I have also been reading the comments of MAGAs on social media about Jordan Neely's killing. As usual, they rush to judgement without any thought of waiting for more information. They choose sides based on their pre-existing biases and feelings about who is 'us' and who is 'them.' Without knowing anything about the man who choked Neely, other than that he had served in the Marines, they project and they make assumptions about his motivation that may have no basis in fact. They see people and situations in black and white terms - in this case, both literally and figuratively. Their racism goes hand in hand with their hatred of 'the left' so since 'the libs' think Neely didn't deserve to die, that makes them all the more certain that he did. These MAGAs who don't feel even a little sympathy for Neely - while lavishing praise on the man who killed him - really aren't so different from the sort of people who held the Salem witch trials or that later formed the lynch mobs. They are incapable of objectivity and that makes them dangerous.
I have taken the subway for 20 years in NYC and DC. Anyone who lives in a city has a nuanced understanding of situational awareness and how to keep an eye on someone acting erratically. If we preemptively attacked every person who shouted, threatened, and punched the air, it would be a battle royale during every commute. I reserve judgement on Penny but a chokehold is not the only way to hold someone down. This isn’t something to celebrate. Both sides need to calm down and mourn that this happened at all.
Funny how "conservative" commentators can run straight to "mental health" as the root cause of the gun violence problem but won't run in that direction when it comes to urban crime and the criminal neglect of our homeless mentally ill. They never ask why someone so obviously mentally ill is allowed to suffer. Perhaps they see killing the mentally ill as a kind of euthanasia--- mercy killing.
Yes, but carrying out a death penalty is usually very expensive itself. I don't have exact numbers but I believe it can be more expensive than life in prison in many cases. And that's not considering the moral, ethical, legal, political, and social arguments against the death penalty.
As Dave Chappelle has noted "Twitter is not a real place."
Stop using Twitter as the chief barometer of measuring what is happening, interpreting what is happening, and stop using it as a predictor of what will/may/could happen.
Who were the " . . . conservative commentators (who) put the incident in the larger context of urban crime, and acknowledged that the episode was a tragedy?
I hate it when pundits make general claims but don't name names.
The progressive left may be small, but I’m glad they (we?) are here. Sometimes they (we?) go too far, but the movement is in the correct direction and for the correct reasons.
Does anyone know whether Clarence and Ginny Thomas had U.S. Marshall security on their private plane flights and yacht vacations? If they did, who paid?
"Is the pro-life [Republican] party, actually pro-life anymore?"
These sorts of one-liners that get thrown into Bulwark pieces, implying that the MAGA movement has somehow radically transformed a Republican Party that was earnestly pro-life prior to Trump, drive me insane.
I would LOVE for someone to point me to a time when the Republican Party actually valued the sanctity of human life. Good luck with that.
1) Republicans have always supported the death penalty at much higher rates than Democrats.
2) The highest numbers of executions have always occurred in states that are Republican strongholds.
3) In 2014, two years before Trump was even elected, Scalia (Republican SCOTUS posterchild), literally wrote a dissent saying that the Constitution does NOT protect factually innocent people from being executed for a crime they did not commit, as long as they received a fair trial.
4) Next, let's then get into the ways that the Republican Party brazenly supported murderous fascist governments in the Americas and elsewhere. What is remarkable if you're paying attention is that from Nixon forward, every single Republican administration, without exception, supported murderous dictators.
We've got Nixon, supporting Pinochet in a coup against a democratically elected socialist. Pinochet ended up "disappearing" or openly executing more than 3000 people.
The next Republican administration, the Ford administration, then similarly supported the military coup in Argentina, again subverting a democratic election. The military dictatorship even got a visit from Kissinger. Number of people murdered by the Argentinian military dictatorship? Somewhere between 9,000 and 30,000 murders.
Then we have Reagan (together with Christian conservatives) supporting Guatemalan dictator Rios Montt who committed a campaign of genocide that killed up to 70,000 civilians. Oh let's not forget that Reagan also failed to address the AIDS crisis because he didn't care about the lives of those being primarily affected at the time, namely gay men and IV drug users.
Then we get to George H. W. Bush. He had his ambassador to Iraq communicate that the U.S. didn't care if Iraq invaded Kuwait (1000 civilians killed). He then changed his mind and invaded Iraq, in the process encouraging Shiites in the south, and Kurds in north to rebel. But after the invasion was complete, Bush ditched the Kurds and Shiites, and refused to provide any military protection. As a result thousands of Kurds and Shiites were slaughtered by Hussain.
5) Next Republican administration was then George W. Bush. Well, we don't need to need to say much here. He knowingly invaded Iraq on false pretenses because he was having a tantrum about reports that Hussain tried to assassinate his father. Civilian deaths based on violence since the invasion? Somewhere between 280K and 315k. Never mind all of the torture of detainees that occurred under his watch which resulted in a number of deaths, and that can hardly be called "pro-life" behaviour.
6) The only thing that could possibly qualify as a "pro-life" stance is the consistent Republican opposition to abortion. But the way they express their opposition and the way they deal with collateral policy issues that would be helpful to their supposed cause, transparently reveals that they don't care at all about "life" in any meaningful sense.
First, Republicans reject every form of sex education aside from abstinence-based instruction, knowing full well that the stats clearly show that abstinence-focused sex education is completely ineffective, which why red states have ASTRONOMICALLY higher abortion rates than blue states. So they clearly aren't trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the resulting abortions.
Second, Republicans insist on trying to prevent all abortions, but they also vote against any social programs that would provide things like pre-natal care for poor vulnerable mothers.
Third, once the kid has popped out of the womb, the Republican party aggressively opposes any social programs that could provide food, shelter, and even a decent education for the kids that the Republican party supposedly wants to support.
For the love of God, can Bulwark contributors just STOP with these ridiculous throw-away lines that are grossly counterfactual?!
I love my progressive left for being "outspoken" but not for being "uncompromising". You can be both, and there are plenty of examples in history to draw from. I think most people do appreciate the presence of AOC and the Squad in our debate, and more genuine interaction and engagement with these pols and their concerns is a good thing. But, if all they do is obstruct instead of persuade, they defeat their own purpose for being there. AOC in particular has a strong presence in our political culture. She makes an effective case for her ideas but then remains disconnected to most of official Washington, even to most voters, and her message gets lost. There's potential for compromise, for better communication and for stronger actions taken, but the left and the center and sane right need to listen to each other and work together. AOC has the political capital and the talent to make that happen. Though it's unfortunately and inexplicably unlikely, I'd love to see her on a Bulwark podcast truly engaging with Charlie and the other writers on these issues we are ALL concerned about.
What Matt Walsh and others don't get is that if they got all their wishes, some of them would be the ones getting executed, officially or unofficially, window-style, in internal power struggles and purges. I imagine in MAGA paradise the courts would look something like Stalnist show trials, or this clip showing the infamous Nazi judge Roland Freisler screaming at a resistance man, Count Schwerin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_aluekfYmo. Happily, Freisler was later killed by an American bomb. The clip's worth watching to see a man of honor under intense pressure and also what the MAGAts would like our future to look like, although they'd probably have more audience participation with hooting and hollering.
So let's see if I have this right. If you're convicted of child molestation, you get 1) no appeals and 2) a quick execution, but if you're convicted of any other crimes, like, say, sexual assault, tax fraud, falsifying business records, etc., you can appeal forever, the jury verdict means nothing and you walk.
“The second that you are engaging in an activity where someone else is forced to make a decision to save their life"....
I'm sorry to be dense, but what was Neely doing that so threatened the life of the "former Marine" that he had to kill him?
I have also been reading the comments of MAGAs on social media about Jordan Neely's killing. As usual, they rush to judgement without any thought of waiting for more information. They choose sides based on their pre-existing biases and feelings about who is 'us' and who is 'them.' Without knowing anything about the man who choked Neely, other than that he had served in the Marines, they project and they make assumptions about his motivation that may have no basis in fact. They see people and situations in black and white terms - in this case, both literally and figuratively. Their racism goes hand in hand with their hatred of 'the left' so since 'the libs' think Neely didn't deserve to die, that makes them all the more certain that he did. These MAGAs who don't feel even a little sympathy for Neely - while lavishing praise on the man who killed him - really aren't so different from the sort of people who held the Salem witch trials or that later formed the lynch mobs. They are incapable of objectivity and that makes them dangerous.
I have taken the subway for 20 years in NYC and DC. Anyone who lives in a city has a nuanced understanding of situational awareness and how to keep an eye on someone acting erratically. If we preemptively attacked every person who shouted, threatened, and punched the air, it would be a battle royale during every commute. I reserve judgement on Penny but a chokehold is not the only way to hold someone down. This isn’t something to celebrate. Both sides need to calm down and mourn that this happened at all.
The new GOP: the Right-to-Kill party.
Correcting an injustice is one of the main arguments for life in prison.
Funny how "conservative" commentators can run straight to "mental health" as the root cause of the gun violence problem but won't run in that direction when it comes to urban crime and the criminal neglect of our homeless mentally ill. They never ask why someone so obviously mentally ill is allowed to suffer. Perhaps they see killing the mentally ill as a kind of euthanasia--- mercy killing.
Yes, but carrying out a death penalty is usually very expensive itself. I don't have exact numbers but I believe it can be more expensive than life in prison in many cases. And that's not considering the moral, ethical, legal, political, and social arguments against the death penalty.
Dear Bulwark staff:
As Dave Chappelle has noted "Twitter is not a real place."
Stop using Twitter as the chief barometer of measuring what is happening, interpreting what is happening, and stop using it as a predictor of what will/may/could happen.
Who were the " . . . conservative commentators (who) put the incident in the larger context of urban crime, and acknowledged that the episode was a tragedy?
I hate it when pundits make general claims but don't name names.
The progressive left may be small, but I’m glad they (we?) are here. Sometimes they (we?) go too far, but the movement is in the correct direction and for the correct reasons.
Does anyone know whether Clarence and Ginny Thomas had U.S. Marshall security on their private plane flights and yacht vacations? If they did, who paid?
