Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
In the world of logic, this is known as "a preponderance of evidence".
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"(Krugman) Uber and the new Liberal Consensus
Democrats and the like are pushing the argument that employers should be required by public policy to pay workers more. And it's likely to become an issue with companies like Uber who hate to declare their drivers employees.
However that's also likely to paint Democrats as "anti-innovation".
When "innovation" is tied into making everyone contractors that nobody has any responsibility for, yes. Just like the innovation that allows employers to craft "just in time" work schedules which throws everyone into on-call status.
I mean, if that's really the way the market is going, then the way to fight that is a stronger social safety net (if a preponderance of the workforce is contractors, then we need a public option for middle-income health insurance, for instance).
Cops aren't taught "don't pull a gun unless you're ready to kill someone." Fire every police trainer in that county, plz.
Well-behaved as I usually am, I've never liked cops. I first see them in junior high standing too close by for comfort, and then even more in high school.
By college I started reading all of those cases of police brutality and it made me even iller.
Has it always been this way?
You gotta believe me when I scare you away, all that I wish for is that you would stayI remember somewhere they were trying to make it illegal to video cops while they're...I don't know, doing what cops do.
That doesn't sound moral.
Oh, it's here in Texas. "Within 25 feet.
"
But hey, now it's old news...
edited 25th Jul '15 4:08:19 PM by Keybreak
You gotta believe me when I scare you away, all that I wish for is that you would stayHas it always been this way?
Yes and no. Some things have been better, (a generation or two ago there was a bigger focus on community policing where cops were much more tied into the local community and far less militarized) and some things have been much, much, worse. (Feel free to research police abuses of power during and before the Civil Rights Movement, along with treatment of other minorities and such.)
While the abuses of power are very much still there, especially towards minorities, it's not (generally) as blatant or open and vicious as it once was. And society is taking more notice due to things like social media, footage of cops, and changes in society that make more people stand up and say that that sort of conduct is wrong.
At best though, US law enforcement still has a long, long, long, long, long way to go.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
It's also good to keep in mind that the United States is also an extremely large and varied nation as well, and thus the countless individual police departments all have their own unique quirks and cultures that set them apart from others.
I remember reading it up somewhere how the bright yellow safety uniforms of British policemen makes them look easier on the eyes, and thus promote a much more relaxed atmosphere and feeling from citizens while also providing an extremely effective safety measure against traffic hazards. Meanwhile, US policemen tend to predominantly dress in colors commonly associated with soldiers - black, green, khaki, and brown.
edited 25th Jul '15 4:35:08 PM by FluffyMcChicken
Our popular color here is blues of various shades.
There has been a change in training, much like with teachers. I can see a big gap in say how I went through academy which was my father's eras method and the new guys' which is ass backwards.
Now some areas have been a problem longer than others sure. But this is a country of 300 million people. What we need to do is look at the communities where people aren't having so many problems and see why.
I'm willing to bet those places will have better standards of living.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Police "blue" seems to follow the tradition set by navies though - which basically is so dark one might as well call it a lighter shade of black if anything goes. Actual shades of indisputable blue and white for the matter, at least here in southern California, are largely associated with private security guards. Otherwise, the police here dress in those militaristic colors that I listed. One thing that I've noticed from traveling is that police on the West Coast prefer baseball caps, those in the Midwest and desert states cowboy hats, and peaked caps along the East Coast.
Really, whatever happened to those funny looking cone hats that the British police wear?
Our state police is sky blue, like a grey blue. Nothing like the dark navy colors.
There is also forest green and even some places in the southwest are red with another color like khaki or white. Especially near reservation land.
Seriously, there all sorts of uniforms out there. Not all are militaristic.
And honestly? Those are easy colors to keep clean while looking professional and also being a visual shorthand for authority. It has nothing to do with intimidating or looking like a solider. That is just a coincidence that happened as the policy changed.
We didn't associate our police with soldiers until they started acting like them.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurHere's Shatner's tweet:
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."I just got to point this out seeing as how my political views on issues span the whole left/right spectrum. But both parties are equally hypocritical, and apart from a few stances, are more similar than they'd like to admit.
Democrats love to point out the rich Republicans like Romney/Kock? Brothers, lambast the nuts like Donald Trump, and call all republicans racist (even if there are blacks and Hispanics that vote republican 'cause its closer to their personal political views.)
With that being said, the Democrats ignore the fact that they have people like George Soros whose net worth is more than the GDP of several small countries, nuts like Rachel (I'm black. honestly, you got to believe me but please ignore the fact that I'm white and a (albeit former) NAACP chapter president.) Dolezal, and the gall to proclaim that they are most certainly not racist when they call black conservatives Uncle Toms and race traitors (cause obviously blacks that vote republican must be misguided! We have their best interests at heart! why wouldn't they want everything handed to them?) while ignoring that historically segregation policies like Jim crow, and the KKK were a part of the democratic party. George Wallace and Margret Sanger (speaker for the KKK, suppporter of eugenics-especially against the poor and minorities, hell Hitler was a fan of her and she's got an award named after her WTF?) anyone?
In fact, my opinion is that the best way to end all this stupid shit on both sides, is to get rid of the two party system all together. That way, you get your Democrats, Republicans, Far-rights, Far-lefts, communists, socialists, fascists, and probably many more I can't think of at the moment. That way no one party dominates, and there'd have to be actual compromising or epic Highlander-esque matches
where there can be only one (either way I'm cool with it)
Its worked well for Europe all these years,they must have gotten something right over there.
And I'm not defending either side being beholden to either party is why I registered Independent.
I'll vote how I want to damn it!
edited 26th Jul '15 12:59:28 AM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.We've been over the policy and demographic shift between Republicans and Democrats before, that the Republican party freed the slaves is entirely irrelevant.
I'm not denying that there's plenty wrong with the Democrats but we can't pretend both sides are equally at fault, the new Republicans are fucking insane and are directly responsible for a ton of our problems right now.
edited 25th Jul '15 11:58:53 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?Yeah, the "both sides are equally at fault" line is basically just Cult of Centrism nonsense. It's decided to be true because it feels true-because there's no possible way one political party could be objectively less awful than the other, right? That would imply that that party should always win, and the fact that it doesn't means there's something fundamentally wrong with the system! So people rationalize it as "oh, they're both crooks and charlatans." Which, sure, is true-but it's a question of degree.
Movie theater shooter's mental problems didn't stop gun purchase
Seems like the courts and authorities were aware that this guy was a risk and had already ruled in court that he could not own firearms due to a previous domestic incident with his family. But the gunshop salesman reported that the government's background checking system is what failed - the process was briefly halted, but afterwards the shooter's records came through clear.
It was the same weapon Houser used to kill two people and wound nine others before killing himself at a Thursday showing of "Trainwreck."
The court records reviewed by The Associated Press strongly suggest Houser should have been reported to the state and federal databases used to keep people with serious mental illnesses from buying firearms, legal experts said.
"It sure does seem like something failed," said Judge Susan Tate, who presides over a probate court in Athens, Georgia, and has studied issues relating to weapons and the mentally ill. "I have no idea how he was able to get a firearm."
Houser never should have been able to buy a gun, said Sheriff Heath Taylor in Russell County, Alabama, whose office denied him a concealed weapons permit in 2006 based on arson and domestic violence allegations, even though the victims declined to pursue charges.
Houser racked up plenty of complaints, but no evidence has surfaced of any criminal conviction that would have kept him from passing the background check required for many gun purchases. Federal law does generally prohibit the purchase or possession of a firearm by anyone who has ever been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment.
That's what happened to Houser in 2008 after his family accused him of threatening behavior, warning authorities that he had a history of manic depression or bipolar disorder and was making ominous statements. His wife removed his guns and together, the family persuaded a judge to issue a protective order keeping him away once he left the hospital.
At that point, court officials should have reported Houser's involuntary mental commitment to the Georgia database that feeds the FBI's background check system.
When Houser tried to buy the gun on Feb. 26, 2014, the system only briefly delayed his purchase, according to a federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. The seller was advised the following day that the sale could proceed.

In my experience, quote mining is probably one of the worst ways to debate those types. One out of context quote will just be met with another ad infinitum.