US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)

Biden

14 (66.7%)

Trump

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Voting closed: November 02, 2020, 06:25:59 pm

[Alan Klein]

Nys and nys have governmental divisions just for minority and women own businesses to get government contracts.   If you're white,  there are many contracts you cannot even bid. Unless the firm is owned by a black, Hispanic or woman.  How is that not discriminatory? This has been going for decades.  I faced it 40 years ago when I started in my small business.   I couldn't bid a lot of work.  How would you like to be a freelance photographer and told sorry,  you're not black don't even apply for the job.  How long will Democrats support this discrimination?
https://edc.nyc/opportunity-mwdbe

[JoeKitchen]

Nys and nys have governmental divisions just for minority and women own businesses to get government contracts.   If you're white,  there are many contracts you cannot even bid. Unless the firm is owned by a black, Hispanic or woman.  How is that not discriminatory? This has been going for decades.  I faced it 40 years ago when I started in my small business.   I couldn't bid a lot of work.  How would you like to be a freelance photographer and told sorry,  you're not black don't even apply for the job.  How long will Democrats support this discrimination?
https://edc.nyc/opportunity-mwdbe

Although I dont have strong opinions on this as it pertains to whites, I just dont think these programs do any good for those whom they seek to help.  In most cases, I see them doing much more damage. 

I had a client (now retired) who is black and built his business from nothing to a moderately large architectural firm.  He made it a point to never register as a minority owned business and never advertised this when bidding for jobs that gave preferential treatment to minorities.  This was when I first started out and I asked him why not take advantage of it? 

He actually considered these programs to be insults, and wanted to retire with the dignity knowing he made it on his own talent and hard work, not because of some meaningless quota. 

This always stuck with me.  (My wife does the same thing for the same reason, refusing to register as woman owned.)

Shelby Steele (a black man and former civil rights worker) makes this point all the time.  He asks is it not enough that the Dems took away my dignity once with Jim Crow (and the like), but then decide to do it again with affirmative action making it impossible for someone to tell if I made it on my own accord, with that question always hanging over my head?

Shelby Steele On “How America's Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country”

[John Camp]

Murder is a legal definition in the USA, and until proven of murder, you are not a murderer.  Therefore this kid is not a murderer, and all available evidence does show he shot in self-defense.  He will get off easy, for the murder charge, at least.  I suspect he will plead to a weapons' charge though.

Murder is not just a legal definition, it's a statement of fact. If you go into the bedroom and get a gun, and come out and shoot your wife, you've murdered her and you're a murderer. Whether you're found guilty of murder in a court is a completely different question.

In the move Shawshank Redemption, the main character is convicted of a murder that he didn't commit. Does that make him a murderer? Of course not.

If you're accused of murdering your wife, and you did it, but a court is unable to convict because of a lack of evidence, that doesn't mean you didn't do it. You're still a murderer, you just got away with it.

And by the way, the evidence against this kid is compelling -- look at the videos. He shot three people in cold blood. He was in no danger whatever. Try not to let your prejudices get in the way of your eyes.

[Craig Lamson]

Murder is not just a legal definition, it's a statement of fact. If you go into the bedroom and get a gun, and come out and shoot your wife, you've murdered her and you're a murderer. Whether you're found guilty of murder in a court is a completely different question.

In the move Shawshank Redemption, the main character is convicted of a murder that he didn't commit. Does that make him a murderer? Of course not.

If you're accused of murdering your wife, and you did it, but a court is unable to convict because of a lack of evidence, that doesn't mean you didn't do it. You're still a murderer, you just got away with it.

And by the way, the evidence against this kid is compelling -- look at the videos. He shot three people in cold blood. He was in no danger whatever. Try not to let your prejudices get in the way of your eyes.

This statement is simply beyond the pale. He was being chased by an angry mob.  His first encounter happened because the perp was tring to take him down and grabed for his gun.  Then he was being kicked drop about the head and then beaten with a skateboard about the head.  Another guy came at him with a loaded pistol pointed at his head.  "He was in no danger whatever" is simply an idiotic statement.  Amazing what some want to see when all they have is predudice.

[Craig Lamson]

Murder is a legal definition in the USA, and until proven of murder, you are not a murderer.  Therefore this kid is not a murderer, and all available evidence does show he shot in self-defense.  He will get off easy, for the murder charge, at least.  I suspect he will plead to a weapons' charge though. 

