I say we give black people two votes

[Craig234]

Let me get this straight .. I distorted your position on de Blasio's policies by highlighting some of his policies? :lamo Regardless, I support imprisoning any individual (regardless of race) who commits a crime. Criminals should rot in jail for the duration proportionate to the crime they committed.

No, you're appearing incapable of an honest discussion. You dodged the question I asked, as well.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not really. But there's a much better case for doing THAT than the electoral system to give an arbitrary group of people inflated votes, who happen to live in less populated states.

It's nothing but cheating put into the law. If you reacted with hostility to the two votes for black people idea, then you should react with even more hostility to the electoral system corruption. The Senate is one thing, where 500,000 Wyomingans get the same say as 40,000,000 Californians, which is like 80 votes per Wyoming voter, but their getting a big 'bonus' vote for president is just wrong.

How about instead, we give tax payers 2 votes vs. subsidized people 1 vote.

 

[jotathought]

No, you're appearing incapable of an honest discussion. You dodged the question I asked, as well.

I've already answered your question .. I support imprisoning any individual, regardless of race, who commits a crime. I do not support criminal activity, and de Blasio's policies have accelerated crime in NYC by putting more criminals on the street and relaxing what law enforcement is able to do about it.

 

[Craig234]

I've already answered your question .. I support imprisoning any individual, regardless of race, who commits a crime. I do not support criminal activity, and de Blasio's policies have accelerated crime in NYC by putting more criminals on the street and relaxing what law enforcement is able to do about it.

Craig234: Do you support imprisoning all people of color who have NOT committed a crime? If not, you support the increased crimes that are committed as a result of not imprisoning them." jot: 'I support imprisoning people who HAVE committed a crime.' Craig234: "That wasn't the question." jot: "I've already answered your question .. I support imprisoning any individual, regardless of race, who commits a crime."

 

[jotathought]

Craig234: Do you support imprisoning all people of color who have NOT committed a crime? If not, you support the increased crimes that are committed as a result of not imprisoning them." jot: 'I support imprisoning people who HAVE committed a crime.' Craig234: "That wasn't the question." jot: "I've already answered your question .. I support imprisoning any individual, regardless of race, who commits a crime."

Yes, if an individual commits a crime, they should go to jail. If an individual does not commit a crime, they should not go to jail.

de Blasio is letting people out who have committed crimes, some habitual. What's difficult to understand?

 

[Paradoxical]

1. I just received a reply from a member who praised His Honor Mayor de Blasio to the skies, saying that he was better than most other Dem leaders and better than any Republican leader. I, of course, did not reply. I just clicked the "like" button because that button also means "Thank you."

2. I have lived in Los Angeles since the 1940s. I know all the tricks they pull in city government. For example, many students of ethnicities X and Y were being suspended for defiance. ("Hey, Teach, I'm gonna use my cellphone in class whether you go like it or not. Understand?" "No, I won't sit in that seat. I, not the teacher, decide where I choose to sit.") Well, President Obama's administration told schools if you want federal aid, NO MORE suspensions for defiance. It was obvious, the administration said, that ethnicities X and Y were being picked on.

a. A few months later, the Los Angeles schools proudly announced: "Almost no student is being suspended for defiance. See what a good job we are doing in teaching good manners to our students?" And, of course, the naive public fell for that fib.

I shudder to think what the Biden-Harris administration has in store for us. Hopefully, FATE will step in & save us.

Yep. The schools now have model citizens and no more crime in the streets. Our liberals have succeeded in creating a model society.

Yes...that ethnicity is/was black kids who didn't like white teachers and that was OK.

 

[Craig234]

What's difficult to understand?

The question is, do you support imprisoning all people of color whether or not they committed crimes, or do you support the extra crimes they will commit if not imprisoned? What's difficult to understand?

 

[jotathought]

The question is, do you support imprisoning all people of color whether or not they committed crimes, or do you support the extra crimes they will commit if not imprisoned? What's difficult to understand?

I figured when I said, "If an individual does not commit a crime, they should not go to jail" would have answered that. Why would one respond to a hypothetical crime if the individual isn't a criminal? Are you assuming that people of color would commit extra crimes if they aren't criminals?

 

[smallvoice]

Not really. But there's a much better case for doing THAT than the electoral system to give an arbitrary group of people inflated votes, who happen to live in less populated states.

It's nothing but cheating put into the law. If you reacted with hostility to the two votes for black people idea, then you should react with even more hostility to the electoral system corruption. The Senate is one thing, where 500,000 Wyomingans get the same say as 40,000,000 Californians, which is like 80 votes per Wyoming voter, but their getting a big 'bonus' vote for president is just wrong.

Two MORE votes each? Sounds like the only way "progressives" have a chance....

Incidentally, is that like Hilarity's "Super Delegates"?

