How do you get that? By moving the Overton window. And how do you get that? By VOTING. But it seems you want to yell at a cloud instead. Something tells me you'll just keep at this 'whoo is me', so I'm out.
Wrong. The party that can "move left" went to court to assert their right to do what they want regardless of voters, and have an equal hand in moving the goalposts anytime a third party comes close to the requirements for inclusion. Hell, just look at their messaging - they don't even talk about Republicans or their policies, they just namedrop trump then blame leftists for all their woes.
"MoVe ThE oVeRtOn WiNdOw (even though they openly and pointedly snipped completely off anything left of mid right genocide Joe)"
The answer is guillotines and anyone who says otherwise are well off liberals who would rather have Trump than redistribute wealth and resources.
Meanwhile, the Overton window has been shifting right radically. Seems like this lesser of two evils nonsense is actually doing the opposite of what you claim.
Moved because Trump won an election. But you want to suggest that's just random? C'mon.
*Btw it's moving the Overton window, not lesser of two evils as you want to put it. You want policy number 426? You have to vote for policy 1 first. You have to walk before you can run.
What are you talking about? We have been moving rightward ever since the Clinton administration, baring a handful of social issues. Are you genuinely telling me that we are more left leaning now than we were under the new deal politics before Reagan?
All we've progressed in is gay and civil rights, which is good. Economically and by most other metrics, we've slid Faaaaar to the right.
It's not a good look for your position on slow incremental change that the entire apparatus can collapse in one election.
You said radical, that was Trump. You think Clinton change was radical? No that was Trump. Can't forget Bush either! You know the one that lied his way into war. But you want to suggest everything was all Clintons fault or something? C'mon be better than this weird game you're playing. Like really, do you think it would be more right or more left without Bush and Trump? That's the Overton window.
BTW Clinton had to be moderate because he was going against an incumbent.
Yeah I could go over different issues, but you're already trying to poopoo them away. So I'll broadly address economics with we have regulated capitalism. One party wants to remove regulation (Gop because I think you're trying to be obtuse) and be entirely free for all, no EPA or anything. And one wants proper regulation (again, Dems because think you're trying to be obtuse).
The Overton window is not something that can be changed electorally. Candidates can only get on the ballot in the first place if they’re within the Overton window, as anybody outside the window is “radical” or “extreme”, and the existing political powers forbid their candidacy. The electoral window is moved outside the electoral process, and only then can the electoral system permit new candidates with new ideas.
Lol yes it can. Why are we having idiotic discussion to disband the EPA? Because Trump won an election. That moved the Overton window, drastically at that. Why can't Biden do ______? Because the Republicans still have a very real chance of winning. When the GOP has no chance of winning, then the Overton window can move more.
Self-righteous bullshit. I want to solve problems someday and that's precisely why I vote for Democrats. Letting Trumpists take over now will make any progress vastly harder for the foreseeable future.
Ah, so since one of your two options doesn't give you everything you want, you've decided that you're okay with the one that wants to take away everything you have. Cool story, good luck with that.
It has to be supporting policies that reduce the disparity in wealth, not exacerbate it.
Looking at how many people actually vote for 3rd parties puts into perspective how many people actually want to solve this issue.
Also, try letting people use their own words. You were wrong about your assumptions and hyperbole, but i think instead of admitting you're wrong you're just going to assume more.
Looking at how many people actually vote for 3rd parties puts into perspective how many people actually want to solve this issue.
...effectively no-one, as far as country-wide population statistics are concerned? What percentage of the vote went third-party in the last three elections? Gary Johnson (8 years ago) got a whole 3%, and that was massive compared to anyone in the past 30 years... basically unprecedented. Those numbers barely broke 1% last time.
I'm sorry, but no, it doesn't. Most people are just living in a reality where voting third-party gets the worst option elected, because that's historically its only effect.
Look, I'm not gonna fight you, it's clear that your mind is made up. Just think about the probability of your choices, and think about how much you appreciate the ability to even vote... because that's the actual argument, here. Trump has laid out his plans, and you're welcome to ignore them, but most people don't have that luxury, they need to vote in ways that don't have a chance to lead to their culling.
You're making false assumptions about what people's voting habits say about what they want, drawing absurd conclusions as a result, and then doubling down on your false assumptions even when real people tell you what they want why they vote the way they do. Here's a clue for you: other people know their own beliefs and motivations a hell of a lot better than you do. It's supremely arrogant for you to think otherwise.
Literally yes, in the voting system that the US has. This isn't some ideological hill I'm dying on, this is basic statistics and understanding of elections.
My issue is that while we squabble over social issues, the ruling class fucks us with fiscal ones.
Greed and the growing disparity in wealth is the worst issue we face as a species.
If Biden wins we lose. If Trump wins we lose harder. Each option results in a loss because we don't want actually want to address the disparity in wealth.
If Biden wins we lose. If Trump wins we lose harder.
...and you think we need to lose harder?
