Here Comes The Left

[ZiprHead]

A mayor asks the police to look into whether it is lawful for them to arrest a wanted man, for whom a court has issued a warrant?

That's clearly immoral, digusting and communistic behaviour.

We can't have police going around arresting people just because a court has issued a warrant! Where would it end?

Local American police arresting someone who has a warrant out for him from a foreign country?

That's why he's asking, not ordering.

Ordering would be Trump and the charges would be fake.

 

[scombrid]

There’s a commie in his neighborhood and an inquiry into whether local law enforcement can act on an international warrant is just like Trump. Yeah. Okie doakee.

 

[Derec]

You never mention it ib Trump threads too. You're not fooling anyone.

There is more than enough discussion of all things Trump without my participation. So, I am not trying to fool anyone.
And unlike with Trump, there is a lot of support for the far left (DSA etc.) on here, which makes a discussion far more meaningful.

Trump wan't running against Biden.

He was, until Biden quit. And after that, he ran against Kamala Harris, who was the Veep in Biden's administration. So failures of that administration are certainly relevant to helping Trump win in 2024.

And name Biden policies that most people didn't like.

It's not so much about naming policies, but about the fact that his overspending contributed to the increase in inflation, which then led to people feeling bad about the economy.

 

[Derec]

"You are not allowed to bring up anything which may be inconvenient to my beliefs because the thread title".

It's not about being "inconvenient", but about the fact that we should be able to discuss the toxicity on the left without constant whataboutisms about Trump.

 

[Derec]

So I take it, if someone makes a thread titled "capitalism is good" and only gushes about capitalism, no one is allowed to voice a contrary opinion because the thread is about how capitalism is good? That's not how discussion boards work, Derec.

It's ok, even encouraged, to voice a contrary opinion. But if instead of defending the Left, the contrary opinion boils down to "what about Trump", then it gets old. Especially when some people are trying to make most threads about Trump.

 

[Derec]

No one is saying blindly believe whatever a woman says.

That's what "believe women" means though.

But the linked article plus other articles about the same incident demonstrate what not uncommonly happens when a woman or girl or presumably man reports rape.

No. "The linked article plus other articles about the same incident" do not demonstrate that. They only demonstrate what happened in that one incident.
In reality police and the courts are very reluctant to charge women with filing false rape reports, even when there is plenty of evidence of their guilt, as in the case of Crystal Mangum.

This demonstrates one reason so few victims of sexual assault do not report. The other reasons are so easily found in posts on various forums.

Police need to be open minded when investigating rape claims, but they should not prejudge things by "believing women".
They also must require evidence to move forward. And if evidence emerges that the woman made a false report, she should be prosecuted.

Police getting it wrong in one case of a false rape report is no more an argument for not prosecuting false rape accusers, then police getting it wrong about a rape case is an argument against prosecuting rapists.

 

[Derec]

You forgot to mention the epic irony of the whataboutism master complaining about a whataboutism.

I see you still haven't learned what a "whataboutism" is. It is different than offering an example.

I recall Derec making plenty of whataboutisms himself in other threads. I'm sure he really does have a super principled stance against whataboutisms though.

You recall wrong, or you have the same failure in comprehension as the Hound.

The party that happily kills immigrants, irrespective of status, and makes real men with testosterone boosters can do no wrong.

Ld and GenesisNemesis, look carefully. This is an example of a whataboutism. It's about trying to deflect any criticism of their side Note that scombrid did not even attempt to engage in the criticism of Biden's spending policies - he is just deflecting with an unrelated and irrelevant rant about Republicans.

 

[Derec]

Zero evidence he'll do that, but OK.

There is evidence that he is contemplating that, and his motivation is his religion-based hatred of Israel.
Note that his wife is also a Hamas supporter.
Zohran Mamdani’s wife liked social media posts celebrating Oct. 7 attacks

 

[Derec]

A mayor asks the police to look into whether it is lawful for them to arrest a wanted man, for whom a court has issued a warrant?

A foreign court which the US does not recognize. And note that the only reason he wants to arrest Netanyahu is Mandani's hostility toward Israel. He is not inquiring about arresting, for example Khalil Al-Hayya.

We can't have police going around arresting people just because a court has issued a warrant! Where would it end?

Mamdani's position is that NYPD should not cooperate with immigration authorities, even if an illegal has an ICE warrant or an order of removal. But he wants NYPD to enforce warrants by a foreign entity just because of his personal animosity.

 

[steve_bank]

With a Mamdani in the WH and majority of his supporters in congress we would likely go the route of Venezuela.

The Venezuelan radicals destroyed the economy and the middle class by arbitrary ideological actions. Nationalized oil which fell into disrepair.

They bankrupted the government with unsustainable social programs sending.

We get Canadian content on our NPR station. They have an affordability problem and problems with rising costs for national health care. If you look at welfare states in Europe you will probably see the same. The Greek welfare state bankruptcy has been bailed out multiple times.

They may not be technically socialist or call themselves socialist but hey have mixed economies

China is socialist combed with an authoritarian politics. It has a wealth disparity problem and its own economic problems.

The left over here uses socialist and social democrat as some kind of panacea that will cure all ills and establish an imagined poorness.

Over the weekend I walked past a demonstration in Seattle. The speaker through a megaphone was shouting fuck ICE fuck ICE followed by solipsism socialism echoed by the crowd. Followed by the crowd chanting something in Spanish. The speaker pro claimed equal rights for ’all immigrants’, meaning an open border.

I listened to someone in Wa state government say they are having trouble funding education for diversity needs, code word for illegal immigrants. No English, little or no education, and no job skills. Illegal immigration is open ended and can not be p[tanned for, costs go up..

Solution, find something or somebody to tax. Our so called millionaire tax was passed by the legislature. It taxes those above certain incomes. It will be on a referendum, technically it violates the state constitution on no income tax.

The left will try to circumvent, interpret, or bend laws to suit their needs as Trump does.

A 19th century law protecting homesteaders was used to prevent people living in their cars from being moved.

I am all ears for any socialist or social democrat that can explain in detail how our system will be changed for the better. Without disruption. I doubt any can. They think and speak in ideological generalities.

 

[bilby]

A mayor asks the police to look into whether it is lawful for them to arrest a wanted man, for whom a court has issued a warrant?

That's clearly immoral, digusting and communistic behaviour.

We can't have police going around arresting people just because a court has issued a warrant! Where would it end?

Local American police arresting someone who has a warrant out for him from a foreign country?

...hence the need to look into whether it is lawful or not.

It's probably not. But it would be unreasonable not to at least investigate the possibility.

And it probably should be; The really big criminals act with impunity because they have diplomatic immunity, and it is highly questionable whether this fact does more harm than good in the modern world.

 

[pood]

@steve_bank you are just a cranky old guy who, if you had a lawn (I don’t know if you do or not) would yell at the kids, “Get off my lawn!”

 

[pood]

That’s not a criticism. I’m a cranky old guy too but I don’t have a lawn, so I can’t yell at kids.

 

[Derec]

To get back to the core topic of the thread, DSA has issued a new party platform which includes things like abolishing the US Senate and replacing Presidency with a chief executive chosen by the House (in effect a parliamentary system like the UK).

Democratic Socialists of America - Our Program - Workers Deserve More

Never mind that abolishing the Senate would require unanimous consent of all states according to Article V of the US Constitution.

Also proposed are things like voting rights for non-citizens, public ownership of large corporations and "essential industries", "aggresive" wealth taxes, and de-facto open borders.

They also support the bogus "right of return" for Palestinians and "right to resist" (aka terrorism by Hamas etc.)

Democrats should have refused to allow DSA candidates to run on its ballot lines from the beginning. Now the camel is fully inside the tent and about to push out the bedouin.

 

[thebeave]

That’s not a criticism. I’m a cranky old guy too but I don’t have a lawn, so I can’t yell at kids.

There's about 769 reasons to yell at kids. You still have 768 to choose from.

 

[Toni]

No one is saying blindly believe whatever a woman says.

That's what "believe women" means though.

