faceh
6hr ago
I have to assume its a LITTLE BIT because she let Trump get shot.
Politicians, ironically, ACTUALLY have some skin in the game when it comes to their protection details. They don't want potential bad actors to think they have a chance at successfully offing a politician because the USSS is incompetent. They definitely don't want such actors to be successful at offing politicians, they'd actually possibly suffer consequences in that case.
faceh
6hr ago
If there was some aspect of his responsibilities that was neglected, you'd say so.
If I point out that there's literal millions of illegal border crossing happening on his watch what would you say to that?
Does "controlling the influx of foreign citizens entering the country" count as an "aspect of his responsibilities?"
Does allowing millions to enter and remain in the country without documentation count as 'neglect' of that aspect?
Then that's one. I could go on but I don't think that's the actual topic we're on.
I don't think you're adding much to my judgment of her character or fitness, just further deflections.
I stand by my position that I cannot choose Kamala due to demonstrated incompetence, dishonesty, and lack of actual tangible support for her candidacy because she skipped the normal process.
And you've provided the same weak excuses as everyone else. "SHE COULDN'T HAVE KNOWN!"
A competent leader would have. And would have said something. And wouldn't have lied.
So I will not reward the deceitful, incompetent leader with a promotion.
faceh
1d ago
I think what tends to happen is that lack of accountability makes it almost impossible for the system to correct course even as the need for such course-correction becomes absolutely obvious. There's no mechanism for filtering out incompetents, there's no feedback for the leaders to judge which decisions are actually improving matters, so we get the iron star catastrophe.
Covid kinda showed many of the seams. It really seems like the elites are running very low on effective tactics for reigning in discontent. I don't see how they'll effectively resolve the Israel-Palestine divide without alienating some large portion of the population. It seems unlikely that they'll achieve true 'victory' in Ukraine. They can't even solve the problem of drug overdose deaths in the heart of the capital, let alone the outer reaches of the empire.
You can only run away from consequences for so long. I'd wager most of them are gambling that they'll be dead before the chickens actually come home to roost.
faceh
1d ago
I think a lot of people overestimate how plugged in VPs are. The President has no responsibility, none at all, to keep the VP in the loop on anything. So we don't know if Kamala knew anything.
Well she should probably not be making statements supporting the president's and his mental acuity as though she's actually aware and in the loop, eh?
This is a bit ridiculous to argue if the premise is that Kamala didn't know what apparently, as we have recently learned, was evident to tons of people in Biden's orbit for months and months.
Like, she must have been intentionally ignoring it at that point.
Thirdly, had Kamala said something, you would as sure as sunshine be carping about what a disloyal, ambitious snake she was for doing so.
Nope. I don't go caring about how politicians treat each other in almost any context. The whole problem is that they're TOO loyal to each other and view their whole political class as an ingroup.
she's responsible and accountable to Biden, not the media.
Funny, I would have argued she's MORE responsible and accountable to her constituents. The ones she lied to. But as we've seen, the Dems don't actually need their voters input, so maybe you're right.
It is dishonest, sure. But such dishonesty is in some ways, necessary to keep organisations running.
So what, if any, punishment is proper for when the dishonesty actually had tangible consequences and is finally revealed to truth?
Or should we promote the dishonest person to a higher position?
I dunno, just seems like you'll get more dishonesty, which TO ME is a major detriment to having functional, accountable organizations.
faceh
1d ago
But why would they care? In many ways, things have gotten worse for the academics, but academi_a_ has been doing fine. Even individual schools and journals with massive scandals have quite happily shaken them off and gone right back to it.
I've been tapping the sign so vigorously lately that its starting to hurt my finger.
Literally I just want accountability from those who are nominally in charge of various important functions.
faceh
1d ago
At first I assumed it was one of those glock switches, but apparently it was an actual rifle and those cops are just obscenely, obscenely lucky.
Situation looks like its from GTA.
faceh
1d ago
Complete with the memory-holing of articles that might be used to undermine Harris.
I've tried with good faith efforts to ask any blue-teamer including on this forum whether it matters to them that Kamala was in on the deceit around Joe's health, and whether allowing her to be chosen as candidate without following the prescribed process is rewarding her for such deceit.
I've heard no good reason for ignoring this factor. Just a kind of willful ignorance of the past because the consensus of the day demands it.