Or do you actually believe that the system that has had the same outcome literally every single election has a chance to produce a different result? How many third-party candidates have received more than 1.5% of the vote? I'll help: exactly FOUR in the past HUNDRED YEARS.
Or do you actually just want Trump to win and are using your enlightened centrist persona to disguise that fact?
I think a slow loss is still a loss and we shouldn't cheer when people like Biden get elected over people like Bernie.
If you notice, the disparity in wealth is still growing at an increasing-rate. That's why "the economy is doing good." Not for me or you. But for the rich people who control who we can vote for.
The minuscule amount of support for third parties exemplifies the number of people who actually want to reduce the disparity in wealth.
It really puts into perspective who is a useful idiot, and who is not.
Because capitalism profits from genocide. The question then is, are you ok with diet Palestinian genocide or would you prefer the supersized Palestinian genocide combo with a side of homegrown genocide?
Because a First-Past-The-Post voting system doesn't care about your ideals. Until we have a different system, literally your only hope of effecting change is to vote for one of the two partied candidates and work locally to influence your party from the bottom-up.
Voting third party doesn't send a message you want it to send. It doesn't send any message at all except "I approve of whatever you choose for me."
You misspelled Netanyahu. Also you will have egg on your face from head to toe when you find out what Biden is really doing to stop the killing in the Mideast.
I could sus it like you think Biden moved it right (lol), but that requires you ignore Trump would have actually moved it rght, which is exactly the Overton window is moving it as left as you can every step, but why the fuck am I bothering even with this you'll just say but but but but but but Biden bad! I'm out.
Is it fair to say that the overton window is only moving right when we are still making progress moving it left?
The overton window isn't a zero-sum measure. It can expand simultaneously in both directions. Given that we have nazis in the street now, I'd say it's not correct to say that it's moving only left either.
That has little to do with whatever political machinations are occurring and more to do with housing and necessities inflation driving labor pressure as a lagging inflation indicator.
Think of it as a tectonic/landscape thing rather than the stupid games people happen to be playing on the landscape.
Of course if any of them had their heads out of their own asses, or the asses of their owners, they might recognize this and start adapting...
I just want one of the "You can't vote for Biden!" people to outline what I should do instead. What's the play here? Dismantle the government? Sure, outline your plan and let's see if it has any merit. Protest? Great, tell me when and where but it doesn't preclude the need to vote.
They talk big, but if their entire plan begins with "don't vote" and ends with "bitch about it online" then it's not a great plan.
I fucking hate, and from the bottom of my heart, how Biden is funding the genocide in Palestine, but I'm still going to vote for him this time, because we just can't have a person like Trump in the white house, period. I still can't figure out how he got in the first time. I'd never let my 10 year old lead a country, yet we let Trump do it for four fucking years.
I, too, am sick of this "the lesser of two evils" bullshit, but this time I'm giving it a pass because of Trump. We already have a crumbling country and can't afford another four years of this dude.
I think Joe Biden is maybe the best president of my lifetime, and I'm going to vote for him with my head held high even though I live in a red state where it doesn't matter at all. I wish things were simpler in the Levant, but I appreciate that Joe Biden is between a rock and a hard place with Israel. It's not like he can just take Bibi out. He's not Boeing. That said, even if I laid the entire genocide at Biden's feet (which, while he's not blameless, is absolutely not appropriate), he would still be head and shoulders an improvement over Donald Trump.
For that matter, I'd absolutely let my 12 year old run this country before I'd let Trump have a second term. My kid is brilliant, and more importantly, unlike Trump he listens to advice, can take no for an answer, and gives a shit about having a functional democracy four years from now.
A second Trump term is an existential threat to the nation. Hold your nose, hold your neighbor's nose if you have to, but every able-bodied patriot owes it to their descendants and their patriotic ancestors to prevent a second Trump term.
I don’t understand why people point out that Biden is “funding the genocide in Palestine” and completely ignore and fail to mention that trump would do the exact same thing.
He has all but said he would cut Israel loose to do whatever they needed to finish the job.
The use of Israeli aggression is not a point of comparison when viewing the differences between trump and Biden.
Edit: and I apologize for the late edit - FWIW Biden has become critical of Israeli actions and offered some aid to Palestinians (Yeah, I absolutely agree it isn’t enough) while trump would prefer to wash his hands of the whole Palestine thing. That is a notable difference.
It isn’t the potential for denial that initiated my reply, it’s the fact that people declare US support of Israel is a strike against Biden when comparing Biden to trump as a reason to consider not voting for Biden. This is a false comparison and it is the point I am making.
I don’t understand why people point out that Biden is “funding the genocide in Palestine” and completely ignore and fail to mention that trump would do the exact same thing.
And hence why I won't vote for Trump either. It's not that hard to understand.
I don’t understand why people point out that Biden is “funding the genocide in Palestine” and completely ignore and fail to mention that trump would do the exact same thing.
Because Democrats are suppose to be better than that. But, apparently, they actually aren't.
