US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8329

On August 09 2017 04:50 m4ini wrote:
@trump tweet

Well.

In all fairness, what is he supposed to do. If it's true that NK now has nukes that reach the US, it's something you can't just ignore.

On August 09 2017 05:15 m4ini wrote:
The iron dome in Israel, at least from what i can tell, works decent though. Maybe not good enough to call it "impossible to penetrate", but certainly good enough to make you feel better.

But as Zero rightfully stated, whatchu gonna do if they come for Japan. Big ally with quite a few US military installations that are likely to get hit/interfered with too. You just gonna watch, or stand up?

Because, and here's the thing, even though it's my personal opinion: a conflict with NK is inevitable. As in, impossible to prevent. As much as it is impossible to argue with ISIS, it is impossible to argue with a culture that takes the word of their leader (regardless of how retarded it is) over anything factual, even if it's impossible.

edit: not saying "right now", but generally. There will be an armed conflict. I'm absolutely convinced of that.

On August 09 2017 05:22 Mohdoo wrote:


Honestly, this is where I am at now.

What if there's no perfect solution? What if there isn't a remotely acceptable solution? What if BEST CASE SCENARIO means 2 million south koreans die?

Choices of # of deaths:

1. 2 million
2. 2.5 million
3. 10 million
4. 6 million

What if that really is the complete list of choices? I know this kind of thinking will trigger the local bernie bros, but it might be real.

On August 09 2017 05:23 zlefin wrote:

while it may well happen; it's not necessary for there to be a conflict; the conclusion "will" seems unjustified.
I see nothing that forces the conflict to occur openly, rather than staying at a simmering state of unease.

arguing with the culture doesn't matter, what matters is whether the leadership is willing to use nukes offensively; and since any offensive use would end up weakening them, they're unlikely to do so unless they have nothing to lose.

On August 09 2017 05:02 mozoku wrote:

I've talked with my CPD friend about related topics actually. It's demoralizing and frustrating to him that so few murders are brought to justice.

He mentioned a few reasons for why it happens:

1) Shooters in ghettos have knowledge in how to get rid of evidence needed to prosecute. They do things like throw away the gun to places it can't be recovered during a police chase, and then the case gets dropped because you can't prove that the shooter had the gun. Police testimony cannot prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt in most cases, and the culture among gang members is to not cooperate with authorities for these cases.

2) At least in his district, the police are badly understaffed atm. After the Justice Department ruling, the CPD promised 500 more detectives in Chicago. But they don't have the funds to hire 500 more staff, so what they did is turn 500 blue shirts into detectives. Which means 500 less policemen on the streets. They're understaffed to the point where CPD lets him pick his overtime days to make time-and-half. Any day he wants.

3) He told me (take this with a grain of salt if you wish, it's anecdotal) that if people watched police officers every day, they'd be much more upset with police officer inaction than racism. Because it's many times more prevalent. There's a saying in the CPD: "Nobody ever got fired for not showing up." He's very frustrated by it. It's a government job, so it's really hard to fire people. And there's always a risk that you could do nothing wrong and get fired for showing up to shooting calls.

This stems from cases like one he brought up. His sergeant (Pujols? It was a big local media story at one point) showed up to a shooting call, had a guy reach for his gun, sergeant warns him to stop, guy doesn't, sergeant shoots and isn't sure if he hits the guy or not. Note that the officer fired all standard protocols here. A chase ensues, guy throws gun into bushes during the chase. The guy outruns sergeant (who is a fit guy), so it's presumed that he wasn't hit by the bullet.

The guy is a found in an alley (roughly) by policeman later, and it turns out he did get hit. They take him to the hospital, and he dies from the wound.

Police department searches for gun, but can't find it. The next day, a witness shows up and describes the offender as having the same gun described by the sergeant. Since the gun can't be found, the journalists get the story and report "Chicago Policeman Shoots Unarmed Black Teenager!"

An internal police and criminal investigation is launched. Months later, a friend law-abiding citizen reports finding a gun in the bushes outside her home. The bushes are along the path the chase took, and it's the same gun described by both the sergeant and the witness.

The criminal investigation never even results in charges because there's absolutely no case. The media never releases a corrected story though, so there's still public pressure over the sergeant on the CPD. There's absolutely zero finding of wrongdoing by the CPD in their investigation, but they fire him because "he owns a bar" which is in violation of CPD policy. This "bar" was owned by his family, not him, and the CPD had been aware of it for 15 years prior to the firing.

So what happened, at the end of the day, is that he did what exactly what the public wants him to do (take the shooting call), followed all police protocols, was essentially vindicated by all evidence, but a combination of sensationalist journalism and CPD politics got him fired. And, being a police officer with that record, it's much harder to find another job than it is for the average firing. He supports his family with his income, and his career is potentially ruined.

Consequently, a significant proportion of police officers avoid risking their/their family's livelihood to show up to shooting calls where you can do nothing wrong and get fired.

It's a shitty situation for all sides.

CPD Uses Deadly Force in Violation of the Fourth Amendment and Department
Policy

CPD’s pattern or practice of unreasonable force includes shooting at fleeing
suspects who present no immediate threat
We found numerous incidents where CPD officers chased and shot fleeing persons who
posed no immediate threat to officers or the public. Such actions are constitutionally
impermissible.

CPD’s pattern or practice of unreasonable force includes firing at vehicles
without justification

We also reviewed incidents involving officers who either unlawfully fired at fleeing
vehicles, or, in violation of CPD policy, who fired after recklessly positioning themselves in the
path of a moving vehicle or refusing to move from the path of a moving vehicle. Shooting at a
moving vehicle is inherently dangerous and almost always counterproductive.

