US-Politics The Resistible Rise of Donald J. Trump

[lokisnow]

Jesus, the desire for an escalation and violence in a case of just switch of the heating and let them come out when their asses are frozen with the chairs gave me a new idea to prevent violence in the US.

Cover penis enlargements under obamacare, really.

Having people calling for the federal police to go rambo on a few people sitting in a building you actually do not need at the time (for what now 4 days?) really screams I have a small dick and this makes me emotionally unstable.

 

Considering it is in Oregon and they're hiding in the woods, I think they went Rambo, not the other way around.

Remember how the Oregon police are the villain in the first Rambo ?

[Altherion]

In what way are these guys mostly harmless? No one has been hurt because law enforcement hasn't yet done their job of actually, y'know, enforcing the law with these assholes. If law enforcement were to attempt to take them into custody I highly doubt the outcome would be "mostly harmless".

What harm have they actually done? Their protest is much less disruptive than, say, shutting down an airport or a mall. Yes, if the authorities go in with guns blazing, people are going to get hurt... but that is not going to happen. They're not occupying any critical infrastructure so it should be possible to wait them out regardless of how long that takes.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

We've been over this in other contexts, so I know you support risking innocent lives to fight ISIS. Drop enough bombs on Syria and Iraq and you're putting innocent lives at risk. You're fine with that because you think the goal of fighting ISIS is worth it. Yet I assume you're not pissed off at yourself, and I know you don't consider it wrong.

Years ago the Hammonds argued that their sentences were unconstitutionally excessive, and a lower court agreed, and gave them a reduced sentence. Now a higher court has said that ruling was incorrect, an re-implemented the mandatory minimum sentence, while also giving them credit for time served.

OAR,
What check exists on the use of force exercised by the WU or these people in Oregon as opposed to that undertaken by the US in Syria?

[Commodore]

Edit: nm that tweet was a joke in response to Trump using footage from Morocco

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/04/donald-trump/donald-trumps-first-tv-ad-shows-migrants-southern-/

this is incredible, Trump used World War Z footage in his campaign commercial

[Maithanet]

this is incredible, Trump used World War Z footage in his campaign commercial

That wall didn't work either. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Maithanet,

The wall worked in the book.

:P

 

[TrackerNeil]

That wall didn't work either. 

Thread win.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

That wall didn't work either. 

Well that's just cause they didn't get the zombies to pay for it.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

In my opinion 5 years may or may not be excessive depending on the full circumstances of the case, but I believe that the trial judge/jury should be able to take into account mitigating circumstances. 

I will say, however, that sentences of 3 months and 1 year were probably too light, but I view it in the same light of preferring a guilty party go free rather than an innocent be convicted...likewise, I'd rather people found guilty of a crime to be under-sentenced rather than over-sentenced.

I hear you on some of this, but to my knowledge the Hammonds didn't argue over, and the courts didn't decide on, the validity of mandatory minimums as such, but over whether the sentence was in this case excessive. So with the full benefit of an exhaustive legal process, with special discretion applied to the appropriateness of the sentence, they're being sent back to prison. They aren't being railroaded by a shitty law- this is a case where mandatory minimums were not thoughtlessly applied, but were applied after significant legal discretion.

OAR,What check exists on the use of force exercised by the WU or these people in Oregon as opposed to that undertaken by the US in Syria?

Law enforcement, obviously.

In any case, that you raise the question of checks on these groups only serves to support my contention that you do not (and ought not) object to them based solely on the tactics they employ, you consider other factors. And so I say again, the WU were opposing a deplorable war, the Oregon occupiers are protesting the prison sentences of convicted arsonists. They are not the same, and should not be judged the same.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

The WU were blowing up buildings.  During the construction of their bombs or after their bombs were planted they could have killed people.  They killed three of their members building their bombs.  Opposition to what you see as unjust action is fine.  Violence from a group of private individuals, not cool.  I am not now and have never been an anarchist.  

You say law enforcement can check them.  Before or after they've detonated their bombs?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

OAR,

The WU were blowing up buildings.  During the construction of their bombs or after their bombs were planted they could have killed people.  They killed three of their members building their bombs.  Opposition to what you see as unjust action is fine.  Violence from a group of private individuals, not cool.  I am not now and have never been an anarchist.  

