“I’m going to say something right now I’ve never said in my career before: we failed,” Campbell continued. "We did not do our jobs. We failed Sonya. We failed Sonya’s family and friends. We failed the community. I stand here today before you with arms wide open to ask for forgiveness.”
Great. So how did you end up hiring this known asshole, and what are you going to do to keep it from happening again?
Yes. Forgiveness demands a commitment to be better in the future. No matter how eloquently and humbly phrased, this is just “sorry” if there are no concrete actions being committed to.
To ensure this doesn’t happen again, we’ve prepared hundreds of “I’m sorry” templates that will fire off. So when our officers do heinous shit like this again, the Sorry will be within 24 hours, not a week later.
Some examples of these, you ask?
Sorry for shooting your dog.
Sorry for roughing up your grandfather.
Sorry for showing up at the robbery hours later.
Sorry for laughing when you called for aid.
Sorry for raping that woman.
Sorry for all stats about us beating our spouses and partners.
Sorry for spending millions on taxpayer money on surveillance that statistically has shown it doesn’t move the needle in public safety
Sorry for spending millions on taxpayer money on surveillance that statistically has shown it doesn’t move the needle in public safety
Hey do you have supporting links for this? I’m not asking to challenge you, I’m asking because I’d like to have some of those at hand in related/similar discussions.
Hiring “bad apples” needs to be a crime for the sheriff, chief, etc. It’s sad that’s what it would take to keep guns and badges out of these guys hands.
This is the Boeing debacle in software land. Kill the engineering and pay the executives. QA? Testing? Strict standards? People? Naaah, more conferences! More logos on F1 cars!
I totally agree. But without knowing a bit more about the specifics, I can’t help but think that just maybe… The updating mechanism could have perhaps just rolled back an update if it caused a bsod?
Seems like that infrastructure is really the biggest oversight and people would have been none the wiser.
Also surprised just how many things are running windows. I thought for sure the self checkout registers would have been some embedded Linux system.
I disagree. You are correct that the cause of the fuck up is because of bad development practices. However, if every firm is being reckless with development, but only one out of a myriad of competing firms fucks up because of it, maybe you’d take one airline or hospital network offline or something like that.
It’s only because of consolidation and market monopolization of the sector, that an outage at such a global scale was even possible to begin with.
It seems that people are already aware that Biden is damned old, and their response to the media’s cries have been, “No shit, Sherlock, but what’s this 2025 thing?”
I work with two lesbians who are Trumpers. No surprises, they hate all non-White people with a passion. The only thing that surprised me is that they’re so racist they hate Chinese food.
It’s perfectly possible having been born with characteristics that make one a “member” of a minority and still be a prejudiced asshole who discriminates against “others”. In fact the prejudiced take is to expect that’s any less likely for people from a specific minority to be prejudiced than other people.
That said, Trump and his ilk are targeting with their hate LGBT+, though mainly Transexuals and LGBT+ isn’t really A community but several.
Considering that at least some year ago there were plenty of stories of Bisexual men being discriminated against by other LGBT+ people, it’s not overly surprising the notion that some people who are Gay would thing that attacks on Transexuality are nothing to do with them personally and might even agree with it.
Unlike the reductio ad absurdum fantasy of liberal Identity Politics, people do come in all kinds no mater what group you tag them as being members of.
Yeah, having experienced discrimination doesn’t make someone immune from discriminating themselves. There are dumbfuck bigoted arseholes all across the spectrum of humanity.
Punching down. It’s often why bullies are bullies, they are someone’s victim and the lesson they learn is to find someone weaker to make a victim.
If you tell someone they are less than and they believe it, they will start looking for someone less than themselves to treat the same way.
It’s inferiority from the top down. Trump talks in terms of being the best, the greatest, etc to mask his true feelings. He feels he is less than. Maybe not consciously, but it’s absolutely something that weighs on him.
Not the same. Of course there are dumbfuck bigoted assholes who fit somewhere in the queer spectrum. It’s the dumbfuck bigoted assholes that appear to be marginalizing themselves, supporting bigotry against themselves and everyone like them, that seems like the bigger inconsistency here.