CPD officers exhibit poor discipline in discharging weapons

CPD officers make tactical decisions that unnecessarily increase the risk of
deadly encounters

We observed a trend in shootings resulting from CPD officers unnecessarily escalating
confrontations or using reckless, untrained tactics, putting themselves in a position of jeopardy
and limiting their force options to just deadly force.

CPD Uses Less-Lethal Force in Violation of the Fourth Amendment and
Department Policy

Although CPD documents generally include insufficient detail of when and how officers
use force, particularly less-lethal force, our review of CPD records made clear that CPD’s pattern
of unreasonable force includes unreasonable less-lethal force. As discussed in detail below, CPD
does not require officers to provide detailed information about the amount and type of force they
use. The form on which officers are to report force requires officers to indicate via check box,
for example, that they used a Taser6 or a “control instrument” without requiring them to explain
the manner or circumstances in which the force was used.

CHICAGO’S DEFICIENT ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS CONTRIBUTE TO
CPD’S PATTERN OR PRACTICE OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT

A well-functioning accountability system is the keystone to lawful policing. In
combination with effective supervision, a robust accountability system is required in order to
identify and correct inappropriate uses of force and other kinds of misconduct—with discipline,
training, and counseling as appropriate—which in turn helps prevent misconduct. But Chicago
seldom holds officers accountable for misconduct. In the five-year period prior to our
investigation, Chicago had investigated 409 police shootings and found that just two were
unjustified. It is similarly illustrative that the City paid over half a billion dollars to settle or pay
judgments in police misconduct cases since 2004 without even conducting disciplinary
investigations in over half of those cases, and it recommended discipline in fewer than 4% of
those cases it did examine.

On August 09 2017 05:18 Sermokala wrote:

Cities are not as attractive a job as the suburb and rual postings so the cities get all the worst cops by defaut. Its not even just pay but its a self reinforceing cycle that a poor area will not be able to pay for crime prevention so they get more crime and can't pay more for crime prevention.

On August 09 2017 05:29 m4ini wrote:


Arguing with the culture doesn't matter? It doesn't matter what "the leadership" wants to do. There's one leader. A single one. A single leader who made it very clear what the condition of his mind is.

And who would blame him, he grew up with people literally licking the dirt he walked on.

The one thing people seem to forget when they complain about how dangerous trump is: trump is a (very) washed down version of Kim. So if you give it to trump to do something stupid with nukes while at the same time argue "well NK wouldn't maybe", you're an idiot.

On August 09 2017 05:25 Plansix wrote:
Trump thinks that language makes him sound tough, but it just makes him sound like he is pissing his pants. You don’t make threats and then not follow through. What if NK makes another threat tomorrow? What will the fury and fire be, exactly?

1. Prevention: A crushing U.S. military strike to eliminate Pyongyang’s arsenals of mass destruction, take out its leadership, and destroy its military. It would end North Korea’s standoff with the United States and South Korea, as well as the Kim dynasty, once and for all. [**This is actually a nuclear strike because DJT didn't set up enough conventional forces to make this happen. And the Sorks hate DJT and voted in liberals who want to deal with the Norks because of DJT's bullshit. ]

2. Turning the screws: A limited conventional military attack—or more likely a continuing series of such attacks—using aerial and naval assets, and possibly including narrowly targeted Special Forces operations. These would have to be punishing enough to significantly damage North Korea’s capability—but small enough to avoid being perceived as the beginning of a preventive strike. The goal would be to leave Kim Jong Un in power, but force him to abandon his pursuit of nuclear ICBMs.

3. Decapitation: Removing Kim and his inner circle, most likely by assassination, and replacing the leadership with a more moderate regime willing to open North Korea to the rest of the world.

4. Acceptance: The hardest pill to swallow—acquiescing to Kim’s developing the weapons he wants, while continuing efforts to contain his ambition.

On August 09 2017 05:33 zlefin wrote:

if there's one leader, then you've PROVEN my point, not weakened it. If all that matters is the leader, then it doesn't matter what the culture says, you don't need to argue with the culture.
Yes, there's a chance he'll do something stupid; but that's a chance, not a certainty. i'm arguing on very specific points, objecting to certain claims you made.

On August 09 2017 05:30 mozoku wrote:

That depends on personality type and a huge generalization.

Like any other job, some cops view a career decisions as maximizing pay while minimizing effort. Relatedly, some cops chose to be policemen because they want to fight crime, which leads them to the inner cities mostly. In most careers, the group who chose the career because it's something they want to do usually make better employees than the former, and I'd presume it's true for cops as well.

Also, fwiw, my friend said it looks better on a resume to say you were a CPD cop in a crime-ridden neighborhood than would be to say you're a typical suburban cop. I'm not knowledgeable on the career paths of policemen, so I can't comment on the accuracy of that statement.

On August 09 2017 05:25 Yurie wrote:


The current best choice if they can launch nukes is the same as it was in the Cold War. Do nothing that crosses the bottom line of the other nation.

That is a 0 death condition in war. People will die from starvation and death sentences in NK, just as they did in Soviet but compared to a nuclear war it is still preferable.

On August 09 2017 05:40 Mohdoo wrote:


What? What if Norea Korea launches a nuke and hits the US?

On August 09 2017 05:40 Mohdoo wrote:


What? What if Norea Korea launches a nuke and hits the US?

On August 09 2017 05:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Tom Price speaking on the Opiate Crisis... A vaccine for addiction, what?