Official "Look How Insane and Shitty ALL GOP Officials Are" Thread

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, Zaku3 said:

 

It's more baller to understand the quote and not need to use it because its better to explain why someone would use that quote. It implies everyone understands it and I don't think everyone does.

 

Inter-human problems are caused by a lack of communication. Just posting a quote is a sympthom of that. It's not a coincidence how I post and respond to things has changed but the answers are just more detailed. I want to make sure I am understood. When I look at people now. I go "Ahhh so this why I behaved that way before."

 

He didn't just post a quote, and this board isn't a microcosm of one's personal life, so it's completely applicable here because people here will get the quote. And the quote alone is pretty self-explanatory, reading the quote should beget immediate understanding. If people don't get it, I assure you, I've met such people and no amount of explaining anything thoroughly will matter to them. Recalcitrant and intractable are typical religious fundamentalist traits.

[BloodyHell]

11 hours ago, thewhyteboar said:

Daniel Perry is a dangerous fucking nut job:

He has killed before:

Look! Another Republican sex pest:

If Abbott pardons this loon, he will be a congressman before the year is out.

 

And he will get pardoned, because the other guy was pointing a rifle at him when he took out his handgun and killed him.

 

Perry is disgusting, but that doesn’t change that by Texas law, he probably shouldn’t have been charged. I still think what he did should be a crime, but under texas law, the pardon’s board will probably find otherwise.

 

Ive been following this case since pardons were mentioned, it’s messier than people of either political affiliation are willing to admit.

 

I can’t say I wouldn’t react the same if someone was pointing a rifle at me in my car and had a handgun at the ready. They both played a stupid game and won a stupid prize.

[Zaku3]

6 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

He didn't just post a quote, and this board isn't a microcosm of one's personal life, so it's completely applicable here because people here will get the quote. And the quote alone is pretty self-explanatory, reading the quote should beget immediate understanding. If people don't get it, I assure you, I've met such people and no amount of explaining anything thoroughly will matter to them. Recalcitrant and intractable are typical religious fundamentalist values.

 

You're proving my point by replying to me. Nothing in that post should have triggered a response. Your response is based on something I didn't cover. Which is that I didn't account for people that are unreasonable. They are unreasonable because they were me before and I couldn't change my mind. They act like I used to act. I don't act like that because brain chemistry made me an unreasonable person again. I saw how even the new perspective I have on things is useless without being able to control my emotions. 

 

Conformation bias is a bias and you can change your bias to one that accounts for all of your observations. Not just the ones that you like. 

 

The root causes of our issues are widespread and the problems are getting worse not better. I'm introspective enough to see I'm not that anymore. I don't think my fellow country men are. I got to a point where I said I want to die but don't want to kill myself. How do I change that sentiment.

[Greatoneshere]

7 minutes ago, Zaku3 said:

 

You're proving my point by replying to me. Nothing in that post should have triggered a response. Your response is based on something I didn't cover. Which is that I didn't account for people that are unreasonable. They are unreasonable because they were me before and I couldn't change my mind. They act like I used to act. I don't act like that because brain chemistry made me an unreasonable person again. I saw how even the new perspective I have on things is useless without being able to control my emotions. 

 

Conformation bias is a bias and you can change your bias to one that accounts for all of your observations. Not just the ones that you like. 

 

The root causes of our issues are widespread and the problems are getting worse not better. I'm introspective enough to see I'm not that anymore. I don't think my fellow country men are. I got to a point where I said I want to die but don't want to kill myself. How do I change that sentiment.

 

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, none of this is relevant to the prior discussion. Most of your posts these past few months have been hard to parse. I'm just addressing 5timechamp's use of a quote, which you addressed, so I responded to it, it's as simple as that. You didn't "trigger" a response, this is a message board, it comes with the territory to respond to things.

