Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why can't a BLM member be pro-Trump?

Page 10 of 11 [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

28 Sep 2020, 5:44 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Yeah that makes sense. What if the courts didn't have plea bargains and you had to go trial though and that was your only choice? Would that be better?


It's hard to say. I know when I had to deal with a criminal charge I would have been forced to plead guilty despite being innocent if it wasn't for my parents being willing to help out. The sad thing is, both outcomes had similar financial burdens, but because you're not actually given free council unless prison time is an outcome (in Canada) it basically is a trap because if you can't afford to defend yourself you will be forced to cooperate with being railroaded.

Interestingly I learned that Canada has multiple options for 'pleading down' a first-time impaired operation charge if alcohol was the causative substance, but not if any other substance was indicated. Also, failing a sobriety test is grounds even if no substances are note, but further that even when substances are found that by itself doesn't indicate intoxication. So basically a sketchy weirdo who struggles to understand instructions can be charged with impaired with no actual evidence, just for the lulz? The judge suggested an acquittal before my lawyer was done going through the Crown's 'evidence'.


Unrelated to that, you might appreciate this story regarding Breonna Taylor's killing since it refutes points that some anti-BLM posters have been claiming as gospel truth for weeks now:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/v7gw ... in-the-leg


Oh okay. I don't know anything about your case of course, but I know that the police take a blood sample if you have been suspected to be driving intoxicated. So if they do and that's the standard procedure, I guess if you haven't been drinking, that then the blood sample will show that, and you can count on that hopefully?

Thanks I will check out the article. It's just a lot of people seem to hate the idea of plea bargaining and think it's unjust. So I figured what if they got rid of the option of plea bargaining. Then you would have to go to trial with no other alternatives, but I wasn't sure if that was better.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,491
Location: Right over your left shoulder

28 Sep 2020, 5:49 pm

ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. I don't know anything about your case of course, but I know that the police take a blood sample if you have been suspected to be driving intoxicated. So if they do and that's the standard procedure, I guess if you haven't been drinking, that then the blood sample will show that, and you can count on that hopefully?


That might help if you've the charge is 'impaired by alcohol', it wouldn't mean anything if the charge is 'impaired by drug'. With alcohol, BAC exists and is considered to correlate to intoxication, even if only imperfectly.

But if the charge doesn't involve alcohol the test isn't relevant since it doesn't prove intoxication, only if some substance was in the body at some point. Having metabolites of a substance in one's body doesn't prove one is currently intoxicated.

The only hope is that the Crown's expert witness will explain this to the judge under cross-examination by your council.


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,491
Location: Right over your left shoulder

28 Sep 2020, 5:50 pm

ironpony wrote:
Thanks I will check out the article. It's just a lot of people seem to hate the idea of plea bargaining and think it's unjust. So I figured what if they got rid of the option of plea bargaining. Then you would have to go to trial with no other alternatives, but I wasn't sure if that was better.


It would likely be better for some and worse for others. I'm not sure if it would be better overall.


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

28 Sep 2020, 5:55 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. I don't know anything about your case of course, but I know that the police take a blood sample if you have been suspected to be driving intoxicated. So if they do and that's the standard procedure, I guess if you haven't been drinking, that then the blood sample will show that, and you can count on that hopefully?


That might help if you've the charge is 'impaired by alcohol', it wouldn't mean anything if the charge is 'impaired by drug'. With alcohol, BAC exists and is considered to correlate to intoxication, even if only imperfectly.

But if the charge doesn't involve alcohol the test isn't relevant since it doesn't prove intoxication, only if some substance was in the body at some point. Having metabolites of a substance in one's body doesn't prove one is currently intoxicated.

The only hope is that the Crown's expert witness will explain this to the judge under cross-examination by your council.


Oh okay, so you are saying that illegal drugs could be in the suspect's system from before then basically, but not a current intoxication?



Whale_Tuune
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2018
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 598
Location: Narnia

30 Sep 2020, 10:33 am

ironpony wrote:
Oh maybe they like other things about him other than than him not commenting one just one situation though, wouldn't they?

Plus Biden only started commenting on it, after BLM rose in power, so does it really count as him saying things about police brutality, when he is only talking about it, after BLM, in order to get votes?

Plus I don't think it's the President's job to acknowledge police brutality persay. That is more of an state issue where it's occurring and that responsiblity lies more on mayors, governors and district attorneys, I think. So I don't know if its Trump's job to make comments on that persay, unless I am wrong.


Trump won't denounce racists, period.

Biden is a demagogue like the other politicians... they're all awful. Obama "supported" Muslim refugees while bombing their countries. Clinton took pictures with immigrant families even though her husband built the wall that was already along the border of Mexico. Even "idealogue" Bernie Sanders is a fake socialist who wants to spread the wealth around and protect the environment while owning several houses and cars that he doesn't need.

But Trump can't even be bothered to pose to appeal to liberals... because he's trying to appeal to racists instead. Biden is a poser like all the others, but at least his policies will allow actual change to take place. (And he'll support not-boneheaded policies to win the vote of people who do seem to care.)


