Duderonomy

Well, there's got to be at least one person to kill Cecil the Lion. You don't want lions crowding your yard, do you?

While I like both, puppies can eventually become working animals, which puts them higher in my esteem. Cats do work as well, but not near to the extent that dogs can.

The real thanks goes to whomever at the DoJ actually had big enough testicles to follow this through. She's still likely to get off, though. The question is just how much of her career she has to trade to get off.

It's more a matter of shaking our heads at Hilary believing anything on her personal server was ever confidential, especially when the State Department would have provided her any secure machine that she wanted. She actively chose to endanger the country's security out of sheer laziness, when her job entailed sensitive communication with foreign countries. It's just so stupid on so many levels, and I expected far better from her. The fact that she's being investigated at all is a triumph of democracy in the U.S. Most countries wouldn't have let it get this far. A powerful elite in line for the highest office? Many would have executed the reporters attempting to cover this. I can only hope that she will get a genuine trial and be kept from the nuclear launch codes. Maybe she'll keep those on a USB stick or a Post It. The key difference between the U.S. and most other countries: our mistakes are open for all to see, and this lets them get dealt with. Covering up mistakes means they will be made again.

The one thing I'm missing out of all of this: who actually installed her server? Seems like a missed opportunity for the Russians, if they don't have a heavy presence in the DC/New York IT community. I guarantee you most politicians don't vet their IT guys, and few ever suspect them of anything.

Just because something is shit, doesn't mean you should leave it alone. As for the Iraq stuff, that was far worse for the U.S., but no definitive proof has been brought forward that they were operating in bad faith. I suspect they genuinely thought that Iraq had WMDs, even if their existing evidence was shakey. Being dumb is not a crime. Too bad it doesn't keep you from the presidency, either. In fact, despite my misgivings about his policies, it's irrefutable that Obama will leave the country in a better state than Dubya did. Expect Republican rhetoric to fall to new lows in response.

True, although I would argue that you shouldn't even give a badge to a retard. Unfortunately, law enforcement isn't a prestigious position in government-fearing America, nor is it a high-paid one. Most rural officers make less than half of the median income. Urban officers usually make more, but generally not enough for a high-stress and high-danger position. It's one reason I have no problem with the Houston Police Department's lax moonlighting policy. I would rather allow officers make extra money as security guards (and trust me, many can pull six figures if they get a good gig) than deal with the trash we would get without a decent income for them. I'd rather the city pay them better, but governments rarely pay well. Even the U.S. president makes about 1/20th or less of the money he could make in the private sector. Guns in the U.S. police is largely about leveling the playing field between officers and citizens. I agree that they need more training, but the feds would rather hand over surplus military equipment and train them how to use grenade launchers. They should pay for genuine training instead. An important thing to recognize is that all policing is local in the U.S. I mean really local. I mean, most departments don't see a dime from the national government and have little to no oversight. That's a huge difference from most countries, where the national government provides officers and pays for their training. Traditionally, this separated law enforcement from far-away political elites and made them more responsive to local concerns. Unfortunately, Americans are more disengaged from local government than they ever have been. Less than a third typically even vote in local-only elections. Obama and the feds have little to no control over local police in the U.S. Citizens would have control, if they would only go to town hall meetings and take a genuine interest in local elections. Instead of watching "The Bachelor" or reading about Kim Kardashian, volunteer for your councilman's campaign. Find a rep for the local policeman's union and ask if you can speak to them. This gives you far more social currency to enact change in your community and doesn't cost much, if anything. Local police don't want to be dicks any more than most people do. However by viewing them as a separate and problematic part of your community, you only encourage them to treat you the same way. People tend to be emotional mirrors 90% of the time. So the citizens of these neighborhoods should show their officers what they want reflected back.

I'm sorta leaning toward the idea that he was simply shit faced drunk, being stupid, thinking he was tough and that the cops wouldn't actually shoot him. You have gang bangers here, and then you have gang bangers born and raised in Idaho who are a total joke but think they're something. Yes I agree with you. The liquid courage was probably just what he needed to do what he did. What has gone completely off the rails is somehow people have got it in their heads that when dealing with the police they have options. The only option you have is to do exactly what they say. If you don't do what they say... well then you are endangering your own life. Up to a point. You should follow any commands for your physical behavior, barring illegal or life-threatening commands, but it's best if you just shut up until you get a lawyer. They'll want you to talk, threaten you with obstruction, do just about anything to get you to talk, but you should only tell them what they need to know to assist someone whose life is in danger, and that's about it. Police are happy to take the easy route when it comes to solving the crime. If they can pin it on you and call it a day, that is what they will do. Never assume that the cop is your friend OR has the interests of justice in mind. It's very easy to end up innocent and in jail if you meet up with the wrong cop. Ask if you are free to go. If the answer is "no", then ask for a lawyer and shut up. FoxFire and Lysistra pretty much explained it. The cops in the first video did just about all they could to defuse the situation. The guy threatened their life, so they were allowed to take his. The second video had a cop doing everything he could to get the guy to run. He did, the cop shot him, charges were filed. The key is in the intent of the cops making the stop. You have to put yourselves in their heads to understand why what they did was wrong. First video, they just wanted to arrest the guy and shot because he would've killed them otherwise (or appeared that he could do so). Second video, he wanted to physically attack the suspect and show that he was the one with power. It's likely the suspect could have run with few to no negative consequences. You cannot use logic and rationality to judge split-second decisions. You have to use the training and emotions behind those decisions. If you shoot a suspect because he runs from you, it's a reflection on your attitude towards civilians in general (that they are all guilty and deserve to die). If you shoot one that is about to shoot at you, you value your life and the ones around you. Not that hard. What I'm getting from Master Master Samus & Shepard is that their country does not accept lethal force to protect your own life. That's a difference in values well worth discussing, and pacifism is a worthy philosophy, even if I don't hold to it. I don't believe it works in the real world (sociopaths have no problems killing, no matter if you resist or not), but I'm a sheepdog kinda guy rather than a sheep kinda guy. I hold great admiration for those who choose not to harm others in any circumstance, although I think they'd be dead without others who were willing to harm criminals under certain circumstances. The gun debate involves a natural distrust of government that is valuable for an alert and questioning populace. If you want to come down on America, do it for the lack of political participation from citizens that would rather hole up with a bazooka than engage with the politicians "infringing" on their freedoms. I may denigrate tea-partiers, but at least they are a part of the political process, unlike the militias that sequester themselves in the mountains.

That's actually bad in Idaho in particular. Mostly because nothing ever happens in this lame ass state, so if something goes down, every cop in the area shows up to see whats going on. More police generally means a better outcome for a suspect. An unarmed suspect is far more likely to be shot by a single policeman than multiple policemen. A single policeman has to worry if he has enough physical strength to subdue a suspect. Multiple don't. If I'm going to be arrested, feel free to use as many policemen as is necessary to keep me from getting shot. It's like the old joke about inviting teetotalling Baptists to a party. You always want at least two, because one will drink all your beer.

If you have the right to shoot once, you have the right to shoot a dozen times. This is not the movies and a single gunshot wound does not send someone into a dramatic seizure. An angry, or drunk, or drug-addled person can shoot you no matter how many holes are in them, depending on the location of the hole. The typical trained reaction is to squeeze the trigger until well past the point that the gun runs dry. The more holes in the suspect, the more likely you've prevented them from shooting you or someone you care about. Disregarding the reason for the stop in the second video, the officer had better ways to handle the entire encounter, but he chose the testosterone-laden power trip. He did not even ask the suspect to exit the car, and just went straight for the door. He did everything possible to ratchet up that guy's adrenaline level, and then acted surprised when it sparked a fight-or-flight reaction. If you are dealing with someone angry or distrustful, you want to wind down their adrenaline, despite your own body's adrenaline trying to get a similar reaction out of you. That is, unless you intend to drive them into irrational behavior. Cops should never encourage irrational behavior on the street (in the interrogation room is another story).

