Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 115: Pardon the Interruption

(+) Yeah! (+)

Pence/Stein 2020.
---

Kenri posted...

The alternative is whatever happens to you if you're not a cop and you're caught on tape planting drugs somewhere.

So like, I don't actually know what happens there for certain, but I assume being arrested is the first step. Maybe being fired? That would depend on circumstance, I guess.

Let's spin this around, remove all the emotion that is connected with police cases, and let's look at it neutrally. There's three stages here: being accused of a crime; being arrested/charged with a crime, and being found guilty of a crime. At what point is it appropriate to punish the person?
---

dowolf posted...

Let's spin this around, remove all the emotion that is connected with police cases, and let's look at it neutrally. There's three stages here: being accused of a crime; being arrested/charged with a crime, and being found guilty of a crime. At what point is it appropriate to punish the person?

Are you asking me how it actually works in our society or how I think it should work, like, philosophically?
---

Who was it in here that insisted Stein wasn't a nut
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Who was it in here that insisted Stein wasn't a nut

Probably JaKyL, who voted for her I believe.
---

Jakyl voted for her, though I don't know if he ever specifically denied that she was crazy
---

I know Cyclo came out in defense of her, as well.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

I know Cyclo came out in defense of her, as well.

Oh yeah, that sounds right
---

Aah, may have been Cyclo. I remember they got real hateful about it and that doesn't sound like Jakyl
---

i think she's crazy on some things but relatively sane on others.
however a scammer through it all who will make a buck no matter who the expense is.

like i can agree with her on many things but the whole thing she did after the election with that stupid fundraiser was among the most cruel and self-serving things i've seen a politician do. and that includes anything with Trump.
---

I mean she's going full on "BUT HILLARY" here which is just insane after literally taking people's money for the sole purpose of a recount to "hopefully" have her win instead of Trump
---

dowolf posted...

Kenri posted...

The alternative is whatever happens to you if you're not a cop and you're caught on tape planting drugs somewhere.

So like, I don't actually know what happens there for certain, but I assume being arrested is the first step. Maybe being fired? That would depend on circumstance, I guess.

Let's spin this around, remove all the emotion that is connected with police cases, and let's look at it neutrally. There's three stages here: being accused of a crime; being arrested/charged with a crime, and being found guilty of a crime. At what point is it appropriate to punish the person?

Well see, usually first they get arrested/detained, their name put in a police blotter, unpaid time lost from work, then if the case goes to trial (as video footage of this should, right?), they have to post bail before having to take unpaid time off work to attend court, etc etc could go on.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Jakyl voted for her, though I don't know if he ever specifically denied that she was crazy.

Yeah, I basically supported her entire platform outside of her being anti-nuclear and anti-GMO. She paid lip service to anti-vaxxers but never actually said she would do anything dumb there.

I didn't realize at the time how corrupt she was though
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Jakyl voted for her, though I don't know if he ever specifically denied that she was crazy

I also voted her because I publicly declared that I couldn't vote for Hillary after she quoted Hamilton in a tweet.
---

https://lawfareblog.com/considering-trumps-legal-position-and-problems-after-new-york-times-interview

A good summary of how Trump only hurt his own case in the recent interview he gave with the NYT.

Of particular note to me is how he characterizes his knowledge of the Trump Jr/Russian Lawyer meeting from the emails at the time, saying to him it seemed "unimportant."


Which is implying he was aware of it.

And he thought a meeting, ostensibly with someone from the Russian government handing his son dirt on Hillary to help Trump win, seemed "unimportant?"

THAT'S the line you're going with?
---

Kenri posted...

dowolf posted...

Let's spin this around, remove all the emotion that is connected with police cases, and let's look at it neutrally. There's three stages here: being accused of a crime; being arrested/charged with a crime, and being found guilty of a crime. At what point is it appropriate to punish the person?

Are you asking me how it actually works in our society or how I think it should work, like, philosophically?

Should, of course. What happens for individuals from various strata of society is not particularly relevant, if we wish to determine what is right.
---

I'm not actually convinced the state should be in the business of punishment at all. But there's no way to stop society from informally punishing people at step 1 (accusation), or even before that. I guess in an ideal world we'd wait for the trial and the verdict, but at the same time if I'm a business owner I'm sure as shit not going to keep employing someone after they're caught on tape trying to frame someone for drug possession. But all this is kind of outside the realm of reality and into the realm of "my wacky political/philosophical ideas".

