Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

walshb

walshb wrote: »

My jaysus. Is there any banter in you at all..

None of us here even know each other....

Chill out..

You were quite happy to say earlier that my opinion, and the opinions of experts, was insulting to both black and white people.

Now you're telling us to "chill out".

And you still have not provided any evidence from reputable sources that back up your claim, even though you claimed it was just a quick Google away.

Overheal

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The pack of foxes is circling.
Or is it wolves ?

I thought it was wolfes or a flock of weelfs.

Not sure what you are talking about though. Topic?

Professor Moriarty

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The pack of foxes is circling.
Or is it wolves ?

Wonderful. An insightful, informative, evidence-based rebuttal. Almost as good as the gif.

y0ssar1an22

Overheal wrote: »

Not nearly so much, since as you know blacks per capita die in police shootings by a rate 3:1 that of their white peers.

The Talk is thus very prevalent in black families and sparsely raised in white families.

To answer your question in it's face value, sure, they should, but that also wasn't the face value thing being said: the reality that The Talk is far more prevalent among black families than white families.

per capita, what groups commit the most violent crimes?

Ted_YNWA

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The pack of foxes is circling.
Or is it wolves ?

Mod - Try and treat the topic in some level of seriousness.

Less of the silly gif/nonsense posting.

Overheal

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

per capita, what groups commit the most violent crimes?

Males, I think.

With all due respect and given the context I find that to be a somewhat loaded rhetorical question: a significant number of crimes are never solved and criminals never convicted. And, there are still serious problems left attached to this discussion surrounding the criminal justice system itself.

I find that most often when this question gets asked (because it's a oft risen talking point) it's to draw overly simplistic conclusions, that you can categorize one ethnicity or the other as inherently more criminal or violent. That, in itself, is the thought process of bigotry. So, I don't like this question and argue it detracts from good argument. I am not suggesting you are a bigot for asking it. I am telling you though I am bigoted toward the question!

Even if we accept the condition that the justice system does no wrong and juries try all cases perfectly, the conviction rates for all categories of crime fall far below any reasonable statistical standard where you could say you had objectively enough data to make conclusions about the proclivity of an individual to commit a crime based on their race.

y0ssar1an22

Overheal wrote: »

Not nearly so much, since as you know blacks per capita die in police shootings by a rate 3:1 that of their white peers.

The Talk is thus very prevalent in black families and sparsely raised in white families.

To answer your question in it's face value, sure, they should, but that also wasn't the face value thing being said: the reality that The Talk is far more prevalent among black families than white families.

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

per capita, what groups commit the most violent crimes?

Overheal wrote: »

Males, I think.

With all due respect and given the context I find that to be a somewhat loaded rhetorical question: a significant number of crimes are never solved and criminals never convicted. And, there are still serious problems left attached to this discussion surrounding the criminal justice system itself.

I find that most often when this question gets asked (because it's a oft risen talking point) it's to draw overly simplistic conclusions, that you can categorize one ethnicity or the other as inherently more criminal or violent. That, in itself, is the thought process of bigotry. So, I don't like this question and argue it detracts from good argument. I am not suggesting you are a bigot for asking it. I am telling you though I am bigoted toward the question!

Even if we accept the condition that the justice system does no wrong and juries try all cases perfectly, the conviction rates for all categories of crime fall far below any reasonable statistical standard where you could say you had objectively enough data to make conclusions about the proclivity of an individual to commit a crime based on their race.

following your logic, are all cops sexist against males as well?

is justice not the blindfolded woman holding a set of scales.

re the bolded point, is that not exactly what is happening right now?

it should be pretty simple...judge every crime on its own merits.

re your last para, that sentence is just too long! i read it a few times and i'm still confused.

Leroy42

The issue is that not every crime is judged on its own merits. The place of the crime, the people involved play a part. That is just the cops.

Then the legal system kicks in. Wealthy people have access to bond funds, can hire the best experts and lawyers. Can easier pay fines to avoid jail.

Depending on the crime they may find it easier to find work even if they spend time in prison.

You are trying to simplify it to 'which type of race is the most criminal' when we all know that there are multiple factors involved.