It's possible that we have a difference of agreement on whether it is ever justified to kill someone. I think that anyone, cop or civilian, has a right to defend themselves with lethal force if they think their life is in danger. Police officers have a further duty to protect the lives of others, as well. The big question is on what constitutes self-defense. It's also possible to have a scenario when two different people shoot each other but both legitimately believe they are acting in their own defense. Perception is a tricky thing, especially in short time periods. As Fox Fire stated, the OP shows a legitimate use of force. Why? The man brings his hands out into a classic 3-point stance that a trained gunman would use to shoot. In the half-second the cops are given to make their decision, it is impossible for them to see small details, like whether the man actually has a gun or not. What they can see and react to is the man's larger motions, which indicate he is going to shoot them. If they waited to be certain about a gun, the guy could have shot all of them already. The second video is not quite as black-and-white (a car can be a lethal weapon as well and the man is obviously about to drive off before the shot occurs), but the officer had non-lethal options that he could have taken rather shooting the suspect in the face. It's possible the officer had intended to reach for mace or a taser, similar to the officer in California who shot a handcuffed suspect. That's something his superiors and he will have to deal with. The officer also shows a lack of control in the situation by not affirming to the guy that he is not under arrest (officers can lie to civilians despite what TV and the movies say) and by not getting out his mace before attempting to open the door. It might've ended in a similar fashion, but at least the officer would not have ended someone's life over a suspended license. Officers all need to learn de-escalation techniques to reduce the fear and anger that results in these sorts of reactions by suspects. I have convinced an angry, tinfoil-hat landowner to let me on his property despite doing work for the government (which was going to take some of his property) and have verbally steered off a potential mugger on a dark and isolated street. It is possible to control another person's emotions and actions through your own behavior. It's called "keeping cool" and officers need more training in it. They are the professional in the situation and should act like it. This sort of training would be far more valuable than the millions of dollars flushed into SWAT and other programs that encourage police to act like a paramilitary force that shoots at the first provocation. Sadly, the U.S. has lots of spare military hardware that police need training to use properly, which takes away from more legitimate programs.

I cannot allow a Youtube thread to die. Also, seizure warning! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frPZQIouxBc

Yeah, pretty much an idiot that should be dead. This video also shows the open hostility that police deal with on a daily basis. Even when a suspect is unarmed, many police killings happen with the officer's own gun. A man with a knife is more dangerous within 20 feet than a man with a gun, because using a knife is instinctual while a gun requires higher brain processes that take longer to focus. Don't bleeding heart for criminals or "thugs" that like to wag their dicks at police officers. A real thug speaks softly so the officer doesn't search his car. There's a reason it's called "being cool" and that's because testosterone-laden emotion has no part in it. I'm not an expert on intercontinental intelligence, but most people try to see the U.S. as a single country, when its breadth and history of immigration gives it multiple cultures and characteristics. Europe doesn't deal with the sheer wave of uneducated immigrants that the U.S. has to process, plus it has its own hooligan culture among the lower classes that would do the same thing depicted in this video. These immigrants tend to drag lower-classes to their level, including those that have no excuse for acting this way. This however, does not change my views on the militarization of police (bad) and the drug war (also bad). Both of those simply encourage bad behavior on the law enforcement side. I'd actually rather see an enforced hand-to-hand combat training for police, since that generally leaves suspects alive if you train correctly.

That's some fine eatin' right there.