This is about the Democratic party. This whole "vote for the least fascist candidate" has reached a breaking point. It'stotally beyond the pale and isn't just about whats best for the next election cycle. People simply cannot actively support a genocidal party because it runs fundementally against their core values.
We're not talking about compromising on tax policy or economics here. We're talking about fully mask off genocide support. It's deeply unconscionable to anyone who has a moral compass.
No, you're not listening. Stop fear-babbling about fucking Trump for one fucking second and consider that voting for Biden is voting for genocide. It's putting your own name to it.
While that clearly means nothing to you and you'rejust fixated on your own self-interest, consider how non-sociopaths might view this choice.
Ok. GFY for making the “if you vote for Biden you vote for genocide” argument while completely ignoring trump would do the same. You’re just a damn shill for the right wing. Useless MF.
I would honestly get yourself checked out by a psychologist. Normal people are not this incapable of understanding why someone might have trouble voting for a genocidal fascist.
Like, yes, you disagree, but I'm talking about how easily you're able to support genocide without blinking an eye and then getting angry at other people who won't actively support genocide.
The level of selfish disregard for even attempting to understand is really disturbing. Like, you understand that there are people right now that have relatives in Gaza being killed with the bombs that Biden gave Israel, right? You understand that Biden spit in those people's faces when they asked him to not support genocide? Intellectually you can at least wrap your head around that, right?
lol, keep making stuff up about me, tankie. Keep throwing innuendos at me couched as reason so everyone can read your anti-Biden propaganda instead of what’s actually being discussed. Repeat it every single reply like a good little fascist.
E: quick trip through your post history says this is all you do, trash talk democrats and Biden, repeat genocide over and over while never a single mention of trump policy. Well, a quick stop in a porn community to jerk off for a break, right? How’s the propaganda job pay? Any good? Or do you just do it voluntarily out of pure hatred?
If voting for Biden is voting for genocide, then not voting or voting third party is voting for Trump, genocide and the destruction of democracy in the US.
The destruction of democracy in the United States has much deeper roots, and has been in-process for a long time. How long the effects have been visible is arguable, and the manifestation unpredictable, but fundamentally, a voting system which doesn't allow people to express their actual preferences, well, isn't representative of people's actual preferences.
I can't think of any more-profound way to state that truth at this early hour. A "democracy" which doesn't reflect the will of the people is a democracy in name only, and we can only keep the "lesser-evil" streak going for so long before we're so far into evil that we "have to" vote for a candidate materially supporting genocide so we don't get the candidate who supports genocide without having non-actionable "concerns" about it.
"I still can't figure out how he got in the first time"
Easy. He was propped up by democrats, namely Hillary Clinton.
If we reach a point 40 years from now when your choice is between a dem supporting 5 genocides and a republican supporting 10 genocides, are you still going to be militantly democrat and lash out at leftists who are sick of the whole thing?
Nope. I've stated this in multiple posts on other platforms, this is my last time going with this "lesser of two evils" bullshit. Because at some point, we HAVE to believe that it is intentional. I mean, what happened to "fool me once........"?
In this hypothetical we wouldn't have the option to vote 40 years from now because dim bulbs allowed an insurrectionist to be elected. Donald will also accelerate climate fuckery so anyway we'll be too busy squabbling over what meager food comes out of the remaining arable regions.
By not answering the question and participating in the process of this hypothetical choice the outcome is Israel is supported and Joe Biden loses the 2024 election.
So if a Trump presidency means the end of democracy in America, why hasn't Trump been outlawed?
Why is Biden focusing on banning TikTok instead of truth social? Why weren't the courts getting stacked 2 years ago? Why are the democrats' obsession with "precedent" and "civility" taking more primacy than outlawing a candidate who, by their own admission, would mean the end of democracy?
By propping up Trump, the democrats have effortlessly oriented you such that you now give blind support to a genocidal regime. You've given the democrats a blank check. The democrats would rather lose to Trump and usher in fascism than shift left in the slightest way (halting genocide).
Also, epic reddit catchphrase my good sir. I tip my hat you, for you are a gentleman and a scholar.
Ten year old?! Thats a high bar for most republicans these days. They want knee jerk and whining. Thats something most 10 year olds are already figuring out doesnt get them what they want.
Biden is not funding Israel. The United States government is. Even if he wanted to stop the aid (he doesn't), he doesn't have the power to just ignore laws passed by Congress. Trump did that with Ukraine and got impeached for it.
I mean, he fundamentally does have the power to veto laws. There are potentially negative political consequences in doing so, but he certainly has that power.
Certain important people need to keep selling spyware, drugs, guns and war to keep themselves and their associates employed. As for whether the funds or the actual work (conflict) available is sustainable is for everyone including the accountants to consider.
The other problem is that war doesn't really die, we just displace where we choose to fight, and how, if we imagine physical and cyber world peace for a moment, for the USA or China to reduce its military capacity by one third, or one tenth, we would see absolute chaos, thousands unemployed, the losses in maintenance and equipment, military supplies, medical, etc, nobody would win.
Any complex society where financial and other systems operate needs a minimum degree of social enforcement to maintain. Whether that can change like a function or is something that depends on a country's GDP is another issue.
Just consider that humanity would either need lots of free time, energy and money or it would literally need to feel incredibly threatened by something on earth, which we all could not fight to control in order to actually fund going to space or even the moon, and I doubt a triple whammy of pandemic, food shortage or severe draught and floods could do it, it happened in the Bible and people literally just found more dumb reasons to do more dumb things, and no lowering mens testosterone or telling guys to shave more often wouldn't do shit either. If people don't find reasons to explore or learn, they find reasons to fight/play fight, it's pretty normal, and if anyone remembers their childhood, usually it's pretty much the same across generations.
US citizens don't need to fear any Russian disinformation video campaign, just themselves. Remember Pizzagate? No video was needed for this one to stick.
They don't even know: they aren't organized enough to actually have thought that far. Right now, it seems that it's just A 50:50 mix of shitposting IRL (in that this has the same vibe as someone buying into a meme, and running with it) and some form of protest.
iirc, the organization came from preparing to overthrow the government and cause chaos - and basically just "come prepared, ready to fight like hell" - around the January 6 riots. However, then they kinda dropped that overall plan in favor of having Pence certify the election results (which didn't work out but...), except a few of the most die-hard members like her decided they didn't want all that planning to go to waste. Having been handed that weapon (knowledge of how to really hurt an entire city), they were loath to not use it against their "enemies" (liberals, as exemplifed by city folk).
A "rebel without a(n organized) cause", if you will. Any responsible gun owner knows the limits of when to draw their weapon (only when you are prepared to use it) and especially to actually discharge (only after you've positively identified the target, to avoid friendly fire). However, whoever radicalized her released the danger that she could unleash, without seeming to care about what chaos could ensue later, i.e. she is like a bullet fired from a gun, being uncontrollable after that point.
But anyway, January 6 has now been rewritten as being "peaceful", so that retroactively makes her into a "lone actor", until they find a better fit or use for her story.
It's out of a need/desire to "fix" what they see is wrong with society. They are angry that the world isn't what they want it to be and will do whatever it takes, violence included, to bring us back to their version of what makes a good society.
They have been brainwashed by Fox News and other alt-right pundits. But before you feel bad for them, remember that they were racists before and Fox News, et al, just radicalized them into terrorism.
Why we haven't labeled Fox News as a terrorist group yet is beyond me.
I read something, after someone shot up that substation in North Carolina, stating that you'd only have to severely damage some absurdly low amount of power substations to completely kill the US power grid. I'm pretty sure the number was single digits and could be accomplished with available small arms. So it's a feasible attack on unprotected infrastructure that could be accomplished with a pretty small force and isn't really subject to time constraints or anything.
As far as end goal, idk I guess once the power utilities and Internet are down we'll all have a racewar or something and the Nazis would win. I'm not too sure even they are positive about that part.
Might just be something to do. It'd be a pretty significant historical event.
Most substations are defended by a chain link fence with maybe some barbed wire at the top. There are plenty of tools that could disable them, both firearms and otherwise. I can't speak to how many you'd need to take out to collapse the national grid, but I can tell you that region wide problems can be caused with an attack on one or two. Our infrastructure is ridiculously vulnerable.
They're itching to tap into their 500 gallons of Prepper's Milk and Jerky stew. They want their larping to be real so hard. It pairs well with the religious nutters that think by killing others, they'll be allowed in Their God's Heaven. It's mind-boggling.
This is the kind of shit that happens when the public education system gets gutted in an attempt to make the public ignorant and easily manipulated by politicians who are either too stupid to recognize the damage or too evil and corrupt to care. Countries like Russia love it though, because it makes their efforts to damage and destroy the United States much, much easier.
It makes the populace wonderfully easy to puppeteer, which is great for governments both domestic and foreign. Russia and China are having a great job spinning up contention in the US and setting groups of opposed people actively at each other's throats. Organisers for groups and events end up being unrelated foreign actors who there just to intensify the conflict and push the two sides in to direct confrontation wherever possible.
It should be noted that this is just a method to determine the amount of infected cows. The milk itself isn't a threat to anyone. Virus fragments in themselves can't do anything, they're just a sign of the original cow problem.
Call out anyone that tries to fearmonger about the milk being dangerous.
From what I've read it doesn't seem to be a particularly severe disease for cows anyway. The hubbub is mostly about the potential for farm and dairy workers to catch it directly from a cow, which still seems like an incredibly rare occurrence
The bigger concern, that not many people are taking about, is wildlife. This bird flu is spreading out in the wild and has been taking out all sorts of endangered birds and mammals in mass quantities.
And if something jumps into humans, it’s more likely to happen from the massive spread happening in local wildlife.
