Skip to content

The Politics Thread

1259260262264265694

Comments

  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,457
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    joluv wrote: »
    Can you guys explain why you think people shouldn't be allowed to vote while serving their sentences? I didn't come into this feeling strongly about it, but now I really can't think of a good reason.

    My only problem with them not being able to vote is that I'm 100% positive that there are people in prison who are either 1.) innocent or 2.) don't deserve anywhere near the length of their sentence. My opposition is to it being political malpractice. Most of us weren't politically aware in 1988, but if you are a student of history, you'll know that the infamous Willie Horton ad (despite being focused of a furlough program that Dukakis basically had nothing to do with) is part of what put Bush Sr. in the White House. And the last thing we need with a demagogue on the level of Donald Trump on the other side is a candidate who is advocating for (essentially) polling stations being set up in prison mess halls.

    Now granted, Trump will just make shit up anyway (like this absolutely maniacal lie he has been telling lately about doctors and mothers killing newborn babies long after birth in hospitals), but I'm not interested in handing him actual substance on this particular issue. I'm liberal, but not to the point of being suicidal and sacrificing every single other issue that is important so I can die on the hill of making sure people in prison can vote. Because there are about a couple 100 other things I think are more important that could be flushed down the toilet by supporting something that I guarantee the public will steadfastly reject sight unseen. Let's start with keeping people who don't belong in prison for meaningless crimes out, not going to bat for voting rights (again, WHILE they are in prison) of people that DO belong there.

    I mean shit, Florida just voted to restore the rights of FORMER felons after they get out of prison overwhelmingly and the Republicans in the state are basically trying to nullify that vote. So let's walk before we can run and make sure all the people who AREN'T in prison anymore can do so. Because if it can pass by an overwhelming majority in Florida of all places, it can probably pass anywhere. People will support this. They absolutely will not support the other.

    There's two different things there though. I took @joluv's question to ask whether there were any good reasons in principle to take voting rights away - and I agree it's hard to think of any (beyond the very minor issue raised by @semiticgod of a punishment fitting the crime). There are though good reasons in principle not to take voting rights away - to maintain constitutional integrity and avoid particular groups being targeted with prison sentences in order to skew elections.

    The point you make is whether voting rights for prisoners is a policy worth fighting for in practice. I agree that it's a pretty low priority compared to doing something about the correctional system as a whole. There are currently well over 2% of the population in that system (parole, probation and prison) and not far short of 1% actually in prisons. Those are absolutely huge numbers and bringing them down should be a top priority.
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    edited April 2019
    Grond0 wrote: »
    The point you make is whether voting rights for prisoners is a policy worth fighting for in practice. I agree that it's a pretty low priority compared to doing something about the correctional system as a whole. There are currently well over 2% of the population in that system (parole, probation and prison) and not far short of 1% actually in prisons. Those are absolutely huge numbers and bringing them down should be a top priority.

    The best way to lower this number. End all "crimes without victims", that includes prostituition between adults, using drugs, owning unregistred NFA firearms, discriminate on your private propriety, etc. If you look to top countries in carcerary population( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm ), all of then has big governments with draconian laws that criminalizes things that has no victim, not saying that other countries don't have "crimes without victims", but they don't have an strict war on drugs that failed and costs an absurd amount of money. But no, this will not change. On US a lot of influential right wingers wanna intensify the failed war on drugs and "puritane laws" and a lot of influential people on left wanna criminalize "hate speech", owning ""assault"" rifles, etc. All crimes without an single victim.

    I don't get the logic "he did something that i don't like and has no victim, but i wanna the state to take out an produtive member of society and spend tax money to maintain him in a hell on earth, i rather see an guy who owns weed or an ar15 in a prison suffering than on society producing and rather see tax money maintaining him there than paying the astonomical government debt or doing something useful"
  • joluvjoluv Member Posts: 2,137
    The best way to lower this number. End all "crimes without victims", that includes prostituition between adults, using drugs, owning unregistred NFA firearms, discriminate on your private propriety, etc.

    What is an example of discrimination on one's private property that is both victimless and currently a crime?
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    joluv wrote: »
    The best way to lower this number. End all "crimes without victims", that includes prostituition between adults, using drugs, owning unregistred NFA firearms, discriminate on your private propriety, etc.

    What is an example of discrimination on one's private property that is both victimless and currently a crime?

    Affirmative action is the state determining who i should hire. That is socialism.
  • BillyYankBillyYank Member Posts: 2,768
    joluv wrote: »
    The best way to lower this number. End all "crimes without victims", that includes prostituition between adults, using drugs, owning unregistred NFA firearms, discriminate on your private propriety, etc.

