It's disgraceful that we don't even collect numbers on civilians killed by police. Wherever you stand on the issue, there's no reason that we shouldn't have hard data. We shouldn't have to rely on numbers extrapolated from media reports.
Especially since many of the incidents barely get a mention in the papers...
It doesn't matter to me how many civilians are killed unless they're innocent civilians. Are there any statistics on that? Specifically I'd like to see how many innocent civilians are killed per year and how many unarmed civilians are killed (innocent or not). I don't feel particularly bad for criminals when they get into conflicts with the law. I'd also like an estimate of how many civilians would be killed if there weren't any police. I doubt there's any way to accurately calculate it but I believe that's a relevent statistic to consider as well...
A lot of criminals killed by police are killed for crimes that most assuredly do not deserve the death sentence. I mean, setting aside the fact that I am opposed to the death penalty, I imagine the majority of them weren't guilty of first degree murder or treason. There's a reason police killings are sometimes called "extrajudicial executions" and that points to police taking on the rule of judge, jury, and executioner, a role they should not be able to assume.
Almost every incident most of us complain about when we here these stories involves people who I would consider innocent. At worst they have committed minor infractions that no reasonable person would, under normal circumstances be PUT TO DEATH for. None of the them were convicted of anything, because the cops couldn't even take them into custody before they ended up dead. Michael Brown may have shoplifted, but that is not a capital offense. Walter Scott was likely guilty of something, including fleeing an officer, but that doesn't mean the cop gets to shoot him in the back. Philando Castillo was not only entirely innocent of anything, he was doing the exact thing right-wingers and gun-nuts always tell people to do, and he was shot anyway by a cop who (when watching and listening to the video) was clearly losing his mind. The guy in Arizona was drunk and was showing off a pellet gun to a girl in his hotel room, someone saw it, freaked out, and he ended up dead on a hallway floor. Eric Garner was choked to death for selling loose cigarettes. Tamir Rice was killed for having the temerity to be a 12-year old black child playing at a park. Sandra Bland somehow ended up dead in a Texas jail-cell after a routine traffic stop (I will never be convinced she hung herself).
I mean, the first time we ever became aware of this type of behavior as far as having concrete video proof was Rodney King. Rodney King was guilty of leading police on a chase. That did not give the cops the right to beat him to a pulp with night-sticks for 10 minutes (and you can blame both the LA Riots and OJ Simpson getting away with murder on the fact that the cops in that case got off). So this isn't a new phenomena. If you're a cop and you don't have the disposition to not give in to the urge to physically harm someone when they piss you off, you shouldn't be one in the first place. That is part of the problem. The biggest crime in America isn't murder or rape. It's disrespecting a police officer, or doing something they feel makes their job harder, or makes their day go worse.
And again, the only cases we actually hear about are the ones with audio or video evidence that 100% prove police wrongdoing. And in all but ONE case (and even that took one mistrial), they get with less than a slap on the wrist. Most of them aren't even charged. But how many of these incidents are taking place that are completely off the radar, which no one hears about except as rumors in local communities?? Black people have been telling the rest of this country about cops for DECADES. It took about a dozen videos over the last couple years showing the exact behavior they have always described for alot of people to wake up. To me it always seemed self-evidently true, because even as a lily-white male, most of the interactions I've had with police have revealed a level of bullshit that was simply off the charts. And then when all these videos started coming out I specifically started asking a few minorities who worked with me at a previous job what their experiences were with cops. All of them had horror stories, and one was literally taken out of view of the camera at the police station and beaten for talking back after an arrest.
Even if everyone killed were both a criminal and deserving of the death penalty (which is obviously not the case), I would still say that it's not healthy for society as a whole to allow summary executions. I appreciate that some people are in favor of that sort of approach (as used by President Duterte in the Philippines). However, I suspect on the ground that approach won't be seen as justice, but instead as effectively a gang war (with the police being a particularly strong gang). I think that could easily lead to a escalation of violence, rather than the reverse, quite apart from the corrosive affect on wider law and order issues.
It doesn't matter to me how many civilians are killed unless they're innocent civilians. Are there any statistics on that? Specifically I'd like to see how many innocent civilians are killed per year and how many unarmed civilians are killed (innocent or not). I don't feel particularly bad for criminals when they get into conflicts with the law. I'd also like an estimate of how many civilians would be killed if there weren't any police. I doubt there's any way to accurately calculate it but I believe that's a relevent statistic to consider as well...
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Police Officers should not be judge and executioner as well.
