|
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. |
On June 21 2017 10:26 HKTPZ wrote:
out of curiosity
What do you guys think would have been the text book, as close to failproof as possible-way for that (/those) officer(s) to handle a situation like that where someone confesses to being armed - in a country as violent as USA?
Well, if he suspected them of being an armed robber as he claimed then he shouldn't have even approached the car on foot. Should have blasted on loud speaker for them to get out of the car with their hands up.
|
Exactly. If that officer believed that there was a risk of being shot, don't walk up to the car.
|
Looks like the most expensive House race (aka Georgia's 6th) is going to Handel. Expect some victory tweets from Trump soon.
|
On June 21 2017 10:26 HKTPZ wrote:
out of curiosity
What do you guys think would have been the text book, as close to failproof as possible-way for that (/those) officer(s) to handle a situation like that where someone confesses to being armed - in a country as violent as USA?
First we stop calling it a confession as if you're guilty of utilizing your constitutional protected right. Then on to training cops to stay in control, present clear instructions that protect both, and make the necessary statutory changes so the next one gets manslaughter.
|
On June 21 2017 10:51 PhoenixVoid wrote:
Looks like the most expensive House race (aka Georgia's 6th) is going to Handel. Expect some victory tweets from Trump soon.
Get ready for some of the strangest spin you'll ever see from both sides
|
On June 21 2017 10:51 PhoenixVoid wrote:
Looks like the most expensive House race (aka Georgia's 6th) is going to Handel. Expect some victory tweets from Trump soon.
Wow, what a shocker from a R+8 district (lol).
|
Something, something, its the DNC's fault for not supporting something, something. Maybe don't pin all your hopes on a long shot election in a 3 decade old GOP stronghold. Or just be glad you gave them a fight and get geared up for the next run.
|
Especially interesting given how absurdly close the SC race was in comparison to expectations (Trump won by +18, last race R won by +20...this R is winning by 3.2%). Lesson is, attention can be a double-edged sword, and nothing is as simple as people hope and think.
|
The SC race being that close is kinda weird, considering its demographics making it a very Trump favored district.
|
I think the elections being close in districts like these are results that should have been good news for Dems but will end up being a disappointment because of the hype people built around long shot elections.
I personally feel a twinge of disgust whenever I see how much money is poured into political competitions.
|
On June 21 2017 11:03 Nevuk wrote:
The SC race being that close is kinda weird, considering its demographics making it a very Trump favored district.
One thing is for sure: Democrats will outperform Hillary Clinton’s vote share by much more in South Carolina 5 than Georgia 6. A big reason why? Georgia’s election is on track for a historic turnout in excess of 250,000 voters. Meanwhile, South Carolina’s election may have drawn fewer than 100,000 voters. Democrats are fired up everywhere, but after all the hype, Republican voters were more engaged in Georgia than South Carolina. - David Wasserman
Guess the Democrats should manage hype better? All the excitement of this being the litmus test for 2018 midterms seems to have also energized Republicans who were determined to prove the Dems wrong.
|
|
|
The Democrats can pride themselves in being "closer than they should have been" in their defeat at the hands of a member of the party that Donald Trump heads.
|
It is so much money there is no way that it is all tracked and confirmed to be legal. Since citizens united, it has been an ever escalating amount of cash with no additional oversight.
On June 21 2017 11:10 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 11:03 Nevuk wrote:
The SC race being that close is kinda weird, considering its demographics making it a very Trump favored district. Show nested quote +One thing is for sure: Democrats will outperform Hillary Clinton’s vote share by much more in South Carolina 5 than Georgia 6. A big reason why? Georgia’s election is on track for a historic turnout in excess of 250,000 voters. Meanwhile, South Carolina’s election may have drawn fewer than 100,000 voters. Democrats are fired up everywhere, but after all the hype, Republican voters were more engaged in Georgia than South Carolina. - David Wasserman Guess the Democrats should manage hype better? All the excitement of this being the litmus test for 2018 midterms seems to have also energized Republicans who were determined to prove the Dems wrong.
Good luck. People are not in the mood to pick good fights. They just want to fight and this was the outlet. Democrats couldn't temper expectations if they wanted to.
|
On June 21 2017 07:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Uh... what? So we'd now have 6 Service branches? Show nested quote +
WASHINGTON –– Lawmakers on Tuesday took the first step towards establishing a ‘Space Corps’ within the Air Force — similar to the way the Marine Corps functions in the Navy — by drafting legislation that would require the new organization to be set up by January 1, 2019.
As the House Armed Services Committee prepares to vote on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the strategic forces subcommittee — which oversees military space matters — released its proposed additions to the bill. The subcommittee has scheduled a formal legislative mark-up session for Thursday.
The subcommittee’s top Republican, Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, and top Democrat, Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee, said the subcommittee’s mark would require the Air Force to establish the Space Corps to serve “as a separate military service within the Department of the Air Force and under the civilian leadership of the Secretary of the Air Force.”
“There is bipartisan acknowledgement that the strategic advantages we derive from our national security space systems are eroding,” Rogers and Cooper said in a prepared statement. “We are convinced that the Department of Defense is unable to take the measures necessary to address these challenges effectively and decisively, or even recognize the nature and scale of its problems.”
