Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    FLHouse

    + friends - friends
    121 link karma
    2,116 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] Florida may Restore Voting Rights to 1.7 million Ex-Felons FLHouse 2 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago) in florida

    When you can admit you're wrong about anything, I'll believe you. You keep moving the goalposts though.

    So all these felony murders being committed in Chicago and Baltimore aren't happening?

    Not the issue.

    I never brought up murder. Ever.

    And you ignore the FACT that a lot of felonies are violent crimes. You want to stick to drugs, but this doesn't just effect felons that are drug users, it's ALL OF THEM.

    Stop mixing issues. I already admitted you have a point on certain violent crimes. You're bringing up something that I'm not arguing against. (Also, FYI, drug felonies, regardless of whether a person is injured are considered "violent crimes" at the federal level. Your statistics that show violent crimes are more likely to be committed by black offenders is likely skewed by DRUG crimes being characterized as violent)

    I'm asking for a SIMPLE concession from you: If a felony is being used for a racist purpose, shouldn't anyone convicted for that felony be allowed to vote?

    We can argue all day and night as to whether a law is racist or not. But if you can't make that simple concession, what does it matter? Because if you can't make that simple concession, than even if a law said "black people can't vote," by your logic, because black people are more likely to commit a felony, its totally fine that its applied to black people who aren't felons either.

    If you step back one step, in any direction though, you will see intentional political disenfranchisement, intentional racist enforcement of laws, intentional racist sentencing of minorities, and plenty of other issues that would give you pause to think, maybe, just maybe, there's a problem with racism in America.

    What I see are black communities with huge problems and an absolute refusal to acknowledge they exist, and instead blaming their issues on racism.

    I'm not doing that. You're bringing up black communities. I'm making one point, that drug laws are felonies that have been racially applied to suppress the voting rights of a specific minority for political gain. You have yet to disprove it.

    And do you not see how racist you sound?

    And that's why we can't have this discussion, and it's why the problem doesn't get fixed. Anyone who even mentions the FACT that urban blacks are more likely to be criminals gets called a racist. When you take something that's an obvious truth and call someone a racists for stating it, there's no point in continuing the conversation. Go ahead and have the last word.

    You are again, changing the issue. I have no problem with this VERY specifically worded "fact": "that urban blacks are more likely to be criminals"

    I am calling out your racist belief, which is drawing the conclusion that a black person is more likely to commit a crime than a white person.

    I'm not calling your very specifically worded claim racist, I'm calling your belief that a black person is more likely to commit a crime than a white person racist. If you cannot admit that its racist, than there's nothing I can do. If you can't see that the color of someone's skin has no effect on their choice to commit a felony, than I don't know what to tell you.

    [–] Florida may Restore Voting Rights to 1.7 million Ex-Felons FLHouse 2 points ago in florida

    Everything else hinges on that point.

    No it doesn't. You literally are saying, that my whole argument hinges on the racist belief that black people commit more felonies than white people.

    YOUR whole argument hinges on that being the case.

    Your entire position is that they're being racially targeted. My position is they're more likely to commit felonies, and therefore be convicted and lose their rights.

    And do you not see how racist you sound?

    You claimed there are studies that prove your point. If you can't cite one of them, we're done.

    I have provided several citations for my points in this exchange. Here's a few:

    https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/141027_iachr_racial_disparities_aclu_submission_0.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fsd0512.pdf

    Now, if you're wondering why I provided sentencing disparity reports, that requires a slight explanation. The reason for this is because those sentencing rates show a CLEAR disparity, and such a clear disparity in the criminal justice system is difficult because you're asking me to prove a negative.

    No one can prove that more people commit crimes than are convicted, because that is asking to prove a negative; however, I'm asking you to use just a bit of logic to see if you can agree with that point. If you can admit that at least some people commit crimes that they are not convicted of, than my point is proven to enough of a degree.

    If you add to the fact that there are racial enforcement of certain laws (drug laws are notorious for that), you can see at least two points (racial disparity in enforcement, and racial disparity in sentencing), is it SO HARD TO BELIEVE that MAYBE, just MAYBE, it isn't that blacks commit more crimes, but JUST MAYBE it is that there are some (not all) racist cops, racist prosecutors, racist counties, racist anything, that believe the same as you, that blacks commit more crimes, and THEREFORE, they must have committed the crime they're accused of?

    My position is simple to prove.

