Pictures and Videos for R&P

[malchior]

the second is bullshit.

Depends on who you are talking to.

Sure but that's just ignorance at play. That's the problem with misinformation. It often plays on a kernel of truth to lie wholesale.

When you are talking to someone who begins with ".... taking out loans and not paying them back" then the second is absolutely in line.

Except it falls apart under any inspection of the larger context. That only holds up in the most basic analysis of the situation.

I'm not usually in the habit of defending MTG but this seems fairly out of context to say she is talking about all loans. Especially when she continues on to specifically talk about students. By this rationale someone could tortuously argue she is complaining about the GI Bill which could be considered a forgiven loan.

Rest assured, I am no fan of student loan forgiveness in the way it has been done. But the statement was about how unfair it is to take out loans and not pay them back. What's her name took a loan and didn't pay it back. How fair is that to the masses of businesses who tried on day one who didn't even get to apply?

It's potentially not fair but it also seems like a non-sequitur.

She laid the groundwork set the framing and response was appropriate, IMO.

I'm confused here. Is the argument that the WH misleading the public from the twitter account is ok because MTG said something?

[malchior]

The student loan payout is certainly going to have a lot less fraud than PPP.

Almost certainly but the nation loves grifters and their grifts so let's not write it off yet.

[LordMortis]

I'm confused here. Is the argument that the WH misleading the public from the twitter account is ok because MTG said something?

I'm not establishing any argument. I don't need to close thoughts with argal and pretend that I am fountain of knowledge and truth. I'm saying firing back at "It's bad to take loans and not pay them back" by showing loans that weren't paid back is fair game. Factoid for soundbite. It doesn't bother me, even a little. Twitter is even less the place for nuanced argument and critical thinking than is 2.5 minutes of friendly TV anchor campaigning posing as news.

[Zarathud]

MTG has no nuance, so I’m ok with cramming her poorly chosen words into her face.

The Democratic push should be that the pandemic exposed unfairness in student loans that must be repaid despite any economic circumstances. If businesses could get broad loan forgiveness in the pandemic, so should individuals with student loans. Lean into the “it’s time to help Main Street” populism.

[malchior]

That's politics at the end of the day, right? At least in the United States it is more about story telling and feelings than facts. Still I think there should be the lines.

[Defiant]

[Smoove_B]

"Just trying to go talk to my friend"

Last time I heard that was I think 5th grade after seeing some kids getting in trouble on the playground. Hilarious.

[LawBeefaroni]

"...the ones wielding AR-47s!"

[YellowKing]

Not just MAGA but Qanon-influenced as well. The idea that support for LGBTQ equates to pedophiles/grooming is an outrage and extremely dangerous rhetoric.

[Scraper]

Not just MAGA but Qanon-influenced as well. The idea that support for LGBTQ equates to pedophiles/grooming is an outrage and extremely dangerous rhetoric.

Yes but this is all they have to justify their bigotry. So expect to keep hearing it.

[Smoove_B]

What an amazing exchange

[hepcat]

The kids a jerk, but he's right. If anything, this type of thing should be done as a training tool periodically with police forces.

[Kurth]

That exchange is crazy on so many levels:
- The comparative intelligence of the cops and the kid; kid wins, hands down.
- The knowledge of the law the cops had compared to the kid; kid wins, again, hands down.
- The overwhelming power the cops had to detain the kid; cops win.
- The lack of wisdom the kid had in pushing the issue and making his point to the cops; all parties were lucky they didn't lose big time.

I get the point the kid was trying to make, obviously, but he's really lucky he survived that incident without a beatdown.

[Isgrimnur]

Given the other lawsuit he mentions, I bet there’s a lawyer in the family.

[Kraken]

That exchange is crazy on so many levels:
- The comparative intelligence of the cops and the kid; kid wins, hands down.
- The knowledge of the law the cops had compared to the kid; kid wins, again, hands down.
- The overwhelming power the cops had to detain the kid; cops win.
- The lack of wisdom the kid had in pushing the issue and making his point to the cops; all parties were lucky they didn't lose big time.

I get the point the kid was trying to make, obviously, but he's really lucky he survived that incident without a beatdown.

...which might be the point he was trying to make if he was thinking meta.

As an old white middle-class guy I can't imagine a situation where I would flip off or curse out a cop, but if they got all up in my grille like that I'd just do whatever the man with the gun says. So kudos to the kid for being braver than I am.

