The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Trump's Triple Bankshot on Immigration?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Commenter Noah172 writes:

I would be angrier about this proposal, which is lousy on the merits, if it had a chance of becoming law. If it wakes up some normies to the extremism of the Democrats, it might be worth the heartburn on the right. I am disappointed in people like Mark Krikorian and Mickey Kaus and Ann Coulter who only see the proposal as terrible (which it is, when considered in isolation) but who don’t see the value in exposing the insanity of the left.

This incident reminds me of the 2000 Camp David summit between President Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Yasser Arafat. Barak made the most generous offer ever from an Israeli: a Palestinian state with all [or much of] the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem (the last a painful concession for Jews, and would have gotten Barak assassinated like Rabin had it come to fruition). Arafat said no FTMP because of what was omitted: a right of return for the Palestinian diaspora — his version of electing a new people. Arafat’s refusal, and the intifada that started soon after, convinced many Israelis that the Palestinians can never be reasoned with (the Israeli left has never really recovered from 2000-01).

Then there was the obscure Taba talks of early 2001.

If Trump’s DACA negotiating convinces millions of white normies that the Democrats are not and will never be reasonable on immigration (redpills them, basically), Trump will deserve credit for a bold, risky move with generational payoff.

Trump should take the Democrats hysterical rejection as license to say, “To hell with it. They’re all going back.”

That’s the good spin. I hope it’s the right spin.

 
Hide 152 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The point of Trump was never to save America with One Weird Tip.

    Most seem to forget that this was the flight 93 election.

    The mindwar among Whites is more important than any policy change. Trump’s job is to convince the normies that it is “let’s roll” time. Any policy changes that happen are just a bonus.

    50% cut in legal immigration has become a normie position overnight. Hello?

    • Agree: BenKenobi, Thomas
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @27 year old

    You are probably correct. The leftist ideology is so insane that a lot of people can be redpilled by simply showing them what the leftists think.

    Question is, how much time you have left. The US will be majority nonwhite within a generation. Even in Europe, the clock is ticking fast.

    Replies: @415 reasons, @Anonymous, @27 year old

    , @Ed
    @27 year old

    Thank you. We were this close to Clinton. Trump doesn’t run we get a Jeb and the illegals are getting amnestied for nothing.

    Trump has shifted the Overton window and policy changes are gravy. However i think cons should jump on this offer. They won’t be able to restrict immigration in a Dem house. It’s now or never.

    , @AnotherDad
    @27 year old


    The mindwar among Whites is more important than any policy change. Trump’s job is to convince the normies that it is “let’s roll” time. Any policy changes that happen are just a bonus.
     
    Agree. We need any policy changes that limit future immigration. But even more importantly we need to win mindshare.

    Unfortunately this is the part that "how about this ... how about that ... let's make a deal!" Trump is terrible at.

    Trump ought to be hammering home the point that he won't sign any DACA amnesty that doesn't fix the problem and close the border so we never face the DACA problem in the future. Unfortunately he not only isn't beating that point home ... Trump didn't even include mandatory e-verify, so this isn't going to stop illegal immigration even temporarily. Hard to highlight the Democrats lack of interest in stemming the flow of illegals, when Trump isn't even proposing to grab the low hanging fruit.

    The Democrats immigration extermism provides the perfect opportunity to wake up white people--and interested patriotic minorities--and build a nationalist coalition. But to do that Trump needs to be using the bully-pulpit to call out the "progressive"/Democrat/leftist-Jewish immigration insanity. (Most people aren't reading Steve.)

    Everyday, Trump should be pointing out that the Democrats:
    -- don't actually want illegal immigration to stop
    -- don't believe in a secure border
    -- have become ideologically committed to open borders extremism

    Repeatedly Trump should be
    -- asking the Democrats how many people they want in America?
    do they want us to grow to the size of China and India?
    why do the Democrats want lower wages? more income inequality? higher housing prices?
    more congestion? more sprawl? a crappier environment?
    -- asking the Demcrats how many immigrants they want to take every year?
    make them pick a number.
    -- saying "employers should start hiring American kids"
    and "we have lots of Americans graduating high school and college every year", employers should be hiring them first."
    -- saying "the American people get to choose any immigration policy they want"
    and "the only immigrants we should take are those whose presence actually benefits Americans"
    -- saying "there is no civil right to immigrate to America"

    The leftist program is evil, against the interests of American citizens (and European citizens in Europe). It's easy to point that out.

    Unlike Steve, Trump has the bully pulpit and he *can* rip this thing up and point out the emperor has no clothes. But he's got to do it.
  2. I agree with the commenter. We want trade and immigration front and center going into the fall elections.

  3. Trump didn’t ask enough in return for the generous offer. If he had, it still would have been considered a generous offer.

    P.S. Can anyone provide a primary source citation to Barak’s alleged “generous offer”?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Opinionator


    Can anyone provide a primary source citation to Barak’s alleged “generous offer”?
     
    Read the fine print and you'll learn that the supposed 'generous offer' was full of BS. Arafat was right to reject what was in fact a suicidal agreement for the Palestinians. The MSM in the US continue to parrot the Zionist version, of course.

    https://fair.org/extra/the-myth-of-the-generous-offer/

    https://electronicintifada.net/content/misrepresentation-baraks-offer-camp-david-generous-and-unprecedented/3991

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/08/09/camp-david-the-tragedy-of-errors/

    The NYRB version omits, characteristically, that as part of the deal the Palestinians were to be completely disarmed with their security at the eternal mercy of IDF and Shin Bet. Hard to call that sovereignty.

    Replies: @Jack D

  4. I have a bad feeling about this.
    Trump seems to have made up his mind that these people can’t be deported. Doesn’t he realize this will turn America forever blue and make it into Bernie’s socialist looneyland?!

    In California today a bill is being discussed that would fine waiters $1,000 and/or put them in jail for six months for giving plastic straws to customers in restaurants without asking first. Politicians like this who want to regulate every part of people’s lives will get elected all over the US due to granting all these people (plus everyone tangentially related to them) amnesty.

    I predict a deal won’t be made before March 5th and Trump will cave and keep extending Obama’s DACA executive order for six months for the remainder of his presidency.

    Seeing those DACA people in politician’s offices shouting them down, cussing at them and demanding citizenship really makes my blood boil.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @whyamihere

    If Trump arrested all of the judges in California tomorrow (state and federal) for violating their Constitutional oaths, it would be a good start. He could get about 75% of those turds convicted, too---ship them off to federal courts in other states and try them there.

    Fighting for each district court judge appointment is the next step if the republic is to hold.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Clyde
    @whyamihere


    I predict a deal won’t be made before March 5th and Trump will cave and keep extending Obama’s DACA executive order for six months for the remainder of his presidency.
     
    Whatever happens to DACA there won't be more Trumpian extend and pretend. There will be a DACA deal or it will die gradually as DACA "kids" are denied renewal.
    , @Barnard
    @whyamihere


    Trump seems to have made up his mind that these people can’t be deported.
     
    The whole idea that they can't be deported because of public opinion seems crazy to me. Obamacare was passed in clear violation of Congressional rules after the voters of Massachusetts elected Scott Brown in a last ditch effort to stop it. It wasn't popular, was forced through and yet can't seem to be undone. This whole immigration deal process demonstrates how strongly the powerful oppose what the people want on immigration.
    , @Boethiuss
    @whyamihere


    Politicians like this who want to regulate every part of people’s lives will get elected all over the US due to granting all these people (plus everyone tangentially related to them) amnesty.
     
    Why are we worried about what amnesty is going to do to our elections when there's a decent proportion of us who intend to eliminate the middleman, ie, turn around and vote Democratic. If we can't be bothered to vote Republican as it is, who could give a shit about amnesty?
  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Brietbart has several articles up that reveal the dirty details of trump’s framework proposal. Somebody worked awfully hard to put every trick in the book into the fine print.

    The proposal is a well thought out plan to bamboozle trump’s base and leave them empty promises that supposedly kick in ten years down the road.

    • Replies: @Noah172
    @Anonymous

    What fine print? It's one page. A bill before Congress would be fine print.

    And if virtually all Democrats and some TBD number of Republicans reject it while it is still one page, it's not going to be law.

    But as I made clear above, it's a terrible deal on the merits.

    , @Thomas
    @Anonymous

    Breitbart and other sources are also complaining that putting the 1.8 million marker down will turn out to be Trump negotiating with himself, they'll take that number as a floor.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Boethiuss

  6. @Anonymous
    Brietbart has several articles up that reveal the dirty details of trump's framework proposal. Somebody worked awfully hard to put every trick in the book into the fine print.

    The proposal is a well thought out plan to bamboozle trump's base and leave them empty promises that supposedly kick in ten years down the road.

    Replies: @Noah172, @Thomas

    What fine print? It’s one page. A bill before Congress would be fine print.

    And if virtually all Democrats and some TBD number of Republicans reject it while it is still one page, it’s not going to be law.

    But as I made clear above, it’s a terrible deal on the merits.

  7. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Really dumb take.

    The status quo is bad. It would not be victory to maintain the status quo.

    This is an opportunity to end chain migration, would be an improvement over the status quo even with DACA amnesty.

    As always, the devil is in the details, but properly done, it would be for the best.

  8. @Anonymous
    Brietbart has several articles up that reveal the dirty details of trump's framework proposal. Somebody worked awfully hard to put every trick in the book into the fine print.

    The proposal is a well thought out plan to bamboozle trump's base and leave them empty promises that supposedly kick in ten years down the road.

    Replies: @Noah172, @Thomas

    Breitbart and other sources are also complaining that putting the 1.8 million marker down will turn out to be Trump negotiating with himself, they’ll take that number as a floor.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Thomas

    It is a valid criticism.

    BUT, if 1.8 million is his bottom line, he may as well get there first and take the credit. Plus, it makes him look more reasonable if this thing is going to be rejected anyway by the Democrats.

    Replies: @Thomas

    , @Boethiuss
    @Thomas


    Breitbart and other sources are also complaining that putting the 1.8 million marker down will turn out to be Trump negotiating with himself, they’ll take that number as a floor.
     
    I'm sure they will. But that doesn't mean that they will actually get that as a floor. The most likely scenario is that there won't be any deal at all.

    Replies: @markm

  9. I disagree with commenter Noah’s premise, Steve. The White House proposal is dressed up as a hard-driven bargain on the surface but is an open-borders sellout in the fine-print under the hood. If the goal was to redpill the populace and show the democrats as being unreasonable, why disguise the open-borders nature of the proposal and make it seem more restrictionist than it really is? That seems like the polar opposite of the approach you would take if you wanted to showcase the democrats rejecting even such an open borders deal as this one is at its core. I don’t buy it.

    • Agree: International Jew
  10. I think this is likely.

    One thing to bear in mind in this discussion is that a 40-something year old Polish immigrant doctor got picked up by ICE, apparently for having a couple of misdemeanors as a teen and a DUI ten years ago. This reminds me of Howard Stern describing how his elderly parents got searched on their way into the local, vibrant multiplex, so all the young blacks getting searched wouldn’t feel singled out.

    And it suggests the anti-DACA powers available to the Trump administration. How many DACAns can get locked up, using the same low bar applied to the Polish doc?

    If the Dems want to shutdown the government over this, great. Let it stay shut longer this time. Trump should call for laying off “non-essential” federal workers, when everyone else realizes no one misses them. They’re all Dem voters anyway.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @Dave Pinsen

    So this guy didn't bother to get U.S. citizenship for 40 years, and was a drunk driver on our roads?

    He had the option for decades to join the country and didn't, and then put us all in danger to boot. Seriously, while on the surface it seems harsh, once you think about it I keep asking, "where did he get the nerve?"

    Our country, our rules, and this was always the rule. If he'd wanted to change it, he should have applied to be a citizen.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta

    , @Jack D
    @Dave Pinsen

    I don't understand. My parents were former Polish citizens and they became US citizens at the earliest opportunity because they had cast their lot with America. How did this guy stay here for 40 years and never become a citizen?

    Replies: @utu, @Olorin

    , @North Carolina Resident
    @Dave Pinsen

    An average drunk driver has driven drunk over 80 before their first arrest.

    https://www.madd.org/statistics/

    Arrest data: Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States: 2014” https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-29 Incidence data: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Alcohol-Impaired Driving Among Adults — United States, 2012.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. August 7, 2015 / 64(30);814-817. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6430a2.htm

    Replies: @Anonymous

  11. @Thomas
    @Anonymous

    Breitbart and other sources are also complaining that putting the 1.8 million marker down will turn out to be Trump negotiating with himself, they'll take that number as a floor.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Boethiuss

    It is a valid criticism.

    BUT, if 1.8 million is his bottom line, he may as well get there first and take the credit. Plus, it makes him look more reasonable if this thing is going to be rejected anyway by the Democrats.

    • Replies: @Thomas
    @Opinionator

    The DACA recipients were clearly the thin end of the wedge, as the most sympathetic-seeming illegals the Democrats and media could find, but I predicted there would be no way that the Democrats would accept significant restrictions on future immigration at any price, because it would mean the end of a 50 year old electoral strategy for them. But is that something they can explain to the public?

    Earliest indications are that they're going to do the usual "point and sputter 'racist!'" routine that's their typical default reaction.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  12. OT

    I just saw this video (scroll down for it) of the sentencing of a sexual offender doctor. I don’t know if it’s usual for such crimes to receive such harsh sentences (he certainly seems guilty), but I don’t really care except to remark that capital punishment would seemingly be more humane in this case. The guy could easily be a psychopath anyway.

