|
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 September 23 2017 06:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 06:41 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 06:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 06:37 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 06:32 farvacola wrote:
What do you think data collection looks like? Many rural police departments still haven't even fully implemented computers, not to mention any sort of automated data collection that runs alongside normal operations. Many of the departments most likely to garner attention also take take routine haircuts these days as budget-scared local electorates push them towards traffic tickets as revenue generators and state legislators vote away their state revenue sharing allotment. The FBI could show up in a few trouble spots, yeah, but getting ahold of solid, reliable numbers underpinning use of force, firearm discharge rates, arrest/charging rations, etc. takes way more manpower than you seem to understand. I'm thinking if some publications can muster up more accurate numbers than the FBI the FBI is failing at their job. The FBI can't force police departments to fork over data they are not collecting and keeping in easily accessible places. Which is the problem. This is what it would look like: FBI requests data from rural part of Florida. Rural part of Florida says they don't have it. FBI demands it Rural part of Florida says nope. FBI attempts to force them. Lawsuit by Florida AG for overreach or some garbage. And a whole lot of "Federal war on local police". Or they just vet the already existing counts they can find on the internet? Against what? They can't get the data from the states, so they have no ability to vet the information. They have no base line. Again, I completely agree with you that we should have this data for the public. But the FBI is not the group to demand it. The executive branch isn't the part of goverment that can demand it. You're fight is with congress. I mean death certificates seem like one place to start. Or hell, just put an asterisk next to the number. I mean you guys are being pretty silly about this? I track down death certificates as part of my job, they are not super easy to get a lot of the time. And they are not something you request on mass. Most states freak out when you request them on mass and want to know what the hell you are doing. And you want the FBI to publish inaccurate data and then what? Have people ignore the data that they admit is inaccurate?
I presume the FBI is better at this, and if not, has a bit more pull than you do. If they were staying current it wouldn't be on mass (depending on your perspective) anyway, it would be a few a day across several states.
They are already publishing inaccurate data, this inaccurate data would be more accurate.
|
If I requested all death certificates for an entire month from a state , they would laugh at me and tell me to screw off. If I did that for a town, they would tell me to be realistic. The might send that response in a letter to the FBI. So, they do have more pull.
And before you ask, it is unlikely that they sort death certificates by cause of death.
|
On September 23 2017 03:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 03:30 Nyxisto wrote:On September 23 2017 03:22 Introvert wrote:
Useless Senators promising for years to repeal and then swallow left-wing premises on healthcare so hard they can't hit Ocare even a little bit. because even the GOP is probably not stupid enough to pass legislation that starts killing their own electorate. If you strip 20-30 million people of healthcare there is no amount of ideology that is going to prevent you from losing the next election. Iunno, seems like 45+ in the Senate and most in the House were okay with doing that.
Some of them are, the rest say they are in favor to keep the 'I am against Obamacare' crowd happy while privately begging someone else to have the balls to stop it because once the effects of a repeal set it their voters will want to lynch them (despite those same voters wanting a repeal. good old "surely you didn't mean you would cut my healthcare. I thought you meant those lazy liberals")
Id bet the vast majority fall in the second camp.
|
On September 23 2017 07:33 Plansix wrote:
If I requested all death certificates for an entire month from a state , they would laugh at me and tell me to screw off. If I did that for a town, they would tell me to be realistic. The might send that response in a letter to the FBI. So, they do have more pull.
And before you ask, it is unlikely that they sort death certificates by cause of death.
Seems me and farv understand each other, but you seem to be not wanting to let this go. He recognized this problem years ago. The FBI easily could have been verifying that reports of police shooting people to death (and other homicides) were in fact cases where the police had shot people to death (and other homicides).
Since you seem hung up on death certificates, how about the FBI just call the local officials and verify this list?
http://killedbypolice.net/
|
Milo Yiannopoulos' 'Free Speech Week' At Berkeley Falls Apart, Organizers Say
"Free Speech Week," a four-day, right-wing rally at the University of California, Berkeley, has been called off, student organizers of the event tell member station KQED.
Another organizer, controversial far-right activist Milo Yiannopoulos, will reportedly hold a press conference on Saturday formally canceling the event, which was scheduled to start Sunday. A spokesperson for Yiannopoulos told KQED on Friday that he "couldn't confirm" the event would happen.
The event fell apart after the co-organizers — The Berkeley Patriot, an online publication, and Yiannopoulos — failed to confirm the guest list and book multiple indoor venues on campus.