[LawBeefaroni]

That exchange is crazy on so many levels:
- The comparative intelligence of the cops and the kid; kid wins, hands down.
- The knowledge of the law the cops had compared to the kid; kid wins, again, hands down.
- The overwhelming power the cops had to detain the kid; cops win.
- The lack of wisdom the kid had in pushing the issue and making his point to the cops; all parties were lucky they didn't lose big time.

I get the point the kid was trying to make, obviously, but he's really lucky he survived that incident without a beatdown.

...which might be the point he was trying to make if he was thinking meta.

As an old white middle-class guy I can't imagine a situation where I would flip off or curse out a cop, but if they got all up in my grille like that I'd just do whatever the man with the gun says. So kudos to the kid for being braver than I am.

I wouldn't call that bravery. He intentionally created and escalated conflict. Even within the law, it's more stupidity than bravery.

And guess what? When everyone starts being "brave" like this we're going to have fewer and fewer cops who understand the law properly because they'll quit and all we'll have left are the ones who don't care to understand the law at all. And then we'll have a lot of brave, dead, but legally justified loudmouths.

[malchior]

And guess what? When everyone starts being "brave" like this we're going to have fewer and fewer cops who understand the law properly because they'll quit and all we'll have left are the ones who don't care to understand the law at all. And then we'll have a lot of brave, dead, but legally justified loudmouths.

Eh. I don't think it's necessarily great policy to balance worry about staffing levels against hope people just accept this nation's penchant to accept ridiculous levels of police abuse of power. Especially since they have near individual impunity. I'm not at all that concerned about the extremely rare informed loudmouth kid being a jerk rather than the fact the police keep beating up and murdering the populace.

[stessier]

I wouldn't call that bravery. He intentionally created and escalated conflict. Even within the law, it's more stupidity than bravery.

I agree with the stupidity part, but disagree with everything else.

He didn't create the conflict, the cop did.
He didn't escalate the conflict - he asked repeatedly if he was being detained and received a no and so walked away - the cop did.

Both cops knew the law. Both knew the guy had lost his cool and messed up. Cops have a hard job, but this was any easy case. It's not fun to get disrespected, but it's part of the job that as a government representative, people will show their displeasure to you and you just have to put up with it. If you can't do the easy part, you shouldn't be on the force.

[LawBeefaroni]

I wouldn't call that bravery. He intentionally created and escalated conflict. Even within the law, it's more stupidity than bravery.

I agree with the stupidity part, but disagree with everything else.

He didn't create the conflict, the cop did.
He didn't escalate the conflict - he asked repeatedly if he was being detained and received a no and so walked away - the cop did.

He engaged the cop by flipping him off. He doesn't do that, nothing happens. Was the cop justified? No. But the contact started when he flipped the cop off. It escalated when he said "Fuck you." The cop was looking ready to let him walk but he had to further puch buttons. Yes, all along the cop was at fault for not just saying, "you are free to go" and letting him go. But it was clear that's not what they kid wanted either.

If I flip someone off while driving and they intentionally sideswipe me, they're in the wrong 100% but I created the situation by engaging them.

The cop failed big time and turning off the body cam was indicative the the knew it.

Does it make someone a hero to be able to get under a cops skin? I don't think so. It's also some serious display of white privilege. Being a asshole to a cop simply because you can. Kudos, Karen.

[LordMortis]

He didn't create the conflict, the cop did.

Not enough information. Why did he flop off the cop? If it was just to exercise his 1st amendment rights, then he created the conflict. If it was in response to the cop stopping to see what was up or ??? the perhaps the cop did.

He didn't escalate the conflict - he asked repeatedly if he was being detained and received a no and so walked away - the cop did.

This I agree with, though the kid was hostile there was a loop going of escalation going on there.

[stessier]

I wouldn't call that bravery. He intentionally created and escalated conflict. Even within the law, it's more stupidity than bravery.

I agree with the stupidity part, but disagree with everything else.

He didn't create the conflict, the cop did.
He didn't escalate the conflict - he asked repeatedly if he was being detained and received a no and so walked away - the cop did.

He engaged the cop by flipping him off. He doesn't do that, nothing happens. Was the cop justified? No. But the contact started when he flipped the cop off.

A citizen was expressing his displeasure with his government. This is so clearly protected and has to be permissible that it can't be considered the start of anything. The cop doesn't stop, nothing happens. That is where the conflict started.

It escalated when he said "Fuck you." The cop was looking ready to let him walk but he had to further puch buttons. Yes, all along the cop was at fault for not just saying, "you are free to go" and letting him go. But it was clear that's not what they kid wanted either.

How was it clear that he didn't want to walk away? He tried multiple times. Sure he knew he was allowed to voice his feelings and therefore did so, but that's not on the guy (he's not a kid - it was clear from the interaction he wasn't a juvenile).

