Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Election 2020

Election 2020 (Page 10)
Thread Tools
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2021, 02:54 PM
 
Yeah its fine for bakeries and Hobby Lobby to deny people stuff but for some reason Apple and Facebook aren't allowed? Sounds like entitlement to me.

Now that FB has finally shifted on its policy of enabling hate speech (if only a little), lets get them shift further. Instead of policing nudity, lets get rid of white supremacy. We'll trade with you Zuckerberg, Nipples for Nazis!
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2021, 09:49 PM
 
There are so many contradictions in the Conservative movement. They seem to think that repealing Section 230 will increase free speech. How quickly do you think will Facebook et al. delete posts and/or ban users when they are legally on the hook for hate speech?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2021, 10:27 AM
 
PGA drops plans to hold 2022 PGA Championship at Trump Bedminster (aka Trump National) course.

The R&A also issued a statement over the weekend, reiterating their position that there are no plans to return the Open Championship to Trump's Turnberry course in the foreseeable future. The R&A initially took this position when Trump purchased Turnberry in 2014.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1
     
Doc HM
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2021, 07:41 PM
 
Newsflash.
Trump declares pre riot speech “totally acceptable”

Carry on impeaching. Nothing to see here.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2021, 09:04 PM
 
Per NYT: Mitch McConnell has told associates he believes Trump committed impeachable offenses and that he is pleased that Democrats are moving to impeach him, believing that it will make it easier to purge him from the GOP.

Word is McConnell hasn’t spoken with Trump since Dec.14, and was highly pissed off about having to take shelter during the coup attempt.

Remember, the Senate only needs 51 members present for a quorum, and to convict on impeachment it only needs 2/3 of members present voting to convict. So, really, all they need are the Democrats and a few Republicans present to get it done. So, Mitch can rid the party of Trump, and provide cover for most of the Senate Republicans by not needing them present.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 12, 2021, 09:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Per NYT: Mitch McConnell has told associates he believes Trump committed impeachable offenses and that he is pleased that Democrats are moving to impeach him, believing that it will make it easier to purge him from the GOP.
I don't think McConnell can purge the GOP from Trumpism, I think this is here to stay. McConnell is the ultimate political backroom operator, but does not exactly exude charisma.
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Word is McConnell hasn’t spoken with Trump since Dec.14, and was highly pissed off about having to take shelter during the coup attempt.
Fairly or not, I picture McConnell to be a Frank Underwood-type character, and I can easily believe that he has had to bottle up a lot of anger over the last four years. But I don't think McConnell will maneuver himself in the line of fire. I reckon in his mind impeachment isn't going to happen before Trump's term is over, and by the time it comes to the Senate a lot of the momentum will have dissipated. Pushing it would require him to use up valuable political capital for no gain of his own. In the end, I don't see him doing it.
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Remember, the Senate only needs 51 members present for a quorum, and to convict on impeachment it only needs 2/3 of members present voting to convict. So, really, all they need are the Democrats and a few Republicans present to get it done. So, Mitch can rid the party of Trump, and provide cover for most of the Senate Republicans by not needing them present.
I wish you were right … I really do.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
MacNNFamous
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 12:02 PM
 
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 12:58 PM
 
There is an old saying about primaries: Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. The GOP almost always picks as its candidate someone who had a good showing but didn’t quite make it in the last primary. Romney became the candidate in 2012 after winning the second-most number of contests in 2008; McCain became the candidate in 2008 after being the runner-up in 2000; Bob Dole was the candidate in 1996 after being the runner-up in 1988; George H.W Bush was of course the VP when he won the primary in 1988, but he was also the number 2 in 1980; and Reagan’s 1980 win came after losing the primary in a convention struggle in 1976. If you exclude the mostly perfunctory contests where the president is from the GOP and not term-limited, Trump is the only exception to this rule in my lifetime (I guess nobody wanted Santorum).

