• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Loot, repot and burn? Lose your welfare...

Slyfox696 said:
There are already consequences for breaking the law. Vandalism is already against the law (I imagine) in every city and state.

This would not be about legislating against actions which were previously unchecked, this would be punitive against those of certain political persuasion. That's it. This article, while very likely false, suggests that not all criminals or not even all vandals would be subject to the loss of government aid. It would be directly solely against those who of a differing political persuasion.

I suspect you would be singing a different tune were the action being punished was in support of something you agree with. It's a very dangerous precedent you want to set and a path our country should never go down.

No, I would say anyone who violates law/ordinances would be subject to the penalties imposed under those ordinances, as has always been. But to enact additional punishment against only a very certain group of people because their political actions are ones you disagree with is dangerous and un-American.

Again, this story is most likely fake. Ignoring for a moment the dubious sources, I don't see how a city has the legal right to remove state and federal aid, and certainly not on a long-term basis. But I was asked to ignore the fact it most likely isn't true and give my opinion. And my opinion is that anyone who would support such action would likely be singing a different tune if it was something they supported being quashed under the threat of petty revenge.
Click to expand...
Why would it be against those of a different political persuasion? 1-isnt it a common theme here that conservatives would have rioted if the roles were reversed? and 2-Do you have the first clue as to the political persuasion of the individual in Maryland that proposed it?

You are very very wrong about me. I dont cotton to criminal acts or behaviors and I dont accept excuses. I wont judge you as a bad person but I dont give half a **** about your upbringing or home-life when it comes to the commission of criminal acts. I dont care about your race. I dont care about your gender...all 74 of them. I defy you to find a single time where I have said individuals shouldnt be held accountable for their actions regardless of their affiliations.
 
VanceMack said:
Why would it be against those of a different political persuasion?
Click to expand...
Because it would only be targeting those who are protesting/rioting against the results of the election. It would not be for any other vandalism or theft or assault...just those engaged in political protest.

1-isnt it a common theme here that conservatives would have rioted if the roles were reversed? and 2-Do you have the first clue as to the political persuasion of the individual in Maryland that proposed it?
Click to expand...
The article we're discussing is about Charlotte, not Maryland, and it is claimed city officials were going to punish those who were protesting.

I was not talking about Maryland.

You are very very wrong about me. I dont cotton to criminal acts or behaviors and I dont accept excuses. I wont judge you as a bad person but I dont give half a **** about your upbringing or home-life when it comes to the commission of criminal acts...I defy you to find a single time where I have said individuals shouldnt be held accountable for their actions regardless of their affiliations.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you do. I believe you are misunderstanding my point. My point is, were this article to be true, it would be punishment targeted directly at those who are protesting the election and ONLY those people. It would not be applied equally across the board, not even for the same legal violation. It would ONLY be targeted at those protesting a political issue.

That is what is dangerous. My point is if those arrested were politically protesting something you support, you would be against the specifically targeted punishment as well. I'm not saying you condone lawbreaking and I'm not either. As I said, anyone who breaks the law should be arrested and tried for their crimes. But if they are convicted, their punishment should be consistent with any other punishment for a similar offense. Removing government aid because you don't like the political cause for which one was arrested is not how America should work.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying you condone law violation and neither do I. I'm saying punishment should be equal and applicable to any and all. I suspect you would not disagree.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Because it would only be targeting those who are protesting/rioting against the results of the election. It would not be for any other vandalism or theft or assault...just those engaged in political protest.

The article we're discussing is about Charlotte, not Maryland, and it is claimed city officials were going to punish those who were protesting.

I was not talking about Maryland.

I'm not saying you do. I believe you are misunderstanding my point. My point is, were this article to be true, it would be punishment targeted directly at those who are protesting the election and ONLY those people. It would not be applied equally across the board, not even for the same legal violation. It would ONLY be targeted at those protesting a political issue.

That is what is dangerous. My point is if those arrested were politically protesting something you support, you would be against the specifically targeted punishment as well. I'm not saying you condone lawbreaking and I'm not either. As I said, anyone who breaks the law should be arrested and tried for their crimes. But if they are convicted, their punishment should be consistent with any other punishment for a similar offense. Removing government aid because you don't like the political cause for which one was arrested is not how America should work.

Does that make sense? I'm not saying you condone law violation and neither do I. I'm saying punishment should be equal and applicable to any and all. I suspect you would not disagree.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. The legislation proposed in Maryland was against ALL rioting. We are discussing it as a solution to ALL rioting. That's why you have discussions. I would agree that imposing it SOLELY against people during THIS time of strife would be a complete waste of time and unenforceable, as well as unethical. Thats why from the outset I posted the original source of the story and suggestion...beginning in Maryland. Thats why I said it should be looked at federally.
 
VanceMack said:
You are mistaken. The legislation proposed in Maryland was against ALL rioting.
Click to expand...
This thread is not about Maryland, it's about the likely fake story about Charlotte. That is what I'm referring to.

I would agree that imposing it SOLELY against people during THIS time of strife would be a complete waste of time and unenforceable, as well as unethical.
Click to expand...
Then we agree on what I'm talking about. As far as to what you are discussing, I've taken no time to look at it so I cannot offer an opinion.
 
It's not surprising this is bogus... this time. The concept has, however, been discussed many times and in many places that it is only a matter of time before someone makes it a serious proposal. Hence, discussion of the concept is not unreasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom