US CE First Quarter '22 Reboot: There is no Current Events, only Voting.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US CE First Quarter '22 Reboot: There is no Current Events, only Voting.

«‹›268 »

socketwrencher: Apr 10, 2012; Be still and know.

I've read several articles about potential economic sanctions against Russia if they invade Ukraine. They vaguely refer to things like targeting banks, not letting people closest to Putin "park money overseas," etc. Can anyone help me understand exactly how such sanctions work? Would an example be freezing the US bank accounts of Putin's inner circle?

# ? Jan 31, 2022 20:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 22:00

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

socketwrencher posted:

I've read several articles about potential economic sanctions against Russia if they invade Ukraine. They vaguely refer to things like targeting banks, not letting people closest to Putin "park money overseas," etc. Can anyone help me understand exactly how such sanctions work? Would an example be freezing the US bank accounts of Putin's inner circle?

I found a BBC article that lays out some possibilities:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60125659

quote:

Financial restrictions
One measure being considered would be to exclude Russia from the system known as Swift - a global financial messaging service. It is used by many thousands of financial institutions in more than 200 countries. Boris Johnson told MPs that banning Russia from this would be a "potent weapon". It would effectively make it very hard for Russian banks to do business overseas. This sanction was used against Iran in 2012 and the country lost significant oil revenues and a large chunk of foreign trade. But this sanction would have an economic cost for countries like the United States and Germany whose banks have close links to Russian financial institutions.

Dollar clearing
The US could ban Russia from financial transactions involving US dollars. Essentially, any western firm that allowed a Russian institution to deal in dollars would face penalties. This would mean that Russia would be extremely limited in what it could buy and sell around the world. This could have a huge impact on Russia's economy as most of its oil and gas sales are settled in dollars.

Sovereign debt
Western powers could take action to block further Russia's access to international debt markets. The ability of Western institutions and banks to buy Russian bonds is already restricted - those curbs could be tightened. This would deprive the country of access to finance that it needs to grow its economy. The country's cost of borrowing might rise and the value of the Rouble might fall. Russia has prepared for this by reducing the amount of debt held by foreign investors.

Block the banks
The US could simply blacklist some Russian banks, making it almost impossible for anyone in the world to conduct transactions with them. Moscow would have to bail out the banks and do what it could to avoid inflation rising and incomes falling. This would, though, have a major negative impact for western investors with money in those Russian banks.

Targeted export controls
The West could restrict the export of key commodities to Russia. The US could, for example, stop companies selling any goods containing American technology, software or equipment. This could involve, in particular, semiconductor microchips, which are used in everything from cars to smart phones, machine tools to consumer electronics. This would target not just Russia's defence and aerospace sectors, but whole swathes of its economy.

Energy restrictions
Russia's economy is hugely dependent on selling gas and oil overseas. The sales are huge source of revenue for the Kremlin. The West could make it illegal for countries and companies to buy oil from the big Russian energy giants such as Gazprom or Rosneft. A new gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany - called Nord Stream 2 - could be abandoned. It is ready to start operations but still awaiting regulatory approval. But, any curbs on Russian gas would raise prices across Europe, much of which is dependent on energy from the east.

Individuals targeted
New sanctions could be targeted at individuals, including not only associates of Vladimir Putin but also the Russian President himself. This would most likely involve punishing acts of hostility against Ukraine or threatening its sovereignty or territorial integrity. Asset freezes and travel bans are the most likely options. But many such sanctions are already in force and have yet to change much Russian behaviour. The hope of US and European powers is that Russia's elite would put pressure on Mr Putin if they were unable to access their wealth in foreign countries and educate their children in western schools and universities.

London clampdown
Some sanctions could be imposed to restrict the ability of Russian individuals to invest and live in London. Such is the scale of Russian money in banks and property in the UK that the capital has been dubbed "Londongrad". The UK government claims it is tackling this problem with "unexplained wealth orders", which require people to say where their cash has come from. But only a handful of these orders have ever been used. Some US organisations want the White House to push the UK harder on this.

