Topic: 2020 Democrats - page 4. (Read 12658 times)

How does your diet of total horseshit taste?


We have a lot of problems but I just don't know ANY cops that resemble your profile as described. ANY, anywhere.

Do Democrats have anything to do with when covid-19 will disappear?

That's a good question. If BLM and Antifa and riots go away, will it make Covid to be stronger or weaker? After all, BLM and Antifa and riots are political, right? Is Covid political? I mean, State governments are saying that we should wear masks and lock down, even though the statistics say that there is no reason for this. So it seems that Covid might be at least a bit political.

Watch what Biden says... that the riots will go away when Democrats are in power... https://thecommonsenseshow.com/activism-conspiracy-united-states/threat-biden-strong-suggests-rioting-will-stop-when-america-elects-democrats. Is he going to take Covid along with him if he wins?

Of course, people who are getting fed up with Democrat leadership, just might pick up their guns and MAKE BLM and Antifa and riots go away. If they do this, will it automatically make Biden go away? Will Covid go away at the same time?

Agreed. The only way to notice the full effect of how horrible this situation is. You listen to a grown man yell for his dead mother for help, he's telling officers that he can't breathe, bystanders are saying that he is going to die.

I'm not going to say that George Floyd was a great guy or anything like that. He was not. But that doesn't mean he should just be killed by an police officer for a victimless crime that he was alleged to have committed (pretty sure it was counterfeit currency, a $20 bill?)


See I wouldn't go this far here. USA cops take steroids? Picked the lowest among those on IQ tests? They all love to engage in police brutality?

No. That's just not true. There are some horrible cops in many areas, the difference in the US is that guns are very commonplace in America due to the 2nd amendment which means there is always a threat of deadly force on police officers. That's why their trained with guns, carry guns, and use them. I would never say the majority of US police officers are bad, but there are bad apples.

Most foreigners who watch the George Floyd murder as a gut reaction would think "wow what a nasty, brutish place" regarding the United States, it's just not how you would expect a cop to behave...

In USA cops take steroids, train in MMA and dirty fighting, are deliberately selected from people who score low on IQ tests, and they seem to love to engage with the public brutally whenever an opportunity presents itself...

In Europe and other places you might see cops struggling to restrain common criminals which sometimes makes them look funny or incompetent, but those scenes are far more humanizing than the pure atmosphere of dread that encounters with the American police usually entail...

Law and order in a society are clearly broken and there is something fundamentally flawed with the system, when police force feels entitled to use lethal techniques for petty crimes that are even forbidden in combat sports, and all of this somehow is sanctioned by a for-profit justice system, and is funded by taxpayers money; it makes the US society look highly totalitarian and stupidly masochistic, and is a problem that extends beyond any racial question.

Let's say A tortured B and B died. On trial for murder, A is found innocent due to facts such as the autopsy.

A walks free.

Is he innocent? Innocent of everything?

No, he tortured B.

It doesn't prove that they didn't have evil intentions, but I personally don't think they did.

None of the things you mentioned is being criticized, and none of them make the way Flloyd was treated a few minutes later acceptable.

At this point all I can say is you should really go back and watch again, and try to forget about anything related to politics, or BLM, or anyone elses response or even the fact that he ended up dead.  Just watch and listen and ask yourself if what the cop is doing should be considered acceptable in your society.  No point in going back and forth anymore.

So then it dispels this myth that they were out there to harm him or evil spirited from the start.


He was under control because of the restraint and this is clear when you realize Floyd was flapping around like a fish before any restraint was used. When dealing with ExDS, common policy is to hold restraint until EMS arrives on scene because of the unpredictable nature. There isn't anything cruel about that. If you've ever seen someone that's on drugs resist police, the shit isn't pretty. They will gladly take 5 bullets to the torso before they die. They will gladly take on 5 police offers with batons and not even flinch. I highly doubt you've ever seen body cam footage of these sorts of instances because I don't believe you know the true danger. Officers are going to air on the side of caution. Neck restraint or not, many of these people end up dying anyways from a heart attack.

