President Trump & the USA

[MC Prussian]

13 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

Yep, the police are to blame for when citizens resist regular inspection and/or arrest.
 

*Irony off

 

The video the article is based upon doesn't go into detail what happened before the shots were fired - were the kids asked to cooperate, were they warned?

It's easy to side with the supposed "victims" when you're spoonfed certain edited information that feed your own bias.

 

I oppose racism, I believe in equality, but in the end it boils down to you as a human and the choices you make.

So, I wonder what decision the kids the cops shot at made before they ran away, which in itself is pretty stupid given the circumstances. They were surrounded by two police cars, outnumbered and they decided to run away? You do realize how guilty that makes them look like?

[MC Prussian]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Couple of things:

 

The last time I checked, resisting arrest (in the form of running away, as opposed to fighting and/or presenting a capital threat) wasn't a crime worthy of death in any state of the USA, let alone instant, arbitrary no-trial death - hence the paltry defence that was used that the kid was pulling a gun which folks knew was BS and which he changed halfway through the trial and yet the jury somehow acquitted him anyway. So yes, I really can and I do say that that he didn't have it coming, by rule of law. Is there a justification, in your view, for a cop shooting anyone who doesn't present a capital and imminent threat to them?

 

And speaking personally, I strongly dislike the idea that "if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear" from law enforcement. That's not the way it's worked for black guys, white guys, any guys or girls throughout history because those arbiters of law enforcement are human and therefore subject to the same kind of corruption as the rest of humanity is - and again history proves that the checks and balances against such corruption don't sometimes work. With that in mind, I can certainly see why folks who have done nothing bad in their lives would still choose to not get involved with the fuzz if they can possibly avoid it.

Like I said before, based on the article and the video, there's little to know what happened before the shots were fired.

Given the situation, if it was indeed a regular inspection, then there's no need to run away. They could've easily handed themselves in - after all, they had nothing to do with the criminals the police were after. It was a stupid and ultimately deadly and tragic move.

 

We will never know what really happened that close up, the police officer claimed he saw the victim carrying something that resembles a gun, witnesses claim the victim was unarmed (When and where did they arrive at the scene? How could they make out that detail from afar?). It's one word against another.

 

Any loss of life at that age is to be mourned, but let's not deny that people controlled by the police are bringing it on themselves if they decide to obstruct the law and that the police in the US on the whole are doing a pretty darn good job. I'd also like to highlight what a high-pressure job it is to impose the law; depending on the area you're working in, it's tense, really tense.

Edited 25 March 2019 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Citations, copious citations from a range of sources, really really needed for an extraordinary claim of that type.

 

I think we've talked about this before wrt to black cops being as trigger-happy as their white counterparts and, as has been said before, that suggests to me a problem within the institution itself (rather than individuals in it) in many different places.

 

I'd have more respect for the people trying to uphold the law if they were held accountable when they make dreadful mistakes like this one - but this is one of a great many situations where it clearly isn't so. Writing off multiple incidents like this as non-indicative of a greater problem ("tragic, individual cases") when there are so many just like it is a serious case of carpet and sweeping IMO.

 

And with respect, Prussian, this isn't the only topic in which you refuse to draw correlation and possible causation between circumstances and insist that there is no pattern to supposedly "isolated incidents" when the correlation is extremely likely.

Again, you make it out as if it was widespread and - to a certain extent - endemic. At some stage, the press would've gotten a hold of facts and proof, right? Highlighting single incidents - just like the media do - proof nothing but that there are some incidents in which people are shot, people with all sorts of ethnic backgrounds.

 

When you look at the controversial cases and weigh them up against arrests in general, the percentage is very low. As in very, very low.

These cases (Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray among others) are and remain rare.

 

To me, it reeks of a narrative that wants to paint an entire group of people as racist.

If indeed certain individuals are found to be racist, they should be expelled from their job and sued.

 

Your claim that correlation here is "extremely likely" is nothing but your claim. Stats tell otherwise. The amount of fatal shootings in the US is on the decline:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/?utm_term=.2147d73cc31c

 

Also, for such a conspiracy to be active, you'd need such a mass amount of people involved over such a prolonged period of time, keeping quiet, all accepting and submitting to a certain system and ideology that it is far from being realistic. Or, to counter your point, it would be extremely unlikely.

Edited 25 March 2019 by MC Prussian

[ozleicester]

16 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

 

If you've got nothing to hide, hands behind your back, on the ground.

You can write as many paragraphs as you like...but this line is simple and clear...and incredibly telling.

 

[Jattdogg]

At the end of the day things didnt look great and of course media played a role. You tell me fox news wouldnt have done the same to obama etc?

