to get promoted, he'd propagate his world view to others; he'd adopt protocols and policies to codify those views; and he'd train officers to act accordingly. He'd manage a police department that is distrustful and afraid of the citizens they're charged to protect -- and they'd receive the same distrust and fear in kind from those citizens in response. An honest, hardworking, properly-motivated police officer should *not* want that outcome.

Instead, police departments have allowed (and, arguably, encouraged) a culture where officers stick up for and defend even the bad actors in their midst. Their misplaced loyalties do the public a disservice, to be sure. But it's also self-defeating, to the extent that it makes their jobs harder and more dangerous.

I'm not so sure that this is the case. My guess is that "good cops" really don't like or approve of "bad cops" and they do what they can behind closed doors to get the bad cops out, or at least reassigned to departments where they do less harm. It's just that they keep these squabbles in house. They present a united front to the public.

I must say, I'm not an authority on the inner workings of police force politics. This is only a guess on my part.

[montestewart]

The FBI Director said it, so it must be true.

Yeah, I don't think he's widely viewed as credible right now, as opposed to years past, when the FBI Director's word was bond.

Not credible according to who?

According to all the people who heard the official FBI report on Clinton's email debacle and wondered why, with all the official findings, they recommended against prosecution. Seems like something that might have merited a grand jury examination, although not necessarily an indictment.

Regarding him and FBI directors of the past, if you trust them all and find them credible, well, it's a free country.

[montestewart]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/us/miami-officer-involved-shooting/

Wow....what a load of garbage. Right, we were trying to shoot the white guy not the black guy.

Oh, OK, not a racially motivated shooting at all. He didn't mean to shoot the black therapist. He meant to shoot the autistic white man sitting cross legged in the street playing with a toy truck. What a relief! Hallelujah!

[closg00]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/us/miami-officer-involved-shooting/

Wow....what a load of garbage. Right, we were trying to shoot the white guy not the black guy.

I guess it works that we will assume that all law enforcement officers are guilty until proven innocent. Let's not wait until we get all the facts and then make a decision.

Let's assume that police and their families aren't scared out there:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/us/police-ridealongs.html?_r=0

Let's make the assumption that this movement won't have unintended consequences that increase violence against blacks.

To me, a load of garbage is not weighing all the facts first...

Infer what you will.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/north-miami-cop-suspended-for-giving-conflicting-statements-in-charles-kinsey-shooting-8621774

North Miami Cop Suspended for Giving "Conflicting" Statements in Charles Kinsey Shooting


Police also announced that another, high-ranking officer, Commander Emile Hollant, had been suspended without pay after he gave "conflicting" statements to investigators about the shooting.

The city declined to say specifically what statements Hollant had made, citing the information as part of an "ongoing investigation."

"This will not be tolerated," Spring said of Hollant's changing testimony.

It appears that some posters are not aware that police fired 3 SHOTS at 2 unarmed people. There is ZERO police spinning or deflecting to be done here especially after the suspension for falsifying the report.

[keynote]

Yes, this is frustrating, but it's also somewhat understandable. The police are a very tight-knit fraternity. They have to depend upon each other and trust each other in life-or-death situations. Their loyalty to each other is going to be much stronger than in other occupations. It goes with the territory.

I agree that it's how it is, but I disagree that it's understandable, let alone justifiable. Yes, police have to depend on each other and trust each other. So, they *should* be hyper-vigilant about expelling any "frat brother" who is willing to stretch the truth, take shortcuts, abuse their authority, etc. -- because subpar and/or corrupt police work makes the rest of the police force's job more difficult and more dangerous.

If I'm a cop working a beat, I wouldn't want to work with a partner who shows a propensity for escalating situations without provocation, because they increase the odds that I'm caught in a violent situation. I wouldn't want a colleague whose shoddy work undermines the public's trust in *my* work. I wouldn't want to serve alongside officers who lie to cover up their own mistakes, because their lies frustrate the ability of the department to function as a meritocracy.

To use a more current example: I wouldn't want to serve alongside an officer who'd tell a handcuffed Black woman in the back of a squad car that White people's fear of Black people is justified because of Black people's "violent tendencies," because that officer is more likely to make bad, unsafe decisions in the field. And, if that officer were to get promoted, he'd propagate his world view to others; he'd adopt protocols and policies to codify those views; and he'd train officers to act accordingly. He'd manage a police department that is distrustful and afraid of the citizens they're charged to protect -- and they'd receive the same distrust and fear in kind from those citizens in response. An honest, hardworking, properly-motivated police officer should *not* want that outcome.

Instead, police departments have allowed (and, arguably, encouraged) a culture where officers stick up for and defend even the bad actors in their midst. Their misplaced loyalties do the public a disservice, to be sure. But it's also self-defeating, to the extent that it makes their jobs harder and more dangerous.

I'm not so sure that this is the case. My guess is that "good cops" really don't like or approve of "bad cops" and they do what they can behind closed doors to get the bad cops out, or at least reassigned to departments where they do less harm. It's just that they keep these squabbles in house. They present a united front to the public.

Perhaps. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And the proliferation of cell phones, dash cams, and body cams has revealed a sobering amount of questionable activity in the past few years. And that's putting aside the DoJ's findings on systematic corruption in the Ferguson PD -- and while we hope that the Ferguson PD is an aberration, we don't really have any reason to believe that's the case.

So, I'd wager that it's likely one of three scenarios:
1) Incidents of police misconduct would be even *more* widespread, but for the valiant efforts of the silent majority of good police in each department. Bad apples, when identified, are quickly rooted out; shoddy and/or corrupt and/or bigoted officers aren't rewarded with promotions. So, the public incidents of police abuse are really just aberrations. But, that also means that there's not much hope for things to get better (since PDs are already doing all they can to avoid and guard against these incidents).
2) The silent majority disapproves of the actions of "bad apples," but their misplaced loyalty has stayed their hand in actually doing something to punish and/or fire the "bad apples".
-or-
3) Police departments have fundamental flaws in their DNA that are difficult to root out -- as such, there *is* no silent majority of good police. While not all police are out there killing people with no due process, perhaps a much higher percentage of police departments are taking more short cuts with evidence, with policies, etc., that we may realize or appreciate. We focus on the outlier events where someone ends up dead, but the actual problems beneath the surface of the public's consciousness is far more widespread.

I don't know which one of the above it is. I suppose I hope it's #2, since it has the most upside. If there is a silent majority of good police, hopefully the continued attention drawn by these bad incidents motivates them to change police culture from defaulting to protect/go light on their colleagues' misdeeds to zealously prosecuting those who abuse their power and make their jobs more difficult. I admit that, at times, I fear that it's #3.

I must say, I'm not an authority on the inner workings of police force politics. This is only a guess on my part.

I'm no expert either. But public perception -- whether accurate or inaccurate -- directly impacts how effective a PD can be in serving their community.

[nate33]

I'm assuming it's somewhere between #1 and #2.

[Induveca]

Suicide bombing in Germany just now outside music festival, thus far only bomber dead. 10+ injured. Horrible for the victims.

Why are we attempting to bring in tens of thousands of undocumented Syrians again? The risk/reward ratio weighs 99.9% towards risk. Anyone being honest with themselves sees that right now. The "Trojan horse" risk is too apparent.

[DCZards]

I'm not so sure that this is the case. My guess is that "good cops" really don't like or approve of "bad cops" and they do what they can behind closed doors to get the bad cops out, or at least reassigned to departments where they do less harm. It's just that they keep these squabbles in house. They present a united front to the public.

I must say, I'm not an authority on the inner workings of police force politics. This is only a guess on my part.

If "good cops" are indeed speaking out against "bad cops" behind closed doors then they should probably reconsider that approach. Because "keeping it in house" leaves the impression that the good cops are condoning the behavior of bad cops, which leads to ill-will toward both the good and bad cops.

[popper]

Wow. WikiLeaks latest email dump includes proof that a Politico reporter sent a pre-publication story to the DNC so they can coordinate a response with Hillary before publication. He gave the story to the DNC before he even gave it to his own editors. Hopefully this will be front page news tomorrow. I won't hold my breath though.

Again, a story about the leaks was on the front page of WaPo earlier this afternoon (it got nudged down the page by the VP announcement, but it's still there). I'm sure that all sorts of media outlets will have follow up stories in the days to come.

Fox News' (brilliant) business model has been great for ratings, but it's also had the unfortunate side effect of tainting many people's impression of *all* media outlets -- ones with a decided editorial slant, and those with a fairly clear and honorable demarcation between the editorial and reporting staff.

The DNC leaks have been front page news on major newspapers, and dominated the Sunday morning TV show news cycle. The media outlets are doing their job: reporters are uncovering out more details and getting responses from all camps involved; analysts and pundits are offering their opinion.