Now should he have even shown up to this protest, surely to turn into a riot, with a conspicuous weapon?  Absolutely not, especially as a 17 year old without any real life experiences.  With the exception of trained solders and police, I dont think anyone should be going to something that is sure to become a riot.

The weapons charge is a misdeanor but it also has a loophole for those under 18 carrying a long gun.  I think he walks on that one too. 

When it comes to the murder charges, Wisconsin law gives him the right ot use deadly force...

"Self-defense is an affirmative defense that a person accused of a violent crime can bring, arguing that their use of force was justified because they were defending themselves. Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person. Importantly, some states impose a duty to retreat from a conflict, but Wisconsin is not among them. However, Wisconsin does allow juries to consider whether a defendant could have retreated in determining whether the use of deadly force was “necessary.”

[Robert Roaldi]

This statement is simply beyond the pale. He was being chased by an angry mob.  His first encounter happened because the perp was tring to take him down and grabed for his gun.  Then he was being kicked drop about the head and then beaten with a skateboard about the head.  Another guy came at him with a loaded pistol pointed at his head.  "He was in no danger whatever" is simply an idiotic statement.  Amazing what some want to see when all they have is predudice.

I haven't seen the video, will make no comment about it or his culpability in anything. But since he was carrying a rifle at a street demonstration, it's hardly surprising that he was attacked by others, is it? You can see why people might want to take him down to be on the safe side, to make sure he doesn't use that rifle.

I mean, why WAS he there with a rifle? Was he protecting his business? His family? And if the argument is that he has the right to carry a weapon to protect himself, well, couldn't you say that same thing about others too, including the ones who may have tried to stop him?

[JoeKitchen]

Murder is not just a legal definition, it's a statement of fact. If you go into the bedroom and get a gun, and come out and shoot your wife, you've murdered her and you're a murderer. Whether you're found guilty of murder in a court is a completely different question.

In the move Shawshank Redemption, the main character is convicted of a murder that he didn't commit. Does that make him a murderer? Of course not.

If you're accused of murdering your wife, and you did it, but a court is unable to convict because of a lack of evidence, that doesn't mean you didn't do it. You're still a murderer, you just got away with it.

And by the way, the evidence against this kid is compelling -- look at the videos. He shot three people in cold blood. He was in no danger whatever. Try not to let your prejudices get in the way of your eyes.

Okay, I'll buy this ... up until your last line.  It's pretty clear it was in self defense, and he will most likely get off.  He's still guilty of being a idiot going to a riot with a gun and perhaps should be charged with a lower crime then murder.  But he was in plenty of danger when he fired his first shot and attempted, twice, to avoid action. 

[Craig Lamson]

I haven't seen the video, will make no comment about it or his culpability in anything. But since he was carrying a rifle at a street demonstration, it's hardly surprising that he was attacked by others, is it? You can see why people might want to take him down to be on the safe side, to make sure he doesn't use that rifle.

I mean, why WAS he there with a rifle? Was he protecting his business? His family? And if the argument is that he has the right to carry a weapon to protect himself, well, couldn't you say that same thing about others too, including the ones who may have tried to stop him?

You don't have the right to 'take someone down" because they are lawfully carrying a weapon. It remains to be seen if he was carrying that weapon lawfully. 

He was there to help protect a business that had been partially burned the night before, along with others. He was also attending to injured people.  Should he have had a gun?  I would not have done it.

But had the "mostly peaceful protestors" refrained from the destruction they had caused none of this would have happened. 

[JoeKitchen]

I haven't seen the video, will make no comment about it or his culpability in anything. But since he was carrying a rifle at a street demonstration, it's hardly surprising that he was attacked by others, is it? You can see why people might want to take him down to be on the safe side, to make sure he doesn't use that rifle.

I mean, why WAS he there with a rifle? Was he protecting his business? His family? And if the argument is that he has the right to carry a weapon to protect himself, well, couldn't you say that same thing about others too, including the ones who may have tried to stop him?

I think this statement pretty much nails it.  You should not be going to a protest 100% sure to become a riot with a conspicuous weapon since it will draw ire. 

FYI, his story is he was there to help protect businesses.  The problem with this argument is that he was from another state and did not have any connection to any of the businesses, which means he had no legal right to protect those businesses with a firearm unless you can prove you were hired as a security gaurd.  Ultimately though, this is meaningless since he defended himself outside of any of the businesses, making this just another misdemeanor. 

