Politics 2016

[Fionavar]

*Peeks in from the Roost in a Big Green inconspicuous sort of way*

[Guard Dog]

 

Welp, Trump is getting an intelligence briefing tomorrow in Trump Tower. I half expect him to accidentally expose a CIA asset or some such from a tweet.

trump Presidency in 2:07

 

 

Congressional impotence is partial to blame for the possibility of trump.  even so, is only so much trump can screw up domestic w/o Congress adopting a Three Wise Monkeys posture.  am hopeful trump scares Congress outta their indolence. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I agree with you on this one. Congress has long forgotten they are supposed to be a check on the Executive no matter which political party they are from. That does not mean they shut everything down and it does not mean roll over and give him his way on everything. We've gotten a lot of both. To my thinking that means assuring he constrains himself to the powers described in Article II and make sure he does not spend the nation into insolvency. The House of Representatives is the first guardian of the taxpayers money. I sure as hell wish they remembered that. 

[Guard Dog]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The problem with hate crimes is it punishes motive over the deed. You cannot know what is in someone's head. Sometimes it's obvious like that little monster in South Carolina. But even then if he shot up a church full of innocent people it does not matter WHY he did it. You can only execute him once. These animals in Chicago kidnapped and tortured a guy. It does not matter why they did it. Motive is relevant in proving they did it or creating doubt that they didn't. It's meaningless when it comes to punishment. If I punch a guy in a bar it's assault and battery. Why it happened does not matter. The act is what it is. 

[Meshugger]

Took a brief check on the torture video. Those guys weren't hating anyone, they were having the time of their lives and laughed. Hatred requires a moral compass to pass judgement on others, which they did not have. They were like children plucking the wings of an insect, which is more scary as that means that they have been brought up in a society were them, their parents and their friends do not simply care at all.

 

That is more scary than hate, imo.

[BruceVC]

Took a brief check on the torture video. Those guys weren't hating anyone, they were having the time of their lives and laughed. Hatred requires a moral compass to pass judgement on others, which they did not have. They were like children plucking the wings of an insect, which is more scary as that means that they have been brought up in a society were them, their parents and their friends do not simply care at all.

 

That is more scary than hate, imo.

So if its not a hate crime are you saying  we shouldn't charge them at all, do you think maybe counseling will work ?

[Meshugger]

 

Took a brief check on the torture video. Those guys weren't hating anyone, they were having the time of their lives and laughed. Hatred requires a moral compass to pass judgement on others, which they did not have. They were like children plucking the wings of an insect, which is more scary as that means that they have been brought up in a society were them, their parents and their friends do not simply care at all.

 

That is more scary than hate, imo.

So if its not a hate crime are you saying  we shouldn't charge them at all, do you think maybe counseling will work ?

 

 

Counselling does not create a moral compass, no. I mean that this is way worse. They should be locked away Breivik-style. They are extremly dangerous and should be considered as such. They were simply sociopaths.

[Meshugger]

 

Took a brief check on the torture video. Those guys weren't hating anyone, they were having the time of their lives and laughed. Hatred requires a moral compass to pass judgement on others, which they did not have. They were like children plucking the wings of an insect, which is more scary as that means that they have been brought up in a society were them, their parents and their friends do not simply care at all.

 

That is more scary than hate, imo.

 

So the Holocaust wasn't hate because Germans were having the time of their lives and laughed? I don't follow your logic.

They clearly were acting upon hate for white people. They attacked a disabled person, because they are cowards and know they are not a match for one helathy white person.

 

No, the nazis had clearly placed judgement that the jews were a bane against the germans and should be eradicated. The people torturing were like the children from Lord of Flies, except that they were adults behaving with infantile sensibilities. They have never developed into civilized normal human beings.

[redneckdevil]

Okay, cooled down a bit. Heard the news and won't watch the video, I've seen enough with pictures.

So the obvious thing that pissed me off was what they did and the dudes mentally handicapped no less. My woman is scared of my son because he's mixed and he would be subjected to racism. My youngest son we do t even think about people doing this horrible sick **** because he's mentally handicapped and people just don't do **** to them like they used to and then u see this **** and he's white mentally handicapped and now the reality is that it can happen to him has been driven home.

So that's the obvious **** that everyone who heard or seen already get.

 

Now the OTHER thing that pissed me off is that if u lived here in America during obama and you are white, u had deal with idiotic things that went on with the black lives matter and white can only be racist. Hell these things were shoved away because it went against the drivel that was being sprouted. Hell Britain even went thru with the rape cases because they didn't wanna be seen as racist.