There was a cell phone company with the name "Telestet" the slogan of that company was "You speak, we hear you" some months later a telecommunication surveillance scandal involving the Greek Prime minister and other government officials happened and that company was involved
It's disgraceful that we don't even collect numbers on civilians killed by police. Wherever you stand on the issue, there's no reason that we shouldn't have hard data. We shouldn't have to rely on numbers extrapolated from media reports.
Here in Virginia the legislature passed a law making it illegal to use DNA evidence to try and prove the innocence of anyone who was convicted of a capital crime and executed. You don't go through that sort of effort to shroud law enforcement in secrecy unless you're pretty sure some really heinous stuff would be brought to light otherwise.
I've been meaning to post this write-up by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo about how badly Trump and the GOP screwed themselves in regards to SALT deductions:
There is almost no limit to the bad policy included in the new GOP tax law. Indeed, even within ‘bad policy’ which can distinguish between ‘bad policy’ in the sense of conservative public policy which I and likely many readers think will have bad outcomes and ‘bad policy’ in the sense of poorly constructed tax law which almost no one would devise if they had time and weren’t so focused on giveaways to major donors. Of all these however I continue to believe that the (near total) end of deductions for SALT taxes are likely to have the greatest political impact. They are also stimulating a new debate about the distribution of resources within the US federal system.
Let’s rehearse some details.
‘SALT’ refers to state and local taxes which have been deductible against your federal income tax burden. Starting in 2018 that deduction will be capped at $10,000. The impact of this will vary dramatically depending on where you live, how much money you make and how you spend that money. But the big picture is that it will have the biggest impact in high tax states and particularly on individuals who live in high tax states, are affluent enough to have a relatively high state income and property tax burden but are yet not so wealthy that they get the big benefits from the corporate and federal income tax reductions in the tax bill.
From a macro perspective, the SALT change means that the higher tax states (mainly but not exclusively blue states) will be sending a lot more money to the federal government. This is on top of the fact that blue/high tax states already send much more money in taxes to the federal government than they receive back in services, grants, general spending, etc. There are significant exceptions. But by and large federal taxing and spending policy draws money from the blue states and reallocates it into the red states. Indeed, a state like Louisiana, for instance, is able to keep its taxes low not simply because it has less expansive government services but also because it funds state government with a substantial infusion of federal subsidy. The new bill will intensify this existing pattern.
This is all by design. This policy is intended to punish states that tend to vote Democratic. The more high-minded explanation of the motivation is that it gives an incentive to lower state taxes. Generic punishment is probably the better way to look at it.
In any case, here’s why I think this is likely to be the most politically consequential part of the bill. We talk about “blue” states and “red” states. But blue states still have lots of Republican representatives in the House. Meanwhile, the greatest bleed Republicans have seen so far this year is in affluent and educated suburbs that tend to be mixed or vote Republican. It’s precisely in those parts of blue states (and some red states too) where the SALT change is likely to be felt most keenly. Again, we’re talking about the merely affluent or even rich but not super-rich.
One counter-argument is that some of these people may come out break-even since they may get tax breaks from other parts of the bill or if they’re really wealthy, the reduction in the highest marginal tax rate. Maybe. But I’m not sure that’s how it plays out in practice though. Say you’re a doctor or lawyer in New Jersey or Pennsylvania who makes well into 6 figures a year. You get a nice tax break from the GOP tax law but it’s largely balanced out by the end of the SALT deductions. Are you likely to say well, I’m still marginally ahead so I think this is great? I don’t think so. Especially, if you’re inclined to see the larger political environment in a negative light. That usually means you’re looking for ways you were treated unfairly.
As we’ve seen in many different sections of the country in 2017 these voters are already increasingly hostile to President Trump and the GOP. In that context, if you see that your equally affluent sister-in-law in Florida got a big tax cut and you didn’t, I think you’re likely to see that in a pretty negative light. It’s quite simply not fair that you’re getting punished for living in the wrong state. It’s certainly something that a Democratic candidate looking to peal away soft GOP voters in the suburbs can make hay of. “Trump and his friends decided to give themselves a massive tax cut and funded it with a tax hike on you. You just live in a state they don’t care about.”
