Political Roundtable Part XXIX

[pancakes3]

police in general don't need to be armed.

policing is either preventative (deter crime) or remedial (solve crimes). that's it. you don't need a gun to give parking tickets or answer housecalls. detectives don't need guns to dust for prints and solve crimes.

in the rare instances where guns are needed (literal shootouts) you can have SWAT.

this is literally how every other nation on earth polices. instead we pass out revolvers and focus on weapons training instead of treating and training cops to be social workers.

[Benjammin]

Since 2+2 can most certainly equal 5 why not a side of vorarephilia? Just because Jeffrey Dahmer, Hannibal Lecter, and apparently Armie Hammer didn't get it right certainly shouldn't ruin it for all the consenting and respectful adherents of voraphelia?

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a35447828/armie-hammer-bdsm-fetish-educator/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowTWCOS&src=socialflowTW

[Benjammin]

Even the NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/nyregion/new-york-nursing-homes-cuomo.html feels compelled to cover the allegations regarding a potential coverup by Andrew Cuomo and aides in NY regarding COVID-19 deaths. This is the same Andrew Cuomo who as "Governor Andrew M. Cuomo of New York received the 2020 International Emmy® Founders Award, in recognition of his leadership during the Covid-19 pandemic and his masterful use of television to inform and calm people around the world. The Emmy® was presented to Governor Cuomo, also a New York Times best-selling author, during the Academy’s live, International Emmy® Awards show streaming at 11 AM ET, on the Academy’s website www.iemmys.tv, on November 23.

“The Governor’s 111 daily briefings worked so well because he effectively created television shows, with characters, plot lines, and stories of success and failure,” said International Academy President & CEO, Bruce L. Paisner. “People around the world tuned in to find out what was going on, and New York tough became a symbol of the determination to fight back.”

The Founder’s Award is presented to an individual or organization who “crosses cultural boundaries to touch our common humanity”. Prior recipients include Vice President Al Gore, Oprah Winfrey, and Steven Spielberg."

[Ruzious]

Since 2+2 can most certainly equal 5 why not a side of vorarephilia? Just because Jeffrey Dahmer, Hannibal Lecter, and apparently Armie Hammer didn't get it right certainly shouldn't ruin it for all the consenting and respectful adherents of voraphelia?

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a35447828/armie-hammer-bdsm-fetish-educator/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowTWCOS&src=socialflowTW

I was just saying the other day - We really should have a voraphelia board.

[Zonkerbl]

police in general don't need to be armed.

policing is either preventative (deter crime) or remedial (solve crimes). that's it. you don't need a gun to give parking tickets or answer housecalls. detectives don't need guns to dust for prints and solve crimes.

in the rare instances where guns are needed (literal shootouts) you can have SWAT.

this is literally how every other nation on earth polices. instead we pass out revolvers and focus on weapons training instead of treating and training cops to be social workers.

Other nations don't have the 2nd amendment. I think there are a lot more situations in the US where cops have to have guns, because we have literally 10 times as many guns per capita as other high income countries.

I don't know how to prevent the Breonna Taylor's of the world from being killed - well, I know, but it has nothing to do with decriminalizing mental health. That's more of a "don't give cops permission to burst into people's homes unannounced and start shooting" problem. I don't know how to prevent the George Floyd's of the world from being killed - that cop didn't use a gun. That seems to be more of a "fire cops who have a history of violence" problem.

But the real issue is people looking at Breonna Taylor and George Floyd and seeing their own experiences reflected there. I think that is a problem that decriminalizing mental health issues and etc. would help, to reduce the unnecessary pressure that institutional racism is putting on everybody's lives.

[Pointgod]

police in general don't need to be armed.

policing is either preventative (deter crime) or remedial (solve crimes). that's it. you don't need a gun to give parking tickets or answer housecalls. detectives don't need guns to dust for prints and solve crimes.

in the rare instances where guns are needed (literal shootouts) you can have SWAT.

this is literally how every other nation on earth polices. instead we pass out revolvers and focus on weapons training instead of treating and training cops to be social workers.

