Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 352: Cool Aid, Man

(+) Yeah! (+)

We've been over this before.

He knows this.

He's trolling.

Stop engaging.

Dear god, please.

---

Corrik7 posted...

"All police should have body cams and monitored by a third party at all times"

"Defund the police" so they can't afford to do it.

Makes sense.

Yes.

It absolutely makes sense.

Take some of the money going to a police department.

Give that money to someone else. In this case, the someone else would be a city government position that is established to oversee body cam footage.

So that's money FROM "police" going TO "not police" in a way that will foster a more responsible use of lethal force by police.

These are dots that a kindergartner could connect.

---

There's a reason I didn't actually try and start a conversation. There's nothing you can do about Corrik. He's willingly reached the limit of what he's willing to understand in his life, and he's stopped advancing as a person. Just don't engage, I'm not going to anymore.

Moving subjects, Republican voter suppression is NOT slowing things down in GA. People are going to vote no matter how much of it they have to fight back against.

https://twitter.com/PriscillaWT/status/1344623101036912643?s=19

Yeah my lol was really just the shortened version of acknowledging the hundreds of posts that have happened in the past for this discussion, and skipping right to the "we disagree let's move on" part

---

And just as an aside, Corrik any time you are talking about "defunding the police" I want you to instead take a moment and replace "defund the police" with "reallocate police funding". I think if you were to make that adjustment suddenly the structure of your posts would fall apart with how far you are stretching the phrase.

And yes I know there are people who want police departments to simply stop existing and have absolutely zero funding. I don't care about those people. Don't pretend like those people existing magically invalidates my position which is "reallocate police funding in responsible ways".

---

And they already have flipping body-cams! They don't need money to get body-cams, they have them, and every article says 'mysteriously turned off before the cops do crime'. Make turning off the body cam worthy of an investigation, don't throw more money at them, they have the equipment they are just corruptly using it.

that one actually does follow for defunding. if it's a third party then it's not the police force. the general idea basically is that internal investigations should be done by not-police, meaning that the current internal ones wouldn't be expenses a police force needs - the money is going to a different division. now... yes if you want to get into the politics of that it gets murkier (the two will eventually become close knit) but it's still a different division and separated. on this particular aspect, it works.

and yes, there are cases where funding cuts directly affected cameras, that's the Blake situation. ideally some of that funding could be better distributed so that accountability measures and training aren't cut, yet those two are first to go. there's plenty of objections to be had when it comes to the latter - more training costs more money - but on this particular thread, it tracks. internal investigations are always bullshit, regardless of where it's from.

---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

And they already have flipping body-cams! They don't need money to get body-cams, they have them, and every article says 'mysteriously turned off before the cops do crime'. Make turning off the body cam worthy of an investigation, don't throw more money at them, they have the equipment they are just corruptly using it.

Fire cops who turn off their body cams and make body cam footage subject to public records requests tbqh


---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

And just as an aside, Corrik any time you are talking about "defunding the police" I want you to instead take a moment and replace "defund the police" with "reallocate police funding". I think if you were to make that adjustment suddenly the structure of your posts would fall apart with how far you are stretching the phrase.

And yes I know there are people who want police departments to simply stop existing and have absolutely zero funding. I don't care about those people. Don't pretend like those people existing magically invalidates my position which is "reallocate police funding in responsible ways".

We showed you that almost all of funding goes to wages, as is. Every time protests and riots happen, even more goes to overtime wages. You need more money to the police to get them all with body cams, have the proper support to keep them in working condition, and ability to ensure accountability with compliance.

And, yes, when you say it you might mean "reallocate" etc. The problem is that people do not mean that when they say it, so maybe you should stop saying Defund police and just say what you actually want.

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Fire cops who turn off their body cams and make body cam footage subject to public records requests tbqh

Negative. Not strong enough. Make it a literal crime to turn it off.

---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

And they already have flipping body-cams! They don't need money to get body-cams, they have them, and every article says 'mysteriously turned off before the cops do crime'. Make turning off the body cam worthy of an investigation, don't throw more money at them, they have the equipment they are just corruptly using it.

