General US Politics

[eclipse]

Free speech means that it's free for everyone, even if you don't like their opinions.

[Excellen Browning]

No, free speech is a negative right against the government, not the right to say whatever you want to say without consequence. 

And racists and bigots definitely deserve consequences for their speech.

[eclipse]

Intolerance in general deserves consequence.  Except some of it is more acceptable than others.

[Lord Raven]

8 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Gotta love that last one, THIS is THE reason to stay home and not vote Trump, completely ignore everything the man's been doing wrong that conservatives claimed they cared about like the deficit and the economy lol.

Shit like this makes me lean to think that perhaps certain Conservatives in the US NEED a period of time in which they're disparaged and truly silenced.

Yep. Fuck those guys. They gaslighted in 2016 with bothsides bullshit.

4 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

And racists and bigots definitely deserve consequences for their speech.

Social consequences imo not legal 

[Shoblongoo]

19 hours ago, XRay said:

Would it be wise to completely outlaw discrimination and only allow a handful of exceptions?

Or is the current system's wording better in that discrimination is completely legal unless it is on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc.?

If we switch the wording to make discrimination illegal, then we do not have to keep adding vulnerable groups to the law and just to have assholes shut the effort down. Discrimination would then be illegal, period. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Discrimination against protected characteristics (i.e. race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age etc.),  should be illegal. 

But what is and is not recognized as a protected characteristic should be selected discerningly, with care that the law is being put in place to actually remedy some form of otherwise unremediated injustice against an unustly persecuted or disadvantaged group. 

And narrowly tailored so that the law is not overly indulgent in what it chooses to protect as a characteristic that cannot be legitimate grounds for negative treatment. 

Because you can see how problematic this gets if you start applying 'discrimination' bans to something like negative treatment on the basis of political affiliation. Or criminal history.

(i.e. Imagine not hiring a person because you find out that they're a heroine addict who stole from their last 3 employers, and that they regularly attend Ku Klux Klan rallies. Then being told: "you discriminated against this person based on their protected status under the law." That would be the kind of shit you generally want to avoid, and rightfully so.)  

 

Edited June 16, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[XRay]

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

Discrimination against protected characteristics (i.e. race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age etc.),  should be illegal. 

But what is and is not recognized as a protected characteristic should be selected discerningly, with care that the law is being put in place to actually remedy some form of otherwise unremediated injustice against an unustly persecuted or disadvantaged group. 

And narrowly tailored so that the law is not overly indulgent in what it chooses to protect as a characteristic that cannot be legitimate grounds for negative treatment. 

Because you can see how problematic this gets if you start applying 'discrimination' bans to something like negative treatment on the basis of political affiliation. Or criminal history.

(i.e. Imagine not hiring a person because you find out that they're a heroine addict who stole from their last 3 employers, and that they regularly attend Ku Klux Klan rallies. Then being told: "you discriminated against this person based on their protected status under the law." That would be the kind of shit you generally want to avoid, and rightfully so.)  

Ah okay, that makes sense. Yeah, it is probably better to keep discrimination legal unless it is against a protected class, or else everything else becomes a protected class including bad stuff like Nazis and KKK and such.

But that means it is a tough and long battle for every protected class, and every victory is still fragile and temporary.

It took about a hundred years to end slavery, about another hundred to end legal racial discrimination and segregation, and another fifty years on we are still trying to end systemic racism. Even though we won the big battle where most people now agree that racism is bad, racism keeps reinfecting the fringes of right-wing politics and we keep seeing shit like "blood and soil" and Trump deemphasizing the threat KKK poses. And that is just on race/color/nationality.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

Claims from Bolton's book according to a NYT report:

1. The Ukraine Quid Pro Quo was explicit.

The book confirms House testimony that Mr. Bolton was wary all along of the president’s actions with regard to Ukraine and that Mr. Trump explicitly linked the security aid to investigations involving Mr. Biden and Hillary Clinton. On Aug. 20, Mr. Bolton writes, Mr. Trump “said he wasn’t in favor of sending them anything until all the Russia-investigation materials related to Clinton and Biden had been turned over.” Mr. Bolton writes that he, Mr. Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper tried eight to 10 times to get Mr. Trump to release the aid.

2. Similar stuff happened with other countries, China and Turkey in particular

“The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn’t accept,” Bolton wrote.

^ Easiest way to sum up Trump right there lol

3. He tried to get China to help him with the reelection. Not exactly new given this but the details below shed some light on a few things

Bolton wrote that “the president overtly linked policy to his own political fortunes as he asked [Chinese President] Xi to buy a lot of American agricultural products to help him win farm states in this year’s election. Mr. Trump, he writes, was ‘pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win. He stressed the importance of farmers, and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome.’”

4. Our commander-in-chief didn't know Britain is a Nuclear Power

5. Trump asked if Finland is part of Russia. This and the previous one are "whatever" but they're of relevance mostly because of how much his supporters elevate him.

6. Pompeo thought what many folks were thinking regarding North Korea

During Mr. Trump’s 2018 meeting with North Korea’s leader, according to the book, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo slipped Mr. Bolton a note disparaging the president, saying, “He is so full of shit.”

A month later, Mr. Bolton writes, Mr. Pompeo dismissed the president’s North Korea diplomacy, declaring that there was “zero probability of success.”

7. Bolton supposedly reported potential cases of Trump abusing his power to Bill Barr. Lol

Edited June 17, 2020 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Dai]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

-snip-

I think my favorite allegation from the book is that Trump believes the term limit should be repealed, and I quote, "for [him]."

[Dr. Tarrasque]

2 minutes ago, Dai said:

I think my favorite allegation from the book is that Trump believes the term limit should be repealed, and I quote, "for [him]."

"HE'S JUST JOKING WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT BEING PRESIDENT FOR LIFE".

That's the first time I've seen this allegation. Any more to share?

Edited June 17, 2020 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Shoblongoo]

Thats nice and all, but where the hell was he during impeachment???

Trump's as crooked as the day is long and I believe all of it.

But no profile in courage here from John Bolton. (If he really wanted to do the right thing he'd have come forward when the country needed to hear what he had to say; not wait to cash-out after-the-fact selling memoirs) 

 

[Dr. Tarrasque]

25 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Thats nice and all, but where the hell was he during impeachment???

Would it have actually mattered or achieved anything? I'm fairly certain the votes would've been the same and he wouldn't have been removed by the Senate. The politicians will say that it would've changed their vote to try and save face but we all know it's bullshit and the lesson that Trump learned according to Collins is simply that the Republican party is all in with the guy and have no real choice but to fall in line if they want to stay in power. 

25 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

But no profile in courage here from John Bolton. (If he really wanted to do the right thing he'd have come forward when the country needed to hear what he had to say; not wait to cash-out after-the-fact selling memoirs) 

Agreed. Still great because it's just infighting between scumbags who had no business being in power and whatever Swing state votes are flipped from 2016 against Trump in 2020 due to this stuff is certainly a welcome outcome.

 

Edited June 17, 2020 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Shoblongoo]

Don't wanna get too excited, because we saw the polling this time 6 years ago in 2016 and all thought there's no way Hillary loses.

But this time in 2016 I think Hillary was polling at something like +6 over Trump nationally. And the race was narrowing; every time the candidates did a public appearance, Trump's numbers went up and Hillary's numbers went down. 

Biden was polling at +10 nationally a week ago. 

The most recent poll out today has Biden growing his lead up to  +13.

And hes competing within competitive margins of potentially flipping the state in places like Arizona, Iowa, and Texas. (i.e. outside of the swing states. In traditional Republican strongholds.) 

Edited June 17, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[Interdimensional Observer]

3 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Don't wanna get too excited, because we saw the polling in 2016 and all thought there's no way Hillary loses.

I did see this article, suggesting battleground states and less educated whites (aka the Trump base) are underpolled.:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/17/trump-polls-biden-324210

[Shoblongoo]

2 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I did see this article, suggesting battleground states and less educated whites (aka the Trump base) are underpolled.:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/17/trump-polls-biden-324210

I'm literally just gonna quote the top comment from the comment thread for that article 

"Hillary Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump. The 2016 polls were not inaccurate, they simply didn't take into account the nonsensical Electoral College system that permits a candidate to receive millions of votes more than their opponent and yet somehow lose."

Edited June 17, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[Zapp Branniglenn]

Bolton WOULD have testified at the impeachment trial if not for the senate majority's flat refusal to do their job and call witness testimony. They did put it to a close vote (51-49), though Trump did claim he will block such testimony even if the senate allowed it. No idea if that's legally accurate (not a lot of impeachment precedent to go on), but if there's one takeway from that whole mess, it's the confirmation that the president is functionally above the law. 

[Lewyn]

Many of his supporters will just put their heads in the sand like usual, they are embarrassments to the country and democracy.  Hopefully this will swing more 'independents, undecided' to Biden and get him the victory.  WSJ has the full Bolton piece on China, you can access through facebook or twitter, please read share to everyone you know.  

[XRay]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Don't wanna get too excited, because we saw the polling this time 6 years ago in 2016 and all thought there's no way Hillary loses.

Yeah, even though I think Biden may be more likely to win, Hillary losing to such a scumbag still makes me very wary. I do not want to trust the polls too much and let our guard down. We should not underestimate his appeal, and we should hammer home the fact that Trump is a national security hazard to independents and moderate Republicans as much as possible so they will vote Biden.

[Dai]

5 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

That's the first time I've seen this allegation. Any more to share?

Allegedly, Trump applauded the murder of reporter Jamal Khashoggi’s murder so as to draw heat off the fact that his daughter had apparently sent government officials hundreds of e-mails across her own server, whilst using her own e-mail. Reminds me of an issue Hillary had with her own e-mails that Republicans liked to use as a buzzword.

Aside of a single retweet, this was the first thing he’d put out in nearly a day. I suppose it’s about time for him to employ his “distract and blame others for my own faults” tactics.

[Lord Raven]

5 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I'm literally just gonna quote the top comment from the comment thread for that article 

"Hillary Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump. The 2016 polls were not inaccurate, they simply didn't take into account the nonsensical Electoral College system that permits a candidate to receive millions of votes more than their opponent and yet somehow lose."