Now this is textbook hate crime BUT the perpetrators are not white and are black and IF they do not charge the hate crime because the victim was white BUT because he's handicapped, then they set the bar that the drivel of only white people can be racist is true by the law.

[majestic]

Motive is relevant in proving they did it or creating doubt that they didn't. It's meaningless when it comes to punishment.

 

It isn't meaningless though, is it? Otherwise we wouldn't have several degrees of murder and manslaughter that all have one thing in common: Someone ended up dead, but the punishment is based upon intention/motive and culpability.

[Guard Dog]

 

Motive is relevant in proving they did it or creating doubt that they didn't. It's meaningless when it comes to punishment.

 

It isn't meaningless though, is it? Otherwise we wouldn't have several degrees of murder and manslaughter that all have one thing in common: Someone ended up dead, but the punishment is based upon intention/motive and culpability.

 

No, degrees of murder are not differentiated by motive but by aggravating factors and the details of the crime. My wife dies under suspicious circumstances. I collect a $1M insurance payout. That is a potential motive IF there is evidence I committed the crime. If I have an alibi and no evidence links me to the crime it is STILL a motive but it can't be used against me alone. If it's proven I hired a hitman to take her out that is 1st degree murder. Not because I had a motive but because i had malice aforethought and planed the crime in advance. Once it's established I DID do it the deed motive is irrelevant. It's still 1st deg murder. If I shoved her down the stairs at home that is second degree murder. I didn't plan it ahead of time (or at least it couldn't be proven). Again, if there is proof I did the deed, motive is irrelevant. If I shove her and she trips over the table and cracks her head on the floor then it's manslaughter. You can't prove intent if I had a reasonable expectation my action would not lead to her death (lack of intent). Now take any of those examples and remove conclusive proof I did the deed. There is circumstantial evidence or incomplete evidence NOW my motive fo committing a crime becomes an issue. If I had a reason to do it coupled with some evidence I might have done it then it meets the standard for a criminal charge.

[HoonDing]

Just downloaded an app to know whenever Drumpf tweets about a company. Useful to know when to buy and sell.

[213374U]

Nothing short of death penalty would be just for this beings. They are damaged beyond repair and we should eliminate such individuals.

 

And what, pray tell, makes you an expert on when people are "damaged beyond repair"?

[213374U]

 

 

Nothing short of death penalty would be just for this beings. They are damaged beyond repair and we should eliminate such individuals.

 

And what, pray tell, makes you an expert on when people are "damaged beyond repair"?

 

Wasn't that one of my privileges for being white, heterosexual male? There are so many it's hard to keep track of them. 

 

Is that supposed to be relevant information regarding your boorish attitude, or just you trying to be sassy about your white persecution complex?

 

I'm asking because I'm not sure if you're just trying to reassure yourself of your whiteness and heterosexuality, or you somehow believe that either quality is something to be particularly proud of. I'm sure you studied long and hard to be heterosexual.

 

TL:DR no one cares

Edited January 6, 2017 by 213374U

[majestic]

 

 

Motive is relevant in proving they did it or creating doubt that they didn't. It's meaningless when it comes to punishment.

 

It isn't meaningless though, is it? Otherwise we wouldn't have several degrees of murder and manslaughter that all have one thing in common: Someone ended up dead, but the punishment is based upon intention/motive and culpability.

 

No, degrees of murder are not differentiated by motive but by aggravating factors and the details of the crime. My wife dies under suspicious circumstances. I collect a $1M insurance payout. That is a potential motive IF there is evidence I committed the crime. If I have an alibi and no evidence links me to the crime it is STILL a motive but it can't be used against me alone. If it's proven I hired a hitman to take her out that is 1st degree murder. Not because I had a motive but because i had malice aforethought and planed the crime in advance. Once it's established I DID do it the deed motive is irrelevant. It's still 1st deg murder. If I shoved her down the stairs at home that is second degree murder. I didn't plan it ahead of time (or at least it couldn't be proven). Again, if there is proof I did the deed, motive is irrelevant. If I shove her and she trips over the table and cracks her head on the floor then it's manslaughter. You can't prove intent if I had a reasonable expectation my action would not lead to her death (lack of intent). Now take any of those examples and remove conclusive proof I did the deed. There is circumstantial evidence or incomplete evidence NOW my motive fo committing a crime becomes an issue. If I had a reason to do it coupled with some evidence I might have done it then it meets the standard for a criminal charge.

 

 

To be perfectly honest I'm not sure one can untangle intent and reason for a crime this strictly but I do see you point.

