Mass Shootings in America Thread

Originally posted by dadudemon
Pew has researched this and Democrats are twice as likely to view police as enforcers:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/13/republicans-more-likely-than-democrats-to-have-confidence-in-police/

Obama wanted to federalize police, for example, about the want for a police state.

You can dress it up however you want to try and spin it to look better than it is. But US Leftists are not Liberals. This is not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. This is just how they are in the US.

They (many of them) want to disarm the citizens and only allow and armed police state to enforce their idea of a very large and massive government that provides for many things (some good some bad) and that regulates every last minutia from the things you say to the labels on your food.

And you will have to provide evidence for the entire left wanting to regulate 'every minutia' of your life like speech and food labels. For although Democrats are more likely to support regulations on 'hate speech', that belief is still in the distinct minority, with 60% of Democrats saying that people should be able to speak freely in public. In terms of food labelling, there is broad support of strict rules across demographics.

But this:

is just pedantic bullshit. Find a real argument. [/B]

Originally posted by lazybones
Yes, about 31% of Democrats view the police as enforcers. But that doesn't mean that they want police officers to be enforcers, or think they should be enforcers. They simply 'see' the police, at present, as being enforcers and not protectors. And of course, this is to be expected, because a large portion of the Democratic base are African-Americans, an ethnic group that has bore the brunt of police brutality and militarization. So these statistics in no way proves your absurd point that the US left are monolithically chanting for a police state, and rather demonstrate a distrust towards police among the American left, which is corroborated with other polls on the matter. Those 31% of Democrats see police as mostly cold enforcers of the law rather than protectors of their safety, which is obviously a negative view of police authority and power.

In what way does wanting to federalize police link in with a desire for a police state? There a multitude of reasons for why Obama wanted to do this, from everything from efficiency reasons to more even enforcement of laws. The idea that you pivot to 'POLICE STATE!' is Infowars-level propaganda and slippery-slope scaremongering.

Except they absolutely can be liberal and are on a number of issues. This can be seen in the fruitful showing of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary, who spoke out against police militarization, the drug war and mass incaceration. Even Hillary Clinton was better on these issues than any Republican except perhaps Rand Paul. Indeed, the Democratic field was the only one genuinely discussing issues of this nature, because of the hard work of activists like BLM which have put demilitarization of the police as a main plank of their agenda.

Again, you are treating the entire left as a monolith and making lots of generalizations. Where's the evidence that left wingers want to 'disarm the citizens'? A vast majority want gun control, yes, but that does not necessarily translate to forcibly disarming all citizens. I shouldn't need to cover the ridiculous armed police point again. Just because a third of Democrats, at present, view the police to be acting as enforcers, does not mean they want it to be that way. Indeed, Democrats are more likely to say that police are acting above the law, which is clearly a disapproving sentiment. Polls also show that the number of Democrats trusting police is very low amongst non-whites and now under 50% among whites. Therefore, they'd almost undoubtedly to be less inclined to support more arms and powers to the police. Where do you think the momentum for BLM comes from, again? Why do you think the two Democratic candidates that won 95%+ of the vote in the last primary were disapproving of excessive police authority and specifically the militarization of police?

And you will have to provide evidence for the entire left wanting to regulate 'every minutia' of your life like speech and food labels. For although Democrats are more likely to support regulations on 'hate speech', that belief is still in the distinct minority, with 60% of Democrats saying that people should be able to speak freely in public. In terms of food labelling, there is broad support of strict rules across demographics. Nah, it isn't pedantic bullshit at all. It is simply saying that you can't treat an entire political wing, which ranges from milquetoast moderates to radical extremists, as some sort of Stalinistic monolith.

Why does wanting to federalize all local police precincts mean that Obama wanted to move further towards a police state? Are you really this daft? Your answer is in the question.

You typed a whole lot just to concede on every major point. Also, no one is stupid enough to fall for a question like this:

"...you will have to provide evidence for the entire left wanting to regulate 'every minutia' of your life like speech and food labels."