In other words: if popper had held his/her breath until the "MSM" covered this story, he/she would've been breathing easy for quite some time by now.

I'm still holding my breath. Contrary to your post, as far as I know, the WAPO has never revealed to its readers, hard copy or electronic, that a Politico reporter submitted his article to the DNC for review before submission to his own editors. If you know otherwise, I'd be happy to commend you for the clarification.

[keynote]

Again, a story about the leaks was on the front page of WaPo earlier this afternoon (it got nudged down the page by the VP announcement, but it's still there). I'm sure that all sorts of media outlets will have follow up stories in the days to come.

Fox News' (brilliant) business model has been great for ratings, but it's also had the unfortunate side effect of tainting many people's impression of *all* media outlets -- ones with a decided editorial slant, and those with a fairly clear and honorable demarcation between the editorial and reporting staff.

The DNC leaks have been front page news on major newspapers, and dominated the Sunday morning TV show news cycle. The media outlets are doing their job: reporters are uncovering out more details and getting responses from all camps involved; analysts and pundits are offering their opinion.

In other words: if popper had held his/her breath until the "MSM" covered this story, he/she would've been breathing easy for quite some time by now.

I'm still holding my breath. Contrary to your post, as far as I know, the WAPO has never revealed to its readers, hard copy or electronic, that a Politico reporter submitted his article to the DNC for review before submission to his own editors. If you know otherwise, I'd be happy to commend you for the clarification.

Oh, my bad. I read your post to express skepticism about the MSM covering the leaks story in general (which it has) -- not the specific instance of a reporter coordinating sending a pre-publication story to a potential source.

I agree that I haven't seen much coverage of the latter -- so I retract the snark in my previous post.

But, I also don't find this particular leak troubling. I assume reporters provide advance excerpts of stories to potential sources all of the time as some sort of quid pro quo to get an exclusive reaction, interview, or a scoop down the line. If a reporter crossed an ethical line by providing the entire story (or by providing the story before submitting it to their editor), then that's a scandal for the reporter, not for the recipient -- who has no ethical obligation to refuse the reporter's draft, as far as I'm concerned.

As for the DNC coordinating their response to the reporter's story w/ Hillary's campaign: I think their bias is more effectively shown in other, flashier emails (e.g., staffers considering using Sanders' alleged atheism against him) -- which is why the MSM has focused on those emails instead. As best as I can tell, this particular leak is embarrassing for the reporter and for Politico, but merely redundant for the DNC.

[popper]

The DNC leaks have been front page news on major newspapers, and dominated the Sunday morning TV show news cycle. The media outlets are doing their job: reporters are uncovering out more details and getting responses from all camps involved; analysts and pundits are offering their opinion.

In other words: if popper had held his/her breath until the "MSM" covered this story, he/she would've been breathing easy for quite some time by now.

I'm still holding my breath. Contrary to your post, as far as I know, the WAPO has never revealed to its readers, hard copy or electronic, that a Politico reporter submitted his article to the DNC for review before submission to his own editors. If you know otherwise, I'd be happy to commend you for the clarification.

Oh, my bad. I read your post to express skepticism about the MSM covering the leaks story in general (which it has) -- not the specific instance of a reporter coordinating sending a pre-publication story to a potential source.

I agree that I haven't seen much coverage of the latter -- so I retract the snark in my previous post.

But, I also don't find this particular leak troubling. I assume reporters provide advance excerpts of stories to potential sources all of the time as some sort of quid pro quo to get an exclusive reaction, interview, or a scoop down the line. If a reporter crossed an ethical line by providing the entire story (or by providing the story before submitting it to their editor), then that's a scandal for the reporter, not for the recipient -- who has no ethical obligation to refuse the reporter's draft, as far as I'm concerned.

As for the DNC coordinating their response to the reporter's story w/ Hillary's campaign: I think their bias is more effectively shown in other, flashier emails (e.g., staffers considering using Sanders' alleged atheism against him) -- which is why the MSM has focused on those emails instead. As best as I can tell, this particular leak is embarrassing for the reporter and for Politico, but merely redundant for the DNC.

Fair enough keynote. I respect your views and posts.

[tontoz]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced Sunday she is stepping down as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee at the end of the party's convention, which is set to begin here Monday.

