|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
04-30-2018, 05:45 PM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
And the Conservatives are happy?
Who said that conservatives are happy about what Progressives have done to this country? You complain about the so called disappearance of the middle class, the rise of corporatism, and the so called growing "income inequality" that has occurred during the ascendance of Progressivism in this country, yet you don't seem to connect that to Progressive distribution policies (which creates larger groups of low income dependents), nor to the Progressive growth of "government inequality" in which the federal government constantly grows in power at the expense of local and individual governance. Eisenhower originally intended the phrase we are familiar with as "The Military Industrial Complex" to be "The Military Industrial Congressional Complex."
Progressive policies linking the central government to all facets of society in ways that gives it power over them, centralizes political power, which, in turn, more easily links with centralized corporate power than with a plethora of small business entities. And its unconstitutional network of regulatory agencies creates regulations that favor large corporations over small businesses--which contributes to fewer "wealth owners" as well as watering down the number of "middle (class) wealth owners. Which, along with the larger number of low wealth government dependents creates a larger average wealth disparity as capital flows overall to fewer, much larger business entities in the form of centralized corporations.
So Eisenhower's "Complex" has expanded into the Big Business Big Government Complex. This is a result of the Progressive model of government being that which is not checked by constitutional bounds, but, rather, unlimited in its ability to do what it considers "good"--to do "the job."
This is a reply to the stuff you wrote in the body
Apparently you believe that because Trump says he is rich, that he is.
Trump was touted to be rich by the mainstream media long before he ran for President and before I read or heard anything he has said. I didn't get the notion of his richness from the Don's own mouth.
Perhaps John Barron told you so also.
Perhaps you want to appear to be stupid.
As far as being around for some number of years, the rest of the world's leaders also feel some responsibility for their economies and realize that business needs the ability to be able to plan based on stable relationships, not the latest deal that someone thinks he can bully others into. This is not selling your name to anyone who wants to buy it for a minority stake in a project and if it's a loser, on to the next one.
It is nearly impossible, and way too taxing, to respond in detail to effusive blabber. But I'll give it a brief, summarized, try. Trump has, apparently, understood how to successfully deal with various world business and political leaders. One of his most important tactics is to get advice from "experts" in how to achieve his goals.
You actually think Trump read any of Kissingers books, and developed a plan?
Trump has met with Kissinger several times regarding foreign policy.
I think you could spend some time researching Trump, assume 20% is true. To me, it's pretty scary that he is where he is.
|
I assume that what you say about Trump is a result of your extensive "researching." But what you say as a result of that does not explain nor negate what Trump has done during his brief time in office. Ergo, I have no confidence in the veracity or relevance of your sources. There are sources that picture Trump as a positive force. I don't care about them either. The actual facts of his doing "the job" unfolding before our eyes determines what I think about him vis a vis "the job."
BTW, I am still interested in how you believe that corporations will lead to the end of democracy in this country, but that judges usurping Congress's power to amend the Constitution simply by rewriting the law (the Constitution) through "interpretations" that suit their personal prejudices, will not endanger democracy in this country?
|
|
|
|
04-30-2018, 06:54 PM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,496
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Who said that conservatives are happy about what Progressives have done to this country?
|
What a crock of #^&#^&#^&#^&. In the past 100 years you claim "progressives" have influenced our country we've become the most powerful nation on the planet, cleaned up so much of our environment, got rid of child labor, reduced poverty, worked to defeat multiple enemies, advanced healthcare, invested in science which has driven corporate innovation, rocked the best legal system in existence, expanded civil liberties etc... etc... etc...
Our country is great, largely because of progressive thinking. We can do a lot better but the proof is in the putting.
How is your life suffering because of progressive policy?
|
|
|
|
05-01-2018, 09:00 AM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
How is your life suffering because of progressive policy?
|
I live in CT (an extremely progressive state), and pay $900 more a month in taxes, than I would if I lived in NH. So you tell me...
And maybe you could ask that question to Kate Steinle's father
|
|
|
|
05-01-2018, 10:12 AM
|
#4
|
Canceled
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,449
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I live in CT (an extremely progressive state), and pay $900 more a month in taxes, than I would if I lived in NH. So you tell me...
And maybe you could ask that question to Kate Steinle's father
|
More parents here that you could ask https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...gh-victims.htm
If we are going to label a group based on an incident, there is plenty to go around
|
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?
Lets Go Darwin
|
|
|
05-01-2018, 11:30 AM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
|
I didn’t label any group. Spence asked what harm has come to anyone from progressive ideas. The progressive notion of sanctuary cities led directly to kate steinles death, and you can deny that until you are blue, but it’s true. It’s also true that liberalism has led to crushing taxes in my home state of ct, and if Spence doesn’t think that causes harm, that shows you how aloof he is.