For example bisexual men being discriminated against by people who are NOT bisexual is at least logically consistent
Gay people discriminating against Transexuals is also logically consistent (not Moral, but certainly logical for somebody whose thinking is “As long a I am alright”).
For me a logical explanation for some people who are Gay aligning themselves with Trump and their crowd is them thinking that the prejudices of those people are against Transexuals, not Gays, and as they do not see themselves as being the same and they’re not actually pro-Equality out of Principle but simply out of “what’s in it for me”, they’re ok with discrimination against Transexuals.
I think some people have a flawed belief that one side is always correct. The Dem party is clearly handling isreal badly so to them the Republicans must be the good side.
My cousins are big Trumpers and their biggest reason for supporting him is his anti-immigrant stance. The kicker is that they’re half-Thai with a mother who immigrated from Thailand. They happen to look Mexican and were bullied for that growing up, but that experience didn’t exactly teach them empathy or anything.
I too would think that, had I just woken up from a coma and not known about the four press secretaries under Trump.
Edit: oh wait, the felonious traitor had five:
The Mooch, Spicer, Sarah “FuckTheCountry” Sanders, Stephanie “Never gave one press conference” Grisham and Kayleigh “My cross necklace proves how KKKhristian I am” McEnany.
The Mooch was easily my fav press secretary from that shit show.
FYI , if you haven’t seen it yet, he’s one of the whales on “Killer Whales”, that crypto Shark Tank knock off. The show is wild, everyone talking shit about the products, but still saying they’d support it. And the prize isn’t actually any sort of money for the schemes, just a mentorship with the whales. It’s absolutely great to watch with a bag of popcorn.
It’s not even a new idea. It’s just the same weathered and worn “a minority couldn’t possibly have the proper education to do this job,” from uneducated idiots who… *checks notes… definitely don’t have the education to do the same job and spend all their time trying to reduce access to education to minorities.
It’s still the slaveowners attitude of purposefully keeping them uneducated and then judging them for their… lack of education. It’s what stupid selfish controlling people have done to others for centuries, kick them down, and then berate them for having been kicked down. They don’t like smart people who can talk back to them so they try to make sure they are the smartest person in the room by purposefully keeping everyone else dumb.
When everyone in a political party is vying to be the smartest person in the room by controlling information and making everyone else dumber, you end up with a joke shitshow like the US Republican party, which stands for nothing other than bullying and willful ignorance.
That’s what it always has meant. It threatens the heteronormative Christian patriarchal power structure to have anyone but a white man in charge of anything. And it doesn’t matter that a woman is saying it because it’s a woman who doesn’t understand that the leopards will eat her face too.
Biden literally has the power to do something now, but is instead using this to campaign? Infuriating, we got you in office already, to protect against this exact thing from happening. Stop sitting on your ass and do something if you want the American public to forget the debate.
Has the ruling not fully sunk in for you yet? He could legally find a way to do anything now. He could make it legal and override the ucmj. The hired guns (SEALs or mercs), in this hypothetical, would not say no. Especially not from the commander in chief with new dictator-level powers.
So, what happens when he officially declares mar-a-lago a threat to national security and takes it out? Because before this ruling, he could’ve been imprisoned at the very least. But somehow it’s still the same now, even after this ruling? If that’s the case, then why did the Supreme Court even rule?
That’s pretty simple, he could walk outside the White House, declare to the public “I’m on a fuckin’ smoke break bitches” and immediately punch a child in the face. This would be an Unofficial act of the President and a violent crime.
First off, he’s the one in office, not me. He’s the one we voted to in to fix this and he hasn’t done that. He already campaigned on the fact that we had to prevent a dictatorship in the last election. He’s had four years to figure out what to do. That’s the issue at hand here.
Secondly, he can now legally do anything. So use your creative juices, it’s pretty obvious that he can do something, especially now. Not only was Trump given keys to a dictatorship, Biden was given those same exact keys. It’s time to play hardball.
Get Justice to arrest and imprison Thomas and Alito. Nominate 2 liberals to the Court and get Justice to arrest and imprison McConnell et al when they pull their bullshit. Continue until 2 liberals are seated.
I fear that if we don’t start playing by their rules, we will have no more stake in the country.
