Trump Will Likely Win

[bilby]

They seem to have little problem against unarmed individuals when they feel scared of a mentally disturbed person or someone with a knife or someone reaching for their registration.

Police are human. They make mistakes. That said, instances of "someone reaching for their registration" or similar getting shot are very rare. Armed and/or mentally disturbed people can be dangerous, however, so I do not see why you are lumping these two very different scenarios together.

And almost all such situations can be avoided by not being confrontational and not doing sudden moves. You get trouble when you force an officer to make a split second decision about what he's seeing.

So basically you need to treat cops like you would treat dangerous predators?

If your neigbourhood were crawling with mountain lions, you would probably be well served to try to remove them to a place where they have less interaction with humans.

It astonishes me that you can say shit like this and not grasp that you are describing a police force that neither serves nor protects the wider public.

The public should not have to fear the police; The entire point of having police is to reduce public fears of becoming a victim.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They seem to have little problem against unarmed individuals when they feel scared of a mentally disturbed person or someone with a knife or someone reaching for their registration.

Police are human. They make mistakes. That said, instances of "someone reaching for their registration" or similar getting shot are very rare. Armed and/or mentally disturbed people can be dangerous, however, so I do not see why you are lumping these two very different scenarios together.

And almost all such situations can be avoided by not being confrontational and not doing sudden moves. You get trouble when you force an officer to make a split second decision about what he's seeing.

So basically you need to treat cops like you would treat dangerous predators?

If your neigbourhood were crawling with mountain lions, you would probably be well served to try to remove them to a place where they have less interaction with humans.

It astonishes me that you can say shit like this and not grasp that you are describing a police force that neither serves nor protects the wider public.

The public should not have to fear the police; The entire point of having police is to reduce public fears of becoming a victim.

Predators? In general the most dangerous animals are the large herbivores. When dealing with wildlife the default reaction is to consider us to be a large predator. Everything out there will normally react that way. The mountain lion will look at an adult and decide that while they could win it might not be a flawless victory--and kitty really doesn't want to get hurt getting his meal so he's not in shape to get the next one. If the herbivore assesses the situation as no escape they are liable to attack even against something they regard as superior to them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Looking at Derec’s comparisons it seems that pleading guilty leads to substantially less strict outcomes than being convicted by a jury.

To be expected. If you would fare as badly in a plea deal as with a jury why would you take the plea?

So, it would seem a bad comparison between the outcomes of two cases in which one defendant pled guilty and took a deal and the pled innocent and took it to trial and was found guilty. Right?

Yup. Expect to see a fair discrepancy in sentencing.

 

[bilby]

They seem to have little problem against unarmed individuals when they feel scared of a mentally disturbed person or someone with a knife or someone reaching for their registration.

Police are human. They make mistakes. That said, instances of "someone reaching for their registration" or similar getting shot are very rare. Armed and/or mentally disturbed people can be dangerous, however, so I do not see why you are lumping these two very different scenarios together.

And almost all such situations can be avoided by not being confrontational and not doing sudden moves. You get trouble when you force an officer to make a split second decision about what he's seeing.

So basically you need to treat cops like you would treat dangerous predators?

If your neigbourhood were crawling with mountain lions, you would probably be well served to try to remove them to a place where they have less interaction with humans.

It astonishes me that you can say shit like this and not grasp that you are describing a police force that neither serves nor protects the wider public.

The public should not have to fear the police; The entire point of having police is to reduce public fears of becoming a victim.

Predators? In general the most dangerous animals are the large herbivores. When dealing with wildlife the default reaction is to consider us to be a large predator. Everything out there will normally react that way. The mountain lion will look at an adult and decide that while they could win it might not be a flawless victory--and kitty really doesn't want to get hurt getting his meal so he's not in shape to get the next one. If the herbivore assesses the situation as no escape they are liable to attack even against something they regard as superior to them.

Glad to see that you understood my point, and didn't let it sail over your head at stratospheric altitude.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They seem to have little problem against unarmed individuals when they feel scared of a mentally disturbed person or someone with a knife or someone reaching for their registration.

Police are human. They make mistakes. That said, instances of "someone reaching for their registration" or similar getting shot are very rare. Armed and/or mentally disturbed people can be dangerous, however, so I do not see why you are lumping these two very different scenarios together.

