• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If this is the future of "progressivism," I'm out

Really?
They had a video of a murder in Chicago and they didn't charge anyone. The video was not enough evidence?


Thank god for the video's in the Rittenhouse case.
Can you show me the last thread started here about a regular guy who no one had heard of who murdered his wife that wasn't political, famous, etc?
 

Here is some reading for you counselor.
I did. For instance I read where the DA in LA referenced that the vast majority of those arrested for the low level crimes need mental health treatment, or substance abuse treatment, or are homeless- or all of the above. Not exactly ignoring the crime as you folks imply, but proposing an alternate solution. And for the record, I don't know that I agree with these various approaches either. But the OP went way over board with the implication that not prosecuting anything but the serious crime is simply the wave of the future for progressive district attorneys.

And why do I have a hard time taking the concerns of you conservatives seriously on this issue while out of the other side of your mouth, most of you argue why the crimes committed on 1/6 should be treated as just a kegger that got a little out of hand?
 
I did. For instance I read where the DA in LA referenced that the vast majority of those arrested for the low level crimes need mental health treatment, or substance abuse treatment, or are homeless- or all of the above. Not exactly ignoring the crime as you folks imply, but proposing an alternate solution. And for the record, I don't know that I agree with these various approaches either. But the OP went way over board with the implication that not prosecuting anything but the serious crime is simply the wave of the future for progressive district attorneys.

And why do I have a hard time taking the concerns of you conservatives seriously on this issue while out of the other side of your mouth, most of you argue why the crimes committed on 1/6 should be treated as just a kegger that got a little out of hand?

These two also need mental health treatment and are homeless. Both have long criminal records. These guys spend less time in jail for prior serious crimes than anyone arrested for trespassing following 1/6.
You want to compare 1/6 to the summer of 2020?
Oh yea, 1/6 is comparable to 9/11, Peril Harbor LOL
Only fools believe liberal policies on crime helps the community. Tell that to the one year that got shot in the face. To liberals, she is collateral damage. Right counselor.
 
Take a look at LA and San Francisco. They have turned into complete shitholes due to permissive attitudes like this. Simply disgusting.

And you base that on a view from NYC.
Me, on the other hand, I live in LA and visit SF frequently...the so called shithole areas are no different than any other shithole areas in any major city, but they aren't uniform across the entire city.
 
D.A.’s prioritize the crimes they’re going to prosecute because we don’t have infinite resources, time, man power, court time and prison space. News at 11.

I'm impressed with how casually and nonchalantly you delivered that yawn.
 
Nevermind that we're the leading prison state on Earth and punishing our way out of it doesn't seem to be the right tack.

What's your plan for criminals who reoffend without consequence? Are we just to let them in with the hope they won't kill us after they clean out our homes and businesses?
 
D.A.’s prioritize the crimes they’re going to prosecute because we don’t have infinite resources, time, man power, court time and prison space. News at 11.
Hire more people
 
And we sit here wondering why criminals are so brazen?

When is enough, enough?
Do you want the kind of government that could prosecute ALL crimes?
 
D.A.’s prioritize the crimes they’re going to prosecute because we don’t have infinite resources, time, man power, court time and prison space. News at 11.

No silly

What this is really about is to divert resources $$$$$$ from law/prisoner prosecution to more leftist favorable social programs

Yep
 
Do you want the kind of government that could prosecute ALL crimes?

That wasn't my question.

Democrats are pretending that cops and the courts are the root of the problem when in fact they are not.

Democrats love to pine away about our populated prisons and jails but never take a closer look at how many times criminals catch a break from the courts before they have to finally lock them up.
 
That wasn't my question.

Democrats are pretending that cops and the courts are the root of the problem when in fact they are not.

Democrats love to pine away about our populated prisons and jails but never take a closer look at how many times criminals catch a break from the courts before they have to finally lock them up.
Do you think we have the resources to prosecute and lock all lawbreakers up? Is that something you’d even want?
 
Do you think we have the resources to prosecute and lock all lawbreakers up?

That is a intentionally vague question you are asking.

Do you think we have the infinite resources to allow criminals and gangs to destroy our communities to the point of chasing away home buyers, businesses and jobs?

Either way, we pay out.
 
That is a intentionally vague question you are asking.

Do you think we have the infinite resources to allow criminals and gangs to destroy our communities to the point of chasing away home buyers, businesses and jobs?