There's still people using livestock dewormer as a cure all when they can't get their doc to write a script... so not drinking raw milk is just a libtard "suggestion" to them or the person saying it is just "in the pocket of big dairy" ...
weee!!! oh what a fun & exciting dystopia we're in!! /s
Broken clock is right twice a day I guess. FISA courts are a fucking sham. 'member when they were going after the guild of librarians with warrants that prevents the accused from talking to a lawyer? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
This is one of those situations where everybody sucks, and there’s no good side of the fight.
Trump wants to kill any foreign surveillance, because he was caught creceiving orders from foreign investors in his campaign. FISA is inherently flawed and should be reformed or replaced, but the American people do have an interest in monitoring foreign communications with our political leaders.
Thing is FISA’s interests in political representation is a very small part of their actual mandate. Which should surprise no one since it was founded by Nixon. The brunt of it is targeted at regular people.
For example the vast dragnet surveillance of the NSA were approved under FISA. We know such surveillance is used regularly against social movements like occupy Wall Street, WTC protests, most likely BLM, etc.
We have a new community controlled local police oversight board.
The officer was called with the pretext that someone had been brandishing a firearm / pointing a gun at houses.
You can’t see very well what the officer could see because the view is obstructed. It’s entirely possible that the kid complied but accidentally pointed the gun towards the officer.
The officer shot exactly 1 time and shot in a non-lethal manner (the hand was shot). This was not a murder attempt, this was in a way the extra mile, the kid will hopefully make a full recovery.
The fake gun is not an orange tipped fake, it’s very similar to a real looking gun. The kid also was not with friends “playing pretend” or anything like that.
As soon as the kid started yelling the officer immediately deescalated the situation and moved towards first aid.
The officer does have a messy history, particularly when alcohol is involved and when off duty, but was entirely sober at the time of the shooting and has never been known to be drunk while on duty.
We have had issues in the past few years locally particularly with teen violence. They’ve been trying to solve it, but some kids are carrying guns and robbing people, some kids have been carrying guns to protect themselves from the other kids, and evidently some kids are carrying fake guns too.
I’m glad this kid got to walk away with their life. I hope their hand isn’t too messed up and I hope they don’t have too much mental distress. They never should’ve walked around in public with a toy gun and “showed it off”, and I hope they never do this again.
If the officer really did something wrong, I’m sure we’ll get to the bottom of it, but as it stands, I think the officer reacted reasonably.
Thanks for the breakdown. I’m very surprised he shot him in the hand since that is very much against training. A toy gun without an orange tip is pretty hard to tell it is fake from 10m away.
At the very best, this is gross negligence on the officers part. At worst, it’s attempted murder. Even if a person has a real gun, that is not a justification to execute them on the spot or to even discharge lethal weaponry in any manner.
have a new community controlled local police oversight board.
Who apparently are apparently not willing or allowed to provide actual oversight?
officer was called with the pretext that someone had been brandishing a firearm / pointing a gun at houses.
And all police officers should know that witness testimony is more often wrong than not.
You can’t see very well what the officer could see because the view is obstructed. It’s entirely possible that the kid complied but accidentally pointed the gun towards the officer.
I don’t know why you give someone with a history of violence, that includes brandishing a firearm at their own girlfriend the benefit of doubt?
The officer shot exactly 1 time and shot in a non-lethal manner (the hand was shot). This was not a murder attempt, this was in a way the extra mile, the kid will hopefully make a full recovery.
Essentially saying that he panicked and has poor aim. No one is taught to shoot “in a non-lethal manor”, you always aim for center mass.
The fake gun is not an orange tipped fake, it’s very similar to a real looking gun. The kid also was not with friends “playing pretend” or anything like that.
I’m sorry, is it illegal for him to be carrying a toy gun, or even a real gun? This is America, we are allowed to open carry, or conceal and carry with proper licensing. Did the officer ask if he had a weapon on him? Did he ask about licensing? Or did he just give a vague command for him to raise his hands?
soon as the kid started yelling the officer immediately deescalated the situation and moved towards first aid.
Most people don’t have to hear cries of anguish to avoid murdering children. Most people would do anything possible to avoid shooting children… Are we congratulating people for de-escalating problems they escalated in the first place?
officer does have a messy history, particularly when alcohol is involved and when off duty, but was entirely sober at the time of the shooting
The problem is he should have never been back on duty in the first place. He got suspended, fired, reinstated, suspended and when he returned from suspension, he was put back on suspension within a month.
locally particularly with teen violence. They’ve been trying to solve it, but some kids are carrying guns and robbing people, some kids have been carrying guns to protect themselves from the other kids, and evidently some kids are carrying fake guns too.
So we have a problem with children with firearms? And the solution is… to arm a man child with more firearms than the children, and somehow less violence happens?
They never should’ve walked around in public with a toy gun and “showed it off”, and I hope they never do this again.
I played with toy guns when I was little, hell I played with real guns when I was little. This is not a crime, and even if it were, would summary execution be appropriate?
