Political Thread XX

[Gfted1]

Trump wrote it himself.

 

That would be worth it just to watch Trump whip everyone into a frothy rage. Squeeeeeeeeeeal

[Gfted1]

1:38 p.m.: The drama over ‘confidential’ emails — which were already cleared for public release.

 

 

 

“I openly invite and accept the consequences of releasing that email right now,” Booker said. “The emails are being withheld from the public have nothing to do with national security.”

 

Bill Burck, Bush’s presidential records representative, said later Thursday, “We cleared the documents last night shortly after Senator Booker’s staff asked us to. We were surprised to learn about Senator Booker’s histrionics this morning because we had already told him he could use the documents publicly. In fact, we have said yes to every request made by the Senate Democrats to make documents public.”

Yet again, the sound byte doesn't follow the reality. r00fles!

[Hurlshort]

 

And while some. maybe even most, offenders charged with hate crimes made their motives clear not all do. But philosophically I have a problem with one killing being considered more heinous than another. If someone murders a member of your family does it really matter WHY they did it or THAT they did it. The dead are just as dead.

 

 

Clearly I need to pay closer attention when I watch Law and Order, schooled by Grommie and GD.

 

But as to this question, if I get killed accidentally by a motorist, or if I get murdered, it is still the same philosophical quandary. Why is one not as bad as the other? It doesn't matter to my family.

[smjjames]

Prediction: The Op-Ed will turn out to be written by someone NOT in the administration. LOL, wouldn't THAT be a lit match in the hay barn!

 

Doubt it. It seems to be someone who has access to top officials and top officials talk to them on a regular basis.

 

It's only a matter of time before the identity of the author of that gets released

 

@gfted1: He might have been relying on Grassley and the others not knowing that it was cleared, which would have been risky if his bluff got called.

[Volourn]

"But as to this question, if I get killed accidentally by a motorist, or if I get murdered, it is still the same philosophical quandary. Why is one not as bad as the other? It doesn't matter to my family."

 

They at eboth bad situations but one is clearly worse. if you can't see that you don't have your critical thinking panties on. Shoplifting and armed robbery are both bad as well. But one is clearly worse.
 

[Zoraptor]

Trump wrote it himself.

 

Ah, another piece placed in the Q Anon puzzle.

 

(Melania wrote it)

[smjjames]

Heh, Rand Paul suggested that they use lie detector tests. While I guess that sounds reasonable on it's surface, theres a huge amount of people they'd have to ask and it's just going to feed into Trump's paranoia.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

And while some. maybe even most, offenders charged with hate crimes made their motives clear not all do. But philosophically I have a problem with one killing being considered more heinous than another. If someone murders a member of your family does it really matter WHY they did it or THAT they did it. The dead are just as dead.

 

 

Clearly I need to pay closer attention when I watch Law and Order, schooled by Grommie and GD.

 

But as to this question, if I get killed accidentally by a motorist, or if I get murdered, it is still the same philosophical quandary. Why is one not as bad as the other? It doesn't matter to my family.

 

Presumably the motorist did not intend to kill you. Unless they were doing something that makes death a likely outcome. Like driving drunk for example. DUI Manslaughter and 2nd degree murder carry the same penalty in most states I believe. If you were murdered some other way, shot during a robbery for example its murder not just for the act but because it was done during to commission of another crime.

 

BTW I heard Law & Order is coming back.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

 

 

And while some. maybe even most, offenders charged with hate crimes made their motives clear not all do. But philosophically I have a problem with one killing being considered more heinous than another. If someone murders a member of your family does it really matter WHY they did it or THAT they did it. The dead are just as dead.

 

 

Clearly I need to pay closer attention when I watch Law and Order, schooled by Grommie and GD.

 

But as to this question, if I get killed accidentally by a motorist, or if I get murdered, it is still the same philosophical quandary. Why is one not as bad as the other? It doesn't matter to my family.

 

 

am suspecting the difference would matter to most families.  in the US, we typical do not criminal punish people for accidents. on the other hand, we got transferred intent and felony murder examples. classic examples includes situation such as when arson accidental results in death. david burned down a warehouse, but had no intent to hurt paul-- had no idea paul were even in the warehouse when he set it ablaze. paul dies and david is gonna get both arson and murder charge. conspiracy further complicates.  david is driving a getaway car from a bank robbery.  david didn't wield a gun or hurt anybody during robbery or subsequent police chase.  the robbery were s'posed to be bloodless.  unfortunate for paul, sandy, one o' his co-bankrobbers, pulls out a gun during the chase, leans out the window o' the car david is driving, and kills a cop.  david gets the death penalty. 

 

there is also the reckless and depraved heart killer stuff.  all the examples we gave so far involved defendants who had at least a moment o' bad intent-- david, in every example, intended to commit a crime, though not necessarily the crime he were ultimate charged with, yes?  might david be charged with murder even if he never had intent to commit a crime? what if david were reckless and not mere negligent.  what if david, who has a long history o' dui citations and is current having his license suspended, gets s-faced drunk and then kills another motorist while driving. is a good chance david gets murder charge. alternatively, what if david bets sandy that with his new crossbow he can shoot an apple off of paul's head, just like storybook william tell. david is an idiot and a toolbag, but he genuine believes he can safe shoot the apple off of paul's head and finder of fact is similar convinced. may still find david guilty o' murder 'cause his actions were so reckless.  

