And now we have a fourth front we are fighting in the new trade war. We are now going to get hit from all sides. Mexico, Canada, the EU and China are now all imposing billions in dollars in tariffs on us. These are ALL essentially going to be taxes on these goods on US consumers. There is simply no way people aren't going to feel this hit their pocket book in the next 3 to 6 months. Add that to the continuing increase in gas prices, and you have to wonder where this so-called great economy is going to be by the end of the year:
Brilliant strategy by a net IMPORTING country. I have to agree with you on this one @jjstraka34. Even if we achieve FULL employment I'm not sure we come out ahead.
We've technically been at or near full employment for awhile (which I believe is at or at least near 5%). The problem is that alot of those jobs lost in 2008 paid WAY more than the ones that replaced them. What we have now is pretty much stagnant wage growth that might or might not keep up with inflation in any given year. But then you have to add in everything that costs people money. Health care costs will almost certainly go up without the individual mandate. The price of well, EVERYTHING is set to go up with all these tariffs crashing down on our heads. Prescription drug prices remain out of control. And the big kicker, as always, is gas. Gas hitting $3/gallon again should be Trump's worst nightmare. It has always been an overlooked factor in a President's popularity in my opinion.
And now we have a fourth front we are fighting in the new trade war. We are now going to get hit from all sides. Mexico, Canada, the EU and China are now all imposing billions in dollars in tariffs on us. These are ALL essentially going to be taxes on these goods on US consumers. There is simply no way people aren't going to feel this hit their pocket book in the next 3 to 6 months. Add that to the continuing increase in gas prices, and you have to wonder where this so-called great economy is going to be by the end of the year:
Brilliant strategy by a net IMPORTING country. I have to agree with you on this one @jjstraka34. Even if we achieve FULL employment I'm not sure we come out ahead.
We've technically been at or near full employment for awhile (which I believe is at or at least near 5%). The problem is that alot of those jobs lost in 2008 paid WAY more than the ones that replaced them. What we have now is pretty much stagnant wage growth that might or might not keep up with inflation in any given year. But then you have to add in everything that costs people money. Health care costs will almost certainly go up without the individual mandate. The price of well, EVERYTHING is set to go up with all these tariffs crashing down on our heads. Prescription drug prices remain out of control. And the big kicker, as always, is gas. Gas hitting $3/gallon again should be Trump's worst nightmare. It has always been an overlooked factor in a President's popularity in my opinion.
I've never understood the obsession Americans have with gas prices. The difference between $2.50 and $3.00/gallon is really not all that much. To make things simple let's assume 20mpg and 12000k miles/year. That would amount to $300/year or less than $30/month. If you get 25 or 30mpg it's even less significant. I don't get it. I think it's just more obvious than grocery prices or other expenses that cut into your paychecks...
And now we have a fourth front we are fighting in the new trade war. We are now going to get hit from all sides. Mexico, Canada, the EU and China are now all imposing billions in dollars in tariffs on us. These are ALL essentially going to be taxes on these goods on US consumers. There is simply no way people aren't going to feel this hit their pocket book in the next 3 to 6 months. Add that to the continuing increase in gas prices, and you have to wonder where this so-called great economy is going to be by the end of the year:
Brilliant strategy by a net IMPORTING country. I have to agree with you on this one @jjstraka34. Even if we achieve FULL employment I'm not sure we come out ahead.
We've technically been at or near full employment for awhile (which I believe is at or at least near 5%). The problem is that alot of those jobs lost in 2008 paid WAY more than the ones that replaced them. What we have now is pretty much stagnant wage growth that might or might not keep up with inflation in any given year. But then you have to add in everything that costs people money. Health care costs will almost certainly go up without the individual mandate. The price of well, EVERYTHING is set to go up with all these tariffs crashing down on our heads. Prescription drug prices remain out of control. And the big kicker, as always, is gas. Gas hitting $3/gallon again should be Trump's worst nightmare. It has always been an overlooked factor in a President's popularity in my opinion.
I've never understood the obsession Americans have with gas prices. The difference between $2.50 and $3.00/gallon is really not all that much. To make things simple let's assume 20mpg and 12000k miles/year. That would amount to $300/year or less than $30/month. If you get 25 or 30mpg it's even less significant. I don't get it. I think it's just more obvious than grocery prices or other expenses that cut into your paychecks...
It's pretty easy to quantify that you are spending $5 more on a tank than you were a year ago, because at a gas station, especially if you are only paying at the pump, it is the only thing you are buying. Likely the only thing running through your head at the time is "gee, this was way cheaper a few months ago". Grocery bills are always big (likely over $100 even for one person, and 2 or 3 times that for a family) and is harder to wrap your head around without sitting down and parsing it out.
The jungle primary is a good example of a well-meaning law having some bizarre side effects, plus it's managed to screw both parties in different races. Game theory-wise your best decision can oftentimes be to vote for your second choice in the primaries.
And now we have a fourth front we are fighting in the new trade war. We are now going to get hit from all sides. Mexico, Canada, the EU and China are now all imposing billions in dollars in tariffs on us. These are ALL essentially going to be taxes on these goods on US consumers. There is simply no way people aren't going to feel this hit their pocket book in the next 3 to 6 months. Add that to the continuing increase in gas prices, and you have to wonder where this so-called great economy is going to be by the end of the year:
Brilliant strategy by a net IMPORTING country. I have to agree with you on this one @jjstraka34. Even if we achieve FULL employment I'm not sure we come out ahead.
