The Democrat Thread

[farmteam]

I love this mayor. I want to move to minneapolis for it's low unemployment and awesome mayor.

I love living here. My only complaint (besides the weather, obviously) is the terribly designed road system. But, it's awesome!Pointergate also got the Daily Show treatment:

The Daily Show

Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

[StrangeSox]

Republicans in Michigan are floating the plan to give Republicans more electoral votes again.

 

Weird how it's only Republican statehouses in states that go blue in Presidential elections that float these ideas and not states like Texas and Georgia. Must be a coincidence.

[StrangeSox]

Firestone and the Warlord

 

ProPublica version of the story

 

 

Firestone served as a source of food, fuel, trucks and cash used by Taylor’s ragtag rebel army, according to interviews, internal corporate documents and declassified diplomatic cables.

 

The company signed a deal in 1992 to pay taxes to Taylor’s rebel government. Over the next year, the company doled out more than $2.3 million in cash, checks and food to Taylor, according to an accounting in court files. Between 1990 and 1993, the company invested $35.3 million in the plantation.

 

In return, Taylor’s forces provided security to the plantation that allowed Firestone to produce rubber and safeguard its assets. Taylor’s rebel government offered lower export taxes that gave the company a financial break on rubber shipments.

 

For Taylor, the relationship with Firestone was about more than money. It helped provide him with the political capital and recognition he needed as he sought to establish his credentials as Liberia’s future leader.

 

“We needed Firestone to give us international legitimacy,” said John Toussaint “J.T.” Richardson, a U.S.-trained architect who became one of Taylor’s top advisers. “We needed them for credibility.”

 

While Firestone used the plantation for the business of rubber, Taylor used it for the business of war. Taylor turned storage centers and factories on Firestone’s sprawling rubber farm into depots for weapons and ammunition. He housed himself and his top ministers in Firestone homes. He also used communications equipment on the plantation to broadcast messages to his supporters, propaganda to the masses and instructions to his troops.

 

Secret U.S. diplomatic cables from the time captured Taylor’s gratitude to Firestone. Firestone’s plantation “had been the lifeblood” of the territory in Liberia that he controlled, Taylor told one Firestone executive, according to a State Department cable. Taylor later said in sworn testimony that Firestone’s resources had been the “most significant” source of foreign exchange in the early years of his revolt.

[bmags]

Did anyone see the WGN news story about a southside judge who has thrown 20+ people in jail for contempt of court because she said their pants were too low?

 

This guy walks in for literally a jaywalking violation and ends up in jail for two days and nobody knows where he went.

[StrangeSox]

http://wgntv.com/2014/11/18/judge-jails-me...ng-saggy-pants/

 

that's pretty awful.

[Jenksismyhero]

Good for her. God forbid these people have a sense of decorum in a courtroom.

[StrangeSox]

Offending the delicate judge's sensibilities shouldn't be a jailable offense in any sane world.

[Jenksismyhero]

Offending the delicate judge's sensibilities shouldn't be a jailable offense in any sane world.

 

It's extreme, but judges do extreme s*** all the time. Lawyers have been held in contempt for simply looking at their phone in court.

 

BTW, she's not the only one:

 

http://newsone.com/2002005/alabama-judge-j...or-saggy-pants/

 

I'm still fine with it. You should see how people dress in court. It's hilarious. They might as well be going to work on the corner. They're so dumb they don't realize that sort of image hurts their chance of being successful in court.

[StrangeSox]

Hurting their own chances is one thing. Literally being thrown in jail for an unofficial dress code violation is another. What purpose does that serve? Who does that actually help?

[Jake]

Yeah, we all know that incarcerating these guys makes them more likely to clean up their act. In no way could jailing someone for saggy pants actually ERODE one's respect for authority

Edited November 20, 2014 by Jake

[bmags]

We are talking about low level crimes such as tickets. And you are throwing them in jail for two days, sight unseen.

 

IF you want to go off on a self-righteous lecture, fine. BUt this is stupid. And nobody should agree with it. It's very dumb. You are jailing people for wearing their pants too low. Any judge that does it should definitely not be re-elected, except how the hell are people supposed to know this happens.

[bmags]

It's extreme, but judges do extreme s*** all the time. Lawyers have been held in contempt for simply looking at their phone in court.

 

BTW, she's not the only one:

 

http://newsone.com/2002005/alabama-judge-j...or-saggy-pants/

 

I'm still fine with it. You should see how people dress in court. It's hilarious. They might as well be going to work on the corner. They're so dumb they don't realize that sort of image hurts their chance of being successful in court.

 

Other judges doing extreme s*** doesn't mean it isn't wrong. And I mean, any time you bring an example to me of an alabama judges decisions and say "see" I'm just going to disregard it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Hurting their own chances is one thing. Literally being thrown in jail for an unofficial dress code violation is another. What purpose does that serve? Who does that actually help?

 

I'm willing to be the people in her courtroom look nicer and act nicer than in other courtrooms. She's clearly a "no nonsense" judge and that will be known by anyone who works in her courtroom/goes into her courtroom.

 

For a judge dealing with low level crap, that's immensely helpful in working through her docket efficiently.

[Jenksismyhero]

We are talking about low level crimes such as tickets. And you are throwing them in jail for two days, sight unseen.

 

IF you want to go off on a self-righteous lecture, fine. BUt this is stupid. And nobody should agree with it. It's very dumb. You are jailing people for wearing their pants too low. Any judge that does it should definitely not be re-elected, except how the hell are people supposed to know this happens.

 

It's the same as any procedural rule you're supposed to follow in court that is subject to contempt orders - showing up late, not providing responsive answers, talking on your cell phone, etc. If you don't follow the rule and the judge ignores it, there's no point in having the rule.

 

[StrangeSox]

I'm willing to be the people in her courtroom look nicer and act nicer than in other courtrooms. She's clearly a "no nonsense" judge and that will be known by anyone who works in her courtroom/goes into her courtroom.

 

For a judge dealing with low level crap, that's immensely helpful in working through her docket efficiently.

throwing people in jail because you don't like their attire isn't really going to improve efficiency, but it is going to f*** people over and breed (justified) distrust of the justice system.

[StrangeSox]

It's the same as any procedural rule you're supposed to follow in court that is subject to contempt orders - showing up late, not providing responsive answers, talking on your cell phone, etc. If you don't follow the rule and the judge ignores it, there's no point in having the rule.

perhaps there's no point in having a jailable dress code!

 

edit: it seems like this judge has a real hard-on for authority, not for being judicial. that's not the type of person we should invest this sort of power in.

Edited November 20, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

throwing people in jail because you don't like their attire isn't really going to improve efficiency, but it is going to f*** people over and breed (justified) distrust of the justice system.

 

Actually it does. When judges are lax and don't command the room, people talk, it's difficult to hear and the cases don't move through efficiently. When the judge is a tight ass, as much as I hate that, s*** gets done. Be it fear, respect, whatever, the result is better. I've seen this happen in many different courtrooms all over northern Illinois. Most lawyers would agree.

 

And I don't really see how it breed's distrust. I'm sure she's got signs all over her courtroom and outside of her courtroom with that rule. She announces it before her call begins. She give ample notice and people choose not to listen. You're basically arguing that people breaking a rule and getting in trouble for it thereafter don't trust the justice system. That's crap.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

perhaps there's no point in having a jailable dress code!

 

edit: it seems like this judge has a real hard-on for authority, not for being judicial. that's not the type of person we should invest this sort of power in.

 

Have you been in a courtroom before?

[StrangeSox]

Actually it does. When judges are lax and don't command the room, people talk, it's difficult to hear and the cases don't move through efficiently. When the judge is a tight ass, as much as I hate that, s*** gets done. Be it fear, respect, whatever, the result is better. I've seen this happen in many different courtrooms all over northern Illinois. Most lawyers would agree.

 

And I don't really see how it breed's distrust. I'm sure she's got signs all over her courtroom and outside of her courtroom with that rule. She announces it before her call begins. She give ample notice and people choose not to listen. You're basically arguing that people breaking a rule and getting in trouble for it thereafter don't trust the justice system. That's crap.

 

Being in command of a room doesn't require throwing people in jail because you don't like how they're dressed. Whether somebody is wearing sagging jeans or they're in a three-piece suit doesn't effect communication and whether people can hear, respond, etc.

 

I'm saying people actually being thrown in jail over an arbitrary and unnecessary rule breeds distrust.

[bmags]

For the record, they examined how many contempt orders were used by a judge. She had far and away the most. It's almost like others have found a way to hold the room without judging people for silly offenses.

 

It's amazing the idea that any punishment is justified if anyone finds themselves in a wrong. No matter what that wrong is, you can be killed by a cop or jailed by a judge. If you don't want to die or get jailed, just pull your pants up, and don't walk down the street with your hands in your pockets.

 

It's easy.

[Jake]

This just seems like basic and harmless self-expression. If you can't see the guy's ass, leave it alone. I'm actually surprised somebody hasn't challenged this sort of thing on first amendment grounds - maybe they got thrown in jail when they tried to.

[bmags]

Again, fine with calling them idiots, fine with huge judge judy lectures, fine with it even factoring into appropriate sentencing, but calling it contempt of court is ridiculous.

[Balta1701]

This just seems like basic and harmless self-expression. If you can't see the guy's ass, leave it alone. I'm actually surprised somebody hasn't challenged this sort of thing on first amendment grounds - maybe they got thrown in jail when they tried to.

Probably because the people being targeted don't have the kind of money it would take to make that fight.

[StrangeSox]

yeah, the other troubling part is that it's a dress code that's pretty clearly targeted primarily at younger black men.

[StrangeSox]

How does someone with these publicly stated views manage to get elected to public office?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/incomin...tude-to-whites/