And almost all such situations can be avoided by not being confrontational and not doing sudden moves. You get trouble when you force an officer to make a split second decision about what he's seeing.

So basically you need to treat cops like you would treat dangerous predators?

If your neigbourhood were crawling with mountain lions, you would probably be well served to try to remove them to a place where they have less interaction with humans.

It astonishes me that you can say shit like this and not grasp that you are describing a police force that neither serves nor protects the wider public.

The public should not have to fear the police; The entire point of having police is to reduce public fears of becoming a victim.

Predators? In general the most dangerous animals are the large herbivores. When dealing with wildlife the default reaction is to consider us to be a large predator. Everything out there will normally react that way. The mountain lion will look at an adult and decide that while they could win it might not be a flawless victory--and kitty really doesn't want to get hurt getting his meal so he's not in shape to get the next one. If the herbivore assesses the situation as no escape they are liable to attack even against something they regard as superior to them.

Glad to see that you understood my point, and didn't let it sail over your head at stratospheric altitude.

What I understood is that you don't understand the basic rule for dealing with encounters: don't act like a predator. Doesn't matter who it's with, there's almost no situation improved by acting like a predator.

 

[laughing dog]

They seem to have little problem against unarmed individuals when they feel scared of a mentally disturbed person or someone with a knife or someone reaching for their registration.

Police are human. They make mistakes. That said, instances of "someone reaching for their registration" or similar getting shot are very rare. Armed and/or mentally disturbed people can be dangerous, however, so I do not see why you are lumping these two very different scenarios together.

And almost all such situations can be avoided by not being confrontational and not doing sudden moves. You get trouble when you force an officer to make a split second decision about what he's seeing.

So basically you need to treat cops like you would treat dangerous predators?

If your neigbourhood were crawling with mountain lions, you would probably be well served to try to remove them to a place where they have less interaction with humans.

It astonishes me that you can say shit like this and not grasp that you are describing a police force that neither serves nor protects the wider public.

The public should not have to fear the police; The entire point of having police is to reduce public fears of becoming a victim.

Predators? In general the most dangerous animals are the large herbivores. When dealing with wildlife the default reaction is to consider us to be a large predator. Everything out there will normally react that way. The mountain lion will look at an adult and decide that while they could win it might not be a flawless victory--and kitty really doesn't want to get hurt getting his meal so he's not in shape to get the next one. If the herbivore assesses the situation as no escape they are liable to attack even against something they regard as superior to them.

Glad to see that you understood my point, and didn't let it sail over your head at stratospheric altitude.

What I understood is that you don't understand the basic rule for dealing with encounters: don't act like a predator. Doesn't matter who it's with, there's almost no situation improved by acting like a predator.

You actively defend the police acting like predators. Hmmm.

 

[Patooka]

You actively defend the police acting like predators. Hmmm.

You might be wrong. Loren might just think it's okay to have natural predators as law enforcement officers, So not train people into that mindset but encourage such people to "join the force" so to speak.

I mean, every wants to be a hero in their own story, right? Who gives a flying fuck how many incident reports you massage? Amirite?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They seem to have little problem against unarmed individuals when they feel scared of a mentally disturbed person or someone with a knife or someone reaching for their registration.

Police are human. They make mistakes. That said, instances of "someone reaching for their registration" or similar getting shot are very rare. Armed and/or mentally disturbed people can be dangerous, however, so I do not see why you are lumping these two very different scenarios together.

And almost all such situations can be avoided by not being confrontational and not doing sudden moves. You get trouble when you force an officer to make a split second decision about what he's seeing.

So basically you need to treat cops like you would treat dangerous predators?

If your neigbourhood were crawling with mountain lions, you would probably be well served to try to remove them to a place where they have less interaction with humans.

It astonishes me that you can say shit like this and not grasp that you are describing a police force that neither serves nor protects the wider public.

The public should not have to fear the police; The entire point of having police is to reduce public fears of becoming a victim.

Predators? In general the most dangerous animals are the large herbivores. When dealing with wildlife the default reaction is to consider us to be a large predator. Everything out there will normally react that way. The mountain lion will look at an adult and decide that while they could win it might not be a flawless victory--and kitty really doesn't want to get hurt getting his meal so he's not in shape to get the next one. If the herbivore assesses the situation as no escape they are liable to attack even against something they regard as superior to them.