No they don't. If you think every precinct has body cams for every officer, or every precinct even has them at all then you live somewhere not in America.

---

Infuriating.

41 Dems voted for Mitch McConnells motion to overrule Bernies plan to force a vote on the $2000 checks.

https://www.dailyposter.com/p/senate-democrats-motion-to-concede

---

Absolutely fucking pathetic.

TheRock1525 posted...

"Give us more money so we'll stop shooting you."

Spend more money to surveil to uncover crime or deter crime from happening.

Basically the use of security systems everywhere 101.

---

MichelBollinger posted...

Absolutely fucking pathetic.

In fact, more Democrats voted to proceed than Republicans.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00290

Incredible.

---

Thank God today is the last day of early voting, because that would have wrecked the pot.

Unbelievable how worthless the Conservative Dems are.

Woops, looks like narrative of hero cops in Nashville is about to get flipped. Who saw that coming?? *shocked Pikachu face*

https://twitter.com/perdricof/status/1344290951670493190?s=19

MichelBollinger posted...

Woops, looks like narrative of hero cops in Nashville is about to get flipped. Who saw that coming?? *shocked Pikachu face*

https://twitter.com/perdricof/status/1344290951670493190?s=19

Unbelievable.

If only someone had gotten mad at him over a video game and made an anonymous tip, maybe they would've taken that seriously.

---

AbsoluteUnit posted...

Infuriating.

41 Dems voted for Mitch McConnells motion to overrule Bernies plan to force a vote on the $2000 checks.

https://www.dailyposter.com/p/senate-democrats-motion-to-concede

i feel like i need an explanation from dems on this one.

in the internet age i feel like there should be at least like, one PR manager that posts daily updates on twitter or something

---

banananor posted...

i feel like i need an explanation from dems on this one.

The votes don't exist to to pass $2000 checks.

McConnell would be willing to watch the world burn before caving and bringing this up for a vote.

It was a good plan in theory but McConnell still held enough cards that all it might accomplish is blocking a bill everyone still wanted.

Hawley is fundraising off of his anti-democratic stunt:

https://twitter.com/politicoalex/status/1344729223500541952?s=21

---

But why would they put themselves into a position where they can be blamed

Corrik7 posted...

Negative. Not strong enough. Make it a literal crime to turn it off.

Make it a crime first then they can talk about more funding

The only leverage they had was Trump's veto. Once he signed the bill, the $2,000 checks were not going to happen.

---

The ultimate indictment of Trump's presidency is ordering a plane that only exists in a Call of Duty game.

---

PerfectChaosZ posted...

Make it a crime first then they can talk about more funding

Can't make it a crime if you don't give them the funding to not have an excuse not to have them.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Can't make it a crime if you don't give them the funding to not have an excuse not to have them.

Pretty sure you can

I dont own a gun, yet its a crime for me to shoot someone with a gun. Strange
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I dont own a gun, yet its a crime for me to shoot someone with a gun. Strange

So you can avoid that by simply just not having a gun right?

So, the police just don't get body cams and have the perfect cover of not having the funds for them.

---

How many offices dont already have body cams?

The story is usually they were turned off not they dont have them.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

How many offices dont already have body cams?

The story is usually they were turned off not they dont have them.

A lot of them outside of major cities.

---

Ok so we can still start with making it illegal to turn them off IF your department has them

Of course the flaw here is that its already illegal to do the sorts of stuff the worst cops do and they dont care
---

Corrik7 posted...

So, the police just don't get body cams and have the perfect cover of not having the funds for them.

Is this an admission that police departments are looking for excuses not to be accountable?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Of course the flaw here is that its already illegal to do the sorts of stuff the worst cops do and they dont care

Reminder that suppression via choking was banned in the Minneapolis police department before Floyd.

Jakyl25 posted...

Is this an admission that police departments are looking for excuses not to be accountable?

I am sure everyone doesn't want to be accountable. Probably why you are against your phone being surveilled and cameras in your home and in every nook and cranny.

---

What the fuck even is that post?

Why do you people bother?

I'm pretty sure Google knows where I am at every moment of every day.

So it's confirmed that the pharmacist that intentionally ruined those vaccines did so with the intention of people getting them and thinking they had been vaccinated/not knowing they had spoiled, and 57 people in fact did.

What a fucking asshole

---

Jail time.

Do they know what their motive was?

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Ok so we can still start with making it illegal to turn them off IF your department has them

Of course the flaw here is that its already illegal to do the sorts of stuff the worst cops do and they dont care

the other flaw is bathroom breaks or privacy concerns for people who aren't the cop. if the camera were to be always on somehow, ignoring battery and storage limitations for a sec, then it'd mean that every single cop has video and audio of every area they've been to with all the people in it recorded. sensitive data could potentially be recorded, including that of lawyers or other law enforcement.

basically you've gotta establish a rule for when they should be on, then you can get into issues of them being off. some of these can be done with tech advancements, something like the camera auto-on when weapons or handcuffs are taken off the belt.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Jail time.

Do they know what their motive was?

Not that I've found, yet.

---

Daily reminder that this country as a whole does not deserve Bernie, not that Bernie didn't do a good job campaigning.

---

Bernie tried something twice that has long proven to never work: Get the youth to vote.

Not the best campaign strategy.

---

Yeah, I said it back when this idea first came up but I didn't think there existed the Dem votes to filibuster (this wasn't actually a filibuster but you get the point) a motion to proceed to the NDAA veto override.

That said, the problem here isn't that Dems don't want $2k checks. They do. The House passed it, the votes clearly exist in the Senate Dem caucus. The problem is that McConnell is singularly preventing it from coming up for a vote despite the fact that 51 votes almost surely exist for it. That's not a problem that stalling the veto override solves. The idea that McConnell wouldn't just let the world burn and would let a vote happen is just naive IMO. There's not a good solution here because the actual solution is "Make it so McConnell isn't the majority leader" which can only be accomplished in Georgia now.

Past that, all you can really do is hammer in that this is being held up by one man who refuses to let them vote on it. And Dems are actually doing that.

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1344696075161120769

Schumer straight up offering McConnell a deal that if they take up the House's CASH Act he'll support a vote on Section 230, a voter fraud commission, and "whatever right-wing conspiracy you'd like." to call the bluff.

~~~

Meanwhile, the House GOP expects at least 140 of its members to object and vote against the Electoral College results. But it's not a coup, right?

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1344749990703411205

---

xp1337 posted...

Schumer straight up offering McConnell a deal that if they take up the House's CASH Act he'll support a vote on Section 230, a voter fraud commission, and "whatever right-wing conspiracy you'd like." to call the bluff.

Schumer also straight up voted for the motion that circumvented Bernies plan.

Schumer knows McConnell would never take this deal because the Republicans themselves would never uphold their end of this deal if the tables are turned.

One again, Democratic leadership doesnt know how to play hardball and expects the Republican Party to actually make deals.

Such a fucking joke.

xp1337 posted...

Meanwhile, the House GOP expects at least 140 of its members to object and vote against the Electoral College results. But it's not a coup, right?

These are literally the people Chuck Schumer (and Joe Biden) thinks they can cut a deal with.


---

AbsoluteUnit posted...

Schumer also straight up voted for the motion that circumvented Bernies plan.

Schumer knows McConnell would never take this deal because the Republicans themselves would never uphold their end of this deal if the tables are turned.

One again, Democratic leadership doesnt know how to play hardball and expects the Republican Party to actually make deals.

Such a fucking joke.

You seem to think McConnell would bring either deal to vote. He'd just hold them in front and say "The Democrats wont vote for this".

He would literally just let the world burn.

---

lmao what was sanders's plan's endgame?

Let's say Dems filibuster a motion to proceed on the NDAA override? Is McConnell going to have some realization moment where he goes "oh, lord, i was wrong to stand in the way of the cash act. now in repentance i shall bring it up for a clean up-or-down vote" and keep in mind that he has to come to this realization by Saturday because once we pass noon January 3rd, the bill expires because this Congress ends and all its legislation with it.

---