Politics Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juice

I guess I sort of included myself in your guys convo about him being evil. I don't think he's evil but I think his vision for America is very bad. So I cited Issue 1 as an example of how he wants to directly change the drug laws in Ohio via constitutional amendment, which is an insane way to accomplish that.

---

And that is fine (your disagreeing with him on his vision for America). I just don't think there is really much (if any) evidence that he is evil, or acting out of some kind of nefarious motivation, and I think ascribing that kind of motivation to him (or most others) is at best disingenuous and at worst dangerous. He is supporting what he thinks is best for the world (and America). My understanding of his belief system is that it is a relatively standard Liberal worldview. He has certainly funded some organizations that have engaged in dubious tactics, but I'm not aware of him directly funding said tactics (specifically violent protests). We should also keep in mind that what we in America consider to be 'violent protests' are actually pretty peaceful by global, and historical, standards. I used (and continue to use) the same logic when people hypothesize that George W Bush was somehow knowingly acting counter to the best interests of the country.

I don't live in Ohio anymore so I don't really know much about issue 1 and can't comment intelligently on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juice

I guess I sort of included myself in your guys convo about him being evil. I don't think he's evil but I think his vision for America is very bad. So I cited Issue 1 as an example of how he wants to directly change the drug laws in Ohio via constitutional amendment, which is an insane way to accomplish that.

---

Just curious, what's your take on Issue 1? Is it the intent, the execution, or something else you don't support?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caf

Just curious, what's your take on Issue 1? Is it the intent, the execution, or something else you don't support?

---

More or less all of it. It shouldn't be enacted by constitutional amendment. It makes all drug possessions misdemeanors, which actually gives judges less resources and options to treat people with addictions. Either legalize it all or keep it the way it is. Drug courts exist already. 99% of low level drug possessors addicts get probation and/or treatment already. A new law enacted this year already makes it so people convicted of drug possession of the F4 or F5 level cannot receive prison time but only local jail or probation. It's a dumb proposal that actually doesn't fix anything but instead makes it harder for police, prosecutors, and judges to give people the help they need.

Besides drug courts, most counties offer treatment in lieu of conviction which is more or less diversion for drug users. Resources, options, treatment already exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juice

More or less all of it. It shouldn't be enacted by constitutional amendment. It makes all drug possessions misdemeanors, which actually gives judges less resources and options to treat people with addictions. Either legalize it all or keep it the way it is. Drug courts exist already. 99% of low level drug possessors addicts get probation and/or treatment already. A new law enacted this year already makes it so people convicted of drug possession of the F4 or F5 level cannot receive prison time but only local jail or probation. It's a dumb proposal that actually doesn't fix anything but instead makes it harder for police, prosecutors, and judges to give people the help they need.

Besides drug courts, most counties offer treatment in lieu of conviction which is more or less diversion for drug users. Resources, options, treatment already exist.

---

Is the main argument for this that it would decrease the incarceration rate? I can't honestly find a great pro argument. If it was limited in scope to pot I could see the argument, but considering the fentanyl isssue I have a hard time seeing a need.

Pelosi requesting FBI documents

I think it was she who said this of herself, but she's definitely so hated because she is effective at prodding the GOP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caf

Is the main argument for this that it would decrease the incarceration rate? I can't honestly find a great pro argument. If it was limited in scope to pot I could see the argument, but considering the fentanyl isssue I have a hard time seeing a need.

---

Weed for personal use is a pay out ticket in Ohio. It takes so much weed to get a M4 or M1 and it takes an insane amount to get a felony. And even when charged with a felony, not a single judge in Hamilton County (what I can speak to) gives two shits about weed. You get probation.

And Issue 1 makes all drugs, including heroin and fentanyl (and all its types), a misdemeanor. It's not a coincidence that judges from both parties in Hamilton County are unanimous in their opposition to Issue 1.

I guess I've been living under a rock, but until the last few days I had no idea that Soros was Jewish or that invoking his name as funding Democratic causes was considered anti-Semitic by many. Huh, live and learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

I guess I've been living under a rock, but until the last few days I had no idea that Soros was Jewish or that invoking his name as funding Democratic causes was considered anti-Semitic by many. Huh, live and learn.

---

It's less the intent or the words that are perceived as antisemitic and more the parallels that blaming Jews for causing rifts in society invoke.

Trump has lots of Jewish partners, and even family, so it's hard to seriously call him antisemitic. However, his common targets of the media and Soros are also common among the antisemitic crowd. My guess is it's guilt by association for people calling him that.

This is a level headed editorial in the always fair and level headed New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/o...kavanaugh.html

Kavanaugh's all-female clerking team reported to work today. His is the first all-female group of clerks ever (all hired before the sexual assault claims surfaced), and of the other 17 female Supreme Court clerks this term, 4 of them previously clerked for Kavanaugh on the DC Circuit. 39 of the 48 clerks he hired at the DC Circuit have gone on to become Supreme Court clerks (including 21 of the 25 female clerks).

This is the first term in which a majority of Supreme Court clerks are women.