|
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 April 26 2019 03:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I tried, I don't think I can help you understand my argument further than I have at this point and think continuing would be the type of engagement I'm trying to avoid.
To which I can only say that you didn't try at all. Afterall, it has been explored a 1000 ways; I'm sure there must be some sort of logical underpinning to your Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
This whole thing has been explored a 1000 ways with the inevitable emptiness and inability to love that great wealth necessitates and how charity is a pathetic attempt to feel again. but it appears that you have no idea how to articulate that logical underpinning in a way that doesn't contradict itself. 1) You argue that the majority of the greatly rich are psychopaths. 2) Then when I point out that by your own description of psychopaths, they would have no inclination whatsoever to act in the way you proscribed initially; 3) You then proclaim that not all of the greatly wealthy are psychopaths; 4) To which it is point out that you haven't explained how this relates to your explanation; 1) You argue that the majority of the greatly rich are psychopaths.
1) No I didn't. That's why I don't see this being a fruitful discussion with you.
On April 26 2019 03:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2019 03:43 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2019 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2019 03:22 Wombat_NI wrote:
Eat the rich Or cake, I hear cake is a popular alternative. On April 26 2019 03:23 farvacola wrote:
Seems to me that armchair psychology aimed at positing traits or tendencies with reference to wealth is a distracting, hollow endeavor. I don’t care whether the wealthy are predetermined towards negative personality traits, I just want them and the entities they benefit from to pay their fair share. There’s no need to go down quasi-Lacanian rabbit holes. The armchair psychology (besides the stuff aimed at me that no one called out before today) isn't being performed by me. I'm just sharing popular professional opinions combined with a critique of capitalism. As to the necessity, clearly there is one imo otherwise people can't understand why they aren't paying their fair share already. On April 26 2019 03:24 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2019 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2019 03:02 Plansix wrote:
This all comes dangerously close to armchair psychoanalyzing by a group of people ill equipped to do so. I am not fond of using terms that describe real mental disorders and illnesses that real people have to explain negative traits the super wealthy have. It isn’t productive and is insulting to people who have real mental disorders.
Rich people can just be assholes who horde money because they choose too and won't face any consequences. I'm referencing pretty well known research I presume you're familiar with. If you would feel more comfortable hearing it from the professionals I can understand. But rich people aren't "just assholes" any more than heroin addicts are "just f*ck ups" Here's a wiki since it seems this is foreign information for many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace On April 26 2019 03:14 JimmiC wrote:
What a crazy hole to come down too and that is some serious prejudice to say about all rich people. All any kind of people for that matter. Lets back this truck the fuck up. to the concern about prejudice and offense this seems as good time as any to point out "crazy" is considered an ableist term. Yes. And the author of that wouldn't want that work applied so broadly and without nuance. And the work in question shows how business culture rewards narcissism, lack of self-regulation and lack of remorse, allowing bad people to rise to the top. It is not a study showing the money makes people bad, but that bad people are allowed to succeed due to a system that rewards remorseless behavior. The bold is my argument, not that "money makes people bad"? Upon second reading, yes. Although I think you could have been clearer on the subject and took efforts to make a clear dividing line between the study and your critique of capitalism. Maybe linked the work up front too. The argument that the business world is designed to favor remorseless assholes isn’t a hard sell. And by extension, great society finds the making of money to be meritorious. I wish people would just more carefully read what they arguing against or stay quiet, or at minimum not come storming in as if they were the voice of reason without comprehending the argument they are opposing. That said, I agree putting the link would have helped, I just presumed people were familiar because I'm pretty sure I've seen the studies linked here before. I write a lot of emails at my job and constantly have to say “As per my previous email,” so I too, wish people would read more carefully. But that isn’t how people work when it comes reading things on a screen, so it is best to just double down and be overwhelmly clear.
We can reinforce and support that behavior or we can call for us to be better. I choose to push for better rather than reward bad engagement.
On April 26 2019 03:55 JimmiC wrote:
Basically the GH argument is that capitalism is pure evil, so if you succeed at it you are pure evil. Anything associated with it is evil. And this shapes his world view.
Otherwise I see no reason to insult to their core a large group of people you have never met or interacted with.