If you follow this logic, the number 2 in 2016 should be the nominee in 2024, and that is of course the Zodiac Killer. I give him pretty good odds, especially if Texas is inching towards being a battleground in 2024. Cruz has turned from a harsh critic of Trump to his absolute toady, for no other reason than political gain. He clearly doesn’t have a spine, so he can turn again - if he gets the chance to. I think that that is Moscow Mitch’s plan (except that he is thinking in more general terms of giving any rising star the chance to extricate themselves from this mess, rather than saving Cruz specifically). It might work - Mitch is a highly skilled political operator, and he knows the people involved better than any of us.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 01:06 PM
 
( Last edited by Thorzdad; Jan 13, 2021 at 01:23 PM. )
[set curmudgeon_mode=1
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 03:30 PM
 
Ted came pretty close to losing to Beto, didn't he? Not sure Ted has the support, even after doubling-down on Trumpism.

On Election Day, Cruz defeated O'Rourke by a margin of 50.9 to 48.3 percent; the race was the closest U.S. Senate race in Texas since 1978.
     
MacNNFamous
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 04:58 PM
 
I think the GOP is imploding and moderate republicans are disgusted by the trumptards, and will start to distance themselves. Might even fracture the party. Not really what I wanted when I said I wanted a third party... but... whatever.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 05:10 PM
 
What counts as a "moderate" republican these days?
[set curmudgeon_mode=1
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 05:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
What counts as a "moderate" republican these days?
Wants:
- Strong military
- Strong traditions
- Strong borders
- Strong business

Doesn't want:
- Overt racism (keep it under the surface like always, please)
- "Free stuff" for lazy people i.e. health care, education, income support
- Government enforcing changing moral standards (we're a Christian nation!!)
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 05:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
I think the GOP is imploding and moderate republicans are disgusted by the trumptards, and will start to distance themselves. Might even fracture the party. Not really what I wanted when I said I wanted a third party... but... whatever.
I would rather the republican party split than have trumpers / nazis "hiding" under the "big tent".

If that means we actually start to have multiparty races, the better.
     
MacNNFamous
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
What counts as a "moderate" republican these days?
Mostly people who are fiscally conservative and don't want to pay anything for taxes... they hear about tax hikes for the bajillionaires and their frog brains somehow translate that into that they have to pay more taxes. Or something.

If the democrats would embrace gun ownership they would crush republicans in every election,
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 06:48 PM
 
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Ted came pretty close to losing to Beto, didn't he? Not sure Ted has the support, even after doubling-down on Trumpism.
Yeah, we almost dumped Ted... Not only was it the closest Senate race in Texas in a very long time, it was the most expensive Republican win in Texas - ever, I think.

But I believe Ted has squandered any capital he had left by “gaming” the whole “doubt the election results” issue. The only real issue is that a variety of Republicans have used suggestion and innuendo to posture and get their faces in the news, without a single shred of real data. On the other hand, there’s absolutely obvious evidence that they tried hard to suppress real voters, have votes tossed out, and so on. Even the Republicans have to be tired of Ted’s BS.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 07:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Ted came pretty close to losing to Beto, didn't he? Not sure Ted has the support, even after doubling-down on Trumpism.
Yes he did, but 2018 was a strong year for Dems - they won the national popular vote (for the House) by 8.4 points, and Cruz won Texas by 2.6, or 11 points better. In 2020, Dems won the popular vote by 4.5% while Trump won Texas by 5.5 points, or 10 points better. Not a straight comparison, but it indicates that Cruz didn’t really do all that badly.

It is also worth pointing out that conservatives seem convinced that Biden won’t run again. Partly this is because they seem to hate Harris way more than they hate Biden and they seem to like revving themselves up about how the country is going to go to hell in a handbasket, but the guy will be 82 next time, and 86 in 2028. It’s not impossible that he decides to step down. If McConnell - who, again, knows everyone involved better than we do - thinks the same, he may like his chances in 2024. Not that Harris is a bad candidate, but she is much easier to demonize than Biden is, to scare all those reluctant GOP voters back into the fold.

Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Mostly people who are fiscally conservative and don't want to pay anything for taxes... they hear about tax hikes for the bajillionaires and their frog brains somehow translate that into that they have to pay more taxes. Or something.

