The New and Improved Sam Spade Good Post Gallery.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:00:12 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Forum Community (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, YE, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  The New and Improved Sam Spade Good Post Gallery.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Author Topic: The New and Improved Sam Spade Good Post Gallery.  (Read 13159 times)
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,855
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2017, 02:35:43 PM »

The Clintons have done plenty of make the Democratic party be an absolute cesspool in 2016. Democrats need to talk about the issues that affect people: jobs, healthcare, the environment, and not pretending to give a rats ass about some identity group when the same terrible Clintons scored political points bashing those groups in the 1990s. Their divide and conquer identity politics needs to die.
Damn, jfern is good.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 05, 2017, 03:53:21 PM »

When Your President Incites Violence …

How do we handle heads-of-state who encourage crimes?

http://warisboring.com/when-your-president-incites-violence/


Seems relevant.

It only seems relevant because of your own twisted hatred of Donald Trump.  He's a guy you dislike intensely.  I get that.  Do we have to talk about Democratic operatives encouraging mentally shaky folks to react to them during Trump rallies?

Scripture says to refrain from "returning evil for evil".  For the athiests and unbelievers, I would think that your parents explained to you at one time or another that two (2) wrongs didn't make a right.  (Quite frankly, if they didn't, they failed at part of their job, and if they did, but you blew it off, you failed at part of growing up.)

I'm a parent of a now 12 year old.  He's got ADHD with a bit of Oppositional Defiant Disorder.  He wants to push the limits as far as he can, and it's strenuous to have to constantly insist that boundaries and rules are what they are, and (quite often) not negotiable.  He's 12 and he's got an identifiable issue.  But here, I'm seeing a bunch of folks who, presumably, don't have those issues, thinking that they shouldn't be banned from a website for making threats, wanting to box folks as to how far they can go, etc.  It's the logic of someone who wants to know how close to the Atlantic Ocean they should build their new house during Hurricane Season, or how close to the cliff they should venture without fear of a rockslide.  They want to live on the edge, but when the edge is blown out from under them, they want it to be somebody else's fauld.

I wish Trump would quit Tweeting; he can't do it without being a jerk and he doesn't seem to want to listen to reason.  I get that, also.  But I'm not responsible for him.  I'm only responsible for me and my son; even my wife, who is also responsible for our son, is responsible for her own actions.  And if I really have to go to great lengths to explain this to folks, I wonder if these folks judgment in ANYTHING is sound, no matter how educated or experienced they may be.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2017, 12:42:54 PM »

Leftists have bought into right-wing rhetoric on the 'liberal media' and believe the press is now a wing of the Democratic Party. If that were even remotely true, they wouldn't run front page headlines like this:



Foreigners should not be able to comment on or influence American politics like this. That ranges from Australian college students to Russian nationals. It's disgraceful.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2017, 12:37:13 PM »

The sheriff's skepticism isn't as off-base as you might think. People treated with naloxone frequently revive and walk away, seeking no further treatment, and in most cases there is nothing that law enforcement or emergency services can do to stop them.

Instead, they are relegated to waiting for the next overdose, when again they will be expected to step in and save a life or at least prevent a trip to an emergency room in the back of an ambulance. It requires minimal imagination to realize the effect that this has on their morale, particularly in those counties where naloxone injections are now administered by the hundreds or thousands annually.

Moreover, there is a sense that anyone who is outfitted with naloxone will tend to overuse it. Even trained clinicians can misjudge whether someone has overdosed, let alone a police officer with minimal background on human physiology.

(Incidentally, for both of these reasons it is not true that each injection amounts to a life saved, or even an emergency department visit prevented, although some certainly are.)

Incidentally, the sheriff is correct about the dangers involved in reviving a person who has overdosed. Even when naloxone is used to revive someone who took opioids under medical supervision and in a clinical setting, those people frequently wake up agitated and confused. It isn't unusual for them to flail and strike out at people. Nor is it surprising when you consider what is happening to the receptors on which opioids act.

As of 2015, Butler County had a drug overdose mortality rate several times the national average. They are losing more people to drug overdoses than most other places in the United States lose to car crashes, gun violence, and all suicides combined. 2016 was probably even worse.

This far from a matter of "one asshole standing in the way." This is a county that has moved beyond its breaking point. Neither medical professionals nor policy experts nor community leaders have any good answers, and even the best suggestions that they have are palliative. Narcan can prevent an overdose from becoming a fatality, but it does nothing to break addiction. If you want to understand how someone in a position of responsibility can be so callous, consider that.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2017, 07:02:38 AM »

I suggest that the correlation comes from the political connection at the time the issues really connected with the public. Pubs controlled the Senate at the time of the Kyoto climate agreement in the late 1990's. It wasn't a good deal for the US with respect to trade compared to India and China but the Senate could finesse the diplomatic issues by attacking the science (which wasn't so well established then).

There was a renewed push for official English language laws in the mid 90's as well, driven in part by the new Pub majorities. Laws were passed in AK, GA, MO, MT, NH, SD, VA, and WY, adding to the dozen states that responded to the original push in the 1980's. At that time the debate in most states was about immigrants, not illegal immigrants which only became the talking point after 2001.

So by the end of the 1990's many of the same Pub leaders were speaking against both climate change and excessive immigration. That message stuck with their supporters, and is now part of the canon 20 years later.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,142
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 12, 2017, 02:42:57 AM »

I love how capital is free to cross borders at will, but labor (or people in general) are not. Sure, you can go invest or open a new plant, mine, or whatever in India, China, etc... but god forbid a student, worker, or entrepreneur from those countries wants to come to America to study, start a business, or work. There's no excuse for targeting international students; that's particularly cruel. Then to add the burden of reapplying yearly? That's such a hassle, could cause enormous instability in their lives, and discourage foreign students from studying here and contributing to our society.

Don't pretend like you want foreign students here to "contribute to our society".

You want foreign students here because it benefits the foreign students.

And the problem with that is...? I want it for both reasons. Our society benefits and so do the foreign students. Oh, I forgot, I'm supposed to automatically distrust and hate anyone who wasn't born within the boundaries of particular socially constructed lines on a map. My bad!
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 14, 2017, 08:13:35 AM »

I hate to be on the same side as EnglishPete, since our views could not be more different, but all this Russia stuff stinks to me. Not because I believe Trump colluded with Russia (I'd attribute any semblance of collusion to Trump & co. stupidity), but because this all seems far too convenient for powerful American industries. Suddenly, the bureau responsible for countless civil rights violations is a bedrock of our democracy? The same intelligence agencies that were rightfully trashed under Bush for lying about WMDs, overthrowing foreign governments, and torturing prisoners to advance the interests of the powerful Congressional Miltary-Industrial Complex (which is a conspiracy insofar as President Eisenhower was a conspiracy theorist), is now the ultimate source of truth? Neoconservatives like Krauthammer, Kristol, and McCain are being lauded as rational voices? Did I fall and hit my head, awaking in opposite land? These are the same people who've never met a war, bloated military and defense budget, covert assassination, staged revolution and coup, and violation of civil liberties they didn't like.

I guess it doesn't occur to anyone that the deep state may have vested interests in beating a war drum against Russia and fanning flames of conspiracy against Trump, with which Democrats have been happy to bandwagon? Perhaps it has something to due with the growing (and what should be deeply troubling) closeness of the military industrial complex and Silicon Valley, not to mention Wall Street interests. Sure, Trump's family business interests have likely wield significant influence over his relationship with Russia, but so, too, does his lack of an invested relationship with the deep state. Can anyone point out where he has business involvements with this segment of the American power structure?

Despite all the raving about Russian involvement in the 2016 election, what did they accomplish? They didn't alter the outcome of the election in any way; at most, alleged Russian hacking revealed that the DNC was working to block Sanders and help secure the nomination for Clinton. And despite the allegations, which disappeared as quickly as they surfaced, that Russia hacked into state electoral grids, there's no concrete evidence for that either. The only genuinely worrisome hacking allegations are that Russia might've hacked into our infrastructure security and so on. Not to mention the rich irony of America - and the deep state in particular - up in arms over a country meddling in another country's election and domestic politics. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?

Putin claims Russia wasn't meddling in our election; Assange asserts the source of their information wasn't the Russian state. Of course Putin's a professional liar, but Assange has no reason to lie for him; he still has credibility. And, honestly if it comes down to a matter of faith, I'd place more trust in Putin and Assange than the CIA, which has been perfectly happy to lie to advance certain political interests (WMDs in Iraq). As for this particular email scandal, of course Trump Jr. wanted opposition research on Clinton - every political team does it. Just not all of them are dumb enough to work with Russians, then reveal they worked with Russians. That only becomes criminal if it can be proven the exchange violated the emolument clause, which is questionable at best. Besides, if this opposition research was conducted by another country, like Israel, would it be such a big deal? Doubtful.