It's kind of hard to answer this question without considering that the person's a cop, because the state being both employer and justice-dispenser is a unique situation that changes things. I think we definitely disagree on it being irrelevant, because an ideal world is so different in my head that it's hard to even translate this scenario to it.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Jill Stein going on a Trumpian style Twitter rant.

i like how twitter rants are now automatically associated with trump.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I didn't realize at the time how corrupt she was though

yeah, stein obviously sucks because of the fundraiser stuff but everyone in this topic already hated her before that happened, aside from you, cyclo and me. never really understood why. people never actually gave reasons aside from "she's an anti-vaxxer," which is false.
---

For one thing she was going around trying to convince people that Hillary was worse than Trump (because she wanted to get the votes of disillusioned liberals), which is an absolutely insane thing to believe for someone on the left to believe.

Also pandering to anti-vaxxers is pretty much as bad as being an anti-vaxxer.
---

Again it's not that she's anti-vaxx but that she panders to anti-vaxxers and doesn't fight them on it in any sense. Her pseudo-science doesn't stop there either - she does the same with fucking homeopathy and she's a god damn doctor, not to mention the Green Party's historical ideas on the subject, and many other subjects common to a "green party" like on GMOs and nuclear energy.

She loves conspiracy theorist nuts and other loons because they're incredibly easy to manipulate. The only reason people defend her is because she's another "left-wing" option without baggage or visibility, but she's nothing but garbage on her own.
---

eh, during the campaign i agreed with about 90% of what she was saying on economics, social issues, foreign policy, etc. didn't feel the need to completely vituperate her just because she's into pseudo-science and "panders to anti-vaxxers," but i guess i was in a small minority on that one.
---

on something I'm sure we can all get unite on... what the god damn fucking shit is wrong with youtube comments sections

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKJOy0M4Cp8

The CNN video on the teen that drowned with people recording.... just full of straight up black people are monsters comments

like I know you're not supposed to read Youtube comments but what the fuck
---

Just throwing a shout-out to whoever recommended Shields and Brooks on PBS awhile back -- this has been a nice rational 12-13 minutes each week. Latest episode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3MXqcoPkMM
---

https://twitter.com/garywhitta/status/889127309566918656

I laughed twice
---

oh man, this guy licks trump's balls so much

Watch out Pence, Trump will definitely try to find a way to replace you with him
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

eh, during the campaign i agreed with about 90% of what she was saying on economics, social issues, foreign policy, etc. didn't feel the need to completely vituperate her just because she's into pseudo-science and "panders to anti-vaxxers," but i guess i was in a small minority on that one.

Remember the left wing mantra, "perfect is the enemy of the good." But that only applies to Blue Dogs like Hillary. Actual left wing candidates must be viciously attacked over any possible flaw that people can find.
---

Kenri posted...

I'm not actually convinced the state should be in the business of punishment at all. But there's no way to stop society from informally punishing people at step 1 (accusation), or even before that. I guess in an ideal world we'd wait for the trial and the verdict, but at the same time if I'm a business owner I'm sure as shit not going to keep employing someone after they're caught on tape trying to frame someone for drug possession. But all this is kind of outside the realm of reality and into the realm of "my wacky political/philosophical ideas".

It's kind of hard to answer this question without considering that the person's a cop, because the state being both employer and justice-dispenser is a unique situation that changes things. I think we definitely disagree on it being irrelevant, because an ideal world is so different in my head that it's hard to even translate this scenario to it.

Or, to put it another way that makes me sound less like an insane person: societally it's appropriate to punish someone when it's clear they've done something wrong. The justice system might help with making it clear, but sometimes won't. So it could be at any of the three stages, or before or after or never, decided on a case by case basis. It's appropriate for the state to punish someone after due process, or never, depending on philosophically whether you see punishment as moral or not.

You are approaching this hypothetical very lazily. Yes, the employer may have an interest in removing an employee at an early stage, but is this ethical?

