|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
What do people think about the idea of a federal oversight agency that has jurisdiction over all nationwide police agencies? The idea of bodycams seems to have widespread support here but that one I haven't heard much about.
|
On September 28 2016 06:15 Logo wrote:
Why are so many sites reporting about the snap polls?
It's absolutely infuriating that a bunch of people dog-piling unrestricted online polls can have an actual impact on the US presidential election because journalists treat them as meaningful and only bury small disclaimers deep into the article.
Nate Silver and some others are on the internet right now talking about it. The reporting on that those polls they have any level of authority borderline deceptive. Some place reported on the Time poll showing Trump won, even though it zero safe guards against bots just bombing the shit out of it.
|
On September 28 2016 06:17 LegalLord wrote:
What do people think about the idea of a federal oversight agency that has jurisdiction over all nationwide police agencies? The idea of bodycams seems to have widespread support here but that one I haven't heard much about.
id be fine with it. a lot of states wouldnt be.
|
On September 28 2016 06:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2016 06:05 Plansix wrote:On September 28 2016 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Is there any reason cops who are raising their hoods to block dash cams shouldn't be arrested on sight? I would be absolutely terrified if I saw a cop raise his hood to block the dash cam. In fact, it may make me feel like my life was in danger and that I needed to do whatever it takes to get out alive. There are a number pictures of cops cop with the hoods raised floating around the internet. They are without context or any further information, so I am waiting on more information. But police also drive real cars that break down and sometimes help people by providing jump to the battery. I've literally been refused several times for specifically that. Cop said they weren't allowed to. Wouldn't be even slightly surprised to find out they lied though. But we know criminal cops have been manipulating what the cameras see since they first started getting used. At this point though I don't know what could actually get people to give enough of a damn to actually do something about these criminals acting on behalf of the government. I have had a local cop jump my car when the battery died during a winter storm, which is why I brought it up. Wo your mileage may very. The fact of the matter is that we don’t have enough information to make an informed decision. I agree with you that the cop do not deserve the benefit of the doubt and its weird. But I have also only seen a couple context free photos out there. There is nothing wrong with admitting we don’t have enough information at this time.
Well we have enough information to know they are intentionally obscuring their criminal activities from the cameras, it's just a matter of how frequently the hood is used to do so. I suppose it could be 0, but there's no reason to assume that there's any significant probability of it.
|
On September 28 2016 06:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 06:16 Plansix wrote:On September 28 2016 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 28 2016 06:05 Plansix wrote:On September 28 2016 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:On September 28 2016 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
Is there any reason cops who are raising their hoods to block dash cams shouldn't be arrested on sight? I would be absolutely terrified if I saw a cop raise his hood to block the dash cam. In fact, it may make me feel like my life was in danger and that I needed to do whatever it takes to get out alive. There are a number pictures of cops cop with the hoods raised floating around the internet. They are without context or any further information, so I am waiting on more information. But police also drive real cars that break down and sometimes help people by providing jump to the battery. I've literally been refused several times for specifically that. Cop said they weren't allowed to. Wouldn't be even slightly surprised to find out they lied though. But we know criminal cops have been manipulating what the cameras see since they first started getting used. At this point though I don't know what could actually get people to give enough of a damn to actually do something about these criminals acting on behalf of the government. I have had a local cop jump my car when the battery died during a winter storm, which is why I brought it up. Wo your mileage may very. The fact of the matter is that we don’t have enough information to make an informed decision. I agree with you that the cop do not deserve the benefit of the doubt and its weird. But I have also only seen a couple context free photos out there. There is nothing wrong with admitting we don’t have enough information at this time. Well we have enough information to know they are intentionally obscuring their criminal activities from the cameras, it's just a matter of how frequently the hood is used to do so. I suppose it could be 0, but there's no reason to assume that there's any significant probability of it.
