LawTalkers
Page 99 of 126 « First 49899798 99 100101109 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)

Pretty Little Flower 03-11-2016 10:40 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499500)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/09/politi...economy-trade/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ricans-support

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...910_story.html

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...vitable-213685

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/busi...ss-6824206.php

I could fill ten pages with links explaining why trade and globalization are prime factors driving Trump voters. You can cite anecdotes about troglodytes at rallies punching protesters.

I'm happy to play along with the orthodoxy of some that we must call Trump followers racists and xenophobes first, and anti-globalizationists second (and only in a hushed tone). He does attract racists and xenophobes. But like Sanders, whose stump speeches on trade are near identical to Trump's, the crowd is to a significant if not overwhelming degree attracted to anti-globalization rhetoric.

But what the hell do I know? I'm just offering sources.
I don't care if you can cite to a thousand articles on the internet showing that a prime factor driving Trump voters is that people love cute puppies, and Trump is the only one who has been able to tap into the anger and frustration over the establishment's systemic failure to prevent the abuse of cute puppies. I like puppies too, but I am not going to pretend that it is not incredibly alarming that Trump has a significant base of racist, homophobic, xenophobes that he openly caters to, because he he also has a defensible position on puppies that has been overlooked by the mainstream media.

I will remind you, because I am sure you have forgotten, that I never said that "all" Trump voters are racists, even though you "quoted" me as saying that. I can say with absolute certainty that 100% of the sweeping over-generalizations that you make come right out of your ass. Yes, it is important to understand that there are many different forces that drive Trump voters, and to simply assert Trump's supporters are racist and that is why he is popular is lazy and incorrect. (I'll remind you again, because I am sure you have forgotten again, that I never actually said that.) And yes, as NotBob pointed out, sometimes it is hard to tell where the xenophobia ends and the anti-globalization begins. I'm sure that there are many that believe a big fucking wall will somehow magically prevent their jobs from disappearing down to Mexico, and the fact that the wall will also keep out those filthy, lazy, spic rapists is just icing on the cake. It is complicated to understand all the forces that motive a large voting base. But this is not a political science class. It's a fucking election for the president of the fucking country.

You dismiss the incident I wrote about as an "anecdote," as if it is some hazy apocryphal half-truth either exaggerated by or wholly created by a misguided liberal media. But you are smart enough to know that this is not an isolated incident, or you have willfully blinded yourself to that fact. To say that there is an undercurrent of anger and thuggery in Trump's campaign is an understatement -- it is simply a current. Yes, I have a hard time looking beyond the fact that Trump has a significant base of racist, homophobic, xenophobes that he openly caters to when it comes to my belief that this man should never, ever be in the White House. I cannot get past that fact. If you can, then (and I mean this quite seriously) what is your fucking problem?

ThurgreedMarshall 03-11-2016 11:20 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 499513)
I don't care if you can cite to a thousand articles on the internet showing that a prime factor driving Trump voters is that people love cute puppies, and Trump is the only one who has been able to tap into the anger and frustration over the establishment's systemic failure to prevent the abuse of cute puppies. I like puppies too, but I am not going to pretend that it is not incredibly alarming that Trump has a significant base of racist, homophobic, xenophobes that he openly caters to, because he he also has a defensible position on puppies that has been overlooked by the mainstream media.

I will remind you, because I am sure you have forgotten, that I never said that "all" Trump voters are racists, even though you "quoted" me as saying that. I can say with absolute certainty that 100% of the sweeping over-generalizations that you make come right out of your ass. Yes, it is important to understand that there are many different forces that drive Trump voters, and to simply assert Trump's supporters are racist and that is why he is popular is lazy and incorrect. (I'll remind you again, because I am sure you have forgotten again, that I never actually said that.) And yes, as NotBob pointed out, sometimes it is hard to tell where the xenophobia ends and the anti-globalization begins. I'm sure that there are many that believe a big fucking wall will somehow magically prevent their jobs from disappearing down to Mexico, and the fact that the wall will also keep out those filthy, lazy, spic rapists is just icing on the cake. It is complicated to understand all the forces that motive a large voting base. But this is not a political science class. It's a fucking election for the president of the fucking country.

You dismiss the incident I wrote about as an "anecdote," as if it is some hazy apocryphal half-truth either exaggerated by or wholly created by a misguided liberal media. But you are smart enough to know that this is not an isolated incident, or you have willfully blinded yourself to that fact. To say that there is an undercurrent of anger and thuggery in Trump's campaign is an understatement -- it is simply a current. Yes, I have a hard time looking beyond the fact that Trump has a significant base of racist, homophobic, xenophobes that he openly caters to when it comes to my belief that this man should never, ever be in the White House. I cannot get past that fact. If you can, then (and I mean this quite seriously) what is your fucking problem?
'A voter whose preferred immigration policy involves “a wall” and “a list” makes it clear where he stands on the humanity of refugees. A voter who thinks it’s perfectly reasonable not to immediately disavow the support of a white nationalist makes it clear where she stands on the Black Lives Matter movement. A voter who feels well represented by a candidate who has called women “fat pigs” and “dogs” makes it clear he is not to be trusted when it comes to women’s health.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/op...smtyp=cur&_r=1

TM

sebastian_dangerfield 03-11-2016 11:21 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
You are failing to understand absolutely everyone's point. No one here is disagreeing that he has followers who are anti-globalization and followers who are racist, xenophobic, sexist assholes. The point is that they often overlap.
Perhaps we're writing past one another, but that's part of my point. They do overlap. How much? Probably a lot. But to understand these people, we need to avoid focusing solely on the racist/sexist/xenophobic elements and admit anti-globalization is a driver. (I think it's the more significant driver, but there's no way for me to prove that, or for anyone to prove otherwise, so arguing degree there is a waste of time.)