The Florida congresswoman's resignation -- under heavy pressure from top Democrats -- comes amid the release of thousand of leaked emails showing DNC staffers favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the party's 2016 primary contest.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/

This election is such a joke.

[closg00]

I wonder what else the Russians are doing to help Trump, will they hack the electronic voting machines?

[nate33]

This election is such a joke.

I think this election season has been wonderful.

Too many people mistakenly think that this election is going bad because of the candidates that each party has selected. I think they have the cause and effect wrong. Neither political party has done a good job in representing its constituents for 20 years because the voters are far less globalist and far less pro-big-business than the leadership of each party. The voters have held their nose and voted for the candidate selected by the donor class for years. But this year, with the candidacies of Trump and Sanders, the voters have finally received a true choice. What we are seeing is the will of the people being finally addressed, rather than ignored. It's shaking the system up the donor class establishment types are having temper tantrums. It's glorious.

Trump is by no means a perfect messenger. The perfect messenger would have been a guy like Pat Buchanan. But we've been down that road. Buchanan ran twice and couldn't break the monopoly of power enjoyed by the media class and donor class. They simply ignored him and refused to fund his message. It took a guy like Trump, with the personality, resources and marketing talents to get an anti-globalist message out despite the coordinated resistance from elites on both parties and the media. If Trump had been more conventional, then he would have been shut down by the power brokers, just as Bernie Sanders ultimately was.

[nate33]

I wonder what else the Russians are doing to help Trump, will they hack the electronic voting machines?

With the Russians being such a menace, do you think maybe that Hillary Clinton should have been more careful with her email server? What was in those 30,000 emails that she deleted? Sensitive classified information? The identities and locations of foreign operatives? Military strategies? Did our soldiers or the soldiers of our allies get killed because of it? I don't know.

It's amazing that we're all so worried about Russians now that their hacking appears to help Trump, but it wasn't much of a problem when their hacking was likely compromising our national security in catastrophic ways.

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah, I don't think he's widely viewed as credible right now, as opposed to years past, when the FBI Director's word was bond.

Not credible according to who?

According to all the people who heard the official FBI report on Clinton's email debacle and wondered why, with all the official findings, they recommended against prosecution. Seems like something that might have merited a grand jury examination, although not necessarily an indictment.

Regarding him and FBI directors of the past, if you trust them all and find them credible, well, it's a free country.

The FBI director did not file charges against Hillary Clinton because the people in charge of the investigation knew from the very beginning that Hillary was not accused of any criminal activity. She did not intentionally sell secrets to a foreign government, she didn't commit treason, which is punishable by DEATH. She was potentially guilty of administrative malpractice, which would get me a sternly worded reprimand on my permanent record or, at worst, fired.

Don't perpetuate this idiotic idea that Hillary is a criminal and should go to jail. Chanting lies over and over again do not make them true.

Seriously, guys. Our country is in serious danger of falling apart at the seams because of lies like this. You have to stop. If we can throw our political enemies in jail by chanting lies until enough people believe they are true, then, well... the conservatives on this thread have been complaining that the United States is in decline. Do you understand how spreading fascist propaganda accelerates that decline?

I understand if you don't like Hillary Clinton. But this thing about putting Hillary in jail - it's cute as long as it's one of your stupid conservative bubble chamber talking points that never amount to anything because it's so nonsensical. But when you're on the verge of actually electing Big Brother, it's transforms from hilariously illogical buffoonery to Newspeak. Just stop already.

[dckingsfan]

I guess it works that we will assume that all law enforcement officers are guilty until proven innocent. Let's not wait until we get all the facts and then make a decision.

Let's assume that police and their families aren't scared out there:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/us/police-ridealongs.html?_r=0

Let's make the assumption that this movement won't have unintended consequences that increase violence against blacks.

To me, a load of garbage is not weighing all the facts first...

Infer what you will.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/north-miami-cop-suspended-for-giving-conflicting-statements-in-charles-kinsey-shooting-8621774

North Miami Cop Suspended for Giving "Conflicting" Statements in Charles Kinsey Shooting


Police also announced that another, high-ranking officer, Commander Emile Hollant, had been suspended without pay after he gave "conflicting" statements to investigators about the shooting.

The city declined to say specifically what statements Hollant had made, citing the information as part of an "ongoing investigation."

"This will not be tolerated," Spring said of Hollant's changing testimony.

