Using political donation data that must be supplied to the state, under penalty of law, to commit violence or threaten same is not just an ordinary attack on an individual; it is an attack on the political process itself, and on the rights associated with that process. It is the gravest of crimes, tantamount to violent overthrow of the Republic. It MUST be subjected to the harshest penalties.
Political Donations - Disclose or Conceal?
- Thread starter S'task
- Start date
Then if you think so, maybe something less drastic is in order? A public switching perhaps?
Just spitballing ideas, since it seems a bit too far.
clancyphile
Pro-DH, pro-artificial turf baseball fan
I wonder if 18 USC 242 and 42 USC 1983 might not be effective statutes to use, especially against Rep. Castro.
Stripping citizenship and branding as an outlaw, in the classic definition of the term : one who is outside the protection of the law, no f***s given about whatever happens to him.
Why that harsh though? Wouldnt just like making it a felony be enough deterrent?
How about a Clan style Trial of Grievance?
Yeah same with death row. More so, I'd say. If you havent actually taken a life I think its a bit extreme to end anothers. Eye for an eye, proportional justice and all seems like a good idea to me.
Though this would also include the concept of weregild, though. It doesn't have to be the same for the same, just restoration or punishment in proportion.
I see no reason to reward someone just for being incompetent. They had the intent to risk killing someone, they can pay the big boy penalty for doing so.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd hardly call a felony a reward. Risk killing someone is not the same as killing someone and ultimately if you aren't actually calling for a murder you haven't murdered them. The same logic that says that this is risking killing them so its as bad as murder when no actual call to kill someone has occurred is the same a lot of the left uses to say that speech is violence because even if you don't say "go kill that person" if you talk about them badly or use rhetoric that's not very nice you are responsible for murders by third parties.
Which is why I have been trying to convince him to go for less drastic forms of punishment. Personally, I am on your side, lock them up and all. If they get anyone hurt, lock them up for longer, anyone killed, throw away the key. And I do agree it is the same logic, and I'd rather keep rule of law. Since it is quite beneficial to us all.
clancyphile
Pro-DH, pro-artificial turf baseball fan
The problem is whether the benefits coming from the arguments in the first paragraph are outweighed by the misuse outlined in the second paragraph. I think we are now passing that tipping point.
It isn't just Trump donors. There is a growing pattern: In 2008-2009, it was donors to Prop 8 in California. There was the 2012 leak of the National Organization of Marriage's unredacted Form 990. There is the LA City Council demanding prospective contractors reveal ties to the NRA or building the border wall. There were the "John Doe" investigations in Wisconsin. Elizabeth Warren has vowed investigations of the NRA.
And it all seems to be going one way.
Which is why we need to come down on them, hard and fast. But entirely within the law, no cruel or unusual punishments. Just use the legal tools we have available, and deploy them without mercy or without hesitation.
I am merely proposing that, because of the nature of the offense, the law be changed to make it a capital crime.
We DO need transparency in political donations. But we also need the strongest guarantees that that information will not be misused.
We can do this dispassionately, within the dry confines of a courtroom, or we can wait until Antifa gets the Boogaloo started. The good news about waiting until the Boogaloo starts is that it's really hard to start the Boogaloo. The bad news is that the only thing that will be harder than starting the Boogaloo is turning it off. And a whole bunch of people who aren't party to the Boogaloo are going to get killed.
clancyphile
Pro-DH, pro-artificial turf baseball fan
There is just a two-fold problem:
1. There is no certainty of prosecution, much less conviction for these acts.
2. Even if convicted, the current level of punishment is inadequate to deter.
Capital Punishment is neither cruel nor unusual.
Capital Punishment as a whole is, yes; however, Capital Punishment for certain crimes could very well be seen to be both cruel and unusual. "The punishment should be proportional to the crime" and all that is functionally a fancy way of saying that a punishment should not be cruel or unusual for any give crime.
The death penalty for a parking ticket, for instance, would certainly be cruel in that sense, and also quite unusual.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
I think donations should be private, but I also think that States have a fundamental sovereign right to ban citizens of other States from donating money to any and all political causes in their State. You can't vote outside of your own state and district, why should you be able to donate money as well? The disruption to local politics that it causes is perfectly wicked, and there is no rights-based grounds that can be realistically constructed to say you have an interest in the politics of another state you do not live in.
Psyckosama
Member
I think interfering with the Democratic Process should be a high treason charge.