Tensions and confusion mounted this week ahead of the event, which organizers said was planned in response to Berkeley's efforts to shut down conservative speakers.
A fierce debate about free speech on campus ignited in February when the university canceled an appearance by former Breitbart editor Yiannopoulos because of security concerns.
Steve Bannon, former adviser to President Trump, and conservative commentator Ann Coulter were reportedly scheduled to speak at this weekend's event, but their appearances were never confirmed. Coulter had also been scheduled to appear at Berkeley in April, but her speech was abruptly canceled and protests followed.
The confusion around whether Bannon and Coulter would appear is "part of the whole chaos" in the runup to the Berkeley event, said John Sepulvado, host of KQED's The California Report.
"It is part of the M.O. of these activities ... to be as confusing and disorienting as possible," Sepulvado told Here & Now's Jeremy Hobson earlier this week.
Since Yiannopoulos' appearance was canceled earlier this year, students and right-wing groups have criticized Berkeley — widely considered to be one of the centers of the free speech movement in the 1960s — for shutting down conservative speech. Berkeley officials say the school is committed to preserving free speech but at the same time must protect safety on campus.
Yiannopoulos posted a YouTube video this week saying the university is using "slippery and bureaucratic tactics" to try to prevent the event from happening.
The university did not try to cancel the event outright, as Yiannopoulos suggests, but a group of about 130 professors, graduate students and lecturers called for a boycott of classes and university events next week.
An open letter argued that many students, faculty and staff would feel unsafe at school because of the anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay rhetoric of many of the speakers. They also expressed fears that there might be an "uncontrollable confrontation" during the week.
What about the legality of such rhetoric? Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, in part because there isn't a legal definition of it, says Santa Clara University law professor Margaret Russell.
A person can only be prosecuted for a specific crime associated with the hate speech but not the speech on its own, she explains.
"I think the law is pretty clear, at least to the extent that hate speech is not considered, by itself, to be unprotected under the First Amendment," Russell told Hobson in February. "So, if people want to enact laws or if people want to prosecute people who violate the law, the prosecution can't be based on the viewpoint of the person. It has to be based on the underlying crime."
The free speech debate has grown more contentious in light of the growing number of nationwide protests since Trump took office. In August, a woman was killed after a group of white supremacists and neo-Nazis at a "Unite the Right" rally violently clashed with counterprotesters in Charlottesville, Va.
Sepulvado of KQED says it's no coincidence the far-right is using Berkeley — one of the most liberal cities in the U.S. — as the center of this debate.
"It's become a center of far-right speech because the far-right has taken the tactic — and Milo Yiannopoulos being the prime example — of essentially trolling people who wouldn't want to hear it — and that's what this is," Sepulvado said. "When I talked to Berkeley Patriot, and I said, you know, 'What is the academic value of having Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopoulos speak on campus?' They say there isn't any. They are the first to acknowledge that there is no academic value."
Source
We freely admit there is no academic value to having our walk at Berkeley. We are doing this to irritate people and make them mad. We hope to have a response proportional to how large of an asshole our guest is. Then we can finally prove that the other side is intolerant by literally trying to pick a fight with them and getting exactly what we asked for.
|
On September 23 2017 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 07:33 Plansix wrote:
If I requested all death certificates for an entire month from a state , they would laugh at me and tell me to screw off. If I did that for a town, they would tell me to be realistic. The might send that response in a letter to the FBI. So, they do have more pull.
And before you ask, it is unlikely that they sort death certificates by cause of death. Seems me and farv understand each other, but you seem to be not wanting to let this go. He recognized this problem years ago. The FBI easily could have been verifying that reports of police shooting people to death were in fact cases where the police had shot people to death. Since you seem hung up on death certificates, how about the FBI just call the local officials and verify this list? http://killedbypolice.net/
On September 23 2017 06:41 Plansix wrote:
Again, I completely agree with you that we should have this data for the public. But the FBI is not the group to demand it. The executive branch isn't the part of goverment that can demand it. You're fight is with congress.
I agreed with you a page ago. There is no political will to do this. You fight is with congress, not the FBI. The FBI does what congress gives them money to do. Congress writes that check, it will happen.
|
On September 23 2017 08:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 07:33 Plansix wrote:
If I requested all death certificates for an entire month from a state , they would laugh at me and tell me to screw off. If I did that for a town, they would tell me to be realistic. The might send that response in a letter to the FBI. So, they do have more pull.
And before you ask, it is unlikely that they sort death certificates by cause of death. Seems me and farv understand each other, but you seem to be not wanting to let this go. He recognized this problem years ago. The FBI easily could have been verifying that reports of police shooting people to death were in fact cases where the police had shot people to death. Since you seem hung up on death certificates, how about the FBI just call the local officials and verify this list? http://killedbypolice.net/ Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 06:41 Plansix wrote:
Again, I completely agree with you that we should have this data for the public. But the FBI is not the group to demand it. The executive branch isn't the part of goverment that can demand it. You're fight is with congress. I agreed with you a page ago. There is no political will to do this. You fight is with congress, not the FBI. The FBI does what congress gives them money to do. Congress writes that check, it will happen.
I don't disagree Congress has it's share of the blame, but there's no reason to pretend the FBI isn't choosing not to do better. Acting as if they are blameless isn't honest. My (I presume you two mean "our") fight is with both.
|
On September 23 2017 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 08:31 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 07:33 Plansix wrote:
If I requested all death certificates for an entire month from a state , they would laugh at me and tell me to screw off. If I did that for a town, they would tell me to be realistic. The might send that response in a letter to the FBI. So, they do have more pull.
And before you ask, it is unlikely that they sort death certificates by cause of death. Seems me and farv understand each other, but you seem to be not wanting to let this go. He recognized this problem years ago. The FBI easily could have been verifying that reports of police shooting people to death were in fact cases where the police had shot people to death. Since you seem hung up on death certificates, how about the FBI just call the local officials and verify this list? http://killedbypolice.net/ On September 23 2017 06:41 Plansix wrote:
Again, I completely agree with you that we should have this data for the public. But the FBI is not the group to demand it. The executive branch isn't the part of goverment that can demand it. You're fight is with congress. I agreed with you a page ago. There is no political will to do this. You fight is with congress, not the FBI. The FBI does what congress gives them money to do. Congress writes that check, it will happen. I don't disagree Congress has it's share of the blame, but there's no reason to pretend the FBI isn't choosing not to do better. Acting as if they are blameless isn't honest. My (I presume you two mean "our") fight is with both.
You can fight with the FBI all you want. I think it is a complete waste of time. They respond to public pressure the same way the military does, though elected officials.
Now the protest today is different. That is protesting the institution in public and showing opposition. But specific relief needs to be sought from elected officials, not asking the FBI to do stuff.
|
Replying to Simberto's earlier posts requesting some assessments of what causes Trump votes:
I will be relying in considerable part on my recollection of the book on democracy in my sig by Achen and Bartels (read it about a year ago, recollection is pretty good, though obviously not perfect); much of it will be more broad and about voting in general; also some of it is about thing sthat affect several % points, so they change closer elections and can swing things as long as they're otherwise vaguely close.
On stupidity %: alot depends of course on how you define stupid; but one could reasonably end up at a voter stupidity % of 85-95%; i.e. people who's votes are based in considerable part on terribly flawed reasoning, or just plain false info that could easily be verified to be false. These idiots are well distributed, so there's a lot who voted for trump, alot for hillary, and a lot of other votes. So it's hardly unique to votes for trump; the idiocy is just more apparent than it otherwise would be. after all, if both candidates are decent, no vote is obviously stupid, so it's harder to detect, and people who vote the smart way by sheer accident, are likewise harder to detect. If it had gone different, and trump joined and won the Dem primary and used a populist platform suited for the Dem audience, he'd still get most (like 90%) of the Dem votes in the general election probably, despite being unfit as he is. He'd also probably still get at least 40% in the general, maybe as much (or even more?) as he did as a republican.
Voters may at times seem like they're being smart and thinking about policy; but some research has shown that it's often more parroting talking points/reasoning than actually understanding/supporting them. (sadly I don't have the cite handy as it's in the book). Often voters don't truly/deeply care about policy issues, and they don't care about ideological consistency at all; they don't choose parties based on their beliefs, so much as change their beliefs to match whatever party/group they belong to. Voters will also often stick to a party tha'ts changing it's nature and what it stands for; again more of a loyalty/group identity thing than being about policy. There was a section I remember reading about the blue dog democrats from the south; and it wasn't that those voters changed to republican as the nature of the dem party shifted; as that those voters died off to old age, and new ones weren't coming in to replace them. (party identity is typically formed in the 18-30 age group, and then usually stays with the person for life; so the peculiarities of circumstances at that time end up having very long lasting effects on the voting patterns for decades).