Quote:
But the larger point is that what draws them to Trump is the "I don't give a fuck about PC bullshit, I'm taking back my country from Mexicans, Muslims, thugs, fags, and feminists."
This is the argument of degree I don't think you can make. You may be right. But I'm not sure. There's a lot of hatred for trade policies right now, and Bernie, who is certainly not attracting racists/sexists/xenophobes is getting a lot of traction offering the same anti-globalization stances on trade as Trump. That two candidates so otherwise unlike one another, and courting largely different voting blocs, are having such success with an anti-trade platform proves that policy stance is a primary driver for a whole lot of voters. Given that, I don't think you can make the judgment that Trump's main attraction is an appeal to, "I don't give a fuck about PC bullshit, I'm taking back my country from Mexicans, Muslims, thugs, fags, and feminists."

Quote:
He would have the same broad support no matter what the fuck he said about policy. This is not surprising given that he's never expressed a substantive thought on any policy issue or provided a plan for anything outside of, "Believe me. I know. Believe me."
I understand your point. I have understood it from the start. I can't prove it wrong, and I actually think it could be right. But I also think anti-globalization could be the bigger factor, and there's ample evidence to support both positions. Given that, I think they deserve equal airtime.

Sidd Finch 03-11-2016 11:27 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499501)
Normally, I'd agree. But last year was the exception. The libertarian wing of the GOP had power for a while, and the "tough on crime" jackasses could have been shamed into acquiescence, or at a minimum intimidated enough not to fight.
The libertarian wing would never have handed Obama a major policy victory. Never.

ThurgreedMarshall 03-11-2016 11:40 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499515)
Perhaps we're writing past one another, but that's part of my point. They do overlap. How much? Probably a lot. But to understand these people, we need to avoid focusing solely on the racist/sexist/xenophobic elements and admit anti-globalization is a driver. (I think it's the more significant driver, but there's no way for me to prove that, or for anyone to prove otherwise, so arguing degree there is a waste of time.)



This is the argument of degree I don't think you can make. You may be right. But I'm not sure. There's a lot of hatred for trade policies right now, and Bernie, who is certainly not attracting racists/sexists/xenophobes is getting a lot of traction offering the same anti-globalization stances on trade as Trump. That two candidates so otherwise unlike one another, and courting largely different voting blocs, are having such success with an anti-trade platform proves that policy stance is a primary driver for a whole lot of voters. Given that, I don't think you can make the judgment that Trump's main attraction is an appeal to, "I don't give a fuck about PC bullshit, I'm taking back my country from Mexicans, Muslims, thugs, fags, and feminists."



I understand your point. I have understood it from the start. I can't prove it wrong, and I actually think it could be right. But I also think anti-globalization could be the bigger factor, and there's ample evidence to support both positions. Given that, I think they deserve equal airtime.
1. I think your own post disproves what you're saying. If Bernie and Trump have the same (or substantially similar) anti-globalization message, what is it exactly about Trump that draws those people to him and not Bernie?

2. You think they deserve equal airtime? That's amazing. I think you mean to say: I think we need to examine each equally to understand exactly why these people are following this lunatic.

TM

sebastian_dangerfield 03-11-2016 11:49 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
I don't care if you can cite to a thousand articles on the internet showing that a prime factor driving Trump voters is that people love cute puppies, and Trump is the only one who has been able to tap into the anger and frustration over the establishment's systemic failure to prevent the abuse of cute puppies. I like puppies too, but I am not going to pretend that it is not incredibly alarming that Trump has a significant base of racist, homophobic, xenophobes that he openly caters to, because he he also has a defensible position on puppies that has been overlooked by the mainstream media.
It is alarming. But if you want to understand the rabid Trump voter, you have to look at the whole of the animal. You might want to stop looking when you see a veneer of sexism/racism/xenophobia among many of his followers. I'd prefer to get some more detail. There's a bigger story here. And if you're alarmed that millions of people are voting for Trump, wouldn't you want to examine what these millions of people are thinking? If you want to neutralize this shit, you think it might just be a better idea to grasp it in detail, rather than generalize it away as nothing more than crazy, racist cranks?

Quote:
I will remind you, because I am sure you have forgotten, that I never said that "all" Trump voters are racists, even though you "quoted" me as saying that. I can say with absolute certainty that 100% of the sweeping over-generalizations that you make come right out of your ass. Yes, it is important to understand that there are many different forces that drive Trump voters, and to simply assert Trump's supporters are racist and that is why he is popular is lazy and incorrect. (I'll remind you again, because I am sure you have forgotten again, that I never actually said that.)
I should have read down further before responding as I did above. Apparently, we're somewhat in agreement on understanding Trump's base.

Why did I say you were claiming Trump's voters were entirely driven by racism and xenophobia? Because that's where your analysis ended. You are right. That was perhaps unfair. What I should have stated was, "You have fixated exclusively on the racists among Trump's voters, which has severely limited the quality of your analysis."

