Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[LarryBnDC]

True believer...


the 51-year-old geophysicist will stay in custody until he goes to trial on the eight misdemeanor and felony offenses he faces over his alleged role in the insurrection.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/15/jeffrey-sabol-capitol-riot-switzerland/

[LarryBnDC]

A potential Chauvin mistrial would provoke quite the reaction among those who do not understand the law and how it is supposed to work.

Better be careful, prosecutors!

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/548445-judge-warns-of-mistrial-in-chauvin-case-if-prosecution-witness-even

Witness testimony is over..

[Hamilton Samuels]

The LEFT is fucking things up---which is what they do best:

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he didn’t think Tlaib’s comments were harmful, but that they weren’t the solution.

“I come out of a culture where people honor the police. But they want good policing,” he told CNN.

Clyburn days after the 2020 election had told CNN that the “defund the police” attacks had cost Democrats seats and could derail the Black Lives Matter movement.

He said he and the late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) had discussed the matter prior to Lewis’s death and agreed that it “had the possibilities of doing to the Black Lives Matter movement and current movements across the country what 'Burn, baby, burn' did to us back in 1960.”



Good point, James. How did that work out? We got Nixon.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/548569-progressives-put-democrats-on-defense

[Hamilton Samuels]

Chauvin's lawyer said, he acted in line with departmental policies, doing "exactly what he had been trained to do over his 19-year career." How could his use of force be excessive or deadly if it was precisely what the Minneapolis Police Department prescribed as a "[n]on-deadly force option"?

Against this the prosecution marshalled Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, who said Chauvin's restraint "is not part of our training" and "in no way, shape, or form is anything that is by policy." A Minneapolis police lieutenant called it "totally unnecessary." A use-of-force expert from the Los Angeles Police Department deemed the hold excessive and a violation of Chauvin's responsibility as an officer. No "reasonable officer," said another expert, Seth Stoughton, "would have believed [what Chauvin did] was an appropriate, acceptable, or reasonable use of force."

 

I think Stoughton is absolutely right and the defense, by and large, is wrong. But there's one point on which the defense is on solid ground and the prosecution's case is shaky: Arradondo's claim that what Chauvin did isn't MPD policy. The department has since changed its rules, so it's not part of their training now, but last summer the MPD specifically permitted neck restraints applied via the officer's "leg."

This is what makes the jury's task legitimately difficult, despite how straightforward the video seemed. What Chauvin did was indefensible; in moral terms, I think "murder" is the right word. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right legal term given that departmental policy and the details of Minnesota law.

That policy means the use-of-force question is legitimately open in this legal sense, and the legal sense is where the jury's decision must be confined. Moral excess may not be legal excess, not because the moral excess isn't real and serious but because the legal reform we need is far bigger than any one man or death. Chauvin may be acquitted, but if he is, that acquittal is a guilty verdict for the police department policy that made it possible.

https://theweek.com/articles/977299/question-that-decide-chauvin-case

[LarryBnDC]

The LEFT is fucking things up---which is what they do best:

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he didn’t think Tlaib’s comments were harmful, but that they weren’t the solution.

“I come out of a culture where people honor the police. But they want good policing,” he told CNN.

Clyburn days after the 2020 election had told CNN that the “defund the police” attacks had cost Democrats seats and could derail the Black Lives Matter movement.

He said he and the late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) had discussed the matter prior to Lewis’s death and agreed that it “had the possibilities of doing to the Black Lives Matter movement and current movements across the country what 'Burn, baby, burn' did to us back in 1960.”



Good point, James. How did that work out? We got Nixon.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/548569-progressives-put-democrats-on-defense

One could say that was an indictment of a majority white voters.

MLK was that era's best hope for the USA and look where it got him with the majority.

[LarryBnDC]

Chauvin's lawyer said, he acted in line with departmental policies, doing "exactly what he had been trained to do over his 19-year career." How could his use of force be excessive or deadly if it was precisely what the Minneapolis Police Department prescribed as a "[n]on-deadly force option"?

Against this the prosecution marshalled Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, who said Chauvin's restraint "is not part of our training" and "in no way, shape, or form is anything that is by policy." A Minneapolis police lieutenant called it "totally unnecessary." A use-of-force expert from the Los Angeles Police Department deemed the hold excessive and a violation of Chauvin's responsibility as an officer. No "reasonable officer," said another expert, Seth Stoughton, "would have believed [what Chauvin did] was an appropriate, acceptable, or reasonable use of force."

 

I think Stoughton is absolutely right and the defense, by and large, is wrong. But there's one point on which the defense is on solid ground and the prosecution's case is shaky: Arradondo's claim that what Chauvin did isn't MPD policy. The department has since changed its rules, so it's not part of their training now, but last summer the MPD specifically permitted neck restraints applied via the officer's "leg."

This is what makes the jury's task legitimately difficult, despite how straightforward the video seemed. What Chauvin did was indefensible; in moral terms, I think "murder" is the right word. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right legal term given that departmental policy and the details of Minnesota law.

That policy means the use-of-force question is legitimately open in this legal sense, and the legal sense is where the jury's decision must be confined. Moral excess may not be legal excess, not because the moral excess isn't real and serious but because the legal reform we need is far bigger than any one man or death. Chauvin may be acquitted, but if he is, that acquittal is a guilty verdict for the police department policy that made it possible.

https://theweek.com/articles/977299/question-that-decide-chauvin-case

He has as much chance as a fart in a whirlwind to be acquitted.

The best he can hope for is a hung jury.

[kidcarter8]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/548649-biden-hits-59-percent-approval-rating-in-pew-poll

A majority of Americans — 59 percent — approve of President Biden's handling of his job as he approaches 100 days in office, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Friday.

The poll found Biden's job approval is up 5 percentage points from 54 percent in March, while 39 percent of those surveyed said they disapprove of his work thus far.

Biden's 59 percent approval rating is 20 percentage points higher than that of former President Trump's in a Pew poll from April 2017 and is similar to the approval ratings of former Presidents Obama and George W. Bush in April of their first terms.

Killin' it.

Drops 2 more points, to -10

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/biden_approval_index_history

[Oi!]

A false imputation you create by only quoting the first line of my post.   In fact,  I go on to specifically address the bad science of his 9 deg.  temp increase scenario,  and also that he was hired by Trump NOT to have an honest inquiry but rather to boost a conclusion that scientists reject, and to attack the data from an ideological basis rather than a scientific one. 

And as plenty of reputable people have pointed out,  you can't be the pointman for scientific objectivity on climatology when you work for BP.   Or a "red team" put together by Trump.   I'm done.   You can stop pretending you know anything about science or its methodological basis.

So the scientist you diss worked for BP?( what that has to with his bonafides speaks to your biases not his credentials)
But he also worked for Obama.
You can bow out but that hardly ends any intellectual debate on the complexities of climate change.

LMAO.  Good god when  have you ever engaged in intellectual debate on the actual science of anything?  You cut/paste RW talking points and innuendos.  The mere fact that you swallow "nine degree rise in global temps is just a small inconvenience, will barely bruise the markets," says it all.  Nine degrees?  Really?  Have you ever cracked a book on climate science or so much as grazed on the science of what a single degree, let alone nine, does? 

Here's a look at what happens when the rise is a mere 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius....

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/

Understanding these issues would seem like a basic requirement for "intellectual debate," Redward.

And if you can't see how someone working for an oil company might not be the most objective person on the topic (especially if they were handpicked by an anti-science politician, and deliberately tried to undermine solid data on global warming while ranging way out of their area of professional expertise), then there's probably no "intellectual debate" to be had here.

[kidcarter8]

Chauvin's lawyer said, he acted in line with departmental policies, doing "exactly what he had been trained to do over his 19-year career." How could his use of force be excessive or deadly if it was precisely what the Minneapolis Police Department prescribed as a "[n]on-deadly force option"?

