U.S. Politics: Speak, Shriek, or Squeak! Whatever Technique You Seek in Critique of the Isogeneic Freak.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

 

 

Well, definitely on the way there then.

[Jace, Extat]

4 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

 

 

Yeah, we're done. That's going to be pretty much it for this country. The police will protect the Trump Army, won't protect the Democrats. Military will "stay neutral" as a single party system becomes the norm.

[DanteGabriel]

3 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Well, definitely on the way there then.

I'm surprised they're not selling tasteful khaki shirts with similar branding. Or maybe they are.

[OldGimletEye]

12 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Keith Ellison spent some years as a criminal defense lawyer. I think that’s a decent indication he knows what he can get, plus he has evidence that the public does not.

As somebody who practiced criminal law for a very short period, I know better than to just take the prosecutors word for something. In fact in case I had a prosecutor being so ridiculous, the judge started yelling at him.

But, having looked into this matter a bit more, I do now think that the State of Minnesota can prevail on a degree of second degree murder, at least with respect to Chauvin. From Ellison's statements, it seems the state is going go with a theory of felony murder, Under the felony murder doctrine, the state does not need to prove the intent to kill. It only needs to prove the intent to commit a felony. The most obvious underlying felony in this case would be felonious assault. One potential problem with using felonious assault as the underlying crime is the so called merger doctrine. But, after looking into this a bit more, it appears that in Minnesota the merger doctrine is no bar to using assault as the underlying crime in application of the felony murder rule.

[Kalbear]

26 minutes ago, DMC said:

Where'd you get that number?  Because recent polling suggests there's been a broad shift in attitudes on policing with the public at large.  This may lag with police themselves of course, but doubtful by that much:

It's been repeated on twitter significantly - it has to do with how many police donate to Trump vs. other people, IIRC. I have no idea why the public's view of police would correlate with how the police support Trump however.

Here's an article about support from police to Biden , which apparently has soured.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/04/police-groups-joe-biden-300222

26 minutes ago, DMC said:

I also have no idea why you'd suggest decentralized police forces under local and state government control possess the "real power," other than recency bias.

Because they certainly appear to have more power to inflict state and local control compared to the military. The military moving in requires a whole lot of things to fall into place in exactly the right way. Law enforcement, however, is controlled either by state and local forces or - as we're seeing in DC - by the justice department directly. And as far as I can tell, they're pretty much becoming his police force - with no names, no badges, no specific organization that they belong to, no public accountability.

If you're concerned about who would enforce removing Trump - that's who. Think that Barr is going to do that, especially if there is some possible idea of issue for election results?

[Rippounet]

56 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

 

 

Well, fuck.

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's been repeated on twitter significantly - it has to do with how many police donate to Trump vs. other people, IIRC. I have no idea why the public's view of police would correlate with how the police support Trump however.

So...based on nothing then, thanks.  And yeah, I saw the Biden article.  The reason the public's view wouldn't be THAT different than the police's is the simple fact the difference in demographics is not that extreme.  There are plenty of minority cops out there.  Not to mention the fact that the attitudes shifted among white people as much as they did overall in the post I cited, they almost certainly significantly shifted among white cops as well.  That's just how polling works.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And as far as I can tell, they're pretty much becoming his police force - with no names, no badges, no specific organization that they belong to, no public accountability.

This concerns me greatly, yes.  But this was near the White House - I'm not worried about DC's three electoral votes in November.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If you're concerned about who would enforce removing Trump - that's who.

LOL.  If he loses clearly?  No.

[Maithanet]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Where'd you get that number?  Because recent polling suggests there's been a broad shift in attitudes on policing with the public at large.  This may lag with police themselves of course, but doubtful by that much:

There's this, which isn't a poll, but it is something:

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

We need more strucural restrictions on the power of the President.  We cannot assume a rational reasonable actor in the Presidency any longer.

Arguably yes, but you'd also need to get the ultra polarization and obstructionists like the chinless Turtle out of the Senate. I mean it's not like Obama ruled quite a bit thru EO for the lulz.

