Tulsi Gabbard leaves Democrat party

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Gunnar, you have attributed your own comment to Ajax, might go back and clarify.

Ajax, what is with this fellow whose picture you provided? I do not recognize him.

Since he’ll most likely not read your comment, or not bother to respond:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waukesh ... ade_attack

Darrell Brooks Jr.:

… deliberately targeted the crowd, driving in a "zig-zag pattern" to hit as many people as possible.

During the immediate aftermath of the ramming, five people were confirmed killed and forty-eight others were injured. The five dead were identified as four women and one man. Four of the dead were members of the Milwaukee Dancing Grannies, a dance group composed solely of grandmothers.

… Seventeen children were among the wounded … ages of the dead ranged from 8 to 81.

In Ajax’s mind, Democrats are responsible for this.

- Doc

[ajax18]

Gunnar, you have attributed your own comment to Ajax, might go back and clarify.

Ajax, what is with this fellow whose picture you provided? I do not recognize him.

It's Darrell Brooks. You've probably never heard of him. He ran over his ex girlfriend with his car. The liberal judge let him out on very cheap to no bail. He went on to run over around 20 random people at a parade in Waukeshah, WI while out on bail killing around five of them. Mandela Barnes seeks no cash bail. These kind of incidents are much more likely to occur more frequently in the future if Mandela Barnes gets his way and enacts these kind of policies.

https://nypost.com/2021/12/13/why-wauke ... narrative/

[Doctor Steuss]

It's Darrell Brooks. You've probably never heard of him. He ran over his ex girlfriend with his car. The liberal judge let him out on very cheap to no bail.

To help demonstrate just how rascally liberal judges are.

The judge who granted Brooks bail at $1,000 was appointed by a Republican Governor, and had her later election campaign run by the Republican Party, wherein she was supported by Republican Senators.

Obviously, a liberal plant.

ETA:
On a serious note, the reason it was set so low was tragic human error. The risk report hadn't been uploaded for the ADA who assessed the bail. It had actually initially been set to $500. When the ADA saw "high risk" label assessed, but no risk report, they doubled the existing bail. That same ADA, at the time, had about 20 felony cases to review that day, and was also in the middle of a trial. So, ultimately a tragic human error compounded by what is likely an understaffed system with overwhelmed people.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

It's Darrell Brooks. You've probably never heard of him. He ran over his ex girlfriend with his car. The liberal judge let him out on very cheap to no bail.

To help demonstrate just how rascally liberal judges are.

The judge who granted Brooks bail at $1,000 was appointed by a Republican Governor, and had her later election campaign run by the Republican Party, wherein she was supported by Republican Senators.

Obviously, a liberal plant.

ETA:
On a serious note, the reason it was set so low was tragic human error. The risk report hadn't been uploaded for the ADA who assessed the bail. It had actually initially been set to $500. When the ADA saw "high risk" label assessed, but no risk report, they doubled the existing bail. That same ADA, at the time, had about 20 felony cases to review that day, and was also in the middle of a trial. So, ultimately a tragic human error compounded by what is likely an understaffed system with overwhelmed people.

And guess who the folks are that ensure Wisconsinites can’t staff the government by slashing positions and failing to fund them adequately? Remember, if the GOP can “F” the government up enough they can use it as an example of incompetence.

- Doc

[Moksha]

It's Darrell Brooks. You've probably never heard of him. He ran over his ex girlfriend with his car. The liberal judge let him out on very cheap to no bail.

To help demonstrate just how rascally liberal judges are.

The judge who granted Brooks bail at $1,000 was appointed by a Republican Governor, and had her later election campaign run by the Republican Party, wherein she was supported by Republican Senators.

Obviously, a liberal plant.

You've caught Ajax in one of those badly researched Breitbart bloopers.

[ajax18]

It's Darrell Brooks. You've probably never heard of him. He ran over his ex girlfriend with his car. The liberal judge let him out on very cheap to no bail.

To help demonstrate just how rascally liberal judges are.

The judge who granted Brooks bail at $1,000 was appointed by a Republican Governor, and had her later election campaign run by the Republican Party, wherein she was supported by Republican Senators.

Obviously, a liberal plant.

ETA:
On a serious note, the reason it was set so low was tragic human error. The risk report hadn't been uploaded for the ADA who assessed the bail. It had actually initially been set to $500. When the ADA saw "high risk" label assessed, but no risk report, they doubled the existing bail. That same ADA, at the time, had about 20 felony cases to review that day, and was also in the middle of a trial. So, ultimately a tragic human error compounded by what is likely an understaffed system with overwhelmed people.

What happens when the bail is nothing. At least this time it was $1000. Are you sure no cash bail is a good idea? Is that a winning issue for Mandela Barnes in the state that just hosted the Waukesha parade massacre?

[Doctor Steuss]

What happens when the bail is nothing. At least this time it was $1000. Are you sure no cash bail is a good idea? Is that a winning issue for Mandela Barnes in the state that just hosted the Waukesha parade massacre?