Basically, I remain agnostic on the subject because Trump & co., Putin, and the deep state are all habitual liars. Perhaps there is a shady connection going on that involves both the Trump campaign and Russia's meddling in the election. That's at least plausible and not outside the realm of possibility. However, it's even more likely that, the same deep state and public figures that have been trying to find a reason to initiate a Cold War 2.0 with Russia are using this as a perfect justification to escalate tensions against Russia, which benefit their vested interests. And Democrats have been happy to not only go along with that, but ally with Neoconservatives for the purpose of reviving their damaged political party by riding any anti-Trump campaign that they can. What worries me, and should worry everyone who wants world peace, is what they're preparing to do when (not if) they seize power over the state again. Considering the alliance Democrats have formed with Neoconservatives, I'd certainly expect their policies, rhetoric, and leaders to have important positions in the next Democratic administration. The result will be an extraordinary and unnecessary revelation of tension, coupled with an all-out cyber war, with Russia.

And that's all I plan to comment on the Russia-Trump stories.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 18, 2017, 09:50:25 AM »

Gotcha. Like I said, it really seems like the problem is a police training system that essentially encourages "Feel vaguely threatened? Better shoot first."

The fact that almost none of them are ever prosecuted for gunning people down in the more extreme situations can't be helping either. There is no fear of repercussions beyond administrative punishment or being fired, at which case many officers can just find work with a new department.

But that's the point - there are a number of issues at play here, and nothing is getting solved because tough on crime politicians and police unions refuse to truly address these problems, and actively obstruct attempts at true, meaningful reform.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2017, 10:32:17 AM »

Another thing that I would add is that some people here seem to think that it's inconceivable that workers would reject unionization without intimidation. Even in long-time union shops in non-RTW states, a lot of the rank-and-file don't really value their union. Even if they have things like defined benefit pensions that the union got them, they don't like things like seeing lazy stewards who are only doing it to get off the floor and get paid to do union work, the union getting too cozy with management, advancement opportunities based on seniority, etc. There are some inherently negative aspects of unionization.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,855
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 12, 2017, 10:59:11 PM »

If the KKK has nothing to do with Christianity, could you also say that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam? Could you say that NK has nothing to do with atheism? I think that you get my point.

The KKK are Christian terrorists, but Neo-Nazis generally aren't Christians and misc. alt righters religious views are varied.

Trying to create an equivalency between violence perpetrated by Muslims and violence perpetrated by Christians is dicey because, for reasons not necessarily related to the religions themselves, weaponized Christianity has generally been used as a means to other ends, whereas weaponized Islam has almost always been carried out for Islam's sake.

Maybe if Jesus - like Mohammed - had been a military leader who created an empire and forcibly converted all in his path, that would have been different. But he wasn't. There was never a "Christian empire." Even things like the Inquisition were more about earthly monarchs wanting to consolidate power. When Europeans engaged in imperial conquest, they sometimes said they were doing so "for God" but in practice, they were far more interested in getting land, natural resources and forced labor.

When right-wingers use Christianity as a weapon, it's because they view Christianity as just one of many things that make "the Volk" what it is. When Orthodox Serbs slaughtered Muslim Bosniaks, they weren't doing so "in the name of Christ." They were doing so because they were Serbs, and being Christian was merely a part of what made Serbs, Serbs (and being Muslim was merely part of why Bosniaks could never be Serbs and never be permitted to exist in their nation-state).

Christians do not feel any particular "kinship" with Christians as a whole, in the way that Muslims do with the "ummah" - the community of believers. A white Southern Baptist could care less about Christians getting killed or persecuted in Nigeria or Iraq. Those Christians aren't "their people" (Western white people) so it doesn't bother them.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 21, 2017, 01:48:26 PM »

An obnoxious blowhard with no principles even by the standards of TV media hacks.  Matthews isn't liberal, conservative, or any other ideology...he's just a shill for whichever way he thinks the wind is blowing.  I mean, MSNBC's brand is "liberal Fox," but even then Matthews has been towing the company line more than anything else.  