 

[Craig234]

I figured when I said, "If an individual does not commit a crime, they should not go to jail" would have answered that. Why would one respond to a hypothetical crime if the individual isn't a criminal? Are you assuming that people of color would commit extra crimes if they aren't criminals?

I see you need this spelled out, so let's spell it out.

You made a disingenuous, inflammatory post.

Let's say there's a policy that results in injustice for poor people - that there is bail, where poorer people charged with a crime are stuck in jail unable to afford bail, where people charged with the same crime who have more money can pay the bail and be out.

Let's say that it's recognized that this has nothing to do with justice or public safety, and is simply discriminatory based on the money they have. Either both should be kept in jail for 'public safety', or neither should, but not a discriminatory policy against the poor. That's called 'justice'.

Now, you come along, and ignore the actual rationale for the policy change to end the discrimination, and you only cherry pick the issue that not discriminating against poor people will result is some of the people let our committing crimes, as if the only issue was 'do we want more crime or not'.

I made your disingenuous argument's flaws clear, by using the same tactic to ask you, do you support jailing all people of color, or do you support the increased crimes that will happen if they're not jailed? The point is to show, if you ignore the merit of the issue, and ONLY ask do you support the increased crimes, the flaws in the argument.

There are reasons not to jail innocent people of color even though not doing so will increase the number of crimes, and there are reasons for de Blasio's policies even if they will increase the number of crimes. Saying that in either case you support the increased crimes, instead of saying you accept them in exchange for something more important, is disingenuous.

You ask if I'm saying not jailing all people of color will increase the crimes committed; yes, I am, just as I'd say not jailing all white people will do the same. And, that choosing to not jail them, and have the increased crimes, is the right choice, just as choosing not to discriminate against poor people, selectively imprisoning them before they're convicted, is worth the increase in crimes. If you don't get it after this, I give up on you.

 

[TheParser]

If you can't provide links or evidence for your claims, you should b a bit extra careful in the claims you make being accurate. It's pretty clear the dialogue above, you just made up to create false support for your claims.

I googled, and found almost only right-wing sources. Almost the only more neutral source, PBS Newshour, is linked below, with a story quite a bit different than the one you tell - and I support Obama's policies in that story.

As for how to post a link, you should learn, it's easy. Highlight a link, right click on it and click 'copy'. Then in your post, right-click where you want it and click 'paste'.

Obama administration recommends ending ‘zero-tolerance’ policies in schools | PBS NewsHour

Thanks for your comments.

I know that what I have posted is correct. Ask any teacher or principal.

The Obama administration was proud of what it had done. It believed the "fib" that two certain ethnicities were being singled out for suspension when it came to defiance. Yeah, right! Some people (especially most teachers and responsible parents) opposed it. It just gave a license to "uncooperative" students to be more brazen. But I shan't continue, for you have made up your mind (as have I), so ...

I have heard that some search engines remove certain results that are not in line with that search engine's agenda. Besides, PBS is no model of strict objectivity. So-called liberals control the media, and, boy, am I terrified of what the Biden-Harris administration plans in the form of official censorship.

Thanks for your advice on linking. I am so stupid that I would need a tutor sitting at my side to tell me every move to make.


Have a nice new work week!

 

[Craig234]

But I shan't continue, for you have made up your mind (as have I), so ...

That's not quite right. I agree with the Obama policy. But I'm open if you can present evidence, more than 'ask a teacher', of a problem, to considering your claims. But right now, there is none.

I have heard that some search engines remove certain results that are not in line with that search engine's agenda.

Certainly, search engines have to decide what to return and in what order. But claims that the result simply fit an "agenda" are paranoid conspiracy theory lies. You are being manipulated if people tell you that.

Besides, PBS is no model of strict objectivity. So-called liberals control the media, and, boy, am I terrified of what the Biden-Harris administration plans in the form of official censorship.

PBS is a very fair outlet. They don't get it right always, but their bias is to the right. Your fear of Biden censorship is IMO indicative of you have a strong paranoid bias that is baseless - where is your concern about trump who actually has lied constantly, always?

Thanks for your advice on linking.

You're very welcome. Let me know if you run into a problem.

 

[jotathought]

<snipped for brevity>

You ask if I'm saying not jailing all people of color will increase the crimes committed; yes, I am, just as I'd say not jailing all white people will do the same. And, that choosing to not jail them, and have the increased crimes, is the right choice, just as choosing not to discriminate against poor people, selectively imprisoning them before they're convicted, is worth the increase in crimes. If you don't get it after this, I give up on you.

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with your premise: that bail is discriminatory. I also disagree that it's a point of negotiation to accept crime as an inevitable outcome, just so people don't have to stay in jail pre-trial. The judicial process occurs post allegation/crime in response to an individual's actions, and in New York's case, black and hispanics commit the lion share of crimes.