I don't know. Maybe liberal leftist socialist Scott Walker can help answer it.

[Doctor Steuss]

What happens when the bail is nothing. At least this time it was $1000. Are you sure no cash bail is a good idea? Is that a winning issue for Mandela Barnes in the state that just hosted the Waukesha parade massacre?

I don't know. Maybe liberal leftist socialist Scott Walker can help answer it.

I'm sorry for the knee-jerk flippant response above.

The elimination of cash bail doesn't mean everyone gets to just automatically get released until trial. There are alternate forms of bail that can be established (such as partially secured bonds), and risk-based systems that can be used in conjunction. Ultimately, the most effective thing would be the the one thing that most people (in particular, Republicans) don't want. Increased funding, and government expansion for the judicial/prosecution/defense side of the justice system.

To use a line from a Vera report, there are ways of "reducing the use of pretrial detention without compromising public safety or rates of court appearance" outside of the one-size-fits-all cash bail system.

(PDF Warning: Vera Report on Some NY Cases That Used Alternatives)

I hope you'll indulge me in a thought experiment. Imagine you're arrested for a minor offense. If it helps, imagine you are innocent of the crime, and your innocence will eventually be established. Bail is set at $3,000. Here's the rub. You don't have $3,000.

Now, there are two ways this could go from here. You might have some collateral you could put up with a bail bonds joint. In this case, you'd have to pay interest, as well as fees. Now, because you don't have $3,000 to pay as bail (which you would have gotten back, if you had been able to pay it), you now had to pay money, that you'll never get back, in order to get out of jail for a crime you didn't commit.

The other way it could go, is you don't have collateral. You now have to wait in jail until the loooong process of you having a trial -- or you can plead guilty to the crime you didn't commit. If you stay in jail, you now lose your employment, and everything that you are paying bills on (like your living space). You'll likely lose just about all physical possessions, unless you have family/friends that will retrieve and store them for you. Once you're released, upon being found innocent, you are now jobless and homeless.

In this situation, do you think our one-size-fits-all cash bail system is the right thing? You've either lost everything, or you've had to pay money that you'll never get back, even after you're shown to be innocent.

I know it's likely difficult to put yourself in this situation. After all, we're generally conditioned to think that only guilty people go to jail. It's also hard, if you've never been in the position, to imagine working 60+ hours a week, and living paycheck to paycheck, with no viable collateral. But, this is what the cash bail system does. If you're going to be all-in, then you have to be perfectly fine with innocent people being irreparably punished simply for being poor. For me, and a lot of people, that's a hard pill to swallow. It's easy to hide behind the specter of extreme cases where the cash bail system failed, for being too low. It's much more difficult to face the realty of people being punished for the crime of not having excess money.

[ajax18]

I can see ways in which indigence is an advantage. Have you ever noticed that the most rude and agressive motorists with illegally tinted front windows are often times the same people who are driving intoxicated, without auto insurance, or perhaps even with a warrant out for his arrest. And the most courteous and nonconfrontational are often the workaholic evil rich people. The rich man knows that if he hurts someone he stands to lose millions in civil court whether it's his fault or not. He avoids crashes because he knows he'll have to pay for the wreck either with immediate cash or a higher insurance rate. He avoids getting pulled over for any reason lest the police find some excuse to confiscate his property. The thug sees a ticket as costing him a no more than a few minutes of time for the officer to write it but knows he'll never have to pay it. It costs the police department too much to haul him into jail. And they'd never tow his car for driving without insurance like they would someone who holds a legal full time job. He knows his legal fees are paid by the state. And he doesn't need to worry about lost wages because he doesn't hold a job, at least not a legal job on the books. And he's immune to civil damages for maiming and killing someone while driving wrecklessly. All that matters to the thug is getting where he's going right now. He's immune to taxes, alimony, and child support He knows he'll never get audited since he's a registered Democrat.

[Gunnar]

Okay, so two years ago Ms. Gabbard thinks so highly of the Democratic Party that she runs for the Democratic Nomination.

So all of this woke crap happened in the last two years? Does 'woke' mean NOT being anti-LGBTQ? If she could not see where the party was heading, what can I think about her ability to prognosticate what the country will need?

Tulsi Gabbard was the ONLY ONE to vote 'Present' for Donald Trump's impeachment.

If you ask me, that makes her a gutless piece of trash. Vote UP or DOWN, you vacillating chicken.

I agree that accusing democrats and progressives of being "woke" is nothing more than Republicans' attempt to avoid explicitly disparaging the fact that their opponents oppose bigotry of all forms, including against the LGBTQ community in particular, which is a virtue, not the fault they are trying to imply it is. Explicitly disparaging others for their opposition to bigotry implies that that they are themselves bigots, thus their use of the more euphemistic accusation "woke". In my opinion, disparagingly accusing their democrat opponents of being "woke" carries much the same unpleasant connotation as use of the more explicit epithet "N***** lover" by racial bigots against others who don't share their bigotry.

I also agree with your assessment of her as "a gutless piece of trash."