Ethics questions are generally very simple, if you are willing and able to drop your biases and reduce the problem to its core truths; once you have those tenets, you can expand them out to seemingly complex situations. Of course, doing that is no easy thing. I would argue, however, that it is worthwhile.
---

redrocket_pub posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

eh, during the campaign i agreed with about 90% of what she was saying on economics, social issues, foreign policy, etc. didn't feel the need to completely vituperate her just because she's into pseudo-science and "panders to anti-vaxxers," but i guess i was in a small minority on that one.

Remember the left wing mantra, "perfect is the enemy of the good." But that only applies to Blue Dogs like Hillary. Actual left wing candidates must be viciously attacked over any possible flaw that people can find.

Yes because there were zero attacks against Hillary during the campaign.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

redrocket_pub posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

eh, during the campaign i agreed with about 90% of what she was saying on economics, social issues, foreign policy, etc. didn't feel the need to completely vituperate her just because she's into pseudo-science and "panders to anti-vaxxers," but i guess i was in a small minority on that one.

Remember the left wing mantra, "perfect is the enemy of the good." But that only applies to Blue Dogs like Hillary. Actual left wing candidates must be viciously attacked over any possible flaw that people can find.

Yes because there were zero attacks against Hillary during the campaign.

The same people who were making excuses for all of Hillary's faults and saying we have to look past them are the ones who were attacking Stein the hardest.
---

The difference is that Stein never had a shot at winning. Republicans weren't going to be principled and vote for Gary Johnson or Evan McMullin. Hillary was far from perfect--and I think most people acknowledged that. Stein was also far from perfect, but also stood ZERO shot at winning. (Her running mate was also terrible, and called Bernie Sanders supporters racist)
---

yeah, seems like the people who like stein dislike hillary but dislike trump way more, and the people who love hillary hate trump and act like stein is the worst candidate ever.
---

I mean, I don't think any Hillary supporters genuinely, gun to their head, would take Trump over Stein.

But Stein's positions were a house of cards, where every card in that house was a conspiracy theory. I genuinely do not believe you can claim that her policy measures would have been better than Clinton's. If what is pushing you her way is morals or ethics, Stein's peddling to anti-vaxxers suddenly becomes extremely relevant.
---

i'd take stein over hillary in a heartbeat. on foreign policy alone stein is a gazillion times better.

again, i think the whole "stein is anti-vaxx" thing was extremely overblown. she literally stated she was pro-vaccinations in one of her books.
---

dowolf posted...

You are approaching this hypothetical very lazily. Yes, the employer may have an interest in removing an employee at an early stage, but is this ethical?

Ethics questions are generally very simple, if you are willing and able to drop your biases and reduce the problem to its core truths; once you have those tenets, you can expand them out to seemingly complex situations. Of course, doing that is no easy thing. I would argue, however, that it is worthwhile.

I don't feel like I'm being lazy with it at all, and I already answered whether it's ethical (in some cases: very yes). On the contrary, I think expecting this situation to be reducible to "core truths" is a lazy way of dealing with it, especially when a core truth is that the person involved is a police officer and you've already said to disregard that.

Like, I'm not sure what you want from me. I'm not going to give you a one-size-fits-all answer here.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i'd take stein over hillary in a heartbeat. on foreign policy alone stein is a gazillion times better.

again, i think the whole "stein is anti-vaxx" thing was extremely overblown. she literally stated she was pro-vaccinations in one of her books.

Which meant she was peddling to an extreme, nutjob subset of people for votes

Which certainly doesn't make me feel very well about her ethics.
---

Forbes on why Republicans can't actually accomplish what they set out to do:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/07/20/why-republicans-cannot-replace-the-aca-or-accomplish-anything-else/
---

that's a pretty long article that can be summed up as 'party of feels over reals'
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Which meant she was peddling to an extreme, nutjob subset of people for votes

Which certainly doesn't make me feel very well about her ethics.

still don't see how that makes her worse than hillary. stein could just as well have made those comments about anti-vaxxers because she genuinely felt that way. you're assuming the worst about stein while hillary actually stated that she was planning to do terrible things, so we don't have to assume anything about her. i think you're being unreasonably harsh about stein.
---

I wasn't really for Hillary, either, but atleast we knew what terrible things she was planning.