Difficulties for the West
The main difficulty for the West is to decide what sanctions should be imposed and when. There are differences between countries on this. How much should the sanctions depend on the scale and nature of any Russian attack? If, to quote President Biden, there was a "minor incursion", what sanctions would be justified? And who should deploy them? When asked about this, US officials say there is unity of purpose but admit there might be a "division of labour" with different countries imposing different sanctions. Russia could also mitigate the impact of western sanctions by looking to China and other allies for support. The bottom line is that the most effective economic sanctions often come at a high price for those who impose them. There are trade-offs and not everyone in the West is willing to acknowledge them.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 20:36

socketwrencher: Apr 10, 2012; Be still and know.

This is great, thanks so much Heck Yes! Loam!

# ? Jan 31, 2022 21:21

VideoGameVet: May 14, 2005; It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion. It is by the juice of Java that pedaling acquires speed, the teeth acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion.

Mendrian posted:

Trump is dangerous because he enflames dangerous people. Republicans in general serve capital - they are racists and will do anything to keep power, but they still ultimately serve capital.

Trump may not have said "make me dictator for life" but he rustled a segment of the population that would like that, and that's dangerous. He's also willing to flagrantly break the law. Those two things together make people kind of nervous for obvious reasons?

The best part of Bill Maher's show last Friday was the discussion of the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland/UK .. particularly the statistic that there were only 400 people or so doing what was the largest use of IED's in modern history and absolutely putting fear into citizens in both nations and drawing parallels with that and the US Militias and 1/6. Then they lost the plot when they started to make fun of the physical conditioning of the insurrectionists and their ineffectiveness.

That is a fatal error in my opinion.

1. The 1/6 insurrection was very close to overturning the election. A few capitol police officers saved the day.

2. They totally ignore the Michigan Kidnapping plot.

There are far more than 400 rwnj's willing to blow stuff up in the USA. Sadly, with the way election legislation is going, they won't have to.

It looks like the last hope is the state prosecutors going after Trump and I'm not that hopeful.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 21:21

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Fuschia tude posted:

I'm confused. I thought the goal was to stop him from running again. That's what you said, wasn't it?

Indictment does not remove someone from federal office, or bar them from running for public office. Neither does being tried. Neither does conviction. Not even a felony. Not even a felon currently serving prison time. Just ask Convict No. 9653.

Being in prison for the campaign season probably makes it harder to run and win though.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 21:25

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

If he still had unfettered access to social media he could probably run from prison and win, it's unclear if he can do it without that channel

# ? Jan 31, 2022 21:29

Oracle: Oct 9, 2004

BetterToRuleInHell posted:

I feel like you guys are missing Oracle's point, which is eerily similar to what happened in the Youngkin/McCauliffe race.

You can argue about the root cause of crime and the the various methods to address them but in the meantime Republicans are going to simply shout CRIME BAD and that's going to be good enough to get the votes.

Not even that, it�s �while my opponents wring their hands and talk about pie in the sky kumbyah hug it out solutions I�m going to get the bastards shooting up your neighborhoods off the street.�
Everyone wants a quick and easy solution to their problems and they want it now, not ten years from now. Republicans are loving masters at the bing bong so simple solution that makes �common sense� and just so happens to be what you want to hear. �Herd immunity�. �Lock�m up.� �My child my choice.�

If you�re explaining you�re losing and Democratic solutions require a gently caress load of explanation, are complicated, and take time. �Lock�m up� is quick easy and removes the immediate threat which if I�m getting shot at is what I drat well want, later can wait til later.

Democratic solutions also require trust. Dems have squandered that trust since Clinton. They get a little back every time voters decide to give them a chance but inevitably either circumstances or their own tin eared ability to trip over their own feet erodes it (with plenty of help from Republican obstructionism).

Dems have got to stop assuming everyone is as inside baseball as they are politically when poll after poll shows us significant numbers of Americans can�t even name the three branches of government much less what they do much less how the filibuster works or why a majority does not mean you can do whatever you want. This is why people gravitate to the big straight talking types like �listen here folks� Biden or Fetterman or Bernie �I will recite my stump speech on my deathbed long after worms have eaten my frontal cortex� Sanders. (Or Trump.)

The problem is we don�t have many of those, and we love to eat the insufficiently pure on the left and drive off young go-getters with �that�s too far get back in line and wait your turn� centrists on the right. But when one of them does run for office they get earth toned and focus group tested to death by consultants unless they are extremely self confident or enough of a long shot the money chasers pass them by.