Quote:
And yes, as NotBob pointed out, sometimes it is hard to tell where the xenophobia ends and the anti-globalization begins. I'm sure that there are many that believe a big fucking wall will somehow magically prevent their jobs from disappearing down to Mexico, and the fact that the wall will also keep out those filthy, lazy, spic rapists is just icing on the cake. It is complicated to understand all the forces that motive a large voting base. But this is not a political science class. It's a fucking election for the president of the fucking country.
The wall issue is where I think you can split the racists from the anti-globalization and "I want him to blow up Washington" Trump voters. The cavemen - the serious fucking fetal alcohol syndrome shit-for-brains redneck dipshit Trump voters - actually think a wall's possible. The rest, I think, realize that's just vileness offered to lure in useful idiots.

Quote:
You dismiss the incident I wrote about as an "anecdote," as if it is some hazy apocryphal half-truth either exaggerated by or wholly created by a misguided liberal media. But you are smart enough to know that this is not an isolated incident, or you have willfully blinded yourself to that fact. To say that there is an undercurrent of anger and thuggery in Trump's campaign is an understatement -- it is simply a current. Yes, I have a hard time looking beyond the fact that Trump has a significant base of racist, homophobic, xenophobes that he openly caters to when it comes to my belief that this man should never, ever be in the White House. I cannot get past that fact. If you can, then (and I mean this quite seriously) what is your fucking problem?
My problem is when people stop analysis short and generalize, the quality of what they say, and by extension the quality of any discussion of the issue, sucks. You're free to say, "I needn't look beyond the racism/sexism/xenophobia... I don't care about the rest of what's behind this 'movement.'" Fine. But then don't engage in discussion with people actually trying to understand this fucking crazy thing. It's complex, and apparently, it's going to impact our elections this year and probably for a few more cycles.

Really, I get your disgust. But when you do what you're doing, it helps to foster useless debate. And it ignores the deeper question of how globalization might feed into racism/sexism/xenophobia. Throughout history, when economies crater, hatred of minorities emerges, then nationalism takes root, and then wars (trade, cold, and hot) take place. Trump's rise signals to me that we are in that cycle. That's the discussion we should be having.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-11-2016 11:52 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499517)
1. I think your own post disproves what you're saying. If Bernie and Trump have the same (or substantially similar) anti-globalization message, what is it exactly about Trump that draws those people to him and not Bernie?

2. You think they deserve equal airtime? That's amazing. I think you mean to say: I think we need to examine each equally to understand exactly why these people are following this lunatic.

TM
1. People join a party, they stick with a party. And Bernie has that "socialist" word in his bio.

2. Yeah... I could've worded that a bit better. You got it.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-11-2016 11:54 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 499516)
The libertarian wing would never have handed Obama a major policy victory. Never.
Really? I don't think they hate him as much as you think they do. Save health care, he's been a pretty hands-off President. One could make the case Obama governed as an old school Rockefeller Republican.

Sidd Finch 03-11-2016 12:31 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499519)
1. People join a party, they stick with a party. And Bernie has that "socialist" word in his bio.

The second part has some validity, but the first doesn't. Just ask SEC Chick. Trump has been pulling in Dems and Independents in open primaries, or so they say.

Adder 03-11-2016 12:56 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499515)
(I think it's the more significant driver, but there's no way for me to prove that, or for anyone to prove otherwise, so arguing degree there is a waste of time.)
Everyone remembers the 1950s (and before), when there was no racism, sexism and xenophobia because globalization hadn't happened yet.

Quote:
Given that, I don't think you can make the judgment that Trump's main attraction is an appeal to, "I don't give a fuck about PC bullshit, I'm taking back my country from Mexicans, Muslims, thugs, fags, and feminists."
Except that you're grossly exaggerating the centrality of anti-globalism to Bernie's support (hint: college kids aren't missing factory jobs).

Adder 03-11-2016 12:59 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499518)
It's complex
I think you're the only one who thinks this.

Quote:
Throughout history, when economies crater, hatred of minorities emerges, then nationalism takes root, and then wars (trade, cold, and hot) take place.
Right. So what does globalization have to do with it?

ThurgreedMarshall 03-11-2016 01:09 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499519)
1. People join a party, they stick with a party. And Bernie has that "socialist" word in his bio.
I love this response. You are so very concerned about the anti-globalization movement in the Trump camp and just how and why it all came about. You need a deep understanding of how that issue influences decisions on candidates. You push back extra hard on what you seem to think is a knee-jerk rejection of people who vote Trump because they are responding in a collectively rabid, sometimes violent way as intellectually lazy.

And then you immediately do a 180 on your newfound desire to close-read these people and shoo aside a question of why people choose one anti-globalization candidate over another with a wave of your hand and the most shallow, intellectually lazy response one can think of. "Enh. No need to dig deep into that question. Red people vote red."

Sebby.

TM

sebastian_dangerfield 03-11-2016 02:46 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 499524)
I love this response. You are so very concerned about the anti-globalization movement in the Trump camp and just how and why it all came about. You need a deep understanding of how that issue influences decisions on candidates. You push back extra hard on what you seem to think is a knee-jerk rejection of people who vote Trump because they are responding in a collectively rabid, sometimes violent way as intellectually lazy.

And then you immediately do a 180 on your newfound desire to close-read these people and shoo aside a question of why people choose one anti-globalization candidate over another with a wave of your hand and the most shallow, intellectually lazy response one can think of. "Enh. No need to dig deep into that question. Red people vote red."

Sebby.

TM
I'm nothing if not inconsistent.

