Trump is a different beast altogether. No other POLITICIAN in my lifetime would have gotten away with the things Trump has said or done and still be able to get elected/hold office. If Reagan or Bush would have been recorded saying "You can grab them by the p*ssy...they just let you do it because your famous" and it got out, they would have left politics immediately and gone and hid in some remote corner of their respective states. Gary Hart has an affair and immediately has to drop out, leaving Dems with Dukakis as their nominee (I love Dukakis but the dude had the personality of the concrete around Boston Common). John Edwards was another one. And the so called party of "family values" and "Christian morals" nominates a guy who has never exhibited either in his personal or professional life. They don't get to claim those any more until they start holding their candidates accountable the same way they want to trash anyone on the other side. Hell, John Dean lost the Dem nomination because of an exuberant scream at the podium after winning a primary state. He got trashed for not having a Presidential demeanor. Really? Current POTUS is wanting the US military to KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS EXERCISING THEIR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. But he doesn't care about the 1st Amendment at all because that didn't get him elected.
What the H3ll is wrong with the Minneapolis Police?
- Thread starter TUMe
- Start date
I've been watching the West Wing on Netflix lately.... it's like a frigging trip into a time machine. Even disregarding some of the liberal leaning writing of Sorkin... just the attitude that we used to expect of a President as well as the people around him. It's disheartening to contrast it to what's happening today.
I agree with this and it's why I'm not longer a member of the party. However, the "believe women" party will now be voting for a man credibly accused of sexual assault. There is no good team.
Yeah, a giant scandal because they withheld personal medical information of a chronic condition. While in real life, fake tanner who is morbidly obese and north of 300lbs, has ordered his doctor to lie about his health. So right after Trump leaves office my guess is that dude loses his license. The other movie it harkens back to is "An American President" (Michael Douglas, Martin Sheen). GOP hounds are all over the fact that a widowed President has a girlfriend. I get that those President's are scripted so it is easy to write/rewrite things until they sound amazing, but there was a decorum with the office that was expected, there was a decorum with the press. I do enjoy on the West Wing where they bring in several right wing viewpoints at various times for Sorkin to shut down the hypocrisy. He even brings on a GOP strategist as part of his staff at one point which I thought was brilliant. One of the things Obama did I always respected was keeping Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense. It showed a commitment to make sure the message on the Middle East strategy was consistent.
It is doubtful you will ever see that type of bipartisan appointments again. Trump's rhetoric has fractured America and its politics. What's the over/under on the number of GOP politicians lucky enough to get re-elected who trash Trump the moment he is out of office?
The religions that Trump is pandering to are the nondenominational evangelical churches that don't particularly care about the Catholic church. So Trump's actions attacking Priests and Seminarians of the Catholic church are not as concerning to the administration. It is only a segment of Christian religions that are supporting Trump without question.
To be fair, that church is Episcopalian. But I agree with your point.
I don’t know what the right answers are but I’m confident this is the wrong answer
https://www.foxnews.com/us/st-louis-police-captain-killed-by-looters-at-pawn-shop-report
But you said to be mad at the people associating with the bad people who are committing the violent acts. The cops... /s
I agree that that's not at all acceptable and it's incredibly tragic. Change needs to happen soon. On a tangent... I was thinking, that these cops who caused such an uproar with their tactics in Minneapolis should be culpable to some kind of civil penalty (in addition to criminal) due to the havoc they caused. It would be like if I shot an officer directing traffic which then caused a pileup.
The Episcopalians are probably shocked anyone wanted to come to their church at all
I said nothing of the sort. I said don't stand quietly bye as someone commits crimes next to you and proclaim any high ground. Leave or take measures to stop it. The murdered guy in the story above was a 77 year old retired police captain. Pretty sure he had zero to do with the cop in Minny nor was he in any position to stop the same.
I was being sarcastic... and just pointing out that I don't want people to marginalize the underlying problem that cause the commotion just because some of the actors are evil. Just like I don't want people to marginalize the entire police force for a couple bad actors either. I just want those that truly deserve justice to receive it.