Gotta file this under "unlikely to be fruitful discussion" as well.
|
|
|
On April 26 2019 03:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2019 03:43 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2019 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2019 03:22 Wombat_NI wrote:
Eat the rich Or cake, I hear cake is a popular alternative. On April 26 2019 03:23 farvacola wrote:
Seems to me that armchair psychology aimed at positing traits or tendencies with reference to wealth is a distracting, hollow endeavor. I don’t care whether the wealthy are predetermined towards negative personality traits, I just want them and the entities they benefit from to pay their fair share. There’s no need to go down quasi-Lacanian rabbit holes. The armchair psychology (besides the stuff aimed at me that no one called out before today) isn't being performed by me. I'm just sharing popular professional opinions combined with a critique of capitalism. As to the necessity, clearly there is one imo otherwise people can't understand why they aren't paying their fair share already. On April 26 2019 03:24 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2019 03:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2019 03:02 Plansix wrote:
This all comes dangerously close to armchair psychoanalyzing by a group of people ill equipped to do so. I am not fond of using terms that describe real mental disorders and illnesses that real people have to explain negative traits the super wealthy have. It isn’t productive and is insulting to people who have real mental disorders.
Rich people can just be assholes who horde money because they choose too and won't face any consequences. I'm referencing pretty well known research I presume you're familiar with. If you would feel more comfortable hearing it from the professionals I can understand. But rich people aren't "just assholes" any more than heroin addicts are "just f*ck ups" Here's a wiki since it seems this is foreign information for many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace On April 26 2019 03:14 JimmiC wrote:
What a crazy hole to come down too and that is some serious prejudice to say about all rich people. All any kind of people for that matter. Lets back this truck the fuck up. to the concern about prejudice and offense this seems as good time as any to point out "crazy" is considered an ableist term. Yes. And the author of that wouldn't want that work applied so broadly and without nuance. And the work in question shows how business culture rewards narcissism, lack of self-regulation and lack of remorse, allowing bad people to rise to the top. It is not a study showing the money makes people bad, but that bad people are allowed to succeed due to a system that rewards remorseless behavior. The bold is my argument, not that "money makes people bad"? Upon second reading, yes. Although I think you could have been clearer on the subject and took efforts to make a clear dividing line between the study and your critique of capitalism. Maybe linked the work up front too. The argument that the business world is designed to favor remorseless assholes isn’t a hard sell. And by extension, great society finds the making of money to be meritorious. I wish people would just more carefully read what they arguing against or stay quiet, or at minimum not come storming in as if they were the voice of reason without comprehending the argument they are opposing. That said, I agree putting the link would have helped, I just presumed people were familiar because I'm pretty sure I've seen the studies linked here before. I write a lot of emails at my job and constantly have to say “As per my previous email,” so I too, wish people would read more carefully. But that isn’t how people work when it comes reading things on a screen, so it is best to just double down and be overwhelmly clear.
Note that I immediately accepted for sake of argument that "we have a society that is shaped to favor psychopaths and they have a greatly disproportionate representation at the top of capitalism? " and such words to that favour as true.
|
On April 26 2019 03:55 JimmiC wrote:
Basically the GH argument is that capitalism is pure evil, so if you succeed at it you are pure evil. Anything associated with it is evil. And this shapes his world view.
Otherwise I see no reason to insult to their core a large group of people you have never met or interacted with.
The argument is that capitalism is indifferent to the concept of morality. There is no such thing as ethical capitalism. We can temper capitalistic policies with ethical rules. But any argument that capitalism or the free market will assure some form of moral behavior by capitalists is hopelessly flawed.
|
On April 26 2019 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 26 2019 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I tried, I don't think I can help you understand my argument further than I have at this point and think continuing would be the type of engagement I'm trying to avoid.
To which I can only say that you didn't try at all. Afterall, it has been explored a 1000 ways; I'm sure there must be some sort of logical underpinning to your On April 26 2019 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
This whole thing has been explored a 1000 ways with the inevitable emptiness and inability to love that great wealth necessitates and how charity is a pathetic attempt to feel again. but it appears that you have no idea how to articulate that logical underpinning in a way that doesn't contradict itself. 1) You argue that the majority of the greatly rich are psychopaths. 2) Then when I point out that by your own description of psychopaths, they would have no inclination whatsoever to act in the way you proscribed initially; 3) You then proclaim that not all of the greatly wealthy are psychopaths; 4) To which it is point out that you haven't explained how this relates to your explanation; 1) You argue that the majority of the greatly rich are psychopaths. 1) No I didn't. You are aware that this is an electronic forum, and as such we have immediate access to them, especially when you have just written them less than an hour ago?
