Iowa man who sets LGBTQ flag on fire gets over 15 years in prison

[Visbek]

No correlation?

Correct. Crime rates changed when there were no changes to prayer in public schools. That means... "no correlation."

Were there mass shootings occurring before School prayer was outlawed?

Yup. Look it up. Just because you didn't hear about it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Oh, and there are plenty of other nations that also block prayer in public schools, and have very few or no mass shootings. That means "no correlation."

You recommend punishing motivations instead of actions. That's hardly sane. Absent a crime, how do you prove a motivation to commit it?

The same way you prove intent. You find evidence, and you present it to the jury. That can include witness reports of statements made by the defendant in connection with the crime; communications which display the specific motivation of the defendant; or, in this case, the defendant publicly stating he was motivated by bias.

If all there is is motivation, but no crime, what is there to punish?

Hello? McFly? If there is no crime, there is no punishment.

Without the discussion of rights in the Declaration, the Declaration collapses.

No, it doesn't. It would just have been written differently. Please, stop being silly.

In truth, the first sentence of the Declaration identifies God. The second sentence identifies the rights endowed upon men by God. Everything that follows is hung from those recognitions.

lol... Nope, wrong. Here's the first sentence:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Here is a revision of that sentence:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Both work with equal legal force. Hmmmmmm.

I am not, and I suspect you are not, a practitioner of Constitutional law....

Egads.

Yes, the Constitution defines the structure of the FEDERAL government and some of its powers. But it does not "specifically protect the idea of God as recognized by individuals."

If you actually understood how the Constitution was originally written, you'd know that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until after the passage of the 14th Amendment. You proclaim the importance of the BoR, but you don't understand incorporation? Nice. Real nice.

So no, it did not protect individuals, because states still had the power to compel beliefs if it so chose. What it did was only restrict the federal government from establishing a "national religion."

The Framers were forced to add additional protections in the form of the Bill of Rights, upon further review, specifically stopping the Federal Government from doing mischief to dominate the people and the various states.

lol... No, they weren't "forced." They chose to add those protections. Many of the Framers objected to a Bill of Rights, which is why one was not included in the original Constitution.

Without the Bill of Rights, there's no Constitution.

That is 100% wrong. We simply would have handled rights differently.

Without the First Amendment, there is no Bill of Rights.

That is 100% wrong.We can certainly argue that freedom of religion ought to be protected. However, none of the other rights are in any way legally dependent upon freedom of religion.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Correct. Crime rates changed when there were no changes to prayer in public schools. That means... "no correlation."

I presume that you are using "corelation" in the statistical sense rather than in "I am an evangelical fundamentalist Christian PRO-Gun Nut" sense.

Oh, and there are plenty of other nations that also block prayer in public schools, and have very few or no mass shootings. That means "no correlation."

What do you mean "few or no mass shootings"? Canada removed prayer from the public schools in 1988 and has had 21 "mass shootings" (three or more fatalities) since then. Are you trying to say that 21 is "few"? I mean that works out to 0.68 mass shootings per year and that is totally unacceptable.

When are you Americans going to learn the lesson that Canada learned, which was, "The elimination of school prayer massively increased the number of "mass shootings" (there were only 4 in the entire history of Canada prior to 1988)?

 

[Court Jester]

Unless the fire he set was coupled with a threat to anyone which actually posed a real and present danger to anyone's life, then this is a B.S. charge and conviction.

Makes me want to go out and burn a thousand LGBTQXYZ flags in protest. Not that I would steal them from anyone; go out and buy 1000 flags and burn them just to make a point about the sanctity of the the 1st Amendment.

In this country we hardly even prosecute rapists and murderers and we somehow have the prison space for idiots like this guy? How is this guy more of a threat to society than 5000 child molesting Catholic priests still practicing their crimes????

Bizarro world!

 

[AProudLefty]

Why did she bother with any demographic identifiers regarding the committers?

Are the injured parties injured only if they were injured by "white men in power"?

Her comment and your support of her comment are both ridiculous and myopic.

I have no idea why she said it. It's irrelevant to the point, whatever it was. How many black men in power abuse women?

 

[AProudLefty]

Unless the fire he set was coupled with a threat to anyone which actually posed a real and present danger to anyone's life, then this is a B.S. charge and conviction.

Makes me want to go out and burn a thousand LGBTQXYZ flags in protest. Not that I would steal them from anyone; go out and buy 1000 flags and burn them just to make a point about the sanctity of the the 1st Amendment.