One confusion about the politics of this part of the law is being clear on just what we’re talking about. Is this the worst part of the law? Definitely not. Are the people hit by it the ones struggling the most in this economy? Not remotely. But politics is about elections and elections are zero-sum games. What counts politically are cross-cutting effects – events and policies likely to move people from one column into another. That is what I think this does. It provides a big cudgel to Democratic candidates trying to unseat Republican incumbents in reddish parts of high tax blue states. That’s because of simple math that I believe many will see on their tax returns. It’s also because this slice of the electorate was hemorrhaging from the GOP even before this law got passed. We need to remember. Perceptions are not simply about objective facts. They are also about the prism you see them through. For these voters, it’s already a negative prism for Trump and the GOP.
It's disgraceful that we don't even collect numbers on civilians killed by police. Wherever you stand on the issue, there's no reason that we shouldn't have hard data. We shouldn't have to rely on numbers extrapolated from media reports.
I've been meaning to post this write-up by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo about how badly Trump and the GOP screwed themselves in regards to SALT deductions:
... For these voters, it’s already a negative prism for Trump and the GOP.
I think the GOP are counting on Republicans in blue states to be mad at their democratic leadership as they get hosed. After all, people rewarded the GOP for their negative lousy campaigning and theft of a Supreme Court seat. All those hissy fits during Obamas presidency and they got rewarded.
One thing that does not get mentioned enough is that this tax bill is a 4.5 trillion dollar tax hike on the poor and middle class and a 6 trillion dollar tax cut to the top 1% and corporations. So overall it's a 1.5 trillion tax cut but that is just part of the story.
Corporate tax cuts are permanent, yours are temporary. After 10 years EVERYONE making under 73k per year is getting a tax increase. And finally 83% of the tax cut goes to the top 1%
I've been meaning to post this write-up by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo about how badly Trump and the GOP screwed themselves in regards to SALT deductions:
... For these voters, it’s already a negative prism for Trump and the GOP.
I think the GOP are counting on Republicans in blue states to be mad at their democratic leadership as they get hosed. After all, people rewarded the GOP for their negative lousy campaigning and theft of a Supreme Court seat. All those hissy fits during Obamas presidency and they got rewarded.
One thing that does not get mentioned enough is that this tax bill is a 4.5 trillion dollar tax hike on the poor and middle class and a 6 trillion dollar tax cut to the top 1% and corporations. So overall it's a 1.5 trillion tax cut but that is just part of the story.
Corporate tax cuts are permanent, yours are temporary. After 10 years EVERYONE making under 73k per year is getting a tax increase. And finally 83% of the tax cut goes to the top 1%
Nothing is permanent. If there was a true way to make tax codes 'permanent' it would have been done long ago.
I've been meaning to post this write-up by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo about how badly Trump and the GOP screwed themselves in regards to SALT deductions:
... For these voters, it’s already a negative prism for Trump and the GOP.
I think the GOP are counting on Republicans in blue states to be mad at their democratic leadership as they get hosed. After all, people rewarded the GOP for their negative lousy campaigning and theft of a Supreme Court seat. All those hissy fits during Obamas presidency and they got rewarded.
One thing that does not get mentioned enough is that this tax bill is a 4.5 trillion dollar tax hike on the poor and middle class and a 6 trillion dollar tax cut to the top 1% and corporations. So overall it's a 1.5 trillion tax cut but that is just part of the story.
Corporate tax cuts are permanent, yours are temporary. After 10 years EVERYONE making under 73k per year is getting a tax increase. And finally 83% of the tax cut goes to the top 1%
Nothing is permanent. If there was a true way to make tax codes 'permanent' it would have been done long ago.
"non-expiring" then.
The personal tax cuts expire. Corporate and other cuts are non expiring.
Yes, presumably a future congress can change tax rules.
I've been meaning to post this write-up by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo about how badly Trump and the GOP screwed themselves in regards to SALT deductions:
... For these voters, it’s already a negative prism for Trump and the GOP.
I think the GOP are counting on Republicans in blue states to be mad at their democratic leadership as they get hosed. After all, people rewarded the GOP for their negative lousy campaigning and theft of a Supreme Court seat. All those hissy fits during Obamas presidency and they got rewarded.
One thing that does not get mentioned enough is that this tax bill is a 4.5 trillion dollar tax hike on the poor and middle class and a 6 trillion dollar tax cut to the top 1% and corporations. So overall it's a 1.5 trillion tax cut but that is just part of the story.
Corporate tax cuts are permanent, yours are temporary. After 10 years EVERYONE making under 73k per year is getting a tax increase. And finally 83% of the tax cut goes to the top 1%
Nothing is permanent. If there was a true way to make tax codes 'permanent' it would have been done long ago.
"non-expiring" then.
The personal tax cuts expire. Corporate and other cuts are non expiring.
Yes, presumably a future congress can change tax rules.
