|
Jagchosis posted:Traditionally and formally speaking, murder and manslaughter are both illegal. Unless done by a cop or military personnel. So basically unless performed by the government (of which "big government" is the theme of the party in favor, here).
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
^ Ah yes, the "all deaths are justified if done by an agent of the state defense." Those "minority issues" like not getting murdered on the way to the police station.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Sort of how a lot of the anti-corporate/anti-Wall Street narrative is not so much about companies doing anything illegal, but rather corporations just being irresponsible and/or not caring about consumers and consumers' wants. I love that you used two examples where there are consistently illegal things happening. Anti-Wall St rhetoric is based around their ability to commit massive fraud and walk away completely unscathed. The anti cop narrative is about highly questionable uses of force that are routinely ignored by the justice system. Both of those are based around feelings that they are protected classes in this country and have an entirely different legal system than the rest of us backed up by concrete examples.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Or the anti-cop narrative is not so much about cops doing anything illegal, but whether cops are racist when they handle minority issues. yeah, no, the anti-cop narrative is about cops doing illegal stuff
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Relentlessboredomm posted:I love that you used two examples where there are consistently illegal things happening. Anti-Wall St rhetoric is based around their ability to commit massive fraud and walk away completely unscathed. The anti cop narrative is about highly questionable uses of force that are routinely ignored by the justice system. Both of those are based around feelings that they are protected classes in this country and have an entirely different legal system than the rest of us backed up by concrete examples. 1) Wall St. companies who are found to commit fraud are penalized through fines. Much of the Anti-Wall St. rhetoric came about after the 2008 crash in which nothing illegal was performed - if anything the housing crash itself was spurred on by terrible government regulations that encouraged a race-to-the-bottom mentality with regards to mortgages for people with terrible credit. 2) The North Charleston incident resulted in the cop going in for murder charges, no? He did something illegal and will likely be punished for it. Events in Ferguson and NYC were found to not be illegal and therefore the cops weren't punished. It's just odd to me how legality suddenly matters when you think the legal system isn't covering enough but as soon as one of your own is possibly stretching the limits of the legal system, you (all) handwave it away as that silly old conservative paranoia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:So would people consider a Google executive donating to the Gates foundation evidence of illegal collusion between the two companies? No because we already know they and other companies were colluding to suppress wages in Silicon Valley.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
quality poster amergin here to remind us that our justice and financial regulatory systems are infallible. they certainly never fail to punish any illegal activity by people in entrenched positions of power, wealth, and/or privilege
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Unless done by a cop or military personnel. Murder and manslaughter are terms that include the determination the killing was unlawful, and both police and military personnel are only permitted to lawfully kill in specific circumstances and are still capable of manslaughter and murder. Most of the anti-cop stuff has been killings that do not appear to have been lawful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Murder and manslaughter are terms that include the determination the killing was unlawful, and both police and military personnel are only permitted to lawfully kill in specific circumstances and are still capable of manslaughter and murder. Most of the anti-cop stuff has been killings that do not appear to have been lawful. And the legal system says what you think appears or doesn't appear to be lawful has no bearing on whether or not it was found to be lawful in a court of law. I'm just saying if you're looking at some cases as "the legal system missed this" and others as "oh it was perfectly legal you're just being paranoid" you can flip the situations and see why conservatives think Hillary skirted the legal system but actions in Ferguson were justified.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:yeah, no, the anti-cop narrative is about cops doing illegal stuff Cops don't go to jail for torture, they go to jail for lying under oath.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
TheQat posted:quality poster amergin here to remind us that our justice and financial regulatory systems are infallible. they certainly never fail to punish any illegal activity by people in entrenched positions of power, wealth, and/or privilege DoJ posted:To be clear, the decision of whether to indict a corporation, defer prosecution, or decline altogether is not one that I, or anyone in the Criminal Division, take lightly. We are frequently on the receiving end of presentations from defense counsel, CEOs and economists who argue that the collateral consequences of an indictment would be devastating for their client. In my conference room, over the years, I have heard sober predictions that a company or bank might fail if we indict, that innocent employees could lose their jobs, that entire industries may be affected, and even that global markets will feel the effects. DoJ posted:I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult to prosecute them … When we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps world economy, that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large. It has an inhibiting impact on our ability to bring resolutions that I think would be more appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