    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.

    The reason I didn’t like it is because I think if judges are expected to absolutely conceal their personal animosity, it will become a second nature for them, and they will be probably more impartial. It’s especially important in cases where guilt is not known with absolute certainty, or if the defendant is a member of an unpopular group (like a white male or a racist), and similar cases.

    So, a question to the Americans here. Is it in the US appropriate for a judge to openly express her personal animosity towards the defendant, however vile or psychopathic he is? In Hungary the only time judges behaved that way (and even then only sometimes) was in political cases during the darkest period of communist dictatorship in the 1950s.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @reiner Tor

    Reiner, judges in the U.S. in criminal cases often interject their personal feelings about a convict when handing down the sentence. It doesn't occur at any other point before---that would be grounds for a mistrial or recusal---but when a judge is sentencing someone, after hearing all the sentencing evidence, some like to get all huffy and fake-outraged to give themselves some positive press. Some judges don't do that, they just hand down the sentence.

    Often times, if a convict is appealing a harsh sentence, the judge's colorful language at sentencing will actually work against the appeal; the appeals court will say "the judge, who heard all the testimony and victim statements, is in the best position to judge how cruel the defendant was, and the language used expresses that."

    Criminal sentencing in the U.S. is partially discretionary to the judge in most cases, so judges throwing the book at a guy will go over the top in their language to justify it. After all, after conviction, the only real metric between giving a light sentence and putting them away for life is the emotion involved from the crime.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    , @Daniel Chieh
    @reiner Tor


    So, a question to the Americans here. Is it in the US appropriate for a judge to openly express her personal animosity towards the defendant, however vile or psychopathic he is?
     
    I think there is usually a pretense of neutrality but these days, she needs to put on a good act for her adoring facebook crowd.
    , @Thomas
    @reiner Tor

    I saw that too and was hearing numerous critiques of the judge's behavior. Unfortunately, there isn't likely to be any remedy, given that the defendant probably signed away any right to appeal the sentence. He was already set to serve 60 years in federal prison on child pornography charges with an earliest possible release date in 2069, which was already almost certainly a life sentence for a 54 year old man, so I assume he probably just wanted to get past the ordeal of court and on with navigating the vicissitudes of life as a convicted sex offender in prison.

    , @Dave Pinsen
    @reiner Tor

    The whole case seems odd to me, like the claim that he was molesting a girl while her mother was in the exam room, but the mother didn't see because she was behind him? That's bizarre.

    But yes, some people have criticized the judge's comments, e.g.,

    https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/956255775646625792

    https://twitter.com/varadmehta/status/956320811861925888

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @RadicalCenter

    , @Dave Pinsen
    @reiner Tor

    I was pleasantly surprised to see the word "survivor" put in quotes in an article in last week's FT about an African immigrant in Britain was a victim of female genital mutilation and is an advocate against it.

    "Survivor" used to denote someone who managed to not die from an often-fatal experience, e.g., Holocaust survivor, survivor of a gunshot wound, etc. But I'd venture about 100% of women who experienced an unexpected digital penetration by Dr. Nassar during an osteopathic adjustment survived. Really, they were victims, but, despite victims being celebrated, they're called survivors instead.

    The other odd thing about the judge's comments is that she thinks what Nassar did to those girls is worse than him spending the rest of his life in prison. Every time he goes for his physical, he gets digitally penetrated. It's nothing to look forward to, but I'm sure the bad doctor would take a few hundred prostate exams over life in prison in a heartbeat, if that was on offer.

    Replies: @Bill B.

    , @utu
    @reiner Tor


    She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive
     
    In my world this would be good enough for an appeal. However not in the US of A.
    , @Crawfurdmuir
    @reiner Tor


    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.
     
    Milkwater stuff, really, compared to the sentencing style of Lord Chief Justice George Jeffreys, First Baron Jeffreys of Wem (1648-1688). According to Macaulay,

    ...when he had an opportunity of ordering an unlucky adventuress to be whipped at the cart's tail, "Hangman," he would exclaim, "I charge you to pay particular attention to this lady! Scourge her soundly man! Scourge her till the blood runs down! It is Christmas, a cold time for Madam to strip in! See that you warm her shoulders thoroughly!"
     
    Jeffreys was not above "gallows humor" when sending someone to that fate. Writes Macaulay,

    One wretched man moved the pity even of bitter Tories. "My Lord," they said, "this poor creature is on the parish."

    "Do not trouble yourselves," said the Judge, "I will ease the parish of the burden."

    [...]

    A still more frightful sentence was passed on a lad named Tutchin, who was tried for seditious words.

    He was, as usual, interrupted in his defence by ribaldry and scurrility from the judgment seat. "You are a rebel; and all your family have been rebels since Adam. They tell me that you are a poet. I'll cap verses with you." The sentence was that the boy should be imprisoned seven years, and should, during that period, be flogged through every market town in Dorsetshire every year.

    The women in the galleries burst into tears. The clerk of the arraigns stood up in great disorder. "My Lord," said he, "the prisoner is very young. There are many market towns in our county. The sentence amounts to whipping once a fortnight for seven years."

    "If he is a young man," said Jeffreys, "he is an old rogue. Ladies, you do not know the villain as well as I do. The punishment is not half bad enough for him. All the interest in England shall not alter it."
     
    The vividness of Jeffreys's language was long remembered; Montague James makes the Lord Chief Justice figure in several of his ghost stories, most notably "Martin's Close," the greater part of which is presented as a trial transcript. At one point in the proceedings, one of the witnesses mentions a tune played in a tavern, and its use as a signal between the defendant and a woman that he first seduced, and then murdered. Jeffreys then says to the witness:

    Ay, I remember it in my own country, in Shropshire. It runs somehow thus, doth it not? [Here his lordship whistled part of a tune, which was very observable, and seemed below the dignity of the court. And it appears he felt it himself, for he said:] But this is by the mark, and I doubt it is the first time we have had dance-tunes in this court. The most part of the dancing we give occasion for is done at Tyburn...
     

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Anonymous, @Harry Baldwin

    , @Mr. Blank
    @reiner Tor

    Yeah I wasn’t a fan of that, even though the guy is a monster who was unquestionably guilty.

    I can’t really put my finger on why I found it so objectionable, other than vague notions about judicial propriety. “Justice” in my mind is supposed to be ice cold and unfeeling. A judge sentencing a criminal should be like a person crushing a deadly spider beneath their boot. You don’t get emotional about it — you just do it and go on with your life. In fact, the lack of emotion should serve as an object lesson to the criminal as to exactly how worthless and powerless they are next to the awesome, righteous might of the people and their appointed officers.

    It feels wrong for a judge to display too much emotion, no matter how justified.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Autochthon, @Chief Seattle

    , @Anonymous
    @reiner Tor

    Sex offenders being as unpopular as they are, she'll get away with it, but flamboasting and gasonading by judges has had consequences in the past. Ask John Howland Wood, Jr.

    , @Bleuteaux
    @reiner Tor

    I think you answered your own question there at the end.

  13. Remember Trump’s Luck?

    If this is Trump’s plan, all he needs is a big immigrant-kills-folks story in the public mind before the midterms. Could be terrorism or could be a straight sick murder (such as in San Francisco). Just needs to be big and loud and probably within 6 months of the election to make an impact. r.

    Trump understands the odds. He gets that a big terrorism or immigrant murder/ attempt will happen soon enough in the election year. Note how in 2017 we had the NYC truck attack, SF murderer-goes-free, and the NYC premature-underground-bomber.

    It’s literally only 10 months till election day.

  14. 1.8 million? That’s quite a jump from 800,000. I’ve read the real number of DACAs is closer to 2.6 million. ‘Tis a sound and a fury…

  15. I agree with the commenter’s take.

    Too often, Kaus & Coulter are too quick to “misunderestimate” Trump as much as the MSM does.

    Keep an eye on the SOTU coming up next week.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @O'Really

    Coulter is both panicked and elated by Trump. She thinks he's too good to be true, and is worried that if she doesn't hold his feet to the fire he'll get lazy and cut a deal. Remember, it was Coulter's book that gave Trump the inspiration to make immigration his base plank; Trump had no personal strong feeling on it, being more obsessed with destroying NAFTA as a whole (which includes open borders).

    So Coulter doesn't want the swamp destroying Trump or taking his lofty rhetoric and making it mincemeat. Plus she must feel a bit like the dog that caught the car at this point.

    Replies: @Juan DeShawn Arafat

  16. @reiner Tor
    OT

    I just saw this video (scroll down for it) of the sentencing of a sexual offender doctor. I don’t know if it’s usual for such crimes to receive such harsh sentences (he certainly seems guilty), but I don’t really care except to remark that capital punishment would seemingly be more humane in this case. The guy could easily be a psychopath anyway.

    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.

    The reason I didn’t like it is because I think if judges are expected to absolutely conceal their personal animosity, it will become a second nature for them, and they will be probably more impartial. It’s especially important in cases where guilt is not known with absolute certainty, or if the defendant is a member of an unpopular group (like a white male or a racist), and similar cases.

    So, a question to the Americans here. Is it in the US appropriate for a judge to openly express her personal animosity towards the defendant, however vile or psychopathic he is? In Hungary the only time judges behaved that way (and even then only sometimes) was in political cases during the darkest period of communist dictatorship in the 1950s.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Daniel Chieh, @Thomas, @Dave Pinsen, @Dave Pinsen, @utu, @Crawfurdmuir, @Mr. Blank, @Anonymous, @Bleuteaux

    Reiner, judges in the U.S. in criminal cases often interject their personal feelings about a convict when handing down the sentence. It doesn’t occur at any other point before—that would be grounds for a mistrial or recusal—but when a judge is sentencing someone, after hearing all the sentencing evidence, some like to get all huffy and fake-outraged to give themselves some positive press. Some judges don’t do that, they just hand down the sentence.

    Often times, if a convict is appealing a harsh sentence, the judge’s colorful language at sentencing will actually work against the appeal; the appeals court will say “the judge, who heard all the testimony and victim statements, is in the best position to judge how cruel the defendant was, and the language used expresses that.”

    Criminal sentencing in the U.S. is partially discretionary to the judge in most cases, so judges throwing the book at a guy will go over the top in their language to justify it. After all, after conviction, the only real metric between giving a light sentence and putting them away for life is the emotion involved from the crime.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @whorefinder


    Often times, if a convict is appealing a harsh sentence, the judge’s colorful language at sentencing will actually work against the appeal; the appeals court will say “the judge, who heard all the testimony and victim statements, is in the best position to judge how cruel the defendant was, and the language used expresses that.”
     
    In other words, the more the judge hated you and so the least impartial the sentencing was, the more likely the sentence is to be upheld.

    It sounds like a scary system. I am long disabused of my youthful naive belief about the American justice system (which I had thought was the best in the world), but this detail further eroded my estimation of it.

    Replies: @whorefinder

  17. @reiner Tor
    OT

    I just saw this video (scroll down for it) of the sentencing of a sexual offender doctor. I don’t know if it’s usual for such crimes to receive such harsh sentences (he certainly seems guilty), but I don’t really care except to remark that capital punishment would seemingly be more humane in this case. The guy could easily be a psychopath anyway.

    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.

    The reason I didn’t like it is because I think if judges are expected to absolutely conceal their personal animosity, it will become a second nature for them, and they will be probably more impartial. It’s especially important in cases where guilt is not known with absolute certainty, or if the defendant is a member of an unpopular group (like a white male or a racist), and similar cases.

    So, a question to the Americans here. Is it in the US appropriate for a judge to openly express her personal animosity towards the defendant, however vile or psychopathic he is? In Hungary the only time judges behaved that way (and even then only sometimes) was in political cases during the darkest period of communist dictatorship in the 1950s.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Daniel Chieh, @Thomas, @Dave Pinsen, @Dave Pinsen, @utu, @Crawfurdmuir, @Mr. Blank, @Anonymous, @Bleuteaux

    So, a question to the Americans here. Is it in the US appropriate for a judge to openly express her personal animosity towards the defendant, however vile or psychopathic he is?

    I think there is usually a pretense of neutrality but these days, she needs to put on a good act for her adoring facebook crowd.

  18. @Dave Pinsen
    I think this is likely.

    One thing to bear in mind in this discussion is that a 40-something year old Polish immigrant doctor got picked up by ICE, apparently for having a couple of misdemeanors as a teen and a DUI ten years ago. This reminds me of Howard Stern describing how his elderly parents got searched on their way into the local, vibrant multiplex, so all the young blacks getting searched wouldn't feel singled out.

    And it suggests the anti-DACA powers available to the Trump administration. How many DACAns can get locked up, using the same low bar applied to the Polish doc?

    If the Dems want to shutdown the government over this, great. Let it stay shut longer this time. Trump should call for laying off "non-essential" federal workers, when everyone else realizes no one misses them. They're all Dem voters anyway.


    https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/955701166343643137

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Jack D, @North Carolina Resident

    So this guy didn’t bother to get U.S. citizenship for 40 years, and was a drunk driver on our roads?

    He had the option for decades to join the country and didn’t, and then put us all in danger to boot. Seriously, while on the surface it seems harsh, once you think about it I keep asking, “where did he get the nerve?”

    Our country, our rules, and this was always the rule. If he’d wanted to change it, he should have applied to be a citizen.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @whorefinder

    I also saw a couple of comments on Twitter suggesting he may have had more run-ins with the police than the media have mentioned so far. Maybe one of those precluded him applying for citizenship?

