He can't hold his congressional seat and campaign to be President. There was talk of him running, but I think he decided to stick with the seat he has for the time being. Jo Jurgenson is our current nominee, and I like her platform. Her platform seems like a good next step that doesn't aim too high or too radically.
Progressive here. Amash should represent the new Republican Party. Whatever the GOP is now should die. Libertarianism should be the new right. I’m no fan of libertarianism, but at the very least it seems to generally acknowledge human rights and decency. That should not be a political debate. If we have to have a two party system, I’d really like it if one of those parties wasn’t racist, homophobic religious zealots. Let’s go back to politics where the things we disagree about are like economics and regulations and shit.
Imagine a scenario where a detective requests a warrant, to raid the home of someone who's been mailing out letter bombs. A real, honest threat who might react violently and hurt other folks if forewarned. But he makes an honest mistake and puts the wrong address. No one catches his mistake, and eventually the SWAT team rolls up to the wrong house, kicks in the door of an unsuspecting homeowner at 3 AM. Gunfire is exchanged between the residents, who presume that they're being robbed, and the cops. The homeowner dies, and several cops are injured. In this scenario, who should be liable for the loss of life and limb?
Is it really the SWAT team leaders fault? He triple checked that he and his team were headed to the address on the warrant, it's not his fault it was the wrong address. Should the team members be liable for firing on an armed individual in a home they were told was the residence of an armed terrorist who had already killed several people? It's certainly not the homeowner's fault for opening fire on armed men who entered his home by force. Conceivably the only person who could be liable for what happened is the detective who made an error when requesting the warrant, but to what degree did his negligence contribute to his liability as opposed to the judge who approved the warrant?
Suffice it to say that I think there are scenarios like this in which individual officers should not be held personally liable for conduct that occurred while acting as agents of the state. But this doctrine cannot allow officers to never be liable for their actions.
Too busy deep-throating those delicious boots. All the conservative threads are too busy crying and complaining that the touchable and perfect "thin blue line" has large scale reforms being demanded for it.
Why is this title written like the poster is surprised Republicans are on the side of powerful law enforcement? You might as well be saying "Republicans are trying to pass a tax cut. WhErE aRe YoU dEmS?"
Reporter: Senator, do think you'll be able to support this bill in a bipartisan fashion?
Politician: that is vile slander sir, i have not ever been associated with bipartisan acts!
Reporter: uh, no Senator, i said "bipartisan"
Politician: oh i thought you were talking about... wait, what does "bipartisan" mean then?
Reporter: you know, when you reach across the aisle and work with the other side to---
Politician: THAT IS VILE SLANDER, SIR, I HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT EVER BE ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH HEINOUS ACTS