Re: President Trump
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:09 pm
I don't know, to be honest. I just want those kids off the streets.
https://forums.metalsludge.tv/forums/
https://forums.metalsludge.tv/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=336454
They are taking them off the streets.Mojo wrote:I don't know, to be honest. I just want those kids off the streets.
A misleading column about a new state law by an Orange County lawmaker has sparked inaccurate online reports taking off on Facebook.
Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, wrote a piece for the Washington Examiner under the headline “California Democrats legalize child prostitution,” which has been cut and pasted by a variety of partisan websites as the basis for their false claims.
Allen begins his submission by stating that “Beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right.”
One website, Mad Patriots, linked to Allen’s column with its own post: “Sick, Perverted Liberal California Just Legalized CHILD PROSTITUION.” Among the untruths, the website restates: “Immunity from arrest means law enforcement can’t interfere with minors engaging in prostitution – which translates into bigger and better cash flow for the pimps.”
Allen is referring to Senate Bill 1322, by state Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, which decriminalizes prostitution for minors by barring officers from arresting people under 18 for soliciting sex or loitering with intent to commit prostitution.
It generated significant legislative debate over whether the new approach is sound public policy, but it is false to say the law “legalizes” child prostitution in California.
Those soliciting the sex and those arranging the clients can still be charged with crimes. People caught having sexual conduct with minors can be charged with penalties ranging from misdemeanors to felonies carrying life terms, depending on the ages of those involved and the individual circumstances of the offenses.
It’s also wildly misleading to equate decriminalizing minors with law enforcement not being allowed to interfere with minors engaging in commercial sex acts. Under the law, officers who encounter minors doing so must report the circumstances to the county child welfare agency as abuse or neglect.
Commercially sexually exploited children, based on the bill’s analysis, may be taken into temporary custody “if the minor has an immediate need for medical care, or … is in immediate danger of physical or sexual abuse, or the physical environment” or the child’s unattended status “poses an immediate threat to the child’s health or safety.”
Under statutory rape laws, minors are not legally permitted to consent to sex – for money or not – and Mitchell’s law does not change that. Mitchell and supporters argue that sex workers should be viewed as victims rather than criminals. Her bill was supported by the Alameda County district attorney, American Civil Liberties Union of California, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the National Association of Social Workers.
In opposing the bill, the California District Attorneys Association acknowledged that “minors engaged in prostitution are often the victims of human trafficking.” But the group said the solution in the bill could “undermine law enforcement’s ability to address those exploiting such minors.”
Allen makes other misleading statements.
He includes a quote from Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley stating that decriminalizing child prostitution “opens up the door for traffickers to use these kids to commit crimes and exploit them even worse.” O’Malley initially opposed the bill, but ultimately signed on as one of its highest-profile supporters.
Allen and some websites also state the bill was approved by California Democrats who control the state with a two-thirds “supermajority.” Although the state’s dominant party did win supermajority status in the Nov. 8 election, Democrats did not have two-thirds control when the bill was passed. Moreover, a handful of Republicans voted for the bill.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-gov ... rylink=cpy
I read the Politifact article, actually.Danzig in the Dark wrote:Sacramento Bee
Cantstopthemenstruation is seeking conjugal visits...Anne_Thrax wrote:California funds first inmate sex-reassignment surgery on killer serving life sentence
Danzig in the Dark wrote:What is the right way? The old way, AKA putting those little whores in jail, isn't fixing things.Mojo wrote:It's illegal to arrest underage prostitutes caught being under aged prostitutes. I can see where they're coming from, but it's not the right way to go about it.dmbrocker wrote:
I think I also heard about California passing a bill that supposedly makes it harder to prosecute child prostitution. What's that one about, exactly? Sounds seriously fucked up to me.
Jail isn't free, either, radiosped. California spends $570 a day, or $208,000 a year to lock them up.(Pg.12) That's a lot of resources. They could send them to USC for $70,000 a year or $75,00 a year for Harvard, to put it in perspective.radiobed wrote:Danzig in the Dark wrote:What is the right way? The old way, AKA putting those little whores in jail, isn't fixing things.Mojo wrote: It's illegal to arrest underage prostitutes caught being under aged prostitutes. I can see where they're coming from, but it's not the right way to go about it.