_________________
AQ: 36 (last I checked :p)


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

30 Sep 2020, 4:10 pm

But I didn't think it was a President's job to denounce racists, because everyone knows that racism is bad. Do you really need a President to tell you it's bad? That's like stating the obvious, like murder is bad, robbery is bad, etc. Doesn't it sound like pandering, if you need to hear that it's bad? Why is it the President's job to state the obvious?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,491
Location: Right over your left shoulder

30 Sep 2020, 4:14 pm

ironpony wrote:
But I didn't think it was a President's job to denounce racists, because everyone knows that racism is bad. Do you really need a President to tell you it's bad? That's like stating the obvious, like murder is bad, robbery is bad, etc. Doesn't it sound like pandering, if you need to hear that it's bad? Why is it the President's job to state the obvious?


If everyone knows it's bad then why do so many people seem to think it's reasonable, justified and doesn't need condemned? Clearly not everyone knows it's bad, so it isn't stating the obvious, it's stating something that should be obvious but clearly isn't, so there's nothing wrong with saying it again.

Instead he seemed to express support for a white supremacist group.


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Last edited by funeralxempire on 30 Sep 2020, 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,491
Location: Right over your left shoulder

30 Sep 2020, 4:19 pm

ironpony wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Oh okay. I don't know anything about your case of course, but I know that the police take a blood sample if you have been suspected to be driving intoxicated. So if they do and that's the standard procedure, I guess if you haven't been drinking, that then the blood sample will show that, and you can count on that hopefully?


That might help if you've the charge is 'impaired by alcohol', it wouldn't mean anything if the charge is 'impaired by drug'. With alcohol, BAC exists and is considered to correlate to intoxication, even if only imperfectly.

But if the charge doesn't involve alcohol the test isn't relevant since it doesn't prove intoxication, only if some substance was in the body at some point. Having metabolites of a substance in one's body doesn't prove one is currently intoxicated.

The only hope is that the Crown's expert witness will explain this to the judge under cross-examination by your council.


Oh okay, so you are saying that illegal drugs could be in the suspect's system from before then basically, but not a current intoxication?


Yes.

The metabolites from different drugs have different half-lives, but I could go 3-4 weeks without smoking marijuana and still be expressing metabolites associated with THC consumption.


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

30 Sep 2020, 4:30 pm

Oh okay, well I guess you just have to fight about it a preliminary hearing or arraignment then.



ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

30 Sep 2020, 4:31 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
ironpony wrote:
But I didn't think it was a President's job to denounce racists, because everyone knows that racism is bad. Do you really need a President to tell you it's bad? That's like stating the obvious, like murder is bad, robbery is bad, etc. Doesn't it sound like pandering, if you need to hear that it's bad? Why is it the President's job to state the obvious?


If everyone knows it's bad then why do so many people seem to think it's reasonable, justified and doesn't need condemned? Clearly not everyone knows it's bad, so it isn't stating the obvious, it's stating something that should be obvious but clearly isn't, so there's nothing wrong with saying it again.

Instead he seemed to express support for a white supremacist group.


But if the President were to tell racists, that racism is wrong, would the racists actually listen? I thought it would be like beating a dead horse, but maybe it wouldn't be?

Also, which white suremacist group would he be supporting?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,491
Location: Right over your left shoulder

30 Sep 2020, 4:36 pm

ironpony wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
ironpony wrote:
But I didn't think it was a President's job to denounce racists, because everyone knows that racism is bad. Do you really need a President to tell you it's bad? That's like stating the obvious, like murder is bad, robbery is bad, etc. Doesn't it sound like pandering, if you need to hear that it's bad? Why is it the President's job to state the obvious?


If everyone knows it's bad then why do so many people seem to think it's reasonable, justified and doesn't need condemned? Clearly not everyone knows it's bad, so it isn't stating the obvious, it's stating something that should be obvious but clearly isn't, so there's nothing wrong with saying it again.

Instead he seemed to express support for a white supremacist group.


But if the President were to tell racists, that racism is wrong, would the racists actually listen? I thought it would be like beating a dead horse, but maybe it wouldn't be?

Also, which white suremacist group would he be supporting?


It doesn't matter if they would listen, he still has an obligation to do the right thing.

The Proud Boys, among others. The Proud Boys were the specific group that was mentioned during the debate.

Quote:
"Proud Boys – stand back and stand by; somebody's got to do something about antifa."


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


ironpony
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Age: 41
Posts: 5,590
Location: canada

30 Sep 2020, 8:47 pm

Well just saying racism is bad, isn't really doing much, or so I thought.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,491
Location: Right over your left shoulder

30 Sep 2020, 8:54 pm

ironpony wrote:
Well just saying racism is bad, isn't really doing much, or so I thought.


How hard is it to not endorse them, if he can't at least bring himself to condemn them? :?


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

30 Sep 2020, 8:58 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well just saying racism is bad, isn't really doing much, or so I thought.


How hard is it to not endorse them, if he can't at least bring himself to condemn them? :?


He doesn't want to alienate any of the people who might vote for him.


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,491
Location: Right over your left shoulder

30 Sep 2020, 9:15 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well just saying racism is bad, isn't really doing much, or so I thought.


How hard is it to not endorse them, if he can't at least bring himself to condemn them? :?


He doesn't want to alienate any of the people who might vote for him.


That's not a reasonable excuse.


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,317
Location: Pacific Northwest

01 Oct 2020, 2:58 am

VegetableMan wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
ironpony wrote:
Well just saying racism is bad, isn't really doing much, or so I thought.


How hard is it to not endorse them, if he can't at least bring himself to condemn them? :?


He doesn't want to alienate any of the people who might vote for him.


So he is a people pleaser, good to know.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.