Something about uniformed services overrides their values on government. The ancient appeal to fragile masculinity, perhaps?
I would guess they would contract with the Hennepin County Sheriff, with assistance from state police and even national guard. It won't mean a damn thing if they don't completely re=think the entire vetting process. Psych screening should be first on the list. No recycled thugs from other departments, a completely new approach to de-escalating situations, strict educational requirements...and on and on... An interesting thought did occur to me (shaddup!) A former student of mine was an ex cop who pointed out to me that it was very interesting to watch the Alaska State Trooper reality TV show. He pointed out that those cops were always nice to people whenever possible. The reason: they were often the only LEO's within a hundred miles and the only backup they could hope for was from the civilians they encountered. Maybe something other than "domination" might not be such a bad thing, if it forces cops to use their wits instead of going in with military hand me downs. Wouldn't work everywhere and the model for a rural state like Alaska would certainly not work in a densely populated city. What I do think has happened is that police brass have gotten hung up on the idea that they can wipe out every bit of crime if they just had enough cops and enough equipment to dominate the streets. Having communities that are safe and livable doesn't require wiping out of every bit of crime. There's no cure for that, save some fundamental changes in human nature, but I really don't think that's a realistic goal and it may not even be a desirable one, given that what it takes to wipe out every bit of crime would require us to sacrifice the very liberties that the 2nd Amendment crowd say they want to protect. In Cuba and the old Soviet Union their police certainly didn't have to worry about any kind of "handcuffs" or "technicalities" and all that happened was they bred a type of criminal so vicious they made the mafia look like a bunch of choir boys.
I see that you have prepared your defense of Trump for after he loses (which you denied for months was even a possibility, but which now even you have to admit could very well happen). It goes like this: "If Biden isn't perfect, and society isn't perfect, then that will prove Biden is no better than Trump." The only thing more ridiculous than such an excuse is thinking that it is not ridiculous.
OK, one part of the problem I think I am seeing is the idea of defunding the police is getting warped by the establishment media. This is why I love immigrants like John Oliver. He researches and understands the ideas being presented very well. Given what he explains I have to shift my opinion to defunding the police is a good solution. The police are called upon to do way too many things in society, and utilizing specific professionals to deal with some of the troubles that end up on the police will decrease the need for the police and promote a more stable and healthy community. I was confused because normally when I hear defund it comes from republicans trying to strip something dry to eliminate it, and that is what seems to be the fear. Rather the idea of defund the police is more about spreading and diversifying government programs to deal with specific problems which will alleviate the need for police intervention. That makes a lot of sense and clearly works.
If Trump loses he loses - every election either candidate has a 50/50 chance. There is no tie or "no contest" option. Coronapalooza and overlapping civil unrest is a bit of a curve ball no doubt, but those are the breaks! It will be interesting to go from a president who doesn't listen to his handlers to one that must obey their handlers. I'm actually getting intrigued at running that experiment!
You honestly don't know how spot votes? You haven't paid close enough attention to his posts to realize where he lives? He couldn't vote for Biden. Or for Trump, for that matter. It would be blatantly illegal.
Not. Even. Close. I know it's a Wordforge tradition that there should be "no math in the Red Room" (that has never stopped me, by the way...), but that's no justification for anti-math, either.
"Anti-Ma" (pronounced "anTeemuh"). It's a bunch of radical expressions, and they've been growing exponentially!
So when they're on the debate stage this summer and Biden is asked if he agrees with dismantling police departments, what is he going to say? How will that play in the swing states? Seriously, I'd like real opinions on this.
My opinion is that you and OF should rent a storefront with a big neon sign in the window that says "Reader & Advisor."
Wish they'd make up their minds as to BED, BOD or BID. I assume E is exponents? I was taught BID (indices) and Googling showed me BOD (frequently!! ) for Orders...
it'll all be in the phrasing. dismantling is unnecessarily alarmist. and let's face it, this isn't about overzealous rookies but rather veteran officers and the upper echelons of the establishment itself. Chauvin had 18 years on the MSP PD... they made him as a product of a failed system, like melamine infused baby formula. There needs to be a factory recall on inadequately train cops-which at this point may as well be anyone with over a decade on the job. Probably narrower, but ideally those can be rehabilitated/aren't completely unsalvagable.
I don't think I was taught BIDMAS at school (1991 would be my maths GCSE) but I have to take a compulsory maths module for my Open University Computing/IT degree, so I went with the most basic (quadratics, trig, logarithms, some sine wave stuff right at the end).
You're asking me to predict the future. Isn't that against your religion? Here's a hint: You want to predict what you believe Biden would say during a Presidential debate? Look up his record and draw your own conclusions.
if two people are running (taking third party off the table) please tell me how each candidate does not have a 50/50 chance of winning. Maybe the metric system has your math fucked up or something.