Trump, The Reality Show

[Pyrtolin]

Requiring lawful behavior on the part of law enforcement is part and parcel of why it's so important for the police to have body cams, and the last thing we want right now is to indicate to the law enforcement community that it's ok to pick and choose which crimes are really crimes, and which laws to enforce.

Sure, that's not contested here. You're just forgetting that law enforcement doesn't get to decide what the results of that enforcement are; it is explicitly not part of the judicial system and has to request penalties that it thinks are appropriate. It can't choose to punish people, it can only enforce the law and let the justice system sort out if some punishment that the legislature has suggested is an appropriate consequence or if other measure better serves justice and the overall intent of the law.

[Fenring]

Sure, that's not contested here. You're just forgetting that law enforcement doesn't get to decide what the results of that enforcement are; it is explicitly not part of the judicial system and has to request penalties that it thinks are appropriate. It can't choose to punish people, it can only enforce the law and let the justice system sort out if some punishment that the legislature has suggested is an appropriate consequence or if other measure better serves justice and the overall intent of the law.

Right. I only mentioned the police in particular because of all areas of law enforcement and the justice system the police have been the subject of a lot of scrutiny recently in the area of selective enforcement (which can include corruption, racism, excessive violence, etc.). But my general point is that we don't want to encourage the mentality in any part of the enforcement/justice system sphere that they can pick and choose which laws to enforce. If something (whether that's a certain kind of abortion, or anything else) is illegal, then there should be a method of enforcing that which doesn't refer on a case-by-case basis to having compassion or understanding for someone. That compassion and understanding should be built in to the law, ideally, and if anything at least exercised by a judge who has access to all the facts. But a blanket notion that there should be no punishment (read: repercussion) for breaking a certain law across the board sounds very bad to me.

[Pyrtolin]

But my general point is that we don't want to encourage the mentality in any part of the enforcement/justice system sphere that they can pick and choose which laws to enforce. If something (whether that's a certain kind of abortion, or anything else) is illegal, then there should be a method of enforcing that which doesn't refer on a case-by-case basis to having compassion or understanding for someone. That compassion and understanding should be built in to the law, ideally, and if anything at least exercised by a judge who has access to all the facts.

It doesn't have to be built into any laws because it's inherent in the nature of judicial powers. Judges can choose what, if any penalties should apply, including punishment up to the limits that the legislature have but on sentences.

But a blanket notion that there should be no punishment (read: repercussion) for breaking a certain law across the board sounds very bad to me.

No one has claimed that there should be no repercussions, just that punishment shouldn't be blindly applied as a repercussion. In many cases, simple restitution and rehabilitation make for more reasonable repercussions, not inflicting further harm on people that have nothing to lose.

Keep in mind that the question here is "If abortion was illegal, _should_ the law punish women who seek it?" Saying that such laws must be punitive to the women receiving the operation isn't just saying that violations of _current_ law should have repercussions- it's arguing that theoretical laws should be punitive in the first place. It doesn't make sense to say that we can't implement legal reforms when the thing in question _is_ a legal reform.

[Fenring]

No one has claimed that there should be no repercussions, just that punishment shouldn't be blindly applied as a repercussion. In many cases, simple restitution and rehabilitation make for more reasonable repercussions, not inflicting further harm on people that have nothing to lose.

Now you're talking about something entirely different, which is the notion of not using punishment in general as a repercussion to an offense. It's completely non-sequitur to this topic, since we're discussing whether the normal repercussion (whatever that is) should be applied to people who break this law. Whether the actual repercussion is a punishment or something else is a different discussion and not relevant to the issue of whether to go after people who break an abortion law in one form or another.

But just so we're clear, while judges do have latitude in extenuating circumstances I do not think they should be granted the authority to simply decide not to give any punishment/repercussion in the case where the person blatantly broke the law full stop. The idea that a judge will be left to decide whether or not the law as stated applies to a given person would be the very definition of injustice.

[Pyrtolin]

Now you're talking about something entirely different, which is the notion of not using punishment in general as a repercussion to an offense.

That's pure nonsense. There's a long tradition of penalties that don't go further than simply making restitution to an individual or the community as appropriate, or assigning someone to rehab or other kinds of training. It's nothing new at all to say that not every offense must be met with punitive measures; we do plenty of enforcement without punishment, that kind of enforcement is generally far, far more effective than punishment.

