#politics
1 messages · Page 6 of 1
also not on the GA coast, go figure... it's been a while since I looked at it
it's actually next to the Savannah River
Ah got it. Yep that’s the one
Explain like I'm American: there's something about a prince leaving the royal family and moving to California to make Hollywood movies?
Which, in itself, sounds like a fun TV drama
as long as you have a pretty face and a brand you can have a career in film acting
I read something about the CA wildfires and why they're so bad. The answer has nothing to do with taxes and has everything to do with bad fire policy creating a huge backlog of fuel just waiting for the right moment to catch fire.
@brisk cradle another thing is it sounds like California uses quite a bit of prison labour for fighting fires... and a certain pandemic has been spreading this year
Explain like I'm American: there's something about a prince leaving the royal family and moving to California to make Hollywood movies?
Which, in itself, sounds like a fun TV drama
he'll be president before you know it
A certain Austrian-born actor almost went there.
Instead he wound up becoming Governor of California.
I will never understand why America gets away with prison labor to this extend
wdym gets away with.... it’s not illegal, in fact, it’s in the constitution (one of the amendments), the one banning slavery except as punishment for a crime.
And in the US you only get your rights taken away via due process and being convicted by a jury of your peers. It sounds fine to me.
It's morally wrong to me
First: prisoners are citizens too and should be treated as such
Second: while yes, jail time is a punshiment, it should also try to be reforming
So teaching prisoners a new job is fine, voluntarily taking on jobs for money is fine, slavery isn't
I think people expand on the definition of slavery when it comes to prisoners. When someone says slavery, I think of horrific work conditions, no health care, cruel punishments, can’t learn to read/write, etc. all the atrocities that happened to slaves in the U.S. south and around the world. But the literal definition is just working for no money. And that’s all it is in prison. You aren’t getting your hand cut off if you don’t finish fast enough.
Taxpayers are also paying for you (a prisoner). Taxpayers are paying for your housing, food, care, literally everything. Working for society for no literal money, pays some of that back.
My definition of slavery is that you don't have civil rights
Well the prison labor doesn’t fall under that definition I don’t think.
You have less rights in prison yes, but you always have the right to counsel for your defense, to not be treated to cruel and unusual punishment, speech, religion, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXDJLSeklXI
Dude gets hit by a car breaking traffic law. Timestamp 1:19. "I can't afford the ambulance dude."
Murica.
Getting hit from car crossing double yellow
T H E F R E E M A R K E T A T W O R K !
It's not really a free market though
When you as a consumer are generally not the ones who's paying, it all boils down to "how much is the person who's paying willing to pay", there is no real competition there, as insurance providers, etc, will just keep dolling out more and more each year, raising the costs to the end users in the form of how much their insurance costs, etc
yeah I was being facetious but ok
I know that the health care "market" is not a truly free market
part of that is why I support (for now) the social democratic ambition of single-payer health care
free market principles are
when applied to things you need to survive (healthcare), because obviously you pay it or die
with free market principles, people would actually shop around providers for the cheaper deal, the thing is is that it's the insurance companies and other schemes which pay, so the only real people fighting for affordable is the insurance companies, and they basically bite the cost as part of the risk which they pass down to you with higher costs
I honestly wouldn't trust the government funding healthcare, unless there was a much better manner to ensuring it's funding than what we have over here, we basically have staff shortages across the board due to the NHS not really being a great company to work for as well as government basically killing all the financial help to people wanting to fill those gaps, not to mention all the stupid immigration BS; What people don't see is how long you can be waiting around A&E for a broken arm, how long a consultation can take, how long it can take to get some medicines due to red tape around budgeting, my mate is on a medicine which they basically had to make a case of why she needed this bioagent medicine, which literally took 6 months for her to get
I think you underestimate just how bad the US is
pretty much anything would be better
at this point a good chunk of American health insurance is just GoFundMe
or dying
When it comes to prison labor, I dont see any issue with it as long as the prisoner consents to working. I mean, prisoners dont really get much of anything else to do.
and I dont really see us making prisons more like a five star hotel, otherwise people would love to stay in there for years
though I do think we should start dropping charges on cannabis and legalize it, that should free up prison space
worse case ive seen with cannabis has been panic attacks that require going to the emergency room
yeah, agree about the drugs
people are free to totally screw up their lives, as long as I don't have to pay for it 🙂
well about that :p
prisons are quite expensive to operate, and tend to have repeat visitors
the problem with prison labour is prison workers are paid below minimum wage, and a lot of the profit goes back to their employers, not themselves or to the prison to fund its services
so it's just a particularly inhumane taxpayer subsidy of large corporations
welcome to the US prison system, which is private
well
its a mix of private/public, and I dont know which is which when it comes down to each prison
Most are public, by far.
The amount of inaccuracies in this sliver of reality is astounding.
correct, i believe its something like ~18% of federal prisoners, are in private prisons, and ~7% of state prisoners are in private prisons
some states are well over 25% though if i remember correctly
Privatized prisons are such a bad idea. Especially when the insentives are to have higher prisoner counts.
could be worse, could be in an open air prison

fbi would have nothing to do with this
When it comes to prison labor, I dont see any issue with it as long as the prisoner consents to working. I mean, prisoners dont really get much of anything else to do.
This is somewhat of a flawed premise, firstly the whole concept of consenting to the work kind of flies out the window when they’re incarcerated. Plus, many people in the prisons realistically shouldn’t be
Realistically shouldn't be? Do you mean if the laws where different?
Partially yes - but laws are also applied to different people in a discriminatory manner
Eg, someone may get a fine for a crime, whereas another person gets 5 years in prison for it
There are many many people in prison in the US who were grossly over-sentenced for their crimes
It's been found that not only are sentences based on bias about the person (class, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc), even just getting a different judge can massively impact the duration of the sentence, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2019/20190108_Intra-City-Report.pdf
In fact, that study found that in most cities, the primary factor of their sentencing was just which judge was picked for that case
But also, taking a look at earlier stages of the judicial system... The police are significantly more likely to arrest certain people than others, especially those who are lower income and cannot afford a judge, or people who've been incarcerated before and won't be seen favourably by a jury
It's a super complicated system with many many different factors here and there, but overall there's a systematic injustice throughout the system that leads to the wrong people being incarcerated, people being over-sentenced, and inevitable repeat-offences.
The way the system works is why terms like "prison-industrial complex" were coined
But basically - the prison system in the US is designed to bring people in and keep them there. Once they're in, they're tasked with labour for ridiculously small amounts of money (often less than a dollar an hour - or none at all in some states), which can be seen as "legalised slavery". There are also some areas of the US that heavily base their economy on this. For example, there's the famous example of Hillary Clinton's book where she mentions that the Arkansas Governor's mansion was staffed by barely-paid black prisoners
The part about judges makes sense everything else you said there you've lost me.