    All racist positions are simple to prove, on their face. That is what I've been showing you this whole conversation. If you step back one step, in any direction though, you will see intentional political disenfranchisement, intentional racist enforcement of laws, intentional racist sentencing of minorities, and plenty of other issues that would give you pause to think, maybe, just maybe, there's a problem with racism in America.

    Look at the demographics for areas with high rates of violent crime, and you'll find they're mostly predominately black. When you can find a majority white section of a city that has a murder rate like Baltimore or Chicago, I'll admit I'm wrong.

    When you can admit you're wrong about anything, I'll believe you. You keep moving the goalposts though.

    We can debate the reasons those areas are like that, but that debate can't even start until you recognize that the problem exists, and isn't just some racially motivated government plot to suppress black voters. Those murder rates are REAL. You keep going on and on about drug laws, but that's just one crime that constitutes a felony.

    I never brought up murder. Ever. I said drugs every time. Because drug crimes are felonies at the federal level my friend. and That's where a SIGNIFICANT amount of the problem comes from.

    I'll give you murder. I'll give you homicide. I'll give you violent crimes. Sure.

    But you have to give me drugs. I've done more than I need to prove that to you.

    [–] Florida may Restore Voting Rights to 1.7 million Ex-Felons FLHouse 2 points ago in florida

    Citation Needed.

    Citation needed? You want me to quote the law that bars FELONS from voting? That's the only claim I'm making. You're the one making the claim that the laws were racially motivated, so where's YOUR citation?! (And no, a questionably sourced CNN article isn't enough)

    You made the claim that it only effects felons. That is what you need to prove. Does it only target felons? Sure. On its face. Does it only EFFECT felons? That you need to prove.

    The point of saying you needed a citation was to show you that, simply reading the law isn't enough. Do you know how the law is applied? Are you a lawyer? Have you been a criminal prosecutor? Why are you so quick to trust that the Government got it perfectly right?

    As for the CNN article, what level of proof do you require? I'm not asking you to take the article as gospel. I'm asking you to consider that words of Nixon's aide when he said (paraphrasing) "The drug war was started to suppress the vote of Democrats" I'm asking you to consider if that could be true. And then, I want you to do the morally appropriate thing, and ask yourself "if this could be true, don't I owe it to myself to determine if that is the case before I claim it isn't the case?"

    I'm not asking you to trust CNN. I'm asking you to trust your own critical thinking abilities to ask the question of yourself. Ask yourself, and ask yourself truly.

    The issue isn't that they're convicted felons. Its that they were convicted of a crime that was created by Republicans for the sole purpose to disenfranchise blacks, who are as you've put it, more likely to be Democrats.

    Isn't that voter suppression?

    When the law is in place, and everyone KNOWS it's in place, if you don't want to be charged for breaking it, don't break it. Why would blacks be less likely to understand that than whites? Or Democrats than Republicans?

    Besides that, using drugs isn't a felony in most cases, selling them is. If you're making your living breaking well known laws and get caught at it, I don't have a lot of sympathy for you. You can fight to change the laws if you don't agree with them, but you don't always get what you want in a Democracy, you get what the majority wants.

    You're making a LOT of arguments here, and you're making very circular arguments.

    First: If the law is the law, and everyone knows its the law, then breaking it has the same penalty.

    • This is a generalize argument, when we're talking about a specific topic. We're talking around each other. You're saying "all felonies are perfect," and I'm saying "some of them are not, some of them are clearly racist."

    Second: You're asking for a PERFECT solution, instead of accepting an imperfect solution that is better than the current status quo because it isn't perfect.

    You're correct that its a fact that there are likely more Democrat felons than Republican felons. Why do you believe that is the case?

    Because a lot of them are black urban voters, who Democrats have courted for years. Now, if you want to talk about why it's the case that black urban citizens commit more felonies than the average population, it's a complicated issue, and I doubt very seriously that either one of us have the answer to that.

    Actually, that is EXACTLY the question I was asking you.

    Except, you made a mistake, and that is by confusing commission of crimes and conviction of crimes.

    You lead with a very racist conclusion "why it's the case that black urban citizens commit more felonies than the average population" to try and prove why blacks are convicted of crimes at a higher rate. Perhaps maybe consider in your mind you already believe that blacks COMMIT more felonies than whites, rather than they are only convicted of more crimes than whites.

    Because we aren't talking about people who are committing felonies, we are talking about people who have been convicted of felonies. I'm certain you've probably committed some felonies in your life, some that you're not even aware are felonies, but you've been lucky enough to have avoided being convicted for any of them. Lucky you.

