https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction#By_the_U...
> If you're wondering why DEA and US Marshal's Service have been given authority to conduct covert surveillance of protestors, it's likely because they have planes outfitted with Dirtboxes - powerful stingray devices that collect data on phones from the air
Of course the current US constitution is V2.
Believe it or not, it's by design.
Student leaders were put under close surveillance by the authorities, traffic cameras were used to perform surveillance on the square and the restaurants in the nearby area and where students gathered were wiretapped.[108] This surveillance led to the identification, capture and punishment of participants of the protest.[109] After the massacre, the government did thorough interrogations at work units, institutions and schools to identify who had been at the protest.[110]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...
I think maybe a better use of the public outrage of cancel-culture might be to direct that call-out energy from celebrities to police that commit manslaughter.
Next step might be getting pictures on such a website.
There are many potential improvements, from algorithmic redistricting to mail-in voting, but the big one IMO is Ranked Choice Voting (Maine has already achieved this successfully, and it's stood up against court challenges [0]). This allows us to break the R/D duopoly, and shift the incentives towards big-tent consensus-building rather than demonization and "lesser evilism", and giving independents and third parties a real path to victory.
[0] https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/upcoming/rankedchoicefaq....
[0] https://thefulcrum.us/worst-gerrymandering-districts-example...
[1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-hate-gerrymanderinge...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/28/how-m...
[3] https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/commentary/hypocr...
[4] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-nuclear-filibuster-ru...
[5] https://time.com/3701079/obama-filibuster/
If we don’t wanna go there that’s fine I suppose, I just want to know where we’re gonna draw the line between “deflection” and having a substantive discussion on the gamesmanship going on inside the beltway without devolving into the usual brutish “my side good, your side bad”.
For example, the police is very much controlled locally. Do you have real civilian oversight? There are a host of policies that are mostly enacted locally that are recommended by this org: https://www.joincampaignzero.org/
For a substantive discussion on gamesmanship, we need to ask "Which side is most likely to work to end partisan gerrymandering (perhaps with a change to a more proportional voting system[1])?"
[0] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/republicans-ger...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2018_Maine_Question_1
It’s just seems to me the problem many have when this type of conversation emerges isn’t with the behavior, it’s the actor and that doesn’t quite square with me.
“Don’t hate the player, hate the game”. If gerrymandering is a “threat to democracy”[0], seems to me we should be critiquing anyone who plays that game instead of waiting for our team’s turn to ratfuck the country the country by the same measure. That signals either the rules were a problem to begin with and we should have changed them long ago, or we kept them in place knowing they were being taken advantage of and just waiting for our team to get the ball back-does it not?
But that’s just merely one example, it’s not representative of the totality of Capitol Hill politicking. Arguably one party is focused and pushing a message of progress and righting social ills but I’m not going to let them off when they play stupid games either, nor should anyone IMO.
[0] https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659745042/gerrymandering-is-a...
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/conspiracy_commons/comments/gin79z/...
https://sirota.substack.com/p/10-things-dems-could-do-right-...
https://www.inforum.com/news/government-and-politics/6492174...
https://qz.com/1458475/the-dea-and-ice-are-hiding-surveillan...
https://reason.com/2012/07/11/dea-quietly-builds-its-network...
Some time in the past, certainly at FDR’s time, dems were confident about stacking the court. What changed to defang them? The dem’s actions while Merrick Garland was denied hearings infuriate me until today: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obst...
People take less notice of transgressions when their party is in power. As much as we might like to think there’s universal recognition of the current administration’s misuse of power there’s a lot of people who support it - “to get things done”. People just hate it when it’s not the things they want.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-lim...
B-34 et infra, p.B-6 FM 3-19.15 https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf (esp B-54)
I have no idea what the most recent incarnation of GARDEN PLOT may be, the above is what I found in a quick search. But I'd hope that at this point the DOD is more likely to side with the population than other agencies, and work-to-rule if need be.
Anyone know of an online copy of DA Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2?
https://anacyclosis.org/2020/05/25/how-do-we-save-democracy/
TL;DR;
Re-align the interest of the rich so they have a strong financial interest in the middle class doing better. By having a progressive tax pegged to the median income of Americans.
An example from Minneapolis, from a City Council member:
https://twitter.com/MplsWard3/status/1267891878801915904
> Politicians who cross the MPD find slowdowns in their wards. After the first time I cut money from the proposed police budget, I had an uptick in calls taking forever to get a response, and MPD officers telling business owners to call their councilman about why it took so long.
"If Trump were inclined to overstay his term, the levers of power work in favor of removal. Because the president immediately and automatically loses his constitutional authority upon expiration of his term or after removal through impeachment, he would lack the power to direct the U.S. Secret Service or other federal agents to protect him. He would likewise lose his power, as the commander in chief of the armed forces, to order a military response to defend him. In fact, the newly minted president would possess those presidential powers. If necessary, the successor could direct federal agents to forcibly remove Trump from the White House. Now a private citizen, Trump would no longer be immune from criminal prosecution, and could be arrested and charged with trespassing in the White House. While even former presidents enjoy Secret Service protection, agents presumably would not follow an illegal order to protect one from removal from office."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/what-if-he...
Actually, that is specifically the reason some supermajority rules were lifted [1]. Do you recall Merrick Garland?
The filibuster is abused similarly [2].
[1]: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obst...
[2]: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2013/11/21/char...
https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/graph/png/Filibust...
We're in a pretty bad place and I'm not sure how we get out of it.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-gop-and-police-unions-a-lo...
> When Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker cracked down on collective bargaining rights of public-sector unions, he exempted cops and fire fighters. He feared the police might go on strike and join the protestors. Videos of that pairing could have doomed Walker’s entire effort. “It’s a decision by politicians not to bite off more than they can chew,” explains James Sherk, a labor policy expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Their impunity to civilian oversight should be concerning to both parties. You're not hearing much concern from the Republicans on this right now.
1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
Edit: So, rights have to be enumerated by a country's founding documents, and then protected by that country's government. Ultimately, though, the people are responsible to establish their own freedom when no freedom exists.
Black people don't have the exclusive claim of persecution by police in the US. In fact, they suffer far fewer death by cop than white people. [1] Why do they feel they are singled out? Could it be a victim-stance mentality?
1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
A larger than should be expected percentage of them are black. And this of course doesn't include harassment or other indignities inflicted on black people because of race. Also not those abuses by non police because of race.
It should be noted some number of these killings were entirely appropriate to protect life.
The point is, even though we have problems, and as this points out, we clearly do, the chance of being killed by the police for being black is very very small.
So rhetoric about "privilege" aside, ya, there is a lot of opportunity for people. Very few people go hungry in the US. There is general freedom of movement, freedom to vote, freedom to own property, some semblance of legal protection. Contrast that to say for example Boco Haram or Europe in 900AD or Baghdad during the Mongol invasions or so many other times and places, past and present in human history.
So I'm going to stick with my original thesis because it's true. We have problems. We also have ways to correct them. We also have a general understanding we should correct them. But claiming the "system doesn't work period" in hopes of <what?> is complete bollocks and in fact is usually something spoiled rich white kids say.
https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gvmhh6/fbi_...
https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gvmhh6/fbi_...
Also if you are from the US I'm sure you are happy to go back to be ruled by the UK, considering that the US was founded on violent protest (note if you're from somewhere else I am very likely to find a similar example in your countries history), or are you saying it is ok to protest violently if you believe you are taxed to high (or not represented enough) but not if you are being shot disproportionally?