Now, after it was understood Floyd was unresponsive, he should have technically been put into the recovery position. But there are a few things to consider as to why Chauvin didn't. Did he know Floyd was dead? Did he fully know he became unresponsive and needed to be put in the recovery position? Did he make a call to simply wait for EMS to arrive on scene regardless of whether or not he became unresponsive or not?

I don't know the answers to these questions, the court will figure all that out. But, I can tell you that if this case hinges on Chauvin's potential negligence regarding his failure to put Floyd in the recovery position, it's over before it started because none of that warrants a murder/manslaughter charge.



Well presumably if he is cleared of charges that means he is innocent, yes? Or you want to be technical in the legal sense, he'd be considered "not guilty".

I would say all of that was fine, the way I would expect a cop to behave.  


This is why I still have to question whether you actually watched what happened.  The reason for the outrage is that he stayed on top of him for 8+ minutes, 2 of which he was unresponsive - but all you keep going back to is 'cops are allowed to restrain people in situations like that'.  Well yeah, no shit.  For a few seconds if it's necessary to get someone under control, fine.  Not for 8 minutes, that's cruel.  Plus you might kill the guy.

Flloyd was under control:




You're trying to argue that the cop is innocent.  There's a big difference.

I was surprised that the Democrats did not bring in a fresh, "unknown face" such as a governor with some charisma. But they did what they did, and here we are.

Biden is the throwing of a bone to middle America, to the traditional Democrats.

This is a rehash of Clinton vs. Dole. A very strong and popular POTUS with one term versus a weak and worn out opponent.

I cringed less than I thought I would at the Republican convention. The average quality of the speakers was higher than the Democratic convention, and there was more substance. The Republican convention aimed for a less fancy production, but because they aimed lower, they had fewer glitches. Without analyzing content at all, I'd say that the Republican convention was slightly better presented.

The Democratic convention mentioned almost no policies, instead going for a vague sense of patriotism, nationalism, unity, etc. I actually think that this is quite an effective message, especially for people in swing states and outside of the Democratic base. I think that a lot of "lifelong Republicans" who supported eg. George W Bush will be very comfortable in Biden's Democratic party. Most voters don't actually care about policy much, but instead vote based on general feelings, and you could see both conventions speaking to this. The Democratic convention was emotionally speaking to people who simply can't see Trump alongside people like Roosevelt or Lincoln, who see Trump as an aberration in the American legacy, whose nationalism does not allow for someone like Trump to be a "legitimate" American president. The Republican convention was emotionally speaking to several different core conservative constituencies: people who can't stand leftist culture, evangelicals, people who despise socialism on an emotional level, etc. I think that the former message is far more likely to attract cross-over voters.

The Republican convention mentioned quite a few more concrete policy goals/achievements than the Democrats, though many were contradictory. Some example policies:
 - Trump didn't start any wars
 - He stood up to many enemies, eg. Iran
 - He rebuilt the military
 - He stands behind Israel
 - He's for an America First foreign policy (including military and trade)
 - He cut taxes
 - He protected the US from coronavirus as well as could be expected
 - He appointed conservative judges
 - He helped small business through deregulation, etc.
 - He promoted law & order, cracking down on riots
 - He promotes free speech, civil liberties, and diversity of thought
 - He's skeptical of Big Tech
 - He actively supports Ambrahamic religions
 - He supports diversity, and is not racist or sexist

The most effective messages IMO are:
 - Attacking Biden from the left on issues such as criminal justice. The convention did this a bit, such as with the Alice Johnson and Daniel Cameron speeches, but they could've done this a lot more and better. Biden is basically a Bush-era Republican, and Trump should be attacking him like he attacked Jeb Bush.
 - Talking about a return to normalcy, not a "new normal". This is what people want, even if you think that it may be unrealistic.
 - Being anti-war.
 - Trying to appear as pro-diversity as possible to try to soften the perception of Trump as racist and sexist. They did a decent job at this.
 - Trying to appear very stable and presidential to try to soften the perception of Trump as unhinged. They did a bit of this with the pardons, citizenship ceremonies, and just using official sites as locations.

