Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Trump presidency

Postby pogrmman » Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:46 pm UTC



At first, after hearing this, I didn't have much of an opinion on it. That's because I wasn't all that familiar with Arpaio.

Now that I've read up on him, I'm disgusted that this guy was able to remain sheriff so long and was able to get a pardon. Absolutely everything about the guy seems pretty terrible.

Unfortunately, this move will probably serve to further energize the hardcore Trump base.

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T402550 4830720 (NAD 83)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ivnja » Sat Aug 26, 2017 6:45 pm UTC

pogrmman wrote:


At first, after hearing this, I didn't have much of an opinion on it. That's because I wasn't all that familiar with Arpaio.

Now that I've read up on him, I'm disgusted that this guy was able to remain sheriff so long and was able to get a pardon. Absolutely everything about the guy seems pretty terrible.

Unfortunately, this move will probably serve to further energize the hardcore Trump base.

Yeah, it says to me that if there's any political calculus involved in this (rather than him just doing what he wants, fuck the consequences), it's that he's banking hard on the hope that keeping the anti-immigrant* bloc firmly behind him will be enough to offset the bleeding off of any current supporters who would feel like this is a bridge too far, so to speak. He's probably not wrong about that, either. The folks who are appalled by this are already appalled by Trump - it's not like he can get less popular with them - and I think a lot of people who don't necessarily agree with the pardon can still rationalize it away as Trump showing mercy in keeping an 85 year old man out of prison. Or as Arpaio tweeted, "Thank you @realdonaldtrump for seeing my conviction for what it is: a political witch hunt by holdovers in the Obama justice department!"

As the WaPo article points out, though, this is not going to help the relationship between Trump and the judiciary.


* Arpaio supporters may try to say he's just anti-illegal-immigrant, but even in the most sympathetic light he was still directing his department to violate the rights of anyone who they suspected might be undocumented...and look at that, they end up harassing legal immigrants and US-born Hispanics. Supporting legal immigrants (not making platitudes toward the process of legal immigration, but welcoming and respecting the actual people who legally come across the southern border) and condoning the "immigration enforcement" actions of Joe Arpaio (never mind the way he ran his prison system) are not particularly compatible.
Hi you.
She(?!)

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Sat Aug 26, 2017 6:57 pm UTC

ivnja wrote:As the WaPo article points out, though, this is not going to help the relationship between Drumpf and the judiciary.

That's the real disturbing part of it, that this was a guy who was sworn to uphold the constitution and violated it. It wasn't some random, obscure law he was breaking. He hadn't even applied for a pardon. He hadn't even been sentenced!
kalira wrote:But your own butt is always in the past, because it's behind you.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Trump presidency

Postby pogrmman » Sat Aug 26, 2017 10:38 pm UTC

ivnja wrote: it's that he's banking hard on the hope that keeping the anti-immigrant* bloc firmly behind him will be enough to offset the bleeding off of any current supporters who would feel like this is a bridge too far, so to speak.

While I hope some of the other despicable shit Arpaio has done (like inhumane prison conditions, closing investigations before they've really started, faking an assasination attempt against him, and being generally an asshole) would turn off some of the anti-immigrant support, I have a strong feeling that it won't. You're certainly right that this pardon won't change the opinions of many of the strong Trump supporters. While illegal immigration is a problem to some extent*, going at it like Arpaio does is entirely the wrong thing to do.

Liri wrote:
ivnja wrote:As the WaPo article points out, though, this is not going to help the relationship between Drumpf and the judiciary.

That's the real disturbing part of it, that this was a guy who was sworn to uphold the constitution and violated it. It wasn't some random, obscure law he was breaking. He hadn't even applied for a pardon. He hadn't even been sentenced!

This really disturbs me too. I mean, Arpaio was ordered by a court to not continue stopping Hispanics and asking for ID, and he blatantly ignored them! He has no respect for the law. Pardoning him makes no sense. I do kind of hope that it sours relations between the judiciary and Trump.

*My views on illegal immigration are somewhat... complicated. They're here illegally, and that really sucks for the people who wait for ages to immigrate through the proper channels. But, we shouldn't treat undocumented immigrants so harshly. They're here -- and they want to stay. Making them live in fear of being deported isn't the right thing to do. Nor is giving them immediate citizenship when they arrive. That just will exacerbate the problem because people will avoid the legal immigration techniques. While I don't want there to be an underclass of noncitizens, there must be some sort of middle ground between deporting everybody uncodumented and immediately giving them citizenship. Maybe something like giving them a special kind of visa that allows them to stay here and apply for citizenship through official channels while restricting certain other things would work. I'm not all that sure.

Frankly, what I'm most concerned about with illegal immigration is how they are taken advantage of by drug cartels on one side of the border and unscrupulous employers on the other side of the border. The kind of treatment that they get crossing the border is inhumane (just look at the frequent finds of immigrants packed into trucks in sweltering heat). I'm really not sure the best way to address the problem is without being unfair to those who immigrate legally and without being too harsh to those who didn't immigrate legally.

