1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hey DLP authors, there's a bit less than a month left to wow us with your story about Daphne or Azkaban.

    The Author applies the words to the paper or it gets the hose. Write or die! The more the merrier.

    Click here for more information!
    Dismiss Notice

The Trumperium 2: Caesar by the Pussy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jon, Jun 15, 2017.

  1. Psychotic Cat

    Psychotic Cat Headmaster

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,048
    Is it really hypocritcal to think both that poor young people caught with a joint are overpunished, while thinking the likes of Manafort, Ollie North, or Jeffrey Epstein escaped justice?
     
  2. Oment

    Oment The Betrayer

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,386
    I still can't believe Sec. Labor Acosta still has his job, let alone that the scandal barely made any national media waves for more than one cycle.
     
  3. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    If you phrased it like that, then sure. But I'm pretty sure three strikes and super long sentences for violent offenders is what Iron Rose is referring to. Then yes, it is hypocritical to bitch about judges following the guidelines and punishing someone being bad, but when they don't do that give someone a lighter sentence. Specially when a lot of these left wings people problem is that judges set someone to serve sentences consecutively instead of concurrently, which is what Manafort did.

    The argument left wing people should be here is not that Manafort got lightly because of what the judge did, but that all judges should be doing that to all accused. That's the underlying logic. Justice should be universal and impersonal, meaning that if someone is benefitted, all should. You don't demand all people should be benefitted except the type of criminal you hate.
     
  4. Oment

    Oment The Betrayer

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,386
    I'm going to dump this here. Though it probably deserves its own thread at this juncture, I don't have time right now (or nous) to make one that is actually of good quality. My apologies.

    We are fucked, one presentation at the UN Environmental Assembly stated earlier today.

     
  5. Nazgus

    Nazgus Chief Warlock

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    1,451
    Location:
    USA
    ... I'm not sure who you've been talking to, because while the left bitches a lot about unfair sentences, it's rarely about violent offenders getting too long ones. Quite the opposite, what I've heard is people complaining that non-violent crimes committed by minorities get more jail time than violent offenders (especially if they're white). There's three main things I hear a lot about:

    First, mandatory minimums, especially in regards to drug crimes. These have had the effect of sending tens of thousands of young, poor, black men to jail for ridiculous lengths of time. This feed the cycle of kids from those communities often having no father figures, leaving them vulnerable to recruitment by gangs, who have them run drugs, which gets them sent to jail, and it all repeats. Even better, it leaves no room for judges to take individual circumstances into account, so there's never any context, just an automatic massive jail sentence.

    Second, three strikes laws. My attitude to them is fuck them. They've led to people going to jail for the rest of their lives for stealing a pair of socks or a pizza slice. Shoplifting in California is normally six months in county jail, but do it with two prior convictions under your belt and now you go to jail for 25 to life? What sort of batshit justice is that?

    Third, white people sentencing. Not a formal definition, but the general umbrella of, if you're white you get off easier. See the Stanford swimmer who raped a girl and got a six month sentence because "a longer sentence would have a 'damaging' effect on his life". Please imagine the reactions if a black guy had done the same thing and tell me he'd have gotten the same sentence.

    EDIT: Is it wrong that I'm starting to avoid global warming news? I know we're fucked and I'm voting with that as my number one priority, but I'm not sure how much it helps for me to be depressed by the exact ways in which we're fucked.
     
  6. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    I've seen a looooooooot of bitching about long sentences, specially since they disproportionately affect blacks. References to prisons as the new cotton plantations and the prisonal system making you useless for outside society, etc. Of course, drug sentences take the brunt of it, but you really don't get 40+ sentences from drug dealing alone. But regardless, even if you remove the violent part and use it solely for drug dealing, the logic still holds, don't you agree? Bitch for shorter sentences for everyone, specially non-violent offenders, don't get mad a non-violent offender got lightly. 'Fight for their privilege, not fuck everyone' logic I guess.
     
  7. Imariel

    Imariel Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    1,030
    Location:
    Stockholm
    I actually like three strike laws. If you're dumb enough to keep stealing socks you should realise you're not going to be free (until your master gives you a sock).
     
  8. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Gonna talk about two things here. Mandatory minimum and three strikes.

    Three strikes logic is that of the broken window one, which, while not completely wrong, it is certainly one that had been proved to be far more damaging to society than helping it. The law should be specific, for each situation. Instead you just throw away most kind of graduation and adequate and fitting punishment not towards any objective but simply towards retribution. Arresting someone that stole socks three times or got into fights three times the same amount of time as someone who committed multiple robberies with guns is counterproductive to what the law and criminal law is here for.