Against this the prosecution marshalled Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, who said Chauvin's restraint "is not part of our training" and "in no way, shape, or form is anything that is by policy." A Minneapolis police lieutenant called it "totally unnecessary." A use-of-force expert from the Los Angeles Police Department deemed the hold excessive and a violation of Chauvin's responsibility as an officer. No "reasonable officer," said another expert, Seth Stoughton, "would have believed [what Chauvin did] was an appropriate, acceptable, or reasonable use of force."

 

I think Stoughton is absolutely right and the defense, by and large, is wrong. But there's one point on which the defense is on solid ground and the prosecution's case is shaky: Arradondo's claim that what Chauvin did isn't MPD policy. The department has since changed its rules, so it's not part of their training now, but last summer the MPD specifically permitted neck restraints applied via the officer's "leg."

This is what makes the jury's task legitimately difficult, despite how straightforward the video seemed. What Chauvin did was indefensible; in moral terms, I think "murder" is the right word. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right legal term given that departmental policy and the details of Minnesota law.

That policy means the use-of-force question is legitimately open in this legal sense, and the legal sense is where the jury's decision must be confined. Moral excess may not be legal excess, not because the moral excess isn't real and serious but because the legal reform we need is far bigger than any one man or death. Chauvin may be acquitted, but if he is, that acquittal is a guilty verdict for the police department policy that made it possible.

https://theweek.com/articles/977299/question-that-decide-chauvin-case

He has as much chance as a fart in a whirlwind to be acquitted.

The best he can hope for is a hung jury.

You're right - you will never get 12 to go against the mob

[LarryBnDC]

Chauvin's lawyer said, he acted in line with departmental policies, doing "exactly what he had been trained to do over his 19-year career." How could his use of force be excessive or deadly if it was precisely what the Minneapolis Police Department prescribed as a "[n]on-deadly force option"?

Against this the prosecution marshalled Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, who said Chauvin's restraint "is not part of our training" and "in no way, shape, or form is anything that is by policy." A Minneapolis police lieutenant called it "totally unnecessary." A use-of-force expert from the Los Angeles Police Department deemed the hold excessive and a violation of Chauvin's responsibility as an officer. No "reasonable officer," said another expert, Seth Stoughton, "would have believed [what Chauvin did] was an appropriate, acceptable, or reasonable use of force."

 

I think Stoughton is absolutely right and the defense, by and large, is wrong. But there's one point on which the defense is on solid ground and the prosecution's case is shaky: Arradondo's claim that what Chauvin did isn't MPD policy. The department has since changed its rules, so it's not part of their training now, but last summer the MPD specifically permitted neck restraints applied via the officer's "leg."

This is what makes the jury's task legitimately difficult, despite how straightforward the video seemed. What Chauvin did was indefensible; in moral terms, I think "murder" is the right word. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right legal term given that departmental policy and the details of Minnesota law.

That policy means the use-of-force question is legitimately open in this legal sense, and the legal sense is where the jury's decision must be confined. Moral excess may not be legal excess, not because the moral excess isn't real and serious but because the legal reform we need is far bigger than any one man or death. Chauvin may be acquitted, but if he is, that acquittal is a guilty verdict for the police department policy that made it possible.

https://theweek.com/articles/977299/question-that-decide-chauvin-case

He has as much chance as a fart in a whirlwind to be acquitted.

The best he can hope for is a hung jury.

You're right - you will never get 12 to go against the mob

The mob?

Bitch, please.

[FlyingVProd]

Here is some Shakespeare, I made this video to show a friend a new hat that I bought at the Santa Fe Springs Swap Meet, it is a great hat. The President needs to start wearing hats like my hat, and like the kind of hats that Humphrey Bogart wore.

https://youtu.be/x3ZMT-G_WHE

Salute,

Tony V.

[facilitatorn]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/548649-biden-hits-59-percent-approval-rating-in-pew-poll

A majority of Americans — 59 percent — approve of President Biden's handling of his job as he approaches 100 days in office, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Friday.