Odds are very good that that is exactly what will happen. I'll take my tax cuts to the bank for my daughter's college in the meantime. Quite possibly a 'win/win' for me in the short run. Call me a mercenary but when I don't usually agree with what the feds spend their money on, I'll take whatever tax breaks I can get...
It's disgraceful that we don't even collect numbers on civilians killed by police. Wherever you stand on the issue, there's no reason that we shouldn't have hard data. We shouldn't have to rely on numbers extrapolated from media reports.
That site has a link to the body cam footage of the Wichita swatting victim. The police appear to be all across the street, he steps out, is ordered to step forward and a couple seconds later he’s shot. What a senseless waste and during the holidays, too. So sad.
Edit: They also have the fake 911 call that precipitated the whole fiasco. Listening to that call and watching the body cam footage, I feel that the cops probably rolled up on that scene expecting to take this guy’s life. Ostensibly for the public good, but geez pump the brakes. Do a drone flyby, use some parabolic microphones, fiber optic cameras, something! Ugh!
I've been meaning to post this write-up by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo about how badly Trump and the GOP screwed themselves in regards to SALT deductions:
... For these voters, it’s already a negative prism for Trump and the GOP.
I think the GOP are counting on Republicans in blue states to be mad at their democratic leadership as they get hosed. After all, people rewarded the GOP for their negative lousy campaigning and theft of a Supreme Court seat. All those hissy fits during Obamas presidency and they got rewarded.
One thing that does not get mentioned enough is that this tax bill is a 4.5 trillion dollar tax hike on the poor and middle class and a 6 trillion dollar tax cut to the top 1% and corporations. So overall it's a 1.5 trillion tax cut but that is just part of the story.
Corporate tax cuts are permanent, yours are temporary. After 10 years EVERYONE making under 73k per year is getting a tax increase. And finally 83% of the tax cut goes to the top 1%
Nothing is permanent. If there was a true way to make tax codes 'permanent' it would have been done long ago.
"non-expiring" then.
The personal tax cuts expire. Corporate and other cuts are non expiring.
Yes, presumably a future congress can change tax rules.
Odds are very good that that is exactly what will happen. I'll take my tax cuts to the bank for my daughter's college in the meantime. Quite possibly a 'win/win' for me in the short run. Call me a mercenary but when I don't usually agree with what the feds spend their money on, I'll take whatever tax breaks I can get...
I kinda doubt you are a top 1%er so you will not be getting a tax break. You may pay less slightly in income tax but you will pay more in other areas won't you..
I've been meaning to post this write-up by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo about how badly Trump and the GOP screwed themselves in regards to SALT deductions:
... For these voters, it’s already a negative prism for Trump and the GOP.
I think the GOP are counting on Republicans in blue states to be mad at their democratic leadership as they get hosed. After all, people rewarded the GOP for their negative lousy campaigning and theft of a Supreme Court seat. All those hissy fits during Obamas presidency and they got rewarded.
One thing that does not get mentioned enough is that this tax bill is a 4.5 trillion dollar tax hike on the poor and middle class and a 6 trillion dollar tax cut to the top 1% and corporations. So overall it's a 1.5 trillion tax cut but that is just part of the story.
Corporate tax cuts are permanent, yours are temporary. After 10 years EVERYONE making under 73k per year is getting a tax increase. And finally 83% of the tax cut goes to the top 1%
Nothing is permanent. If there was a true way to make tax codes 'permanent' it would have been done long ago.
"non-expiring" then.
The personal tax cuts expire. Corporate and other cuts are non expiring.
Yes, presumably a future congress can change tax rules.
Odds are very good that that is exactly what will happen. I'll take my tax cuts to the bank for my daughter's college in the meantime. Quite possibly a 'win/win' for me in the short run. Call me a mercenary but when I don't usually agree with what the feds spend their money on, I'll take whatever tax breaks I can get...
I kinda doubt you are a top 1%er so you will not be getting a tax break. You may pay less slightly in income tax but you will pay more in other areas won't you..
Since I don't itemize I'll benefit for the time being. Mercenary like I said...
I've been meaning to post this write-up by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo about how badly Trump and the GOP screwed themselves in regards to SALT deductions:
... For these voters, it’s already a negative prism for Trump and the GOP.
I think the GOP are counting on Republicans in blue states to be mad at their democratic leadership as they get hosed. After all, people rewarded the GOP for their negative lousy campaigning and theft of a Supreme Court seat. All those hissy fits during Obamas presidency and they got rewarded.