We've technically been at or near full employment for awhile (which I believe is at or at least near 5%). The problem is that alot of those jobs lost in 2008 paid WAY more than the ones that replaced them. What we have now is pretty much stagnant wage growth that might or might not keep up with inflation in any given year. But then you have to add in everything that costs people money. Health care costs will almost certainly go up without the individual mandate. The price of well, EVERYTHING is set to go up with all these tariffs crashing down on our heads. Prescription drug prices remain out of control. And the big kicker, as always, is gas. Gas hitting $3/gallon again should be Trump's worst nightmare. It has always been an overlooked factor in a President's popularity in my opinion.
I've never understood the obsession Americans have with gas prices. The difference between $2.50 and $3.00/gallon is really not all that much. To make things simple let's assume 20mpg and 12000k miles/year. That would amount to $300/year or less than $30/month. If you get 25 or 30mpg it's even less significant. I don't get it. I think it's just more obvious than grocery prices or other expenses that cut into your paychecks...
It's pretty easy to quantify that you are spending $5 more on a tank than you were a year ago, because at a gas station, especially if you are only paying at the pump, it is the only thing you are buying. Likely the only thing running through your head at the time is "gee, this was way cheaper a few months ago". Grocery bills are always big (likely over $100 even for one person, and 2 or 3 times that for a family) and is harder to wrap your head around without sitting down and parsing it out.
I've known people who would drive 10 miles out of their way to save 3 cents/gallon. I tried to explain to them that they used almost a gallon of gas (20 miles there and back) to save 30 or 40 cents but they could not understand the concept. It was mind boggling considering I work with analysts who routinely use spreadsheets and do mental calculations that most people would struggle with. My conclusion is that it's a psychological phenomenon.
And now we have a fourth front we are fighting in the new trade war. We are now going to get hit from all sides. Mexico, Canada, the EU and China are now all imposing billions in dollars in tariffs on us. These are ALL essentially going to be taxes on these goods on US consumers. There is simply no way people aren't going to feel this hit their pocket book in the next 3 to 6 months. Add that to the continuing increase in gas prices, and you have to wonder where this so-called great economy is going to be by the end of the year:
Brilliant strategy by a net IMPORTING country. I have to agree with you on this one @jjstraka34. Even if we achieve FULL employment I'm not sure we come out ahead.
We've technically been at or near full employment for awhile (which I believe is at or at least near 5%). The problem is that alot of those jobs lost in 2008 paid WAY more than the ones that replaced them. What we have now is pretty much stagnant wage growth that might or might not keep up with inflation in any given year. But then you have to add in everything that costs people money. Health care costs will almost certainly go up without the individual mandate. The price of well, EVERYTHING is set to go up with all these tariffs crashing down on our heads. Prescription drug prices remain out of control. And the big kicker, as always, is gas. Gas hitting $3/gallon again should be Trump's worst nightmare. It has always been an overlooked factor in a President's popularity in my opinion.
I've never understood the obsession Americans have with gas prices. The difference between $2.50 and $3.00/gallon is really not all that much. To make things simple let's assume 20mpg and 12000k miles/year. That would amount to $300/year or less than $30/month. If you get 25 or 30mpg it's even less significant. I don't get it. I think it's just more obvious than grocery prices or other expenses that cut into your paychecks...
It's pretty easy to quantify that you are spending $5 more on a tank than you were a year ago, because at a gas station, especially if you are only paying at the pump, it is the only thing you are buying. Likely the only thing running through your head at the time is "gee, this was way cheaper a few months ago". Grocery bills are always big (likely over $100 even for one person, and 2 or 3 times that for a family) and is harder to wrap your head around without sitting down and parsing it out.
I've known people who would drive 10 miles out of their way to save 3 cents/gallon. I tried to explain to them that they used almost a gallon of gas (20 miles there and back) to save 30 or 40 cents but they could not understand the concept. It was mind boggling considering I work with analysts who routinely use spreadsheets and do mental calculations that most people would struggle with. My conclusion is that it's a psychological phenomenon.
Well this is of course ridiculous. Whenever I get offered a gas coupon at a grocery store, I always tell the cashier to just throw it away, since there is simply no way I am going all the way across town to buy gas at 10 cents off.
And now we have a fourth front we are fighting in the new trade war. We are now going to get hit from all sides. Mexico, Canada, the EU and China are now all imposing billions in dollars in tariffs on us. These are ALL essentially going to be taxes on these goods on US consumers. There is simply no way people aren't going to feel this hit their pocket book in the next 3 to 6 months. Add that to the continuing increase in gas prices, and you have to wonder where this so-called great economy is going to be by the end of the year:
Brilliant strategy by a net IMPORTING country. I have to agree with you on this one @jjstraka34. Even if we achieve FULL employment I'm not sure we come out ahead.
We've technically been at or near full employment for awhile (which I believe is at or at least near 5%). The problem is that alot of those jobs lost in 2008 paid WAY more than the ones that replaced them. What we have now is pretty much stagnant wage growth that might or might not keep up with inflation in any given year. But then you have to add in everything that costs people money. Health care costs will almost certainly go up without the individual mandate. The price of well, EVERYTHING is set to go up with all these tariffs crashing down on our heads. Prescription drug prices remain out of control. And the big kicker, as always, is gas. Gas hitting $3/gallon again should be Trump's worst nightmare. It has always been an overlooked factor in a President's popularity in my opinion.