Could be worse, it could be china's system
Is that the standard the great American nation is measuring itself against?
could be worse, it could be britian back in the 1800s
But uh it could be a lot better too so let’s not compare it to worse things unless you want it to end up there
yeah china isn't a high bar to pass and I don't think anyone is advocating for chinas system.
no, however we just cant point to finland's five star hotel-prison and expect it to work in the US
I haven't talked to anyone here who would advocate for that though.
but I do think however is that we need to do is to really rethink on how people get into prison, considering a lot is based on drug convictions.
I mean or we can legalize all the drugs. It won't completely get rid of drug crime but it can quite possibly reduce it.
eh, I dont think we should legalize all, but cannabis for sure
well legalizing it would still entail restrictions just like alcohol does.
or like take the approach that druggies need to be taken to rehab instead of being chucked in prison
because prison doesnt support them in getting off of drugs, and just pushes the problem back to when theyre released again
yeah exactly
The thing is that you legalise certain aspects, e.g. drugs, and all the side crimes of getting people to act as mules, etc, disappear; you reduce the cast of the net
The way prisons also run in general is that you're there to pay your dept to society, anything else you get to do, e.g. a severly underpaid job, is a privilege
The issue is that the goals between countries are entirely different, US is about punishment, many other countries are actually taking the step to improve an inmates life when they leave, focusing on actual reform vs just incarceration
We have that over in the UK too iirc
mmm love when vendor choices are political
What are the two parties?
Kosovo and Serbia.
Guess another win for murican lobbying and fearmongering
Luckly germany is sticking to Huawei equipment
I don't mind it. Except the 5G part, since legit, Serbia is run by Huawei.
After seeing their infrastructure... let's agree to disagree on that one.
Guess another win for murican lobbying and fearmongering
@near glen durr hurr china bad china evil usa good guys
You're trusting this hardware to handle the networking of quite literally all your citizens
When that hardware is coming from a vender which has been suspected of their local gov interfering, and the fact that china law to my knowledge basically says that they have to comply with that interference...
Not that we don't hear about cases every year where some company is refusing to give the US gov data they've been requested..
at this point i trust china more than i trust usa tbh
Yes, i'd totally trust a country which basically fucks it's rights and freedoms of it's citizens...
Its a toughie. Everyone knows both goverments are collecting obscene amounts of data via what are probably illegal methods. I support data awareness with china not because the US is better, but because i hope that awareness can shift to the US government
Any network provider will make sure their networks integrity is intact
And quite frankly, still better than Cisco with their bazillion zero days
Ensuring that integrity when you're already dealing with metric fucktons of data is pretty eer....
I have no personal reason to not trust hauwei
Yes, i'd totally trust a country which basically fucks it's rights and freedoms of it's citizens...
tbh I'm not sure if you mean America or China atm
I'm not saying I trust any of them. Just if I had to decide I'd take China over USA atm
Huawei has been a player in the network industry for quite some time and only now the US thinks they are bad
Like, Huawei has been the biggest provider since 2012
in part, a lot of it stems from people following the US, however
Idk, this all just seems very fabricated by the US for economic gain
But, there are defo concerns there around china
Around china, sure
@opal moat take china over USA? what do you mean by that?
I wouldnt trust china period when it comes to human rights
and huawei is really up, close, and personal with the CCP
but yeah, I do think defending our infrastructure is a high priority
if these systems do have backdoors, we would be fucked if they were doing something critical
plus china is doing the same thing about intel/amd cpus
trying to replace intel/amd with their own home grown x86 cpu
imagine trusting either China or the US
I mean if thats the case, let the US leave nato
and the UN while we are at it
and every other global organization and be like the swiss
isolationist and armed
If Huawei does have backdoors, they are Damm well hidden
Cisco doesn't bother to hide backdoors
The only weird thing we noticed was Huawei has way more management traffic by default. But management shouldn't be connected to the internet anyway.
shouldnt doesnt mean it cant
If you setup your network wrong, that's on you, not on the company providing the equipment, lol
and the UN while we are at it
@dusky raft aren't they talking about leaving organizations like that?
to some degree
it isnt a huge priority
but I think the US needs to leave
let the dictators have the UN
it's unfortunate, but the US is going too isolationist to be trusted with veto power anywhere
I dont understand
looks like the invasion of new jersey has begun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A76KfZpGIc
A 'boaters for Trump' parade sails along the Jersey Shore on Saturday.
republicans are just salty that they keep getting owned 
meanwhile NYC mayors crying for all the rich people to come back
what'd he do to scare them off
Lockdowned to all fuck, afaik, highest taxes in the US
And, not to mention, they where planning to retroactively tax people who've been there the past 10 years
Sooo...
kek
CA is trying to do that with a wealth tax... a literal tax if you have money, not if you made money
tax the rich they'll totally just not gtfo 
and trying to tax anyone who left the state in the last 10 years... which is absurd
Apparently some of them where tied to net worth or something, including liquid assets, etc
seems banned word tbh
if you have to tax people because they are leaving the state, that has to be a sign you are doing something wrong right?
God forbid if some people earn cash on their work
What people fail to see, is how the money ends up going back to other projects, etc; Yes, there are the rich who seal themselves off from the rest of the world and all that, but then there are fair chunks of people who re-invest their money back into their stuff
These are the people who literally move the world forward, create jobs, and economic growth
well yes, good businessmen do that, because they want to grow their company. Elon doesn't draw a salary at any of his companies afaik. he gets paid if the stock does well for a period of time
But, god forbid people earn cash at a level that they're literally able to throw cash back into it
and Bill Gates? no way any gov agency with the amount of money he has given away does anywhere near the good he has...
People literally shat on tesla for a government loan
They paid that back with interest and a bonus on top, so I recall
it was some gov scheme for evos iirc
well there is the tax credit thing for the first 200k cars sold. and tesla has used all that up, but other companies are free to take advantage of it, they just haven't made a car that people want apparently
My issue is basically the whole "rich people have money they're not gonna be using so we should just tax them to all shit"
Like, yea, I have nothing against raising taxes on rich people at a reasonable rate, you can't take a huge % of their income and not expect them to fuck off or just give up; Capitalism works because it allows for this, people like elon running multiple companies, started up with the dollar of past projects; They want to tax people on cash they literally never had in the first place, which is just moronic
I dont think republicans are getting owned, I think liberals/leftists are living in a bubble
and yeah, with the whole tax the rich, the "socialist" nations like finland and sweden tax their poor people more
here in the US, we got a lot of tax loopholes that the poor can get off scot free or pay very little
hell, you can lower taxes by paying into a 401k or other retirement fund
and besides, the US government isnt a good spender
considering the debt hole we are in
moderation is key!
putting a bunch of people into giant buckets for a second:
Left tends to want to revolutionize everything without consideration for cost or who's going to pay for it, or more importantly who it will affect- always assuming it's worth whatever the cost until it's too late
Right tends to be way overly-conservative with everything. Nothing changes, for better or worse
somewhere in the middle is a happy medium
The issue is that there will never be a happy medium as it goes
The left wants to cater towards their "norm", which is all the progressives coming out of college, etc with their art degrees who are able to roam the streets all day protesting while mum and dad pays for everything, I mean, their 2016 ploy was literally "you vote for hillary or you're a sexist pig", which, literally, that does NOT win you votes outside of that viral mind
more recently the right (again, giant buckets) has picked up some bad habits of its own. I hope it'll go back to being conservative rather than.. Well, whatever the hell it is right now.
