|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 13 2018 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2018 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It also comes down to how long the shutdown lasts. I was working at the IRS as a seasonal temp last time it happened it was for a night. I didn't mind it but there were people upset about losing the hours and money. If it goes on for an extended period, you'll get an large workforce pretty pissed off about it. I honestly don't think there will be a shutdown. After Trump said he'd be proud of a shutdown, it is lights out for any shutdown. A shutdown is only remotely viable for the controlling party if there is at least some ambiguity regarding who is being unreasonable. Trump saying he'd be "proud" of it creates a situation where blame is difficult to distribute. As much as people like to talk about Trump's base, we have already seen what happens when the other part of the party doesn't feel like voting. Republican leadership knows they are walking a fine line and that tribalism may prevent people from voting for the OTHER party, but it isn't strong enough to make people vote for someone they don't like.
But there is the problem. If dems don't cave on wall funding he can't back down or else he is seen as a coward. He is PROUD to shut down the gov over the wall, he can't just back down now
|
Considering how badly moderate republicans got slapped in the last election and most of them are leaving office, they have no reason to give Trump what he wants. Which is why he doesn’t have the votes in the House. A bill will leave the House and get through the Senate. If there is a shut down, Trump’s veto is the thing that will cause it.
|
On December 13 2018 01:28 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2018 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2018 00:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
It also comes down to how long the shutdown lasts. I was working at the IRS as a seasonal temp last time it happened it was for a night. I didn't mind it but there were people upset about losing the hours and money. If it goes on for an extended period, you'll get an large workforce pretty pissed off about it. I honestly don't think there will be a shutdown. After Trump said he'd be proud of a shutdown, it is lights out for any shutdown. A shutdown is only remotely viable for the controlling party if there is at least some ambiguity regarding who is being unreasonable. Trump saying he'd be "proud" of it creates a situation where blame is difficult to distribute. As much as people like to talk about Trump's base, we have already seen what happens when the other part of the party doesn't feel like voting. Republican leadership knows they are walking a fine line and that tribalism may prevent people from voting for the OTHER party, but it isn't strong enough to make people vote for someone they don't like. But there is the problem. If dems don't cave on wall funding he can't back down or else he is seen as a coward. He is PROUD to shut down the gov over the wall, he can't just back down now
We have seen more than a few times where Trump's wall dreams have been slapped out of his hands by Republican leadership. Even before the midterms, Trump was not able to get anything done so long as leadership disagreed. They give him a lot of freedom, but they yank on his leash when they need to.
|
Michael Cohen sentenced to 3 years, per NPR. Looking for source now.
Edit: Source
A federal judge sentenced Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen to three years in prison on Wednesday following Cohen's guilty pleas to a number of political and finance crimes.
Those three years would be followed by three years of supervised release and Cohen also is subject to forfeiture of $500,000, restitution of $1.4 million and a $50,000 fine.
Cohen faced a potential maximum penalty of some 45 years in prison, according to information from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
Cohen had asked for leniency. The Justice Department asked a judge to give Cohen some consideration for the information that he has provided to prosecutors, but argued that Cohen nonetheless still deserved a "substantial prison term."
Source
Edit 2: I feel that 3 years is too little, but the 45 he faced may have been a bit too much. 10 years would have been perfect with parole eligibility at 5 years. He should have to give up more money than the ~$2mil he has to now imo. He'll go to Club Fed and live Posh ala Martha Stewart, and then get out and retire still relatively wealthy. It's a slap on the wrist more than anything.
|
|
|
On December 13 2018 02:49 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2018 02:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Michael Cohen sentenced to 3 years, per NPR. Looking for source now. Edit: Source A federal judge sentenced Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen to three years in prison on Wednesday following Cohen's guilty pleas to a number of political and finance crimes.
Those three years would be followed by three years of supervised release and Cohen also is subject to forfeiture of $500,000, restitution of $1.4 million and a $50,000 fine.
