Trump has exposed Democratic hypocrisy on prison reform

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Sookiechacha


Yet zero prison reform when you guys were on power. You lose all credibility with it. Sorry

They also didn't seem to mind accepting only a flawed and lacking health care bill either. I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard a Dem say that ACA/Obamacare was "a start" to healthcare reform.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: nwtrucker

Sorry, this legislation is an improvement.

I'm not saying it isn't. I haven't read it and am not familiar with it. All I know is that lawmakers think it should include sentencing reform too. So, what's the problem with adding it? It was a bi-partisan bill that overwhelmingly passed the house.

You could be right on that point. Perhaps. Yet the history of...both parties, actually, suggests otherwise. In your case, I believe you. The people you've elected? No I do not. Sorry.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: nwtrucker


Schools don't put kids in jail. Judges do. That's where the sentencing guidelines and requirements come in.

Ummmmmm, WRONG!!!! Children who are brought up to have no respect and the so called educators who pander to their piss poor behavior along with the Progressive parenting which was implemented 25 years ago by idiotic shrinks are responsible for this insanity! Judges apply the law or are supposed to PERIOD! Do judges write law?

Look at the Florida shooter. He was well known to be a problem child but the system was set up to allow him to "rage" and we ended up with a school shooting because of it.

Here is the Progressive logic going back to the Baltimore riots, where the Mayor allows those who want to "destroy". This is one of many examples of how we as a society have allowed are youth to behave like animals.

]]]

a reply to: Grambler

You have the right approach to this situation, a pragmatic approach.

You are also right to call out the Democrat politicians for their opposition to SOME progress being made. That being said, as others have mentioned, its worth pointing out that this proposal only echoes pre-existing concepts from decades ago, that were not implemented by successive Republican and Democrat administrations.

Unfortunately, the true and root and branch correction of the flaws in the system involved here, would be very costly for players in both the Republican and Democrat parties, which is why something that does... well, not very much at all other than to restate old intentions, is the only thing that could pass.

Query:

Do you believe that this proposal was made because the author really believed it would make a difference, or do you believe that this proposal is being put forward, largely in order to make it APPEAR as if progress is being made?

a reply to: rickymouse

You need to embrace precision.

A person being pushy with their views does not make them a member of the left, or the far left. It makes them pushy. Its the nature of the views they hold that informs where they sit on the political spectrum.

And as for division...

No person who has aligned themselves with a support network which includes the KKK and the Nazi Party of America, can POSSIBLY claim to be upset about the amount of division in a nation. You supported a man who quite blatantly ran, on a divisive, regressive ticket, who claimed support from Richard Spencer, David Duke, and a whole army of swastika worshiping eugenicist scum, the literal enemies of freedom and liberty, the very people whose preference for division and segregation, should make them enemies of your country.

The division in America, is the sole creation of those who want the clocks wound back, and has nothing to do with anyone, or anything else.

a reply to: TrueBrit

This bill does nothing about the actual causes for incarceration. For example people using marijuana and going to jail. Or the 3 strikes your out rule without any consideration for the severity of the crime. We give murderers shorter sentences then drug addicts. We can have someone who was arrested twice for say shop lifting and then gets arrested for drug possession spending decades in jail.

You cannot expect rehabilitation when sentencing has become a joke. Until there are guidelines deems are making the right call here because all this bill will do is mask the real problems.

a reply to: dragonridr

Well sure, but its a proposal about prisons, not about sentencing, which would be about changes to the law and to the focus and intent of the judiciary.

I understand your frustration dragonridr, I really do.

But this bill is about prisons and what happens in them, not how a person gets to that location in the first place.

a reply to: Grambler


Just like DACA

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: rickymouse

You need to embrace precision.

A person being pushy with their views does not make them a member of the left, or the far left. It makes them pushy. Its the nature of the views they hold that informs where they sit on the political spectrum.

And as for division...

No person who has aligned themselves with a support network which includes the KKK and the Nazi Party of America, can POSSIBLY claim to be upset about the amount of division in a nation. You supported a man who quite blatantly ran, on a divisive, regressive ticket, who claimed support from Richard Spencer, David Duke, and a whole army of swastika worshiping eugenicist scum, the literal enemies of freedom and liberty, the very people whose preference for division and segregation, should make them enemies of your country.

The division in America, is the sole creation of those who want the clocks wound back, and has nothing to do with anyone, or anything else.

All the people I know who are far right don't belong to the KKK or are neo-Nazis. Most are super conservative Farmers and workers in factories and construction workers. Some are conservative business owners. They are stout Republicans and very conservative in their lives, that is far right. They despise very liberal people changing things too fast and complicating their lives.

Neo-nazis are usually progressives that have a directed agenda. KKK are people who just hate anyone other than whites usually. That is not really even related to political affiliation. Now I would say that KKK members do have more far right members than far left but I think that more of the far left people tend to have neo-nazi traits. The far left is making it look like the conservatives are neo-nazis, when actually Hitler and his nazis were not conservatives in the least, they were liberal, but it was there way or you die.

Maybe you should study the real definitions of these names you tossed at me and analyze what they really mean. Not the definition that the left has given to the words. The far left is trying to persuade society they are good, they twist things and the left believes them because they do not actually properly research the subjects. When consensus of the day is changed by these groups they alter the definitions which screw up the real meanings. Consensus of the time means what society accepts as real and pertinent, it does not mean it is real or true.

a reply to: rickymouse


The left did not decide what the accurate description of Nazism was, or dictate who was most involved in its creation as a concept, and the enactment of policies relating thereto. History decided that, facts decided that, and the facts show that actual lefties were executed by the Nazi Party, because they protested against the destruction of the civil rights of Jews, Muslims, people of colour, and people who disagreed with Nazi occupation/policy more generally. If you are concerned about that history having been written by the winners, it was Conservative governments in the UK and the US who had informational control over the aftermath period of the war, not lefties, not in the least.

And as for the people you know who are somehow far right, but NOT fascists and racists, I have a little home truth to share with you. That position does not exist. Far right thinking begins and ends with segregationist, racist, fascist and eugenicist thinking. That is the ONLY thing that the far right has to its name. You can be Conservative and not be a racist, a fascist, a Nazi, but you cannot be on the far right without being all of those things. If you think you, or anyone else, is on the far right but NOT a fascist, then you are simply mistaken. All that remains is to figure out whether you are prepared to accept the fact or not.

As for your assertion that I ought to study the definitions of these terms, I would, but I already have, for decades now. I have studied their definitions and their histories down to the near atomic level. It is you who has misunderstood, or worse, been deliberately mislead by whomever it is you most trust to provide your information. This is not a matter of consensus being hijacked, this is a matter of people the other side of the ocean, deciding that their inaccurate, revisionist BS is equal to historical fact, and it simply is not and never will be. Your beliefs are and will forever remain, inferior to my facts and knowledge and not a damned thing that you, or anyone else, who ever lived or ever will live does, can change that.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: rickymouse


The left did not decide what the accurate description of Nazism was, or dictate who was most involved in its creation as a concept, and the enactment of policies relating thereto. History decided that, facts decided that, and the facts show that actual lefties were executed by the Nazi Party, because they protested against the destruction of the civil rights of Jews, Muslims, people of colour, and people who disagreed with Nazi occupation/policy more generally. If you are concerned about that history having been written by the winners, it was Conservative governments in the UK and the US who had informational control over the aftermath period of the war, not lefties, not in the least.

And as for the people you know who are somehow far right, but NOT fascists and racists, I have a little home truth to share with you. That position does not exist. Far right thinking begins and ends with segregationist, racist, fascist and eugenicist thinking. That is the ONLY thing that the far right has to its name. You can be Conservative and not be a racist, a fascist, a Nazi, but you cannot be on the far right without being all of those things. If you think you, or anyone else, is on the far right but NOT a fascist, then you are simply mistaken. All that remains is to figure out whether you are prepared to accept the fact or not.

As for your assertion that I ought to study the definitions of these terms, I would, but I already have, for decades now. I have studied their definitions and their histories down to the near atomic level. It is you who has misunderstood, or worse, been deliberately mislead by whomever it is you most trust to provide your information. This is not a matter of consensus being hijacked, this is a matter of people the other side of the ocean, deciding that their inaccurate, revisionist BS is equal to historical fact, and it simply is not and never will be. Your beliefs are and will forever remain, inferior to my facts and knowledge and not a damned thing that you, or anyone else, who ever lived or ever will live does, can change that.

Your definition of Far right is way different than most of us here think of it. A farmer can be super conservative, and does not give a damn about a person's color. Right is conservative, left is liberal. The KKK are not included in far laft and far right. The crazy liberal people who disrupt everything and hate anyone who does not agree with them are not just far left either,. The Far left will protest, but they do not go smashing things or beating people up, those people are criminals.

a reply to: rickymouse

You have, once again, failed to understand a very crucial thing here. My definition of far right is different than that of most people, you are correct. My definition also happens to be correct. When advertisers and populists claim that "X amount of people cannot be wrong" they are incorrect. Its actually common for a great number of people to be wrong, and in this case, my definitions of these terms are accurate, and yours are not. It does not matter how many people agree with a thing, if the thing is simply not factual or accurate.

People agreed with Hitler. They were wrong. People agreed with Stalin, they were wrong. People agree with corporatism, and they are wrong. People agree with racists, and because they do, they are wrong, and these things do not become correct simply because they attain popular support.

Your definitions remain incorrect, and until they stop being incorrect, your entire understanding of the political spectrum, as well as simple things like right and wrong in general, will be in some way, shape or form, erroneous. Update your definitions to the correct format, or stumble along in ignorance with the herd. Its a pretty simple choice.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Ok, in the US many people say far left and far right. it is a difference in our view here that is not really correct, sort of a local US slang used here in parts of the US.

Looking this up it actually is supposed to be hard right and hard left which deals with political beliefs, but the majority of us Americans use the far word. In the UK there is a big difference.

But the hard left liberals think that all hard right republicans are acting like Far rights. They quote this often even here on ATS, saying if you are a stout conservative you are far right and Nazi and nationalists.

Now nationalists would be hard right, except some that might qualify as far right. It seems that most people here are ill informed about the definition and this is causing conflict between our people calling each other names.

Not that many people here fall into far left and right catagories, lots of people fall into the hard left and right catagories.