I don�t know the solution though I am thinking a lot about it. I do know the solution cannot be �trust my jargon heavy, thoroughly researched 214 point plan that requires a grad school level of education to understand, ten years of uninterrupted government funding and dozens of mental health professionals willing to work for nonprofit wages to materialize out of thin air and also stick around for a decade to produce results. In the meantime I�m sure those kids will run out of bullets eventually.�

You have to stop the bleeding before you can treat the cancer or you will have no patient left to save. And sometimes stopping the bleeding is going to rely on cops arresting people to get them off the street so the rest of the community can come down from high alert fight or flight enough to have the bandwidth to talk about your long term plans.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 21:30

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Oracle posted:

You have to stop the bleeding before you can treat the cancer or you will have no patient left to save. And sometimes stopping the bleeding is going to rely on cops arresting people to get them off the street so the rest of the community can come down from high alert fight or flight enough to have the bandwidth to talk about your long term plans.

You live in a country that prioritizes three strikes laws and some of the most draconian, for profit prison systems in the Western world. The prisons literally are causing the bleeding, and the police feed them.

Police are not going to stem the bleeding, because for the most part they are a distinct part of our inability to address the social issues causing the bleeding in the first place and along with that the prisons that they wish to fill and build and fill and build ad nauseum.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 21:37

Craig K: Nov 10, 2016; puck

VitalSigns posted:

Being in prison for the campaign season probably makes it harder to run and win though.

didn't stop eugene debs, to be fair

# ? Jan 31, 2022 21:45

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Oracle posted:

Not even that, it�s �while my opponents wring their hands and talk about pie in the sky kumbyah hug it out solutions I�m going to get the bastards shooting up your neighborhoods off the street.�
Everyone wants a quick and easy solution to their problems and they want it now, not ten years from now. Republicans are loving masters at the bing bong so simple solution that makes �common sense� and just so happens to be what you want to hear. �Herd immunity�. �Lock�m up.� �My child my choice.�

You're vastly overbuying into propaganda phrases. They're the symptom of a problem not some example of mastery.

Both the left and the democrats have a ton of simple phrases and slogans and have had for decades, they are not unpopular because they're not "common sense" or "need explanation", they're unpopular because people don't want to change or do work. Democrats in particular lack easy phrases because their positions tend to suck and it's hard to put a catchphrase around "we made a lovely compromise that nobody likes".

"Herd immunity" isn't about actual herd immunity, that's a half-remembered concept that they don't even understand. It's about doing nothing.

Most any other "common sense" popular conservative political position works the same way.

Look at CRT. Everyone knows what it's really about, nobody needs to explain what CRT is because the people who are against know it what they're against, which is having their kids be taught that white people did bad things. It's not a new idea that came up with the guy who realized "CRT" could be weaponized, it's simply a new name for the same thing white parents have been wanting and arguing for decades. Explaining to them that CRT isn't actually that isn't going to work, not because "if you're explaining you're losing", but because they already knew that it was a bullshit cover-name.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 21:46

Oracle: Oct 9, 2004

Jaxyon posted:

You're vastly overbuying into propaganda phrases. They're the symptom of a problem not some example of mastery.

Both the left and the democrats have a ton of simple phrases and slogans and have had for decades, they are not unpopular because they're not "common sense" or "need explanation", they're unpopular because people don't want to change or do work. Democrats in particular lack easy phrases because their positions tend to suck and it's hard to put a catchphrase around "we made a lovely compromise that nobody likes".

"Herd immunity" isn't about actual herd immunity, that's a half-remembered concept that they don't even understand. It's about doing nothing.

Most any other "common sense" popular conservative political position works the same way.

Look at CRT. Everyone knows what it's really about, nobody needs to explain what CRT is because the people who are against know it what they're against, which is having their kids be taught that white people did bad things. It's not a new idea that came up with the guy who realized "CRT" could be weaponized, it's simply a new name for the same thing white parents have been wanting and arguing for decades. Explaining to them that CRT isn't actually that isn't going to work, not because "if you're explaining you're losing", but because they already knew that it was a bullshit cover-name.

You seem to think I buy what they're selling. I don't. Others do, and those others are the ones you need to worry about, not me. You are also, again, assuming a level of competency that most people do not have when you think 'everyone knows' what CRT 'really' is. They don't. Go talk to some average voters.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 22:05

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

DeadlyMuffin posted:

"The Democrats don't seem to care so why should I?" is a funny take. Do you typically decide what to care about by emulating the Democratic party? Presumably not, so why in this case?