Voting preferences are often more about group identity and "who do people like us vote for". Then people rationalize/adopt the views of the group. A lot of people straight up party line vote pretty much all the time (at mos tthey won't vote at all); and the number of people in the middle who actually might go either way is really quit esmall (i forget the number, maybe 10%). partisanship (and the nature of the biases introduced thereby) can thus cause a lot of people to accept something they woudln't accept in others. Everyone thinks their own baby is the cutest thing in the world, no matter if it's ugly; similarly people have a trend to like their own candidates, and dislike opposing ones; and the normal cognitive biases help ensure that continues to happen by making their own seem somewhat better, and the other somewhat worse. It's not hard (psychologically) to give someone you like the benefit of the doubt a bunch of times; assume they meant it in some other way, or just assume that there's some information you're missing about the situation which would make it alright (and of course you never need to look to try to figure out what that information might be). So a great many people will, in practice, simply vote for their party regardless.
American voters tend to like anti-establishment figures (or at least those who portray themselves as such); and dislike establishment figures; this has been true for a long, long time. This past election was an especially anti-establishment year imho.
When things are going well (or merely perceived as so), voters tend to vote for the status quo; when things are going poorly (or again, are merely perceived to be so, evne if that perception is only the result of a narrative that's been fed to them), people tend to vote for change. Votes for change are based a fair bit on the apperance of change (perception is everything after all), and they have little to do with whether the actual policies proposed are good or even viable. There was some interesting data worldwide about how nations responded to the depressions of the 20s/30s around the world. They didn't favor going right or left (different ones went different ways); mostly they just favored going the other way then what the previous government was, or just a different way in general. These voting patterns apply even if things being bad is in no way the fault of the government, or evne if noone has any idea what could/should be done about an issue; there were some statistics showing that very bad weather caused this phenomenon of voting for change on average (regardless of whether the gov't response for and preparation against disaster was good/bad, again this is on average. A lot of the trump voters (especially ones who switched), have the feeling of stuff being bad/awful/terrible (it's kinda bad, but not as bad as some of them say, it's a lot about perception again, and especially the rise of some right-wing talk radios since the 90's that have been pushing a doom and gloom narrative).
There's a modest but demonstrable trend whereby the longer a party has held the US presidency, the worse their odds are of winning the next one. I don't recall the causation for this; but 2 terms is often time for it to start having some effect.
Human cognition in general isn't based in rationality at all; it's mostly based in emotion; and this is true for voting as well; rationality only has a very small impact on it. and that impact is small enough that errors in the "wisdom of crowd" effects can easily override it. Just because people think/claim they're acting rationally doesn't mean they are; and even if some are individually, the observable behavior in aggregate (which includes many people who aren't acting that rationally) trends toward the aggregate conclusion not being based in rationality. Again it's more rationalization of a decision reached through other means.
Voters are often not that well informed; and furthermore, they aren't aware of the extent to which they are well or poorly informed (dunning-kruger effect). Often, those who follow politics mildly and have an affiliation, will actually score worse on tests of fact than people who follow politics even less/not at all who just don't care. This is because the people who followed it mildly but cared had biases which greatly colored their estimates of facts; whereas the others didn't have biases coloring their poor knowledge, so they at least averaged closer to reality. Many only consume a modest amount of news; and aren't junkies reading through numerous fora and watching many different sources/channels to get a diverse set of information. Most people haven't been trained to think that rigorously anyways (or don't apply it in the political arena)
Onto some more trump specific points I've heard/know about (fallacies may be involved in the thinking of course, some of which I won't bother specifying):
Many felt abandoned by Washington and the politicians (all politicians); so they wanted to vote for someone who's not a politician; they also wanted a change. They feel that things are going badly for them, and that some change would potentially fix that. This is of course exacerbated by politicians tendency to blame other politicians and to blame "politicians" in general for problems, as it makes it easier to justify trying to get someone else.
Many felt that things were terrible for them, and have been going badly for so long; they feel that all is lost unless a change happens. They're willing to gamble on trump being that change. They know it might not work out, but feel some chance is better than no chance, and without a change there's no chance. This of course assumes that things are as bad as they can get; and ignores just how much worse things are really capable of getting.
Some believed hillary really was that bad. After all, if so many can believe in aliens, or that elvis is still alive, or all sorts of kooky conspiracy nonsense; it's not surprising that a great many could believe she's actually highly corrupt, made numerous deals with foreign powers, or literally got away with murder. especially with a decades long smear campaign.