Glad to see we got there in the end.
|
The Fox News website is an F5 tornado of spin right now lol.
www.foxnews.com
|
On September 28 2016 04:56 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 02:12 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 27 2016 23:23 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 23:05 kwizach wrote:On September 27 2016 18:22 Ghostcom wrote:On September 27 2016 18:05 Grumbels wrote:On September 27 2016 17:57 Ghostcom wrote:On September 27 2016 17:48 Grumbels wrote:On September 27 2016 17:32 DickMcFanny wrote:On September 27 2016 16:36 Grumbels wrote:On September 27 2016 15:54 {ToT}ColmA wrote:
as i am not an american who has to vote for either of those two..i am glad. i feel sorry for you guys out there. i can not come to terms that those two are in vote for presidency. what happend america Hillary Clinton is maybe not charismatic, but you can make a case that she is the most qualified, most honest and most transparent candidate in recent history. Obama and Sanders endorsed her, she has the full support of the democratic party. Hatred of HRC is 95% a consequence of right-wing smear campaigns and various types of sexist undercurrents in America. Viewed objectively she is a normal candidate, a normal politician, better than most and with many accomplishments throughout her life, plus the bonus factor of being potentially the first female president. Trump is an unabashedly sexist and racist cretin, literally a threat to world civilization. His ascendency is a total disgrace. Please don't equate these two in any way. . Gotta love this holier-than-though attitude. People like you are just as much to blame for Trump as right wing white supremacists are. "Sexist undercurrent" and "right wing smear", you have to be joking. There's a lot of objectionable shit about Hillary and the Clinton foundation, lots of reasonable concerns that she's just bullshitting. Please read this article which demonstrates what everyone already knows: people support the far right because they are racists and because they feel loss of status compared to minorities (see the whining about political correctness). It's not because of the left alienating people, it's because mainstream politicians can not abandon commitment to tolerance and modern governance to cater to white nationalists. And since no good deed goes unpunished they get called out of touch because of it. By the way, I don't know what you tried to imply, but sexism does exist in the USA and affects how people perceive Clinton. For instance, female authority is rejected. ( example) And there is a long history of right wing smears against Clinton. (some examples here) I might be misunderstanding you here: Are you implying that all of Trumps supporters are racists? Being racist correlates to supporting Trump and supporting the European populist parties. You can draw your own conclusions, but in my view Clinton wasn't wrong when she called half of Trump supporters "deplorable". I'm specifically asking you to expand on your statements because I don't want to jump to conclusions... Now you are stating that being racist (assumption: being racists towards non-whites) correlates to supporting Trump - which is likely true. However, I hope you can see the difference between this, and claiming that everyone who supports Trump are racist (which the initial post I responded to implied). So perhaps you can understand my confusion here? I don't see how Grumbels' initial post implied that every Trump supporter was racist. I don't think anyone believes that. I regularly see people in this thread confuse the statement "racists tend to vote for Donald Trump" with "Donald Trump supporters are all racists". It's a basic misunderstanding of the argument being made. As for sources for Grumbels' position, see here and see here for two studies pointing towards racial resentment being a strong indicator of support of Trump. I think partly the problem is sloppy use of terminology on my part. I'm guilty of conflating the following things: racist vs having racist beliefs, being a white nationalist vs supporting white nationalist movements. Racist is such a loaded word that you have to be more careful in using it, I guess. For the record, I don't think every supporter of these populist parties is actually a white nationalist, but I do think they are guilty of enabling racist rhetoric and empowering white nationalists. I also don't think that every person that has some unexamined racial biases or has feelings of resentment about other races is necessarily a hardcore movement racist, nevertheless they often serve as useful mainstream allies for actual white nationalists. Not all Trump supporters are racist and are attracted to Trump because of racism, but it's still very significant. And the fact that racial resentment correlates to Trump support just seems hugely significant and gives an important clue about his campaign and similar movements in Europe. By the way, my brother votes for the Dutch "freedom party" and as he's consuming a steady diet of these resentment-based media channels that promote white victimhood I can see him slowly radicalizing. One of his friends, who wasn't that politically active before now said the following: he doesn't believe in interracial marriage and he thinks there will be a pan-European conflict between the nationalists (the good guys) and the liberal globalists that use immigration to destroy our culture. People like Trump actually radicalize otherwise normal people, or at least play into their insecurities. It's dangerous. At least I can take you and people who think like you at their word. You really believe this stuff. I say it's a very dangerous conflation and betrays some deep flaws in your thinking you'll have to come to terms with if you're honest with yourself. Most recently, TheYango said it best: On September 24 2016 09:59 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote:
