Republicans Call For Biden’s Removal By 25th Amendment After Hur Report

[homersapien 11,388]

12 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I see no that facts and studies mean nothing to you versus the partisan narrative. When people profess that they support cashless bail years before the pandemic and then get elected, and said policy fails so badly that they are recalled and ousted in just two years of implementing said policy, then maybe the resIult of that policy is "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer" but somehow not yourself...

You are soooo full of it.

I will readily admit that I am partial to peer-reviewed, published reports based on statistical data as opposed to "casual observation" as you put it.

For example:

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/current-state-bail-reform-united-states-results-landscape-analysis-bail-reforms-across

If nothing else, such comprehensive studies puts the lie to the very notion that results are "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer".  It's rarely that simple. 

(Especially when the results pertain to a particular "emergency" measure designed to relieve over crowded jails in the context of an epidemic.)  Guess your  "narrative" prevented you from digging into the details, huh? 

Or perhaps - as a wanna-be iconoclast - you have too much hubris to admit you don't have a definitive, simple answer.  You're addicted to simple-minded thinking.

(And speaking of "narratives", I thought you had a low opinion of the 1994 "tough on crime laws" as promoted by Joe Biden.  And is it too much to assume you acknowledge our justice system tends to favor the wealthy and white?)

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/rich-get-richer-and-poor-get-prison-ideology-class-and-criminal

Bottom line, bail reform is an obvious area for consideration and experimentation if one cares about a justice system that strives to be fair for all instead of being slanted toward the wealthy. 

Well, except for you, where pretty much everything is "intuitively obvious", huh?

Edited February 12 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,426]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

You are soooo full of it.

I will readily admit that I am partial to peer-reviewed, published reports based on statistical data as opposed to "casual observation" as you put it.

One stupid one, I was making fun of your ability to completely miss what is obvious to the rest of the world.

For example:

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/current-state-bail-reform-united-states-results-landscape-analysis-bail-reforms-across

If nothing else, such comprehensive studies puts the lie to the very notion that results are "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer".  It's rarely that simple. 

(Especially when the results pertain to a particular "emergency" measure designed to relieve over crowded jails in the context of an epidemic.)  Guess your  "narrative" prevented you from digging into the details, huh? 

Again, in my rebuttal, I showed that there was no emergency present anywhere but in your own demented mind. Boudin et al have argued for cahsless bail for years prior tom implementing anmd then getting recalled and run out of office by the people of California. 

Or perhaps - as a wanna-be iconoclast - you have too much hubris to admit you don't have a definitive, simple answer.  You're addicted to simple-minded thinking.

(And speaking of "narratives", I thought you had a low opinion of the 1994 "tough on crime laws" as promoted by Joe Biden.  And is it too much to assume you acknowledge our justice system tends to favor the wealthy and white?)

Confused yet again. We were discussing cashless bail, not incredibly bad 1994 Crime Bill. I am totally against both. They are two completely separate thing that only you could get confused about. Bail is strictly pretrial. Has nothing to do with three strikes or longer jail sentencing nor even infair SENTENCING after conviction. Cashless Bail has NOTHING to do with that. Bail is BEFORE the trial. Sentencing is AFTER the trial.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/rich-get-richer-and-poor-get-prison-ideology-class-and-criminal

Bottom line, bail reform is an obvious area for consideration and experimentation if one cares about a justice system that strives to be fair for all instead of being slanted toward the wealthy. 

Then fix the POST TRIAL CRIME BILL. Cashless Bail does absolutely nothing about sentencing etc. Honestly how do youlive to be as old as you are know nothing?

Well, except for you, where pretty much everything is "intuitively obvious", huh?

The only thing you follow is what 100% fits your narrative. If anyone ever showed you a truth that countered your narrative 5% you would dismiss and deny every word of it even if you knew they were correct. You really are the one trick pony here. Kiss that party ass all you can. It means nothing to the rest of us.

[homersapien 11,388]

"Narrative" is your favorite word. Let's consider the irony of that term,using this very thread:

You are totally ignorant of the outcomes of the myriad of cash bail reform attempts, yet you generally condemn the very concept based on nothing more than a single article on an "emergency" project.

What is coming to such a general conclusion based on such meager evidence, if not following a narrative?

On the other hand, I readily admit I am generally ignorant of the outcomes of the myriad experiments of such policies.

Consequently I am open-minded. I don't know if they are generally good or bad, or if some work and some don't.

So you are the one "following a narratve". You have reached a conclusion based on the narrative that cash bail reform invarably coddles criminals and promotes crime, no matter if that conclusion is based on what is essentially equivalent to nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

You are ignorant of this subject yet act as if you possess the final word on it.

Accusing me - similarly ignorant but wise enough to be open minded - of following a "narrative" is the ultimate hypocrisy and a blatant projection.

Edited February 13 by homersapien