 

oh, and there is exceptions to need for intent.  is statutory crimes which do not have any intent requirement.  most common example is toxic waste dumping. a manufacturer might do everything in their power to make certain their waste is collected and disposed o' 'ccording to government regulations, but as a matter o' law, it genuine don't matter what the manufacturer were trying to do.  if manufacturer waste ends up where it should not be, manufacturer is subject to criminal liability.  'course, am thinking you are able to see why such felony examples is limited.  statutory rape is another such crime which don't require any mens rea. very few felonies.

 

mens rea requirements is understandable confusing.  

 

going back to the original notion o' hurls family, please keep in mind we ain't yet discussed civil liability.  if hurl dies and the motorist responsible for hurl's death were negligent, then is not as if the law ignores the wrong done to hurl and his family.  if is an accident, then chances are the motorist who killed hurl will not be going to prison and they won't have the baggage o' a criminal record following 'em the rest o' their days, but chances are they is gonna need compensate hurl's family for the loss.

 

honest, is more complicated than Gromnir has made it seem, and there is seeming exceptions for every exception.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps minor misdemeanors typical do not have intent requirement.  most traffic violations?  don't matter if your speedometer were broken and you genuine thought you were driving 55.  don't matter if the truck in front of you blocked the "no right turn on red" sign at a particular intersection.  'course there are exceptions...

 

*shrug*

Edited September 6, 2018 by Gromnir

[ShadySands]

I never liked Law and Order so I guess it's a Legally Blonde marathon for me

[Hurlshort]

You guys are making me nervous. I'm biking up highway 1 this weekend, so let's hope this conversation isn't prophetic.

[SonicMage117]

Just heard about the oped deal, thought I'd swing by to read all the ridiculous comments and get a few chuckles. I wasn't disappointed

[ShadySands]

Glad we could return the favor

[SonicMage117]

Sure thing!

[Malcador]

Just heard about the oped deal, thought I'd swing by to read all the ridiculous comments and get a few chuckles. I wasn't disappointed

What in particular is chuckle worthy?

[Malcador]

 

Trump wrote it himself.

Ah, another piece placed in the Q Anon puzzle.

 

(Melania wrote it)

That means Michelle Obama wrote it, then.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Malcador

[Pidesco]

Anomynous is a word. The best word.

[Malcador]

 

 

Nah, doubt the NYT or any organization would be that reckless. 

 

You mean the guys who mistook parody North Korea Twitter account for a real one? Those guys?

 

 

Yep them.  In this kind of situation not even a rag like The Sun or Mail wouldn't properly verify that the author was from the administration in question.

[smjjames]

OMG! Who would thought such think would happen?

 

What crazy leftists don't want you to know

 

Except you know every "transphobic", "misogynistic", "uneducated" white male?

 

That's one person out of, how many millions? Theres going to be bad apples in any group or society.

[Chilloutman]

Well if I ever have to go to jail, you bet yo ass I will try to convince them that i am transgender and want to end up in whamen jail section

[Malcador]

Well if I ever have to go to jail, you bet yo ass I will try to convince them that i am transgender and want to end up in whamen jail section

 

Well in this case "To be legally recognised as a transgender woman, a person must have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and lived as a woman for two years."

 

So better get started on that in advance. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Malcador

[Chilloutman]

 

Well if I ever have to go to jail, you bet yo ass I will try to convince them that i am transgender and want to end up in whamen jail section

 

Well in this case "To be legally recognised as a transgender woman, a person must have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and lived as a woman for two years."

 

So better get started on that in advance. 

 

 

what does it mean 'live as woman for two years'? Are you promoting gender stereotypes? What if I am gender fluid?

Edited September 7, 2018 by Chilloutman

[Malcador]

 

 

Well if I ever have to go to jail, you bet yo ass I will try to convince them that i am transgender and want to end up in whamen jail section

 

Well in this case "To be legally recognised as a transgender woman, a person must have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and lived as a woman for two years."

 

So better get started on that in advance. 

 

 

what does it mean 'live as woman for two years'? What if I am gender fluid?

 

Well found this

 

As part of your application, you must provide evidence to demonstrate that you have lived full

time in your acquired gender for at least two years (up to the date of your application).

The evidence can take the form of letters from official documents such as a passport or driving

licence, letters or documents from official, professional or business organisations or utility bills.

Please see accompanying Guidance Notes for more details. If the evidence is in a different name

to the one you have used on this form, you will need to show that it does relate to you

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/720834/t450-eng.pdf

 

That part isn't too onerous, less so next to the diagnosis.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Malcador

[Chilloutman]

[Guard Dog]

Barack Obama is giving a speech in Illinois bemoaning the divisive nature of our politics and how Trump inflaming our worst passions. Now THAT is irony. After he ran a ad that said and I quote "Every time a Republican is elected another black church burns".  Or another that promised to "punish our enemies" (Republicans... WHITE Republicans) if people voted Democrat. And he was never ashamed to sneer arrogantly at the unwashed knuckle draggers from flyover country. You know the ones. The bitter clingers. Hillary Clinton's deplorables.

 

Of course he IS right about Trump. But he is, like Trump & Clinton, and the rest just one more rat infesting the sewer. Covered in s--t and complaining about how dirty the other rats are.