I've never understood the obsession Americans have with gas prices. The difference between $2.50 and $3.00/gallon is really not all that much. To make things simple let's assume 20mpg and 12000k miles/year. That would amount to $300/year or less than $30/month. If you get 25 or 30mpg it's even less significant. I don't get it. I think it's just more obvious than grocery prices or other expenses that cut into your paychecks...
It's pretty easy to quantify that you are spending $5 more on a tank than you were a year ago, because at a gas station, especially if you are only paying at the pump, it is the only thing you are buying. Likely the only thing running through your head at the time is "gee, this was way cheaper a few months ago". Grocery bills are always big (likely over $100 even for one person, and 2 or 3 times that for a family) and is harder to wrap your head around without sitting down and parsing it out.
I've known people who would drive 10 miles out of their way to save 3 cents/gallon. I tried to explain to them that they used almost a gallon of gas (20 miles there and back) to save 30 or 40 cents but they could not understand the concept. It was mind boggling considering I work with analysts who routinely use spreadsheets and do mental calculations that most people would struggle with. My conclusion is that it's a psychological phenomenon.
Well this is of course ridiculous. Whenever I get offered a gas coupon at a grocery store, I always tell the cashier to just throw it away, since there is simply no way I am going all the way across town to buy gas at 10 cents off.
This is a bit off of the politics topic of course, but with a little planning that 10 cents/gallon can be used when you get your groceries. I'm lucky in that I live only a couple miles from a Kroger so I can get 20-30 cents/gallon off of my fill-ups once a month. That's actually a pretty substantial savings for buying groceries I need anyway.
The jungle primary is a good example of a well-meaning law having some bizarre side effects, plus it's managed to screw both parties in different races. Game theory-wise your best decision can oftentimes be to vote for your second choice in the primaries.
Welcome to the jungle! I had to Google it just to know what you were talking about. Good thing I live in Michigan, the 8th most corrupt state in the Union according to Fox News. Until I'm a millionaire (or better yet, a billionaire) I don't need to worry about affecting anything here.
The whole "not all cops" line takes a bit of hit when 5 or 6 of them at once participate in the beatdown of a man for seemingly no reason whatsoever. Where are all these heroic police officers willing to stand up to this behavior?? Apparently the law of averages is telling us it is less than 1 in 6 based on this video. How many cops have to be present at one time for one of them to do the right thing?? 10?? 20?? Because in this video, 4 of them are actively participating in a flat-out assault, and two of them are walking off an elevator acting like this is simply business as usual. Police officers in this country are completely out of control. I don't think this can be fixed without tearing the whole current system down and starting over, which is never going to happen:
Until the good cops start actively purging the so-called "bad apples" from their ranks and cross the thin blue line, nothing will ever change. And they never will. At this point, it's as much on them as the ones participating in it. They know them, the watch them do this (probably on a daily basis). They likely help them falsify incident and arrest reports. There is no reason to trust anyone in this profession at all when first encountering them. At this point (especially if you are a minority), you are likely in as much danger just being around a law enforcement officer as you are around a criminal.
Keep in mind, the only incidents we even find out about are captured on cell phone or security cameras. How many multitudes more are taking place in dark alleys or places where no tape is rolling?? 2x, 3x, 10x?? Even when we get video, half the population excuses the behavior.
Question for our European and Canadian friends....how often does something like this come up in your countries?? My guess is VERY rarely.
Make no mistake, everyone in every police department in the country is well aware of WHO the officers are who are prone to this sort of behavior. There is no way it's a secret. Human beings like to talk and gossip too much for that to be the case. But I guess you can just ask Frank Serpico what happens when you attempt to turn in law-breaking police officers......
And for the record, THIS is what the NFL kneeling protests were about. This exact reason. Yet the (no pun intended) goalposts have been moved to make the entire thing a referendum on patriotism and respect for the military. It was NEVER about that. It's about the simple reality shown in videos like this we see multiple times a week at this point. And this is a daily reality that African-Americans have known about for DECADES. It's just that most of society ignored them until recently.
The whole "not all cops" line takes a bit of hit when 5 or 6 of them at once participate in the beatdown of a man for seemingly no reason whatsoever. Where are all these heroic police officers willing to stand up to this behavior?? Apparently the law of averages is telling us it is less than 1 in 6 based on this video. How many cops have to be present at one time for one of them to do the right thing?? 10?? 20?? Because in this video, 4 of them are actively participating in a flat-out assault, and two of them are walking off an elevator acting like this is simply business as usual. Police officers in this country are completely out of control. I don't think this can be fixed without tearing the whole current system down and starting over, which is never going to happen:
Until the good cops start actively purging the so-called "bad apples" from their ranks and cross the thin blue line, nothing will ever change. And they never will. At this point, it's as much on them as the ones participating in it. They know them, the watch them do (probably on a daily basis). They likely help them falsify incident and arrest reports. There is no reason to trust anyone in this profession at all when first encountering them. At this point (especially if you are a minority), you are likely in as much danger just being around a law enforcement officer as you are around a criminal.