There was a strong law & order message. I'm not sure how effective this is. It appeals to some people, but it turns off others, and it also depends heavily on the location of the listener and the mood of the country. The law & order messaging totally backfired on Trump after George Floyd, but Trump made a lot of unforced errors there (eg. the Lafayette Square thing), and the mood of the country was different.

There was a strong message of "Biden is Bernie Sanders in disguise." This is a very ineffective message. Nobody believes this, and even if they did, it wouldn't seriously bother enough people who are not already firmly behind Trump.

I don't think that it's completely ineffective to throw out many contradictory messages and see what sticks. People tend to hear what they want to hear and ignore the rest. Pro-war Trump supporters will be enthusiastic that he's been sticking it to Iran, while anti-war Trump supporters will be enthusiastic that he's avoided starting any major wars, and each will ignore the contradictory messaging. It's probably better at pumping up support from people who already lean toward Trump than attracting cross-over voters, though.

Both Pence's and Trump's speeches sucked, and will not move anyone to Trump. There actually were several good speeches/segments, but they got much less coverage than the bad speeches.

---

As expected, both conventions were mostly boring & shallow infomercials. I don't think that there's much value in diving deep into the content of any speeches or anything like that; the vast majority of voters don't watch these conventions at all, fewer still watch the whole ~8 hours, and only a tiny number are swayed much by the content. Where there's any value at all in analyzing these conventions, it's in how the convention shapes the media narrative for a few weeks, and in indicating how the leaders of the campaign are looking at things.

It seems to me that both campaigns have effective-looking strategies. Neither has a complete disaster of a campaign strategy (which I thought might be the case for Trump). The Biden campaign is more-or-less trying to become the Republican party circa 2012. They want to keep their base of minorities and leftists while drawing a lot of nationalists who can't stand Trump and people longing for stability above all else, though they won't excite anyone. It could work. The Trump campaign wants to keep their base ultra-excited, reduce turnout among potential Biden voters by lowering their already-low excitement below the threshold where they'd actually vote, stem the bleeding in traditional Republicans, and possibly draw in some people who are more hopeful for positive change rather than just hoping for a return to the pre-Trump status quo. That could also work.

After having viewed both conventions, I think that the Biden campaign strategy -- appealing broadly but shallowly using simple emotions -- is slightly superior, especially since I think that economic and virus conditions will likely worsen before election day. Biden is the alternative waiting in the wings for anyone who feels that a change is needed. But I could see the Trump campaign strategy working, especially if Trump holds a gun to the head of the FDA in order to get a vaccine approved before election day and the economy also holds it together until then contrary to my expectations. Then people won't feel such anti-Trump pressure, and the almost nonexistent pro-Biden pressure might result in a Trump victory.

Yes I did. I watched it when it was released by Daily mail and then when the official body cam video was released by Minneapolis, can't remember if I already mentioned that or not which is why I didn't respond.

What would you say when officer Lane took Floyd away from the road and put him on the side walk for his own safety (he even told Floyd this)? What would you say when officer Keung offered to roll down the windows and turn on the AC when Floyd was refusing to get into the car? What about when they called EMS immediately once it became apparent Floyd needed them? What about when one of the officers confirmed EMS was en route when it seemed it was taking so long?

None of this points to this idea that he was treated terribly. Again, he was put into restraint because it's policy by MPD and because the officers thought Floyd was going through a medical distress episode.

We can agree to disagree because I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this particular matter. I'll leave it to a jury and if they get a conviction, I'll look at their rational and leave it there.



I mean what I said here isn't a contradiction to what I said earlier but whatever I guess. Criminals will in fact say what they want to say in order to resist police. Floyd said he wasn't trying to resist when he was in fact resisting. This doesn't mean I think his criminal history, like robbing some pregnant lady, should have an effect on the way he was treated. Meaning this -- I would never make the argument saying Floyd deserved to be fully restrained because he was a violent criminal and therefore it was warranted given his past history to be restrained for the safety of officers. I'm not retroactively using the excuse of "he's a violent felon" to justify the way he was treated. It'd be a dishonest argument. That's what I mean by saying his criminal record isn't relevant in this context.