If the democrats would embrace gun ownership they would crush republicans in every election,
No, they would not, because that opens a very clear gap for a competitor to the left - the party is already straining trying to keep the left wing inside, and a sizable contingent would leave for a new Progressive Party or whatever they would call themselves.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Mostly people who are fiscally conservative and don't want to pay anything for taxes... they hear about tax hikes for the bajillionaires and their frog brains somehow translate that into that they have to pay more taxes. Or something.
Plus, usually they only pretend to be “fiscally conservative”. To me fiscally conservative means balancing my books, and if you don’t decrease spending, you cannot reduce income either. It’s so much nicer to feel you are fiscally responsible and the others aren’t, reality be damned.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 08:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Ted came pretty close to losing to Beto, didn't he? Not sure Ted has the support, even after doubling-down on Trumpism.
He didn’t have the beard back then, tho.
     
MacNNFamous
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
No, they would not, because that opens a very clear gap for a competitor to the left - the party is already straining trying to keep the left wing inside, and a sizable contingent would leave for a new Progressive Party or whatever they would call themselves.
Disagree completely. Most leftists believe in arming the proletariat. Lots o bernie bros are packing srs firepower and believe in owning a multitude of weapons and becoming proficient with them.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 13, 2021, 09:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Disagree completely. Most leftists believe in arming the proletariat.
I would be very careful with such sweeping generalizations. Perhaps this is true in the countryside, but I don't see this being true in cities.
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Lots o bernie bros are packing srs firepower and believe in owning a multitude of weapons and becoming proficient with them.
To what end? Why is this important now? Are you anticipating a civil war?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2021, 09:30 AM
 
Per WaPo...
Trump has instructed aides not to pay Giuliani's legal fees, two officials said, and has demanded that he personally approve any reimbursements for the expenses Giuliani incurred while traveling on the president's behalf to challenge election results in key states. They said Trump has privately expressed concern with some of Giuliani's moves and did not appreciate a demand from Giuliani for $20,000 a day in fees for his work attempting to overturn the election.


The schadenfreude is delicious.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1
     
MacNNFamous
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2021, 11:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I would be very careful with such sweeping generalizations. Perhaps this is true in the countryside, but I don't see this being true in cities.

To what end? Why is this important now? Are you anticipating a civil war?
The only anti-gun people were useless people that have never fired a gun in their lives, and think the term 'semi automatic' is a scary word and is basically close to automatic. These people would never be able to change a flat tire, they're useless. I ignore them.

Why? That is a better question. Idk about civil war, but I think that if you look at most millennials and younger, we just don't see things getting better. Quality of life has been dropping our entire lives, and the chance of achieving the american dream is getting harder and harder. You see this attitude reflected in the automotive realm; people getting jazzed about overlanding, some sort of mobile, offroad, self sufficient camper, which would be extremely handing in the event of societal collapse. In terms of cars, there's been a huge shift from lowered/drift cars to jacked up/mad max/battle cars. Again, these vehicles reflect the mindsets of their owner; no longer focusing on 'having fun' on the track, but looking menacing, tough, and capable.

We all see the increased militarization of the police forces, and how they square off against people in things like DAPL and the BLM riots earlier this year, we see the income inequality growing, and I think a lot of us are subconsciously aware that automation is on the very near horizon. When that happens... when a lot of low skilled jobs are able to be replaced by machines that never get sick and pay for themselves in a few years, what happens to society? I highly ****ing doubt we will shift to UBI. I think it's going to get way way way worse before it gets better.

Having access to a few weapons and being proficient at pistols and rifles is a skill I think would be useful if things really fall apart.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2021, 12:44 PM
 
Myself and 2 other dem friends took a gun safety class in 2017. Most dems are not completely "antigun/nogun/abolishallguns". They should have licensing just like cars, and accountability.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2021, 03:17 PM
 
[set curmudgeon_mode=1
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2021, 03:37 PM
 
Inside job.
     