More importantly, he can get really creepy around female reporters (look up the clip of him slobbering over Erin Burnett on air and asking her to smile more if you want an example, although there are much worse ones out there, it's kinda a thing with Matthews and even folks who watch his show generally acknowledge that it's pretty gross).  The man is gonna get himself fired for sexual harassment one of these days if he's not careful and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he goes down O'Reilly style (although Matthews doesn't strike me as a violent or aggressive guy the way O'Reilly did [pretty sure his bargain basement O'Reilly schtick is largely for effect and I suspect everyone except Fox is being a bit more careful after O'Reilly, Ailes, Shine, and Bolling went down in such a relatively short span of time...the guy on Fox and Friends who isn't Steve Doocy looked like he might in serious trouble too at one point IIRC, but idk if anything came of that or not).  

Ultimately, Matthews is a dinosaur who hasn't learned to adapt and it's gonna catch up with him one of these days.  It may not be the sexual harassment (O'Reilly), calling someone a "right-wing slut" on national television (Ed Schultz), or the stories about how he's such a pain in the [Inks] to work with that the executives decided it just wasn't worth the aggravation (Olbermann), but I doubt his career ends with voluntary retirement.  I'm sure there will be a place for him at RT though.  Matthews is the type who desperately needs the attention and feeling of validation having his own show can provide.  A deeply insecure and approval-craving man, that one.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/magazine/13matthews-t.html

The above is a really great profile of Matthews for anyone interested.  Unlike the usual fluff piece and hit-job profiles, this one really does an excellent job explaining what makes him tick and treats its subject in a fair manner (which isn't to say Matthews comes off well, he generally doesn't) despite being very much a warts-and-all piece.  Props to the author for asking Matthews some tough and direct questions about his behavior toward female reporters (including about how Matthews' wife reacted to the Erin Burnett incident).  It's pretty long, but definitely worth reading (it's also a fairly interesting read and you get a real - albeit dated - sense of the internal politics at MSNBC and NBC; Fox wasn't the only place where a bunch of big egos in a small room caused some self-inflicted wounds with their infighting).
Logged
White Trash
Southern Gothic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2017, 03:08:42 PM »

I haven't been posting here long, but I've popped in now-and-then for probably close to a decade to get a read on what people are saying on certain issues (this sub-forum has always been one of my favorites, as studying demographic trends is a personal hobby of mine).  It seems like every few months this same question is asked.  Of course, understandably so- the fact that electoral maps now look like mirror images of the past is one of the interesting things about US political history.

RINO Tom's post is a good start, and so is NC Yankee's.  That being said, this is a complex question that doesn't have a neat and easy answer.  To say that the parties "flipped" is not only overly simplistic, as a blanket statement, it's just wrong.  On the other hand, to suggest that the parties haven't changed positions on anything either.. well, that would be equally wrong.  There are certainly issues that the parties have "flipped" their positions on.

One of the big problems people have in analyzing the parties over time is attempting to apply a modern perspective on historical issues.  For example, what would've been considered "conservative" or "liberal" changes over time, and in fact, the use of those words themselves with their current meaning is a relatively recent phenomenon.

A good example of this might be the tariff.  Is this a "conservative" or "liberal" position?  Well, in the current era, protectionism tends to be advocated by the left, since large American businesses are mostly now multi-national corporations that generally benefit from free trade.  However, that was not the case through the 1800s and even through the early 1900s, when the tariff had its strongest support from the GOP.  Did that mean that the GOP was the "liberal" party?  Well, again, not so simple- until the late 1800s or so, US industry, mostly prevalent in the North, was significantly less developed than Britain and had difficulty competing with cheaper British imports in stuff like textiles, iron, and other consumer goods.  Global trade was quite a bit less sophisticated at this time, but to the extent it existed, the UK was king.  There were also start up costs to consider- procuring textile manufacturing machinery was not exactly an easy task.  By the late 1800s, US steel exports had caught up with the UK, but the GOP still advocated the tariff until the Great Depression.