 

Having said all that they did find some crimes committed by others so it wasn't  a total loss. Sure you could argue a lot of money was wasted but its better to be sure then not.

 

At this point while its possible Trump attempted to obstruct justice in some form i think its best for the dems to move on and focus on repairing whats happened. It appears that proving he did something wrong is almost inpossible at this point and if mueller couldnt find it there is slim to no chance they will. They still have time to get a coherent leader in to win the election. Trump might be vindicated but he still is not a great president by any means. 

 

I expect his ratings to jump now but the dems need to focus on those switchers and unknown votes as they will be key.

 

Trump just needs to keep saying Maga, crooked hillary, fake news and his supporters will eat it up and vote for him. He has alot of love supporting him.

 

Trump will do well to attack CNN etc as it will build his support.

 

Personally, im saying get ready for another 4 years with this cowboy come next election

Edited 25 March 2019 by Jattdogg

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

13 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. 

 

He’s still cvnt, regardless. 

Is there any court decision anywhere in the world ever that you will accept? 

[MC Prussian]

33 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

You can write as many paragraphs as you like...but this line is simple and clear...and incredibly telling.

 

It is equally telling that some people fail to answer the most pressing of questions with regards to this particular subject.

 

Where's the debate? One-liners like yours don't solve anything, only add fuel to the fire of a more and more polarizing handling of news and political discourse.

[MC Prussian]

With regards to Trump, it's easy and convenient to build up this picture of an enemy of the people.

 

But where's the media's criticism and debate on the Democrats' own failings? Why no word on the sheer lack of personality and character among the candidates for the 2020 presidency?

The extreme amount of bland candidates?

 

I like Bernie Sanders and he's probably the most popular among all Trump opponents, but he will fail again because the Democrats will axe him once more, just like they did in 2016, when Hillary was made the crown favourite.

Also hardly any mention of Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang, who in my eyes deserve to be pushed.

 

The main reason I predict a 2020 win for Trump isn't based on Trump's ability, it's down to the Democrats' own infighting and internal disagreements, plus the hints of anti-semitism. That party currently is a shadow of its former self and needs some serious clear out.

Edited 25 March 2019 by MC Prussian

[Jattdogg]

8 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

With regards to Trump, it's easy and convenient to build up this picture of an enemy of the people.

 

But where's the media's criticism and debate on the Democrats' own failings? Why no word on the sheer lack of personality and character among the candidates for the 2020 presidency?

The extreme amount of bland candidates?

 

I like Bernie Sanders and he's probably the most popular among all Trump opponents, but he will fail again because the Democrats will axe him once more, just like they did in 2016, when Hillary was made the crown favourite.

Also hardly any mention of Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang, who in my eyes deserve to be pushed.

 

The main reason I predict a 2020 win for Trump isn't based on Trump's ability, it's down to the Democrats' own infighting and internal disagreements, plus the hints of anti-semitism. That party currently is a shadow of its former self and needs some serious clear out.

The dems need an overhaul big time period.

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

The dems need an overhaul big time period.

With people like AOC and Omar in the press almost every day, the Democrats are in danger of looking more of an angry mob than the Republicans by the next election. 

[Buce]

47 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Is there any court decision anywhere in the world ever that you will accept? 

 

The rich and powerful rarely fail to escape justice and it’s naive to think otherwise. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

57 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

The rich and powerful rarely fail to escape justice and it’s naive to think otherwise. 

 

Could also equally say its naive to think your will to see him as guilty isnt based on your issue with him as a person.

[Jattdogg]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

With people like AOC and Omar in the press almost every day, the Democrats are in danger of looking more of an angry mob than the Republicans by the next election. 

I dont discount this at all. The timing of the findings couldnt have happened at a better time for trump and his reelection bid.

 

The dems need to accept the best outcome in this is that no collusion took place and as an american first and foremost thats very important  above which party you align with.

 

If im the dems, i focus on getting the right candidate and let trump implode on his own from now until next election (if he does).

 

His reelection bid will be all about angry dems, him constantly pivoting to no collusion and it will resonate big time.

 

 

Edited 25 March 2019 by Jattdogg

[Guest MattP]

The good thing about it though is even the most hysterical anti-Trump dem must now realise if they want to remove him from the Whitehouse they are going to have to appeal to the people and win an election rather than rely on the media to do it - that can only be a good thing going forward.

 

Biden or Harris look the best candidates to me but God knows who they will end up selecting.

[Jattdogg]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

The good thing about it though is even the most hysterical anti-Trump dem must now realise if they want to remove him from the Whitehouse they are going to have to appeal to the people and win an election rather than rely on the media to do it - that can only be a good thing going forward.

 

Biden or Harris look the best candidates to me but God knows who they will end up selecting.