Why do you hold children to a higher degree of responsibility than a police officer?
officer really did something wrong, I’m sure we’ll get to the bottom of it, but as it stands, I think the officer reacted reasonably.
He shot a child… One who was legally following his orders. In what circumstances is this not something wrong?
I don’t know why you give someone with a history of violence, that includes brandishing a firearm at their own girlfriend the benefit of doubt?
Because I try and give everyone the benefit of the doubt; even people who reply with a condescending tone. I also acknowledge that people make mistakes and people’s personal lives and professional lives are different things.
Essentially saying that he panicked and has poor aim. No one is taught to shoot “in a non-lethal manor”, you always aim for center mass.
Plenty of people go to a range and practice shooting. You’re making a lot of assumptions about skill here that are entirely your own bias.
I’m sorry, is it illegal for him to be carrying a toy gun, or even a real gun? This is America, we are allowed to open carry, or conceal and carry with proper licensing. Did the officer ask if he had a weapon on him? Did he ask about licensing? Or did he just give a vague command for him to raise his hands?
You are not allowed to go around and point a gun (real or not) at buildings. It’s called public menacing and it’s illegal. That is what the call was about.
And all police officers should know that witness testimony is more often wrong than not.
There is a big difference between eye witness testimony (i.e., remembering the facts and identifying people) and inaccuracies in reporting (I saw a car driving way too fast, I saw a person rob my grocery story, I saw a person shoot someone – these aren’t things people often get wrong).
The rest of this I’m not touching it’s loaded with biases, condescending tone, and disregard for the particulars of the situation.
Because I try and give everyone the benefit of the doubt; even people who reply with a condescending tone. I also acknowledge that people make mistakes and people’s personal lives and professional lives are different things.
Seems like you are more focused on giving that doubt to the officer than the boy who was shot…
Plenty of people go to a range and practice shooting. You’re making a lot of assumptions about skill here that are entirely your own bias.
Lol, I go to the range to practice. You know where they put the targets on the dummies…not on the hands. Firearms are not nonlethal weapons, anyone with any training knows this. When you learn to shoot, you are always told to shoot center mass.
You are not allowed to go around and point a gun (real or not) at buildings.
Any what evidence says he was pointing at building? A phone call from some random lady does not validate him shooting a child.
What if I randomly called the police on you and told them you pointed a gun at me, where would you like to be shot?
There is a big difference between eye witness testimony (i.e., remembering the facts and identifying people) and inaccuracies in reporting (I saw a car driving way too fast, I saw a person rob my grocery story, I saw a person shoot someone – these aren’t things people often get wrong).
That is semantic reasoning, there is no inherent difference between the two. Also, people file false police reports constantly.
not touching it’s loaded with biases, condescending tone, and disregard for the particulars of the situation.
Lol, like you don’t have a condescending tone to your writing? The difference being is that your claims actually deserve condemnation.
I stated what was going on, and what my take on it was with the local context. Have a nice day. You’re clearly not interested in an intelligent or otherwise nuanced conversion.
The officer shot exactly 1 time and shot in a non-lethal manner (the hand was shot). This was not a murder attempt, this was in a way the extra mile, the kid will hopefully make a full recovery.
It’s hard to tell if the shot was intentional. The office is talking to the kid and exiting his vehicle when he shoots him. Cops aim at your center, not your hands.
The fake gun is not an orange tipped fake, it’s very similar to a real looking gun. The kid also was not with friends “playing pretend” or anything like that.
Orange tips haven’t stopped police from shooting people in the past. They’ve even claimed criminals paint orange tips on real guns. If he were playing with friends police would probably be responding to reports of an armed gang.
The officer does have a messy history, particularly when alcohol is involved and when off duty, but was entirely sober at the time of the shooting and has never been known to be drunk while on duty.
I’m not seeing anywhere that the cop had his BAC tested, or that he was tested for any substances after this shooting.
We have had issues in the past few years locally particularly with teen violence. They’ve been trying to solve it, but some kids are carrying guns and robbing people, some kids have been carrying guns to protect themselves from the other kids, and evidently some kids are carrying fake guns too.
I’m not sure what your point is. Should police treat teens in your area as threats because some are carrying real guns?
This kid will absolutely have mental distress and is probably going to be terrified of cops forever. And if the officer did do something wrong and they get to the bottom of it, then what? This cop has already proven he’s a danger and hasn’t faced any real consequences.
It’s hard to tell if the shot was intentional. The office is talking to the kid and exiting his vehicle when he shoots him. Cops aim at your center, not your hands.
It would be one heck of a coincidence if this kid just so happened to get shot dead in the middle of the hand that was holding the fake gun.
Orange tips haven’t stopped police from shooting people in the past.
The point isn’t that they haven’t stopped it. The point is this toy gun wasn’t one of those toy guns; the officer had no clear marking to go off of. You can go on to say “he would’ve shot him anyways” but that’s your bias, not anything we can know for sure either way.