Still wouldn't want their job. What a crappy way to be exposed to the worst society has to offer. How could you not be jaded being confronted with the dregs of humanity day-in and day-out (especially in a major city environment). I know we'd like to believe these folks are all super-heroes but put yourself in their shoes. It doesn't excuse their behaviour but it may explain it a bit. A normal person wouldn't even want those positions. That might be why folks on power trips seem to be in the majority in that profession.
I just got a ticket a few weeks ago for a rolling stop at a four-way stop sign despite being the 4th person in line and going through when the person across from me was already moving through himself. $200 and a lecture on 'waiting my turn' was what I got for a logical traffic maneuver. He also had the gall to say that even though he knew I had insurance because of his computer, I had to go to the f'ing courthouse to show proof of insurance because I didn't have a print-out on me at the time. What a prick! I'd probably still be in jail if I had been black. He'd definitely be a paladin in D&D (more likely an Inquisitor).
The whole "not all cops" line takes a bit of hit when 5 or 6 of them at once participate in the beatdown of a man for seemingly no reason whatsoever. Where are all these heroic police officers willing to stand up to this behavior?? Apparently the law of averages is telling us it is less than 1 in 6 based on this video. How many cops have to be present at one time for one of them to do the right thing?? 10?? 20?? Because in this video, 4 of them are actively participating in a flat-out assault, and two of them are walking off an elevator acting like this is simply business as usual. Police officers in this country are completely out of control. I don't think this can be fixed without tearing the whole current system down and starting over, which is never going to happen:
Until the good cops start actively purging the so-called "bad apples" from their ranks and cross the thin blue line, nothing will ever change. And they never will. At this point, it's as much on them as the ones participating in it. They know them, the watch them do (probably on a daily basis). They likely help them falsify incident and arrest reports. There is no reason to trust anyone in this profession at all when first encountering them. At this point (especially if you are a minority), you are likely in as much danger just being around a law enforcement officer as you are around a criminal.
Still wouldn't want their job. What a crappy way to be exposed to the worst society has to offer. How could you not be jaded being confronted with the dregs of humanity day-in and day-out (especially in a major city environment). I know we'd like to believe these folks are all super-heroes but put yourself in their shoes. It doesn't excuse their behaviour but it may explain it a bit. A normal person wouldn't even want those positions. That might be why folks on power trips seem to be in the majority in that profession.
I just got a ticket a few weeks ago for a rolling stop at a four-way stop sign despite being the 4th person in line and going through when the person across from me was already moving through himself. $200 and a lecture on 'waiting my turn' was what I got for a logical traffic maneuver. He also had the gall to say that even though he knew I had insurance because of his computer, I had to go to the f'ing courthouse to show proof of insurance because I didn't have a print-out on me at the time. What a prick! I'd probably still be in jail if I had been black. He'd definitely be a paladin in D&D (more likely an Inquisitor).
I don't have any sympathy for their job because they aren't conscripted. No one is forced to be a police officer. And I think one of the main problems is that the seemingly unbridled power that comes innately with the job itself is attracting the wrong people to the profession, or certainly enough of them to cause these incidents to seem like a veritable epidemic. At this point, it's too late. We have the authoritarian right in this country who will back up nearly ANY police action, and we have those of us on the left who are so distrustful of police that (and I say this as a mid-30s white man) I have literally left a Subway restaurant before because there were officers in line in front of me. On one side, we have hero worship, and on the other, complete and total mistrust. Sure, there is a middle faction, but the social compact with law enforcement and the citizens of this country is hopelessly broken. If you are black, it's been broken from jump street. One need ask any African-American of how the heart starts racing and how cautious they are anytime they are pulled over.
#3 (and this is the kicker) Instead of hosting the Eagles, Trump instead decided to have a military band play patriotic songs in the Rose Garden. The problem?? Trump DID NOT KNOW THE WORDS to "God Bless America" while trying to sing along with it when it was played. If you are going to pull such a transparently bullshit stunt, at least take the time to learn the words to the song. Whining about the patriotism of others and then having the balls to clearly not even know the words to a supposed "patriotic" song is just about the most Trump thing I can imagine.
To be fair, I don't know the words to this song either. Heck, I had to google this song.
I know two "patriotic" songs off the top of my head. The national anthem I do have memorized of course, and I would recognize "God Bless the U.S.A." if I heard it. That is apparently different than "God Bless America". And there's another song, the one about amber waves of grain stuff, "America the Beautiful". I've never heard it professionally sung, but I've heard it sung by individual singers.
And now we have a fourth front we are fighting in the new trade war. We are now going to get hit from all sides. Mexico, Canada, the EU and China are now all imposing billions in dollars in tariffs on us. These are ALL essentially going to be taxes on these goods on US consumers. There is simply no way people aren't going to feel this hit their pocket book in the next 3 to 6 months. Add that to the continuing increase in gas prices, and you have to wonder where this so-called great economy is going to be by the end of the year:
Brilliant strategy by a net IMPORTING country. I have to agree with you on this one @jjstraka34. Even if we achieve FULL employment I'm not sure we come out ahead.
We've technically been at or near full employment for awhile (which I believe is at or at least near 5%). The problem is that alot of those jobs lost in 2008 paid WAY more than the ones that replaced them. What we have now is pretty much stagnant wage growth that might or might not keep up with inflation in any given year. But then you have to add in everything that costs people money. Health care costs will almost certainly go up without the individual mandate. The price of well, EVERYTHING is set to go up with all these tariffs crashing down on our heads. Prescription drug prices remain out of control. And the big kicker, as always, is gas. Gas hitting $3/gallon again should be Trump's worst nightmare. It has always been an overlooked factor in a President's popularity in my opinion.