It's a really tough issue -- I'm perfectly fine (and even happy) that immigrants come to the US to try and improve the lives of themselves and their families. I'm also worried about the rights of the immigrants that come here. While not all employers who hire illegal immigrants treat them poorly, there are those that do exploit undocumented workers. Additionally, I don't want people to discriminate against all immigrants just because some aren't here legally. Having those who are here illegally take the jobs of those who immigrated legally also seems unfair to me.

What I am sure of is that searching out undocumented immigrants to deport is certainly the wrong way of going about things. Mostly due to the rights that I believe every person deserves, and partly because of the economic ramifications (I'm 100% certain that if we deported all the undocumented people living here right now, the cost of food and construction would go up pretty significantly -- and probably other things too).

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Sat Aug 26, 2017 10:48 pm UTC

We rely on illegal immigration for much of our food. There's no way around that fact. It is indeed a complex issue.

Re: judiciary. It's by far the most legitimately authoritarian strand of Trump-ness. Years of attacks on the "activist" supreme court (with 5 conservative justices!) by republicans in general just set the stage.
kalira wrote:But your own butt is always in the past, because it's behind you.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Trump presidency

Postby pogrmman » Sun Aug 27, 2017 4:02 am UTC

Liri wrote:We rely on illegal immigration for much of our food. There's no way around that fact. It is indeed a complex issue.

And, at least in Texas (where I'm from), there's additionally construction, landscaping, and most other outdoor, manual labor. Basically everything that not many people want to do.

Liri wrote:Re: judiciary. It's by far the most legitimately authoritarian strand of Trump-ness. Years of attacks on the "activist" supreme court (with 5 conservative justices!) by republicans in general just set the stage.


I'm not looking forward to the new Supreme Court that we'll have. I think it's rediculous that they called the old one "activist". Not confirming Garland made the Republicans look like a bunch of asshats IMO. It ended up being a worthy gamble for them, but it soured my regard for them even more.

I hope Trump doesn't get to fill another vacancy (however unlikely that may be).

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5727
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sun Aug 27, 2017 4:19 am UTC

pogrmman wrote:
Liri wrote:We rely on illegal immigration for much of our food. There's no way around that fact. It is indeed a complex issue.

And, at least in Texas (where I'm from), there's additionally construction, landscaping, and most other outdoor, manual labor. Basically everything that not many people want to do.
Liri wrote:Re: judiciary. It's by far the most legitimately authoritarian strand of Trump-ness. Years of attacks on the "activist" supreme court (with 5 conservative justices!) by republicans in general just set the stage.

I'm not looking forward to the new Supreme Court that we'll have. I think it's rediculous that they called the old one "activist". Not confirming Garland made the Republicans look like a bunch of asshats IMO. It ended up being a worthy gamble for them, but it soured my regard for them even more.
I hope Trump doesn't get to fill another vacancy (however unlikely that may be).

Trump's biggest legacy for the republicans may actually be in the judiciary. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/t ... ith-little
The way the appeals courts work is you randomly select judges. As the mix of judges gets increasingly conservative, so goes the decisions. And remember, the SCOTUS doesn't hear a lot of cases, so really the appeals court is the final say for most of America. It's gonna take decades just to get the US back to normal(undoing the damage Trump did).

idonno
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:26 am UTC

sardia wrote:Trump's biggest legacy for the republicans may actually be in the judiciary. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/t ... ith-little
The way the appeals courts work is you randomly select judges. As the mix of judges gets increasingly conservative, so goes the decisions. And remember, the SCOTUS doesn't hear a lot of cases, so really the appeals court is the final say for most of America. It's gonna take decades just to get the US back to normal(undoing the damage Trump did).
At least at this point that sounds like an overreaction. There are currently 19 vacancies and Obama filled 55 during his two terms. I couldn't easily find a list of all the judges and their ages so maybe there is a wave of expected vacancies or maybe there are more vacancies from formerly liberal judges but, based on what I can find, I see no evidence of some major abnormal shift in judicial power. This is especially the case if the Dems do well at midterm elections.
FYI W filled 62 and Clinton filled 66.
Also, the fact that most cases don't make it to the supreme court isn't necessarily that important. It is very likely that most cases that don't make it to the supreme court would have a 9-0 ruling in the supreme court (seriously even with the cases they think are worth hearing the most common result is 9-0). As long as the Supreme court is in general a 5-4 split between parties, both sides judges have the ability to bring cases in that they think are important enough (you need four judges to hear a case). A liberal Supreme court seat opening could cause significant problems though with a 6-3 split and if all the judges over 75 were to be replaced, that could easily give the Rs over a decade of 6 Supreme Court Justices.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5727
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:44 am UTC