At this point, I do think the Democrats should literally just skip primaries going forward. They CLEARLY do not need them to form a consensus around a given candidate. Just let the Dem power-brokers make deals behind the scenes and present the winner at the convention. This would make the power-brokers happier as they can do what they normally do without having to worry about an upstart like Bernie Sanders upsetting things, and it would make the constituents happier because they never have to risk breaking with the crowd by accidentally supporting a different candidate than the ultimate winner.
faceh
2d ago
My dude if you want to get in a fight with someone that has a pot of boiling water, and then wait until the person is actually closing on you swinging the pot before acting, be my guest.
I'll just say, if somebody I don't know shows up at my house holding a pot of obviously boiling liquid, I ain't opening the door. If they attempt to throw the liquid at me, I'm assuming hostile intent. If they are still wielding the pot and try to come into my house, I AM shooting them at that point. And living in a Castle Doctrine state, the law will likely absolve me of guilt.
The situations aren't directly analogous, but that's how I'm interpreting the presence/use of the weapon in this case.
If I'm faced with the situation in the video, I will have tried to extricate from the scenario as soon as the pot comes into play, in hopes of not being forced into a split-second decision with someone's life, even if its not mine, hanging in the balance.
faceh
2d ago
Right. I think the whole problem with judging these situations is that they tend to be interactions between cops, who are already edgy about being ambushed, and less-than-rational types who are edgy because they know they might be arrested or they're just suffering from a mental condition that affects judgment. Cops are more likely to encounter those types than the average citizen. So these interactions come with some extra hostility/tension built in.
(there's valid debate as to how much of this cops bring upon themselves when they have a very aggressive approach to policing and the fact that they have less accountability)
For example, here are a couple other semi-recent police encounters:
One where the cops take out a dude who is directly threatening another person's life:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zi4Lw981G9w?si=E5riO0NlRu_KEIq4
Obvious good shoot, with plenty of time to set up, take aim, attempt de-escalation, and act at the most opportune moment.
And another where holy shit a 'standard' traffic stop IMMEDIATELY results in automatic gunfire their way:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=6UzsEvst1MI?si=a2bokSAmX2vJGAct
These are the two extremes of the sort of situations cops can find themselves in.
We'd all love for every police shooting to look like the first: obvious justification, attempts at de-escalation, and minimal force employed (one bullet, in that case). But cops have a general (not entirely rational, odds are they'll never face such a situation) concern about suddenly being confronted with the second situation.
So I dunno, I don't blame police for treating suspicious characters with a vague sense of hostility, but some subset of those characters are going to respond very badly to their presence, and if they're truly irrational, then we should be scrutinizing the cop's actions harder, overall.
faceh
2d ago
Right, but its simultaneously hard to understand why their immediate response to seeing the boiling water in her hand is "I'm will shoot you in the face."
I guess I'm suggesting that their failure to control the scene was a problem. Okay, they don't see the boiling water as a danger until she's holding it. Maybe that's a training flaw in itself.
If they didn't think she was posing any danger prior to that point, I'm confused as to why that escalated to "I'm going to shoot" you nigh instantaneously. If they DID think she was a possible danger, then just keep her on the couch and shut off the stove off yourself, don't let her roam around to, e.g. grab a knife or set something on fire.
faceh
3d ago
I guess there's a question of reasonableness. Could you assume they have a cache of grenades in the cabinet? Are they hiding trained attack tigers in the attic?
Whole problem for me is that most of the danger was avoidable if they don't let the lady get off the couch. If they thought she was dangerous at the outset, then don't let her get the boiling water.
Once she does, maybe exit the house and see if she escalates further.
I don't buy that they feared for their safety up until a second or two before she threw that water.
faceh
3d ago
Well yeah they came into her house and started making demands and bossing her around. I wouldn't blame her for feeling threatened.
It is unclear how her actions improved on the situation though.
To be clear, my presumption whenever a standard police encounter results in a death is to assume the cops fucked up royally. That seems to be the case here. It is a rebuttable presumption, though.
faceh
3d ago
If you're not going to run and escape the situation (which would be my advice for that scenario, shes not a danger to others) then you damn well better make sure you have the clearest shot possible.
If the opponent is behind a barrier like a kitchen counter, guess what you gotta move in to make sure you have a shot.
Being stuck in close quarters with a melee attacker is nightmarish, even if you have a pistol.
If escape isn't viable, then tactically speaking advancing on the opponent is a "sound" choice. Something about how meeting danger head on can nearly halve it, or whatever.
Again, I'm just pointing out how the presence of the weapon is a larger factor than people give credit for. Not praising the cop's reaction.
One thing about the George Floyd case, the guy was unarmed and completely restrained when he died. That's what really made it stand out.
This... ain't quite that.