Putting aside that lazy half-pirouette, I think Bernie's embrace of Democratic Socialism turns off some would-be anti-globalization voters (they're red staters, and red staters do no vote for "Communists" under any circumstances). And Trump's a probable nominee, Bernie a long shot. And, of course, as you noted, a lot of Trump's free trade haters are also racists/sexists/xenophobes. They aren't voting for Bernie.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-11-2016 02:50 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499522)
Except that you're grossly exaggerating the centrality of anti-globalism to Bernie's support (hint: college kids aren't missing factory jobs).
"Young voters" = Under 30. (My apologies if you were on the 13 year college plan-- Or should I say, I'm jealous.)

sebastian_dangerfield 03-11-2016 02:59 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499523)
Right. So what does globalization have to do with it?
Globalization = Loss of jobs by large portion of population = Economic hardship for those people = Those people freaking out = Those people blaming minorities = Enter, Opportunist Demagogue = Nationalism = Trade/cold/hot war with more "enemies"

Globalization gives angry people looking to blame others a great big endless smorgasbord of enemies to attack. Trump could run around the planet like an elected Godzilla, making a mess of all sorts of alliances. "America! Fuck yeah! Trump smash Chinese! Trump crush India!"*

I don't think he will, but that's what a lot of his fans desire.

________
* Why he's anti-India I'm still not sure, but let's not think too much about this.

Adder 03-11-2016 03:03 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499530)
"Young voters" = Under 30. (My apologies if you were on the 13 year college plan-- Or should I say, I'm jealous.)
Ain't too many 28 year olds missing factory jobs either.

Not Bob 03-11-2016 03:17 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 499533)
Ain't too many 28 year olds missing factory jobs either.
Really? Talk to people in what used to be an industrial town. The Acme Enterprises complex in the Ancestral Homeland hasn't made anvils and instant holes at what used to be their main factory along the river since Nixon was president, and all of my younger cousins who live there still keep expecting the anvil-making jobs to come back from Bangladesh or wherever. Cleaner and faster and fewer jobs, of course, but they keep waiting for them.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-12-2016 01:31 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499499)
Obama's been a decent President, and a lot of the Left's attacks on him for not having done enough on health care, or jailing bankers, or "bringing urrr jobs back" are the usual gripes of those who don't understand how difficult, or impossible, it is to achieve the goals the Left desires.

But in criminal justice reform, there was bipartisan support. Booker and Paul got together to push it forward. The Kochs (for cynical reasons, no doubt) put money behind it. The rare moment where the public has some sympathy for people railroaded by a corrupt, deeply fucked up system appeared, and Obama missed the opportunity to push for reform.

Sure, even for Democrats, it's hard to buck the "tough on crime" idiot voting bloc. But Obama could have done more.
I can't believe you really believe this nonsense, but kudos for finding a new, outside-the-box way criticism of Obama, albeit one that is completely delusional.

In our system of government, legislation gets passed by the Congress, which presently is controlled by the Republican Party, the party which has opposed pretty much everything Obama has tried to do for the last seven+ years simply because he wants to do it. To get legislation through the Senate, you need either the support of the Majority Leader and the votes of 51 Senators (or 50 Senators and the Vice President) or the votes of 60 Senators willing to buck the Majority Leader (to overcome a filibuster).

So your theory that Obama "missed the opportunity" for criminal justice reform is what? There were lots of Republican senators who wanted to do it and were just waiting for call from Obama asking them to proceed? Mitch McConnell was planning to pass the legislation but got lost in Fairfax County and Obama didn't send the Secret Service to bring him to the Capitol? Obama could have used jedi mind-control tricks to hypnotize enough Republican senators but got distracted planning the state dinner for Prime Minister Trudeau?

The choice was always McConnell's, and he decided not to do it. See, for example, this January article from The Atlantic:

Quote:
Republicans Face a Big Decision on Criminal-Justice Reform
There’s a consensus on policy, but advocates must now convince Senator Mitch McConnell that an election-year push to reduce prison sentences won’t backfire on Republicans.

What will Mitch McConnell do on criminal-justice reform?

The fate of the years-long push to overhaul sentencing laws and federal prisons now rests in the hands of the Senate majority leader, who must decide whether bringing legislation to the floor is worth the election-year risk to a Republican majority that he has vowed to protect. Advocates for reform believe they have finally achieved a rare, bipartisan consensus in both chambers of Congress on most of the policy particulars—reducing mandatory minimums, banning solitary confinement of juveniles, and boosting prisoner re-entry programs, among other things.

Their task now is to convince Republican leaders that acting on a justice bill in the middle of a highly volatile presidential campaign won’t be political suicide. Top officials in the House seem ready to go, but the man on the fence is the famously risk-averse McConnell. “Let’s not miss the forest for the trees here,” said Holly Harris, the executive director for the U.S. Justice Action Network, an umbrella advocacy group. “The big issue is to prove to Leader McConnell that not only are these issues good policies that work and make us safer, but also that they make for good politics.”

Harris’s organization is partnering with conservative and liberal groups, including FreedomWorks and Americans for Tax Reform on the right and the ACLU and the Center for American Progress on the left. She told me the network would be commissioning polls in states with hotly-contested Senate races—think Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—as part of its lobbying campaign. And this week advocacy groups released a pair of letters signed by nearly 150 current and former law enforcement officials—including two former FBI directors and ex-Attorney General Michael Mukasey—endorsing the Senate’s Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, part of an effort to build a public bulwark from soft-on-crime attacks on the legislation. Advocates are also armed with positive results of state-level reform efforts in Republican bastions of Texas, South Carolina, Georgia.