idonno wrote:
sardia wrote:.
At least at this point that sounds like an overreaction. There are currently 19 vacancies and Obama filled 55 during his two terms. I couldn't easily find a list of all the judges and their ages so maybe there is a wave of expected vacancies or maybe there are more vacancies from formerly liberal judges but, based on what I can find, I see no evidence of some major abnormal shift in judicial power. This is especially the case if the Dems do well at midterm elections.
FYI W filled 62 and Clinton filled 66.
Also, the fact that most cases don't make it to the supreme court isn't necessarily that important. It is very likely that most cases that don't make it to the supreme court would have a 9-0 ruling in the supreme court (seriously even with the cases they think are worth hearing the most common result is 9-0). As long as the Supreme court is in general a 5-4 split between parties, both sides judges have the ability to bring cases in that they think are important enough (you need four judges to hear a case). A liberal Supreme court seat opening could cause significant problems though with a 6-3 split and if all the judges over 75 were to be replaced, that could easily give the Rs over a decade of 6 Supreme Court Justices.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tru ... 5e50256f0c
The impact is predicted based on demographics, and current openings from Obama's tenure. There's a big age bump that's been building and it's gotten worse with Obama being slow to nominate early in his tenure, and the GOP stalling later in his tenure. There's a NYtimes article early about it, but Huffpo will do for now. It's going to be huge, and Democrats will need huge majorities across all parts of state and federal government just to legislatively counter it.

iamspen
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby iamspen » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:59 pm UTC

Trump and Sessions to end Obama-era ban on sending surplus military equipment to police departments

I'm getting pretty sick of the notion that the job of the police is to protect themselves as best as possible, rather than to protect us as best as possible. This is just another example of Trump nixing everything Obama accomplished, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea. And let's not pretend killing the accomplishments of the black President isn't another wholesale endorsement of the white nationalist movement.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5727
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:16 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:Trump and Sessions to end Obama-era ban on sending surplus military equipment to police departments

I'm getting pretty sick of the notion that the job of the police is to protect themselves as best as possible, rather than to protect us as best as possible. This is just another example of Trump nixing everything Obama accomplished, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea. And let's not pretend killing the accomplishments of the black President isn't another wholesale endorsement of the white nationalist movement.

We sorta could. Trump doesn't like anyone more famous than him. Trump is really lucky that Sessions is one of the more competent evil henchmen. It wasn't until recently that Trump's nationalist white identity politics became clear. Nobody is sure why Trump went this route. Maybe it's the first part of his campaign that caught fire and Trump can't get any other part of the GOP base to respond.
What upsets me more is that the Democrats didn't fight Sessions nomination. Maybe the DNC was trying to get victories instead of protests but it bodes well for Democrats going forward.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:47 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:Trump and Sessions to end Obama-era ban on sending surplus military equipment to police departments

I'm getting pretty sick of the notion that the job of the police is to protect themselves as best as possible, rather than to protect us as best as possible. This is just another example of Trump nixing everything Obama accomplished, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea. And let's not pretend killing the accomplishments of the black President isn't another wholesale endorsement of the white nationalist movement.

You know, honestly, I'm sick of that notion, too, but there is an underlying truth to the notion. In the past few years, unprovoked violence on police officers has skyrocketed, and if I were one of them, I'd want all the protection I could get.

The idea that the police are somehow supposed to be the enemy is ridiculous. I'm not saying every officer is to be respected and praised - and hell, obviously a lot of them should be in prison - but the bad ones are in no way indicative of the profession as a whole. The vast majority of those men and women put themselves in danger every single day because they want to help and protect the rest of us. That's the same motivation shared by the majority of our military as well. Soldiers, police officers, and firefighters as a whole should be respected and honored for what they do. Let the bad individuals show themselves for what they are (or better yet, be identified and filtered out before they're even given the uniform) before we take back the respect we owe the rest of them.

ETA: That may have come across as an attack on your comment, and if so, I apologize. I completely agree that the job of the police is to protect us the best they can.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:54 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
iamspen wrote:Trump and Sessions to end Obama-era ban on sending surplus military equipment to police departments

I'm getting pretty sick of the notion that the job of the police is to protect themselves as best as possible, rather than to protect us as best as possible. This is just another example of Trump nixing everything Obama accomplished, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea. And let's not pretend killing the accomplishments of the black President isn't another wholesale endorsement of the white nationalist movement.

You know, honestly, I'm sick of that notion, too, but there is an underlying truth to the notion. In the past few years, unprovoked violence on police officers has skyrocketed, and if I were one of them, I'd want all the protection I could get.

The idea that the police are somehow supposed to be the enemy is ridiculous. I'm not saying every officer is to be respected and praised - and hell, obviously a lot of them should be in prison - but the bad ones are in no way indicative of the profession as a whole. The vast majority of those men and women put themselves in danger every single day because they want to help and protect the rest of us. That's the same motivation shared by the majority of our military as well. Soldiers, police officers, and firefighters as a whole should be respected and honored for what they do. Let the bad individuals show themselves for what they are (or better yet, be identified and filtered out before they're even given the uniform) before we take back the respect we owe the rest of them.