I'm not entirely sure what or why, but something 'aint right with the right today
I tend to vote on both sides, depending on the candidate choice, but this year was the first time I submitted ballots as all blue after looking at the red ballots
it's more work, but I get more choice in return for that extra work I put in
but yeah, I am currently wholly unimpressed by the conservative party at the moment. I would have figured any of the choices I had for that party this year would have budged somewhat on things like climate change, but nope. Not a one.
Not to mention all the videos of his creepy behaviors around women of all ages...
yeah, not impressed with the extreme left at all. Never was.
And all his racist commentry...
I'm just not a fan of extremes in any circumstance
Like, he's literally the anti-liberal canidate
But, I think their entire stance is "he's our best shot at this moment"
And then you have harris, coz she's gonna be amazing to black voters
Fuuuck me
Biden is far, far, far more moderate than Trump, though, so I'll take the lesser of two evils- as I have tried to do every year
far lesser of two evils
by a long, long, long way
I disagree
I'm not an american, but, I would sooner vote for somebody like trump who actually speaks his mind, even if i disagree with some of it, vs somebody who is literally nothing more than a puppet
problem with Trump is he's not really speaking his mind on matters
See, I don't wanna see biden win
But, then I kinda wanna do just to see how bad he screws up his speech; (assuming they let him do it...)
if you watch his Twitter, it's obvious he doesn't know what he's taling about. Which is fine, nobody knows everything. The problem is pretending he knows what he's doing
Trump, I mean
I do see the speeches Trump gives sometimes, but again am unimpressed
the problem comes when he says things that seem really terrifying, like that he wouldn't accept if he lost
I don't know what that means, but I don't think a president should be saying that
and that fucking terrifies me
I am genuinely scared of that man
The left is what scares me, tbqh; And I really doubt that biden being in play is a good idea
the issues with taking away vote-by-mail as well- not good
cat it seems kinda like you're doing a lot of generalizing about the left though lol
I'm just going off what I heavily see
and the issue is that the vocal minority is often the one which the parties listen to
which sounds like it's shaped a lot by the kind of people who are involved in internet drama :p
Biden is pretty moderate. Left, but not nearly as extreme as blue is made out to be
My concern with biden is heavily about the crap he says
biden is about the most generic candidate possible
I'll take vanilla
"if you can't pick between me and trump, you ain't black"
after this shit-flavored ice-cream, vanilla is good
but he's not the worst possible person
Not to mention the "peaceful protests" with 30 odd people dead
eh i don't think it's possible to fairly judge the protests with cops actively instigating violence
I don't expect to be able to walk up to the president and fist-bump them, but I refuse to vote for someone that has said things that actually scare me
that's my stance
totalitarianism is not my idea of government
if it's between that or "meh", I'll take "meh"
my thing is that for god knows how long there has been deaths and destruction of private property, comically often against the small businesses people say should be supported, but, you can't keep saying that shit is peaceful when people are losing their livelyhoods
problem with the blame game is that one part wins and the other loses
i don't think i know enough to be able to say which side was doing that destruction
current protests aren't about left vs right
No, but you can at least say "this shit is wrong and needs to be stopped", vs just saying "peaceful protests"
and i don't think there's anyone on the ground i'd trust to be a neutral observer.
it just got political because of course it did
eh as long as people's lives are on the line, property doesn't really matter?
lives, then property
property can be replaced, sure, but it shouldn't need to
when that property is what people use to feed their family and their children, yea, it does matter
and i've seen images of people getting life-altering injuries from police action
if it is property vs lives, then of course lives are more valuable, but it's never "choose one"
But, it's not "property vs lives"
that's what I said 😛
the current protests are about systemic problems inherent in our country. Great as our system is, there's flaws. Sometimes there's big flaws
that's what the protests are about. Politics just absorbed them and everyone chose a side
so now if you're right you're with the police, left with the protesters
It's a matter which is deep routed in the system, ofc it's political
but that's not the intent of any of this
politics has nearly robbed the protests of meaning
At the end of the day, there are bad cops, those defo need to be dealt with and officers wanting to report that stuff need to be protected, when you have stories of good cop grassing on bad cop leads to good cop disappearing, the system is fucked
Part of the issue is that a fair chunk of officers where apparently bullied as children...
The rioting has robbed the protests of all meaning, imho
there's several ideas I'd like to convey on "bad apples":
- A few bad apples ruins the bunch - that last part is always left out. If you leave bad apples in your barrel, they'll spoil the rest.
- Arguments against immigrants has always been "well what if there's a few bad people that we let in"? Double-standards are applied, here.
The thing is is that you have the hillybilly hicks who don't want no foriegners, but you also have the more general population that just wants the level of control at literally any official entry to be the level of control across the board
a level of control in police departments, for example
they have a surprising amount of power and duties, actually
it's a little scary
they need some of it, but certainly there's better ways to use police resources than taking care of the homeless. Use some of that money to fund actual shelters- or, even better- housing
that's one example of things they're supposed to do
yeah, I think im def up for the police not being called, for example, when someone finds something that looks like male genitals in their meat... not really their field
and other things that really don't require police.
but for dealing with homeless people, you never know when you are going to come across a truly crazy person. and sometimes they have to be met with force. so im not sure about that specific example
i mean there are a lot of freaky people in the US
so a for a guy with a gun being around isn't always a bad idea
however comma
Side Note: why'd you spell out comma?
they should be trained much better than they currently are for handling situations
yeah, training can always get better
so they just don't shoot everyone
and guess what tho... that costs money.
yeah?
Taken from JRE #1492 w/Jocko Willink:
https://youtu.be/bL5RzI5LyVc
police have become a catchall for a lot of problems, but the only area they have better training in than any other department is guns
and when all you have is a hammer and all that
some homeless might be violent, but that's not common
not common is still too high to not have someone around able to exert force
what happens very often is people get screwed
I'm not sure what to take on that matter. Sure, we need someone trained to efficiently de-escalate a situation
but, uh..
guns tend to not do that
is the executive branch of the law, wielding guns, batons, and infraction tickets, really the best option for dealing with homelessness?
I'm not convinced
I think "there might be crazy people" is possibly more a deflection than a real issue. Though it could be a real issue.