[Reputator]

6 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Most of your posts these past few months have been hard to parse. I'm just addressing 5timechamp's use of a quote, which you addressed, so I responded to it, it's as simple as that. You didn't "trigger" a response, this is a message board, it comes with the territory to respond to things.

 

Ok so it's not just me.

[Greatoneshere]

46 minutes ago, Reputator said:

Ok so it's not just me.

 

No, it's definitely not just you, I have tried and most of their posts I have little clue as to its relevancy to whatever is being responded to and they read as barely coherent. I don't know what's going on but yeah. 

 

Edit: If something is going on, I want to say I don't mean to come off harshly at all (sorry if I did Zaku), I was just confused mostly by the responses was all.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

And he will get pardoned, because the other guy was pointing a rifle at him when he took out his handgun and killed him.

Not according to Daniel Perry himself when being interviewed by police officers on the day of the murder. He explicitly said the man had not pointed the gun at him when he pulled the trigger, he said he was raising it. He even said he didn’t want to wait for him to point it at him.

 

Perry is also the only witness to the shooting that claimed Foster had even raised the rifle, so a bit questionable to use such definitive language there.

 

But the reason he was rightfully convicted is that Texas law does not allow a person to provoke a violent encounter and then use SYG as a defense. The combination of his texts prior to arriving at the scene, video evidence, and witness testimony about him driving into the crowd all makes it clear that Perry was picking a fight. Even if Foster was pointing his gun at Perry at the time, Perry’s actions invalidate a SYG claim because he provoked the response of Foster by using his car as a weapon.

 

It is entirely possible that had Foster shot and killed Perry, that Foster would have a legitimate SYG claim.

 

This in contrast to the incorrect notion by people that Kyle Rittenhouse provoked violence simply by being in a place and being armed.

 

I would have convicted Perry without hesitation. He wanted a fight, he started a fight, and then got scared and killed somebody. That’s all on him.

[ort]

Perry's social media posts read exactly like a typical Fox News comments section on any story about black people. They constantly fantasize about gunning down uppity blacks in the street. Fox News removes the most egregious posts, but they come in so fast that they can never keep up. It's just a nonstop stream of people advocating for violence in the streets.

 

Fox News basically exists solely to rile people like Perry up. They encourage and allow this behavior. This is exactly what they want. This is how it is designed to work.

[stepee]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

No, it's definitely not just you, I have tried and most of their posts I have little clue as to its relevancy to whatever is being responded to and they read as barely coherent. I don't know what's going on but yeah. 

 

Edit: If something is going on, I want to say I don't mean to come off harshly at all (sorry if I did Zaku), I was just confused mostly by the responses was all.

 

Without getting too far into someone else’s personal details but just so you are aware they have mentioned they have been going through some things and are working on them with their therapist and doctor.  Sometimes likely just trying to work some things out loud to help process.

[BloodyHell]

4 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

No, it's definitely not just you, I have tried and most of their posts I have little clue as to its relevancy to whatever is being responded to and they read as barely coherent. I don't know what's going on but yeah. 

 

Edit: If something is going on, I want to say I don't mean to come off harshly at all (sorry if I did Zaku), I was just confused mostly by the responses was all.

I just thought English was maybe not his first language, so I chalked whatever I didn’t understand up to that.

[Kal-El814]

Eat my ass, Florida:

 

Florida to allow death penalty with 8-4 jury vote instead of unanimously

WWW.REUTERS.COM

---

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is expected to sign a bill on Friday allowing juries to recommend the death penalty in capital cases on an 8-4 vote, a move spurred by the less-than-unanimous vote that led to the Parkland school shooter being sentenced to life in prison.

 

[5timechamp]

Not CRT, is this alternate History theory? apparently its a state holiday?

 

Collier teacher under investigation for showing “Confederate History Month” video to school - NBC2 News

NBC-2.COM

---

A teacher at a Collier County school is facing backlash from parents after they showed a video celebrating “Confederate History Month” to the entire school.