If I flip someone off while driving and they intentionally sideswipe me, they're in the wrong 100% but I created the situation by engaging them.

Not the same thing when one is a government agent. It's just not.

[LawBeefaroni]

And guess what? When everyone starts being "brave" like this we're going to have fewer and fewer cops who understand the law properly because they'll quit and all we'll have left are the ones who don't care to understand the law at all. And then we'll have a lot of brave, dead, but legally justified loudmouths.

Eh. I don't think it's necessarily great policy to balance worry about staffing levels against hope people just accept this nation's penchant to accept ridiculous levels of police abuse of power. Especially since they have near individual impunity. I'm not at all that concerned about the extremely rare informed loudmouth kid being a jerk rather than the fact the police keep beating up and murdering the populace.

I'm not worried about staffing levels so much as standards. They'll still staff PDs. Just with a higher percentage of bad cops. If you're concerned about police brutality, that should be a problem.

[stessier]

He didn't create the conflict, the cop did.

Not enough information. Why did he flop off the cop? If it was just to exercise his 1st amendment rights, then he created the conflict. If it was in response to the cop stopping to see what was up or ??? the perhaps the cop did.

The cop said he was just driving by and asked why the guy flipped him off. But it doesn't matter. The cop has to just drive one - it's not the start of a conflict to tell the government what you think. I would say he started an interaction - but that is not a conflict. There was no conflict until the cop stopped.

[Isgrimnur]

Given the other lawsuit he mentions, I bet there’s a lawyer in the family.

He's fishing for lawsuits. He's doing it deliberately to try and get them to violate his rights.

As much as we might disapprove of his methods, and we don't know his true motives, he's putting himself on the line to ensure his and everyone else's rights are respected.

[malchior]

Given the other lawsuit he mentions, I bet there’s a lawyer in the family.

He's fishing for lawsuits. He's doing it deliberately to try and get them to violate his rights.

This is what I suspect too. He's been trained in how to deal with police and frankly he controlled that whole encounter (mostly due to some luck that the other officer arrived). Perhaps he had some "white privilege" armor but cops in general are liars. If the other officer didn't show up it could have gone very badly for him.

[stimpy]

Given the other lawsuit he mentions, I bet there’s a lawyer in the family.

He's fishing for lawsuits. He's doing it deliberately to try and get them to violate his rights.

As much as we might disapprove of his methods, and we don't know his true motives, he's putting himself on the line to ensure his and everyone else's rights are respected.

Since we dont know his motives, your statement of "he's putting himself on the line to ensure his and everyone else's rights are respected" is flawed.
Maybe he's just a punk.

[Smoove_B]

This is what I suspect too. He's been trained in how to deal with police and frankly he controlled that whole encounter (mostly due to some luck that the other officer arrived). Perhaps he had some "white privilege" armor but cops in general are liars. If the other officer didn't show up it could have gone very badly for him.

Did you pick up it was in NJ? Little Egg Harbor.

And yes, I agree this was largely possible because (1) he's white and (2) he knows the law.

[malchior]

This is what I suspect too. He's been trained in how to deal with police and frankly he controlled that whole encounter (mostly due to some luck that the other officer arrived). Perhaps he had some "white privilege" armor but cops in general are liars. If the other officer didn't show up it could have gone very badly for him.

Did you pick up it was in NJ? Little Egg Harbor.

Yeah I saw that.

And yes, I agree this was largely possible because (1) he's white and (2) he knows the law.

It sort of makes him luckier in a sense because small town cops especially in Trump-ier parts of the state have worse training/oversight.

[Isgrimnur]

Given the other lawsuit he mentions, I bet there’s a lawyer in the family.

He's fishing for lawsuits. He's doing it deliberately to try and get them to violate his rights.

As much as we might disapprove of his methods, and we don't know his true motives, he's putting himself on the line to ensure his and everyone else's rights are respected.

Since we dont know his motives, your statement of "he's putting himself on the line to ensure his and everyone else's rights are respected" is flawed.
Maybe he's just a punk.

The effect may not be his main motivation, but the hill he's chosen to defend still impacts the issue outside his area.

[LordMortis]

I would say he started an interaction - but that is not a conflict.

I'm hard pressed to come up with an example where flipping the bird is not a communication of conflict. Even harder when it comes to a communication with a position of authority, legal or otherwise.

I'm honestly not sure where I fall on how the outcome should be. I do know that it shouldn't end in an abuse of authority but instinctively there should grey between that and just moving on. Kid was in the wrong, even if not legally so. I'm not touching you I'm not touching you is just not a good way to be anything remotely positive.