All you idiots keep preaching two wrongs making a right. Biden doing this shit would just empower the next republican to do the same. Sliding into tyranny is not ok just cause your side is doing it against the side you don’t like.
What has this ruling done to victimize any of us so far? How is trying to overturn an election an “official” act of the president? I’m not rolling over. I’m pointing out your solution is fucking stupid and not a solution.
Christ on a shitstick - the Supreme Cunts have decreed that one man stands above justice, and you’re out here asking dumbass questions like “HuR hOw DoEs DiS vIcTiMiZe??”
Official acts as president. Not unofficial. Official could be seen as airstriking another country. Unofficial can easily be interpreted as trying to steal the election. Yet most of you are out here advocating for biden to set precedent of assassinating an opponent… really makes you wonder what narrative some people are trying to push. Surely seems like destabilizing the remaining bit of a country we have.
As an outsider looking at American politics right now, I don’t see you getting out of a dictatorship and civil war without a lot of realpolitik from the democrats. Assassination may be extreme and strategically unsound for the dems (making Trump a martyr), but as I understand it, it would be feasible to, for example, add 10 more people to the SC, wouldn’t it? Or change electoral laws to make it so convicted felons can’t run for office? Maybe changing first past the post and abolishing the electoral college? I admit I am fairly ignorant of the American system, but wouldn’t those be achievable to Biden if he set his mind to it and damned the consequences (since he can’t be prosecuted for those anyways?)
Trump has already released a list of people he wants to jail, including biden. You are not being victimized yet but they are telling you clearly what is going to happen.
Ive never said anything about what the future may or may not hold. Ive stated that ops comment about CURRENT victimization is not true. Continuing to argue with me about the future when that’s not the subject at hand is a waste of time.
He’s been granted tyrannical power without asking. He should definitely use it to get rid of those trying to destroy democracy, and then also destroy the rules that gave him that power in the first place. Doing absolutely nothing at all and expecting things to get fixed is so beyond stupid, there isn’t even a word for it.
Seal Team 6 the supreme court, then have the new justices remove the powers from him. If he is the new dictator then he needs to play the part before Trump dose. Were fucked no matter what.
I’m no legal expert, but could he possibly form a judicial ethics committee to investigate supreme court justices. On any evidence of violating ethics, he could sign an arrest warrent to remove them from the court.
So they say, but they also just said the president had immunity for official acts. If Biden did this while at the same time urging Congress to pass judicial ethics laws, who could stop him? Hell, expand it to the federal court system and tell the committee to move fast and prioritize the most unethical judges in key positions and either the Republicans have to play ball with Democrats on passing judicial reform through law or the remaining sane judges reverse a few key decisions to unfuck our current judicial quandary.
I agree on this one. The Supreme Court is clearly compromised and needs to be thoroughly investigated for corruption and have their recent, self interest driven rulings revoked.
It’d be a super presidential act that’d definitely benefit all of us. Guess they can’t charge him for breaking the rules to fix this cluster fuck.
Ok, then he can abuse his power and do these things anyway.
I mean, this is literally what Trump will do (the abuse of power and illegal shit), and we should not take the high road because WE WILL loose to them.
He is above the law and can’t be prosecuted, but others still can be.
Ex. he issues an order to seal team six to kill trump.
Biden can’t be charged for that. But seal team six is still governed by the ucmj. Killing a non combatant for no reason even if the commander in chief gives the order might be a bit of a problem under the ucmj.
There’s also the oath you take when you join the military
“Defend the constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic”. Killing a political opponent might be a bit of a problem when a person actually looks at that oath.
The seal team would probably say no for both of the above reasons. Biden couldn’t be charged but others still can be.
ban them sounds good on it’s face. but it’s a state issue of who is on the ballet.
but here is another problem : while biden couldn’t be prosecuted for issuing the order, would the order hold up in court? you know the thing would go before the supreme court. would it hold up there?
The notion is to commit a criminal act of false imprisonment, since he is immune from prosecution now. He is allowed to commit crimes, so he should use that power for good instead of just sitting there on his ass waiting for conservatives to show us how it’s done.
Indeed. Nothing about this addresses rental markets and general extreme cost of living. Rather, it finds new ways to prop up severely overvalued housing markets.