I think it was more "The Democrats don't seem to care about voting rights so why should I vote for the Democrats to protect them?" That was how I interpreted it, anyway.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 22:10

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Oracle posted:

You seem to think I buy what they're selling. I don't. Others do, and those others are the ones you need to worry about, not me. You are also, again, assuming a level of competency that most people do not have when you think 'everyone knows' what CRT 'really' is. They don't. Go talk to some average voters.

I have, people angry about CRT are very clear what they're angry about. That's why they're talking about "how they shouldn't be made to feel bad because they're white" which isn't at all a new complaint and has nothing remotely to do with CRT.

I'm saying that you're talking about dog whistles at face value and mostly everyone knows what the dog whistles are. You think a lot of average voters aren't "getting" these appeals to their fears and desires but they clearly are.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 22:12

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Craig K posted:

didn't stop eugene debs, to be fair

You don't think it made it harder? He didn't win and his popular vote share fell in half compared to 1912

I mean he obviously wouldn't have won anyway so we'll never know I guess.

Idk seems real unlikely that jailing politicians doesn't hurt their ability to get elected and is totally pointless. It's probably more likely to stop him than doing nothing and making it look like he's been exonerated of any criminal wrongdoing.

What do you want then? Does he need to be convicted of treason and executed because buddy if the Dems won't even charge him with a misdemeanor for any of his many many crimes in office and before, they sure aren't going to hang him for treason either.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 22:15

90s Solo Cup: Feb 22, 2011; To understand the cup
He must become the cup

BiggerBoat posted:

It really is. I kinda want to grab some copies of it and sneak it into my son's school library during the meet and greet.

Also, CP from the shad thread

So...I live in Florida (shad on me) and if we ban teaching CRT, MAUS and poo poo like that to where things get worse:

I gently but regularly teach my 11 year old son about stuff like slavery, holocaust, racism, homophobia, misogyny, 9/11 and all the horrible poo poo people often engage in. Wonder what'll happen if he writes an essay about or that simply references Emmitt Till, Matthew Sheppard, systematic racism, the author of MAUS or other things not specifically taught - or even banned from being taught - in his class?

How'd you like to fail a social studies paper in 8th grade by accurately referencing and writing about, I dunno, George Wallace, the Tulsa Race Massacre, suffragette, or even touching on income disparity among women and black people because they're not part of the curriculum?

These loving idiots want to leave up statues of confederate "heroes" so that we "don't forget our history" but don't want to actually teach anything about them. Hell, I'm old and was taught that Columbus discovered America and even at a young age I wondered how it was possible to discover an inhabited place but "Columbus" was the answer on the test for "Who discovered America?"

It's all about leaving White Supremacy unchallenged and resolute. No more asking questions. Just regurgitation and rote memorization of a toxic national ethos that makes the chuds among us comfortable in their supposed superiority over The Others�.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 22:16

FLIPADELPHIA: Apr 27, 2007; Heavy Shit; Grimey Drawer

Most all of those sanction types mention that they would also potentially hurt US business interests in the process of hurting Russia, so I'm extremely skeptical that any of them (or any potent enough to actually cause any deterrence) would be implemented by this administration. If there's one real theme to the Biden admin so far, it's "corporate interests supersede all other interests, the human cost be damned".

# ? Jan 31, 2022 22:26

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

90s Solo Cup posted:

It's all about leaving White Supremacy unchallenged and resolute. No more asking questions. Just regurgitation and rote memorization of a toxic national ethos that makes the chuds among us comfortable in their supposed superiority over The Others™.

With as little control as the federal government has over education in this country, I wouldn't be surprised if education becomes one of the flashpoint issues that eventually leads to an official balkanization of the United States. Abortion rights looks like it might be another, and we're a couple of Supreme Court decisions away from them probably ruling that States are entirely sovereign (except they can keep gobbling up more federal money than they put back in).

# ? Jan 31, 2022 22:29

Craig K: Nov 10, 2016; puck

VitalSigns posted:

look, the main thing i see coming is that if he's in prison i'm gonna see people linking pictures of right-wing facebook comparing him to nelson mandela and at that point i'm looking at my insulin pen and wondering how much of it i can inject in myself at once

# ? Jan 31, 2022 22:36

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Craig K posted:

look, the main thing i see coming is that if he's in prison i'm gonna see people linking pictures of right-wing facebook comparing him to nelson mandela and at that point i'm looking at my insulin pen and wondering how much of it i can inject in myself at once

I don't think anything can top the Jesus giving Trump the reacharound painting, but I am willing to keep an open mind

# ? Jan 31, 2022 23:42

GoutPatrol: Oct 17, 2009; *Stupid Babby*

VitalSigns posted:

You don't think it made it harder? He didn't win and his popular vote share fell in half compared to 1912

I mean he obviously wouldn't have won anyway so we'll never know I guess.