Other nations don't have the 2nd amendment. I think there are a lot more situations in the US where cops have to have guns, because we have literally 10 times as many guns per capita as other high income countries.

I don't know how to prevent the Breonna Taylor's of the world from being killed - well, I know, but it has nothing to do with decriminalizing mental health. That's more of a "don't give cops permission to burst into people's homes unannounced and start shooting" problem. I don't know how to prevent the George Floyd's of the world from being killed - that cop didn't use a gun. That seems to be more of a "fire cops who have a history of violence" problem.

But the real issue is people looking at Breonna Taylor and George Floyd and seeing their own experiences reflected there. I think that is a problem that decriminalizing mental health issues and etc. would help, to reduce the unnecessary pressure that institutional racism is putting on everybody's lives.

Well in a sane world, police would be supporting stricter gun control laws. Gun reform and police reform should go hand in hand. You can make communities safer for police and police safer as well.

[dckingsfan]

"Decriminalize mental health issues" just doesn't have the same ring.

Reimagine doesn't work because it assumes you're still sticking with the old slave catcher idea. No. Police need to be explicitly decoupled from non-violent community interactions.

To be precise, there are lots of interactions where police training and guns are not required, and skills like mental health training are required. You have to be really clear - if you want cops to shoot less people, stop sending them where they aren't needed.

#don'tsendthepolicewheretheyaren'tneeded
#stopusingthepolicetosolvementalhealthproblems
#gunscanthelpanoverdosevictim

Reimagine how we engage with mental health issues, let's not send police where they aren't equipped.
Reimagine how we deal with drug issues, let's not send police to deal with addiction issues.

It isn't a one or the other messaging... it's both.

[doclinkin]

police in general don't need to be armed.

policing is either preventative (deter crime) or remedial (solve crimes). that's it. you don't need a gun to give parking tickets or answer housecalls. detectives don't need guns to dust for prints and solve crimes.

in the rare instances where guns are needed (literal shootouts) you can have SWAT.

this is literally how every other nation on earth polices. instead we pass out revolvers and focus on weapons training instead of treating and training cops to be social workers.

Other nations don't have the 2nd amendment. I think there are a lot more situations in the US where cops have to have guns, because we have literally 10 times as many guns per capita as other high income countries.

I don't know how to prevent the Breonna Taylor's of the world from being killed - well, I know, but it has nothing to do with decriminalizing mental health. That's more of a "don't give cops permission to burst into people's homes unannounced and start shooting" problem.

Challenge 'qualified immunity'. If cops knew they were liable for their actions they would be far more cautious. Our overseas forces have far more strict rules of engagement in occupied territories than police do over here. And excessive or unauthorized use of force triggers inquiries and loss of rank, demotion, courts martial, etc. Here cops are put on paid leave then acquitted.

It's stupid that we have more exacting rules on use of force by our military than apply to police. It should be illegal for our public servants to kill American citizens. That is the messaging. Any number of soldiers can testify to that. That they fight to defend the lives of Americans, only to return home and see that police do not even follow the basic rules of deescalation and engagement. It's just piss poor discipline and any military organization would not stand for it.

I also liked the Bill Clinton era proposal for a National Police Corps where students could attend college on the equivalent to a GI Bill, then afterwards serve a like number of years as a police officer. There you'd get more thoughtful officers who had exposure to more nuanced ways of thinking, and less group think. You'd find more of the do-gooder and crusader profile officers than the blue wall of silence types who join the force because they were beat up as kids and want to be part of the biggest toughest gang.

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[montestewart]

police in general don't need to be armed.

policing is either preventative (deter crime) or remedial (solve crimes). that's it. you don't need a gun to give parking tickets or answer housecalls. detectives don't need guns to dust for prints and solve crimes.

in the rare instances where guns are needed (literal shootouts) you can have SWAT.

this is literally how every other nation on earth polices. instead we pass out revolvers and focus on weapons training instead of treating and training cops to be social workers.

Other nations don't have the 2nd amendment. I think there are a lot more situations in the US where cops have to have guns, because we have literally 10 times as many guns per capita as other high income countries.

I don't know how to prevent the Breonna Taylor's of the world from being killed - well, I know, but it has nothing to do with decriminalizing mental health. That's more of a "don't give cops permission to burst into people's homes unannounced and start shooting" problem. I don't know how to prevent the George Floyd's of the world from being killed - that cop didn't use a gun. That seems to be more of a "fire cops who have a history of violence" problem.

But the real issue is people looking at Breonna Taylor and George Floyd and seeing their own experiences reflected there. I think that is a problem that decriminalizing mental health issues and etc. would help, to reduce the unnecessary pressure that institutional racism is putting on everybody's lives.

Well in a sane world, police would be supporting stricter gun control laws. Gun reform and police reform should go hand in hand. You can make communities safer for police and police safer as well.

Just to add another POV, I have been in a number of countries where seemingly all the police carried firearms. Not disagreeing about whether all police in US need to be armed, but since many other countries' police forces are similarly armed without nearly so many shootings, other factors must be at least partially to blame, beyond merely the fact that the police are armed.

[montestewart]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Spent today catching up on Wizards and Capitol Hill.

Yes, seemed to be a lot of grandstanding pontifications. Had the Democrats steered clear of the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach (so vulnerable to legal whataboutism), and focused on the totality of Trump's well-documented months-long campaign, culminating in and including his actions on January 6 (and even later actions), and applied a reasonable person standard--he knew or should have known what might result--not even a president standard, but an average schmuck standard, the outlier soundbites of Trump saying "peaceful" would sound as ridiculous as Ted Bundy saying, "I respect women."

The Constitutional arguments against the impeachment are silly. The president is subject to accountability from the first day in office to the last day in office, otherwise all he has to do is resign to avoid accountability. Why did Ford pardon Nixon? Because everyone, of course, knew that he was still subject to accountability after he resigned, and that accountability could only be administered by Congress. And free speech? The reasonable person standard applies here as well. You can only yell fire in a movie theater if you have good reason to believe there was actually a fire. Trump yelled "fire" for months on end without any proof, and purposefully directed an angry mob toward Congress. A reasonable person would have realized that was akin to swatting. This is protected speech? Is pointing a gun protected speech? Is saying, "I'm going to kill you," protected speech? Is a President sharing state secrets with a foreign power to the detriment of the US free speech? Insane! Only under Trumpism could such nonsense be treated as fact-based, reality-based argument.

The Democrats had a case. They had a ton of evidence. They should have taken the time, had a longer and better investigation, gathered more evidence, and called witnesses. Instead, they just did some emotional political theater. Not surprising, but still disappointing.

PS: If they had ever pinned down the timeline such that proof was offered showing Trump knew that Pence was in danger nbefore tweeting his condemnations of Pence, that might have shaken some Republicans into switching votes. Or maybe not, craven, gluttonous, grasping politivangelists that so many are.

[verbal8]

The Democrats had a case. They had a ton of evidence. They should have taken the time, had a longer and better investigation, gathered more evidence, and called witnesses. Instead, they just did some emotional political theater. Not surprising, but still disappointing.

PS: If they had ever pinned down the timeline such that proof was offered showing Trump knew that Pence was in danger nbefore tweeting his condemnations of Pence, that might have shaken some Republicans into switching votes. Or maybe not, craven, gluttonous, grasping politivangelists that so many are.

Even the defense essentially conceded the merits of the case. The GOP just needed the thinnest sliver of a process argument to acquit Trump. The great irony is that Mitch was the reason Trump was tried as an ex-President.