 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Some states have a holiday honoring confederate history. It’s definitely not a national holiday. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Per an nyt article from 6 months ago:

Quote

So in March 2017, the legislature adopted a new sentencing law requiring a unanimous jury recommendation for a judge to impose the death penalty.

Most of the 17 states where the death penalty is legal now have a similarly high bar. Alabama is the only outlier, allowing a 10-2 jury vote to recommend execution.

If we must allow state sanctioned murder it should be unanimous 

[CastletonSnob]

Texas Senate Passes Bill To Seize Control of Elections from Local Authorities

WWW.DEMOCRACYDOCKET.COM

---

Read more here.

THIS is what I mean when I say that saying "Just vote harder, guys!" isn't helpful.

 

We NEED Democrats to protect and expand voting rights.

[PaladinSolo]

10 minutes ago, CastletonSnob said:

Texas Senate Passes Bill To Seize Control of Elections from Local Authorities

WWW.DEMOCRACYDOCKET.COM

---

Read more here.

THIS is what I mean when I say that saying "Just vote harder, guys!" isn't helpful.

 

We NEED Democrats to protect and expand voting rights.

How do you get democrats in a position to do this without voting?

[CastletonSnob]

1 hour ago, PaladinSolo said:

How do you get democrats in a position to do this without voting?

Texas has piss-poor voter turnout. Maybe invest in GOTV efforts?

[SaysWho?]

 

1 hour ago, CastletonSnob said:

Texas has piss-poor voter turnout. Maybe invest in GOTV efforts?

 

So... end solution is to vote.  

[BloodyHell]

On 4/16/2023 at 12:46 PM, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Per an nyt article from 6 months ago:

If we must allow state sanctioned murder it should be unanimous 

A friend once said to me that every time an person who was executed is found out to be innocent, and was prosecuted maliciously because the prosecution knew they could, the prosecutor should be charged for murder. 
 

I know that is impossible to actually work out, I don’t even know the state has to recommend it in every state, I think it’s the judge in some and jury in others? But I do think in the few cases where prosecutors were found to have known they probably didn’t have the right guy and prosecuted for a “W”, I’d be fine with that. Charge away. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Oklahoma county leaders caught on audio talking about killing reporters, complaining they can no longer lynch Black people

WWW.NBCNEWS.COM

---

“I am both appalled and disheartened to hear of the horrid comments made by officials in McCurtain County,” Gov. Kevin Stitt said.

 

Quote

 

The governor of Oklahoma has called for the resignations of the sheriff and other top officials in a rural county after they were recorded talking about "beating, killing and burying" a father/son team of local reporters — and lamenting that they could no longer hang Black people with a “damned rope.”

 

Gov. Kevin Stitt called for McCurtain County Sheriff Kevin Clardy, county Commissioner Mark Jennings, sheriff's investigator Alicia Manning, and Jail Administrator Larry Hendrix to step down after the McCurtain County Gazette-News published an article over the weekend about what was captured on the recording.

 

“I am both appalled and disheartened to hear of the horrid comments made by officials in McCurtain County,” Stitt said in a statement released Sunday. “There is simply no place for such hateful rhetoric in the state of Oklahoma, especially by those that serve to represent the community through their respective office.”

 

Stitt, a Republican, said he has ordered the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation to “initiate an investigation to determine whether any illegal conduct has occurred.”

 

Bruce Willingham, who works for his family-owned newspaper, has turned the full audio over to the FBI and the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office, his lawyers said.

 

 

[Fizzzzle]

2 hours ago, BloodyHell said:

A friend once said to me that every time an person who was executed is found out to be innocent, and was prosecuted maliciously because the prosecution knew they could, the prosecutor should be charged for murder. 
 

I know that is impossible to actually work out, I don’t even know the state has to recommend it in every state, I think it’s the judge in some and jury in others? But I do think in the few cases where prosecutors were found to have known they probably didn’t have the right guy and prosecuted for a “W”, I’d be fine with that. Charge away. 

