this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
523 points (98.3% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4572 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Alternative headline: Trump finally tells the truth about something.

top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

This is lacking context. He was paraphrasing something I believe is implied to have been said (or at least believed) by Bukele(the president of El Salvador)

[–] [email protected] 98 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Trump was talking about this country dumping all their criminals in the USA. He said:

"He liked to say he did something with a social experiment. A criminal is a criminal as they generally say a criminal and we don’t have time to figure it out, but we’re not going to take criminals and we’re going to get rid of the criminals that we've been given by all these countries from all over the world."

Now if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt and interpret that "criminal is a criminal" line as something he is quoting from someone else, you go right ahead. I do not give him the benefit of the doubt though. Even if he is quoting someone else, he is not disputing the point. He appears to be accepting it as fact and his response is that he's going to get rid of those criminals.

/Apologies for deleting and then un-deleting, I hit enter too soon while transcribing and wanted to avoid confusion.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 month ago

Trump / Vance 2024: A criminal is a criminal as they generally say a criminal

It's kind of Gilbert and Sullivan-esque. G&S would have a field day with trump.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Shouldn't he be getting rid of himself then?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

One would think so, but he's clearly not that self aware.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yeah that's fair, I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt so much as just how I heard it(based on his voice, he wasn't talking normally- instead he sounded like he was quoting), but there's definitely two possible ways to interpret it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Even if he is quoting someone… he’s quoting them for the justification of getting rid of them.

He clearly agrees with the statement.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Exactly what benefit is being given to him by allowing his complete lack of self awareness?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Lol, context doesn't help him at all. It sounds like he's referring to the USA based on the words immediately around the statement.

So this is just another one of demented don's stupid slips of his tangled tongue.

[–] [email protected] 86 points 1 month ago (2 children)

To completely oblivious yet thunderous applause? I bet it was.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 month ago

That’s the thing about living in your own reality, you’ve got no awareness of when your reality intersects with the real world.

They’ll probably play this on Fox News, and not a soul will see the irony.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Trump could literally go up there and say "oogity boogity, shoo shoo macgoo wiggity wam wam" and his supporters would cheer like crazy. They're brainwashed.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I Approve This Message

Kamala Harris

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I sure hope she doesn't approve that message. I think with enough supports (food, housing, education, etc.), most people who commit crimes would stop. That, of course, is not enough for assholes like Trump. He's racking them up like he's going for the record.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 month ago (3 children)

In Norway, the recidivism rate, (percentage of people that end up back in prison for something else after being released) is around 20%. Here in the US its closer to 80%.

So there are definitely different ways to approach the problem.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Indeed! In the USA, the prison system is brutal and focused on punishment. There's little chance of someone coming out of prison in the USA as a better, kinder, gentler person than they were when they went it. Hell, many prisons make it hard to get books even if a prisoner does want to better themselves.

Meanwhile, Norway's recidivism rate in the 90s was nearly as bad as the USA's. They reformed their system though. They replaced large prisons with smaller community-based correctional facilities so convicts could be close to their homes and maintain relationships. Many allow visits, including conjugal visits, up to three times per week. As you mentioned, the recidivism rate after 2 years is only 20%, which is the lowest in the world, and rises to only 25% after 5 years. They treat prisoners like people and allow them to stay a part, to some extent, of their community.

In a recent interview, Norwegian prison governor Are Hoidal talked about how prisoners are punished in the country. “In Norway, the punishment is to take away someone’s liberty,” he said. “The other rights stay.”

Norwegian prisoners have the right to vote, attend school, learn new skills, exercise, see their families, and even participate in extracurricular activities. In fact, in many prisons, the security officers participate in activities like fitness and yoga right alongside the prisoners.

This is all very deliberate, as Norway’s philosophy seeks to treat prisoners as human beings even as they are incarcerated. This approach is believed to make reentry into society easier. People still feel as valued as other citizens, and they leave prison with skills, confidence, and self-respect so they can become contributing members of society.