I’m not seeing anywhere that the cop had his BAC tested
The point is that wasn’t an allegation against the officer by the kid, any other officers, or in any of his prior incidents/suspensions; i.e., there’s no reason to believe that was the case here based in reported facts.
I’m not sure what your point is. Should police treat teens in your area as threats because some are carrying real guns?
The point is that this isn’t Mayberry and there was reason for the officer to believe that this teenager they’d never met, in an area that’s had problems with this, posed a real threat to them. People under 25 are (sadly) responsible for the majority of violent crime in the city currently.
This cop has already proven he’s a danger and hasn’t faced any real consequences.
Well, we’ll see. The citizen oversight board is new and untested. The mayor is similarly new and untested (but passionate about the issue). The office of chief of police is in transition and currently unfilled.
It would be incredibly hard to intentionally shoot someone in the hand in this type of situation. I don’t think his hand was the intended target. The cop hasn’t even fully exited his cruiser when he shoots. It says he shot him within seconds of the encounter.
The cop isn’t acting like the kid is a threat to him. He rolls up maybe 15 feet away, directly in his line of sight, talks to him through the window, and starts to exit his cruiser. He didn’t observe from a distance, or seek cover, or call for backup. He needlessly put himself in danger if he thought this kid was going to try to kill him.
It would be incredibly hard to intentionally shoot someone in the hand in this type of situation.
Yes, but the fact of the matter is that he was shot in the hand. It’s entirely possible this cop has spent a lot of time at the range and intentionally made that shot.
This was one bullet in a (relatively rare) case of firearm discharge by an officer in Akron. The chances of that one bullet being fired and one bullet accidentally hitting exactly where it needed to are pretty low.
It was also pretty close range (which makes this easier), if he was aiming for center mass and hit this kid’s hand, he would have to be an incredibly bad shot.
He didn’t observe from a distance, or seek cover, or call for backup. He needlessly put himself in danger if he thought this kid was going to try to kill him.
It’s pretty clear he either didn’t think this was the kid or wasn’t expecting to have (what looked like) a gun pointed in his general discussion.
It’s also pretty clear that backup was not far away based on there being other cops on the scene within seconds of the shooting.
That was still plenty of time if it was a real gun for that officer’s family to be attending a funeral right now.
I’m not surprised either but I thought folks would appreciate the local context.
This is an issue our community is truly trying to address (it was something the new mayor was quite passionate about in his campaign and the community police oversight board was something he pushed for/got done when he was a city council member).
I (personally) have found that while Akron has made national news for police related shootings, the shootings often are far more nuanced than say, those out of Columbus, OH or what happened with George Floyd.
nuance in everything, which is something you clearly don’t understand
Nuance doesn’t automatically support your argument, just because things can be more detailed than originally assumed, doesn’t mean that those details support your argument.
The fact that the police officer in question has already been fired for dangerous behavior and has been suspended since his union got his job back is a piece of nuance you have consistently downplayed or ignored.
Every rebuttal people have supplied for your claims adds to the nuance of an opinion, as it has been extrapolated upon. You’re just utilizing nuance like it’s a magical spell whenever you paint yourself into a stupid corner.
You don’t care about nuance, you don’t care about polite discourse, you just want to lick boot.
Yeah, there was an attempt to rationally explain the events, and the person’s conclusion was that “the officer reacted reasonably”. i.e. They think shooting a totally compliant unarmed child was a reasonable action.
The thing is, most of us here disagree with that assessment. There are a myriad of other ways that the police officer could use which don’t involve using a lethal weapon on a child. These type of incidents cannot be treated as just bad luck. They are systematic, problematic, and unacceptable. To conclude that ‘the officer reacted reasonably’ is unsatisfactory. That kind of conclusion is what supports police to act with no accountability.
Eh, read the article and read all their comments and tell me they’re being reasonable. There’s a certain kind of white person–and yes, race matters because black people have first hand experience of how awful the police are–who grew up being told that cops, firefighters and soldiers deserve our respect, admiration and honor. And no matter how much evidence to the contrary they are confronted with, they find a way to maintain that belief that cops are essentially good, honorable people. Yes, there is an occasional “bad apple;” yes, sometimes mistakes are made; yes, some cities have systematic problems in their police departments; but the police in their town are good honorable folks. Not perfect–nobody is, but they are doing their best to serve and protect in a dangerous world, and we should be grateful to have them out their protecting our families. When something happens, they always give the benefit of the doubt to the cops, never the citizen. They’re like the willfully ignorant wife of an abusive step-father.
I mean, even if so, it’s extremely unlikely to affect the overall outcome of the general election.
The US presidential electoral system has two important aspects:
It is federal.
It permits states to determine how to allocate their votes.
Because of those aspects, states (which tend to be controlled by one party or another at the state level) have almost universally said that they want to use a winner-takes-all mechanism for votes in the presidential election, where whoever wins the majority vote in the state gets all of the state’s votes. That strengthens their vote for their “team”.