What made our country great is the idea that the individual has rights granted by god, and that the state serves the individual, not the other way around; also the concepts of individual liberty and upward economic mobility. These are the things that made us great, and progressives could not be more dedicated to the abolition of these principles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
05-01-2018, 12:01 PM
|
#6
|
Canceled
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,449
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I didn’t label any group. Spence asked what harm has come to anyone from progressive ideas. The progressive notion of sanctuary cities led directly to kate steinles death, and you can deny that until you are blue, but it’s true. It’s also true that liberalism has led to crushing taxes in my home state of ct, and if Spence doesn’t think that causes harm, that shows you how aloof he is.
What made our country great is the idea that the individual has rights granted by god, and that the state serves the individual, not the other way around; also the concepts of individual liberty and upward economic mobility. These are the things that made us great, and progressives could not be more dedicated to the abolition of these principles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
And what progressive idea resulted in Kate Steinles death, illegal immigrants or open carry being illegal?
"I was an alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial in San Francisco. I didn’t get a vote, but I saw all of the evidence and the jury instructions, and I discussed the verdict with the jury after it was delivered. Most of the public reaction I've seen has been surprise, confusion and derision. If these were among your reactions as well, I'm writing to explain to you why the jury was right to make the decision that it did.
I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the law that was read to us in this case. Defendants in this country have the right to a presumption of innocence, which means that if there is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence that favors a defendant, the jury must accept that interpretation over any others that incriminate him. This principle is a pillar of the American justice system, and it was a significant part of our jury instructions.
Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the undocumented immigrant who was accused of killing Steinle, was charged with first degree murder and the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. When the prosecution rested its case, it seemed clear to me that the evidence didn’t support the requirements of premeditation or malice aforethought (intentional recklessness or killing) for the murder charges. After having heard the evidence, I agreed with the defense’s opinion that the murder charges should not have been brought. The evidence didn't show that Garcia Zarate intended to kill anyone.
These are some of the facts that were laid out to us: Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence. The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting a further 78 feet to hit Steinle. The damage to the bullet indicated a glancing impact during the ricochet, so it seems to have been shot from a low height. The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety. (The jury members asked to feel the trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us.) The pixelated video footage of the incident that we were shown, taken from the adjacent pier, shows a group of six people spending half an hour at that same chair setting down and picking up objects a mere 30 minutes before Garcia Zarate arrived there.
There is a reasonable interpretation here that favors the defendant: He found the gun at the seat, picked it up out of curiosity, and accidentally caused it to fire. As a scared, homeless man wanted by immigration enforcement, he threw the gun in the water and walked away. The presumption of innocence, as stated in the jury instructions, required the jury to select this interpretation because it is reasonable and favors the defendant.
But why the manslaughter acquittal? Most of the confusion I've encountered has been over this part of the verdict, and it does seem to me personally that manslaughter is the appropriate charge for Steinle’s killing. However, given the evidence and the law presented in this trial, it is clear to me that the jury made the right decision.
The involuntary manslaughter charge that the jury was read included two key requirements: 1) A crime was committed in the act that caused death; 2) The defendant acted with "criminal negligence"—he did something that an ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone's death.
The jury members were not free to select the crime for part (1)—they had to use the one chosen by the prosecution, and the prosecution chose that crime to be the "brandishing," or waving with menace, of a weapon. As a juror, I found this choice puzzling, because the prosecutor presented absolutely zero evidence of brandishing during the trial. I don’t think we even heard the word “brandishing” until it was read as part of the charge during the jury instructions at the trial's end. No witnesses ever saw the defendant holding a gun, much less brandishing it. Given that baffling choice by the prosecution, the manslaughter charge was a nonstarter for the jury. Had a different precursor crime been chosen—for instance, the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon—the outcome might have been different.
Even in that case, however, it is not clear to me that part (2) of the manslaughter charge was proved. Only a single particle of gunshot residue was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up.
The jury did convict Garcia Zarate of the separate charge of illegal possession of a firearm, which indicates that the members felt it to be an unreasonable conclusion that he didn’t know he was holding a gun. He was in the seat where he claims he found it for about 20 minutes prior to the shooting, and he made some statements during interrogation that seemed to indicate that he had known what the item was. Without the benefit of being able to re-examine the evidence during deliberation, I’m not sure that I would consider that evidence to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but knowing these jurors, I would trust them to have made an accurate judgment if the manslaughter charge had survived the first requirement.
I have come away from this experience with a strong sense of respect for the jurors and their objective handling of a sensitive case under the national spotlight. I hope that I would have acted with the same level of maturity."
Phil Van Stockum is a mechanical engineer who lives in San Francisco and occasionally writes at abinitioblog.com. He is not a lawyer.
|
Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!
Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?
Lets Go Darwin
|
|
|
05-01-2018, 12:30 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
And what progressive idea resulted in Kate Steinles death, illegal immigrants or open carry being illegal?
"I was an alternate juror in the Kate Steinle murder trial in San Francisco. I didn’t get a vote, but I saw all of the evidence and the jury instructions, and I discussed the verdict with the jury after it was delivered. Most of the public reaction I've seen has been surprise, confusion and derision. If these were among your reactions as well, I'm writing to explain to you why the jury was right to make the decision that it did.