Glad to see that you understood my point, and didn't let it sail over your head at stratospheric altitude.

What I understood is that you don't understand the basic rule for dealing with encounters: don't act like a predator. Doesn't matter who it's with, there's almost no situation improved by acting like a predator.

You actively defend the police acting like predators. Hmmm.

Pay attention!!

I was comparing the police to large herbivores. Not to predators! The closest wildlife encounter I have had has been with a horse--and my response to the police would be the same as it was to that horse.

 

[SLD]

Another interesting article about the gender gap, but downplaying the female vote for Harris.

Is there really a ‘gender gap’ in the US election?

When it comes to winning over women, the divide between Harris and Trump might be closer than it seems.

www.spiked-online.com

He notes that polls may overstate Harris’s support, because of the negative perception a vote for Trump is amongst women. They are labeled as “internalized misogyny” or being garbage, deplorable, Nazi, or fascist. So they tell pollsters they support Harris.

I want to be optimistic, but I just don’t see it happening. Trump will win. Sad.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Another interesting article about the gender gap, but downplaying the female vote for Harris.

Is there really a ‘gender gap’ in the US election?

When it comes to winning over women, the divide between Harris and Trump might be closer than it seems.

www.spiked-online.com

He notes that polls may overstate Harris’s support, because of the negative perception a vote for Trump is amongst women. They are labeled as “internalized misogyny” or being garbage, deplorable, Nazi, or fascist. So they tell pollsters they support Harris.

I want to be optimistic, but I just don’t see it happening. Trump will win. Sad.

I remember thinking in 2016 that many conservative women would go into the polling booth and secretly vote for Hillary. There was no way women would vote for such a reprehensible pig that demeaned them and was quite clear about taking away many of their rights and protections.

That was some bad copium on my part. I'll never smoke that shit again.

 

[laughing dog]

You actively defend the police acting like predators. Hmmm.

Pay attention!!

I was comparing the police to large herbivores. Not to predators! The closest wildlife encounter I have had has been with a horse--and my response to the police would be the same as it was to that horse.

Pay attention yourself. The sentence I wrote means that when police act like predators, you defend them. And according to you, those actions lend themselves to poor outcomes. Yet you defend them.

 

[SLD]

And another interesting article about Latino voters in Pennsylvania and how Trump has carefully courted them, while the democrats have taken them for granted.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/11/04/latinos-decide-election-pennsylvania-00186534

Sad. A miracle may happen. All of these polls and articles could be wrong. But I fear that Harris is such a poor candidate, and Biden was just too old and dropped out way too late. A year ago, I thought he shouldn’t run, and that Harris should not either. Make a back room deal where she gets to stay as veep, and pick a stronger candidate who would have a much broader appeal and came across more boldly than her. Then when she was nominated I thought she should pick Shapiro. She didn’t, going for Walz, a good guy, but a governor of a fairly solid blue state. He didn’t help her ticket secure a needed swing state.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Another interesting article about the gender gap, but downplaying the female vote for Harris.

Is there really a ‘gender gap’ in the US election?

When it comes to winning over women, the divide between Harris and Trump might be closer than it seems.

www.spiked-online.com

He notes that polls may overstate Harris’s support, because of the negative perception a vote for Trump is amongst women. They are labeled as “internalized misogyny” or being garbage, deplorable, Nazi, or fascist. So they tell pollsters they support Harris.

Okay what?!

There is a gender gap. There has been a gender gap for a while. I always skip right to the exit polls in General Elections and do the math on male and female voters to tell who won the state. Women almost always vote more Democrat than men. This is caused by two things.

1) Minority women vote en masse for Democrats. Black women it is something like 9 in 10.
2) White women don't vote in majority for Republicans as much as white men.

I want to be optimistic, but I just don’t see it happening. Trump will win. Sad.

As I've said, there is a poll for everyone this year. Trump could be Dewey tomorrow night.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And another interesting article about Latino voters in Pennsylvania and how Trump has carefully courted them, while the democrats have taken them for granted.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/11/04/latinos-decide-election-pennsylvania-00186534

Sad. A miracle may happen. All of these polls and articles could be wrong. But I fear that Harris is such a poor candidate, and Biden was just too old and dropped out way too late. A year ago, I thought he shouldn’t run, and that Harris should not either. Make a back room deal where she gets to stay as veep, and pick a stronger candidate who would have a much broader appeal and came across more boldly than her. Then when she was nominated I thought she should pick Shapiro. She didn’t, going for Walz, a good guy, but a governor of a fairly solid blue state. He didn’t help her ticket secure a needed swing state.