i thought about telling him to read The Divide, but I'm sure he wouldn't anyway
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
^^^^Haha, I had a similar thought. Amergin posted:1) Wall St. companies who are found to commit fraud are penalized through fines. Much of the Anti-Wall St. rhetoric came about after the 2008 crash in which nothing illegal was performed - if anything the housing crash itself was spurred on by terrible government regulations that encouraged a race-to-the-bottom mentality with regards to mortgages for people with terrible credit. 1) Oh good, criminal actions result in zero prosecutions. Instead fines for less than the amount of profit they collected are used. That's definitely justice. Haha, that's nonsense. Robo-signings, liar loans, fraud again, market manipulation, etc. There was a ton of illegal poo poo happening and the banks all walked away scot free or in many cases with virtually 0% interest loans from the fed. 2) So one cop who hasn't actually been convicted is your proof that cops can be punished by the justice system? The problem with Ferguson and NYC is they didn't ever make it to trial when for the average citizen similar cases make it to trial well above 90% of the time. It's not that the legal system isn't covering enough it's that the legal system isn't being enforced consistently. I'm sure you noticed a number of people here were pissed when Petraeus got zero prison time for a crime that would result in 15-20 yrs in Leavenworth for any other military member. There shouldn't be two separate systems of justice. As someone who doesn't care for Hilary I would love if a scandal knocked her out of the race early enough that a better Dem candidate could win, but for that to happen there needs to be actual evidence of wrongdoing not just conjecture. You know, evidence, like the video of a NYC cop choking Eric Garner to death or the email trail showing the banks intentionally and knowingly manipulated the LIBOR rate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Cops don't go to jail for torture, they go to jail for lying under oath. they can do both
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Amergin posted:And the legal system says what you think appears or doesn't appear to be lawful has no bearing on whether or not it was found to be lawful in a court of law. Why would I care why they think something, instead of if it's true or not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
joeburz posted:people, and especially so conservative-minded ones, are going to fall into the ~foreign~ aspect of the money Actually the right wing media is focusing on the Russia + nuclear material aspect, which if you consider the average age of their consumers makes a lot a sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
I mean sure, you think something happened because there is video evidence, well I think something happened because I hate the Clintons, see how similar we are?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I mean sure, you think something happened because there is video evidence, well I think something happened because I hate the Clintons, see how similar we are? Bit hard to know whether any evidence exists or not when Hillary has it all deleted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
"Found to not be illegal" != "Not found to be illegal." Of all people one would expect Amergin to know this difference but my assumption is that he does know and is simply using certain inflammatory phrasing because that's what trolling runs on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I mean sure, you think something happened because there is video evidence, well I think something happened because I hate the Clintons, see how similar we are? But the Police would need to have deleted the video against established procedures for this analogy to make sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Sort of how a lot of the anti-corporate/anti-Wall Street narrative is not so much about companies doing anything illegal, but rather corporations just being irresponsible and/or not caring about consumers and consumers' wants. "feelings/morality" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Bit hard to know whether any evidence exists or not when Hillary has it all deleted. The whole idea that if the Clintons were doing something illegal that they'd be stupid enough to email about it is dumb beyond belief. Rahm would know this. TheDisreputableDog posted:But the Police would need to have deleted the video against established procedures for this analogy to make sense. But the point is more, people accuse police of misconduct because of video evidence and witness statements. People accuse the Clintons of misconduct without any actual evidence of wrongdoing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The whole idea that if the Clintons were doing something illegal that they'd be stupid enough to email about it is dumb beyond belief. Rahm would know this. Otoh, Hillary had enough hubris to run a private server out of her house, in violation with records requirements.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Otoh, Hillary had enough hubris to run a private server out of her house, in violation with records requirements. You mean the record requirements that came into effect after she left?