I wouldn't get into the mechanics of it all, but a person "cowering" with a weapon can very quickly turn into a person "charging" with a weapon. They are not neutralized/incapacitated merely by laying on the floor.
The greater context of the situation very much weighs against shooting her, but I really think people don't get how the presence of a weapon, ANY weapon, escalates the nature of the threat.
Here's a 2020 incident where the perp surprises and slashes one officer, who doesn't immediately shoot her, perp drops the knife and appears to comply for a moment, then suddenly swoops down to pick it up again and charges another officer.
https://nypost.com/2020/09/03/bodycam-footage-florida-woman-stabs-cop-ahead-of-fatal-shooting/
Until the person is either fully restrained or, unfortunately, poked full of holes, they are posing a danger.
The weapon in the current case being boiling water is a really unique twist, but the principle is the same.
faceh
3d ago
I mean, yes, but also no, a person wielding a weapon can charge in and close distance before the bullets put them down.
If she was holding a kitchen knife it would still be dangerous at that range.
Sure, I just haven't gotten a single good explanation for why you are ignoring that Dem elites, including Harris herself, lied to you guys and covered up Biden's condition for months or possibly years, and have caused the current bout of chaos by failing to get Biden to step aside earlier. I got into a long exchange on twitter where I pointed this out and repeatedly asked why Kamala should be able to skip the normal process one would go through to earn the nomination, especially when she has demonstrated incompetence in how this Biden situation was handled.
They skipped over the primaries, which means millions of Dem voters did not get to register their voice for whom they'd like to have as a candidate. The whole premise for skipping the primaries was that Biden was mentally fit and able to run. And this got revealed as false in the most spectacular way. Kamala, in particular, had to be aware of this issue, and yet never raised it once. Why is the outcome to reward her for this?
This should cause SOME kind of backlash from the constituency for both denying them a voice AND lying in such a way that now the Presidential race is in flux and may very well have handed it to Trump.
Serious question: why bother with primaries at all, going forward, if it is acceptable to just let the elite consensus dictate who gets the nod, and all you proles just fall in line? I can believe it if someone says "These are extraordinary circumstances, not to be repeated." BUT THE PARTY'S ELITES CREATED THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. I think any reasonable read of this situation has to agree that it is anti-democratic.
My position is that I can't see myself supporting or voting for Harris given the apparent dishonesty around Biden's health (who knows what else), overall lack of competence for the job, and the fact that there's no demonstrated support for her candidacy since she hasn't gone through the process. Seemingly the only way you can overlook these factors is A) Abject fear of Trump, or B) just being so loyally committed to blue team that you'll suffer any abuse in silence. Both of these imply that there are no repercussions for blue team leadership abusing your trust, which is a recipe for disaster.
faceh
4d ago
I refuse to adopt the meme phrase, even if I find it funny.
That said, it is amazing to see that Party continue to march on as if past evidence has ceased to exist. Heel-face turns are common in politics. JD Vance has to contend with his history of anti-Trumpism, after all. But now there should be people wondering why Kamala got to get the nod WITHOUT going through the standard selection process, but I'd bet for real blue-teamers, in their mind she would have won anyway so why bother with the formalities? In fact why even think about that! We've got an election to win!
It is indeed.
The outcome we're seeing was set in motion almost directly as a result of the same mechanisms that originally cleared the way for Biden back before Super Tuesday in 2020. The same iron hand that brought all other candidates to heel and lined Kamala up for the VP spot is now having to execute some delicate maneuvers to oust one candidate and elevate another without generating more chaos than already exists and handing the election to the guy they were worried about beating all the way back when they originally coalesced around Joe.
The big failure of Dem's centralized leadership, in my view, was not holding Joe to his 'transitional' role. It would have been far more believable for Joe to declare that he had fulfilled his main objectives and now wanted to enjoy a well-earned retirement and either bow out entirely or anoint his successor than to cancel the entire primary season THEN 'decide' he wasn't cut out for running again.
But the OTHER feature of centralized leadership is never letting go of power once it has it, even if it has worn out its welcome or is incapable of wielding authority effectively.
faceh
4d ago
Hard to be certain of that when Kamala's got such low approval. I'm not sure if she qualifies as a 'normal' candidate, either.
But we're in weird times.
faceh
5d ago
Corporations, as creatures of the state, should be able to have their speech limited by the state, which was the law prior to CU v. FEC.
They're 'creature of the state' but uh, they also do not exist independently of the people that invoke the state's rules to create them.
The fundamental question is how you can recognize individuals' rights to free speech, including the right to spend money on political messaging, and yet NOT recognize that a group of individuals organizing as a corporation and pooling their funds to spend on political messaging are just invoking the exact same right they each individually possess.