GTFO

Because I said every last leftist wanted to do that, right? dur

lazybones: biggest time waster on KMC. Posts a whole lot about nothing.

Leftists want a police state. Leftists want a large, bloated, nanny-state. Deal with it instead of throwing a tantrum. Do something about it. Change lefitsts in the US. Become less like you and more like not you, for example.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why does wanting to federalize all local police precincts mean that Obama wanted to move further towards a police state? Are you really this daft? Your answer is in the question.

"a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities."

The US security/surveillance state at least has some checks and balances and is not used to enforce the will of the dictatorship. I also don't recall Obama using the police enforce political objectives, so it fails all prerequisites. The likes of the Soviet Union and North Korea are what would be described as police states, because they do indeed have totalitarian control and have a police force with purely political motivations.

You typed a whole lot just to concede on every major point.

Because I said every last leftist wanted to do that, right? dur [/B]

Originally posted by lazybones
Are you daft? Do you know what a 'police state' is? No, it's not just having a centrally controlled police, but about having a totalitarian security apparatus which must also be political in nature.

"a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities."

Yes, I know what a police state is:

"a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities."

Under Obama:

National Defense Authorization Act (reduced more American rights, expanded federal government spying...all in the name of "protecting America).

Patriot Act Renewal

NSA Mass Surveillance and Defending it (until Snowden shit on him and exposed his lies)

And of course, trying to make a formal police state by federalizing the local police.

Pretty ****in' police statey, isn't it? It's quite obvious to any honest person.

Recipe for the US Police-State:

Arm the police. Federalize them. Reduce the armaments of the people. Mass surveil the populace. Regulate the shit out of everything and enforce those regulations with your beautiful police-state.

Taking guns away from police goes against Leftist "values" and their goal of creating a police-state. No, you can't mention it. You can't directly SAY you're creating a police state. No, you have to say you're all about freedom, opportunity, equality, etc. while creating that police-state. 👆

Originally posted by lazybones
Nah, you didn't.

Yeah, I sure did. And trying to do the "HAHA! YOU HAVE TO PROVE EVERY LAST SINGLE PERSON BELONG TO GROUP Y IS DOING ACTION 1 OR YOU'RE WRONG!" was extremely transparent. Pedentry and stupid questions are your game. Your games probably work on your stupid friends and pals on Facebook and the real world.

Originally posted by lazybones
But you seemed to imply that the vast majority-nearly all leftists support massive police authority and armed police on the streets to enforce their agenda.

Oh really? I'm a US Liberal. Do I count as a US Leftist? And do you honestly think your pedantic argument will work after a third attempt? You're softening the position, now. Instead of it being 'every last one', not is is 'vast majority.' lol

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, I know what a police state is:

"a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities."

Under Obama:

National Defense Authorization Act (reduced more American rights, expanded federal government spying...all in the name of "protecting America).

Patriot Act Renewal

NSA Mass Surveillance and Defending it (until Snowden shit on him and exposed his lies)

And of course, trying to make a formal police state by federalizing the local police.

Pretty ****in' police statey, isn't it? It's quite obvious to any honest person.

Arm the police. Federalize them. Reduce the armaments of the people. Mass surveil the populace. Regulate the shit out of everything and enforce those regulations with your beautiful police-state.

Oh really? I'm a US Liberal. Do I count as a US Leftist? And do you honestly think your pedantic argument will work after a third attempt? You're softening the position, now. Instead of it being 'every last one', not is is 'vast majority.' lol [/B]

It's pretty simple, really. Your generalization that the American left are wildly in favor of rampant armed police, restricting speech and food labels don't actually stack up next to actual data collected. You can also be a leftist and still socially liberal. Not mutually exclusive at all.

Originally posted by lazybones
Well, he didn't establish a political police force to clamp down on opposition, and hasn't established a totalitarian dictatorship. So none of that qualifies as a police state.