In contrast, Southern Democrats tended to oppose tariffs and promoted free trade, so were they the more "conservative" party?  Well, the South was not very reliant on manufacturing at the time, and their industry was based almost entirely on agricultural export, so cheap British imports were not a concern.  On one hand, they were less concerned about Northern US manufacturing interests (so maybe they were less "pro-business?"), but on the other hand, they promoted business, just a different kind of business than the North; the South was still based on an economy rooted in old-style feudalism and generating income from large landholdings.  In that sense, maybe the South was more 'conservative,' since the South was the only place where you could find people that actually had lineage going back to real English nobility.  Areas in particularly Virginia and Maryland had large estates modeled precisely on British aristocratic fiefdoms in places like Yorkshire.  Contrast this to the North, which was settled mainly by groups like the Quakers (PA), or Puritans (MA).. these people tended to be middle-class; merchants, tradesmen, teachers, etc., who were commoners and had no relation to aristocracy back in England.

So, long story short, the point is- it's a heck of a lot more complicated than you might think.  Another one of the big problems people have in analyzing parties over time is assuming demographics are stable and population groups don't migrate.  The people that live in the South now are not the people that lived there in the mid 1900s, and especially not the 1800s.  Going back to my example of VA- at the time of the Revolution, the people living there were a combination of rich British aristocrats, slaves, and some poor British that worked the estates.  Compare that to today, where the state has little to do with agriculture and has a multicultural society with an economy rooted mostly in supporting the federal bureaucracy.

Another good example of this is the North, whose demographics now are completely different than they might've been in the 1800s or even mid 1900s.  RINO Tom does a good job discussing the WASP demographic- this is a demographic that is simply not as prevalent in the North as it might have been.  For example, in Westchester NY, or Fairfield CT, you had a lot of towns that were very WASP-ish, e.g., Rye, or Darien, and so on.  These towns have seen, over the past 50 years, a large influx of Irish, Italians, Jews, and so on, a lot of them relatively recently wealthy "new money."  So the character of a lot of places have changed.

In a similar way, the South has changed too.  It's too simplistic to just say the Dixiecrats all started voting Republican.  For starters, how many of these people are even alive, that might've voted for Thurmond in 1948?  There are perhaps more that would've voted for Wallace in '68.  What happened to these voters?  Did some switch to voting R after the Dems pushed the Civil Rights Act?  Well, some probably did, sure.  Others didn't- it's important to remember that Dems were competitive down-ballot throughout the South up through the 90s.  What about the Dixiecrats' progeny?  Well, one thing we can say for them, is they are probably more conservative.  One reason for this could be that the South has significantly changed in the past 50-60 years, transforming from an agrarian society to an industrialized one with a much larger "big business" presence.  For example, in the "New South," someone is much more likely today to be a white-collar worker at a large corporation in a place like Houston or Atlanta, than one would've been before the 1960s.

At the same time, the South has also seen a significant amount of migration from people from the North, coming down to large Sunbelt metros, such as Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, and so on.

One final point, one thing that people get confused sometimes is thinking the South was always more "conservative" because it tended to be more hard-line on segregation.  But that doesn't mean the region was more "conservative" overall necessarily.  It was more segregationist perhaps, but a few things on that.  First, the North was actually quite segregationist too, just a little more subtle about it (I gave the example of Darien CT above.. a lot of towns like this practiced racially discriminatory housing practices well into the 1960s or later).  Second, the North could be quite conservative on other issues.  For example, for a long time, New England was associated pretty strongly with some of the original colonists- very religious puritans that had a "sticking my nose in my neighbor's business" attitude about a lot of things.  Consider that the temperance movement had its roots in the North and there was a definite teetotaler streak there.  Was this a "conservative" issue?  Well, people today might consider it somewhat conservative.  At the time it was certainly associated with the upper classes- the working classes were the group most opposed to prohibition.


Anyways, long post, I know.  And I doubt anyone will actually read the whole thing.. but the long and short of it is- the North didn't just vote GOP once because the GOP was the "liberal" party.  Similarly, the North didn't stop voting GOP because it was once "conservative" and now is "liberal."  It's a heck of lot more complicated than either of those two generalizations.

Maybe the best "generalization" one can make, is that the groups of people that tend to support the GOP were once heavily located in New England, but are not any longer; and that the issues that the GOP stands for change over time, and what is considered "conservative" or "liberal" also changes over time.  Maybe that's the best way to summarize this all.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,855
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2017, 03:15:43 PM »

Yeah, I don't have the attention span for that, lol.
Logged
White Trash
Southern Gothic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2017, 03:23:53 PM »

Yeah, I don't have the attention span for that, lol.
It addresses the "party switch" myth pretty well. Worth the read.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2017, 03:52:55 PM »

Yeah, I don't have the attention span for that, lol.
It addresses the "party switch" myth pretty well. Worth the read.