Its a tough call. Sadly, i think a white dem stands a better chance at getting some republican voters.   

 

For some reason i feel like bernie needs to move on and Biden might have a good shot possibly with harris as a running mate???  Bith are very old 76/77 and while i have no problem with age it has 1 term written all over it.

[Finnegan]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

The good thing about it though is even the most hysterical anti-Trump dem must now realise if they want to remove him from the Whitehouse they are going to have to appeal to the people and win an election rather than rely on the media to do it - that can only be a good thing going forward.

 

Biden or Harris look the best candidates to me but God knows who they will end up selecting.

 

It's all about Tulsi Gabbard. 

 

Half WASP, half Samoan, Hindu, MILF, Iraq war veteran. That's some major diversity  box ticking goodness. 

 

She should have announced her campaign with a Siva Tau but we'll forgive her that if she opens up a debate against the Donald by throwing one down to challenge him. 

 

Come on. All aboard the Tulsi Train. 

Edited 25 March 2019 by Finnegan

[Mike Oxlong]

6 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

It's all about Tulsi Gabbard. 

 

Half WASP, half Samoan, Hindu, MILF, Iraq war veteran. That's some major diversity  box ticking goodness. 

 

She should have announced her campaign with a Siva Tau but we'll forgive her that if she opens up a debate against the Donald by throwing one down to challenge him. 

 

Come on. All aboard the Tulsi Train. 

 

Not sure that Mrs O or the kids will be truly proud of me when I claim to tick  the diversity box through my appreciation of MILFs

 

 

 

 

 

[Jattdogg]

49 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

It's all about Tulsi Gabbard. 

 

Half WASP, half Samoan, Hindu, MILF, Iraq war veteran. That's some major diversity  box ticking goodness. 

 

She should have announced her campaign with a Siva Tau but we'll forgive her that if she opens up a debate against the Donald by throwing one down to challenge him. 

 

Come on. All aboard the Tulsi Train. 

Reason alone. Lol

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Like I said before, based on the article and the video, there's little to know what happened before the shots were fired.

Given the situation, if it was indeed a regular inspection, then there's no need to run away. They could've easily handed themselves in - after all, they had nothing to do with the criminals the police were after. It was a stupid and ultimately deadly and tragic move.

 

We will never know what really happened that close up, the police officer claimed he saw the victim carrying something that resembles a gun, witnesses claim the victim was unarmed (When and where did they arrive at the scene? How could they make out that detail from afar?). It's one word against another.

 

Any loss of life at that age is to be mourned, but let's not deny that people controlled by the police are bringing it on themselves if they decide to obstruct the law and that the police in the US on the whole are doing a pretty darn good job. I'd also like to highlight what a high-pressure job it is to impose the law; depending on the area you're working in, it's tense, really tense.

Evidently you have more trust in law enforcement than I do. I'm a firm believer in unaccountable power corrupting, and there are many examples both inside and outside the US fuzz of that holding true. For good reasons, I don't blame anyone for not trusting authority figures of this type unless they know who they're accountable to (if anyone) and having had time to build trust.

 

The police officer initially said that the victim had a gun, but then changed his statement later on and has every reason to lie. The witnesses saw no gun - they might all have reasons to lie too, who knows. Balance of probability is that there was no gun, even though, yes, it's one word against another for a jury.

 

I'll absolutely deny that people not yet arrested for a crime have every right to "obstruct the law" and "bring it upon themselves", as you put it. That system isn't some infallible shining light in the sky - it's a system operated by other, fallible, corruptible humans, and people have every right to view it with distrust until proven to their satisfaction otherwise. Questioning it and not subjecting yourself to it should not be an offence. Nor do I have much sympathy for those officers as you do - they chose that job with all the pressure it implies, if they don't like the idea of being held accountable and losing a lot when they make a mistake that costs someone their lives, then they should look for a less pressured profession instead rather than cutting accountability to fit.

 

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Again, you make it out as if it was widespread and - to a certain extent - endemic. At some stage, the press would've gotten a hold of facts and proof, right? Highlighting single incidents - just like the media do - proof nothing but that there are some incidents in which people are shot, people with all sorts of ethnic backgrounds.

 

When you look at the controversial cases and weigh them up against arrests in general, the percentage is very low. As in very, very low.

These cases (Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray among others) are and remain rare.

 

To me, it reeks of a narrative that wants to paint an entire group of people as racist.

If indeed certain individuals are found to be racist, they should be expelled from their job and sued.

