Chauvin found guilty of all 3 charges in death of George Floyd - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15168754
Doug64 wrote:What is fair about violence and threats of even more violence if a not guilty verdict was handed down?


If you are referring to the Waters speech, it is a matter of interpretation. She does not explicitly call for violence, so you would have to make some (unsupported) assumptions about what she meant if you want to infer a threat of violence.
#15168815
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you are referring to the Waters speech, it is a matter of interpretation. She does not explicitly call for violence, so you would have to make some (unsupported) assumptions about what she meant if you want to infer a threat of violence.


Sorry, but when the Democrats claimed that Trump telling his supporters to "fight like hell" was a call for insurrection and sedition, they let the genie out of the bottle. Congresswoman Waters catching shit for her comments is very much appropriate.

This seems to be the problem these days: one side not adhering to rules they declare for the other. Both sides do it, but one side seems to do it much, much more as of late.
#15168838
Goranhammer wrote:Sorry, but when the Democrats claimed that Trump telling his supporters to "fight like hell" was a call for insurrection and sedition, they let the genie out of the bottle. Congresswoman Waters catching shit for her comments is very much appropriate.

This seems to be the problem these days: one side not adhering to rules they declare for the other. Both sides do it, but one side seems to do it much, much more as of late.


So ket me get this straight.

You think the Democrats were wrong to accuse Trump of inciting a riot, so you decided to also do this wrong thing.

Is that the logic?
#15168849
Pants-of-dog wrote:So ket me get this straight.

You think the Democrats were wrong to accuse Trump of inciting a riot, so you decided to also do this wrong thing.

Is that the logic?


The worst logic is to say "you". I don't think Trump even remotely incited a riot. I'm slightly more inclined about Waters doing it though, only because she has a history of it. She's on record for encouraging her less-evolved fanatics to openly harass and interfere with members of Trump's cabinet and office.

Having said that, since she didn't overtly command people to commit battery, she's within her First Amendment rights.
#15168852
Goranhammer wrote:The worst logic is to say "you". I don't think Trump even remotely incited a riot. I'm slightly more inclined about Waters doing it though, only because she has a history of it. She's on record for encouraging her less-evolved fanatics to openly harass and interfere with members of Trump's cabinet and office.

Having said that, since she didn't overtly command people to commit battery, she's within her First Amendment rights.


Okay, so now the argument seems to have changed. Before, the argument was that Ms. Waters was calling for violence.

Now it seems that the argument is that she was not calling for violence.

Okay.
#15168869
Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay, so now the argument seems to have changed. Before, the argument was that Ms. Waters was calling for violence.

Now it seems that the argument is that she was not calling for violence.

Okay.


I'm saying that if Trump was, she was. If Trump wasn't, she wasn't.

One thing about me - I'll call out a fucking hypocrite any day that ends with a Y. Liberals tend to be moving the goalposts on this one.

Anyone who thinks that one was and one wasn't is biased, plain and simple. No exceptions.
#15168898
Goranhammer wrote:I'm saying that if Trump was, she was. If Trump wasn't, she wasn't.


No, not necessarily.

One thing about me - I'll call out a fucking hypocrite any day that ends with a Y. Liberals tend to be moving the goalposts on this one.


That is illogical. Someone can be a hypocrite and still be right.

Anyone who thinks that one was and one wasn't is biased, plain and simple. No exceptions.


Comparing Trump and Ms. Waters is irrelevant, to be hinest.
#15168901
I lived in California for 20 years. Very few cops were polite, respectful, nice people. All others were thugs — extremely rude, disrespectful, insulting and provoking. Acting like a Nazi in occupied territory, looking at other people like at trash.

P.S. I have nothing more than jaywalking.
#15168906
Rakshasa wrote:I lived in California for 20 years. Very few cops were polite, respectful, nice people. All others were thugs — extremely rude, disrespectful, insulting and provoking. Acting like a Nazi in occupied territory, looking at other people like at trash.

P.S. I have nothing more than jaywalking.


Historically, cops have been high on power since the founding of this nation.

I don't understand, why don't we just not allow street cops to have guns?
#15168911
Narrative: "If we all concentrate really hard on this one atrocity and punishing the bad guy, we will be able to change our society for the better."

Reality: "No you won't. We are currently focussed on one single event, and are thus blind to all the other atrocities around us. This witch-burning will not help at all."

Image"If we burn a racist cop, we will be saved!"


Black Crime is the problem (80s 90s narrative)

In the 80s and 90s, many USA politicians decided that "the problem" was black crime, and proceeded to throw millions of black people into prison. Today, many of these imprisoned black men are making McDonald's uniforms for a buck an hour. This failed to help the great masses of the USA, but it did make a few extra bucks for a few well-placed prison entrepreneurs.

Racist cops are the problem (2020s narrative)

Now, the media is convincing you that "white cops" are the problem, and the media hints at "cutting policing budgets" as a solution. This strategy will fail to provide social harmony, but it will help the rich save on taxes. And the ensuing violence will make the masses easier to control through fascist means like lockdowns and shelter-at-home orders.

...

This newest "solution" that has been handed down to schmoes by the rich and powerful who own media, is guaranteed to fail for "the schmoes."

The only real solution to racist inequality and the resultant violence... is a radical redistribution of income and opportunity, along with a re-education campaign. "Burning" a white cop on TV... will not improve the general situation for anyone.

Anything other than radical redistribution of resources - no matter how strongly your emotions have been harnassed by media narratives - will fail to provide equality, justice and social harmony.

