|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
So a child on a bike collides with a car, some people say the kid is at fault, some say the driver. There's also claims that she was knocked unconscious for a bit as well.
The police arrive on the scene and want to ask questions and the girl doesn't want to cooperate. At this moment I have some sympathy for the police, they're just trying to do their jobs and the young woman isn't cooperating, but this sympathy rapidly devolves when they handcuff her and then pepper spray her while in the back of the patrol car.
Let's suppose this happened in a vacuum, absolutely no history or protests against police violence, let's suppose this girl has no preconceived bias against the police. In that world she might seem out of line being so hostile to a police force that has never treated minorities different and have only helped people in her situation. She might have a head injury and so they might want to detain her to ensure she's fine. Perhaps I could understand putting her in cuffs til the paramedics had a chance to look her over, maybe take her to the hospital.
However, even in ideal world, her refusing to get into the back of the car is not sufficient reason for you to pepper spray her. You take five, six, eight, twenty minutes to try to get her to cooperate. If you're really in a hurry she weighs maybe 100lbs, if you can't physically put her in the back of a car maybe you shouldn't be a police officer.
Pepper spray is a weapon, people have died from being pepper sprayed, and it should only be used if there's some kind of threat. A teenager not cooperating with you isn't any kind of threat. This seems to be yet another case of someone refusing to follow an officer's commands and there's no greater crime in America then disrespecting a police officer.
Well, don't forget the media's goal here - make the race look as close as possible so it's more interesting, and thus sells more ads. They're a business, not an independent bastion of truth, and like many businesses they will go to quite some lengths in order to make a profit.
I think you're right. They're being Richards on purpose. Unfortunately we could have a Trump presidency because of their greed.
Can I just say that for the most part I think our discussions have been civil. I think most of us are on the same page, but we're quibbling about the small details rather than the big picture. Maybe I'm misreading tone and every comment aimed at me was dripping with bile and venom, but I think most of the talk has been civil. I'm fine with disagreeing with people, so long as we both get our arguments across there's no harm in it. Debate I don't think has ever been about converting your opponent, it's more about getting the chance to hammer out your position as it's been attacked, and point out flaws and weaknesses in your opponents position. If a consensus can be reached that great, but just getting the chance to understand another point of view does wonders for your own position. People can ask questions you've never considered before.
That is of course considering we're having a civil discourse. Sometimes things get heated. A shouting match usually isn't very helpful. If this happens I really recommend taking a few moments before hitting the "submit post" button. I've deleted a lot of posts over the years as I considered if it was worth sending and usually after a moment or two of contemplation making that snarky reply about morality in Pathfinder isn't going to be helpful to the argument. Rumor is some people get even more heated when talking about politics.
What I'm saying is that if Trump is pulling in close to 50% in the polls then that's telling me that there's something wrong with the media, the system, more so then the voters. Clinton is not a great choice, she wouldn't be my first choice, but somehow Trump is tied with her. There's something messed up and I don't think 50% of Americans would vote for this guy if they didn't have faulty b&&*$!+! detectors.
I think you'll find the egg always came first. Trump has always been in the media, he's been portrayed as a smart savvy business man and self made billionaire, and that was fine when that meant nothing. Now he's trying to run for president, it's time for the media to correct the record, and failing to do that is bad for the country.
Now without a doubt some of his followers are racist, sexist, intolerant, and xenophobic, but is that half to 40% of the country? Some of the folks that support him are just folks who watch right wing media like Faux news. This is the fault of Faux news as well, make no mistake, but the viewership of Faux news is no where near close to half the country. Trump doesn't exist on the national level without all the free coverage from the big media companies. He got far more coverage then the other candidates during the primaries then his opponents and he continues to feed off all the free coverage he still gets. It's unavoidable now that he's the republican nominee but they can at least try to fact check him now.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that if he's not called out on his racist, misogynist, fraudulent, lying flip-flopping immediately, if his record and his lies aren't pointed out, if they invite Trump supporters onto their shows to spread more lies and misinformation to defend Trumps position, well then, that gives the notion that there's some debate about his reprehensible actions. The voter gets to think maybe Trump's right. Trump is entirely a monster of the media and if he wins they'll bare most if not all the blame.