    What is an example of discrimination on one's private property that is both victimless and currently a crime?

    Affirmative action is the state determining who i should hire. That is socialism.

    You didn't answer the question. Discrimination is a civil matter, not criminal. There's no such thing as going to jail for discrimination.
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    BillyYank wrote: »
    joluv wrote: »
    The best way to lower this number. End all "crimes without victims", that includes prostituition between adults, using drugs, owning unregistred NFA firearms, discriminate on your private propriety, etc.

    What is an example of discrimination on one's private property that is both victimless and currently a crime?

    Affirmative action is the state determining who i should hire. That is socialism.

    You didn't answer the question. Discrimination is a civil matter, not criminal. There's no such thing as going to jail for discrimination.

    Yes, you are right on USA, but in other countries, is differentCivil or criminal, I still think that religion people should't be forced to make an cake for an gay couple.

    See this news > https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/switzerland-votes-overwhelmingly-to-jail-citizens-for-homophobia-transphobi
  • joluvjoluv Member Posts: 2,137
    Also, no one in the U.S. is legally required to enact affirmative action policies.

    Neither affirmative action nor wedding cakes are the cause of high incarceration rates in the U.S. They're just two unrelated right-wing fixations that you're shoe-horning in here.
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    joluv wrote: »
    Also, no one in the U.S. is legally required to enact affirmative action policies.

    Neither affirmative action nor wedding cakes are the cause of high incarceration rates in the U.S. They're just two unrelated right-wing fixations that you're shoe-horning in here.

    Is not. Wold you force an Jew to make an cake with an Swastika? This will be slavery. You are forcing someone to work against they will. Only because "is on the law" or "is to fight discrimination", doesn't means that is right. And honestly, everyone discriminates.
  • joluvjoluv Member Posts: 2,137
    Wold you force an Jew to make an cake with an Swastika?

    Ooh, I know the answer!
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited May 2019
    joluv wrote: »
    Also, no one in the U.S. is legally required to enact affirmative action policies.

    Neither affirmative action nor wedding cakes are the cause of high incarceration rates in the U.S. They're just two unrelated right-wing fixations that you're shoe-horning in here.

    Is not. Wold you force an Jew to make an cake with an Swastika? This will be slavery. You are forcing someone to work against they will. Only because "is on the law" or "is to fight discrimination", doesn't means that is right. And honestly, everyone discriminates.

    I love these examples of comparing two people who simply love each other wanting a wedding cake to some hypothetical Neo-Nazi who in some universe, somewhere, is going to ask to have a cake baked in the shape of the symbol of the greatest evil in the history of humanity. Because they are clearly the exact same thing.

    The real question is just how loudly these discriminating Christian business owners would howl "PERSECUTION!!!" if someone denied them service ANYWHERE because of their faith, and the answer is you'd be able to hear it from the International Space Station. They can dish it out, but they can't take an OUNCE of it coming back on them.
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    There's some confusion about the two "cake" cases in the U.S., and I think it's best to focus on the ethical/legal dilemma rather than the demographics:

    1. You can't force a Jew to make a cake with a swastika because it would infringe upon the baker's freedom of speech--the cake might just be a service, but the swastika is a symbol with real meaning.

    2. You can force a baker to make a cake for a Jew, because refusing service would constitute discrimination. If the cake has no message, baking it does not infringe upon the baker's freedom of speech.

    Baking a cake is a service that should be available to any customer. Baking a cake with a certain message on it is a free speech issue, however, and the baker is not obligated to write a message on it.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited May 2019
    semiticgod wrote: »
    There's some confusion about the two "cake" cases in the U.S., and I think it's best to focus on the ethical/legal dilemma rather than the demographics:

    1. You can't force a Jew to make a cake with a swastika because it would infringe upon the baker's freedom of speech--the cake might just be a service, but the swastika is a symbol with real meaning.

    2. You can force a baker to make a cake for a Jew, because refusing service would constitute discrimination. If the cake has no message, baking it does not infringe upon the baker's freedom of speech.

    Baking a cake is a service that should be available to any customer. Baking a cake with a certain message on it is a free speech issue, however, and the baker is not obligated to write a message on it.