I agree that this forum has some nasty anti-police sentiment, but the surplus military equipment program was ended because it was expensive, ineffective, and bad publicity.

For example: Tanks with metal treads would tear up roads. They're designed to withstand (smaller) landmines and IEDs of Iraq, not designed to move about on American roads and streets. They're a hugely ineffective. Standard police officers will never get a Tank to ride around in day-to-day. And frankly, that's the problem that modern Police are facing. The everyday threat of some pissed off jackass turning a gun on the cop that's sitting on a street corner.

The publicity battle is incredibly important to protect Police Officers, and Obama's ending of that program was incredibly important for bridging the Trust between community and Police.

The trust problem will never be solved by giving a bunch of free tanks to Police officers. And fuck, those tanks won't protect Police officers either, since the day-to-day officer will never sit in one.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

idonno
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:56 pm UTC

sardia wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tru ... 5e50256f0c
The impact is predicted based on demographics, and current openings from Obama's tenure. There's a big age bump that's been building and it's gotten worse with Obama being slow to nominate early in his tenure, and the GOP stalling later in his tenure. There's a NYtimes article early about it, but Huffpo will do for now. It's going to be huge, and Democrats will need huge majorities across all parts of state and federal government just to legislatively counter it.

This doesn't verify your initial claim. Most of those are district court vacancies not US Court of Appeals vacancies. There is a layer of appeals between those positions and the supreme court.

This really illustrates one of the things that drives me crazy with news agencies. It is very hard to tell what is really expected with the US Court of Appeals based on that report because it is clearly mixing openings at more than one level. I did find https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_vacanc ... first_term which actually has some data about judges eligible for senior status. I haven't had time to review it in detail but there are 7R and 10D that qualify in Trump's first term so it still doesn't look like this warrants a fear that a wave of conservative judges is going to upset the balance in the US Court of Appeals.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7423
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:00 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:In the past few years, unprovoked violence on police officers has skyrocketed, and if I were one of them, I'd want all the protection I could get.

Has it? It's only in an increase because there was a sharp decrease a few years ago. As a trend, it's definitely declining. Even though in 2016 there was an increase of felonious deaths against law enforcement officials, it is still lower than what it has been before 2010.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:02 pm UTC

Even if SWAT/regular PD does get an armoured vehicle, you just know that the guys in Nakatomi Plaza will have a rocket launcher at hand to shoot at it…

morriswalters
Posts: 6869
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

null

Postby morriswalters » Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:18 pm UTC

You do know in America them there things are legal for private citizens. The public is better armed than the average cop. Ever more dollars allocated to hardware and not personnel. You know people collect tanks right?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5388
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:27 pm UTC

The concern is not with tanks as collectors items, it's with police purchasing military equipment for usage against civilians.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: null

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:42 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:You do know in America them there things are legal for private citizens. The public is better armed than the average cop. Ever more dollars allocated to hardware and not personnel. You know people collect tanks right?


We don't expect the Police to regularly use Tanks to conduct their day-to-day activities.

On the other hand: selling military grade weapons and equipment to say... the Texas National Guard makes perfect sense. Every state has a trained military unit that everybody would reasonably expect to get military equipment.

The #1 job of cops is to show up to a location and then possibly yell at people till people calm down (and/or threatening them with tickets). They don't need tanks to conduct those sorts of operations. If the cops showed up in your driveway with a Tank to tell you to "Quiet down: your neighbors filled an official noise complaint", you'd probably be pissed at the Tank Treads destroying your driveway.

But that's the sort of job that the day to day Policeman deals with. No one expects them to deal with an armed insurgency: we've got the National Guard for that.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 6869
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

null

Postby morriswalters » Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:14 pm UTC

Draw any distinction that suits you. Those tanks are the least of your worries. Slowly they are moving to finance cops by confiscation, as well as the courts. Pretty soon we will be back to rough justice on the corners with gratuities. With Sessions at Justice he can do anything he likes and have cover. That jackass out west who got a pardon before the sentencing is indicative of what is what and who is who. Clinton at least waited until the last days of his term for doing things like that.

cphite
Posts: 1128
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: null

Postby cphite » Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:49 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
morriswalters wrote:You do know in America them there things are legal for private citizens. The public is better armed than the average cop. Ever more dollars allocated to hardware and not personnel. You know people collect tanks right?


We don't expect the Police to regularly use Tanks to conduct their day-to-day activities.


Armored vehicles are useful for riots not so much because police are expecting to be fired upon, but because armored vehicles are much more difficult to damage with things like thrown rocks, bottles, and the like. Again, they're not being used as military vehicles. It's more just not wanting to replace windows and other easily damaged things you'd find on a squad car. Most police forces that own actual tanks use them for rescue operations. The treads are awesome for dealing with snow, for example. They're also useful for riots because there are no tires to flatten. You'll note that the cannons and machine guns have been removed.