Yep, and it's not surprising you wouldn't have heard about it, it was a big deal in Canada but other countries had their own problems and sadly it's the sort of thing that usually gets swept under the rug.
Please read the article, especially the Biological Warfare?
I'm not saying these aren't valid criticisms, I'm just saying they're not up to war crimes as far as I know.
As to the UN involvement in the Libertarian utopia of Somalia, I seem to remember there were some Canadians involved in that, but I can't really remember much more then that. The entire regiment was disbanded in shame by the way, I can't recall if the individual soldiers involved were given jail or prison time though. The 90s were a long time ago.
The only things I'd say in the defense of the Clintons regarding Iraq is that was under Saddam and he might not have always had his citizens best interests in mind. The other thing, sanctions and embargos might not be war crimes, I'm not entirely sure. The Clintons had retaliative peace and prosperity in their tenure so there might not have been as much opportunity to commit war crimes either.
No, what I'm saying is that Trump is worse, but thankfully he hasn't had the chance to make good on his promises yet. Meanwhile the democrats, who are usually much better on this sort of thing, has been robbed of their ability to claim moral superiority by accepting war criminals into their tent.
Edit: The other thing is Trump might claim that he wasn't being serious later, which I wouldn't accept, but that's the problem with Trump. Meanwhile nobody that committed torture under Bush saw any sort of punishment under Obama and that means the democrats are kind of complicit.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
To be fair though, Hilary is being supported by war criminals. I think Trump's position on torture is horrible and should disqualify him as a candidate for president, but Hilary doesn't really have much room to criticize with calling Henry Kissinger an adviser and gladly accepting the endorsement of John Negropante. Those are two republicans that she should have distanced herself from but by accepting them she doesn't give herself any moral superiority. Trump hasn't done anything yet but those two are complicit in thousands of deaths.
Spastic Puma wrote:
Well hopefully the educators will continue to keep up the good fight. Feels like you're often demonized by the party that's pushing these false narratives so people that come to believe they're being persecuted though PC culture might also think that educators are also the enemy. It's a tough position to be in.
Just to be clear though, people weren't voting to give people rights, they were voting to restrict rights and it was because of a case before the supreme court that we saw same sex marriage brought into law. The biggest problem with votes on this issue is that America is shockingly religious compared to other industrialized nations in the world. As whitened with the Scopes Monkey Trial: religion is valued higher then fact or science, and thus it becomes very difficult to run a human rights campaign against something people don't question and accept as baring some kind of authority on reality or morality. To put it bluntly people think that same sex marriage is a sin and arguments from a few religious authorities, human rights lawyers, or testimony from those affected by these bans are not going to sway people from their religious beliefs.
It might still be against the law to teach evolution in Tennessee, not sure, and same sex marriage, if it went to a vote today, would likely still fail in a number of states. I wouldn't say this is because the voters are wrong, certainly if religion is real and people's interpretation is correct, than they may well be justified in voting against same sex marriage, but if we're talking about the interpretation being wrong or religion being a bunch of hogwash then it's up to that side to prove their case before people vote on it. That's no easy feat. If I was raised in the 17th or 18th century I might not question the inferiority and superiority of some races, that sort of thinking is abhorrent today because of scientific discoveries, and votes back then would have very different results if held today. This is why we have government though, three branches, to settle these big issues that most of us aren't educated on.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think a couple decades of Conservative media beating on Hillary might have something to do with that. Say something enough times and that's what people remember, y'know?
Yep. Without a doubt. This is part of the system though, and some would say this is not the problem.
Scott Betts wrote:
Sure, all sorts of issues, but you're the one saying that it's the electorate's fault for not getting educated. It's their fault that they're overwhelmingly voting for Putin. I think it's the system and the candidates that are to blame. If it can't be the system's fault then that only leave the people of Russia to blame for constantly voting in Putin.
