Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Old Man]

59 minutes ago, death tribble said:

I want it known that Mr Crow does not have a statue of me.

 

Aaaaaand how do you know this, exactly?

[Iuz the Evil]

18 minutes ago, Cygnia said:

Recently Indicted Maryland Sheriff Has Links to Constitutional Sheriff, Anti-Muslim and Anti-Immigrant Movements

Making false statements to federal enforcement agencies is… unwise. Particularly when you run a business that profits from said false statements. That’ll be a problem for him in court, and reminds me of the Santa Clara County Sheriff who was issuing CCW permits to folks who paid her. Didn’t go well for her either and that was not a federal issue…

https://abc7news.com/santa-clara-county-sheriff-laurie-smith-corruption-trial-verdict-found-guilty-resigns/12413963/

 

[Clonus]

18 hours ago, Old Man said:

When this case is appealed it will be heard by the Trump-appointed 5th Circuit, and from there to the Trump-appointed Supreme Court. 

 

That will put the McConnell court in the position of having to balance their anti-abortion stance with their anti-federal regulation stance.  

[Cygnia]

24 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

Aaaaaand how do you know this, exactly?

Oh, it gets uglier  (STAY FAR AWAY FROM THIS FAMILY, DT!)

 

Trammell Crow Jr. Named in Human Trafficking Case

[Iuz the Evil]

28 minutes ago, Clonus said:

 

That will put the McConnell court in the position of having to balance their anti-abortion stance with their anti-federal regulation stance.  

I don’t believe there’s really any conflict there. Talking points aside both parties are extremely FOR federal regulation, just only in the areas they prefer. Oh and “rules for thee, but not for me”.

[unclevlad]

3 hours ago, death tribble said:

I want it known that Mr Crow does not have a statue of me.

 

Well, of course not.  His statues were restricted to the 20th century.

[death tribble]

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Well, of course not.  His statues were restricted to the 20th century.

I have spanned both the 20th and 21st Centuries and I have been termed a despot

[unclevlad]

25 minutes ago, death tribble said:

I have spanned both the 20th and 21st Centuries and I have been termed a despot

 

.Despot?  You seem closer to a duster....

[Hermit]

44 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

.Despot?  You seem closer to a duster....

 

Dis Pot, Dat Duster

[Sociotard]

Governor Abbot seeks to pardon man convicted of murder in BLM case. (He can't just do it; he can only pardon people if a board recommends it. He can request the board recommend it though)

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-governor-seeks-pardon-man-convicted-murder-black-lives-matter-shooting-2023-04-09/

[Iuz the Evil]

3 hours ago, Sociotard said:

Governor Abbot seeks to pardon man convicted of murder in BLM case. (He can't just do it; he can only pardon people if a board recommends it. He can request the board recommend it though)

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-governor-seeks-pardon-man-convicted-murder-black-lives-matter-shooting-2023-04-09/

This is a difficult one for me, primarily because he tweeted about “might have to shoot someone” or words to that effect, and threatening statements before encountering the BLM protesters. Has he not done that, I would likely be sympathetic - given that there was significant violence reported including property destruction (shifting away from “peaceful protest” to “angry mob”) and the only individual he shot was carrying an AK-47 in the midst of this environment (not a subject of dispute) and allegedly pointed it at him.

 

 It’s not self defense if you intentionally create a situation where you have to defend yourself by driving to the scene and seeing out the scenario to justify deadly force. So it’s hard to know if that’s what happened, but it seems possible given the tweets and at least the jury thought so. I don’t love the idea that a participant in an angry armed mob is the party we need to be looking out for… but maybe? In any case the Governor’s motivations are suspect, there’s no need to weigh in on this until the Pardon review process is complete.

[Pattern Ghost]

Here's the Wikipedia article about the case, which summarizes the evidence:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Garrett_Foster

 

IMO, while eyewitnesses are unreliable, this guy's Twitter statements are pretty damning evidence of a motive. The prosecutor made a point about the weapon being on safe and having an empty chamber, but that's totally irrelevant, since the affirmative defense was a weapon pointed at the shooter.