After a productive first year as majority leader, McConnell has set modest goals for the Senate in 2016; his priority is to pass a dozen individual spending bills in a bid to return to “regular order” appropriating. Like other Republican leaders, however, he has mentioned criminal-justice reform as one of the few major items that could advance this year, and it was a big topic of discussion at the party’s annual retreat last week in Baltimore. Still, McConnell has been steadfastly noncommittal on whether the bipartisan bill that passed out of the Judiciary Committee last fall would get a full floor vote. “It is an issue our members are discussing, but I don’t have any announcements,” McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said.

Harris, a conservative strategist who formerly served in top GOP positions in McConnell’s home state of Kentucky, spun the majority leader’s openness as a positive sign. “I know Leader McConnell well,” she said in a recent interview. “He’s a very cautious individual who’s very cognizant of all the positions of his members, and quite frankly, he’s gone further in his public remarks than we ever hoped he would with respect to saying that these issues are deserving of floor time.”

If the liberal-conservative consensus on criminal-justice reform is so broad, what is there to be afraid of? Well, crime. Advocates know that isolated or overblown spikes in murders or violent assaults are easily exploited during campaigns, and that fear is heightened even more when the Republican frontrunners are Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Trump in particular has used highly-publicized attacks by immigrants to fan concerns about border security. And it’s not hard to see him turning to the playbook of the late Lee Atwater, the George H. W. Bush campaign manager who created the infamous ad tying Michael Dukakis to Willie Horton, the Massachusetts felon who raped a woman while on a weekend furlough from prison. Cruz, meanwhile, voted against the bill in committee and made a point of trying to strike retroactive reforms that would have helped prisoners who committed a crime with a gun—signaling he might campaign against it if McConnell brings it up.

“I don’t think what the crim*in*al justice sys*tem needs is ad*di*tion*al le*ni*ency for vi*ol*ent crim*in*als,” Cruz said. “What this bill does is goes pre*cisely back*wards from where we should be go*ing.”

By and large, the House and Senate proposals do not address violent crime, and the prisoners who would be eligible for release are low-level drug offenders or elderly convicts who have been behind bars for decades. “I don’t see a whole lot of Willie Horton fodder there, quite frankly,” said Mark Holden, senior vice president of Koch Industries and spokesman for the conservative Charles Koch, who is helping to bankroll the campaign for criminal-justice reform.

At the same time, Holden said the company wanted to see legislation passed in the first quarter of the year to avoid any complications with the campaign. The issue that some senators worry could scuttle justice reform before then is the question of criminal intent. Republican legislators like Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah want any package to include mens rea reform, or changes to the law that would force prosecutors to demonstrate that a defendant knew he was acting wrongfully or committing a crime in order to be found guilty. At a Senate hearing on Wednesday, a senior Justice Department official warned that Hatch’s proposed change would “make prosecutors’ jobs and law enforcement’s job much more difficult.”

“You could have guilty defendants of very serious criminal conduct escaping liability,” testified Leslie Caldwell, assistant attorney general for the criminal division. “We think that would be a mistake.” As examples, Caldwell said that under the proposal, prosecutors would be unable to convict terrorists who bombed a hotel in Mumbai in federal court unless they could prove the terrorists knew Americans would be there during the attack. Liberal advocates also oppose the changes on the grounds that it would make it much harder to convict corporate CEOs of financial crimes committed by their firms. “It would be a very damaging provision in the white-collar space,” Caldwell said.

Democrats and the Obama administration say they’re willing to change the intent provisions on a “statute-by-statute basis,” but Hatch is pushing for a default standard that would cover hundreds if not thousands of laws. “We’re willing to do this, but you’re not going to solve a complex problem with simple, one-size-fits-all thinking,” Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont said at the hearing.

Goodlatte said at an Atlantic Exchange forum last week that legislation without any changes to criminal intent “is not going anywhere in the House of Representatives.” His committee has been advancing bipartisan bills that appear likely to make it to the House floor, since Speaker Paul Ryan has voiced support for the effort. The Republican senators backing justice reform are not making those same demands, however, and they have the public backing of conservative advocates like the Kochs. “We don’t want to see reform go by the wayside because of this issue,” Holden told me.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican and a leading supporter of criminal-justice reform, suggested at the hearing on Wednesday that the dispute over mens rea could be resolved in a House-Senate conference committee. But that depends on the Senate passing a bill in the first place, and that decision belongs to the man who hasn’t said much at all: Mitch McConnell.
But you say Obama "missed the opportunity," as if there something Obama could do or say to do McConnell's job for him.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-12-2016 01:36 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Brilliant.

Quote:
Peter Beinart worries that
Quote:
The United States is headed toward a confrontation, the likes of which it has not seen since 1968, between leftist activists, who believe in physical disruption as a means of drawing attention to injustice, and a candidate eager to forcibly put down that disruption in order to make himself look tough.
At National Review, David French agrees:
Quote:
It would be painfully easy for leftist activists to position themselves close to a group of strategically-chosen Trump supporters, initiate a disruption, and then resist the instant the crowd tried to push them out. A racially-charged brawl would be endlessly replayed on the nightly news, complete with injured, bleeding victims, and national tensions would start to boil over.
Ours is an amazing country, where black people can get the shit beat out of them for hundreds of years, and chuckleheads agree that the real danger in a demagogic racist's volatile campaign is that black people might make his white supporters look bad by forcing them to beat them up some more.
link

Hank Chinaski 03-12-2016 02:00 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 499488)
I believe this may actually be the dumbest thing you've ever said. Congratulations on finding a new low.
http://nextshark.com/howler-monkey-testicles-study/

Not Bob 03-14-2016 03:03 PM
I can't keep up with what's been going on.
 
