Centrist? Certainly better than the nonsense that seems to control politics now...but not really the point of consensus.
We need conservative ideas, because some things are worth preserving...and for the most part, things are better now for most of humanity than at any time in history.
And we need liberal ideas, because some things need to change...and there is still plenty that we can do to improve the condition of humanity.
Find consensus.
Thatâs why âthe Leftâ has lost credibility. Complete tolerance is the same as âfreedom!â So, really, both sides are arguing for no rules. Which is wrong. Driving in traffic? Rules are a good thing. Doing a business transaction? Rules are a good thing. Opening a park to the public? Rules are a good thing.
Both sides of the philosophical spectrum seem to refuse to consider others in their quest to beâ¦Free. So you have folks tearing down the government (Fewer regulations so I can put sawdust in the hotdogs!) or refusing to follow the rules already in place (Iâm squatting and pooping and shooting up anywhere I choose!) and it makes the folks who have some common sense, some care for the others around them, impinged upon until they can get the rules back in place.
I think it's a bit extreme to say that "the Left" has lost credibility. I think that when "the Right" is confronted with the same issues and options, it fails spectacularly. The GOP should never have devolved into a cult worshipping a leader, esp. one as corrupt, ineffective, and incompetent as Trump.
I agree with you that certain types of liberal-oriented permissiveness—not punishing minor crimes such as shoplifting or taking drugs in public—contribute to an atmosphere of lawlessness and a feeling among some groups that "anything goes." Apparently Portland is having a real problem with people doing hard drugs openly on the street. Washington DC has tried diverting teenagers away from the criminal justice system with disastrous results: kids feel that they can get away with all sorts of things including carjacking at gunpoint. But the pendulum has reached its extreme point and is swinging back.
Part of the reason for this spike in lawlessness and criminal behavior is a general sense among younger people that things don't work anymore. They've fallen way behind in school due to Covid. College education requires taking out crushing loans that leaves students perpetually indebted. Major cities are doing better but smaller ones are being left behind and even the big ones are struggling with much lower worker presence in their office buildings (leading to decreases in tax revenue, consumer spending, jobs and businesses supporting offices and city government budgets). Inflation has also been across history a force that corrodes social cohesion, faith in "the system", and a belief in a hopeful future for all.
But there are forces like inflation that make people lose faith in "the right", which has few if any coherent or effective policies to address our current problems. Biden's government has tried very hard to help people hold onto their jobs, start new businesses, survive a pandemic, etc. "The right" OTOH hand is obsessed about pointless wedge issues like transgenders, wokeism, etc. They had few if any plans to help end Trump-era mass unemployment and fought Covid vaccinations tooth and nail.
Americans of all political orientations are overly focused on their rights and privileges. They often fail to consider that those rights and privileges have hard limits and that we all have obligations to help maintain an orderly society as well as a open, fair and law-abiding political system.
I think this same issue can be thrown into a democratwingnutz thread
Some common sense here is clearly need. No need to "ban books" but then certain types of books should not be in grammar schools.
I agree...but would be interested in an example or two, with specific attention to the use of the book being available in a library vs. being part of the curriculum.
Common sense is mislabeled these days, so the conversation requires specific examples to discuss and agree when a line has been crossed.
Thatâs why âthe Leftâ has lost credibility. Complete tolerance is the same as âfreedom!â So, really, both sides are arguing for no rules. Which is wrong. Driving in traffic? Rules are a good thing. Doing a business transaction? Rules are a good thing. Opening a park to the public? Rules are a good thing.
Both sides of the philosophical spectrum seem to refuse to consider others in their quest to beâ¦Free. So you have folks tearing down the government (Fewer regulations so I can put sawdust in the hotdogs!) or refusing to follow the rules already in place (Iâm squatting and pooping and shooting up anywhere I choose!) and it makes the folks who have some common sense, some care for the others around them, impinged upon until they can get the rules back in place.
not sure why this isnt obvious to most...there appears to be a weird current running through the country/world these days.
Some say its the shifting earth axis, possibly the increased speed of rotation...OV thinks it has something to do with Luci
I think this same issue can be thrown into a democratwingnutz thread
Some common sense here is clearly need. No need to "ban books" but then certain types of books should not be in grammar schools.
Thatâs why âthe Leftâ has lost credibility. Complete tolerance is the same as âfreedom!â So, really, both sides are arguing for no rules. Which is wrong. Driving in traffic? Rules are a good thing. Doing a business transaction? Rules are a good thing. Opening a park to the public? Rules are a good thing.
Both sides of the philosophical spectrum seem to refuse to consider others in their quest to beâ¦Free. So you have folks tearing down the government (Fewer regulations so I can put sawdust in the hotdogs!) or refusing to follow the rules already in place (Iâm squatting and pooping and shooting up anywhere I choose!) and it makes the folks who have some common sense, some care for the others around them, impinged upon until they can get the rules back in place.
I think this same issue can be thrown into a democratwingnutz thread
Some common sense here is clearly need. No need to "ban books" but then certain types of books should not be in grammar schools.
Seems light to us that want justice - but imagine how much our culture changed in the past 20 years, and he’ll have to deal with all that if he serves all that time. That is, if people don’t vote Trump into office again…
If Democrats produce a viable candidate, he can't. Win. Yet, all attempts to discredit his existence and punish him for his Trumpness are just building support among the many soured by the status quo. He knows this. Stone cold, but there it is. Get us a candidate, Republicans and Democrats! This is all my opinion. I would prefer healing, myself. Instead we seem to have a collaborative effort among those in power and those presenting a skewed view of society and the cultural moods for the day to purposely run the country off a cliff. On one hand it stands to reason given the true nature of the god of this world of spiritual maya and crushing mammon. But enough preaching! Keep rigging sail for the new world.! It'll be along bye and bye and we can all float! Or something.
The prosecution asked for 33, so he ended up with 2/3rds of it.
Seems light to us that want justice - but imagine how much our culture changed in the past 20 years, and heâll have to deal with all that if he serves all that time. That is, if people donât vote Trump into office againâ¦
As long as it's done by humans it will be subjective. I'd like to see a judge's justification for the severity of punishment. That also creates grounds for appeal.
If we're ok with allowing judges to impose harsher or more lenient sentences based on constitutionally-protected (or even irrelevant) behavior then we need to be ok with judges doing so on things like race, class, ethnicity, immigration status, height, hotness, or participation in the court's annual office chili cook-off. We aren't.
If you re-read the NPR piece and IIRC the CBS News piece I linked to, you'll see that the articles did mention why Pezzola got a lighter sentence than the one sought by prosecutors.
1. He was a "foot-soldier", not a planner like Nordean.
2. He was not found guilty of seditious conspiracy; Nordean was.
3. The NPR piece mentioned that the judge wanted to reduce the disparity in sentences. The prosecutors IIRC wanted Pezzola to get 18 years, roughly the same as those convicted of seditious conspiracy and/or involved with planning the attack on the Capitol.
4. The judge also stated, however, that he wanted to give Pezzola a stiff sentence to serve as a deterrent to other people contemplating similar behavior.
5. AFAICT, Pezzola's yell didn't factor into the sentence. Whether it would have if he'd yelled it out before sentencing, I don't know.
We have individual judges who make all sorts of subjective decisions with cases. It would seem to deal with your complaint, you would need to eliminate such discretion?
That's what "judging" is. There is no way to "automate" everything, and decisions made by judges throughout an entire case (evidence, testimony, witnesses) ultimately has influence on the outcomes.
So even if the ranges were narrowed, there is still subjective rulings based on whether someone says they are no longer involved in politics, drugs, domestic abuse... Regardless, bringing the matter more into the light does put pressure on judges to act appropriately.
As long as it's done by humans it will be subjective. I'd like to see a judge's justification for the severity of punishment. That also creates grounds for appeal.
If we're ok with allowing judges to impose harsher or more lenient sentences based on constitutionally-protected (or even irrelevant) behavior then we need to be ok with judges doing so on things like race, class, ethnicity, immigration status, height, hotness, or participation in the court's annual office chili cook-off. We aren't.
We've tried that. On the federal level we had complicated formulae for calculating punishments that tied judges' hands, and the Supremes ruled that unconstitutional for good reason.
We have absurdly wide ranges of punishment on the books, mostly absurdly high. This gives a judge a lot of power to abuse. Sentencing reform should start with that.
So even if the ranges were narrowed, there is still subjective rulings based on whether someone says they are no longer involved in politics, drugs, domestic abuse... Regardless, bringing the matter more into the light does put pressure on judges to act appropriately.
We have individual judges who make all sorts of subjective decisions with cases. It would seem to deal with your complaint, you would need to eliminate such discretion?
We've tried that. On the federal level we had complicated formulae for calculating punishments that tied judges' hands, and the Supremes ruled that unconstitutional for good reason.
We have absurdly wide ranges of punishment on the books, mostly absurdly high. This gives a judge a lot of power to abuse. Sentencing reform should start with that.
A parallel question: should punishment be different for "hate" crimes? This, to me, is the exact same question you're asking but set up in an emotional powder keg. But the same question: If a person murders another because of their beliefs, is it a "worse" crime deserving a commensurate punishment?
That is, is there ThoughtCrime?
Is there? Yes, there are statutes on various books enhancing punishment for hate crimes. Ought there be? Oh hell no.
I don't think it's worse to murder someone because you hate them than to murder them for the change in their pockets, and I see no deterrent value in enhanced penalties, at least for serious crimes. If you're willing to risk felony charges to express your hatred then adding more to your sentence isn't going to make you think twice.
It's also ripe for abuse. Great way to ratchet up the pressure to get a plea deal, and it means some crime victims get their perps punished harder than others for the exact same act. It can turn a barroom brawl into a federal case, and it can hinge on what would otherwise be constitutionally-protected speech.
We can never know what's in another person's heart. We shouldn't ask juries to pretend to have moral x-ray vision.
To answer your question: political participation should have absolutely no bearing on sentencing for a crime. If a defendant gets lighter sentencing for forswearing political participation then it did.
This is not complicated, there is no nuance here. Absent a sentencing document justifying the penalty decision we have no way of knowing if it did or didn't, but it absolutely shouldn't.
We have individual judges who make all sorts of subjective decisions with cases. It would seem to deal with your complaint, you would need to eliminate such discretion?