Idk seems real unlikely that jailing politicians doesn't hurt their ability to get elected and is totally pointless. It's probably more likely to stop him than doing nothing and making it look like he's been exonerated of any criminal wrongdoing.

What do you want then? Does he need to be convicted of treason and executed because buddy if the Dems won't even charge him with a misdemeanor for any of his many many crimes in office and before, they sure aren't going to hang him for treason either.

I don't think it is fair to compare the 1912 result, which is seen as the peak of the Progressive Era presidential reach, to 1920, which was a reactionary election in response to the end of the war and its recession, leading to one of the most conservative eras of the US' history. Though you are correct that being in jail didn't help.

I think you are slightly overreacting to a historical joke for the rest. The best way for Trump to look exonerated is to prosecute and fail to convict, rather than never prosecute at all.

# ? Jan 31, 2022 23:46

Bishyaler: Dec 30, 2009; Megamarm

Craig K posted:

look, the main thing i see coming is that if he's in prison i'm gonna see people linking pictures of right-wing facebook comparing him to nelson mandela and at that point i'm looking at my insulin pen and wondering how much of it i can inject in myself at once

Look at this humblebrag about being able to afford insulin

# ? Jan 31, 2022 23:47

Craig K: Nov 10, 2016; puck

Bishyaler posted:

Look at this humblebrag about being able to afford insulin

hey now, my basal insulin is switching to one that's the same but a quarter of the list price, for merely $147.98 a month! i recommend not doing that unstated math as blood will shoot out your nose

# ? Feb 1, 2022 00:10

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

GoutPatrol posted:

The best way for Trump to look exonerated is to prosecute and fail to convict, rather than never prosecute at all.

Ehhhgghh idk they both seem pretty similar to me.

Saying someone is guilty and then not bothering to charge them is admitting you don't have enough evidence, which is the same thing an acquittal shows.

I mean, do you find Trump's accusations of Hillarycrimes more credible because he never charged her and therefore she was never acquitted. I would say it makes him look less credible because he couldn't even find someone willing to take her to court.
E: or maybe about the same, I wouldn't be like "oh he charged her maybe she was guilty then" but I sure don't think never charging her at all makes his accusations more believable

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Feb 1, 2022

# ? Feb 1, 2022 00:20

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

https://twitter.com/orneryscientist/status/1487844142151450626

Apparently there's now significant support in congress to put some kind of price controls on travel nursing costs, which is a bizarre thing to do right now (or ever).

# ? Feb 1, 2022 01:03

idiotsavant: Jun 4, 2000

cat botherer posted:

https://twitter.com/orneryscientist/status/1487844142151450626

Apparently there's now significant support in congress to put some kind of price controls on travel nursing costs, which is a bizarre thing to do right now (or ever).

Not bizarre at all, afaik traveling nurses can just about dictate their wages right now and hospitals are mad because a) theyre losing workers to traveling nurse positions and b) dont want to compete with or pay the very high premium wages that traveling nurses command. It's all in favor of more capital.

tho itd be loving amazing if they do that since nurses are already bailing on the profession what with how poo poo everything has been.

# ? Feb 1, 2022 01:15

Tuxedo Gin: May 21, 2003; Classy.

Imagine if they tried to pass pay caps on doctors, or programmers. That is insane. If they want to retain nurses, they should pay them properly and give them a safe place to work.

# ? Feb 1, 2022 01:18

Sir Kodiak: May 14, 2007

VideoGameVet posted:

1. The 1/6 insurrection was very close to overturning the election. A few capitol police officers saved the day.

If those capitol police officers hadn't saved the day, how does the election get overturned? What's that look like?

# ? Feb 1, 2022 01:21

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

idiotsavant posted:

Not bizarre at all, afaik traveling nurses can just about dictate their wages right now and hospitals are mad because a) theyre losing workers to traveling nurse positions and b) dont want to compete with or pay the very high premium wages that traveling nurses command. It's all in favor of more capital.

tho itd be loving amazing if they do that since nurses are already bailing on the profession what with how poo poo everything has been.

