So you bombard them with statistics, like the charts showing active-duty service members do not support him, and watch them squeal "FAKE NEWS!" The day after the RNC, somebody posted a chart from C-Span showing that the overwhelming majority of C-Span viewers watched the RNC and squealed "THIS PROVES HE'S GOING TO WIN!!!!" I pointed out that the chart only counted C-Span viewers (it said so right on the chart), then posted the Axios chart. Bunch of them spent the rest of the afternoon telling me (ever so politely, of course) how wrong I was.
Funny that the people who cry "fake news" are generally among the most ill-informed folks you'll ever encounter.
Exactly. They share stuff that’s literally made up from whole cloth or exaggerated to the point that it might as well be but then cry and moan about real news being fake.
Trump withdrawing federal funding from cities that his admin determines to be "anarchist jurisdictions".
This is clearly just throwing a bone to his chud base (hi @Paladin!) and will be knocked back by courts, but if it did happen this seems like the type of thing that could lead to civil war. What happens once those areas have federal funding cut off so decide to in turn stop contributing towards the federal government?
Contributions to the federal government come from individual taxpayers, who are not relieved of their obligations under this order. Municipalities don’t really have any recourse other than the court.
Not as hard as getting an entire city to go on a tax strike and hold out long enough to force the government to cave.
An arrest has been made in the Rand Paul incident https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-poli...-for-attacking-officer-near-senator-rand-paul
Not saying you specifically, but I would hope that hearing about a police officer kneeling on someone's neck and killing them would provoke more outrage than hearing about someone punching a cop in the face. Or at least equal outrage. But definitely not less.
There was plenty of outrage when that incident happened. But the world ,as well as the news cycle, doesnt stop turning with George Floyd. There is the aftermath with numerous incidents both good and bad , and people are just as outraged over those things. This really shouldn't have to be explained.
The point is, it's bad when a cop gets punched in the face and requires stitches. But it's worse--by at least an order of magnitude--when cops assault citizens. And there is a significant portion of the American population that doesn't believe that. That's a big problem. Cops should be held to a higher standard. With great power comes great responsibility, etc.
I find it interesting that as soon as one bit of news gets posted, the other side immediately says, "yeah, but that's not as bad as.." which seems to me like an attempt to just dismiss it and block it out. Both incidents are bad and shouldn't happen. Period.
This is a false equivalence. First, there is the point that Useful Idiot made that police as public servants should be held to a higher standard than random rioters. Worse than that, even if one were to think that police officers should only be held to the same standard as rioters, there is ample reason to believe that is untrue. No one can reasonably think that once identified, rioters will not be arrested, tried and convicted for their crimes. There is plenty of evidence to support cynicism that police can literally get away with murder in some cases, and certainly lower levels of excessive force.
Are you saying, you're one of those who think police brutality is ok? Also, I'd rather be hit with a brick than shot in the back 7 times.
I wasn't the one who made the equivalence in the first place No one disagreed with that point in the first place. But what does that have to do with police being assaulted? Again, who was disagreeing with that? And what's the point of bringing that up whenever a police officer gets assaulted?
You seem to think I have a reading comprehension problem. However, I don't seem to be the only one. Have you considered that it might be you that is not speaking correctly? Please clarify this:
And in the front (groin, forehead). Not incredibly surprising. Bodies usually do rotate as they fall.
It would be one thing if people were bringing up police misconduct and then the counter-argument was "actually in this instance the rioters started it." The only reason to bring up unrelated and random cases police being assaulted in the context of what has largely been a discussion about police misconduct is to create a false equivalence. As far as I know, no one here thinks police who get assaulted deserve to get assaulted. (And if anyone does, go kick rocks). As to the equivalence, Useful Idiot was trying to point out that they are NOT equivalent.
And I never said they were. Police brutality might be all of what you and a couple of your buddies want to talk about here, but since I started this thread and both sides HAVE been discussed for the past six months, then its relevant. If you want your own narrow little private one sided thread then start your own.
This seems like a whole lot of disagreement for someone who "never said" that they were equivalent. How about this: I'll ask you straight up: Do you believe that police officers should be held to a higher standard than rioters? Do you believe that police officers who demonstrably commit misconduct have a higher chance of getting away with it than rioters who can be tracked down? When you say things like, "Both incidents are bad and shouldn't happen." are you not trying to equate these types of incidents? (And by these types of incidents, we're really talking the murder of George Floyd and the harassment of Rand Paul, right?) If not, what are you doing by bringing these types of incidents up in the same breath?