    There are loads of studies that show that there is virtually no difference between the level that white or black people commit crimes; however, the conviction rate for blacks is significantly higher than for whites.

    If the roles were reversed, wouldn't you think it was disingenuous whenever someone argued that just because that is the case historically, we shouldn't change anything because we don't have the PERFECT solution.

    [–] Florida may Restore Voting Rights to 1.7 million Ex-Felons FLHouse 2 points ago in florida

    I haven't given a single hypothetical example here. YOU are the one engaging in "what if"s. Are you claiming this law is being used for voter suppression, or not? If you are, then give me an example, and if you're not give it a rest already.

    If this is serious, than please read this article. It is from CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

    I understand that may be considered fake news to you. On the off chance that you're willing to read it though, please feel free to do our own research independently to see if there is truth to the allegations.

    The FACT is every single person who's effected by this is a convicted felon.

    Citation Needed. The issue isn't that they're convicted felons. Its that they were convicted of a crime that was created by Republicans for the sole purpose to disenfranchise blacks, who are as you've put it, more likely to be Democrats.

    Isn't that voter suppression?

    The FACT is that the law doesn't single out any individual for political leanings or race, or sexuality, or ANYTHING other than their status as a felon.

    On their face, you are correct. We aren't talking de jure racism, we are talking de facto racism. De jure racist laws are clearly racist on their face (see Jim Crow laws).

    If someone was convicted of a felony Jim Crow law, and had their voting rights removed for life, would you believe it is right for that felon to have their rights restored?

    De facto racist laws are laws which are not racist on their face, but have a disproportionate effect on a minority. The issue is proving a law was intended to have that disproportionate effect, and I believe we both agree that is is difficult to prove.

    However, I'm asking you, if in your mind, you believed a law was not racist on its face, but was intended to target a minority through its disproportionate effect, should any felon convicted of that crime be restored their right to vote?

    The FACT is that Democrats want this law in place because they know more of these felons are potential Democratic voters than Republican, and they know that because more of them are urban blacks than rural whites, and that's a block that leans heavily Democratic. How's that for FACTS?!

    You're correct that its a fact that there are likely more Democrat felons than Republican felons. Why do you believe that is the case?

    [–] Florida may Restore Voting Rights to 1.7 million Ex-Felons FLHouse 9 points ago in florida

    Bullshit. All you're doing is responding with "what about" hypothetical examples. You haven't engaged a single topic that isn't your own hypothetical.

    You're just completely disregarding my point because it doesn't line up with your philosophy. If you want to listen to people who agree with you and will support you regardless of fact, that isn't here.

    [–] Florida may Restore Voting Rights to 1.7 million Ex-Felons FLHouse 5 points ago in florida

    SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that even if a law has a disproportionate effect, if it isn't racist on it's face then it is constitutional.

    So, something that is racist, but isn't racist on its face, is constitutional according to the Supreme Court.

    This is partially true.

    It is also true that the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" was not racist, and then later rule that it was racist in Brown v. Board of Ed. Clearly there must be a reason.

    This hypothetical isn't so hard though, because you admit, that even if a law is racist, its fine if its constitutional, which is exactly backwards. You've arrived at the conclusion (something is constitutional) before you did the analysis. Here, let me help you:

    • A law that is racist is unconstitutional. True Statement of Law
    • A law that is on its face racist (de jure) is unconstitutional on its face. A law that has a disproportionate effect (de facto) may be unconstitutional if the disproportionate effect is proven.
    • The Supreme Court will only rule a law is unconstitutional IF the racism is proven.
    • Therefore, to determine if a law is unconstitutional you must prove that it is racist.

    Basically: All racist laws are unconstitutional, but only those laws that you can prove are racist will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

    That's because SCOTUS is comprised of people far smarter than your average liberal, who understand that we don't like in an artificial world where their will always be a correlation between every aspect of life and race.

    Kinda ironic that you fail to understand this given your user name Mr. Marshall.

    Please don't condescendingly try to provide legal advice without knowing what you're talking about.

    [–] Florida may Restore Voting Rights to 1.7 million Ex-Felons FLHouse 7 points ago in florida

    OK -

    So, what about voter suppression? What if the Government creates a "crime" that is a felony, and specifically target their political opponents with enforcement of that crime?

    Would you believe it is right for the voting rights of those selectively prosecuted for this crime, even if they committed the "crime," should still have their voting rights suppressed after they have served their time?

