DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus First Guilty Plea in Georgia Case

https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaki...ea-agreement/3L3OZWOFIJHWHLJUTQSNHO4VL4/

Question, once they plea, is it that they now testify against others? Is that the normal thing?

That’s usually the case. Plea deal for cooperating. Bet Trump doesn’t pardon this rat,lol

Now, do the jurists believe a guy who benefits from testifying....the "so-called, first rat has taken the treat"- not guilty is automatic to start- reality and huge defense money will bring more of these criminals to the prosecution desk- wonder when next one turns? Less than a week.

Based on what the actual rioters and insurrectionists are getting, they’ll all get sweetheart deals including trump. 5-10 probably less. While the party of law and order is always blaming democrat mayors of cities on crime. Pfft

By "Democrat" standards, January 6th was a peaceful protest and the rioters should be applauded rather than jailed.

But they're not Democrats, so they don't get the lax standards.

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'm not complaining about them being punished. Just pointing out what seems to be some double standards based on which group someone belongs to.

You had me looking for the thumbs down button.

Yeah ok bro….bla bla…double standards is the staple diet for GOP leadership

...because I'm not in your in group?

There are times I find myself looking for that button as well, but I think actually having to express things in words has it uses.

I just find the hypocrisy of who people want to punish worth pointing out. I'm all for punishing crimes rather than people you don't agree with. If someone I generally agree with crosses the line, they should face consequences for those decisions. Their actions shouldn't be excused because one agrees with their political views. At the same time, we have to be careful not to punish people for their political views rather than their actions (not the case here, perhaps, but it has come up in different contexts.)

Honestly, I think I just find Perfect's constant use of "Pfffft" borderline absurd. I can't help but imagine it in big cartoon letters. That action totally deserves having the book thrown at it.

I don't disagree. It just doesn't look any better on you.

I'm sorry but your arguments just make me think of cartoons. Every time you resort to random noises (bla bla, Pfffft) it's hard to take you seriously.

“Bla bla” is reserved for you. I never know what the hell you’re babbling about. And pffft is reserved for (not saying you’re one) the continued dumb mass MAGA goper support for trump.

The feeling is mutual. *shrug*

Unfortunately (for me), I can't help but keep trying to make you understand. It seems to me that rather than trying to get me to understand what you are trying to say you resort to literally meaningless nonsense (bla bla.) And that's frustrating.

It appears I'm not in their group either since I don't think 10-22 year sentences for those who were the most egregious on Jan. 6th were "sweetheart deals".

Remind me how many of these traitors got over 20 years for trying to overthrow our democracy? One maybe two? While 113 or so have gotten just home detention.

I said between 10-22 years. You act like that's some walk in the park. You seem to think those are "sweetheart deals". It's just ridiculous. That's how obvious to tell it's not so much about the laws they actually broke and were tried for, but who they are that means the most to you.

And BTW- How many of them were on trial for treason again? You seem to promote they be sentenced according to punishment for a law they were never charged with in the first place. Just a hint for you. That's not how sentencing works.

Our first president got elected for being a good "traitor" and for his military action in "overthrowing" a king. Just saying.

And, honestly, you can keep the "our" to yourself. It's become "their" (politicians') lousy democracy.

I'm glad they failed on January 6th, because more Trump would be a nightmare, but Biden (and the rest of his cronies in Washington on both sides of the aisle and their corporate string pullers) is well below my threshold for considering something good. Nor do I have any desire to claim them as mine. I didn't serve for the sake of that.

We don't have a king. We don't have taxation without representation. That's the very reason a king was overthrown. Just sayin'. I find your overreach to connect the two quite baffling.

You don't have enough imagination and Perfect has too much (to grasp my meandering) it seems.

And apparently my thought processes are... "Unique." Yet, I was under the impression that diversity is a good thing.

Out of the hundreds of people that stormed the capitol well over 50% have received misdemeanor convictions. The rest have averaged around 4 years. Only 1 has gotten over 20 years. No denying that most sentences have been light. Only the very few have received long sentences, and those where a lot less then prosecutors where asking for. Don’t hate the messenger. Read up on the facts.

rofl: and there it is “But Biden” It’s kinda like the same as “I don’t like trump BUT” always followed with “I like his policies”..eww boy. And I’ve had a grasp on your meandering for quite sometime If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance …baffle them with BS.

I fully understand the facts. You keep ignoring the "10 part" part of my 10-22 year sentences I have posted about. And as is always the case, the defense asks for the least penalty possible and the prosecution asks for the stiffest penalty possible. A judge usually lands somewhere in the middle. Exactly what has happened in these cases.