On the other hand: selling military grade weapons and equipment to say... the Texas National Guard makes perfect sense. Every state has a trained military unit that everybody would reasonably expect to get military equipment.


Much of the time when the national guard is deployed they're performing largely the same role as police; the key concern should be what they do with what they have.

The #1 job of cops is to show up to a location and then possibly yell at people till people calm down (and/or threatening them with tickets).


What they've found over the years is that there are a lot of situations where simply showing up and yelling isn't enough. For example, during riots it does almost nothing. Or when busting a meth operation, you'd be surprised at how few of those folks respond positively to just showing up and yelling.

Granted... there are examples of departments getting carried away with the weaponry, gear, and vehicles when they deploy; but there are still some perfectly valid reasons for a police department to want armored vehicles and better weapons.

They don't need tanks to conduct those sorts of operations. If the cops showed up in your driveway with a Tank to tell you to "Quiet down: your neighbors filled an official noise complaint", you'd probably be pissed at the Tank Treads destroying your driveway.


The neighbors would also be pissed because tanks are really loud.

But that's the sort of job that the day to day Policeman deals with. No one expects them to deal with an armed insurgency: we've got the National Guard for that.


Assuming for the sake of argument there was some sort of armed insurgency, police would bear the brunt of it. And as a citizen, you want that. For a couple of reasons. One, the police are already there; you're not waiting days for them to deploy. A lot of shit can happen in a few hours, let alone days. And two; the police are far more likely to respect civil rights. I know a lot of folks 'round these parts might find that statement hard to swallow, but the reality is that if the National Guard were called in to quell an armed insurgency, they'll treat it like a military operation.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5727
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:50 am UTC

The problem with giving police military gear is that they turn all problems into military solutions. Got a drug bust? Why bother with community policing when you can toss in smoke grenades and shoot anything still moving. The idea that the police have to be kept safe above everyone else's well-being is shocking.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/po ... ic-crisis/
The relationship between national disasters and president's approval rate isn't clear. It's likely that the approval rate colors the media's response to a presidential natural disaster. So Bush didn't mess up Katrina's response, instead Bush's poor approval rating made his response look worse.

idonno wrote:
sardia wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tru ... 5e50256f0c
The impact is predicted based on demographics, and current openings from Obama's tenure. There's a big age bump that's been building and it's gotten worse with Obama being slow to nominate early in his tenure, and the GOP stalling later in his tenure. There's a NYtimes article early about it, but Huffpo will do for now. It's going to be huge, and Democrats will need huge majorities across all parts of state and federal government just to legislatively counter it.

This doesn't verify your initial claim. Most of those are district court vacancies not US Court of Appeals vacancies. There is a layer of appeals between those positions and the supreme court.

This really illustrates one of the things that drives me crazy with news agencies. It is very hard to tell what is really expected with the US Court of Appeals based on that report because it is clearly mixing openings at more than one level. I did find https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_vacanc ... first_term which actually has some data about judges eligible for senior status. I haven't had time to review it in detail but there are 7R and 10D that qualify in Trump's first term so it still doesn't look like this warrants a fear that a wave of conservative judges is going to upset the balance in the US Court of Appeals.

I found the original nytimes claim.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ml?mcubz=0
Here's a picture of Trump's potential appointees based on predicted openings across 4 years. It's snipped from the article. It shows Trump will probably get around 38% of all federal judiciary positions.
Attachments
FedJudges.JPG

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6829
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:33 am UTC

Zohar wrote:
Yablo wrote:In the past few years, unprovoked violence on police officers has skyrocketed, and if I were one of them, I'd want all the protection I could get.

Has it? It's only in an increase because there was a sharp decrease a few years ago. As a trend, it's definitely declining. Even though in 2016 there was an increase of felonious deaths against law enforcement officials, it is still lower than what it has been before 2010.
Yeah -- among 'most dangerous jobs in the world' (IE, jobs with the highest mortality rates), 'police officer' doesn't even make the top ten list.

While the number one cause of fatalities among law enforcement officers remains getting shot, keep in mind: Not all of these shootings were felonious. They very likely include 1) Friendly fire, 2) Accidental discharges, and even 3) Suicides reported as accidents. To demonstrate this point: Check out the FBI's report on how many officers were killed feloniously in 2013; only 27. Now compare that to the number of officers killed via shootings in 2013: 34. This tells us that at least 7 officers were shot and killed 'non-feloniously' (probably more -- since numerous officers are murdered by means other than a gun).

On top of this, the number of officers killed in vehicular incidents since 2007 -- either being struck by vehicles or crashing while in their own vehicles -- is 520. Compare that to the 537 shooting deaths (a significant number of which, again, aren't even felonious).