I was SUUUUPPER hoping you would make this argument. I specifically didn't cover that aspect in the hopes you would try and knock down what you thought was a house of cards.

Well have I got news for you!

Didja forget about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

or this:

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups

Wiretapped Trump Tower:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/31/why-the-curious-silence-from-barack-obama-over-tap/

Originally posted by lazybones
Your generalization that the American left are wildly in favor of rampant armed police, restricting speech and food labels don't actually stack up next to actual data collected.

Since I cited Pew that the left view them as enforcers (no matter your interpretation), you're wrong.

Food Labeling by Democrats:

https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/the-advance/gmo-foods-labeling-good-for-washington-or-bad/

Democrats want to Restrict Free Speech:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/12/poll-most-california-democrats-want-to-restrict-free-speech-from-white-nationalists/

Democrats wanted to create a new amendment on Free Speech:
https://www.americancommitment.org/content/democrats-repeal-first-amendment

I mean, obviously, I didn't just randomly name things. Obviously, these things I talked about are legitimate things. Denying that American Leftists want more regulation on almost everything, including food labels and speech, is quite obviously dishonest. You're either delusional or simply trolling.

You don't like it that US Leftists want to create a police state because it's obvious that a police state is bad. You view the term as derogatory so you will deny it. And trying very hard you are, aren't you! 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was SUUUUPPER hoping you would make this argument. I specifically didn't cover that aspect in the hopes you would try and knock down what you thought was a house of cards.

Well have I got news for you!

Didja forget about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

or this:

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups

Wiretapped Trump Tower:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/31/why-the-curious-silence-from-barack-obama-over-tap/

Since I cited Pew that the left view them as enforcers (no matter your interpretation), you're wrong.

Food Labeling by Democrats:

https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/the-advance/gmo-foods-labeling-good-for-washington-or-bad/

Democrats want to Restrict Free Speech:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/12/poll-most-california-democrats-want-to-restrict-free-speech-from-white-nationalists/

Democrats wanted to create a new amendment on Free Speech:
https://www.americancommitment.org/content/democrats-repeal-first-amendment

I mean, obviously, I didn't just randomly name things. Obviously, these things I talked about are legitimate things. Denying that American Leftists want more regulation on almost everything, including food labels and speech, is quite obviously dishonest. You're either delusional or simply trolling.

You don't like it that US Leftists want to create a police state because it's obvious that a police state is bad. You view the term as derogatory so you will deny it. And trying very hard you are, aren't you! 😄 [/B]

But no, leftists do not want to create a police state. As I said, American leftists supported 95% candidates who explicitly stated desire for demilitarization and less police power. A police state is far away from happening here, and US leftists certainly don't want it.

Originally posted by lazybones
Okay, this is dirty political stuff. But it isn't totalitarian political suppression, lmfao. Compare this to what is happening to political dissidents in places that social scientists would actually call police states (North Korea, China), and there's zero comparison whatsoever. And by the way, a police state still requires a police force that is political in nature. The US security services and govt. agencies may try to tip the scales in certain ways, but that is totally different from violently enforcing a political agenda with a police force designed for that purpose. America is clearly not a totalitarian police state, no matter how you want to spin it.

Uh, yeah. This was presumably done because US intelligence services had reason to believe that Trump had connections to a hostile power. No issue here.

As I said, support for food labelling runs amongst all demographics - Democrat and Republican. So this isn't a left vs right issue. Hell, your article even makes clear this point.

Key: California Democrats. How about we use the statistics asking Democrats across the entire country? Because of course, when we do that, we see 60% of Democrats in favor of full free speech, as per a poll I posted earlier.

I think you are fully aware that what politicians do is not necessarily reflective of voters thoughts in this environment. Some stupid politicians can propose something, but that is not reflective unless they came outwardly on that platform and win. By polls, most Democrats actually support free speech and such. So they're acting against their voters if they're doing this.

