|
well holy poo poo on a dick, a uspol thread there's not a chance in hell it will last, but here we are after almost a year with a new thread
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:My idea for curbing police brutality is to recognize that arguing for increased punishments, however great it feels, won't work and creates even more conflict. denver has a team of social workers that travel around with police in conjunction with the mental health center of denver. my fiancé and i are friends of the guy in charge. seems to be a pretty good program that deserves to be copied throughout the country
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:This sounds so good. Every city should do this: hey, cool, you found it! yeah its pretty new. and the guy managing the team is arguably the coolest guy alive. just like, one of those people everyone loves, even the cops. the team couldn't be in better hands. fun fact, one of the team members drank the cool-aid and is going to the academy to become a cop, lol.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Between this, the legalized marijuana, and that pilot program that paid for IUDs there's some really cool policy poo poo happening in CO and Denver and I have no idea why. because colorado is cool as hell, obviously. we're not perfect though. we still have an anti-camping ban from OWS that is used almost exclusively to harass homeless people. i think i'll write a screed: i think colorado, well, the front range really, is super liberal for a couple of reasons. 1) colorado is the wild west. outside of the denver area there really isn't much of anything. yeah there are the springs and ft collins (i'd consider boulder part of the denver metro area) but those places are pretty small and not particularly influential to the state. other than that its just pockets of population in the mountains, or worse in the eastern planes. what that means is that the state has a long history of libertarianism, which opens the door for things like drug legalization. 2) colorado is not an economic powerhouse. that means people moving here are doing so for reasons other than money (relatively). so when you have a lot of people moving somewhere for reasons other than money, odds are they'll probably have a more left leaning skew. also, there aren't a lot of super powerful interests holding the state hostage because despite this being the most popular place in the country, no one really knows what the economic outputs of colorado really are. every just assumes "denver's a big city, there'll be jobs" but colorado isn't exactly a massive producer of anything. so, no big business, no big business agenda 3) boulder is a big influence on denver and i'm sure everyone's familiar with boulder. if the rich people in your state are liberal then you'll probably get liberal policies. 4) the activities that attract people to denver probably skew left-leaning. outdoor sports, nature stuff, and a super chill city vibe strike me as things leftists would be attracted to 5) long history of being a chill place. its traditionally a working class town and a haven for the homeless (weather and rail--ways) 6) young people from more developed areas move here in droves to start new lives. they take the cool stuff from where they came from with them. i'm still hoping to see the quality of education in colorado improve since so many people from states with real school systems are moving here and will probably want their kids to be educated like them. that is, assuming everyone stays when they have kids which may not happen since its comically expensive, there aren't enough good jobs, and extended family (for the transplants) is really important these days when raising kids because childcare is expensive. anyway, colorado's closed. don't move here. and if you live here and own property and are thinking about leaving, please do and sell you house cheap. thanks. GreyjoyBastard posted:Well I mean, better him than most anybody else. its a lady that works for him but yeah, a licensed social worker turned cop is probably light years ahead of the other cops
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Didn't a colorado city also fix it's homelessness problem by going "Hey we have all those empty apartments from the housing bubble and homeless people. lets put them together." Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:No, that was Utah. yeah, the denver area has a bit of a crisis regarding low-income housing. and regular income housing. it was a big deal that they just built(?)/planned to build(?) an 88 unit low-income housing facility i think explicitly for homeless people and people with mental health conditions. 88 units is virtually nothing
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:There would probably be actual riots if they started giving houses in downtown Denver to homeless people. even i'd probably be pretty peeved my neighborhood doesn't have houses under $350,000 anymore. up from about $150,000 5 years ago. those $350K houses are all serious fixer-uppers. a "normal" house is closer to half a million. which remember, is in a city that doesn't have anywhere near the earning potential of most major cities. could be worse though. our friends in california just bought a small house for $850,000 in San Jose. she's a social worker and he does IT for a school. how the gently caress are they ever supposed to pay that off, lmao? that's more expensive than my rich sister's opulent NYC suburb house in one of the fanciest towns in new jersey ($750,000) and she and her husband both pull down hearty six-figure manhattan jobs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Imo the problems with the housing market shouldn't preclude us from housing the homeless. Housing the homeless won't have a significant impact on overpriced homes, mad as it might make NIMBY suburbanites. oh i agree. denver desperately needs more moderately costed housing, including low/no income housing. just saying i'd probably be a little peeved if they just started a policy to giving away housing when the city is so desperately short of it. like give away a ton of housing as long as you have a plan to also build a shitload more it, and not just stuff designed for the rich