Doc HM
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2021, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Per WaPo...



The schadenfreude is delicious.
Oh to watch Guliani taking his boss to court.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2021, 07:19 PM
 
TIL...As of today, there are more active duty US troops (20,000+ Nat.Guard) stationed in DC than there are in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1
     
MacNNFamous
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2021, 07:30 PM
 
I hope those fat diabetic ****s try something, we need more memeterial.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2021, 07:43 PM
 
Apparently, the Nat.Guard troops have been authorized to use lethal force, should things get ugly.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2021, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
The only anti-gun people were useless people that have never fired a gun in their lives, and think the term 'semi automatic' is a scary word and is basically close to automatic. These people would never be able to change a flat tire, they're useless. I ignore them.
I think this is a sweeping generalization and just false. Just from personal experience, I lived in rural PA in a Democratic household. For example, my host granddad had a hunting rifle, my host aunt’s boyfriend at the time was a correctional officer. Ask others in this forum who are from the countryside, I am sure they have been exposed to guns as they are part of the culture in rural parts. Just much less so in the cities.

And I don’t think it makes any sense to dismiss other people’s opinions just because they are different from yours. In order to have an opinion, you don’t need to know the difference between a clip and a magazine or that it is a suppressor, not a silencer that James Bond screws onto his Walther if he wants to be stealthy. Most people are arguing for sane regulations rather than a nationwide ban. Even repealing the 2nd Amendment would not equate to a national ban on firearms. AFAIK the US is unique amongst democracies in that it has some form of gun ownership enshrined in the constitution. Yet plenty of other countries that don’t have their own gun culture.
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Why? That is a better question.
I think one major factor is false perception that stems from the American winner-takes-all-two-party electoral system: there are very few Democrats from rural areas who are elected to Congress, so people who voice opinions like yours are represented on the national stage even though they still make up a significant share of the population.
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Idk about civil war, but I think that if you look at most millennials and younger, we just don't see things getting better. Quality of life has been dropping our entire lives, and the chance of achieving the american dream is getting harder and harder. You see this attitude reflected in the automotive realm; people getting jazzed about overlanding, some sort of mobile, offroad, self sufficient camper, which would be extremely handing in the event of societal collapse. In terms of cars, there's been a huge shift from lowered/drift cars to jacked up/mad max/battle cars. Again, these vehicles reflect the mindsets of their owner; no longer focusing on 'having fun' on the track, but looking menacing, tough, and capable.
Sure, and that applies to millenials in the cities as well. I’m financially worse off than my parents were at my age. At his peak my dad employed 15 people, and after his business failed he was on welfare. Rents in many cities have gone through the roof. My sister and my friends sneered at one-bedroom my apartment at the outskirts of Munich that I paid $600/month for. Now my sister is paying closer to $1,000. Even people who have good jobs on paper often don’t have much left at the end of the month. The more you realize that it isn’t just you, the better.
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
We all see the increased militarization of the police forces, and how they square off against people in things like DAPL and the BLM riots earlier this year, we see the income inequality growing, and I think a lot of us are subconsciously aware that automation is on the very near horizon.
The militarization of the police IMHO reflects an attitude of a share of American society that has a fascination with guns, and that even though this share has grown smaller over the years, it has become much more vocal and much less reflected about gun regulations. Guns are less part of life and more of a political statement. That’s what (modern) open carry is about (the way it is understood now, I am not speaking of shouldering your hunting rifle on a hike): you want to show support for 2A and parade that in front of others when you stand in line at Applebees. And law enforcement has a very large overlap with this share in the societal Venn diagram.