 

Here's a video of the incident. Looks like the car is slowly moving into the protest crowd, provoking them. I'd say his actions with the vehicle align with his earlier tweets. Looks like he was trying to provoke a response:

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/texas/video-2217414/Video-Video-shooting-protest-Austin-Texas.html

 

The conviction looks legit to me.

[Iuz the Evil]

3 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

Here's the Wikipedia article about the case, which summarizes the evidence:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Garrett_Foster

 

IMO, while eyewitnesses are unreliable, this guy's Twitter statements are pretty damning evidence of a motive. The prosecutor made a point about the weapon being on safe and having an empty chamber, but that's totally irrelevant, since the affirmative defense was a weapon pointed at the shooter.

 

Here's a video of the incident. Looks like the car is slowly moving into the protest crowd, provoking them. I'd say his actions with the vehicle align with his earlier tweets. Looks like he was trying to provoke a response:

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/texas/video-2217414/Video-Video-shooting-protest-Austin-Texas.html

 

The conviction looks legit to me.

Probably so, which is why I said in this case the guy with the AK-47 in an angry mob might be the one worth protecting. It’s not a great look for the victim, but that doesn’t mean he should get murdered.

 

Without the twitter statements, it’s a different story, but he said what he said so there you go.

[Lord Liaden]

On the subject of broader context, Greg Abbot's past statements and actions cast heavy suspicion over his motive for considering this pardon, which only fuels the controversy, resentment and anger.

[tkdguy]

 

[DShomshak]

Perun's latest defense economics blog post steps back from the war in Ukraine to look at NATO and what the US gets from its military alliances that make them good deals both militarily and economically. A bunch of stuff that Donald Trump never understood and probably never could understand.

 

What caught my notice, though, was his mention that the oldest still-operative military alliance is the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance, formerly adopted in 1386. Not only is it still legally on the books, it was invoked as recently as 1982 when British ships used Portuguese naval bases in the Falklands Crisis. Wikipedia, of course, has more:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Portuguese_Alliance

 

Apart from being a nerdy-cool piece of trivia, it warms my heart to know that two countries *can* be true to their word to each other for six centuries and counting. History isn't always just vicious opportunism.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Cygnia]

On 4/9/2023 at 8:31 PM, Lord Liaden said:

On the subject of broader context, Greg Abbot's past statements and actions cast heavy suspicion over his motive for considering this pardon, which only fuels the controversy, resentment and anger.

Quote

Today's cartoon (it's not posted yet) is probably going to earn me another 30-day suspension and maybe even have my FB account deleted. I could choose to not post it here, but I'm going to make a point by posting it here.

So if you don't see me around for the next 30 days or so, check me out at claytoonz.com or at Twitter and Instagram (unless they get me there too).

From a political cartoonist an FB friend of linked to.

[Pattern Ghost]

2 hours ago, Cygnia said:

Today's cartoon (it's not posted yet) is probably going to earn me another 30-day suspension and maybe even have my FB account deleted. I could choose to not post it here, but I'm going to make a point by posting it here.

So if you don't see me around for the next 30 days or so, check me out at claytoonz.com or at Twitter and Instagram (unless they get me there too).

 

Read that guy's post. While I agree with him on the racism, he's wrong on the stand your ground aspects. Stand your ground laws were not misapplied in either case. Just because the governor is squawking about stand your ground laws in this case, or because the press was in Zimmerman doesn't mean the laws were really relevant. Here's the crux of both cases: Self defense does not apply if you provoke the conflict that leads to the killing.