It's completely non-sequitur to this topic, since we're discussing whether the normal repercussion (whatever that is) should be applied to people who break this law.

There is no "normal" repercussion, because this is a theoretical law. The question at hand is what the normal repercussion should be and who it should apply to. 

Whether the actual repercussion is a punishment or something else is a different discussion and not relevant to the issue of whether to go after people who break an abortion law in one form or another.

It absolutely is, because it defines not only _who_ is breaking the law in such cases, but what "going after them" means. You're outright begging the question when you assert that such theoretical laws should be punitive to the patients, then trying to use that as evidence that the only way to uphold theoretical abortion laws would be to punish patients.

But just so we're clear, while judges do have latitude in extenuating circumstances I do not think they should be granted the authority to simply decide not to give any punishment/repercussion in the case where the person blatantly broke the law full stop.

THey absolutely should be if it's clear that punishment will do more harm than good and serve no public benefit. I mean they can't change the fact that the person has already felt repercussions from the act, so that's not really even a relevant thing to qualify. If the experience so far is sufficient to maintain the purpose of the law- which is to prevent undesirable or harmful behavior, then they should absolutely be free to dismiss additional punitive measures.

The idea that a judge will be left to decide whether or not the law as stated applies to a given person would be the very definition of injustice.

No, that's essential to justice. It's impossible for a system to be anything but unjust if it cannot ensure that the law works to benefit of all and instead applied punitive measures without regard to damage done. Justice is about restoring wholeness to those that have been harmed and working to prevent future harm. If you're doing more harm to people and society than good though blindly punishing them without regard to circumstances and ensuring that sentences actually serve to put things right, rather than just using them as a vengeful way to compound injustice by adding more damage on top of what was already done.

[Fenring]

The idea that a judge will be left to decide whether or not the law as stated applies to a given person would be the very definition of injustice.

No, that's essential to justice. It's impossible for a system to be anything but unjust if it cannot ensure that the law works to benefit of all and instead applied punitive measures without regard to damage done. Justice is about restoring wholeness to those that have been harmed and working to prevent future harm. If you're doing more harm to people and society than good though blindly punishing them without regard to circumstances and ensuring that sentences actually serve to put things right, rather than just using them as a vengeful way to compound injustice by adding more damage on top of what was already done.

You need to understand that what you're talking about isn't justice. Justice quite literally means nothing more or less than even and equal treatment under the law. Historically the term had various meanings, which included "righteousness" or more generally "application of the law" but in modern parlance it means applying the law equally without employing preferential treatment or different standards for different people. What you are talking about is a system that seeks 'goodness', rather than 'justice', as these are not the same. While it may not be the case that justice always yields the best result, it does have the virtue of being an honest and fair method of avoiding various corrupt practices.

The idea that we should tailor make each judgement after a breach of the law to best suit the person in question and create the 'best outcome' (which hearkens back to the impossible utilitarian calculus problem) may sound generous and compassionate but it is also most definitely unjust. That doesn't necessarily make it bad, but you need to know you are espousing a system of injustice here, where individual autocrats would have the right to unilaterally decide who gets the preferential nice treatment and who gets the hammer.

[Pyrtolin]

Justice quite literally means nothing more or less than even and equal treatment under the law.

Even and equal treatment requires even an equal consideration of circumstances. If you do not consider circumstances then you are treating people extremely unequally, because the same consequence can be trivial to one person and crippling to another.

The simple cost of showing up to court is higher for a poor person than the maximum allowable fine many offenses is for someone who is financially well off. To ignore such facts is to actively treat people unequally and very unjustly.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Anatole France

It's pure classist privilege to suggest that blind treatment without regard to circumstance is equal treatment; it's outright blaming those hurt by societal inequity for not being in the dominant class.

Justice is the correction of wrongs in society. Law is a _tool_ of justice, but it does not define justice.

[AI Wessex]

It's pure classist privilege to suggest that blind treatment without regard to circumstance is equal treatment; it's outright blaming those hurt by societal inequity for not being in the dominant class.