The real problem for Democrats though is they are quickly becoming seen as the party that refuses to allow people to protect themselves while simultaneously destroying the police.  This combined with the McCloskeys' story is making this damning narrative very easy to propagate, and Biden yesterday did nothing to quell that. 

Even leaving politics aside, if you demoralize and hamstring the police to the point of them not being able to do their job, and then stoke racial unrest by accusing cops of murder before all the facts are released, you will create a void and that void will be filled.  Although I am not condoning vigilantism, it is the logical conclusion of this situation that we have seen played out repeatably for the last 3 months.  Vigilantes are much more likely to kill someone then cops, and that alone should be reason to support the police. 

[Craig Lamson]

I think this statement pretty much nails it.  You should not be going to a protest 100% sure to become a riot with a conspicuous weapon since it will draw ire. 

FYI, his story is he was there to help protect businesses.  The problem with this argument is that he was from another state and did not have any connection to any of the businesses, which means he had no legal right to protect those businesses with a firearm unless you can prove you were hired as a security gaurd.  Ultimately though, this is meaningless since he defended himself outside of any of the businesses, making this just another misdemeanor. 

The real problem for Democrats though is they are quickly becoming seen as the party that refuses to allow people to protect themselves while simultaneously destroying the police.  This combined with the McCloskeys' story is making this damning narrative very easy to propagate, and Biden yesterday did nothing to quell that. 

Even leaving politics aside, if you demoralize and hamstring the police to the point of them not being able to do their job, and then stoke racial unrest by accusing cops of murder before all the facts are released, you will create a void and that void will be filled.  Although I am not condoning vigilantism, it is the logical conclusion of this situation that we have seen played out repeatably for the last 3 months.  Vigilantes are much more likely to kill someone then cops, and that alone should be reason to support the police.

Rittenhouse was working as a lifeguard in Kenosha on that day.  He did not cross state lines to attend the protest.  As far as I can tell there is no law that makes it illegal to protect a businees if its not yours or your families.   I'm happy to be corrected if that is incorrect. 

[PeterAit]

Nys and nys have governmental divisions just for minority and women own businesses to get government contracts.   If you're white,  there are many contracts you cannot even bid. Unless the firm is owned by a black, Hispanic or woman.  How is that not discriminatory? This has been going for decades.  I faced it 40 years ago when I started in my small business.   I couldn't bid a lot of work.  How would you like to be a freelance photographer and told sorry,  you're not black don't even apply for the job.  How long will Democrats support this discrimination?
https://edc.nyc/opportunity-mwdbe

So for some 400 years, blacks and women have been prevented from doing anything besides being subservient. Now, when there are a few programs that favor them, it's a great horror and evil. And the white guys whine. Get a grip.

[Jeremy Roussak]

You know nothing about what you're talking about.

Now there's an ideal; but if posting in this thread, or other threads on this site, were restricted to people who know what they're talking about, the forum would be awfully quiet.

Jeremy

[Alan Klein]

Rittenhouse was working as a lifeguard in Kenosha on that day.  He did not cross state lines to attend the protest.  As far as I can tell there is no law that makes it illegal to protect a businees if its not yours or your families.   I'm happy to be corrected if that is incorrect. 

If you [can't=edit] keep and bear arms, what's the point of having them? 

[Alan Klein]

So for some 400 years, blacks and women have been prevented from doing anything besides being subservient. Now, when there are a few programs that favor them, it's a great horror and evil. And the white guys whine. Get a grip.

Don't you see what you propose is racism?  It doesn;t matter which race you favor and discriminate for or against - black or white.  In any case, nobody's holding anyone back today.  Not today. We've had a black president twice elected.  In any case, when things are good, most people will only whine a little, unless you're the one who's being penalized.  I had nothing to do with slavery.  All I knew is I was told when wanting to bid certain NYC government projects that white people need not apply.  That was 40 years ago.  It's still going on today.  That's discrimination.  That's racism fostered by Democrats in NYC. 

It's when the economic situation deteriorates especially, like today due to Covid, that people get testy. When some people are being penalized and they can't feed their families, the stakes get higher.  That's why we should stop discrimination of any kind regardless of the so-called noble reasons being argued.    It fosters conflict amongst groups as we see being played out today.

[Alan Klein]

Now there's an ideal; but if posting in this thread, or other threads on this site, were restricted to people who know what they're talking about, the forum would be awfully quiet.

Jeremy

Including photography related threads. 

[Robert Roaldi]

You don't have the right to 'take someone down" because they are lawfully carrying a weapon. It remains to be seen if he was carrying that weapon lawfully. 

I understand, but that might be splitting hairs awfully finely. If trouble breaks out and you see someone with a gun, you can see how it might be tempting to neutralize them. If he has a right to protect himself, then so do others.

He was there to help protect a business that had been partially burned the night before, along with others. He was also attending to injured people.  Should he have had a gun?  I would not have done it.

Was he in the place of business when the shootings happened? I don't know the details.

Besides, the way to protect a business is to buy insurance. You don't send a 17 year old with a gun. This is the real world, not a wild west dime novel.

But had the "mostly peaceful protestors" refrained from the destruction they had caused none of this would have happened.

Well sure, but if the cops hadn't shot .....     And if there had never been slavery....

I mean, that argument is never ending, isn't it? There's no smoke without fire. If a group repeatedly rises in anger, it simply can't be that there's no reason for it. People don't engage in violence for the hell of it. Of course some do exactly that, but not large numbers of ordinarily law-abiding people, life doesn't work like that.

[Robert Roaldi]

Even leaving politics aside, if you demoralize and hamstring the police to the point of them not being able to do their job, and then stoke racial unrest by accusing cops of murder before all the facts are released, you will create a void and that void will be filled.  Although I am not condoning vigilantism, it is the logical conclusion of this situation that we have seen played out repeatably for the last 3 months.  Vigilantes are much more likely to kill someone then cops, and that alone should be reason to support the police.

In the bigger picture, I have nothing but sympathy for the police. How can they do their job in a place where any nut case can buy a gun and there's seemingly no way for reasonable people to agree on how to prevent that happening. It's a miracle anyone sane wants the job.

There was an interesting podcast discussion recently about this precise issue on Joe Rogan's podcast, http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/nancy-panza. It's a wide ranging discussion. There seem to be obvious cases where police are asked to provide services outside their areas of competency and it's not fair to them. (I can't remember if I posted that link before, apologies if I did.)

[Craig Lamson]

I understand, but that might be splitting hairs awfully finely. If trouble breaks out and you see someone with a gun, you can see how it might be tempting to neutralize them. If he has a right to protect himself, then so do others.

Its not splitting hairs at all.  They went after him prior to any "trouble breaking out". He was not attacking any of them. 

Was he in the place of business when the shootings happened? I don't know the details.

Besides, the way to protect a business is to buy insurance. You don't send a 17 year old with a gun. This is the real world, not a wild west dime novel.

I suggest you do a bit of research and find out for yourself.

The real world eh?  Where thugs rampage and destroy business and property at will?

Well sure, but if the cops hadn't shot .....     And if there had never been slavery....

I mean, that argument is never ending, isn't it? There's no smoke without fire. If a group repeatedly rises in anger, it simply can't be that there's no reason for it. People don't engage in violence for the hell of it. Of course some do exactly that, but not large numbers of ordinarily law-abiding people, life doesn't work like that.

We are not talking about "large numbers of law abiding people" now are we?

[JoeKitchen]

I just now listened to the speech Joe Biden gave yesterday in its entirety, and it is beyond me how much of a moral coward Biden is.  I seem to remember in 2016 when Trump said there were bad people on both sides and was (rightly) called out for not putting the blame exactly where it lied in Charlottesville.  Trump was derided for spreading the blame over everyone instead of calling out the white nationalists, and now Biden is doing the exact same thing, and crickets. 

Not once did Biden mention Antifa or BLM, who are the only ones starting the violence and rioting currently.  Not once. 

Biden is no more moral then Trump.  At least Trump actually went to Kenosha, meanwhile Biden is hiding in his basement. 

[Alan Klein]

So Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi needed a blow and dry.  She got videoed breaking the San Francisco rules against indoor salons plus she didn't wear a mask.  Hypocrisy again from the Democrats, pointing fingers at the president, shutting down the economy to make Trump look bad, etc. What phonies.   

Nancy Pelosi gets hair done at SF salon in spite of COVID-19 rules
https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/nancy-pelosi-gets-hair-done-at-sf-salon-in-spite-of-covid-19-rules/