    More commonly, criminalization is seen as a procedure deployed by society as a preemptive harm-reduction device, using the threat of punishment as a deterrent to anyone proposing to engage in the behavior causing damage. This first with the definition that Law's objective is a science that elaborates rules that exist to maintain social order and public peace. Following they logic, the threat of punishment from the three strikes law overwhelming overpunishes the accused if his crime was not going to get such punishment by itself, creating a strong incentive to commit more serious crimes if the punishment will be the same.

    The thing about the mandatory minimum is that, you never know what's going to go through a judges mind. You must ensure some kind of standard for the punishment for the corresponding action. I can assure you that the lack of mandatory minimum would benefit impunity towards white and wealthier people a lot more than it would help minorities in complex situations. The mandatory minimum is there, in thesis, to endure that the law has at least a similar effect to everyone it affects. It turns sentencing from purely subjective to at least partially objective.

    I see you advocating for a far more subjective sentencing system, and that, in my experience, is a terrible idea. Because it will be the judges subjective ideas and values that will be used way more often than the accused subjective situation.

    It will also create what can be called appeal to sentimentalism. Dalrymple points out that someone's personality and qualities and flaws should not change either their sentencing or the sentencing of those who killed them. Would it be fair to see someone condemned for a very short amount of time because they killed an asshole that was widely disliked, while someone who killed someone dear by his family, gets twice as much time? Or say he's a drug dealer, and he gets a sentencing because he was selling in an safe and familiar neighborhood (read, white and suburban) while of he had sold it in a dangerous neighborhood where such things are more common, he would get less sentence. He's the same person, and his selling of drugs has the same negative effect in the local community. Doesn't that seem unfair?

    It's also against, as far as I see it, the very spirit of what the law is. Universal and impersonal. Instead we turn judges in sociologists and moral judges...
     
  9. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    Personally, I think the concepts of the mandatory minimum and the three-strikes rule should be combined.

    To wit:

    If mandatory minimums were eliminated on the first two 'strikes', and the sentence was at the judge's discretion within a normal sentencing range, then people with non-violent offenses would probably receive relatively low sentences, if not no sentence at all, replaced with community service, probation, a fine, or some combination thereof.

    For the third strike, though, then you could start introducing a mandatory sentence somewhere between mid-range and draconian, because at that point, you're dealing with a recidivist ne'er-do-well who needs to have some serious time. But not 25-to-life, because that's still too much, on the first instance. Although maybe if you keep it up, or the crimes get progressively worse, then you could gradually move to a life sentence.

    Now, on violent crimes, I'm much more inclined to think that mandatory sentences are more appropriate at the first instance, and the third-strike if you've committed 3 violent robberies starts to sound like a good idea.
     
  10. Innomine

    Innomine Death Eater Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    921
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Zealand
    High Score:
    4,500
    I also just want to add that if someone is hungry/cold and desperate, they’re rarely thinking long term. A long prison sentence is not a deterrent in such a circumstance.

    Violent crime is another story.
     
  11. Solfege

    Solfege Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,111
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Few comments on current proceedings. There's worry that Trump will settle for another photo op, with meaningless Chinese guarantees to purchase American exports. Oh, they'll do it. But if you understand current accounts, you know it's not going to change our overall balance of trade; it may reduce our deficit with the Chinese but will be compensated for by a reduction in our surpluses elsewhere. So this would be Trump missing the forest for the trees. And the US will never in the future have a stronger hand on which to negotiate fundamental changes in Chinese economic policy.

    There's honestly no reason the administration should be negotiating on its own when the Germans and Japanese are far more threatened by Chinese progress than we are. Our manufacturing is already offshored as much as can be; the Germans are the ones whose crown jewel will be stolen by oncoming Chinese dominance in electric cars, and the Japanese their expertise in machine tooling. Indeed, without the UK, France and Germany are taking the lead to push back against EU antitrust and advocate for the consolidation of existing "European champions" against Chinese state competitors. This will not solve their chronic underinvestment.