I’m not a lawyer, but I understood the law that was read to us in this case. Defendants in this country have the right to a presumption of innocence, which means that if there is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence that favors a defendant, the jury must accept that interpretation over any others that incriminate him. This principle is a pillar of the American justice system, and it was a significant part of our jury instructions.
Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the undocumented immigrant who was accused of killing Steinle, was charged with first degree murder and the lesser included offenses of second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. When the prosecution rested its case, it seemed clear to me that the evidence didn’t support the requirements of premeditation or malice aforethought (intentional recklessness or killing) for the murder charges. After having heard the evidence, I agreed with the defense’s opinion that the murder charges should not have been brought. The evidence didn't show that Garcia Zarate intended to kill anyone.
These are some of the facts that were laid out to us: Zarate had no motive and no recorded history of violence. The shot he fired from his chair hit the ground 12 feet in front of him before ricocheting a further 78 feet to hit Steinle. The damage to the bullet indicated a glancing impact during the ricochet, so it seems to have been shot from a low height. The gun, a Sig Sauer P239 pistol, is a backup emergency weapon used by law enforcement that has a light trigger mode and no safety. (The jury members asked to feel the trigger pull of the gun during deliberation, but the judge wouldn’t allow it, for reasons that aren’t clear to us.) The pixelated video footage of the incident that we were shown, taken from the adjacent pier, shows a group of six people spending half an hour at that same chair setting down and picking up objects a mere 30 minutes before Garcia Zarate arrived there.
There is a reasonable interpretation here that favors the defendant: He found the gun at the seat, picked it up out of curiosity, and accidentally caused it to fire. As a scared, homeless man wanted by immigration enforcement, he threw the gun in the water and walked away. The presumption of innocence, as stated in the jury instructions, required the jury to select this interpretation because it is reasonable and favors the defendant.
But why the manslaughter acquittal? Most of the confusion I've encountered has been over this part of the verdict, and it does seem to me personally that manslaughter is the appropriate charge for Steinle’s killing. However, given the evidence and the law presented in this trial, it is clear to me that the jury made the right decision.
The involuntary manslaughter charge that the jury was read included two key requirements: 1) A crime was committed in the act that caused death; 2) The defendant acted with "criminal negligence"—he did something that an ordinary person would have known was likely to lead to someone's death.
The jury members were not free to select the crime for part (1)—they had to use the one chosen by the prosecution, and the prosecution chose that crime to be the "brandishing," or waving with menace, of a weapon. As a juror, I found this choice puzzling, because the prosecutor presented absolutely zero evidence of brandishing during the trial. I don’t think we even heard the word “brandishing” until it was read as part of the charge during the jury instructions at the trial's end. No witnesses ever saw the defendant holding a gun, much less brandishing it. Given that baffling choice by the prosecution, the manslaughter charge was a nonstarter for the jury. Had a different precursor crime been chosen—for instance, the unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon—the outcome might have been different.
Even in that case, however, it is not clear to me that part (2) of the manslaughter charge was proved. Only a single particle of gunshot residue was found on the defendant’s hands, which seems to support his repeated claim that the gun was wrapped in some sort of fabric when he picked it up and caused it to fire. If he did not know the object was a gun, it is a stretch to claim that it was criminal negligence for him to pick it up.
The jury did convict Garcia Zarate of the separate charge of illegal possession of a firearm, which indicates that the members felt it to be an unreasonable conclusion that he didn’t know he was holding a gun. He was in the seat where he claims he found it for about 20 minutes prior to the shooting, and he made some statements during interrogation that seemed to indicate that he had known what the item was. Without the benefit of being able to re-examine the evidence during deliberation, I’m not sure that I would consider that evidence to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but knowing these jurors, I would trust them to have made an accurate judgment if the manslaughter charge had survived the first requirement.
I have come away from this experience with a strong sense of respect for the jurors and their objective handling of a sensitive case under the national spotlight. I hope that I would have acted with the same level of maturity."
Phil Van Stockum is a mechanical engineer who lives in San Francisco and occasionally writes at abinitioblog.com. He is not a lawyer.
|
"And what progressive idea resulted in Kate Steinles death"
I'm not sure how you can possibly not know this, the answer is sanctuary cities. The shooter should have been deported, if he had been, she'd be alive.
Your quotes form the juror are meaningless. I'm not saying the guy should have been convicted of anything, maybe it was an accident. But the shooter never should have been allowed to remain.
You are concentrating on the legal issues related to the trial. Not the point.
There's also the impact of liberalism on the crushing taxes on the state of CT, on the fact that 75% of black babies are born fatherless (the ones that aren't aborted, that is). I'm not saying conservatism is perfect. I am responding to Spence's comment that liberalism hasn't harmed anybody.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:10 PM.
|
| |