 

Your claim that correlation here is "extremely likely" is nothing but your claim. Stats tell otherwise. The amount of fatal shootings in the US is on the decline:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/?utm_term=.2147d73cc31c

 

Also, for such a conspiracy to be active, you'd need such a mass amount of people involved over such a prolonged period of time, keeping quiet, all accepting and submitting to a certain system and ideology that it is far from being realistic. Or, to counter your point, it would be extremely unlikely.

The press did.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/theres-overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/?utm_term=.42d55f20571e

 

I know I posted that a while back here and you dismissed/obfuscated when presented with it, but the studies are sound - if you want to believe them. Is it so much of a conspiracy to suggest that police in a lot of places are corrupt and do exactly as you say, keeping quiet and submitting to a system? The "thin blue line" exists as an idea for a reason.

 

I'd certainly agree that racist cops should be held accountable, as well as other corrupt elements within that service...but is that really happening enough?

 

TBH Prussian I think we disagree on a lot of things that are likely but have just enough reasonable doubt to make an argument with - this particular issue, the effectiveness and organisation of the white supremacist movement, the Repub response (or lack thereof) to climate change in terms of policy, for instance. I doubt we'll ever come to agreement on those issues, among others, but you do make me work to defend my position and make me think hard about it at times, and for that I thank you.

 

 

1 hour ago, Jattdogg said:

I dont discount this at all. The timing of the findings couldnt have happened at a better time for trump and his reelection bid.

 

The dems need to accept the best outcome in this is that no collusion took place and as an american first and foremost thats very important  above which party you align with.

 

If im the dems, i focus on getting the right candidate and let trump implode on his own from now until next election (if he does).

 

His reelection bid will be all about angry dems, him constantly pivoting to no collusion and it will resonate big time.

 

 

 

44 minutes ago, MattP said:

The good thing about it though is even the most hysterical anti-Trump dem must now realise if they want to remove him from the Whitehouse they are going to have to appeal to the people and win an election rather than rely on the media to do it - that can only be a good thing going forward.

 

Biden or Harris look the best candidates to me but God knows who they will end up selecting.

 

34 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

It's all about Tulsi Gabbard. 

 

Half WASP, half Samoan, Hindu, MILF, Iraq war veteran. That's some major diversity  box ticking goodness. 

 

She should have announced her campaign with a Siva Tau but we'll forgive her that if she opens up a debate against the Donald by throwing one down to challenge him. 

 

Come on. All aboard the Tulsi Train. 

 

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

With regards to Trump, it's easy and convenient to build up this picture of an enemy of the people.

 

But where's the media's criticism and debate on the Democrats' own failings? Why no word on the sheer lack of personality and character among the candidates for the 2020 presidency?

The extreme amount of bland candidates?

 

I like Bernie Sanders and he's probably the most popular among all Trump opponents, but he will fail again because the Democrats will axe him once more, just like they did in 2016, when Hillary was made the crown favourite.

Also hardly any mention of Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang, who in my eyes deserve to be pushed.

 

The main reason I predict a 2020 win for Trump isn't based on Trump's ability, it's down to the Democrats' own infighting and internal disagreements, plus the hints of anti-semitism. That party currently is a shadow of its former self and needs some serious clear out.

Interesting discussion, this.

 

The Dems do need to stop the infighting and put up someone capable of challenging Trump. Harris, Booker, Gabbard are all good shouts IMO. I like Bernie too but I'm unsure of his age factor, for one thing.

[Finnegan]

I wouldn't really call Gabbard a good choice, for the record, she just jumped off the page because it said Samoan tbh. 

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

I wouldn't really call Gabbard a good choice, for the record, she just jumped off the page because it said Samoan tbh. 

From what I've read she's decent on policy, too.

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

From what I've read she's decent on policy, too.

 

Maybe but she's a 37 year old Hindu woman. 

 

Which makes her a baby in politics, plus a Hindu... and a woman. 

 

She's about as appealing to the rust belt as Gok Wan. If the Dems want to smash Trump then the first step is remembering why they lost all those working class white votes to him in the first place. 

[Mike Oxlong]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

Maybe but she's a 37 year old Hindu woman. 

 

Which makes her a baby in politics, plus a Hindu... and a woman. 

 

She's about as appealing to the rust belt as Gok Wan. If the Dems want to smash Trump then the first step is remembering why they lost all those working class white votes to him in the first place. 

 

 

 

I think Gok just shades it. 

Edited 25 March 2019 by Mike Oxlong

[MC Prussian]

Stormy Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti charged with fraud (among other crimes):

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/michael-avenatti/index.html

 

Trump Curse strikes again.

[Jattdogg]

4 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Stormy Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti charged with fraud (among other crimes):

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/michael-avenatti/index.html

 

Trump Curse strikes again.

His reelection campaign is not even working right now and he is scoring yuge. Bigly.