The rise of travel nursing in the first place is because hospitals don't want to treat their nursing employees fairly - seeking false economies by nickle and diming them and hiring traveling nurses at vastly higher costs. They can solve this problem themselves, but such is MBA brain.

# ? Feb 1, 2022 01:21

Bottom Liner: Feb 15, 2006; a specific vein of lasagna

Sir Kodiak posted:

If those capitol police officers hadn't saved the day, how does the election get overturned? What's that look like?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/trump-campaign-officials-rudy-giuliani-fake-electors/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/23/politics/fake-electors-trump/index.html

you may have missed this story last week, but there were concrete plans being enacted by trumps team

# ? Feb 1, 2022 01:25

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

VitalSigns posted:

Ehhhgghh idk they both seem pretty similar to me.

Saying someone is guilty and then not bothering to charge them is admitting you don't have enough evidence, which is the same thing an acquittal shows.

I mean, do you find Trump's accusations of Hillarycrimes more credible because he never charged her and therefore she was never acquitted. I would say it makes him look less credible because he couldn't even find someone willing to take her to court.
E: or maybe about the same, I wouldn't be like "oh he charged her maybe she was guilty then" but I sure don't think never charging her at all makes his accusations more believable

Who at the justice department with the ability to charge anyone has said that Trump is guilty of anything?

# ? Feb 1, 2022 01:28

syntaxrigger: Jul 7, 2011; Actually you owe me 6! But who's countin?

Tuxedo Gin posted:

Imagine if they tried to pass pay caps on doctors, or programmers. That is insane. If they want to retain nurses, they should pay them properly and give them a safe place to work.

Literally the first thing I thought of.

Free market for me, not for thee.

# ? Feb 1, 2022 01:29

BiggerBoat: Sep 26, 2007; Don't you tell me my business again.

CommieGIR posted:

Again, how is more cops going to solve any of this? Not saying their concern isn't valid, but since when has police resulted in an overall decrease in gun violence? In most cases the police are going to respond well after the fact, even well manned police departments

Why is policing the solution here? This isn't about their concerns anymore this is "show me the money" where police have ever been a force capable of reducing gun violence? And how is it only going to affect that rather than increasing violent policing?

I've read several studies where increased police PRESENCE resulted in a decrease in crime. Specifically during the 90's . I don't like cops either and think they need to calm the gently caress down but the evidence I've read on it and the things the poster you responded about shouldn't just be blown off or dismissed out of hand either.

I've lived in some bad neighborhoods in my day (Philly, SF, ATL) and often wished there was at least the visible presence of someone in loving charge of...well...anything at all. I understand it's complicated and that most police suck but white, middle class liberals living in cul de sacs telling us they have it under control and we'd only understand if we'd read a book isn't helpful to the people the OP is referencing.

Sometimes all it takes is for a policeman or a police car to just BE THERE and make themselves visible. Think about how much more carefully you drive and how much you watch your speed when you see a cop. Or even when you were a kid and noticed the principal. Police obviously don't have to shake down everyone they see or pull over every car with a black driver, let alone shoot people, but their mere presence can and does measurably deter a lot of crime, for reasons that should seem obvious.

You can "defund" them by not buying so much body armor and weapons and poo poo and pay them simply for their eyes. Most folks don't gently caress around when they see red and blue lights. The OP is flat out telling people that the majority of law abiding folks in these communities would welcome an increased PRESENCE at least. What's wrong with that on its face?

# ? Feb 1, 2022 01:33

Sir Kodiak: May 14, 2007

Bottom Liner posted:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/trump-campaign-officials-rudy-giuliani-fake-electors/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/23/politics/fake-electors-trump/index.html

you may have missed this story last week, but there were concrete plans being enacted by trumps team

Yep, I know about this. I am in no way claiming there was not an attempt to overturn the election. I'm asking specifically for support for the claim that but for a few capitol police officers on 1/6 the election would have been overturned. Neither of those links discuss how, but for a few capitol police officers, the fake electors mentioned are counted in place of the true ones. Can you clarify that?

# ? Feb 1, 2022 01:34

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

What's the current reason they're giving for not charging Trump with crimes, these days?