Some believe abortion is murder, and that millions are murdered each year, and that that is so overwhelmingly horrific that whatever it takes to figth that is worth it. Thus they'll ally with anyone willing to nominate judges that will rule their way on the issue; and will support their legislative goals, regardless of how otherwise horrible they are. It's like an ally with Stalin to fight Hitler scenario.
Some thought this was all an act by Trump; and that he'd have a pivot towards being presidential; they couldn't see that he wasn't going to have such a pivot. Experts of course can see that that won't happen (as is usual, experts can see farther ahead than non-experts in a field); but most people aren't experts, and are not that knowledgeable/sensitive to such things. Furthermore, they don't know which experts to trust, or distrust all experts (in part because conflict-driven media favors always having someone say the other side is horrible, so normals can't tell the difference between someone being called horrible because they truly are, and someone being called horrible because there's always some crazy on the other side who will call them horrible, and will be given air-time for that because it gives ratings); so they can't/don't heed the advice that the situation is exceptional.
that's all I can think of for now on the topics, simberto.
tldr - yes voters are that stupid, but it's not just limited to republicans; nearly all voters are that stupid.
|
On September 23 2017 08:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 08:31 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 07:33 Plansix wrote:
If I requested all death certificates for an entire month from a state , they would laugh at me and tell me to screw off. If I did that for a town, they would tell me to be realistic. The might send that response in a letter to the FBI. So, they do have more pull.
And before you ask, it is unlikely that they sort death certificates by cause of death. Seems me and farv understand each other, but you seem to be not wanting to let this go. He recognized this problem years ago. The FBI easily could have been verifying that reports of police shooting people to death were in fact cases where the police had shot people to death. Since you seem hung up on death certificates, how about the FBI just call the local officials and verify this list? http://killedbypolice.net/ On September 23 2017 06:41 Plansix wrote:
Again, I completely agree with you that we should have this data for the public. But the FBI is not the group to demand it. The executive branch isn't the part of goverment that can demand it. You're fight is with congress. I agreed with you a page ago. There is no political will to do this. You fight is with congress, not the FBI. The FBI does what congress gives them money to do. Congress writes that check, it will happen. I don't disagree Congress has it's share of the blame, but there's no reason to pretend the FBI isn't choosing not to do better. Acting as if they are blameless isn't honest. My (I presume you two mean "our") fight is with both. You can fight with the FBI all you want. I think it is a complete waste of time. They respond to public pressure the same way the military does, though elected officials. Now the protest today is different. That is protesting the institution in public and showing opposition. But specific relief needs to be sought from elected officials, not asking the FBI to do stuff.
Someone said they didn't have reason, I was suggesting they did. They do. Clearly solutions will come through legislation if at all. But that doesn't absolve the people being forced through legislation to do things they should be demanding (formally requesting) funding for already of their negligence. Or the people who didn't do it of their culpability and complicity.
Not to mention we're talking a few hours a day tops for someone making less than $100k/yr, they could make it happen if they thought having a remotely accurate body count for law enforcement was something they actually cared about (from either an institutional or human level).
|
On September 23 2017 08:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 08:39 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 08:31 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 07:33 Plansix wrote:
If I requested all death certificates for an entire month from a state , they would laugh at me and tell me to screw off. If I did that for a town, they would tell me to be realistic. The might send that response in a letter to the FBI. So, they do have more pull.
And before you ask, it is unlikely that they sort death certificates by cause of death. Seems me and farv understand each other, but you seem to be not wanting to let this go. He recognized this problem years ago. The FBI easily could have been verifying that reports of police shooting people to death were in fact cases where the police had shot people to death. Since you seem hung up on death certificates, how about the FBI just call the local officials and verify this list? http://killedbypolice.net/ On September 23 2017 06:41 Plansix wrote:
Again, I completely agree with you that we should have this data for the public. But the FBI is not the group to demand it. The executive branch isn't the part of goverment that can demand it. You're fight is with congress. I agreed with you a page ago. There is no political will to do this. You fight is with congress, not the FBI. The FBI does what congress gives them money to do. Congress writes that check, it will happen. I don't disagree Congress has it's share of the blame, but there's no reason to pretend the FBI isn't choosing not to do better. Acting as if they are blameless isn't honest. My (I presume you two mean "our") fight is with both. You can fight with the FBI all you want. I think it is a complete waste of time. They respond to public pressure the same way the military does, though elected officials. Now the protest today is different. That is protesting the institution in public and showing opposition. But specific relief needs to be sought from elected officials, not asking the FBI to do stuff. Someone said they didn't have reason, I was suggesting they did. They do. Clearly solutions will come through legislation if at all. But that doesn't absolve the people being forced through legislation to do things they should be demanding (formally requesting) funding for already of their negligence. Or the people who didn't do it of their culpability and complicity. Not to mention we're talking a few hours a day tops for someone making less than $100k/yr, they could make it happen if they thought having a remotely accurate body count for law enforcement was something they actually cared about (from either an institutional or human level).