On April 26 2019 02:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
Those are both important as well, however they come with narcissism which often accompanies psychopathic traits but can manifest without them. However it begins to fail at the top tiers where you're surrounded by narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths, and so on. To climb to the top of that heap takes a wild lack of empathy that either causes practically unbearable internal suffering for someone with the capacity for it, or screens them out altogether.
Narcissists and sociopaths share much of the tier of wealth under psychopaths imo/e. On April 26 2019 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:The wealthy aren't exclusively psychopaths, they just excel under capitalism and tend to be overrepresented in the top tiers of wealth. On April 26 2019 03:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
Because we have a society that is shaped to favor psychopaths and they have a greatly disproportionate representation at the top of capitalism?
You are aware that this is an electronic forum, and as such we have immediate access to them, especially when you have just written them less than an hour ago?
But hey, lets say you didn't. That the majority of the greatly wealthy are not psychopaths. Lets start again. We'll ignore that. That you admitted to your own logical disconnect. Clean sheet.
Explain to me On April 26 2019 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote: the inevitable emptiness and inability to love that great wealth necessitates and how charity is a pathetic attempt to feel again. under the assumption that the majority of the greatly wealthy are not psychopaths.
Assume I don't have your cultural baggage and knowledge. Explain every part of the sentence.
|
On April 26 2019 04:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2019 03:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 26 2019 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I tried, I don't think I can help you understand my argument further than I have at this point and think continuing would be the type of engagement I'm trying to avoid.
To which I can only say that you didn't try at all. Afterall, it has been explored a 1000 ways; I'm sure there must be some sort of logical underpinning to your On April 26 2019 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
This whole thing has been explored a 1000 ways with the inevitable emptiness and inability to love that great wealth necessitates and how charity is a pathetic attempt to feel again. but it appears that you have no idea how to articulate that logical underpinning in a way that doesn't contradict itself. 1) You argue that the majority of the greatly rich are psychopaths. 2) Then when I point out that by your own description of psychopaths, they would have no inclination whatsoever to act in the way you proscribed initially; 3) You then proclaim that not all of the greatly wealthy are psychopaths; 4) To which it is point out that you haven't explained how this relates to your explanation; 1) You argue that the majority of the greatly rich are psychopaths. 1) No I didn't. You are aware that this is an electronic forum, and as such we have immediate access to them, especially when you have just written them less than an hour ago? Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 02:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
Those are both important as well, however they come with narcissism which often accompanies psychopathic traits but can manifest without them. However it begins to fail at the top tiers where you're surrounded by narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths, and so on. To climb to the top of that heap takes a wild lack of empathy that either causes practically unbearable internal suffering for someone with the capacity for it, or screens them out altogether.
Narcissists and sociopaths share much of the tier of wealth under psychopaths imo/e. Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:The wealthy aren't exclusively psychopaths, they just excel under capitalism and tend to be overrepresented in the top tiers of wealth. Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
Because we have a society that is shaped to favor psychopaths and they have a greatly disproportionate representation at the top of capitalism?
You are aware that this is an electronic forum, and as such we have immediate access to them, especially when you have just written them less than an hour ago? But hey, lets say you didn't. That the majority of the greatly wealthy are not psychopaths. Lets start again. We'll ignore that. That you admitted to your own logical disconnect. Clean sheet. Explain to me Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote: the inevitable emptiness and inability to love that great wealth necessitates and how charity is a pathetic attempt to feel again. under the assumption that the majority of the greatly wealthy are not psychopaths. Assume I don't have your cultural baggage and knowledge. Explain every part of the sentence.
I see me repeatedly explaining to you that at no point did I say the majority of wealthy people are psychopaths. Then you demanding me to explain again and again. I'm done with that. Take it for whatever you want.
|
On April 26 2019 04:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:55 JimmiC wrote:
Basically the GH argument is that capitalism is pure evil, so if you succeed at it you are pure evil. Anything associated with it is evil. And this shapes his world view.
Otherwise I see no reason to insult to their core a large group of people you have never met or interacted with. The argument is that capitalism is indifferent to the concept of morality. There is no such thing as ethical capitalism. We can temper capitalistic policies with ethical rules. But any argument that capitalism or the free market will assure some form of moral behavior by capitalists is hopelessly flawed.
