RugbyRebels

It's almost like the combination of a "Them vs Us" attitude, gun/vilence fetishisation, rampant machismo and a denial that the word "de-escaltion" exists is a generally bad combination for a police force to adopt.

Mikey Brown wrote:This situation with the UPS driver taken hostage is insane. 4 people dead.

I'm sure this is the most biased, anti-American slant I could find and I've been duped yet again, but the civilian-shields part isn't a great look.

That looks like a nightmare for the police. An uncontrolled situation with lots of bystanders and a trigger happy kidnapper.

It would be useful to know what happened prior to that. Did the police do something to cause the shootout or was it just sheer bad luck.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:This situation with the UPS driver taken hostage is insane. 4 people dead.

I'm sure this is the most biased, anti-American slant I could find and I've been duped yet again, but the civilian-shields part isn't a great look.

That looks like a nightmare for the police. An uncontrolled situation with lots of bystanders and a trigger happy kidnapper.

It would be useful to know what happened prior to that. Did the police do something to cause the shootout or was it just sheer bad luck.

It does look like a nightmare situation, seemed this chase had gone on a long time beforehand. I've not read any confirmation of who actually started shooting first, but there seem to be an awful lot of people saying it was the police and lots of very diplomatically worded headlines stated that 'such and and such caused 4 people to die', which tends to mean the cops shot somebody.

It's a horrible situation to have to deal with, but I don't think using a civilian-occupied vehicle as a shield in a gunfight is ever the correct solution.

On a slightly different note, the police presence in these Seattle protests looks like a fun sort of Judge Dredd style dystopian future come to life.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:This situation with the UPS driver taken hostage is insane. 4 people dead.

I'm sure this is the most biased, anti-American slant I could find and I've been duped yet again, but the civilian-shields part isn't a great look.

That looks like a nightmare for the police. An uncontrolled situation with lots of bystanders and a trigger happy kidnapper.

It would be useful to know what happened prior to that. Did the police do something to cause the shootout or was it just sheer bad luck.

It does look like a nightmare situation, seemed this chase had gone on a long time beforehand. I've not read any confirmation of who actually started shooting first, but there seem to be an awful lot of people saying it was the police and lots of very diplomatically worded headlines stated that 'such and and such caused 4 people to die', which tends to mean the cops shot somebody.

It's a horrible situation to have to deal with, but I don't think using a civilian-occupied vehicle as a shield in a gunfight is ever the correct solution.

It does look like a total screw up. I’m a bit surprised their control room didn’t order them to back up and then track them via helicopter instead, but it’s easy to be an armchair general and there was a hostage involved.

Hiding behind civilians is never going to look good.

Errrrr...

They are protesting some amendments to state law regarding firearms:

Prohibit the purchase of more than one handgun per month

Allow local governments to ban guns in parks and public buildings

Require background checks on all firearms purchases


I mean those are completely unreasonable and totally justify playing dress up with loaded assault rifles in public.

I think some people are probably a little too tightly wound for more than one hand gun a month.

The funny thing is how much it reminds me of the sort of footage used to demonstrate how people in country X (ie. brown people) are a bunch of murderous, violent, gun-toting savages that need liberating.

Maybe it's got a softer sort of army-man cosplay feel to it, but that might be because they all seem to be the same strain of podgy, pale, un-athletic types.

If only they'd listened to this guy they'd realise they don't even need to bother protesting.

What are they so scared of?? Conspiracy dialed up to fever pitch. Its just completely illogical.

morepork wrote:They are protesting some amendments to state law regarding firearms:

Prohibit the purchase of more than one handgun per month

Allow local governments to ban guns in parks and public buildings

Require background checks on all firearms purchases


I mean those are completely unreasonable and totally justify playing dress up with loaded assault rifles in public.

I think some people are probably a little too tightly wound for more than one hand gun a month.

Surely walking around in public with loaded assault
Rifles playing at being a weekend warrior is automatic fail for any mental health check on owning a firearm?

Anyone following this Iowa nonsense?

Embarrassing for the dems trump can ridicule some more

Just give it to Bernie ffs

It's not just the failure of their systems which allow for mocking, but their inept cover up. One does wonder how many people actually voted, they could have what at most? A million votes to count? and that's way over what I expect the actual number to be. Surely they have a backup plan around manual counting, and that should really be done by now?

What a mess. Word is that Bernie has it, but we'll have to wait. You can be sure that the big financial cowboys will be going hammer and tongs to stop him (or Warren) with some McCarthy-worthy scare tactics. Cue crying billionaires and developmentally challenged trust fund babies. The trickle down will be lavender scented shit that business owners and the next tier of wealth down that think they have a shot at failing up under this cowpat of a current government. There is a fairly comprehensive article in the NYT that shows just how deep the financial sector has it's claws embedded in the current administration. We are fucked.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/maga ... trump.html

Have the dems rode Bernie again? Pete paid for the crooked app?

paddy no 11 wrote:Have the dems rode Bernie again? Pete paid for the crooked app?

Seems unlikely given Buttigieg has consistently polled well in Iowa. If a similar result crops up in New Hampshire that'll not be a surprise either, but unless the polling shows a big shift (and it might if Buttigieg can gain name recognition, money and momentum) it'll be a big surprise if Bernie doesn't establish a lead after Super Tuesday given Bernie has very similar views to Warren and isn't a woman.

It may well be Buttigieg is just very popular there, yes, but there is something deeply dodgy about him and his motives in general. I can sort of see why people are jumping to some of these conspiracy theories.

Not convinced Warren actually believes many of the more progressive parts of what she claims either.

Mikey Brown wrote:
It may well be Buttigieg is just very popular there, yes, but there is something deeply dodgy about him and his motives in general. I can sort of see why people are jumping to some of these conspiracy theories.
.

Whilst confessing to not knowing a lot about his career as a mayor or former time in the military what exactly is deeply dodgy about the motives of Buttigieg? And how would such aspirations for power differ from other candidates?

Democrats doing a cracking job of cementing Trump's voters; tearing up the SOTU speech is a hell of a statement, whether a productive one is unclear, could look at it both ways.

Oh god. Don't make me go and dig up sources and then have to fact-check them. That sounds like a massive pain in the arse.

To spin it another way Sanders strikes me as the only one (other than Tom Steyer, weirdly enough) who is totally sincere about his beliefs, with holding office being a necessary evil required to improve people's lives. Buttigieg just seems the farthest from that. I have no idea how anyone verifies this but it seems to be openly acknowledged he set his goal to become president when he was like 13 and will seemingly do a full 180 over literally anything in order to advance that goal. He just seems like a fucking weirdo. No, I don't have a citation for that.

I read a good rundown of Buttigieg a little while ago but I'm struggling to find it. This article touches on some of it but I can't say I have any idea who this author/publication are. https://www.newsweek.com/left-attacks-a ... ry-1477472

His ties to Shadow are at least a bit odd, right? I mean the whole game is filthy but he just seems particularly awful.

Banquo wrote:Democrats doing a cracking job of cementing Trump's voters; tearing up the SOTU speech is a hell of a statement, whether a productive one is unclear, could look at it both ways.

She's just loves posturing doesn't she.

Mikey Brown wrote:Oh god. Don't make me go and dig up sources and then have to fact-check them. That sounds like a massive pain in the arse.

So Sanders good, all else bad?

I don't mind Bernie other than for me he's too old. Around 64 seems a cutoff to me for someone entering the race, and that if they're only seeking one term, else 60 is the cutoff. Even then they'd be 70 leaving office, and Bernie is already one heart attack into his death

It would be great if he was younger, yeah, but he seems like the only credible candidate even so. Most of the others are dead on the inside already anyway.

Warren is/was the next best, but not even much younger. Despite the Native American nonsense I thought she was a reasonably genuine character until she fell apart on health insurance and her daughter’s investment in that field etc. Her stunt with Bernie the sexist was a pretty clumsy bit of opportunism that I don’t think paid off.

Well it's a view. Why you think Bernie so much better than all the rest I don't know, certainly not to the extent the others are dead on the inside.

If I had to pick one it would be Buttigieg, but I'd take any of them over Trump, even the addle minded Biden