[algroth]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The problem with hate crimes is it punishes motive over the deed. You cannot know what is in someone's head. Sometimes it's obvious like that little monster in South Carolina. But even then if he shot up a church full of innocent people it does not matter WHY he did it. You can only execute him once. These animals in Chicago kidnapped and tortured a guy. It does not matter why they did it. Motive is relevant in proving they did it or creating doubt that they didn't. It's meaningless when it comes to punishment. If I punch a guy in a bar it's assault and battery. Why it happened does not matter. The act is what it is. 

Motives do usually have an effect on the sentence and charge, though. Heck, it's what can make the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. If the crime is demonstrably inspired by the perpetrator's prejudice to the victim's skin colour, race, nationality and so on, it does factor into the premeditation or intentionality of said crime. Not that there is much doubt in the above video and so on, but when you see the protests involving policemen harrassing and killing black men, it is an aspect to take into account.

 

Now, whether it means hate crimes should have their own specific punishment aside from what is ruled by all other factors, that I'm not too sure about. But if nothing else, it is an interesting statistic to keep note of as a higher frequency of said occurences can highlight serious problems with a community at large.

[Gromnir]

 

 

Welp, Trump is getting an intelligence briefing tomorrow in Trump Tower. I half expect him to accidentally expose a CIA asset or some such from a tweet.

trump Presidency in 2:07

 

 

Congressional impotence is partial to blame for the possibility of trump.  even so, is only so much trump can screw up domestic w/o Congress adopting a Three Wise Monkeys posture.  am hopeful trump scares Congress outta their indolence. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Was speaking more to the possibility of a mixture of carelessness, lack of experience, and attention-seeking that could lead to an unintentional security breach, I'm reminded of this passage from David E. Hoffman's "The Billion Dollar Spy":

we got what you were trying to say.  am actual far less worried 'bout accidental leaks than calculated showmanship leaks.  trump is a narcissistic clown, but he ain't a complete idiot.  a President, as Gromnir has pointed out so many times, has far less power domestic than most people understand.  power o' the President on domestic is mainly being able to influence Congressmen. the folks in Congress wanna get reelected, and a popular President being stymied by Congress is a surefire way to fail reelection. trump won his election by an extreme small margin and he managed to actual lose the popular vote.  a startling high percentage o' exit poll respondents noted how they voted for trump, but only did so 'cause they disliked clinton even more.  trump were arguable one o' the least popular President elects, evar. so, reports o' hacking will no doubt make some question the legitimacy o' a trump Presidency regardless o' the actual impact the hacking had on voter behavior.  add in the suggestion the hacking were a result o' russian malfeasance further undermines trump 'cause the folks who voted for trump are more likely to be suspicious o' those damned soviets than younger and more liberal city dwellers.  the trump Presidency starts off with a bit o' a handicap given how donald is relative unpopular and Congressman pay very close attention to such stuff.

 

so yeah, trump is being a bit obtuse 'bout his handling o' intelligence regarding russian hacks.  shouldn't be a surprise.  trump were either complete unaware o' the actual powers o' the President, or... well the alternative is less appealing.  most o' trumps campaign promises cannot be accomplished w/o the support o' Congress.  on many issues, a republican Congress will need not be convinced or cajoled into agreeing with trump, who will no doubt take credit every time Congress votes as any sane person would have anticipated a republican Congress woulda' voted anyways.  regardless, trump's popularity and legitimacy is already extreme low and he hasn't done anything as President. 

 

Razzle dazzle 'em

Show 'em the first rate sorcerer you are

Long as you keep 'em way off balance

How can they spot you've got no talent

Razzle Dazzle 'em

 

trump ain't a complete idiot.  a President depends very much on image and perception.  has a candidate for President ever indulged in so much flimflammery? *shrug* it don't matter now as trump Is President.  more than even during the campaign, image and perception is essential if trump wants to achieve anything domestic. the intelligence community is hurting the trump image and we do not foresee a passive  President trump response.  if polls show lost credibility for trump, he is gonna need respond with razzle dazzle, and the easiest way to do such is to show how flawed is the intelligence community. as President, trump has great access to intelligence info.  we would not be surprised if a considerable amount o' info, particular if presented in tweet form, could make the cia or nsa look incompetent.

 

am less worried 'bout buffoonery regarding intelligence leaks as such would likely hurt his image.  clinton's lack o' concern regarding security protocols is one reason she ain't gonna be sitting behind the President's desk in the oval office anytime soon. as reflexively stoopid as trump has been with tweets n' such in the past, am not seeing him make such a blunder at this time. however, we do see the possibility o' a calculated smear of intelligence using information which would not be treasonous if divulged, but would still be considered irresponsible to be releasing public.  

