All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[numberthirty]

Don't project.

It's not that I'd rather not -- it's that I find the issue irrelevant to the issue at hand as it didn't contradict the substance of the post.

Which you still have failed to address because you'd rather argue with someone who is opposing white supremacy than actually take a stand against it yourself.

Anyway, if you want to continue to discuss him have at it -- I have no idea who he is and now you're the only one who still cares about him.

But he cemented the reality of the issue in what was initially posted?

There's an issue there.

[aja_christopher]

But he cemented the reality of the issue in what was initially posted?

There's an issue there.

So post your issue if it concerns you so much.

And then address the subtance of the post without the "issue" -- which was removed long ago.

Let's see if you can put as much energy into addressing white nationlism as you do criticizing an imbed that you disagree with.

Edit: He did not "cement" anything -- he was one element of a multi-line post.

You are really stretching to find a way to argue here -- and again you show that "minorities" only matter to you if you can use them against others in an argument.

[numberthirty]

So post your issue if it concerns you so much.

And then address the subtance of the post without the "issue" -- which was removed long ago.

Let's see if you can put as much energy into addressing white nationlism as you do criticizing an imbed that you disagree with.

"Disagree With..." is an entirely different thing that being able to take a look at something and ask if the person in question could be working an angle to make themselves a buck.

If he is?

That's not exactly a microscopic issue.

[aja_christopher]

[Spike-X]

I don't think they were in ever favor of mastectomies for trans-identifying minors. When the number of procedures like that increased, social conservatives were always going to be inclined to think that's a bad idea.

That's not what I meant and you know it. You also know damn well that's not the only kind of gender-affirming care your party are denying to people who need it.

My question for the people who want Democrats to win is what they want Democrats to do in order to increase their chances of winning.

Grow a spine. Fight, ffs. Stop offering a hand to people they know damn well are just going to slap it away. Stop trying to appease the people who are never going to vote for them, and give people who want a better society for everyone something to vote FOR. The Republicans have declared war on everyone who's not them. Democrats need to realize that, and act accordingly.

Obviously, those people would like Republicans to change, but Republicans aren't going to be inclined to take advice who want them to lose.

We know they're not going to change. That's why they have to be thoroughly defeated. Fought, and beaten, at every level, from local school board to President Of The United States. Stomped. Into. The mud.

Y'know, metaphorically speaking. I wouldn't want anyone to think I was advocating actual violence against people who are trying to literally eradicate an entire marginalized community. That'd be a terrible thing for someone to be wrong about.

[Spike-X]

Mets I really dont understand how you can say that is not what your party has become. Lets go down the check list again.

1. Restricting the rights of women.

2. Passing laws that target transgender people. (I am not talking about the laws on sports I have to do more research before I form a view on that as I am woefully ignorant on the subject.) I am talking about laws that prevent them from expressing who they are without fear of being arrested. And then there is the subject of painting them as groomers and pedophiles.

3. Continuing to lie about the 202 election despite all evidence. And because of that they pass so called voter integrity laws that mostly target minority voters.

4. Punishing those in the party that disagree with Trump.

5. Refusing to pass common sense gun laws and opposing them despite a mass shooting happening it seems every four or five days.

6. Supporting the terrorists of Jan 6th. Talking about pardoning them, calling them heroes. Despite the fact they have attacked police and a police officer died on that day. So much for the party of law and order huh?Or blaming the actions on Antifa and BLM. They seem to change the story depending on the crowd they are talking to.

7. Supporting White serpermists and racists. appearing at events with them. Retweeting their words.

8. Refusing to expel a member of their party who has been charge with multiple federal crimes. The man admitted out of his own mouth he lied about his past to get elected and still your past, the party of law and order does nothing.

9. The front runner of the party is still Trump for god sakes despite all the claims from the talking heads and within his party that the GOP is ready to move on from him.


So how can you look at this and not say this is what your party has become. I am really interested in your mind set here thatleads you to your conclusion. So please explain it to me like I am 5 because I really want to know.

Yep. Like it or not, when people hear Republican, this is what they see. Because this is what they are.

[Spike-X]

According to the New York Post, a witness to the death of Jordan Neely calls Daniel Penny a hero, while describing Neely's threatening behavior prior to the altercation.

https://nypost.com/2023/05/18/witnes...-penny-a-hero/



I continue to believe that this prosecution is misguided.

You believe that it's "misguided" to prosecute someone who killed a man who hadn't so much as laid a hand on, or brandished a weapon at, a single other person on that train?

[aja_christopher]

If you're bothered by that, include links.

Or join those sites, and argue with them.

Or invite them to come here.

The obsession with me being "bothered" is getting a little redundant -- observing and relating something is not the same as being bothered by it.

Based on experience at this point it's expected -- if I was bothered everytime I saw a racist conservative post I'd have died of an ulcer by the time I finished college.

The point was that many of the other "conservatives' are openly admitting it is about killing a black man who they perceive as a criminal and a burden on society.

Regardless of what the law dictates.

Ironically enough, I appreciate that you were thoughtful enough to at least try to legitimize it in legal terms.

Rather than the usual "black people like that deserve death" posts that you tend to see on less "civil" conservative forums.

Of course, they don't use the term "black people" on the less moderated forums.

Moreover, why add new links and evidence when you rarely if ever respond to those already provided?

You're about two or three posts behind addressing white supremacy in the Republican party -- with links and videos just as requested.

(We could also get into the cuts to mental health care services that Reagan initiated and subsequent Republican obstruction to universal health care if you truly want to go in depth on where much of the responsibility lies for so many mentally ill walking our streets -- but one issue at a time.)

[aja_christopher]

Republican talking point -- direct from a known white supremacist.

[Adam Allen]

Even if you take it as a given that someone had to intervene: You're taking it as a given that killing Neely was the only way to keep everyone on the train safe?

Never said that.

If you take it as a given that someone had to intervene, there is always the possibility that things so south.

And now we're letting people know that if they get into an altercation with a lunatic with a criminal record, who seems to suggest he's willing to kill people, a prosecution may follow. This will discourage people from getting involved, and may inspire more departures from New York City from people who don't want to deal with lunatics when the authorities have clearly failed to do their jobs.

I go with anecdotal evidence rarely, but have mentioned that my mom is a Republican who hates Trump with a passion (mainly because he reminds me of Putin and various Soviet thugs.) She is very happy about all the donations Daniel Penny is getting, and was tempted to send his defense a few more bucks.

... Good?

I would love it if we all recognize that killing someone "may" lead to prosecution. Is there some reason we should not want that?

I think I realize now why there will be no unified perspective, regarding this. Some, like yourself, are apparently looking at this story as, "Something bad could have happened!" So don't punish the guy who made sure nothing bad happened, right? Don't discourage people from being good Samaritans, and acting to protect their fellow citizens.

From my perspective, something bad did happen. A man is dead. From my perspective, deciding that this man's death does not deserve to be examined in a court of justice would be the worst kind of failure to protect fellow citizens. Because I can't see why this man's life matters so little as to need no investigation.

This is all especially because my almost 20 years of professional experience really does give me some informed perspective about the "possibility of things going south" with someone who is experiencing a mental health crisis. De-escalation is not a magic trick. And yeah, if you don't know how to do it -- please, don't try to intervene in a mental health crisis. Because something bad could happen.

[aja_christopher]

From my perspective, something bad did happen. A man is dead. From my perspective, deciding that this man's death does not deserve to be examined in a court of justice would be the worst kind of failure to protect fellow citizens. Because I can't see why this man's life matters so little as to need no investigation.

They used to just call it lynching.

[Username taken]

... Good?

I would love it if we all recognize that killing someone "may" lead to prosecution. Is there some reason we should not want that?

I think I realize now why there will be no unified perspective, regarding this. Some, like yourself, are apparently looking at this story as, "Something bad could have happened!" So don't punish the guy who made sure nothing bad happened, right? Don't discourage people from being good Samaritans, and acting to protect their fellow citizens.

From my perspective, something bad did happen. A man is dead. From my perspective, deciding that this man's death does not deserve to be examined in a court of justice would be the worst kind of failure to protect fellow citizens. Because I can't see why this man's life matters so little as to need no investigation.

This is all especially because my almost 20 years of professional experience really does give me some informed perspective about the "possibility of things going south" with someone who is experiencing a mental health crisis. De-escalation is not a magic trick. And yeah, if you don't know how to do it -- please, don't try to intervene in a mental health crisis. Because something bad could happen.

Exactly this.

In addition, the idea that the use of lethal force is somehow justified because a homeless person is shouting obscenities is absurd. It's a uniquely American argument because of how much human life has been devalued.

Common sense needs to be applied here, what steps were taken to deescalate? Did anyone attempt to communicate with Neely? Did anyone even try to contact law enforcement? Was there anyone in imminent danger? Violence should be the absolute last option when dealing with someone that's unarmed. Seriously, a lot of people (myself included) have encountered homeless people act crazy and even insult and talk sh!t to people, that shouldn't lead to a death sentence.

All this aside, a man is dead and at the barest minimum the person that killed him should be charged. Based on what we now, Penny wasn't in any danger so all the evidence should be weighed in a court of law. Also, a lot of white people tend to exaggerate black men's "threat level", so it's very important that all the evidence here be carefully scrutinized (yes, I know one of the people that restrained Neely was black).

[Jack Dracula]

For it to be an execution, it has to be intentional.

I practiced Judo and grappling for 10 years. I’ve had people in choke holds and been in choke holds.
After 3 minutes your vision starts to go and you begin to quickly fade to unconsciousness. As a trained Marine he would know that. He held the man for 15 minutes. Administering a hold is tiring. The person struggles at first and maintaining pressure is hard to do. You’d have to really want to kill someone to maintain a hold for 15 minutes. That amount of time is guaranteed to kill someone. Again, as a trained Marine he’d know that and that’s why he did it. No question.

[JackDaw]

I practiced Judo and grappling for 10 years. I’ve had people in choke holds and been in choke holds.
After 3 minutes your vision starts to go and you begin to quickly fade to unconsciousness. As a trained Marine he would know that. He held the man for 15 minutes. Administering a hold is tiring. The person struggles at first and maintaining pressure is hard to do. You’d have to really want to kill someone to maintain a hold for 15 minutes. That amount of time is guaranteed to kill someone. Again, as a trained Marine he’d know that and that’s why he did it. No question.

It’s going to trial (as it should).

Would you disqualify yourself from the jury (in unlikely or impossible event of being called up)….on grounds your mind is already made up?

[Jeremi]