Biden helps avert railway strike.

[Gordon_4]

Lmao, pretty sure I can find more than one incident a year where a cop blasts some random dude away for no reason. Besides, with the amount of "training" we give our cops, are they incapable in disarming a knife wielding attacker with their taser, baton, pepper spray, etc?

As much as I’m not fond of going into bat for the US police forces, as someone who has studied and practiced martial arts that involve disarming someone with a knife, the answer is yes. With the level of training the average US police officer receives, there is no way on this green Earth you should expect them to disarm someone wielding a knife. It’s incredibly difficult and dangerous to attempt it unless you are as well drilled and equipped as Batman or Captain America.

And besides, when knives appear that is when it is entirely justifiable to draw a firearm because on the off chance your opponent is rational, they will recognise that gun beats knife (most of the time) and with luck, surrender. Tasers and beanbag rounds can provide similar but less lethal options to this, that is entirely true but I suspect that since US cops have been kitting themselves out thanks to generous subsidies to buy surplus military gear they don’t get much of a look in since there’s sod all use for less lethal options in the army.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As much as I’m not fond of going into bat for the US police forces, as someone who has studied and practiced martial arts that involve disarming someone with a knife, the answer is yes. With the level of training the average US police officer receives, there is no way on this green Earth you should expect them to disarm someone wielding a knife. It’s incredibly difficult and dangerous to attempt it unless you are as well drilled and equipped as Batman or Captain America.

And besides, when knives appear that is when it is entirely justifiable to draw a firearm because on the off chance your opponent is rational, they will recognise that gun beats knife (most of the time) and with luck, surrender. Tasers and beanbag rounds can provide similar but less lethal options to this, that is entirely true but I suspect that since US cops have been kitting themselves out thanks to generous subsidies to buy surplus military gear they don’t get much of a look in since there’s sod all use for less lethal options in the army.

Second that, a knife is a lethal weapon. Within knife range, if the knife wielder is a long way from anyone, it's time for yelling via megaphone, of course. To add to that, while less lethal options exist, they are close to last resort, as they are unreliable and often result in killing people as well. But not using any kind of weapon on someone who isn't posing a threat is an option the police should use more often, because obviously.

 

[Gordon_4]

Second that, a knife is a lethal weapon. Within knife range, if the knife wielder is a long way from anyone, it's time for yelling via megaphone, of course. To add to that, while less lethal options exist, they are close to last resort, as they are unreliable and often result in killing people as well. But not using any kind of weapon on someone who isn't posing a threat is an option the police should use more often, because obviously.

Indeed, sadly I fear any idea of mine for restructuring policing would probably end up being worse than the current model.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Indeed, sadly I fear any idea of mine for restructuring policing would probably end up being worse than the current model.

Eh, I don't think changing the system will help, no point in having a new set of rules if they aren't going to be enforced either.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yawn. Heard it a million times before. Go launder your conical hood.

Also, cops are unpopular, you say? Can't possibly imagine why.

It's clear you only care about facts that support your narrative. Many of you are like this one friend I have spouting that criminals shouldn't even be punished because the stat for people that repeat offend is so low. And another friend that's a retired state trooper and detective bluntly said how wrong he was and how stupid that would be. You all view things in some fantasy-land and don't see how things really work. Less cops on the street = more crime, several studies have shown that. I have tons of issues with policing but that doesn't mean police = bad. Yes, it's good to make cops (or anyone) responsible for any bad things they do, but doing that can result in overall worse results. There's benefits and costs to doing anything and you have to make sure the costs don't outweigh the benefits. BLM obviously had more costs than benefits.

So you consider minor technical errors-- which don't affect the validity of the vote at all-- reason to disenfranchise people.

Then yeah, you're just supporting the Republican disenfranchisement effort. Don't pretend it's not happening. Just honestly state you support it.

You're supposed to fill out things properly, there's rules and laws for a reason. You do realize the democrats want the republicans to win as well, right? The democrats or republicans don't want full control so they can complain every election using the "if it wasn't for those meddling kids" excuse. You can see this at the state and local level where democrats do have full control and they don't do any of the liberal things they say they'll do.

 

[Silvanus]

You're supposed to fill out things properly, there's rules and laws for a reason.

I specifically mentioned a case in which the reason for the rule didn't apply. We're talking about dates on the external envelope... for votes that were received before the day of the election, and still had the date on them inside. So there was zero required information missing.

You do realize the democrats want the republicans to win as well, right? The democrats or republicans don't want full control so they can complain every election using the "if it wasn't for those meddling kids" excuse.

Don't really give a shit where you apportion blame. You're supportive of efforts to disenfranchise legitimate voters for the benefit of the Republican Party. That's all I'm interested in.

