home

Monday Open Thread

I'm offline today. Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< Saturday Open Thread | Bernie: What Took You So Long? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    David Brown Dallas Police Chief (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 07:31:18 PM EST
    Just said this-

    We're asking cops to do too much in this country. We are. We just ask of us to do too much. Every societal failure, we put it off on the cops to solve. Not enough mental-health funding. Let the cop handle it. Not enough drug-addiction funding. Let's give it to the cops. Here in Dallas, we got a loose-dog problem. Let's have the cops chase loose dogs. Schools fail, give it to the cops. Seventy percent of the African American community is being raised by single women. Let's give it to the cops to solve that as well. That's too much to ask. Policing was never meant to solve all those problems, and I just ask for other parts of our democracy, along with the free press, to help us. . . .

    He is absolutely 100% correct

    Interesting cat. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 08:01:23 PM EST
    His own son was killed at age 27 in a shootout with police, after he had shot and killed an officer and another man.

    Chief Brown said this to the protesters:

    "We're hiring. We'll give you an application. We'll help you resolve some of the problems you're protesting about."


    Parent
    And his brother (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 08:12:40 PM EST
    was shot and killed by drug dealers in Phoenix.

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#18)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 07:44:52 PM EST
    man continues to impress me.

    Parent
    Then please let me balance that ... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 10:54:25 PM EST
    ... with some serious too-cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs nutballery, which is what happens when you get 4 hours' worth of solar exposure in winter, followed by 20 in summer.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Same here (none / 0) (#31)
    by McBain on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 11:21:21 PM EST
    Philando's carry permit (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 10:50:04 AM EST
    has been released by his family.

    I admit I have not been following this (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 11:06:19 AM EST
    But has anyone considered that the gun was on his lap because he was trying to tell the cop he had a gun?  He did tell the cop he had a gun.  Maybe he had put it in his lap for the purpose for trying to be cooperative.

    Parent
    Does anyone know exactly what you're (none / 0) (#144)
    by McBain on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 01:50:22 PM EST
    supposed to do if you have a gun in the car and you're pulled over?  Seems like a sticky situation.

    Parent
    Didn't he do that (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 03:29:46 PM EST
    We don't know what he did or didn't do (none / 0) (#150)
    by McBain on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 03:51:21 PM EST
    The video starts after he's shot.  I'm not sure how we'll figure out exactly what happened.  It will probably be his girlfriend's word against the officers word.  


    Parent
    It's a good thing there (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 03:57:03 PM EST
    Is a video showing that the officer was calm and nonconfrontational and the woman was hysterical I guess, huh?

    Parent
    The video was very strange (none / 0) (#193)
    by McBain on Thu Jul 14, 2016 at 02:46:30 AM EST
    not what you'd expect at all.  Unfortunately, Reynolds didn't start recording until after the shooting.

    Parent
    We only know what Lavish said happened. (none / 0) (#155)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 04:18:29 PM EST
    I wonder if there is dashcam or bodycam video that hasn't been released.

    Parent
    No body cam (none / 0) (#160)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 05:28:22 PM EST
    Repirtedly, there are dash cams from other cars who pulled up minutes later showing officers administering CPR - those have been turned over to investigators.

    Parent
    dashcam from Yanez's police car?

    Parent
    Not that anybodyanybody has mentioned (none / 0) (#165)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 05:52:04 PM EST
    It was mentioned that he had no body cam.

    If he had a dash cam, I assume it's with the investigators as well, and I could be wrong, but I believe he pulled up BEHIND Castile, so I'm not sure how much it would show.

    Parent

    Ya, I don't know either. Although, (none / 0) (#166)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 06:39:18 PM EST
    most dashcam vids I've seen have pretty good audio.

    Parent
    I am so loving (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 04:05:07 PM EST
    TRUMP vs NOTORIOUS RBG

    The best part is the fight over the fainting couch from idiot news people who never had a problem with any of the batsh!t crazy things Scalia said, among others.

    I love me some RBG.

    Yes, it is so unheard of for (none / 0) (#159)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 05:19:16 PM EST
    a Supreme Court Justice to let us know their political feelings. From the big one: Gore v Bush, 2000 to Alito shouting out at President Obama during a SOTU. And, lots in between, such as Scalia's son working for the law firm engaged by Bush to argue his case before the SC in 2000, Ginny Thomas drawing up lists of Bush appointments as her husband was adjudicating if the same man should be president.  

    But, Justice Ginsburg is rightly concerned about the rule of law, and election of a president who appears to be ready to violate the Constitutional oath of office, not be mistake or misunderstanding, but because he does not care.

    If the Chief Justice of the United States, (who is not just the Chief judge of the US Supreme Court) showed leadership and did not remain silent, for fear of his party's reaction, he would have admonished Trump for his comments about a Federal District Judge--Gonzalo Curiel. And, also speak out about Trump's statements undermining the Judicial branch.  John Roberts, as Chief Justice of the United States, is the head of the federal court system, and is spokesman for the Judicial Branch.

    Parent

    Trump is not a typical candidate (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 05:36:29 PM EST
    There is nothing typical about him or the threat he represents.  People need to stop acting like he is.

    Hillary gave a speech today that was pretty amazing too.

    Parent

    I normally love RBG also (none / 0) (#190)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 10:12:55 PM EST
    but she was wrong in this instance. A judge should not publicly support or oppose a candidate for office in a partisan election. Other judges' politically questionable or unethical behavior does not excuse her lapse of judgment this time.

    Parent
    One thing she said that stuck with me (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 10:35:29 PM EST
    Was (something like) she burns with outrage at the normalization of the Trump candidacy.

    I thought, wow, it's about freakin time someone with a megaphone burned with outrage at the normalization of the Trump candidacy.

    Parent

    Well, five Supreme Court members in 2000 ... (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 14, 2016 at 03:47:15 AM EST
    Peter G: "A judge should not publicly support or oppose a candidate for office in a partisan election. Other judges' politically questionable or unethical behavior does not excuse her lapse of judgment this time."

    ... went clearly out of their way as justices to short-circuit the vote count in Florida on some extraordinarily flimsy pretexts, including a rather novel use of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause, in order to decide that year's presidential election for their preferred candidate, George W. Bush.

    And quite frankly, we discredited ourselves as a nation of law afterward by publicly pretending otherwise, as though our democratic processes hadn't just been assaulted by those five justices and left on the side of the road in a crumpled heap.

    And so, while I do share your concerns about the obvious politicization of our federal judiciary, I'm afraid that those horses also bolted from the barn a long time ago. I don't believe that Justice Ginsberg suffered a lapse of judgment. I think she said what she said deliberately.

    Further, she's likely aware that most of those who are publicly admonishing her are the most venal of political opportunists, who never said a word when Antonin Scalia was duck hunting one weekend with Dick Cheney as a lawsuit with Cheney as a defendant headed SCOTUS's way, among other instances.

    Politically, these are extraordinary times, so let's cease kidding ourselves that we're not directly threatened by a candidate and his party that, truth be told, don't give a fckn sht about the rule of law, please pardon my language.

    The Trump campaign attacks and impugns the integrity of the judiciary on an almost daily basis. Are judges supposed to just sit back and remain silent, as public confidence in our courts is so willfully undermined by this man and his supporters?

    Therefore, if Justice Ginsberg wants to share publicly with us her very real concerns about the manifestly unqualified and unstable crackpot who's now the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, I have three worlds:

    "You go, girl!"

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 14, 2016 at 05:48:01 AM EST
    these are extraordinary times, this reminds me of the quote
    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out.......
    RBG is having none of that, decorum be damned.

    There is a growing ugliness in this country that is being normalized by Trump's campaign, this is no time for niceties or "political correctness"

    RBG knows what she is doing.

    Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.

    this is way bigger than judicial propriety, there is should be absolutely no constraints on speaking out on this, no matter what lines are being crossed.

    Parent
    I get it (none / 0) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 10:21:16 PM EST
    Not being a lawyer I'm allowed to disagree.  I saw her biographer today talking about this.  She said she thinks him and particularly his attacks on the judiciary make this a different situation.

    Parent
    Trump apparently (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 04:18:10 PM EST
    Approached Condi Rice about VP job.

    Shecsaid, "No thanks".

    In other news, new Prime Minister Theresa May has appointed Britain's own Trump,  Boris Johnson, as the new Foreign Secretary

    Pet peeve (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by CST on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 04:53:15 PM EST
    Poor email etiquette.