It would be like a hospital treating all patients with stomach problems with the same treatment regardless of the illness, and then the next hospital treats them all with a different standard for care.  One of the findings of the Justice Department in Ferguson was that the poor were being forced to pay "court costs" when they couldn't even pay the fine and were sent to jail for failure to pay those costs, but not for the fine for the infraction for which they were convicted.  Michigan has a similarly high court cost regimen.  In neither state (or others) are the court costs in any way associated with the crime for which they were charged.  Does that make sense to you (Fenring)?

[Fenring]

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Anatole France

It's pure classist privilege to suggest that blind treatment without regard to circumstance is equal treatment; it's outright blaming those hurt by societal inequity for not being in the dominant class.

You seem to be ignoring what I'm saying by trotting out this favorite quote of yours. In the example of the quote about bridges we have a case not showing why the law should be applied unequally depending on who you are, but rather showing that certain laws can themselves be inherently unjust or discriminatory. Since no one here is arguing against that it's not relevant. If there is a bad or discriminatory law it should be changed, which is what I've been saying all along. The argument that a bad law should be fixed by ignoring the law when convenient is literally an unjust solution, even if it seems to serve good in the short term.

It's pure classist privilege to suggest that blind treatment without regard to circumstance is equal treatment; it's outright blaming those hurt by societal inequity for not being in the dominant class.

It would be like a hospital treating all patients with stomach problems with the same treatment regardless of the illness, and then the next hospital treats them all with a different standard for care.

What you are discussing is a triage system, which indeed is not even supposed to be 'just' or 'fair' but rather is specifically designed to give preference to more severe cases. As a private business or operation that is a completely legitimate thing for them to choose to do, and as a function of medical practice it's entirely normal. Medicine isn't an application of law but rather an application of care, and care isn't particularly dependent on the just/unjust scale. It properly operates in a different scale - that of need. A 'need-based' system is certainly another way of doing it, and as applied to legal and economic affairs is nicely lampooned in Atlas Shrugged. While Rand's argument is that sorting by need is always wrong, I think it would be more balanced to say that it's sometimes wrong and sometimes correct. In a medical triage environment it's obviously correct, but in a court of law I would say it's wrong. At least, I say this regarding what we now think of as law. In a totally novel system of law and justice no doubt there could be other mechanisms to deal with cases.

One of the findings of the Justice Department in Ferguson was that the poor were being forced to pay "court costs" when they couldn't even pay the fine and were sent to jail for failure to pay those costs, but not for the fine for the infraction for which they were convicted.  Michigan has a similarly high court cost regimen.  In neither state (or others) are the court costs in any way associated with the crime for which they were charged.  Does that make sense to you (Fenring)?

In the Ferguson case there were two things potentially at play. One thing was that the law was already inherently discriminatory, as it frankly is in most major cities where police forces often act as little more than tax collectors and shakedown artists. This kind of environment always hurts the poor more than the rich, and is corrupt for multiple reasons. The other element in play may have been an uneven application of the laws where the police in Ferguson reportedly gave a harder time to black people and were more likely to charge them irrelevant fines. If this is true then that entails both an oversight problem as well as a general issue with inconsistent application of law based on the person in question. In the case of someone who obtained an illegal abortion Pyr would like preferential treatment, and in the case of Ferguson there has supposedly been anti-preferential treatment against black people. The thing is these are two sides of the same problem, and there is no effective moral difference between giving preferentially better rather than worse treatment under the law based on the whim of the officer or court. Going in either direction is unjust, where the better aim should be to rectify laws that improperly bolster public goodwill and health. And I'm not even getting into the issue of the sorts of corruption that can be inherent in inconsistent application of law, which in law enforcement includes the now infamous quota system that both increases unjust ticketing and decreasing pursuing real cases that don't help with the quota.

[Pyrtolin]

In the case of someone who obtained an illegal abortion Pyr would like preferential treatment

I argue that it's perfectly sensible to say that laws that ban abortion could only penalize providers and not the people seeking abortions, while you insist that they can only be just if tehy punish abortion seekers, and that magically becomes preferential treatment?

I've not once argued for any preferential treatment of anyone, only for equitable treatment, making that assertion completely false in any context.

