US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3916

On June 01 2016 06:14 Plansix wrote:

Glad you agree that it is bad to edit down quotes to exactly the parts you want.

Two Republicans intimately familiar with Bill Kristol’s efforts to recruit an independent presidential candidate to challenge Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have told Bloomberg Politics that the person Kristol has in mind is David French -- whose name the editor of the Weekly Standard floated in the current issue of the magazine.

French is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. According to the website of National Review, where French is a staff writer, he is a constitutional lawyer, a recipient of the Bronze Star, and an author of several books who lives in Columbia, Tenn., with his wife Nancy and three children.

Reached in Israel late Tuesday afternoon, Kristol declined to comment on his efforts to induce French to run. The two Republicans confirmed that French is open to launching a bid, but that he has not made a final decision. One of the Republicans added that French has not lined up a vice-presidential running mate or significant financial support. However, according to this person, some conservative donors look favorably on the prospect of French entering the fray.

In Kristol’s piece in the Standard’s June 6 issue, he argued that “the fact of Trump's and Clinton's unfitness for the Oval Office has become so self-evident that it's no longer clear one needs a famous figure to provide an alternative.” After mentioning Mitt Romney and other possibilities such as Judd Gregg and Mel Martinez, Kristol invoked French’s name and résumé, writing, “To say that he would be a better and a more responsible president than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is to state a truth that would become self-evident as more Americans got to know him.”

Ever since Kristol tweeted on Sunday that an “impressive” independent candidate “with a strong team and a real chance” is now prepared to enter the presidential fray, the political world has been engaged in a fevered guessing game over whom that person might be.

Shortly after Kristol fired off that provocative missive on Sunday, he left for Israel and has been avoiding the press, speaking only through a series of tweets taunting Trump for responding to Kristol’s Sunday tweet. Speculation had centered on 2012 Republican nominee Romney, freshman Nebraska senator Ben Sasse, and other current and former state and federal office-holders.

According to one person deeply involved in the efforts to recruit an independent challenger, the search has focused on individuals who have one or more of the following three traits seen as vital for credibly launching such a bid: fame, vast wealth, and elective experience. Reached by phone Tuesday evening, French declined to answer questions about any possible run.

On June 01 2016 06:29 Mohdoo wrote:


No, my point was that his clarification of "oh ho ho what a joker I am!" is completely irrelevant to my point. My point is that he did not provide an answer and, even if "jokingly", reinforced what he was already saying by how he answered previous questions. It is him finding another way to dismiss what is the giant thing everyone is criticizing him for.

Further, what he says after that has not a single thing to do with the question. He uses the topic of his supporters to talk them up as being some kinda huge majority. "Will 18,000 people be welcomed by the 2,000 already there?" r o f l.

On June 01 2016 06:37 KwarK wrote:
I was joking far less than I would have liked to have been. Policing is a noble profession that, at least in America, is completely let down by the people who do it. I respect the role of the police in society too much to have much respect for the American police force. As much as people like to claim it's just a majority of bad apples ruining the good name of the minority I feel that's just not good enough.

On June 01 2016 06:37 KwarK wrote:
I was joking far less than I would have liked to have been. Policing is a noble profession that, at least in America, is completely let down by the people who do it. I respect the role of the police in society too much to have much respect for the American police force. As much as people like to claim it's just a majority of bad apples ruining the good name of the minority I feel that's just not good enough.

On June 01 2016 06:50 On_Slaught wrote:


Considering it is done by people, this quote can be applied to literally every single profession on planet earth with any degree of importance.

Despite that, your argument seems hypocritical. You fault police for treating all black people like the black criminals they interact with, yet you fault the good police with the sins of the bad. I'd contend that it is almost as problematic and damaging to assume every single cop you interact with as corrupt and racist.

I guess where we differ is I don't believe the "majority" are bad apples. This seems to me like a clear cut example of the "vocal minority," insofar as the term can relate.

Having said all that, things can, and should, get better (ESPECIALLY when it comes to deadly force). I am NEVER against increased scrutiny of police officers. I think that body cameras are a step in the right direction.

On June 01 2016 06:50 On_Slaught wrote:


Considering it is done by people, this quote can be applied to literally every single profession on planet earth with any degree of importance.

Despite that, your argument seems hypocritical. You fault police for treating all black people like the black criminals they interact with, yet you fault the good police with the sins of the bad. I'd contend that it is almost as problematic and damaging to assume every single cop you interact with as corrupt and racist.

I guess where we differ is I don't believe the "majority" are bad apples. This seems to me like a clear cut example of the "vocal minority," insofar as the term can relate.

Having said all that, things can, and should, get better (ESPECIALLY when it comes to deadly force). I am NEVER against increased scrutiny of police officers. I think that body cameras are a step in the right direction.