Once you add stark societal inequality to the mix and you have an explosive mixture.
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
When that happens... when a lot of low skilled jobs are able to be replaced by machines that never get sick and pay for themselves in a few years, what happens to society? I highly ****ing doubt we will shift to UBI. I think it's going to get way way way worse before it gets better.
Yes, signs are bleak, but instead of just complain about it, we do have options to work on making the world a better place. Regarding UBI: the Covid checks you received are a form of UBI. Not permanent, of course, and the GOP is super fearful that people start liking it. But especially now is a great time to make changes.
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Having access to a few weapons and being proficient at pistols and rifles is a skill I think would be useful if things really fall apart.
I doubt it. The most useful skill to have when sh*t hits the fan is that you have a large social network, and you are friendly to others. That’s going to be innumerably more useful than 10,000 rounds of ammunition and a private arsenal. This way you have a doctor who can treat you when you have an infection. Or you have someone who can teach you to hunt if necessary. Or to plant stuff. Or to fix cars.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2021, 10:42 PM
 
The 10 Republicans who voted to Impeach are preparing in case attempts are made to kill them.
Pro-impeachment Republican: 'Our expectation is that somebody may try to kill us'

Peter Meijer, a Republican congressman who voted in favor of impeaching Donald Trump, said some of his colleagues are hiring armed escorts and acquiring body armor out of fear for their safety.

“When it comes to my family’s safety, that’s something that we’ve been planning for, preparing for, taking appropriate measures,” Meijer, a Republican of Michigan, told MSNBC.

twitter link

“I have colleagues who are now traveling with armed escorts, out of the fear for their safety. Many of us are altering our routines, working to get body armor.”

Meijer noted that body armor is a reimbursable expense for members of Congress. He added, “It’s sad that we have to get to that point, but our expectation is that somebody may try to kill us.”

Meijer was one of ten House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for incitement of insurrection yesterday, after the president incited a violent mob to attack the Capitol, resulting in five deaths.

Members of the mob echoed Trump’s baseless claims that Joe Biden won the presidential election because of widespread fraud.

“This wasn’t a landslide re-election for Donald Trump. This wasn’t a stolen election,” Meijer said. “None of those claims played out in court, and it’s time we settle that once and for all.”
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 14, 2021, 11:31 PM
 
Welcome to every congressional Democrat’s world, I guess?

Poor guy was just elected in 2020, supporting Trump, partially bankrolled by the DeVos family, winning endorsements from all the rIght bottom-feeders, only to find himself neck-deep in a party full of traitors. Did he not see what he was hitching his wagon to? He’s part of the Meijer family, owners of the Meijer superstore chain. The family is worth billions and is well-connected in Republican politics, so I kinda doubt he was completely blind to the dank, orange swamp he was jumping into.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2021, 12:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
The 10 Republicans who voted to Impeach are preparing in case attempts are made to kill them.
It is worth thinking about that: perhaps more Republicans would have voted to impeach if they didn't fear for their lives and the lives of their families. On the flip side of the coin, they also get police protection and even serious threats should not prevent you from doing the right thing.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2021, 01:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Apparently, the Nat.Guard troops have been authorized to use lethal force, should things get ugly.
I’d like to see the Rules of Engagement, but I stand by my general position this is an awful idea. Soldiers make for poor cops.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2021, 01:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’d like to see the Rules of Engagement, but I stand by my general position this is an awful idea. Soldiers make for poor cops.
I agree, although it seems that the tactics and equipment of many police departments seems close to indistinguishable from the National Guard.

Do you know what other options does DC has? I'm surprised its own police departments aren't equipped to handle this themselves. It's not as protecting the Capitol and the President are newly found responsibilities of theirs.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2021, 01:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I agree, although it seems that the tactics and equipment of many police departments seems close to indistinguishable from the National Guard.

Do you know what other options does DC has? I'm surprised its own police departments aren't equipped to handle this themselves. It's not as protecting the Capitol and the President are newly found responsibilities of theirs.
To me, the important difference between cops and the NG is training.

With regards to options, that’s the thing, DC is crawling with cops. Apart from Metro Police, there’s the FBI, Park Service, US Marshals, Secret Service, and the Capitol Police.

Plenty of live ammo to go around.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2021, 02:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To me, the important difference between cops and the NG is training.
Sure, and I was referring to the militarization of the police. Basically, I'm saying I agree with you on the substance 100 %, I'm just posing the question whether highly militarized police (such as the ones we have seen during the BLM protests) are that different in equipment and training than the National Guard.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
With regards to options, that’s the thing, DC is crawling with cops. Apart from Metro Police, there’s the FBI, Park Service, US Marshals, Secret Service, and the Capitol Police.

