You can’t really bounce back from the bullshit that has just ensued immediately, it’s also kinda apparent to your average leftist that the democratic party is kind spineless as fuck when it comes to the right, so to have judges IN TEXAS MIND YOU bounce back from their previous decisions? Not gonna be too easy
it’s also kinda apparent to your average leftist that the democratic party is kind spineless complicit as fuck when it comes to the right, so to have judges IN TEXAS MIND YOU bounce back from their previous decisions? Not gonna be too easy
Sanders joined ABC News’s “This Week,” where host Jonathan Karl asked if there was anything Trump has done right.
“I think cracking down on fentanyl, making sure our borders are stronger,” Sanders replied. “Look, nobody thinks illegal immigration is appropriate, and I happen to think we need comprehensive immigration reform, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for people to be coming across the border illegally.”
While the senator agreed with Trump on strengthening the country’s borders to protect citizens, he disagreed with the president’s mass deportation plan.
“He wants to deport 20 million people who are in this country who are undocumented,” Sanders said. “Well, you do that, you destroy the entire country.”
“Because I got news for you, Trump’s billionaire friends are not going to pick the crops in California that feed us. They’re not going to work in meatpacking houses,” he continued. “That’s what undocumented people are doing.”
Given that this is as far left as US politicians get, I’d say unlikely.
The War on Drugs is well-documented to be a racist pretext for mass incarceration and violation of 4th Amendment rights, etc., (see The New Jim Crow for example), so Sanders is either a useful idiot or complicit.
I mean, yeah, if you’re punishing people for consuming the drugs directly, 100%. However, Trump’s focus has been more on preventing fentanyl from entering the country.
Unfortunately, he’s still an idiot since the US’s own pharmaceutical companies are the primary culprit and he’s just using Mexico as a scapegoat, so yeah, you’re not wrong lol.
Literally no where in the quote or article linked was anyone called “illegal.” He referred to people as undocumented, if that’s what you mean? Can you not read?
Unlikely. The US executes people when there’s so much new evidence after sentencing pointing toward them not being guilty that the original prosecutors plead for them to not execute. The Dem establishment’s complaints against ICE are mostly just procedural; they just argue for things like more transparency for these detention centers, not their abolishment.
A full pardon? Maybe for some of them, especially the zine guy, but the guy who actually shot the cop, unlikely. No democrat would want the optics of that.
Cop shot first. The guy who shot him did so in community defense.
In fact that cop may have given the shooter’s attorneys an argument to revisit Harlow v Fitzgerald, and hand the SCOTUS the full text of §1983. They were given, unknowingly, an illegally edited text in 1982 when Harlow v Fitzgerald established Qualified Immunity, which is illegal according to the full statute as recorded in the 1871 Congressional Record.
The US has more prisoners than any country to ever exist. You’ve been worse than the soviet union for basically all of your history in those regards.
Edit: Plus it’s baked into your constitution that those prisoners are perfect for slavery. You never stopped using slave labor in the entire 250 year history of America.
First off, the shooter claims that the cop was about to murder an unarmed protestor.
But more importantly, it was just one person who shot. Collective punishment is literally against the Geneva Convention.
Imagine getting a 50 year prison sentence because you were peacefully protesting at a place where someone else shot a cop. By the same logic, every cop that was present when Alex Pretti was executed should have 50+ year prison sentences.
I know reading comprehension is not great on this site, but I’m in no way shape or form making an argument the protestors were in the wrong. Literally just providing context.
It’s cool that you were able to get that snarky remark in, but I was not necessarily disagreeing or arguing with you.
However, reading your comment again, it still comes across as cop apologetics. It’s the “the protest did end with a cop being shot”. It’s a justification. Maybe you didn’t intend that, but that’s the implication.
It’s not in any way a justification. In fact the language is deliberately neutral as not to imply the protestors did anything wrong (which they didn’t) a protest happened and a cop was shot. Just stating objective fact, because that is a crucial detail the the other commentary left out, which makes their comment sound like they arrested and sentenced these people purely for protesting. (Which they kind of did, and the cop being shot was just their justification, but that’s besides the point)
Also 50, 70, and 100 year sentences for people who were protesting against ICE in Texas
What are the chances that these people will get pardoned, etc, when(if) normality returns?
Also what’s the chances that the judge who handed down these long and unfair sentences will get any repercussions for being so obviously corrupt?
