In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Trump leads Carson 32% to 22%, in a new poll by The Washington Post and ABC News.
And the real estate mogul leads the retired neurosurgeon 28% to 18% in a new Fox News poll. ... In the Washington Post/ABC News poll, Rubio is in third at 11%, followed by Cruz at 8%, Bush at 6% and former tech CEO Carly Fiorina at 4%. In the Fox News poll, Rubio and Cruz are tied at 14% and Bush has 5%.
Trump has been sent from providence. Go to bed Ben.
Why is Rubio such a large favorite get the nomination now guys with the bookies? Is it because people from other candidates will flock to him as others drop out?
3 things come to mind for me.
1. He has Koch brother backing + other wealthy patrons (winner of Koch brother's love gets 1B+. He is in competition with Cruz, who is not establishment and more right-wing). So Marco Rubio has the eye of the establishment + Koch brothers/billionaires. 2. He doesn't have baggage (but also no experience...). 3. He is cuban (he can cozy up with hispanics. Remember Mitt Romney once jokingly saying that if he was part Mexican the election would have been over.)
But number 1 is most important.
Actually, Rubio's ascension is a direct result of his outstanding debate performances, but good try to make any viable GOP candidate look ridiculous. I personally think that Rubio is a GOP version of what Obama was in 2008, and therefore it would be a grave mistake to nominate him.
His debate performance hasn't been spectacular by any means, especially when he has had a number of questionable moments (e.g. his inability to do basic math).
His rise is a direct result of Jeb's implosion, which caused Rubio to be the de facto establishment candidate.
Trump leads Carson 32% to 22%, in a new poll by The Washington Post and ABC News.
And the real estate mogul leads the retired neurosurgeon 28% to 18% in a new Fox News poll. ... In the Washington Post/ABC News poll, Rubio is in third at 11%, followed by Cruz at 8%, Bush at 6% and former tech CEO Carly Fiorina at 4%. In the Fox News poll, Rubio and Cruz are tied at 14% and Bush has 5%.
Trump has been sent from providence. Go to bed Ben.
Why is Rubio such a large favorite get the nomination now guys with the bookies? Is it because people from other candidates will flock to him as others drop out?
3 things come to mind for me.
1. He has Koch brother backing + other wealthy patrons (winner of Koch brother's love gets 1B+. He is in competition with Cruz, who is not establishment and more right-wing). So Marco Rubio has the eye of the establishment + Koch brothers/billionaires. 2. He doesn't have baggage (but also no experience...). 3. He is cuban (he can cozy up with hispanics. Remember Mitt Romney once jokingly saying that if he was part Mexican the election would have been over.)
But number 1 is most important.
Actually, Rubio's ascension is a direct result of his outstanding debate performances, but good try to make any viable GOP candidate look ridiculous. I personally think that Rubio is a GOP version of what Obama was in 2008, and therefore it would be a grave mistake to nominate him.
On November 23 2015 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Besides those numbers being very misleading (read: wrong) the cop covering crowd seems to fail to understand that it's not just getting killed but getting killed by the people we're paying to protect us that's the problem, along with the whole cops almost never going to trial/getting convicted when they do murder someone.
Cops aren't paid to protect "us", they're paid to protect "society". If they suspect someone might be dangerous, they'll prioritize their own life before the other person's.
I don't think it's wrong to hold them accountable, but most people have pretty unrealistic expectations for cops.
On November 23 2015 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Besides those numbers being very misleading (read: wrong) the cop covering crowd seems to fail to understand that it's not just getting killed but getting killed by the people we're paying to protect us that's the problem, along with the whole cops almost never going to trial/getting convicted when they do murder someone.
Cops aren't paid to protect "us", they're paid to protect "society". If they suspect someone might be dangerous, they'll prioritize their own life before the other person's.
I don't think it's wrong to hold them accountable, but most people have pretty unrealistic expectations for cops.
a lot of those people have lived outside of the US and know how cops can behave in contrast.
On November 23 2015 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Besides those numbers being very misleading (read: wrong) the cop covering crowd seems to fail to understand that it's not just getting killed but getting killed by the people we're paying to protect us that's the problem, along with the whole cops almost never going to trial/getting convicted when they do murder someone.
Cops aren't paid to protect "us", they're paid to protect "society". If they suspect someone might be dangerous, they'll prioritize their own life before the other person's.
I don't think it's wrong to hold them accountable, but most people have pretty unrealistic expectations for cops.
a lot of those people have lived outside of the US and know how cops can behave in contrast.
Unless these places have comparable violent crime levels to the states, I really don't see how you think this is actually a point.
This is only a part of the broader problem, but it is a problem. Our police force needs to be vigilant of drug gangs and drug trafficking, groups that are highly violent. Urban areas also have similar problems as well...
On November 23 2015 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote: Besides those numbers being very misleading (read: wrong) the cop covering crowd seems to fail to understand that it's not just getting killed but getting killed by the people we're paying to protect us that's the problem, along with the whole cops almost never going to trial/getting convicted when they do murder someone.
Cops aren't paid to protect "us", they're paid to protect "society". If they suspect someone might be dangerous, they'll prioritize their own life before the other person's.
I don't think it's wrong to hold them accountable, but most people have pretty unrealistic expectations for cops.
a lot of those people have lived outside of the US and know how cops can behave in contrast.
Unless these places have comparable violent crime levels to the states, I really don't see how you think this is actually a point.
The role of the police force within the state is a moral question, not a pragmatic one. You can aspire to something and fall short. The US police force aspires to be something very different to what Europeans would recognize as good policing. It's not simply that the circumstances are different, the philosophy is too.
with no 2nd amendment and glorification culture of guns, which basically means that anyone can have a gun at any time which in turn makes the police officer's job even harder, I doubt we will see chicago levels of gang violence for example. even with the recent influx of refugees.