    The fact that this whole conversation always comes to down to these f**king "cake" scenarios is maddening. But another point is this: If a baker can refuse to bake a cake because of what the people buying it are going to use it for, then where does it stop?? What if Home Depot instructs it's clerks not to sell plastic eating utensils or napkins to a suspected same-sex couple because of suspicion it may be used at a possible "gay wedding". What if the local butcher simply hears "rumors" about the couple around town and refuses to sell them a bulk purchase of pulled pork because of his belief it may be used in a sinful reception?? Where does it end?? Shit, there are only 22 States that strictly prohibit firing someone because they are gay. Which means there 28 that DON'T forbid it.
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    joluv wrote: »
    Also, no one in the U.S. is legally required to enact affirmative action policies.

    Neither affirmative action nor wedding cakes are the cause of high incarceration rates in the U.S. They're just two unrelated right-wing fixations that you're shoe-horning in here.

    Is not. Wold you force an Jew to make an cake with an Swastika? This will be slavery. You are forcing someone to work against they will. Only because "is on the law" or "is to fight discrimination", doesn't means that is right. And honestly, everyone discriminates.

    I love these examples of comparing two people who simply love each other wanting a wedding cake to some hypothetical Neo-Nazi who in some universe, somewhere, is going to ask to have a cake baked in the shape of the symbol of the greatest evil in the history of humanity. Because they are clearly the exact same thing.

    The real question is just how loudly these discriminating Christian business owners would howl "PERSECUTION!!!" if someone denied them service ANYWHERE because of their faith, and the answer is you'd be able to hear it from the International Space Station. They can dish it out, but they can't take an OUNCE of it coming back on them.

    Where said neonazis? What if they are maji buddhis? The swastica was ""stolen'" from much older religions and was just an example. My point is, nobody should be forced to accept the job or the client. Some religions believe that the saturday is sacred and don't work on saturday. Wold you force then to realize an marriage on this day?

    PS : Holodomor was the greatest evil in the human history.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited May 2019
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    joluv wrote: »
    Also, no one in the U.S. is legally required to enact affirmative action policies.

    Neither affirmative action nor wedding cakes are the cause of high incarceration rates in the U.S. They're just two unrelated right-wing fixations that you're shoe-horning in here.

    Is not. Wold you force an Jew to make an cake with an Swastika? This will be slavery. You are forcing someone to work against they will. Only because "is on the law" or "is to fight discrimination", doesn't means that is right. And honestly, everyone discriminates.

    I love these examples of comparing two people who simply love each other wanting a wedding cake to some hypothetical Neo-Nazi who in some universe, somewhere, is going to ask to have a cake baked in the shape of the symbol of the greatest evil in the history of humanity. Because they are clearly the exact same thing.

    The real question is just how loudly these discriminating Christian business owners would howl "PERSECUTION!!!" if someone denied them service ANYWHERE because of their faith, and the answer is you'd be able to hear it from the International Space Station. They can dish it out, but they can't take an OUNCE of it coming back on them.

    Where said neonazis? What if they are maji buddhis? The swastica was ""stolen'" from much older religions and was just an example. My point is, nobody should be forced to accept the job or the client. Some religions believe that the saturday is sacred and don't work on saturday. Wold you force then to realize an marriage on this day?

    PS : Holodomor was the greatest evil in the human history.

    Try using the "I had to go to church" excuse with 90% of employers if you are scheduled on a Saturday night or Sunday morning more than once and see what happens.

    Or I'll take it a step further. In my state, there is a LAW that doesn't allow certain businesses to be open before noon on Sunday. This is strictly a law that is in place because of the Christian religion, and is by default discrimination against anyone who is of any other religion.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited May 2019
    Jesus Christ. How many more of these stories about this is it going to take before people stop defending this as just justifiable mistakes of a large company that simply can't be avoided and that the person at the the top of the food chain takes no responsibility for?? 10, maybe 15 more??:


    To be perfectly frank, the fact that the Trump Organization exploited the dirty illegal migrants for all they were worth is probably seen by some as a POSITIVE, not a negative (saving money AND malicious cruelty is too hard for this crowd to pass up). But there is a word for work without pay. It's called slavery.
  • joluvjoluv Member Posts: 2,137
    Yeah, @jjstraka34! Why would you assume that the hypothetical people enslaving Jews to make swastika cakes were neo-Nazis?? With those kinds of reckless assumptions, you're really just showing your own prejudices.
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    edited May 2019
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    joluv wrote: »
    Also, no one in the U.S. is legally required to enact affirmative action policies.

    Neither affirmative action nor wedding cakes are the cause of high incarceration rates in the U.S. They're just two unrelated right-wing fixations that you're shoe-horning in here.

    Is not. Wold you force an Jew to make an cake with an Swastika? This will be slavery. You are forcing someone to work against they will. Only because "is on the law" or "is to fight discrimination", doesn't means that is right. And honestly, everyone discriminates.

    I love these examples of comparing two people who simply love each other wanting a wedding cake to some hypothetical Neo-Nazi who in some universe, somewhere, is going to ask to have a cake baked in the shape of the symbol of the greatest evil in the history of humanity. Because they are clearly the exact same thing.

    The real question is just how loudly these discriminating Christian business owners would howl "PERSECUTION!!!" if someone denied them service ANYWHERE because of their faith, and the answer is you'd be able to hear it from the International Space Station. They can dish it out, but they can't take an OUNCE of it coming back on them.

    Where said neonazis? What if they are maji buddhis? The swastica was ""stolen'" from much older religions and was just an example. My point is, nobody should be forced to accept the job or the client. Some religions believe that the saturday is sacred and don't work on saturday. Wold you force then to realize an marriage on this day?

    PS : Holodomor was the greatest evil in the human history.

    Try using the "I had to go to church" excuse with 90% of employers if you are scheduled on a Saturday night or Sunday morning more than once and see what happens.

    Or I'll take it a step further. In my state, there is a LAW that doesn't allow certain businesses to be open before noon on Sunday. This is strictly a law that is in place because of the Christian religion, and is by default discrimination against anyone who is of any other religion.

    They should't be forced to work on Saturday
    And you should't forced to hire then/consume they products.

    That is not hard. Wanna create an religion that works only on Friday and only accepts "polygamous marriage"? Create. Just don't force everybody to accept your believes.

    PS : I agree that this law is awful. Not because "discriminates" but because the law violates free association and freedom of doing business. If someone opens before noon on Sunday, is another example of "crime without victim"
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited May 2019
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,457
    1) The "war on drugs" is idiotic in concept, and poorly executed.

    But,

    2) If you think the creation and distribution of narcotics is a "victimless crime" then you are out of your mind.

    Indeed. One of the arguments for legalization is quality control. In a totally free market situation you could sell anything - and if people die as a result of selling mis-described or adulterated drugs then too bad. Legalizing all drugs, but also regulating them all (in the same way as medicines at the moment) would not be a free market, but would help prevent a lot of people becoming victims under the current system.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    Grond0 wrote: »
    1) The "war on drugs" is idiotic in concept, and poorly executed.

    But,

    2) If you think the creation and distribution of narcotics is a "victimless crime" then you are out of your mind.

    Indeed. One of the arguments for legalization is quality control. In a totally free market situation you could sell anything - and if people die as a result of selling mis-described or adulterated drugs then too bad. Legalizing all drugs, but also regulating them all (in the same way as medicines at the moment) would not be a free market, but would help prevent a lot of people becoming victims under the current system.

    Depending on what is getting legalized here, decriminalizing a drug doesn’t take it off the black market. It just opens another avenue to get said drug.

    I think Canada is quickly finding that out, since unlike alcohol they haven’t controlled the distribution from the beginning, many users of cannabis products are just sticking with their regular dealers because they are actually more convenient and most cases cheaper.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/5220478/cannabis-nb-loss/

    A state can’t regulate something they don’t have full control over, and drugs fit that bill.
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    edited May 2019
    1) The "war on drugs" is idiotic in concept, and poorly executed.

    But,

    2) If you think the creation and distribution of narcotics is a "victimless crime" then you are out of your mind.

    3) As far as the contention that discrimination should be legalized/legitimized... well, a) I don't think you have fully thought through the consequences of such a policy; and b) I don't think you appreciate the historical context, in the US at least, that led to the establishment of antidiscrimination laws.

    Drugs was liberated on past and guess what. Worked well. Just don't offer welfare and public healthcare or force people to accept drug addicted and let then be segregated to their "guetos" and suffer the consequences of their choices. As for adultered drugs, is fraud and is a crime with a victim. Is like sell "radioactive water" as "normal water".

    As for anti discrimination laws, this laws violates propriety rights. Even Japan that is not an "ultra capitalist country" allow discrimination. People only freak out against discrimination when is whites doing it. I saw a lot of people mentioning Orania in south africa as an example of racism, but the areas in the same country where white minority can't enter, nobody talks about it.