Except it isn't that straightforward. More Democrats than Republicans support restrictions on hate speech, but a vast majority of Democrats are still fully pro-free speech. In terms of food labelling it runs across party lines, so there's no left vs right distinction.

Honestly, despite accusing me of trolling, I'm getting the feeling you are trolling here.

But no, leftists do not want to create a police state. As I said, American leftists supported 95% candidates who explicitly stated desire for demilitarization and less police power. A police state is far away from happening here, and US leftists certainly don't want it.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I don't think he said that Obama successfully set up a total police state, he said that Obama wanted to move further towards a police state.

Originally posted by lazybones
And there's no evidence of that either. We were told that Obama would instate martial law and bring in a police state all throughout the 2008-2016. Never, ever materialized. Textbook slippery slope.

Originally posted by darthgoober
That depends on what one considers evidence now doesn't it? I mean obviously no one can actually read his mind, but the stuff dad brought up like Obama weaponizing the IRS,

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-teaparty/fbi-doesnt-plan-charges-over-irs-scrutiny-of-tea-party-wsj-idUSBREA0D03420140114

The newspaper quoted officials as saying that investigators probing the IRS actions, which unleashed a political furor in Washington, did not uncover the type of political bias or "enemy hunting" that would constitute a criminal violation. The evidence showed a mismanaged agency enforcing rules it did not understand on applications for tax exemptions, the Journal reported.

wanting to federalize prisons,

and restrict constitutional rights can absolutely be interpreted as a step towards a police state. [/B]

Originally posted by lazybones
Sorry, but that sort of stuff is pathetic childplay compared to what is happening even in more moderate authoritarian states like Turkey. And dirty political stuff like that is so common in American politics that to use it as proof of your slippery slope doesn't add up to me.

Originally posted by lazybones
Again, there a several far more benign reasons why he wanted to do this. To assume this was a foundation stone for a totalitarian police state requires too many assumptions on Obama's intentions. So Occam's razor comes in, and we can narrow down the reasons to more simple ones like 'more efficient crime fighting' or 'more even enforcement of laws' or 'better communications between police in different areas of the country'.

Originally posted by lazybones
Constitutional rights were already being restricted under the right wing George Bush. As it happens, I was disappointed that Obama didn't try to moderate that stuff. But again, the theory that he was planning or building towards a police state is slippery slope nonsense that requires far too many assumptions on his intentions.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Really, common? When was the last time(before the IRS thing obviously) that a president used what is supposed to be a neutral federal agency to specifically target his political opposition that way?

I'm also curious about this.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Really, common? When was the last time(before the IRS thing obviously) that a president used what is supposed to be a neutral federal agency to specifically target his political opposition that way?

Potentially benign reasons don't alter the reality of the situation. In a police state the federal government would definitely control that kind of thing, therefore regardless of the reasoning wanting to move in that direction is wanting to move towards a police state.

Yeah they were, don't think I give Bush any kind of pass. I'm pretty sure the whole concept of a "free speech zone" was put forth by him to minimize the amount of protesters that appeared on camera with him when he was traveling the country which is f*cking bullshit. And he was the one who pushed for the whole Patriot Act following 9//11, which is also f*cking bullshit. No other reasons are necessary to correctly say that Bush was no kind of patriot to American values. But Bush being a piece of shit doesn't absolve him of guilt for supporting things like the Patriot act even when it's become clear that it's been repeatedly misused. [/B]

Originally posted by lazybones
Well, that was admittedly wrong of me to say. There have been shady stuff like Nixon's subterfuge, which is the sort of stuff I had in mind, but the IRS thing would be particularly awful if it were true because it did involve an otherwise neutral federal agency. However, I would refer you to the link I posted. The FBI ultimately found no evidence for enemy hunting and pressed no charges. The IRS had to apologize and dish out compensation, but that was the limit. So it's even more incomparable to even moderate authoritarian regimes, than I thought it was.

