california-launches-new-effort-to-fight-election-disinformation (2014, crime rates, felony)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Shall we then discuss Uranium One? But I'm sure you know all about that.

In a new topic sure but not here, but before you start one you really should look into the issue because I don't want to make you look silly.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

So to save tax money we should unleash criminals who steal our stuff? Is that actually saving us money? Did the person who lost their televisions, stereo, appliances, jewelry, art collection, and various other things in their house save money? I support saving money, but letting criminals out of prison is not the most efficient manner in which to go about it.

If someone breaks in your house and takes your television, jewelry, art collection etc. they will likely go to prison because residential burglary is a strike offense and has nothing to do with prop 47.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Look, you can't fix stupid. If people are going to vote based on some idiotic feed on facebook, there's nothing you can really do to stop it.

Fortunately, normally, really stupid people don't usually take the time to vote.

They did last time and Hillary still lost.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Look, you can't fix stupid. If people are going to vote based on some idiotic feed on facebook, there's nothing you can really do to stop it.

Fortunately, normally, really stupid people don't usually take the time to vote.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

They certainly did last presidential election 2016 ... and they’re still fired up now.

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

In California?

Well, I agree with your assessment that “you can’t fix stupid.”

And I have noted a number of times in other threads you have shown a lot of care in examining voting issues more than is common ... which says a lot ... and good for you.

But you didn’t specify “California” in your post ... so I made a generalization in reply.

That said, since you have been one to pay more attention than is common, do you think “stupid” people vote less in California? ... Or are there simply fewer stupid voters in California to make a difference?

Honest question.

I think California voters who were susceptible to Chump’s chicanery and demagoguery showed up at the polls in force ... there were just fewer of them in the voting % of population.

Another question specific to the thread issue of course is, what % of any California voters were possibly influenced by outside social media hacking? ... so is Brown/California here now trying to safeguard primarily the California vote? Or contribute to the national integrity? ... and partially out of a sense of responsibility since the social media corporations are based here.

I feel it is the latter.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Ah so the concern was over the last presidential election, just as I thought.

No, not at all. Now I see what you were getting at in the other posts where you never answered my question to clarify your question. Had you done so I would have repeated my first answer to you ... which was: “yes,” I have concerns [for] THIS election coming up.

Btw, with regard to any concern I have regards Chump’s election: my concern there was and remains with the stupidity and charade of our national electoral college system ... and yes, regardless of which party tips it. It is a farce.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Yeah, so will those Prop 47 advocates on this forum acquiesce and admit they were wrong? Or do they now believe Garcetti too is incorrect? Nevermind that it's simply a matter of logical induction to assume that, when you let criminals out of prison, crime is going to increase since the whole point of putting criminals in prison is to prevent them from committing crimes since their criminal behavior indicates that they have a proclivity to commit crime.

And, once again, we have an example of purportedly educated persons using latin phrases and terms of formal logic who apparently don’t grasp jack about formal logic at all ... because they assert premises that have no foundational footing from which to argue a point.

- there is no inductive basis for assuming “crime will increase” when criminals are let out of prison

- reasons for imprisonment are a) punishment and b) rehabilitation as much as c) prevention of additional crime :. Therefore if either or both of a) and b) are successful c) is most likely an outcome even upon release.

- also, imprisonment is not necessarily indicative of “proclivity to commit crimes” ... for several reasons.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Yeah, it's unfortunate and I wish those fired-up people would realize it's not illegal to talk to Russians -- the 80's called and they want their international policies back...hehe. But alas, providence favors this nation and has blessed us with a living god and savior of Western Civilization, our President Donald John Trump, Charlemagne Reincarnate.

Have a nice evening, sir.

I had a great evening, thanks. Beautiful sunset walk along the bayfront.

It’s not only “not illegal to talk to Russians”, it’s a good idea to do so - but only within legal frameworks of: who, what topics, where, when. All of which legally defined parameters appear to have been violated by members of the Chump campaign, transition team, and administration.

More importantly ... and, once again trying to remain on topic ... the issue here isn’t “talking to Russians”. The issue is asserting controls over misuse of social media to inluence elections ... and why it is appropriate that Brown/California step up to the plate as pinch-hitter for Chump/administration who, apparently, have gone on [mentally] injured reserve.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Garcetti did little to nothing to mitigate the homeless problem so now he blames the law /sigh. Prop 57 has nothing to do with drug treatment, period. It allows inmates to apply for parole after serving their entire primary sentence, rather than having to serve the full term for other charges that were to run consecutive.

But tell me this - what is the recovery rate for these wonderful 'drug programs' that addicts no longer have to participate in? Here you go, I will save you the trouble of looking it up:



Cliff notes version: compulsory drug treatment doesn't work.

Glad you brought this up ... or I would have. Substance abuse programs have a dismally low success rate overall ... exceptions being individuals who have, on their own entirely, decided it’s time to escape the cycle.

Thus, requirements forcing parolees to attend susbtance abuse rehab counseling is very largely a complete waste with no productive outcome.

Another example of uneducated opinions blathering about.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Shall we then discuss Uranium One? But I'm sure you know all about that.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

In a new topic sure but not here, but before you start one you really should look into the issue because I don't want to make you look silly.

Boy howdy! Talk about a poor choice to argue! Lmao ... please, Exitus, open that can of worms in an appropriate forum and let us know.

[2sleepy]

FYI crime across the US is down in 2018 even in Los Angeles and San Francisco so maybe Garcetti is barking up the wrong tree when he blames prop 47 for everything that's wrong with LA?
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/...AnalysisV6.pdf