That's exactly why he wouldn't like it. Smiley
Logged
Cactus Jack
azcactus
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,956
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 26, 2017, 05:50:32 PM »

It reeks of favoritism.  As Sheriff Joe was only guilty of a misdemeanor, it's not like, say, letting Marc Rich off the hook.  But Arpaio never showed mercy to anyone.  "Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy." (Matthew 5:7)  Somehow, Joe Arpaio doesn't come to mind when I think of this.

What's sad is I had a very devout coworker who once referred to Arpaio as a "hero" of his for the specific reason that he humiliated his inmates, many of whom *were not convicted of anything*. It always disgusted me, that level of hypocrisy.

I wish more saw things the way you do. Arpaio deserves no mercy from the state after his horrific abuses of the law, and I hope he gets sued out the kazoo in court.

I should also mention that I consider Arpaio to be a disgrace to the profession of corrections and criminal justice for the manner in which he administered the Maricopa County Jail.

People who are sentenced to incarceration are not sent to jail or prison "to be punished".  BEING CONFINED IN JAIL OR PRISON IS THE PUNISHMENT, IN AND OF ITSELF.  I don't type in all caps a lot, but this point is a core principle of corrections.  Most of the abuses that stem from misconduct on the part of correctional officers and correctional staff stem from violations of that principle.  

Housing folks in tents in Maricopa County, AZ, just to save money and "make an example out of criminals" is indefensible.  "Making an example" out of a criminal defendant is contrary to justice; the punishment of confinement ought to be deterrence enough without tent cities, pink jumpsuits on male inmates with the words "Clean and Sober" on them, no air conditioning, etc.; these are, IMO cruel and inhuman punishments.  I don't have problems with a Sheriff taking a proactive approach to law enforcement, and I don't have a problem with a Sheriff running a tight ship in his/her county jail, but I do have a problem with someone in that position who deliberately comes off as a self-righteous sadist.  That's my personal opinion of Joe Arpaio.  Men like him give serious Sheriffs an undeserved bad name.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: September 02, 2017, 12:18:45 PM »

Antifa are basically radical fringe-left thugs.  The real thing to note here is that most on the mainstream left want nothing to do with these whackos.  What I like is how Antifa tweets things like "Those on the left who call us patriots, step the f*** away" (accompanied by a picture of an American flag burning) even as they rail against the very concept of freedom of speech.  Nutjobs with no sense of irony are always fun.  

I wonder how many of those rushing to their defense are aware that the group's ideological and strategic bible refers to the first amendment as "a secondary concern" and argues that concepts such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press should be selectively applied depending upon a group or individual's political beliefs and more specifically whether or not said beliefs align with those of Antifa.  In other words, even if you're a diehard Berniecrat (or hell, even think Sanders was too conservative) who believes we need to become a truly Socialist economy with largely nationalized industries...but publicly state that you oppose political violence against those you disagree with, Antifa's ideology would dictate that you be denied freedom of speech and attacked just as violently as someone like Richard Spencer.  

If these guys weren't just incompetent clowns who are largely all talk and no action types, I'd say it was only a matter of time until they ended up killing someone.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: September 02, 2017, 11:58:56 PM »

Actual smart analysis

The left detests Trump, to be sure, but I've noticed that Trump elicits a much more visceral sense of disgust and resentment from centrist and center-left liberals than from the socialist and even Bernie left.  I think this is the case because liberals are much more personally invested in America's image and its culture, and primarily view their struggle against the right through that prism.  Trump embodies the most hard-edged and crass elements of the American right, which makes him a particularly loathsome figure for them.

Socialists, on the other hand, place far less importance on things like the connection between patriotism/America's identity and liberal values, and the personal attributes of a president, than the tangible impact of American policy at home and abroad.  For this reason, I think many socialists would fear a competent Republican president who does not engage as vociferously in the culture wars, as much as, or even more than Trump.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: September 15, 2017, 10:28:05 AM »

Everything the Clintons ever did was about furthering their own political career. There was never a political principle they didn't meet that wasn't negotiable to further their ambitions. In the 90s, Hillary was talking with a Southern Accent claiming to be a moderate, in 2008 she was slamming Obama saying he couldnt understand white voters like she can while coddling up to John McCain, in 2016 she's talking in her regular voice claiming to be a progressive. The Clinton's remade the Democratic Party to serve themselves yet she still managed to lose in 2008 and again in 2016 despite having the entire media/donor/party machine complex behind her. I mean losing to  Donald Trump is the equivalent to Usain Bolt losing the 500m dash in the special Olympics to a guy in crutches.