You say law enforcement can check them.  Before or after they've detonated their bombs?

I'm not even sure what you're arguing about. All OAR is saying is that when it comes to evaluating terrorist groups, you need to evaluate not only their tactics, but their motives. This seems to me to be obviously true. You can certainly try to suss out how you weight these two things, or how you weight the use of any particular tactic, which I am sure will give you and OAR fertile ground to disagree. But endlessly re-stating exactly what the Weather Underground did, which does not seem to be in any real dispute, is not getting anybody anywhere. 

[DanteGabriel]

OAR,

The WU were blowing up buildings.  During the construction of their bombs or after their bombs were planted they could have killed people.  They killed three of their members building their bombs.  Opposition to what you see as unjust action is fine.  Violence from a group of private individuals, not cool.  I am not now and have never been an anarchist.  

You say law enforcement can check them.  Before or after they've detonated their bombs?

Perhaps you'd be more gentle in your treatment of the WU (and wouldn't have to spin Bill Ayers' lack of remorse as some kind of significant double-standard of leftie defense for leftie terrorists) if they were blowing up buildings for state's rights.

[BloodRider]

These occupiers should be removed at some point. hopefully law enforcement has learned some lessons since Waco and Ruby Ridge.

With that being said, the one thing I do agree with is the sentencing of the Hammonds is crap. I know we are talking federal versus state sentences but I have a hard time seeing this douche bag kid from Texas walking free after killing four people while these two guys have to spend 5 years in jail for poaching and arson? Rapist, pedophiles, drunk driving homicides all generally get lesser sentences in many cases. The same issue happens with drug sentences and none of the politicians ever do anything to fix it.

I agree Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing is a sham.  Welcome to the right side of criminal justice reform. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Perhaps you'd be more gentle in your treatment of the WU (and wouldn't have to spin Bill Ayers' lack of remorse as some kind of significant double-standard of leftie defense for leftie terrorists) if they were blowing up buildings for state's rights.

DG,

Nope, not okay.  

[DanteGabriel]

DG,

Nope, not okay.  

Oh, that's good. Maybe then you'd care to spend equal time decrying the romantic whitewashing and continued reverence shown for a violent and unimaginably bloody rebellion, which is still lionized and treated as a noble and worthy undertaking in your own locale? Since you're so incensed over needless risk to life and a lack of remorse for said needless risk?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

The WU were blowing up buildings.  During the construction of their bombs or after their bombs were planted they could have killed people.  They killed three of their members building their bombs.  Opposition to what you see as unjust action is fine.  Violence from a group of private individuals, not cool.  I am not now and have never been an anarchist.  

You say law enforcement can check them.  Before or after they've detonated their bombs?

You're saying this, but I do not believe this is truly the basis on which you decide the acceptability of violence, that if it's done by private individuals it is categorically wrong and indistinguishable from all other violence done by private individuals. 

Because if it truly is, you've just grouped Ammon Bundy, the WU, George Washington, al Qaeda, and John Brown as all being wrong, and wrong in the exact same way.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Oh, that's good. Maybe then you'd care to spend equal time decrying the romantic whitewashing and continued reverence shown for a violent and unimaginably bloody rebellion, which is still lionized and treated as a noble and worthy undertaking in your own locale? Since you're so incensed over needless risk to life and a lack of remorse for said needless risk?

DG,

My points on that score have always been legal and Constitutional.  I've never said choosing to open fire on Federally held forts was anything but stupid.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

DG,

My points on that score have always been legal and Constitutional.  I've never said choosing to open fire on Federally held forts was anything but stupid.

"Stupid" as in tactically unwise?

Or "stupid" as in "deeply and profoundly immoral"?

Or both? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nestor,

Both.

[Fragile Bird]

It's really interesting to read this thread and watch Trump in action, because he is doing all the stuff the Conservative Party here in Canada tried (although I think he has gone further, of course) and got soundly trounced for.  What the reaction will be in the US election will certainly be followed closely up here.

That Trump commercial is so much like what the Conservatives ran, showing scenes of ISIS beheadings with pictures of Justin Trudeau flashing in between.  If Trump wins I expect you'll see ones like that as well.