Either way, we pay out.
It’s not vague; it’s directly material to the topic. Where do you think judges, police, prosecutors, prisoners and the armies of administrative staff and bureaucracies necessary for running them all come from? The moon?
 
It’s not vague; it’s directly material to the topic. Where do you think judges, police, prosecutors, prisoners and the armies of administrative staff and bureaucracies necessary for running them all come from? The moon?

We could leave criminals on the streets and chase away tax paying citizens and business as well.

I'd rather pay for a criminal to be in jail than reading about 8 years old girls being shot on the streets.
 
We could leave criminals on the streets and chase away tax paying citizens and business as well.

I'd rather pay for a criminal to be in jail than reading about 8 years old girls being shot on the streets.
And that’s precisely the type of crime D.A.’s want to prosecute, given the limited resources for the prosecution and imprisonment of criminals.
 
If that would be the worst of a progressive government the US would just be screwed, but chances are the progressives would do 100X more damage than that. First of all, they would round up, torture in some sadistically medieval ways, and finally gas anyone who wasn't a proven progressive. After that they would then kick it up a notch and really show how insanely evil they are.
 
If that would be the worst of a progressive government the US would just be screwed, but chances are the progressives would do 100X more damage than that. First of all, they would round up, torture in some sadistically medieval ways, and finally gas anyone who wasn't a proven progressive. After that they would then kick it up a notch and really show how insanely evil they are.
Pack your bags. You’re going to concentration camp.
 
Okay, fine, what was the context? Why is it happening and where all is it happening?
Suggest you start reading what this new breed of prosecutor is saying. For example, here in MA, Rachel Rollins became Suffolk County DA a few years back and has recently been installed as Federal district attorney for the state. From her DA campaign website, here’s the list of charges she will not prosecute:
  • Trespassing
  • Shoplifting (including offenses that are essentially shoplifting but charged as larceny)
  • Larceny under $250
  • Disorderly conduct
  • Disturbing the peace
  • Receiving stolen property
  • Minor driving offenses, including operating with a suspend or revoked license
  • Breaking and entering — where it is into a vacant property or where it is for the purpose of sleeping or seeking refuge from the cold and there is no actual damage to property
  • Wanton or malicious destruction of property
  • Threats – excluding domestic violence
  • Minor in possession of alcohol
  • Drug possession
  • Drug possession with intent to distribute
  • A stand alone resisting arrest charge, i.e. cases where a person is charged with resisting arrest and that is the only charge
  • A resisting arrest charge combined with only charges that all fall under the list of charges to decline to prosecute, e.g. resisting arrest charge combined only with a trespassing charge

Source here.

(BTW, Rollins was recently in the news complaining that she has been denied an around the clock federal security detail after receiving — get ready for it — threats.)
 
That graphic was shared on Bill Maher's show last night. Assuming those points are accurate, it's a goddamned disgrace.
Bill Maher is more an entertainer than anything. I would not assume anything he says is accurate.
 
Suggest you start reading what this new breed of prosecutor is saying. For example, here in MA, Rachel Rollins became Suffolk County DA a few years back and has recently been installed as Federal district attorney for the state. From her DA campaign website, here’s the list of charges she will not prosecute:
  • Trespassing
  • Shoplifting (including offenses that are essentially shoplifting but charged as larceny)
  • Larceny under $250
  • Disorderly conduct
  • Disturbing the peace
  • Receiving stolen property
  • Minor driving offenses, including operating with a suspend or revoked license
  • Breaking and entering — where it is into a vacant property or where it is for the purpose of sleeping or seeking refuge from the cold and there is no actual damage to property
  • Wanton or malicious destruction of property
  • Threats – excluding domestic violence
  • Minor in possession of alcohol
  • Drug possession
  • Drug possession with intent to distribute
  • A stand alone resisting arrest charge, i.e. cases where a person is charged with resisting arrest and that is the only charge
  • A resisting arrest charge combined with only charges that all fall under the list of charges to decline to prosecute, e.g. resisting arrest charge combined only with a trespassing charge

Source here.

(BTW, Rollins was recently in the news complaining that she has been denied an around the clock federal security detail after receiving — get ready for it — threats.)
Wait until these states pass no bail reform, that's when it gets more dangerous in our cities.
These are crimes that diminish quality of life in these cities and encourages more crime.
 
Wait until these states pass no bail reform, that's when it gets more dangerous in our cities.
These are crimes that diminish quality of life in these cities and encourages more crime.
I’d rather not wait and first see them voted out. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom