ImageImageImageImageImage

Political Roundtable Part XXVI

Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico

dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 14,957
And1: 3,184
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#801 » by dckingsfan » Sun Aug 4, 2019 2:37 pm

JWizmentality wrote:Another insecure, young white male conservative kills a lot of people.

Pretty clear (in my mind) that there is a link between Trump's rants and that mass shooting. I think anyone in their right mind would have trouble not linking the two.
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 14,957
And1: 3,184
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#802 » by dckingsfan » Sun Aug 4, 2019 2:43 pm

FAH1223 wrote:Yes. Torture and the lies of invading Iraq. Ample evidence was there. People like Bolton and Haspel shouldn't be back in government in a normal country. They'd have been prosecuted.

You start down that road and then each next administration prosecutes the previous administration.

I am just saying the unintended consequences of those type of actions might not be what you want.

Are the Rs going to prosecute Obama for the 500K deaths in Syria? I think it would get stupid weird.

I think the Ds need to just come up with ideas that work and implement them.
User avatar
JWizmentality
RealGM
Posts: 13,268
And1: 4,270
Joined: Nov 21, 2004
Location: Cosmic Totality
     

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#803 » by JWizmentality » Sun Aug 4, 2019 5:46 pm

Another young white male kills a lot of people. Do I hear conservative, anti immigrant, racist? Bingo!!
daoneandonly
General Manager
Posts: 8,083
And1: 1,243
Joined: May 27, 2004
Location: Masalaland
 

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#804 » by daoneandonly » Mon Aug 5, 2019 11:50 am

JWizmentality wrote:Another young white male kills a lot of people. Do I hear conservative, anti immigrant, racist? Bingo!!


And yet its Bernie Sanders, and possibly Warren considering they're each others' shadows, who would give this piece of garbage the right to vote while in prison.

And I'll call it out, that type of hate, ignorance, and cold blooded heartless behavior has no place in this world, the guy is a scum bag.
User avatar
doclinkin
General Manager
Posts: 9,345
And1: 1,506
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: .wizuds.

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#805 » by doclinkin » Mon Aug 5, 2019 12:10 pm

daoneandonly wrote:The problem though my fellow posters is you and the government are essentially imposing your belief that people who earn more are responsible and obligated to pay more taxes than ppl who earn less to help them, to make their life easier. That too is a moral issue, one that is no more or less important than that of abortion.

If we're going to operate under the premise that the government and others should not be able to impose moral beliefs on others, than we also need to rid ourselves of the progressive tax system, funding PP, and other programs where people who earn more have to disproportionately pay more because someone deemed it the moral thing to do



Hey you said “fair”. So if that’s the argument then consider what fair means. That’s all. As for moral beliefs. It is absolutely the duty of government to frame the moral beliefs of law. That’s called civilization.

It’s just that one has to extract any particular individual religion’s version from that and reach a collective consensus on what is and is not moral irrespective of religious tradition. The legal code of the United States has many more than Ten Commandments.

Whoever said government must not be moral?
dobrojim
RealGM
Posts: 13,290
And1: 1,116
Joined: Sep 16, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#806 » by dobrojim » Mon Aug 5, 2019 2:16 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
FAH1223 wrote:Yes. Torture and the lies of invading Iraq. Ample evidence was there. People like Bolton and Haspel shouldn't be back in government in a normal country. They'd have been prosecuted.


You start down that road and then each next administration prosecutes the previous administration.

I am just saying the unintended consequences of those type of actions might not be what you want.

Are the Rs going to prosecute Obama for the 500K deaths in Syria? I think it would get stupid weird.

I think the Ds need to just come up with ideas that work and implement them.


I hear this seemingly a lot. Thing is, don't there have to be actual crimes at least for a
prosecution to be successful?

Seems like the consequences, intended or otherwise, might not be so bad.

For instance, why does Jonathon Woo have a cushy job as if he was an actual legal scholar?
A lot of what we call 'thought' is just mental activity
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 14,957
And1: 3,184
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#807 » by dckingsfan » Mon Aug 5, 2019 3:27 pm

daoneandonly wrote:
JWizmentality wrote:Another young white male kills a lot of people. Do I hear conservative, anti immigrant, racist? Bingo!!

And yet its Bernie Sanders, and possibly Warren considering they're each others' shadows, who would give this piece of garbage the right to vote while in prison.

And I'll call it out, that type of hate, ignorance, and cold blooded heartless behavior has no place in this world, the guy is a scum bag.

Eh. They are first and foremost attacking stupid on crime and stupid on drugs. If the worst thing that comes out of it is that some folks in prison get to vote - I am good with that. Beats the hell out of incarcerating lots of folks that shouldn't have been incarcerated in the first place.

As to the other implication - any links where Warren said that we shouldn't incarcerate violent offenders?

I think there are plenty of links where White Nationalists are beginning to act because of Trump's words.

By virtue of that on this issue Warren >>>> Trump, no?
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 14,957
And1: 3,184
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#808 » by dckingsfan » Mon Aug 5, 2019 3:31 pm

dobrojim wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
FAH1223 wrote:Yes. Torture and the lies of invading Iraq. Ample evidence was there. People like Bolton and Haspel shouldn't be back in government in a normal country. They'd have been prosecuted.

You start down that road and then each next administration prosecutes the previous administration.

I am just saying the unintended consequences of those type of actions might not be what you want.

Are the Rs going to prosecute Obama for the 500K deaths in Syria? I think it would get stupid weird.

I think the Ds need to just come up with ideas that work and implement them.

I hear this seemingly a lot. Thing is, don't there have to be actual crimes at least for a prosecution to be successful?

Seems like the consequences, intended or otherwise, might not be so bad.

For instance, why does Jonathon Woo have a cushy job as if he was an actual legal scholar?

Fair enough. But consider, once this becomes weaponized you are opening up the notion of inquiries on everyone that served in an administration. Cost for defense would become very high. One of the unintended consequences is that it would be even harder to recruit for an administration.

Example: You were part of the EPA and stopped xyz for no good reason - let's open an inquiry.
daoneandonly
General Manager
Posts: 8,083
And1: 1,243
Joined: May 27, 2004
Location: Masalaland
 

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#809 » by daoneandonly » Mon Aug 5, 2019 3:47 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
daoneandonly wrote:
JWizmentality wrote:Another young white male kills a lot of people. Do I hear conservative, anti immigrant, racist? Bingo!!

And yet its Bernie Sanders, and possibly Warren considering they're each others' shadows, who would give this piece of garbage the right to vote while in prison.

And I'll call it out, that type of hate, ignorance, and cold blooded heartless behavior has no place in this world, the guy is a scum bag.

Eh. They are first and foremost attacking stupid on crime and stupid on drugs. If the worst thing that comes out of it is that some folks in prison get to vote - I am good with that. Beats the hell out of incarcerating lots of folks that shouldn't have been incarcerated in the first place.

As to the other implication - any links where Warren said that we shouldn't incarcerate violent offenders?

I think there are plenty of links where White Nationalists are beginning to act because of Trump's words.

By virtue of that on this issue Warren >>>> Trump, no?


I hear this a lot, so who exactly shouldn't be incarcerated? What exactly constitutes stupid on crime?
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 14,957
And1: 3,184
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#810 » by dckingsfan » Mon Aug 5, 2019 4:01 pm

daoneandonly wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
daoneandonly wrote:And yet its Bernie Sanders, and possibly Warren considering they're each others' shadows, who would give this piece of garbage the right to vote while in prison.

And I'll call it out, that type of hate, ignorance, and cold blooded heartless behavior has no place in this world, the guy is a scum bag.

Eh. They are first and foremost attacking stupid on crime and stupid on drugs. If the worst thing that comes out of it is that some folks in prison get to vote - I am good with that. Beats the hell out of incarcerating lots of folks that shouldn't have been incarcerated in the first place.

As to the other implication - any links where Warren said that we shouldn't incarcerate violent offenders?

I think there are plenty of links where White Nationalists are beginning to act because of Trump's words.

By virtue of that on this issue Warren >>>> Trump, no?

I hear this a lot, so who exactly shouldn't be incarcerated? What exactly constitutes stupid on crime?

You realize we went through this in excruciating detail? Can I assume you didn't read what I wrote? For example we have many are that are incarcerated for nothing more than casual marijuana use. That we currently have many incarcerated because they can't make bail. Or those that are incarcerated due to three misdemeanor offenses (three strikes).

I did all the work last time. This time the onus is on you to prove that:

1) We don't have a bunch of folks that are currently incarcerated that shouldn't be
2) That it hasn't affected state budgets diverting precious resources from education
3) That it hasn't adversely affected growth in the US
3a) That it hasn't adversely affected our ability to fund SS

All of that would be the definition of stupid on crime and stupid on drugs.

And this shouldn't divert from the stupidity of Trump to rile up the White Nationalists to take action. That blood lies at his feet.
daoneandonly
General Manager
Posts: 8,083
And1: 1,243
Joined: May 27, 2004
Location: Masalaland
 

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#811 » by daoneandonly » Mon Aug 5, 2019 5:11 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
daoneandonly wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:Eh. They are first and foremost attacking stupid on crime and stupid on drugs. If the worst thing that comes out of it is that some folks in prison get to vote - I am good with that. Beats the hell out of incarcerating lots of folks that shouldn't have been incarcerated in the first place.

As to the other implication - any links where Warren said that we shouldn't incarcerate violent offenders?

I think there are plenty of links where White Nationalists are beginning to act because of Trump's words.

By virtue of that on this issue Warren >>>> Trump, no?

I hear this a lot, so who exactly shouldn't be incarcerated? What exactly constitutes stupid on crime?

You realize we went through this in excruciating detail? Can I assume you didn't read what I wrote? For example we have many are that are incarcerated for nothing more than casual marijuana use. That we currently have many incarcerated because they can't make bail. Or those that are incarcerated due to three misdemeanor offenses (three strikes).

I did all the work last time. This time the onus is on you to prove that:

1) We don't have a bunch of folks that are currently incarcerated that shouldn't be
2) That it hasn't affected state budgets diverting precious resources from education
3) That it hasn't adversely affected growth in the US
3a) That it hasn't adversely affected our ability to fund SS

All of that would be the definition of stupid on crime and stupid on drugs.

And this shouldn't divert from the stupidity of Trump to rile up the White Nationalists to take action. That blood lies at his feet.


You're separating stupid on crime and stupid on drugs like its 2 different entities, so thats why i asked. I heard yours and many others feelings about drugs, I won't get into all that again cause arguing about it impacts my health its so aggravating.

But outside of drug offenses, so three misdemeanors and what? Nothing is your resolution? 10? still nothing? 35? Nah, let them go, they're just misdemeanors? This again as with so many other issues, just speaks to the left's lack of accountability and outright fear and hatred for the word. 3 misdemeanors, yeah bye, you should be out.

And where did Trump tell racist fools to go kill people? How as he riled them up? With idiotic comments he's made, none of which where he tells anyone to do any action. other than the moronic one at one of the rallies when he was running for Prez, I'll give you that one, but even that wasn't racist, it was just a stupid comment about being violent.
User avatar
doclinkin
General Manager
Posts: 9,345
And1: 1,506
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: .wizuds.

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#812 » by doclinkin » Mon Aug 5, 2019 5:23 pm

daoneandonly wrote:You're separating stupid on crime and stupid on drugs like its 2 different entities, so thats why i asked. I heard yours and many others feelings about drugs, I won't get into all that again cause arguing about it impacts my health its so aggravating.

But outside of drug offenses, so three misdemeanors and what? Nothing is your resolution? 10? still nothing? 35? Nah, let them go, they're just misdemeanors?


Three strike refers to mandatory minimums that kick in, disallowing legal judgement in sentencing. Judges who otherwise might have had a sense of how to reform someone have no leeway. There are people locked into pointless long term sentences that do not fit the crimes they committed. Even conservative Judges hate three strikes laws since it removes their ability to use their discernment. Hell its in the name of their job description: Judgement.
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 14,957
And1: 3,184
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#813 » by dckingsfan » Mon Aug 5, 2019 6:11 pm

doclinkin wrote:
daoneandonly wrote:You're separating stupid on crime and stupid on drugs like its 2 different entities, so thats why i asked. I heard yours and many others feelings about drugs, I won't get into all that again cause arguing about it impacts my health its so aggravating.

But outside of drug offenses, so three misdemeanors and what? Nothing is your resolution? 10? still nothing? 35? Nah, let them go, they're just misdemeanors?

Three strike refers to mandatory minimums that kick in, disallowing legal judgement in sentencing. Judges who otherwise might have had a sense of how to reform someone have no leeway. There are people locked into pointless long term sentences that do not fit the crimes they committed. Even conservative Judges hate three strikes laws since it removes their ability to use their discernment. Hell its in the name of their job description: Judgement.

This... it was just doubling down on stupid on crime.

As to marijuana - I would just point out that the prohibition was equally as stupid - but we finally got that right. Could you imagine if we doubled up again on those that were casual beer drinkers??
User avatar
pancakes3
General Manager
Posts: 7,704
And1: 1,018
Joined: Jul 27, 2003
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#814 » by pancakes3 » Mon Aug 5, 2019 6:47 pm

the US has a huge problem with its prison system. the U.S. without a doubt overcriminalizes, and leads the world in both rate of incarceration as well as gross number of inmates. to paraphrase comedian jim jeffries, our land of the free has the least number of free people in it.

and the reasons for this goes way beyond the war with drugs.

topically, the US has heightened instances of violent crimes aggravated by firearms compared to other nations.

the US has longer prison sentences than other nations on average.

plus there's a disproportionate impact on african americans across the board, regardless of money, education, etc. the implicit bias against african americans in enforcement, prosecution, judge, and jury has resulted in a feedback cycle of keeping poor african american communities poor, and at heightened risk of criminal behavior.

then there's also a discussion to be had about private prisons.