    You are responding to an email.  The email you are responding to has a person's (let's say my) name written in full, spelled one way.  You respond with an email that starts "Hi (insert first name)", only you spell it wrong.  How hard is it to look at the frikken name in the email and spell it right?

    You are over 50 years old and a professional employee responding to a professional email asking for information.  Your response contains multiple emojis and/or phrases like "LOL", "OMG", etc...  This is a work email, you're an adult, why are you sending an email that looks like a text from a 12 year old?

    End rant.

    Agree (none / 0) (#161)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 05:30:02 PM EST
    Although, I admit to using an occasional smiley face.

    Parent
    Totally... (none / 0) (#199)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 14, 2016 at 07:32:03 AM EST
    I'm appalled at the work emails I get sometimes...all caps, no punctuation, no greeting, no salutation, no please, no thank you.

    And its gotten much worse since phones do everything. It's not a text just cuz you sent it from your phone.

     

    Parent

    Opinion requested - I agree with you (none / 0) (#200)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 14, 2016 at 08:09:32 AM EST
    and have mostly tried to treat work emails like letters. Maybe a little more informal and the occasional smiley with people I have a real relationship with, but for the most part pretty formal.   And yes, names spelled wrong are a particular pet peeve. We all have the  company directly at hand, there is no excuse. There are Bryans and Brians . Deal with it!

    My question...do you use a closing, like 'Sincerely, CST'?   I never know what to put, even all these years. I usually go with 'Thank you', since it usually applies somehow.  I really do obsess over it!

    Obsessed in Orlando,
    Ruffian

    Parent

    Just when you thought you (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 06:45:30 PM EST
    Look at Michelle when he starts (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 06:47:56 PM EST
    Moving her arms like she's a 5 yr old. Unbelievable.

    Parent
    Did you look (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    at Laura? She looked like a mom trying to get her toddler to quit acting up. well, that was just bizarre. Maybe he has dementia or something.

    Parent
    I googled 'imbecile' but oddly that clip is not (none / 0) (#170)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 07:14:11 PM EST
    the top hit. Yet.

    I am storing it away for the next I e someone on FB posts an unflattering pic of Mchelle working out or shouting at a sporting event and says is an embarrassment the likes of which the nation has never seen.

    Parent

    Eh (none / 0) (#172)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 07:18:37 PM EST
    Other people behind Obama werewere swaying too.  I didn't think it was a big deal.

    Parent
    Not like that (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 07:29:56 PM EST
    Whatever he has (none / 0) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 07:14:52 PM EST
    He always had it.

    My favorite is the very end when he does the "point and wink" thing.

    All that does is remind me of the hell of 2000-2008.   In his own way that man was as much of an embarrassment to this country as Trump would be and should be a reality check for anyone who thinks an idiot can't get elected.

    Does anyone think he, and poppy, would not be supporting Trump if he hadn't given Jebbie the biggest wedgie in modern politics?

    Parent

    Speaking of Jebbie (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 07:23:08 PM EST
    Who saw the Jeb interview on MSNBC last night (last night?)
    It was about as remarkable a display of transference, delusion and projection as you will ever see.

    Bush denies any possibility that Trump is his and his party's creation.  He blames, among others, the Pope for losing.

    It's actually worth watching.  It honestly made me like Trump a tiny tiny bit for about 20 seconds for kicking his azz.

    Parent

    That (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 07:44:36 PM EST
    interview was all over social media with Jeb saying that the GOP would live to regret nominating Trump. Like the GOP wouldn't live to regret nominating Jeb?

    Has there ever been an election with so much sanctimonious smarm? There is a loud minority who scream nothing but character assassination at Hillary. I do however find it odd that they never seen to attack her based on issues. So I am constantly reminded of the quote by Socrates "when the debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser".

    Parent

    Not much of a stretch (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 07:48:37 PM EST
    I think they already regret it

    Parent
    Anyone check on Barbara and GHWB today? (none / 0) (#179)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 08:50:53 PM EST
    I wonder if the suicide pact has been activated.

    Parent
    Check it out (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 09:07:57 PM EST
    This honestly (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 09:23:39 PM EST
    Had not occurred to me and if true just makes it sad.

    Mostly for his wife who looks like it could be true.  

    Parent

    GWB - still the class dunce. (none / 0) (#187)
    by desertswine on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 09:38:14 PM EST
    The Talk (none / 0) (#1)
    by ragebot on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 05:51:52 PM EST
    my Dad gave me.  As the son of a medical doctor growing up in the 1950s and 1960s in Miami my Dad made it clear to me that LEOs not only had firearms but the LEOs also had at least minimum training using them at the range.  He also told me the LEOs not only had firearms they also had radios; and lots of friends with radios.  Those friends with radios also had firearms and some of those friends were not only trained using firearms, but if were called for help on the radio most likely the ones who were the best shots would come.  If that was not enough they could use the radios to call better armed and better trained folks to help them out.

    While I have only had limited contact with LEOs, and in general it has not been as someone they suspected of a crime I have always complied with their orders.  In fact my Dad said the first thing out of my mouth when approached by a LEO should be "How can I possibly be of assistance officer?"  That always seemed to defuse any possible confrontation.  

    YMMV

    My pops... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 06:46:54 PM EST
    An ex-con Machinist outta the projects of Flushing taught me the police are not your friends and not to be trusted. Say nothing, don't resist, don't escalate, but don't be a pushover either. Know your rights and never rat. Smart man my old man;)

    He told me stories of being handcuffed to a chair at the precinct and getting the snot beat out of him...adding it was better then in the 50's/60's because although the cops were sometimes crooked brutal thugs, there was an unwritten code that both sides lived by. You knew what warranted a beating and what didn't. And nobody got shot.

    My run ins have generally been most unpleasant, though I have gotten many a clean cut whiteboy break after suffering mild indignity. I really cannot imagine the harsh systemic indignities my black and hispanic peers have suffered in the Guiliani/Bloomberg stop and frisk broken windows era.

    The relationship between police and community is so rotten in many locales, I don't even know how you fix it at this point. My dislike and distrust of police has waned as I've gotten older and gotten hassled less, but I just can't see it ever disappearing completely. Some wounds run too deep.

    Cancelling the war on drugs would be a good of a start as any...that's where so much of the animosity stems from and it's so f#cking unnecessary. I wonder how I'd feel if my lifestyle hasn't been criminalized my whole adult life and if cops were better at letting the little sh+t slide, so when big sh;t happens the community is more apt to cooperate.

    Feels like the issue is coming to a head, that's for sure...hope we can figure something out. I certainly  take no joy in having no love for the police, it's just survival instinct to avoid any contact at all costs...to the point where I won't/haven't even reported being a victim of a crime like robbery or assault.

    Parent

    As the master said (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 06:58:04 PM EST
    Up on Housing Project Hill
    It's either fortune or fame
    You must pick up one or the other
    Though neither of them are to be what they claim
    If you're lookin' to get silly
    You better go back to from where you came
    Because the cops don't need you
    And man they expect the same.


    Parent
    I do believe I've had enough! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 08:19:30 PM EST
    Time to find solace in another master...

    Cease Fire...and light the chalice.

    Parent

    In that case, kdog (none / 0) (#27)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 08:45:10 PM EST
    You should go back to New York City.

    Parent
    The innocent (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 07:06:51 PM EST
    Have nothing to fear.

    Parent
    ha ha (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Peter G on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 08:16:45 PM EST
    Wittiest post in awhile, Howdy.
    I am thinking of my former client, Nick.

    Parent
    And, for a macabre humor, try (none / 0) (#29)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 10:38:37 PM EST
    Trump's echo of 1968 today when he boldly, loudly proclaimed that he will be "the law & order candidate."  Perhaps, he felt it would be a nice complement to the growing movement among a number leaders in local city communities that listening & empathy should be the first order of business if we are to extract ourselves and move forward from the growing violent morass. Trump probably figured that he could best grab the attention (and the latter day crazies) by his strident Nixon-like reprise.

    When I told my husband about that bombast this a.m., he thought I was joking ... when he later heard it on the news, he told me what he had heard, but really couldn't believe it when first mentioned earlier in the day. Some joke, huh.


    Parent

    Donald (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:21:26 AM EST
    Thinks he is Nixon reborn.  The Law and Order candidate.  The Silent Majority that he talks about in every appearance and has on his signs.