In this country we hardly even prosecute rapists and murderers and we somehow have the prison space for idiots like this guy? How is this guy more of a threat to society than 5000 child molesting Catholic priests still practicing their crimes????

Bizarro world!

He did threaten them.

And go right ahead and burn 1,000 LGBT flags and see who cares.

 

[Herkamer63]

So if this guy gets 15 years in jail for stealing a homosexual flag then burning it (which, I think, is pretty harsh and not warranted for that amount of time for a piece of cloth, regardless if he did get nailed for arson), then I guess we should reevaluate the following:

-burning of the American Flag

-pieces of art or uses of entertainment showing the president, in this case Trump, being killed by someone

-speeches about blowing up the White House

-baby killing (aka abortion)

-violating several US statutes (ie Hillary Clinton)

-activist groups making physical threats towards others they don't agree with (ie Antifa)

-disruption of paid events caused by activists

-protesters blocking traffic, preventing people from going to work or trying to save a life

There's a bunch of other things that would be just as worthy receiving, if not MORE SO, than the burning of the homosexual flag. Now, to be fair, this guy did deserve to go jail because he did steal and burn someone else's property. Anyone who does that needs to serve time. However, 15 years for burning a piece of fabric? Really? Maybe a couple of months, but any more than that is ridiculous. He opposes homosexual marriage and I don't agree with two people of the same sex getting married either, but this guy was in the wrong to steal and destroy someone else's property, regardless of his disagreements. However, the amount of time is unjustified. He didn't physically attack anyone nor did anyone get (physically) hurt (thank God), no government secrets were leaked, no buildings were destroyed, and no one's private information was leaked.

"HE COMMITTED A HATE CRIME BY SHOWING HE DOESN'T LIKE GAYS!" By flag burning? Yeah, that doesn't pass the smell test. But if that can land someone in jail for 15 years, then the other things listed should be applied to that same standard, regardless if they meant to do it or not.

 

[code1211]

Your points are reasonably valid but would be even more valid if you had taken into account the actual way that the sentences are supposed to be determined.

For example, if "X" (the actual criminal act) rates 1 year, and if "Y" (the fact of repetition) rates 1 year, and if "Z" (a specific motivation) rates 1 year. then the range of punishments is

1. "X" only = 1 year;
   *
2. "X" + "Y" = 2 years;
   *
3. "X" + "Z" = 2 years;
   *
   and
   *
4. "X" + "Y" + "Z" = 3 years.

As far as "merely hating is merely hating" is concerned, you are quite right. Everyone is 100% free to be as bigoted as they want to be over any factor (no matter how silly) that they want to be bigoted over - AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT PUT THAT BIGOTRY INTO ACTION AND COMMIT CRIMES BASED ON IT.

So true. However, the 2nd and third tiers of the crimes should be determined by the repetition, not by the mind reading abilities or the loose lips of the participants in the courtroom proceedings.

Punish actions.

Trying to apply motivations due to external observation is not different than excusing the violent rapist because his victim "was asking for it" by wearing clothing the rapist deemed to be provocative.

She was not asking for it any more than a kid wearing a MAGA Hat is a hate filled racist or an overweight Cop Wannabe is a terrorist.

Nicholas Sandman and Richard Jewell and all of the beaten and bleeding rape victims of the past weep under this methodology of "justice".

 

[code1211]

Correct. Crime rates changed when there were no changes to prayer in public schools. That means... "no correlation."



Yup. Look it up. Just because you didn't hear about it, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Oh, and there are plenty of other nations that also block prayer in public schools, and have very few or no mass shootings. That means "no correlation."



The same way you prove intent. You find evidence, and you present it to the jury. That can include witness reports of statements made by the defendant in connection with the crime; communications which display the specific motivation of the defendant; or, in this case, the defendant publicly stating he was motivated by bias.



Hello? McFly? If there is no crime, there is no punishment.



No, it doesn't. It would just have been written differently. Please, stop being silly.



lol... Nope, wrong. Here's the first sentence:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Here is a revision of that sentence:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Both work with equal legal force. Hmmmmmm.



Egads.

Yes, the Constitution defines the structure of the FEDERAL government and some of its powers. But it does not "specifically protect the idea of God as recognized by individuals."

If you actually understood how the Constitution was originally written, you'd know that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until after the passage of the 14th Amendment. You proclaim the importance of the BoR, but you don't understand incorporation? Nice. Real nice.

So no, it did not protect individuals, because states still had the power to compel beliefs if it so chose. What it did was only restrict the federal government from establishing a "national religion."



lol... No, they weren't "forced." They chose to add those protections. Many of the Framers objected to a Bill of Rights, which is why one was not included in the original Constitution.



That is 100% wrong. We simply would have handled rights differently.



That is 100% wrong.We can certainly argue that freedom of religion ought to be protected. However, none of the other rights are in any way legally dependent upon freedom of religion.

Don't you just hate it when a poster edits your words for no other reason than to change the meaning and then presents them as it there were no changes made?

 

[code1211]

I have no idea why she said it. It's irrelevant to the point, whatever it was. How many black men in power abuse women?

Before I respond, I just want to be certain that I understand what it is you are asserting.

Is it really your assertion that no Black man in power at any time for any reason in any setting abused a woman in any way?

This seems to be what you are saying, but it's so ridiculous that it seems impossible that you could be asserting it. Is this really what you are saying?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Unless the fire he set was coupled with a threat to anyone which actually posed a real and present danger to anyone's life, then this is a B.S. charge and conviction.

As long as you completely ignore the actual words of the actual laws involved, your position makes perfect sense.

Makes me want to go out and burn a thousand LGBTQXYZ flags in protest. Not that I would steal them from anyone; go out and buy 1000 flags and burn them just to make a point about the sanctity of the the 1st Amendment.

If you did that, you'd be perfectly entitled to do so and would not be breaking the law.

He didn't.

He broke the law.

Do you detect the slight difference?

In this country we hardly even prosecute rapists and murderers and we somehow have the prison space for idiots like this guy?

You appear to be confusing "clearance rate" with "prosecution rate".

Admittedly the US "clearance rate" isn't anything to write home to mother about ("There’s a nearly 40 percent chance you’ll get away with murder in America"), however the US Department of Justice reports that the (2018) "conviction rate" for murder was 70% (which is slightly higher than the overall 68% conviction rate for all felonies). HOWEVER, even the 30% that were not convicted WERE "prosecuted" so that means that the "prosecution rate" for murder was pretty damn close to 100% and that does not equate to "hardly even prosecute".

How is this guy more of a threat to society than 5000 child molesting Catholic priests still practicing their crimes????

Good question, let's find out what sentences are imposed on those Catholic (and Protestant) priests when they are identified, indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So true. However, the 2nd and third tiers of the crimes should be determined by the repetition, not by the mind reading abilities or the loose lips of the participants in the courtroom proceedings.

"Should be" is a matter of opinion. You don't think that motivation should be considered, I do.

Punish actions.

And you have seen me advocating punishing "thoughts without actions"? Where?

Trying to apply motivations due to external observation is not different than excusing the violent rapist because his victim "was asking for it" by wearing clothing the rapist deemed to be provocative.

Not in the least, but some people like to make the analogy.

She was not asking for it any more than a kid wearing a MAGA Hat is a hate filled racist or an overweight Cop Wannabe is a terrorist.

Quite right. But the person who committed a crime by acting on their bigoted belief that "someone dressed like that is asking for it" deserves what they receive (as does anyone who commits a crime by acting on their bigoted belief that a kid wearing a MAGA hat is a hate filled racist or someone who commits a crime by acting on their belief that an overweight Cop Wannabe is a terrorist).

Nicholas Sandman and Richard Jewell and all of the beaten and bleeding rape victims of the past weep under this methodology of "justice".

Mr. Sandmann has received quite a nice "green poultice" in recompense (admittedly not quite as much as 5,500 years worth of "average annual household income" that he was asking for).

Mr. Jewell received quite a nice "green poultice" in recompense (even though the only one of his law suits that actually went to trial resulted in a verdict in favour of the defendants).

The "beaten and bleeding rape victims of the past" I cannot speak for. Some saw their accused rapists prosecuted, convicted, and punished. Some saw their accused rapists prosecuted and acquitted. Some saw their accused rapists prosecuted, convicted, punished, and later exonerated. Some saw their allegations ignored. Some saw didn't report their accusations to the police. There is simply too much variation amongst too many cases for a single comment.