The polls didn't take into account the Comey incident. 538 attempted to adjust things to make it a Trump 30% victory -- other media didn't make any adjustments, and said 99% Clinton.

The polls weren't wrong, they just weren't updated, and expect the absolute worst possible shit to come out from the trump camp in the week before the election.

Clinton lost 3 states by a total of 80k votes, and more people are antipathic towards trump / loving Obama than in 2016. Bidens lead in swing states is so wide -- Michigan and Florida were almost at double digits recently.

I also don't think scandals stick to Biden, for better or for worse. Sexual assault? Fucking lol. Sexual harassment towards a minor? Biden admin showed proof that he wasn't there. Burisma quid pro quo accusation? Trump didn't get removed, but the only people who bit on that have a Trump cock holster.

Clinton couldn't escape some fucking emails.

[eclipse]

Whatever slack I was willing to cut those Atlanta officers has gone out the window.

Edited June 18, 2020 by eclipse

[Johann]

6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Clinton couldn't escape some fucking emails.

Not just that, but really the GOP's been attacking Hillary for decades and doing whatever possible to kill any goodwill or faith the public might have in her. Even in the early 90's it was clear that she was a strong contender for first female president.

-------------------------------------

In other news, further instances of Trump embracing fascist rhetoric and symbolism:

This ad is sponsored by both Trump and Pence and are in their official FB pages. For those that don't know, the inverted triangle was used in the badges for prisoners in Nazi concentration camps, with the color identifying prisoners. The red inverted triangle in particular referred to political opponents, particularly antifascists who directly opposed the Nazi party.

[Shoblongoo]

11 hours ago, eclipse said:

Whatever slack I was willing to cut those Atlanta officers has gone out the window.

...very Interesting that they charged him with felony murder...

That is a very specific charge and has a weird little kink to it that differs from the charges of manslaughter, or murder of the 1st/2nd/3rd degree.

Normally, when you're charged with manslaughter or a degree of murder, the prosecution has to  prove two essential elements of the crime

1)  The Actus Reus (i.e. Wrongful Act. That you did in fact commit the taking of a human life)

2)  The Mens Rea (i.e. the Wrongful State of Mind attached to the specific degree of the charge. "Recklessly";  "Intentionally"; "Intentionally, and with Malice Aforethought." w/e) 
_____


Felony Murder is different.

Felony murder is a charge that you tack on when someone dies in the course of you committing a separate felony. And there is no Mens Rea requirement for the felony murder charge itself; only for the underlying felony you were committing when you caused the death.  (i.e. the mens rea requirement for the murder charge merges into the mens rea requirement for the lesser felony) 

So if you intended to commit the underlying felony, and someone died as a result of you committing the felony--thats it. Thats all the prosecution needs to prove. 

Intent to commit the underlying felony meets the full Mens Rea requirement. The felony murder charge then holds you strictly liable for anyone who died as a result. And theres no way to get around it by arguing intent or objective reasonableness or state-of-mind.



So in this case, the prosecution is essentially going after the officer for:

 1)   Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon  (i.e. underlying charge)

2)   Felony Murder  (i.e. strict liability for any deaths that resulted from committing the underlying felony of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon)


And to win the case the prosecution only has to prove:


1)   The officer did in fact commit the underlying felony of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon

2)  Someone died as a result of the commission of the underlying felony
______


Thats different then how we've usually seen them charge these kinds of cases.

But honestly--thats probably a better way to do it, if you're trying to get a conviction and cut the knees out from under any potential defenses. 

I'll be very interested to see how this shapes up, and if we start to see more prosecutors doing this. 
 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Shoblongoo

[XRay]

5 hours ago, Johann said:

This ad is sponsored by both Trump and Pence and are in their official FB pages. For those that don't know, the inverted triangle was used in the badges for prisoners in Nazi concentration camps, with the color identifying prisoners. The red inverted triangle in particular referred to political opponents, particularly antifascists who directly opposed the Nazi party.

I really want Trump to lose. It feels like Democrats are not as good as slinging mud as Republicans. At the very least, the Democrats should accuse the Republicans of being a party hijacked by racists and dumb idiots who have no clue about history.

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

...very Interesting that they charged him with felony murder...

Since felony murder seems to be easier to prove, does that mean it carries a lighter punishment? Or are the punishment about the same as regular murder and manslaughter?

If punishment is the same, should prosecution for George Floyd also aim for felony murder against the cop too, or are the state laws different enough that it makes more sense for George's prosecution to continue to aim for regular murder?

 

[Shoblongoo]

5 minutes ago, XRay said:

 

Since felony murder seems to be easier to prove, does that mean it carries a lighter punishment? 

Nope.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-1/16-5-1

"(c) A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.

(d) A person convicted of the offense of murder shall be punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole, or by imprisonment for life."

[Lord Raven]

37 minutes ago, XRay said:

At the very least, the Democrats should accuse the Republicans of being a party hijacked by racists and dumb idiots who have no clue about history.

Lincoln project is doing that beautifully.