OT: And now we return to our regularly scheduled program

[Mike McDermott]

And that's voter turnout for national elections. At the local level, which is arguably more impactful on people's everyday lives, that number is much worse. Voter alienation is all its forms is troubling.

Yup. And the local and congressional elections that happen at the same time as presidential elections are probably largely voted straight down party lines or just by choosing names. So many people don’t do any research in to who they are voting for even when they do vote.

 

[vcv]

EXCLUSIVE: Two Buffalo Police ERT members say resignation was not in solidarity with suspended officers Some good news, some bad.

The 57 officers that resigned from the unit did not do so in solidarity. They did say because the police union refused to legally back them if something happened on duty in that unit.

I'm sure some (or many) do support the suspended officers, but at least there's more context now.

 

[littletonhockeycoach]

Heck, even a compromise would be better than what it is now. Assign a single elector based on who wins the populate vote in each congressional district. That's half-way in between full populate vote and our current practice.

The EC was a compromise between big states and small states. W/o it, the Constitution wouldn't have happened. The US holds 50 separate elections for President. Because of Federalism. You know, States in control. Hell, it looks like State electors won't even be bound by their State vote. (I believe they never were intended to be. Originally we weree supposed to vote for electors and what they support. Not direct candidates.

So I'm happy if that cracks.

Next thing you know, people will want population proportional representation in the Senate. LoL.....

Pure democracy is nothin less than a tyranny of the majority. Not good for minority rights. Political, racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, economic or otherwise.....

I'm checking out of this one now. HF is one of my escape places I don't come here for politics.

 

[littletonhockeycoach]

If W and Trump lost their respective elections it wouldn't even be a topic up for a debate.

Also prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment US Senators were not voted in to office by the general populace, but by changing how Senators got in to office further consolidated power to DC from the States and also gave lobbyists more power in Congress.

Neither lost their elections because there is no popular vote for President. Its 50 separate State elections. That's who wins. Seems that Mrs Clinton forgot how to do the math.....

 

[Mike McDermott]

In another life part of my job was prosecuting people who were part of the justice system--cops, court clerks, judges, justices of the peace and lawyers. Let me tell you the blue wall is just that--they would follow me into the washroom-a dozen or more in uniform and circle around me at the urinal and just glare. The sense of entitlement was palpable and shocking. The truth is there are bad apples in every barrel as people are human--but the otherwise good folks who abet those bad apples actively or passively shame themselves more than they realize.

Two suspended Buffalo Police Emergency Response Team officers set to be arraigned Saturday morning

Sounds like the wall is standing. Officers are charged and being arraigned tomorrow morning. This is going to be interesting to follow.

Not exactly about this case, just my thoughts I’ve been needing to express....
I know there are good cops, and with all groups there will always be bad apples. However it seems, more bad apples “turning the whole bushel bad”. Now I don’t know if it is because cops get coverage on what they do, the greater access to media and people’s ability to share their personal videos/pictures or if there are truly more “bad apples”.

Something else that I see, at least as an outside observer is that within cops, the good are much more willing to stand with/overlook/defend the bad. That is a big problem in my opinion. Knowing you can be a bad egg and be overlooked “empowers” the bad to continue to be bad and/or do things that get progressively worse.

I also know they have an incredibly difficult job, which is often thankless, and are often the first to run towards danger when others run from it. I also know there are times their job requires the use of force. However that need being there doesn’t give them the right to use it at any point for any reason.

Yet, the past few weeks have shown that there needs to be a major overhaul to procedures and training. Seeing some of the things I’ve seen, make me think that they are thinking they are acting with out impunity.

At the end of the day, change needs to happen and if it does, it will be a very slow and painful change for both sides I fear. I don’t want to totally “handcuff” cops to where they can’t do their job and want/need them to be able to protect the community but there needs to be more accountability, training to handle certain situations and actual listening to the community happening.

 

[VaporTrail]

EXCLUSIVE: Two Buffalo Police ERT members say resignation was not in solidarity with suspended officers Some good news, some bad.

The 57 officers that resigned from the unit did not do so in solidarity. They did say because the police union refused to legally back them if something happened on duty in that unit.

I'm sure some (or many) do support the suspended officers, but at least there's more context now.

So that clown that said that is fake news....how do they even have jobs when they report things that aren't true ?