[AI Wessex]

In the Ferguson case there were two things potentially at play. One thing was that the law was already inherently discriminatory, as it frankly is in most major cities where police forces often act as little more than tax collectors and shakedown artists. This kind of environment always hurts the poor more than the rich, and is corrupt for multiple reasons. The other element in play may have been an uneven application of the laws where the police in Ferguson reportedly gave a harder time to black people and were more likely to charge them irrelevant fines. If this is true then that entails both an oversight problem as well as a general issue with inconsistent application of law based on the person in question. In the case of someone who obtained an illegal abortion Pyr would like preferential treatment, and in the case of Ferguson there has supposedly been anti-preferential treatment against black people. The thing is these are two sides of the same problem, and there is no effective moral difference between giving preferentially better rather than worse treatment under the law based on the whim of the officer or court. Going in either direction is unjust, where the better aim should be to rectify laws that improperly bolster public goodwill and health. And I'm not even getting into the issue of the sorts of corruption that can be inherent in inconsistent application of law, which in law enforcement includes the now infamous quota system that both increases unjust ticketing and decreasing pursuing real cases that don't help with the quota.

As near as I can tell, you're agreeing with me but explaining to me something you think I don't understand.  This is after you disagreeing with me about what the purpose of the legal system should be.  I guess I'm lost.

[Fenring]

I argue that it's perfectly sensible to say that laws that ban abortion could only penalize providers and not the people seeking abortions, while you insist that they can only be just if tehy punish abortion seekers, and that magically becomes preferential treatment?

I wish you'd just said that before so we could have saved some time. If what you're saying is that any breach of the law in this case should be attributed to the provider rather than the client then that makes sense, although I'm not sure how the law would accord with your preference. If the woman goes in not knowing the type of abortion she wants is illegal and the doctor performs it anyhow I can see how one would argue that she's done nothing wrong since it was the doctor who broke the law without the woman being aware of it. However if the woman intentionally goes to a shady doctor because she knows it's illegal and they do it, how do you square that with only him being guilty of breaking the law? Or are you saying they're both guilty but he should be punished while she should be reprimanded in some more lenient way?

Al, it seemed to me you were agreeing with Pyr that equal treatment isn't fair or just when that treatment disproportionately harms the poor, for instance, as it does in the case of various court costs in cities. What I'm saying is that the problem there isn't the fact that the treatment is equal, but rather that the law is designed in such a way that equal treatment harms some people. The issue then is not to apply the law unequally in order to benefit some class of people who were suffering, but rather to change that law so it ceases to produce unequal results when applied equally. But it should still be applied equally either way, which means not deciding whether or not someone has to pay the court costs on a case by case basis depending on the mood of the bailiff that day.

[Pyrtolin]

I wish you'd just said that before so we could have saved some time. If what you're saying is that any breach of the law in this case should be attributed to the provider rather than the client then that makes sense, although I'm not sure how the law would accord with your preference. If the woman goes in not knowing the type of abortion she wants is illegal and the doctor performs it anyhow I can see how one would argue that she's done nothing wrong since it was the doctor who broke the law without the woman being aware of it. However if the woman intentionally goes to a shady doctor because she knows it's illegal and they do it, how do you square that with only him being guilty of breaking the law? Or are you saying they're both guilty but he should be punished while she should be reprimanded in some more lenient way?

More clear? That was the context that you initially disputed that I was responded to.

As for how the law would handle it, that's simple- you writhe the law to say "It is illegal to _provide_ an abortion" not to say "it is illegal to _get_ an abortion"

Al, it seemed to me you were agreeing with Pyr that equal treatment isn't fair or just when that treatment disproportionately harms the poor, for instance, as it does in the case of various court costs in cities.

Disproportionate harm _is_ unequal treatment. That's what "disproportionate" means.

The issue then is not to apply the law unequally in order to benefit some class of people who were suffering, but rather to change that law so it ceases to produce unequal results when applied equally. But it should still be applied equally either way, which means not deciding whether or not someone has to pay the court costs on a case by case basis depending on the mood of the bailiff that day.

That's nonsensical, because it basically asks for an impossibility. You cannot write a rule that accounts for all situations, and it would be almost impossible to understand one that attempted to do so. Instead, you set the baseline standard and intent of the rule down, then you use judgment and discernment to figure out how best to execute the intent in any given situation. that is the fundamental _puropose_ of the entire judicial system. If what you said was possible, we wouldn't need Judges at all, the police could just cross reference the rule and penalize you on the spot, rather than needing to appeal to a system of intelligent, human judgment to determine what is just in any given case.