Capitalism isn't immoral, its amoral.
|
On April 26 2019 04:21 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 04:00 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2019 03:55 JimmiC wrote:
Basically the GH argument is that capitalism is pure evil, so if you succeed at it you are pure evil. Anything associated with it is evil. And this shapes his world view.
Otherwise I see no reason to insult to their core a large group of people you have never met or interacted with. The argument is that capitalism is indifferent to the concept of morality. There is no such thing as ethical capitalism. We can temper capitalistic policies with ethical rules. But any argument that capitalism or the free market will assure some form of moral behavior by capitalists is hopelessly flawed. Capitalism isn't immoral, its amoral.
It's participants and advocates are another story. Some amoral, some immoral, the distinction largely a mental construct that has practically the same outcomes save for the comfort (for oppressors) an amoral engagement provides vs an immoral one.
EDIT: under/for capitalism, for me personally, "morally bankrupt" is a more apt description than "amoral"
EDIT2: I don't find your confusion to be prevalent enough to make it worth trying to clarify with you further DMCD
|
On April 26 2019 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 04:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 26 2019 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2019 03:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 26 2019 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
I tried, I don't think I can help you understand my argument further than I have at this point and think continuing would be the type of engagement I'm trying to avoid.
To which I can only say that you didn't try at all. Afterall, it has been explored a 1000 ways; I'm sure there must be some sort of logical underpinning to your On April 26 2019 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
This whole thing has been explored a 1000 ways with the inevitable emptiness and inability to love that great wealth necessitates and how charity is a pathetic attempt to feel again. but it appears that you have no idea how to articulate that logical underpinning in a way that doesn't contradict itself. 1) You argue that the majority of the greatly rich are psychopaths. 2) Then when I point out that by your own description of psychopaths, they would have no inclination whatsoever to act in the way you proscribed initially; 3) You then proclaim that not all of the greatly wealthy are psychopaths; 4) To which it is point out that you haven't explained how this relates to your explanation; 1) You argue that the majority of the greatly rich are psychopaths. 1) No I didn't. You are aware that this is an electronic forum, and as such we have immediate access to them, especially when you have just written them less than an hour ago? On April 26 2019 02:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
Those are both important as well, however they come with narcissism which often accompanies psychopathic traits but can manifest without them. However it begins to fail at the top tiers where you're surrounded by narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths, and so on. To climb to the top of that heap takes a wild lack of empathy that either causes practically unbearable internal suffering for someone with the capacity for it, or screens them out altogether.
Narcissists and sociopaths share much of the tier of wealth under psychopaths imo/e. On April 26 2019 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:The wealthy aren't exclusively psychopaths, they just excel under capitalism and tend to be overrepresented in the top tiers of wealth. On April 26 2019 03:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
Because we have a society that is shaped to favor psychopaths and they have a greatly disproportionate representation at the top of capitalism?
You are aware that this is an electronic forum, and as such we have immediate access to them, especially when you have just written them less than an hour ago? But hey, lets say you didn't. That the majority of the greatly wealthy are not psychopaths. Lets start again. We'll ignore that. That you admitted to your own logical disconnect. Clean sheet. Explain to me On April 26 2019 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote: the inevitable emptiness and inability to love that great wealth necessitates and how charity is a pathetic attempt to feel again. under the assumption that the majority of the greatly wealthy are not psychopaths. Assume I don't have your cultural baggage and knowledge. Explain every part of the sentence. I see me repeatedly explaining to you that at no point did I say the majority of wealthy people are psychopaths. Then you demanding me to explain again and again. I'm done with that. Take it for whatever you want.
OK lets say that you said as (1)
On April 26 2019 01:51 GreenHorizons wrote:The general concept is that the wealthier you get the less capable you are of love
On April 26 2019 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Society favors psychopaths. They are some of the most successful under capitalism because of their "natural" inclination toward having little to no capacity for empathy (necessary component of love).
On April 26 2019 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:psychopaths, they just excel under capitalism and tend to be overrepresented in the top tiers of wealth.
On April 26 2019 02:51 GreenHorizons wrote:To climb to the top of that heap takes a wild lack of empathy
On April 26 2019 02:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Narcissists and sociopaths share much of the tier of wealth under psychopaths imo/e.