 

[truthbluth]

So that clown that said that is fake news....how do they even have jobs when they report things that aren't true ?

The original report was based on a statement from the union. This is coming from union members.

 

[Buffaloed]

EXCLUSIVE: Two Buffalo Police ERT members say resignation was not in solidarity with suspended officers Some good news, some bad.

The 57 officers that resigned from the unit did not do so in solidarity. They did say because the police union refused to legally back them if something happened on duty in that unit.

I'm sure some (or many) do support the suspended officers, but at least there's more context now.

Hockey context: That was a clean check. The D was just doing it's job. If you can't push a man out of the crease you can't defend. The was nothing dirty about it. The only reason the players are being punished because the other player lost his balance resulting in an ugly injury.

 

[TehDoak]

Hockey context: That was a clean check. The D was just doing it's job. If you can't push a man out of the crease you can't defend. The was nothing dirty about it. The only reason the players are being punished because the other player lost his balance resulting in an ugly injury.

Continued Hockey Context

"But Rayzor, the guy is 75 years old and not in a hockey rink"

"Gotta defend your crease"

"The crease was 5 miles away"

"Defend. The. Crease"

 

[hizzoner]

The gentleman who got hurt was looking to confront police albeit peacefully. Media sources say he was a very active protester and that is his right. In ignoring legally imposed curfew and trying to impede police in their duties-approaching them, standing in their way to clear out those breaking curfew he was obstructing them in their duties. No quibbles there. Rather than arresting him for these offences he was pushed out of the way. Likely because of his age and the way he was pushed he fell and slammed head on pavement. Oh crap! But now the guy is lying there hurt and blood is flowing onto the concrete and a concerned officer is pulled away from helping him--this is where a senior officer has to step in and look after the victim-not leave him on the pavement. The mayor/union statement first given to the media was just shocking. A simple-"The officer did not want to arrest the old man who wanted to prevent them from their duties. Police had a right to remove him and to use reasonable force. The results were neither intended nor reasonably anticipated but the response by our officers to those results is not something we are proud of. "
In the context of all the other terrible events across the country policing has become even more difficult for the many good officers. Now we hear of "defunding police". What a choice the fanatics on each side want to give us--a police state or anarchy. God help us all.

 

[vcv]

Continued Hockey Context

"But Rayzor, the guy is 75 years old and not in a hockey rink"

"Gotta defend your crease"

"The crease was 5 miles away"

"Defend. The. Crease"

You need to set the tone early.

 

[Gras]

The gentleman who got hurt was looking to confront police albeit peacefully. Media sources say he was a very active protester and that is his right. In ignoring legally imposed curfew and trying to impede police in their duties-approaching them, standing in their way to clear out those breaking curfew he was obstructing them in their duties. No quibbles there. Rather than arresting him for these offences he was pushed out of the way. Likely because of his age and the way he was pushed he fell and slammed head on pavement. Oh crap! But now the guy is lying there hurt and blood is flowing onto the concrete and a concerned officer is pulled away from helping him--this is where a senior officer has to step in and look after the victim-not leave him on the pavement. The mayor/union statement first given to the media was just shocking. A simple-"The officer did not want to arrest the old man who wanted to prevent them from their duties. Police had a right to remove him and to use reasonable force. The results were neither intended nor reasonably anticipated but the response by our officers to those results is not something we are proud of. "
In the context of all the other terrible events across the country policing has become even more difficult for the many good officers. Now we hear of "defunding police". What a choice the fanatics on each side want to give us--a police state or anarchy. God help us all.

Its not anarchy that one side wants, if you pay attention to their platforms and demands, and the choices they make in what iconography they use that is.

 

[Paxon]

The gentleman who got hurt was looking to confront police albeit peacefully. Media sources say he was a very active protester and that is his right. In ignoring legally imposed curfew and trying to impede police in their duties-approaching them, standing in their way to clear out those breaking curfew he was obstructing them in their duties. No quibbles there. Rather than arresting him for these offences he was pushed out of the way. Likely because of his age and the way he was pushed he fell and slammed head on pavement. Oh crap! But now the guy is lying there hurt and blood is flowing onto the concrete and a concerned officer is pulled away from helping him--this is where a senior officer has to step in and look after the victim-not leave him on the pavement. The mayor/union statement first given to the media was just shocking. A simple-"The officer did not want to arrest the old man who wanted to prevent them from their duties. Police had a right to remove him and to use reasonable force. The results were neither intended nor reasonably anticipated but the response by our officers to those results is not something we are proud of. "
In the context of all the other terrible events across the country policing has become even more difficult for the many good officers. Now we hear of "defunding police". What a choice the fanatics on each side want to give us--a police state or anarchy. God help us all.

