LawTalkers
Page 311 of 334 « First 211261301309310 311 312313321 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=875)

Sidd Finch 04-14-2016 03:52 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 500382)
I happen to believe that eitherStewart or Colbert would make a better President than any of the current selections. But that aside, my vote may basically be a "no thank you" vote with respect to the current crop of aspirants.

I have seen a few things about Hilary that have given me something to think about. If only she weren't so fervently pushed by the same sort of demagogue one sees in the Republican side. You know, the sort of supporter who accuses anyone who speaks unfavorably of her as if they were a drone of the Koch brothers, or a closet hater of everyone and everything but Jesus. That sort of rabid support makes me think that she isn't being critically tested and pushed toward excellence by those around her.
If I find anyone who does that, I'll connect them up with you. It'd be interesting to see someone who fervently pushes Hillary and accuses anyone who speaks unfavorably of her as if they were a Koch drone, talking to someone who claims not to see a difference between Hillary and Cruz or Trump.

Not Bob 04-15-2016 08:21 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 500390)
If I find anyone who does that, I'll connect them up with you. It'd be interesting to see someone who fervently pushes Hillary and accuses anyone who speaks unfavorably of her as if they were a Koch drone, talking to someone who claims not to see a difference between Hillary and Cruz or Trump.
I assume it's a bit of hyperbole.

Look, I think this whole debate about how one chooses which candidate to vote for (or to abstain from voting, as that is a choice, too) is one where people will perpetually disagree. I'm firmly in the camp that one sometimes has to hold one's nose - the issues at the presidential level are just too important. Sure, I may think that President Obama sucks* on civil liberties in general and as applied to alleged national security concerns in particular (hi, Director Brennan!), but the idea of President Romney appointing Justice Scalia's replacement is sickening.

Yes, I know that the Mittster probably doesn't give a shit about abortion or gay rights or whatever, but just like GHWB wasn't a social conservative but appointed Clarence Thomas, some Federalist Society tool with an Ivy League JD who thinks government should stay out of your wallet but inside your pants would have already been confirmed by now in the Romney Administration. It seems to be part of the deal for GOP presidents to give the social conservatives a say in court appointments.

*Also not a fan of the drone attacks, but think that they may be better than sending ground troops (even special ops) into some of the areas targeted. Yes, it can be murder, yes it's unconstitutional when a US citizen is targeted.

Hank Chinaski 04-15-2016 09:57 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 500396)
Clarence Thomas, some Federalist Society tool with an Ivy League JD who thinks government should stay out of your wallet but inside your pants
Do you not see a diversity value in having at least one Justice with a solid knowledge and experience base in watching porn?

Pretty Little Flower 04-15-2016 10:19 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 500397)
Do you not see a diversity value in having at least one Justice with a solid knowledge and experience base in watching porn?
Right, you need an "I know it when I see it" guy on the Court.

ThurgreedMarshall 04-15-2016 11:49 AM
Fucking clown
 
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...d-nyc-gop-gala

TM

Replaced_Texan 04-15-2016 11:50 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
HPD is getting body cameras soon, and there's a guy on reddit from the gang division who has a pretty interesting perspective.

Quote:
HPD Gang Division here. I should be getting my camera next week. I'm generally for it, as I've had one of the older pilot models and it makes my life 100% easier in immediately disproving frivolous and false complaints and proving what actually happens on a scene in court.
But one thing that I've discussed with colleagues and something that I don't think I've seen discussed outside of our circle is what we call "the weed conundrum." In summary, properly adhering to our policies regarding cameras will effectively remove officers' ability to exercise discretion. For example, let's say I stop a car on a traffic violation, the driver is a young person, has a job or is in school, no criminal record, is a productive member of society with plenty of options ahead. Only problem is, I ascertain probable cause to recover narcotics I believe are in the vehicle. Lo and behold, there's a dime bag in their pocket. Now, without a body camera, I'm free to exercise my discretion to chastise this kid for riding around with this stuff, flick it into the bayou, and let them go. In that setting, an arrest will not put them in jail for the next 12 hours, get their car towed and incur $300 in storage fees, possibly lose their job for not showing up, and now you've got a criminal record that could very well inhibit your future options.
Since I'm in a proactive street-level gang unit, all we do is make targeted stops against vehicles we believe to have just made narcotics purchases. And probably 85% of the time it's just weed. And probably 85% of those stops end in the scenario described above. Hey dummy, don't be riding around with this shit, if you're gonna smoke it, leave it at home. And everyone drives away.
But now, if I want to keep my job, every. single. bag. I find, somebody's got to go to jail over. Because it's all recorded, and if some supervisor randomly audits my footage, or some defense attorney subpoenas all my footage from a particular day and sees I let one person slide but not his client, then he drops a complaint and now I'm in jeopardy of losing my job.
Same with DWIs. Unless you had caused an accident and there was no way to work around it, I generally would work to get somebody you knew to come pick you up and take you home. Saves you $20,000 in lawyer fees, a suspended license, and possible loss of job and income. Not anymore.
I understand and approve the need for officers to wear them. I enjoy the protection it provides. But it's a double edged sword, and I don't think many of the people screaming for them considered this angle.
There is a lot of discussion going forward, and it looks like a few cops joined in. Also, I had no idea that we had an insane Juggalo problem.

I know that I personally am dealing with how to approach body cameras in health care settings. It's an area that hasn't really been thought through (at least here) very well.

taxwonk 04-15-2016 12:07 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 500400)
HPD is getting body cameras soon, and there's a guy on reddit from the gang division who has a pretty interesting perspective.



There is a lot of discussion going forward, and it looks like a few cops joined in. Also, I had no idea that we had an insane Juggalo problem.

I know that I personally am dealing with how to approach body cameras in health care settings. It's an area that hasn't really been thought through (at least here) very well.
There is, or at least there was, a fairly well-established body of case law allowing officers to exercise discretion in making arrests so long as it didn't endanger the public. I would hate for body cams to undermine all that.

Sidd Finch 04-15-2016 12:33 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 500397)
Do you not see a diversity value in having at least one Justice with a solid knowledge and experience base in watching porn?
I fully expect that RBG has rubbed one out while scrolling through Tumblr, on more than one occasion.



She's awesome that way.

Sidd Finch 04-15-2016 12:35 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 500400)
HPD is getting body cameras soon, and there's a guy on reddit from the gang division who has a pretty interesting perspective.



There is a lot of discussion going forward, and it looks like a few cops joined in. Also, I had no idea that we had an insane Juggalo problem.

I know that I personally am dealing with how to approach body cameras in health care settings. It's an area that hasn't really been thought through (at least here) very well.

The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

ThurgreedMarshall 04-15-2016 12:37 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 500401)
There is, or at least there was, a fairly well-established body of case law allowing officers to exercise discretion in making arrests so long as it didn't endanger the public. I would hate for body cams to undermine all that.
I tend to agree. But I think the positive changes we are likely to see when it comes to who cops are stopping and why, how abusive they are, the fact that they will no longer be able to just outright lie on the stand, and the access to video evidence of violence perpetrated by and against police, outweigh this.

Hopefully we'll see further decriminalization of weed possession and other bullshit infractions that are currently left to police discretion (and often applied disproportionately to blacks and latinos).

TM

ThurgreedMarshall 04-15-2016 12:42 PM
For SEC and Ty
 
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/1140768...onvention-2016

TM

Pretty Little Flower 04-15-2016 03:31 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 500401)
There is, or at least there was, a fairly well-established body of case law allowing officers to exercise discretion in making arrests so long as it didn't endanger the public. I would hate for body cams to undermine all that.
The only people who are seriously in favor of letting all the potheads run free are the lobbyists for Frito Lay. Here's some more New Orleans funk. Sorry if it is too happy for you Sidd, my man, but it's Friday afternoon, sunny, we're in a string of days in the 70s, and I feel like doing the hip drop. By the Explosions. Your Daily Dose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_VzUsavnfM

Tyrone Slothrop 04-16-2016 01:00 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 500401)
There is, or at least there was, a fairly well-established body of case law allowing officers to exercise discretion in making arrests so long as it didn't endanger the public. I would hate for body cams to undermine all that.
I don't think it's a legal question as much as the department's policy.

Tyrone Slothrop 04-16-2016 01:06 PM
Re: For SEC and Ty
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 500405)
A contested convention would be a hot mess for either party. We all get now that the delegate-selection processes aren't great and will look illegitimate in a tight race, but a convention will compound those weaknesses exponentially. Conventions are designed as coronations, not as processes to resolve disagreements.

Not Bob 04-16-2016 03:50 PM
Re: For SEC and Ty
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 500413)
Conventions are designed as coronations, not as processes to resolve disagreements.
Not True - in fact, that's exactly what they were designed to do - and not just in terms of the nominee. Off the top of my head, I can think of (in no particulate order) platform fights on policy like free silver versus gold, dry versus wet, the ERA versus not, states rights versus civil rights, anti-war versus war, etc.

The current convention schedules of both parties don't anticipate this sort of thing any more, true. The last nasty floor battles were probably 1976 for the GOP and 1972 for the Democrats. But factions fighting over policies and candidates, and the majority of delegates making a decision one way or another, is precisely what party conventions were designed to do.

(I agree that a contested convention would be a clusterfuck but that's because of how the process (and how we view the process) has evolved, not because the design doesn't permit it.)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:50 PM.
Page 311 of 334 « First 211261301309310 311 312313321 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com