Because if we accept the premise that society teaches people to be white supremacists (or anti-black or whatever), then everyone in that society will have been taught to be a white supremacist (or anti-black or whatever) and hold those beliefs, consciously or not (and I add the consciously or not because that's what's being argued about me). So all that's left to differentiate the racists from the non-racists under this expansive definition of racism is mere virtue signalling. The people who recognize that society has taught them racist things and acknowledge that they sometimes act on what society has taught them are not racists, whereas the denier (ie yours truly) are still racists. Like I said earlier, this is an absurd dichotomy that further illustrates the absurdity of the over-expansive definition of racism. Intrinsically, I think the idea behind "everybody is a little racist" and "white privilege" and similar ideas isn't to put people into buckets of "racist" and "not racist", but just to make *everybody* (whether they're "racists" or not) a little more aware of how their perspective might color other people's impressions of the things they say or do, and to get everyone to be a little bit more introspective of how they treat people of other races. The goal is to educate and encourage introspection, which I don't think this is an ignoble goal. The problem is that "racist" is a word that has too many negative connotations and people just get hung up on the term, when applying negative monikers to people isn't the point at all. People on the left use it as a way to legitimize their overuse of a negative label and apply the label to people whose ideas they don't like, while people on the right get hung up on the term and just miss the point of what those ideas are about. I think introspection is a noble goal and hopefully new terms of dialogue will emerge to encourage that goal. I say that simply because any good intentions get lost in what has been a very blunt instrument to cast ideas out by assaulting the speaker's credibility. Why engage with a basket of deplorables? You're a rare one to meet where I live. Most people I hear with the line that I shouldn't vote for Trump because he's a racist and enables racists literally doesn't have any close family voting for Trump. It's very easy to demonize broad swaths of America because they're strangers and their reasons for choosing other than Hillary are strange. Someone's top two Trump said/did this and I could never vote for him are another person's top two Hillary said/did that and it immediately took her out of the running. + Show Spoiler +I'm only speaking to US parties here, because I haven't done enough research on the platforms of Europe's populist/nationalist/whatevers. The GOP is currently headed by a populist. The charge of racist has been leveled at other candidates. Four years ago, Romney was accused of being a racist. Cry wolf enough, and people stop taking you seriously. So I think everybody that's been crying wolf on immigration policy for decades is guilty of promoting some very inflated speech on race relations because that's the kind of politician they create by their actions to break through into the public consciousness. I mean, do you want to have a conversation with someone that will allow you you're not openly racist, maybe have some "unexamined racial biases or feelings of resentment," but will argue you're still guilty of empowering white supremacists and enabling racist rhetoric? I'd sooner accuse you of purposefully slandering people you disagree with because you ran out of real arguments against them. Or that you, Grumbels, would purposely stomp someone feeling like their culture is slipping away simply because you think only racists would be worried about that kind of stuff. But I happen to think you're not going that far to detest your fellow man and sincerely think you're helping things explaining why the people with Trump signs are guilty of enabling white racial fanatics. I dare you to read starting on this link for thirty odd pages. Maybe you can see how counterproductive current attitudes on race are. Let's debate politics, but of course at the outset we both know how your actions further the cause of known murderers (as an example). I mean you're somehow okay with promoting the aims of the scum of the earth. Yeah, 2016 right? Okay now about your thoughts on education policy... I spotted that Kwark already had this conversation with you. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=4949#98971I also don't understand your obsession with vindicating Romney. He's not some sort of misunderstood moderate politician who was wrongfully slandered. In running for president he espoused all the standard bits of GOP insanity and he is responsible for that regardless of his personal beliefs and intelligence. Did you read this article by the way? From your comments one might deduce you read it and shared its opinion.
That was one source because he compiled all the relevant quotes, but having myself watched the last three presidential campaigns, I recall that Trump is no outlier for media hate and dishonest media hate at that. But I'm generalizing the argument I just made and which apparently you, like Kwark, disagree with.
It's probably rote habit by now, but the standard left insanity passes for discourse nowadays and right discourse passes for insanity. Put differently, the left is right and the right is racist.
