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

[Rob Allen]

Apparently some police unions are waking up.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/*...genda/2380113/

The LAPPL (Los Angeles Police Protective League), the San Francisco Police Officers Association and the San Jose Police Officers Association took out full-page ads in the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury News and the Washington Post to announce the new agenda.

- A national use-of-force standard that emphasizes a reverence for life, de-escalation, a duty to intercede, proportional responses to dangerous incidents and strong accountability provision mirrored after the Los Angeles Police Department;

- A national database of former police officers fired for gross misconduct that prevents other agencies from hiring them;

- An early warning system to identify officers who may need more training and mentoring modeled after the San Francisco Police Department;

- Ongoing and frequent training of police to build and refresh their skills similar to California's SB230;

- Mandate a transparent publicly accessible use-of-force analysis website similar to the San Jose Police Department's.

Accompanying the agenda is a joint statement by the three unions acknowledging racist police officers in their midst and their commitment to root those individuals out of the profession.

[worstblogever]

And if a republican said this about Biden or Harris people would lose their minds. I am not comparing the two at all. Their records are much different but to some republicans he is the devil who would think attacking Biden is the only way. Yet if it were said we would go nuts on how wrong he is, how much of an idiot he is someone who deserved to go to jail. It smacks of people being hypocrites. I hate when I see hypocrites in the Republican party and I hate when I see it with Dems.

Rand Paul voted against an anti-lynching bill last month.

George Floyd can get choked to death in the street, Jacob Blake can get shot in the back seven times, and they're somehow not victims that he deems worthy of protection.

But this craven motherf***ing Senator has people say bad things at him in the street, and he thinks he's a victim? And you're silly enough to agree with him? After he's letting other people not just have unkind things said to them in the street, but die in the street?

Great take, man. You're not at all ridiculous for having one set of standards for white Senators and another for everyday African Americans. Aren't embarrassing or speaking from a place of privilege whatsoever.

[worstblogever]

Violence is bad. We should not make fun of someone for being the victim of violence, or blame them for being assaulted.

HE IS NOT A VICTIM, THERE IS VIDEO OF HIM AND HE IS BUMPED INTO.

He's also SURROUNDED BY POLICE THE WHOLE TIME.

Meanwhile, while conservatives are all ready to make a martyr of THIS guy, and an actual mass murdering Trump supporter right now, they're attacking literal murder victims and trying to convince themselves that they somehow deserve death.

But Rand Paul, who votes in ways to let their deaths go unpunished, can't even have people verbally accost him.

The worst. Double. Standards.

[babyblob]

Rand Paul voted against an anti-lynching bill last month.

George Floyd can get choked to death in the street, Jacob Blake can get shot in the back seven times, and they're somehow not victims that he deems worthy of protection.

But this craven motherf***ing Senator has people say bad things at him in the street, and he thinks he's a victim? And you're silly enough to agree with him? After he's letting other people not just have unkind things said to them in the street, but die in the street?

Great take, man. You're not at all ridiculous for having one set of standards for white Senators and another for everyday African Americans. Aren't embarrassing or speaking from a place of privilege whatsoever.

Saying I do not agree with some one being intimidated for their political party does not mean I am a racist or in any way agree with what happened to George Flyod. If you ever read any of my old posts you would see how I was upset about what happened to him. i called it murder said it was a tragedy and called for the police to be arrested. Floyd was very much a victim, Blake was very much a victim. Not being happy about intimidation does not mean I disagree with Black Lives matter or that I agree with Paul. If you dont see the difference there is not point in debating you. You will not see my point that intimidation is wrong no matter whose side you are on and I will not agree with you that it is okay as long as you are going after a Republican.

I am saying we can not be okay with intimidation of Paul for his beliefs when we get upset when something like this happens to a Dem. had a group of Republicans surrounded Pelosi or AOC or Biden like this and did the same thing people would be losing their mind about Intimidation and things like that. As well they should be because that is what it would be. But people would not be asking why were they walking around Republican protesters, they would be going nuts on the protesters. I am not defending Paul or his polices. I am upset at having one set of standards for Dems and another for Republicans because they are the enemy.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, as well as 2019, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published profiles of the U.S. House Representative from Alabama’s 5th District, Mo Brooks, the U.S. House Representative from Alabama’s 5th Congressional District. Brooks, a Tea Party Wave beneficiary, has already demonstrated that he doesn't understand how the debt ceiling works and channels the sort of bigotry worthy of the legacy of George Wallace, having stated he is willing to "do anything short of shooting" illegal immigrants to solve the problem, and characterizing Democratic policies as part of a "War on Whites". Brooks is currently one of the most xenophobic opponents of immigration, and on more than one occasion has stated his belief that immigration reform was a plot by Democrats to "dilute the voting power of Americans", and has called for the impeachment of President Obama for his executive orders on immigration. He also has claimed Democrats use "class warfare”, "racial division", and "sexual exploitation" to help them get votes, which is quite the shift in the actual paradigm in this country. On July 8th, 2015: Mo Brooks goes on Yellowhammer Radio, and stated his belief that illegal immigrants have murdered more Americans than the six to seven thousand Americans who have died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq so far this century (Hint: That’s insane, and xenophobic, but that’s Mo Brooks for you). Brooks, in an interview not long after the worst mass shooting in U.S. History at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, weighed in by claiming that “the Muslim community, which, if it had its way, would kill every homosexual in the United States of America.” Because there’s no better way to respond to a tragedy by trying to stir up fears against foreigners, right?

