POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Executive order =\= legislative statute.
Passing a law is entirely different from asking an executive to unilaterally revoke rights and override laws on the books.
Considering who the Chairman of the DNC is are you really surprised? She could not even run a lemonade stand more less the DNC.
I agree Transy, but I'm weighing the lesser of 2 evils.
Let something happen at the convention and see how many rights are trampled on.
Gotta trample a few rights to save a few rights, huh?
I'll take, eff off and leave all of my rights alone. Please and thank you.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Every eventual LOSER made the American people a promise that they would support whoever the republican candidate was.
The city could have taken care of this quickly and easily had they wanted to. Easy to pass an ordinance especially when all of the crap that has been happening is going on.
Embarrassing for the Gonernor not to attend the Convention. Bunch of sore losers in the Republican Party. Evidently the pledge was for Trump
only to uphold.
only to uphold.
And what they said was ...? I marvel at how so many people suddenly turned out to have been experts in Turkish politics.
Sorry, a little late to this discussion -
Jesus rejected armed resistance. True, he instructed his apostles to carry two (actual) swords to the garden of Gethsemane. But why did he do this? In order to teach them. Having weapons, yet not using them, powerfully demonstrated that Jesus’ followers should not resort to carnal weapons. Having a weapon available, Peter impetuously used it. Jesus strongly rebuked him for this rash act with the words: “All those who take the sword will perish by the sword".
Jesus further emphasized this when he reminded his disciples that he didn't need swords to protect himself: "Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my father to supply me at this moment more than 12 legions of angels?"
Trump does not need the republican establishment to win this election - he only needs voters.
I guarantee MSNBC has given Trump more pub and better pub than any network including Fox has. They have been all Trump all the time for months now.
Unlimited guns coupled with lax oversight is going to lead to more and more problems. That's just human nature. Something of substance has to change.
I read a lot of 30s and 40s crime fiction. Police were often brutes and so brutality was common. Which led to the Miranda decision, which led to upgrading the kind of people hired to be police and an overall improvement in policing. The war on drugs. the emergence of private prisons, and the incarceration of record numbers of black men has reversed that and led to the current terrible situation. There are lots of ways to improve things and there are ways to make things stupidly worse.
Do you live in Cuyahoga County? If not then it really doesn't pertain to you and I then does it?
However, if something occurs, and I'd say there's a strong likelihood it will, well, then it will affect you and I in one form or another.
I understand where you're coming from, and under normal circumstances I agree with you. However we're treading on delicate kindle, we're a spark away from possible civil war.
I just think that at this point it's not a crazy request when lives of people are at risk, and not just Police lives.
I don't believe gun control is the problem, it's a society problem.
Have you considered that just maybe the story you received from the media doesn't fully capture the situation? People that are directly involved with these cases obviously feel there is no need or legal reason to file charges.
There is a distinct difference in a cop making a mistake in dealing with someone, and the guy that intentionally does something to get the attention of the police. Cops commit crimes that should be punished by the courts, but excessive force when viewed in hindsight, is not cut and dried criminal.
maybe I'm naïve - but I'll be very surprised if there's any real trouble at the convention this week. Too much spotlight, too many opposing forces. Seems like the smart play is to act when it's not expected, when there's better chance of getting away or not getting caught/shot. of course, someone may want that spotlight, and irrational/crazy don't care about "smarter" or "more rational plans", so, yeah, could be wrong. would be surprised, tho.....
You mean the prosecutors who rely on said police department to secure convictions in order to maintain their elected office have looked over these cases? Well if that impartial entity makes a ruling, you just have to know it's coming from a place of sincerity and honesty. And it's not like police never try to sway outcomes of cases like showing up in force to trial where there is clear video evidence of manslaughter
Also, if you're "mistake" results in the death of someone you should at least lose your job. That even seems to be too harsh for some PDs.
Sheesh. And most of them can't figure out why a large chunk of their voters are moving away from them... resulting in Trump's selection.
Speaking of R's that don't mean what they say... how likely is it that John Boehner will show up at the DEM convention? He's so chummy with obuma, having bent over at every opportunity-- I don't think I'd be surprised.
I respect your views and opinions, as I've said before in your defense, but this was not a good example to prove your point. Charges were filed and the case was heard by a jury. Video evidence was available and 12 regular people decided the cops were innocent.
"In remarks following the verdict, Orange County District Atty. Tony Rackauckas acknowledged his case fell short of the burden of proof.
"The jury decided that the conduct was not so unreasonable to be a violation of the law," he said. "
Do you have a problem with trial by jury? Do you think trial by public opinion would be a better system?