Criminal Mischief: Black-51%; Hispanic-29.6%; White-14%
Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter: Black-62%; Hispanic-30.8%; White-3%
Rape: Black-46.5%; Hispanic-34.8%; White-10.8%
Robbery: Black-66.2%; Hispanic-27.1%; White-4.3%
Felonious Assault: Black-53.4%; Hispanic-32.6%; White-7.9%
Shootings: Black-74.4%; Hispanic-22.0%; White-2.4%
Firearm Arrests: Black-70.9%; Hispanic-23.1%; White-4.3%

..and so on (repeat)

 

[Deuce]

It eliminates a states power.

No it doesn't. It just changes how a president is selected. The states have all the same authority to pass laws and enforce laws as before.

 

[Deuce]

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with your premise: that bail is discriminatory. I also disagree that it's a point of negotiation to accept crime as an inevitable outcome, just so people don't have to stay in jail pre-trial. The judicial process occurs post allegation/crime in response to an individual's actions, and in New York's case, black and hispanics commit the lion share of crimes.

Criminal Mischief: Black-51%; Hispanic-29.6%; White-14%
Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter: Black-62%; Hispanic-30.8%; White-3%
Rape: Black-46.5%; Hispanic-34.8%; White-10.8%
Robbery: Black-66.2%; Hispanic-27.1%; White-4.3%
Felonious Assault: Black-53.4%; Hispanic-32.6%; White-7.9%
Shootings: Black-74.4%; Hispanic-22.0%; White-2.4%
Firearm Arrests: Black-70.9%; Hispanic-23.1%; White-4.3%

..and so on (repeat)

Convicted of more crimes =/= commit more crimes.

 

[Craig234]

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with your premise: that bail is discriminatory. I also disagree that it's a point of negotiation to accept crime as an inevitable outcome, just so people don't have to stay in jail pre-trial. The judicial process occurs post allegation/crime in response to an individual's actions, and in New York's case, black and hispanics commit the lion share of crimes.

You 'don't accept' that telling two people who commit and are charged with the same crime, 'one of you can pay bail so you can go free, the other can't afford it so you will sit in jail', is discriminatory? Then you are not very rational. Crime rates have nothing to do with the issue. You simply use them to defend an injustice. Luckily, more rational people are addressing this. If you actually cared about the 'crime', you'd be opposing bail for people with money.

 

[Paradoxical]

No it doesn't. It just changes how a president is selected. The states have all the same authority to pass laws and enforce laws as before.

eliminates any power the small states have.

 

[Deuce]

eliminates any power the small states have.

No it doesn't. Their power would be exactly proportionate to their population.

 

[Paradoxical]

No it doesn't. Their power would be exactly proportionate to their population.

It would not. NO president would bother with a state that had almost zero influence on the election. They would have no voice.

Look Duece. Go to Europe for crying out loud if you want a big central government...or some other country. We are a collection of individual states.

 

[Deuce]

It would not. NO president would bother with a state that had almost zero influence on the election. They would have no voice.

Look Duece. Go to Europe for crying out loud if you want a big central government...or some other country. We are a collection of individual states.

What state do you live in? Would you start voting Democrat if we were on a popular vote system?

 

[Paradoxical]

What state do you live in? Would you start voting Democrat if we were on a popular vote system?

Go to Europe Duece. that is a better system for you.Stop carping about the electoral college and that you don't like being born in America, Sheesh.

 

[Deuce]

Go to Europe Duece. that is a better system for you.Stop carping about the electoral college and that you don't like being born in America, Sheesh.

Of course you want to change the subject. Proves my point nicely, really. But sure, let's talk about that. So you think people who don't like their current country should be able to just go move to another country of their choice?

 

[Paradoxical]

Of course you want to change the subject. Proves my point nicely, really. But sure, let's talk about that. So you think people who don't like their current country should be able to just go move to another country of their choice?

Yes, I do. Next question.

 

[jonny5]

No they couldn't. Do the math. Even if you take the largest 6 coastal states, and 100% of the people in those states voted for the same person for president, that wouldn't determine the outcome. However, in the system we have now, a handful of swing states dictate the law for the whole country. Not sure how that is in any way better, if the concern is certain states having outsize power.

They dont dictate the law, a majority of representatives in congress do.

They dont dictate the winner of the President either. Swing states only comprise 150ish votes. 270 is required to win, thus the BIG states really dictate it. You can win with 11 states.

 

[mrjurrs]

I don't take money from them. WTF are you talking about?

Your profile says you are in LA. LA is a taker state (doesn't generate enough in state revenue to pay your bills), and CA and NY are two of the eight states that allow you to pay lower taxes or receive more benefits than your state deserves. Raise your taxes, lower your service levels, say thank you or shut up..