“Thus, Congress has to step in,” the statement continues. “We must act now to fix national security space and put in place a foundation for defending space as a critical element of national security. Therefore, our Mark will require the creation, under the Secretary of the Air Force, of a new Space Corps, as a separate military service responsible for national security space programs for which the Air Force is today responsible. We view this as a first, but critical step, to fixing the National Security Space enterprise.”
The Space Corp would be led by its own chief, who would sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a six-year term, the bill says. It would be a position equal to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and would answer to the Secretary of the Air Force.
The subcommittee’s markup of the bill would also set up a U.S. Space Command that would be a sub-unified command under U.S. Strategic Command, a move lawmakers hope would improve the integration of space operations in warfighting.
The subcommittee’s action on the NDAA is one of the early steps in a lengthy legislative process. The bill would still need to get approval from the full committee before it could be debated by the House, but the chamber isn’t expected to vote on the NDAA until after the Fourth of July holiday. The legislation would also need to pass the Senate, which is working on a defense authorization bill of its own. The House and Senate must pass identical bills before sending the legislation to the White House to be signed into law by the president.
The Senate Armed Services Committee is not scheduled to hold its full markup of the NDAA until June 28.
Current Air Force leadership opposes setting up a Space Corps. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May, Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said he believes the move would only cause confusion.
“I don’t support it at this time,” the general said. “Right now, to get focused on a large organizational change would actually slow us down…Whether there’s a time in our future where we want to take a look at this again, I would say that we keep that dialog open, but right now I think it would actually move us backwards.”
Source
I wonder what the age limit for joining is. I'd reenlist to be a space Marine. SC2 is coming to life!
|
Just so everyone is sure, the GOP groups DUMPED money into this race once it became close.
|
I wonder whether these kinds of results point to the fact that trying to energize a base with funds can be toxic in a climate as acrimonious as this where you probably start energizing the opponents as well, especially once the counter spend-a-thon kicks into high gear.
There certainly seemed to be an enthusiasm gap in SC favoring Dems, though not enough to win.
Disclaimer: drawing that kind of conclusion from two (three if you count Kansas) data points may be hazardous to your health
|
|
|
On June 21 2017 11:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 07:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Uh... what? So we'd now have 6 Service branches?
WASHINGTON –– Lawmakers on Tuesday took the first step towards establishing a ‘Space Corps’ within the Air Force — similar to the way the Marine Corps functions in the Navy — by drafting legislation that would require the new organization to be set up by January 1, 2019.
As the House Armed Services Committee prepares to vote on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the strategic forces subcommittee — which oversees military space matters — released its proposed additions to the bill. The subcommittee has scheduled a formal legislative mark-up session for Thursday.
The subcommittee’s top Republican, Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, and top Democrat, Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee, said the subcommittee’s mark would require the Air Force to establish the Space Corps to serve “as a separate military service within the Department of the Air Force and under the civilian leadership of the Secretary of the Air Force.”
“There is bipartisan acknowledgement that the strategic advantages we derive from our national security space systems are eroding,” Rogers and Cooper said in a prepared statement. “We are convinced that the Department of Defense is unable to take the measures necessary to address these challenges effectively and decisively, or even recognize the nature and scale of its problems.”
“Thus, Congress has to step in,” the statement continues. “We must act now to fix national security space and put in place a foundation for defending space as a critical element of national security. Therefore, our Mark will require the creation, under the Secretary of the Air Force, of a new Space Corps, as a separate military service responsible for national security space programs for which the Air Force is today responsible. We view this as a first, but critical step, to fixing the National Security Space enterprise.”
The Space Corp would be led by its own chief, who would sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a six-year term, the bill says. It would be a position equal to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and would answer to the Secretary of the Air Force.
The subcommittee’s markup of the bill would also set up a U.S. Space Command that would be a sub-unified command under U.S. Strategic Command, a move lawmakers hope would improve the integration of space operations in warfighting.
The subcommittee’s action on the NDAA is one of the early steps in a lengthy legislative process. The bill would still need to get approval from the full committee before it could be debated by the House, but the chamber isn’t expected to vote on the NDAA until after the Fourth of July holiday. The legislation would also need to pass the Senate, which is working on a defense authorization bill of its own. The House and Senate must pass identical bills before sending the legislation to the White House to be signed into law by the president.
The Senate Armed Services Committee is not scheduled to hold its full markup of the NDAA until June 28.
Current Air Force leadership opposes setting up a Space Corps. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May, Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said he believes the move would only cause confusion.
“I don’t support it at this time,” the general said. “Right now, to get focused on a large organizational change would actually slow us down…Whether there’s a time in our future where we want to take a look at this again, I would say that we keep that dialog open, but right now I think it would actually move us backwards.”
Source I wonder what the age limit for joining is. I'd reenlist to be a space Marine. SC2 is coming to life!
I think the outer space treaty might be somewhat relevant to your considerations.
|
On June 21 2017 11:09 CobaltBlu wrote:
I think the elections being close in districts like these are results that should have been good news for Dems but will end up being a disappointment because of the hype people built around long shot elections.
I personally feel a twinge of disgust whenever I see how much money is poured into political competitions.
Personally I never expected the Democrats to win any of these early races .It's too soon after the election and the vast majority of Trump voters are still in "give em a chance!" mode. All that matters is the political environment in fall 2018.
If the result of some dumb single election like this encourages Senate Republicans to push through that health bill, then more power to them; expedite that path to implosion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