You said the Republicans weren't trying to do that and that I couldn't find a single example. I found an example covering thousands. You then just seamlessly shifted to saying that you're fine with it.

 

[Buyetyen]

It's clear you only care about facts that support your narrative. Many of you are like this one friend I have spouting that criminals shouldn't even be punished because the stat for people that repeat offend is so low. And another friend that's a retired state trooper and detective bluntly said how wrong he was and how stupid that would be.

I'm glad to know that whatever positions I do not hold, you will invent for me.

I have tons of issues with policing

Name 3.

Yes, it's good to make cops (or anyone) responsible for any bad things they do, but doing that can result in overall worse results.

So we shouldn't hold them accountable because you're scared of crime and by crime I mean you're thinking of black people.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

So we shouldn't hold them accountable because you're scared of crime and by crime I mean you're thinking of black people.

To some people, police are enforcers meant to keep black people terrified, because they can't stop being terrified of black people.

 

[tippy2k2]

I don't know why you guys keep letting people derail threads with the same tired arguments over and over and over again but to try to get it back....on track ...

Rail Workers Oust Union President Who Backed Labor Deal

Eddie Hall, a working engineer who pushed for a more aggressive stance in contract showdown, wins upset victory to lead major rail union BLET.

perfectunion.us

I don't know what this could mean as the fella wasn't very specific on what he thinks about the new contract (he says their biggest problem with Union Leadership was not talking to the members and less about the contract they negotiated for) but this could get spicy...

 

[Gergar12]

I don't know why you guys keep letting people derail threads with the same tired arguments over and over and over again but to try to get it back....on track ...

Rail Workers Oust Union President Who Backed Labor Deal

Eddie Hall, a working engineer who pushed for a more aggressive stance in contract showdown, wins upset victory to lead major rail union BLET.

perfectunion.us

I don't know what this could mean as the fella wasn't very specific on what he thinks about the new contract (he says their biggest problem with Union Leadership was not talking to the members and less about the contract they negotiated for) but this could get spicy...

A lot of unions rent seek, a lot of unions are controlled opposition, and allot of unions don't protect their workers from outsourcing, I was in Meijer's union and I got paid starvation wages for example.

 

[tippy2k2]

A lot of unions rent seek, a lot of unions are controlled opposition, and allot of unions don't protect their workers from outsourcing, I was in Meijer's union and I got paid starvation wages for example.

...ok? That sucks that you were in a shitty union. What does this have to do with this thread and what's going on with the Unions at the rail company?

Unless you're trying to say the Union failed their members with the deal (some) of them took and therefore deserved to be ousted.

 

[Gergar12]

...ok? That sucks that you were in a shitty union. What does this have to do with this thread and what's going on with the Unions at the rail company?

Unless you're trying to say the Union failed their members with the deal (some) of them took and therefore deserved to be ousted.

The second one.

 

[tippy2k2]

The second one.

OK, cool. I read it wrong then the first time but after rereading it a few times, I added that second part because I thought that you might have been meaning it that way instead. Glad to see that was indeed the case as there are way too many people I know who have said they were in a Union that wasn't very good, therefore Unions are bad.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I specifically mentioned a case in which the reason for the rule didn't apply. We're talking about dates on the external envelope... for votes that were received before the day of the election, and still had the date on them inside. So there was zero required information missing.



Don't really give a shit where you apportion blame. You're supportive of efforts to disenfranchise legitimate voters for the benefit of the Republican Party. That's all I'm interested in.

You said the Republicans weren't trying to do that and that I couldn't find a single example. I found an example covering thousands. You then just seamlessly shifted to saying that you're fine with it.

And there was state law for said dates required on envelopes...

When did republicans throw out legitimate votes? So when democrats are in control and do their gerry-mandering, it's not disenfranchising voters? Both use the laws in the same manners. I don't know why you constantly harp on republicans and hand-wave all the stuff democrats do. It's when people here b!tched about Florida allowing the hard hit counties by the hurricane extra voting time IIRC (or something to help them vote) that DeSantis was helping them because they're republican counties when Pennsylvania did the same shit for democratic counties (as tstorm stated). Get upset equally about both sides doing shit you don't like.

I'm glad to know that whatever positions I do not hold, you will invent for me.



Name 3.



So we shouldn't hold them accountable because you're scared of crime and by crime I mean you're thinking of black people.

I don't have to invent your positions, you said you're pro-BLM when the movement caused more harm than benefit. And you're only pro-BLM because you like the core message of that movement and thus ignore the bad stuff about it. When I point out how bad the crime stats have gotten for crime riddled areas after BLM, you ignore it so you can stick with your narrative.