However, it also means that voters for “the other party” in the state have zero impact on the outcome of the overall election. Their votes are only up for grabs if a candidate can alter the majority in the state.
The result is that only votes in “battleground states”/“swing states” really affect the outcome.
The expected swing states in the 2024 general presidential election are:
Nevada
Arizona
Wisconsin
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Georgia
Alabama isn’t on the list.
Alabama is already expected to vote for the Republican candidate in the 2024 general election; one could simply omit Biden from the Alabama general ballot, and it would be very unlikely to alter the outcome of the overall election. Even if one imagines a scenario where Alabama did vote for the Democratic candidate – like, Biden does something that Alabamans really like or Trump does something that they really dislike – chances are pretty good that enough other Trump-favoring states would switch to Biden by that point – because whatever that thing that was done is would also affect voter opinion in other states – that the election would be a foregone conclusion and Biden votes in Alabama still wouldn’t matter.
The two states that presently don’t use winner-take-all are Nebraska and Maine.
Now, if Biden weren’t on the general election ballot in a state expected to vote Democratic in the presidential election, or wasn’t on the ballot in a battleground state, or maybe in Nebraska or Maine, that’d potentially have an impact. But for Alabama, it probably doesn’t matter, at least in terms of the outcome of the election.
Small farmer here. Devoid the soil of nutrients by tilling. Kill all the soil biology by spraying chemicals. Grow only fast yield cash crops. Grow the same crop year after year for decades or more. Breed crops for appearance and yield over nutrition. What the fuck do you expect?
I’m not a farmer but I’ve been reading about the history of industrial farming lately and I’ve become convinced that we’re approaching agriculture completely wrong. We’re planting massive monocultures in soil that’s been wrecked for decades (via the things you’ve mentioned), surely that would have something to do with it?
If we completely flipped everything we’ve been doing for agriculture we’d be better off in the long run. Small farms have better yeilds, polycropping is better for the environment and modern pesticides create an evolutionary arms race that we will never win. We’ve got it all wrong and we’ve known it since (at least) the 70s. These outdated, expensive, impractical agricultural practices are only making things worse
Longer than the 70s, the fucking Dust Bowl was all about this. We’ve known better for almost an entire century and we’re STILL fucking the soil with mono-crops
Monocropping is vastly more efficient on a number of counts, especially labour input. I can’t emphasise enough what a big deal that is, it’s really the only reason anyone is getting fed.
Yes, there’s a lot of problems with agriculture - predominantly its scale and extent, but eight billion mouths take a lot of feeding. Topsoil loss should be our main concern, together with biogeochemical flows/losses. Every other issue is fairly minor in comparison, really.
Again, that’s not really how food production works - although it is a problem. Production surpluses are an essential buffer to deal with both supply and demand shocks, the elasticity this provides is (and I’m repeating myself) the only reason anyone is getting fed.
Capturing that food waste so it can at least end up back in the soil, yes, that’s something that needs improving.
Emotional Sensitivity: “Yes, we’re emotionally sensitive to the fact that the poors want to cut our heads off and watch them roll. We need to hide our wealth so they’re less likely to strike out at us.”
When news sources start saying shit like, “The economy is great, you kids just need to stop buying stuff and save for a house!” “The war in Gaza…” (seems pretty damn one sided to be a war.) “Biden is trying his best to protect women’s rights!” (We can tell by the lack of action on the various tracking and criminalization of women’s choices in deep red states) People start looking elsewhere for news that reflects the world we live in vs the obvious propaganda we are seeing from major news sources.
I posted this in a reply, but I’m reposting it here:
Bacon is already cooked when you buy it from the store (at least in america). The difference between “pork belly” and “bacon” is that bacon is cured and then smoked. That smoking process gets the temperature above the range to cook it.
Besides, even “chewy” bacon is going to get above the recommended pork cooking temp. It’s so thin, it will reach that temperature very quickly. If it gets hot enough to start rendering the fat, it’s definitely hot enough, and I have a hard time believing anyone would pull bacon out of the oven before it’s had time to render some fat.
If you read the case report by the docs, they don’t say “we think he got this disease from bacon”.
Our patient’s lifelong preference for soft bacon may have led to instances of undercooked bacon consumption, but this would have caused him to develop taeniasis, an intestinal tapeworm, and not cysticercosis [1]. Taeniasis occurs when consuming undercooked pork and the larval cysts embedded within, while cysticercosis is contracted when humans ingest eggs found in the feces of other humans with taeniasis [1].
In other words, the brain version only comes from eating the eggs, which can only come from eating poop of someone who had the intestinal worms. They later specify that they think the most likely scenario is that he got the intestinal version, re-infected himself through the fecal-oral pathway, then somehow cured himself of the intestinal version.
Personally, I think the most likely scenario is that he got the parasite the same way you get any other disease that uses the fecal-oral pathway: contact with someone’s inadequately washed hands, or eating food prepared by someone with inadequately washed hands.
News
Hot