Does Trump actually care about the lives of police officers? If so, he should stop giving them tanks and start giving them classes on traffic safety.

EDIT: Though to be fair, tanks are pretty safe for the people driving them.

commodorejohn
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby commodorejohn » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:57 am UTC

sardia wrote:Here's a picture of Trump's potential appointees based on predicted openings across 4 years. It's snipped from the article. It shows Trump will probably get around 38% of all federal judiciary positions.

That is, of course, assuming that he can be assed to fill them.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2307
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Aug 29, 2017 11:12 am UTC

(If nobody has yet done the obvious Photoshopping of this image or similar, BTW, I am disappoint!)

((I'd do it myself (five simple suitable head/head-and-shoulders/full-body replacements from suitable stock, and a bit of satirical wordplay while rearranging the letters1), but I'm nowhere near my desktop with the GIMP on it.))



1 Obviously:
Spoiler:
If I can't find a TTFont like it: "D" from a stretch of the top of the "STEWART", or upscale from lesser sizes; "O" from a flip of the right to match the small-scale versions of the letter(or another upscale); "N" as a spliced and distorted "M" to match the different slope angle; "A" is already there; "L" uses a flip of the "J" but with a flip of the lower terminal serif of the "S" and some easy straightness to link them; "D" is already done; "T" is already available; so is "R"; "U" looks like I'd best use the "J" again, removing the underswing; "M" is there; "P" is the "R" with the tail edited away... I could have done it by now. The biggest issue would be deciding what I should (and could!) change bits like "The wonderful Pulitzer Prize Play […]" to (that bit probably "HISTORIC rainfall in Houston, and all over Texas.", or otherwise from the tweets), wishing I had just found the font, but using the time to decide upon the proper word-play.
And, yes, I see the irony after complaining about Pixel Perfectness in web-pages (and then getting genuine support for my opinions), even if it's not actually the same. :P

morriswalters
Posts: 6869
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

null

Postby morriswalters » Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:37 pm UTC

@Hippo
You are using a category mismatch. The correct subsets for comparison of officers killed in traffic accidents, are people who have to be in cars for a living. This will tell you how the police drive as compared to other drivers who drive as part of their jobs. When you look at fatalities in other industries you need to understand none of those death rates are due to murder. They are analogues to officers killed in cars. And as such have nothing to do with being murdered.

If you want to make an apples to apples comparison, compare the number of people murdered while at work, doing whatever it is that they do. And then pro rate them by the number of people doing that job. That number may support your position but you haven't cited it.
sardia wrote:The problem with giving police military gear is that they turn all problems into military solutions. Got a drug bust? Why bother with community policing when you can toss in smoke grenades and shoot anything still moving. The idea that the police have to be kept safe above everyone else's well-being is shocking.
The fact that you think this is true is scary. I have never been stopped for a ticket by a cop in a tank. I find that idea amusing. I've seen many cops, but I haven't seen many cops with tanks. Please do better. If you are saying they use tanks when tanks don't need to be used, I agree. I suspect we would differ on exactly when that happens though.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5388
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:47 pm UTC

I believe that was a reference to Waco.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5627
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: null

Postby Angua » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:42 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:@Hippo
You are using a category mismatch. The correct subsets for comparison of officers killed in traffic accidents, are people who have to be in cars for a living. This will tell you how the police drive as compared to other drivers who drive as part of their jobs. When you look at fatalities in other industries you need to understand none of those death rates are due to murder. They are analogues to officers killed in cars. And as such have nothing to do with being murdered.

If you want to make an apples to apples comparison, compare the number of people murdered while at work, doing whatever it is that they do. And then pro rate them by the number of people doing that job. That number may support your position but you haven't cited it.
sardia wrote:The problem with giving police military gear is that they turn all problems into military solutions. Got a drug bust? Why bother with community policing when you can toss in smoke grenades and shoot anything still moving. The idea that the police have to be kept safe above everyone else's well-being is shocking.
The fact that you think this is true is scary. I have never been stopped for a ticket by a cop in a tank. I find that idea amusing. I've seen many cops, but I haven't seen many cops with tanks. Please do better. If you are saying they use tanks when tanks don't need to be used, I agree. I suspect we would differ on exactly when that happens though.

Is it better to have a job where you die more often by accidents in hazardous working conditions than a small chance of dying by murder? I don't really see why it makes a difference to compare different types of dying while on a job. If one job has a 50% chance of you falling to your death, and the other has a 5% chance of you getting shot, why are you saying that you can't compare the mortality rates? One is clearly more dangerous than the other.
'Look, sir, I know Angua. She's not the useless type. She doesn't stand there and scream helplessly. She makes other people do that.'
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25727
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:43 pm UTC

Taxi drivers and chauffeurs are more likely to die from violence on the job than police (though police are more likely to die in transportation incidents).
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

idonno
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:48 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I found the original nytimes claim.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ml?mcubz=0
Here's a picture of Trump's potential appointees based on predicted openings across 4 years. It's snipped from the article. It shows Trump will probably get around 38% of all federal judiciary positions.