Also, I think there are some points in time when laws should be broken as long as it can be done without injury or significant cost to property. Like a black woman sitting in the white section of a bus or a (peaceful) protester hopping an arbitrary barricade line and I think that, not only should you stand by when those laws are being broken.... you should support their being broken.
I don't disagree. Unfortunately, we have gone far beyond that standard and are in fact seeing significant property damage and loss of life. Time for calm and real solutions.
Write your congressman that you want to make sure that businesses are protected but you also want to make sure there are more appropriate safeguards put in place for life and liberty during interactions with officers. Honestly, I think the way that change happens is that moderates decide to support the issue more vocally.
When the riots die down (or are put down) which they will eventually, I ask people like you not to forget that there is a serious problem and give some of these protesters the benefit of the doubt that they don’t all want violence and theft. After all; that’s what we have police to deal with.
Change won’t happen until politicians believe that going up against a corrupt police union won’t cost them their jobs because they have a broader mandate from people outside the Democratic Party.
What I favor:
1. Kneecap police unions
2. End qualified immunity
3. Legalize most drugs so there are fewer interactions with police
1. Kneecap police unions
2. End qualified immunity
3. Legalize most drugs so there are fewer interactions with police
While we're at it can we also focus on the black men which are being murdered in our cities at a magnitude of 100x of those who are being murdered by cops? You know....those over 7000 murdered each year who the Dems don’t give a second thought about.
I think drug reform, criminal justice reform, and gun control as well as changes to education and improving the economy for those at the bottom could help that number decrease. Those are larger issues though, which we (L’s and C’s) don’t always agree on. I think it’s important, when we do find common ground to take action together. It promotes discourse and compromise and it might help heal divisions so we can tackle more complex issues.
Two reasons: his grant funds ran out. Second, he needed to spend time with his family. If you’ve ever been a cop or have been close with a large number of them, you know what I mean. We will leave it at that.
FWIW, the ten year retention rate on cops is around 50% for most metro pds. So he is not unusual. Wouldn’t surprise me to see him in ministry then run for office in a few years.
You’ve clearly never worked professionally in government leadership.
He kept Bob Gates because we were at war and he knew nothing of national security issues. Congressional leadership basically told him he had to keep him for procurement reasons or good luck getting confirmed all the other ultra left people you owe jobs to who are not close to qualified. Your own people will strangle you when we are done with you if you don’t keep a steady hand on the wheel during wartime.
Rhodes and his crew wanted him to stay on because they “supported the troops but not the mission” and wanted to blame any future failure of their own surge policy in Afghanistan on him and Republican hold overs even though Gates quietly seethed at what they wanted to do.
Finally, Biden had thirty years of experience working the Pentagon. Obama needed someone that would keep Biden from barging into the President’s experience gap dealing with the military, especially procurement.
FWIW, Gates considered Biden condescending, amateurish, and disruptive to his President’s goals.
You're going to need to see some societal changes as well which is an area which both sides should be able to find common ground.
I laughed a bit at this one. These people are literally playing war to the point of overdramatizing a leg scratch and playing out the scene with him biting down on something as he screams in pain. Hopefully they don’t make him lose that leg by being dumb and using a tourniquet
I laugh every time I see Antifa talking about going to rural Texas or Oklahoma to stir crap up. Dudes have no clue what they’re dealing with in those places.
just watched cnn interview a black leader about how blacks are an underclass and mis-traeated by society for decades.
lets assume he is correct. arent there Black congressmen and havent they been in office for a while. What have they done to improve the situation?
didn't we just have a Black president for 8 years. What did he contribute to fix the problem?
lets assume he is correct. arent there Black congressmen and havent they been in office for a while. What have they done to improve the situation?
didn't we just have a Black president for 8 years. What did he contribute to fix the problem?
Yes those minority black congressmen and women can magically make the situation, that has built up over the last 100, years just disappear, Especially since they have the majority of white congressmen working hand in hand with them. Same situation with the one and only black president we've ever had. You can't expect a few congressmen and a single president to fix the racial tensions that have built up over decades.
Yes i can.
Republicans passed the equal rights act against lots of democrat opposition.
Thats what they get paid for. Even bho shoved a very bad aca through.
Republicans passed the equal rights act against lots of democrat opposition.
Thats what they get paid for. Even bho shoved a very bad aca through.
Last edited:
Trump pressing through with an attempt to expand his religious supporters to two of much more educated Churches...
....and fails miserably.
BHO shoved through the ACA he felt he could get through congress, not the one he wanted.
When those congressmen passed the civil rights act, the left and the right occasionally compromised.
Last edited:
Coincidently, the guys that left the Democratic party in the late 60's just so happened to join the GOP not too long after. Guys like Strom Thurmond, John Connally, etc... by the time Reagan got into office and noted that he supported states rights (an issue that used to be on that Southern Democrats would go to bat for) the GOP of guys like Eisenhower and Nelson Rockefeller was essentially no more.BHO shoved through the ACA he felt he could get through congress, not the one he wanted. When those congressmen passed the civil rights act, the left and the right occasionally compromised.
Thanks for proving my point. A single provider plan was too much of a risk for some democrats to vote for because the voters in their precincts might not support it in the next election. Obama wanted it to get as close to a single provider plan as possible. He actually wanted it to BE a single provider plan. I never said his opposition was Republicans. Obama did not put the plan forth that he actually wanted.
If you thought that the two points I made in that post were meant to be part of the same point you misunderstood. Those two issues were separate and different points about issues you had raised.(1. ACA/ 2. Congressmen passing Civil Rights Bill) Mabye you thought the two issues were related blanket points, but you were wrong in thinking that.
Except that the first areas to flip Republican in the south were in the cities as it was becoming less racist. One of the first districts to flip was won by George HW Bush. He ran explicitly in favor of integration and the seat was previously held by a segregationist Democrat. The rural areas remained Democrat for a long time, to the point where the Clinton campaign sold gear with confederate flags on it in 92’. That year Clinton won half of the south and tons of rural counties, including all of SE Oklahoma. Robert Byrd, a man who once lead a chapter of the KKK, the man who succeeded Strom Thurmond, remained a Democrat to his death and was in the senate until 2010.
The shift of the south to Republicans wasn’t a rapid shift after the the civil rights era. It was a long slow shift that began with the new deal and then Cold War politics.
Last edited:
Pssh...Epsicopalian is Catholic Lite. Other than the fact you might have a female minister in an Epsicopal church, if you've ever attended one of their services, you might forget you're not at a Catholic mass at times.
Noble is correct here at least as it relates to police unions. They are often the biggest roadblock when it comes to getting rid of bad cops. I'm not optimistic for any real change until we first address the union and their CBAs. We can legislate all we want but we need to get rid of bad cops before their actions harm people. The unions currently fight any such attempts.
I agree with a lot of what you said. I would contend that the shift of the Republican Party had more to do with the quite a few of the southern bad eggs leaving the Democratic Party as the Democrats became more liberal and the Republican Party becoming more and more conservative. Back in 1964 Nelson Rockefeller was espousing at the GOP Convention how the Republican Party was historically a liberal party and should continue to be. He ultimately lost the nomination to Goldwater who was by most accounts an extremist candidate. The only states Goldwater carried were in the South. That was the first time the Republicans had really carried the South. That happened because he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But, Democrat George Wallace won the same states on a segregationist bend a few years later. Interestingly though, Wallace by the later years of his life was voting Republican because of "Clinton being so liberal". He voted for Bush 1.0 and Dole and his son switched parties to the R's. On the other hand, Byrd who supported racist opposition in the 60's eventually began voting consistently with the liberal wing. He was given 100% ratings by the NAACP in his later years in office and he denounced his early days (in the Klan and in opposition to Civil Rights). Granted, he was probably just doing it to maintain party relevance on a national stage.
Last edited:
Like I was saying, it becomes more palatable for legislators to tell the police Unions to shove it up their azz if they have a broader mandate from both sides of the spectrum.
I'm not a labor law guy but I believe this might be difficult to accomplish. Labor law is federal for the most part. I don't see them being able to single out a particular union. I'm skeptical of Congress willingness to weaken labor law as it relates to unions even if they were able to limit it to public service unions. As such, it becomes a local issue between the City and it's police union.
Both parties have adopted extreem views. Is it time for a third party for the majority in the middle?