Plenty of live ammo to go around.
Yes, but it seems like a huddled mess. I learnt in articles on the breach of the Capitol that Park Service was part of the equation, why do you need to involve those?!? And several police forces with several disparate chains of command, no clear rules what happens when one police force demands aid from another.

Perhaps if the other existing police forces had been allowed to help their colleagues immediately, it wouldn't have gone that far. I really think overall that only 5 people died is a minor miracle. Had the mob been a minute faster, I reckon some Congress people might have been seriously hurt or been killed even. Conversely, if I wouldn't have blamed police officers if more had opened fire and killed more protestors.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2021, 02:59 AM
 
I think the Park Service has jurisdiction over all the monuments in DC. That explains why there's always some hanging around. Making sure no one steals a finger from Lincoln.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2021, 05:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Sure, and I was referring to the militarization of the police. Basically, I'm saying I agree with you on the substance 100 %, I'm just posing the question whether highly militarized police (such as the ones we have seen during the BLM protests) are that different in equipment and training than the National Guard.

Yes, but it seems like a huddled mess. I learnt in articles on the breach of the Capitol that Park Service was part of the equation, why do you need to involve those?!? And several police forces with several disparate chains of command, no clear rules what happens when one police force demands aid from another.

Perhaps if the other existing police forces had been allowed to help their colleagues immediately, it wouldn't have gone that far. I really think overall that only 5 people died is a minor miracle. Had the mob been a minute faster, I reckon some Congress people might have been seriously hurt or been killed even. Conversely, if I wouldn't have blamed police officers if more had opened fire and killed more protestors.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I was agreeing the equipment can be the same, but cops and the military have very different training. The National Guard is trained to take and hold ground, or to support that goal. Cops are trained in law enforcement.

Lots of big parks in DC (one right in front of the White House), and lots of big protests which need that kind of space. Because of that, one of the primary duties of the Park Service [Police] in DC is crowd control. If I’m not mistaken, it was Park Service Police who gassed the protesters right before Trump’s Bible photo.

I’m not sure how much trouble these different organizations have coordinating in general. They seemed to have it together over the summer.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2021, 07:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
It is worth thinking about that: perhaps more Republicans would have voted to impeach if they didn't fear for their lives and the lives of their families. On the flip side of the coin, they also get police protection and even serious threats should not prevent you from doing the right thing.
The thought that elected officials are succumbing to terrorist threats is chilling.
     
MacNNFamous
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2021, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think this is a sweeping generalization and just false. Just from personal experience, I lived in rural PA in a Democratic household. For example, my host granddad had a hunting rifle, my host aunt’s boyfriend at the time was a correctional officer. Ask others in this forum who are from the countryside, I am sure they have been exposed to guns as they are part of the culture in rural parts. Just much less so in the cities.

And I don’t think it makes any sense to dismiss other people’s opinions just because they are different from yours. In order to have an opinion, you don’t need to know the difference between a clip and a magazine or that it is a suppressor, not a silencer that James Bond screws onto his Walther if he wants to be stealthy. Most people are arguing for sane regulations rather than a nationwide ban. Even repealing the 2nd Amendment would not equate to a national ban on firearms. AFAIK the US is unique amongst democracies in that it has some form of gun ownership enshrined in the constitution. Yet plenty of other countries that don’t have their own gun culture.

I think one major factor is false perception that stems from the American winner-takes-all-two-party electoral system: there are very few Democrats from rural areas who are elected to Congress, so people who voice opinions like yours are represented on the national stage even though they still make up a significant share of the population.

Sure, and that applies to millenials in the cities as well. I’m financially worse off than my parents were at my age. At his peak my dad employed 15 people, and after his business failed he was on welfare. Rents in many cities have gone through the roof. My sister and my friends sneered at one-bedroom my apartment at the outskirts of Munich that I paid $600/month for. Now my sister is paying closer to $1,000. Even people who have good jobs on paper often don’t have much left at the end of the month. The more you realize that it isn’t just you, the better.

The militarization of the police IMHO reflects an attitude of a share of American society that has a fascination with guns, and that even though this share has grown smaller over the years, it has become much more vocal and much less reflected about gun regulations. Guns are less part of life and more of a political statement. That’s what (modern) open carry is about (the way it is understood now, I am not speaking of shouldering your hunting rifle on a hike): you want to show support for 2A and parade that in front of others when you stand in line at Applebees. And law enforcement has a very large overlap with this share in the societal Venn diagram.

Once you add stark societal inequality to the mix and you have an explosive mixture.

Yes, signs are bleak, but instead of just complain about it, we do have options to work on making the world a better place. Regarding UBI: the Covid checks you received are a form of UBI. Not permanent, of course, and the GOP is super fearful that people start liking it. But especially now is a great time to make changes.

I doubt it. The most useful skill to have when sh*t hits the fan is that you have a large social network, and you are friendly to others. That’s going to be innumerably more useful than 10,000 rounds of ammunition and a private arsenal. This way you have a doctor who can treat you when you have an infection. Or you have someone who can teach you to hunt if necessary. Or to plant stuff. Or to fix cars.
You seem like you're trying to refute me point by point but I agree with everything you said... so... idk.

TLDR: Dems in cities don't have any exposure to guns. You don't need ot know everything about guns, but you should know enough that 'semi automatic' describes like 95% of all firearms out there, so calling to ban all semi-autos makes you sound like a ****ing retard.
     
Doc HM
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2021, 05:37 PM
 
So, while we are all busy blaming the Qanoners and the horn headed redneck trailer boys for the riot on the capitol, lets spare a few moments to remember the poor billionaires who poured millions upon millions of dollars into the efforts of right wing senators to promote Trumps election fraud narrative.
Because, you know, the poor are always the problem!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...lub-for-growth
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2021, 08:52 PM
 
I keep hearing that Trump is taking fat shits everywhere he can before he leaves. First it was discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ and then the FDA. Is there some reason Biden can't just undo this shit the day he gets in? Some of Trumps changes don't come into effect until February, seems like it should be simple enough to just dismiss them before they begin.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2021, 09:02 PM
 
"It Depends."

Most of these changes have been done below the Prez level. ie - it would be up to Biden's cabinet appointees. Also, regulation changes have to go through a public comment period. So if regulations are changed before Biden picks can stop them, the process has to be restarted to change things back. Which can take months. Plus fighting court challenges.

In general, yes. But there will be delays. Significant delays in some cases. Restoring Net Neutrality comes to mind.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 15, 2021, 10:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
First of all, your “quisling” photo is gold!

You’re quite thorough. But usually raw data is a bit tricky to work with unless you know precisely what figures they give. Perhaps a look at the text helps just above the relevant figure clear things up (emphasis mine):

The higher percentages are the ratio of violence-to-engagement. I don’t know what non-violent engagement precisely means (I reckon it includes instances where protestors are blocked, but not shot at with tear gas or so). The numbers seem to be different from yours, and since I am on my iPad, I haven’t had a look at the raw data. Nevertheless, if we only look at order of magnitudes, the data seems to line up once you know what it actually means.

I grant you this is a tricky distinction. But if the data is correct, then law enforcement has a much more aggressive towards stance towards BLM protestors than right-wing protestors with 2.5 times the engagement. Not only that, you have to compound that with a roughly 50 % higher likelihood of use-of-force.

I find it commendable that you are going back to the original data. However, it seems that reading the text carefully might have prevented unnecessary skepticism.
I was a little stuck in that regard, because I originally only had the video link, and Google only got me to the database itself. However, the links and quote you posted helped me figure out how they got their numbers.

Said numbers are pretty raw. If we use ACLED’s metric for what constitutes a protest versus a riot, different groups have different incident rates.

BLM’s incident rate is 6.23% (n = 9,447).