Cohen faced a potential maximum penalty of some 45 years in prison, according to information from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
Cohen had asked for leniency. The Justice Department asked a judge to give Cohen some consideration for the information that he has provided to prosecutors, but argued that Cohen nonetheless still deserved a "substantial prison term." SourceEdit 2: I feel that 3 years is too little, but the 45 he faced may have been a bit too much. 10 years would have been perfect with parole eligibility at 5 years. He should have to give up more money than the ~$2mil he has to now imo. He'll go to Club Fed and live Posh ala Martha Stewart, and then get out and retire still relatively wealthy. It's a slap on the wrist more than anything. I agree with everything you said. I think it depends on how much his information helps to nail bigger fish on how I feel about it. I also have questions about the role of prisons as a punishment vs as rehabilitation. I think sentences in the states are way out of wack and that this just looks so out of wack because of how much time you can get for carrying some weed. I do think the financial penalties should have been much stricter since this seems to be what he cares about most and his reasons for doing what he did.
I agree with what you said as well. What people look at is how much of an impact said crime had on other people's lives. Weed was made as illegal as possible due to the counter-culture and is just now being corrected, although it ruined a lot of lives (prison sentences, not weed). This white collar crime wasn't ENRON in terms of damage done, although one can argue that the end result may end up being worse if we as a country don't get stuff taken care of in 2 years.
|
On December 13 2018 02:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Michael Cohen sentenced to 3 years, per NPR. Looking for source now. Edit: Source Show nested quote +A federal judge sentenced Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen to three years in prison on Wednesday following Cohen's guilty pleas to a number of political and finance crimes.
Those three years would be followed by three years of supervised release and Cohen also is subject to forfeiture of $500,000, restitution of $1.4 million and a $50,000 fine.
Cohen faced a potential maximum penalty of some 45 years in prison, according to information from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
Cohen had asked for leniency. The Justice Department asked a judge to give Cohen some consideration for the information that he has provided to prosecutors, but argued that Cohen nonetheless still deserved a "substantial prison term." SourceEdit 2: I feel that 3 years is too little, but the 45 he faced may have been a bit too much. 10 years would have been perfect with parole eligibility at 5 years. He should have to give up more money than the ~$2mil he has to now imo. He'll go to Club Fed and live Posh ala Martha Stewart, and then get out and retire still relatively wealthy. It's a slap on the wrist more than anything.
My understanding is that he was able to dish out enough Trump-Russia stuff that 3 years is reasonable. If you bring down the bigger fish, it makes sense to reward that. We want people to know there is a lot of incentive to flip. So long as his information yields criminal charges against someone higher up the ladder, I think it is fair to substantially reduce his sentence.
|
On December 13 2018 03:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2018 02:32 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Michael Cohen sentenced to 3 years, per NPR. Looking for source now. Edit: Source A federal judge sentenced Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen to three years in prison on Wednesday following Cohen's guilty pleas to a number of political and finance crimes.
Those three years would be followed by three years of supervised release and Cohen also is subject to forfeiture of $500,000, restitution of $1.4 million and a $50,000 fine.
Cohen faced a potential maximum penalty of some 45 years in prison, according to information from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
Cohen had asked for leniency. The Justice Department asked a judge to give Cohen some consideration for the information that he has provided to prosecutors, but argued that Cohen nonetheless still deserved a "substantial prison term." SourceEdit 2: I feel that 3 years is too little, but the 45 he faced may have been a bit too much. 10 years would have been perfect with parole eligibility at 5 years. He should have to give up more money than the ~$2mil he has to now imo. He'll go to Club Fed and live Posh ala Martha Stewart, and then get out and retire still relatively wealthy. It's a slap on the wrist more than anything. My understanding is that he was able to dish out enough Trump-Russia stuff that 3 years is reasonable. If you bring down the bigger fish, it makes sense to reward that. We want people to know there is a lot of incentive to flip. So long as his information yields criminal charges against someone higher up the ladder, I think it is fair to substantially reduce his sentence.
10 years for what he was charged with is reduced enough. They need to send a message that whit collar crimes won't be tolerated. That he provided information is great, but he still leaves with most of his money.
|
United States42008 Posts
But white collar crimes are tolerated, this is America.
|
His sentence would be more sever if there were victims associated with his offenses that could testify to the harm he has done. But that was not the case.
Apparently the National Enquirer has entered a deal with the SDNY and has stated the payments to the two women were made in concert with the Trump campaign with the intent to not publish the damaging stories before the election.