One thing that does not get mentioned enough is that this tax bill is a 4.5 trillion dollar tax hike on the poor and middle class and a 6 trillion dollar tax cut to the top 1% and corporations. So overall it's a 1.5 trillion tax cut but that is just part of the story.
Corporate tax cuts are permanent, yours are temporary. After 10 years EVERYONE making under 73k per year is getting a tax increase. And finally 83% of the tax cut goes to the top 1%
Nothing is permanent. If there was a true way to make tax codes 'permanent' it would have been done long ago.
"non-expiring" then.
The personal tax cuts expire. Corporate and other cuts are non expiring.
Yes, presumably a future congress can change tax rules.
Odds are very good that that is exactly what will happen. I'll take my tax cuts to the bank for my daughter's college in the meantime. Quite possibly a 'win/win' for me in the short run. Call me a mercenary but when I don't usually agree with what the feds spend their money on, I'll take whatever tax breaks I can get...
I kinda doubt you are a top 1%er so you will not be getting a tax break. You may pay less slightly in income tax but you will pay more in other areas won't you..
Since I don't itemize I'll benefit for the time being. Mercenary like I said...
I don’t think anyone will fault you for making the best of a situation you have no control over. Saving the money will not help conservatives in Congress, though. They need every person to spend every extra nickel they get from tax cuts, thereby increasing demand for goods and services, just to offset the giant hole they’ve blown in the deficit.
My advice, save for retirement before saving for a child’s education. There are plenty of ways to get money for education, but not so much for retirement.
Trump is now boldly taking credit for there being no commercial airline deaths in 2016. He thinks he is responsible for planes not crashing. Here are some other years that had no deaths:
2010: 0 2011: 0 2012: 0 2013: 0 2014: 0 2015: 0
However, if this is the game he wants to play, fine. If the President is responsible for no airline crash deaths in any given year, then it only stands to reason he is also responsible for the DOUBLING of coal-mining deaths last year:
The death toll from the Iranian protests and the resulting crackdown has reached 21, and 450 people have been arrested.
Predictably, the Ayatollah blamed foreign enemies for the internal strife. You see the exact same conspiratorial thinking from the leaders of virtually every non-democratic and pseudo-democratic country on the planet: if my people are protesting me, they must secretly be the pawns of some sinister foreigners who are trying to destroy us for no good reason.
I can't not think of this scene whenever this subject comes up. It was obviously supposed to be funny, but in a way, it wasn't. This general is based on Curtis LeMay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuP6KbIsNK4 To address the tweet further on the actual consequences.....everyone in the world is aware of what America's nuclear arsenal is capable of. That is the precise reason why no sane person would ever think they have to utter what Trump just blasted out to the whole world on Twitter. You don't use our ability to destroy an entire country like the goddamn Death Star as a threat. Everyone is already AWARE of threat. How couldn't they be, when we are the only ones who have ever used them?? What we now have is a very real game of nuclear chicken being engaged in by two emotionally-stunted man-babies. And that is.....not good.
One good thing that may come of this is that the US President's ability to use nuclear weapons without consultation is revoked. Not too long ago the UK Government conceded that a parliamentary majority was required to declare war. The US has not declared war on anyone since 1942 I believe, so if congress ends up being another arbiter of their use then that may be a slight improvement. It takes a President like Trump to reveal the gaping flaw in a system which gives the big red button to the winner of a popularity contest.
One good thing that may come of this is that the US President's ability to use nuclear weapons without consultation is revoked. Not too long ago the UK Government conceded that a parliamentary majority was required to declare war. The US has not declared war on anyone since 1942 I believe, so if congress ends up being another arbiter of their use then that may be a slight improvement. It takes a President like Trump to reveal the gaping flaw in a system which gives the big red button to the winner of a popularity contest.
Fair enough, but do you want to bet millions of lives of whether the syncophants Trump has surrounded himself with will refuse to issue his order to launch, or that military personal, who have been specifically trained to obey orders and the chain of command, will refuse to follow them?? Because I don't see that Congress has any power to constrain Trump on this issue. And as far as I can tell the only thing that could stop this would be Mattis and Kelly basically telling the military to overrule the Commander in Chief. Which, while INFINITELY preferable, would constitute a military coup.
A nuclear strike on North Korea would doom Seoul to annihilation. The fallout would effect all of Asia and at least the West Coast of the United States itself. It would open up a city like Los Angeles, filled with millions upon million of people, to an attempted North Korea strike. It would send global markets into total chaos. These are just the MOST obvious consequences of what we are talking about here. There is no option for a strike on North Korea that isn't a world-changing disaster. And we are all banking on the people around this madman constraining him.