"Is the pro-life [Republican] party, actually pro-life anymore?"
These sorts of one-liners that get thrown into Bulwark pieces, implying that the MAGA movement has somehow radically transformed a Republican Party that was earnestly pro-life prior to Trump, drive me insane.
I would LOVE for someone to point me to a time when the Republican Party actually valued the sanctity of human life. Good luck with that.
1) Republicans have always supported the death penalty at much higher rates than Democrats.
2) The highest numbers of executions have always occurred in states that are Republican strongholds.
3) In 2014, two years before Trump was even elected, Scalia (Republican SCOTUS posterchild), literally wrote a dissent saying that the Constitution does NOT protect factually innocent people from being executed for a crime they did not commit, as long as they received a fair trial.
4) Next, let's then get into the ways that the Republican Party brazenly supported murderous fascist governments in the Americas and elsewhere. What is remarkable if you're paying attention is that from Nixon forward, every single Republican administration, without exception, supported murderous dictators.
We've got Nixon, supporting Pinochet in a coup against a democratically elected socialist. Pinochet ended up "disappearing" or openly executing more than 3000 people.
The next Republican administration, the Ford administration, then similarly supported the military coup in Argentina, again subverting a democratic election. The military dictatorship even got a visit from Kissinger. Number of people murdered by the Argentinian military dictatorship? Somewhere between 9,000 and 30,000 murders.
Then we have Reagan (together with Christian conservatives) supporting Guatemalan dictator Rios Montt who committed a campaign of genocide that killed up to 70,000 civilians. Oh let's not forget that Reagan also failed to address the AIDS crisis because he didn't care about the lives of those being primarily affected at the time, namely gay men and IV drug users.
Then we get to George H. W. Bush. He had his ambassador to Iraq communicate that the U.S. didn't care if Iraq invaded Kuwait (1000 civilians killed). He then changed his mind and invaded Iraq, in the process encouraging Shiites in the south, and Kurds in north to rebel. But after the invasion was complete, Bush ditched the Kurds and Shiites, and refused to provide any military protection. As a result thousands of Kurds and Shiites were slaughtered by Hussain.
5) Next Republican administration was then George W. Bush. Well, we don't need to need to say much here. He knowingly invaded Iraq on false pretenses because he was having a tantrum about reports that Hussain tried to assassinate his father. Civilian deaths based on violence since the invasion? Somewhere between 280K and 315k. Never mind all of the torture of detainees that occurred under his watch which resulted in a number of deaths, and that can hardly be called "pro-life" behaviour.
6) The only thing that could possibly qualify as a "pro-life" stance is the consistent Republican opposition to abortion. But the way they express their opposition and the way they deal with collateral policy issues that would be helpful to their supposed cause, transparently reveals that they don't care at all about "life" in any meaningful sense.
First, Republicans reject every form of sex education aside from abstinence-based instruction, knowing full well that the stats clearly show that abstinence-focused sex education is completely ineffective, which why red states have ASTRONOMICALLY higher abortion rates than blue states. So they clearly aren't trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the resulting abortions.
Second, Republicans insist on trying to prevent all abortions, but they also vote against any social programs that would provide things like pre-natal care for poor vulnerable mothers.
Third, once the kid has popped out of the womb, the Republican party aggressively opposes any social programs that could provide food, shelter, and even a decent education for the kids that the Republican party supposedly wants to support.
For the love of God, can Bulwark contributors just STOP with these ridiculous throw-away lines that are grossly counterfactual?!
I love my progressive left for being "outspoken" but not for being "uncompromising". You can be both, and there are plenty of examples in history to draw from. I think most people do appreciate the presence of AOC and the Squad in our debate, and more genuine interaction and engagement with these pols and their concerns is a good thing. But, if all they do is obstruct instead of persuade, they defeat their own purpose for being there. AOC in particular has a strong presence in our political culture. She makes an effective case for her ideas but then remains disconnected to most of official Washington, even to most voters, and her message gets lost. There's potential for compromise, for better communication and for stronger actions taken, but the left and the center and sane right need to listen to each other and work together. AOC has the political capital and the talent to make that happen. Though it's unfortunately and inexplicably unlikely, I'd love to see her on a Bulwark podcast truly engaging with Charlie and the other writers on these issues we are ALL concerned about.
Boy these "pro-lifers" sure love death.
What Matt Walsh and others don't get is that if they got all their wishes, some of them would be the ones getting executed, officially or unofficially, window-style, in internal power struggles and purges. I imagine in MAGA paradise the courts would look something like Stalnist show trials, or this clip showing the infamous Nazi judge Roland Freisler screaming at a resistance man, Count Schwerin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_aluekfYmo. Happily, Freisler was later killed by an American bomb. The clip's worth watching to see a man of honor under intense pressure and also what the MAGAts would like our future to look like, although they'd probably have more audience participation with hooting and hollering.
So let's see if I have this right. If you're convicted of child molestation, you get 1) no appeals and 2) a quick execution, but if you're convicted of any other crimes, like, say, sexual assault, tax fraud, falsifying business records, etc., you can appeal forever, the jury verdict means nothing and you walk.
Have I got that right?