You can read above as to what I said about homicide but choking/strangulation/asphyxia are what you are accusing Chauvin of, yes? We all agree it was homicide. I'm not disputing that. I am looking to the autopsy and do not see any lacerations on the neck, no bruises, no tissue damage, nothing. So where are you getting this information that the weight of Chauvin's knee was the primary cause of death? Take the case title of the autopsy alone, it mentions neck compression but it also mentions subdual by law enforcement. Not indicative that the knee on the back of the neck was the primary cause of death here and that Floyd would be alive had it not been the knee.

And I'm not adamant on anything nor am I playing devil's advocate for the hell of it. I'm just letting you know that there is, without actually exaggerating, probably a 90 percent shot Chauvin gets off these charges. And if he goes get cleared, then what? Is it because of a broken justice system or will you admit you were looking at this case wrong? And I will be the first one to eat my words if they get a conviction because I don't give a fuck about Chauvin, nor do I have anything personally invested into this. Truly, I don't care.

I recall someone repeatedly saying that... let's see...

---

Well, there is the little detail of him actually dying a few minutes after exhibiting those symptoms. What exactly makes the symptoms suspect for you?

Putting it into words doesn't come close to accurately portraying how fucked up the situation was. 

Assuming anyone defending the cop actually watched it was my bad.  Reminds me of the Mueller report.

Whatever the cop's job, the USA is supposed to be a place of justice. But even the Nuremberg Trials where the Nazi military leaders of WW2 Germany were tried, showed that you don't blindly follow protocols that your boss lays down, when you are dealing with people. I agree with you guys.

If a cop can't understand that dealing with people is different than a desk job, give him the desk job. But if he can't even do that, who needs him? Get rid of him.

Assuming they did not.

Because even if some is going through a manic episode due to the use of drugs, that does NOT in anyway justify putting your KNEE and your ENTIRE BODY WEIGHT on someones neck. No one has an issue with restraining someone who is manic and is a threat to those around them. But people do have an issue with what happened in that video which CAUSED the death of Floyd.

Right?

Did you watch the 10 minutes of him on the ground or not?

You're making a huge jump here. If the knee was the deciding factor, why was Floyd able to yell for 6 straight minutes at the top of his lungs while also lifting his head up multiple times, with zero evidence of tissue damage or bruises on the neck tissue of Floyd according to the autopsy report? No one knows how hard Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's neck.

Saying it's not "strangulation" isn't pointless because strangulation means you can't breathe and are rendered unconscious in 20 seconds aka the knee on the neck really did kill him. And that isn't the case.



Nobody is saying this. No one thinks Floyd's criminal record should be indicative to the way he was treated. He should only be treated by the facts that were known to the officers at the time, and they thought they were dealing someone with ExDS, aka a drug induced manic episode requiring full restraint. Floyd resisted arrest numerous times after peaceful attempts to be taken into custody. If you have a medical emergency, I find the timing to be a bit suspect that the symptoms of the emergency only seem to occur when you're being arrested and put into a patrol car.

agree with twitchy. unless ur a sociopath you cant have watched from the view of someone standing a few feet away while george flloyd died and and think it didnt matter what he said or that the cop was just following protocol and doing his job.

+1 to that.

Not sure why people are fine with saying 'well he had priors and he was a shitty person in his everyday life' While that may be true, it's not a reason to murder someone.

Like shit imagine if you had the misfortune of commiting a crime when you were younger, maybe even something heinous, and now you're trying to get your life back on track. You end up getting pulled over for a traffic violation and are taken out of the car and murdered b/c of your priors and whatever.

You shouldn't be able to be killed by a LEO for doing nothing. I understand instances of self defense and things along those lines, but this wasn't self defense. This was murder. No amount of justifying will change that.