On April 26 2019 03:01 GreenHorizons wrote:we have a society that is shaped to favor psychopaths and they have a greatly disproportionate representation at the top of capitalism?
or even (the humour of having to choose Plansix to explain your own arguments!)
On April 26 2019 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 03:24 Plansix wrote:
Yes. And the author of that wouldn't want that work applied so broadly and without nuance. And the work in question shows how business culture rewards narcissism, lack of self-regulation and lack of remorse, allowing bad people to rise to the top. It is not a study showing the money makes people bad, but that bad people are allowed to succeed due to a system that rewards remorseless behavior. The bold is my argument, not that "money makes people bad"?
Take your pick. That can be your (1)
then the following are still completely valid.
2) Then when I point out that by your own description of psychopaths, they would have no inclination whatsoever to act in the way you proscribed initially;
3) You then proclaim that not all of the greatly wealthy are psychopaths;
4) To which it is point out that you haven't explained how this relates to your explanation;
How does any of this explain: On April 26 2019 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
This whole thing has been explored a 1000 ways with the inevitable emptiness and inability to love that great wealth necessitates and how charity is a pathetic attempt to feel again. as I have originally asked. Clean sheet. Go.
|
On April 26 2019 03:23 farvacola wrote:
Seems to me that armchair psychology aimed at positing traits or tendencies with reference to wealth is a distracting, hollow endeavor. I don’t care whether the wealthy are predetermined towards negative personality traits, I just want them and the entities they benefit from to pay their fair share. There’s no need to go down quasi-Lacanian rabbit holes.
there doesn’t seem to be any specifically Lacanian theorizing being done here
|
|
|
Pour one out for our local judge and court officer who helped someone in their court evade ICE by letting them go out the back. The information surrounding the illegal immigrant is less than clear and I’m not a huge fan of ICE. I guess the ICE feels the need to make an example of someone, so time to go after a retired court office and district court judge.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/25/717187283/mass-judge-and-a-retired-court-officer-charged-with-helping-defendant-evade-ice
A Massachusetts judge and a former court officer are facing federal charges for allegedly helping a defendant in a Newton, Mass., courtroom avoid arrest by an immigration officer last year.
Judge Shelley Richmond Joseph and the now-retired court officer Wesley MacGregor are accused of helping the defendant, an undocumented immigrant, slip out the back door of Newton District Court while an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent waited to arrest him on a federal detainer in April 2018.
Joseph and MacGregor are facing three different obstruction charges: conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and obstruction of a federal proceeding. MacGregor, a trial court officer from 1993 until his retirement last month, was additionally charged with perjury for allegedly lying to the grand jury when he said he wasn't aware of an ICE officer in the courthouse that day.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat, issued a strong rebuke in response to Lelling's indictment, writing:
"Today's indictment is a radical and politically-motivated attack on our state and the independence of our courts. It is a bedrock principle of our constitutional system that federal prosecutors should not recklessly interfere with the operation of state courts and their administration of justice. This matter could have been appropriately handled by the Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Trial Court. I am deeply disappointed by U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling's misuse of prosecutorial resources and the chilling effect his actions will have."
|
United States41470 Posts
On April 26 2019 04:21 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 04:00 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2019 03:55 JimmiC wrote:
Basically the GH argument is that capitalism is pure evil, so if you succeed at it you are pure evil. Anything associated with it is evil. And this shapes his world view.
Otherwise I see no reason to insult to their core a large group of people you have never met or interacted with. The argument is that capitalism is indifferent to the concept of morality. There is no such thing as ethical capitalism. We can temper capitalistic policies with ethical rules. But any argument that capitalism or the free market will assure some form of moral behavior by capitalists is hopelessly flawed. Capitalism isn't immoral, its amoral.
That’s what indifferent means in his argument.
|
On April 26 2019 05:11 Plansix wrote:Pour one out for our local judge and court officer who helped someone in their court evade ICE by letting them go out the back. The information surrounding the illegal immigrant is less than clear and I’m not a huge fan of ICE. I guess the ICE feels the need to make an example of someone, so time to go after a retired court office and district court judge. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/25/717187283/mass-judge-and-a-retired-court-officer-charged-with-helping-defendant-evade-iceShow nested quote +A Massachusetts judge and a former court officer are facing federal charges for allegedly helping a defendant in a Newton, Mass., courtroom avoid arrest by an immigration officer last year.