I just don't think it's used as one is all
there's nothing wrong with an armed police officer if that police officer knows how to properly handle their current situation
a lot of cops don't handle their current situations the best tho
yeah, that's the problem I think. Also that they're being asked to do a lot for what they are
considering the ideal police department is there to keep law and order- ie. be the executive branch of the law
they do a lot that doesn't fall under that umbrella very neatly
dealing with homeless people falls under that category...
well they can act against the law sure
homeless shelters solve this issue
homeless people are unsightly. They're uncomfortable. they're not unorderly or against the law.
along with welfare/subsidized housing
I'm not convinced that police need to be the ones taking care of homelessness
Part of the issue is that when you have a society filled with guns, registered or otherwise, coppers have to be more quick to react, and that creates a lot of risk; "oh, I thought he was reaching for a gun"
Part of the issue with homelessness is that a fair chunk actually want to be homeless
that is unorderly. thats like the definition of it. People like living in order, in a clean environment, tents along the sideway don't help that.
Or, at least, don't have the will to break out of their current state
I'm not sure I agree with that definition of unorderly. Otherwise my otherwise-orderly desk is very much not so
Over in the UK we have dozens of "back off the streets" programs, my so called father was on one and literally got a room and a job within like a week
If I come across a group of homeless people, I have no idea if one of them is drugged out of their mind with a knife or something. And yeah, its more likely that a homeless person meets that description than a non-homeless person.
Last I knew, he basically couldn't be arsed and got thrown out of the program or something, not spoken to him since he was booted
I used to live next to a literal crack house. Those people weren't homeless, they just sold crack
that's just my experience, though
without facts, I can only assume you're basing off experience as well
The thing is that more money needs to be invested in social care, but, at the same point, there are also going to be people adverse to programs like that for varying reasons, so officers are always going to have a level of involvement
30 to 40 % in san francisco 2 years ago
are suffereing from mental illness or substance abuse
actually plenty of their customers lived in the middle-class houses near us. Or at least that's who I saw over there every day..
certainly higher than the rest of the population
maybe they were friends
though even if many homeless people were drugged out, I'm still not convinced the systemic problem is solved with police
you're taking a systemic problem and making it a case-by-case basis
oh, im not arguing that it is.
if we want to solve the problem with police we need to also have a place besides jail to put the homeless
im saying that force is still needed on standby when dealing with homeless people
Yes, there defo needs to be more systems in place to get people back on track, but there are always going to be people who don't wanna
didn't say that would solve the issue. just saying right now, its still needed to mitigate it.
ah, seems like there's a tight correlation between depression/bad mental health and substance abuse. There's also a strong correlation between being homeless and being depressed
also if we get rip of the "are you a convicted felon" box in job applications of low value it will help those people getting jobs too
I'm going to go on a limb and guess the vast majority of homeless people don't actually want to be homeless
maybe a few, sure
also also we need government sponsored drug addiction centers were they give clean drugs while helping people quit
also also also federally legalize weed
which will clear out some prison populations
though homelessness is only one item under that large umbrella of things police are supposed to do but maybe shouldn't. I just dislike that systemic problem the most right now
(i have doubts though, we never copy the good stuff 😦 )
Well, yea, that's a heavy part of the core issue
well wait JRoy, for all crimes you think employers shouldn't ask about criminal history?
Or, at least, there needs to be some system in which police offers have those types of resources to be able to take with them
well wait JRoy, for all crimes you think employers shouldn't ask about criminal history?
ehh, not all jobs
McDonalds shouldn't need to care
right, but I don't want the government decided what jobs can ask and what cant
why
cause its not the government who is running it. its not their company
I can understand the usefulness of having a police officer there, but, at the same point, these people aren't trained to the level of diffusing many of these situations properly; And part of the hell is how much they're expected to know how to deal with
I think you still might get a bit of negative pr if there is a chance the person serving you was a criminal. I don't think people are gonna like that. so companies should choose for themselves
Cutting police funding will not help in any capacity unless you actually move to reducing their responsibility too, otherwise you're literally going to need to have them in training almost like a reactor operator
Well, I mean, is somebody commited of credit card fraud the type of person you want pitching your products, etc?
I don't think that addresses the root cause of the problem either, if you don't want people to view criminals with prejudice, you need to change public opinion, not force that change if its unwilling
I can understand the intent and do agree that we need to move people back into society better, but, I know that I wouldn't be comfortable going to a shop where I knew there was a % of people there who've done that type of stuff in the past
well, currently the gov't says jobs can't ask about race, gender, or disabilities. That's definitely a good thing.
Which, I guess that in and of itself is part of the problem
yeah, thats fine, cause that doesn't speak to your judgement
gov't regulation is what keeps child labor and slave labor from happening
but criminal history most certainly DOES speak to your judgement and personality
if I were thrown in the slammer for smoking pot one day (as many have been) I would be upset about that
yeah, pot being illegal is stupid, 100% on board w/that
not being able to work because you smoked weed once is unfun
pot turns you into @drifting arch
and no one should be dinied a job because of it, and I really don't think there are many companies out there, especially where its legal that will turn you away
and if they do, you can get some negative pr going against them
that said, many who get out of prison are denied the chance to reform mainly because of job denials
they're just not even given an opportunity
pretty sure enough people agree w/that now that there is motivation for companies to adjust hiring practices regarding pot use
thus they go back in because, well, no work
can't pay the bills with wishes and dreams
actually haven't smoked for a while but im totally into legalization
lol, cat
now companies requiring regular/randomized drug tests, Im def O.K. w/that
when I smoke, i do like the feeling but it severely reduces my cognitive function while high so... yeah, when with people and we're all trying to have a good time sure but im 23 and trying to get my CE degree so... kinda need that cognition
and smoking bad yes, but.. here for a good time not a long time
picks up a lighter
as someone working for a company that drug tests every 180 days, I'm not a fan
having to pee in a cup every 6 months is not my idea of fun
im lucky to be in a legal state and i have a doctor's 'prescription', so they can't test me
I smoke as it's the only thing which is currently taming my headaches
they can but, they can't test for weed
or, rather
they can't fire me for having found thc
that said there is none in my blood or urine or hair atm, haven't smoked
I never did like the feeling I got with it. I've tried both strains and many hybrids. It's all pretty meh in the end
I definitely gave it a fair shake with edibles, throw-away vapes, bongs, the works
well it might not be enjoyable for the employees (the testing part), but as simple just said, being high for sure affects work productivity.
and if you don't like the job environment, you can go work somewhere else. maybe not right now, but if we were talking 79 months ago, sure. unemployment was super low.