The poll found Biden's job approval is up 5 percentage points from 54 percent in March, while 39 percent of those surveyed said they disapprove of his work thus far.

Biden's 59 percent approval rating is 20 percentage points higher than that of former President Trump's in a Pew poll from April 2017 and is similar to the approval ratings of former Presidents Obama and George W. Bush in April of their first terms.

Killin' it.

Drops 2 more points, to -10

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/biden_approval_index_history

With luck asshat republicans will use polls this far off from reality to help guide their decisions as their sheer stupidity makes them become rarer than Jacobites or Whigs.

[Hamilton Samuels]

The LEFT is fucking things up---which is what they do best:

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he didn’t think Tlaib’s comments were harmful, but that they weren’t the solution.

“I come out of a culture where people honor the police. But they want good policing,” he told CNN.

Clyburn days after the 2020 election had told CNN that the “defund the police” attacks had cost Democrats seats and could derail the Black Lives Matter movement.

He said he and the late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) had discussed the matter prior to Lewis’s death and agreed that it “had the possibilities of doing to the Black Lives Matter movement and current movements across the country what 'Burn, baby, burn' did to us back in 1960.”



Good point, James. How did that work out? We got Nixon.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/548569-progressives-put-democrats-on-defense

One could say that was an indictment of a majority white voters.

MLK was that era's best hope for the USA and look where it got him with the majority.

Bullshit

[Hamilton Samuels]

Chauvin's lawyer said, he acted in line with departmental policies, doing "exactly what he had been trained to do over his 19-year career." How could his use of force be excessive or deadly if it was precisely what the Minneapolis Police Department prescribed as a "[n]on-deadly force option"?

Against this the prosecution marshalled Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, who said Chauvin's restraint "is not part of our training" and "in no way, shape, or form is anything that is by policy." A Minneapolis police lieutenant called it "totally unnecessary." A use-of-force expert from the Los Angeles Police Department deemed the hold excessive and a violation of Chauvin's responsibility as an officer. No "reasonable officer," said another expert, Seth Stoughton, "would have believed [what Chauvin did] was an appropriate, acceptable, or reasonable use of force."

 

I think Stoughton is absolutely right and the defense, by and large, is wrong. But there's one point on which the defense is on solid ground and the prosecution's case is shaky: Arradondo's claim that what Chauvin did isn't MPD policy. The department has since changed its rules, so it's not part of their training now, but last summer the MPD specifically permitted neck restraints applied via the officer's "leg."

This is what makes the jury's task legitimately difficult, despite how straightforward the video seemed. What Chauvin did was indefensible; in moral terms, I think "murder" is the right word. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right legal term given that departmental policy and the details of Minnesota law.

That policy means the use-of-force question is legitimately open in this legal sense, and the legal sense is where the jury's decision must be confined. Moral excess may not be legal excess, not because the moral excess isn't real and serious but because the legal reform we need is far bigger than any one man or death. Chauvin may be acquitted, but if he is, that acquittal is a guilty verdict for the police department policy that made it possible.

https://theweek.com/articles/977299/question-that-decide-chauvin-case

He has as much chance as a fart in a whirlwind to be acquitted.

The best he can hope for is a hung jury.

Why are you off topic?

[Hamilton Samuels]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/548649-biden-hits-59-percent-approval-rating-in-pew-poll

A majority of Americans — 59 percent — approve of President Biden's handling of his job as he approaches 100 days in office, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Friday.

The poll found Biden's job approval is up 5 percentage points from 54 percent in March, while 39 percent of those surveyed said they disapprove of his work thus far.

Biden's 59 percent approval rating is 20 percentage points higher than that of former President Trump's in a Pew poll from April 2017 and is similar to the approval ratings of former Presidents Obama and George W. Bush in April of their first terms.

Killin' it.

Drops 2 more points, to -10

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/biden_approval_index_history

Turns out, THIS is a better way to see how he is actually doing: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/