That is the only realistic interpretation, IMHO.
He was trying to get onto the radio, and they were telling him that they had many people to have on.
Were he not in a primary, then he wouldn’t mind these others saying their piece and him sitting back and letting them. Since he is in a primary, he has to make himself heard.
It’s a hot mic and a statement dealing with the bureaucracy of a media outlet. Anyone who makes a deal out of it is just trolling.
Well, it’s not a strawman, there are real people on the left pushing this idea. So points off for misusing a term.
Second, I already noted that “liberals” don’t agree with this, only Sanders types. But apparently it’s rude to even bring the subject up.
Ahh, so you were looking for the Stupid Sanders idea of the day thread!
CMC fnord!
That’s what I was wondering, so Sanderistas don’t count for purposes of this thread?
To the extent that anything counts for anything on this message board, nothing is stopping you from posting all the Sanders-type stuff you want. However, if you are afraid of negative feedback for it then too damn bad, snowflake.
Consider drawing the blood from a finger instead.
There was a SCotUS ruling 30-odd years ago (and some of those years were very odd) that determined that the police are not required/expected to protect anyone or any property. It appears that their job is to apprehend miscreants and felons (like my cousin, who thought the police were not a horde of assholes until, at age 12, one of them gave him a ticket for riding his stingray bicycle with no hands on the handlebars – a fucking 12-year-old kid).
So, if you want to keep people safe, do not expect LE to do it, because it is not their job. They are there to catch baddies, which sometimes involves creating baddies to catch. They strongly oppose Schedule-1 reform because things as they are gives them lots of baddies to catch.
Which raises some interesting questions. Their job does not specify protection (as the above-cited ruling states), so why are they involved in crowd control? I mean, obviously firing CS bombs and non-metal bullets into crowds of non-violent protesters is the opposite of protecting people, but why are they there? What are they protecting? Whom are they serving?
It would seem as though, since they need to catch baddies, and there do not seem to be any/many in the crowd, they have to make some. Perhaps by creating chaos (instigating a riot). Oddly, from what I can tell, the genuine baddies (people busting store windows and torching buildings) are rarely, if ever, hauled away by riot control. Only the non-violent participants with signs.
So we have the constabulary involved in activities that fall outside the scope of their charter, apparently creating disorder, that will fit within their charter, and overall not doing much good for most people, except for the occasional dog-rescue-that-looks-like-a-PR-stunt.
What exactly are they good for? I mean, beside helping to maximize the class divide.
It is a good question. Also question the training that make the police view the world in terms of ‘us vs. them’. Then ask why people with a confrontational attitude are sent to deal with other people who may be having mental breakdowns?
They do have a job to protect, it’s just not to protect the community or the members of the community. It is to protect the wealthy and their interests.
You mean “protect” means their jobs and “serve” mean the PD?
Just saying that they don’t work for us.
my understanding of that ruling is that the Court didn’t want to set a precedent that would lead to police agencies (or their employing cities/counties/states) getting sued any time their officers couldn’t stop a crime or save someone.
Yes, but they use it for justification for not even trying.
My method is more of a wake-up.
So if my responsibility is to do this particular thing, but I cannot be sued for not doing or refusing to do this particular thing, how can I reasonably, reliably be expected to do this particular thing?
Because it’s the job, man. The court decision just took away any “guarantee of success” – which would have been stupid anyway. Do I sue the fire department because my house burned down? It’s their job to save the house, and they didn’t. Get me a lawyer, right away!
It’s a “best effort” thing. police can’t teleport to the scene of a crime in progress.
I think that you should be able to sue if your house burns down because it caught fire from your neighbor’s uncontained house fire that the FD wouldn’t come out to because it didn’t feel like it.
Yes, but if they are not willing to even put in the effort, they are still covered.
A cop could watch you get assaulted over a period of an hour while he sits in his car eating donuts, and he would have done nothing legally wrong.
I doubt any would, and there are probably policies against it in most jurisdictions, but you couldn’t sue him over it.