Please don't call Trump a capitalist. A kleptocrat, maybe, but his style of Madoff "business acumen" is responsible for the U.S.'s decline. Income inequality and personal debt is the greatest it has ever been because Con Men are running American business. Everyone is so busy screwing each other over that they forget that the ultimate responsibility of business is to serve their customers, not to enrich its management. I measure an executive by the strength of his company, not on his wealth. Wealth is worthless as a measure of power. Having a group of people (aka a BUSINESS) working cohesively for goals that you set, that is power. Perry has had to stay out of the limelight for too long due to controversial statements he made in the past, especially related to Texas's "secession". If he really wants Texas to leave the Union, why the hell does he want to be U.S. president?

I didn't say she "just wants to help." I'm just saying she is managing the situation in a way that minimises her exposure to risk by choosing the best possible moment to hand over the server, on terms that are as favorable to her as possible. Which means that unless there is a massive revelation (which I doubt as she handed over the server without being compelled to), her campaign stays on course. Ultimately, in the political arena, one lead candidate just said he was asked mean questions because the questioner was on her period, and the other has breached some rules over data security blah blah..... You may be correct that this is on an objective standpoint a big issue, but that counts for nothing in modern politics. My bet is that Clinton will manage to close this down as a major issue faster than the Republicans can close down the hair monster general as a major issue. Hilary's certainly got enough experience with damage control that it's possible. Depends on if another democrat can use it to leverage himself or herself into the position. I still don't think Hilary's candidacy is good for the party, but not like I'll be voting in that primary, anyway. Trump is far too much like Methrage for his own good. He never apologizes and only makes problems bigger. Great moves for a celebrity. Horrible for a politician.

This could be great news for the democratic party, if a better candidate replaces her. Shouldn't be hard, and Obama kinda came out of left field last time. I suspect Hilary is a victim of a typical older person's vice: treating email like a secure and private conversation. Always assume email is public, especially when it is business email. Even with private email, the NSA sees far more than you would like to believe. The internet is not anonymous if someone's motivated enough. I agree with Rhizo that this will probably end up swept under the rug. Petreus was still a semi-outsider in Washington and posed a threat to the political ambitions of others. Hilary's far too ensconced in the existing power structure for her to see any real consequences. In any major executive culture, there's plenty of blackmail to go around if one person is threatened with prosecution. At the most, she'll have to trade her candidacy for leniency. Depends on whether the Party apparatus has a backup candidate. JacobZuma, Republicans, and especially the yellow-dog/tea-party variety like Lysistra, have always hated Hilary since her plan to implement Obamacare in the 90s. She represents every liberal value that conservatives, especially men, hate. At the start of her husband's presidency, she was muzzled for being too influential in the administration. It's my belief that she has always been the main driver and power behind the Clinton presidency. Of course, just because someone is hated doesn't mean it wasn't earned. With a career as long as hers, her enemies stretch from sea to shining sea. It's part of the reason she can't "pull an Obama" and use her minority status to block criticism. Critics of Obama have to be careful that any commentary on him can't be spun as racist. Hilary, however, has enough history that safe criticism of her is instinctual at this point.

The biggest problem with psychedelics is the potential for assault and abuse. It takes less than a drop of LSD to send someone on a full-blown trip. Giving it to an unwilling victim is not an innocent prank, but poisoning that could cause them genuine physical and mental harm, not counting the time lost during the trip. There's enough of a problem with roofies and sleeping pills (see Bill Cosby) that I don't foresee a lot of responsibility from unregulated use. I'd envision a hotel-type facility where you rent a room by the hour and receive 1-hit dosages from a licensed professional. The professionals are subject to pharmacist-and-pharmacist-assistant-style regulations and limitations. This won't make them cheap or completely take them off the black market, but will cap the profit that illegal distributors can make. Not a complete eradication of the drug peddlers, but strangling their margins so they can't afford to outfit themselves to take on entire governments. By requiring you to stay in the facility and only receiving the hit, not the drug itself, it prevents the drug from leaving the facility, and requiring facilities to keep tight track on inventory will keep employees from using the product for nefarious purposes. However, you can still take whatever you want into the room to build your own scene, and you can share the room with others if you'd like a shared experience. Or you can lock the door if you are afraid that you might cause damage or that others will take advantage of you. It's the best way to allow people to have the spiritual experience without constant abuse.