Overheal

Sorry, let me try to unpack that:

Even if we accept for the sake of argument nobody is ever arrested or convicted of a crime they didn't actually commit (ideal case),

And, given that the the conviction rates for all categories of crime fall far below any reasonable statistical standard are extremely subpar (https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-rate-by-type-in-the-us/),

Then, given these circumstances: we would still not have enough confidence in statistical data, that we would need in order to make actual conclusions about the proclivity (propensity, tendency) of an individual person to commit a crime based on their race, ie. be able to predict that person A is more prone to criminality than person B for no other regard than the race of persons A and B.

y0ssar1an22

Leroy42 wrote: »

The issue is that not every crime is judged on its own merits. The place of the crime, the people involved play a part. That is just the cops.

Then the legal system kicks in. Wealthy people have access to bond funds, can hire the best experts and lawyers. Can easier pay fines to avoid jail.

Depending on the crime they may find it easier to find work even if they spend time in prison.

You are trying to simplify it to 'which type of race is the most criminal' when we all know that there are multiple factors involved.

so charging of crime, i cannot speak to that cos i dont have a clue. i know DA's have differing views re weed or prostitutions for example.

but within that category...weed lets say...if the DA takes a hard line against that, everyone of those crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

as i type this, maybe that is the issue? the DA having the autonomy about what crimes to prosecute and others to let slide?

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

6-3 SCOTUS ignores stare decisis in its ruling.

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/sotomayor-pens-brutal-dissent-by-repeatedly-citing-kavanaugh-back-at-himself-as-conservative-majority-guts-precedent-in-juvenile-punishment-case/

This is quite troubling really. More reason to unpack the court.

So says the dissent. The majority, it seems, agreed with the State appeals courts.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-1259_8njq.pdf

The Court’s decision today carefully follows both Miller and Montgomery. The dissent nonetheless claims that we are somehow implicitly overruling those decisions. We respectfully but firmly disagree: Today’s decision does not overrule Miller or Montgomery. Miller held that a State may not impose a mandatory life-without-parole sentence on a murderer under 18. Today’s decision does not disturb that holding. Montgomery later held that Miller applies retroactively on collateral review. Today’s decision likewise does not disturb that holding.
We simply have a good-faith disagreement with the dissent over how to interpret Miller and Montgomery. That kind of debate over how to interpret relevant precedents is commonplace. Here, the dissent thinks that we are unduly narrowing Miller and Montgomery. And we, by contrast, think that the dissent would unduly broaden those decisions. The dissent draws inferences about what, in the dissent’s view, Miller and Montgomery “must have done” in order for the decisions to “make any sense.” Post, at 12 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). We instead rely on what Miller 20 JONES v. MISSISSIPPI
Opinion of the Court and Montgomery said—that is, their explicit language addressing the precise question before us and definitively rejecting any requirement of a finding of permanent incorrigibility.

Of interest, Thomas actually picked a middle ground. He said that one of the two cases had to be overruled as they had irreconcilable differences. If such is indeed the case, then the 'difference of opinion' over breadth which Kavanaugh references is understandable.

Today’s majority labors mightily to avoid confronting the tension between Miller and Montgomery. But though the Court purports to leave Montgomery’s holding intact, it recognizes that Montgomery’s analysis is untenable and not to be repeated. It would be simpler to reject Montgomery in both name and substance

Interestingly, Sotomayor proposes that it is the majority which is excessively broad.
Next, the Court exaggerates the meaning of two statements from Miller, arguing that it “mandated ‘only that a sentencer follow a certain process,’” rather than “‘categorically bar[ring] a penalty for a class of offenders or type of
crime[,] as, for example, we did in Roper or Graham.’”

Further, she speficially agrees with Thomas that there is an incompatibility between Miller and Montgomery (Dissent, at 12), whilst at the same time coming to the opposite conclusion to Thomas.

As with many Supreme Court splits, it's not all that simple. That's why they deal with the tough questions.

Faugheen

Sotomayor is up there with Scalia as one of the best opinion writers in my lifetime. While Scalia was colourful in his writing, Sotomayor just does not hold back.