I think companies can still fire people if they pose a hazard in the workspace
yeah but that's the thing, i never do
ie, driving a forklift while high
im not high on the workplace etc
Depends on the strain yo have and how it reacts on you, for some people it's just not their thing
in*
though yet again, I often hear in boston how crane operators are high as hell, both litterally and in drug usage
yeah, I like to think I gave it a fair shake anyway. I tried it for years, even smoked different ones every day. I liked sativa-heavy hybrids more, but all of them have the same basic effect and I'm not a fan
and you better believe, if they did fire me just for finding thc and i wasn't ever high on the job (NEVER would do that), i would file wrongful termination and hand their asses to them
more hunger, dry mouth, feels like I constantly have to burp
however, im unemployed so :^)
if it's indica, I just feel tired mostly
I like the strains which leave you still able to think and stuff, defo an impact, but, it can often make me focus better with the right strain, so, overall, more stuff done
that's what indica's purpose is
yeah, I know
never liked any of it
thought edibles would stop the dry mouth and/or constantly feeling like I'd have to burp. Nope.
Saying that, I've not smoked something which makes you giddy in like a year or two; nothing like that and watching something dumb like family guy, etc
indica is heavy and sleepy, sativa is light and airy though honestly it is REALLY difficult to find a true indica or true sativa. Indica is easier to grow, so most 'sativas' are indica rich hybrids...which may be why no matter what you've tried you've felt the same
either way, can't try them any more
ye i feel ya, just saying
but I've definitely given it a fair shot
tried for years across multiple cities and even states
nada
sadly in massachusetts, you cant have medical cannabis and a gun permit
I mean, I get it, but also I'm guessing you can drink and carry a gun there
i mean, lol
sooo
with all them guns
lol
I bet if they weren't too high to get off their asses, they'd be shooting in
God fucking dammit stoners
wait a sec, do you have to have a gun permit to have a gun in massachussets? if you do, they that is surely unconstitutional. They took away a right without due process
or is that a CCW permit
to purchase
you can get a gun in private anywhere in us
you can still own an gun without a license
right, yeah ok, just making sure
but buying is a PITA
uhh, it's a grey area
One of my mates across the pond is a trucker
Some states literally require you to have your gun locked away
big population centers dont like guns. massachusetts, new york, california
I mean, regulations are definitely good. What we have now is woefully inadequate. Also the constitution isn't perfect, written by imperfect slave-owners with guns
but I get defending something like that
man, I shudder at the thought of someone today trying to re-write a "better" U.S. Constitution
You defo need to have means of ensuring that at-risk people can't get guns easily
yeah, never would happen. And shouldn't. It should be re-written by many people over many years
Part of the issue though is that if somebody /really/ wants a gun, they can get one
well hey, get enough people on board with your idea, and you can change it
but im glad its so very difficult to
The scary part of it is how often in shootings, etc, the person was already under attention from authorities in some form of way
we have some great things over here. Our laws and attitude towards anyone who isn't white isn't one of those great things
if someone really wants a gun, they could make one. i would say you wont stop a super determined person, but you can stop most people who would be "high risk"
i mean there is a GH repo of 3d printable assault weapons lol
nothing in the constitution pertains only to white people tho right?
still there afaik
is the word "white" even in it?
the US has come a long ways since the 1800s when it comes to rights
also, ya know, no country in the world is great-amazing-perfect. Striving towards that is what's great.
the issue is this whole inter-city victimhood mentality
wasn't referring to the constitution, but black slaves are definitely a huge part of the original constitution
that's what got everyone to finally sign it
Part of the issues are more down to how policies impact, rather than "X person can't do Y because whites rule"
word black wasn't in there either afaik. Only reference to slavery was in counting people I thought
"negro"
adding the whole count of free persons and 3/5 of all other persons
E.g. obamacare
I don't think thats in there either
it doesn't mention a race. it says free persons and all other persons
right, I think thats the only reference to slavery in the whole thing
lower voters, but higher power in the house
oh, sorry, they never got a name. "other persons"
right so it being a "big part" is I think an overstatement
oh, it's everywhere
some girl I was talking to years ago told me about how her mother basically had to get a 2nd job due to that act and varying other things, people who are lower class who these policies are supposed to help, actually hurt more from it
doesn't have to mention black slaves by name, but I mean
slavery. Black people.
come on.
right, but its mentioned once. that is not everywhere
a lot of these shootings are in democrat run cities/towns
so where are all the other examples of it in there?
several refused to sign it until slavery was part of it, for one
ok, that isn't everywhere in the constitution either
there are some letters about that somewhere, if I could pull them up that would be great
I mean, when you think about it, if its democrat policy that has led to this madness, then maybe vote the people out that ignored the policing problem?
"some letters" that isn't part of it either
where in the document does it talk about slavery, other than the 3/5ths compromise
(also slavery isn't the only thing wrong with the original constitution. It was amended 33 times in total, which tells us it's not perfect)
Wikipedia says 33, but 27 works as well
didn't say it was perfect, but im still trying to get an answer to where slavery is "everywhere"
there are 27 ammendments
Wiki disagrees. Take that up with them.
not all those were ratified
even so, 27 ratified still not perfect
they were all approved by congress and "sent to the states for approval" first line of the page
getting slavery right now
didn't say it was perfect, but im still trying to get an answer to where slavery is "everywhere"
k
I love how ammendment 27 took 202 years to ratify 😛
"the United States Constitution did not expressly use the words slave or slavery but included several provisions about unfree persons."
I don't know how "all over" your definition of "all over" is, but it's embedded into quite a fair amount of it
ok, I only know about the one provision, im curious now about the others.
I don't think several (however many that is) means its everywhere tho right?
well, was
I mean, obviously if you're a white man you make more money and are given more opportunity and jobs than anyone else, so it's not gone for sure
but it's at least, as far as I can tell, out of the constitution
wage gap still exists
and that's only part of the issue
ah yes, the fugitive slave clause, totally forgot about that one.
that was fun
wage gap between?
forgot about that as well
and the bit allowing congress to ban "Importation of Persons"
wage gap specifically referring to male vs female income in the same job- female workers make less than male workers in the same positions
ok, so that paragraphs lists those 3
but it's only one issue of a larger problem
wouldn't companies hire all women if they could pay them less?
oh, can we get $/hr+workhours
or are they too sexist and want to make less money by paying more for employees
not median average wage yearly
companies with women in executive positions tend to have less of a wage gap
though again, extends beyond women and is a problem of a larger issue
I want data, I want to know the average hours a female/male works a week + their hourly pay
I think in the US the adjusted gap is 95%
not gross pay
adjusted for hours, occupations, education, and job experience
exactly
The issue with raw data is that it discredits a lot of anomilies
No statistic is going to consider ^
there's many websites and articles, I'm just trying to find one that can't be considered biased
I mean I got that 95% off of wikipedia
that's more difficult
Paying people a different wage based on their gender, etc; is also already illegal over here, and fairly sure that's the case over there too?
it is, but doesn't stop it from happening
but that doesnt make sense
the gender gap is mostly an over generalization
one of the main, underlying issues is it's taboo to talk about pay. That makes it hard to tell if you're getting paid the same as someone else
not sure if shrm is biased or not
maybe not?
