The point is that absolute risk is not the only consideration. You make a good argument for why one should not tolerate any police shootings, regardless of the actual risk. Someone could also make argument for why one should not tolerate any terrorism (or for that matter, any crime at all), regardless of the actual risk. It’s not the same argument as yours, but it leads to a similar conclusion: they are both felt as a violation or injustice. In contrast, heart attacks and car accidents are merely a misfortune.
What? Nobody argues that the solution to wrongful police shootings is to fire all police and make sure they never work again. But the solution to wrongful terrorism is to blanket punish all those refugees (wrongfully) alleged to be associated with the terrorists? Are we completely governing by FEARS AND FEELINGS now?
I think systematically we have a chance to help minimize the abuse of power at the police level but on a deeper level, these issues aren’t remotely the same issue. I don’t think it’s a fair comparison although I understand that perhaps on a mathematical level the risks might be comparable. I am guessing though even at a numbers level, police killing would far outweigh the amount of people killed by external terrorists, not our homegrown nuts.
[quote=“sillhouette, post:362, topic:128165”]
But the solution to wrongful terrorism is to blanket punish all those refugees (wrongfully) alleged to be associated with the terrorists? [/quote]
I wasn’t defending that solution. I was simply arguing against the idea that a system with a very small risk of serious adverse events should always be regarded as “good”. That depends entirely on your perspective. The Ferguson PD has a very small risk of adverse events, but I do not regard it as good.
Whether and how a system can be improved is separate question.
Well, I think this is the key issue. A system with adverse events is not “good” if there is a relatively easy way to reduce those events. And that’s regardless of the actual risk.
So if there were a magic wand that could prevent one terrorist incident every ten years, but it sat unused in an drawer because some officer didn’t want to spend five seconds waving it every morning - well, that’s a bad security system. There is an easy way to improve it, even though the risk is already small and the improvement is even smaller.
Of course, there is no magic wand. That’s where the real debate lies.
As a dude with 3 kids, I appreciate anyone willing to do stuff like that.
Agreed. That’s one of the first things I’ve seen or heard about him that makes me like the guy a bit. That’s really cool.
God damnit, was literally about to post “and Hitler liked dogs.”
hashtagdailygodwin
C’mon, guys. It humanizes him. That’s a good thing.
edit: Spicer, that is. Fuck Hitler.
Marry Mao, kill… ?
Stalin?
Yeah but Uncle Joe would give a way better mustache ride.
I’ll take ‘thoughts I didn’t need as I left for work’ for $1000 Alex
I think we’ve found your new forum member quote. Tom, pretty please? :)
“I think there’s no question when you have eight years of one party in office that there are people who stay in government who are affiliated with, joined and continue to espouse the agenda of the previous administration,” he said. “So I don’t think it should come as any surprise that there are people that burrowed into government during the eight years of the last administration and, you know, may have believed that agenda and want to continue to seek it."
“I don’t think that should come as a surprise to anyone,” he added.
Trump and Bannon would undoubtedly have called Deep Throat glaring evidence of an American Deep State. Felt was a Hoover loyalist; he oversaw the F.B.I.’s pursuit of radical groups like the Weather Underground and instituted illegal searches, known as “black-bag jobs.” Yet he was deeply offended that the President and his top aides ran what constituted a criminal operation out of the White House, and he risked everything to guide Woodward. The level of risk became clear in October, 1972, when Nixon’s aide H. R. Haldeman told him that Felt was the likely source. “Now, why the hell would he do that?” Nixon said. “Is he Catholic?” “Jewish,” Haldeman replied. “Christ, [they] put a Jew in there,” Nixon said. “That could explain it, too.” (It didn’t, quite. Felt was not Jewish.)
The problem in Washington is not a Deep State; the problem is a shallow man—an untruthful, vain, vindictive, alarmingly erratic President. In order to pass fair and proper judgment, the public deserves a full airing of everything from Trump’s tax returns and business entanglements to an accounting of whether he has been, in some way, compromised. Journalists can, and will, do a lot. But the courts, law enforcement, and Congress—without fear or favor—are responsible for such an investigation. Only if government officials take to heart their designation as “public servants” will justice prevail.
I wonder if his insurance covers that walking boot? How’d he injure himself? Foot stuck in mouth?
‘If he’s not joking’: Sean Spicer loses it when NBC reporter asks ‘when can we trust the president?’
Alexander noted at Monday’s White House press briefing that then-candidate Trump had called unemployment reports “phony,” but he touted the same numbers after taking office.
“You said, ‘They may have been phony in the past but it’s very real now,'” Alexander said, quoting Spicer’s words back to him. “When should Americans trust the president? Should they trust the president, is it phony or real when he says President Obama was wiretapped?”
“He doesn’t really think that President Obama went up and tapped his phone personally,” Spicer explained. “But there’s no question that the Obama administration, that there were actions about surveillance and other activities that occurred in the 2016 election. That is a widely reported activity that occurred back then.”
“The president used the word wiretapping,” the press secretary continued, gesturing air quotes, “to mean, broadly, surveillance and other activities during that.”
Alexander turned to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates on the impacts of health care reform, which have been attacked by the White House.
“I guess the question is when can we trust the president, when he says something is phony or when he says it’s real?” the reporter wondered.
“You asked a question about CBO and now you’re conflating [it] with a question of the president,” Spicer complained.
“The question in simple terms is, when he says something, can we trust that it’s real?” Alexander said again. “Or should we assume that it’s phony?”
“Trust that it’s real!” Spicer insisted.
“How can we believe that it’s real when you just told us that’s it’s phony?” Alexander shot back.
“I did not tell you that,” Spicer said.
“You told us on Friday that the president said that the [unemployment] numbers were phony then but they’re very real now,” Alexander observed.
“I think the difference is the president was talking then and now about job creation,” Spicer snapped. “The number of jobs. The issue that he brought up in the quote that you’re talking about was the percentage of people unemployed. And there is no question that no matter how you look at this, whether you talk about 4.7 or 4.8 [percent] or whatever the number is, that number fluctuates by how people calculate who’s in the workforce.”
“The bottom line is the percentage of people who are unemployed varies widely by who you’re asking and the way you do the analysis of who’s actually in the workforce,” the press secretary continued. “The number of people in the workforce who are working and are receiving a paycheck is a number that we can look at. Secondly, when you’re asking about the validity of the CBO report, again, I’ll refer you to the CBO itself. The number that they issue that would be insured in 2016 was 26 million people… The actual number is 10.4.”
“It’s not a question of our credibility. It’s a question of theirs.”
Alexander replied: “The bottom line is the question is still not answered. Can you say affirmatively that whenever the president says something, we can trust it to be real?”
“If he’s not joking!” Spicer exclaimed.
I see and I hear this all the time from Spicer, from Conway and from others. "… widely reported in the media… "
YES. The media foolishly ‘reported’ on your moronic utterances and tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories. This ‘reporting’ is akin to everyone sniggering behind your back at what an ass you’re making of yourselves. It’s the stuff of memes. You don’t get to count it as actual journalism. In no way does it reinforce the notion that there is one ounce of truth in it.