Anybody else re-reading Yeats? Probably a cliche (well, I am kind of a cliche, so I guess it fits), but someone mentioned this to me and I can't get it out of my head:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Anyway, perhaps I need to switch back to Manhattans instead of the Bushmills. Black Bush for the Black Irish. I think it makes me too morose.

Gattigap 03-14-2016 03:50 PM
Re: I can't keep up with what's been going on.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 499543)
Anybody else re-reading Yeats? Probably a cliche (well, I am kind of a cliche, so I guess it fits), but someone mentioned this to me and I can't get it out of my head:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Anyway, perhaps I need to switch back to Manhattans instead of the Bushmills. Black Bush for the Black Irish. I think it makes me too morose.
Yeah, I thought of this poem while watching news about the Trump rally punch-fests over the weekend.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-14-2016 04:17 PM
Re: I can't keep up with what's been going on.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 499543)
Anybody else re-reading Yeats? Probably a cliche (well, I am kind of a cliche, so I guess it fits), but someone mentioned this to me and I can't get it out of my head:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Anyway, perhaps I need to switch back to Manhattans instead of the Bushmills. Black Bush for the Black Irish. I think it makes me too morose.
Clearly, Yeats was not a great falconer.

Also, it turns out Romney is finally opening those binders of women and showing us, and they're kind of interesting.

Not Bob 03-14-2016 09:39 PM
Re: I can't keep up with what's been going on.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 499545)
Clearly, Yeats was not a great falconer.
I'm likely whiffing, but I have no idea what that means.

Also, I found this from Bloomberg very interesting. Not sure if the various Not Trump tribes in the GOP can actually work together long enough to pull it off, but we shall see.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-14-2016 10:05 PM
Re: I can't keep up with what's been going on.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 499543)
Anybody else re-reading Yeats? Probably a cliche (well, I am kind of a cliche, so I guess it fits), but someone mentioned this to me and I can't get it out of my head:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Anyway, perhaps I need to switch back to Manhattans instead of the Bushmills. Black Bush for the Black Irish. I think it makes me too morose.
Sorry, but it is a cliche. If the current times are really going to live up to the 60s for cultural unrest, we're going to have to find some new signifiers. Also, I don't really see it. Which falcon cannot hear which falconer? Seems to me like the centre is holding just fine -- it's the right that is collapsing from unsustainable centrifugal pressures. Not seeing much anarchy, Trump's efforts to the contrary, nor a blood-dommed tide or a ceremony of innocence. Not sure who "the best" are, but Bernie and Hillary don't lack for conviction, the problem is a cautious centrism and campaign-finance reform don't seem to be adequate vessels for it. As for the passionate intensity, yes, but not sure that justifies the full Yeats. YMMV.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-14-2016 10:09 PM
Re: I can't keep up with what's been going on.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 499551)
I'm likely whiffing, but I have no idea what that means.

Also, I found this from Bloomberg very interesting. Not sure if the various Not Trump tribes in the GOP can actually work together long enough to pull it off, but we shall see.
I am pretty excited by the prospect that Donald Trump is going to do serious, long-term damage to the Republican Party as it is presently constituted, and I can think of no better way to cut straight to the chase than to have the party establishment use the convention process to take the nomination from him.

Hank Chinaski 03-14-2016 10:45 PM
Re: I can't keep up with what's been going on.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 499552)
Sorry, but it is a cliche. If the current times are really going to live up to the 60s for cultural unrest, we're going to have to find some new signifiers. Also, I don't really see it. Which falcon cannot hear which falconer? Seems to me like the centre is holding just fine -- it's the right that is collapsing from unsustainable centrifugal pressures. Not seeing much anarchy, Trump's efforts to the contrary, nor a blood-dommed tide or a ceremony of innocence. Not sure who "the best" are, but Bernie and Hillary don't lack for conviction, the problem is a cautious centrism and campaign-finance reform don't seem to be adequate vessels for it. As for the passionate intensity, yes, but not sure that justifies the full Yeats. YMMV.
I have good responses but refuse to post here until you guys affirm adder was wrong about Biden and bush 1's sct choice AND that Sidd likely has tiny testicles.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-14-2016 11:03 PM
Re: I can't keep up with what's been going on.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 499554)
I have good responses but refuse to post here until you guys affirm adder was wrong about Biden and bush 1's sct choice AND that Sidd likely has tiny testicles.
Your post is self-contradicting. Also, TM and I already said your Wire post was funny so anything more would be piling on. And, not having small testicles, I shan't do that.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-15-2016 12:13 AM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Corey Robin, FTW.

Not Bob 03-15-2016 09:41 AM
Re: I can't keep up with what's been going on.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 499553)
I am pretty excited by the prospect that Donald Trump is going to do serious, long-term damage to the Republican Party as it is presently constituted, and I can think of no better way to cut straight to the chase than to have the party establishment use the convention process to take the nomination from him.
You may be pleased by this, but I am Not Sanguine. (AoN, wasn't there an Infirm poster named Joe Sanguine?)

Trump may well be the monster created by the GOP's various Dr. Frankensteins who will destroy his creator, but IIRC, a fair number of innocent villagers suffered at the monster's hands, too.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-15-2016 10:26 AM
Re: I can't keep up with what's been going on.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 499557)
You may be pleased by this, but I am Not Sanguine. (AoN, wasn't there an Infirm poster named Joe Sanguine?)