The largest named (presumably) right wing sample I can find is “Back the Blue”, which has an incidence rate of 1.29% (n = 232).

In other words, BLM is nearly five times as likely to riot as Back the Blue. I posit not accounting for a variable such as this calls their conclusions into question.

Some other incident rates...

Antifa: 42.8% (n = 14)
Proud Boys: 25.8% (n = 47)
III%ers: 13.3% (n = 15)
LGBT: 3.60% (n = 111)
All Pro-Police: 2.76% (n = 544)
Latinx: 1.16% (n = 86)

To be clear, I’m not saying ACLED’s conclusion is definitively incorrect. For example, the engagement rates by the police with Latinx groups is much higher than it should be considering the low incidence of riots, but the data slices they present demonstrate more correlation than causation.


Edit: when it comes to police engagement, I’m a little iffy on their methodology.

For instance, this BLM entry has the police listed as an associated actor:

On 30 May 2020, more than 400 people demonstrated at the City Hall in Oxford (Lafayette, Mississippi) in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and against police brutality and the death of George Floyd. Demonstrators vandalised (graffiti) a Confederate monument on the University of Mississippi campus. One person was arrested by police at the scene. [size=more than 400]

This Back the Blue entry does not:

On 8 August 2020, hundreds of people staged a "Back the Blue" demonstration in Fort Collins (Colorado), in support of the police. A group of counter-demonstrators turned up, fights broke out and three people were arrested. [size=hundreds] [counter-protest]
( Last edited by subego; Jan 16, 2021 at 12:11 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2021, 12:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I was a little stuck in that regard, because I originally only had the video link, and Google only got me to the database itself. However, the links and quote you posted helped me figure out how they got their numbers.
Despite having read your post twice, I'm still unsure whether you have been able to reproduce their numbers or not.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Said numbers are pretty raw. If we use ACLED’s metric for what constitutes a protest versus a riot, different groups have different incident rates.
Aren't you conflating violent incidents with riots? I think these have very different meanings in my mind. Because if you say riots, you assume that protestors initiated the violence. (Police rioting makes no sense in this context.) And spray painting a monument or store front (inspired by your example below) also is not a riot. IMHO unless you have additional data, you need to stay neutral and just speak of e. g. violent confrontations. Because we do have plenty of videos of peaceful BLM protestors who were the victims of unnecessary violence by police. Presumably, each of these cases would fall in the categories “law enforcement engagement” and “violent engagement” even though the protestors are not to blame in these specific instances.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In other words, BLM is nearly five times as likely to riot as Back the Blue. I posit not accounting for a variable such as this calls their conclusions into question.
I don't think that follows, because you don't know who initiated the violence and the label riot may just be false.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To be clear, I’m not saying ACLED’s conclusion is definitively incorrect. For example, the engagement rates by the police with Latinx groups is much higher than it should be considering the low incidence of riots, but the data slices they present demonstrate more correlation than causation.
Of course, any data of this type cannot tell you causal mechanism. That's the nature of statistics.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Edit: when it comes to police engagement, I’m a little iffy on their methodology.
First of all, would that make a meaningful difference in your mind (because this occurs often enough to skew the numbers)? And secondly, in your example I don't see the problem. In one case people were arrested for vandalism (no problem, only two sides were involved, the suspects and police). In another, two groups — protestors and counterprotestors — get in a violent confrontation. In the first, police is involved, in the second police was not either side. (Perhaps you can say, police should have been more involved, trying to keep the two groups apart?)

The categorization makes sense to me. And even if I included police in the second example as an associated party, I don't see how this would fundamentally change things.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2021, 01:42 AM
 
I was able to reproduce at least some of their numbers. Yes.

The reason I chose “protests” versus “riots” is because those are how ACLED labels entries. If the label is false, that’s not my fault, it’s ACLEDs. These are their incidence numbers and their labels, not mine.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 16, 2021, 01:54 AM
 
Here...



As I claimed, 6.23% of BLM entries are coded in the database as riots.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:02 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,