I've never understood the obsession Americans have with gas prices. The difference between $2.50 and $3.00/gallon is really not all that much. To make things simple let's assume 20mpg and 12000k miles/year. That would amount to $300/year or less than $30/month. If you get 25 or 30mpg it's even less significant. I don't get it. I think it's just more obvious than grocery prices or other expenses that cut into your paychecks...
The problem is, it's not just about what the common man pays at the pump. Most people don't drive all that much. As you point out, the common person only drives about 12-15k miles per year. I myself only fill up about twice a month, and that because I now am actively leaving my apartment 4 times per week for school instead of twice a week (well, 5 days now that I'm in a 5-week summer session). Before when I wasn't doing anything it was about monthly. And my 20 year old car gets about 18 MPG.
The problem is people who have 60+ mile commutes, such as my mother who has been commuting 60 miles one-way for about 40 years, who has to get a full tank of gas at least weekly; professional truck drivers who are pulling 70-80k miles per year; and business entities who have FLEETS of cars to fill and maintain.
Those costs for business expenses get rolled onto the consumer in higher prices downstream.
The whole "not all cops" line takes a bit of hit when 5 or 6 of them at once participate in the beatdown of a man for seemingly no reason whatsoever. Where are all these heroic police officers willing to stand up to this behavior?? Apparently the law of averages is telling us it is less than 1 in 6 based on this video. How many cops have to be present at one time for one of them to do the right thing?? 10?? 20?? Because in this video, 4 of them are actively participating in a flat-out assault, and two of them are walking off an elevator acting like this is simply business as usual. Police officers in this country are completely out of control. I don't think this can be fixed without tearing the whole current system down and starting over, which is never going to happen:
Until the good cops start actively purging the so-called "bad apples" from their ranks and cross the thin blue line, nothing will ever change. And they never will. At this point, it's as much on them as the ones participating in it. They know them, the watch them do (probably on a daily basis). They likely help them falsify incident and arrest reports. There is no reason to trust anyone in this profession at all when first encountering them. At this point (especially if you are a minority), you are likely in as much danger just being around a law enforcement officer as you are around a criminal.
Still wouldn't want their job. What a crappy way to be exposed to the worst society has to offer. How could you not be jaded being confronted with the dregs of humanity day-in and day-out (especially in a major city environment). I know we'd like to believe these folks are all super-heroes but put yourself in their shoes. It doesn't excuse their behaviour but it may explain it a bit. A normal person wouldn't even want those positions. That might be why folks on power trips seem to be in the majority in that profession.
I just got a ticket a few weeks ago for a rolling stop at a four-way stop sign despite being the 4th person in line and going through when the person across from me was already moving through himself. $200 and a lecture on 'waiting my turn' was what I got for a logical traffic maneuver. He also had the gall to say that even though he knew I had insurance because of his computer, I had to go to the f'ing courthouse to show proof of insurance because I didn't have a print-out on me at the time. What a prick! I'd probably still be in jail if I had been black. He'd definitely be a paladin in D&D (more likely an Inquisitor).
I don't have any sympathy for their job because they aren't conscripted. No one is forced to be a police officer. And I think one of the main problems is that the seemingly unbridled power that comes innately with the job itself is attracting the wrong people to the profession, or certainly enough of them to cause these incidents to seem like a veritable epidemic. At this point, it's too late. We have the authoritarian right in this country who will back up nearly ANY police action, and we have those of us on the left who are so distrustful of police that (and I say this as a mid-30s white man) I have literally left a Subway restaurant before because there were officers in line in front of me. On one side, we have hero worship, and on the other, complete and total mistrust. Sure, there is a middle faction, but the social compact with law enforcement and the citizens of this country is hopelessly broken. If you are black, it's been broken from jump street. One need ask any African-American of how the heart starts racing and how cautious they are anytime they are pulled over.
That's true even if it's black cops involved strangely enough. I've gotten a fair amount of decent treatment from cops in the past (having grown up in a rural area I have a bit of a 'lead foot') but lately there isn't much forgiveness even for lily white me. I can't imagine the treatment I'd get as a minority. How much of this is spurred by the media and lawyers I'd like to know. If a cop gives you a warning these days and you went on to cause an accident they'd likely lose their job, or worse, end up prosecuted.
The jungle primary is a good example of a well-meaning law having some bizarre side effects, plus it's managed to screw both parties in different races. Game theory-wise your best decision can oftentimes be to vote for your second choice in the primaries.
I think overall it's a good thing, yes it manages to screw both parties at times.
Saw something that if the nation had a jungle primary we wouldn't have President Trump. Oh well. I think it's really helped Dems in CA, as much as they complain about it now, CA wouldn't be as blue as it is without it.
Question for our European and Canadian friends....how often does something like this come up in your countries?? My guess is VERY rarely.
It happens, I don't think as much as it does in the States but the media here makes a huge stink about it when it does happen.