Your article doesn't actually say that, it says the investigation is ongoing. What's more, just because charges aren't filed doesn't actually mean anything. Especially when Comey made it known that he sometimes doesn't bother filing charges if he doesn't personally believe there's enough evidence to make them stick. Think of it like this, if there's never any charges brought against Trump will you automatically start assuming that he's innocent of everything are accusing him of and investigating?

Originally posted by lazybones
No, it isn't. Democratic states can have centrally controlled police forces as well, because there are reasons for it other than police state totalitarianism. And again, if there are benign reasons for it, then I will take them. To say that a politician wants to drive us in the direction of a totalitarian police state is an extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence.

Yes they CAN have that kind of thing. But we DON'T and police states definitely WOULD. Ergo, it would be moving closer to a police state to enact such a policy. It wouldn't inherently make us one, but it would move us closer. There's no single policy that qualifies a country of a police state, it's a combination of policies.

Originally posted by lazybones
Well yeah, I'd agree Bush was shitty and that Obama didn't do enough to break from him. But the overarching point here is that I don't think they were aiming for a police state.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Your article doesn't actually say that, it says the investigation is ongoing. What's more, just because charges aren't filed doesn't actually mean anything. Especially when Comey made it known that he sometimes doesn't bother filing charges if he doesn't personally believe there's enough evidence to make them stick. Think of it like this, if there's never any charges brought against Trump will you automatically start assuming that he's innocent of everything are accusing him of and investigating?

Yes they CAN have that kind of thing. But we DON'T and police states definitely WOULD. Ergo, it would be moving closer to a police state to enact such a policy. It wouldn't inherently make us one, but it would move us closer. There's no single policy that qualifies a country of a police state, it's a combination of policies.

I doubt anyone thinks that Obama thinks of himself as actually wanting one. Very few people consider themselves as a "bad guy", they simply don't fully realize what they're doing. No one believes that liberal democrats are consciously promoting fascist ideas, they're just putting their passions before their principles and unwittingly supporting such things. [/B]

Originally posted by lazybones
Yeah, and it was concluded in 2015 with no charges filed. The Trump administration declined reopening it in full, but IRS was forced to apologize. That was the extent to which it went. And you can say all you want about Comey. But ultimately, we have a system of laws that goes by principles like burden of proof and presumption of innocent. And if charges aren't brought against Trump, I'll be annoyed, but that's the law.

Originally posted by lazybones
Okay, but I just find your slippery slope so remote and reaching that there's no point playing these sort of games. There are plenty of benign reasons for Obama to have tried to centralize the police, and I'm not going to worry myself about something that is benign by far more simple reasons that don't require a litany of assumptions.

Originally posted by lazybones
Again, you're assuming what's happening in Obama's head and envisaging a slippery slope where it isn't necessary. As someone who quite likes civil liberties and democracy, it's not like these thoughts haven't briefly occurred to me. But once you think about it, they're just assuming for the sake of it.

Originally posted by lazybones
Okay, this is dirty political stuff. But it isn't totalitarian political suppression, lmfao. Compare this to what is happening to political dissidents in places that social scientists would actually call police states (North Korea, China), and there's zero comparison whatsoever. And by the way, a police state still requires a police force that is political in nature. The US security services and govt. agencies may try to tip the scales in certain ways, but that is totally different from violently enforcing a political agenda with a police force designed for that purpose. America is clearly not a totalitarian police state, no matter how you want to spin it.

Spin it however you'd like. This fits the definition of trying to march down a police-state path.

Originally posted by lazybones
Uh, yeah. This was presumably done because US intelligence services had reason to believe that Trump had connections to a hostile power. No issue here.

Spying on political opponents is quite obviously a dangerous path and fits absurdly well into the notion of a police state. You can brush it aside but I won't.