Housing costs are so high because it’s become an investment over a necessary place for a human to live. A correction is severely needed and long overdue, but the government works hard to keep values artificially high from zoning laws at the bottom to preventing corrections at the top.
That and most people just do the standard deductions.
So tax breaks mostly help the wealthy in mansions.
It’s like how conservatives want to move income tax to sales tax. The wealthiest make a lot more than they spend. And when they spend it’s usually thru some shady shit where they don’t pay sales tax. Like claiming seven figure personal vehicles as a “company car” from a company they own.
Like claiming seven figure personal vehicles as a “company car” from a company they own.
My parents did this kind of stuff. :/
Gas, restaurants, cars, insurance, etc. Probably so much stuff I don’t even know about. The company pays for it and they pocket the wages they pay themselves. All this while the people that work for them work part time with no benefits, and predictably have unstable financial situations.
But my parents view themselves as financially responsible and their workers as financially irresponsible. They worked hard to build their company but the rewards far exceed their work relative to their workers.
idk what I’m trying to say. I’m ashamed of the way my parents became successful but at the end of the day they played the game how it was meant to be played. Our society is fucked up on every level.
Not really, because the rental market does not behave like commodities do. Generally, you have to live within a reasonable distance of employment. For this and other reasons, renters are much more vulnerable and tend to get exploited far beyond the cost of the service.
Basically, if tenants had any more money to exploit, they would already take it. Rents are maximally high wherever possible to extract maximum money from people who need a place to live.
Consider the common joke that I pay this much in rent every month but the bank says I can’t afford a house where the mortgage would be substantially less.
Agreed, and this would be solved by sufficiently high land value tax - if wasn’t profitable to be a landlord nobody would do it and the price of land would decline sharply. Henry George saw all of this coming a long time ago.
First time I’ve heard of the idea of a separate land value tax… Frankly it seems like an awesome idea, especially for cities.
I imagine it would make dense housing more profitable than McMansions, and punish the NIMBYs who keep standing in the way of affordable housing. Maybe we could make the tax increase significantly with the number of properties an individual owns and start it at the highest rate for things like shell corps and LLCs.
That’s why you set it exponentially based on units owned by parent company, maybe break it down as a tax paid by shareholders for huge corporations landlords.
They could try to pass it on to consumers, but smaller landlords wouldn’t have to pay it.
That’s why you set it exponentially based on units owned by parent company, maybe break it down as a tax paid by shareholders for huge corporations landlords.
That might not have been clear.
Set it at the parent company level so it’s not easy.
If they have X amount invested in rental real estate, that can just be taxed then
Believe me, the tax code for the wealthy is already complicated, they can handle this
Then there is no parent company…? Just another random company. It does not need to be complicated and this is far from it. It needs to be such that they can not easily avoid the taxes.
At the very least, they should raise real estate taxes on empty units. This will penalize people for owning several vacation homes, as well as incentivize landlords to lower rates in order to fill the unit.
Difficult to enforce, but send a few people to jail for real estate tax fraud and the rest will fall in line.
The issue with this figure is that it comes from the Census Bureau, and their definition is broad and simple that it doesn’t into account for example. Here’s the definition they use:
Vacant Housing Units. A housing unit is vacant if no one is living in it at the time of the interview, unless its occupants are only temporarily absent. In addition, a vacant unit may be one which is entirely occupied by persons who have a usual residence elsewhere. New units not yet occupied are classified as vacant housing units if construction has reached a point where all exterior windows and doors are installed and final usable floors are in place. Vacant units are excluded if they are exposed to the elements, that is, if the roof, walls, windows, or doors no longer protect the interior from the elements, or if there is positive evidence (such as a sign on the house or block) that the unit is to be demolished or is condemned. Also excluded are quarters being used entirely for nonresidential purposes, such as a store or an office, or quarters used for the storage of business supplies or inventory, machinery, or agricultural products. Vacant sleeping rooms in lodging houses, transient accommodations, barracks, and other quarters not defined as housing units are not included in the statistics in this report. (See section on “Housing Unit.”)
As you can see this definition doesn’t really take into account a lot of genuine factors. For example, a lot of units are in really poor condition and require renovations in order to be livable again, but they’re counted as vacant because they still have their exteriors in place. Same goes units. They’re also counting units that are not entirely completed, units that are occupied but just temporarily like vacation homes, and mobile homes. We do have a lot of vacant units in this country, but it’s not as much as this figure would lead you to believe. In reality, we need new units, we need a lot of them, and we need them ASAP.
There’s always talk about tax breaks for home owners…
Because governments want housing prices to stay sky high. The canadian prime minister openly said he doesn’t want housing prices to drop because too many people are using their houses as a retirement strategy. That’s why there are so many government programs that support buying a house but none that support renting.
Yeah, the first time I learned about our current vice president, she was trying to allegedly give renters similar tax breaks in California.
I don’t know what happened to that, but I was an immediate fan. Seeing as it never happened, smeh… Not sure what to think. But it’s a very popular idea amongst those of us who can’t afford to buy (most people in California.)
This high heeled tough guy wannabe is the living embodiment of poor and spiteful decision making. Nothing he does helps anybody. It’s fascinating really. Everyday I wake up I count my blessings I escaped that shit hole state
reply said, “I don’t think” as in they don’t actually know. Something like a cited source might help and receive actual conversation or else it’s just fluff much like your conjecture. It’s easy to assume his “family values” from the rightwing conservative aspect and being a member of the “Proud boys” and all. But please, continue the inner circle jerk you’ve started.
Something like a cited source might help and receive actual conversation
what. you’re asking me to give a source for a negative. do you expect me to chronicle every word he’s ever said to show he never said the words family values. will you do the same to confirm what I said?
Everyone’s favorite game show: Child, Senior, or Foreign Agent?
You really posted a nexstar/Mission Media article as a source to defend a right wing ignoramus. It’s like poetry. Get a shred of media literacy, please.
You claimed being right wing was limited to something unrelated to it. 2 responses because I didn’t know if one was uploaded because of crappy internet. But sure continue to believe a conspiracy about everyone who disagrees with you.
Is it just who you thought of or is it that the modern right is completely in bed with the Christian theocrats? Whether or not you believe Trump is agnostic, he’s selling Bibles and making bank off of them.
Its who I thought of, because its (at least for Friedman, not Ayn Rand) who I align with more(somewhat) on the right. I am an agnostic and pretty right-wing(by my own definition)
I was just answering your question, I think a majority of atheists do not end up skewing right/conservative generally because they don’t adhear to any of the outdated/harmful aspects of most mainstream religions.
Imo, religion having any correlation with being a bit more right wing is a historical coincidence, right wing economics was in the 18th and 19th century often tied to less religious people.
All prominent atheists, all decidedly right-wing. If you want to include dead atheists, then I’d also say Christopher Hitchens was decidedly right wing on a lot of issues.
…Have you been paying attention to Dawkins in the last decade? The dude is decidedly anti-trans, anti-woke. Harris has been on the side of Republican foreign policy for decades, even if he’s more socially permissive. Shermer is the same kind of anti-LGBTQ anti-woke as Dawkins.
No tbh, I was big into atheism back in the early 2010s, dogma debate, Atheist experience, thinking Atheist, rationally speaking, probably more podcasts I’m forgetting off-hand, fell off a bit around the mid there and got heavy into politics and conspiracy theory rebuttals instead (Knowledge Fight, QAnon Anonymous, behind the bastards, secular talk, breaking points more recently) definitely haven’t kept up so much with the old Atheism crews. That is definitely unfortunate though semi understandable, Dawkins is/was very science/data driven, and biologically speaking the majority of people fall into the duality of male/female, and how you identify/feel is a different matter in many people’s eyes. Then again, I think there’s still a lot for us to uncover about how our bodies and brains develop/function that likely play into people feeling like they ARE/should be the opposite gender. I will say the first tweet he made that I read didn’t specifically sound Trans-hating, it was very much a fair enough discussion question about how to handle situations like transsexual or transracial, though he went about it in a way that definitely comes across as demeaning.
Idk overall, seems like he slid even more into platforming and agreeing with antitrans and TERFs like JK Rowling, so that’s certainly not great.
