Husker_Du

now do biden's bro david byrd. now also recall Biden voted for mass incarceration for petty crimes and was vociferous about keeping schools segragated.

i'm not disputing it. my point is the date and the reason for it.

why is this even remotely interesting or revealing?

when?

this is the second.

first thing you were correct about in weeks.

in some form or fashion, didn't the DNC block/impede RFK from participating in their process?

i'd ask if you live under a rock, but... https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/politics/joe-biden-busing-letters-2020/index.html

shouldn't he have been considered a racist when he campaigned to keep schools segregated?

stop being humble, Bob. when i think of you, i think of fence.

I wouldn't. what this admin has done can never be undone. there's real pain. trauma. i don't understand how the party that runs every election on a platform to help the downtrodden constantly uses them as pawns. and i don't understand how the pawns keep being pawns. currently, if you vote left, you're that agent of pain.

i'm sure you and your cronies will take potshots at me for this but... i don't talk to talk. i don't know enough about campaign fundraising and laws to speak confidently on the subject. knee jerk reaction: 'yes'.

for real? where? that's a 180

i'm certainly no historical expert on the topic, Plas. but on the heels of the George Floyd riots many DA candidates have ran on platforms of 'soft on crime'. Most of these were funded from a single financier. at the same time, prosecution rates have dropped and many states (illinois, colorado, new york) either partially or fully did away with cash bail or limited bonds (meaning more people awaiting trial for violent crimes were out on the street). https://www.google.com/search?q=list+of+soros+backed+DA's&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS929US929&oq=list+of+soros+backed+DA's&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDQ0MDFqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That's in there already, Agave.

yes, b/c it's about as basic and elementary a topic as there is.

i don't think you know the definition of 'pearl clutching'. it means 'faux outrage in an attempt to get others to sympathize.' that's not what i'm about. and it's not anger. it's me being utterly perplexed on why the concept of 'violent crime is terrible for the victims and makes society dangerous' is met with 'well, see, here's the thing' from wokesters on the left.

are you braindead? what do mandatory minimum sentences have to due with anything IF THEY'RE NOT PROSECUTING!!!??

so let's not bring red v. blue into it (even though the correlation is all up in your face - as in 'they literally ran on that platform' and 'cashless bail is now ubiquitous'. but anyway - answer the question is it a good thing for society (regardless of the state or politics) that less violent crime is being penalized?

it not only takes 5 minutes, it's on the news daily. apparently a good number of the posters on here have their heads in the clouds.

everything in that post is true. but let's, for one second just say that it's not, or that it's immaterial... are you saying that you agree with less % of violent crimes being prosecuted? b/c that's 1000% what's happening.

god, i hate that. one of the worst lines of all time. and inaccurate. the only people that use it are people that think they're smart. anyway - how am i the one clutching pearls? i'm clutching pearls b/c, quite literally rapists and murders and violent assault criminals walk the street and commit even more horrific crimes? you think that's pearl clutching or you think that perhaps those victims should have been served better? the real pearl clutching is from people like you that say 'but but but jails don't do anything' and then murmur something about shoplifting while yet again refusing to acknowledge that this applies to violent crimes. i could list, ad nauseam, case after case where someone was awaiting trial or recently released early from prison who repeatedly committed more violent crime. what in your beetle brain leads to conclude that violent, repeat offenders walking the streets is a good policy?

oh, ok. i stand corrected. homicides skyrocketed in 2019. then there were elections in 2020 where every lib proudly ran on a platform of bail reform and soft penalties. thereafter, with another gain in homicide rates, municipalities doubled their non-prosecution rates. sounds brilliant.

you realize with the mass migration to no cash bail that murder and rape suspects are walking the streets as they await trial? you do know that correct? no, i mean as in you have to be a full scale fucking moron to defend or deny what soft on crime policies are doing. and you deny because it's literally the platform Dems run on to get the sympathy vote from woke idiots like yourself. that's what i mean by partisan. you won't acknowledge what's plain to see b/c you voted that way and/or sympathized. and there's no way you could have made a mistake, right? so juvenile.

murderers and rapists walk free b/c of these policies and sentiments, but go ahead and be childish and partisan. truly sad things are happening, as can be seen/read/watched all over the media everyday. but you do you to score points.