Sort of a big deal.
|
white collar criminals also tend to be able to bounce back a lot better because they've got connections and wealth which they to start a new life with.
|
On December 13 2018 04:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
white collar criminals also tend to be able to bounce back a lot better because they've got connections and wealth which they to start a new life with.
I would love to see wealth caps placed on people convicted of white collar crime.
|
On December 13 2018 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2018 04:02 ticklishmusic wrote:
white collar criminals also tend to be able to bounce back a lot better because they've got connections and wealth which they to start a new life with. I would love to see wealth caps placed on people convicted of white collar crime.
Maybe not forever, but during probation? I could get behind this
|
The whole point of the justice system is to punish them for the crime they committed. Not limit them in how they live their life afterwards. Just because their economic standing allow white collar criminals to rebound doesn’t mean we make a justice system that is more unfair to make sure they harmed as much as poor folks. Maybe take that effort to correct the injustices within the system that negatively impact the poor.
|
On December 13 2018 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The whole point of the justice system is to punish them for the crime they committed. Not limit them in how they live their life afterwards. Just because their economic standing allow white collar criminals to rebound doesn’t mean we make a justice system that is more unfair to make sure they harmed as much as poor folks. Maybe take that effort to correct the injustices within the system that negatively impact the poor.
This way is way easier though
|
On December 13 2018 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The whole point of the justice system is to punish them for the crime they committed. Not limit them in how they live their life afterwards. Just because their economic standing allow white collar criminals to rebound doesn’t mean we make a justice system that is more unfair to make sure they harmed as much as poor folks. Maybe take that effort to correct the injustices within the system that negatively impact the poor.
I think the justice system exists to discourage unethical behavior. The punishment is just a means to an end, not the goal. If the intent is to discourage behavior, I think punishment should do that.
|
On December 13 2018 05:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2018 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The whole point of the justice system is to punish them for the crime they committed. Not limit them in how they live their life afterwards. Just because their economic standing allow white collar criminals to rebound doesn’t mean we make a justice system that is more unfair to make sure they harmed as much as poor folks. Maybe take that effort to correct the injustices within the system that negatively impact the poor. I think the justice system exists to discourage unethical behavior. The punishment is just a means to an end, not the goal. If the intent is to discourage behavior, I think punishment should do that.
A justice system which exists only to punish and discourage is an incredibly ineffective one. Rehabilitation should be at the very top of that list.
|
On December 13 2018 05:49 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2018 05:39 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2018 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The whole point of the justice system is to punish them for the crime they committed. Not limit them in how they live their life afterwards. Just because their economic standing allow white collar criminals to rebound doesn’t mean we make a justice system that is more unfair to make sure they harmed as much as poor folks. Maybe take that effort to correct the injustices within the system that negatively impact the poor. I think the justice system exists to discourage unethical behavior. The punishment is just a means to an end, not the goal. If the intent is to discourage behavior, I think punishment should do that. A justice system which exists only to punish and discourage is an incredibly ineffective one. Rehabilitation should be at the very top of that list.
True, but there are sociopaths that simply can't be helped. In those cases, put a leash on them and humiliate them so their friends won't do the same. White collar crime requires special considerations and rehabilitation is not an option IMO.
|
|
|
On December 13 2018 05:49 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2018 05:39 Mohdoo wrote:On December 13 2018 05:30 Plansix wrote:
The whole point of the justice system is to punish them for the crime they committed. Not limit them in how they live their life afterwards. Just because their economic standing allow white collar criminals to rebound doesn’t mean we make a justice system that is more unfair to make sure they harmed as much as poor folks. Maybe take that effort to correct the injustices within the system that negatively impact the poor. I think the justice system exists to discourage unethical behavior. The punishment is just a means to an end, not the goal. If the intent is to discourage behavior, I think punishment should do that. A justice system which exists only to punish and discourage is an incredibly ineffective one. Rehabilitation should be at the very top of that list. Yes and no imo. Prevention is better then curing and the threat of punishment is a part of prevention.
Once Prevention has failed rehabilitation comes in to prevent repeat accordance and without proper rehabilitation the criminal population just spires out of control (which is indeed what the US suffers from).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