 

This was correctly applied in both cases, according to the evidence at hand. In the Texas case, given the evidence of intent and the fact that the moron was driving through a crowd, it was very clear the killer was seeking to provoke a confrontation. It doesn't matter if the victim did point his weapon at the shooter. The killer provoked the confrontation. In the Zimmerman case, simply following his victim was not illegal. Zimmerman was attacked, regardless of the size disparity, with physical evidence that supported that part of Zimmerman's story (being on his back with the victim on top of him, smashing his head into the ground. (And the weight advantage is a non-starter when the smaller guy is fit. Martin was the same size I was when I was in the Army, and I could have easily overwhelmed Zimmerman when I was that age.) The missing piece in the Zimmerman case was a witness to Zimmerman provoking the confrontation. I firmly believe he provoked the confrontation and should have been severely punished, but the law was not misapplied, nor was it "wrong." The system sometimes lets human filth loose because there are strict standards of proof. That's working as intended, no matter how distasteful the results often are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[unclevlad]

PG:  I agree that the court applied Stand Your Ground correctly.  The issue is that Abbott appears to be trying to gut the limitations of when it's a viable defense...without going through any judicial or legislative processes.  I also agree that he's interfering with the judicial process by even talking about a pardon before sentencing is complete.  One could argue that's a form of tampering, but there's no chance that would fly.

 

Yeah, the tone of the cartoon and the post are both strident, but this is also an egregious example, from the information we have.  Stand Your Ground was rejected at trial.  Ethically, a pardon can't be based on a re-interpretation of the trial's conclusion...I'm not sure you could overturn the conviction on appeal by revisiting that point.  There's limits to that.  

 

 

[Pattern Ghost]

14 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

The issue is that Abbott appears to be trying to gut the limitations of when it's a viable defense...

 

I agree. Stand your ground is often misapplied. Abbot is a clown. None of that is what I was talking about. I was merely critiquing the logic of a specific portion of an essay. I'm a pedantic sort of person sometimes, and I like to analyse these sorts of details. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Pattern Ghost

[Iuz the Evil]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/11/us/daniel-perry-greg-abbott-pardon-case-explained/index.html
 

The CNN article, still pending a majority of the parole board providing a recommendation to pardon. Abbott cannot pardon without that step, and they’re ostensibly an independent check on the governor’s authority (although since they’re appointed by the Governor that’s definitely extremely debatable).

[archer]

7 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Read that guy's post. While I agree with him on the racism, he's wrong on the stand your ground aspects. Stand your ground laws were not misapplied in either case. Just because the governor is squawking about stand your ground laws in this case, or because the press was in Zimmerman doesn't mean the laws were really relevant. Here's the crux of both cases: Self defense does not apply if you provoke the conflict that leads to the killing.

 

This was correctly applied in both cases, according to the evidence at hand. In the Texas case, given the evidence of intent and the fact that the moron was driving through a crowd, it was very clear the killer was seeking to provoke a confrontation. It doesn't matter if the victim did point his weapon at the shooter. The killer provoked the confrontation. In the Zimmerman case, simply following his victim was not illegal. Zimmerman was attacked, regardless of the size disparity, with physical evidence that supported that part of Zimmerman's story (being on his back with the victim on top of him, smashing his head into the ground. (And the weight advantage is a non-starter when the smaller guy is fit. Martin was the same size I was when I was in the Army, and I could have easily overwhelmed Zimmerman when I was that age.) The missing piece in the Zimmerman case was a witness to Zimmerman provoking the confrontation. I firmly believe he provoked the confrontation and should have been severely punished, but the law was not misapplied, nor was it "wrong." The system sometimes lets human filth loose because there are strict standards of proof. That's working as intended, no matter how distasteful the results often are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you stand your ground when you're committing a drive-by shooting?

 

Enquiring minds in Texas want to know.

 

[Pattern Ghost]

1 hour ago, archer said:

Can you stand your ground when you're committing a drive-by shooting?

 

Only if you move your feet really fast like a cartoon character.

[Ragitsu]

[unclevlad]

If you're surprised, raise your hands...

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/12/media/fox-news-dominion-special-master/index.html