Gulfstream4 said:
Civilized said:
Oldsouljer said:
cornelius the great said:
Oldsouljer said:
Civilized said:
Oldsouljer said:
Civilized said:
Werewolf said:
Civilized said:
Gulfstream4 said:
Werewolf said:
#Sieve, are you voting for Muslim Brotherhood candidates?
#Sieve, would you vote for a Hasan Piker supported candidate, or a MAGA Republican?
These radicals are slowly taking over the Democratic Party
Hate to break it to you but Republicans can't run on anything but grievance and hate and xenophobia at this point, and that ain't gonna cut it when the the brown Muslim communist is a helluva lot smarter, more relatable, more empathetic, and more serious than the establishment.
#Sieve has answered. He's voting straight ticket Muslim Brotherhood & Communism.
Yeah that old commie terrorist Roy Cooper is pretty scary.
That he masquerades his true character and intentions more effectively than his fellow ideological radicals? Yes, that does make him especially dangerous to the Constitution.
There is no halfway objective lens in which Cooper isn't viewed as a pragmatic, middle of the road Democrat that has been atypically bipartisan in this extraordinarily partisan environment.
And calling Cooper "dangerous to the Constitution," is laughable given the Constitutional hijinks we've seen the last two years.
The time y'all waste trying to twist moderates into progressives, and progressives into Islamist communist jihadist Trojan Horses, all while turning a blind eye to the totally unethical ineptitude and historic electoral unpopularity of the current Administration is a choice, I guess, but one that's going to get a Pubs run out of office on a rail in November.
It doesn't seem to bother you in the least that he deprived North Carolinians of their First Amendment rights of religion, assembly, and expression a few short years ago, but Constitutionalists aren't interested in whataboutism, and the subject is Cooper, not your deflection topic.
Explain please. Those are some lofty allegations.
Did neither of you live here in 2021? Bans on church services but casinos and ABC stores remained open. The courts jumped on this one early with federal judge James C. Dever III noting that there's "no pandemic exception" to the Constitution.
That's your example of his Constitutional assault?
A temporary population-level measure intended to keep people from dying during a novel public health crisis?
LOLOL
Roy didn't wake up on a normal Tuesday and randomly decide people shouldn't go to church.
Motive and means and abiding by the court ruling matter significantly here.
Use your imagination. Is there any possible nefarious motive you could ascribe to that situation? Was he trying to permanently revoke a constitutional right? Is there any way Roy could personally benefit from it? Enrich himself from it? Stay in office because of it? Did anyone die due to his actions? Did he try to defy the court ruling by executive order, or otherwise?
There are light years between Roy's administration's singular temporary measure in response to a global pandemic, and this Presidential administration's repeated attempts to circumvent, defy, or ignore the Constitution and subsequent Circuit and Supreme Court rulings.
Well he did release 3500 criminals back onto the streets 18 of them were later charged with murder. One of them murdered a woman and left her body in a well while many others were repeat offenders.
Dude has been in politics for something like 40 years?
NC had to pass Iryna's (do you remember her) law to roll back his soft on crime policies.
As usual this is totally misleading slop.
He didn't release a bunch of guys on death row, and this wasn't something he just sat around pining away for.
Like hokie said, this was part of the settlement of a lawsuit brought by multiple human rights groups regarding overcrowded prison conditions during COVID-19. 90% of the released prisoners were due to be sprung by the end of 2021 anyway because their sentences would have been complete.
Also, recidivism is unfortunately a way of life when you're releasing people from jail. The unfortunate reality is a high percentage of people that get released from prison reoffend.
You can actually study this, and if you do, you realize that the recidivism rate for the prisoners released by the ACLU settlement were in line with a control group, 48% for the early release population versus 44% for the control.
What you really seem to be making the case for are social support and mental health services that keep people out of prison in the first place, and mental health and reintegration support that give former prisoners more opportunities after prison, and reduce the probability they reoffend.
I'm very much in support of that. How about you?