True. But how many phone calls from a Republican Senator on Appropriations would it take to stop that from happening? My bet: One.
|
On September 23 2017 09:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 08:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 08:39 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 08:31 Plansix wrote:On September 23 2017 08:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2017 07:33 Plansix wrote:
If I requested all death certificates for an entire month from a state , they would laugh at me and tell me to screw off. If I did that for a town, they would tell me to be realistic. The might send that response in a letter to the FBI. So, they do have more pull.
And before you ask, it is unlikely that they sort death certificates by cause of death. Seems me and farv understand each other, but you seem to be not wanting to let this go. He recognized this problem years ago. The FBI easily could have been verifying that reports of police shooting people to death were in fact cases where the police had shot people to death. Since you seem hung up on death certificates, how about the FBI just call the local officials and verify this list? http://killedbypolice.net/ On September 23 2017 06:41 Plansix wrote:
Again, I completely agree with you that we should have this data for the public. But the FBI is not the group to demand it. The executive branch isn't the part of goverment that can demand it. You're fight is with congress. I agreed with you a page ago. There is no political will to do this. You fight is with congress, not the FBI. The FBI does what congress gives them money to do. Congress writes that check, it will happen. I don't disagree Congress has it's share of the blame, but there's no reason to pretend the FBI isn't choosing not to do better. Acting as if they are blameless isn't honest. My (I presume you two mean "our") fight is with both. You can fight with the FBI all you want. I think it is a complete waste of time. They respond to public pressure the same way the military does, though elected officials. Now the protest today is different. That is protesting the institution in public and showing opposition. But specific relief needs to be sought from elected officials, not asking the FBI to do stuff. Someone said they didn't have reason, I was suggesting they did. They do. Clearly solutions will come through legislation if at all. But that doesn't absolve the people being forced through legislation to do things they should be demanding (formally requesting) funding for already of their negligence. Or the people who didn't do it of their culpability and complicity. Not to mention we're talking a few hours a day tops for someone making less than $100k/yr, they could make it happen if they thought having a remotely accurate body count for law enforcement was something they actually cared about (from either an institutional or human level). True. But how many phone calls from a Republican Senator on Appropriations would it take to stop that from happening? My bet: One.
Then they'll be called out for it (though this never happened and wouldn't be any sort of excuse anyway). It's not like this is some recent thing. They've known for a long time that the statistics were trash and FBI or the media rarely bothered to make the distinction between FBI statistics and reality long after it was known that the FBI statistics were trash.
No idea why you're caping so hard for the FBI, but the fact remains, they are making a choice and it's a bad one they have to own their role in.
|
I believe the point P6 is making is that many of the FBI's activities are constrained by funding, which is determined by whatever is in the Congressional budget. There isn't some pool of money the FBI has to investigate police-related killings/brutality incidents because Congress hasn't provided for it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 23 2017 06:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 00:50 LegalLord wrote:On September 23 2017 00:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 23 2017 00:24 LegalLord wrote:On September 23 2017 00:07 Yurie wrote:On September 23 2017 00:06 LegalLord wrote:On September 23 2017 00:00 Gorsameth wrote:On September 22 2017 23:58 LegalLord wrote:On September 22 2017 23:51 Velr wrote:On September 22 2017 23:31 LegalLord wrote:
In her book, Hillary talked a bit about the way she went to small towns. She went in, generally to unfriendly crowds, barely did anything, and went away with a mindset of "they don't understand how good I am for them." That's a message that I suspect our European folk are particularly sympathetic towards but that won't, and shouldn't, get you elected. Why would exactly would europeans be sympathetic towards this? The Europeans who frequent this thread, specifically. That's an answer to who, not why. And second the question. I would love to hear why. Dunno. The hard-on for big cities and catastrophic demographics among our specific crop of Europeans is a head-scratcher to me. I suspect 70%+ of y'all live in megacities and think everyone should (megacity worship by its inhabitants is a worldwide phenomenon). But I don't know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity#Largest_citiesThe US has much more of them than the EU does, at least large ones. So going to them for votes would seem more reasonable in the US than here. The same divide between rural and big city life happens everywhere. Different problems, more people in cities, easier to tackle their problems in many cases due to higher tax base connected to it and so on. I would assume a maximum of 2/10 of European posters on this site live in megacities. Personally