But your tone seems to have shifted just a bit. At first your logic was that these defendants had committed treason and should be treated as such in sentencing. Now if your argument was that they should have been charged with treason I could see that as a logical point to be made in some of these cases. But that never happened. Now suddenly you have shifted to they got light sentences based on what they were charged with. Maybe you could show me what the average sentence is among people have been convicted with in the past on those same charges to present a baseline to support your views.

It seems as though you're more upset by the fact that they weren't charged with treason in the first place rather than the sentences they received on what they were actually charged with. I would find that a much more compelling point.

Technically many committed treason including trump. Many are ex military who gave their oath to protect our constitution. Just saying we disagree so we’ll both need to deal with it.

There goes that imagination again. What policy exactly do I allegedly like?


You definitely have the baffling them part down.

Communism.

I certainly have enough imagination. According to many, more than enough. What I have trouble with mainly is that the King of England and the monarchy there of was one family. One man that was not elected to represent this nation. Where the disconnect happens is you seem to be trying to draw a comparison that as of now it's multiple families of both parties which are nominated and elected by the people in this country as a reasonable comparison.

I grasp your meandering, as you call it, that leads you to your conclusions. And I certainly don't begrudge you reaching such a conclusion. And I certainly don't see diversity as a bad thing. I think you are however beginning to stretch the boundaries of the discussion though in a purposeful manner by using such language as a tool to try and bolster your position.

I don't mind you believing whatever you choose to. I'm just pointing out why I can't join you in some of those conclusions.

Thats debatable. It could certainly be argued that congress only serves themselves and not the people. Just look at how many of them became millionaires after they got elected. Most of congress seems out of touch with the average joe. Do their actions really represent the people?

The people elect them. Their parties voters nominate them. I'm not actually trying to justify the way it all ends up or the terrible results we all get from that process. But those are the people voters select to represent them. The voters are the only people that have the power to change this.

So you are saying that you don't like any of trump's policies?

I'm saying that I haven't said that I do like any of them. Certainly not in this thread. I haven't gone through each and every one, and there may be something that isn't awful, but nothing comes to mind.

So I'm a communist now? And Trump is as well?

I sympathize with some of the ideals of communism, but my issue is more a matter of "too much" or "extreme" "Capitalism." Healthy competition is good. We've reached well into the realm of unhealthy competition to the point where it's not so much competition as crushing the uncompetitive and being set up so they have no chance to compete in many cases.

Except the voters don't really have the power to change who parties put on the ballots. In theory, sure. In reality, how can any one individual get someone else on the ballot? They don't have the reach of the parties established messaging apparatus. Most individuals can't afford to broadcast advertisements nationwide. In 2020, over $16B was spent on elections. (link) What can the average voter do against that?

We don't so much have voter determination as we have the illusion of voter determination. We have a "multiple choice test" that only has wrong answers to choose from. Individual voters can't "re-write the test." Those that write the "tests" limit the options.

Democracy is great at the local level. Once those in power are more or less completely removed from those they allegedly represent, things break down.

An unintended consequence of the electoral college is that it inherently favors a 2 party system.

You misspelled dumbass.

Group? Oh I get you now. Yes, we’re in a big group. It’s called the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Biden is a centrist according to your guidelines and policy beliefs. Is that who you are calling the overwhelming majority of Americans?

The process the forefathers set in place is the way our elections are run. If your assertion is that the process has unintended consequences we agree. But I think to some extent we're back to square one. On every issue from the election process to guns and everything in between, the forefathers couldn't see into the future and how their own words would be diagnosed in a way in which people would manipulate them and use them in ways they were never intended.

I agree. Now how in the world do we realistically make things better? I don't particularly care what the Constitution or "the rules" say. What "rules" and systems would actually lead to better results?

Focusing on "the way things are" is the bane of progress.

I think there are some great ideas that would help. Although over time I think most of them could and would be manipulated the way everything else has been. The problem being it would take the powers that be to approve such changes through election laws being approved. There would in turn be court battles which would make the final decisions. Getting those in power to agree in changing the rules which in effect would work to challenge their own power would be the actual battle here IMO.

No. But I can help with that not understanding what you read thing. Check out a thing called Hooked on Phonics.

Hooked on Phonics doesn't help when you talk about an unspecified group without referencing anything in particular. There wasn't anything describing the group to try to read other than "big" which doesn't really narrow "groups" down much. I wondered what group you were talking about as well, but couldn't even formulate a response as I had no idea what you were talking about.

Now that’s ironic. Lol. And I’m not surprised about this statement. Didn’t even SMH. And why don’t you give us a few of your ideas so we can understand how to make things better, so we can pick ‘em apart with BULL minutia.