[TGW]

LOL at how many times the Democrats have failed on "prosecuting" Trump. You would have thought they would have learned their lesson after that Mueller debacle, but nope. If you don't have smoking gun evidence of wrongdoing, it won't work.

[Pointgod]

Other nations don't have the 2nd amendment. I think there are a lot more situations in the US where cops have to have guns, because we have literally 10 times as many guns per capita as other high income countries.

I don't know how to prevent the Breonna Taylor's of the world from being killed - well, I know, but it has nothing to do with decriminalizing mental health. That's more of a "don't give cops permission to burst into people's homes unannounced and start shooting" problem. I don't know how to prevent the George Floyd's of the world from being killed - that cop didn't use a gun. That seems to be more of a "fire cops who have a history of violence" problem.

But the real issue is people looking at Breonna Taylor and George Floyd and seeing their own experiences reflected there. I think that is a problem that decriminalizing mental health issues and etc. would help, to reduce the unnecessary pressure that institutional racism is putting on everybody's lives.

Well in a sane world, police would be supporting stricter gun control laws. Gun reform and police reform should go hand in hand. You can make communities safer for police and police safer as well.

Just to add another POV, I have been in a number of countries where seemingly all the police carried firearms. Not disagreeing about whether all police in US need to be armed, but since many other countries' police forces are similarly armed without nearly so many shootings, other factors must be at least partially to blame, beyond merely the fact that the police are armed.

Well the point is that these things work hand in hand. I don’t believe you need to disarm police, but if police were smart they’d support gun control legislation which would naturally make them safer. Less guns means, that more alternative methods can be deployed like social workers etc while only calling in armed police when a weapon is in play. That’s how it works in the UK, street patrols don’t need to carry guns, but UK also has strict gun control laws.

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Spent today catching up on Wizards and Capitol Hill.

Yes, seemed to be a lot of grandstanding pontifications. Had the Democrats steered clear of the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach (so vulnerable to legal whataboutism), and focused on the totality of Trump's well-documented months-long campaign, culminating in and including his actions on January 6 (and even later actions), and applied a reasonable person standard--he knew or should have known what might result--not even a president standard, but an average schmuck standard, the outlier soundbites of Trump saying "peaceful" would sound as ridiculous as Ted Bundy saying, "I respect women."

The Constitutional arguments against the impeachment are silly. The president is subject to accountability from the first day in office to the last day in office, otherwise all he has to do is resign to avoid accountability. Why did Ford pardon Nixon? Because everyone, of course, knew that he was still subject to accountability after he resigned, and that accountability could only be administered by Congress. And free speech? The reasonable person standard applies here as well. You can only yell fire in a movie theater if you have good reason to believe there was actually a fire. Trump yelled "fire" for months on end without any proof, and purposefully directed an angry mob toward Congress. A reasonable person would have realized that was akin to swatting. This is protected speech? Is pointing a gun protected speech? Is saying, "I'm going to kill you," protected speech? Is a President sharing state secrets with a foreign power to the detriment of the US free speech? Insane! Only under Trumpism could such nonsense be treated as fact-based, reality-based argument.

The Democrats had a case. They had a ton of evidence. They should have taken the time, had a longer and better investigation, gathered more evidence, and called witnesses. Instead, they just did some emotional political theater. Not surprising, but still disappointing.

PS: If they had ever pinned down the timeline such that proof was offered showing Trump knew that Pence was in danger nbefore tweeting his condemnations of Pence, that might have shaken some Republicans into switching votes. Or maybe not, craven, gluttonous, grasping politivangelists that so many are.

But they actually did establish that timeline. Trump called Tuberville and Tuberville told him the Vice President was on the move. It was AFTER that Trump tweeted attacking Mike Pence. Tuberville never disputed the account reported. And another thing that no one is talking about or noticed is that the account from the Republican Rep about what Trump said to McCarthy was entered into evidence and before that the Trump lawyers read a statement that Donald Trump did not dispute the evidence that was about to be entered. That was an absolute white flag from Trump’s lawyers but no one noticed because having a **** witness saying this is more compelling.

Read on Twitter

[montestewart]

The Democrats had a case. They had a ton of evidence. They should have taken the time, had a longer and better investigation, gathered more evidence, and called witnesses. Instead, they just did some emotional political theater. Not surprising, but still disappointing.

PS: If they had ever pinned down the timeline such that proof was offered showing Trump knew that Pence was in danger nbefore tweeting his condemnations of Pence, that might have shaken some Republicans into switching votes. Or maybe not, craven, gluttonous, grasping politivangelists that so many are.

Even the defense essentially conceded the merits of the case. The GOP just needed the thinnest sliver of a process argument to acquit Trump. The great irony is that Mitch was the reason Trump was tried as an ex-President.

I think what is going to play better is the blatant whatsboutisms the Dems exposed themselves to.

The process argument, rationally nonexistent, is actually supported by the rush to catch Trump while still president.

I didn’t think there would be a conviction, but hoped for more than this. Look for a drunken stampede of maskless “You Mad?” Trumpists.

[Fairview4Life]

LOL at how many times the Democrats have failed on "prosecuting" Trump. You would have thought they would have learned their lesson after that Mueller debacle, but nope. If you don't have smoking gun evidence of wrongdoing, it won't work.

It is very strange you think any evidence at all would have changed 12 Republican votes.

[Pointgod]

LOL at how many times the Democrats have failed on "prosecuting" Trump. You would have thought they would have learned their lesson after that Mueller debacle, but nope. If you don't have smoking gun evidence of wrongdoing, it won't work.

It is very strange you think any evidence at all would have changed 12 Republican votes.

Let me tell you about TGW. He literally just trolls Democrats and has a lot of self hate and guilt because he voted for Trump in 2016. He claimed that Biden would lose to Trump and hasn’t posted on this thread since Biden won until now. Just gives you an idea of his priorities

[doclinkin]

LOL at how many times the Democrats have failed on "prosecuting" Trump. You would have thought they would have learned their lesson after that Mueller debacle, but nope. If you don't have smoking gun evidence of wrongdoing, it won't work.

It is very strange you think any evidence at all would have changed 12 Republican votes.

It could have changed thousands of Republican votes. Bringing evidence clearly to people who put those particular Senators and representatives in power. The people who voted them in, did so before Trump sent a dangerous mob marching towards the Capitol. Those people had a right to see the evidence against him, and also the craven nature of the people who even now harbor and protect him.

[Fairview4Life]

LOL at how many times the Democrats have failed on "prosecuting" Trump. You would have thought they would have learned their lesson after that Mueller debacle, but nope. If you don't have smoking gun evidence of wrongdoing, it won't work.

It is very strange you think any evidence at all would have changed 12 Republican votes.

It could have changed thousands of Republican votes. Bringing evidence clearly to people who put those particular Senators and representatives in power. The people who voted them in, did so before Trump sent a dangerous mob marching towards the Capitol. Those people had a right to see the evidence against him, and also the craven nature of the people who even now harbor and protect him.

I absolutely agree they should have provided even more evidence. That doesn’t change the fact there would not have been 17 Republican votes under any circumstances. I have no doubt the house will be running investigations into Jan 6th for months if not years and all of the findings will be ridiculously bad. With Trump it is always worse than it first looks and it looks real **** bad right now as it is. But there are not 17 Republican votes for impeachment in any universe. Christ, they know he knew Mike Pence was in danger and egged on the crowd specifically targeted at Pence and they couldn’t find 17 votes. The Republican Party has no value or moral other than accumulating power. I’m not saying that investigations are meaningless. I am saying his argument that you need smoking gun evidence and you’ll get a conviction is just a silly myth.