Are you a staff writer for the Huffington Post?!? Do you eat up any shit your "progressive" party feeds you.
Now for the record, I don't necessarily agree with the overreaction on the right saying California is promoting child prostitution, but I'm certainly skeptical of this law.
1. The NBC article you posted was concerned about having adequate resources to support these kids now. That's code for these kids will be back on the streets walking within days.
As victims of sex crimes, technically they're all in danger. You don't have a lot of confidence in the police unless they're killing blacks, do you?radiobed wrote:2. It seems unclear to me what a cop does when he spots a child soliciting sex that does not need "medical attention" and does not appear to be in "immediate danger".
Jail has been less than effective in preventing them from peddling their asses so far, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. There are not throngs of children held back from living the dream of sucking some wrinkly old man's dick for $20 solely by threat of incarceration.radiobed wrote:3. And then just consider the troubled teen that is now less deterred from starting down this path.
'Lock them up and throw away the key' is an abysmal failure. No amount of thought or planning will fix that.radiobed wrote:I'll give the creators of this bill the benefit of the doubt that they had good intentions, but I'm guessing some more thought and planning ultimately will be required.
Cracks me up that all the Drumpftards and millennials have no problem with a foreign country's hacking into American political activities as long as it may have supported their candidate and their president elect claiming that "only stupid people would think it's a bad thing to be friends with said country.."exitflagger wrote:President Flipflop has... (SHOCKER!) flip flopped again. What an idiot.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/751 ... ce-priebus
Trump now 'ACCEPTS' findings into Russian hacking, says top member of new President's team
DONALD Trump has accepted Russia targeted the US election with a series of cyberattacks, according to his incoming chief of staff.
that is the hypocrisy of America!Luminiferous wrote:Cracks me up that all the Drumpftards and millennials have no problem with a foreign country's hacking into American political activities as long as it may have supported their candidate and their president elect claiming that "only stupid people would think it's a bad thing to be friends with said country.."exitflagger wrote:President Flipflop has... (SHOCKER!) flip flopped again. What an idiot.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/751 ... ce-priebus
Trump now 'ACCEPTS' findings into Russian hacking, says top member of new President's team
DONALD Trump has accepted Russia targeted the US election with a series of cyberattacks, according to his incoming chief of staff.
Khoroshaya rabota amerikanskikh tovarishchey!!
Really? On the campaign trail Trump didn't mention that mexico would reimburse us?TenBenny wrote:Trump really believes he can spend billions on a wall, then just send Mexico a bill, or maybe force its hand? Mexico doesn't seem to be quaking in its boots or breaking a sweat here.
First of all, that's somewhat different from what he said during his campaign. There was no mention of America being reimbursed for spending its own funds on this, so he's already changing the narrative. But more importantly, if I were a Trump supporter, I'd be concerned about this because the money will have already been spent. I'm far from convinced of his ability to bend Mexico to his will.
The Russians hacked NOTHING! They did not hack voting machines. They did not provide Wikileaks with anything. Key findings on the actual report actually state clearly, "Vote tallies were not affected by Russian interference."Luminiferous wrote:Cracks me up that all the Drumpftards and millennials have no problem with a foreign country's hacking into American political activities as long as it may have supported their candidate and their president elect claiming that "only stupid people would think it's a bad thing to be friends with said country.."exitflagger wrote:President Flipflop has... (SHOCKER!) flip flopped again. What an idiot.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/751 ... ce-priebus
Trump now 'ACCEPTS' findings into Russian hacking, says top member of new President's team
DONALD Trump has accepted Russia targeted the US election with a series of cyberattacks, according to his incoming chief of staff.
Khoroshaya rabota amerikanskikh tovarishchey!!
Rev. Johnny Tyler wrote:The Russians hacked NOTHING! They did not hack voting machines. They did not provide Wikileaks with anything. Key findings on the actual report actually state clearly, "Vote tallies were not affected by Russian interference."Luminiferous wrote:Cracks me up that all the Drumpftards and millennials have no problem with a foreign country's hacking into American political activities as long as it may have supported their candidate and their president elect claiming that "only stupid people would think it's a bad thing to be friends with said country.."exitflagger wrote:President Flipflop has... (SHOCKER!) flip flopped again. What an idiot.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/751 ... ce-priebus
Trump now 'ACCEPTS' findings into Russian hacking, says top member of new President's team
DONALD Trump has accepted Russia targeted the US election with a series of cyberattacks, according to his incoming chief of staff.
