Culture Wars

[Mikel2]

15 hours ago, rmgill said:

Curious thing to say that borders on outright lie. Are those black communities run by GOP or DNC election boards? I'll bet you they're DNC run. Election boards are local affairs. How the GOP controls those in predominantly black cities is beyond me. 

Likely it's local election boards making decisions on cost or making incompetent decisions and they just blame it on the man. 

Ask the black friend when he cites such a thing, he should be able to cite some specifics and show who closed the polling location. If he can't then it's bad form. 

These are the links he sent me, standard Stacey Abrams disenfranchisment stuff:

https://www.governing.com/archive/sl-polling-place-close-ahead-of-november-elections-black-voters.html?AMP

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1VV09J

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/voting-precincts-closed-across-georgia-since-election-oversight-lifted/bBkHxptlim0Gp9pKu7dfrN/?outputType=amp

 

What I want to know - Are these voting place consolidations disproportionately affecting predominantly black areas?  Are local governments (mostly run by democrats) responsible for setting up these, or is this done by state governments?

 

 

Edited February 13, 2021 by Mikel2

[FALightFighter]

2 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

In regards to your last point everything I've read states the law restricting criminals from voting has been applied equally across the board.  There's no question about that.  The issue is in who gets prosecuted and convicted with the crimes in the first place.  In that regard the law may be clear but the application of it is not fair and equal. 

So it's not a matter of voter suppression at all- the restrictions on voting are, by your own admission, enforced equally. The issue is that drug laws, in general, are a misapplication of governmental power. Confounding the two is not helpful.

[Ivanhoe]

https://nypost.com/2021/02/13/blm-protest-in-nyc-leaves-nypd-cops-injured-and-11-arrested/
 

Quote

 

At least some of those taken into custody were accused of attacking Daily News photographer Sam Costanza at Sixth Avenue and 54th Street — in the mistaken belief that he was a cop, law-enforcement sources told The Post.

Costanza was surrounded and struck after one of the marchers recognized him from a previous BLM protest outside the NYPD’s Sixth Precinct station house in Greenwich Village last year, according to the sources.

 

 

[Skywalkre]

5 hours ago, FALightFighter said:

So it's not a matter of voter suppression at all

You can make a strong argument that it is.  If you pass a law that restricts certain criminals from voting, you know that law has been enforced disproportionately against certain communities (and said communities tend to vote for the opposing party), and the result is more voters disenfranchised on the opposing side of the political spectrum than your own... yeah, that would still be voter suppression.

[Detonable]

  The laws aren't enforced disproportionally against the black community. Sentences are lower in urban centers than they are in rural areas for similar crimes.

  The massive volume of violent crime leads to more arrests. (Not to say that theft isn't widespread). The numbers of murders is a good example of that.

  One of the women I dated in Prince Georges County, Maryland was beautiful and quite smart. She had a daughter and two sons, all really nice people when I met them in the 1980s. The daughter moved in with a successful auto repair shop owner and did the books for him. She had a baby without marriage. Shortly thereafter he beat her up and they separated. The older son visited his cousin attending Georgetown University. Unlike most college visitors who would attend parties or check out the Georgetown street scene, they decided to rob the Georgetown University post office. The student got off while my friend's son, who probably didn't even know where the post office was, went to jail for a year.

  The younger son was a really sweet kid. I wondered how he could be so nice since he lived in a bad neighborhood. A year ago I looked up how he was doing. He'd nickname was "bonethug" and he'd had arrests for drugs, drunk driving, and possession of a weapon with the serial number filed off.

[lucklucky]

Not black enough....

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47468011

 

Quote

 

An upcoming biopic about the father of Serena and Venus Williams has faced criticism amid reports that Will Smith will play the lead role.

Richard Williams, 77, coached his daughters to become two of the world's greatest tennis players, despite having no previous experience of the game.

But Smith's reported casting in the film has angered critics, who say he is too light-skinned for the part.

The actor has not yet commented on the reported casting or the criticism.

Colourism is a form of discrimination against dark-skinned people in favour of those with lighter skin from the same race.

 

Note for BBC the inverse is not "Colourism..."

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by lucklucky

[rmgill]

5 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

You can make a strong argument that it is.  If you pass a law that restricts certain criminals from voting, you know that law has been enforced disproportionately against certain communities (and said communities tend to vote for the opposing party), and the result is more voters disenfranchised on the opposing side of the political spectrum than your own... yeah, that would still be voter suppression.

Certain criminals? You mean the ones committing felonies? As opposed to the other non criminals who aren't caught because they don't commit crimes?

You need to show your work here. You assert that a population is being charged disproportionately? Or convicted wrongly?