I mean, sure, you could say that the state is entitled to define the rules under which corporations operate at all, but they can still avoid running roughshod over the 'fundamental rights' that citizens are supposed to posses irrespective of the state's position on them.
Extending your logic to its furthest reaches would also enable an end run around other constitutional rights. The Second Amendment says people can keep and bear arms, but if people want to form a company to manufacture and sell firearms, they can get shut down unilaterally? The Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches, but why should internal corporate communications have such protection? Nevermind that it is people who are 'exercising' the rights in either case, if a corporation can be punished or shut down for performing actions that would be constitutionally protected if an individual performed them, then there's an argument that a corporation can escape that punishment by simply paying some separate individual to do it for them.
"Oh, so corporations aren't allowed to spend money on political campaigns? Okay. Well we just sent 1 million dollars over to Bob, and Bob just happened to spend it all on a given candidate in a given race. Are you saying Bob doesn't have freedom of speech?"
Yep. But that is just par for the course too. Such people only dared speak different opinions because there was an obvious breach in the consensus that made it 'safe' to deviate from the group. The group being in the process of coalescing once again is their signal to jump back in line.
I'm mostly amused by Aaron Sorkin suggesting that they should nominate Mitt Romney EARLIER TODAY then aggressively walking that back as soon as the decision was made.
I'd be disgusted at such spinelessness if I thought it mattered at all.
It's also amazing that they are managing to convert the "Biden and Co. hid his decline from us all!" into "he is a hero of democracy for nobly standing down." Although it shows a good grasp of classical conditioning. Reward the behavior you're trying to encourage.
faceh
5d ago
This requires independent voters to ignore that the Democrat party as a whole, INCLUDING Kamala, pulled the wool over their eyes and just created this mess without even putting the candidates through primaries.
In a sane world, this kind of chaotic revelation of the lie would result in a few weeks of terrible polling for the mainstream party until they manage to re-establish a cohesive narrative and/or Trump shoots his mouth off again. Misleading constituents this badly should provoke backlash.
I don't really know how it plays in our actual world.
faceh
5d ago
But isn’t it weird how the same guy just keeps being phenomenally, impossibly, successful at multiple different things?
If there is any human being on earth who I might believe is actually playing some form of 4D chess at this point it'd be Elon.
The only other explanation is that he is actually from outside the simulation and has access to the in-game console.
In a way, though, I rather envy the Democrats' ability to snap quickly into place around a candidate, utterly unbothered by whatever claims they made or positions they staked out a mere week ago.
The reason 3 months will be long enough to run a campaign for president is because the party will quelch dissent in record time, disseminate new marching orders, and can generally expect their people to hop to it and follow through regardless of who the candidate is both because of fear of Trump and the unwavering belief that blue tribe has their best interests at heart.
And I wager that none of the rank-and-file democrats will be bothered by the fact that the party elites, including Kamala, were complicit in pulling the wool over their eyes and creating this situation.
That said, they're inheriting most of the same disadvantages Joe was already laboring under (sans the age/dementia one), and one hopes that independent voters are noticing both that they were lied to for months if not years, and that a party forcing a new nominee down their constituents' throats without primaries and 3 months to the actual election is a signal of deep dysfunction. Every other attempt at rehabbing her image has been a failure.
On the other hand, the independent voter who is looking for any excuse not to vote Trump has an easy out, the Harris administration would promise to be the most seamless transition and least disruption to whatever the Biden admin's goals were.
Indeed, one can argue that (modern) historically the VP is meant to perform this role, stepping right up to the plate to keep things humming along. Ehhh, except she's NOT getting to step up, unless Biden formally resigns or they 25th amendment him. Which, I'm willing to give you even odds that's the next big 'crisis.'
I mean, it runs counter to the narrative that Trump is a Charlatan/Fraud at every level, not JUST in that it makes him relatable.
Dems like to tout his numerous failed businesses (I would counter by simply pointing out that that only correlates with the many times he's tried new business ideas, where most don't try at all) or imply that he wouldn't be a billionaire but for luck and family connections.
This here demonstrates that no, he actually has a demonstrable set of skills in at least one area, he's not all talk. And if he's got skills in golf, it makes it ever so slightly more likely that he's actually skilled at other tasks that require finesse, strategy, and endurance.
For me, I'd say that I realized that Trump wasn't just buying and/or lending his name to Golf Courses to try and pretend at sophistication, he actually has a passion for that sport.
More options
Context Copy link