Khoroshaya rabota amerikanskikh tovarishchey!!
Russians had ZERO effect on the election and Trump has NOT stated that he "accepts findings into Russian hacking."
Ahhhhh, you don't write for Huffington post yet!! Still sending them your blogs though??Danzig in the Dark wrote:Jail isn't free, either, radiosped. California spends $570 a day, or $208,000 a year to lock them up.(Pg.12) That's a lot of resources. They could send them to USC for $70,000 a year or $75,00 a year for Harvard, to put it in perspective.radiobed wrote:Danzig in the Dark wrote: What is the right way? The old way, AKA putting those little whores in jail, isn't fixing things.
Are you a staff writer for the Huffington Post?!? Do you eat up any shit your "progressive" party feeds you.
Now for the record, I don't necessarily agree with the overreaction on the right saying California is promoting child prostitution, but I'm certainly skeptical of this law.
1. The NBC article you posted was concerned about having adequate resources to support these kids now. That's code for these kids will be back on the streets walking within days.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/ju ... nal_v2.pdfAs victims of sex crimes, technically they're all in danger. You don't have a lot of confidence in the police unless they're killing blacks, do you?radiobed wrote:2. It seems unclear to me what a cop does when he spots a child soliciting sex that does not need "medical attention" and does not appear to be in "immediate danger".
Jail has been less than effective in preventing them from peddling their asses so far, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. There are not throngs of children held back from living the dream of sucking some wrinkly old man's dick for $20 solely by threat of incarceration.radiobed wrote:3. And then just consider the troubled teen that is now less deterred from starting down this path.
'Lock them up and throw away the key' is an abysmal failure. No amount of thought or planning will fix that.radiobed wrote:I'll give the creators of this bill the benefit of the doubt that they had good intentions, but I'm guessing some more thought and planning ultimately will be required.
You may want to contact Mr Priebus and tell him to shut the fuck up then...Rev. Johnny Tyler wrote:The Russians hacked NOTHING! They did not hack voting machines. They did not provide Wikileaks with anything. Key findings on the actual report actually state clearly, "Vote tallies were not affected by Russian interference."Luminiferous wrote:Cracks me up that all the Drumpftards and millennials have no problem with a foreign country's hacking into American political activities as long as it may have supported their candidate and their president elect claiming that "only stupid people would think it's a bad thing to be friends with said country.."exitflagger wrote:President Flipflop has... (SHOCKER!) flip flopped again. What an idiot.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/751 ... ce-priebus
Trump now 'ACCEPTS' findings into Russian hacking, says top member of new President's team
DONALD Trump has accepted Russia targeted the US election with a series of cyberattacks, according to his incoming chief of staff.
Khoroshaya rabota amerikanskikh tovarishchey!!
Russians had ZERO effect on the election and Trump has NOT stated that he "accepts findings into Russian hacking."
How about responding instead of a weak-assed insult, radiobed? It makes you look like you don't have anything to say.radiobed wrote:Ahhhhh, you don't write for Huffington post yet!! Still sending them your blogs though??Danzig in the Dark wrote:Jail isn't free, either, radiosped. California spends $570 a day, or $208,000 a year to lock them up.(Pg.12) That's a lot of resources. They could send them to USC for $70,000 a year or $75,00 a year for Harvard, to put it in perspective.radiobed wrote:
Are you a staff writer for the Huffington Post?!? Do you eat up any shit your "progressive" party feeds you.
Now for the record, I don't necessarily agree with the overreaction on the right saying California is promoting child prostitution, but I'm certainly skeptical of this law.
1. The NBC article you posted was concerned about having adequate resources to support these kids now. That's code for these kids will be back on the streets walking within days.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/ju ... nal_v2.pdfAs victims of sex crimes, technically they're all in danger. You don't have a lot of confidence in the police unless they're killing blacks, do you?radiobed wrote:2. It seems unclear to me what a cop does when he spots a child soliciting sex that does not need "medical attention" and does not appear to be in "immediate danger".
Jail has been less than effective in preventing them from peddling their asses so far, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. There are not throngs of children held back from living the dream of sucking some wrinkly old man's dick for $20 solely by threat of incarceration.radiobed wrote:3. And then just consider the troubled teen that is now less deterred from starting down this path.