I mean, there's a wiki on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
probably unbiased
when accounting for same exact job at same exact education at same exact experience there is no gender pay gap
because its illegal
it hit the news hard a couple years ago so there's so many articles on it and every single one of them shows some sort of disparity
which is more than no disparity
but I don't know if any are unbiased
The issue is that the scope of the problem and it's causes have a lot of factors
getting anywhere from 80% to 98%
you know what Im all mad about? the prison gap... more women need to go to prison or more men need to be let out... HUUUUGE ISSUE
😛
the "x center per dollar" came from obama talking about how women are paid less overall than men at whitehouse
so, conservatively, women make $0.98 for every dollar men make
ignoring titles, experience, and education
and like, he could pay everyone the same if he wanted to
but that would be dumb
not sure he is in charge of their salaries, but yes, the gov could
yeah, there's some funny things that the president can submit or sign off on, but doesn't matter if congress/house don't do it
I have a feeling that white house pay is one of those
the gender pay gap is pretty much a classic case of correlation-causation
well congress is in charge of all things money related. probably under the purview of the House & Sentate Goverment Oversight Committee
usually congress and house are different parties
makes it difficult to pass a lot
in Obama's case, both house and congress were right while he was left
as it should be. goverment should not be reactionary
made it very difficult for him
which is why we had the DACA mess
DACA is just such a horrible solution, considering it was an executive order and not a law
slightly upset over that, myself. I wonder what would have happened if he was given more freedom? I like to think some good things
technically it should have been illegal to do that
the fact that SCOTUS voted in favor of DACA being ok via executive order
is the worst ruling they have ever made
well, Dred Scott...
in their entire history
fuck it, I guess executive orders can be laws now
pretty sure Dred Scott was worse, but in recent times, maybe
as long as the judicial system agrees
I think the point is that house, congress, and whitehouse should have to agree on things
yeah, the abuse of the executive order is so annoying
yes
doesn't always work out like that
another reason why getting rid of the Fillibuster in the senate is a BIG no no
and thats the point, however with all the partisan bickering, its usually my way or the highway
and I hope cooler heads in whatever party has the Senate post November prevail and keep that in place
and the US system can just cease up in general because some idiots decide to slip something into a omnibus spending bill
I'm REALLY thankful we didn't get an all-conservative party this last election, but damn was it close enough to make me worry. Too much of anything is no bueno
i wish we had a 50/50 split in each house
thats kind of close
(with 1 majority)
I think that there needs to be a mass culling of the older staunch members of each party
51/49 rather
isn't the average age of a senator something stupidly high?>
@mystic ermine there should be a service limit in government, not a term limit
say 20 years to be generous
the problem with adding term limits is that the only people who can add them are the people who would be affected by them
younger folk tend to be more liberal, older more conservative. Not saying you won't find any young conservatives, but you will likely upset whatever balance we do have
eh... im not sure about term limits. I like the decision being left up to the people to vote someone in/out
well you see the fossils we have in congress
See, I'm shaky on it, but ^ is a driving factor for me
problem with that is that it assumes people's votes will matter
We have it in the UK too
wdym "assume". thats how elections work
Part of the issue with governments is that time has moved on
a lot of people voted in are really just self serving
if they stay for just two terms, its fine, but if they stay in government like joe biden, thats an issue
re-election rates for presidents are very high while popularity shrinks. That's because, as someone in power, one of your top priorities (in a democratic country) is to pass laws to make it harder for your opposition to vote while making it easier for your supporters to vote
The fact that there are high members of governing bodies which have people who are too old to understand the things they're trying to regulate, etc; is just a dangerous place to be in
no more term limits, stop abusing the system, service limit
stop the revolving door
not make it worse
pretty sure that would take an amendment. I think its a freedom of speech issue otherwise. might be some other conflict
it would
gerrymandering still happens all the time. Why? Because while it's illegal, it's up to the people who do the gerrymandering to execute punishment for it
so, uh..
yeah..
but that's one technique
SCOTUS had some ruling relating to that this summer, I forget what it was
"yes, will you please go ahead and punish yourself if you do this bad thing? Thanks."
but yeah, I think more of a service limit, by that I mean how long they can be in ANY government position for, and compounds into the next seat
so someone can go for senate/house/president, and it adds up over time
this video feels long, but is totally worth the watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
should prevent someone like joe biden who has been in DC for over 40 years
ah, adaped from The Dictators Handbook. THAT is a good book
well, the idea is to make it easier for your key supporters to support you while making sure everyone else doesn't matter. In a democracy, that means passing laws to do so
your saying the ruling elite should have keys to the kingdom
one of the many reasons we have so many arbitrary, weird laws. Especially around voting.
that is what California is trying to do... shrink the tax base to such a small amount, that the taxpayers can never get anything they want passed
so not having term limits is, in practice, a very bad idea
everyone will continue to serve until they die
California is trying SO hard to be a one party state. only the top two candidates for example, get put on the final ballot. and they can both be democrats
regardless of popular opinion
Having experience in showing that you can mange stuff is good, but, the issue is that you have people who've been in government for so long that their role and how they can act on it is very, er...
there's a balance with term limits
The thing is that we need a way to strive to bring new blood in
the problem I see is that the same people rotting in seats who have told time and time again they would represent their state, then act self serving
speaking of calunicornia, I think they just got rid of the civil rights bit they passed a while ago making it illegal to discriminate based on race in hiring practice... yep read that right. they GOT RID of the bit preventing discrimination
As it stands, if you're entering, there is a high chance that unless you can have some liberal uprising on a fair percentage of people that you stand for nothing essentially, because that guy that's been there for 30 years is well known
not in a meaningful manner
the next problem is a dynasty problem, in which we see right now
The people who've been sitting around for 10 years wanting to get noticed are often the ones who finally get noticed, because, you know, we've seen them speak a few dozen times and they seem okay
these people have been in politics for so long their kids are going into politics
I never heard jr would run
ugh, I really dislike political families.
I always thought people pitched Ivanka as a future elected official
You basically just have this consistent uprising of people who've been in politics for stupid numbers of years rising up the chart, so you're relatively no better off
do we have any reports first or second hand on that?
an anonymous source heard from their friends sister's boyfriend... or something like that probably 😛
2 second google says he says that he had no intention, also saw a few from before that saying that he said that he might, but, it seems more just pure speculation without caring to actually click a link
its click bait
well, that is what the media gets for being wrong too often. no one believing a thing they say regardless of it its true or not
every time the media does a story and gets it completely wrong, they are only helping trump. do they just not understand that?