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You mean the record requirements that came into effect after she left? Never once used her official email. Used her unofficial email for official business, making it her de facto official email and subject to disclosure. Deletes all the emails rather than disclose them. Is it any wonder that something smells fishy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But the point is more, people accuse police of misconduct because of video evidence and witness statements. People accuse the Clintons of misconduct without any actual evidence of wrongdoing. It's like, a handcuffed suspect is shot in a patrol car. There was video evidence, but the officer in question took the tape home and accidentally recorded over it with an NCIS rerun, nbd he must have snuck a gun into the car somehow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You mean the record requirements that came into effect after she left? The State Dept fired someone for using personal email to conduct work under her watch, but okay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Never once used her official email. Used her unofficial email for official business, making it her de facto official email and subject to disclosure. Deletes all the emails rather than disclose them. Is it any wonder that something smells fishy? And are you so blind to not see the difference between "something smells fishy" and actual evidence of misconduct? Also she didn't delete all her emails and she disclosed all the work related ones. Which btw, is how the DoS email archive system worked anyway, you actually have to mark emails to be archived it didn't automatically do it so even if she had used a DoS server the accusations would have remained. The personal email server thing maybe was a mistake (mostly from an optics perspective), but then again we're reading about how the DoS email system was so insecure that it let the Russians read Obama's emails...maybe Clinton actually was better off. TheDisreputableDog posted:It's like, a handcuffed suspect is shot in a patrol car. There was video evidence, but the officer in question took the tape home and accidentally recorded over it with an NCIS rerun, nbd he must have snuck a gun into the car somehow. Except where's Hiliary's dead suspect that was handcuffed in her car? Oh wait, there isn't one. That's how this is a dumb as gently caress metaphor. This is more like the squad car's camera being off on the drive home. Who knows what she did? Did she murder Reagan???
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Also she didn't delete all her emails and she disclosed all the work related ones. Oh okay then, case closed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Also she didn't delete all her emails and she disclosed all the work related ones. I'd like to trust her, without a way of verifying that I just don't know. Did she disclose all emails which matched the terms "whitehouse" and "Benghazi" but not "WH" or "BGZ"? We'll never know, because she deleted the evidence!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The personal email server thing maybe was a mistake (mostly from an optics perspective), but then again we're reading about how the DoS email system was so insecure that it let the Russians read Obama's emails...maybe Clinton actually was better off. The DoS also apparently couldn't correctly deal a contract to save their lives under her tenure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
The NSA has every one of her emails. This entire discussion is stupid. The government has access to her email whether she stored it on gmail, her home server, or mail.ru.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Amergin posted:The DoS also apparently couldn't correctly deal a contract to save their lives under her tenure. If by "couldn't correctly deal" you mean: quote:
But sounds like the DoS learned too much from the DoD. Pyroxene Stigma posted:The NSA has every one of her emails. This entire discussion is stupid. The government has access to her email whether she stored it on gmail, her home server, or mail.ru. But she deleted some emails, that makes her just as bad as cops that kill minorities because I hate her!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If by "couldn't correctly deal" you mean: Most cops which kill civilians don't run for President.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
What do you think about Colin Powell not turning in his emails from his personal email accounts when asked?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
I really, really hope emailgate keeps being a thing into 2016, just in time for the GOP to realize that no one outside of the media and diehards on the right gives a gently caress about it. Seriously, I want to see a survey to see what percentage of Americans a.) actually care about this issue and b.) can accurately describe the basics of the issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:What do you think about Colin Powell not turning in his emails from his personal email accounts when asked? Or Jeb releasing a fuckton of Social Security numbers. People hate because Hilary pulled a master class move by doing something normal humans do without actually releasing anything damning because Clinton isn't sitting there typing AMERICA IS EVIL BENGHAZI IS GREAT which is what most crazy people in politics assumes she is doing. MIGF rails but he'd love someone like Hilary working for him. Hate on her email deletion. (Especially with someone getting fired under her watch for the same poo poo) - but what I see is people being angry that she had nothing damning, thus Burritoghazi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:What do you think about Colin Powell not turning in his emails from his personal email accounts when asked? This question is inherently racist 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I really, really hope emailgate keeps being a thing into 2016, just in time for the GOP to realize that no one outside of the media and diehards on the right gives a gently caress about it. Well.... quote:Overall, 51% in the poll call Clinton's use of a personal email system rather than a government provided one a very or somewhat serious problem, 48% say it's not too serious an issue or no problem at all. And the public is similarly split over whether Clinton did something wrong by using the personal system; 51% say she did, 47% that she did not. For context her unfavorables were 44% in that same poll. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/03/16/clinton.poll.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:This question is inherently racist What about "Did Condi seriously not use email?" (its probably true and she's probably the smartest of the group due to it)
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2015 19:35
|
|