I live in a city with below 100k population. That assumes a fairly representative sample of Europeans in our midst, which is very likely not the case. I suppose I use "megacity" too loosely if you want to define it as >10m. Throw in some European capitals and second/third largest cities. Why is it very likely not the case? Like, is Oslo a megacity in your view? Birmingham? Cologne? Dunno, never been to those. It's less a question of how big it is than a mentality. LA, SF, NY, Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Paris, London, Berlin, all have that mentality. Mid-size cities such as Denver and Philadelphia are borderline. Cities like Phoenix and Houston are not despite being significantly larger than previously mentioned cities. And I mention it because a lot of folk here have the same mentality I see among those who are obsessed with staying in "the center of culture and innovation" and for example would never dream of moving to Texas or Siberia or some random ass European country. I am aware I'm playing fast and loose with definitions here. It might be that everything tends to be much closer in Europe than in the US, it might be a more leftward bend, it might be the language barrier (I've noticed that most conservatives come from English-native countries on this board), and it might be any number of things that I have not considered. But it's quite clear that among the Europeans who post on this board, people tend not to understand what people hate so strongly about Hillary. And that manner is very akin to the precise lack of understanding I see from people from NY/LA/SF and the like. If you think 70% of the western european posters here live in paris, london or berlin or any comparable city then you are extremely mistaken..
Maybe so. Still, many of you have the same mentality as those in the large cities on a broad range of issues (though obviously some individuals more than others). Of course "Europe" is anything but a unified cultural entity even if some people would wish it were so saying "European" is already an awkward term. And even before that I'm generalizing quite crudely.
Nevertheless, my core statement was really this:
On September 22 2017 23:31 LegalLord wrote:
In her book, Hillary talked a bit about the way she went to small towns. She went in, generally to unfriendly crowds, barely did anything, and went away with a mindset of "they don't understand how good I am for them." That's a message that I suspect our European folk are particularly sympathetic towards but that won't, and shouldn't, get you elected.
And everything else was really off-hand speculation.
|
On September 23 2017 09:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
I believe the point P6 is making is that many of the FBI's activities are constrained by funding, which is determined by whatever is in the Congressional budget. There isn't some pool of money the FBI has to investigate police-related killings/brutality incidents because Congress hasn't provided for it.
Is their funding allocation really that specific though? Sounds like a cheap excuse for not moving some money around to get it done, when really they're not doing it either because it's not a priority, or because they think it's useless until the data acquisition on the ground is improved.
|
On September 23 2017 09:35 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 09:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
I believe the point P6 is making is that many of the FBI's activities are constrained by funding, which is determined by whatever is in the Congressional budget. There isn't some pool of money the FBI has to investigate police-related killings/brutality incidents because Congress hasn't provided for it. Is their funding allocation really that specific though? Sounds like a cheap excuse for not moving some money around to get it done, when really they're not doing it either because it's not a priority, or because they think it's useless until the data acquisition on the ground is improved.
Well, the FBI submits a budget with all the different things they want and then Congress looks at it and decides which parts to fund and for how much, You're right that the FBI may not be including whatever allocation for some folks to do research on this particular issue, but I think P6 is right that pressure to make it more of a priority would be on the people and thus Congress.
I think that;s how it works, anyways.
|
on FBI; I have no particular knowledge on this case; but in general it's not uncommon on politically sensitive issues for a law to have been passed at some point saying "federal agency X is not allowed to spend any money to do Y".
I would not be surprised if there's a set of rules which basically forbids generalized information gathering by the fbi beyond what the states give them. (i.e. they might be forbidden from combing the newspapers and such for cases to try to gather stats, unless they have a specific case they're investigating; kinda like the limits on fishing expeditions if you're familiar with the term).
|
On September 23 2017 08:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +
Milo Yiannopoulos' 'Free Speech Week' At Berkeley Falls Apart, Organizers Say
"Free Speech Week," a four-day, right-wing rally at the University of California, Berkeley, has been called off, student organizers of the event tell member station KQED.
Another organizer, controversial far-right activist Milo Yiannopoulos, will reportedly hold a press conference on Saturday formally canceling the event, which was scheduled to start Sunday. A spokesperson for Yiannopoulos told KQED on Friday that he "couldn't confirm" the event would happen.