Edit: This pretty much is where my thoughts lie

Kudos, Karen.

Or perhaps Kudos, puberty future Karen.

[hepcat]

My clueless Trump lovin' coworker posted this on his facebook page:



I mean...it really doesn't take much in the way of critical thinking to understand why this assertion is fucking stupid, right? I feel like someone who is as well educated as he is should be able to see the obvious issue with this message.

[LawBeefaroni]

He supports Canada Dry over Vernors?



And yes, the internal logical inconsistency is obvious.

[LordMortis]

He supports Canada Dry over Vernors?



And yes, the internal logical inconsistency is obvious.

They released a Black Cherry Vernor's as a trial balloon about a month ago. All my local stores claim to have it. I have yet to see it on a store shelf. I really want to try it... and probably hate it but I really want to try it. I can only assume people have buying it all ebaying it double price. Sometimes I hate the Internet.

[Holman]

He engaged the cop by flipping him off. He doesn't do that, nothing happens. Was the cop justified? No. But the contact started when he flipped the cop off. It escalated when he said "Fuck you." The cop was looking ready to let him walk but he had to further puch buttons. Yes, all along the cop was at fault for not just saying, "you are free to go" and letting him go. But it was clear that's not what they kid wanted either.

If I flip someone off while driving and they intentionally sideswipe me, they're in the wrong 100% but I created the situation by engaging them.

Hard disagree.

If someone flips me off, they haven't "created a situation" where it's somehow their fault if I cross the line of illegal/inappropriate behavior. I'm still responsible for my actions.

It's no less so for a representative of the law, especially when the power disparity so clearly favors the officer.

[LawBeefaroni]

He engaged the cop by flipping him off. He doesn't do that, nothing happens. Was the cop justified? No. But the contact started when he flipped the cop off. It escalated when he said "Fuck you." The cop was looking ready to let him walk but he had to further puch buttons. Yes, all along the cop was at fault for not just saying, "you are free to go" and letting him go. But it was clear that's not what they kid wanted either.

If I flip someone off while driving and they intentionally sideswipe me, they're in the wrong 100% but I created the situation by engaging them.

Hard disagree.

If someone flips me off, they haven't "created a situation" where it's somehow their fault if I cross the line of illegal/inappropriate behavior. I'm still responsible for my actions.

It's no less so for a representative of the law, especially when the power disparity so clearly favors the officer.

I'm not looking at it from a purely legal perspective. Nor am I talking about fault. I'm looking at it from a common sense perspective. If you flip someone off is it reasonable to expect them to engage? Of course it is. Why would you want to unnecessarily engage someone in a hostile, albeit legal, manner?

So yeah, it's legal to flip off cops (or anyone else) and tell them to fuck off. I'm guessing is not something you do on a regular basis. Why is that?

[Isgrimnur]

Public Disturbance = Contempt of Cop

[Holman]

I'm not looking at it from a purely legal perspective. I'm looking at it from a common sense perspective. If you flip someone off is it reasonable to expect them to engage? Of course it is. Why would you want to unnecessary engage someone in a hostile, albeit legal, manner?

Free expression. I don't know the kid's motive, but he has the right.

Since we're discussing the behavior of officers of the state, however, the legal perspective is the only one that should ever be relevant. A cop who allows a kid's middle finger to send them over the line is doing more harm than a middle finger ever could.

So yeah, it's legal to flip off cops (or anyone else) and tell them to fuck off. I'm guessing is not something you do on a regular basis. Why is that?

Probably because I don't feel the need with any cop I've encountered recently. Maybe the kid has? But it doesn't matter, because my personal experience is no constraint on his rights.

[LawBeefaroni]

Since we're discussing the behavior of officers of the state, however, the legal perspective is the only one that should ever be relevant.

In an idealistic vaccum, sure. But in the real world I'm never going to advise anyone to flip off a cop simply because it legal. Being "legal" never got anyone unshot or unbeaten or gave them time back after being unduly arrested or detained.

What this guy did was stupid and ill-advised. Legal, yes. Abhorrent? No. Worse than police misconduct? No. But he still shouldn't have done it.

Although if he gets a GoFundMe and some national attention maybe everyone will want to do it!

[Holman]

Well, nobody *advised* anyone to flip off cops. We're discussing the cop's reaction after it happened.

[LawBeefaroni]

Well, nobody *advised* anyone to flip off cops. We're discussing the cop's reaction after it happened.

We're discussing a lot of things. Including that what he's doing is not wise.