With 385 days to go until the 2016 election, Mo Brooks already was talking about impeaching Hillary Clinton for having a private e-mail server while serving as Secretary of State. A month later, Rep. Brooks, during a Congressional hearing, suggested the United States should arm Ukraine in their conflict with Russia, in the hopes that it would lead the Russians out of Syria. There was agreement from both hawk and dove alike on Capitol Hill that this was a moronic suggestion, and it was nice to see both sides agree that Mo Brooks has terrible ideas.

Much like how in April of 2018, that Rep. Brooks was calling for the National Guard to not just be deployed to the U.S./Mexico border, but they be allowed to use “whatever force necessary” to hunt for border- crossers. Many of whom, of course, are women with children fleeing violence and seeking amnesty, but hey, let’s just give the Guardsmen the green light to gun them down, y’know?

After winning re-election in 2016 with 67% of the vote in a safe conservative district, Mo Brooks was trying to jump from the U.S. House, and supplant Sen. Luther Strange, the man appointed to replace Jeff Sessions by shamed (now former) Alabama Governor Robert Bentley. In July of 2017, Brooks promised that if elected to the U.S. Senate, he would use his position to filibuster by reading the King James Bible until Donald Trump’s proposed border wall (that experts note wouldn’t work) is funded, and then released an ad to promote his bid to get elected to the U.S. Senate that features audio of the attempted assassination of Congressman Steve Scalise (he was there at the time). Both parties criticized him for trying to exploit the shooting, because obviously. Well, against some of the most conservative lunatics Alabama had to offer, Mo Brooks failed to advance out of the GOP Primary, finishing third behind Luther Strange. Of course, Roy Moore finished first so… it’s hard to like anyone involved in that saga. That’s kind of like dodging a bullet to jump into the path of a different bullet.

[PaulBullion]

Violence is bad.

That is (morally) arguing on the level of a fourth grader.

Violence can be bad. Violence can also save lives. Controlled violence is a part of every civilized society. Violence ended the Holocaust.

[worstblogever]

Anyway, perhaps the biggest moment of utter stupidity from Mo Brooks of late came in May of 2018, when he tried a new strategy for denying climate change as a member of the House Science Committee. When faced with statistics about rising sea levels… you see, Brooks explained the sea levels were only rising because “rocks were falling into the ocean”. If that wasn’t insane enough, Brooks then went on to claim that the Antarctic ice sheet, which is melting rapidly, was somehow GROWING.

“What about the White Cliffs of Dover … and California, where you have the waves crashing against the shorelines, and time and time again you have the cliffs crashing into the sea? All of that displaces water which forces it to rise, does it not?

There are plenty of studies that have come that show with respect to Antarctica that the total ice sheet, particularly that above land, is increasing, not decreasing. Now, you could make a different argument if you want to talk about Greenland or the Arctic.”

Anyhow, Mo Brooks’ voting record continues to qualify as something so conservative, it can make sane people ill:

• January 27th, 2019: Mo Brooks votes against HJR 30, which was meant to express disapproval of Donald Trump not acting against Russian Federation for attacking our democracy.
• January 23rd, 2019: Rep. Brooks voted against HR 648, because he was gleeully enjoying the longest government shutdown in history.
• February 28th, 2019: Mo Brooks votes against HR 1112, a bill which would have required universal background checks on all firearm purchases, and close the gun show loophole.
• March 7th, 2019: Brooks votes against HR 183, a resolution to condemn anti-Semitism as a hateful extension of intolerance.
• March 14th, 2019: Rep. Brooks votes against HJR 46, which sane members of Congress voted for to reject Donald Trump’s “national emergency” regarding the U.S. border and his attempts to reallocate funds for a border wall without Congressional approval.
• March 25th, 2019: Brooks takes to the floor of the House, where he decides it’s a great time to QUOTE HITLER. Yes, that’s right, he complained about investigations into President Trump by Robert Mueller, called Democrats “socialists”, and then compared the Mueller investigation to the “Big Lie” that Hitler talked about in Mein Kampf.
• April 4th, 2019: Mo Brooks is one of 158 Republicans who choose to vote against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
• June 4th, 2019: Rep. Brooks votes against the Dreamers Act.
• July 12th, 2019: Brooks is one of 12 Republicans who vote against the re-authorization of the Zadroga Act to provide healthcare to 9/11 First Responders.
• July 16th, 2019: Mo Brooks is one of 187 Republicans who vote against a resolution to condemn Donald Trump for his racist statements that four people of color in Congress should “go back where they came from”.
• October 17th, 2019: Brooks is one of 60 Republicans who vote against HJ Res 77, which opposed Donald Trump’s disastrous decision to abandon Syrian Kurdish forces in Northeast Syria to the mercies of a Turkish invasion.
• October 23rd, 2019: Brooks is one of 41 Republicans who, while staring down the possibility of Donald Trump being impeached, stage a ridiculous publicity stunt in response by crashing a classified impeachment inquiry hearing for a “protest”.
• December 3rd, 2019: Rep. Brooks is one of 71 Republicans who votes against a resolution to disallow Russia from re-entering the G7 and makes it the G8 until it leaves Ukraine.
• December 18th, 2019: Brooks ignores his Congressional duty to hold a president who has been proven to commit high crimes and misdemeanors accountable and votes against the impeachment of Donald Trump.
• May 15th, 2020: Brooks votes against the HEROES Act, to further support the healthcare industry and citizens affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Mo Brooks was re-elected in 2018 with 61% of the vote. In 2020, he is one of three Republicans across the country running for a House seat unopposed. He seems unlikely to leave Congress until he drops dead, or decides to go try and get richer on K Street, at this point, because nobody seems willing to challenge him in a primary, and his district has far too much of a party lean for it to flip blue.

He will be an embarrassing throwback to a darker time in American history that seems to be trying to make a comeback.

[shooshoomanjoe]

People should be comfortable walking in public spaces. The moment a reasonable expectation of safety changes, the protest should be shut down. If pro-life protesters treated someone like Ron Wyden the same way, it would be equally intolerable.

Agreed. And we all remember that conservatives were silent when federal officers in unmarked vehicles were snatching innocent people off the streets of Portland.

[worstblogever]

Saying I do not agree with some one being intimidated for their political party does not mean I am a racist or in any way agree with what happened to George Flyod. .

I didn't even use the word racist in my post.

Interesting that you felt it was in there, and projected it in your response, though.

I guess you're a victim because someone would speak negatively in your direction like Senator Paul.

Poor dear.

[worstblogever]

Agreed. And we all remember that conservatives were silent when federal officers in unmarked vehicles were snatching innocent people off the streets of Portland.

Yes, but you cheer for it when it's people who oppose you. And pretend it's just as bad when people shout unkind words at people who you support while gaslighting everyone and pretending it's somehow worse.

[babyblob]

I am not upset that this is a case of Dems going after a Republican. i would be just as upset if it were Republicans going after Dems. What upsets me is that the people belonging to a party that claims to take the high road and have the moral high ground, who claims not to use the tactics of the Republicans are okay with this because the man is A republican. Not just here but in the media. it is a double standard and it is amazing that an open minding claiming group does not see it. they just attack those who dare to point out that it is hypocritical to say intimidation is wrong unless you use it against a republican. You painted me or at least implied that I am someone who is not at all upset about Floyd and Blake when that is not the case at all. Is Paul a victim of violence. No Is it an attempt at intimidation? Yes.

[babyblob]

I didn't even use the word racist in my post.

Interesting that you felt it was in there, and projected it in your response, though.

I guess you're a victim because someone would speak negatively in your direction like Senator Paul.

Poor dear.

I am not a victim. i am trying to defend my point just as you are trying to defend yours. We are just very far apart on this. We will never change each others minds or see each others points. You are right you did not use the term Racist. But you said how because of my views that Floyd and Blake are not people I deem worthy of protection which paints me as a racist with out using the term. I have spoken out many post on here and in the minorities in media thread about my thoughts on Floyd. you either did ot read them or are ignoring them because they do not fit your narrative.

[worstblogever]

I am not upset that this is a case of Dems going after a Republican. i would be just as upset if it were Republicans going after Dems. What upsets me is that the people belonging to a party that claims to take the high road and have the moral high ground, who claims not to use the tactics of the Republicans are okay with this because the man is A republican.

It's not a double standard.

Black people are being murdered.

A white senator with a long track record of racist stances who unilaterally blocked an anti-lynching bill to allow them to continue to be murdered had unkind things said in his direction while walking through the street with a police escort.

You think that's the same thing that he was "intimidated" and keep equating it as "just as bad" if both sides did it, as if they were. While militia groups are turning up to silence protesters by literally killing them with automatic weapons.

It's not. Stop. Gaslighting. Us.

[worstblogever]

I am not a victim. i am trying to defend my point just as you are trying to defend yours. We are just very far apart on this.

We are. Because you're making a false equivalency that is revolting in its audacity.

[babyblob]

We are. Because you're making a false equivalency that is revolting in its audacity.

I can say the same thing about your view. But hey this is America. We dont have to agree. You say a lot of things on here I agree with. This is just not one of them. lets just move on and not bog down the thread and stop before either one of us lose our temper and get petty.