Biden helps avert railway strike.

The amount of Rs that sincerely wanted to overturn the election, you can count on one hand. And I doubt any of them outside of possibly Trump wanted to do it in an unlawful manner. Argument to incredulity, then. You mean voters didn't follow simple voting instructions and the law was...

forums.escapistmagazine.com

1) The fact that police shootings (I think violence overall) isn't really reviewed by an non-bias 3rd party.
2) The fact that most police-civilian interactions are about raising money and nickel-diming people for stuff that doesn't contribute to actually making the community safer. My retired state trooper friend was upset that his police chief had them "hiding" in construction zones to get as many tickets as possible vs being out there with their lights on to signify a that construction workers are there and actually making them safer. The next police chief came in and had the troopers do that, the smart thing and actually making people safer.
3) The whole war on drugs was a bunch of bullshit.

Hold them accountable the right way vs the wrong way (BLM).

 

[Silvanus]

And there was state law for said dates required on envelopes...

Yes.

So you consider a technical, meaningless infringement reason enough to deprive someone of their constitutional right to vote?

If someone completes an exam at school, but gets the date wrong at the top of the paper, do you believe they should fail the year and have zero recourse to graduate?

When did republicans throw out legitimate votes?

Literally just given you an example. Those votes were legitimate, from eligible voters. They weren't counted. As a direct result of Republican efforts.

So when democrats are in control and do their gerry-mandering, it's not disenfranchising voters? Both use the laws in the same manners. I don't know why you constantly harp on republicans and hand-wave all the stuff democrats do.

When have Democrats litigated to get eligible votes discounted? Give me an equivalent example.

 

[tstorm823]

When have Democrats litigated to get eligible votes discounted? Give me an equivalent example.

Every time a Republican wins the presidency in this millenium, and also Jim Crow.

 

[Silvanus]

Every time a Republican wins the presidency in this millenium

Let's have an actual example of what you're referring to here.

and also Jim Crow.

Gotta remember you don't believe the Southern Strategy and political realignment didn't happen.

 

[Buyetyen]

I don't have to invent your positions, you said you're pro-BLM when the movement caused more harm than benefit. And you're only pro-BLM because you like the core message of that movement and thus ignore the bad stuff about it. When I point out how bad the crime stats have gotten for crime riddled areas after BLM, you ignore it so you can stick with your narrative.

I can't help but notice that you didn't tell me what your criticisms of law enforcement are. I'll take the obvious dodge for what it is. You're bad at this.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Yes.

So you consider a technical, meaningless infringement reason enough to deprive someone of their constitutional right to vote?

If someone completes an exam at school, but gets the date wrong at the top of the paper, do you believe they should fail the year and have zero recourse to graduate?



Literally just given you an example. Those votes were legitimate, from eligible voters. They weren't counted. As a direct result of Republican efforts.



When have Democrats litigated to get eligible votes discounted? Give me an equivalent example.

What I think is fair and what is law are 2 different things. A vote that is not in concert with the law isn't a legitimate vote. I'm sure there's professors out there that will not let a student take a test if they're a minute late for example. Is it fair? Nope. Is it the rule? Yep.

They weren't legitimate votes.

I can't help but notice that you didn't tell me what your criticisms of law enforcement are. I'll take the obvious dodge for what it is. You're bad at this.

I can't help but notice you haven't acknowledged one bad thing that resulted from BLM.

I literally did...

 

[Buyetyen]

1) The fact that police shootings (I think violence overall) isn't really reviewed by an non-bias 3rd party.
2) The fact that most police-civilian interactions are about raising money and nickel-diming people for stuff that doesn't contribute to actually making the community safer. My retired state trooper friend was upset that his police chief had them "hiding" in construction zones to get as many tickets as possible vs being out there with their lights on to signify a that construction workers are there and actually making them safer. The next police chief came in and had the troopers do that, the smart thing and actually making people safer.
3) The whole war on drugs was a bunch of bullshit.

Hold them accountable the right way vs the wrong way (BLM).

This one's on me, my eyes glazed over. You have that effect on me.

Anyway, nothing disagreeable there, but if those are the first 3 that occur to you, you're less informed than you think you are. That they're constantly on our balls for more money is an annoyance, but nowhere near as egregious as civil asset forfeiture, for example.

And your criticisms of BLM are really nothing more than boilerplate. I support BLM not because they're perfect, but because they're right. Black lives in this country do not matter right now and they should because they're human beings too. You look at the victims of injustice and tell them to be more civil if they want your approval. They're not looking for your approval, bro. They want their rights and they want them now. It's not an unreasonable ask.