 

It's the job of the prosecutor to convict people (once a case goes to court), just like it's a defense attorney's job to get them off. Neither of them are necessarily concerned with whether the defendant is actually guilty - that's not their concern.

 

IF you found evidence of a prosecutor deliberately falsifying/tampering with evidence and/or colluding with witnesses, that's a different story. But a prosecutor simply sending an innocent person to prison? They were just doing their job, as fucked up as that sounds. It was a case that came across their desk and they did their job.

 

 

(The problem of the DA being a high powered attorney while the vast majority of criminal defendants get public defenders who probably don't even know their name is a different story)

[Air_Delivery]

2 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Oklahoma county leaders caught on audio talking about killing reporters, complaining they can no longer lynch Black people

WWW.NBCNEWS.COM

---

“I am both appalled and disheartened to hear of the horrid comments made by officials in McCurtain County,” Gov. Kevin Stitt said.

 

 

This is my surprised face. 

[BloodyHell]

1 hour ago, Fizzzzle said:

 

It's the job of the prosecutor to convict people (once a case goes to court), just like it's a defense attorney's job to get them off. Neither of them are necessarily concerned with whether the defendant is actually guilty - that's not their concern.

 

IF you found evidence of a prosecutor deliberately falsifying/tampering with evidence and/or colluding with witnesses, that's a different story. But a prosecutor simply sending an innocent person to prison? They were just doing their job, as fucked up as that sounds. It was a case that came across their desk and they did their job.

 

 

(The problem of the DA being a high powered attorney while the vast majority of criminal defendants get public defenders who probably don't even know their name is a different story)

Oh no, im speaking specifically of the cases where prosecutors knew they had the wrong person, had “evidence” (such as white person willing to testify to what they “saw” a black person do), and went ahead with prosecution anyway. 
 

theres a long history of prosecution scapegoating innocent people because “my perfect record”.  Often people who were guilty of other crimes and easy to paint badly. Usually black men.

 

theres also a history of them pushing to keep prisoners inside when evidence exonerates them. Hell, Kamala Harris apparently did a bunch of that. 

 

I completely agree someone just doing their job shouldn’t be prosecuted, thought I was clear about what I meant.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

It's the job of the prosecutor to convict people (once a case goes to court), just like it's a defense attorney's job to get them off. Neither of them are necessarily concerned with whether the defendant is actually guilty - that's not their concern.

It is unquestionably the duty of prosecutors to only bring cases to trial when they believe the charges are true. One could theoretically be disbarred if it were proven they were prosecuting cases they knew weren’t true. It’s just a rarity that such a thing occurs, and even less common that it could be proven.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Between connick v Thompson and prosecutorial immunity DAs can do nearly whatever they want and never face any repercussions 

 

thank you conservatives on scotus

[Fizzzzle]

10 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It is unquestionably the duty of prosecutors to only bring cases to trial when they believe the charges are true. One could theoretically be disbarred if it were proven they were prosecuting cases they knew weren’t true. It’s just a rarity that such a thing occurs, and even less common that it could be proven.

That's precisely why I said "once a case goes to court." The police sends a case to the DA with what evidence they have at the time, the DA dismisses it or accepts it, but once they accept it, it is 100% their job to convict. Beyond that point, they are not truth-seekers, they are lawyers acting against the defense. That's why defense attorneys are necessary even when most people hate them. Once a case goes to trial, the DA is in full conviction mode.

 

And again why I said that if you found evidence of a DA tampering with evidence etc, that's a different story. But simply having an innocent person go to prison does not reflect on the DA assuming they were acting in good faith and didn't do any shady shit. Once the DA accepts a case, it is their job to convict. You can't punish them for doing their job. Once things go to court, their job is conviction.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

That's precisely why I said "once a case goes to court." The police sends a case to the DA with what evidence they have at the time, the DA dismisses it or accepts it, but once they accept it, it is 100% their job to convict. Beyond that point, they are not truth-seekers, they are lawyers acting against the defense. That's why defense attorneys are necessary even when most people hate them. Once a case goes to trial, the DA is in full conviction mode.