    Europe is one big fucking mess. The EU's forgotten how to play geopolitics. Put aside that the chief of NATO has threatened to withhold US intelligence from the Germans and anyone who cooperates with Huawei, as the Germans and Brits are, still now, considering Huawei's go ahead if only they sign a no-spy agreement as meaningless as the one we had with Beijing in 2015 and have since found violated. [Admittedly in building out 5G there are only four options: Huawei, ZTE, Ericsson, and Nokia; and neither the European companies are anywhere prepared to deploy. It would be far cheaper, easier, and quicker to upgrade existing Huawei hardware in the European grid.]

    No, what's happened is Europe has lost all sense of coherence in its China policy before it's even begun. Germany is on the cusp of recession; it just barely avoided being in one, by the skin of the numbers. With the limitations on the ECB, EU financial health is virtually dependent on decisions being made in Beijing about Chinese capital. Anyone still shilling about austerity and sovereign debts should look at this graph, where the EU has just this year returned to peak 2007 investment, five long years behind the US.

    D1X-yk7XgAA8ycZ.jpg

    Between 2007 and 2018, investment in Italian infrastructure fell by 40%. That's fucking horrifying, and they weren't even one of the countries placed under the IMF programme. Is it any wonder that Italian elites have embraced the prospect of Chinese investment and are this very moment in Belt and Road Initiative negotiations with Beijing, just as Brussels is looking to form ranks against and has formally re-categorised China as a "systemic rival"?

    [​IMG]

    ===========

    The Boeing debacle is interesting. Countries usually wait for the certification authority to set the guiding hand on issues with their planes. Trump pressured the FAA to keep the 737s in the sky; an effort that ultimately faltered when the Chinese went ahead anyway and grounded their 737s, the Singaporeans, Malaysians, and Australians following; and then the Europeans and Canadians.

    When China and the EU agree on the same regulatory standard, the US has no choice but to fall in line. With the US's shrinking role in the world economy, Trump's unilateral tantrums are both ineffectual and a warning of worse to come if we don't correct course.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2019
  12. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    First, the USA could've banked Boeing, but Trump was literally alone in that one. No one in Congress wanted to do it, so the Republicans simply told him to ground. EU and China could've agreed as much as they wanted for a decade, but the US wouldn't have done anything if Congress and the US population supported Boeing, which it didn't because the optics are just terrible for the company.

    Anyway, Belt and Road is a disaster for anyone that can borrow money from literally anywhere that isn't China or the Mob. The rates are terrible, the strings attached poisonous and the quality questionable. Having to use Chinese companies, who being in Chinese employees, having to pay extra due to usual Chinese corruption for a subpar infrastructure compared to what the same money could've gotten you from the West... But everyone wants to believe the dream China is selling, despite mounting evidence in Central Asia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka that BRI is half bullshit and half good old colonial mindset exploration.

    Finally, Germany is fucking retarded. The Huawei thing is just another in the long list of Germany supports NATO adversaries for shrte term victories and corruption foreign partnerships. Nord Stream 2, the project that will make Germany virtually dependent on Russian gas a la Ukraine is another one. Germany not only supporting the Iran deal - which can be argued as good politics, but going above and beyond and explicitly supporting the Iran regime with photo ops, congratulations and all around doing the same thing Trump is so criticised for with bloody dictators.

    What makes Germany so stupid regarding geopolitics, is that it's doing all of this basically alone. France and the UK don't explicitly support any of this, and, worst, Poland and the Baltic states are very aligned with the US and very much against this policy, specially appeasement to Russia. Thus you have an isolated Germany, with an incredibly subpar Armed Forces that it refuses steadfastly to improve, and what it does? It goes a mile beyond to make partnerships with NATO biggest adversaries, undermining it and then blaming solely Trump for it.

    This is mind boggling, because while Trump's rhetoric about NATO is terrible, he increased size and money invested in NATO European forces, is considering installing a permanent Poland base, among other things. This Politico article has the gist of it.
     
  13. Solfege

    Solfege Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,111
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Fair points on Boeing and BRI incompetency, although should point out that Chinese investment tends to undercut existing Western packages. For example, the vast majority of Sri Lankan foreign debt is IMF, which you know is something of a boogeyman; that debt is serviced (nearly $4B in interest this year to the US) by the graces of western financiers and lightened by the Chinese willingness to take equity in exchange for immediate cash on the port lease. There is irony in Trump ramping up existing aid programs once given a clear view of Chinese competition, countering his initial rhetoric. The current administration should do more in places we're absent from, if only we had the political will to structure new investment programmes.

