The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

Wasn't the warrant issued in August?

maybe it was issued last century but they only learnt of it after they took her in

[Gatefan1976]

The discussion wasn't about rape. It was about harassment and undesired touching. While neither are acceptable, there is a big difference between the two.

You don't know what rape is.
We will add that to the tally.

[Annoyed]

maybe it was issued last century but they only learnt of it after they took her in

Well, I don't know how they do it in Yurp, but here, if you are arrested for any reason or even pulled over for speeding, they run your records to check for outstanding warrants and such.

[SoulReaver]

Well, I don't know how they do it in Yurp[, but here, if you are arrested for any reason or even pulled over for speeding, they run your records to check for outstanding warrants and such.

in this case what was the 'any reason'?

[jelgate]

You don't know what rape is.
We will add that to the tally.

Isn't it easier to add what he does know. It would be a lot shorter

[aretood2]

The discussion wasn't about rape. It was about harassment and undesired touching. While neither are acceptable, there is a big difference between the two.

Yes, yes it was...what do you think people have been accusing hollywood types off? Jaywalking?

Don't worry about it. The article is basically fake news, meant to stir opposition to Trump and Republicans. A woman in Texas had an anti-trump bumper sticker that contained obscenities, and was arrested on a warrant for some sort of unrelated fraud charge. Even the district attorney for that county stated that they couldn't prosecute for the sticker.

The article is not behind a paywall for me for some reason. It may have been updated since it was originally put up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...cf5_story.html

What sentences in that article are "fake"?

But the de-emphasised fact is that she was arrested on an outstanding warrant, not the sticker. Warrants are issued when one doesn't show up for a court date. You can't blame the cops for arresting her on that.

And no, I'm not just in favor of speech that I agree with. I don't care what bumper sticker someone adorns their car with, or whatever other form of legal expression someone uses.

And, looking at it from the plain old common sense angle, she had to know she was the subject of a warrant for a fraud charge. A court had to have issued the warrant.

If you're likely to get shot at, it's always a good idea to keep your head down.

You also keep missing the part where the cops stopped her way before the warrant was even known. Here let me quote a foxnews article.

"Previously, Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy Nehls threatened Fonseca with a disorderly conduct charge over the decal. However, District Attorney John Healey said he didn’t think the case would have stood up in court because of First Amendment protections on free speech." (Click here for article)

When it says "previously" it is referring to before the arrest. Read the article and see for yourself.

From the same article, she even says how she was harassed by the police over it.

"'There's no law against freedom of speech, nothing in the law book here in Texas,' she told KHOU-TV. 'I've been stopped numerous times, but they can't write me a ticket.'"

The same article also mentions death threats made against her. I guess liberals aren't the only ones that do that huh?

I do wonder, at this rate, how long before Fox News get's labeled "Fake" by Trump's fanclub?

Edit:
Here's the original Foxnews article that goes into detail how the Sherriff wanted to arrest her for the decal long before the Warrant was even a thing (notice that the warrant isn't even mentioned). Sure she was arrested for a pre-existing warrant, but that's a lot like arresting Al Capone for tax evasion. They dug it up as a way to get to her, not because they were trying to simply execute the warrant as part of their "to do list".

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...p-sticker.html

[Annoyed]

I never read the Fox article. I just read the one SR originally posted. Says pretty much the same thing.

But the point I'm making is that the local sheriff wanted to arrest for the sticker, (I assume on the obscenity grounds) but the county D.A. knew it couldn't be prosecuted.

The origin of the warrant will eventually become known. But for now, I'm assuming a court issued it in relation to some fraud charge.

But here's the thing. If you come into contact with law enforcement while there is an open warrant for you, you can expect to be picked up for the warrant, even if it's simply a traffic stop. That doesn't apply to her alone. It applies to me, you and anyone in the states these days. Every podunk small town police department and sheriff's office in the country is connected to federal and state databases. In many cases, the officers can access this information via laptops in their cars.

[aretood2]

I never read the Fox article. I just read the one SR originally posted. Says pretty much the same thing.

But the point I'm making is that the local sheriff wanted to arrest for the sticker, (I assume on the obscenity grounds) but the county D.A. knew it couldn't be prosecuted.

The origin of the warrant will eventually become known. But for now, I'm assuming a court issued it in relation to some fraud charge.

But here's the thing. If you come into contact with law enforcement while there is an open warrant for you, you can expect to be picked up for the warrant, even if it's simply a traffic stop. That doesn't apply to her alone. It applies to me, you and anyone in the states these days. Every podunk small town police department and sheriff's office in the country is connected to federal and state databases. In many cases, the officers can access this information via laptops in their cars.

My point is that the sheriff had no business interacting with her on the account of that decal. That's my contention with the story, not the actual warrant arrest. Soul is the one taking it further.

[Annoyed]

My point is that the sheriff had no business interacting with her on the account of that decal. That's my contention with the story, not the actual warrant arrest. Soul is the one taking it further.

I can see the objection on the obscenity grounds.

[Gatefan1976]

I can see the objection on the obscenity grounds.

Free speech or not free speech?
Constitutionally speaking, the cop had no right to pull them over based on local ordinance because local ordinance has no right to limit a constitutional right.
(and yes, I am aware that I am using the same argument as gun owners)

This is at the heart of the dysfunction of the states VS federal rights issue in the US.
How united are you really?

[Annoyed]

Free speech or not free speech?
Constitutionally speaking, the cop had no right to pull them over based on local ordinance because local ordinance has no right to limit a constitutional right.
(and yes, I am aware that I am using the same argument as gun owners)

This is at the heart of the dysfunction of the states VS federal rights issue in the US.
How united are you really?

I can't justify or agree with any decision to even pull her over for the political content of the sign. But the obscenity content is a different matter. They may have been able to do something with that, but the DA decided not to try.

As far as "United States", we are not a single homogeneous society. Densely populated sewers llike NY City and Los Angels are completely different environments than rural places. What works and plays in one place isn't such a good idea in the other. That's why local control is the best, aside from the old principle that government is best when its closest to the people being governed.

That's one of the problems with federalism; due to population density, the large sewers can impose their will on the rural areas, regardless of how it plays out in the small town.

[aretood2]

Free speech or not free speech?
Constitutionally speaking, the cop had no right to pull them over based on local ordinance because local ordinance has no right to limit a constitutional right.
(and yes, I am aware that I am using the same argument as gun owners)

This is at the heart of the dysfunction of the states VS federal rights issue in the US.
How united are you really?

I'm sure the Catalonians are just in love with the unitary system.

[Coco Pops]

So is an anti Trump bumper sticker not allowed, so what if it has rude words?

[Gatefan1976]

I'm sure the Catalonians are just in love with the unitary system.

I understand your words, I do not get your context.
Unitary as "the US is a unitary society" and it has flaws
or
Catalonia wants total independence and to leave it's unitary society
or
what?

[Annoyed]

So is an anti Trump bumper sticker not allowed, so what if it has rude words?

You can have any political message you want on a bumper sticker. (Or you should be able to, anyway, in today's environment, I'm sure I can think of a few for extremes, such as Hitler or the modern Nazi party that would be magically disallowed). The only objection I have is on obscenity grounds.