Trump may well be the monster created by the GOP's various Dr. Frankensteins who will destroy his creator, but IIRC, a fair number of innocent villagers suffered at the monster's hands, too.
There are few things I love quite as much as a metaphor capable of being endlessly overextended.

The villagers in Frankenstein were not innocent, they went on the attack and drove the creature further and further into the dark.

And remember, Dr. Frankenstein tells his story to another young man ready to create his own different monsters. At the end of the day, the doctor and the creature are just some of the monsters; more can be expected.

Not Bob 03-15-2016 10:53 AM
Re: I can't keep up with what's been going on.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 499558)
There are few things I love quite as much as a metaphor capable of being endlessly overextended.

The villagers in Frankenstein were not innocent, they went on the attack and drove the creature further and further into the dark.

And remember, Dr. Frankenstein tells his story to another young man ready to create his own different monsters. At the end of the day, the doctor and the creature are just some of the monsters; more can be expected.
I only read the Classic Comics version. But thank you for your insight.

https://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.ne...600/853123.jpg

sebastian_dangerfield 03-15-2016 12:14 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 499540)
I can't believe you really believe this nonsense, but kudos for finding a new, outside-the-box way criticism of Obama, albeit one that is completely delusional.

In our system of government, legislation gets passed by the Congress, which presently is controlled by the Republican Party, the party which has opposed pretty much everything Obama has tried to do for the last seven+ years simply because he wants to do it. To get legislation through the Senate, you need either the support of the Majority Leader and the votes of 51 Senators (or 50 Senators and the Vice President) or the votes of 60 Senators willing to buck the Majority Leader (to overcome a filibuster).

So your theory that Obama "missed the opportunity" for criminal justice reform is what? There were lots of Republican senators who wanted to do it and were just waiting for call from Obama asking them to proceed? Mitch McConnell was planning to pass the legislation but got lost in Fairfax County and Obama didn't send the Secret Service to bring him to the Capitol? Obama could have used jedi mind-control tricks to hypnotize enough Republican senators but got distracted planning the state dinner for Prime Minister Trudeau?

The choice was always McConnell's, and he decided not to do it. See, for example, this January article from The Atlantic:



But you say Obama "missed the opportunity," as if there something Obama could do or say to do McConnell's job for him.
I want Obama to do a prime time national address with policy initiatives aimed at:

1. Eliminating incarceration entirely for mere drug users;
2. Rolling back federal sentencing ranges, which are ridiculous and only used to compel pleas ("Oh, you don't want to take the deal? Well, you're risking a technical possibility of a thirty year sentence.");
3. Ending the death penalty; and,
4. Eliminating govt use of private prison operators (like CCA and Wackenhut), or at least barring those companies from lobbying.*

These are simple concepts every voter can understand. Is any of that likely to come to fruition? Not immediately. But as Bernie'd say, you have to start the conversation. And a speaker as uniquely talented as Obama could do so quite forcefully.

__________
* Nobody should be allowed to run a business where growth accrues from encouraging the govt to lock up more people and build more prisons. More appropriate would be the jailing (if not public caning) of those people themselves.

Adder 03-15-2016 12:19 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499560)
I want Obama to do a prime time national address with policy initiatives aimed at:

1. Eliminating incarceration entirely for mere drug users;
2. Rolling back federal sentencing ranges, which are ridiculous and only used to compel pleas ("Oh, you don't want to take the deal? Well, you're risking a technical possibility of a thirty year sentence.");
3. Ending the death penalty; and,
4. Eliminating govt use of private prison operators (like CCA and Wackenhut), or at least barring those companies from lobbying.*

These are simple concepts every voter can understand. Is any of that likely to come to fruition? Not immediately. But as Bernie'd say, you have to start the conversation. And a speaker as uniquely talented as Obama could do so quite forcefully.

__________
* Nobody should be allowed to run a business where growth accrues from encouraging the govt to lock up more people and build more prisons. More appropriate would be the jailing (if not public caning) of those people themselves.
You pot-smoking, criminal-loving, soft-on-crime, anti-business, commie, you'll have blood on your hands when one of these animals you let out of prison rapes and kills some poor white girl.

Pretty Little Flower 03-15-2016 12:31 PM
Re: I can't keep up with what's been going on.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 499554)
I have good responses but refuse to post here until you guys affirm adder was wrong about Biden and bush 1's sct choice AND that Sidd likely has tiny testicles.
Affirmed.

Pretty Little Flower 03-15-2016 12:31 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499560)
I want Obama to do a prime time national address with policy initiatives aimed at:

1. Eliminating incarceration entirely for mere drug users;
2. Rolling back federal sentencing ranges, which are ridiculous and only used to compel pleas ("Oh, you don't want to take the deal? Well, you're risking a technical possibility of a thirty year sentence.");
3. Ending the death penalty; and,
4. Eliminating govt use of private prison operators (like CCA and Wackenhut), or at least barring those companies from lobbying.*

These are simple concepts every voter can understand. Is any of that likely to come to fruition? Not immediately. But as Bernie'd say, you have to start the conversation. And a speaker as uniquely talented as Obama could do so quite forcefully.