each of these an incredibly complex topic with thousands of pages of research available to read. i'm wary of even having a discussion on the three-strikes rule as i can already imagine the pig-headed rebuttals about personal accountability without any thought put into whether the rule is fair and just in the first place.
Bullets -> Wizards
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 14,957
And1: 3,184
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#815 » by dckingsfan » Mon Aug 5, 2019 7:19 pm

pancakes3 wrote:the US has a huge problem with its prison system. the U.S. without a doubt overcriminalizes, and leads the world in both rate of incarceration as well as gross number of inmates. to paraphrase comedian jim jeffries, our land of the free has the least number of free people in it.

and the reasons for this goes way beyond the war with drugs.

topically, the US has heightened instances of violent crimes aggravated by firearms compared to other nations.

the US has longer prison sentences than other nations on average.

plus there's a disproportionate impact on african americans across the board, regardless of money, education, etc. the implicit bias against african americans in enforcement, prosecution, judge, and jury has resulted in a feedback cycle of keeping poor african american communities poor, and at heightened risk of criminal behavior.

then there's also a discussion to be had about private prisons.

each of these an incredibly complex topic with thousands of pages of research available to read. i'm wary of even having a discussion on the three-strikes rule as i can already imagine the pig-headed rebuttals about personal accountability without any thought put into whether the rule is fair and just in the first place.

And we continue to increase are incarceration rates while our crime rates are falling - well all of those except the white nationalists egged on by Trump.
dobrojim
RealGM
Posts: 13,290
And1: 1,116
Joined: Sep 16, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#816 » by dobrojim » Mon Aug 5, 2019 9:50 pm

dobrojim wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
FAH1223 wrote:Yes. Torture and the lies of invading Iraq. Ample evidence was there. People like Bolton and Haspel shouldn't be back in government in a normal country. They'd have been prosecuted.


You start down that road and then each next administration prosecutes the previous administration.

I am just saying the unintended consequences of those type of actions might not be what you want.

Are the Rs going to prosecute Obama for the 500K deaths in Syria? I think it would get stupid weird.

I think the Ds need to just come up with ideas that work and implement them.


I hear this seemingly a lot. Thing is, don't there have to be actual crimes at least for a
prosecution to be successful?

Seems like the consequences, intended or otherwise, might not be so bad.

For instance, why does Jonathon Woo have a cushy job as if he was an actual legal scholar?


First, this website SUCKS donkey schlongs. Twice during the writing
of this post, it has abruptly taken me off the page I'm on to some randem
page, forcing me to attempt to re-write what I just typed.

But I digress, to the matter at hand

I'd rather take the chance that the justice system would have to
deal with politically motivated prosecutions (as long as the courts
continue to appear able to so appropriately)
than to deal with the reality of
politically connected people getting away without any threat of
accountability for real criminal behavior. This lack of accountability
has already done great damage to the general feelings of/by average
people of unequal justice when dealing with the rich, powerful and connected.

All that said, your concern is valid but I'll believe it when I see more
instances in which courts fail to act independently and succomb to political pressure.
A lot of what we call 'thought' is just mental activity
verbal8
General Manager
Posts: 7,906
And1: 1,083
Joined: Jul 20, 2006
Location: Herndon, VA
     

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#817 » by verbal8 » Mon Aug 5, 2019 11:12 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
FAH1223 wrote:Yes. Torture and the lies of invading Iraq. Ample evidence was there. People like Bolton and Haspel shouldn't be back in government in a normal country. They'd have been prosecuted.

You start down that road and then each next administration prosecutes the previous administration.


I think this ends up being a very strong argument for impeachment. If there is prosecution under the next administration, it would have to be the continuation of some type of action taken now. Otherwise it looks like "We won, we prosecute", which is far damaging to the rule of law.
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 37,999
And1: 5,209
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#818 » by Ruzious » Tue Aug 6, 2019 12:16 pm

The level of stupidity in Hannity's idea is almost unbelievable. https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/sean-hannity-force-schools-malls-054521306.html

Stupid to the point that I gotta wonder how Fox can justify keeping him on the air. Are there enough troglodytes out there that agree with him?
"There's never an armed teacher around when you need one!" - montestewart
User avatar
pancakes3
General Manager
Posts: 7,704
And1: 1,018
Joined: Jul 27, 2003
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#819 » by pancakes3 » Tue Aug 6, 2019 12:38 pm

^ water's wet
Bullets -> Wizards
User avatar
Kanyewest
General Manager
Posts: 7,671
And1: 1,238
Joined: Jul 05, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXVI 

Post#820 » by Kanyewest » Tue Aug 6, 2019 2:05 pm

Ruzious wrote:The level of stupidity in Hannity's idea is almost unbelievable. https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/sean-hannity-force-schools-malls-054521306.html

Stupid to the point that I gotta wonder how Fox can justify keeping him on the air. Are there enough troglodytes out there that agree with him?


I would assume that there are a lot of people. Right now Fox News is outdrawing MSNBC in prime time hours. CNN is a distant 3rd.

Return to Washington Wizards