US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2014

On May 30 2015 07:35 Introvert wrote:


I've said multiple times that I never rule anyone out (though it's a long shot). I root for many of the Republicans that have small chances. That being said, I'm not going to talk about Republicans, that's just a diversion.

But I was also commenting on all this praise for Sanders. people who didn't know who he was 2 years ago are now ardent supporters and think he's great? I need more evidence, see how he performs, the scale of the lies and deception he will employ to win.

I'm just amused by how all of a sudden we have daily articles everywhere about him and how he can win! At least the Republican field is more wide open, Sanders has a worse chance at the nomination than any major Republican (by that I mean the Republicans are all around 10% or less), even if he has 15% support (while Hillary is at what, 50%+).

Chicago police officers deleted footage from a security camera at a Burger King restaurant located fewer than 100 yards from where 17-year old Laquan McDonald was shot and killed, according to a Chicago-area district manager for the food chain.
McDonald was shot 16 times by a Chicago police officer on the night of October 20, 2014. Nine of the shots struck McDonald in the back, according to the Medical Examiners report.

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was paying a man to not reveal that Hastert had abused him years ago, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are reporting.

Hastert was indicted Thursday in connection with charges that he tried to hide cash withdrawal requirements and lied to the FBI about it. As NPR's Brian Naylor reported:

"According to the U.S. attorney's office, Hastert agreed to pay $3.5 million to a person identified only as Individual A 'in order to compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct against Individual A.' The indictment charges that Hastert began withdrawing money from various bank accounts, and that beginning in approximately July 2012 he started structuring those withdrawals in increments of less than $10,000 to evade currency transaction requirements that withdrawals of $10,000 or more be reported."

The New York Times based its story on two people briefed on the evidence uncovered in the FBI's investigation into the payments. The LA Times quoted two federal law enforcement officials.

On May 30 2015 10:44 puerk wrote:
I think video cameras will fix the american police problem:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/laquan-mcdonald-investigation-305105631.html

On May 30 2015 11:18 OuchyDathurts wrote:
Having cameras is better than not having cameras, but they're still not the end all be all. There's footage of cops killing people that end up going no where. Having footage doesn't necessarily mean having accountability. I'd rather have footage of everything than not, but its no magic bullet.

The cameras need to record at all times, there's no way to turn them off.

They should have a system where the officer shows up for his shift. Grabs his radio and camera. You can't get your service weapon until your camera is pulled and checked for operation. No functioning camera no gun, you get to go out unarmed. They can't turn it off for any purpose by any means. At the end of their shift they put their equipment back, camera goes back on the charger and uploads the footage to wherever it's kept along with uploading a secure backup where it can't be touched and end up "missing".

I also like the cop insurance idea. Police carry insurance like a doctor or contractor does. The municipality pays for their insurance at the base level. If that cop never has a claim put against them they're fine. If they abuse their power and there are claims against them their insurance gets more and more expensive but the city doesn't pay any more than the base level. Police that abuse their power have to pay out of pocket, eventually go broke and become uninsurable, they can't just move to a different department.

On May 30 2015 10:44 puerk wrote:
I think video cameras will fix the american police problem:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/laquan-mcdonald-investigation-305105631.html

On May 30 2015 11:28 GreenHorizons wrote:


You got to let them take a lunch, and breaks without being monitored. Dispatch to the 3rd party and defaults to turn back on if they don't check in periodically. They should also be sending the data to a central recording office more frequently. Like whenever they are in range of their laptop it should be wirelessly sending footage.

Insurance sounds fine, real estate agents have to have insurance, employees with guns probably should too. The public shouldn't be paying for their defenses (particularly if they are found guilty). Unions should probably stop paying out retirements to convicts too.

On May 30 2015 19:43 ticklishmusic wrote:
I like the positions Sanders takes, but they are even more hopey and changey than most campaign positions which already don't exactly translate well to reality. It's just not pragmatic. He's getting judged on what he says he will do rather than what he can do, and the gap between those two is about wide as the Grand Canyon. There's a bit of a double standard in his favor, where other candidates are getting judged on having a more conservative (in the non-political sense of the word) position because they're taking the realities of the American political machine into account.

I also respect Sanders' voting record and putting his hand where his mouth is, but that sort of consistency only speaks to his personal integrity or whatever, not his ability to govern. Captain of the ship can spin the wheel all he wants, but the ship of state is not going to move if the rowers don't row and there's no wind.

On May 31 2015 00:00 oneofthem wrote:
don't think the hard left line can win. it will be a distraction. at the end of the day i'm not convinced that the hard left has a workable economic policy, both in terms of intl trade and domestic. the most productive direction is still to build a big tent that does not try to change the world but fix the rather severe critical problems in the prison-police system, underemployment and whatnot.

On May 31 2015 02:57 Jerubaal wrote:
People are still considering Hillary after all of this Clinton Foundation bullshit? I mean, I always thought they were self-aggrandizing but not really nefarious. But, shit, they should probably be tried for treason if half of this shit is true. Sadly, there's a good chance the Big Three will just ignore it and nothing will come of it. My favorite line was "Turns out Clintons were everything they accused Cheney of being".

On May 31 2015 03:11 GreenHorizons wrote:


Well, what Cheney is/was. A lot of the stuff tossed around is just bullshit, but the right used up their credibility, so the average voter doesn't care to parse between the two. Republicans have to come up with a detailed alternative and convince people they aren't going to do the opposite once they get into office. Lowering turnout for Hillary will not get them over 50%

But Republicans will basically do Sanders Job for him. The worse they make her look the better they make Sanders look. The rift on the right between Paul supporters and the hawks seems to be growing, as I'm starting to hear more commentators on the right suggest we shouldn't be over there.

I'm starting to think there may be a tiny little outside chance of a Paul vs Sanders election... That would be interesting to watch.

On May 31 2015 03:25 Jerubaal wrote:


Hokay. I guess we are just going to both say that the other is using the evidence they like, ignore what's inconvenient and accuse the other of doing the same Although, as far as I can tell, the evidence against Cheney was people screaming "HALLIBURTON!" hysterically while there is a very suspicious money trail related to the Clintons.

The whole "the system is broken. we need the people to rise up". This is just lazy, self-indulgent justification for why your preferred prejudices aren't immediately enacted. The "system" is fine, the electorate is split. Maybe politicians saying "whatever it takes to get elected" is more a reflection of the electorate than it is of them. By the way, there's no evidence that the U.S.'s lower voting rates are attitudinal and more voters (like in landslide elections) come at the cost of a more ignorant votership. Not exactly a shining endorsement.

Finally, yes, the Republicans are much more fractious than the Democrats. I don't know why you're crowing about that though. One, you're admitting that the Democrats are much more of a cabal than the Republicans, despite the fact that you accuse the Republicans of being the usurpers. Two, you're alluding to the fact that Leftism is much more interested in Power than the Right and much more willing to set aside principles to gain power.