[Wayward Son]

You know what's the problem with Trump?  He's too giving.  He gives and gives and gives, even when we don't want him to give any more.  He just can't help it.

His latest gift?  His plan on how to make Mexico pay for the wall with Mexico.  Trump wants to stop Mexicans from sending money to their relatives in Mexico.

Donald Trump says he would force Mexico to pay for a border wall as president by threatening to cut off the flow of billions of dollars in payments that immigrants send home to the country, an idea that could decimate the Mexican economy and set up an unprecedented showdown between the United States and a key regional ally.

One can just imagine the Boarder Patrol checking cars going into Mexico for illegal stashes of cash.  Of registering wallets for the amount of money in them, so we can know it was used to purchase items rather than sent to relatives.  Of people being frisked for bank slips or Western Union receipts to make sure they didn't send illicit funds to families. 

You can almost hear the political cartoonists and late-night comedians now.  "Please, Trump, no more!  We can't handle all this material!  No more gifts!"

[AI Wessex]

Quite honestly, my big fear is that Trump at this point has indeed jumped the shark and ruined his chances of winning the nomination.  Think of it as death by 1000 bites.  He polls worse among every single demographic category than Clinton (or Sanders), meaning that he would get schlonged big time if he managed to be the GOP candidate in the election.  But if we lose him to Cruz, then we will have Cruz to deal with.  I expect that he would also lose by a landslide, but the outcome is less certain than it would be with Trump.  All I can hope for in that case would be for Trump to fire up his troops and run as an independent.  If Clinton were the Democrat in a 3-way race, all of Trump's votes would come from Cruz.  If Sanders is on the ticket, Trump would draw votes from both him and Cruz, which would also make the outcome a bit less certain.

[D.W.]

First:  I thought when he suggested stopping people from sending cash back to Mexico he meant wire transfers not, cash in a brown paper bag in a vehicle...

Second:  There is nothing stopping Trump from telling the nation he didn't mean any of that stuff in the primaries and immediately reversing his positions to appear more mainstream.  It won't convince those who were defiantly voting Democrat but it may get a lot of independents who aren't thrilled with the option for Hillary either. 

And what does Trump gamble?  Does anyone seriously think his followers would feel betrayed?  Even those who did, couldn't be convinced he was just doing what it took to win; are they really going to vote against him because of it?  Or even stay home?  Doubtful.

AI:  do you mean if Sanders was ALSO running as an independent?  Or do you mean if it was Cruz, Trump and Sanders as the nominee?

[AI Wessex]

AI:  do you mean if Sanders was ALSO running as an independent?  Or do you mean if it was Cruz, Trump and Sanders as the nominee?

I meant if Sanders is the nominee instead of Clinton.  There is 0% chance Sanders will run as an independent.

[D.W.]

I didn't think that sounded plausible either...
But, neither did the idea that Bernie wouldn't do better than Clinton (rather than the implied vulnerability of loosing independents you seemed to be suggesting), so I figured I'd ask.

Voters don't care that Bernie is an independent in Democrat's clothing.  It's a distinction without a difference to them.  The people who care are the Democratic "team" who he is not a loyal supporter to and don't get the same rising tide raises all ships effect they get with Hillary.

[AI Wessex]

I agree that rank and file Democrats won't see Sanders as an interloper, but Trump supporters tend to "value" his outsider status.  So I think he'll take votes from Trump if it's head to head, but could either win or lose votes to Trump if it's a three-way with Cruz.  He'd win voters from Trump in that scenario who don't think that Trump is "electable" as an independent, but that notion has even more cognitive dissonance than them liking Trump to begin with.  As a result I would predict that Trump as an independent would likely steal more votes from Sanders than the other way around.

I was listening to a radio show this morning where the hypothetical question was asked of the expert panel of political analysts whether the Republican establishment would be any happier with Cruz as the candidate than they are with Trump.  They didn't have much of an answer, except to say that at least he has a platform.  I wonder what goes on in the minds of GOP faithful who think that Democrats are an inferior race but know that they don't really stand a chance of winning the election because through their policies they are thought of as somewhere between fools and evil.