The President cannot simply "push a button" or "give an order" to launch nuclear weapons. Yes, the President is the Commander in Chief but the Joint Chiefs of Staff have the *final* authority to issue launches and they won't do it unless it is absolutely necessary, which translates to "incoming nuclear weapons are in the air and on their way here right now". I will have to find the citation tomorrow but a few months back the JCOS stated, quite plainly, that they would disobey any order to launch a first strike.
To think that Trump would launch first because he is in a snit in paranoia.
The President cannot simply "push a button" or "give an order" to launch nuclear weapons. Yes, the President is the Commander in Chief but the Joint Chiefs of Staff have the *final* authority to issue launches and they won't do it unless it is absolutely necessary, which translates to "incoming nuclear weapons are in the air and on their way here right now". I will have to find the citation tomorrow but a few months back the JCOS stated, quite plainly, that they would disobey any order to launch a first strike.
Which is good, but at that point we would, again, have a military coup going on. And how can we possibly leave a President in power who ordered such a strike and was explicitly disobeyed by his Generals?? The whole world would know that he did, in fact, order a bomb to be dropped. The United States would be the enemy of the entire world if that person were allowed to stay in power.
As for what Trump is capable of, I think you may seriously underestimate how sick (mentally) this man actually is.
Which is good, but at that point we would, again, have a military coup going on. And how can we possibly leave a President in power who ordered such a strike and was explicitly disobeyed by his Generals?? The whole world would know that he did, in fact, order a bomb to be dropped. The United States would be the enemy of the entire world if that person were allowed to stay in power.
Refusing an unlawful order (and a first strike would constitute such) is not a coup, and can be resolved within the bounds of the constitution. A great deal of training--particularly officer training--revolves around understanding when orders are lawful, and the consequences of following an unlawful order.
Not that I realistically think such an order would be refused, mind. The US military commitment to following its civilian leadership is deeply ingrained, and the military generally defers even over its own objections.
The President cannot simply "push a button" or "give an order" to launch nuclear weapons. Yes, the President is the Commander in Chief but the Joint Chiefs of Staff have the *final* authority to issue launches and they won't do it unless it is absolutely necessary, which translates to "incoming nuclear weapons are in the air and on their way here right now". I will have to find the citation tomorrow but a few months back the JCOS stated, quite plainly, that they would disobey any order to launch a first strike.
To think that Trump would launch first because he is in a snit in paranoia.
I don't think this is right - as I understand it the JCOS are purely advisory and not in the chain of command at all for nuclear weapons. The President holds all the information necessary to issue a launch command and the only back-up confirmation required is that the Secretary of Defense confirms that the order does come from the President. This Congressional briefing summarises the arrangements. If the Secretary of Defense refused to give the confirmation the President could run down the chain of succession until he found someone who would.
I agree it's possible that someone in US Strategic Command would refuse to obey a launch order, but I wouldn't rely on that happening. The grounds for disobeying would probably be that the order was illegal, but the question of legality would certainly be subject to interpretation and for a low-ranking officer to second-guess the elected President in a time-pressured situation seems unlikely to me.
It's also conceivable that members of the Cabinet would attempt to remove the powers of the President using the 25th amendment. Assuming that the President objected to this though, that's both a slow process (at least compared to the timescales a nuclear war could take place over) and requires 2/3 majorities in both House and Senate. It's also worth noting that once a launch order has actually been issued, there is no process in place to allow that order to be rescinded.
While I agree that Trump ordering a full first strike seems extremely far-fetched, he's already shown a willingness to use new weaponry and a disregard of generally accepted standards of diplomacy. It doesn't seem that much of a stretch to me to imagine him ordering a 'demonstration' strike on, for instance, North Korea. That would no doubt be accompanied by more rhetoric about how continued resistance would be met by overwhelming force, but that wouldn't necessarily end a conflict ...
Comments
I mean, the first time we ever became aware of this type of behavior as far as having concrete video proof was Rodney King. Rodney King was guilty of leading police on a chase. That did not give the cops the right to beat him to a pulp with night-sticks for 10 minutes (and you can blame both the LA Riots and OJ Simpson getting away with murder on the fact that the cops in that case got off). So this isn't a new phenomena. If you're a cop and you don't have the disposition to not give in to the urge to physically harm someone when they piss you off, you shouldn't be one in the first place. That is part of the problem. The biggest crime in America isn't murder or rape. It's disrespecting a police officer, or doing something they feel makes their job harder, or makes their day go worse.
