2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
The chief of the police? Every 4/5 years (depending on your jurisdiction frequency of vote) and/or the mayor (or interior ministry representative for the city depending on arrangements) is personally (and legally) responsible for it.
And the officers under him/her can continue to wield considerable power over you undemocratically - doesn't sound like what you wanted.
Ye gorgo keep defending keeping schools closed for longer than all other first world countries even after vaccination was available, try this during this election cycle, gonna work wonders to convince the undecided.
We've been over this before and you've been shown to be utterly clueless. Quite demonstrably so. You didn't even know that schools routinely closed down because of the FLU before covid ever happened. You just know nothing. Nothing you say here matters.
One in 4 women is expected to have an abortion in their life, so that's 1/8 people, meaning 7/8 people never need that, and among that 1/8 some are the exceptions allowed in all jurisdictions, some in most jurisdictions and so on.
So the affected people are less than 1/10 of the population, unlike sale taxes that hit you and every single other individual in the country several times per month for the entirety of your life.
Since you avoided the question, I'll ask again. Did you mean to say "normal people never need an abortion?" or would you like to rephrase that?
I also noticed you avoided telling us what you think the defund the police movement was about. Do these questions make you uncomfortable or something?
And the officers under him/her can continue to wield considerable power over you undemocratically - doesn't sound like what you wanted.
Did you read the part where i ask for everyone being fire-able at will under the elected representative? but anyway if your police chief is against you, you don't wield any power against the people anymore, you end up in a desk in a shitty office in a shitty area of the country with 0 power.
Still bad because we have to pay you, but you are easily neutralized if elected officials want to neutralize you.
Unlike physicians with no political supervision.
We've been over this before and you've been shown to be utterly clueless. Quite demonstrably so. You didn't even know that schools routinely closed down because of the FLU before covid ever happened. You just know nothing. Nothing you say here matters.
Since you avoided the question, I'll ask again. Did you mean to say "normal people never need an abortion?" or would you like to rephrase that?
I also noticed you avoided telling us what you think the defund the police movement was about. Do these q
normal people = more than half of the population. Normal. Median. "the random individual". I helped you understand that: less than 1/8 of the population ever needs an abortion, less than 1/10 ever needs an abortion excluding exceptions that are allowed to abort in most jurisdictions.
Normal people don't care about X -> X only affects a minority of the population.
Defund the police was about reducing funds for the police, which caused automatically as the totality of normal people knew, an increase in crime. Which is , you know, kinda bad, for NORMAL PEOPLE.
normal people = more than half of the population. Normal. Median. "the random individual".
Yeah, that's not what normal means. I'm going to chalk this up to a language issue. You mean that more than half the population will not need an abortion, that's perfectly valid, if completely useless thing to say, since half the population is male.
JFC man.
Even if it's a small proportion of people that ever need abortions, EVERYONE needs access to abortions in case they are in that minority. Your point, in addition to being poorly stated, is colossally stupid and wrong.
Defund the police was about reducing funds for the police, which caused automatically as the totality of normal people knew, an increase in crime. Which is , you know, kinda bad, for NORMAL PEOPLE.
I'm quite interested in your source demonstrating that in places where police were defunded as a result of this movement that crime increased.
3/4 of women NEVER need an abortion according to PRO ABORTION sources.
That's 1/8 of the population
/
Fact Check Team: Cities that called to 'defund police' grappling with crime surge boost police funding amid staffing shortfalls
Fact Check Team: Cities that called to 'defund police' grappling with crime surge boost police funding amid staffing shortfalls
That article cites crime rising in ONE city. ONE. And that was after decreasing the year before (2022 and 2023, after the defund movement in 2021).
Sure defund the police works wonders. Use that as well with undecided people in this election.
Am I supposed to be keeping a running tally of the claims you abandon your burden of proof with by employing that phrase? Can you fathom that a bit of information's ability to persuade one side to vote a certain way has no bearing on its factual accuracy?
Or is it that you just aren't interested in factual accuracy (that certainly seems to be the case).
More of why I don't trust these prediction sites right now. Here's 538, who gives Trump a slight advantage to win in Pennsylvania. Here is a list of polls specifically for Pennsylvania that were used to reach this conclusion:
I have highlighted in red the OBVIOUS problematic polls. The ones with red diamonds are conservative-funded. The ones without but still highlighted are opt-in internet polls which can easily be skewed by link sharing.
Every one of those favors Trump. If you remove those th
Exclude all the R biased polls you want and make a model. It will say it’s a flip.
Maybe you're congenitally incapable of understanding this, but some people care about other people even if they aren't closely related to them.
Luciom has made it very clear that he believes this sort of thinking is a life leak. See below:
I'm talking about demonstrably biased or vulnerable to flooding via link sharing. Nothing to do with what I consider or don't consider.
If you'd like to know, just apply those rules and go through the polls yourself. I don't need that info, so I don't know it. I just need to know not trust prediction sites that don't exclude biased and low quality polls.
It's always projection.
It always takes 2 seconds. This is what debunking looks like.
"The policies concerning the use of force by DOD addressed in [the directive] are not new, and do not authorize the DOD to use lethal force against U.S. citizens or people located inside the United States, contrary to rumors and rhetoric circulating on social media," Department of Defense spokesperson Sue Gough told Newsweek.
"While the paragraph that's been most frequently referenced on social media is new to this directive, it does not reflect any change to DOD's policy regarding the use of lethal force by DOD personnel."
https://www.cip.uw.edu/2024/10/18/rumors...
Since we published this rapid research post, experts and officials have weighed in on the nature of the DoD directive. Simply put, the directive does not grant the military any new powers that don’t already exist.
As reported in the War Horse, “Contrary to claims online, DOD Directive 5240.01, which had last been updated in 2020, does not grant any new powers to the military. That’s not how military directives work. Like them or not, all military policies are subject to U.S. law; they do not create new legal authorities.”
In a rare move, the DoD pushed back by offering comment to journalists given the spread of the rumor. “The policies concerning the use of force by DOD addressed in DoDD 5240.01 are not new, and do not authorize the DOD to use lethal force against U.S. citizens or people located inside the United States, contrary to rumors and rhetoric circulating on social media,” Gough said in a statement to The Associated Press.
Experts from the Brennan Center published in Just Security: “In reality, while some of the legal authorities governing domestic deployment of the military lack sufficient safeguards and are in urgent need of reform, the changes to this directive do not reflect any change in DoD policy and provide no new authority to deploy the military domestically or to use lethal force in such deployments.” The authors note that there are good reasons to be concerned about the federal government’s power to use armed forces domestically, but this directive’s new language is not one of the them; the point of their report on how the Insurrection Act poses a far greater danger.
THE ANSWER
This is false.
No, a new Department of Defense directive does not authorize the military to use lethal force on civilians.
WHAT WE FOUND
Department of Defense Directive 5240.01 (DoDD 5240.01), which online posts reference, was updated in late September. But contrary to viral claims, the updated directive does not give the military power to use lethal force against civilians, according to a DOD spokesperson and two national security experts.
DoDD 5240.01, which was updated and reissued on Sept. 27, 2024, lays out policies for instances when Department of Defense intelligence components, such as the National Security Agency (NSA), may offer assistance to law enforcement agencies.
But the directive does not make any changes to existing federal law about the military participating in law enforcement and its requirements aren’t new.
“The provisions in DoDD 5240.01 are not new, and do not authorize the Secretary of Defense to use lethal force against U.S. citizens, contrary to rumors and rhetoric circulating on social media,” Sue Gough, a spokesperson for the Department of Defense, told VERIFY.
Joseph Nunn and Elizabeth Goitein, two national security experts with the Brennan Center for Justice, agree.
The updated directive does not “reflect any change in DOD policy,” and it doesn’t provide any “new authority to deploy the military domestically or to use lethal force in such deployments,” they wrote in an article for Just Security, which was published on Friday, Oct. 25.
Department of Defense directives are not laws or executive orders – they are policy statements. In other words, these directives can’t make something legal if it isn’t authorized under federal law or by the Constitution, Nunn and Goitein explained.
Existing federal law called the Posse Comitatus Act “bars federal military forces from participating in law enforcement unless doing so is expressly authorized by Congress,” according to Nunn and Goitein. The directive can’t make any changes to this law.
What the updated DOD directive says about lethal force
Many of the false online claims refer to the newly added paragraph 3.3.a.(2)(c) of DoDD 5240.01. But the language doesn’t authorize the military to use lethal force against civilians, as posts claim.
That section of the directive says the Secretary of Defense needs to give their approval before military intelligence components offer certain kinds of assistance to law enforcement agencies, including:
“Assistance in responding with assets with potential for lethality, or any situation in which it is reasonably foreseeable that providing the requested assistance may involve the use of force that is likely to result in lethal force, including death or serious bodily injury. It also includes all support to civilian law enforcement officials in situations where a confrontation between civilian law enforcement and civilian individuals or groups is reasonably anticipated. Such use of force must be in accordance with DoDD 5210.56, potentially as further restricted based on the specifics of the requested support.”
This is also not a change to DOD policy.
That’s because the language isn’t new to DOD directives. Some of the language added to DoDD 5240.01 already appears in a more general directive – DoDD 3025.18 – and has been included since at least 2018, according to Nunn and Goitein.
The DOD’s policy regarding the use of lethal force, which is addressed in another directive that was last updated in 2020, also hasn’t changed, Gough confirmed.
DoDD 5210.56, which is titled “Arming and the Use of Force,” says the use of deadly force “is justified only when there is a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to a person,” or under other other circumstances outlined in the directive. Those include protecting assets that are vital to national security, inherently dangerous property and national critical infrastructure.
“If less than deadly force could reasonably be expected to accomplish the same result without unreasonably increasing the danger to armed DOD personnel or to others, then it should be used,” the directive says.
If you are a powerful lobby , it means you are a relevant part of society (definitionally) so in a democracy you deserve to have power.
Why competent people would ever want to work where they can be fired at will? all the best sectors of the economy have those rules lol. You think you can stay at amazon if the manager hates you?
Political affiliation in agencies that act politically IS SKILL. Your political attitude IS WHAT MATTERS when you have the power to decide who to sue for example.
BS.
just mean you have more cash !
many corporations benefits do not concord withe majority of population interest !
which explains exactly today situation u complain about money having to much power....
Money do not equal democracy .
And its a strange stance coming from a guy who believe in deep state...
If an entity employees can be fired at will by an elected representative, that entity is very much directly controlled by the vote.
Compared that to UK judges for example.
So every supreme court judges could be changed every election .
You just have no idea how bad your ideas are sometimes.
it will just enhance people to protect their job by agreeing nonsense politicians wishes (politicians arent expert in every subjects) that will go against efficiency, skill ,etc at the expense of trying to stay in power .
Btw arent you on the side that government are extremely bad in almost everything they do and you want them to increase their power ?
wtf...
Exclude all the R biased polls you want and make a model. It will say it’s a flip.
I’m kinda down for models and betting odds favoring trump cuz it’s kind of a rubber meets the road sort of thing where you’re going into this vote no longer protesting with a Harambe vote or some bullshit operating under the assumption harris wins ala 2016 or Brexit. You’re eyes wide open trump can win. If you’re gonna vote or not vote accordingly so be it