Whenever you hear Hillary peddling this whole ''Bernie isn't a Democrat thing,'' what they really mean is anyone who wants to run in the Democratic Party has to bend the knee to the Clinton's and do what they tell you (how else did Hillary end up SoS?). It's a big club and commoners arent allowed at the table.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: September 15, 2017, 10:46:51 AM »

"When it first started happening, it was so soon after the election," she said. "It was hard for me to comfort somebody who was coming to me and saying, 'Oh, I wish I had done more,' or, 'I'm sorry I didn't vote' because I think this was one of the most consequential elections that we have faced in a long time." She added: "So, no absolution. But I just hope people will take what happened this time seriously and be ready and willing to vote the next time."

"I wanted to stare right in her eyes and say, 'You didn't vote? How could you not vote? You abdicated your responsibility as a citizen at the worst possible time! And now you want me to make you feel better?'" Clinton writes. "Of course, I didn't say any of that." She adds: "These people were looking for absolution that I just couldn't give. We all have to live with the consequences of our decisions."

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/hillary-clinton-anderson-cooper-2016/index.html

This is an example of why Hillary Clinton is not a leader. She is self-righteous and selfish, and doesn't care to understand what ordinary people who don't follow politics are going through. A little reassurance could go a long way for someone's life, but she can't bring herself to offer it because all she can think about is herself. I can think of several people who would have comforted people in that situation. Obama is one.

Also, she may not have said that to those people's faces, but she just said it now, for all of them to read or hear about. It's not much different.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 06, 2017, 09:24:51 AM »


Trump's base approves of Trump and follows him for the reasons below:

1.  He shares their views about nationalism vs. globalism.

2.  He approves of them and judges the folks who judge them, and he does it conspicuously.

3.  He takes an assertive, proactive posture versus our foreign enemies.

On an ego level, these folks are sick of being viewed as "white trash", and Trump affirms that they aren't.  Hillary's "Deplorables" comment was the gift that kept on giving; it bound Trump to his base and it cemented Trump's campaign as a movement.  And these folks honestly believed that the US was getting pushed around in foreign affairs and was engaging in foreign involvements that sent their kids to war, but didn't do anything for the USA.  Here again, Trump gave them a reason for them to follow him.

Trump's judgment in foreign affairs is, in actuality, surprisingly good.  People gasped at his rhetoric on North Korea, but the facts are that (A) this is a can that got kicked down the road for too long, and (B) Trump appears to be speaking in the only language Rocket Man understands.   It's not Trump's fault that the Bird Brained Lunatic has the H-bomb (possibly), and he's not done anything to botch a solution to what is an awful problem for the US.

Yes, Trump is a narcissist.  Most politicians are. 

Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 10, 2017, 08:56:21 AM »

Hollywood is downright scummy. They gave an Oscar to someone who couldn't step foot into the United States because he raped a 13 y/o girl. The world would be better off without this elite class.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 13, 2017, 11:31:07 AM »

Even with the excessive hyperbole at the end, the first sentence says it all.

It's all about politics, guys. That's all.

If you're a conservative, you love his executive orders, you love his court appointments, you love how he's taking many Obama regulations and rightfully ripping them apart, you love how he says what everyone else thinks but that you're not "supposed" to say. The lack of political correctness is amazingly refreshing after eight years of a guy who wouldn't flat out say he loved America without adding a "but". His cry against globalism and doing all he can to tear up any globalist agenda is also fantastic.

But if you're a liberal living in Manhattan with a gay husband who believes that recycling will save a polar bear and that we should all take sabbaticals to Tibet, yeah, you're probably pissed.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 23, 2017, 07:59:45 AM »

It never fails to amaze me how many people, particularly liberal and young people, do not understand the way criminal law works in the United States of America.

As someone who grew up around many policemen, went on ride-alongs until I was 21 years old, and fascinated with criminology , it pains me to see how many people are utterly clueless when it comes to the law.

Little things that regular people see and don't understand. For example, an article will be released saying, "Coroner rules police shooting of suspect a homicide". You'll have people screaming at the top of their lungs, "THE CORONER RULED THAT GUY'S DEATH A HOMICIDE! WHY WON'T THE COP BE CHARGED!?!"

They don't realize that any shooting death, even justified, is always ruled a homicide.

Do you know how many charges of sexual assault and rape are not really sexual assault and rape? Liberals cry about how "75% of rapes and sexual assaults go unpunished." What they are failing to understand is that those cases are typically not sexual assault or rape.

Girl runs into police station. She said she was raped.

What happened?

Guy offered her crack if she'd have sex with him. She had sex with him. Afterwards, he says, "Whoops...all out of drugs."

She gets mad, runs out of the house, finds a cop and says she was "raped".

No she wasn't. At all. This type of crap happens every single day. Call it trouble makers, duping, misogyny, whatever you want, but it is not rape or sexual assault.

Donald Trump was privately bragging to Billy Bush how being famous gets him laid. There is no crime there. No sexual assault, no rape, no nothing. Just a guy being boastful about his sex life due to fame and star-power.

Same thing with this NFL crap. Wanna know why all these NFL players are protesting against police brutality? Because they are troublemakers who don't like cops because cops, rightfully, put them in their place for breaking the law.

An NFL player is arrested every seven days, on average, for crimes as varied as domestic abuse and rape, gun violations, drug offenses, disorderly conduct, burglary, breaking traffic laws, and occasionally even murder. Why do you think people (since I was a teen atleast) refer to it as the "National Felony League"?

It's all about the law guys. Not "social justice" or any of this stuff that half the country doesn't even believe is real. It's about criminal law. Not civil law, not some ugly old woman in a goofy hat in Florida whining about Donald Trump, it's about CRIMINAL LAW.

Once you understand the law, you understand the way the world works. Always remember, the loudest "victims" usually are the ones with something to hide.

Logged
JA
Jacobin American
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,956
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 23, 2017, 11:25:43 AM »

It never fails to amaze me how many people, particularly liberal and young people, do not understand the way criminal law works in the United States of America.

As someone who grew up around many policemen, went on ride-alongs until I was 21 years old, and fascinated with criminology , it pains me to see how many people are utterly clueless when it comes to the law.

Little things that regular people see and don't understand. For example, an article will be released saying, "Coroner rules police shooting of suspect a homicide". You'll have people screaming at the top of their lungs, "THE CORONER RULED THAT GUY'S DEATH A HOMICIDE! WHY WON'T THE COP BE CHARGED!?!"

They don't realize that any shooting death, even justified, is always ruled a homicide.

Do you know how many charges of sexual assault and rape are not really sexual assault and rape? Liberals cry about how "75% of rapes and sexual assaults go unpunished." What they are failing to understand is that those cases are typically not sexual assault or rape.

Girl runs into police station. She said she was raped.

What happened?

Guy offered her crack if she'd have sex with him. She had sex with him. Afterwards, he says, "Whoops...all out of drugs."

She gets mad, runs out of the house, finds a cop and says she was "raped".

No she wasn't. At all. This type of crap happens every single day. Call it trouble makers, duping, misogyny, whatever you want, but it is not rape or sexual assault.

Donald Trump was privately bragging to Billy Bush how being famous gets him laid. There is no crime there. No sexual assault, no rape, no nothing. Just a guy being boastful about his sex life due to fame and star-power.

Same thing with this NFL crap. Wanna know why all these NFL players are protesting against police brutality? Because they are troublemakers who don't like cops because cops, rightfully, put them in their place for breaking the law.

An NFL player is arrested every seven days, on average, for crimes as varied as domestic abuse and rape, gun violations, drug offenses, disorderly conduct, burglary, breaking traffic laws, and occasionally even murder. Why do you think people (since I was a teen atleast) refer to it as the "National Felony League"?

It's all about the law guys. Not "social justice" or any of this stuff that half the country doesn't even believe is real. It's about criminal law. Not civil law, not some ugly old woman in a goofy hat in Florida whining about Donald Trump, it's about CRIMINAL LAW.

Once you understand the law, you understand the way the world works. Always remember, the loudest "victims" usually are the ones with something to hide.

I think you got lost, old man. Here, let me help you to the reservation of absurd & ignorant posts...

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.083 seconds with 11 queries.