__________
* Nobody should be allowed to run a business where growth accrues from encouraging the govt to lock up more people and build more prisons. More appropriate would be the jailing (if not public caning) of those people themselves.
Affirmed.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-15-2016 12:37 PM
Re: I can't keep up with what's been going on.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 499543)
Anybody else re-reading Yeats? Probably a cliche (well, I am kind of a cliche, so I guess it fits), but someone mentioned this to me and I can't get it out of my head:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Anyway, perhaps I need to switch back to Manhattans instead of the Bushmills. Black Bush for the Black Irish. I think it makes me too morose.
I heard Tom Hayden liken Trump rallies to Kent state this morning. I assumed him senile and overly dramatic. That he might have fallen off the wagon, and be drinking the wrong Irish whiskey, hadn't crossed my mind.

You realize the Trump fear just feeds more Trumpism. He can only be killed in the same manner as any reality star: People refusing to watch.

We lay the blame for Trump on so many years of cynical political strategies, so many deluded or stupid voters, and so many economic policies that screwed his base, and all of these assertions are true.

But the ultimate fault is with us. He entertains, we watch. He grows, and now we wring our hands with overwrought concern he's bringing us fascism. We're idiots. And there's no greater proof of that than this silly criticism. If you haven't noticed, the govt has been slowly and insidiously peeling away your rights to privacy (and almost everything else) since 9/11. And if you can't see that we are a nation ruled in significant part by corporate interests which are increasingly indistinguishable from govt itself, you've been on very strong hallucinogens for a very long time. What we've got already isn't meeting the technical definition of fascism, but it's moving much more in that direction than in the direction of freedom, individual rights, and liberty.

Trump looks to me like a perfect gaudy figurehead for a form of institutional and societal disorder and dysfunction already in place. The country's as ugly as he is, and his election would be a perfect love story -- a marriage of ideally suited equals.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-15-2016 12:50 PM
Re: Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499560)
I want Obama to do a prime time national address with policy initiatives aimed at:

1. Eliminating incarceration entirely for mere drug users;
2. Rolling back federal sentencing ranges, which are ridiculous and only used to compel pleas ("Oh, you don't want to take the deal? Well, you're risking a technical possibility of a thirty year sentence.");
3. Ending the death penalty; and,
4. Eliminating govt use of private prison operators (like CCA and Wackenhut), or at least barring those companies from lobbying.*

These are simple concepts every voter can understand. Is any of that likely to come to fruition? Not immediately. But as Bernie'd say, you have to start the conversation. And a speaker as uniquely talented as Obama could do so quite forcefully.

__________
* Nobody should be allowed to run a business where growth accrues from encouraging the govt to lock up more people and build more prisons. More appropriate would be the jailing (if not public caning) of those people themselves.

You inserted "federal" in 2 but forgot about it in the rest of your bullets.

He has the power to do a lot to end the use of for-profit prisons by the federal government, since that is heavily a contracting issue, but really can't do much about the death penalty, since the number of federal death penalty cases is pretty small compared to the states.

It's usual to try to take a crack at such issues in that short period someone is a lame duck, since anyone who has to face election needs to deal with the fact that the general electorate would just as soon yell "crucify him" at every opportunity. So maybe we'll see something after November.

Not Bob 03-15-2016 01:06 PM
Re: I can't keep up with what's been going on.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 499564)
I heard Tom Hayden liken Trump rallies to Kent state this morning. I assumed him senile and overly dramatic. That he might have fallen off the wagon, and be drinking the wrong Irish whiskey, hadn't crossed my mind.

You realize the Trump fear just feeds more Trumpism. He can only be killed in the same manner as any reality star: People refusing to watch.

We lay the blame for Trump on so many years of cynical political strategies, so many deluded or stupid voters, and so many economic policies that screwed his base, and all of these assertions are true.

But the ultimate fault is with us. He entertains, we watch. He grows, and now we wring our hands with overwrought concern he's bringing us fascism. We're idiots. And there's no greater proof of that than this silly criticism. If you haven't noticed, the govt has been slowly and insidiously peeling away your rights to privacy (and almost everything else) since 9/11. And if you can't see that we are a nation ruled in significant part by corporate interests which are increasingly indistinguishable from govt itself, you've been on very strong hallucinogens for a very long time. What we've got already isn't meeting the technical definition of fascism, but it's moving much more in that direction than in the direction of freedom, individual rights, and liberty.

Trump looks to me like a perfect gaudy figurehead for a form of institutional and societal disorder and dysfunction already in place. The country's as ugly as he is, and his election would be a perfect love story -- a marriage of ideally suited equals.
Sebby, you know I love you like the younger cousin who used to steal my roommate's beer from the fridge when he visited me at my square state land grant football factory alma mater, but if you don't see that Trump is deliberately stoking all sorts of vileness for his own advantage, then I don't know what to say. The country and our polity (can't think of a less pretentious word that fits) may be in bad shape for reasons other than Trump, but he is gleefully burning shit just because he can. He picks at wounds that already exist (race, gender, class, you name it) in a way that only a Marxian looking to heighten the contradictions of post-industrial capitalism could love.

We can blame Trump on the reality tv entertainment culture all we want, and the post-1964 GOP as well, but it all still depresses the hell out of me.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 03-15-2016 02:36 PM
Re: I can't keep up with what's been going on.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 499566)
Sebby, you know I love you like the younger cousin who used to steal my roommate's beer from the fridge when he visited me at my square state land grant football factory alma mater....
Man, you really hated that guy. Some of the stuff you did to those beers before he took them.....


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:04 PM.
Page 99 of 126 « First 49899798 99 100101109 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

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