And again, the only cases we actually hear about are the ones with audio or video evidence that 100% prove police wrongdoing. And in all but ONE case (and even that took one mistrial), they get with less than a slap on the wrist. Most of them aren't even charged. But how many of these incidents are taking place that are completely off the radar, which no one hears about except as rumors in local communities?? Black people have been telling the rest of this country about cops for DECADES. It took about a dozen videos over the last couple years showing the exact behavior they have always described for alot of people to wake up. To me it always seemed self-evidently true, because even as a lily-white male, most of the interactions I've had with police have revealed a level of bullshit that was simply off the charts. And then when all these videos started coming out I specifically started asking a few minorities who worked with me at a previous job what their experiences were with cops. All of them had horror stories, and one was literally taken out of view of the camera at the police station and beaten for talking back after an arrest.
There is almost no limit to the bad policy included in the new GOP tax law. Indeed, even within ‘bad policy’ which can distinguish between ‘bad policy’ in the sense of conservative public policy which I and likely many readers think will have bad outcomes and ‘bad policy’ in the sense of poorly constructed tax law which almost no one would devise if they had time and weren’t so focused on giveaways to major donors. Of all these however I continue to believe that the (near total) end of deductions for SALT taxes are likely to have the greatest political impact. They are also stimulating a new debate about the distribution of resources within the US federal system.
Let’s rehearse some details.
‘SALT’ refers to state and local taxes which have been deductible against your federal income tax burden. Starting in 2018 that deduction will be capped at $10,000. The impact of this will vary dramatically depending on where you live, how much money you make and how you spend that money. But the big picture is that it will have the biggest impact in high tax states and particularly on individuals who live in high tax states, are affluent enough to have a relatively high state income and property tax burden but are yet not so wealthy that they get the big benefits from the corporate and federal income tax reductions in the tax bill.
From a macro perspective, the SALT change means that the higher tax states (mainly but not exclusively blue states) will be sending a lot more money to the federal government. This is on top of the fact that blue/high tax states already send much more money in taxes to the federal government than they receive back in services, grants, general spending, etc. There are significant exceptions. But by and large federal taxing and spending policy draws money from the blue states and reallocates it into the red states. Indeed, a state like Louisiana, for instance, is able to keep its taxes low not simply because it has less expansive government services but also because it funds state government with a substantial infusion of federal subsidy. The new bill will intensify this existing pattern.
This is all by design. This policy is intended to punish states that tend to vote Democratic. The more high-minded explanation of the motivation is that it gives an incentive to lower state taxes. Generic punishment is probably the better way to look at it.
In any case, here’s why I think this is likely to be the most politically consequential part of the bill. We talk about “blue” states and “red” states. But blue states still have lots of Republican representatives in the House. Meanwhile, the greatest bleed Republicans have seen so far this year is in affluent and educated suburbs that tend to be mixed or vote Republican. It’s precisely in those parts of blue states (and some red states too) where the SALT change is likely to be felt most keenly. Again, we’re talking about the merely affluent or even rich but not super-rich.
One counter-argument is that some of these people may come out break-even since they may get tax breaks from other parts of the bill or if they’re really wealthy, the reduction in the highest marginal tax rate. Maybe. But I’m not sure that’s how it plays out in practice though. Say you’re a doctor or lawyer in New Jersey or Pennsylvania who makes well into 6 figures a year. You get a nice tax break from the GOP tax law but it’s largely balanced out by the end of the SALT deductions. Are you likely to say well, I’m still marginally ahead so I think this is great? I don’t think so. Especially, if you’re inclined to see the larger political environment in a negative light. That usually means you’re looking for ways you were treated unfairly.
As we’ve seen in many different sections of the country in 2017 these voters are already increasingly hostile to President Trump and the GOP. In that context, if you see that your equally affluent sister-in-law in Florida got a big tax cut and you didn’t, I think you’re likely to see that in a pretty negative light. It’s quite simply not fair that you’re getting punished for living in the wrong state. It’s certainly something that a Democratic candidate looking to peal away soft GOP voters in the suburbs can make hay of. “Trump and his friends decided to give themselves a massive tax cut and funded it with a tax hike on you. You just live in a state they don’t care about.”
