You don’t understand… she was RUDE to him! How was she rude? She asked him to clarify comments he’s made in the past! Can you imagine the nerve?!?

Oh no, Trump called him stupid? If someone really annoys him, is he going to whip out “doo-doo head”?

I was going to suggest that they could just make Vance the candidate. I’m sure that will work out well for them.

Trump still thinks everyone should be impressed that he passed a test designed to indicate if a patient suffered brain trauma. Probably because it is the only test he has ever passed without cheating.

I have a cousin who was shipped off to one of these camps in the early 90s. The trauma completely wrecked him. It was about a decade before he got his life back on track.

To a certain subset of the population, morals have nothing to do with understanding or caring about the people around you. To them, morals are just a set of rules handed down from someone in perceived authority, and those rules must be followed without question and without room for nuance.

If we ever get a progressive president maybe we’ll actually fix it.

What do you think a progressive president can/will do to fix this? Biden used every available power of the office to try to push for police reform: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/02/07/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administrations-work-to-make-our-communities-safer-and-advance-effective-accountable-policing/

Real change has to come from congress or state governments. The president has very limited powers here. Mostly they can only impose rules on federal officers, not local police.

deleted by creator

Do you mean the Raimondo decision? That has no direct bearing. At worst, it means the FTC rule is more susceptible to challenge. But if you look at the actual court cases, it is being upheld. One judge in Texas temporarily delayed the ban for a small number of employers, and that is the biggest challenge so far.

“How hot do you think this water is? I’ll stick my hand in to check.”

Stupid fucking people…

In my experience this is a good general description of many people visiting Yellowstone.

Fair. I should re-word. Yes, if they had evidence that she was actually using, that might be grounds for arrest. But they’d still need cause to enter her house and arrest her, and just suspecting that she’s using because she’s acting weird isn’t sufficient. Here’s my re-word: Just being high in your own home is not illegal.

Fixed the link. Thanks for the heads up!

Right? I used to think it would be ridiculous for a former president to foment a violent insurrection of their own government and not be held accountable for their words and actions.

What I can’t understand is why they entered the house after that interaction and the video I saw didn’t show.

To my knowledge, there was no reason or justification given. Grayson had turned off his body cam, and his partner had walked away to get the license plate of the car in the driveway. Grayson followed her into her home asking for ID. She seemed confused and scattered through the whole encounter. She might have been intoxicated or on medication. She might have had mental health problems. She may have even been using illegal drugs. But none of that is a crime if you’re in your own home not bothering anyone. IMO, they were fishing for a reason to treat her as a suspect.

This video has a good breakdown with footage from both officers’ body cams: https://youtu.be/7jP3FGj7syI

Biden has completely forgotten his campaign promise of police reform

A) not true.

B) not even remotely relevant

Democrats tried to pass police reform bills in congress multiple times this term and were blocked by Republicans at every turn. Biden did what he was able to do and enacted an executive order that was the most comprehensive police reform action in decades. But there are limits to what he can do. So please fuck off with your attempt to turn this into Biden’s fault by telling lies.

The thing I found most interesting about the whole interaction is that the first thing the police say to her when they make contact is “we looked around outside and didn’t find anyone”. Like they’re challenging her to contradict them.

That is technically true, but it omits some very relevant information, i.e. that they found a vehicle parked nearby which had very clearly been broken into. That might not have happened that evening, but they don’t know that. And they don’t mention it when they talk to her. They instead start by saying that the reason she called (she heard a prowler) could not be confirmed. This statement sets up the entire tone of their interaction. There’s nobody for them to arrest, so now they’re clearly annoyed that she’s wasting their time. They start treating her like a suspect instead of a victim. They want her name, her ID. They invite themselves in without cause and start looking through her house. It escalates from there, and ends in murder. The shooting officer then outright lies about the circumstances of the shooting, saying Massey was coming at him with a pot of boiling water and threatening him. She had put the pot down in the sink and was just standing in the kitchen. See, he’d turned his body camera off and didn’t realize his partner was still recording.

This was a fucking extra-judicial execution.

“Bomb-making materials”

Yeah, I imagine once the investigation is closed, they’ll stop using “suspected”.

Easier than a constitutional amendment, but it still requires 60 votes in the senate to expand the number of justices in the court.