 

4 hours ago, DMC said:

I suppose Dubya's abuses were more common, but I think the Patriot Act, an unjust war, trying to legally justify torture, and using signing statements - not even EOs - to override veto-proof legislation were pretty huge expansions of presidential power.  And much more competently instituted that much of anything Trump has done to boot.

Out of curiosity. Of the 3 truely awful presidents of our (?) lifetime (Reagan, Dubya, Trump). How do you rate them in terms of sheer awfulness.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Arguably yes, but you'd also need to get the ultra polarization and obstructionists like the chinless Turtle out of the Senate. I mean it's not like Obama ruled quite a bit thru EO for the lulz.

 

Out of curiosity. Of the 3 truely awful presidents of our (?) lifetime (Reagan, Dubya, Trump). How do you rate them in terms of sheer awfulness.

From most-awful to least-awful:

1. Trump

2. Bush

3. Reagan

[DMC]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Out of curiosity. Of the 3 truely awful presidents of our (?) lifetime (Reagan, Dubya, Trump). How do you rate them in terms of sheer awfulness.

I was 3 when Reagan left office, don't think it's fair for me to judge.  I think..Dubya committed more travesties (thus far) while Trump is responsible for more travesty.  If that makes sense.  I understand if it doesn't.

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

There's this, which isn't a poll, but it is something:

That metric would be similar to suggesting lawyers support Biden/Democrats in a similar fashion.  It's not reliable to the general unit of analysis (i.e. all police or all lawyers as opposed to those making political donations) - and also obviously could well have shifted recently.

[Kalbear]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

So...based on nothing then, thanks.

No, it's based on actual data, thanks. I'm sorry I can't find the precise reference for you right away. 

Quote

  And yeah, I saw the Biden article.  The reason the public's view wouldn't be THAT different than the police's is the simple fact the difference in demographics is not that extreme.  There are plenty of minority cops out there.  Not to mention the fact that the attitudes shifted among white people as much as they did overall in the post I cited, they almost certainly significantly shifted among white cops as well.  That's just how polling works.

Not necessarily, because police is an identity beyond race for a whole lot of people. Hence things like Blue Lives Matter. We see this all the time in various subgroups - as an example, while whites as a whole have decreased support for Trump, white evangelicals have almost not moved an inch. I don't know why police would not be a special subgroup in that way as well. 

Anyway, here's an old one that shows 84% planning to vote for Trump, which is obviously not just public view vs not. Some obvious reasons why:

-police skew male

-police skew white

-police skew non-college educated

-police skew ACAB

Quote

This concerns me greatly, yes.  But this was near the White House - I'm not worried about DC's three electoral votes in November.

Who do you think is going to escort him out?

Quote

LOL.  If he loses clearly?  No.

No matter how he loses, he will make it unclear.

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

There's this, which isn't a poll, but it is something:

 

That was what I was thinking of - thank you. 

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I agree that many of them do participate in a lot of motivated reasoning, but I guess I'm wondering (and you're probably the right person to ask) is how far does that take them? I guess to me their devotion seems to track more closely with die-hard fans of sports teams, or with religious devotion, where their support of him is actually tied up in their identity.

I'm probably phrasing this inelegantly, but I've always thought that motivated reasoning kind of falls apart when it's about something that doesn't affect the reasoner directly. A middle-aged white man can uncritically accept Trump's position on foreign interventionism, or on draconian measures used at the border, or a whole host of other issues that either do not affect him, or that will only affect him tangentially in the future.

But stuff like the pandemic, or the recession/depression will end up hurting his base. I suppose I'm using Bush II as a comparison. While his approval during his 2nd term was never great, it actually took people getting hit in the pocketbook for his support to really crater.

Does that mean that Trump's support among his base is more difficult to dislodge and if so, why? Or have most of his supporters just not been severely affected by the pandemic and recession yet? 

I don't expect you to have the answers, I'm basically just ruminating out loud.