'Lock them up and throw away the key' is an abysmal failure. No amount of thought or planning will fix that.radiobed wrote:I'll give the creators of this bill the benefit of the doubt that they had good intentions, but I'm guessing some more thought and planning ultimately will be required.
Stay persistent, you are just the type of political hack that ultimately they're looking for!
Interesting. Okay, I guess he did say that. I stand corrected. Although most of the time, I didn't hear that part. Usually it was just, "We're building it. They'll pay for it." I would imagine he didn't want to have to mention the caveat about the US spending its money *first* if he could help it. That sort of thing raises other questions.Rev. Johnny Tyler wrote:Really? On the campaign trail Trump didn't mention that mexico would reimburse us?TenBenny wrote:Trump really believes he can spend billions on a wall, then just send Mexico a bill, or maybe force its hand? Mexico doesn't seem to be quaking in its boots or breaking a sweat here.
First of all, that's somewhat different from what he said during his campaign. There was no mention of America being reimbursed for spending its own funds on this, so he's already changing the narrative. But more importantly, if I were a Trump supporter, I'd be concerned about this because the money will have already been spent. I'm far from convinced of his ability to bend Mexico to his will.
Hmmm... You must be one of those uneducated lefty sheep who will believe whatever their shepherds tell them rather than do your own DD.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-well-b ... mburse-us/
Hollywood's Burning wrote:How about responding instead of a weak-assed insult, radiobed? It makes you look like you don't have anything to say.
You think?radiosped wrote:Hollywood's Burning wrote:How about responding instead of a weak-assed insult, radiobed? It makes you look like you don't have anything to say.
I think I made my points pretty clear. Going back and forth reiterating the same points multiple times won't change anything.
They're children. That's why it is called child prostitution. We don't let them buy booze or guns,let them vote or sign contracts because we know they do not have a proper appreciation of consequences.radiosped wrote:Danzig thinks everyone that potentially starts down the path of child prostitution does not consider the law at all. I disagree.
They're sucking cock or taking it in the ass for money. They are hardly menaces to society.radiosped wrote:Danzig looks at outrageous prison costs and her first instinct is to release criminals.
radiosped wrote:My first instinct is to wonder why those costs are so out of line (assuming her numbers are accurate). Waste, fraud, corruption, etc. would be my guess.
That is what this law is doing.radiosped wrote:Our laws should dictate who goes to jail, not our mismanaged, bloated, out of control government budgets.
Go whine some more about my nonexistent role in the Huffington media empire, you stupid little bitch. It really deflects from your inadequacy, radiosped.radiosped wrote:And finally, Danzig deflects to talking about cops killing blacks in her other point. Do I need to respond to her other off topic misinformed opinion?!?
Danzig is right, IMHO. You resort to attempted, clumsy shout-downs to try to make your point. That's fine, but let's accept it for what it is.radiobed wrote:Hollywood's Burning wrote:How about responding instead of a weak-assed insult, radiobed? It makes you look like you don't have anything to say.
I think I made my points pretty clear. Going back and forth reiterating the same points multiple times won't change anything.
Danzig thinks everyone that potentially starts down the path of child prostitution does not consider the law at all. I disagree.
Danzig looks at outrageous prison costs and her first instinct is to release criminals. My first instinct is to wonder why those costs are so out of line (assuming her numbers are accurate). Waste, fraud, corruption, etc. would be my guess. Our laws should dictate who goes to jail, not our mismanaged, bloated, out of control government budgets.
And finally, Danzig deflects to talking about cops killing blacks in her other point. Do I need to respond to her other off topic misinformed opinion?!?
Hail boss Jr.TawnyVonJagger wrote:Now Jared Kushner is a senior advisor.
Yeah, no fucking nepotism here!
I think his relatives are the only people that will work with him at this point lolTawnyVonJagger wrote:Now Jared Kushner is a senior advisor.
Yeah, no fucking nepotism here!
Ladies and gentlemen, behold the seamless wordsmithery of Matardo...Machado wrote:I wonder how overrated the bankruptcies of Trump are in his mind
Heh. I wonder how these kink sessions will go over with the American public.Chip Z'Hoy wrote:Trump likes pee-pee.