It appears that some posters are not aware that police fired 3 SHOTS at 2 unarmed people. There is ZERO police spinning or deflecting to be done here especially after the suspension for falsifying the report.

We have gone through this several times now - the officers are guilty in the court of public opinion until proven otherwise. Until they take there time, do the investigation properly and then make the documents public all this does is to fan the flames of hatred.

And that has the unintended consequence of having law enforcement officers that carry guns more afraid of the public. It makes law enforcement officers not want to go into the most dangerous areas.

There will be many cases where the officers are negligent, incompetent or worse. And there will be many cases where the officers are justified.

We have all seen the immediate reactions to ALL of the incidents.

[dckingsfan]

Not credible according to who?

According to all the people who heard the official FBI report on Clinton's email debacle and wondered why, with all the official findings, they recommended against prosecution. Seems like something that might have merited a grand jury examination, although not necessarily an indictment.

Regarding him and FBI directors of the past, if you trust them all and find them credible, well, it's a free country.

The FBI director did not file charges against Hillary Clinton because the people in charge of the investigation knew from the very beginning that Hillary was not accused of any criminal activity. She did not intentionally sell secrets to a foreign government, she didn't commit treason, which is punishable by DEATH. She was potentially guilty of administrative malpractice, which would get me a sternly worded reprimand on my permanent record or, at worst, fired.

Don't perpetuate this idiotic idea that Hillary is a criminal and should go to jail. Chanting lies over and over again do not make them true.

Seriously, guys. Our country is in serious danger of falling apart at the seams because of lies like this. You have to stop. If we can throw our political enemies in jail by chanting lies until enough people believe they are true, then, well... the conservatives on this thread have been complaining that the United States is in decline. Do you understand how spreading fascist propaganda accelerates that decline?

I understand if you don't like Hillary Clinton. But this thing about putting Hillary in jail - it's cute as long as it's one of your stupid conservative bubble chamber talking points that never amount to anything because it's so nonsensical. But when you're on the verge of actually electing Big Brother, it's transforms from hilariously illogical buffoonery to Newspeak. Just stop already.

Not picking on you Zonk - but we trust the FBI but not our local police.

[popper]

This is just too rich to pass up.

Leaked DNC Documents Show Plans To Reward Big Donors With Federal Appointments

CHUCK ROSS
Reporter

Democratic National Committee documents recently released by WikiLeaks include spreadsheets and emails that appear to show party officials planning which donors and prominent fundraisers to provide with appointments to federal boards and commissions.
The documents, which were circulated among top DNC officials in April, could raise legal questions for the party, says Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group.

“The disclosed DNC emails sure look like the potential Clinton Administration has intertwined the appointments to federal government boards and commissions with the political and fund raising operations of the Democratic Party,” Boehm told The Daily Caller.

“That is unethical, if not illegal.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-dnc-documents-show-plans-to-reward-big-donors-with-federal-appointments/#ixzz4FQRC6M1H


DNC erects four-mile eight-foot tall fence around Philly convention site

JULY 24, 2016
BY KYLE OLSON

To the Democratic National Committee elites, keeping average Americans away from their convention is a good idea, while protecting the southern border from intruding terrorists, rapists and murderers is a bad one.

The DNC has erected a four-mile fence around its convention site at Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center. (Isn’t it ironic they’re doing so much to protect a site named after a bank?)

The fence, which appears to be about 8 feet tall, is intended to keep out any individuals with whom Democratic Party leaders, delegates and other liberal elites would rather not mingle.

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/dnc-erects-four-mile-fence-around-philly-convention-site/


Bernie Sanders Supporters Chant ‘Lock Her Up’ in Philadelphia Protest Against Clinton

BYRON TAU
Jul 24, 2016 10:02 pm ET

PHILADELPHIA — It’s not just Republicans that want presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in prison.
At a lively Sunday march in support of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, chants of “lock her up,” “Hillary for Prison” signs and t-shirts and calls for indictment were common among the most ardent supporters of Mr. Sanders, who arrived in Philadelphia to make their voices heard to the delegates attending the Democratic National Convention.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/24/bernie-sanders-supporters-chant-lock-her-up-in-philadelphia-protest-against-clinton/

[Zonkerbl]

Not picking on you Zonk - but we trust the FBI but not our local police.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I'm talking about bold lies being chanted by the crowd at the RNC convention, lies intended to justify incarcerating political enemies without due process.

So your statement appears to be a complete non sequitur to me.