    I've yet to properly look at the basketcase of German domestic politics, only to agree that the Merkel-Trump acrimony seems to be poisoning the well beyond expectations. I'd qualify also that the geopolitics is not Germany alone (Portugal and Greece have tried to water down EU proposals of anti-Chinese laws targeting strategic investments, having taken on much Chinese capital themselves post-crisis), but more crucially within the framework of supranational bureaucracy where decisions are made virtually in departmental silos, when in actuality policy affects so much else beyond its immediate purview.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2019
  14. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    IMF is always the Boogeyman of incompetent and corrupt governments, since they really really hate having to fix what broken (an let them be corrupt). But I did more or less omit the important thing about Sri Lanka. Basically, China not only lended to a bad creditor without blatant strings attached (at first), something the IMF wouldn't do because it knew that then the countries wouldn't be able to pay back. But that's the thing, China doesn't care if they can't pay back immediately, because unlike the IMF that will just bomb the country's credit and refuse to lend more, China will do what I called old style colonialism, i.e. China's going to there and literally take the stuff back and make you pay them for it. Hence them taking over the Sri Lanka port that was built due to Chinese lobby, using Chinese money by Chinese companies and workers, that ever turned a profit and thus was leased to China for decades with no cost so it would paid the debt.

    IMF has its demands due to painful trial and error through long decades, and China decided it doesn't want that and will just apply direct pressure if needed, because China can't into soft power. To be fair China, nowadays any pressure from China is enough to make people break. From US and UK universities allowing censorships, to self censorships by Hollywood and Tech companies to Western companies doing barely anything when their IP is stolen and being unable to go to courts for ant kind of Justice.
     
  15. Solfege

    Solfege Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,111
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Hmm, that will have to wait until China is capable of power projection, which will be a while yet. In the meanwhile there's really nothing preventing countries from taking back their property leases with no consequences (also missile defense will make it increasingly hard for surface navies to close the distance). China already has its hands full with internal security, which I think has exceeded their military modernisation costs.

    But yea, as regards Chinese pressure, it's about time western institutions started exacting tit-for-tat. US colleges have started closing down Confucius Institutes, although the issue of Chinese embassies threatening their international exchange students into self-censorship (or compromising some CCP-funded students to spy on and intimidate fellow Chinese) is endemic.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2019
  16. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    I consider blocking all trade, starting boycotts and threatening people who deal with people you dislike as applying more than soft power. Not hard military power, but the intent and tactics are the same. South China Sea is a big example how China's used economic pressure blatantly to make everyone back down. South Korea boycott is another one. If merely displeasing China gets such a kickback, taking back anything would be... Risky. Including cyberwarfare.

    Edit: oh yeah. And literally everything China does related to Taiwan involving other people. China went as far as go to tiny islands in the Pacific and tiny countries in Latin America, paid hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes or as out "friendly loans and development investment" so these tiny insignificant countries would stop recognizing Taiwan .
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2019
  17. Arthellion

    Arthellion The Chosen One

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,050
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
  18. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    3,173
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826
    Putin's next land grab already was against a European country. But at the end of the day no one wants a fucking war in Europe, so the West collectively went "oh well, this sure sucks" and slapped Russia with sanctions, maybe sent some supplies to Ukraine. Putin gave his excuse, that Crimeans were Russians and wanted to live in Russia.

    If he does it again, I wonder at which point do we say that war might be the only solution to expansionism at the cost of other sovereign countries?

    Fuck this depressing shit.
     
  19. Arthellion

    Arthellion The Chosen One

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    2,050
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    We don’t realize it because of all the other stuff in the news, but we are in a very similar situation to pre-WW1 and Pre-WW2.

    Russia alone would likely lose, but it’d be a terrible war. (Putin doesn’t want war but he might overstep and find himself in one)

    The Baltics and Germany would be lost pretty quickly if Russia struck fast enough.

    Russian Success would rely upon China and Middle East getting involved.

    Stretch the USA thin.

    Russia still likely loses, but Europe is fucked up for another hundred years.

    That’s before we even get into nukes.
     
  20. Longsword

    Longsword Sixth Year

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2015
    Messages:
    183
    And then there is the whole mess in Donbass. Frozen conflicts is how Russia does things these days.
    People forgot Transnistria-Moldova ( I think most did ), but those who remembered immediately knew what was happening in Ukraine.
    When a NATO member is meddled with.
    Nah, the world was in more danger on any day of the Cold War than it is today. Still managed to not kill everybody.
    Don't take Sakashvilli seriously. Nobody else does.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. fire
    Replies:
    2,071
    Views:
    254,339