Off the top of my head I can think of 3 high profile cases and one more minor case. The minor case was a mother daughter calling the cops on a drunk homeless guy passed out by a convenient store. When the cops showed up, they were surprised at one of the cops kicking him awake. The major cases were:
Robert Dziekanski was tasered to death in in October 2014 by RCMP officers. 4 of the officers were eventually charged with perjury after giving false statements about the incident. Two were found guilty having to spend 30 months and 2 years in jail respectively. The RCMP also changed their Taser policy after the incident.
Sammy Yatim case is another one that happened in 2013. Yatim was acting very much unstable and was armed with a pocket knife as he threatened passengers on a streetcar. When police arrived an officer told him not to take one step closer. Yatim stepped and the officer shot him 9 times. After an SUI investigation, the officer who shot Yatim was arrested and charged with second degree murder. After the trial, he was found guilty of attempted murder (the first three shots that killed him were justified according to the jury, the ones the officer fired into him when he was already down on the ground were not). He was sentenced to 6 years in prison.
The other one, I believe the trial is still on going, but it started with Abdirahman Abdi, who was mentally challenged, sexually assaulting a woman in a coffee shop in Ottawa. When the police showed up, Abdi frightened ran back to his apartment building but the police caught up to him and beat him with batons after tackling him to the ground. The cops did this in front of a lot of spectators. It took police 15 minutes to call paramedics to the scene and when they arrived they couldn't find any vital signs. A doctor pronounced him dead shortly after. One of the officers in this incident has been charged with manslaughter and is currently on trial.
This type of incident certainly happens in the UK, but I think it's far rarer than in the US. Allegations of excessive use of force are pretty common, but the large majority of those relate to things like unnecessary use of handcuffs rather than beatings.
Canada is very much the opposite of the U.S. We piss and moan over a cup of Tim's but people have a general respect for each other here. Far from the melting pot in America.
I don't think there's some secret, unofficial policy to kill noncombatants. At worst, I think those civilian deaths are the result of bad decisions and over-zealousness in the fog of war, compounded by Palestinian policies that knowingly fail to keep their own noncombatants out of the fray.
I don't think there's a policy to kill noncombatants directly, but the Israeli rules of engagement do allow soldiers to shoot noncombatants for approaching the border, even when there's no direct risk to Israeli life and that means that from time to time noncombatants will be shot. That doesn't have to indicate there's any mistake or unfortunate ricochet, but just that some soldiers will be more zealous than others about taking advantage of their ability to kill enemies. As I posted a while ago, on the face of it these rules of engagement appear to be illegal under international law and a case stating that is currently being pursued in the Israeli courts.
The imbalance in casualties is another aspect that I think suggests that there's a problem with the way Israel is responding at the moment. The clashes at the border in recent months have resulted in over 100 Palestinian deaths, but not a single Israeli killed or even seriously wounded (this year so far there have been 6 Israelis killed by Palestinians, but none of those were associated with the border protests). To me that seems pretty compelling evidence that Israeli soldiers are not following international law - which says lethal force should only be used in this type of situation if defenders face real risks themselves. Of course this is just another way of pointing out the issue with the rules of engagement.
An Israeli Cabinet minister said yesterday that the casualty figures don't tell the true story about who's the aggressor in this conflict. I certainly accept they don't tell the whole story and I know perfectly well there are far more individual aggressive actions by Palestinians in the border protests, even if those actions are mainly ineffectual. However, I do find it difficult to accept that the casualty figures tell none of the story about what's happening.
How many casualties does the US incur with their drone program? Likely 0? I guess if they kill one person that's infinitely more people than they lose (or likely ever will with drones). I really think the idea that casualty counts mean anything is very outdated. Should Israel hold off until they start losing soldiers? Maybe let people get closer and closer until finally they start having soldiers killed before they fight back? Let x amount of people cross the border until their own civilians start dying? I know everybody loves an underdog but unlike in the movies, in real life the underdog gets their ass kicked.
As I've said in the past I do think drone strikes also present a challenge to international law - and in fact a far greater challenge than the situation in Israel. Other countries have been unwilling to challenge the actions of the US on this, but that doesn't meant that they agree with the legal interpretation underpinning those actions. It's a complex area, but picking up on a couple of points:
Responding to an 'imminent' threat The US has not published its legal reasoning for using drone strikes, but this appears to rest on a self-defense argument. Under this argument lethal force is only justified where this is done in response to a recent attack or in anticipation of an imminent threat. Traditionally the word imminent has been legally interpreted as meaning something concrete and immediate, but the US seems to be interpreting this very differently. A leaked 2011 Department of Justice white paper relating to this area says this about imminence "the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future" ... "In this context, imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity, the possibility of reducing collateral damage to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks on Americans. Thus, a decision maker determining whether an al-Qa'ida operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States must take into account that certain members of alQa'ida (including any potential target of lethal force) are continually plotting attacks against the United States; that al-Qa'ida would engage in such attacks regularly to the extent it were able to do so; that the U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qa'ida plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur; and that, in light of these predicates, the nation may have a limited window of opportunity within which to strike in a manner that both has a high likelihood of success and reduces the probability of American casualties."
What this means in practice is that being a known member of al-Qaida is sufficient for you to be executed. Just like the US, Israel has not published the legal justification for its rules of engagement, but I imagine it follows the same sort of logic, i.e. we don't know whether or not this person could pose a real threat in future, so reserve the right to shoot them now to avoid the possibility of any threat.