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:Is there a major American city not in the midst of a housing crisis? probably not consolidation is increasingly trying to squeeze exponentially more people into a shrinking number of prosperous areas. i don't see anyway to get out of this either because industrial jobs that employ tens of millions of people are not coming back anytime soon. which only leaves the service industry and you need lots of people around for that to be an economic backbone. basically, ultimately you have to produce something that has value and in post-industrialization america the number of places creating value are shrinking. upstate new york breaks my heart every time i'm up there.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Denver and Seattle sound incredibly familiar. Massive wave of young people moving in, housing crisis that's screwing over low-income people, a giant homeless problem that keeps getting derailed because of NIMBYism, i think of denver and seattle as kind of sister cities. but seattle's a lot bigger and more developed than denver is. if anything, denver is the little sister
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
my example of police questionable handling video evidence: i had a friend get arrested after a car crash for a DUI. he did all the field sobriety tests but refused to blow because he didn't want a false positive. he says that during the tests he did a fine job completing them and was able to hold up a conversation with the police. after he got cuffed and was being taken away he got very animated, as lots of people do, and was ranting and raving in the car on the way to the police station. at his trial the police could only find the video tape of the part where he was in the car. somehow the video from the car pointed directly at him to light up the area he was supposed to do the field sobriety tests and when he was his most composed was missing! they couldn't find the one piece of evidence that could have helped exonerate him, but the footage of him in the back of the police car was, of course, available and shown at the trial. he was found not guilty by some miracle, but that to me stood out as a perfect, everyday example of how the police can manipulate things like video evidence. "oops, the one part that could have helped you is missing! here's the part that will incriminate you though.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Which doesn't solve the issue of body cams being turned off. So I guess we're talking past each other. if a third party was in charge of the body cams then there would never be a need to turn them on or off. they'd just be on all the time and the incidents in question would be collected and sent to lawyers come trial time. this might have the added benefit of not letting cops watch the video and construct plausible alibis from that
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:As technology advances hopefully we'll soon reach the point where it's feasible for them to just never be turned off, and livestream to an offsite third party. goodness, isn't that the dream
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:It's possible now, I just don't know where I'm going to get the money to octuple the size of my storage array just for the dozen officers I support right now. It's not so simple as clouding it because it needs evidentiary custody and public records access. fewer tanks, more storage arrays. with all that GWoT money, i don't think it'd be too hard to scrounge up the necessary resources. logosanatic posted:theres no situation where a homeless person does anything but destroy a property and spread feces all over the walls. they are homeless for a reason. the few times ive sat down with homeless people to feed them and talked to them about helping them turn their life around ive anecdotally learned that its all substance abuse based. and theyre ok enough with their life. they have stolen cell phones they can connect to burger king wifi and scrounge together some food and money for drugs. sometimes the woman talk about wantint different life but cant kick the habit. the men just dont care lmao. yes, substance abuse and mental illness are almost always linked in the line of social work. but taking the stance that these people are hopeless is stupid. like, what do you think social workers do? how important do you think reliable, safe shelter is for helping people turn their lives around? i'll give you a hint: its very important
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If the purpose of the cameras is transparency, there isn't any reason why the police shouldn't be allowed to use the recordings in writing their reports. The only reason to withhold it is in hopes of catching the officers in a contradiction and encourages them to try to defeat the system. You want them to want to capture as much on camera as possible, because it will further serve to highlight situations where collection was questionable. Yeah, that's a double standard with how the cameras are used against suspects, but the fundamental issue is that government employees have a massively different relationship with their employer than private sector employees do, and you can't really dick around with that without setting up 5th Amendment conflicts. i see no problem with this, other than linking the office with an elected official who may need police union sponsorship for his campaign (i can't remember if inspector generals are elected or not…).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Hi, worked with a homeless shelter in Burlington VT four years. hi, marrying a licensed clinical social worker specializing in mental health providing shelter probably has the biggest impact on peoples' wellbeing like hieronymous alloy said yes, obviously there's a lot more that needs to be done, but if you're looking to resolve those issues quicker, getting some safe shelter is a major priority. a fixed address is invaluable for finding people that need help and getting people back on a healthy path