On November 23 2015 13:15 Doublemint wrote: with no 2nd amendment and glorification culture of guns, which basically means that anyone can have a gun at any time which in turn makes the police officer's job even harder, I doubt we will see chicago levels of gang violence for example. even with the recent influx of refugees.
Wrong. 2nd amendment makes the cops job easier, assuming they know who they have issued CC permits to. The threat of an armed 'victim' deters a lot more crimes than you would think.
However... I agree with the 'glorification of guns'. This is a direct result of liberal media and hollywood portraying gun violence and violence in general as 'consequence free' and 'cool' in the eyes of the young and easily impressionable.
On November 23 2015 13:15 Doublemint wrote: with no 2nd amendment and glorification culture of guns, which basically means that anyone can have a gun at any time which in turn makes the police officer's job even harder, I doubt we will see chicago levels of gang violence for example. even with the recent influx of refugees.
Wrong. 2nd amendment makes the cops job easier, assuming they know who they have issued CC permits to. The threat of an armed 'victim' deters a lot more crimes than you would think.
On another note, would be an interesting (and completely insane) experiment to see how a department of police from say a Scandinavian country would fare if put on duty for 1 month in the US in a burdened area
On November 23 2015 17:00 Warfie wrote: Oh boy here we go again...
On another note, would be an interesting (and completely insane) experiment to see how a department of police from say a Scandinavian country would fare if put on duty for 1 month in the US in a burdened area
Well it would be interesting to see police shootings vs civilian shootings by city, not sure if that's out there but we know the police have been drastically under reporting how many people they kill every year so those statistics are kind of useless. Cops don't get shot at as often as they'd like to make you think though.
There's no question Scandinavian cops would do better than cops in the cities that don't have that excuse. Though I'd imagine some additional fire arms training and some acclimation would have them getting better results within a year even in the toughest areas.
They did a much better job than I would expect from the NYPD on an NYC subway.
Lately it seems like the word "deescalation" isn't in the police's vocabulary and there's no question that has led to more violence
Even if the numbers Trump tweeted were "correct", they're pretty meaningless without knowing how many active duty police officers and people of each ethnicity there are (if there were 1 police officer per every 100 African Americans, he would have the same rate of killing per capita). For even easier understanding, if there are a quarter as many cops as white people, the cops are actually killing at twice the rate you would expect if they were "just white people". That's not great news.
But numbers without context or understanding didn't stop his immigration "statistics," his unemployment "statistics," or pretty much any of the gibberish he's said in the past, and no one will ever question him on it, so it doesn't matter really.
It's interesting, actually, because I've noticed at debates that when he gets called out on something/ignored his gut impulse is always to quote official sounding numbers when insulting other people (polls especially). He seems to think the numbers give him magical protection against stupidity or something. Kinda like how Bernie evades by mentioning the income gap and Clinton evaded with 9/11.
This is only a part of the broader problem, but it is a problem. Our police force needs to be vigilant of drug gangs and drug trafficking, groups that are highly violent. Urban areas also have similar problems as well...
We sell those drug cartels the majority of their fire arms, which they buy with money they get selling the US drugs. Failed state us to constant influx of illegal fire arms and money from the US.
This is only a part of the broader problem, but it is a problem. Our police force needs to be vigilant of drug gangs and drug trafficking, groups that are highly violent. Urban areas also have similar problems as well...
We sell those drug cartels the majority of their fire arms, which they buy with money they get selling the US drugs. Failed state us to constant influx of illegal fire arms and money from the US.
Who is "we"? They get a lot of weapons through straw purchases but I don't see how that's "us" "selling cartels the majority of their fire arms". Beyond that, how do you know where most cartel guns are sourced? Is there some information I'm unaware of? Or just pulling that out your ass Trump style?
This is only a part of the broader problem, but it is a problem. Our police force needs to be vigilant of drug gangs and drug trafficking, groups that are highly violent. Urban areas also have similar problems as well...
We sell those drug cartels the majority of their fire arms, which they buy with money they get selling the US drugs. Failed state us to constant influx of illegal fire arms and money from the US.
Who is "we"? They get a lot of weapons through straw purchases but I don't see how that's "us" "selling cartels the majority of their fire arms". Beyond that, how do you know where most cartel guns are sourced? Is there some information I'm unaware of? Or just pulling that out your as Trump style?
We collectively, as in the US as a whole. We reasonable number of drugs from Mexico. And a lot of guns travel from the US to Mexico, which is an issue the US government is not willing to address.
The worst part about it is that there are so many weird restrictions on government agencies when it comes to gun sales, good numbers are hard to come by. But its a lot of firearms that travel to Mexico and there are some gun manufacturers that would like it to stay that way.
Which is why I responded to calling Mexico a failed state, because its not like the US is making their life any easier.
Ah so your source is a paper locked behind a paywall. If your assertion is widely accepted as fact I'm sure you'll have no problems finding a free source.
to be sure the u.s. prison system and cops in certain areas are hugely destructive, but there are way more threats and the whole narcotic problem too.
i'd say europe's current situation is similar to the u.s. without the narcotics trade and related gang problems. the segregation and lack of law enforcement presence is shared with u.s. in the 60's. the gangs were able to take over power vacuum neighborhoods neglected by police. europe does not have this yet, but hte conditions are still ripe.
On November 24 2015 00:23 heliusx wrote: Ah so your source is a paper locked behind a paywall. If your assertion is widely accepted as fact I'm sure you'll have no problems finding a free source.
EPT