Honestly 50/50
You can’t really bounce back from the bullshit that has just ensued immediately, it’s also kinda apparent to your average leftist that the democratic party is kind spineless as fuck when it comes to the right, so to have judges IN TEXAS MIND YOU bounce back from their previous decisions? Not gonna be too easy
Given that this is as far left as US politicians get, I’d say unlikely.
“We need those slaves to be working in conditions so abysmal, even our own disposables won’t work them!”
Deplorables*
…What’s wrong with his position, exactly?
“cracking down on fentanyl”
The War on Drugs is well-documented to be a racist pretext for mass incarceration and violation of 4th Amendment rights, etc., (see The New Jim Crow for example), so Sanders is either a useful idiot or complicit.
I mean, yeah, if you’re punishing people for consuming the drugs directly, 100%. However, Trump’s focus has been more on preventing fentanyl from entering the country.
Unfortunately, he’s still an idiot since the US’s own pharmaceutical companies are the primary culprit and he’s just using Mexico as a scapegoat, so yeah, you’re not wrong lol.
Because people are not ‘illegal’ for crossing an imaginary line on a map.
Where did he call anyone ‘illegal’?
Can you not read?
Literally no where in the quote or article linked was anyone called “illegal.” He referred to people as undocumented, if that’s what you mean? Can you not read?
Does it hurt to be that stupid?
You removed, or stupid?
I really love what you’ve contributed to the conversation, “Nonconfrontational”.
“You removed, or stupid?” and “Can you not read?” are very informative, thank you for posting.
Guess I shouldn’t be too surprised by someone from lemmy.ml, though.
Answer the question, lol.
Unlikely. The US executes people when there’s so much new evidence after sentencing pointing toward them not being guilty that the original prosecutors plead for them to not execute. The Dem establishment’s complaints against ICE are mostly just procedural; they just argue for things like more transparency for these detention centers, not their abolishment.
The last time that a Democratic president was in office for a federal execution was Lyndon Johnson.
Snarling wolves and smiling foxes.
I hope they stand a good chance for an appeal based on the jury selection fuckery
I don’t think a President can pardon a state crime, so you need a blue Texas Governor for starters.
A full pardon? Maybe for some of them, especially the zine guy, but the guy who actually shot the cop, unlikely. No democrat would want the optics of that.
Even the cop shooter should be fully pardoned.
Cop shot first. The guy who shot him did so in community defense.
In fact that cop may have given the shooter’s attorneys an argument to revisit Harlow v Fitzgerald, and hand the SCOTUS the full text of §1983. They were given, unknowingly, an illegally edited text in 1982 when Harlow v Fitzgerald established Qualified Immunity, which is illegal according to the full statute as recorded in the 1871 Congressional Record.
Gotta commute that absurd sentence tho
the US is now soviet russia. the whole western world is sad :/
The US has more prisoners than any country to ever exist. You’ve been worse than the soviet union for basically all of your history in those regards.
Edit: Plus it’s baked into your constitution that those prisoners are perfect for slavery. You never stopped using slave labor in the entire 250 year history of America.
At least Soviet Russia wasn’t run by a handful of billionaires
it is now.
Yep
Wow this completely flew under my radar wtaf
How is this surprising to you, grandma? America does American thing American-ly.
I mean to give full context, that protest did end with a cop getting shot.
But the sentences are still wildly excessive including 30 years to someone for carrying a box of magazines.
How many years were did shooters of Pretti and Goode receive?
First off, the shooter claims that the cop was about to murder an unarmed protestor.
But more importantly, it was just one person who shot. Collective punishment is literally against the Geneva Convention.
Imagine getting a 50 year prison sentence because you were peacefully protesting at a place where someone else shot a cop. By the same logic, every cop that was present when Alex Pretti was executed should have 50+ year prison sentences.
I know reading comprehension is not great on this site, but I’m in no way shape or form making an argument the protestors were in the wrong. Literally just providing context.
It’s cool that you were able to get that snarky remark in, but I was not necessarily disagreeing or arguing with you.
However, reading your comment again, it still comes across as cop apologetics. It’s the “the protest did end with a cop being shot”. It’s a justification. Maybe you didn’t intend that, but that’s the implication.
Did I comprehend ok?
It’s not in any way a justification. In fact the language is deliberately neutral as not to imply the protestors did anything wrong (which they didn’t) a protest happened and a cop was shot. Just stating objective fact, because that is a crucial detail the the other commentary left out, which makes their comment sound like they arrested and sentenced these people purely for protesting. (Which they kind of did, and the cop being shot was just their justification, but that’s besides the point)