PS - In the only "sexual assault" case that I defended, the prosecution eventually "stayed" (which means "did not prosecute and allowed to lapse") the charges on the grounds that the young lady who was accusing my client of "sexually assaulting" her (and, in fact, the allegation was that my client HAD [in common parlance] "raped" her) was lying in her teeth since my client had been miles away from the alleged scene of the "sexual assault" at the time it was supposed to have happened. That I was able to establish (with the help of some documentary evidence that the "victim" had created herself) that the "victim" had a lengthy history of lying in order to extort benefits from others most certainly didn't hurt my client's case.

NOTE - I do NOT hold this single anecdotal instance out as representative of anything other than the fact that in ONE case the "victim" was lying. It is quite possible that I am the only person who has had someone lie about what their client did to them, but I most certainly wouldn't bet the farm on it.

 

[Napoleon]

So if this guy gets 15 years in jail for stealing a homosexual flag then burning it (which, I think, is pretty harsh and not warranted for that amount of time for a piece of cloth, regardless if he did get nailed for arson), then I guess we should reevaluate the following:

-burning of the American Flag

-pieces of art or uses of entertainment showing the president, in this case Trump, being killed by someone

-speeches about blowing up the White House

-baby killing (aka abortion)

-violating several US statutes (ie Hillary Clinton)

-activist groups making physical threats towards others they don't agree with (ie Antifa)

-disruption of paid events caused by activists

-protesters blocking traffic, preventing people from going to work or trying to save a life

There's a bunch of other things that would be just as worthy receiving, if not MORE SO, than the burning of the homosexual flag. Now, to be fair, this guy did deserve to go jail because he did steal and burn someone else's property. Anyone who does that needs to serve time. However, 15 years for burning a piece of fabric? Really? Maybe a couple of months, but any more than that is ridiculous. He opposes homosexual marriage and I don't agree with two people of the same sex getting married either, but this guy was in the wrong to steal and destroy someone else's property, regardless of his disagreements. However, the amount of time is unjustified. He didn't physically attack anyone nor did anyone get (physically) hurt (thank God), no government secrets were leaked, no buildings were destroyed, and no one's private information was leaked.

"HE COMMITTED A HATE CRIME BY SHOWING HE DOESN'T LIKE GAYS!" By flag burning? Yeah, that doesn't pass the smell test. But if that can land someone in jail for 15 years, then the other things listed should be applied to that same standard, regardless if they meant to do it or not.

The person involved in this case was a two-time felon. The sentencing reflects the State’s three strike law in combination with a hate crime enhancement. It was not a tough case. He admitted both the crime and his hate crime motive, this was his third felony conviction, and he told the judge he would do it again. So he received the mandatory maximum.

 

[AProudLefty]

Before I respond, I just want to be certain that I understand what it is you are asserting.

Is it really your assertion that no Black man in power at any time for any reason in any setting abused a woman in any way?

This seems to be what you are saying, but it's so ridiculous that it seems impossible that you could be asserting it. Is this really what you are saying?

Be careful with putting words in people's mouth. I did not state that black men in power never abused women. It seems that Rosie's point is that white men in power abusing women is a common theme, like you said, Clinton and Biden.

 

[code1211]

"Should be" is a matter of opinion. You don't think that motivation should be considered, I do.



And you have seen me advocating punishing "thoughts without actions"? Where?



Not in the least, but some people like to make the analogy.



Quite right. But the person who committed a crime by acting on their bigoted belief that "someone dressed like that is asking for it" deserves what they receive (as does anyone who commits a crime by acting on their bigoted belief that a kid wearing a MAGA hat is a hate filled racist or someone who commits a crime by acting on their belief that an overweight Cop Wannabe is a terrorist).




Mr. Sandmann has received quite a nice "green poultice" in recompense (admittedly not quite as much as 5,500 years worth of "average annual household income" that he was asking for).

Mr. Jewell received quite a nice "green poultice" in recompense (even though the only one of his law suits that actually went to trial resulted in a verdict in favour of the defendants).

The "beaten and bleeding rape victims of the past" I cannot speak for. Some saw their accused rapists prosecuted, convicted, and punished. Some saw their accused rapists prosecuted and acquitted. Some saw their accused rapists prosecuted, convicted, punished, and later exonerated. Some saw their allegations ignored. Some saw didn't report their accusations to the police. There is simply too much variation amongst too many cases for a single comment.

PS - In the only "sexual assault" case that I defended, the prosecution eventually "stayed" (which means "did not prosecute and allowed to lapse") the charges on the grounds that the young lady who was accusing my client of "sexually assaulting" her (and, in fact, the allegation was that my client HAD [in common parlance] "raped" her) was lying in her teeth since my client had been miles away from the alleged scene of the "sexual assault" at the time it was supposed to have happened. That I was able to establish (with the help of some documentary evidence that the "victim" had created herself) that the "victim" had a lengthy history of lying in order to extort benefits from others most certainly didn't hurt my client's case.

NOTE - I do NOT hold this single anecdotal instance out as representative of anything other than the fact that in ONE case the "victim" was lying. It is quite possible that I am the only person who has had someone lie about what their client did to them, but I most certainly wouldn't bet the farm on it.

The point that you seem top support while arguing against it is that actions, not thoughts, need to be punished.

Can you not understand what your arguments support?

 

[code1211]

Be careful with putting words in people's mouth. I did not state that black men in power never abused women. It seems that Rosie's point is that white men in power abusing women is a common theme, like you said, Clinton and Biden.

Your post:

"Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
I have no idea why she said it. It's irrelevant to the point, whatever it was. How many black men in power abuse women?"


What was your intent in making the statement in the part of your post that I have highlighted above?

Those words were put in your mouth by none other than you.

What do they mean?

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Once again, if you are rich you can murder people and get nothing but probation. You can steal millions from people and get little time, or only have to pay a fine that doesn't even pay back the money stolen.

But if you are poor, something like this gets you 15 years. Because it makes profits for companies that run or supply prisons. What a disgrace. Just like the people getting 20 years for stealing a packing of gum, or for small drug possession.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The person involved in this case was a two-time felon. The sentencing reflects the State’s three strike law in combination with a hate crime enhancement. It was not a tough case. He admitted both the crime and his hate crime motive, this was his third felony conviction, and he told the judge he would do it again. So he received the mandatory maximum.

Picky, picky, picky.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The point that you seem top support while arguing against it is that actions, not thoughts, need to be punished.

You are almost half correct. There ought never be punishment for "thoughts without action". That means, that as far as I am concerned everyone is 100% free to be as bigoted as they feel like being (and on whatever basis they feel like basing their bigotry).

HOWEVER, once those thoughts get translated into action, then it is quite acceptable to base the punishment on BOTH the action and the motivation for the action.

Can you not understand what your arguments support?

Indeed I can. My arguments support the position that there is no "Black/White" solution to a multi-phase situation and that ALL factors have to be considered.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Once again, if you are rich you can murder people and get nothing but probation. You can steal millions from people and get little time, or only have to pay a fine that doesn't even pay back the money stolen.

But if you are poor, something like this gets you 15 years. Because it makes profits for companies that run or supply prisons. What a disgrace. Just like the people getting 20 years for stealing a packing of gum, or for small drug possession.

Have you ever asked yourself "Is it the fault of the politicians who make the laws or is it the fault of the people who elect ( and re-elect [and re-re-elect {and re-re-re-elect <and re-re-re-re-elect - and ... ->}]) those politicians?"?

An analogous situation is the complaint "Foreigners are buying up all the land." (which may, or may not, be true) made by those who never once ask themselves "Who is selling the land to them?".

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Have you ever asked yourself "Is it the fault of the politicians who make the laws or is it the fault of the people who elect ( and re-elect [and re-re-elect {and re-re-re-elect <and re-re-re-re-elect - and ... ->}]) those politicians?"?

An analogous situation is the complaint "Foreigners are buying up all the land." (which may, or may not, be true) made by those who never once ask themselves "Who is selling the land to them?".

Partly on the people, but lets be real, we only have 2 choices, and both choices are bought and paid for by rich people. So I blame the politicians, because they are supposed to work for the people, not the corporations. ANd pretty much everything in government is done to enrich the wealthy, from our insane for profits wars and prison systems, the loan shark interest rates and charges the banks do to rip people off, the non stop tax breaks to companies and rich people, outsourcing jobs, stagnant wages and cutting benefits, the lack of any anti trust laws that let companies own everything , etc. Our government does nothing to protect the people. And I blame one side that constantly worships these people and are so easily propagandized into screwing themselves to defend the companies that are scum

The prison sentences, people do have part blame. Because they buy the BS "tough on crime" and "law and order" and many are unempathetic A holes that just say"oh, they shouldnt' have done the time." not taking into consideration anything. That leads to mandatory min sentences and other travesties, mainly affecting the poor.

 

[AProudLefty]

Your post:

"Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
I have no idea why she said it. It's irrelevant to the point, whatever it was. How many black men in power abuse women?"


What was your intent in making the statement in the part of your post that I have highlighted above?

Those words were put in your mouth by none other than you.

What do they mean?

It is a question to you. How many black men in power have you heard in the news abusing women? Less than white men in power? Equal? Or more? Or very few?

 

[code1211]

You are almost half correct. There ought never be punishment for "thoughts without action". That means, that as far as I am concerned everyone is 100% free to be as bigoted as they feel like being (and on whatever basis they feel like basing their bigotry).

HOWEVER, once those thoughts get translated into action, then it is quite acceptable to base the punishment on BOTH the action and the motivation for the action.



Indeed I can. My arguments support the position that there is no "Black/White" solution to a multi-phase situation and that ALL factors have to be considered.

Anyone can have strong feelings on something. Those feeling may be fleeting and may be permanent.

A person can do a hateful thing and yet not be filled with hate. I know that I have "flipped off" drivers that I perceived to be very rude. Their stupidity and my response are both hateful by some reckoning, but perhaps not hate filled.

The repeated action DEMONSTRATES that which cannot be divined by outside observation.

Momentary rage and life long bias can produce the same outcomes. Sorting one from the other can only be shown on a societal basis by repetition.

As an example, if Al Sharpton, in his whole life, called only one person a racist, that could be the result of momentary rage. If he called every person that ever disagreed with him a racist, that could represent a life long bias.

Repetition is the only way to determine if there is a pattern of behavior. If there is no pattern, then there is no pattern.

 

[code1211]

It is a question to you. How many black men in power have you heard in the news abusing women? Less than white men in power? Equal? Or more? Or very few?

According to the NBA record Books, Wilt Chamberlain scored more than 31,000 times on the court.

According to Wilt Chamberlain, Wilt Chamberlain scored 20,000 times off the court.

Willie Brown gave Kamala Harris her start in politics.

Seriously, the stories go on and on about ALL men in power, all men of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, abusing women often at the behest of the women involved. The list is long and multiracial.

Whether it's Eisenhower or MLK or just about anyone else, there are stories of abuse by the powerful man asserting authority over the less powerful woman.

Are you really unaware of this? Do you really think that there are huge differences in people based only on of the color of their skin?

I'll repeat this for you: I put no words in your mouth. I only recognized the words (apparently driven by bias) that YOU put in your mouth.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Partly on the people, but lets be real, we only have 2 choices, and both choices are bought and paid for by rich people.

Indeed the choice (essentially) IS between "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party" and
"The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party".

So I blame the politicians, because they are supposed to work for the people, not the corporations.

Indeed, the people who simply can't be bothered to get off their butts and organize a political party that will nominate candidates who will NOT be in the pockets of "Big Money" are totally free of any responsibility for the fact that there are only the two wings of the same political party to choose from.

ANd pretty much everything in government is done to enrich the wealthy, from our insane for profits wars and prison systems, the loan shark interest rates and charges the banks do to rip people off, the non stop tax breaks to companies and rich people, outsourcing jobs, stagnant wages and cutting benefits, the lack of any anti trust laws that let companies own everything , etc.

That is because the politicians are representing the interests of those who ensure that they actually get into office.

Our government does nothing to protect the people.

The government always represents those who are responsible for it being in power.

And I blame one side that constantly worships these people and are so easily propagandized into screwing themselves to defend the companies that are scum

Would that be the folks who would vote for Adolf Hitler if he had a "Big 'R'" after his name and would not vote for Jesus Christ if he had a "Big 'D'" after his name, or the folks who would vote for Adolf Hitler if he had a "Big 'D'" after his name and would not vote for Jesus Christ if he had a "Big 'R'" after his name?

The prison sentences, people do have part blame. Because they buy the BS "tough on crime" and "law and order" and many are unempathetic A holes that just say"oh, they shouldnt' have done the time." not taking into consideration anything. That leads to mandatory min sentences and other travesties, mainly affecting the poor.

You got a bit convoluted there, but I think that we are pretty much in agreement.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It is a question to you. How many black men in power have you heard in the news abusing women? Less than white men in power? Equal? Or more? Or very few?

Using "absolute" numbers, you are probably correct that "the problem is greater amongst white men in power".

Using "proportionate" numbers, I'd be surprised if it was.