But does that alone make him Right Wing now? I don’t think so specifically
“Gender critical” is a dogwhistle for anti-trans. Dawkins falls squarely into that camp, of questioning everything that trans people, and experts on the subject have to say. The problem with being anti-trans–or, one of the problems–is that by its nature it assumes that there’s some kind of sex role in society. E.g., women are A, B, C, and men are X, Y, Z, and you can’t move between them. That kind of gender-essentialism is fundamentally socially regressive. Dawkins is also quite significantly culturally Christian, and Islamophobic, e.g., he is entirely critical of Islam both as a religion and as what he perceives to be a culture, but doesn’t direct the same types of criticism towards the Anglican church that he grew up surrounded by.
how you identify/feel is a different matter in many people’s eyes.
The way I see it, it’s just not my business. The only time that someone else’s gender identity is going to matter to me is if I’m potentially interested in dating them. They’re not harming people, they’re not ‘taking’ anything away from cis-women (or cis-men, for that matter), so why should it be my business what they feel they need to do with their body in order to feel comfortable in their own skin? I came across this a few weeks back, and it really drove that home to me.
But does that alone make him Right Wing now?
It’s a spectrum, like all things. You can be pro-science, but also still have a very socially conservative view on the ‘right’ place for people in society, or still maintain false beliefs about the ‘rightness’ of capitalism, imperialism, and so on. And scientists are still human, and prone to the same cognitive biases as everyone else.
Being right wing doesn’t necessarily mean being religious. Being left wing doesn’t necessarily mean being atheist. Yes, that’s more often true than not, but I think part of that is that the right in general uses an appeal to tradition–which includes religious practices–as part of their package. But, on the other hand, Jesus, as depicted in the 4 gospels and the early Christian church, would have been very comfortable to socialists, as would the teachings on tolerance.
In re: podcasts, the only explicitly atheist one that I still listen to is The Friendly Atheist. I find Jess to be annoyingly hyperbolic most of the time, and she frequently makes wildly overbroad statements, but Hemant Mehta is pretty measured overall. Mostly I listen to politics (FiveThirtyEight), 2A podcasts (A Better Way 2A, the irregular Tiger Bloc Podcast, Guns Guide To Liberals, Practical Shooting After Dark), a couple of ex-Mormon podcasts (Mormon Stories is great if you love really, really long form interviews), You Are Not So Smart, sometimes BtB, Cool People Who Did Cool Things, a couple others.
To make things clear (and worse), this man wasn’t even on the job! Nobody asked him to do this! He just dropped his kid off for a class nearby and decided it was his duty to shoot anyone he deemed suspicious.
I agree, but for clarification it was a different teen whom he shot, who still had his BB gun.
There were 3 teens, two with BB guns. The first dropped his and was on the ground, straddled by Shooter McFuckhead when the second, still standing, was shot.
Thank god there was a “good guy with a gun” there. Otherwise nobody would have died!
You’re 100% projecting. Also the other poster said nothing about “ideal” but what was normal. Which it absolutely was and still would be if interest rates weren’t so high.
“Starter” homes usually refer to 1-2 bedroom homes that aren’t in great school districts. Historically, those are the homes young couples start in because they don’t have kids, and don’t need to pay for the extra square footage and school districts that they’re not going to use.
The original article title specifically called out “Judge Cannon” and so should we all because she’s clearly neglecting her duty to cover for her candidate.
She’s been careful to avoid making rulings because bad rulings can get her kicked off the case. Wherever possible, she reschedules, indefinitely postpones, or otherwise delays the trial because judges have a TON of say in how they schedule things.
She made a couple bad rulings early on and got reversed and admonished by a panel of judges. That’s two strikes.
She made another bad ruling about allowing redacted information in the defense’s filings to be seen by the public. Smith started the process of going to the other judges again, but she reversed her own bad ruling that time before it escalated to the other judges.
Now in this request she’s made another bad ruling. This may well be strike 3. Smith will certainly appeal to have the changes implemented. Whether he also brings up the other two incidents and asks for her to be removed is yet to be seen.
The thing is, you only get 1 chance to have the judge removed. And if it doesn’t work, you’re stuck with an even more hostile judge for the rest of the trial. Smith has to balance the need to have the trial before the election (already too late) against having enough justification for the extreme action of having a federal judge removed from a case against their will.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.