 

And again why I said that if you found evidence of a DA tampering with evidence etc, that's a different story. But simply having an innocent person go to prison does not reflect on the DA assuming they were acting in good faith and didn't do any shady shit. Once the DA accepts a case, it is their job to convict. You can't punish them for doing their job. Once things go to court, their job is conviction.

My man, DA’s offices do their own investigations. They don’t just take police info and run with it. Cases get dismissed in the middle of trials when new information is revealed. This is true even after a conviction, when faced with compelling evidence of actual innocence, prosecutors should move to vacate the conviction when given the opportunity.

[Fizzzzle]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

My man, DA’s offices do their own investigations. They don’t just take police info and run with it. Cases get dismissed in the middle of trials when new information is revealed. This is true even after a conviction, when faced with compelling evidence of actual innocence, prosecutors should move to vacate the conviction when given the opportunity.

Yes, cases get dismissed when new information is revealed (again, the acting in good faith part)

 

Bolded: .... do you live in the same country as I do?

 

I feel like you're making my point seem anti-DA. I'm not. District attorneys campaign on their conviction rates. In an ideal world, they only prosecute cases wherein they think there's enough evidence to convict in the first place, hence why their conviction rates are so high (the FBI has such a high conviction rate that there's something like a saying that if the FBI comes knocking at your door, you're already fucked)

 

It seems like you're saying the same thing as me but trying to make it more complicated.

[Jason]

12 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

It seems like you're saying the same thing as me but trying to make it more complicated.

 

Is this your first time interacting with sbl?

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Fizzzzle said:

Yes, cases get dismissed when new information is revealed (again, the acting in good faith part)

 

Bolded: .... do you live in the same country as I do?

 

I feel like you're making my point seem anti-DA. I'm not. District attorneys campaign on their conviction rates. In an ideal world, they only prosecute cases wherein they think there's enough evidence to convict in the first place, hence why their conviction rates are so high (the FBI has such a high conviction rate that there's something like a saying that if the FBI comes knocking at your door, you're already fucked)

 

It seems like you're saying the same thing as me but trying to make it more complicated.

You said 

 

3 hours ago, Fizzzzle said:

It's the job of the prosecutor to convict people (once a case goes to court), just like it's a defense attorney's job to get them off. Neither of them are necessarily concerned with whether the defendant is actually guilty - that's not their concern.

That is false. The job of the prosecutor is always to seek justice, even if that means admitting they were wrong. So no, we aren’t saying the same thing and I’m not making it complicated at all.

 

You may have meant something else, but this statement is simply untrue as written.

[Spork3245]

[TUFKAK]

Florida Republicans Pass Bill Allowing Trans Kids to Be Removed From Their Families

NEWREPUBLIC.COM

---

This is just the latest anti-trans bill passed in the state, but it’s among the most dangerous.

 

[silentbob]

He’s going Mini Hitler on his people. Fuck the cesspool of these Florida politicians/dictators 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

On 4/17/2023 at 10:51 PM, sblfilms said:

The job of the prosecutor is always to seek justice, even if that means admitting they were wrong

unfortunate three are cases where reality doesn’t match up with the mission statement. Not when common metrics to evaluate a prosecutor’s job performance are cases processed, convictions, and conviction rate.  
 

Measured metrics change pretty much any job, because they often prioritize quantity over quality. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

unfortunate three are cases where reality doesn’t match up with the mission statement. Not when common metrics to evaluate a prosecutor’s job performance are cases processed, convictions, and conviction rate.  
 

Measured metrics change pretty much any job, because they often prioritize quantity over quality. 

Do you know what the worst metric for a prosecutor is? Overturned convictions.