► Show Spoiler
#15168920
I recall that actually the US had more crime, including violent crime, and more police brutality when it had a lower income inequality back in the '70s. I don't think redistribution of income would guarantee much in this regard, although it's useful in other ways.

I think part of the solution lies in (probably) making drug trade less profitable by legalizing drugs to some extent - after all, we know a good part of the crime problem is gang-related and trafficking helps them funded (indeed, it's a core business activity for some of the large ones). I also think drug trade and gang activity (insecurity) have a big role in stunting the economic development of the African American neighborhoods and hence contribute to their situation.

It's also possible that the narratives from the 1980s and 1990s, the current narrative, your argument and what I mentioned in the paragraph above are all true to some extent. They aren't mutually exclusive, really.
#15169122
wat0n wrote:I recall that actually the US had more crime, including violent crime, and more police brutality when it had a lower income inequality back in the '70s.

The better equality back then WAS better for public trust. People trusted each other much more in the 70s then they do now. Your attempt to brush off "inequality" as a contributing factor to social breakdown, is very weak.

Crime started increasing in the 70s for other reasons:

1. The population was younger in the 70s = more (minor) crime.

2. Lead in gasoline and other environmental poisons were driving people crazy = more crime

3. The disappearance of pedestrians, cyclists, and adults walking around on streets = more crime

4. The civil revolution, that the USA had been engaged in for two decades, had just failed = more crime

5. Fewer people were locked up for minor offenses in the 70s = more (minor) crime

...

So crime would probably be near zero by now, and inequality would probably have been reduced instead of increased since then... if only that revolution had succeeded and lead to real positive changes. And one of those changes would have been greater equality.

Instead, *civil rights leaders were slaughtered, white people were cattled out to braindead suburbs with no community, and mass media put everyone into a coma.*

And it's mass media, once again, that wants a certain type of behavior from its cattle-viewers, and this is what this story ultimately leads to. A certain type of group behavior in order to allow the elite a certain freedom to act in atrocious ways elsewhere - like with the actual governance of our collective property and cultures that our governments no longer seem able to do as they prefer to dance for future speaking fees.
#15169128
QatzelOk wrote:The better equality back then WAS better for public trust. People trusted each other much more in the 70s then they do now. Your attempt to brush off "inequality" as a contributing factor to social breakdown, is very weak.

Crime started increasing in the 70s for other reasons:

1. The population was younger in the 70s = more (minor) crime.

2. Lead in gasoline and other environmental poisons were driving people crazy = more crime

3. The disappearance of pedestrians, cyclists, and adults walking around on streets = more crime

4. The civil revolution, that the USA had been engaged in for two decades, had just failed = more crime

5. Fewer people were locked up for minor offenses in the 70s = more (minor) crime

...

So crime would probably be near zero by now, and inequality would probably have been reduced instead of increased since then... if only that revolution had succeeded and lead to real positive changes. And one of those changes would have been greater equality.

Instead, *civil rights leaders were slaughtered, white people were cattled out to braindead suburbs with no community, and mass media put everyone into a coma.*

And it's mass media, once again, that wants a certain type of behavior from its cattle-viewers, and this is what this story ultimately leads to. A certain type of group behavior in order to allow the elite a certain freedom to act in atrocious ways elsewhere - like with the actual governance of our collective property and cultures that our governments no longer seem able to do as they prefer to dance for future speaking fees.


Maybe, certainly there can be many reasons for why crime was higher when inequality was lower. But that implies, then, that there are many factors involved in the analysis.

Also, it's entirely possible that trusting strangers too much can actually lead to more crime. You know, some people will always try to take advantage of everyone else...
#15169258
Rancid wrote:why don't we just not allow street cops to have guns?


Ironically, I've found cops much nicer, service oriented, and humble in my few experiences with them in China than I did in the USA - in part, no doubt, because they don't get to carry handguns, and there's no concept leading to perverse incentives like "officer safety >>>> all".

Solving police violence in the US would be done overnight with two simple amendments to the law, well before community policing or other 'abolish the police' measures.

1. State licensure requirements for police, with federal oversight for licensure transfers from state to state, to prevent bad police from swapping from one town to another.

2. Remove blanket application of qualified immunity from misconduct.

3. Police settlements result in loss of license, and the settlement should be taken out of officer's pockets, through their unions.

Any American conservative that is unwilling to even discuss these 3 basic, fundamental, and easy reforms has no real desire to end police brutality - just excuse it.
#15170026
Rancid wrote:Historically, cops have been high on power since the founding of this nation.

I don't understand, why don't we just not allow street cops to have guns?

Fasces wrote:
Ironically, I've found cops much nicer, service oriented, and humble in my few experiences with them in China than I did in the USA - in part, no doubt, because they don't get to carry handguns, and there's no concept leading to perverse incentives like "officer safety >>>> all".
In Vietnam , another country that's self professed to be Communist , the police also do not possess guns , when on patrol . And incidents of misconduct do not happen there , like they do in other countries , such as the U.S.A. , either .
#15170033
Deutschmania wrote: In Vietnam , another country that's self professed to be Communist , the police also do not possess guns , when on patrol . And incidents of misconduct do not happen there , like they do in other countries , such as the U.S.A. , either .


I believe in the UK they also do not carry guns.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The claim is a conditional statement. This is one[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I don't know who are you are referring to, but th[…]

The link to the previous post is on this page. Pl[…]

That's assuming Russia isn't giving financial sup[…]