    He wants to be seen as Nicon.  A smarter unapologetic Nixon who will get away with it.

    Parent

    Then there (none / 0) (#53)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:56:57 AM EST
    is this, Trump as a famously cynical 6 year old.

    Parent
    Hopefully, Mrs. Clinton (none / 0) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 11:07:51 AM EST
    and the Democrats will not allow Trump and the Republicans to, once again, misappropriate "law and order."  There should be no quarrel with adherence to law and assurances of order.  The foundational issue is what is the law and how to assure order. For example, is the law a contributor and is the achievement of order, at a minimum, lawful, and, optimally, consistent with reasonableness.

    In a previous post on this matter, I proposed an upgrade in standards for policing, including a general outline for national education and training.

     The fundamentals of the upgrading include societal and demographic changes and how they may impinge on good policing. So many changes that require policing to keep pace. Unless and until the citizenry comes to its senses on ill-considered laws, such as so many of the drug laws, and, now, open carry firearms, policing needs to learn how to enforce such laws, assure order, and serve and protect both citizens and police officers.

    Parent

    Most folks at VC (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ragebot on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    are all in favor of fewer and simpler laws relating to drugs.  On the other hand no one wants to return to the opium dens of the past.

    What I would point out is that Eric Gardner was mostly a small time criminal.  What prompted LEOs to confront him was selling single cigarettes.  Talk about a silly law that is one that boggles my mind.  How did such a law come to be.

    In NYC taxes on cigarettes are much higher than the states where they are made.  As a result it makes economic sense to drive South, buy all the cigarettes that will fit in your vehicle, drive back to NYC, and sell them.  In fact there have been stories in the media about how some terrorist (using the term loosely) have been doing this.

    In fact the law that got Gardner into trouble is not so much an objection to selling single cigarettes; rather it is a law to protect tax revenue NYC gets.

    Several of my posts in this and other threads have tried to make the point that every time one makes contact with a LEO there is the possibility of a bad outcome.  Things like selling single cigarettes are something blacks tend to be involved in more often than others; in great part because blacks suffer from more economic problems.

    Selling single cigarettes is just one of many laws that folks at the lower end of the economic scale are more likely to violate.  Car insurance is another.

    My personal experience with LEO contact is so minimal I can't remember the last time it happened.  On the other hand I am sure there are plenty of folks who have had LEO contact multiple times in the last few days; or certainly weeks.

    Eliminating the law prohibiting selling single cigarettes may well have saved Gardner's life.  I doubt anyone except the NYC tax folks would be against it.  So who here is willing to support repealing such a law.

    Parent

    I am most willing to see... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 01:22:39 PM EST
    that stoopid-arse loosie law repealed, and absent that cops have the discretion not to enforce it. As most good cops interested in doing good police work are already not enforcing it.

    FYI you need not drive hundreds of miles south...50 miles east on Long Island and the much more friendly Native nations are selling for 25 a carton or less.  Just no whiteman name brands, all Native American brands.  With a bonus of lesser taxed gasoline for a fill-up while you're there.

    All that gasoline being burned to avoid tyrannical tobacco tax rates...not very green of NY State but it's all about the benjamins as far as Albany and City Hall are concerned...you nailed it ragebot.  

    That's another rub in the People v. the Police battle...local/state/federal legislators and executives create the tension, then cry rivers when the tension boils over into violence and death.  If the state is serious about addressing this problem they need to start repealing and/or revising a metric ton of criminal law.


    Parent

    vs the late-teens to 30-something age group.

    Except for leo who are part of my social circle, essentially all of my interactions over the past 30+ years have been antagonistic. But then again, there was a long stretch where my type-A attitude put me in "marginal" situations, mostly driving-related.

    Here's a tip for all ages - if you choose to allow yourself to be in marginal situations, you will put yourself at heightened risk of attention from the po po, and all that that unwanted attention can result in...

    Parent

    Good tip... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 06:51:35 PM EST
    ain't no profile like a low profile.

    And if that don't work, yes sir no sir can I go sir.   Maybe it's a shame but you live to b:tch about cops on TL;)

    Parent

    Yessir. (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 06:57:19 PM EST
    What's it like (none / 0) (#10)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 07:19:57 PM EST
    spending your life on your knees in subservience?

    Parent
    I was wondering (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 07:21:38 PM EST
    That too

    Parent
    Epictetus said if you have self possession (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 06:42:12 AM EST
    and they don't, you're the master and they're the slave.

    Parent
    I posted these links (none / 0) (#17)
    by ragebot on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 07:44:25 PM EST
    in the previous open threads but they are applicable here.

    VC link.

    NYT link.

    and the Cliffs Notes version.

    But, as Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan explained in an October New York Times column, the more important cause is the sheer number of potentially hostile interactions between police and poor African-Americans.

    The implication of your accusation is that I am on my knees in front of LEOs.  The reality is I can not recall being in front of LEOs, less yet being on my knees, in the last 20 years.  I can recall being pulled over on I10 many years ago.  The FPH officer said I had a broken head light, which was true.  My speculation was it had just happened earlier that evening on my way to my Grandmother's house in South Florida.  He gave me a form to fill out and return along with the sales receipt I got when buying a new headlight and explained if I did not comply a ticket would be issued.  I did get out of the car and kneel down to closely examine the broken headlight, but I am not sure that was what your post implied.  Back in the 1960s I got a speeding ticket (I still claim that was a speed trap) but other than those two incidents I have never been pulled over.  Given that I drove a cab in Miami in the season while in school and did a lot of survey work with a GPS unit on the car it is not like I am seldom on the road.

    So it seems the two links I posted above may have some relevance to this issue.  Even if I drive a lot it is not in high crime areas where police patrol more and not in a vehicle that looks to be in poor repair.  I have always had good insurance coverage and in almost 70 years only have one speeding ticket (I still claim South Bay is a speed trap).

    Just as an aside while I still claim the first thing out of your mouth in an encounter with a LEO should be "How can I possibly be of assistance officer" the next thing should be "am I free to leave" and if asked any questions I would reply "my lawyer will answer any questions submitted in writing in a timely manner".

    Parent

    Speaking as a person (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 08:04:33 PM EST
    Who has had many encounters with police, for many reasons, over the years and literally hundreds of traffic tickets, nearly all for speeding I have a bit of a lead foot, I can say I have really never had what you would call a bad experience.

    With the exception of one encounter in LA with a female traffic cop (my only experience ever with a female traffic cop)  they have been respectful and often almost amazingly generous and lenient.  

    I credit this to the fact that I am always reasonable.  I never deny I was speeding.  I go out of my way to cooperate without being overly obsequious and most of all I am white.  And clearly upper middle class.

    Parent

    Female cop (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 08:49:18 PM EST
    I had just bought a new red Mustang convertible.  V-8.  

    And I drove it.

    I got pulled over by a beautiful young blonde lady cop.   She was just so complimentary about my car and how great it was and how did it drive, etc.  I thought I was going to get off with just a warning.  No siree bob.  Ticket.

    Parent

    lol. "red" (none / 0) (#139)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 11:13:32 AM EST
    always gets the best tickets.

    Parent
    The GOP platform (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 07:06:24 PM EST
    has reportedly been remade in Donalds image

    Haven't read it but I hear the anti gay marriage stuff has been removed.  It's anti pararie chicken.  Anti p0rn. Anti chocolate covered Oreos (regulars are ok, seriously).  Pro Wall.  Calls coal "clean energy".

    Energy (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 07:14:08 PM EST
    Our Nation's Energy Abundance  (Top)
    Coal is a low-cost and abundant energy source with hundreds of years of supply. We look toward the private sector's development of new, state-of-the-art coal-fired plants that will be low-cost, environmentally responsible, and efficient. We also encourage research and development of advanced technologies in this sector, including coal-to-liquid, coal gasification, and related technologies for enhanced oil recovery.
    Reining in the EPA  (Top)
    Since 2009, the EPA has moved forward with expansive regulations that will impose tens of billions of dollars in new costs on American businesses and consumers. Many of these new rules are creating regulatory uncertainty, preventing new projects from going forward, discouraging new investment, and stifling job creation.
    We encourage the cost-effective development of renewable energy, but the taxpayers should not serve as venture capitalists for risky endeavors. It is important to create a pathway toward a market-based approach for renewable energy sources and to aggressively develop alternative sources for electricity generation such as wind, hydro, solar, biomass, geothermal, and tidal energy. Partnerships between traditional energy industries and emerging renewable industries can be a central component in meeting the nation's long-term needs. Alternative forms of energy are part of our action agenda to power the homes and workplaces of the nation.


    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 07:24:49 PM EST
    In the Reforming Government section you gotta read the "Preserving" the District of Colombia.

    It would take a diary (or two) to unpack those few paragraphs.

    Parent

    Sorry one more (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 07:37:09 PM EST
    Whoever said the above was misinformed the anti gay marriage stuff remains.

    Parent
    That's (none / 0) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 07:43:02 PM EST
    the 2012 platform. No matter, they will probably just cut and paste most of it, adding some sht about Muslims and Mexicans call Hillary a wicked witch and slather it with plenty of make America great again sloganeering.

    Parent
    Omg (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 07:45:45 PM EST
    Relay sorry That's ncredibly stupid.  Jeralyn should delete this entire subthread.

    I grovel in mortification.

    So maybe the gay marriage stuff has been removed.

    Parent

    "Clean" (none / 0) (#140)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 11:14:05 AM EST
    b/s

    Parent
    Read (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 07:41:57 PM EST
    one section and it sounds like the same thing they've always said only it's like the language went through the Luntz washing machine. They don't come out and say it but they pretty much are still against gay marriage but instead of coming out and saying they say "marriage is between one man and one woman". SO FWIW.

    Parent
    Looks like more bad news (none / 0) (#25)
    by ragebot on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 08:24:20 PM EST
    for the sugar barons.

    Sad to say only state and local bribes from the sugar barons were detailed.

    CNN (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 08:33:47 PM EST
    Cleveland (CNN)A Virginia Republican delegate fighting to vote against Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention next week won a critical court battle Monday, but still faces a series of obstacles.

    The decision is a win for anti-Trump delegates, but it only removes one hurdle in their attempt to break free from voting for Trump.
    The decision strikes down Virginia's ability to fine any delegates that don't vote with the primary's results, but it says nothing about whether the Republican Convention delegates will adopt rules mandating delegates adhere to primary results -- the biggest challenge in their path

    The Rules Committee starts meeting on Thursday

    Harvard study - no racial bias in police shootings (none / 0) (#32)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jul 11, 2016 at 11:48:48 PM EST
    A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

    But when it comes to the most lethal form of force -- police shootings -- the study finds no racial bias.

    "It is the most surprising result of my career," said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.

    Nytimes

    No comments? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Redbrow on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 03:13:51 AM EST
    I thought eveybody so worried and distraught over the "epidemic of racist cops murdering black men" would be relieved to know it does not actually exist.

    Now maybe we focus attention on the real epidemic of young black men being murdered by other young black men.

    Parent

    Even (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:03:27 AM EST
    taking this study at face value, it seems to be saying, "sure we harass and manhandle you more but we are equal opportunity when it comes to actual killing", talk about damning with faint praise.

    Parent
    Ask Eric Garner (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:05:49 AM EST
    If a gun is needed

    Parent
    See my post above (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ragebot on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 12:21:58 PM EST
    about how NYC's lust for greater tax revenue is the real cause of Gardner's death.

    The only reason there is a law against selling single cigarettes is to protect tax revenue.  Eliminating the law would have saved Gardner's life.

    Problem is it would cost NYC big bucks to eliminate this law.

    Parent

    You're kidding me??? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 12:49:01 PM EST
    The tax revenue people killed Garner instead of the police who actually put their hands around his neck? So laws killed him instead of the people who strangled them to death? Man, I would love to see that used as an excuse in court. Your honor since the laws say it is illegal to sell cigarettes out of the pack it is the fault of the law not the person who actually did the killing.

    Parent
    But he's right GA... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 01:25:26 PM EST
    no loosie law, no reason to stop, no homicide.    

    Unless you're saying the cops would have just found another reason to harass Eric Garner, that I'll buy.

    Parent

    You could (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 01:29:24 PM EST
    make the point that the law was used to harass him but no way did it make them kill him. You're essentially saying that broken taillights cause murder.

    Parent
    convenience store, there would have been no BOLO for the perps and Philander would still be alive.

    Parent
    CaptHowdy, Question for you... (none / 0) (#56)
    by NycNate on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 10:55:02 AM EST
    Do you think that Mr. Garner did the right thing when confronted by the police?  I'm not blaming him.  Nor am I absolving the cops of any blame.  

    But when you see that video, do you see anything that Mr. Garner could have done differently to prevent this from happening?

    Parent

    If I may chime in... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 11:02:45 AM EST
    I think he was justified in his reaction based on repeated negative interactions with police that I'd go so far as to call harassment...in that context it makes total sense.  The man reached his breaking point.

    The right thing for his safety?  Hell to the no.  The safest thing to do is to bend over and take it.  Easier said than done when black folks are bending over and taking it on the regular.  

    Parent

    Maybe if he was armed (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 11:37:00 AM EST
    CaptHowdy, Question for you... (none / 0) (#77)
    by NycNate on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 02:01:50 PM EST
    You never answered my question.  I understand the cigarette laws.  I'm not agreeing with the laws.  

    Mr. Garner had been arrested 25+ times in his lifetime.  All without loss of life or limb.  

    So my question remains:
    Do you think that Mr. Garner handled the situation properly that day?  Or is all of the blame on the officers?  

    Would you teach your son/daughter/niece/nephew to react the way Mr. Garner did that day?  

    Parent

    There is no reason to be asking this question, (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 04:22:38 PM EST
    Nate, and particularly not repeatedly, except to impliedly blame Garner for the police murdering him. You can deny it. But there is no other reason to keep obsessing on that question.

    Parent
    What Peter said (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 04:27:41 PM EST
    This is all very puzzling to "Nate." (none / 0) (#158)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 05:14:17 PM EST
    He's led a charmed life, apparently, if we're to believe his claim to have never encountered "a single racist white."

    To top off his fantastic good fortune, "Nate" found us.  We're Ronnie's Shining City on a hill, so pure of heart we positively sparkle.

    (that's your cue, Howdy.  Make us sparkle)

    Parent

    On the 1st, 2nd, 3rd interactions? (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 02:26:30 PM EST
    How about 25+ arrests and only god knows how many stops?

    What would be your breaking point Nate?

    It's not like he even reacted violently, he just  mildly resisted imo and voiced his displeasure at the constant harassment. And the cops went apesh*t...did they handle the situation properly?  Who are the supposed professionals trained in defusing tense situations?  

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#81)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 03:26:53 PM EST
    have personally witnessed several incidents where cops went overboard when trying to effect an arrest on a seemingly compliant suspect.

    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 04:19:51 PM EST
    NycNate has totally convinced me.  Eric Garner deserved it.  Why didn't I see it before?

    Parent
    If I remember correctly (none / 0) (#90)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 04:40:15 PM EST
    There were supervisors on site as well.
    And the only reason they were there, store owners would repeatedly complain to the local precinct and City Hall, they were losing revenue.
    Then City Hall pushes the police to enforce this law, to mollify the store owners, and preserve their revenue flow.
    Police would prefer not to enforce laws like this, this is a law for local revenue collectors , not law enforcement

    Parent
    If (none / 0) (#93)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 04:58:24 PM EST
    Police would prefer not to enforce laws like this
    what causes it to escalate into a violent confrontation? I think you are implying, probably correctly, that the police would be rather something else. Ask yourself why do these routine, sometimes even trivial encounters, often escalate so quickly into deadly encounters?

    Parent
    It all starts (none / 0) (#96)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 05:20:40 PM EST
    With non compliance of a police command.

    In Garners case, he knew the drill, the cops knew the drill.
    Garner balked, the cop used measures to bring Garner to the ground.

    If Garner complied, no tragedy, If the cop used less force, no tragedy,
    If Garner was healthier, no tragedy

    Parent

    That's (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 05:59:44 PM EST
    always the answer for you, instant compliance or else. There are dozens of reason for noncompliance ranging from disability, confusion to even a primitive fight or flight reaction. You keep putting the onus on the citizen to act in a rational manner in the face of a very stressful situation, that of course is a crapshoot.

    Time after time it appears that the police are acting on a short fuse. IMO that's the problem.

    Parent

    There are degrees of noncompliance (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 06:30:17 AM EST
    and what often amounts to percieved noncompliance..

    Cops in this country are trained with the simplistic "take control of the situation" model that assumes that by striking fear in people compliance will automatically ensue.

    What many can't seem to fathom is that many people go on the offensive when they perceive themselves to be in physical danger.

    Which is why the El Zimmo fan club could never understand or bother themselves to consider that Trayvon may very well have been "standing his standing his ground"..

    I've had some of the ex-offenders I work with tell me that if someone points a gun at them from close range, they're going for it.

    Parent

    The important thing in these cases (none / 0) (#138)
    by McBain on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 11:08:44 AM EST
    is to look at the evidence.  In the Martin/Zimmerman case there was compelling evidence Martin was the aggressor.  

    I've had some of the ex-offenders I work with tell me that if someone points a gun at them from close range, they're going for it.

    It sounds like you're excusing the bad and stupid behavior of criminals.  That's part of the problem we have right now.

    Parent

    Let's not even go there with Treyvon Martin. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 03:25:36 PM EST
    The evidence conclusively shows that the teenager was being stalked by an armed man who pointedly ignored a police dispatcher's specific request that he remain in the car and let officers check out the situation.

    Parent
    Why would you automatically (none / 0) (#149)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 03:42:43 PM EST
    assume that the armed person in a confrontation is the good guy?

    I said nothing about people in the midst of criminal acts, I was talking about unarmed people taking the offensive and defending themselves from what they perceive to be a deadly threat.

    Parent

    I think probably the police are frustrated (none / 0) (#107)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 07:53:45 PM EST
    with wasting their time busting people on thes types of offenses. No excuse of course for taking it out on the people they are arresting, but it cannot make them feel good working this petty stuff.

    Parent
    Well, I'm not so sure "often" (none / 0) (#123)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 11:42:47 PM EST
    is the right word here, but, for example, in the the Ferguson case Mike Brown was very likely a little chippy when the cop stopped him because of Mike's preceding altercation with the convenience store clerk.

    In that same vein, I think there is at least a 50/50 chance Philander Castile was also a little chippy when the cop stopped him, as he very well may have been the gunman in the Super USA convenience store robbery that had occurred a few days previously and that led to him being pulled over for due to the BOLO...

    Parent

    A 50/50 chance that Castile was the robber? (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 04:21:00 PM EST
    Based on what, exactly -- his "wide-set nose"?

    Only two days ago, numerous people -- including a few posters here -- were pressing the case that Castile had courted his fate because he was a lousy and irresponsible driver who was guilty of driving with a broken taillight, per the 52 previous times he'd been pulled over and cited by the police for various perceived traffic offenses.

    But now that we know that the officers' taillight rationale was merely an excuse to pull Castile over, are these same people just going to neatly segue into a brand new free-form assumption about the deceased, by which he's now somehow gotten what was coming to him because he had previously robbed a convenience store?

    While it's true that the two officers who had pulled over Castile reported to dispatch that they thought he might have resembled a suspect in an armed armed robbery four days prior, their sole reason for doing so was Castile's "wide-set nose" -- an observation of a fairly common physical trait amongst African Americans, which they had further perceived from the rather unique perspective of a police car in motion at the time.

    But it is also a fact that Castile was neither "wanted" by the authorities on an armed robbery charge, nor was he a "suspect" in any such case at the time he was shot and killed by those officers. And as of this writing, there is no evidence linking the deceased to that convenience store hold-up, never mind underscoring any assumption of 50/50 odds that he was indeed the perpetrator.

    We're supposed to be better than this.

    Parent

    Yup, last night I was 50/50. (none / 0) (#162)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 05:32:46 PM EST
    However today I've seen better photos and the gun laying beside Philando's car does not now look like the same gun that used in the convenience store robbery, so I concur that it almost assuredly was not him.

    Parent
    Unlike others in this sad case, at least ... (none / 0) (#195)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 14, 2016 at 03:52:07 AM EST
    ... you stood up and admitted that you were mistaken, and that deserves to be recognized.

    Parent
    I want to look into it (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 05:59:02 AM EST
    Does it start from the point that the person already has contact with the police, like is pulled over, and go from there and measure how many were shot? Also, is it shot, or fatally shot?

    The headlines I have seen do not go into numbers like that and I have not had a chance to look deeper.

    Either way it does not change the fact that some of these shootings are bad. whu are whites so complacent about it if they are getting killed n equal numbers? That is interesting.

    Parent

    Also, does it assess the shootings to determine (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 06:27:29 AM EST
    how many had the attributes of justified shootings, vs unjustified, regardless of the official designation? Or what the consequences were for the officers involved?  These are things that can be measured.

    And they are the factors that lead to anger and the feeling that the lives taken did not matter to anyone.

    Parent

    That's what I was thinking... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 08:31:07 AM EST
    what's the breakdown on shootings that are questionable at best, criminal at worst, and the victim was unarmed?  

    Using police generated reports and police generated statistics will always be questionable in my eyes.  Any fair study would give equal weight to "official" reports and the victims/witnesses version of the events.

    Parent

    Context (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 08:42:38 AM EST
    In short, they're interesting, but have some important limitations, which Fryer, a MacArthur genius grant winner who was the youngest black professor to ever earn tenure at Harvard, is very open about. As he puts it, "this paper takes first steps into the treacherous terrain of understanding the nature and extent of racial differences in police use of force." It's not meant to be the last word, nor should anybody treat it that way.

    SNIP

    Then, of course, there are those limitations. First, much of the data on shootings comes from major cities with large black populations, which might be more sensitive about race issues in policing. This is especially striking when you consider that the most famous shooting of recent years took place in Ferguson, a small, inner-ring suburb with its own police department. "It is possible that these departments only supplied the data because they are either enlightened or were not concerned about what the analysis would reveal," Fryer writes. "In essence, this is equivalent to analyzing labor market discrimination on a set of firms willing to supply a researcher with their Human Resources data!" Who knows how the situation may look in other cities or towns. "Relatedly, even police departments willing to supply data may contain police officers who present contextual factors at that time of an incident in a biased manner," Fryer adds--which is a polite researcher's way of saying that the study relies on reports written by officers who may well be lying about what really transpired.

    Readers also need to be cautious about how they interpret the findings. Once again, Fryer suggests blacks and Hispanics are no more likely to be shot than whites after they've been stopped by police. But as a few sharp writers have noted today, that doesn't tell us anything about whether people of color are being stopped excessively in the first place.....

    Slate

    But data scientists and policing experts often note, comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population.

    According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.

    U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times as great as the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.

    WaPo


    Parent

    The valid comparison is not the numbers (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 10:47:51 AM EST
    of persons shot and killed vs their group's population numbers, but rather numbers of persons shot vs their group's crime numbers.

    As an example, I would go out on a limb and guess that males as a group are shot and killed by the police at a much higher rate then women, but male violent criminals as a group are probably shot and killed probably at a fairly similar rate as the female violent criminal group.

    Parent

    I agree with the author (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 11:46:42 AM EST
    that this is an interesting first step, as far as it goes, with a limited dataset. I'm glad he and others are beginning this work.

    Parent
    But he was so pleased with himself (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 08:53:53 AM EST
    He finally had a point dammit

    FORTUNE

    Fryer's work analyzed thousands of police reports from a sample of U.S. cities. The reports, which were written by officers from 2000 to 2015, showed no police bias in the shootings of black suspects compared to white ones. That's problem No. 1 with the data, which Fryer admits is limited, but there was no easy way to get access to reports from victims, or witnesses.

    Problem No. 2: It's only the shootings data that shows a lack of racial bias. Look beyond shootings, and even the self-reported data from police departments shows that officers have a stronger propensity to use physical force with African Americans than their white counterparts

    The Times story emphasized its "surprising" results on lack of shooting bias. The story was quickly picked up by conservative media outlets like Drudge Report and Fox News insider (redbrow), which ran the headline "Harvard Economist's Study Finds No Racial Bias in Police Shootings" above a graphic from Fryer's study showing racial bias against blacks in every other use of force category.
    In an interview with Fortune, Fryer says these misleading reports are "unfortunate," pointing out that many high profile fatal encounters involving blacks and police--people like Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, Barbara Dawson, and Freddie Gray, for example - did not involve guns



    Parent
    From the WaPo article (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:17:09 AM EST
    U.S. police officers have shot and killed the exact same number of unarmed white people as they have unarmed black people: 50 each. But because the white population is approximately five times as great as the black population, that means unarmed black Americans were five times as likely as unarmed white Americans to be shot and killed by a police officer.

    FBI stats show that although the US population contains 12.3% blacks they commit 28% of the crime.

    As for murder, blacks commit 49.4% yet they are 12.3% if the US population.

    The article you link to seeks to reframe the discussion and if not a deliberate lie then it certainly is a world class attempt to confuse.

    Parent

    Uh huh. (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 10:57:31 AM EST
    FBI stats show that although the US population contains 12.3% blacks they commit 28% of the crime.

    Or is it that blacks get arrested and prosecuted more often than whites?

    Since the FBI gets their numbers from individual law enforcement agencies, I don't think you can say that is a perfectly valid number.  You'd at least have to have lots of caveats attached.

    Parent

    If you want to disbelieve the FBI stats (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 09:18:46 PM EST
    then you have no valid position. Period.

    Police are dispatched to areas where a large amount of crime occurs. Therefore it follows that more arrests will occur.

    What we do know for sure is that blacks, 12.3% of the population, are committing about 28% of the total crimes and 49% of the murders,

    If you want to claim that much of this is caused by our horrific drug laws I agree. Clean these up and then let's see what happens.

    Parent

    No, we don't Jim (none / 0) (#182)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 09:22:49 PM EST
    What we do know for sure is that blacks, 12.3% of the population, are committing about 28% of the total crimes and 49% of the murders

    What we know is that the FBI stats are incomplete and are based on self reporting.

    Parent

    Doesn't really surprise me (none / 0) (#65)
    by McBain on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 11:49:25 AM EST
    Popular beliefs and opinions are often incorrect.

    What's more important is for people to start looking at each incident independently.  No matter what this study says, you have to look at the facts of each case.  Right now people are all upset over two recent shootings where there's no evidence of racism. 5 police officers may have been killed because of this rush to judgement.  

    At some point people will realize we're not a horribly racist country. We're actually very tolerant of different cultures.  The question is how much damage will happen before people come to their senses?

    Parent

    Actually, no. It is not true that you cannot learn (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 04:17:17 PM EST
    from examining large numbers of incidents and drawing general conclusions and inferences. Does it establish the "truth" about any individual incident? No. But the careful examination of data can in fact generate knowledge, contrary to the apparent beliefs of many Americans these days.

    Parent
    Those upset over recent shootings by police (none / 0) (#100)
    by McBain on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 06:12:02 PM EST
    aren't interested in careful examination of data.

    Now, give an example of how your point relates to recent events, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin?

    Parent

    The relationship is very clear. (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 08:04:45 PM EST
    Over the course of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of police-citizen interactions, as every study of large sets of data shows, black people (including especially, but not limited to, young men) are arbitrarily and/or pretextually stopped, both as pedestrians and as drivers, and often unlawfully detained and/or frisked, and treated high-handedly if not rudely and abusively (including racist abuse) on a greatly disproportionate basis, relative to other races and ethnic groups. The same obtains at every other or subsequent stage of the criminal justice system. This makes the victims of this official misconduct, along with many of their friends, family members, neighbors and acquaintances (as well as many decent-minded strangers who may not be directly affected) angry, resentful, and disrespectful of authority. This response to mistreatment trickles down into behavior and feeds a vicious circle of bad outcomes. All of which undermines our society's efforts to overcome the poisonous legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

    Parent
    I don't think the people making the most noise (none / 0) (#118)
    by McBain on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:10:26 PM EST
    right now are  reading statistics. They are basing their decisions on personal experience and the misleading reports they see on TV and internet.
    black people (including especially, but not limited to, young men) are arbitrarily and/or pretextually stopped, both as pedestrians and as drivers, and often unlawfully detained and/or frisked, and treated high-handedly if not rudely and abusively (including racist abuse) on a greatly disproportionate basis,

    Don't you think this goes both ways?  There are biased, racist or just bad cops.  There are also young black men committing crimes a high rate and/or doing stupid things when detained or questioned by cops (justly or unjustly).

    The problem I have with BLM and other activists is they aren't willing to look at both sides.    


    Parent

    I said what I think, with care and in detail (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Peter G on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:30:45 PM EST
    I believe you are attempting to create a false equivalency between two groups that are very differently situated.
       As for "reading statistics," that's just silly. No one believes the righteous anger of the oppressed is triggered by reading about their own oppression. The statistics, however, are there for anyone to study who doubts that the anger, which arises from experience (as I described), is indeed righteous.

    Parent
    I'm not sure you have put much care and detail (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by McBain on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 10:02:40 PM EST
    into this conversation.  You keep talking about statistics without citing any.  I don't expect you to but don't lecture me about "detail".

    Anyway, this is my point....

    Not waiting for the facts, or flat out ignoring them, has led to riots and deaths.  We still don't know what happened in Minnesota and Louisiana yet people are making some very bad decisions.  I get what you're saying about the trickle down effect and a vicious cycle but that doesn't excuse the bad behavior we're seeing from activists, rioters and killers.   If you can't see that then we are miles apart.
     

    Parent

    You cannot point to any comment of mine (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 09:22:08 AM EST
    in which I "excuse" bad (much less violent) behavior. I address the points I choose to address, and do my best to answer questions I think I can offer a helpful answer to, generally trying to stay within my area(s) of expertise. If you actually want cites to sources for the data and statistics there are dozens of them readily available to you. Many have been cited in other comments on this blog, including quite recently.

    Parent
    I already did point to one of your comments (none / 0) (#142)
    by McBain on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 01:20:05 PM EST
    That I felt was an excuse.  It's the one I quoted earlier.  

    Being stopped/detained/questioned slightly more often than other races doesn't justify the nonsense that's been going on. Perhaps, you don't disagree with that but it seems like  you have a hard time acknowledging the rush to judgement that goes on in just about all of these high profile cases.  No one wants to wait to hear the other side of story.

    Once the facts come in, the activists  look ridiculous...

    • George Zimmerman acted in self defense
    • Darren Willson was justified in his shooting
    • There's no evidence of a rough ride in the Freddie Gray case

    The facts aren't in yet in the events in Louisiana and Minnesota but there's no evidence of racism so far. Statistics about past incidents aren't relevant to assessing guilt or blame in those  two cases.

    Perhaps we're having two slightly different conversations here and don't really disagree with each other as much as it seems.  

    Parent

    And we can throw in this that doesn't detract (none / 0) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 09:34:07 PM EST
    from either side.

    In MN the officer was responding to a BOLA. The broken tail light was just a way to get a look at the guy without making a big deal about it. We now know that the shooting happened when Castile reached towards the weapon despite beyond warned not to.

    BTW - The girlfriend has changed her story.

    In LA the police answered a 911 call in which they were told a man had a gun. There is no evidence that they did anything untoward until the man refused to follow commands and resisted. During the struggle the man reached towards his gun and was killed.

    In both cases the stops were legal and nothing of any great importance would have happened if the parties had complied with police commands.

    That's the story the media and "activists" aren't reporting and people have died because of it.

    Parent

    Peter g is a well-informed commenter (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 09:56:21 AM EST
    You are arguing w/him in vain.

    Parent
    thank you, Oc (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 10:08:34 PM EST
    I will just say that in my view, whether I was excusing anyone's illegal or bad behavior can be judged by what I wrote, and not by what anyone who is trying to pick a fight with me claims to "feel" I was implying but not saying.

    Parent
    Didn't notice... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 08:45:13 AM EST
    Cleveland has achieved this level of bizarre for the RNC convention...water guns, soda cans, canned goods and tennis balls are banned from the convention area...but real guns are cool?

    I guess we need a constitutional amendment affirming the right to bear Spaghetti-O's, Spaldings, Super Soakers & Sprites.

    How about eggs (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 08:57:01 AM EST
    I would definitely ban eggs.

    Parent
    If possessing food... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:13:45 AM EST
    outdoors on public property isn't a universally agreed upon inalienable right, I'm throwing in the towel Dude.

    Parent
    But eggs? (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:18:26 AM EST
    Hen grenades?   Golden pounders?   I would way rather get soaked by a water gun.

    This is sort of a joke but I bet people are stocking up.

    Parent

    This calls for a little B-Boys... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:32:24 AM EST
    Does Trump Owe it All to the Press? (none / 0) (#44)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:10:45 AM EST
    Arianna Huffington argues that despite the fact that Donald Trump attacks the press as the only group that doesn't love him, he has gotten to where he is because of the way the press has treated him.

    Les Moonves (CBS CEO) (none / 0) (#54)
    by pitachips on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 10:05:33 AM EST
    "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS," he said of the presidential race.

    "Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now? ... The money's rolling in and this is fun," he said.

    "I've never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going," said Moonves.

    "Donald's place in this election is a good thing," he said Monday at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in San Francisco.

    "There's a lot of money in the marketplace," the exec said of political advertising so far this presidential season.

    Parent

    Today is Loretta Lynchs (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:12:25 AM EST
    Turn for a play date with congressional republicans.  It is being carried on cspan3

    Maybe she (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:27:45 AM EST
    can explain to the GOP how classification etc. works because the GOP seems to lack the most basic understanding of this whole issue.

    Parent
    She says she's not going (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:32:33 AM EST
    To comment on the nvestigation

    This could be good.

    Parent

    The most troubling thing so far (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 11:09:55 AM EST
    Louie Gomert was a Judge

    Parent
    It seems (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 11:19:51 AM EST
    like another situation for the GOP to become the butt of jokes.

    Parent
    Nothing much better (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 11:34:50 AM EST
    Than watching the Keystone Kops try to prosecute a prosecutor

    Parent
    From Hillary and Bernie (none / 0) (#69)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    And I read (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 01:15:22 PM EST
    the killer used those cop killer bullets that Dick Cheney so loved and the NRA supported everybody being able to sell. It seems no matter what happens the NRA had some part in the event.

    Parent
    New (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 01:16:18 PM EST
    guy being vetted for Hillary's VP James Stavridis

    Not going to happen (none / 0) (#75)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 01:36:20 PM EST
    But maybe they plan on giving him a speaker spot at the convention.

    Parent
    Okay. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 04:38:54 PM EST
    So who is going to be it since you know who is not?

    Parent
    This (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 04:47:58 PM EST
    about Kaine on Mother Jones

    It long and interesting.  Quite a lot of stuff I did not know.  After reading it I see Kaine more as a more likely choice than I did before.  

    Which is not to say he would be my choice.  

    Parent

    ... I see myself in Home Depot, staring at paint samples of the colors beige and eggshell?

    Parent
    In (none / 0) (#95)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 05:17:47 PM EST
    these crazy and ugly times, vanilla does have a certain appeal.

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 05:45:25 PM EST
    But these crazy and ugly times have also provided Democrats with a singular opportunity to run up the score, whereas Tim Kaine is my choice if I desire only to run out the clock.

    Parent
    Easy to say (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 05:50:35 PM EST
    When your own ass is not on the line.  Another view might be there is so much at stake and the danger is so great it's not the time to spike the ball in the end zone just yet.

    I personally would probably not pick Kaine.  But I totally understand why Hillary might.  Might.

    Parent

    First, you have to put the ball in the end zone. From my own experience, you play to win and don't play to not lose.

    But when you have an clear advantage in a contest, and yet you play it safe so as to not "blow it," oftentimes your own caution inadvertently creates opportunities for your opponents which otherwise wouldn't be there for them, and thus the very conditions under which you might indeed lose.

    Per recent history, we Democrats tend to not do so well when we are overly cautious, because we are all too prone to surrender the initiative unnecessarily, and soon find ourselves fighting on terrain that favors our opponents.

    You run out the clock when there's only a few minutes remaining in the game and your opponent has no timeouts left. You don't start doing so in the middle of the third quarter. Rather, you keep doing the stuff you've been doing which allowed you to build that lead in the first place. Democrats need to be aggressive and keep driving the ball relentlessly down field, and not give Republicans a chance to catch their breath.

    Tim Kaine, may God bless him, likes to play it safe to the point of being risk-adverse, and he lacks the killer instinct that's needed this year. He played it that way as DNC chair in 2010, and looked what happened to us.

    Then, Kaine nearly threw away his own "slam dunk" 2012 U.S. Senate campaign against the terribly damaged goods that was former Sen. George Allen, by sitting contentedly on an initially sizable lead in the polls, which allowed Allen to seize the initiative and take the fight to him. That campaign ended with Kaine on his heels, and the election was needlessly close (51-49%) when it clearly didn't have to be.

    That's why Hillary Clinton ought to seriously look elsewhere for her Veep pick. She needs a political street fighter who won't pull his or her punches. Running a traditionally conventional campaign in a most unconventional year is just asking for needless problems down the road.

    Sen. Kaine is not the man for the moment. For that matter, Mrs. Clinton might just as well pick Martha Coakley, another Democrat with strong credentials on paper, and all the political instincts of a prairie chicken that's simply waiting to be caught, plucked and devoured by the next passing coyote.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    You definitely win on (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 07:36:36 PM EST
    Sports metaphors.   Trump is a candidate that will make many republicans look elsewhere.  Considering the "new voters" Trump might bring in this is a reason to consider Kaine who will not scare them away.   We have democrats.   After what Bernie did today the democrats will not be a problem.   Let's face it, the VP is a largely symbolic office.  At this point I begin to agree with those who say Warren is better in the senate.  There is no reason to pick someone who could be called unready.   Excitement is not necessarily needed.  Steady and solid is needed.  

    I'm not saying it will be or even should be Kaine.  But I can see it.

    Aloha yerself

    Parent

    Whoa, did you see the clip of Kaine (none / 0) (#111)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 08:13:12 PM EST
    speaking fluent Spanish on Univision? Had no idea he had that in his his repertoire. Could be a tiebreaker there, at least among the boring white guy field.

    Parent
    I did not (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 08:15:44 PM EST
    But that fact was in the Mother Jones piece.  

    Parent
    Rachel had it (none / 0) (#114)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 08:33:38 PM EST
    She starts it midway into the interview and he has this happy warrior goofy grin on his face listening to the question, in Spanish, and gives a long fluent good humored answer. Maybe he is a good retail pol. That would help loosed HRC up a bit on the trail.

    Parent
    Sen. Cory Booker is also fluent in Spanish. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 08:52:14 PM EST
    I'd choose Booker over Kaine.

    Parent
    I like Booker. (none / 0) (#141)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 11:51:11 AM EST
    He has my support for whatever his future holds

    Parent
    It's about turnout, Cap'n. (none / 0) (#115)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    This is going to be a base election and quite frankly, our base is a helluva lot bigger than theirs. And when Democratic voters show up, Democratic candidates win -- emphasis on the words "show up.".

    If moderate Republicans feel like they have no place to go this year, that's their problem and not ours. They're of course welcome to join us but otherwise, it's really not our job as Democrats to create a safe harbor for them. In any event, they've shown themselves to be an irrelevant factor even in the GOP. So to me anyway, they're a likely nonfactor. Trump needs them more than Mrs. Clinton does.

    Rather, we need to focus like a laser beam on maximizing our own potential base turnout, which is the real key here and will be decisive in any event. Sen. Elizabeth Warren excites our base. Sens. Sherrod Brown and Al Franken would excite our base, given the opportunity, as would HUD Secretary Julian Castro or even our own U.S. senator, Brian Schatz.

    Sen. Tim Kaine, who's the consummate centrist to a fault, doesn't do any of that. He's the guy to whom you turn if you're willing to take your own party's base for granted, and appeal to that low-information demographic which is just right of center. At best, he's a benign selection. At worst, he deflates the enthusiasm of a lot of Bernie Sanders voters.

    But if Kaine attains the VP nomination, gains Mrs. Clinton's ear and has an influential role in the campaign itself -- well, given his history, I'm not liking that at all. In the heat of political battle, he's proven himself to be a deer in the headlights of an opponent's oncoming column.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#113)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 08:18:48 PM EST
    am not sure that team D even needs any more offense. With Warren, Biden, Obama and now Sanders joining Clinton it's hard to imagine any VP pick having to be a shooter, just some strong minutes off the bench playing defense is really all you need.

    In any case VP picks are usually meaningless votewise, and have rarely if ever been shown to help run up the score.

    Looking to the future, I agree, we do need more excitement than Kaine but unfortunately we do have a rather weak bench in that department, our promising young stars just seem not quite ready for prime time.

    Parent

    Well, let's (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 06:19:02 PM EST
    go back to 1980 with VP picks.

    Bush Sr. Totally not exciting.
    Dan Quayle totally not exciting.
    Ferraro probably exciting.
    Bentsen exciting
    Gore exciting.
    Lieberman not exciting.
    Cheney not exciting
    Edwards exciting
    Biden not exciting

    So it would seem that whether VPs are exciting or not exciting they don't seem to make much of a difference in the end.

    Parent

    You left out (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 06:23:41 PM EST
    The definitive cautionary tale of the "exciting" VP

    Sara Palin

    Parent

    SMH (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 07:44:39 PM EST
    I sure did!

    Parent
    This snippet from a Sunday Times article.. (none / 0) (#122)
    by desertswine on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 11:38:09 PM EST
    about vp candidate Sargent Shriver made me smile.

    In the pageant of authenticity that is the American campaign trail, candidates show us what they eat, and we tell them who they are. Dining like a local might seem a good way to demonstrate that under that Ivy League pedigree is a down-home Everyman worthy of your trust and your vote, but attempts to seem truly ordinary can easily sour into bungled displays of being hopelessly out of touch. Sargent Shriver, the Democratic candidate for the vice presidency in 1972, was talking to steelworkers at a bar in Youngstown, Ohio, when he followed up their orders for more beer with "Make mine a Courvoisier!" (He lost.)

    I'll have one too.

    Parent

    ... easily devouring the hapless Paul Ryan in that year's pivotal vice presidential debate and then looking like he wanted seconds, whereas "exciting" John Edwards failed miserably in his respective debate with Vice President Dick Cheney, thanks to a performance that bordered on obsequious. Presented with an opportunity to do so, Biden didn't hesitate to go for the political jugular. In retrospect, John Edwards was too high-minded to think that it even mattered.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 09:05:07 PM EST
    well that's kind of my point. That Mother Jones article made me look at Kaine differently. The Biden pick to me was a head scratcher at the time but it worked. If Kaine is picked Hillary and her team see something that none of the rest of us do.

    Parent
    On the VP thing (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 10:08:17 PM EST
    It seems to me much more likely Donald will need to pick an out of the box VP.   I'm still having a hard time believing it will be boring Pence.

    Newt I could see, it would be a huge story, but I still doubt it.

    Donald is losing.  He needs a "game change".  With all that implies.

    Parent

    Much too soon too tell (none / 0) (#124)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 06:01:42 AM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/2btcr45

    RCP battleground state polls

    Parent

    Yes, the Q polls (none / 0) (#126)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 08:29:59 AM EST
    Being talked about all over the media today.

    The same Q polls that have been notoriously wrong all year, mainly because their samples assume unprecedented white turout.

    But things will change many times over the next couple of weeks with VP picks and conventions.

    Parent

    That (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 08:48:10 AM EST
    And the point Rachel made so well last night is the top numbers are not the story.  The story is the internals.  How Donald is doing with, for example, college educated whites who have voted republican in every election since Eisenhower, -11, and with the the broader college educated likely voter that Obana won by 2, Donald is -22.

    As Rachel noted that is a third of the electorate and you just don't lose a third of the electorate by 22 points and win an election.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 09:07:56 AM EST
    and that is what most of the media is completely ignoring in order to pretend the race is close.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 06:16:08 PM EST
    for that link. That's a really interesting article about Kaine and he just might be the right pick for Hillary. We shall see.

    Parent
    Head fake (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    Do Greeks vote Dem.? (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 10:00:17 AM EST
    He dissed the Turks treatment of his great-uncle and grandfather.

    Parent
    Fox News (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 03:18:20 PM EST
    suspend ties with Newt Gingrich.

    VP?

    Oh by, does god really love me that much? (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 03:32:15 PM EST
    Trump campaign (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 04:01:39 PM EST
    Says VP announcement will come Friday.

    Instead of descending an escalator, will the VP pick do something like base jump within a Trumo hotel?

    In other news, Elizabeth Warren will speak Monday night of the convention.

    Parent

    Dear (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 04:46:50 PM EST
    Lord COULD WE GET THAT LUCKY??

    Parent
    Want to smile? (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 04:30:12 PM EST
    Aw, that's too bad.Poor babies are going (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 12, 2016 at 08:00:33 PM EST
    to have to miss what surely would have been a very fun Hillary Hate-fest in normal times. But these are not normal times.

    Parent
    Howdy (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 09:56:33 AM EST
    got an answer for you about the GOP platform. According to the Log Cabin Republicans the GOP platform is the most anti-LGBT platform ever.

    And did the ridiculous (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 10:31:06 AM EST
    Dumbass log cabin self loather say if he was going to vote for it?

    Let me guess, yes!


    Parent

    Full (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 10:52:45 AM EST
    statement here

    Parent
    Bahaha (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 11:02:47 AM EST

    That's why I'm writing to ask for your help.

    Please give today and give generously -- $500, $250, $100, or whatever you can give would go a long way to ensuring we don't go quietly into the night.

    Please, go quietly, and quickly, into the night.  Or loudly and slowly.  Just f@cking go.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 03:01:37 PM EST
    if you give us money maybe they won't beat up on us. Please Republicans don't beat up on us too bad.

    Parent
    AND THE NATION MOURNS (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 04:13:24 PM EST
    "obvious merit hire" Luke Russert is leaving journalism

    I'm betting that means he got a better offer from FOX.

    Ha (none / 0) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 07:39:43 PM EST
    Chris Hayes talking about Trumps VP search blah blah Pence blah blah Newt And Trumps older children met with Chris Cristie

    This is funny because one of his "older children" is Ivanka.  Who happens to be married to Jared Kushner.  Why is that funny?  Well because of the history Cristie has with his father Charles Kushner

    In 2005, following an investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey,[16] Kushner was convicted of making illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion and witness tampering by attempting to silence his sister and brother-in-law by creating a sex tape of his brother-in-law with a prostitute.[17] Chris Christie, then the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, negotiated a plea agreement with him and he was sentenced to two years in prison.[1][18][19] He has since been released

    This is said to have been brutal with Cristie dragging Kushner through the mud about prostitutes and drugs and on and on.

    Oh to have been  a fly on the wall for that

    I guess (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 07:47:13 PM EST
    we certainly can knock Christie's name off the list. That kind of thing makes me think Trump really is running for revenge.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#184)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 09:27:31 PM EST
    The kids met with Pence today.  Reports are that they like Pence while Trump really wants Christie.

    Parent
    ABC (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 09:41:08 PM EST
    The third top contender is New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who ABC News confirmed is being vetted. Christie met with Trump's children on Monday, according to a senior party official

    LINK

    Parent

    Kushner and Christie (none / 0) (#196)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 14, 2016 at 05:38:07 AM EST
    Meet regularly, as Christie is head of the "transistion team".  The family did meet with him earlier in thecweek, but as I said they met with Pence on Wednesday.

    The kids want Pence.  Trump wants Christie, because of course, that's what we all want and need, TWO loudmouth boors from the NY area.

    On another note, they've released the itinerary for the Republican convention - Monday night will be all Benghazi.  But Tim Tebow will be speakingspeaking on Thursday night!

    It's a parade of D-listers....


    Parent

    The whole family (none / 0) (#186)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 at 09:35:31 PM EST
    Met with Pence.  As has been widely reported.  The kids met with Christie.

    That's what Hayes said.  I honestly don't know or care.


    Parent

    Would have loved to see the Trump family (none / 0) (#198)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 14, 2016 at 06:46:21 AM EST
    visit to what seemed to be a normal upper middle class Midwestern home. Not huuuuge or luxurious. Wonder if they kept the disdain under control.

    Parent
    Ruffian (none / 0) (#201)
    by CST on Thu Jul 14, 2016 at 08:51:54 AM EST
    I'm no expert myself, it's a brave new world we're all trying to navigate.

    But I usually open with "Hi so and so" and end with "Thanks," followed by an e-mail signature that includes name, position, company, email and phone.

    Not quite as stiff as a letter, but still includes some measure of the open/close formalities.

    Christie and Gingrich (none / 0) (#202)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 14, 2016 at 09:13:01 AM EST
    Are listed as speakers at the convention.   Pence is not, but there is a slot for "VP nominee".

    Hmm.....

    BREAKING: Trump picks Pence (none / 0) (#203)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 14, 2016 at 11:19:46 AM EST