    ?u=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-IRHc4-3veeA%2FUKIk1AB-yJI%2FAAAAAAAAQjc%2FqoyR2WTn5rI%2Fs1600%2FJapanese-only-71232969427.jpeg&f=1

    ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwordpress.tokyotimes.org%2Farchives%2Fnakano_maid_sign02.jpg&f=1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYbRZhymD5A
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited May 2019
    Absolute proof William Barr is a liar. Someone has leaked Mueller's letter. Barr needs to be removed from his position. He is not the AG of the United States. He is Trump's personal fixer. Mueller absolutely, 100% meant for the report to be be delivered IMMEDIATELY to Congress and the public. Barr needs to be removed. Now. Everything he said about the month wait was COMPLETE bullshit. No, that isn't the proper word. It was all a blatant lie:


    This man is an utter disgrace. He has lied to Congress. And I don't think in these entire two threads over two years I've ever been as on the nose about anything as I was about William Barr. At this point, nothing matters. There are 14 criminal referrals that were handed out to other jurisdictions from this report. Show of hands as to anyone who thinks Bill Barr can be trusted with overseeing them. And this whole "Barr would never be so brazen as to mischaracterize Mueller's report, findings and intentions" theory that took hold among the Glenn Greenwald and Michael Tracey crowd has imploded in their face. In fact, the entire thing, as I predicted at the time, was an end-zone dance at the 40-yard line based on the word of a guy up to his neck in Iran-Contra. It's nothing but a massive cover-up being perpetrated by the Attorney General of the United States on behalf of the President. We are completely lost at this point.
    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
  • BillyYankBillyYank Member Posts: 2,768
    Has anyone read James Comey's op ed at the NY Times? It's all about what it's like to work for Trump and how "he eats your soul in small bites". Just wow. I especially like what he said about Mattis: "...resigned over principle, a concept so alien to Mr. Trump that it took days for the president to realize what had happened..."
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,964
    edited May 2019
    So Barr's testimony to the Senate was further proof that he's a partisan hack and the obstructer general for Trump and not the Inspector General of the United States.

    Lindsey Graham opened the hearing by wanting to investigate impeachment proceedings into President Hillary Clinton and her buttery males. In 2019 Graham is trying to do something about Hillary's emails that the FBI cleared her of any legal wrongdoing 3 years ago.

    During testimony, Barr whiffled and hemmed and hawed and talked at half speed for Democrats questions while regaining clarity and confidence when Republicans asked questions (which were mostly about how wonderful it was to be William Barr). Senator Hirono ripped his ass and told him to resign for lying to the public and betraying America. All in all Barr proved he is a liar and a partisan hack who needs to be impeached or jailed.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited May 2019
    And just in: Barr is now not going to show up for his scheduled House testimony tomorrow. So let's get this straight, he is capable on May 1st of appearing before a committee led by Lindsey Graham, but he is incapable of appearing before one on May 2nd led by Jerry Nadler. Even if you take away everything else from this, the Democrats should be hitting on the fact that they are all chickenshit cowards who don't even have the balls to stand up for the courage of their convictions. I seem to remember a certain woman sitting for 11 hours answering questions at a Republican-led Benghazi hearing. It must have been a dream.......
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,964
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    And just in: Barr is now not going to show up for his scheduled House testimony tomorrow. So let's get this straight, he is capable on May 1st of appearing before a committee led by Lindsey Graham, but he is incapable of appearing before one on May 2nd led by Jerry Nadler. Even if you take away everything else from this, the Democrats should be hitting on the fact that they are all chickenshit cowards who don't even have the balls to stand up for the courage of their convictions. I seem to remember a certain woman sitting for 11 hours answering questions at a Republican-led Benghazi hearing. It must have been a dream.......

    Barr needs a safe space - he's bad and shaky enough in front of Lindsey Graham's "but Hillary" committee where he can mostly answer softball questions.

    Barr needs to be impeached or jailed.
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    To mention examples of "victimeless crimes"

    Raw Milk Farmers are Being Arrested and Sent to Prison
    raw-milk.jpg

    https://stillnessinthestorm.com/2018/04/raw-milk-farmers-are-being-arrested-and-sent-to-prison/

    "(Dr. Mercola) In Canada, it’s illegal to sell or give away raw milk, a law that’s enforced in many provinces. In Ontario, distributing raw milk was long considered to be a regulatory offense punishable by fines, but as of January 2018 an order issued by Ontario’s Superior Court changed that. Now, anyone who distributes or sells raw milk in the area can face years in prison."

    Why the government want do that? Simple. To make everyone be forced to purchase food from big companies. I don't know about US, but in US
Sign In or Register to comment.