Solkanar512 posted:

Who at the justice department with the ability to charge anyone has said that Trump is guilty of anything?

Nobody, which seems to be the problem.

He is, by his own admission, guilty of crimes like obstruction.

The reason he's not charged is because he's a rich white former president with a zealot fanbase. Not because they don't have enough to charge him with.

Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Feb 1, 2022

# ? Feb 1, 2022 02:04

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Solkanar512 posted:

Who at the justice department with the ability to charge anyone has said that Trump is guilty of anything?

No one I guess.

Democrats in congress have said that, are they wrong? Would be a huge relief.

# ? Feb 1, 2022 02:10

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

BiggerBoat posted:

I've read several studies where increased police PRESENCE resulted in a decrease in crime. Specifically during the 90's . I don't like cops either and think they need to calm the gently caress down but the evidence I've read on it and the things the poster you responded about shouldn't just be blown off or dismissed out of hand either.

Please feel free to post those studies.

quote:

I've lived in some bad neighborhoods in my day (Philly, SF, ATL) and often wished there was at least the visible presence of someone in loving charge of...well...anything at all. I understand it's complicated and that most police suck but white, middle class liberals living in cul de sacs telling us they have it under control and we'd only understand if we'd read a book isn't helpful to the people the OP is referencing.

You're hoping for someone to take care of things your'e scared of and copaganda tells you police are that. For many people, especially those in in marginalized communities, police presense adds to the fear. People might get pulled over or stopped for any reason, or a police officer might shoot them because they're jump and trigger happy. A lot of stuff that happens in rougher neighborhoods never gets called in because you don't call the cops until they're a last resort. Don't confuse the police being the only people society give you to turn to when poo poo gets really bad, like a murder, with wanting more policing.

The feelings around police are complex. If you live in a neighborhood with a lot of crime, you're not necessarily happy with the police, but also you want them around because things could always get worse.

My local police/justice activism group isn't white people in the burbs, it's all people of color living in the city. A lot of us live in central LA and the difference between a "rough" neighborhood and an affluent one can be just a couple of streets. I'm not too far from where the LAPD decided it was OK to blow up a bomb next to family residences.

quote:

Sometimes all it takes is for a policeman or a police car to just BE THERE and make themselves visible. Think about how much more carefully you drive and how much you watch your speed when you see a cop. Or even when you were a kid and noticed the principal. Police obviously don't have to shake down everyone they see or pull over every car with a black driver, let alone shoot people, but their mere presence can and does measurably deter a lot of crime, for reasons that should seem obvious.

This is the belief, but doesn't seem to play out in practice. But it does justify lots of staffing at the police department.

quote:

You can "defund" them by not buying so much body armor and weapons and poo poo and pay them simply for their eyes. Most folks don't gently caress around when they see red and blue lights. The OP is flat out telling people that the majority of law abiding folks in these communities would welcome an increased PRESENCE at least. What's wrong with that on its face?

You can definitely defund police in any number of ways and should.

# ? Feb 1, 2022 02:14

Oracle: Oct 9, 2004

CommieGIR posted:

You live in a country that prioritizes three strikes laws and some of the most draconian, for profit prison systems in the Western world. The prisons literally are causing the bleeding, and the police feed them.

Police are not going to stem the bleeding, because for the most part they are a distinct part of our inability to address the social issues causing the bleeding in the first place and along with that the prisons that they wish to fill and build and fill and build ad nauseum.

Cool what's your plan for getting drive by shooters off the streets then? Because the ONE TIME cops tend to be useful is apprehending people actively shooting up neighborhoods.

And three strikes laws have been being chipped away at for awhile now. See Johnson vs. United States (2015), Romero and the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code in CA etc. For-profit prisons are bullshit but with the reform and legalization of marijuana laws they're in for some hard times for their shareholders which will hopefully help.

# ? Feb 1, 2022 02:15

DeliciousPatriotism: May 26, 2008

BiggerBoat posted:

I've read several studies where increased police PRESENCE resulted in a decrease in crime. Specifically during the 90's . I don't like cops either and think they need to calm the gently caress down but the evidence I've read on it and the things the poster you responded about shouldn't just be blown off or dismissed out of hand either.

I've lived in some bad neighborhoods in my day (Philly, SF, ATL) and often wished there was at least the visible presence of someone in loving charge of...well...anything at all. I understand it's complicated and that most police suck but white, middle class liberals living in cul de sacs telling us they have it under control and we'd only understand if we'd read a book isn't helpful to the people the OP is referencing.

Sometimes all it takes is for a policeman or a police car to just BE THERE and make themselves visible. Think about how much more carefully you drive and how much you watch your speed when you see a cop. Or even when you were a kid and noticed the principal. Police obviously don't have to shake down everyone they see or pull over every car with a black driver, let alone shoot people, but their mere presence can and does measurably deter a lot of crime, for reasons that should seem obvious.

You can "defund" them by not buying so much body armor and weapons and poo poo and pay them simply for their eyes. Most folks don't gently caress around when they see red and blue lights. The OP is flat out telling people that the majority of law abiding folks in these communities would welcome an increased PRESENCE at least. What's wrong with that on its face?

Kramering in slightly but for a while there I was working on an undergrad focus in domestic security/terrorism and the real chestnut comes in that its not about presence per se, it's about perception of presence. I recall a paper I read that talked about a study in early 90s France in Tolouse examining I believe car thefts. At the time the sort of WOW LOOK AT ME high visibility police cars that are now the norm in much of Europe were not as common, and this study found dramatic decreases in rates of car theft when high visibility tape was applied to cruisers and that fact became known in the communities they patrol. I cannot immediately present the specifics but it was a wild drop, car theft/break ins dropped to something like 15% of their original level simply by adding high vis tape to cars. It doesn't really matter how much police or surveillance is out there, the PERCEPTION that cops are more ubiquitous than they really are simply from spending more time in the week noticing them throughout your day does most of the crime prevention work there. This is not unrelated to how alphabet security agencies try to encourage and even spread exaggerations about their actual reach and suppress knowledge that reminds us of their limitations or possible weaknesses. Conspiracies about CIA black helicopter brain reading tech being developed with aliens or about planes flying around all day every day around the entire country scooping up cell phone data and delivering it directly to your local cops in Podunk, Iowa to carefully sift through might not influence a large percentage of the populace, but it's nonzero.

Consider how you see police in the United States, especially at night: you don't. Most agencies have black and white cruisers or often dark colors, even straight up black. These are great for sneaking up on suspects, hiding on the side of roads and overall having a much lower presence unless their light bar is on. US cops would mostly HATE LOSING THIS INVISIBILITY and looking like some euro cop that you can see miles away. It would definitely dramatically impact their own inflated sense of cool and would also DEFINITELY reduce the rate at which they can dish out citations. We have had it discussed and shown many times in this thread the extent to which departments dial up their expenses then attack the communities they work in (or those that pass through) to meet their own inflated budget, becoming quite nearly legal highwaymen. Being seen would cramp their style.

But yeah if there was a REAL interest in reducing crime and not stuffing more and more money into fiefdom armies for capitalist gentry then imagine how much high viz tape you could buy for the sale of one Bearcat, or even the annual gas expenses of one SUV patrol car. Of course a LOT of factors play into criminal perception and willingness to conduct crime, but at the end of the day I think the fash-enablers out there are not interested in doing more work with fewer cops, they just want more cops and more money burned on tech that does not contribute meaningfully to social challenges or ills.

edit: sorry I would like to look up the study (and others, happily later) but I'm typing this as I get dressed to go out lol

DeliciousPatriotism fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Feb 1, 2022

# ? Feb 1, 2022 02:16

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Oracle posted:

Cool what's your plan for getting drive by shooters off the streets then? Because the ONE TIME cops tend to be useful is apprehending people actively shooting up neighborhoods.

Drive by shooters are generally gang-on-gang violence, and occur when gangs are prevalent in an area.

Gangs are prevalent in areas where the police are either absent, corrupt, or otherwise useless.

A way to reduce drive-bys would be to reform and/or defund police, who are a major part of the root cause of gang crime.

Though I don't know we're talking about that crime specifically.

# ? Feb 1, 2022 02:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 22:00

BiggerBoat: Sep 26, 2007; Don't you tell me my business again.

I mean, the dems DID impeach Trump twice. To say they did "nothing" is a little disingenuous and says more about the system in general, how toothless it really is and how spineless, hypocritical and shallow the GOP is I think.

Impeaching a sitting president twice isn't nothing though.

# ? Feb 1, 2022 02:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US CE First Quarter '22 Reboot: There is no Current Events, only Voting.

«‹›268 »