EPT"Normal" logic would probably be to not shoot when there is a chance to hurt innocent bystanders.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2815
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10937 Posts
"Normal" logic would probably be to not shoot when there is a chance to hurt innocent bystanders. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On February 01 2016 16:43 Ghostcom wrote: What is your point silynxer? I'm trying very hard to see it, but I simply don't. I have not once talked about whether or not the officer in my opinion was correct in shooting, nor about shooting that many times - I wouldn't presume to know. I'm not absolving the officer of responsibility for either death. I'm even unsure what idelogical line you think it is that I'm pushing? Trigger happy has two related meanings, shooting many times or being fast to shoot (i.e. without assessing the situation). Both are directly related to killing bystanders. When you write Apparently she was killed by a bullet that passed through the alleged assailant - which makes it sheer bad luck and could potentially have happened even if the officer had only fired a single shot. you effectively argue that being trigger happy is actually not related to killing bystanders (if you hit your target first). Now, of course we don't know whether he was in fact trigger happy but that a bystander died in such a confrontation is, while not a conclusive proof in the legal sense, a pretty good indication that that might have been the case. Regardless of whether the bullet passed through the alleged assailant first or not. Your use of "sheer bad luck", as if nothing can be done about shooting bystanders in this way, is indicative of what you believe to be an acceptable action. If I am misunderstanding you in any way then my bad and feel free to correct me. About the ideological lines: I have seen you call people out multiple times in a similar way for shoddy arguing, which is fine. However, you only criticise (as far as I have seen) certain posters about certain topics in this way and ideological lines are a pretty good predictor about what you will argue. This makes claims to dispassionate objectivity seem a bit spurious even if you do your best in the actual argument. @WolfintheSheep: I have written in the Euro thread about this before, if you are interested look it up. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
I tend to correct people who have a loose relationship with facts. That certain posters are more likely to do this than others is really not my responsibility. Further, other posters are already being challenged by other posters here, so when they manipulate facts it is often called out hours before I get the chance - I think who I end up calling out has more to do with timing of posting/reading TL than any actual bias, although I obviously can't say myself free of any bias. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NnoGhN1.gif) I watched a video about what the caucus process is all about, and it seems a bit of a cluster to me, tbh. Interesting for sure, but damn is it a process. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
One month down, two to go. For unemployed adults in 22 states, that's how long they can count on help with the grocery bills: Starting this January, they have three months to find a job or lose their food assistance. SNAP benefits — formerly known as food stamps — have been tied to employment for two decades. Unless they are caring for children or unable to work, adults need to have a job to receive more than three months of benefits. But after the recession began, that three-month cap was waived in many areas, as state and federal governments acknowledged that jobs were hard to come by. Now, as the economy is improving, the time limits are being reimposed — by federal policy in some areas, by state legislators in others. For 22 states, the time limit returned in some or all of the state at the beginning of this year. It's the largest reinstatement of the three-month cap since the recession, The Associated Press reports. Source | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 01 2016 22:40 jcarlsoniv wrote: oh boy, it's Caucus Day y'all + Show Spoiler + I watched a video about what the caucus process is all about, and it seems a bit of a cluster to me, tbh. Interesting for sure, but damn is it a process. it's like the season premier of election season: the tv show i'll predict a narrow victory for clinton and cruz for now, with a repeat of the fiasco on the republican side where cruz wins narrowly but they do a recount and find out trump actually wins iowa by a dozen votes and flip flops from "oh he barely won" to "the good people of iowa have picked me over cruz and a win is a win". | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22494 Posts
On February 02 2016 02:10 Plansix wrote: I am interested to see how the Trump supporters deal with interacting with the political process. Specifically in Iowa’s town meeting style. I bet there are some funny stories by tomorrow. Oh boy :p yeah Mostly this is a test for Trump if his voters actually turn up. He doesn't need to win against Cruz here but he needs to show numbers. | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
| ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
But then the establishment has been incredibly hesitant to do anything at this point so maybe not. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
On February 02 2016 02:49 Seuss wrote: He also needs Rubio to have a bad day. If Rubio's poll surge translates to numbers then the establishment is very likely to throw their support behind him as the Anti-Trump. But then the establishment has been incredibly hesitant to do anything at this point so maybe not. Rubio surged in the polls? Is that because of the debate? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 02 2016 02:59 The_Templar wrote: Rubio surged in the polls? Is that because of the debate? Also a lot of voters being undecided and then making up their minds. If a poll doesn’t have undecided as an option, people will likely pick the person with the largest name recognition in a poll. That can have huge shifts in the last week, which is why Nate Silver has been saying don’t trust a lot of the polls. Most voters don’t make up their mind until the last week. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Democrats: + Show Spoiler + Republicans: + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
The democratic process takes over an hour so hopefully the Bernie people are pumped up and passionately enough to go through the entire process. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44207 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 02 2016 03:27 KwarK wrote: Btw GH if you'd like to put money on Bernie over Hilldawg I'll do that. For Iowa or for the whole thing? | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28875 Posts
trump iowa trump nh trump republican primary | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
| ||
| ||