But you can't see this matter, so reframing the dialogue according to your preference, you yourself might not be hyperpartisan and misanthropic, but you are guilty of creating the environment that bullies rather than debates. It might take five more Trumps or a major sociocultural revolution to change your mind, if it is possible to change it. Over here on the right, we'll keep pressing for change knowing our esteemed colleagues have issues with their undesirables.
|
And there is again the myth of victim-hood of the right, as if these kinds of attitudes somehow are only a reaction to 21st century college campus discourse. The people that empower Trump have existed in the US and everywhere else since the beginning of time. Was Ezra Pound also offended by political correctness?
|
On September 28 2016 06:59 Nyxisto wrote:
And there is again the myth of victim-hood of the right, as if these kinds of attitudes somehow are only a reaction to 21st century college campus discourse. The people that empower Trump have existed in the US and everywhere else since the beginning of time. Was Ezra Pound also offended by political correctness?
Danglars' is reminding me of Trump's whining about Clinton's attack ads. Yes, there are people criticizing right-leaning ideals. No, it doesn't make you a victim. It means you are being criticized. The civil rights movement was not an attack on right wing voters.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The "doctrine of PC" is a real issue that genuinely leads to a discussion killing censorship in the name of stopping an ever-expanding concept of "racism" that reminds me of that anti-racist Hitler cartoon. A lot of Republicans use "anti-PC" in a way that just looks like a justification for what no one would disagree is genuine racism, and they end up being the "if Jesus isn't real how do you explain the Bible?" idiots of the anti-PC movement as Kwark put it - the people who even the supporters of the position distance themselves from because said people make them look bad.
+ Show Spoiler +I feel like I keep interjecting into these discussions with short and random centrist positions on the issues.
|
that video isn't even available in Germany, that can't be good LegalLord
The website links to a blog about 'white genocide' and the New World Order, you sure about that centrism claim?
|
On September 28 2016 06:17 LegalLord wrote:
What do people think about the idea of a federal oversight agency that has jurisdiction over all nationwide police agencies? The idea of bodycams seems to have widespread support here but that one I haven't heard much about.
Jurisdiction to do what? To prosecute civil rights violations? We have that. To control their operations? Unfortunately, our constitutional structure doesn't permit that.
|
It’s not just where the money went from the Donald Trump Foundation that’s drawing scrutiny to GOP nominee. It’s also how the money came in.
A new Washington Post report this week presented cases where Trump directed third parties to pay monies owed to him or his businesses directly to the Donald J. Trump Foundation--monies that arguably should have been taxed as income to Trump.
The Trump campaign has said that the payments were all aboveboard and proper, and slammed the Post's reporter for trafficking in speculation about possible but not proven legal problems. All of this comes against the backdrop of Trump refusing to release his tax returns, a stance unprecedented among modern major party presidential nominees. Without those tax returns, the exact handling of the payments and any associated taxes remains murky.
But tax experts interviewed by TPM said the new revelations by the Post include a number of red flags. At best, the practice could be described as sloppy and driven by an extreme ignorance of the law, the experts said. At worst, it fits into a pattern of using the charity as a personal piggy bank. On their own, such allegations could be dealt with a minor slap on the wrist, but coupled with the Post’s previously surfaced examples of Trump using foundation money for his own benefit they fuel major concerns about how Trump’s charity has operated.
Seth Perlman of Perlman and Perlman, a New York City firm that specializes in nonprofit law, said that accusations that Trump was illegally directing fees to his charity are tough to prove and not totally unheard of in the non-profit world.
"It becomes really troubling, however, if he was diverting or pushing fees to a nonprofit and using those fees to benefit himself. That becomes a much more serious problem," Perlman said.
One former IRS regulator told TPM that, taken all together, the financial dealings surrounding the foundation would have forced him to “give some serious thought” to recommending a criminal investigation into the foundation’s practices.
“Once you see a pattern of that kind of egregious nature, you start to think if whether there’s an appropriate criminal referral there,” said Philip Hackney, a Louisiana State University Law Center professor who previously served in the IRS’ Office of the Chief Counsel as a senior technician reviewer for exempt organizations.
Monday's Washington Post story on third-party contributions to the Trump Foundation points to two specific cases where payments to Trump for goods and services went to the charity. In the first case, Comedy Central made a $400,000 donation in exchange for his appearance on a 2011 roast. In the second, contributions amounting to nearly $1.9 million came into the charity over time from a New York man named Richard Ebers, who two unnamed sources told the Post bought goods and services from Trump or his businesses.