Infringements on sovereignty The US has carried out many hundreds of drone strikes on the territory of other countries. It has said that it only does so where the state in question either consents or is unwilling or unable to suppress the terrorist threat themselves. The question of consent can be a tricky one - for instance in Pakistan it is widely believed that the executive at one point gave tacit consent to drone strikes, even though they (as well as the legislature and judiciary) publicly denied this. However, consent is in fact immaterial to the US position as it is the sole arbiter of whether a state is "unwilling or unable" to act. Failure to give consent equals an unwillingness to act and therefore the US is free to undertake drone strikes wherever it wants.
This legal position is extremely corrosive of international order and not necessarily in the long term interests of the US themselves. The US complains about infringements on sovereignty by other countries such as China and Russia, but such complaints are more difficult to sustain given its own stance on drone strikes.
And now we have a fourth front we are fighting in the new trade war. We are now going to get hit from all sides. Mexico, Canada, the EU and China are now all imposing billions in dollars in tariffs on us. These are ALL essentially going to be taxes on these goods on US consumers. There is simply no way people aren't going to feel this hit their pocket book in the next 3 to 6 months. Add that to the continuing increase in gas prices, and you have to wonder where this so-called great economy is going to be by the end of the year:
And now we have a fourth front we are fighting in the new trade war. We are now going to get hit from all sides. Mexico, Canada, the EU and China are now all imposing billions in dollars in tariffs on us. These are ALL essentially going to be taxes on these goods on US consumers. There is simply no way people aren't going to feel this hit their pocket book in the next 3 to 6 months. Add that to the continuing increase in gas prices, and you have to wonder where this so-called great economy is going to be by the end of the year:
No need to be pessimistic, EU sanctions will be progressive. They start slowly and will raise through time so see, things aren't so bad yet.
Beside they're mainly aimed at products made in pro-Trump areas so if you're a liberal in NY you're likely going to be fine .
Isn't this policy akin to election tampering? It's certainly interesting. It would be like targeting Normandy because they supported Macron, or Karelia because they supported Putin. If you really examined the data, specific cities could be crippled by targeted tariffs. Hmmmm, maybe this could be the replacement to war...
Yes, I suppose you can see it that way. However putting sanctions on every product from the USA could equally be seen as election tampering. After all Trump is an elected president. It's not really possible for the EU to remain passive, the tariffes must be answered to and it's probably more sensible to target products that affect pro Trump senators and MPs.
America was never the melting pot many claimed or thought it to be. Even in the large cities where you would think that "melting" would have happened you wound up with mini-neighborhoods populated primarily by one ethnicity or another (colloquially referred to as x-town where x is the ethnicity or nation of origin), not an even distribution throughout.
Comments
Haven't missed an election yet.
I wont ask who you voted for, but were you in California per chance? Jungle primary looks crazy.
The jungle primary is a good example of a well-meaning law having some bizarre side effects, plus it's managed to screw both parties in different races. Game theory-wise your best decision can oftentimes be to vote for your second choice in the primaries.
What Is the REAL National U.S. Unemployment Rate – Why the Numbers Can Be Misleading
http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-news/mesa-police-chief-officers-on-leave-after-video-showing-use-of-physical-force-surfaced
Until the good cops start actively purging the so-called "bad apples" from their ranks and cross the thin blue line, nothing will ever change. And they never will. At this point, it's as much on them as the ones participating in it. They know them, the watch them do this (probably on a daily basis). They likely help them falsify incident and arrest reports. There is no reason to trust anyone in this profession at all when first encountering them. At this point (especially if you are a minority), you are likely in as much danger just being around a law enforcement officer as you are around a criminal.
Keep in mind, the only incidents we even find out about are captured on cell phone or security cameras. How many multitudes more are taking place in dark alleys or places where no tape is rolling?? 2x, 3x, 10x?? Even when we get video, half the population excuses the behavior.
Question for our European and Canadian friends....how often does something like this come up in your countries?? My guess is VERY rarely.
Make no mistake, everyone in every police department in the country is well aware of WHO the officers are who are prone to this sort of behavior. There is no way it's a secret. Human beings like to talk and gossip too much for that to be the case. But I guess you can just ask Frank Serpico what happens when you attempt to turn in law-breaking police officers......
And for the record, THIS is what the NFL kneeling protests were about. This exact reason. Yet the (no pun intended) goalposts have been moved to make the entire thing a referendum on patriotism and respect for the military. It was NEVER about that. It's about the simple reality shown in videos like this we see multiple times a week at this point. And this is a daily reality that African-Americans have known about for DECADES. It's just that most of society ignored them until recently.
I just got a ticket a few weeks ago for a rolling stop at a four-way stop sign despite being the 4th person in line and going through when the person across from me was already moving through himself. $200 and a lecture on 'waiting my turn' was what I got for a logical traffic maneuver. He also had the gall to say that even though he knew I had insurance because of his computer, I had to go to the f'ing courthouse to show proof of insurance because I didn't have a print-out on me at the time. What a prick! I'd probably still be in jail if I had been black. He'd definitely be a paladin in D&D (more likely an Inquisitor).
I know two "patriotic" songs off the top of my head. The national anthem I do have memorized of course, and I would recognize "God Bless the U.S.A." if I heard it. That is apparently different than "God Bless America". And there's another song, the one about amber waves of grain stuff, "America the Beautiful". I've never heard it professionally sung, but I've heard it sung by individual singers. The problem is, it's not just about what the common man pays at the pump. Most people don't drive all that much. As you point out, the common person only drives about 12-15k miles per year. I myself only fill up about twice a month, and that because I now am actively leaving my apartment 4 times per week for school instead of twice a week (well, 5 days now that I'm in a 5-week summer session). Before when I wasn't doing anything it was about monthly. And my 20 year old car gets about 18 MPG.
The problem is people who have 60+ mile commutes, such as my mother who has been commuting 60 miles one-way for about 40 years, who has to get a full tank of gas at least weekly; professional truck drivers who are pulling 70-80k miles per year; and business entities who have FLEETS of cars to fill and maintain.
Those costs for business expenses get rolled onto the consumer in higher prices downstream.
Saw something that if the nation had a jungle primary we wouldn't have President Trump. Oh well. I think it's really helped Dems in CA, as much as they complain about it now, CA wouldn't be as blue as it is without it.
Off the top of my head I can think of 3 high profile cases and one more minor case. The minor case was a mother daughter calling the cops on a drunk homeless guy passed out by a convenient store. When the cops showed up, they were surprised at one of the cops kicking him awake. The major cases were:
Robert Dziekanski was tasered to death in in October 2014 by RCMP officers. 4 of the officers were eventually charged with perjury after giving false statements about the incident. Two were found guilty having to spend 30 months and 2 years in jail respectively. The RCMP also changed their Taser policy after the incident.
Sammy Yatim case is another one that happened in 2013. Yatim was acting very much unstable and was armed with a pocket knife as he threatened passengers on a streetcar. When police arrived an officer told him not to take one step closer. Yatim stepped and the officer shot him 9 times. After an SUI investigation, the officer who shot Yatim was arrested and charged with second degree murder. After the trial, he was found guilty of attempted murder (the first three shots that killed him were justified according to the jury, the ones the officer fired into him when he was already down on the ground were not). He was sentenced to 6 years in prison.
The other one, I believe the trial is still on going, but it started with Abdirahman Abdi, who was mentally challenged, sexually assaulting a woman in a coffee shop in Ottawa. When the police showed up, Abdi frightened ran back to his apartment building but the police caught up to him and beat him with batons after tackling him to the ground. The cops did this in front of a lot of spectators. It took police 15 minutes to call paramedics to the scene and when they arrived they couldn't find any vital signs. A doctor pronounced him dead shortly after. One of the officers in this incident has been charged with manslaughter and is currently on trial.
Here is a fuller list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_excessive_police_force_incidents_in_Canada
This investigation by the Independent shows that there are frequent allegations of assault by the police.
This report by the IPCC shows that the majority of people believe the use of force by the police is proportionate.
Canada is very much the opposite of the U.S. We piss and moan over a cup of Tim's but people have a general respect for each other here. Far from the melting pot in America.
Responding to an 'imminent' threat
The US has not published its legal reasoning for using drone strikes, but this appears to rest on a self-defense argument. Under this argument lethal force is only justified where this is done in response to a recent attack or in anticipation of an imminent threat. Traditionally the word imminent has been legally interpreted as meaning something concrete and immediate, but the US seems to be interpreting this very differently. A leaked 2011 Department of Justice white paper relating to this area says this about imminence "the condition that an operational leader present an "imminent" threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future" ... "In this context, imminence must incorporate considerations of the relevant window of opportunity, the possibility of reducing collateral damage to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks on Americans. Thus, a decision maker determining whether an al-Qa'ida operational leader presents an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States must take into account that certain members of alQa'ida (including any potential target of lethal force) are continually plotting attacks against the United States; that al-Qa'ida would engage in such attacks regularly to the extent it were able to do so; that the U.S. government may not be aware of all al-Qa'ida plots as they are developing and thus cannot be confident that none is about to occur; and that, in light of these predicates, the nation may have a limited window of opportunity within which to strike in a manner that both has a high likelihood of success and reduces the probability of American casualties."
What this means in practice is that being a known member of al-Qaida is sufficient for you to be executed. Just like the US, Israel has not published the legal justification for its rules of engagement, but I imagine it follows the same sort of logic, i.e. we don't know whether or not this person could pose a real threat in future, so reserve the right to shoot them now to avoid the possibility of any threat.
Infringements on sovereignty
The US has carried out many hundreds of drone strikes on the territory of other countries. It has said that it only does so where the state in question either consents or is unwilling or unable to suppress the terrorist threat themselves. The question of consent can be a tricky one - for instance in Pakistan it is widely believed that the executive at one point gave tacit consent to drone strikes, even though they (as well as the legislature and judiciary) publicly denied this. However, consent is in fact immaterial to the US position as it is the sole arbiter of whether a state is "unwilling or unable" to act. Failure to give consent equals an unwillingness to act and therefore the US is free to undertake drone strikes wherever it wants.
This legal position is extremely corrosive of international order and not necessarily in the long term interests of the US themselves. The US complains about infringements on sovereignty by other countries such as China and Russia, but such complaints are more difficult to sustain given its own stance on drone strikes.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/05/macron-trump-call-terrible-sausages
Macron says Trump call is like sausages: best to not know what's inside
French leader uses food analogy to describe chats with Trump after report claims their tariffs conversation ‘terrible’....
38, starting to feel old.
Beside they're mainly aimed at products made in pro-Trump areas so if you're a liberal in NY you're likely going to be fine