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Gyges posted:There are also questions of how to protect the identity of informants and witnesses, also most cops I've talked too are worried about having their shits and pisses recorded for posterity as well as their breaks and shooting the poo poo with each other or talking to their families. It is all in the realm of working on some technical details rather than pie in the sky how do we do this though. its funny to me because a lot of the argument for the security state we live in is "why be afraid if you've got nothing to hide" shouldn't that same standard be applied to the police? i get that things like "working with CIs" and bathroom breaks add a bit more complexity to that, but like you said, those are details that can easily be ironed out
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
my fiancé was telling me of a program where they just give rooms with a lock to homeless people and even that makes a big difference. just having somewhere to safely secure your things, sleep, be safe, be away from drug use, and get off the streets when you need to can make a huge difference in these peoples' lives.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
Quorum posted:You are technically correct, and I award ten points to House Goon. technically correct is the best kind of correct on the internet
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
its just amazing to see the same bullshit of the last 2 years still going on. leftists attack the democrats for being incredibly lovely and the only response the liberals have is to appeal to authority to try and remove leftists from the conversation entirely. i get that no one wants to "relititage the primaries" but i don't see that happening here. calling the dems out seems to be incredibly topical for a US pol thread of today because there is currently a civil war going on within the democratic party. its extremely relevant and there is no way you can legitimately discuss US politics without having space for leftist criticisms of the democratic party. and its crazy to me that the same exact people from the election threads are trying to clear out any dissenting opinions, including appealing to OPs and mods to try and probate anyone who views US politics through a different lens. like, we just went through all this bullshit where even talking about bernie or confessing incredulity about hillary's guaranteed coronation were probatable. i get that its really "annoying" to have people "disagree with you" but liberals don't have much of a leg to stand on. for all their bullshit of the last two years, for all their grounded confidence and reasonable perspective, they still lost 2016 in spectacular fashion. the democratic party is at the lowest point its been in decades and yet still, still, people are insisting that disagreeing with them is flat out stupid and should be literally cracked down on by anyone with the authority to do so. its just insane. these exact same people have seen their tactics and ideology fail horrifically and cost them virtually all political power, and yet their go to move is to still try and squash all dissent and label themselves as the rational adults in the room. the leftist/liberal divide is inherently a major factor of US politics. people are allowed to disagree with the democrats from a leftist perspective. its not ~disruptive,~ its ~indicative~ of the current issues facing the only major party in the US that isn't the republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:And just like them, you have nothing to offer. You have memes, like the ones Ze Pollack's spouting right now. You do nothing. You contribute nothing. No one in this country is any better off for whatever minimal labor you may put in whenever you're not sitting on your rear end and shitposting. lmao, what? what is this other than a baseless personal attack? i think the criticism of "why haven't you fixed the world then yet, idiot" is a pretty stupid one. i must admit though, this response is pretty hilarious. as always, just viciously lashing out in hyperbolically stereotypical form
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
"i think the democrats should put all their weight behind supporting UHC. in addition they shouldn't put their thumb on the primary scale and should get rid of super delegates. finally, they should be as obtuse and obstinate in opposing all republican legislation as the republicans were during the democrats reign. the democrats should use the time before the 2018 and 2020 election to come up with a clear plan that emphasizes economic, racial, and social justices, firmly establishing themselves as the party of the people and doing everything they can to publicly shed their corrupt image." "you just spout negativity and don't offer any solutions" also lmao that "its natural to go from obama to trump. happens all the time"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Javes posted:https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/910894633256914944 RuanGacho posted:This is cool and good as long as we can get them to admit they want to use one. great news followed by bleak reality. business hammocks posted:Yeah, wouldn't the police just keep it secret whenever they used one? i thought they already were. like they'd use it and then use it to find other evidence that they would then use in court. perhaps i'm misremembering, but i thought i also remember it being "confidential" and refusing to even admit it was used or show it to the defense or something like that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Javes posted:Wouldn't any evidence obtained via a warrantless stingray be immediately thrown out in court? but that's the catch, i think they use it to find other evidence that they then bring to court. its like an quasi-legal stepping stool to gathering evidence that would stand up in court better. Chilichimp posted:Could you like... shut up and go away or something? Almost all of the people ITT agree with the things in your quote, so I don't really know who you're arguing with. i guess Boon in this instance. you don't have to take it so personally. not every post is about you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They have to disclose how they obtained that other evidence, though. i thought i remember using the "its classified" argument. (like, they'd tell the judge, but not the defense or something like that). i can't really remember, so i guess its been a while since i've read about it on the intercept. EDIT: here https://theintercept.com/search/?s=stingray two titles include "Maryland Appellate Court Rebukes Police for Concealing Use of Stingrays" and "NYPD Attempts to Block Surveillance Transparency Law With Misinformation" plus there's a bunch of other goodies within the articles. RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Sep 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
just reposting for the new page if anyone's interested in reading about how stingrays have been used: here https://theintercept.com/search/?s=stingray two titles include "Maryland Appellate Court Rebukes Police for Concealing Use of Stingrays" and "NYPD Attempts to Block Surveillance Transparency Law With Misinformation" plus there's a bunch of other goodies within the articles. Chilichimp posted:That's called fruit of the poisonous tree, and yes. yeah its pretty much this. they gather it illegally and work backwards to come up with a way it was legally gathered. or just call it confidential and talk with their buddy the judge who ok's it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Boon posted:Seriously dude? You made some screed of a post and I attempted to tell you why I find the posting so empty personally and then you took a poo poo onto your keyboard with some third-person conversation and then attacked me. How do you not see the irony? whatever boon. i've been reading your trash posts for years. go back to describing missile systems or whatever it is you think you know about. it is within this moment that i realize i have no interest in arguing with you because after reading years of your posts i realize its not worth the energy and never has been. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Boon posted:I take this as a distinct inability to engage on a serious level. So why are you here? well, first i posted in frustration of seeing the exact same dynamic of the last 2 years playing out once again with the "in-crowd" of liberals trying to remove people who dissent with them by appealing to mods and ops then i responded to a personal attack then i remembered fully who you are and realize that trying to respond to "well then why haven't you solved all the world's problems yet" is not going to be constructive or beneficial in any way. i don't need to prove myself to you in any way and can post wherever i drat please. for instance, actual articles about stingray on this very page.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Well, this is just the bad thread now i thought the stingray conversation was relevant and interesting 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
i see no reason the dems should make concessions with the republicans since the republicans refuse to do the same. if the dems are the adults in the room and the only party willing to compromise then anything short of moderate conservative policy is already out the window by definition. sure they may be "holding the process together" but to what end? it only serves to further the conservative agenda since only one party is willing to compromise. all concessions will by nature only benefit the republicans. instead the democrats should be appealing directly to the people. they should ignore the desires of the donors and instead try to offer the american people things that will objectively make their lives better. incrementalism and capitulation to the republicans has gotten the democrats no success and has alienated their base the example that stands out to me is something i heard on chapo. the republicans put something like 200 amendments into the ACA and still, still, the ACA receive ZERO republican votes. now maybe that's not 100% accurate but the point stands that the democrats just let the republicans walk all over them thinking "this time they'll have to play ball." but the republicans never do, so its just the democrats watering down their own legislation and undermining their own positions for literally no gain. what purpose does "being the adult" serve if its a) losing you elections, b) never being reciprocated, c) only serving to benefit the other party?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Boon posted:I think where you and I diverge is that I sincerely, truly, do not believe that the US can exist as a country if the Democrats do not attempt to maintain the order and the laws of our institutions and instead shift to a hyper-partisan mentality. the answer is to shift your positions. the problem is that both parties primarily only serve a small slice of the american electorate. by reaching out to the people and giving them the things they really want then the democrats can accrue more votes. if they start winning elections then the republicans will have to change or face being powerless. i think the reason the republicans were able to bounce back after we were all sure they were done for after obama's election is because obama managed to disappoint huge swaths of his supporters. the dems were never able to move in and make the killing blow because their intention was never to give the people what they wanted like: UHC, no more wars, an end to the surveillance state and the increasing militarization in general (ending the GWoT), getting money out of politics, punishing those responsible for the economic crash, and reducing inequality now i admit, there is much misunderstanding on what obama actually stood for during the 2008 campaign. a lot of people, including myself, thought he would be more liberal or left or whatever than he actually way because a lot of people got into him really early when he was saying much more revolutionary stuff and by the time he was walking a lot of that back people weren't really keeping up with him because they assumed they already knew what he was all about. anyway, i see the answer as "more democracy." actually