That is a bad graph. Seriously, put some labeled horizontal lines on that thing.
It looks to me like it is about back to pre Obama levels if he fills almost all those seats so it doesn't seem valid to claim that it would take any time " just to get the US back to normal". This is within normal.
This article is still about both district courts and the court of appeals and I still don't see anything that would indicate a drastic shift in the court of appeals.
While the article goes into details about why the district court is so important, the numbers aren't very compelling. I don't care what percent of cases make it to an appeals court because the party of the judge is irrelevant in most cases (seriously, court rulings are by and large not controversial. even after all the filtering process the supreme court's most common ruling is still 9-0). What matters here is what percentage of cases where the party is a strong predictor make it to appeal and statistically what impact the party of the circuit court judge has on the outcome of the appeal. A legal expert can say what they like but professionals are often wrong about what statistically matters. Measure the issue and then there is something to discuss.

The author loses a lot of credibility here
Those cases that do make it to the next level are still often constrained by the proceedings of the district court, where judges make what are called “findings of fact” (as distinguished from “findings of law”). “Some of the most powerful judges in the world are those that initially find facts and make conclusions,” said Judith Resnik, a law professor at Yale and an expert on the federal judiciary. “At the appellate stage, whatever information exists is in the trial record, and that record is made at the lower court level.”

This can have a big impact on the outcome of a case. Studies have shown that lower court judges appointed by Republican presidents are less likely to find constitutional violations in establishment clause cases, abortion rights claims and allegations of racial discrimination.

He starts out discussing how "findings of fact" constrain the appeals court and distinguishes between those and "findings of law" demonstrating that he is aware of the difference. He then goes on to illustrate the issue this causes by looking at statistics involving constitutional rulings which are "findings of law". Either this is deliberately biased, the author was very sloppy, the author doesn't know what he is talking about, or I'm missing something and somehow a constitutional finding is considered a "findings of fact". I'm pretty sure that last one is false since constitutional findings are reversed quite frequently.


morriswalters wrote:When you look at fatalities in other industries you need to understand none of those death rates are due to murder. They are analogues to officers killed in cars. And as such have nothing to do with being murdered.

If you want to make an apples to apples comparison, compare the number of people murdered while at work, doing whatever it is that they do. And then pro rate them by the number of people doing that job.

Is there something that makes being murdered a worse way to die than other industries' ways to die?

Taxi drivers are number one when it comes to the rate of on the job murders at over twice the rate for police and they have a comparable total fatality rate so I want to know when our government is going to start helping them militarize?

speising
Posts: 2034
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Trump presidency

Postby speising » Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:08 pm UTC

btw, it's not murder if it isn't done with malice aforethought. otherwise it's manslaughter. I'd think most police shootings are in the heat of the moment, not premeditated.

morriswalters
Posts: 6869
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

double null

Postby morriswalters » Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:36 pm UTC

idonno wrote:Is there something that makes being murdered a worse way to die than other industries' ways to die?

Taxi drivers are number one when it comes to the rate of on the job murders at over twice the rate for police and they have a comparable total fatality rate so I want to know when our government is going to start helping them militarize?
Would a group of teachers who were murdered in their classrooms while doing there job, be more horrible than a group of teachers who died on a school bus while traveling with students? This question is answered for any profession when you consider events like the Standard Gravure shooting in Louisville, or the Columbine shootings. You are quite right about cab drivers. I worked as one at one point 2 people were murdered the week I started. So that is directly comparable. There are about 233,000 drivers. Say 700,000 sworn officers. Now why are they murdered. Cab drivers are either robbed or are close to violence when it happens or finally because they were murdered for a reason unrelated to their jobs. What makes Uber safer than taxi driving, is Uber limits the cash driver can carry since you pay Uber, not the driver. Cops never get robbed. Some cops do murder other cops.

I want the cops to use appropriate force. That isn't solved by not supplying some types of hardware. The problem is solved by setting some limits on the force they can use and sticking to it. Since there is no national standard for use of force that is applied the same everywhere, you have to solve it at that level. Was this answer responsive?

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:53 pm UTC

speising wrote:btw, it's not murder if it isn't done with malice aforethought. otherwise it's manslaughter. I'd think most police shootings are in the heat of the moment, not premeditated.

Killing someone in the heat of the moment is definitely murder. It's not first degree murder (premeditated), it's second degree. Manslaughter is when you did not intend to kill them and there was reason to believe that your actions would not kill them, whether that's accidental through negligence or just punching someone in the nose leading to death.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

commodorejohn
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby commodorejohn » Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:09 pm UTC

Anyway:

http://bipartisanreport.com/2017/08/28/ ... stigation/
DeSantis’ amendment would stop Mueller from being able to probe farther into “matters occurring before June 2015” which, surprise surprise, was the month the Trump announced his bid for United States president.

"Feel free to investigate anywhere in the house except the basement. There's nothing important in there, trust me. Totally irrelevant. Hey! Stop looking in the damn basement already!"
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5433
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:29 pm UTC

Angua wrote: I don't really see why it makes a difference to compare different types of dying while on a job.
It depends why you are comparing mortality rates. In this case it's to assess the appropriateness of mitigation and compensation for hazards faced by government agents who are paid to use deadly force against fellow citizens. So yeah, it matters. A lot.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

wumpus
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:16 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby wumpus » Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:16 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Angua wrote: I don't really see why it makes a difference to compare different types of dying while on a job.
It depends why you are comparing mortality rates. In this case it's to assess the appropriateness of mitigation and compensation for hazards faced by government agents who are paid to use deadly force against fellow citizens. So yeah, it matters. A lot.

Jose


While this answer really belongs in "cops behaving badly" thread one thing that stands out is the question of the safety of "driving like a cop" vs. all other dangers a cop might face. If general indifference to all traffic laws while having "driving around" a significant part of your job does not greatly increase chance of death on the job then cops are either superhuman drivers (which miraculously happens without extreme training or screening), crown vics are even safer than you could possibly imagine (although I'd still expect a lot of totaled crown vics, the safety can't be from avoiding crashes), or simply highly prejudiced tax collectors (who systematically target the poor and disadvantaged).

Anyone who is remotely familiar with the DOJ report on Ferguson knows that the "targeted tax" is not only there, it is used in far worse ways than you imagined (note that this may be orthogonal to the danger "driving like a cop" may be to the cops themselves along with anyone else on the road).

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5433
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:31 pm UTC

wumpus wrote: If general indifference to all traffic laws while having "driving around" a significant part of your job...
Yeah, if that were true. But are cops "generally indifferent" to all traffic laws? Or does this only come into play when they are chasing after someone, trying to reach the scene of a crime, or looking for a Duncan Donuts? If the latter case, then we need to factor in what percentage of cop-driving is like that. And its relevance to this thread pertains to giving cops the tools of the armed forces, to protect them from the dangers of being a cop. It matters what those dangers are, and whence they arise.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:19 pm UTC

In my experience, the attitude police officers have about general traffic laws vary wildly from city to city. I expect it's a culture within the force thing. In one city I lived in, police officers would never stop for red lights. They would turn on their siren for all of 5 seconds, get through the light, then turn their siren off again. Rampant speeding and failure to stop for pedestrians was also commonplace. "Indifference" is very accurate in that case. Which, to be clear, is not all cases. In other cities police officers behave much better.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:24 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
wumpus wrote: If general indifference to all traffic laws while having "driving around" a significant part of your job...
Yeah, if that were true. But are cops "generally indifferent" to all traffic laws?


There are over 10,000+ police departments in the USA. Not necessarily every city has its own police department... but many cities do. As do counties, states, and finally multiple federal-level police departments. (FBI, DEA, ATF).

Whenever we discuss cops, its important to remember that Cops are extremely unstructured in the USA. What is true for some people is not true for others. Some departments are pieces of racist trash that need to be eradicated. Others are well run: taking part in community-oriented Policing and trying to learn about the communities they serve. There's no official "head of Police" in America. The small-town Sheriff holds an incredible amount of power over his jurisdiction, and basically no one can boss him around aside from maybe the voters every couple of years.

The hard part is that deparments which face financial issues (ie: inner city cops) lose staff to safer, more peaceful areas (ie: the suburbs don't have as much trouble. So many good cops move out there). Depends on the situation of course, but generally speaking, smart cops do not stay in sub-par departments where they're needed most. They instead go out to the suburbs where they are treated better, get better pay, and ultimately have a safer job.

Ex: a wealthy neighborhood or county can afford to choose only college educated cops with Advanced Degrees in criminal law... and may also have additional tests. Background tests, psychological evaluations, etc. etc. On the other hand, cities with financial problems can't afford to be so choosy and just get whoever they can recruit.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Jumble
Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:48 am UTC
Location: London(ish), UK.
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Jumble » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:25 pm UTC

This is all great but I suspect we are missing the point here. A terrifying number of US citizens are fighting for their lives in the face of a freak weather event. The US president refuses to accept the testimony of his own scientists on climate change.

I'm a Middle East conflict specialist, living 60km from the front line, in a city that I know contains those targeted to kill me. I'm a father. Trump is a bigger threat to my children.
Spoiler:
Giant Speck wrote:You're a demon! DEMON!!!!

Oregonaut wrote:CURSE YOU VILLAIN!!
PhoenixEnigma wrote:Jumble is either the best or worst Santa ever, and I can't figure out which. Possibly both.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: orthogon, pogrmman and 22 guests