Originally posted by lazybones
As I said, support for food labelling runs amongst all demographics - Democrat and Republican. So this isn't a left vs right issue. Hell, your article even makes clear this point.

Try again to dodge:

Democrats in the U.S. Senate yesterday blocked a mostly Republican-led effort to bar states from requiring labels for foods made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). On a 48 to 49 vote, the bill—which would have instead set up a federal, voluntary GMO labeling system—fell well short of the 60 votes needed to clear a key procedural barrier.

Originally posted by lazybones
Key: California Democrats. How about we use the statistics asking Democrats across the entire country? Because of course, when we do that, we see 60% of Democrats in favor of full free speech, as per a poll I posted earlier.

Translation of what you just tried to do:

I don't like the fact that you showed me evidence that leftists believe and act in the exact what you claimed so I will focus on a different subset to push the argument into a different direction in the hopes that you're too stupid to notice.

Sorry, I'm not as stupid as your regular pals who probably eat up your pseudo-intellectualism and thinly veiled dishonesty.

Originally posted by lazybones
I think you are fully aware that what politicians do is not necessarily reflective of voters thoughts in this environment. Some stupid politicians can propose something, but that is not reflective unless they came outwardly on that platform and win. By polls, most Democrats actually support free speech and such. So they're acting against their voters if they're doing this.

Nice strawman. 2 to be exact. I posted something specific about free speech. Let's call it Free Speech element 1.a. You're moving the goalposts to be about all of it or element 1.*. Again, you think you're slick. But your argumentation style is very obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot.

Originally posted by lazybones
More Democrats than Republicans support restrictions on hate speech,

Anything else you post is irrelevant because you just conceded the point. Any additionals, flairs, goalpost movings, and frills you want to add are not appropriate.

Originally posted by lazybones
Honestly, despite accusing me of trolling, I'm getting the feeling you are trolling here.

A "no u" response? Really? "I'm not the one trolling, you are! Aha! Gotcha!"

And yet, you're the one who quoted me and responded to me.

Originally posted by lazybones
But no, leftists do not want to create a police state.

Your perspective on this topic is shit as it is obviously dishonest. Regardless of what you think, we have a clear pile of evidence that type of police-state they want to create. At the least, an overly bloated nanny-state that polices thought. At worst, a genuine police-state if left to their devices.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I don't think he said that Obama successfully set up a total police state, he said that Obama wanted to move further towards a police state.

Correct. Anyone being honest about the "debate" could see that. Obama clearly did not succeed in nationalizing the local police.

Originally posted by darthgoober
That depends on what one considers evidence now doesn't it? I mean obviously no one can actually read his mind, but the stuff dad brought up like Obama weaponizing the IRS, wanting to federalize prisons, and restrict constitutional rights can absolutely be interpreted as a step towards a police state.

👆

But to lazybones, I'm just Alex Jones losing my marbles.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Yeah they were, don't think I give Bush any kind of pass. I'm pretty sure the whole concept of a "free speech zone" was put forth by him to minimize the amount of protesters that appeared on camera with him when he was traveling the country which is f*cking bullshit. And he was the one who pushed for the whole Patriot Act following 9//11, which is also f*cking bullshit. No other reasons are necessary to correctly say that Bush was no kind of patriot to American values. But Bush being a piece of shit doesn't absolve him of guilt for supporting things like the Patriot act even when it's become clear that it's been repeatedly misused.

Right, let's not forget that Bush Jr. pretending to be the candidate of the GOP, small efficient government, Constitution is Great, etc. But then proceeded to shit all over the American people and the Constitution.

House passes school safety bill that funds training and security, does not include gun control

"The bill includes:

-$50 million for a grant program to train students, teachers and law enforcement on identifying and reporting signs of gun violence
-Development of an anonymous telephone and online system for people to report threats of violence
-$25 million for schools to improve security (e.g. locks, metal detectors, panic buttons)

The grant program would need to be funded through a separate spending bill."