    [–] How the Great Recession Continues to Shape America. The downturn left the country poorer and more unequal than it would have been otherwise. FLHouse 5 points ago in Economics

    I agree with you in theory.

    In practice, while each individual metric can likely be affected to a greater degree by another factor (occupational licensing is a good red herring), there are several factors which are causing a strain on multiple areas/metrics, that are common to several different indicators of the economy.

    Basically -- The major issues, Climate Change, Tax Policy, Fiscal Policy, Property Taxes, Education Spending -- those issues, while perhaps not the single greatest issue in any individual metric, have the greatest impact across the spectrum of the economy.

    If the Great Recession caused this issue, and the Great Recession was caused by loose fiscal policy, what does other factors, such as occupational licensing, have to do with trying to cure the primary issue, loose fiscal policy?

    [–] If you tax the rich, they won't leave: US data contradicts millionaires' threats FLHouse 1 points ago in Economics

    Wouldn't it be more appropriate to view departures from France to other neighboring countries in a similar vein to corporations leaving one U.S. State for another?

    Comparably, the economy of an individual State is more similar to France's economy than France versus the U.S.

    The changes to fiscal policies from the U.S. are going to have different implications because the relative size of the U.S.'s economy is much more massive, and therefore, corporations won't have the same options to move assets/revenue/etc compared to the options it may have in a nation with a smaller economy and with other similarly sized nations in relative proximity.

    I couldn't give you specifics without doing more research.

    [–] The Republican Party Is Gearing Up for War on the Rule of Law FLHouse 1 points ago in politics

    Many situations could have been avoided if people were smarter or recognized traps for what they were.

    The problem is, if you have the attitude of "why couldn't others see what I saw" and start to get too jaded by that, you're going to make two mistakes.

    The first, you're constantly going to be fighting the previous battle. Instead of looking forward, you're letting your last defeat define your future strategy. You should definitely take notes of the past and not allow it to happen again; however, you must be like a historian and remove your personal feelings from this process.

    If you don't, you'll make the second possible mistake and get caught up in the anger, fear, and disappointment that "why didn't they just not spill the milk!"? It's too late, the milk is spilled. Being angry isn't going to clean it up.

    I completely agree with your sentiment. I feel it too. However, the important thing today is to forgive those who were tricked and conned, and help them like the brother or sister that you are. We have more battles to fight and we need them by our sides just like they need us.

    [–] The Republican Party Is Gearing Up for War on the Rule of Law FLHouse 1 points ago in politics

    And what does complaining about them now accomplish? You're doing the same thing.

    [–] The Republican Party Is Gearing Up for War on the Rule of Law FLHouse 1 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago) in politics

    He was nominated by Trump.

    The Federalist Society doesn't nominate Supreme Court Justices, the President does. In this case, a President currently being investigated for charges tantamount to treason.

    All of the potential nominees had some sort of backing by some conservative organization, and stellar credentials. Why was Gorsuch chosen by Trump/Pence over the other qualified candidates?

    There is no reason to begin an investigation prior to the Impeachment of the President; however, an investigation into the details of this nomination and whether the President's impeachable conduct affected this nomination should certainly be conducted (if it isn't already being conducted) after we learn the results of Mueller's investigation.

    And it's not like the election and the Supreme Court nomination can be separated. The Nomination was a HUGE issue during the election, and if the election is shown to have been compromised by Mueller's investigation, there is certainly argument that the nomination itself could either be per se Unconstitutional or unconstitutional as applied to this factual situation.

    [–] The Republican Party Is Gearing Up for War on the Rule of Law FLHouse 2 points ago in politics

    The only remedy would be to impeach. Gorsuch sucks, but he hasn't committed any offenses.

    ... that we know of. You think he was picked by Pence/Trump by accident? There may be impeachable offenses discovered if/when there are impeachment charges brought against his bosses.

    [–] Hypothetically In the United States could I marry an LLC, Corporation or some other legal entity I created? FLHouse 7 points ago in legaladviceofftopic

    "person" and "individual" have two different meanings in law.

    A corporation is a "person" as far as laws that apply to persons. It is not an "individual" and laws that apply to "individual" do not apply to "persons".

    For instance, an individual may get a driver's license, a person may not unless they are also an individual. A "person" under the law can be charged with a crime, and is responsible for taxes, regardless of whether the person is also an individual.

