EPTPeople can take complacency for a long time, but when the dam breaks, revolution happens. I would like to prevent revolution if possible if we can make a sustainable change where everyone can agree upon. Do you identify things are bad enough for things to change at a faster pace than what the bureaucratic machine would normally allow for?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2421
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5237 Posts
People can take complacency for a long time, but when the dam breaks, revolution happens. I would like to prevent revolution if possible if we can make a sustainable change where everyone can agree upon. Do you identify things are bad enough for things to change at a faster pace than what the bureaucratic machine would normally allow for? | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4462 Posts
On June 15 2020 00:01 Uldridge wrote: But I'm sure you can see that the current climate isn't one we want to keep, Danglars. There's too many issues with certain infrastructures to keep them the way they are. I've seen your take on reform policies a few pages back, but do you think they'll be fast enough? People can take complacency for a long time, but when the dam breaks, revolution happens. I would like to prevent revolution if possible if we can make a sustainable change where everyone can agree upon. Do you identify things are bad enough for things to change at a faster pace than what the bureaucratic machine would normally allow for? Revolution would likely mean the death of the vast majority in the big cities.Which would result in a swing back to conservatism. Don't know if people have been following CHAZ, the six block enclave of left wing anarchist revolutionaries in Seattle but it's interesting and pretty scary viewing tbh.. 30 seconds Street view Occupy Wall St on steroids.They need to brush up on their gardening skills too. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Fox News also got caught falsifying reporting on the CHAZ - https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/ There are people in the thread from Seattle who say it's pretty peaceful. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 15 2020 00:01 Uldridge wrote: But I'm sure you can see that the current climate isn't one we want to keep, Danglars. There's too many issues with certain infrastructures to keep them the way they are. I've seen your take on reform policies a few pages back, but do you think they'll be fast enough? People can take complacency for a long time, but when the dam breaks, revolution happens. I would like to prevent revolution if possible if we can make a sustainable change where everyone can agree upon. Do you identify things are bad enough for things to change at a faster pace than what the bureaucratic machine would normally allow for? I’m not a fan of the “bureaucratic machine,” nor the investment my party has been making to contest inner city seats whose mayorship has been single-party-run for ages. I’m in favor of decertifying police unions to allow for the firing of misbehaving officers, and seriously they need a new line of work if they use choke holds or fire upon retreating, unarmed individuals. Just see my comment as more of the mate to the one about conservatives, and if they’re just risk-averse. You may have seen other posts too that characterize a conservative impulse as nothing more than fighting to conserve every bad thing for all of history. I think it’s important to pair that criticism with the similar one that may be leveled at progressivism and liberalism(American context). So if you’d direct yourself to my last post to examine the merits, I think that would be important for the conversation. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On June 15 2020 00:59 Nevuk wrote: Didn't we go over Ngo getting caught falsifying reporting a few pages ago? Can you post a better source? Fox News also got caught falsifying reporting on the CHAZ - https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/ There are people in the thread from Seattle who say it's pretty peaceful. It honestly looks more like a group of hippies than antifa revolutionnaries | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18488 Posts
On June 14 2020 22:08 Liquid`Drone wrote: I mean the main underlying principle of conservatism is to 'conserve'. In this case, society, rules and values that have been predominant. I think that in terms of ecology, I'm technically a conservative. Of course, this happens to be one area where many conservatives are not. Then there's a separate issue on whether the preservation of old hierarchical structures that happens in conservatism is a bug or a feature of the system (not wanting to upend principles that have from a conservative perspective functionally governed society for more equality of outcome vs not wanting more equitable outcome) You are in favour of conserving earthly ecosystems. In socio-political terms that makes you progressive, because the status quo in western socio-political systems is to consume everything unsustainably. So in the context of politics that makes you progressive on that front (as well): you want to change the system in order to conserve our planet. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
When Trayvon Martin was killed, he was carrying a bag of skittles and an Arizona Ice Tea. George Zimmerman can be seen autographing bags of skittles: ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Vsg0FcJ.png) | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On June 15 2020 03:38 Mohdoo wrote: Some people on this board have defended George Zimmerman (no need to call anyone out since we all remember) quite a bit, so I'd like to give everyone an update. When Trayvon Martin was killed, he was carrying a bag of skittles and an Arizona Ice Tea. George Zimmerman can be seen autographing bags of skittles: Is skittles the new alt right thing or something? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On June 15 2020 04:30 Sbrubbles wrote: Is skittles the new alt right thing or something? When Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman he was carrying a bag of skittles and an Arizona Ice Tea. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On June 15 2020 04:30 Sbrubbles wrote: Is skittles the new alt right thing or something? The kid he shot was holding them. It's literally making fun of his victim. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On June 15 2020 04:32 Mohdoo wrote: When Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman he was carrying a bag of skittles and an Arizona Ice Tea. So you've said. No need to keep going, Gahlo explained it | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 15 2020 03:38 Mohdoo wrote: Some people on this board have defended George Zimmerman (no need to call anyone out since we all remember) quite a bit, so I'd like to give everyone an update. A lot of people defended him in the original lawsuit because the evidence generally pointed to him being "not guilty" of murder. Team Zimmerman has thinned out significantly in the years that followed precisely because of stuff like this. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 15 2020 04:35 LegalLord wrote: A lot of people defended him in the original lawsuit because the evidence generally pointed to him being "not guilty" of murder. Team Zimmerman has thinned out significantly in the years that followed precisely because of stuff like this. I mean, this is like right-leaning people happy that some guy who won his lawsuit against the cops turned out to be a shitty human being. If we step back a bit (and I understand that’s particularly difficult on charged issues), when we talk about small-time drug dealers not deserving long sentences or whatever, it isn’t because we know they’re definitely not bad people in other areas. Like, it’s no major zing to say “that guy released early on drug offense re-sentencing, he murdered his girlfriend, SO TAKE THAT ALL YOU PEOPLE IN FAVOR OF It’s like ... no, he didn’t deserve to be jailed so long (or at all) in the first place, not that we’re endorsing him as a person. Same with Zimmerman, found not guilty by a jury of his peers that saw the evidence against him. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12078 Posts
| ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On June 15 2020 05:01 Simberto wrote: But this is not another unrelated area. He is proud of having killed Martin. There is really no other way to interpret this. Maybe he managed to trick a jury into not convicting him, but if you are proud of the killing afterwards, that puts a lot of doubts onto your innocence? There's a difference between legal and moral. He was not guilty of murder due to stand your ground laws. Does that make what he did moral, especially years afterwards? Of course not. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 15 2020 05:01 Simberto wrote: But this is not another unrelated area. He is proud of having killed Martin. There is really no other way to interpret this. Maybe he managed to trick a jury into not convicting him, but if you are proud of the killing afterwards, that puts a lot of doubts onto your innocence? You really think harmful drug legislation wasn’t cheered by its proponents using whatever minority of cases were proud of the “profession” and sorry they got caught (and recaught?) I really did think the people around here could separate the person from the act. Let’s bring up some survivor of domestic abuse, and trace her future wrongs back to cast doubt on the original trauma. He’s famous for one thing now, and it looks like he took the wrong path from it, but cmon are we really that regressive of a society to go full bore towards presumption of guilt from it? It feels like a looking glass back at the 1994 crime bill, and the broken society that (both well meaning and poorly informed) people tried to “fix.” Step back from the hatred, guys. Seriously. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
He may not have technically violated the law to a degree a jury would find guilty due to the stand your ground law, but the law that let him do that is heinous, and should be either totally repealed or heavily amended. It reminds me of qualified immunity, which is why cops get off even in instances where morality screams they shouldn't. There's a lot of movement on that topic : The house has introduced a bill to kill it sponsored by Amash and Pressley (Libertarian fmr GOP and Progressive). Judges also appear to be banding together to limit use of Qualified Immunity. There are at least 3 high profile cases where judges have overturned it recently. The biggest was one that preceded the Michael Brown shooting. 5 WV cops shot an already handcuffed and four-times tased black man 22 times. He had a knife, but it wasn't in his hand (officers thought it was). He didn't verbally respond to commands to drop the knife. Court of Appeals Obama/Bush appointee overturned all the lower courts, on this set of grounds : [...]we previously held that a jury could find that the officers violated Jones’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force[...] [...] although armed, was incapacitated at the time he was shot. Because it was clearly established that officers may not shoot a secured or incapacitated person, the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. [...] we reverse the grant of summary judgment to the officers on qualified immunity grounds, as a reasonable jury could find that Jones was both secured and incapacitated in the final moments before his death. [...] Before the ink dried on this opinion, the FBI opened an investigation into yet another death of a black man at the hands of police, this time George Floyd in Minneapolis. This has to stop. To award qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage in this case would signal absolute immunity for fear-based use of deadly force, which we cannot accept. The district court’s grant of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is reversed, and the dismissal of that claim is hereby vacated. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/court-issues-extraordinary-ruling-denying-immunity-to-w-va-cops-in-2013-shooting-of-wayne-jones-this-has-to-stop/ | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On June 15 2020 05:43 Nevuk wrote: He also tried to auction off the gun he used (I think he may have eventually found a private seller after ebay kept banning the sale). Zimmerman is just a piece of shit. I do agree with Danglars that it doesn't really have much to do with him, other than some of the mudslinging that got thrown around during the trial between the parties about Martin. He may not have technically violated the law to a degree a jury would find guilty due to the stand your ground law, but the law that let him do that is heinous, and should be either totally repealed or heavily amended. It reminds me of qualified immunity, which is why cops get off even in instances where morality screams they shouldn't. There's a lot of movement on that topic : The house has introduced a bill to kill it sponsored by Amash and Pressley (Libertarian fmr GOP and Progressive). https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1268353415295500289 Judges also appear to be banding together to limit use of Qualified Immunity. There are at least 3 high profile cases where judges have overturned it recently. The biggest was one that preceded the Michael Brown shooting. 5 WV cops shot an already handcuffed and four-times tased black man 22 times. He had a knife, but it wasn't in his hand (officers thought it was). He didn't verbally respond to commands to drop the knife. Court of Appeals Obama/Bush appointee overturned all the lower courts, on this set of grounds : https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/court-issues-extraordinary-ruling-denying-immunity-to-w-va-cops-in-2013-shooting-of-wayne-jones-this-has-to-stop/ Good start. Ending qualified immunity alone would justify the protests we've seen so far. Until cops are treated as humans, still not enough. In many other aspects of life, extra responsibility carries extra accountability. Being trusted with weapons and violence should mean you get extra slapped when you goof. But I will take being treated as Joe Shmoe as an important first step. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
Left-leaning thought takes into account the lived experience of people (or tries to) and considers that a valid explanation for all kinds of data, and so concludes that making that lived experience better to some degree will aid with x y and z. Right-leaning thought often looks at the hard data, says this is what IS, ergo we act based on that. If x % of black men are in prison for violent crimes compared to y % of the population, that says that it is only right and proper for the police to be harsher when dealing with those people because a much higher proportional % of them are criminals. If you listen to talks by the more touted right-wing intellectuals, they spit out statistics like a machine gun. Jordan Peterson loves his statistics. You hear a little less of it on the left. Right and left-wing at the more elevated level tends to be different kinds of intellectualism. | ||
| ||