appealing to the poor and working classes and providing vision and leadership that would convince a lot of people that voting for the dems would actually make things better. but to do that means challenging the status quo which means going up against the media and monied interests who have a lot of power and will attack you viciously for it. but this last election showed us that their power is not unlimited. the forces arraigned against trump failed to stop him. even fox news was questioning him to no avail. hillary out-raised trump 2-1 but that didn't change the outcome. i think trump is abhorrent, but he said things that really resonated with people, like getting "better deals" which is obviously vague but people translated that to "reducing the damage globalization is doing," something that is very popular. i admit that its a bit of a chicken and egg scenario. we need more people to change the dems so they attract more people. i see no harm in advocacy because changing people's minds is part of the actual solution. we need to make a hard break from the current policy of mitigation and move to a policy of hard opposition with an attractive alternative. "america's already great" and "only minor tweaks are needed" is not a winning strategy. it doesn't resonate or inspire. i see the path forward as somewhat radical change. change is scary and hard and requires vision and leadership from above along with organization and support from below. the reason things are so bad now is because neither party has an interest in resolving the issues that effect the majority of the electorate. appeal to the masses with the things they want and stick to your guns. change the conversation, something the dems have been atrocious at for as long as i can remember. like, there's a reason bernie and trump were so appealing. people desperately want change but there is no viable outlet for it
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Boon posted:I think that in order for the Democrats to shift to this position they would necessarily have to instill the same messaging in their constituency that the GOP has in theirs, that there is no working with the opposition, that anyone who does not toe the line is to be primaried, and that the GOP is the enemy at all costs and nothing good can from them, that they cannot be worked with, full stop. but to many millions of people the government is broken. the government makes the rules for the game that is our economy, justice system, and our lives. for so many people all those things loving suck right now. sometimes a step back in hopes of taking two steps forward is necessary. if the dems address the things that people think are broken and promise to fix them then maybe they'll see success. and its not just things republicans are doing. its obama saying "no wall streeters in my cabinet" and then appointing timothy geithner. its palosi refusing to acknowledge the damage low-regulation capitalism is doing to people. its the failure to address the horrors of the GWoT and the War on Drugs from both parties. are either party advocating for a reduction in wealth inequality? which party wants to take on citizens united? its simple things like these that are indicative of our current institutions. the status quo is damaging. why are people trying to save and protect that? we need to come up with a plan to challenge the powers that be, not tacitly endorse them for fear of breaking things further. to many people a further break would be hardly noticeable because to them its already broken.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's pretty easy to be socially liberal and very, very economically conservative. the symptoms are bad, but the causes are very, very good
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
thank you for a full reply. there's a lot to unpack here so i can't say my typically lovely posting will be anything less than horrible. in terms of a coalition) i believe that coalition already exists and is looking for a candidate to represent them. i'm talking about the people who supported obama in 2008 and the people who supported bernie. and even to some extent, the people who genuinely believed trump's economic promises and dismissed/ignored his other bullshit. obama disbanded his grassroots network the minute he won because he saw them as "a tiger he couldn't control." what does that mean? those people wanted serious reforms and changes, and that was never obamas intention, despite his early rhetoric. i guarantee you he wasn't afraid of his most ardent supporters trying to pull him to the right. bernie has attracted a large base of die-hards as well and he's not even offering anything that revolutionary. he was a no body and did way better than he should have done. both those people were seen as uncorrupted. obama because he was so new, and bernie because he's been relatively consistent for so long. i genuinely believe that if the dems were to embrace the "radical" elements of those platforms that the coalition would be there. now, before people jump in with "hillary had the most left platform ever," it is also important to make sure the person selling the idea is believable. i believe that hillary's credibility problem, whether it was true or not, severely hampered her ability to sell these proposals. if anything, it hurt her because it served the narrative that she would say anything to get elected, including things that people, once again, rightly or wrongly, assumed were out of her character. the thing that keeps this coalition from grabbing the reins of power is the establishment. for all their great social policies, like combating racism, the people that form this coalition want things that will "damage" the economic prospects of the donor class. therefore, only a minutia of platitudes can be granted and the existing coalition cannot be fully embraced. as for LGBT) it wasn't obama or the dems that made that happen. it was the courts. LGBT rights are not something i can put in the "win" category for the dems because they didn't do very much to advance it beyond a vague "made it more acceptable." but isn't obama on record opposing gay marriage? i