 

as far as image is concerned, trump is not in a good position.  he is gonna feel pressure to do something. people do stoopid when they feel cornered, particular the elmer gantry clones who has been relying on sleight-o'-hand for so very long.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 6, 2017 by Gromnir

[Namutree]

Maybe I'm an odd one, but I don't see the big deal. People get killed all the time in Chicago and elsewhere. Why is this, where no one died and the suspects got caught, such a point of interest?

 

 

EDIT: Regarding the supposed, BLMKidnapping, as some are calling it.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Namutree

[Orogun01]

Maybe I'm an odd one, but I don't see the big deal. People get killed all the time in Chicago and elsewhere. Why is this, where no one died and the suspects got caught, such a point of interest?

 

 

EDIT: Regarding the supposed, BLMKidnapping, as some are calling it.

IDK, why do black people only riot when black criminals get shot?

[Malcador]

Ah, this is going just like I expected

[Hurlshort]

I assume it is getting attention because of the video, which is widely available. As for the folks trying to make the BLM connection, well there are a lot racists out there. For example, Orogun's statement is clearly a racist statement that has no point other than being inflammatory. It completely ignores all the legitimate problems we have with police brutality and racial tensions in an attempt to disparage a large group that feels disenfranchised and targeted. The statement only serves to widen the gap, and seems to have no purpose other than creating an us versus them ideology.

[Volourn]

You call ti racist but who is being racist. the blacks who only riuot when a black person is a victim or the person who points out that racisjm. Whitey McWhgiety has no problem picketing on behalf of other groups.

 

Bottom line is BLM  is a racist hateful group that **** at the thought of dead whities hence the 'death to whitey' chants when marching. And, when I say BLM, that isn't racist because plenty of piece of crap whities are apart of that racist hateful nazist KKK group.

 

Police brutality is one thing but BLM doesn't care about police brutality. To say they do is a flat out lie. They car eabout police brutality when it is directed to a certain grouop. They surely don't care when it is directed to other racial groups - epsicially the whitey group. That is the very definition of racist.

 

Police brutality is a problem no matter who the target is. PERIOD.

[213374U]

To be perfectly honest I'm not sure one can untangle intent and reason for a crime this strictly but I do see you point.

 

The way it was explained to me, in an abstract sense, they are strictly separate elements. The rationale for doing something is not the same thing as the volitive element (mens rea in English Law and dolus in German Law) which is required to hold someone accountable of a specific kind of crime. Problem is, depending on whether it's a common law court or a civil law one, looking at the motive may determine whether it's (voluntary) manslaughter or a more serious variant of murder. Looking at the motive may help establish whether the outcome is consistent with the intent, which constitutes evidence, but is not criminal conduct by itself.

 

For instance, let's imagine that Sharp_One is talking smack to Tyrone the Black Racist. Tyrone gets mad and shoves Sharpie, making him trip and fall down. In the fall he hits his head against the tombstone of the White Race, and unfortunately breaks his neck. People generally aren't killed when pushed and it's reasonable to argue that he never intended to deprive the world of such a paragon of virility and whiteness, so a first-degree murder charge would be harder to pin on Tyrone. (Voluntary) manslaughter, second-degree murder at worst, assuming this is in a jurisdiction without racially aggravated murder rules.

 

Now, if instead of pushing, Tyrone pulled a gun and pumped Sharp_One's sorry ass full of lead, it would be hard to argue that Tyrone did not intend to cause his death (malice aforethought as GD said). First-degree murder. In both cases, Tyrone's actions are influenced by his irrational hatred and deep-seated jealousy of the Master Race, and in both cases the outcome is the same, but evidently they are very different scenarios... in an abstract sense, at least. To poor old Sharpie, it makes no difference.

 

Again, different jurisdictions and legal traditions muddle the issue further, and while some are going to agree with you that not only intent but motive matters when looking at the crime, it's not a universal idea.

Edited January 6, 2017 by 213374U

[Malcador]

So you are racist as well, you don't protest when a black person gets kill by police, Volo

[Volourn]

"So you are racist as well, you don't protest when a black person gets kill by police, Volo"

 

Actually, I don't protest for anyone or anything.   Doesn't matter if it is white or black or any other race. So, that doesn't make me racist. Just lazy.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Volourn

[Orogun01]

I assume it is getting attention because of the video, which is widely available. As for the folks trying to make the BLM connection, well there are a lot racists out there. For example, Orogun's statement is clearly a racist statement that has no point other than being inflammatory. It completely ignores all the legitimate problems we have with police brutality and racial tensions in an attempt to disparage a large group that feels disenfranchised and targeted. The statement only serves to widen the gap, and seems to have no purpose other than creating an us versus them ideology.

Sorry, I meant only when its black criminals. They never seem to have a problem when the injustices are clear.