“Is this is a one-off or is this something he encouraged?” asked Gordon Fischer, a lawyer in Iowa who specializes in charitable giving. “Assignment of income – that you could just give income you receive to your foundation and not pay tax on it – that’s sort of taxes 101, or at least 201. It’s a pretty basic thing.”
The major issue is that the payments identified by the Post should have been taxed as income, and the campaign has waffled in explaining exactly how Trump handled the transactions and whether they were reported as income.
Source
|
On September 28 2016 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 06:59 Nyxisto wrote:
And there is again the myth of victim-hood of the right, as if these kinds of attitudes somehow are only a reaction to 21st century college campus discourse. The people that empower Trump have existed in the US and everywhere else since the beginning of time. Was Ezra Pound also offended by political correctness? Danglars' is reminding me of Trump's whining about Clinton's attack ads. Yes, there are people criticizing right-leaning ideals. No, it doesn't make you a victim. It means you are being criticized. The civil rights movement was not an attack on right wing voters.
Was it not though? I mean, many of those voters vote simply because the status quo pleased them and they did not want the trouble of living through change in society no? If I was one of those people, I would certainly see the civil rights movement as an attack on my values. Much the same way as currently I see the anti gay marriage ideals as an attack on myself (not that I plan to move to US but indirectly still).
Like, you may not intend to attack someone with your ideals, but it is not up to you to decide whether someone feels directly attacked by them.
|
Nyx You can be in good company with Hillary. She wonders why she isn't 50 pts up. I only wish for more understanding of the two sides and really detail the ignored one, purely academically speaking. I have no problem with the left losing a couple elections to learn it isn't just racism their fighting against.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 28 2016 07:33 zf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 06:17 LegalLord wrote:
What do people think about the idea of a federal oversight agency that has jurisdiction over all nationwide police agencies? The idea of bodycams seems to have widespread support here but that one I haven't heard much about. Jurisdiction to do what? To prosecute civil rights violations? We have that. To control their operations? Unfortunately, our constitutional structure doesn't permit that.
To oversee operational tasks such as organization structure, procedural protocol, and bilateral cooperation. I realize that that's a degree of subversion of the separation of powers doctrine but I could easily see it passing through the courts, justified by the elastic clause, which is meant for precisely this kind of expansion of power.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 28 2016 07:32 Nyxisto wrote:
that video isn't even available in Germany, that can't be good LegalLord
The website links to a blog about 'white genocide' and the New World Order, you sure about that centrism claim?
White power conspiracy theorists have the best hyperbolic caricatures of leftists.
The video is basically Hitler getting rid of the Jews through forced multiculturalism instead of concentration camps, using "racism" in response to any criticism. Obviously a caricature but the quotes in the video that sound like satirical parody of PC doctrine are actual quotes from figures of the anti-racist movement.
|
On September 28 2016 07:37 LegalLord wrote:
To oversee operational tasks such as organization structure, procedural protocol, and bilateral cooperation. I realize that that's a degree of subversion of the separation of powers doctrine but I could easily see it passing through the courts, justified by the elastic clause, which is meant for precisely this kind of expansion of power.
It's not a matter of what Congress can do under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it's a matter of what it can't do under the Tenth Amendment. What you've described is about as close to a gimme bar-exam question as you'll get.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 28 2016 07:43 zf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 07:37 LegalLord wrote:
To oversee operational tasks such as organization structure, procedural protocol, and bilateral cooperation. I realize that that's a degree of subversion of the separation of powers doctrine but I could easily see it passing through the courts, justified by the elastic clause, which is meant for precisely this kind of expansion of power. It's not a matter of what Congress can do under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it's a matter of what it can't do under the Tenth Amendment. What you've described is about as close to a gimme bar-exam question as you'll get.
If we get into 9th vs 10th vs. necessary and proper we're well into the territory of judicial ambiguity and arbitrarium.
|
Arbitrary, yes. Ambiguous, no, at least not this particular question. Direct federal control over state police is about as close to an unambiguously impermissible scheme as you'll find. If you don't believe me, the other lawyers in the thread can set you straight. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