The event fell apart after the co-organizers — The Berkeley Patriot, an online publication, and Yiannopoulos — failed to confirm the guest list and book multiple indoor venues on campus.
Tensions and confusion mounted this week ahead of the event, which organizers said was planned in response to Berkeley's efforts to shut down conservative speakers.
A fierce debate about free speech on campus ignited in February when the university canceled an appearance by former Breitbart editor Yiannopoulos because of security concerns.
Steve Bannon, former adviser to President Trump, and conservative commentator Ann Coulter were reportedly scheduled to speak at this weekend's event, but their appearances were never confirmed. Coulter had also been scheduled to appear at Berkeley in April, but her speech was abruptly canceled and protests followed.
The confusion around whether Bannon and Coulter would appear is "part of the whole chaos" in the runup to the Berkeley event, said John Sepulvado, host of KQED's The California Report.
"It is part of the M.O. of these activities ... to be as confusing and disorienting as possible," Sepulvado told Here & Now's Jeremy Hobson earlier this week.
Since Yiannopoulos' appearance was canceled earlier this year, students and right-wing groups have criticized Berkeley — widely considered to be one of the centers of the free speech movement in the 1960s — for shutting down conservative speech. Berkeley officials say the school is committed to preserving free speech but at the same time must protect safety on campus.
Yiannopoulos posted a YouTube video this week saying the university is using "slippery and bureaucratic tactics" to try to prevent the event from happening.
The university did not try to cancel the event outright, as Yiannopoulos suggests, but a group of about 130 professors, graduate students and lecturers called for a boycott of classes and university events next week.
An open letter argued that many students, faculty and staff would feel unsafe at school because of the anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay rhetoric of many of the speakers. They also expressed fears that there might be an "uncontrollable confrontation" during the week.
What about the legality of such rhetoric? Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, in part because there isn't a legal definition of it, says Santa Clara University law professor Margaret Russell.
A person can only be prosecuted for a specific crime associated with the hate speech but not the speech on its own, she explains.
"I think the law is pretty clear, at least to the extent that hate speech is not considered, by itself, to be unprotected under the First Amendment," Russell told Hobson in February. "So, if people want to enact laws or if people want to prosecute people who violate the law, the prosecution can't be based on the viewpoint of the person. It has to be based on the underlying crime."
The free speech debate has grown more contentious in light of the growing number of nationwide protests since Trump took office. In August, a woman was killed after a group of white supremacists and neo-Nazis at a "Unite the Right" rally violently clashed with counterprotesters in Charlottesville, Va.
Sepulvado of KQED says it's no coincidence the far-right is using Berkeley — one of the most liberal cities in the U.S. — as the center of this debate.
"It's become a center of far-right speech because the far-right has taken the tactic — and Milo Yiannopoulos being the prime example — of essentially trolling people who wouldn't want to hear it — and that's what this is," Sepulvado said. "When I talked to Berkeley Patriot, and I said, you know, 'What is the academic value of having Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopoulos speak on campus?' They say there isn't any. They are the first to acknowledge that there is no academic value."
SourceWe freely admit there is no academic value to having our walk at Berkeley. We are doing this to irritate people and make them mad. We hope to have a response proportional to how large of an asshole our guest is. Then we can finally prove that the other side is intolerant by literally trying to pick a fight with them and getting exactly what we asked for.
The American far Right has reached a point now where they get off on pissing off everyone to their left. Even people in the middle. If they can say they pissed off a liberal, they're happy calling it a day, even if they did or said something really fucking stupid to do it. Even if the person wasn't actually a liberal. It's not about fault, it's not about facts, it's not about policy, and it's not about who's right, it's just about making people mad. In their mind, if they piss off a liberal, they're doing something right. That's as far as their thinking goes.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
To be fair, pissing off liberals is a fun and worthy pastime so I can sympathize with that goal.
|
On September 23 2017 10:17 LegalLord wrote:
To be fair, pissing off liberals is a fun and worthy pastime so I can sympathize with that goal.
The goal of one side should never be to just piss off the "other". It degenerates the conversation so quickly, and just makes divisions sharper, and more harmful. I see this coming from the Right so much more than from the Left, but that's not really the point. The point is it's childish behavior, that destroys useful discourse, and makes people vote for unqualified morons like Trump out of spite. Just look where it's gotten us. Milo and his ilk are a total waste of space, because not only do they contribute nothing useful to the political atmosphere, they're aware of it, they're doing it intentionally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