Scott Betts wrote:
If you have two candidates who are as drastically different as we've been lead to believe then why would they be practically equal in the polls?
Scott Betts wrote:
The system allows for what the electorate chooses. That's what democracy is.
You have people in the republican party saying Trump's words are terrible but we're still going to support him. We have the media running his speeches live. We have debate moderators refusing to fact check him. Trump isn't being held to any sort of standard and he's doing well because of it.
Scott Betts wrote:
The system is not responsible for making one candidate look more "viable" than the other.
That's literally the only role of the system. You can't make people vote, just show them who to vote for.
Scott Betts wrote:
The voters are the ones with the agency. The system is not.
Exactly, so if it does a poor job of informing or getting out the vote then they've failed.
Scott Betts wrote:
If the voter believes they're equal, that voter is very, very poorly-informed. I'm not here to make excuses for them.
Or the system has done a very, vert poor job of informing them. You are here to make excuses for the media, education system, and political parties it would seem.
Scott Betts wrote:
You've got something of a tautology on your hands, there.
I'll say it as often as I can. It's not the people's fault if Hilary loses.
Scott Betts wrote:
In an ideal world, it wouldn't be. But we live in the United States of America, and a lot of the people who live here are really not stellar examples of humanity. Unfortunately, at the ballot bot everyone's token racist uncle has as much say as the university chair of economics.
I doubt 50% of the public is racist. I doubt you get that number if you add in all the sexists. There's something else at play here and like it or not people seem to be on the fence about Hilary.
Scott Betts wrote:
So when people vote overwhelmingly for Putin it's their fault for not being educated is it?
I think you'll find that voters didn't get to vote on those issues, they may have been campaign promises, but few if any of those were referendum or ballets. Some have come into effect by executive action, through the courts, and some through legislative branch of government. However, if you want people to accept and vote for something you have to make them want to vote for it. You can be on the right side of history but that doesn't do you any good if you can't make other people see that.
If someone thinks that Trump is a better choice then "Not Trump" then it's more likely a problem with whoever or whatever is educating them on their choices.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Right, if this was a glaring common and obvious illness and they still got it wrong is that a problem with the doctor or the medical school that trained them? Maybe it's the doctor, but if close to 50% of the graduates of that medical school would also make the same mistake then I don't see how you blame the doctors, seems like there's something wrong with that medical school.
Scott Betts wrote:
Again, you're looking to put the blame on the electorate. If the system allows for a Donald Trump, allows people to think he's a viable candidate, then how is that on the voter? I'm not saying both candidates are equal but if the voter thinks they're equal how is that their fault? People watch the news, listen to radio, some read papers, lots have access to the internet and if they decide to vote Trump then that's their choice. If he's as bad as we all think he is then it shouldn't be a difficult choice to pick someone else.
If the voters are wrong why have elections? The point of elections is to put a bunch of candidates together and the people get to pick the one they think will serve them best. If you can say that they're wrong then something has failed somewhere between when these people decided that they're going to run and when the voter gets into the booth. If you can't sell your candidate or can't prove that your opponent is a failure then that's not a failure of the voter that's a failure of the process.
As to if I were in a battle ground state, well I'd have to vote for Clinton, I'd grumble, plug my nose, and then do what ever I could to get her to do the right thing for the next four years. I doubt Trump would be at all receptive to anything that didn't benefit Trump.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
It's the new popular narrative that the voters are wrong. The DNC are right, Hilary is great, but the voters are wrong. The exact opposite of how elections work.
I'm not sure they allow a younger or more liberal justice under Hilary, I'm not sure Hilary will give them one. It would be nice to see them pay some price for being obstructionist a**h***s but republicans have the narrative that big government doesn't work, they get to prove that point if they make government not work. Would they really go two years without appointing a justice? I'm not sure, I really wouldn't put it past them though.