On June 01 2016 06:55 Gorsameth wrote:

The good cops allowing the bad cops to continue their practice. Therefor they are partially complacent in my eyes.

If there was concerted effort from within the police to fight the clear problems that exist you might have a point.
Sadly we see time and again that police close ranks and protect their own.

On June 01 2016 07:00 KwarK wrote:

How exactly is it that there even can be a minority bad police abusing the civil and constitutional rights of citizens? Surely the good police would immediately arrest them, right? Logically it would be impossible for the bad police to get away with anything when they're surrounded by the highly trained and moral professionals whose job is literally to stop them doing anything illegal.

And yet we very rarely hear of cases in which one officer is getting too physical and another immediately arrests the first officer for assault. What we do hear about all the fucking time is when the second officer will falsify his report to cover the first officer only for a video of the incident to prove both of them liars. How is it that you think these bad apples are evading the scrutiny of all those good police officers around them? Is every video the first time those officers have been involved of anything of that sort perhaps?

If we accept the premise that there is a majority of good and moral police officers for whom police brutality and corruption are an anathema which they would fight with far more urgency and dedication than, say, arresting people for weed, where are they all?

On June 01 2016 07:30 KwarK wrote:
Why is it absurd to think that if a cop was beating the shit out of me and his buddy is watching I should expect the second cop to intervene on my behalf? I know it's an odd idea to consider, that a police officer would actually arrest a police officer, but please explain exactly why it's wrong to expect that? Also at what point should the second officer intervene, assuming he is a good and moral officer? Like how many kicks to get from the starting point of "I'll say he was resisting on the report" all the way through "maybe I'll mention this to the captain" and to "wow, maybe I should do something"?

On June 01 2016 07:29 Gorsameth wrote:
You go wrong in the 2nd sentence... No not every person is a 'mortal threat' until proven otherwise.
That attitude is what created trigger happy cops. Your not a soldier in an active warzone. Your a police officer.

On June 01 2016 07:25 On_Slaught wrote:


This does happen more than I'd like to see. I have seen it getting better though. This is an example where public scrutiny and pressure is actually good, as we are seeing more and more departments come down hard on wrong doers.




I don't understand why you jump straight to "police brutality" and "corruption." Posters here seem to ignore the fact that Police work is an extremely stressful and dangerous job. People fail to empathize with the fact that every single person a Police officer interacts with is assumed to be a mortal threat to the officer until proven otherwise. This stressful and dangerous environment inevitably leads to poor choices. It leads to overreactions or misunderstandings. To jump straight to "police brutality" and "corruption" as an explanation for mistakes is too much. This part of policing will NEVER go away, even if you had the most intelligent and morally upstanding people in the world doing the job.

Moving on, it's absurd to think a cop would "arrest" another cop on the spot. Let's not forget that they are literally police officers who jobs it is to investigate other police officers. It's not as if police never get fired for misconduct. Furthermore, we don't know how often police keep each other in check since such things would never be made into a story in the NYT. Considering things aren't significantly worse than they are (see 3rd world countries), it's fair to assume they keep each other in check on a regular basis. I mean, if they are all such racist animals, why aren't things much worse?

Ultimately, I don't consider this a constructive discussion. The discussion should be WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT? Yes, there are many bad cops. Yes, there is an institutional problem where cops are discouraged from dissenting or breaking ranks. HOW DO WE FIX IT?

On that, again I'll cite body cameras as pivotal. By putting cameras on every officer (a technology that will only get better with time), no longer is it my word vs theirs. They will be held accountable by an impartial piece of technology. Think of the show COPS. The cops on that show tend to act with the upmost professionalism because they know they are being constantly watched. If every cop felt that same pressure, it can be a tool for forcing positive change and weeding out the bad cops.

The more difficult thing to fix is the institutional problems. A possible solution is more 3rd party oversight. This is definitely something I need to think more on.

On June 01 2016 07:40 On_Slaught wrote:


You won't see me disagreeing with you on this issue. To do nothing in this situation is as bad as the person doing the beating. This again comes back to an institutional problem, where police officers feel they are incapable of stepping out of line. I have already stated that this is a major problem that needs to be addressed.

Having said that, you talk as if our cops are modern day Gestapo, doing this do people in the street every day. This is NOT a regular occurrence.



Police are a product of their environments. There is a reason we aren't seeing these stories pop up in Beverly Hills and Martha's Vineyard. Because the police attitude there is different by virtue of their environment and the level of crime. Let's not be so naive as to think the city you work in doesn't matter when it comes to how dangerous you consider the average citizen you interact with. Even then, every time something bad happens and makes national news, you'll see cops in every type of city get tense and act with more caution.