Walz was selected for Wisconsin and Michigan with crossover appeal to Pennsylvania. I doubt the DNC is taking a single vote for granted. 2016 happened. Trump is trying to get every bigoted vote available among the minorities. To me this is both evidence of Trump's desperation as internal polling is falling or he found a new niche and this direction will help him win.

 

[SLD]

Another interesting article about the gender gap, but downplaying the female vote for Harris.

Is there really a ‘gender gap’ in the US election?

When it comes to winning over women, the divide between Harris and Trump might be closer than it seems.

www.spiked-online.com

He notes that polls may overstate Harris’s support, because of the negative perception a vote for Trump is amongst women. They are labeled as “internalized misogyny” or being garbage, deplorable, Nazi, or fascist. So they tell pollsters they support Harris.

Okay what?!

There is a gender gap. There has been a gender gap for a while. I always skip right to the exit polls in General Elections and do the math on male and female voters to tell who won the state. Women almost always vote more Democrat than men. This is caused by two things.

1) Minority women vote en masse for Democrats. Black women it is something like 9 in 10.
2) White women don't vote in majority for Republicans as much as white men.

I want to be optimistic, but I just don’t see it happening. Trump will win. Sad.

As I've said, there is a poll for everyone this year. Trump could be Dewey tomorrow night.

I do hope you’re right. But the article is saying that there’s not a gender gap, or at least not as large as has been predicted.

If you are right, I will be happy to buy a beer!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Another interesting article about the gender gap, but downplaying the female vote for Harris.

Is there really a ‘gender gap’ in the US election?

When it comes to winning over women, the divide between Harris and Trump might be closer than it seems.

www.spiked-online.com

He notes that polls may overstate Harris’s support, because of the negative perception a vote for Trump is amongst women. They are labeled as “internalized misogyny” or being garbage, deplorable, Nazi, or fascist. So they tell pollsters they support Harris.

Okay what?!

There is a gender gap. There has been a gender gap for a while. I always skip right to the exit polls in General Elections and do the math on male and female voters to tell who won the state. Women almost always vote more Democrat than men. This is caused by two things.

1) Minority women vote en masse for Democrats. Black women it is something like 9 in 10.
2) White women don't vote in majority for Republicans as much as white men.

I want to be optimistic, but I just don’t see it happening. Trump will win. Sad.

As I've said, there is a poll for everyone this year. Trump could be Dewey tomorrow night.

I do hope you’re right. But the article is saying that there’s not a gender gap, or at least not as large as has been predicted.

A gender gap isn't a certainty that Harris wins. But the idea it doesn't exist seems preposterous as most of the Exit Polls I've seen over the years indicate it very much does exist and I'm uncertain why it is being questioned. Be like asking whether there is a gap with Hispanic voters.

In 2020 Arizona had a small gap. Pennsylvania was much larger. Iowa had a large gap, but Trump easily won the state.

 

[Elixir]

Trump could be Dewey tomorrow night.

 

[SLD]

Here’s a third interesting article for the day. 10 reasons why Trump will win and 10 why Harris will.

10 reasons both Harris and Trump can be hopeful of victory

Polls suggest the race is deadlocked - but if one candidate pulls away, these factors could explain why.

www.bbc.com

For both it’s ultimately about turnout. Seems to me that Trump has the edge with turnout. Harris is just too cautious and too uninspiring to get the turnout.

 

[Gospel]

You underestimate how Trump encourages turn out for both tickets.

 

[Ford]

You underestimate how Trump encourages turn out for both tickets.

I go back to the days when we used to put on concerts and music festivals. It was always a nail-biter. Advance ticket sales were a disaster for some shows. Promoters yelling at us when we'd only sold a few thousand tickets a few days before the event. Then the "walk-up" would blow all that out of the water, and instead of a few thousand, we'd wind up with ten thousand or more. I admit it's just a "vibe," but it seems like that to me right now.