I really want Trump to win in Nov, if only to watch the media just implode
partly the same, but, biden scares me
trump 2020 
this election could be totally NUTS tho.
im in conservative country, and and its trump land
might take months to decide
and I mean my street is pro trump, the town is pro trump, and the next few towns over is pro trump
Am expecting trump to win, I was reading some thing where a democratic county in minnesota was like 'fuck this, we out'
been doing some reading, and it seems like a way higher than expected percentage of mail in ballots are discarded for technicallities
LITTERALLY the only pro biden signs are near the local colleges
and if trump wins a state by 50k votes and 80k mail ins were thrown out for "issues" you are gonna have some commotion
the whole mail in voting is bullshit with 0 oversight
there is no accountability
?
what?
yeah, people have been mailed multiple ballots, or gotten ballots for the previous resident... this election could be crazy. and almost certainly won't be decided on election night
and I dont think biden is fit for president
There was a recent tweet from trump which literally flipped everyone into going against mail in voting for reasons like that
the debates should be interesting... biden could easily outperform expecations if nothing goes wrong, but could also show a side that most people haven't seen
and he fucking stumbles when not huffing crack
I think a lot of people still have biden from 12 years ago in their heads
and not the 12 years older biden
I mean... he has some pretty incoherent clips out there
Part of the thing is that biden is hiding
so, back in 2016 I saw "don't vote for Hillary, she's bad" and "don't vote for Trump, he's bad". Turns out I made a terrible mistake and voted for the wrong persona because I got sucked into the whole "they both suck" mentality and voted for the extremist rather than the moderate. Please don't make my mistake.
and often backflips all his ideas
ive watched trump rally videos, and he isnt stumbling to the point of biden
for the extremist?
Using my own dad who's been suffering from a slow dementia for some six years now as yardstick, I initially thought poor Joe was at year 2.5 but it seems now he's closer to 3 out of the 6 years needed for a full onset.
Please just send this grandpa home won't you...!
even on air
k, trump doesn't sound like that...
moderate is leagues better than.. Well, yeah.
My thing with hillary is her record and how much she backtracks on stuff that I can hardly question if that's her actual stance vs just what she's been told to say
yeah, but she's not Trump
well for a lot of people Trump "is not Hillary"
I think just about everything you can say about her can be rebutted with "yeah, but she's not Trump"
and vice versa
or "they're not Trump"
Well, yea, if you're peddling around talking about actual issues
iunno, I feel like I made a terrible choice. Obviously I wasn't the single swing vote, but I made a mistake.
he feeds the more outragous ideas to the media, who hype him up
I think he talked about that in his book, always wanting to be the story regardless of the negativity in the story
and his rallies have been like rock concerts really
and he succeeds at that like no one else.
look, nobody is perfect and the election, campaigns, media, etc are going to put anyone on the podium into a box or boil them down to a single statement that makes headlines
trump campaigned on bringing home troops and cutting spending and did barely any of either its not hard to imagine people voting for him and regretting it
just, please don't make the same mistake I did
lol cutting spending... what a joke. neither party wants that.
don't get sucked into all of that
wish they did
well sure, but he didn't even try to get it going
news outlets will turn even the most moderate of moderates to have ever moderated into extremists
they will make giant issues out of single lines
sometimes it's warranted
but very, very rarely
well yeah, its clickonomics
all I'm saying is I don't know if this country can handle another four years of this
I mean, it can
but the cost of that
its going to be conflict regardless
it's about long-lasting damage at this point
I mean, biden isnt going to be better
four more years of who-knows-what for laws and contracts that will do so much long-term damage
plus its not republican states that are suffering from the riots
yeah, it's about mitigating damage done now
or trying to
climate change, immigration policy are the two biggest hot-topics
but boy, back in 2016 I thought "this person will change everything!" and I really, really wish I wasn't so dead right about that
this is not the change I wanted. It the change I should have expected
leopards ate my face
at this point, I want republicans to just sweep the floor, but im not looking forward to a republican majority in all branches
the democrat party is so incompetent
nobody wants moderates any more 😦
dislike biden
everyone's an extremist
im not a republican
if you're left, you're extreme left. If you're right, you're far-right
there's no middle ground
and besides, I was pro obama years ago
To me, that's down to the media
one of these days maybe people will realize that, if they vote someone in, they might actually have differing opinions on issues than their title would otherwise suggest
I dislike biden and the current state of the democratic party
also the party of inaction when it comes to riots
Part of the issue is that there is no discussion these days
All of the stuff in the news is generally X side does Y, X says Y, etc, etc; There is no real media outlet for the normies
the idea is that you're supposed to vote for whoever you align with best. Between the voting system, laws, etc, your best option is "the person with the best chance, and also the one I agree with most" - but that's still better than nothing
duh guys don't you know? its not violence if its only property 😛
then why didnt they accept help from trump?
looting is just reparations for slavery... or something like that 😆
trump was willing to help them out
Then they need to call it out instead of just screaming "we support peaceful protests"
but most people simply vote their party and not their issues
im trolling?
think that was aimed at me
trump offered the national guard in these states
if you broke the candidates down to their issues, you would likely find that, despite being one party or another, you'd vote for someone on the other end
Yes, there were members throwing people out who where trying to incite violence, but, when you literally have people being thrown out only to kill somebody a week later, err...
mayor lightfoot of chicago told trump to go fuck off
and then got his flat raided hours later or something?
iirc none of those places wanted the national guard there
he has offered to move, however; so, that's nice
at all
lol, yeah Ted Wheeler said he'd move so his neighbors aren't in danger
also also all of the places he sent those guard were democratic
what a solution
thats the whole reason the national guard exists...
yeah, they only slightly made a giant mess of things
hence the name
well they aren't handling it.. I mean some of these videos (just scroll through Andy Ngo's twitter feed) look like they are out of some war-torn country
yeah, portland is a shitshow
also I do have to laugh and cry about Trump's picture of "Biden's America"
.. Which is a picture of America. Right now. As it is.
.. Not the future...
Right now..
man, I remember seeing one where a guy is sitting on the ground and someone jsut runs up from behind him and just kicks him smack in the back of the head...

like what is that?
what compells someone to do that to someone else?
only answer I can think of is a mob mentality
someone takes it a step further, then more people find it acceptatble to replicate that behaviour and the cycle continues
His comment is literally that this is happening under states in their control where I have no idea what all he can do when those states refuse the help
"This is Biden's America"
er.. No. This is America. Right now. You're standing in it. You. Yourself. Right there.
the more conspiratorial side of me says that the longer the riots go on, the better for trump. but he has indeed offered help
he can federalize the guard and send them in against their wishes I think
if Trump has zero control over it, then I still don't see the point in shifting that to "this is what Biden will do"
because he would have as much control
¯_(ツ)_/¯
to be fair, I haven't seen him shift blame on that to Biden yet
if he does, I'll catch that though
but I haven't seen it
His commentry is on the DNC and how states under their control are suffering from these problems
They've been refusing to call this out and take action against it, so what are they going to change when it happens? Send help that's already been offered?