I think precisely as Americans  have become less likely to have their religious faith, occupation, or place of residence be a strong party of their identity, their identity as Republicans or Democrats, or as liberals, progressives, conservatives, etc. has become a more important part of their identity. And I think this factor probably got stronger for people during the years between Bush and Trump.

It is hard for people to attribute economic problems solely to Trump because they have been caused by the pandemic -- and although Trump's incompetence has made the pandemic much worse, it would have still happened. And one who is a strong Trump supporter will be way more resistant to blaming Trump for his inaction on the pandemic precisely because that would be a bigger blow to one's sense of identity. Voting for someone who didn't deliver on the economy isn't going to make one feel as bad as voting for someone who has caused tens of thousands of deaths. So one will be more motivated to resist the latter cognition. 

It's been pointed out that it is the elderly who in polling have recently shifted most toward Biden and away from Trump. That may have something to do with long acquaintance with Biden as a public figure, but perhaps also has to do with the elderly being a high risk group for Covid-19 and therefore a bit more motivated to overcome their desire NOT to see Trump as partly responsible. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm surprised they're not selling tasteful khaki shirts with similar branding. Or maybe they are.

I'd guess Hawaiian shirts instead of khaki, but we are otherwise in agreement.

I was thinking about this earlier; if Trump wins again, I expect there to be either Civil War 2 0 edition, or massive civil unrest. Picture this: in that scenario, it's entirely possible that one of us on this board will be killed by a dumpy middle-aged white guy wearing an ill-fitting tactical vest over an Hawaiian shirt, with a fire engine red MAGA hat on their heads, a ridiculous 12" K-Bar knife sheathed on their belt, all tucked into, for God knows what reason, entirely too baggy forest or desert camo fatigues while fighting in an urban environment, tucked into some Doc Martens, and topped off with an AR-15.

Not exactly how I'd imagined I would go out.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Sure, most people who read history know about those two hundred year old debates.

But don't you think it is Little Odd that people are talking about military coups and destroying the Constitutional order.  I don't remember this talk about Bill Clinton gaining power. No talk about armed revolutionaries charging DC for Gore. No talk of W seizing a third term to deny Obama. I just find the current discussion odd. Sorry it wasn't super profound. It was meant more to be a casual observation. 

"Odd" is way too mild a word for people talking about military coups and destroying the Constitutional order. Scary and depressing is what that is. 

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No matter how he loses, he will make it unclear.

Definitely.  But I still think that the manner in which he loses (god willing) matters.  If we're talking a Bush-Gore Redux where Biden wins Florida by 500 votes, then I think our options are civil war or 4 more years.  If it's more like 2004 (one tipping point state, but reasonably decisive) then I'm sure Trump will scream fraud and do all he can, but I'm not sure that the rest of the federal infrastructure will go along with it.  Hard to say, it will be a very very scary time.  And if it's more like 2012 or even 2008, then Trump will still yell and scream, but his defeat and removal will be just a matter of time.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Anyway, here's an old one that shows 84% planning to vote for Trump, which is obviously not just public view vs not. Some obvious reasons why:

-police skew male

-police skew white

-police skew non-college educated

-police skew ACAB

Again, when you already account for whites' attitudes here, and others similar to Monmouth's like this one, or this one, or this one, that skewness significantly decreases.

And just no to the poll from the tweet you cited:

Quote

But these are the candidates we have. So to determine how working law enforcement officers are likely to vote in the November election, POLICE e-mailed a survey to 59,238 readers. A total of 3,652 working officers responded.

Take a moment to check around that site and tell me it's surprising most of them support Trump.  That's like citing a Drudge poll as evidence.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

33 minutes ago, DMC said:

I was 3 when Reagan left office, don't think it's fair for me to judge.  I think..Dubya committed more travesties (thus far) while Trump is responsible for more travesty.  If that makes sense.  I understand if it doesn't.

That doesn't mean you can't have an informed opinion on him and his policies and scandals.

Iran Contra

War on Drugs

Economic policies.

[Darth Richard II]

3 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

That doesn't mean you can't have an informed opinion on him and his policies and scandals.

Iran Contra

War on Drugs

Economic policies.

You forgot AIDS.