If you want people to be good and valued members of society, you need to treat them like people and allow themselves to improve themselves while incarcerated. If however, you want a person to act like an animal, then treat them like an animal. The USA's punishment focused model treats prisoners like animals where a prisoner's only focus is sometimes just to survive. Naturally, those learned behaviors become ingrained and they behave like that when they get out of prison too.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Thank you for adding the context to my 20% figure. I remembered running into it, but did not know it was the two year rate, and an improper comparison.

For proper comparison, the US 2 year recidivism rate is 35%. (and that 80% figure I cited is a 10 year rate)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Thank you. I actually didn't realize that the 80% rate for the USA was a 10 year rate. 20% vs. 35% over two years is clearly still impressive, but now I want to see what the Norwegian rate is at 10 years for a proper comparison but I can't seem to quickly find it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

That requires treating prisoners like human beings tho. That might be a little much for most of us Statesians.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Norways priority is rehibilitation, they understand that crime and the justice system are complex and some people just need help. I would argue that their system is successful at its goals.

The US decided a long time ago that punishment was the main priority, so much so that there is a carve out for it in the 13th ammendment. The US criminal justice system is a complete inhumane failure.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

The US prison industrial complex is a complete success and working as intended, from the slaveholder capitalist perspective.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I fully agree with this statement. You are correct. That said, I am starting to believe that maybe it's something to do with culture overall. It's hard to explain, but as an American I feel we tend to focus heavily on reward, as opposed to risk versus reward. That blind spot is what I think makes us too stupid to get it right. Like, we think about risk but we're so constantly enticed by excess (reward) that the risk doesn't register the way reward does. Poverty is a factor (there are dozens of factors) but if we're poor, the reward is stability. If we're middle class, the reward is wealth. If we're wealthy, the reward is status. No matter what there's another reward. We tend to view crimes committed by the poor as more scummy or punishable because the reward isn't generally that great, and it hurts another person directly. To that person who has nothing, $1000 would be seen as life changing. To a person who makes 70-80k, $1000 is not worth the charges. Where a crime committed by a wealthy business owner for hundreds of thousands or millions is seen as just a man being competitive and aggressive (to achieve what we all really want deep down), so is met with a slap on the wrist. It's a lot to talk about. Too much for an internet comment. Our system is trash for sure, but I just can't shake the feeling that it's a bigger issue that needs addressing.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As a DA, her record shows a focus on keeping non-violent criminals out of jail, and violent criminals in it.

She started the back on track program as well.

So her position, I think, is pretty clear. I don't agree with the drug crime approach, but in general I approve of her approach as a DA/AG.

That said - I do thoroughly hope she takes that clip, notes that she has zero criminal convictions, and a (hopefully running) tally of Trump's convictions, and then signs off with "I am Kamala Harris and I approve this message".

[–] ricecake 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Honestly, the clip of him saying "they're gonna say 'im a prosecutor and he's a felon'" and then her endorsing that message is so much more direct and unnuanced. Doesn't need to be cut or contextualized. The entire 10 second clip is the whole thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And it's a great clip.

No reason to make it the only one though.

[–] ricecake 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

True.

The worry with letting your opponent make your case for you is that it means you need to give your opponent screentime.
The more you need to rely of the person being spoken to to think about what your opponent is saying as opposed to just listening, the more you risk the viewer agreeing with what you're showing them as opposed to parsing it as hypocrisy.

If someone isn't looking, and they just hear trump yelling about how criminals are criminals and they never change, they don't get to see the contextualization that he has dozens of felony convictions and Harris has precisely zero.

It's why trump talking about her credentials as a prosecutor and him being a felon, in a dumb voice to boot, is such a perfect setup: there's no way to misinterpret it.

So while more clips are definitely feasible, a clip making trump sound tough on crime might not be ideal for the sound bite circuit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Which is why it needs the context of the convictions as I mentioned. Just stick it right on top of him on screen.

[–] Lucidlethargy 8 points 1 month ago

The joke here is that Trump is literally a convicted felon.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 month ago

every time i say there's no fucking way anyone will ever do something dumber than that, he proves me wrong the next day

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago

Nice, does this mean the people given 10 month sentences for Jan 6th are going back to jail for life? Thats what he means, right?