Stein was a wishy-washy nutjob conspiracy theorist, which is all kinds of scary.
---

I voted Johnson, and I'm still happy with that. He may not have been the most competent, but at least he isn't maliciously incompetent.
---

Gary Johnson seems like a good guy. I'd like to just hang out with him.
---

FFDragon posted...

that's a pretty long article that can be summed up as 'party of feels over reals'

personally i'd go with "because responsibility's a bitch."

also i'll take Stein over Hillary but gimme Johnson over either of them any day of the week. the guy can flub at times but he's at least not scamming distressed people over a recount.
---

Kenri posted...

dowolf posted...

You are approaching this hypothetical very lazily. Yes, the employer may have an interest in removing an employee at an early stage, but is this ethical?

Ethics questions are generally very simple, if you are willing and able to drop your biases and reduce the problem to its core truths; once you have those tenets, you can expand them out to seemingly complex situations. Of course, doing that is no easy thing. I would argue, however, that it is worthwhile.

I don't feel like I'm being lazy with it at all, and I already answered whether it's ethical (in some cases: very yes). On the contrary, I think expecting this situation to be reducible to "core truths" is a lazy way of dealing with it, especially when a core truth is that the person involved is a police officer and you've already said to disregard that.

Like, I'm not sure what you want from me. I'm not going to give you a one-size-fits-all answer here.

Consider the Boston Massacre. In it, British soldiers were harassed by a group of colonists, were threatened by them, and eventually they panicked and fired upon the colonists. They were vilified in the court of public opinion; it seemed like an open-and-shut case.

And yet, they were defended by none other than John Adams, who certainly was no loyalist, and were justly found Not Guilty. It would have been wrong of the Crown to, say, fire them before they even had a chance to prove their innocence. This case actually parallels extremely well with police actions as well, since the military was acting to keep the peace, but as I said before, that is irrelevant. What matters is that we have situations where the very limited information that initially comes out and is carried by propaganda can be largely inaccurate, and therefore it cannot -- must not -- be just to judge another by that, without giving them a chance to defend themselves.

This idea, that we do not judge others without proof or evidence, is a fundamental cornerstone of our country. The fact that this is not universally applied, that individuals take flawed action, does not mean that ideal should be abandoned.
---

Had Hillary never run, do you guys think Biden would have and essentially mopped up the electorate?
---

I dunno dude it sounds to me like you're trying to justify a group of British soldiers (why were they in a situation where they were being harassed and threatened to begin with?) massacring their own people. I don't really care if they were defended by Jesus Christ himself. Mind you my area of history is significantly later than this so I'm not super well-informed about it, but you're gonna have to try REALLY hard to get me to ever, ever say soldiers are justified shooting at civilians, for any reason.

dowolf posted...

This idea, that we do not judge others without proof or evidence, is a fundamental cornerstone of our country.

Also: no it's not, we just say it is. If the system wasn't fucked then of course I'd take its conclusions more seriously into consideration.
---

CaptainOfCrush posted...

Had Hillary never run, do you guys think Biden would have and essentially mopped up the electorate?

The reason Biden didn't run is because his son had just died when the race was getting started. I don't think Hillary not running would've pushed him into it.
---

FFDragon posted...

that's a pretty long article that can be summed up as 'party of feels over reals'

Sure, but what's significant is that this isn't some liberal rag saying it - it's Forbes, a pro-business publication. When media outlets that ought to be right-wing friendly are calling out the conservative party that's a pretty big sign there's issues with the party.
---

SupremeZero posted...

CaptainOfCrush posted...

Had Hillary never run, do you guys think Biden would have and essentially mopped up the electorate?

The reason Biden didn't run is because his son had just died when the race was getting started. I don't think Hillary not running would've pushed him into it.

I think he would have felt obligated to run if he didn't think there was another Dem candidate who was likely to win and who he thought could continue Obama's legacy. It's possible some such person would have stepped up in the absence of Hillary and Biden, but I don't think Biden would consider Martin O'Malley or 2015 Bernie Sanders to fill that role.
---

Hillary always got a lot of heat for supporting TPP. Wouldn't BIden have received the same heat? For some reason he never seems to.
---