Judge Shelley Richmond Joseph and the now-retired court officer Wesley MacGregor are accused of helping the defendant, an undocumented immigrant, slip out the back door of Newton District Court while an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent waited to arrest him on a federal detainer in April 2018.
Joseph and MacGregor are facing three different obstruction charges: conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and obstruction of a federal proceeding. MacGregor, a trial court officer from 1993 until his retirement last month, was additionally charged with perjury for allegedly lying to the grand jury when he said he wasn't aware of an ICE officer in the courthouse that day. Show nested quote +Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat, issued a strong rebuke in response to Lelling's indictment, writing:
"Today's indictment is a radical and politically-motivated attack on our state and the independence of our courts. It is a bedrock principle of our constitutional system that federal prosecutors should not recklessly interfere with the operation of state courts and their administration of justice. This matter could have been appropriately handled by the Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Trial Court. I am deeply disappointed by U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling's misuse of prosecutorial resources and the chilling effect his actions will have."
This seems really odd just given the scant details. Like Aiding & Abetting seems totally out of the place since the judge had no knowledge of the immigrants crimes before they were committed, and even accessory after the fact would be weird. Then on top of that even it seems like a really weird setup. The ICE agent doesn't have authority to enter the court room. It's not like he's knocking on the door with a warrant. He's just sitting outside the court room hoping the immigrant would come outside. Like it almost feels like the argument is the judge should be compelled to aid the ICE agent even without an explicit interaction to do so.
|
Most local police won’t hang out near family court trying to pick up a suspect they know is trying to us the courts to do something or has been summonsed for a non-criminal matter. They understand that they will have a real poor relationship with the court real fast. I think the state housing courts might lose their god damn mind if the police tried to snag a tenant at an eviction or code hearing. But apparently ICE doesn’t need to give a shit about that stuff, because they are the Feds and hang out in hospitals waiting for illegal immigrants to visit their sick kids.
|
On April 26 2019 05:37 Plansix wrote:
Most local police won’t hang out near family court trying to pick up a suspect they know is trying to us the courts to do something or has been summonsed for a non-criminal matter. They understand that they will have a real poor relationship with the court real fast. I think the state housing courts might lose their god damn mind if the police tried to snag a tenant at an eviction or code hearing. But apparently ICE doesn’t need to give a shit about that stuff, because they are the Feds and hang out in hospitals waiting for illegal immigrants to visit their sick kids.
Yeah I mean the immorality of ICE agents is just like... a given. But even outside of them being complete scum I'm just floored that there's a legal case against the judge here.
|
Probable cause is just "more likely than not". It isn't a high burden of proof given that the grand jury is just pushing the matter to trial. I don't know how successful the will be, given they need to prove intent and the evidence is pretty thin.
|
Joe Biden seems to have accidentally united the Democratic party and eliminated infighting. By being disliked by every single other candidates followings, everyone is laser focused on stomping Biden.
What do Beto/Yang/Bernie/Warren fans all agree on? No Biden.
Edit: 12 hours after announcing and Anita Hill is already a big issue. Just get out Biden
|
On April 26 2019 06:11 Mohdoo wrote:
Joe Biden seems to have accidentally united the Democratic party and eliminated infighting. By being disliked by every single other candidates followings, everyone is laser focused on stomping Biden.
What do Beto/Yang/Bernie/Warren fans all agree on? No Biden.
Edit: 12 hours after announcing and Anita Hill is already a big issue. Just get out Biden
This is one reason he waited till the first reporting deadline for fundraising to announce, and because of the somewhat united front you describe he may not make it to the next one.
|
On April 26 2019 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2019 06:11 Mohdoo wrote:
Joe Biden seems to have accidentally united the Democratic party and eliminated infighting. By being disliked by every single other candidates followings, everyone is laser focused on stomping Biden.
What do Beto/Yang/Bernie/Warren fans all agree on? No Biden.
Edit: 12 hours after announcing and Anita Hill is already a big issue. Just get out Biden This is one reason he waited till the first reporting deadline for fundraising to announce, and because of the somewhat united front you describe he may not make it to the next one.
Yeah, I think he makes it 2 more reporting deadlines. After the next one, he'll be outed as a lobbyist sucking opportunist. Then his numbers will be so bad (especially # of donors) that he'll just kinda waddle his way into the primary, win a couple easy states, then get shit on. But it will be a hilariously delayed ending due to his own arrogance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