know hillary was. regardless, from my memory obama did not in any way champion gay rights and definitely cannot take responsibility for its success. to me it seemed a much more organic and grass roots movement that arose in states and won over the populace through outlets like the media. maybe i'm wrong, but that's how i remember it. perhaps you're saying that his election alone was a tacit endorsement of the idea, but that seems obtuse at best. once again, i may be wrong, but i really remember that obama was not a leading figure championing gay rights. perhaps you mean more that it was congress, but i would say thats more symptomatic of the ideological shifts of their constituents, a charge that may have been embraced by some in congress, but i wouldn't say they spearheaded it. i openly accept that i may be wrong and would love evidence to the contrary. burn the system to the ground) i don't think anyone is saying "literally burn the system to the ground." but openly pointing out the failures of institutions like the justice department (which did make some good strides regarding police and racism under obama, but completely dropped the ball with regards to the Great Recession), the revolving door of the SEC with Wall St, same with the FCC and telecoms, the courts during the Great Recession, the DoD and its relationship with contractors, intelligence agencies and the erosion of the 4th amendment, and others doesn't sound like burning down the system to me. it sounds like creating a new baseline for people to understand those institutions and allows for an opportunity to reform them or, if necessary, reorganize them so as to be less susceptible to corruption. not working with the republicans would be fine, including extraordinary measures, so long as the dems keep up a consistent narrative of exactly why they are doing what they're doing. i agree that fighting over things like the debt ceiling and the budget are probably beyond the pale, even for me, because of how dangerous they can be. but nothing is stopping them from trying to inundate those bills with amendments or openly opposing other legislation. to me, the democrats are just terrified of admitting that they may have been wrong, or that they have to evolve, or just plainly afraid of upsetting their donors. i think that's everything. let me know if i missed anything or you want more
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:For some reason the suburban American dream REQUIRES a yard yeah, yards suck. they seem to me much more of a status symbol thing, but then again i don't have kids. if i had kids i'm sure a yard would be great- much more convenient then having to go to the park all the time
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Here's the thread the Iraq War prediction came from: this is amazing to look at
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
i heard it was 200 gunshot wounds, 50 dead from bullets, and 200 other injuries. fiancé said that to me while looking at news could be wrong though
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
all of this chat about banning guns or making them single shot only or whatever is as masturbatory as the people thinking they're going to use their guns to fight the government whether we like it or not, gun ownership is protected as highly as free speech and privacy the only people who might even consider trying to change that are almost completely out of power in government its not going to happen anytime soon meanwhile there are popular pushes for better healthcare. maybe focusing on access to mental health care, de-stigmatizing requesting mental health help, and putting in ways for people to get serious professional help in ways that will not overly alter their lives should be a major part of this push for things like M4A. improving standards of living, overhauling mental healthcare, and trying to find ways to create a more connected society seem like better ideas to be pursuing. at least those are actions that call to improve things and take steps toward the kind of world people want to live in instead of punitively banning something people want because of the actions of a few.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
not bad observations, but it neglects the reality that the democratic donors want the democrats to be republican lite and the only way to sell that to the democratic base is as a great coming together of both parties under consensus ideas. the dems are between a rock and a hard place; trying to sell republican legislation but unable to get actual republicans to support them. and why should the republicans? if the dems are headed right then the republicans are free to radicalize. anyway, the point is, the real power behind the dems wants them to veer to the right but they can't sell that to the base unless its seen as a "victory" by finally coming together over "common sense solutions" and consensus. its a victory the republicans will never grant them, nor shouldn't (politically)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:God drat this is a lovely take from The Guardian this morning: this article was loving stupid and contradicted itself all over the drat place.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2018 19:01
|
|
*. In order to stave off disaster we must read more history books and do good things instead of bad things**
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Not really. It makes sense from the perspective of seeking civil damages. Something similar happened after watergate. The benefit of getting to use discovery and dragging this issue even more into the legal system is a good thing. If it gets tossed, no loss. if it gets to actually go to a courtroom, it will be interesting to see what happens. yeah except remember that the democrats literally have no money so expensive and lengthy litigation against a foreign power that can easily outspend and outlast you doesn't really sound like a good allocation of resources Ragnar34 posted:Let's sue a nation! They'll run out of money before we do. Wait, no, the opposite. this guy gets it
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 17:36
|
|