I agree that Garland, from what I've read, is no where near as bad as Scalia but Obama not getting his nomination passed in his final year would set a bad precedent that would haunt US politics. I mean it's not going to take long for people to look back and write off the 2008-2016 republicans as being racist or something like that, history likes to simplify things, and that's the legacy they'll leave behind, but rules like the filibuster don't remember why they started, who used them, they just exist as unwritten rules. If Obama doesn't get his nomination this is going to become an unwritten rule.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Not sure this would be a victory if they accept his appointment though, I've heard it said he's probably the most conservative judge the republicans are ever going to get from a democrat.
Thanks for the info though guys
It's a very good start BTW. I missed this post earlier.
It would be great if they could start either legalizing some of these drugs or decriminalizing them. People's lives are being ruined and despite the conviction rates most studies show blacks and whites use them at the same rates.
Now as to the voting thing, ultimately I'm happy with the results if voter suppression is stopped as well, all I was pointing out was just because someone is doing what is the right thing it doesn't mean that they can't be problematic in other areas. I'm not trying to malign the democrats here, but just because they're better then the republicans I don't want them above criticism, and it pains me to think that we have to constantly fight them to do the right thing.
I saw an amusing picture somewhat along those lines.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Are you seriously seeing no difference between not trying to put out a fire and actively committing arson?
Well I don't see either side doing much to repeal draconian drug laws for example, I do see one side trying to suppress the vote because it would benefit them in the election, and I see the other side fighting that because it would benefit them in the election. I suppose some might be fighting for purely idealistic reasons, fighting for equality and giving power to the powerless, but let's not assume that everyone in the party is actually concerned with the plight of minority voters.
Also, let me quickly add, this isn't strictly an American problem, we got subtle and non subtle racism up here in Canada as well. It's not something any nation can smugly pass off as a problem that doesn't affect them I think. The problem I think is figuring out how to deal with it.
Well I think part of it is that we have to acknowledge that there are different levels of racism, lynching is the high end of it, but subconsciously passing over a African American sounding name on a job application forum also hurts the black community. Subtle racism is still racism. I don't think any side is advocating for police shootings, but blindly standing behind the police and allowing them to investigate themselves is clearly not helping, and this tends to be the republican position. On the other end of the stick we have neo liberals who cut welfare, perhaps to appease republican opposition, support draconian crime and drug laws which disproportionately target minority groups, and support urban renewal, which on the surface is good, but it often displaces poor and destitute from their own neighborhoods. I'm not naming names here and I'm not suggesting that anyone is racist, but locking up a generation of kids and young adults who could be earning money for the families, making welfare insufficient for single parents to raise (and thus supervise) their children, and forcing them out of the city to find cheaper accommodations with longer commutes does hurt minorities, but admittedly far less overtly as a police bullet.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Pretty sure most Washington DC politicians are corrupt depending on your use of that word. It's the nature of the system.
Well if she can't get single payer she's not going to get $12 dollars an hour either, I mean if we accept the premise that she's only doing what she thinks she can achieve, and we accept the fact that the opposition will fight her tooth and nail, then why go less then Sanders who was promising to fight for $15? I don't think Sanders would have gotten $15 but if she's already coinciding ground before they even get to negotiate then maybe she'll get $8?
Debt free isn't the same as free. Tuition is something like half the cost of collage, then there's also the problem of this being only a four year plan and for some that's enough to get their degrees but for some, like 4 in 10 finish in six if at all. That means they got another two years they'll need to do out of their own pockets. There's also the problem that these promises won't take effect till 2021 which means she needs a second term.
As to closing loopholes, she's working for the same interests as just about every other senator or member of congress, it's not that I think she's lying, but I think they'll likely bow to pressure and I doubt they'll accomplish anything. I think there's going to need to be campaign finance reform before any of this is accomplished.