[FALightFighter]

8 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

You can make a strong argument that it is.  If you pass a law that restricts certain criminals from voting, you know that law has been enforced disproportionately against certain communities (and said communities tend to vote for the opposing party), and the result is more voters disenfranchised on the opposing side of the political spectrum than your own... yeah, that would still be voter suppression.

I didn't research the entire history, but it appears from this that the changes have been to,allow all or some criminals to vote, not as you stated to add restrictions.

https://felonvoting.procon.org/state-felon-voting-laws/

I acknowledge that I have some pretty extreme views on criminal justice, but I personally don't want convicted felons voting- they've proven that they don't want to live in peace with civil society, why let them have a say in how society is run? The old concept of outlawry is actually kind of useful.

[Ivanhoe]

1 hour ago, FALightFighter said:

I acknowledge that I have some pretty extreme views on criminal justice, but I personally don't want convicted felons voting- they've proven that they don't want to live in peace with civil society, why let them have a say in how society is run? The old concept of outlawry is actually kind of useful.

What I have been told by LEOs is that drug laws are most often used to get habitual offenders of the violent and/or property crime ilk off the streets. Someone with no property or violent crime arrests on their record isn't going to state prison for weed. For one thing, there isn't room. Drug convictions are much easier to get than robbery or assault convictions, and federal sentencing guidelines enable longer sentences. If we had a serious reform with mandatory minimums for violent and property crimes*, we could ease up a lot on drug sentencing.

Now keep in mind that the above is in the context of state courts. The federal system is a different kettle of fish.

I think it would be a fantastic use of the principle of federalism to eliminate all federal law concerning recreational drugs. Let people vote with their feet and move to a state where the laws are to their liking.

* I will reiterate the case of George Floyd's 2009 conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Crime occurred in 2007. Floyd served only 5 years.

[Mikel2]

59 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

What I have been told by LEOs is that drug laws are most often used to get habitual offenders of the violent and/or property crime ilk off the streets. Someone with no property or violent crime arrests on their record isn't going to state prison for weed. For one thing, there isn't room. Drug convictions are much easier to get than robbery or assault convictions, and federal sentencing guidelines enable longer sentences. If we had a serious reform with mandatory minimums for violent and property crimes*, we could ease up a lot on drug sentencing.

Now keep in mind that the above is in the context of state courts. The federal system is a different kettle of fish.

I think it would be a fantastic use of the principle of federalism to eliminate all federal law concerning recreational drugs. Let people vote with their feet and move to a state where the laws are to their liking.

* I will reiterate the case of George Floyd's 2009 conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Crime occurred in 2007. Floyd served only 5 years.

 

Yes, when people get all up in arms hearing that someone went to prison for a minor drug offense, chances are that there was a more serious crime involved and that it was pleaded down to that.

 

 

[FALightFighter]

59 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

...

I think it would be a fantastic use of the principle of federalism to eliminate all federal law concerning<del> recreational</del> drugs. Let people vote with their feet and move to a state where the laws are to their liking.

...

FIFY.

Federal drug laws are clearly an unConstitutional overreach.

Regarding your earlier point about property or violent crimes, you are spot on. Our system is far too lenient with people that physically attack others.

[NickM]

1 minute ago, Mikel2 said:

 

Yes, when people get all up in arms hearing that someone went to prison for a minor drug offense, chances are that there was a more serious crime involved and that it was pleaded down to that.

 

 

Yeah a couple of the more notorious MS13 Murderers in SF (that Ramos guy who killed that family a block from my wife's old house, for example) had numerous 'drug' and weapon possession busts on his record; of course that doesn't require anybody to have to 'rat out' a person who's clearly a 'stone killer' either.

 

That being said, both Ramos and the other MS13 killer (who shot and  killed an SFPD Officer) could have been deported before they did anything by SF's 'powers that be' (one of the most prominent of them was....Kamala Harris), but they were allowed to stay.

[JWB]

[Ssnake]

Split off the image embedding discussion into "I love the new format"

 

[lucklucky]

Ok

[DB]

I see a parallel between the point of view that Skywalkre is putting forward and the old methods used to prevent black people from voting back in the 50s and 60s. It's a little harder to link the method to the result than the blatant misapplication of the law back in the day, but it's a plausible link. An analogy is the way that NY (doesn't) issue gun permits. Technically it's possible, practically it's stonewalled to the point of being impossible (at least, that's my understanding of the issue as discussed here some years ago.)

More broadly, this is a societal problem, and it's far too easy for people who aren't directly involved to insist that it's not their problem. Inner city minorities have disproportionate crime, so those not in the "sink hole" cities turn their noses up and say "it's not my problem", and that's true to a point. True reformers - and I'm thinking in terms of the UK drivers for social justice back in the 18-19th centuries - could have ignored the problem they could see in society, but they didn't.