I'm not sure on that. Seems like saying "this is what Biden will do to all of America" is shifting blame on what's been happening under him. Or, if he has no control, what would Biden even do then?
again, looking at individuals- not parties
Nothing
or, once again, offer ttrumps help which he's literally already offered
that went well
the national guard?
yes
it's not a protest when you have people getting killed and people destroying property
if you're angry about something and someone points a gun in your face, is that helpful?
or shoots your friend for.. What looks like doing nothing, really
not helpful
The idea is to quell the riots, not the protests; if they're quelling peaceful protests, that's against the constition
if someone is angry and I feel my life is threatened by them in their anger, yeah, im gonna point a gun at them
why would guns be the answer to this? Why can't we fix or settle things without guns?
you cant with mobs
there were, like, zero guns in the original protests
30 v. 1, sounds fair
because guns have instant consequences
I don't remember guns showing up to protests until the executive branch showed up with them
wasn't there guns all over CHAZ?
didn't they setup their own security patrols or something? I seem to remember that being a thing
property damage happened, yeah. Those protests were actually called out, shamed, and cancelled
I definitely don't agree with "defunding the police" in that we should completely abolish them. People have different ideas about them
definitely need them
lol, we have come full circle. back to the police topic
I think adding in more training funding
that said, holy fuck are there a lot of guns out right now. So many deaths.
the last thing we need is more guns. More death.
The issue is that there is no ideal answer bar "simple" concepts such as making it viable to get rid of bad apples and not just eaving them to sour the whole pack out of fear
we do not need more guns
The thing is that without action, this is only going to get worse
yeah, great. Here's a plan for action: listen to the protesters?
see what they want?
see what we can do to fix issues?
they don't care... lots of mayors have already done what they wanted... but they are still there
people don't just get angry out of nowhere
The problem is that the entire situation has shifted
yeah
and I can't imagine guns helping this in any way
there will be a lot of death
that's it
that's what will happen
the people who are protesting the police are mostly gone
you think the mayor of portland hasn't done what the protestors wanted? he certainly has. and they are still harrasing him
now its black clad rioters
guns are still not the issue
or the solution, rather
guns aren't really the issue either
then send in the national guard?
but more guns is not more better
also, its not a good idea for governments of any size to respond to protests/riots like these
as I said earlier, its bad for a government to be reactionary
But, as maker pointed out, they had a severe slash in police funding, he supported the protests, and he still got his house raided
to do what? What will the national guard do? Gas cans? Machine guns?
disperse the riots
they're trained as soldiers. For combat.
and these rioters are begging for it
that thing we do where humans kill other humans
not protesters
the guard didn't kill anyone when they were protecting the federal building right?
wasn't the national guard doing a better job with the protests than the cops?
The thing is that as long as the riots go on, there will be no productive discussion outside of virtue signaling and hard handed moves to try to appease people
and no, they havent killed people
every night, they just made sure no one burned down that courthouse
the solution isn't killing people
and they aren't doing that...
Nobody is saying that that is the solution?
so far, yeah, and I'm glad they haven't
the federal government would be in hot water if they did kill people
and even if one person does die, thats still 29 less than the rioters have caused the death of
I think its 30 deaths rn, right?
but also, this is kinda what the police are supposed to be doing. Not the national guard.
police are better trained for non-lethal
the problem is that the police are overwhelmed
we're in the mid 30s of deaths due to this entire thing afaik
specifically, they're to serve inside the country
right, and the argument is the police aren't doing that. either they are told not to, or they don't have the manpower, or whatever
Over in NYC they're apparently letting a fair chunk of people who've been arrested go
the national guard is also supposed to serve inside the country
national guard is both inside and outside. Specifically borders
only somewhat recently have they been going on more and more deployments overseas
I don't really view CNN, so, I have no idea what their take on it is, but, there's stories of police just saying "fuck it, even if we arrest violent criminals, they're back out on the street the next day, we're out"
well I think borders is anything w/in 100 miles of the border
zzzCat, yes that is the case in San Francisco right now
but, ya know, I have to wonder what the police are doing if not helping with riots. Not blaming the police force on this, but I am upset at someone somewhere in the government about this
conservative states arent having issues
The issue is that police can't do anything
texas said fuck it
people they arrest are literally tossed back out on the streets
feels like police are doing things outside their wheelhouse while ignoring things inside it. Maybe they're given orders to, maybe they're stretched too thin, but both of these should have not happened
Ted Wheeler FINALLY said I think just yesterday, that it "doesn't sit right with me" that people are arrested and then just back out on the street
nevermind the state government told their cities not to defund police or you cant tax property
They're literally in a no-win sitatuon, they either risk their lives in the deep or at risk of making a split second bad decision and getting their whole life fucked over
lol yeah, no way I would want to be a cop right now... you think they want to end up having them and their family villified in the media?
thankfully, as far as job security goes, the police force has a fantastic union that's prevented a very many of them from being fired for anything, including shooting unarmed, compliant citizens in the back 6 times
maybe not mental health
so ofc that is going to affect decision making. its also why they don't wear nametags... that was being made a big issue of for some stupid reason
?
shooting compliant people in the back? you mean running away ignoring police orders?
uhh, no
lol yeah, police unions... shall we say aren't part of the solution here
not quite
one of the bigger parts of the recism protests (riots, etc) are the police violence
yes, but how the fuck does an officer maintain their job, nevermind their life shooting a man in the back complying to orders?
weren't only 13 un armed black people killed by police last year? I don't know the exact situations of each of those cases
in the same city, in the same situation, very recently, police let a white vigilante shoot unarmed citizens. A black, compliant man was killed by those same officers because they "thought he had a gun"
when was this?
police unions prevent those officers from being fired. They have a lot of power
if any of them were illegitimate, they officers should ofc face punishments, but 13 doesn't sound like a big number.
one of the speeches during the DNC, talked about a "never ending list of black people killed by police"
The issue is that the DNC often pushes towards -ism's
and they say Trump is trying to foment a race war...
Or, at least, their elitst followers and that's often what's pushed out
if you don't believe X, you're Yist
yeah, thats part of Critical Race Theory
where if you aren't anti-racist, you are racist
I know of the wendy's incident, but I never heard of that
unless its fresh over the last week or so
@dusky raft for your reference: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/08/29/kenosha-videos-show-glaring-difference-blake-rittenhouse-treatment/5645623002/
there was one where one was shooting, I conflated it with that one
the teen that killed two people, right?
mhm
thats bullshit
well, the Kenosha one is pretty clear, and damning
I mean, the video shows that the people where coming at him
the teen had a right to self defense, however he wasnt legally to have a firearm
also the black woman who was shot from behind 6 times after complying
and of course the man that started it all
and the officer should be fucked for that