    For many issues where a living, breathing human being is necessary, the law generally refers to them as "individuals." In this case, an individual may get married, and a person can only get married and acquire a marriage license if they are also an individual.

    (May not be 100% true in all jurisdictions, YMMV, not legal advice)

    [–] Tesla's mass firings spread to SolarCity and employees say they were blindsided FLHouse 2 points ago in technology

    You're thinking too small. Getting to Mars has nothing to do with our generation enjoying it or it even being viable to have a dome. We need to get people to Mars because Earth is one catastrophic anomaly away from wiping out the human race.

    The only potential for our species to survive is to get to Mars (and then expand to the rest of our solar system). In all likelihood, we won't see the fruits of this labor.

    [–] Tesla's mass firings spread to SolarCity and employees say they were blindsided FLHouse 1 points ago in technology

    Sometimes its easier to move to a new apartment than try to renovate the building from the inside.

    [–] FAN THEORY: Rick is Morty's grandpa. FLHouse 2 points ago in rickandmorty

    Let's be real here. Jerry is a parasite too. They're half-parasite no matter whether Jerry or Sleepy Gary is the father.

    [–] FAN THEORY: Rick is Morty's grandpa. FLHouse 4 points ago in rickandmorty

    There was a lot of confusion about this during the events of "Total Rickall," I'm pretty certain Jerry isn't really Beht's husband. The parasites couldn't delete real memories and could only give good memories, so how did Jerry and Beth forget they were married, hmmmm

    Or were they never married to begin with? Ergo, Morty and Summer aren't Jerry's kids.

    [–] Redditors who are against a universal healthcare system in the US, why? FLHouse -3 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago) in AskReddit

    I understand the access argument as you presented it.

    I am disagreeing that access for health care is the same exact thing as access to food because food is a fungible item and health care is not. If I don't want hot dogs, I can go get burgers. If I don't want cancer treatment, I can't go down the block and get a crystal remedy. It's not the same thing.

    Universal Health Care is not an access argument, its an economic argument. Health care costs are only negotiable when dealing with large groups of people, not individuals. Breaking it down to an individual access requirement is disingenuous at best, because it side steps the real issue and debate. It's a red herring argument.

    Your risks argument also boils down to "well, I'm healthy now, why the fuck should I pay anything?" which is at best short-sited, and at worst, basically saying that since you were lucky you shouldn't have to pay for unlucky people. I'm certain you also decided you didn't want roads, or schools, or electricity, or water. Maybe you should pay the true costs for all of those utilities as well.

    That's the debate. Health Care is more like a utility, that everyone needs, and that the true cost of can be reduced by paying for things collectively than trying to pay each individually. The marginal cost savings are astronautical and everyone will end up paying less.

    [–] Redditors who are against a universal healthcare system in the US, why? FLHouse -2 points ago in AskReddit

    If you hold that logic though, shouldn't the Doctor make the call as to what care should be provided? In the event that the Doctor feels that the care is not working, they can cut off the care.

    Access costs money too.

    [–] Purse dogs can go anywhere their owners do with this one magic phrase! FLHouse -18 points ago in bestoflegaladvice

    As a counter-argument: Many of these housing companies are in it for pure profit, and they do not care about anything but profit. To such a degree that they will force residents to deal with inhumane conditions because of legal loopholes and the fact that actually fighting against your landlord is fraught with issues, not the least of which being all of the damage they can do to your long-term credit.

    Everyone uses loopholes, and I suggest your old workplace was probably doing many shady things and exploiting legal loopholes against their residents. However, it is always the loopholes that can be used against corporations that are vilified... hmm.

    [–] [PA] Sold an Ethereum Miner, it broke, and now I'm being threatened with a lawsuit. FLHouse 28 points ago in legaladvice

    The thing is they might have a case... if they're legit and actually file a lawsuit. If they do, at that point don't ignore it.

    However, from what you've typed, I'm certain many people believe they are not acting in good faith and trying to bully you into doing what they want with the threat of litigation.

    When major corporations are threatened with litigation, they clam up and tell the offending parties to forward any future communications to their lawyers whom handle the situation. You're not a corporation; however, without providing legal advice, your best bet is to retain a lawyer for the purposes of handling any legal threats like this.

    Such a lawyer can more properly advise you, especially if you are sued. It is way better to pay a little bit to an attorney upfront to review and advise you, than to wait and potentially miss performing some actions that can protect you because you didn't hire an attorney preemptively.