I work in OH and have had it up to here with illegal immigrant criminals. Deport them all!!!
Wait...will they still clean our toilets at work?
Wait...will they still clean our toilets at work?
I click on the Yahoo home page and here is the first headline I see...
Investigators Scour Baton Rouge Gunman's Social Media as Motive Remains Unknown
WTF?
Then it goes on to say this...
"The lone gunman in a shooting rampage that left three Baton Rouge, Louisiana, law enforcement officers dead and three more injured referred to the police shooting of Alton Sterling and posted videos online about using violence to "fight back.""
Did O'bama slip in an executive order to change the meaning of "motive"?
Investigators Scour Baton Rouge Gunman's Social Media as Motive Remains Unknown
WTF?
Then it goes on to say this...
"The lone gunman in a shooting rampage that left three Baton Rouge, Louisiana, law enforcement officers dead and three more injured referred to the police shooting of Alton Sterling and posted videos online about using violence to "fight back.""
Did O'bama slip in an executive order to change the meaning of "motive"?
I'd much prefer anyone named Bush, Kasich, Boehner, Ryan, Romney, McConnell, etc. never show up anywhere relevant ever again, including the Convention.
Obamas comments about how cops would be safer if they admit their failures (his code word for racism) are absolutely despicable. Hes throwing more matches on gasoline. The guy is a POS.
No, I think a mass of uniformed police officers coming into the courtroom during a trial of a police officer(s) is akin to intimidation. If 40 guys decked out in red bandannas and flashing gang signs showed up to the trial of a Blood gang member, would you say, "hmm, that seems reasonable and in no way could have affected the outcome"? Even if the "correct" ruling was made, how could something like that not be seen as, at the very least, highly inappropriate?
Also, how often do you hear prosecutors so consolatory after a loss that doesn't involve a police officer? I'm not saying he threw the case or anything, but how can you look at the totality of the case and not see it was at least handled differently than most others? Jury trials aren't perfect and the jury clearly got the Kelly Thomas verdict wrong. I'm not saying they are at fault, I'm just saying this case was handled with much more restraint than had it been some random guy on trial.
If a particular police force were to finally say screw it we are no longer going to protect X area of their community, by law: who decides and which force would be sent in to take their place? A mayor? A governor? The president? And, what forces would be used to take their place? National guard? Some form of localized state reserves?
One of the reasons why I like Trump is because both sides of the establishment aisle hate him which means he is doing something right. Anyone Pelosi, Reid. Mitch, etc. do not like has to be a threat to business as usual in Washington. Either that or Trump is pulling the biggest Troll job in the history of the USA.
When that was brought up in the debate, I knew the thought was to keep Trump from running third party. First thing to pop in my head was, what are these SOBs going to do it he actually gets the nomination? It was rhetorical.
And I brought this up because it is an example of case against a police officer at least being taken to court. The list of police officers not even being indicted is too long and well known to even post (no, I'm not talking about Michael Brown). And it's not just excessive use of force. It's everything from corruption to speeding. They simply play by a different set of rules
I agree, they do often times play by a different set of rules. They also play a different game than any of us are familiar with. They are tasked with dealing with the worst of society on a daily basis. They are tasked with making snap decisions in the heat of battle. Since they are human, they are going to develop habits and opinions based on their normal activities. I am positive beyond a shadow of doubt that they do more good than they do harm by a vast margin.
How can we be so quick to package all cops into a group and hate on it for the actions of a few? Isn't that the same thing that is considered repugnant and racist when it happens to blacks?
I imagine investigators want more documentation than just a vague Everybody Knows.
[cue Leonard Cohen song]
I haven't seen that quote, but I would guess that he didn't say it would be easier if people wouldn't resist arrest and not fight cops. That would be insensitive.
Read these words, again...
"The lone gunman in a shooting rampage that left three Baton Rouge, Louisiana, law enforcement officers dead and three more injured referred to the police shooting of Alton Sterling and posted videos online about using violence to "fight back.""
That is not even remotely the same as "everybody knows", even though we all know.
The original assertion was that if two conflicting political groups hated something then it was proof that the hated thing must be good. I provided a counter example. It would be a trivial exercise to provide others since mutual dislike isn't EVER proof that the disliked thing is good. It's just a lame attempt to be clever.
Similarly, there's not much on an argument in throwing out remarks and following it with a summary judgment. Why bother with words? You could just grunt and get the same effect.
Because ONE witness or source is seldom enough. He's now found to have been a follower of the Sovereign Citizen wheeze. He was a more complicated individual than expected. I'm sorry that furious soundbites don't always encompass reality.
Similar threads