Instead of that, what we see now is short-sighted exploitation of the disadvantaged group, whose sense of identity is being driven by propaganda which shifts blame to others, to the advantage only of the politicians involved. there is no altruistic champion who seeks to actually unpick this knot. One side is content to ghettoise the other so they can feel superior about the stink from over there. The other is content to foment discontent and jealousy in the ghetto so they can empower themselves.

I have no solutions to propose - there is no white knight who can ride into view and sort things out. The only way I can envisage involves a willing community and a lot of time.

[rmgill]

2 minutes ago, DB said:

I see a parallel between the point of view that Skywalkre is putting forward and the old methods used to prevent black people from voting back in the 50s and 60s. It's a little harder to link the method to the result than the blatant misapplication of the law back in the day, but it's a plausible link. An analogy is the way that NY (doesn't) issue gun permits. Technically it's possible, practically it's stonewalled to the point of being impossible (at least, that's my understanding of the issue as discussed here some years ago.)

Except in the way that New York Issues Permits is that subjective decisions are baked into the decision. In fact, the courts have specifically allowed that subjectiveness which is evidently, in many cases, very much based on whether or not the cops like you or if you've given to a donation fund of some sort (usually re-election for sheriff). Things are similar in California). 

It's a parallel in the same way that New York and Georgia requires licenses to carry, but there's no comparison. 

If you're going to make a case that a given ID law is causing disfranchisement, you'd be best to explain particulars and give examples. Simply saying that poor black people can't get the ID's is folly when they're FREE upon application. That's a far sight from how pistol permits are handled in DC. 

More so, if the ID requirements are racist then so to are ANY gun licensing requirements. But you NEVER hear that from the left. More accurately though, any convoluted firearms licensing scheme is going to be objectively class based. 
 

2 minutes ago, DB said:

Instead of that, what we see now is short-sighted exploitation of the disadvantaged group, whose sense of identity is being driven by propaganda which shifts blame to others, to the advantage only of the politicians involved. there is no altruistic champion who seeks to actually unpick this knot. One side is content to ghettoise the other so they can feel superior about the stink from over there. The other is content to foment discontent and jealousy in the ghetto so they can empower themselves.

This is best illustrated by the cities that had riots over police brutality, the right is blamed, the cities are predominantly run by Democrats, who acceded to the demands, defunded police and crime skyrockted. I'm sure this was a boon to those poor inner city black citizens who had to deal with greater levels of crime to get by. But then you have members of the DNC who actively state that crime is a reasonable way of addressing the imbalances of poverty. So, it follows that they WANT more crime. Pardon me while I don't take ANYTHING they want as being a remotely good idea. 
 

 

[Tim the Tank Nut]

one man went to Washington and worked on sentencing reform for blacks.  He was replaced in the last election.

It's hard to be sympathetic...

[Rick]

In Jackson, Mississippi. Mississippi of all places!

https://www.adflegal.org/blog/third-grader-was-forced-remove-her-jesus-loves-me-mask-so-shes-taking-stand

[R011]

This is about the most uncontroversial, inoffensive religious message I could imagine.

[NickM]

19 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Split off the image embedding discussion into "I love the new format"

 

Dude that's freaky deaky! I don't even think I posted that pic when I started that thread.

[Ssnake]

Well, _I_ didn't add it.

[lucklucky]

Quote

 

As a key member of Task Force One Navy I will invest the time, attention and empathy required to analyze and evaluate Navywide issues related to racism, sexism, ableism and other structural and interpersonal biases.

I pledge to be actively inclusive in the public and private spheres where I live and work, and proactively encourage others to do the same.

I pledge to advocate for and acknowledge all lived experiences and intersectional identities of every Sailor in the Navy.

I pledge to engage in ongoing self-reflection, education and knowledge sharing to better myself and my communities.

I pledge to be an example in establishing healthy, inclusive and team-oriented environments.I pledge to constructively share all experiences and information gained from activities above to inform the development of Navywide reforms.

 

 

https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/26/2002570959/-1/-1/1/TASK FORCE ONE NAVY FINAL REPORT.PDF

 

How soon Political Commissars in USN?

[rmgill]

Quadriplegics for in the navy NOW!

Blind sailors for Bridge watch standing NOW!

[Ivanhoe]

 

Quote

I pledge to be actively inclusive in the public and private spheres where I live and work, and proactively encourage others to do the same.

Does the US government need to know about your inclusive activity in the private sphere?

Quote

I pledge to advocate for and acknowledge all lived experiences and intersectional identities of every Sailor in the Navy.

Why do I doubt that the person in question won't be acknowledging the lived experiences of Asian-Americans and rural whites?

Quote

I pledge to be an example in establishing healthy, inclusive and team-oriented environments.I pledge to constructively share all experiences and information gained from activities above to inform the development of Navywide reforms.

I am sure the Navy will be eternally grateful to have someone establish "team-oriented environments" for them...