[LetterRip]

In a 3 way race, Trump might still beat Clinton.  There are a lot of blue collar democrats who will vote for Trump and there are a lot of anti-Clinton Republicans who will vote for whoever looks like they have the best chance of beating Clinton.  Plus a lot of Independents and quite a few Democrats stay home if Clinton is the candidate.  It isn't how many votes you win, it is how many delegates you win, and Clinton is extremely vulnerable in the 'rust belt'.

All of the polls showing Clinton winning are using 'likely voter' weightings from previous years, which completely ignore the blue collar vote from Democrats and Republicans because they have stayed home the past 5 elections.

[Pyrtolin]

If Sanders is on the ticket, Trump would draw votes from both him and Cruz, which would also make the outcome a bit less certain.

That's not true at all. Sanders vs Trum and Cuz will pick up a lot of the middle that would prefer someone honest that they disagree with over the other two because of their extremism, even if trump tries to tack to center. On the other hand, there are a number of boneheaded Sanders supporters that are actually anti-Clinton voters that will absolutely go for Trump or even just let Cruz win in hopes that they'll be bad enough to set up a mid-term revolt (without any regard for others who will take damage in the meantime) The situation is even more grim for Clinton if the GOP pulls a rabbit out of its hat and squeezes Kasich or Ryan in, even with Trump spoiling.

[AI Wessex]

Kasich is the most viable (i.e., electable) GOP candidate, but Trump and Cruz won't change the rules to allow him into the second ballot.  That means that the second ballot will be a 2-man race between Trump and Cruz, so unless delegates are allowed to abstain one of them will win.  I'm not going to check since the convention rules are so byzantine, but Kasich may be eligible on the 3rd ballot, but I don't think Ryan would be eligible until the 4th or even 5th ballot.

[Wayward Son]

First:  I thought when he suggested stopping people from sending cash back to Mexico he meant wire transfers not, cash in a brown paper bag in a vehicle...

I was extrapolating as to what would happen after Trump stopped wire transfers.  You think people will stop supporting their families in Mexico?  They'll find other ways, like moving cash across the border and do the wire transfers from there.  At which point, Trump would have to up the ante...

A ludicrous imagine for a ludicrous proposal.

[D.W.]

So the wall is in place, nobody who doesn't look like a fresh snowfall wouldn't dare go to Mexico for fear of not being let back in.  So we are talking reverse briefcase full of money coyotes?  Willing to bring your money across the border, wire it on and... bring you a receipt for a percentage? 

But ya, it gets pretty absurd fast to try and play out how Trump's plan would look in practice. 

[Greg Davidson]

I think that a Trump-Cruz ticket is a stable equilibrium. The combined numbers of supporters of Trump and Cruz can dominate the convention; why would the two of them allow any scenario that cuts them both out of the loop when they could combine instead? Clearly, such an alternate would be a deal that Trump could accept. Trump is 69 and Cruz is 45, so there's also multiple opportunities from such a deal for Cruz - he could spend the 2016 campaign building up favors from more of the establishment, and then with a win he's VP; with a loss he is the 2020 front-runner with limited stain since Trump would be blamed for the loss.

Have things have gotten too hostile between the two of them for such a deal? I don't think so - I think that Cruz at least could do a cost-benefit analysis and pick the path that best served his interests.

[NobleHunter]

The GOP establishment wouldn't like Trump-Cruz any more than just Trump. That, plus Cruz not wanting to abandon his chances too soon, might mean by the time any such agreement was reached, enough delegates would be unbound to that their majority would matter less.

[Fenring]

Have things have gotten too hostile between the two of them for such a deal? I don't think so - I think that Cruz at least could do a cost-benefit analysis and pick the path that best served his interests.

I don't think so either. The public animosity between them was purely manufactured grandstanding to make a splash. Whatever they think of each other in private, their previous temporary alliance shows that they are both willing to take whatever strategic steps are necessary to beat out the competition, whether that's being bff's or turning on each other when convenient. I also agree that this ticket would likely take the form of Trump-Prez/Cruz-VP, and based on their respective charisma I'm not even sure the other permutation would be logical. Cruz is known as being very smart but hated, which makes him good to have on the team but bad to have as the front man for the group.