It's not nothing, but it's also not a lot to get excited about. I know she has to deal with a hostile house and maybe the senate as well, but if you know you're going to need to fight why set your goals so low? Seems like if you need to compromise you're doing the republicans a favor by lowering your goals. The problem is she's working for money interests and they're pretty happy with how the system works right now so they don't want big change. I think people can sense that, she's not appearing to be on the side of the people, and I feel that's what's hurting her. Others in this thread apparently disagree. I feel she's not gone far enough. However Trump not only has argued the minimum wage is too high, hasn't said anything about collage to my knowledge, and is talking about absolutely gutting the tax code to the tune of 1 trillion a year in revenue, which would grow over time as he's also killing the estate tax as well. Hilary, myopic and limp as her plans seem to be, is just a better choice. If I accept the premise that voting for a 3rd party candidate is throwing my vote away then the choice seems obvious.
Single payer, higher minimum wage, free collage and trade schools, and actually closing down tax loopholes so they're not bearing the brunt of the tax burden in the US. Right now governments are taxed strapped, making cuts, allowing infrastructure to crumble, if we could adequately fund policing for example they wouldn't be writing as many tickets to make up the budget shortfall.
Matt Filla wrote:
And I think it's ridiculous that Hilary isn't reaching out to these people with policies that would help them. The problem is Hilary is in the pockets of these big industry types and so while Trump isn't going to be the answer, Hilary isn't going to be the answer either. The difference I suppose is that under Trump things could get worse.
That probably was intentional. There is a difference, but there might not seem to be one to the average voter. I don't think many people are particularly well informed.
I didn't say that there isn't a difference, I said it might not seem there's one. You follow politics and are well informed.
Some of Trump's supporters are bigots, xenophobes, and some are simply ignorant or naive, but some just don't feel things have improved for them over the last decade and now switching to the republican candidate seems like an option. I'm sure Trump would even be a disaster to them but I can imagine that from their point of view they don't have that much to loose. If you're a white hetero sexual male there probably doesn't seem like much of a difference for you between Clinton and Trump.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Yes, because this is helpful for a civil discussion and debate. I was almost ready to agree with you and give you a +1 but then sully your whole response with this ignorance.
Hawaii, I know that one . . .
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
The onion? That's a reliable source.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Well this is my understanding, this is what I think of when I hear "in" a combat zone. I'm sure Hitdice has a point but it doesn't really feel like being "in" a country, not like Canada was in Afghanistan and the US was in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Well Canada is part of NATO so we've been helping out with the air strikes (in our extremely limited capacity), but I don't really consider that being in Syria so much as flying over it.
We're already in Syria, though.
Well, airstrikes, and "advisory" special forces, but I don't think any major deployment of ground forces are there yet? If they are I apologize I don't get american news stations.
I wouldn't categorize it as a ploy for sympathy, rather an attempt to dismiss a surging opposition to the nomination. It was a way of saying "these young voters don't know this issues, they're just uninformed misogynists that can't stand the idea of a woman president" and had it ended there it would have been laughable, sad but otherwise not particularly noteworthy. The term was used by the Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times to name a few. I don't have a problem calling out trolls, but when you attach a candidates name to the term, suggest that they represent typical Sanders supporters, well then we have a problem. I don't doubt for a second that someone was making crude and sexist comments to Clinton and her supporters, you can just look at the typical YouTube comments section to realize what people are capable of, but then to lay that toxicity on another candidate, well that's dirty politics.
Now as to the point about Sanders supports being frustrated by the media, the majority of the press around Sanders was negative, but that's hardly surprising, most of the media is owned by very wealthy individuals who would have payed considerably more under a Sanders tax plan. So is it then surprising that the Sanders supporters objected to the negative press?
I think some of what you say is true, certainly when he said Hilary is not fit to be president I think he lost a lot of respect. However campaigns are long, you're on the road a lot, you're not getting much sleep, and so I'm willing to attribute the lack of judgment on fatigue. Once the campaign was over he got back on track. I can understand your continued disappointment but I feel for the most part he ran a pretty decent campaign, certainly by the usual standards, and I think Sanders continues to do what he thinks best for the country.