One confusion about the politics of this part of the law is being clear on just what we’re talking about. Is this the worst part of the law? Definitely not. Are the people hit by it the ones struggling the most in this economy? Not remotely. But politics is about elections and elections are zero-sum games. What counts politically are cross-cutting effects – events and policies likely to move people from one column into another. That is what I think this does. It provides a big cudgel to Democratic candidates trying to unseat Republican incumbents in reddish parts of high tax blue states. That’s because of simple math that I believe many will see on their tax returns. It’s also because this slice of the electorate was hemorrhaging from the GOP even before this law got passed. We need to remember. Perceptions are not simply about objective facts. They are also about the prism you see them through. For these voters, it’s already a negative prism for Trump and the GOP.
One thing that does not get mentioned enough is that this tax bill is a 4.5 trillion dollar tax hike on the poor and middle class and a 6 trillion dollar tax cut to the top 1% and corporations. So overall it's a 1.5 trillion tax cut but that is just part of the story.
Corporate tax cuts are permanent, yours are temporary. After 10 years EVERYONE making under 73k per year is getting a tax increase. And finally 83% of the tax cut goes to the top 1%
The personal tax cuts expire. Corporate and other cuts are non expiring.
Yes, presumably a future congress can change tax rules.
Edit: They also have the fake 911 call that precipitated the whole fiasco. Listening to that call and watching the body cam footage, I feel that the cops probably rolled up on that scene expecting to take this guy’s life. Ostensibly for the public good, but geez pump the brakes. Do a drone flyby, use some parabolic microphones, fiber optic cameras, something! Ugh!
My advice, save for retirement before saving for a child’s education. There are plenty of ways to get money for education, but not so much for retirement.
2010: 0
2011: 0
2012: 0
2013: 0
2014: 0
2015: 0
However, if this is the game he wants to play, fine. If the President is responsible for no airline crash deaths in any given year, then it only stands to reason he is also responsible for the DOUBLING of coal-mining deaths last year:
Predictably, the Ayatollah blamed foreign enemies for the internal strife. You see the exact same conspiratorial thinking from the leaders of virtually every non-democratic and pseudo-democratic country on the planet: if my people are protesting me, they must secretly be the pawns of some sinister foreigners who are trying to destroy us for no good reason.
It doesn't take Freud to figure this one out. We've arrived at the "nuclear dick-wagging" portion of the Presidency. It's January 2nd, for the record.
To address the tweet further on the actual consequences.....everyone in the world is aware of what America's nuclear arsenal is capable of. That is the precise reason why no sane person would ever think they have to utter what Trump just blasted out to the whole world on Twitter. You don't use our ability to destroy an entire country like the goddamn Death Star as a threat. Everyone is already AWARE of threat. How couldn't they be, when we are the only ones who have ever used them?? What we now have is a very real game of nuclear chicken being engaged in by two emotionally-stunted man-babies. And that is.....not good.
A nuclear strike on North Korea would doom Seoul to annihilation. The fallout would effect all of Asia and at least the West Coast of the United States itself. It would open up a city like Los Angeles, filled with millions upon million of people, to an attempted North Korea strike. It would send global markets into total chaos. These are just the MOST obvious consequences of what we are talking about here. There is no option for a strike on North Korea that isn't a world-changing disaster. And we are all banking on the people around this madman constraining him.
To think that Trump would launch first because he is in a snit in paranoia.
As for what Trump is capable of, I think you may seriously underestimate how sick (mentally) this man actually is.
Not that I realistically think such an order would be refused, mind. The US military commitment to following its civilian leadership is deeply ingrained, and the military generally defers even over its own objections.
I agree it's possible that someone in US Strategic Command would refuse to obey a launch order, but I wouldn't rely on that happening. The grounds for disobeying would probably be that the order was illegal, but the question of legality would certainly be subject to interpretation and for a low-ranking officer to second-guess the elected President in a time-pressured situation seems unlikely to me.
It's also conceivable that members of the Cabinet would attempt to remove the powers of the President using the 25th amendment. Assuming that the President objected to this though, that's both a slow process (at least compared to the timescales a nuclear war could take place over) and requires 2/3 majorities in both House and Senate. It's also worth noting that once a launch order has actually been issued, there is no process in place to allow that order to be rescinded.
While I agree that Trump ordering a full first strike seems extremely far-fetched, he's already shown a willingness to use new weaponry and a disregard of generally accepted standards of diplomacy. It doesn't seem that much of a stretch to me to imagine him ordering a 'demonstration' strike on, for instance, North Korea. That would no doubt be accompanied by more rhetoric about how continued resistance would be met by overwhelming force, but that wouldn't necessarily end a conflict ...