Yeah, the Romans couldn't even make it work long-term with Hadrian's Wall. Truth is, the best thing you can do is promote stability in your neighbor so that they can police their side. Unfortunately, Mexico has a long culture of corruption, but there's still things the U.S. could do to help. First is free trade, obviously. Free trade helps Mexico earn their keep legitimately and encourages a culture of production. Second is ending the drug war with the embrace of regulated drug use, even for recreational purposes. Some dangerous drugs (hallucinogenics or opiods) can only be held and used at licensed facilities, but otherwise allow taxed distribution. This'll eliminate a cash cow for criminals, while giving governments more tax revenue. Mobsters took a huge hit when Prohibition ended and state lotteries were instituted. Why deal with a guy who might break your leg, when you've got better options? Finally, encourage retirement communities in Mexico. While Social Security/Medicare has become an expensive farce, it'd go a lot further for U.S. citizens living in Mexico, while giving Mexican citizens a large consumer base that doesn't take jobs but does celebrate a work ethic. While I love the states and working, I wouldn't mind spending my final years in a beach bungalow near the jungle.

Why build a wall when armed, drunken rednecks are free?

Boi, Imma reeducate your sexxing.

*Plot twist* I do agree with you that Hilary is little better than Trump, though. At least Trump is better at his real estate scams. She gets a little credit for Bill's career, because she was always the mastermind in the 90s, whether they trumpeted the fact or not. Here's hoping that your consolidation scenario holds up. It usually does happen that way. Both Clinton and Obama kinda came out of left field. George W. was a shoe-in, but I'm not sure about his dad. Either way, Long Live the Lizard People!

What you say is true but a foreigner also has an outside perspective - I might be better situated to give a completely objective view but as I'm not affected by the policies directly, or at the very least I am affected by them indirectly, I don't fully understand some of the more sensitive issues. An example would be: When I look at American politics I always see Americans complain year on year of how 'corrupt' Washington is. I don't really understand how Washington can be classified as being corrupt, living in a completely corrupt society in South Africa I just laugh at their ignorance, but in the end my experience in my own country can be the exact same experience an American experiences in the US - it might just be in a different form. In South Africa you will get our Minister or President to take $20 million in bribes to give business or perks to an individual or even a company, heck our President spent more than $20 million of taxpayers' money on his private residence. In the US big companies like Lockheed or Boeing invests money in lobbyists to convince Congress to spend more money on the military, more specifically on their products. I look at this and say that's mere commercial competition and advertising, whereas an American looks at it and say it's a corrupt society where big companies direct American policies for their own profit. This is just a stupid example. My views on what the next 4 years for the US foreign policy have to be: spend less money. Spend less money on the military, spend less money in foreign aid. Direct more business to the US. This would be difficult as the US already have strong unions and trust me, there's nothing more dangerous than strong unions. This is one of the biggest reasons for the automakers having to declare bankruptcy in Detroit - they were unable to be competitive because of unions. I would advise the US to stop interfering in countries such as Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen etc. These are all hot-spots that were created BY US intervention - the US should stop interfering with domestic affairs of sovereign nations, and that includes Ukraine. This is basically my perspective of things. I can't really comment much about internal policies such as taxes and migration, but the US really needs to stop spending money. When it comes to corruption, it's more like the trait "corrupt" is such a taboo in the U.S. that it's very easy to smear your competition by just uttering the word. Similar to "Nazi" or "Communist" (please see instances of this earlier in this thread). I agree that it isn't always applicable where politicians/pundits say it is, but I'd rather they keep pointing fingers than the public start cynically accepting it as the way of things, like they do in certain other countries. Lobbying is a grey area where sometimes it's flat-out bribery, and other times it's educating politicians in subjects that they aren't experts in. It depends on where the dollars are actually going. Even the energy industry has wizened up to the benefits of cracking down on "gifts" from its vendors, but they have no compunction about paying for a politician's dinner. I agree on the foreign affairs, which is why I vote Libertarian. The U.S. is not, and should not be the world police. It's not fair to U.S. citizens because they have to bankroll everything and it is not fair to the international community because they have less say in where/when force is used. It has been far too long since the rest of the world has pulled its weight on military spending. World War 2 has been over for nearly 100 years, and Japan/Germany have been good international citizens since then. Time for them to support their own self-defense. Sorry, Lysistrata, but I have to disagree with painting all Liberals as Un-American. Theodore Roosevelt, my favorite Republican, both started the National Park Service and busted Big Business repeatedly. Unions can be a necessary check against the power of executives. I've explained before that anybody in power, whether executive or politician, will abuse it if they are not held in check by something, whether it be government or unions or the press. I think that unions are a better way to control businesses than the government, and would rather strengthen worker's ability to bargain collectively than rely on politicians and bureaucrats to do it for them.

But that takes all of the fun out of the election. A wise man once said "election years are how we get back at the politicians who will bend us over for the next few years." Truth is, happy people are quiet people. I live in staunch Republican country, and people only complained when Clinton and Obama were in office. They were largely quiet during the Bush years. So, of course complaints are going to be loudest in the losing party. The biggest problem with politics and democracy in the U.S. is that it encourages a competitive-team mindset rather than a policy mindset. Candidates are opposed because they aren't Republican/Democrat enough, rather than their stance on issues or ability to get necessary legislation taken care of. The political process is competitive entertainment rather than a real attempt to deal with the issues facing the country. Our nation deserves better than to have real decisions sidelined by ax-grinding and attempts to torpedo the competition. The Republican Congress's behavior the last few years is one of the main reasons I hesitate to vote for them anymore, either by voting third party or just not voting. And don't worry about commenting on another nation's political process. You might not have much of a stake in the game (although that's arguable with U.S. politics), but you've got a brain capable of pointing out problems and potential solutions. People forget that this is the most important part of free speech and democracy: the ability to deal with problems rather than letting them fester for the sake of some dictator's pride.

Trump on the ticket is the surest way to get me to vote Democrat, no matter how much I have to hold my nose. I've voted Libertarian and Republican. If this is the direction the Republican Party is going, I want no part of it. He's a Grade-A con man with horrible ideas and no respect for veterans. I wouldn't want to be associated with him financially or politically. Trump will run as a third party without the nomination, because he doesn't give a damn about the U.S. or the Republican Party. He's in it for himself and his celebrity. Always has been. Always will be. The whole Republican party's persistent namecalling of their own reps will continue to kill the whole party, to the detriment of democracy in America. They're so out of ideas that they have to attack each other rather than come up with legitimate policies. Instead, all you can get out of them is "no taxes" without an explanation on where their budget cuts are going to come from. The waste and Welfare Queens that they cite make an incredibly small part of the budget. So small that you spend more money cutting it than you actually save, through the extra bureaucrats needed to implement the cuts. Medicare, Defense, and Social Security are where the cuts must be made. Out of those, I'm betting that SS and Medicare go first. It's why I'm spending and saving like I'm never going to get either of those things. Those are just extra taxes on my paycheck at this point. I find it hilarious that so many of my family members argue for tax breaks that they will never see. People claim that the U.S. has a progressive income tax system without considering property tax, sales tax, corporate tax breaks, and capital gains. You're far better off doing nothing with a million dollars in a brokerage account than doing something for society and getting a million-dollar salary. Part of the reason I've already started a brokerage account and spend only half of my income. I may think it's shit for the economy, but no one is going to take care of me when I get old. If I feel bad, I'll give money to an animal shelter or something. It might make me a hypocrite, but I'm not rich enough to ignore the tax savings. It can make a difference in me having the money for a house repair/medical procedure or not.