I’m pretty sure that isn’t the first time she has thrown Kavanaugh’s words back at him. Brutal.

Overheal

For boilerplate twitter debates, this repartee seems incredibly compelling.

https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/status/1385314896485695493?s=20

eagle eye

Biden set to visit the UK and Belgium for G7 and NATO meetings in June. May be other destinations to be added to the trip which will be his first overseas sojourn since taking office.

mcmoustache

He has officially recognised the Armenian genocide now. The last few presidents skirted around this issue. Honestly, I thought Trump would be the one to do it before I realised that he consistently melts in front of wannabe strongmen despite the lobbying of Kim Kardassian. Anyway, it's great to see a fact recognised as such.

https://twitter.com/JerryDunleavy/status/1385992895870742537

Jimbob1977

Joe Biden has called the 1915 treatment of Armenians as genocide

He also referred to Istanbul as "Constantinople", which is historically accurate.... but probably intended as a dig.

ohnonotgmail

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

Joe Biden has called the 1915 treatment of Armenians as genocide

He also referred to Istanbul as "Constantinople", which is historically accurate.... but probably intended as a dig.

I wouldn't have thought so, just being accurate. the same way he said the genocide was committed by the Ottoman Empire and not Turkey.

Hande hoche!

Will give Biden credit for that, long overdue by US presidents. Plus has the added benefit of winding up Erodgan even more.

zom

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Will give Biden credit for that, long overdue by US presidents. Plus has the added benefit of winding up Erodgan even more.

Having NATO troops in Ukraine who needs Turkey anymore?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3d/63/11/3d6311acbf058e5d7a3fac3bef6a1255.jpg

mcmoustache

zom wrote: »

Having NATO troops in Ukraine who needs Turkey anymore?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3d/63/11/3d6311acbf058e5d7a3fac3bef6a1255.jpg

Why does that map have the east of Ireland as a NATO member?

Manic Moran

zom wrote: »

Having NATO troops in Ukraine who needs Turkey anymore?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3d/63/11/3d6311acbf058e5d7a3fac3bef6a1255.jpg

Are there NATO troops in Ukraine? The map does not so indicate. NATO is certainly helping, but I believe it stops short of troops.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

Are there NATO troops in Ukraine? The map does not so indicate. NATO is certainly helping, but I believe it stops short of troops.

No boots on the ground?

AhHereItGoes.gif

duploelabs

Overheal wrote: »

No boots on the ground?

AhHereItGoes.gif

You need some Lionel Hucks punctuation there.

No? Boots on the ground!

Overheal

Uh oh the progressives are threatening us with a good time again.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-host-rages-against-plant-based-beer-2021-4

Before long, most beer will be plant based - maybe the liquor too :eek: How will we ever adapt? We need rabbits to make the hops after all.

ohnonotgmail

Overheal wrote: »

Uh oh the progressives are threatening us with a good time again.

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-host-rages-against-plant-based-beer-2021-4

Before long, most beer will be plant based - maybe the liquor too :eek: How will we ever adapt? We need rabbits to make the hops after all.

mmmm, meaty beer.

everlast75

If you can't argue against policies that do exist, make up ones...

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1386679271654105092?s=19

Igotadose

everlast75 wrote: »

If you can't argue against policies that do exist, make up ones...

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1386679271654105092?s=19

My favorite idiot, Larry Kudlow, chimed in that Americans would all have to become vegetarians or some such.

extra gravy

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1386640223149469697?s=

Meanwhile, Republicans are crying about their hamburgers.

Overheal

extra gravy wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1386640223149469697?s=

Meanwhile, Republicans are crying about their hamburgers.

This is outrageous, he’s buying votes etc.

Who else wants to play Hannity/Tucker Bingo

Quin_Dub

Igotadose wrote: »

My favorite idiot, Larry Kudlow, chimed in that Americans would all have to become vegetarians or some such.

He actually ranted that "next thing you know , we'll all be drinking plant based beer".....

Really really don't ever want to drink whatever animal based beer Kudlow drinks.