Defunding the police doesn't mean anarchy. Anarchy is an absence of government. It's all about leverage, anyhow. I'll paste something I said to someone else:

I don't think it is to be dismissed out of hand. Our police budgets are more and more mirroring our runaway military budget as the police coincidentally are becoming more and more militarized. So much of the budget goes to waging the war on drugs which is a major driver of all civil rights issues relating to the police as well as the decay of urban communities. Decriminalizing all drugs would help alleviate that as well, but both actions needn't be redundant. At the very least the existence of a serious movement to defund the police gives leverage against the police unions which are the biggest obstacle to reforming policing in this country. If the unions are on board with ending the war on drugs, restraint of force, increased accountability, and fighting the anti-snitching culture, then the politicians would follow.

 

[Buffaloed]

 

[hizzoner]

Defunding the police doesn't mean anarchy. Anarchy is an absence of government. It's all about leverage, anyhow. I'll paste something I said to someone else:

I don't think it is to be dismissed out of hand. Our police budgets are more and more mirroring our runaway military budget as the police coincidentally are becoming more and more militarized. So much of the budget goes to waging the war on drugs which is a major driver of all civil rights issues relating to the police as well as the decay of urban communities. Decriminalizing all drugs would help alleviate that as well, but both actions needn't be redundant. At the very least the existence of a serious movement to defund the police gives leverage against the police unions which are the biggest obstacle to reforming policing in this country. If the unions are on board with ending the war on drugs, restraint of force, increased accountability, and fighting the anti-snitching culture, then the politicians would follow.

Perhaps I misunderstood "defunding". I did not take that for "less money for policing" but rather actual defunding--i.e. no more money for policing. Not sure how defunding became used as less funding rather than stop funding. I use it in the same way I would refer to a demilitarized zone- no one has an army there. Or we defund a city hall project-no more money from the city for that project. My point was directed at "stop funding police". Yes some unions including police have too much sway in government. Yes some police forces now have better armament than some small countries. Yes money is spent on easy targets-photo ops beat lengthy difficult investigations. But that was not what I was getting at. Transparent budget accountability for all publicly funded expenses--hell yes!

 

[Gras]

Perhaps I misunderstood "defunding". I did not take that for "less money for policing" but rather actual defunding--i.e. no more money for policing. Not sure how defunding became used as less funding rather than stop funding. I use it in the same way I would refer to a demilitarized zone- no one has an army there. Or we defund a city hall project-no more money from the city for that project. My point was directed at "stop funding police". All unions including police have too much sway in government. Yes some police forces now have better armament than some small countries. Yes money is spent on easy targets-photo ops beat lengthy difficult investigations. But that was not what I was getting at. Transparent budget accountability for all publicly funded expenses--hell yes!

Fixed it for you.

 

[Der Jaeger]

Defunding the police doesn't mean anarchy. Anarchy is an absence of government. It's all about leverage, anyhow. I'll paste something I said to someone else:

I don't think it is to be dismissed out of hand. Our police budgets are more and more mirroring our runaway military budget as the police coincidentally are becoming more and more militarized. So much of the budget goes to waging the war on drugs which is a major driver of all civil rights issues relating to the police as well as the decay of urban communities. Decriminalizing all drugs would help alleviate that as well, but both actions needn't be redundant. At the very least the existence of a serious movement to defund the police gives leverage against the police unions which are the biggest obstacle to reforming policing in this country. If the unions are on board with ending the war on drugs, restraint of force, increased accountability, and fighting the anti-snitching culture, then the politicians would follow.

agree with many of your points.

the “runaway” military budget largely goes to pay for people’s salaries. There’s plenty of real good reasons to do so.

 

[SackTastic]

"Defunding police" is one of those phrases that while technically correct, is not intuitive and easily misunderstood.

Most calls for this don't mean "stop giving all all police departments money so they shut down". There are some that are of course, but the vast majority are not.

The crux of this argument comes from the fact that over many years, funding for many other public social programs has been reduced or removed, with those responsibilities moved to police departments to "let them handle it". ( Along with some if not all of the funding. ) Many (but not all) departments have spoken out against this, as officers are normally not the best trained or most appropriate people to be performing those functions. Most recent one I can remember was the Dallas police chief after the officers there were murdered.

The primary motivator of this has been, unfortunately, political. Spending on social programs has been demonized as example of "government waste", so removing those programs allows politicians brag about "reining in spending",when in actuality the money just shifts to the police budget. The same politicians then garner support by bragging about "increasing police funding to making communities safe" , which for us white people, has been completely uncontroversial for many, many years.

Another aspect of the idea is for municipalities to stop relying on police departments and crime generally as a revenue source. Speed traps exist primarily as a way to generate revenue from tickets, not really as a deterrent to slow down drivers. Many of the seizure laws on the books that allow PDs to confiscate money and property on the mere suspicion of illegal activity get abused because they're a great way to get more money coming in.

The core of the idea is really to get police departments focused on policing again, and returning other social responsibilities back to other groups who are better equipped to handle them.

 

[Jim Bob]

Revisiting Camden - Marginal REVOLUTION

This is interesting in regards to making policing better.

 

[brian_griffin]

Heck, even a compromise would be better than what it is now. Assign a single elector based on who wins the populate vote in each congressional district. That's half-way in between full populate vote and our current practice.

IIRC, the method of assignment of presidential electors by a state is not specified in the constitution. There have been times when the state legislature in one or more states assigned the electors for those states, without a popular vote. Granted, IIRC, it's been a couple centuries since that has happened, but it is perfectly constitutional.

Personally, I'm not in favor of abolishing or reforming the electoral college. The reasons for its existence remain, it's just the particular states with proportionally larger and smaller populations have changed in the course of US history.

More pernicious factors, IMO, impacting American elections at the state and federal level are the de facto two-party system, and the lack of term limits.

Perhaps we should return to dueling as a means to resolve disputes with political rivals, whether between candidates, or already-elected officials. Better yet, run Saturday night televised doubleheaders (on PBS, of course) from the East coast Hamilton-Burr Thunderdome, and the West Coast Jackson-Dickinson Memorial Coliseum. Combatants can choose traditional flintlock duel or modern cage match - or, given modern technology, let the represented voters decide the format! The method would be an effective force in the direction of term limits, under the assumption younger contestants would on average prevail. The flintlock method would be a means to negate typical gender size/strength differences from dimorphism.

The claymation Celebrity Deathmatch show ~20 years ago was a great diversion. Bring it back. In the mantra of both of the dominant US political parties, "Our ideas HAVE worked before - we just didn't go far enough!"

 

[Gras]

IIRC, the method of assignment of presidential electors by a state is not specified in the constitution. There have been times when the state legislature in one or more states assigned the electors for those states, without a popular vote. Granted, IIRC, it's been a couple centuries since that has happened, but it is perfectly constitutional.

Personally, I'm not in favor of abolishing or reforming the electoral college. The reasons for its existence remain, it's just the particular states with proportionally larger and smaller populations have changed in the course of US history.

More pernicious factors, IMO, impacting American elections at the state and federal level are the de facto two-party system, and the lack of term limits.

Perhaps we should return to dueling as a means to resolve disputes with political rivals, whether between candidates, or already-elected officials. Better yet, run Saturday night televised doubleheaders (on PBS, of course) from the East coast Hamilton-Burr Thunderdome, and the West Coast Jackson-Dickinson Memorial Coliseum. Combatants can choose traditional flintlock duel or modern cage match - or, given modern technology, let the represented voters decide the format! The method would be an effective force in the direction of term limits, under the assumption younger contestants would on average prevail. The flintlock method would be a means to negate typical gender size/strength differences from dimorphism.

The claymation Celebrity Deathmatch show ~20 years ago was a great diversion. Bring it back. In the mantra of both of the dominant US political parties, "Our ideas HAVE worked before - we just didn't go far enough!"

Electors can cast their votes however they wish, IIRC one elector cast his vote as Gore for Pres with Clinton as Vice.

 

[Gras]

"Defunding police" is one of those phrases that while technically correct, is not intuitive and easily misunderstood.

Most calls for this don't mean "stop giving all all police departments money so they shut down". There are some that are of course, but the vast majority are not.

The crux of this argument comes from the fact that over many years, funding for many other public social programs has been reduced or removed, with those responsibilities moved to police departments to "let them handle it". ( Along with some if not all of the funding. ) Many (but not all) departments have spoken out against this, as officers are normally not the best trained or most appropriate people to be performing those functions. Most recent one I can remember was the Dallas police chief after the officers there were murdered.

The primary motivator of this has been, unfortunately, political. Spending on social programs has been demonized as example of "government waste", so removing those programs allows politicians brag about "reining in spending",when in actuality the money just shifts to the police budget. The same politicians then garner support by bragging about "increasing police funding to making communities safe" , which for us white people, has been completely uncontroversial for many, many years.

Another aspect of the idea is for municipalities to stop relying on police departments and crime generally as a revenue source. Speed traps exist primarily as a way to generate revenue from tickets, not really as a deterrent to slow down drivers. Many of the seizure laws on the books that allow PDs to confiscate money and property on the mere suspicion of illegal activity get abused because they're a great way to get more money coming in.

The core of the idea is really to get police departments focused on policing again, and returning other social responsibilities back to other groups who are better equipped to handle them.

End Qualified Immunity
End Civil Asset Forfeiture
Legalize all drug, end the drug war
Abolish 1033 Program
Ban Speed/Red Light Cameras
Ban No Knocks
Abolish 3 Strikes Laws
Abolish Private Prisons/Prison Labor(Unless Voluntary and Compensated)

All I can list off the top of my head

The "Defund the Police" is also a loud vocal minority when you look at polling on the issue, especially when people see the riots and property destruction on TV they are pushing people to want more policing because of that.

 

[SackTastic]

IIRC, the method of assignment of presidential electors by a state is not specified in the constitution. There have been times when the state legislature in one or more states assigned the electors for those states, without a popular vote. Granted, IIRC, it's been a couple centuries since that has happened, but it is perfectly constitutional.

Personally, I'm not in favor of abolishing or reforming the electoral college. The reasons for its existence remain, it's just the particular states with proportionally larger and smaller populations have changed in the course of US history.

More pernicious factors, IMO, impacting American elections at the state and federal level are the de facto two-party system, and the lack of term limits.

One of the original tenets of the Electoral College was that the population as a whole was not educated enough to select a President, therefore having them vote for someone that they trusted that DID have enough education and experience to do so was a good compromise. Their idea was that people would choose Electors that they trusted, all the Electors would get together and deliberate amongst themselves , and choose the President that way.

Of course from the get go people figured out that having Electors vote in a block gave more power to that state, so they started doing that. Hamilton actually drafted an amendment trying to push the system back to the way they had envisioned it, but that never went anywhere after Burr busted a cap.

 

[vcv]

One of the original tenets of the Electoral College was that the population as a whole was not educated enough to select a President, therefore having them vote for someone that they trusted that DID have enough education and experience to do so was a good compromise. Their idea was that people would choose Electors that they trusted, all the Electors would get together and deliberate amongst themselves , and choose the President that way.

Of course from the get go people figured out that having Electors vote in a block gave more power to that state, so they started doing that. Hamilton actually drafted an amendment trying to push the system back to the way they had envisioned it, but that never went anywhere after Burr busted a cap.

It wasn't so much about education.

See: Five Common Misconceptions About the Electoral College

But his reason was that “the extent of the Country renders it impossible that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the Candidates.” In such circumstances, he thought, voters would naturally gravitate to candidates from their own state. Delegates who favored popular election replied that “the increasing intercourse among the people of the states would render important characters less and less unknown,” and that “continental characters will multiply as we more or more coalesce,” reducing state parochialism. Today, with mass communication and interminable campaigns, lack of information is no longer a problem.

Second, some southern delegates feared that popular election of the president would disadvantage their states. James Madison noted that, given less restrictive voting laws, “the right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern states,” which would give them an advantage in a popular election. Beyond that, a popular vote would not count the disenfranchised enslaved population, reducing southern influence.

 

[Digable5]

Sorry to interrupt the important conversations taking place:

If anyone would be interested in joining a Fantasy Baseball dynasty league on Fantrax please PM me. It’s a brand new 12 team league. Not playing for money but a $7 fee for Premium will be required. Thanks!