But the linked article plus other articles about the same incident demonstrate what not uncommonly happens when a woman or girl or presumably man reports rape.

No. "The linked article plus other articles about the same incident" do not demonstrate that. They only demonstrate what happened in that one incident.
In reality police and the courts are very reluctant to charge women with filing false rape reports, even when there is plenty of evidence of their guilt, as in the case of Crystal Mangum.

This demonstrates one reason so few victims of sexual assault do not report. The other reasons are so easily found in posts on various forums.

Police need to be open minded when investigating rape claims, but they should not prejudge things by "believing women".
They also must require evidence to move forward. And if evidence emerges that the woman made a false report, she should be prosecuted.

Police getting it wrong in one case of a false rape report is no more an argument for not prosecuting false rape accusers, then police getting it wrong about a rape case is an argument against prosecuting rapists.

Thank you for making my point.

Believe women means take their allegations seriously and investigate. Too often there is no investigation, or only a very poor one heavy on sympathy for the accused male(s): you don’t want to ruin their lives over a misunderstanding with the girl or woman there beaten bloody. This is much the same as what happens with domestic abuse allegations. The only misunderstanding being that the victim Believed the olive would help.

 

[Derec]

Thank you for making my point.

I do not think I am.

Believe women means take their allegations seriously and investigate.

No, it does not. And if you want to make it mean that, then it's a horribly misleading phrase. That's because "believe women" is setting one side of the dispute to be believed over the other just because of the gender. It harkens back to the old feminist claim that "women don't lie about rape", which is demonstrably wrong.

Too often there is no investigation, or only a very poor one heavy on sympathy for the accused male(s): you don’t want to ruin their lives over a misunderstanding with the girl or woman there beaten bloody.

There needs to be an investigation, but if an investigation finds no evidence that a crime was committed, then nothing should happen. A man should not be prosecuted based on the belief that we should "believe women" just because they are women.

This is much the same as what happens with domestic abuse allegations. The only misunderstanding being that the victim

In DV situations police should be professional and objective. That means going based on evidence, not prejudices about the woman always being the victim, and the man always being the perpetrator. Women can also be violent, but then take advantage of these prejudices to play the victim.

Believed the olive would help.

Huh? Olives are a healthy addition to a salad, but why would you expect them to help with something like this?

 

[Arctish]

No one is saying blindly believe whatever a woman says.

That's what "believe women" means though.

No.

"Believe" has more than one meaning.

You are choosing the most extreme one so you can cry about how extreme "believe women" is.

Reasonable people fluent in the English language aren't blind to nuance and can understand that the context of the statement indicates the correct interpretation of "believe women" is to generally accept their claims about having experienced rape and sexual assault to be honest accounts of what they genuinely think is true while also accepting that they might be mistaken or have jumped to conclusions that the facts don't support. Hence the need for the police to investigate the reports and not simply dismiss them.

 

[Derec]

And it probably should be; The really big criminals act with impunity because they have diplomatic immunity, and it is highly questionable whether this fact does more harm than good in the modern world.

You have completely disregarded my point that he only wants to arrest Netanyahu is Mamdani's animosity toward Israel. He would not want to arrest an IRGC official or a Hamas terrorist. He doesn't even want NYPD to arrest illegals with valid orders of removal issued by a US immigration court.

 

[Derec]

"Believe" has more than one meaning.

And none of the meanings make the phrase mean what Toni said it means, i.e. take the matter seriously and investigate. "Believe" in any sense of the word implies a certain degree of prejudging the veracity of the allegations, which is something that should not happen as it leads to tunnel vision like in the infamous Duke Lacrosse case.

Reasonable people fluent in the English language aren't blind to nuance and can understand that the context of the statement indicates the correct interpretation of "believe women" is to generally accept their claims about having experienced rape and sexual assault to be honest accounts of what they genuinely think is true while also accepting that they might be mistaken or have jumped to conclusions that the facts don't support.

Which goes beyond what Toni said the phrase means. Your interpretation still means that the investigators are not impartially investigating what happened, but are privileging a woman's account of what happened just because of her gender.