    Physicians have such high status in America we often forget they include bad apples too: pill mill runners, bilkers of Medicare, facilitators of false claims for disability pensions, etc. Don't know if that was the case with this guy, but I wouldn't rule it out.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @dr kill

    , @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    @whorefinder

    In Poland the limit is 0.02 for DUI and it even applies to cyclists. Some other Eastern European countries are even stricter. Who knows how strict enforcement actually is. An acquaintance got busted at exactly 0.o2 while "pushing" his bicycle and his lawyer couldn't do anything. A couple days in Polish jail, a huge fine and suspended driver's license.

    Very draconian.

    Admittedly the guy was a German and the justice system might have been unusually inflexible.

  19. @reiner Tor
    OT

    I just saw this video (scroll down for it) of the sentencing of a sexual offender doctor. I don’t know if it’s usual for such crimes to receive such harsh sentences (he certainly seems guilty), but I don’t really care except to remark that capital punishment would seemingly be more humane in this case. The guy could easily be a psychopath anyway.

    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.

    The reason I didn’t like it is because I think if judges are expected to absolutely conceal their personal animosity, it will become a second nature for them, and they will be probably more impartial. It’s especially important in cases where guilt is not known with absolute certainty, or if the defendant is a member of an unpopular group (like a white male or a racist), and similar cases.

    So, a question to the Americans here. Is it in the US appropriate for a judge to openly express her personal animosity towards the defendant, however vile or psychopathic he is? In Hungary the only time judges behaved that way (and even then only sometimes) was in political cases during the darkest period of communist dictatorship in the 1950s.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Daniel Chieh, @Thomas, @Dave Pinsen, @Dave Pinsen, @utu, @Crawfurdmuir, @Mr. Blank, @Anonymous, @Bleuteaux

    I saw that too and was hearing numerous critiques of the judge’s behavior. Unfortunately, there isn’t likely to be any remedy, given that the defendant probably signed away any right to appeal the sentence. He was already set to serve 60 years in federal prison on child pornography charges with an earliest possible release date in 2069, which was already almost certainly a life sentence for a 54 year old man, so I assume he probably just wanted to get past the ordeal of court and on with navigating the vicissitudes of life as a convicted sex offender in prison.

  20. @27 year old
    The point of Trump was never to save America with One Weird Tip.

    Most seem to forget that this was the flight 93 election.

    The mindwar among Whites is more important than any policy change. Trump's job is to convince the normies that it is "let's roll" time. Any policy changes that happen are just a bonus.

    50% cut in legal immigration has become a normie position overnight. Hello?

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Ed, @AnotherDad

    You are probably correct. The leftist ideology is so insane that a lot of people can be redpilled by simply showing them what the leftists think.

    Question is, how much time you have left. The US will be majority nonwhite within a generation. Even in Europe, the clock is ticking fast.

    • Replies: @415 reasons
    @reiner Tor

    It is way too late. But perhaps the speed at which we turn into Brazil can be slowed down so my kids can know a reasonable facsimile of the country I grew up in.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    , @Anonymous
    @reiner Tor

    At this point it is not possible over the long term to have a white majority America or Western Europe. What will happen is the majority will turn into a Meghan Markle shade.

    This is the vision of supposedly the only white nationalist in Congress Steven King:


    “If you go down the road a few generations or maybe centuries with the intermarriage, I’d like to see an America that’s just so homogenous that we look a lot the same from that perspective,” he said.
     
    It's not an unreasonable prediction. The US and Western Europe are much more open to intermarriage than Brazil so even the upper middle class will end up transforming over time.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @27 year old
    @reiner Tor


    Question is, how much time you have left. The US will be majority nonwhite within a generation. Even in Europe, the clock is ticking fast.
     
    We can thrive indefinitely as a plurality or even an actual minority -- IF we have the desire to do so. Apartheid South Africa was stable until they blinked. Whites are higher quality, and we will win IF we want to win. If we don't want acknowledge the game being played and we don't want to win, it doesn't matter how many of us there are.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @ben tillman

  21. @reiner Tor
    OT

    I just saw this video (scroll down for it) of the sentencing of a sexual offender doctor. I don’t know if it’s usual for such crimes to receive such harsh sentences (he certainly seems guilty), but I don’t really care except to remark that capital punishment would seemingly be more humane in this case. The guy could easily be a psychopath anyway.

    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.

    The reason I didn’t like it is because I think if judges are expected to absolutely conceal their personal animosity, it will become a second nature for them, and they will be probably more impartial. It’s especially important in cases where guilt is not known with absolute certainty, or if the defendant is a member of an unpopular group (like a white male or a racist), and similar cases.

    So, a question to the Americans here. Is it in the US appropriate for a judge to openly express her personal animosity towards the defendant, however vile or psychopathic he is? In Hungary the only time judges behaved that way (and even then only sometimes) was in political cases during the darkest period of communist dictatorship in the 1950s.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Daniel Chieh, @Thomas, @Dave Pinsen, @Dave Pinsen, @utu, @Crawfurdmuir, @Mr. Blank, @Anonymous, @Bleuteaux

    The whole case seems odd to me, like the claim that he was molesting a girl while her mother was in the exam room, but the mother didn’t see because she was behind him? That’s bizarre.

    But yes, some people have criticized the judge’s comments, e.g.,

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Dave Pinsen

    I don’t know if the guy really was guilty (these days you really can’t know with sexual crimes which are often quite mild, e.g. some genitals being touched for a second or something, which is both impossible to prove beyond doubt and clearly not cause for great suffering for a healthy, well-adjusted adult), but I assumed he was. In which case he might be a psychopath.

    I think the plea bargain is also a scary system. In medieval and Stalinist justice confession of guilt was considered the strongest possible evidence, but it obviously meant that incentives were high to use torture to extract confession. I think guilt should never be established based on confession without a trial.

    I hope I’ll never be tried in the US.

    Replies: @whorefinder

    , @RadicalCenter
    @Dave Pinsen

    This woman should not be entrusted with judicial power. Utterly unacceptable comments for a judge.

  22. @Opinionator
    @Thomas

    It is a valid criticism.

    BUT, if 1.8 million is his bottom line, he may as well get there first and take the credit. Plus, it makes him look more reasonable if this thing is going to be rejected anyway by the Democrats.

    Replies: @Thomas

    The DACA recipients were clearly the thin end of the wedge, as the most sympathetic-seeming illegals the Democrats and media could find, but I predicted there would be no way that the Democrats would accept significant restrictions on future immigration at any price, because it would mean the end of a 50 year old electoral strategy for them. But is that something they can explain to the public?

    Earliest indications are that they’re going to do the usual “point and sputter ‘racist!’” routine that’s their typical default reaction.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Thomas


    The DACA recipients were clearly the thin end of the wedge, as the most sympathetic-seeming illegals the Democrats and media could find, but I predicted there would be no way that the Democrats would accept significant restrictions on future immigration at any price, because it would mean the end of a 50 year old electoral strategy for them. But is that something they can explain to the public?

    Earliest indications are that they’re going to do the usual “point and sputter ‘racist!’” routine that’s their typical default reaction.

     

    This is exactly right, and like all paranoid fanatics the Dems don't even know when to slow down. Trump could get everything he's asking for and the Hart-Celler Demographic Transition in this country will still deliver all national elections to the Dems forever after. We're already past that tipping point.

    At this point their fanaticism is driven by three things: 1) a desire to lock in their political and social 'benefits' beyond reach forever 2) glee that their 'dispossess whitey' plan (which soon leads to 'enslave and kill whitey' plan) is finally coming to fruition--don't take your foot off the pedal! and 3) foaming-at-the-mouth mania which knows no reason and will brook no moderation, especially with the Evil Nazi still in the White House.

    These lunatics will start enslaving and killing the light-skinned latinos, asians etc once the last white person is gone. Look how they prosecute 'justice' in the lands they come from. It ain't pretty. But it is tribal.

  23. Absolute nonsense.

    The hermeneutic of “Trump is just doing this to make the other side look bad” is a species of hypnotic self-suggestion by which the true believers, who would otherwise suffer an unpleasant bout of cognitive dissonance, magically transmute defeat into ersatz victory.

    To believe this is to believe that the Democrats have good reason for accepting the proposal, such that rejecting it makes them look petty and deceitful. But they don’t have any reason to accept it. They want as much immigration as possible and they clearly aren’t worried about how it makes them look. They’ve set up sanctuary cities and states all over the country, flouted federal law, protected drug dealers, gang members, and murderers, and none of that has tarnished their image in their strongholds. They want to go to the mat with Trump. They believe they can win this, or at least obstruct long enough to paralyze his administration.

    And they will be right if Trump doesn’t hit them back, hard. And that means advocating for the issue with a plain and simple stance, letting his speech be yea yea and nay nay. If he is against DACA, then he needs to stand in opposition to DACA, not play underwater triple bankshot 4D chess with it. Which, in any case he is not, because, as I explained in my long comment to the first of the 3 open threads on this same subject which Steve’s frenetic posting is now pushing beneath the fold (damn it), such logic and strategy never entered into it. This framework is nothing more than the typical legislative sausage making that emanates from Washington with the regularity of the rising sun.

    But let’s assume for argument’s sake that you’re right, and that Trump really does have some bold wizardry up his sleeve that will expose the true thinking of the Democrats for all the world to see. Who the heck would care? For whom is this deft feat of exposure being performed? Not us, certainly; not his base, not the Deplorables in flyover country, not the #NeverTrumpers, and definitely not the Democrats. Who is this mythical person who still needs to get clued in on the subject? Is there anybody sufficiently informed and engaged with the political process in this country so as to connect the dots on Trump’s bankshot gambit, but who does not also already know what the Democrats “really think” about immigration? And is the risk of finding and persuading this rare specimen, this veritable white buffalo, really worth alienating the whole damn base on its signature issue?

    Of course not. This nonsensical thinking has got to stop. The only hope now is to make sure the administration knows that we are very unhappy with the proposal and that we will not stand by Trump if he doesn’t fight it. The political battle will be lost irrevocably if an amnesty is passed. We are now at the hour of decision and failure is not an option.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
    @Intelligent Dasein


    If he is against DACA, then he needs to stand in opposition to DACA, not play underwater triple bankshot 4D chess with it. Which, in any case he is not, because, as I explained in my long comment to the first of the 3 open threads on this same subject which Steve’s frenetic posting is now pushing beneath the fold (damn it), such logic and strategy never entered into it.
     
    I'd like to agree with this, but I don't. I also don't know if Trump is playing 11-dimensional chess or not. To some extent I really don't care.

    In any event, we have to make progress strategically as well as tactically. Tactically, there are issues in play like chain migration, the wall, e-Verify, etc. But strategically, the lay of the land is determined by the desire of the American people to assert our self-determination and protect the human capital of its citizens.

    We are emphatically not in dominant strategic position now. We may even be in a weak position, but we are certainly not in a dominant position. The only reason that Trump won the shutdown skirmish is because he was able to highlight the reality that Schumer and the Democrats held the interest of illegal aliens over that of American citizens.

    Without that, we would have lost. The American people are fine with normalizing the Dreamers. They are not particularly motivated to assert our self-determination and protect the human capital of our citizens.

    But this can change. But to change, people have to hear us. And people who sound like Charles Pewitt and Ann Coulter simply get tuned out. We can't afford to be tuned out.

    Replies: @Vinteuil, @Opinionator

  24. Is anyone surprised? Trump is both dumb and cuckworthy. But Ivanka ius happy.

  25. 1.8M sounds like a lot, but haggling over the precise number of DACAns, who are relatively popular, actually puts Trump on the weakest possible negotiating ground. 1.8M is small beans compared to the larger stakes in the fight.

  26. @reiner Tor
    OT

    I just saw this video (scroll down for it) of the sentencing of a sexual offender doctor. I don’t know if it’s usual for such crimes to receive such harsh sentences (he certainly seems guilty), but I don’t really care except to remark that capital punishment would seemingly be more humane in this case. The guy could easily be a psychopath anyway.

    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.

    The reason I didn’t like it is because I think if judges are expected to absolutely conceal their personal animosity, it will become a second nature for them, and they will be probably more impartial. It’s especially important in cases where guilt is not known with absolute certainty, or if the defendant is a member of an unpopular group (like a white male or a racist), and similar cases.

    So, a question to the Americans here. Is it in the US appropriate for a judge to openly express her personal animosity towards the defendant, however vile or psychopathic he is? In Hungary the only time judges behaved that way (and even then only sometimes) was in political cases during the darkest period of communist dictatorship in the 1950s.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Daniel Chieh, @Thomas, @Dave Pinsen, @Dave Pinsen, @utu, @Crawfurdmuir, @Mr. Blank, @Anonymous, @Bleuteaux

    I was pleasantly surprised to see the word “survivor” put in quotes in an article in last week’s FT about an African immigrant in Britain was a victim of female genital mutilation and is an advocate against it.

    “Survivor” used to denote someone who managed to not die from an often-fatal experience, e.g., Holocaust survivor, survivor of a gunshot wound, etc. But I’d venture about 100% of women who experienced an unexpected digital penetration by Dr. Nassar during an osteopathic adjustment survived. Really, they were victims, but, despite victims being celebrated, they’re called survivors instead.

    The other odd thing about the judge’s comments is that she thinks what Nassar did to those girls is worse than him spending the rest of his life in prison. Every time he goes for his physical, he gets digitally penetrated. It’s nothing to look forward to, but I’m sure the bad doctor would take a few hundred prostate exams over life in prison in a heartbeat, if that was on offer.

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    @Dave Pinsen

    The doctor is an evil man who deserves to spend a long time in jail. I would myself also add in some Singapore-style birching to help sharpen his remorse.

    But for once it is clearly reported what his crimes were and, repugnant at his actions were, the punishment appears to me excessive and unnecessary.

    Gang rapists, drug feeders, slavers and those who force children into prostitution are often (invariably in the UK) treated more leniently.

    The current era campaign against sex offenders seems to me flawed in that there is far to little parsing of the actual offenses: a lonely old man's hand on a boys trousers is treated as the equivalent of gang rape, at least in rhetoric.

  27. It is a very good deal. We can keep all immigrants in exchange for giving Jerusalem to Israel and bombing Iran.

    • LOL: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @utu

    Finally, someone who understands politics!

  28. @whorefinder
    @reiner Tor

    Reiner, judges in the U.S. in criminal cases often interject their personal feelings about a convict when handing down the sentence. It doesn't occur at any other point before---that would be grounds for a mistrial or recusal---but when a judge is sentencing someone, after hearing all the sentencing evidence, some like to get all huffy and fake-outraged to give themselves some positive press. Some judges don't do that, they just hand down the sentence.

    Often times, if a convict is appealing a harsh sentence, the judge's colorful language at sentencing will actually work against the appeal; the appeals court will say "the judge, who heard all the testimony and victim statements, is in the best position to judge how cruel the defendant was, and the language used expresses that."

    Criminal sentencing in the U.S. is partially discretionary to the judge in most cases, so judges throwing the book at a guy will go over the top in their language to justify it. After all, after conviction, the only real metric between giving a light sentence and putting them away for life is the emotion involved from the crime.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Often times, if a convict is appealing a harsh sentence, the judge’s colorful language at sentencing will actually work against the appeal; the appeals court will say “the judge, who heard all the testimony and victim statements, is in the best position to judge how cruel the defendant was, and the language used expresses that.”

    In other words, the more the judge hated you and so the least impartial the sentencing was, the more likely the sentence is to be upheld.

    It sounds like a scary system. I am long disabused of my youthful naive belief about the American justice system (which I had thought was the best in the world), but this detail further eroded my estimation of it.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @reiner Tor

    The judge is restricted to what the punishment in the statute is, e.g. if the legislature set a max of 5 years for your crime, the judge can't make it 10. So the judge has leeway within bounds set by the legislature. Basically, the legislature sets the min and max and then punts it to the judge to figure out the nuance to apply.

    I realize to outsiders it seems the judge can make up his sentence, but in reality he can't. In this case the extremely long sentence (140 years) is due to the fact that the doctor had so many victims that each of their legislatively-created individual sentences added to one another. So it's not so arbitrary.

    p.s. much has been in made in defense of Roman Polanski that he ran because the judge was going to "violate' his plea deal. Not so; the judge is not bound to accept any plea deal. 99% of the time, judge's accept the prosecutor's recommendations---because this encourages plea deals---but even if the judge in Polanski's case was going to throw the max amount of time at him , Polanski knew that risk when he made the deal. And, in any event, Polanski is a horrific rapist and would have deserved it; Hollywood has run interference for that semi-pedophile for decades.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

  29. @whorefinder
    @Dave Pinsen

    So this guy didn't bother to get U.S. citizenship for 40 years, and was a drunk driver on our roads?

    He had the option for decades to join the country and didn't, and then put us all in danger to boot. Seriously, while on the surface it seems harsh, once you think about it I keep asking, "where did he get the nerve?"

    Our country, our rules, and this was always the rule. If he'd wanted to change it, he should have applied to be a citizen.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta

    I also saw a couple of comments on Twitter suggesting he may have had more run-ins with the police than the media have mentioned so far. Maybe one of those precluded him applying for citizenship?

    Physicians have such high status in America we often forget they include bad apples too: pill mill runners, bilkers of Medicare, facilitators of false claims for disability pensions, etc. Don’t know if that was the case with this guy, but I wouldn’t rule it out.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @Dave Pinsen

    Just from what's reported thus far I'm fine with the deportation. It's his own fault. This is like knowingly making a large mistake on your taxes, not correcting it, and then years later being caught with a stiff fine that bankrupts you. Your own fault for knowing your error and not fixing it.

    , @dr kill
    @Dave Pinsen

    The world where Poles are MDs, is this the same world where Italians are mechanics and Brits are chefs?

  30. There are no possible universes in which the DACAns are kicked out en masse. There is no “betrayal” here.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @O'Really

    There are no possible universes in which the DACAns are kicked out en masse. There is no “betrayal” here.

    And there are also no possible universes where Democrats are willing to make any concessions on immigration at all in order to save the "Dreamers." That's kind of the whole point.

    Democrats: "It would be cruel, callous, and inhumane and practically a second Holocaust to send Dreamers back to their home countries."

    Republicans (non-RINO division): "Cool. So would would be willing to stop more illegals from coming if we legalized the Dreamers and prevented the second Holocaust?"

    Democrats: "Noooooo."

    It shows how completely dishonest they are. The longer the debate continues, the worse it gets for Democrats. If that poll that was released a few days ago is remotely accurate then Americans are coming around to the realization that immigration is out of control.

  31. Sorry Steve, this is no triple bankshot, it’s more like prematurely sinking the 8-ball..

    What saved Israel wasn’t any triple-bankshot psychological stunt by Ehud Barak, but rather the election of Ariel Sharon. Who crushed the Intifada, and made no further idiotic gestures to the Palestinians. And who was followed (after a brief centrist period) by Benjamin Netanyahu, who doesn’t need to build Gutierrez’s middle-finger statue, because it’s implicit already.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @International Jew


    What saved Israel wasn’t any triple-bankshot psychological stunt by Ehud Barak, but rather the election of Ariel Sharon. Who crushed the Intifada, and made no further idiotic gestures to the Palestinians.
     
    Sharon started the Intifada.

    Replies: @biz

    , @Parsifal
    @International Jew


    What saved Israel wasn’t any triple-bankshot psychological stunt by Ehud Barak, but rather the election of Ariel Sharon.
     
    You start from a wrong premise. Barak did not *intend* to make the stunt, it inadvertently turned out to be one. And without it, Sharon would not have been elected he was pretty much radioactive when it comes to electability.

    Replies: @International Jew

  32. @whorefinder
    @Dave Pinsen

    So this guy didn't bother to get U.S. citizenship for 40 years, and was a drunk driver on our roads?

    He had the option for decades to join the country and didn't, and then put us all in danger to boot. Seriously, while on the surface it seems harsh, once you think about it I keep asking, "where did he get the nerve?"

    Our country, our rules, and this was always the rule. If he'd wanted to change it, he should have applied to be a citizen.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta

    In Poland the limit is 0.02 for DUI and it even applies to cyclists. Some other Eastern European countries are even stricter. Who knows how strict enforcement actually is. An acquaintance got busted at exactly 0.o2 while “pushing” his bicycle and his lawyer couldn’t do anything. A couple days in Polish jail, a huge fine and suspended driver’s license.

    Very draconian.

    Admittedly the guy was a German and the justice system might have been unusually inflexible.

  33. @Dave Pinsen
    @reiner Tor

    The whole case seems odd to me, like the claim that he was molesting a girl while her mother was in the exam room, but the mother didn't see because she was behind him? That's bizarre.

    But yes, some people have criticized the judge's comments, e.g.,

    https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/956255775646625792

    https://twitter.com/varadmehta/status/956320811861925888

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @RadicalCenter

    I don’t know if the guy really was guilty (these days you really can’t know with sexual crimes which are often quite mild, e.g. some genitals being touched for a second or something, which is both impossible to prove beyond doubt and clearly not cause for great suffering for a healthy, well-adjusted adult), but I assumed he was. In which case he might be a psychopath.

    I think the plea bargain is also a scary system. In medieval and Stalinist justice confession of guilt was considered the strongest possible evidence, but it obviously meant that incentives were high to use torture to extract confession. I think guilt should never be established based on confession without a trial.

    I hope I’ll never be tried in the US.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @reiner Tor


    I think guilt should never be established based on confession without a trial
     
    What country are you from where they don't accept guilty pleas and force everyone to go through trials? I have never heard of a 1st world country that doesn't have this process.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Anonymous, @Brutusale

  34. @International Jew
    Sorry Steve, this is no triple bankshot, it's more like prematurely sinking the 8-ball..

    What saved Israel wasn't any triple-bankshot psychological stunt by Ehud Barak, but rather the election of Ariel Sharon. Who crushed the Intifada, and made no further idiotic gestures to the Palestinians. And who was followed (after a brief centrist period) by Benjamin Netanyahu, who doesn't need to build Gutierrez's middle-finger statue, because it's implicit already.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Parsifal

    What saved Israel wasn’t any triple-bankshot psychological stunt by Ehud Barak, but rather the election of Ariel Sharon. Who crushed the Intifada, and made no further idiotic gestures to the Palestinians.

    Sharon started the Intifada.

    • Replies: @biz
    @Opinionator


    Sharon started the Intifada.
     
    Only, if you believe, like all Leftists, that Arabs, Muslims, and other non-white people have no agency.

    Sharon visited the Temple Mount and therefore Arabs had no choice but to riot. They could not have decided not to riot, of course.

  35. @reiner Tor
    @27 year old

    You are probably correct. The leftist ideology is so insane that a lot of people can be redpilled by simply showing them what the leftists think.

    Question is, how much time you have left. The US will be majority nonwhite within a generation. Even in Europe, the clock is ticking fast.

    Replies: @415 reasons, @Anonymous, @27 year old

    It is way too late. But perhaps the speed at which we turn into Brazil can be slowed down so my kids can know a reasonable facsimile of the country I grew up in.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @415 reasons

    I think a lot of things could be turned around, if there was a will there’d be a way. It’s just that it’s difficult to envision whites getting the will.

  36. @reiner Tor
    @whorefinder


    Often times, if a convict is appealing a harsh sentence, the judge’s colorful language at sentencing will actually work against the appeal; the appeals court will say “the judge, who heard all the testimony and victim statements, is in the best position to judge how cruel the defendant was, and the language used expresses that.”
     
    In other words, the more the judge hated you and so the least impartial the sentencing was, the more likely the sentence is to be upheld.

    It sounds like a scary system. I am long disabused of my youthful naive belief about the American justice system (which I had thought was the best in the world), but this detail further eroded my estimation of it.

    Replies: @whorefinder

    The judge is restricted to what the punishment in the statute is, e.g. if the legislature set a max of 5 years for your crime, the judge can’t make it 10. So the judge has leeway within bounds set by the legislature. Basically, the legislature sets the min and max and then punts it to the judge to figure out the nuance to apply.

    I realize to outsiders it seems the judge can make up his sentence, but in reality he can’t. In this case the extremely long sentence (140 years) is due to the fact that the doctor had so many victims that each of their legislatively-created individual sentences added to one another. So it’s not so arbitrary.

    p.s. much has been in made in defense of Roman Polanski that he ran because the judge was going to “violate’ his plea deal. Not so; the judge is not bound to accept any plea deal. 99% of the time, judge’s accept the prosecutor’s recommendations—because this encourages plea deals—but even if the judge in Polanski’s case was going to throw the max amount of time at him , Polanski knew that risk when he made the deal. And, in any event, Polanski is a horrific rapist and would have deserved it; Hollywood has run interference for that semi-pedophile for decades.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @whorefinder

    I guess it works similar to Hungary (except in Hungary quite idiotically the sentences don’t get added together, instead there is a higher multiple offense sentence, so that committing the same crime ten times will get you maybe double of what you’d get otherwise - clearly the American system is better in that respect), where the judge has some maximum and usually some minimum sentence, and the judge has discretion to decide where the actual sentence will fall within the limits. (Though in Hungary even that was recently limited, to reign in overly lenient judges, they now have to start from the midpoint of the interval, and can only reduce below that if they can name the mitigating circumstances.)

    In the case we are talking about the defendant was expected to receive 125 years, but got 175 instead. So clearly judges have discretionary powers within the limits set by the statute, which makes sense, otherwise there’d be no need for them, after the jury decision they could simply get the sentence based on the statute. And secondary courts are needed precisely to remedy cases where the judge was overly hostile or lenient, yet by relying on the judge’s language they are defeating that purpose.

  37. From your earlier post, which will soon be below the fold: ‘Trump’s propsoal would “provide legal status for DACA recipients and other DACA-eligible illegal immigrants, adjusting the time-frame to encompass a total population of approximately 1.8 million individuals.”‘

    Oh, ok – just amnesty for a population larger than 13 US states, including West Virginia. And inevitably the 1.8 million will be an estimate – i.e., it could turn into 18 million after immigration judges decide that 52-year-olds who came here in 2014 suddenly qualify as “Dreamers,” or after USCIS says “fuck it” and decides to rubber stamp all 40 million bogus applications because it simply does not have the manpower to do anything else. Remember the 2007 amnesty proposal, where USCIS had to autmatically approve any application within 24 hours of submission if it couldn’t find a valid reason to object to it?

    At least the original DACA amnesty proposals were limited to a discrete 700,000 who already had applications on file.

    But yes, the hope is that Trump is just stringing the Democrats along in an effort to get them to show the public how effing insane they are on immigration. Indeed it basically seems like anytime an immigration debate occurs the longer it is dragged out the more it benefits conservatives. We have Trump because of, not in spite of, the 2001, 2006, 2007,and 2013 amnesty putsches. Another amnesty debate or two and we may be talking about President Mark Krikorian and Vice-President Mickey Kaus.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    @Wilkey

    As I said in that thread, the are details are important, particularly how strictly they're implemented. For example, if a requirement to stay here and on the path to citizenship is having no criminal record of any kind, that's going to snag a whole bunch of DACAns. Same if the "public charge" part stays in, and is defined in a similarly strict way (e.g., any use of food stamps). A key is to write zero tolerance language into the law, so future Dem administrations have no wiggle room for interpretation.

    One risk on the criminal record side is that Dem localities will simply refuse to prosecute some DACAn offenders.

    Replies: @gregor

  38. @Dave Pinsen
    @whorefinder

    I also saw a couple of comments on Twitter suggesting he may have had more run-ins with the police than the media have mentioned so far. Maybe one of those precluded him applying for citizenship?

    Physicians have such high status in America we often forget they include bad apples too: pill mill runners, bilkers of Medicare, facilitators of false claims for disability pensions, etc. Don't know if that was the case with this guy, but I wouldn't rule it out.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @dr kill

    Just from what’s reported thus far I’m fine with the deportation. It’s his own fault. This is like knowingly making a large mistake on your taxes, not correcting it, and then years later being caught with a stiff fine that bankrupts you. Your own fault for knowing your error and not fixing it.

  39. The over-the-top reaction to Trump’s proposal from the Open Borders Left sounds really weird to me, but then again, I’m redpilled. I wonder how it comes across to normies.

    How Trump reacts will reveal a lot, though — it will show if there’s any “there” there after all.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Mr. Blank


    The over-the-top reaction to Trump’s proposal from the Open Borders Left sounds really weird to me, but then again, I’m redpilled. I wonder how it comes across to normies.
     
    Normies like to split the difference so they don't have to pay much attention/put much thought into the matter since they have real lives to attend to. That's trained the ruling class to be progressively more radical in order to move that split in their direction.

    That works until normies realize that they've been played. I don't think the ruling class fully appreciates how much their bad faith rankles.
    , @Rod1963
    @Mr. Blank

    I think Trump knew his offer would be rejected on the spot. The Donk leadership is patently nuts now because they sold the party out to the Hispanics. Hint: DNC run by Ellison and Perez.

    He knows there is no middle-ground with the Donks, only total capitulation. If he does what the Donks want he's finished politically in a bad way.

    If he doesn't he's left with one real option exposing the Donks to the normies as the party of the insane. Which isn't hard when you watch Tucker Carlson or Laura. Most of their leaders are either rage monsters, childless feminazis trying to emulate Merkel, race warriors or coke heads.

    Then let Schumer shut down the government again(which he will if he doesn't want his house burnt down by illegals) and Trump then pounds on the Democrats repeatedly showing white normies what nuts they are. Then he only has to bring up cutting back on government workers - Schumer will scream like a castrati over that.

    Repeat as necessary until the Donks fragment. They are already half way there. The Bernie Bros want no part of the Pelosi-Schumer illegal alien/anti-white express. This incessant pandering to illegals is just going to alienate a lot of whites.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Crawfurdmuir

  40. @reiner Tor
    @Dave Pinsen

    I don’t know if the guy really was guilty (these days you really can’t know with sexual crimes which are often quite mild, e.g. some genitals being touched for a second or something, which is both impossible to prove beyond doubt and clearly not cause for great suffering for a healthy, well-adjusted adult), but I assumed he was. In which case he might be a psychopath.

    I think the plea bargain is also a scary system. In medieval and Stalinist justice confession of guilt was considered the strongest possible evidence, but it obviously meant that incentives were high to use torture to extract confession. I think guilt should never be established based on confession without a trial.

    I hope I’ll never be tried in the US.

    Replies: @whorefinder

    I think guilt should never be established based on confession without a trial

    What country are you from where they don’t accept guilty pleas and force everyone to go through trials? I have never heard of a 1st world country that doesn’t have this process.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @whorefinder

    I think there are many countries, most of continental Europe is like that. Basically it’s a feature (or bug, if you don’t like it) of civil law. A confession of guilt is part of the evidence. Why should it be different from other pieces of evidence?

    Plea bargaining is extremely difficult in jurisdictions based on the civil law. This is because unlike common law systems, civil law systems have no concept of plea—if the defendant confesses; a confession is entered into evidence, but the prosecution is not absolved of the duty to present a full case. A court may decide that a defendant is innocent even though they presented a full confession. Also, unlike common law systems, prosecutors in civil law countries may have limited or no power to drop or reduce charges after a case has been filed, and in some countries their power to drop or reduce charges before a case has been filed is limited, making plea bargaining impossible. Since the 1980s, many civil law nations have adapted their systems to allow for plea bargaining.[38]

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Autochthon

    , @Anonymous
    @whorefinder

    Plea bargaining may be the absolute death of justice in the USA. It's become the rule rather than the exception--to save time and work, the prosecution offers 5 years and tells you that if you go to trial they'll ask for (and receive) 50 years. So even though you're completely innocent, you have to go through the calculus. And your lawyer tells you to take the deal.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/25/local/la-me-rape-dismiss-20120525

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/nyregion/24freed.html

    https://www.unz.com/freed/vassar-vassar/

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/va-prosecutor-innocent-man-faces-life-behind-bars-unless-mcauliffe-pardons/2015/04/07/d1cef37a-dc74-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html

    There are hundreds more stories like this (and this is just one category).

    , @Brutusale
    @whorefinder

    Countries without our levels of criminal activity may have the time and money to waste time with a trial after a guilty plea.

    Given what has happened in a lot of Europe over the last few years, they're about to see what the crime rates in a truly vibrant multicultural society are like.

  41. @whyamihere
    I have a bad feeling about this.
    Trump seems to have made up his mind that these people can't be deported. Doesn't he realize this will turn America forever blue and make it into Bernie's socialist looneyland?!

    In California today a bill is being discussed that would fine waiters $1,000 and/or put them in jail for six months for giving plastic straws to customers in restaurants without asking first. Politicians like this who want to regulate every part of people's lives will get elected all over the US due to granting all these people (plus everyone tangentially related to them) amnesty.

    I predict a deal won't be made before March 5th and Trump will cave and keep extending Obama's DACA executive order for six months for the remainder of his presidency.

    Seeing those DACA people in politician's offices shouting them down, cussing at them and demanding citizenship really makes my blood boil.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Clyde, @Barnard, @Boethiuss

    If Trump arrested all of the judges in California tomorrow (state and federal) for violating their Constitutional oaths, it would be a good start. He could get about 75% of those turds convicted, too—ship them off to federal courts in other states and try them there.

    Fighting for each district court judge appointment is the next step if the republic is to hold.

    • Agree: Corn
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @whorefinder

    The Republicans would join the Democrats in congress and impeach him in a minute. To imagine otherwise is to be totally disconnected from reality.

    Replies: @whorefinder

  42. “Too often, Kaus & Coulter are too quick to “misunderestimate” Trump as much as the MSM does.”

    As is Mark Krikorian. In Kaus’s case, it’s because he’s a Dem who supports Trump purely for immigration reasons. But all restrictionists are terrified of him selling out. Yet every time we squawk, he walks back any error.

    I don’t think this is part of any grand plan. Save for the idiotic grandfather clause on the waiting list, this is a very reasonable offer. I would have preferred more bargaining chips included, like E-verify. But the grandfather clause needs to go.

    I think it is quite likely that the Dems will refuse this, and planned or not it is very like the 2000 Israeli -Palestine deal.

    All that said, my god, are people here and elsewhere incapable of remembering anything more than a week ago? From 2005-2007, the GOP President actively sought amnesty for ALL illegal immigrants with NO reduction in immigration and called GOP voters racist for not supporting it. From 2008 on, we had a Dem president who dumped illegal immigrants and refugees on every state. And we came very close to having another Dem president who’d have done even worse. Have some fricking appreciation of how much better things are, ya ungrateful whiners.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    @education realist

    "Are people around here incapable of remembering anything from over a week ago?"

    Yes. You could cut and paste many of these histrionic responses from the past 20 times we were assured 'Trump is fucking!' by the Big Brain Commentators here.

    , @Whitey Whiteman III
    @education realist

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHEOguxiUsY

    , @MEH 0910
    @education realist


    But all restrictionists are terrified of him selling out. Yet every time we squawk, he walks back any error.
     
    That's like saying crime is low so why do we have so many people in prison. Imprisoning criminals is how we get the low crime rate. Trump walks back his errors because the immigration restrictionists squawk. Squawking is how we keep Trump from selling out.

    Replies: @education realist

  43. @O'Really
    There are no possible universes in which the DACAns are kicked out en masse. There is no "betrayal" here.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    There are no possible universes in which the DACAns are kicked out en masse. There is no “betrayal” here.

    And there are also no possible universes where Democrats are willing to make any concessions on immigration at all in order to save the “Dreamers.” That’s kind of the whole point.

    Democrats: “It would be cruel, callous, and inhumane and practically a second Holocaust to send Dreamers back to their home countries.”

    Republicans (non-RINO division): “Cool. So would would be willing to stop more illegals from coming if we legalized the Dreamers and prevented the second Holocaust?”

    Democrats: “Noooooo.”

    It shows how completely dishonest they are. The longer the debate continues, the worse it gets for Democrats. If that poll that was released a few days ago is remotely accurate then Americans are coming around to the realization that immigration is out of control.

  44. Also: can we take a step back to appreciate that we’re now having a public discussion about lowering the level of legal immigration? That’s a pretty big expansion of the Overton window, no?

    In the past, discussion about legal immigration focussed on ways to increase it: expanding H-1Bs, etc.

    • Agree: education realist
  45. @O'Really
    I agree with the commenter's take.

    Too often, Kaus & Coulter are too quick to "misunderestimate" Trump as much as the MSM does.

    Keep an eye on the SOTU coming up next week.

    Replies: @whorefinder

    Coulter is both panicked and elated by Trump. She thinks he’s too good to be true, and is worried that if she doesn’t hold his feet to the fire he’ll get lazy and cut a deal. Remember, it was Coulter’s book that gave Trump the inspiration to make immigration his base plank; Trump had no personal strong feeling on it, being more obsessed with destroying NAFTA as a whole (which includes open borders).

    So Coulter doesn’t want the swamp destroying Trump or taking his lofty rhetoric and making it mincemeat. Plus she must feel a bit like the dog that caught the car at this point.

    • Replies: @Juan DeShawn Arafat
    @whorefinder

    “Remember, it was Coulter’s book that gave Trump the inspiration to make immigration his base plank”

    It was Steve’s blog that inspired and informed Ann’s book. Without him, Hillary would have won. Then again, without that giant Titantic set, Steve might not be around. So thank you James Cameron!

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Harry Baldwin

  46. @Wilkey
    From your earlier post, which will soon be below the fold: 'Trump's propsoal would "provide legal status for DACA recipients and other DACA-eligible illegal immigrants, adjusting the time-frame to encompass a total population of approximately 1.8 million individuals."'

    Oh, ok - just amnesty for a population larger than 13 US states, including West Virginia. And inevitably the 1.8 million will be an estimate - i.e., it could turn into 18 million after immigration judges decide that 52-year-olds who came here in 2014 suddenly qualify as "Dreamers," or after USCIS says "fuck it" and decides to rubber stamp all 40 million bogus applications because it simply does not have the manpower to do anything else. Remember the 2007 amnesty proposal, where USCIS had to autmatically approve any application within 24 hours of submission if it couldn't find a valid reason to object to it?

    At least the original DACA amnesty proposals were limited to a discrete 700,000 who already had applications on file.

    But yes, the hope is that Trump is just stringing the Democrats along in an effort to get them to show the public how effing insane they are on immigration. Indeed it basically seems like anytime an immigration debate occurs the longer it is dragged out the more it benefits conservatives. We have Trump because of, not in spite of, the 2001, 2006, 2007,and 2013 amnesty putsches. Another amnesty debate or two and we may be talking about President Mark Krikorian and Vice-President Mickey Kaus.

    Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    As I said in that thread, the are details are important, particularly how strictly they’re implemented. For example, if a requirement to stay here and on the path to citizenship is having no criminal record of any kind, that’s going to snag a whole bunch of DACAns. Same if the “public charge” part stays in, and is defined in a similarly strict way (e.g., any use of food stamps). A key is to write zero tolerance language into the law, so future Dem administrations have no wiggle room for interpretation.

    One risk on the criminal record side is that Dem localities will simply refuse to prosecute some DACAn offenders.

    • Replies: @gregor
    @Dave Pinsen

    I remember hearing that something like half of the winners of the diversity lottery don’t end up actually getting their visas since they don’t get the paperwork done.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

  47. @whorefinder
    @reiner Tor

    The judge is restricted to what the punishment in the statute is, e.g. if the legislature set a max of 5 years for your crime, the judge can't make it 10. So the judge has leeway within bounds set by the legislature. Basically, the legislature sets the min and max and then punts it to the judge to figure out the nuance to apply.

    I realize to outsiders it seems the judge can make up his sentence, but in reality he can't. In this case the extremely long sentence (140 years) is due to the fact that the doctor had so many victims that each of their legislatively-created individual sentences added to one another. So it's not so arbitrary.

    p.s. much has been in made in defense of Roman Polanski that he ran because the judge was going to "violate' his plea deal. Not so; the judge is not bound to accept any plea deal. 99% of the time, judge's accept the prosecutor's recommendations---because this encourages plea deals---but even if the judge in Polanski's case was going to throw the max amount of time at him , Polanski knew that risk when he made the deal. And, in any event, Polanski is a horrific rapist and would have deserved it; Hollywood has run interference for that semi-pedophile for decades.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    I guess it works similar to Hungary (except in Hungary quite idiotically the sentences don’t get added together, instead there is a higher multiple offense sentence, so that committing the same crime ten times will get you maybe double of what you’d get otherwise – clearly the American system is better in that respect), where the judge has some maximum and usually some minimum sentence, and the judge has discretion to decide where the actual sentence will fall within the limits. (Though in Hungary even that was recently limited, to reign in overly lenient judges, they now have to start from the midpoint of the interval, and can only reduce below that if they can name the mitigating circumstances.)

    In the case we are talking about the defendant was expected to receive 125 years, but got 175 instead. So clearly judges have discretionary powers within the limits set by the statute, which makes sense, otherwise there’d be no need for them, after the jury decision they could simply get the sentence based on the statute. And secondary courts are needed precisely to remedy cases where the judge was overly hostile or lenient, yet by relying on the judge’s language they are defeating that purpose.

  48. @reiner Tor
    OT

    I just saw this video (scroll down for it) of the sentencing of a sexual offender doctor. I don’t know if it’s usual for such crimes to receive such harsh sentences (he certainly seems guilty), but I don’t really care except to remark that capital punishment would seemingly be more humane in this case. The guy could easily be a psychopath anyway.

    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.

    The reason I didn’t like it is because I think if judges are expected to absolutely conceal their personal animosity, it will become a second nature for them, and they will be probably more impartial. It’s especially important in cases where guilt is not known with absolute certainty, or if the defendant is a member of an unpopular group (like a white male or a racist), and similar cases.

    So, a question to the Americans here. Is it in the US appropriate for a judge to openly express her personal animosity towards the defendant, however vile or psychopathic he is? In Hungary the only time judges behaved that way (and even then only sometimes) was in political cases during the darkest period of communist dictatorship in the 1950s.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Daniel Chieh, @Thomas, @Dave Pinsen, @Dave Pinsen, @utu, @Crawfurdmuir, @Mr. Blank, @Anonymous, @Bleuteaux

    She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive

    In my world this would be good enough for an appeal. However not in the US of A.

  49. @reiner Tor
    OT

    I just saw this video (scroll down for it) of the sentencing of a sexual offender doctor. I don’t know if it’s usual for such crimes to receive such harsh sentences (he certainly seems guilty), but I don’t really care except to remark that capital punishment would seemingly be more humane in this case. The guy could easily be a psychopath anyway.

    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.

    The reason I didn’t like it is because I think if judges are expected to absolutely conceal their personal animosity, it will become a second nature for them, and they will be probably more impartial. It’s especially important in cases where guilt is not known with absolute certainty, or if the defendant is a member of an unpopular group (like a white male or a racist), and similar cases.

    So, a question to the Americans here. Is it in the US appropriate for a judge to openly express her personal animosity towards the defendant, however vile or psychopathic he is? In Hungary the only time judges behaved that way (and even then only sometimes) was in political cases during the darkest period of communist dictatorship in the 1950s.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Daniel Chieh, @Thomas, @Dave Pinsen, @Dave Pinsen, @utu, @Crawfurdmuir, @Mr. Blank, @Anonymous, @Bleuteaux

    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.

    Milkwater stuff, really, compared to the sentencing style of Lord Chief Justice George Jeffreys, First Baron Jeffreys of Wem (1648-1688). According to Macaulay,

    …when he had an opportunity of ordering an unlucky adventuress to be whipped at the cart’s tail, “Hangman,” he would exclaim, “I charge you to pay particular attention to this lady! Scourge her soundly man! Scourge her till the blood runs down! It is Christmas, a cold time for Madam to strip in! See that you warm her shoulders thoroughly!”

    Jeffreys was not above “gallows humor” when sending someone to that fate. Writes Macaulay,

    One wretched man moved the pity even of bitter Tories. “My Lord,” they said, “this poor creature is on the parish.”

    “Do not trouble yourselves,” said the Judge, “I will ease the parish of the burden.”

    […]

    A still more frightful sentence was passed on a lad named Tutchin, who was tried for seditious words.

    He was, as usual, interrupted in his defence by ribaldry and scurrility from the judgment seat. “You are a rebel; and all your family have been rebels since Adam. They tell me that you are a poet. I’ll cap verses with you.” The sentence was that the boy should be imprisoned seven years, and should, during that period, be flogged through every market town in Dorsetshire every year.

    The women in the galleries burst into tears. The clerk of the arraigns stood up in great disorder. “My Lord,” said he, “the prisoner is very young. There are many market towns in our county. The sentence amounts to whipping once a fortnight for seven years.”

    “If he is a young man,” said Jeffreys, “he is an old rogue. Ladies, you do not know the villain as well as I do. The punishment is not half bad enough for him. All the interest in England shall not alter it.”

    The vividness of Jeffreys’s language was long remembered; Montague James makes the Lord Chief Justice figure in several of his ghost stories, most notably “Martin’s Close,” the greater part of which is presented as a trial transcript. At one point in the proceedings, one of the witnesses mentions a tune played in a tavern, and its use as a signal between the defendant and a woman that he first seduced, and then murdered. Jeffreys then says to the witness:

    Ay, I remember it in my own country, in Shropshire. It runs somehow thus, doth it not? [Here his lordship whistled part of a tune, which was very observable, and seemed below the dignity of the court. And it appears he felt it himself, for he said:] But this is by the mark, and I doubt it is the first time we have had dance-tunes in this court. The most part of the dancing we give occasion for is done at Tyburn…

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Crawfurdmuir

    It was the 17th century, and clearly an extreme case back then.

    I don’t have anything against a harsh sentence. I don’t like it when the judge makes it a case of personal animosity.

    , @Anonymous
    @Crawfurdmuir

    Well, this much is certain : times may change but the corruption of judges remains constant. Power does things like that to people.

    Replies: @William Badwhite

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @Crawfurdmuir

    Great stories, thanks for sharing.

  50. @reiner Tor
    OT

    I just saw this video (scroll down for it) of the sentencing of a sexual offender doctor. I don’t know if it’s usual for such crimes to receive such harsh sentences (he certainly seems guilty), but I don’t really care except to remark that capital punishment would seemingly be more humane in this case. The guy could easily be a psychopath anyway.

    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.

    The reason I didn’t like it is because I think if judges are expected to absolutely conceal their personal animosity, it will become a second nature for them, and they will be probably more impartial. It’s especially important in cases where guilt is not known with absolute certainty, or if the defendant is a member of an unpopular group (like a white male or a racist), and similar cases.

    So, a question to the Americans here. Is it in the US appropriate for a judge to openly express her personal animosity towards the defendant, however vile or psychopathic he is? In Hungary the only time judges behaved that way (and even then only sometimes) was in political cases during the darkest period of communist dictatorship in the 1950s.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Daniel Chieh, @Thomas, @Dave Pinsen, @Dave Pinsen, @utu, @Crawfurdmuir, @Mr. Blank, @Anonymous, @Bleuteaux

    Yeah I wasn’t a fan of that, even though the guy is a monster who was unquestionably guilty.

    I can’t really put my finger on why I found it so objectionable, other than vague notions about judicial propriety. “Justice” in my mind is supposed to be ice cold and unfeeling. A judge sentencing a criminal should be like a person crushing a deadly spider beneath their boot. You don’t get emotional about it — you just do it and go on with your life. In fact, the lack of emotion should serve as an object lesson to the criminal as to exactly how worthless and powerless they are next to the awesome, righteous might of the people and their appointed officers.

    It feels wrong for a judge to display too much emotion, no matter how justified.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @Mr. Blank

    Also a case for capital punishment. Keeping him alive in prison for so many decades is torture.

    He’s probably a psychopath so doesn’t matter that much, but still. It’s like pulling out the legs of a spider one by one, because it bit someone to death.

    , @Autochthon
    @Mr. Blank


    I can’t really put my finger on why I found it so objectionable....
     
    Oh, do come on; I had thought the indictment made things quite clear....
    , @Chief Seattle
    @Mr. Blank

    When I saw the headlines that the judge was "signing his death sentence", I took that literally. Several times I scanned the articles for any mention of capital punishment, and was confused when I didn't find it. This kind of language from a judge fails on even basic requirements of accuracy and clarity.

    Replies: @a reader

  51. @whyamihere
    I have a bad feeling about this.
    Trump seems to have made up his mind that these people can't be deported. Doesn't he realize this will turn America forever blue and make it into Bernie's socialist looneyland?!

    In California today a bill is being discussed that would fine waiters $1,000 and/or put them in jail for six months for giving plastic straws to customers in restaurants without asking first. Politicians like this who want to regulate every part of people's lives will get elected all over the US due to granting all these people (plus everyone tangentially related to them) amnesty.

    I predict a deal won't be made before March 5th and Trump will cave and keep extending Obama's DACA executive order for six months for the remainder of his presidency.

    Seeing those DACA people in politician's offices shouting them down, cussing at them and demanding citizenship really makes my blood boil.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Clyde, @Barnard, @Boethiuss

    I predict a deal won’t be made before March 5th and Trump will cave and keep extending Obama’s DACA executive order for six months for the remainder of his presidency.

    Whatever happens to DACA there won’t be more Trumpian extend and pretend. There will be a DACA deal or it will die gradually as DACA “kids” are denied renewal.

  52. @Crawfurdmuir
    @reiner Tor


    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.
     
    Milkwater stuff, really, compared to the sentencing style of Lord Chief Justice George Jeffreys, First Baron Jeffreys of Wem (1648-1688). According to Macaulay,

    ...when he had an opportunity of ordering an unlucky adventuress to be whipped at the cart's tail, "Hangman," he would exclaim, "I charge you to pay particular attention to this lady! Scourge her soundly man! Scourge her till the blood runs down! It is Christmas, a cold time for Madam to strip in! See that you warm her shoulders thoroughly!"
     
    Jeffreys was not above "gallows humor" when sending someone to that fate. Writes Macaulay,

    One wretched man moved the pity even of bitter Tories. "My Lord," they said, "this poor creature is on the parish."

    "Do not trouble yourselves," said the Judge, "I will ease the parish of the burden."

    [...]

    A still more frightful sentence was passed on a lad named Tutchin, who was tried for seditious words.

    He was, as usual, interrupted in his defence by ribaldry and scurrility from the judgment seat. "You are a rebel; and all your family have been rebels since Adam. They tell me that you are a poet. I'll cap verses with you." The sentence was that the boy should be imprisoned seven years, and should, during that period, be flogged through every market town in Dorsetshire every year.

    The women in the galleries burst into tears. The clerk of the arraigns stood up in great disorder. "My Lord," said he, "the prisoner is very young. There are many market towns in our county. The sentence amounts to whipping once a fortnight for seven years."

    "If he is a young man," said Jeffreys, "he is an old rogue. Ladies, you do not know the villain as well as I do. The punishment is not half bad enough for him. All the interest in England shall not alter it."
     
    The vividness of Jeffreys's language was long remembered; Montague James makes the Lord Chief Justice figure in several of his ghost stories, most notably "Martin's Close," the greater part of which is presented as a trial transcript. At one point in the proceedings, one of the witnesses mentions a tune played in a tavern, and its use as a signal between the defendant and a woman that he first seduced, and then murdered. Jeffreys then says to the witness:

    Ay, I remember it in my own country, in Shropshire. It runs somehow thus, doth it not? [Here his lordship whistled part of a tune, which was very observable, and seemed below the dignity of the court. And it appears he felt it himself, for he said:] But this is by the mark, and I doubt it is the first time we have had dance-tunes in this court. The most part of the dancing we give occasion for is done at Tyburn...
     

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Anonymous, @Harry Baldwin

    It was the 17th century, and clearly an extreme case back then.

    I don’t have anything against a harsh sentence. I don’t like it when the judge makes it a case of personal animosity.

  53. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Opinionator
    Trump didn't ask enough in return for the generous offer. If he had, it still would have been considered a generous offer.

    P.S. Can anyone provide a primary source citation to Barak's alleged "generous offer"?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Can anyone provide a primary source citation to Barak’s alleged “generous offer”?

    Read the fine print and you’ll learn that the supposed ‘generous offer’ was full of BS. Arafat was right to reject what was in fact a suicidal agreement for the Palestinians. The MSM in the US continue to parrot the Zionist version, of course.

    https://fair.org/extra/the-myth-of-the-generous-offer/

    https://electronicintifada.net/content/misrepresentation-baraks-offer-camp-david-generous-and-unprecedented/3991

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/08/09/camp-david-the-tragedy-of-errors/

    The NYRB version omits, characteristically, that as part of the deal the Palestinians were to be completely disarmed with their security at the eternal mercy of IDF and Shin Bet. Hard to call that sovereignty.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Anonymous

    Yes, a fair deal would have been like the deal the US gave to Japan at the end of WWII, where we allowed them to re-arm so that someday they could have another crack at Hawaii. That would only be fair, like when you win the game you let the other team have a rematch. No, wait we didn't do that - that would be nuts. Somehow, even without full sovereignty (by your definition) the Japanese have done OK.

    The Israelis had (have) no reason to trust that the Palestinians would not take a "fully sovereign" Palestinian state as merely the first step in the full recovery of all of Palestine. Palestine is always only 1 election away from Hamas rule and Hamas is sworn to Israel's destruction. They would have been crazy to allow a Palestinian state that was totally free to arm up for a future attack on Israel. The Palestinians were supposedly saying that they were asking for a peaceful state and not a staging ground for future attacks on Israel so it was appropriate to hold them to their word with treaty safeguards.

  54. @whorefinder
    @reiner Tor


    I think guilt should never be established based on confession without a trial
     
    What country are you from where they don't accept guilty pleas and force everyone to go through trials? I have never heard of a 1st world country that doesn't have this process.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Anonymous, @Brutusale

    I think there are many countries, most of continental Europe is like that. Basically it’s a feature (or bug, if you don’t like it) of civil law. A confession of guilt is part of the evidence. Why should it be different from other pieces of evidence?

    Plea bargaining is extremely difficult in jurisdictions based on the civil law. This is because unlike common law systems, civil law systems have no concept of plea—if the defendant confesses; a confession is entered into evidence, but the prosecution is not absolved of the duty to present a full case. A court may decide that a defendant is innocent even though they presented a full confession. Also, unlike common law systems, prosecutors in civil law countries may have limited or no power to drop or reduce charges after a case has been filed, and in some countries their power to drop or reduce charges before a case has been filed is limited, making plea bargaining impossible. Since the 1980s, many civil law nations have adapted their systems to allow for plea bargaining.[38]

    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @reiner Tor

    That sounds like it's nice in theory but likely in practice it's "oh you confessed? great. Here's a police officer testifying that he saw you do it. Case closed."


    Why should it be different from other pieces of evidence?
     
    Confession is the "queen of evidence", as the old saying goes. A confession is much more weighty as proof than, say, a witness only identifying you by your common-looking jacket. Not all evidence is equal.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    , @Autochthon
    @reiner Tor

    Don't mind the armchair experts in comparative law, friend. I used to teach foreign students (mostly judges and practicing lawyers from nations with a civil law system), and these differences are not at all appreciated by most laymen from either background, though I think more know at least the rudiments of common law than the reverse, if only because of American hegemony (read: teevee).

    You really want to get a rise out of ignorant Americans? Tell them about the absence of juries in most jurisdictions....

    Oh, and yes, this judge behaved inappropriately, but not such that her pontificating will lead to any kind of reprimand. As noted already, it is, sadly, more and more accepted to posture and virtue-signal thusly. Old school, classy judges kept it to a stern but reluctant "these were heinous acts for which you show no compunction or remorse; may God have mercy on your soul." Which is, IMHBCO, entirely appropriate. No judge should relish punishment. Good judges lament that the whole horrible affair had to happen.

  55. @Mr. Blank
    @reiner Tor

    Yeah I wasn’t a fan of that, even though the guy is a monster who was unquestionably guilty.

    I can’t really put my finger on why I found it so objectionable, other than vague notions about judicial propriety. “Justice” in my mind is supposed to be ice cold and unfeeling. A judge sentencing a criminal should be like a person crushing a deadly spider beneath their boot. You don’t get emotional about it — you just do it and go on with your life. In fact, the lack of emotion should serve as an object lesson to the criminal as to exactly how worthless and powerless they are next to the awesome, righteous might of the people and their appointed officers.

    It feels wrong for a judge to display too much emotion, no matter how justified.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Autochthon, @Chief Seattle

    Also a case for capital punishment. Keeping him alive in prison for so many decades is torture.

    He’s probably a psychopath so doesn’t matter that much, but still. It’s like pulling out the legs of a spider one by one, because it bit someone to death.

  56. @Mr. Blank
    The over-the-top reaction to Trump’s proposal from the Open Borders Left sounds really weird to me, but then again, I’m redpilled. I wonder how it comes across to normies.

    How Trump reacts will reveal a lot, though — it will show if there’s any “there” there after all.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Rod1963

    The over-the-top reaction to Trump’s proposal from the Open Borders Left sounds really weird to me, but then again, I’m redpilled. I wonder how it comes across to normies.

    Normies like to split the difference so they don’t have to pay much attention/put much thought into the matter since they have real lives to attend to. That’s trained the ruling class to be progressively more radical in order to move that split in their direction.

    That works until normies realize that they’ve been played. I don’t think the ruling class fully appreciates how much their bad faith rankles.

  57. He launched dozens of cruise missiles at Syria on little more than a whim, or his daughter’s whim — I wouldn’t trust him — he kept HRC out of the WH — anything else is a bonus.

  58. This is going to demoralize the GOP base at a time they can’t afford that.

    I would also remind some of you that increasing focus on immigration as an issue benefits Trump only if the public supports his position.

  59. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomas
    @Opinionator

    The DACA recipients were clearly the thin end of the wedge, as the most sympathetic-seeming illegals the Democrats and media could find, but I predicted there would be no way that the Democrats would accept significant restrictions on future immigration at any price, because it would mean the end of a 50 year old electoral strategy for them. But is that something they can explain to the public?

    Earliest indications are that they're going to do the usual "point and sputter 'racist!'" routine that's their typical default reaction.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    The DACA recipients were clearly the thin end of the wedge, as the most sympathetic-seeming illegals the Democrats and media could find, but I predicted there would be no way that the Democrats would accept significant restrictions on future immigration at any price, because it would mean the end of a 50 year old electoral strategy for them. But is that something they can explain to the public?

    Earliest indications are that they’re going to do the usual “point and sputter ‘racist!’” routine that’s their typical default reaction.

    This is exactly right, and like all paranoid fanatics the Dems don’t even know when to slow down. Trump could get everything he’s asking for and the Hart-Celler Demographic Transition in this country will still deliver all national elections to the Dems forever after. We’re already past that tipping point.

    At this point their fanaticism is driven by three things: 1) a desire to lock in their political and social ‘benefits’ beyond reach forever 2) glee that their ‘dispossess whitey’ plan (which soon leads to ‘enslave and kill whitey’ plan) is finally coming to fruition–don’t take your foot off the pedal! and 3) foaming-at-the-mouth mania which knows no reason and will brook no moderation, especially with the Evil Nazi still in the White House.

    These lunatics will start enslaving and killing the light-skinned latinos, asians etc once the last white person is gone. Look how they prosecute ‘justice’ in the lands they come from. It ain’t pretty. But it is tribal.

  60. @utu
    It is a very good deal. We can keep all immigrants in exchange for giving Jerusalem to Israel and bombing Iran.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Finally, someone who understands politics!

  61. @reiner Tor
    @whorefinder

    I think there are many countries, most of continental Europe is like that. Basically it’s a feature (or bug, if you don’t like it) of civil law. A confession of guilt is part of the evidence. Why should it be different from other pieces of evidence?

    Plea bargaining is extremely difficult in jurisdictions based on the civil law. This is because unlike common law systems, civil law systems have no concept of plea—if the defendant confesses; a confession is entered into evidence, but the prosecution is not absolved of the duty to present a full case. A court may decide that a defendant is innocent even though they presented a full confession. Also, unlike common law systems, prosecutors in civil law countries may have limited or no power to drop or reduce charges after a case has been filed, and in some countries their power to drop or reduce charges before a case has been filed is limited, making plea bargaining impossible. Since the 1980s, many civil law nations have adapted their systems to allow for plea bargaining.[38]

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Autochthon

    That sounds like it’s nice in theory but likely in practice it’s “oh you confessed? great. Here’s a police officer testifying that he saw you do it. Case closed.”

    Why should it be different from other pieces of evidence?

    Confession is the “queen of evidence”, as the old saying goes. A confession is much more weighty as proof than, say, a witness only identifying you by your common-looking jacket. Not all evidence is equal.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @whorefinder


    Confession is the “queen of evidence”
     
    Sure, in medieval or Stalinist justice systems. It's just not a very good evidence in and of itself. A lot of people can be pressured into doing or saying things which they don't want or don't even think, there's plenty of evidence of cases of weak minded, but usually otherwise decent, people being pressured into confessing to a crime they didn't even commit. The most famous and well-known examples are the communist show trials, where the defendants confessed to non-existent crimes (like being American or Nazi German spies etc.) in front of American (etc.) journalists during trials. There was usually no other evidence (how could there be?), but they had the "queen of evidence."

    Civil law systems are far from perfect, but if there's no plea bargain (i.e. you don't get a relatively good deal in exchange for confessing), then it's more difficult to pressure you into confessing, because the incentives are different, so they cannot intimidate you like "you'll get 50 years if you don't confess, but we manage to convince the jury/judge on shaky evidence, but if you confess, you'll only get 5 years." Because confession is only one of many mitigating circumstances, and so it's like "if we get you sentenced on shaky evidence, you'll get 50 years. But if you confess, you'll get 45 years." The intimidation is much less. If you get a long prison sentence no matter what you do, then at least maintain your innocence, even weak-minded people will think like that.

    Also, at least in Hungary, the defense lawyers often argue that the confession was forced out of their client by a brutal police (which is sometimes even possible to prove, like medical examination shows the defendant has injuries consistent with having been beaten), and judges often accept it, unless there's some other direct evidence. So not only is the motivation less for weak-minded defendants to confess, and more difficult for the investigators to pressure them into confessing, but there's also less motivation to pressure them to do that, because ultimately confession will not be the be all and end all of solving a case, instead it will only be a piece of evidence.

    Still, some people are intimidated by investigators or occasionally even beaten by police to confess, and when that happens, a lot of judges might just convict the way you described it (but there's no jury, and judges with their experience are way more wary of the "queen of evidence"!), but I'd suspect that ceteris paribus it happens way more in the American plea bargain system. The US, having a centuries old tradition of great jurisprudence and being a historically low corruption country (quite unlike Hungary) should have a much better ratio of forced confessions and convicting the innocent, yet my impression is that it is not so, if anything, it is the opposite. As I said, I'd rather be tried in Hungary than in the US, regardless of the crime, especially if I was innocent.

    Replies: @snorlax, @utu, @whorefinder

  62. @415 reasons
    @reiner Tor

    It is way too late. But perhaps the speed at which we turn into Brazil can be slowed down so my kids can know a reasonable facsimile of the country I grew up in.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    I think a lot of things could be turned around, if there was a will there’d be a way. It’s just that it’s difficult to envision whites getting the will.

  63. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @whorefinder
    @reiner Tor


    I think guilt should never be established based on confession without a trial
     
    What country are you from where they don't accept guilty pleas and force everyone to go through trials? I have never heard of a 1st world country that doesn't have this process.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Anonymous, @Brutusale

    Plea bargaining may be the absolute death of justice in the USA. It’s become the rule rather than the exception–to save time and work, the prosecution offers 5 years and tells you that if you go to trial they’ll ask for (and receive) 50 years. So even though you’re completely innocent, you have to go through the calculus. And your lawyer tells you to take the deal.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/25/local/la-me-rape-dismiss-20120525

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/nyregion/24freed.html

    https://www.unz.com/freed/vassar-vassar/

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/va-prosecutor-innocent-man-faces-life-behind-bars-unless-mcauliffe-pardons/2015/04/07/d1cef37a-dc74-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html

    There are hundreds more stories like this (and this is just one category).

    • Agree: Autochthon, CJ
  64. @whorefinder
    @O'Really

    Coulter is both panicked and elated by Trump. She thinks he's too good to be true, and is worried that if she doesn't hold his feet to the fire he'll get lazy and cut a deal. Remember, it was Coulter's book that gave Trump the inspiration to make immigration his base plank; Trump had no personal strong feeling on it, being more obsessed with destroying NAFTA as a whole (which includes open borders).

    So Coulter doesn't want the swamp destroying Trump or taking his lofty rhetoric and making it mincemeat. Plus she must feel a bit like the dog that caught the car at this point.

    Replies: @Juan DeShawn Arafat

    “Remember, it was Coulter’s book that gave Trump the inspiration to make immigration his base plank”

    It was Steve’s blog that inspired and informed Ann’s book. Without him, Hillary would have won. Then again, without that giant Titantic set, Steve might not be around. So thank you James Cameron!

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Juan DeShawn Arafat

    Indeed. Thanks, James Cameron.

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @Juan DeShawn Arafat

    Love the screen name.

  65. @reiner Tor
    @whorefinder

    I think there are many countries, most of continental Europe is like that. Basically it’s a feature (or bug, if you don’t like it) of civil law. A confession of guilt is part of the evidence. Why should it be different from other pieces of evidence?

    Plea bargaining is extremely difficult in jurisdictions based on the civil law. This is because unlike common law systems, civil law systems have no concept of plea—if the defendant confesses; a confession is entered into evidence, but the prosecution is not absolved of the duty to present a full case. A court may decide that a defendant is innocent even though they presented a full confession. Also, unlike common law systems, prosecutors in civil law countries may have limited or no power to drop or reduce charges after a case has been filed, and in some countries their power to drop or reduce charges before a case has been filed is limited, making plea bargaining impossible. Since the 1980s, many civil law nations have adapted their systems to allow for plea bargaining.[38]

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Autochthon

    Don’t mind the armchair experts in comparative law, friend. I used to teach foreign students (mostly judges and practicing lawyers from nations with a civil law system), and these differences are not at all appreciated by most laymen from either background, though I think more know at least the rudiments of common law than the reverse, if only because of American hegemony (read: teevee).

    You really want to get a rise out of ignorant Americans? Tell them about the absence of juries in most jurisdictions….

    Oh, and yes, this judge behaved inappropriately, but not such that her pontificating will lead to any kind of reprimand. As noted already, it is, sadly, more and more accepted to posture and virtue-signal thusly. Old school, classy judges kept it to a stern but reluctant “these were heinous acts for which you show no compunction or remorse; may God have mercy on your soul.” Which is, IMHBCO, entirely appropriate. No judge should relish punishment. Good judges lament that the whole horrible affair had to happen.

  66. @Mr. Blank
    The over-the-top reaction to Trump’s proposal from the Open Borders Left sounds really weird to me, but then again, I’m redpilled. I wonder how it comes across to normies.

    How Trump reacts will reveal a lot, though — it will show if there’s any “there” there after all.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Rod1963

    I think Trump knew his offer would be rejected on the spot. The Donk leadership is patently nuts now because they sold the party out to the Hispanics. Hint: DNC run by Ellison and Perez.

    He knows there is no middle-ground with the Donks, only total capitulation. If he does what the Donks want he’s finished politically in a bad way.

    If he doesn’t he’s left with one real option exposing the Donks to the normies as the party of the insane. Which isn’t hard when you watch Tucker Carlson or Laura. Most of their leaders are either rage monsters, childless feminazis trying to emulate Merkel, race warriors or coke heads.

    Then let Schumer shut down the government again(which he will if he doesn’t want his house burnt down by illegals) and Trump then pounds on the Democrats repeatedly showing white normies what nuts they are. Then he only has to bring up cutting back on government workers – Schumer will scream like a castrati over that.

    Repeat as necessary until the Donks fragment. They are already half way there. The Bernie Bros want no part of the Pelosi-Schumer illegal alien/anti-white express. This incessant pandering to illegals is just going to alienate a lot of whites.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Rod1963

    He only needs what 9 Democrats to vote in favor. He doesn't need all of them.

    , @Crawfurdmuir
    @Rod1963


    I think Trump knew his offer would be rejected on the spot.
     
    That's my impression as well. It's not a triple bank shot or 4-dimensional chess or any such brilliant move, just a rather obvious conclusion. Democrats would rather have the issue to campaign on, and it's Trump's conclusion that it is a loser for them.

    Time will tell whether this is true, but one point in favor of that conclusion is that amnesty is a high priority for very few rank-and-file voters, even among those that support it - whereas curtailing illegal immigration and limiting legal immigration poll remarkably well not only with Republicans but also with independents, and even attract support from some Democrats.

    One blessing of Trump's presidency has been that it has caused so many politicians and pundits to reveal their true colors. It has particularly shown the extremism of the left.
  67. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor
    @27 year old

    You are probably correct. The leftist ideology is so insane that a lot of people can be redpilled by simply showing them what the leftists think.

    Question is, how much time you have left. The US will be majority nonwhite within a generation. Even in Europe, the clock is ticking fast.

    Replies: @415 reasons, @Anonymous, @27 year old

    At this point it is not possible over the long term to have a white majority America or Western Europe. What will happen is the majority will turn into a Meghan Markle shade.

    This is the vision of supposedly the only white nationalist in Congress Steven King:

    “If you go down the road a few generations or maybe centuries with the intermarriage, I’d like to see an America that’s just so homogenous that we look a lot the same from that perspective,” he said.

    It’s not an unreasonable prediction. The US and Western Europe are much more open to intermarriage than Brazil so even the upper middle class will end up transforming over time.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    When the empire implodes, as all empires do, if there is a racially conscious and tough white remnant they'll have a shot (but only one) at establishing an all white republic in North America, it could happen. The other parts will become semifunctional or wholly dysfunctional. Some may stratify out like Mexico or Brazil and preserve an internal mostlywhite remnant, but they will be required to rule a mestizo or mulatto polity and won't get much done.

    There will be another Dark Age. Eventually mankind may resume upward progress, but at the price of ten to a hundred lost generations. Much of our knowledge will be lost and have to be reinvented or rediscovered. Some never will be.

    Ancient civilizations unquestionably had a lot of knowledge that is still lost to us. Many things now commonly known will be lost: indeed, we have already lost a surprising amount of knowledge in the last fifty years. Many things made in the recent past cannot be reproduced today. The makers died and never wrote down what they did or succeeding owners of the material destroyed it.

    Replies: @Robert Hume, @AnotherDad

  68. @Mr. Blank
    @reiner Tor

    Yeah I wasn’t a fan of that, even though the guy is a monster who was unquestionably guilty.

    I can’t really put my finger on why I found it so objectionable, other than vague notions about judicial propriety. “Justice” in my mind is supposed to be ice cold and unfeeling. A judge sentencing a criminal should be like a person crushing a deadly spider beneath their boot. You don’t get emotional about it — you just do it and go on with your life. In fact, the lack of emotion should serve as an object lesson to the criminal as to exactly how worthless and powerless they are next to the awesome, righteous might of the people and their appointed officers.

    It feels wrong for a judge to display too much emotion, no matter how justified.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Autochthon, @Chief Seattle

    I can’t really put my finger on why I found it so objectionable….

    Oh, do come on; I had thought the indictment made things quite clear….

  69. @Juan DeShawn Arafat
    @whorefinder

    “Remember, it was Coulter’s book that gave Trump the inspiration to make immigration his base plank”

    It was Steve’s blog that inspired and informed Ann’s book. Without him, Hillary would have won. Then again, without that giant Titantic set, Steve might not be around. So thank you James Cameron!

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Harry Baldwin

    Indeed. Thanks, James Cameron.

    • Agree: MEH 0910, ic1000
  70. I won’t advocate “racial hatred” — but maybe it’s time for Whites to self-identify as white and show some racial solidarity? — not to mention concern about their future and the future of their children as a minority population in America (and in other white countries) — perhaps it’s also time for a little less “wry detachment”.

    • Replies: @Bill B.
    @eah

    There doesn't seem to be much interest on our side of pushing alternatives to the term "White Supremacist" when it refers to someone who is clearly an identitarian or merely an aware pragmatist.

    Is it because the term is useful to showing up the extremism of the open borders crowd?

  71. Dreamers are never going to get deported. Senate dems won’t compromise for dreamers because they know that. Trump needs to pull the trigger and try anyway. Find the most sucessful, valedictorian dreamer philanthropist who was smuggled into the country at one day old and start deportation proceedings. Let fear run through the Democrat base and tear it apart.

    • Replies: @O'Really
    @Catdog

    Fortunately, President Trump has better political instincts than Catdog.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

  72. The fact that Trump made the offer demonstrates that the Dems have a foot in the door. It would be nice if the Administration used the rejection to call the case closed, but they know they’re going to need the Dems sometime, and hey, it’s only 1.8m, so we can handle that.

    IOW, Trump just had his Merkel “Wir schaffen das” moment.

  73. @International Jew
    Sorry Steve, this is no triple bankshot, it's more like prematurely sinking the 8-ball..

    What saved Israel wasn't any triple-bankshot psychological stunt by Ehud Barak, but rather the election of Ariel Sharon. Who crushed the Intifada, and made no further idiotic gestures to the Palestinians. And who was followed (after a brief centrist period) by Benjamin Netanyahu, who doesn't need to build Gutierrez's middle-finger statue, because it's implicit already.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Parsifal

    What saved Israel wasn’t any triple-bankshot psychological stunt by Ehud Barak, but rather the election of Ariel Sharon.

    You start from a wrong premise. Barak did not *intend* to make the stunt, it inadvertently turned out to be one. And without it, Sharon would not have been elected he was pretty much radioactive when it comes to electability.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Parsifal

    Sharon was elected because Israelis were desperate to put an end to the Intifada. The sequence was: Camp David in July 2000, the Intifada begins in September 2000, and Sharon is elected (by a 70-30 landslide) in February 2001. Granted, the Intifada got a lot worse under Sharon, before he finally subdued it.

    Replies: @utu

  74. @Catdog
    Dreamers are never going to get deported. Senate dems won't compromise for dreamers because they know that. Trump needs to pull the trigger and try anyway. Find the most sucessful, valedictorian dreamer philanthropist who was smuggled into the country at one day old and start deportation proceedings. Let fear run through the Democrat base and tear it apart.

    Replies: @O'Really

    Fortunately, President Trump has better political instincts than Catdog.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @O'Really

    No, he doesn't. The very smart negotiator set are the alt-right version of RINOs.

    The tears of Dreamers are an abyss, and America needs to look into it.

  75. @reiner Tor
    OT

    I just saw this video (scroll down for it) of the sentencing of a sexual offender doctor. I don’t know if it’s usual for such crimes to receive such harsh sentences (he certainly seems guilty), but I don’t really care except to remark that capital punishment would seemingly be more humane in this case. The guy could easily be a psychopath anyway.

    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.

    The reason I didn’t like it is because I think if judges are expected to absolutely conceal their personal animosity, it will become a second nature for them, and they will be probably more impartial. It’s especially important in cases where guilt is not known with absolute certainty, or if the defendant is a member of an unpopular group (like a white male or a racist), and similar cases.

    So, a question to the Americans here. Is it in the US appropriate for a judge to openly express her personal animosity towards the defendant, however vile or psychopathic he is? In Hungary the only time judges behaved that way (and even then only sometimes) was in political cases during the darkest period of communist dictatorship in the 1950s.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Daniel Chieh, @Thomas, @Dave Pinsen, @Dave Pinsen, @utu, @Crawfurdmuir, @Mr. Blank, @Anonymous, @Bleuteaux

    Sex offenders being as unpopular as they are, she’ll get away with it, but flamboasting and gasonading by judges has had consequences in the past. Ask John Howland Wood, Jr.

  76. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    @reiner Tor

    At this point it is not possible over the long term to have a white majority America or Western Europe. What will happen is the majority will turn into a Meghan Markle shade.

    This is the vision of supposedly the only white nationalist in Congress Steven King:


    “If you go down the road a few generations or maybe centuries with the intermarriage, I’d like to see an America that’s just so homogenous that we look a lot the same from that perspective,” he said.
     
    It's not an unreasonable prediction. The US and Western Europe are much more open to intermarriage than Brazil so even the upper middle class will end up transforming over time.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    When the empire implodes, as all empires do, if there is a racially conscious and tough white remnant they’ll have a shot (but only one) at establishing an all white republic in North America, it could happen. The other parts will become semifunctional or wholly dysfunctional. Some may stratify out like Mexico or Brazil and preserve an internal mostlywhite remnant, but they will be required to rule a mestizo or mulatto polity and won’t get much done.

    There will be another Dark Age. Eventually mankind may resume upward progress, but at the price of ten to a hundred lost generations. Much of our knowledge will be lost and have to be reinvented or rediscovered. Some never will be.

    Ancient civilizations unquestionably had a lot of knowledge that is still lost to us. Many things now commonly known will be lost: indeed, we have already lost a surprising amount of knowledge in the last fifty years. Many things made in the recent past cannot be reproduced today. The makers died and never wrote down what they did or succeeding owners of the material destroyed it.

    • Replies: @Robert Hume
    @Anonymous


    Many things now commonly known will be lost: indeed, we have already lost a surprising amount of knowledge in the last fifty years. Many things made in the recent past cannot be reproduced today. The makers died and never wrote down what they did or succeeding owners of the material destroyed it.
     
    Sounds plausible. Examples?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    There will be another Dark Age. Eventually mankind may resume upward progress, but at the price of ten to a hundred lost generations. Much of our knowledge will be lost and have to be reinvented or rediscovered. Some never will be.
     
    Overstated. We are indeed entering a dark age for the West--which pisses me off because it's in my opinion the best civilization, the best of mankind.

    But the knowledge--at least the technical knowledge--will not be lost. The Chinese are going to keep on motoring on. And they'll motor on with a few additional pieces of knowledge from the example of the West:
    -- Don't let a minority tribe take over your nation or its culture.
    -- Don't let your women run free nor give them a strong political/cultural role.
    -- Above all else do not allow your nation to be innudated with foreigners.

    I'll grant these aren't exactly rocket science, beyond the historical examples, intelligent thoughtful people could figure them out from experience and common sense. But they will be hammered home in no uncertain terms by the collapse of the West.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous

  77. @whorefinder
    @whyamihere

    If Trump arrested all of the judges in California tomorrow (state and federal) for violating their Constitutional oaths, it would be a good start. He could get about 75% of those turds convicted, too---ship them off to federal courts in other states and try them there.

    Fighting for each district court judge appointment is the next step if the republic is to hold.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    The Republicans would join the Democrats in congress and impeach him in a minute. To imagine otherwise is to be totally disconnected from reality.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    @Anonymous

    lol. Oh yeah, that's an echo of the "this will finally finish Trump" refrain the cucks and Left kept spewing every week about Trump.

    You, like many of your ilk, misremember the power of the mob, the power of the populace, and wildly overestimate how much "respect" judges, the judicial system, and California officials have.

    The R's and D's think if the corporate media and the donor class are on their side, they can do that. They forget that the mass of angry, watchful patriots in this country are on Trump's side and can see the judges as corrupt.

    But it's humorous to watch you whistling past the graveyard, son.

  78. @Mr. Blank
    @reiner Tor

    Yeah I wasn’t a fan of that, even though the guy is a monster who was unquestionably guilty.

    I can’t really put my finger on why I found it so objectionable, other than vague notions about judicial propriety. “Justice” in my mind is supposed to be ice cold and unfeeling. A judge sentencing a criminal should be like a person crushing a deadly spider beneath their boot. You don’t get emotional about it — you just do it and go on with your life. In fact, the lack of emotion should serve as an object lesson to the criminal as to exactly how worthless and powerless they are next to the awesome, righteous might of the people and their appointed officers.

    It feels wrong for a judge to display too much emotion, no matter how justified.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Autochthon, @Chief Seattle

    When I saw the headlines that the judge was “signing his death sentence”, I took that literally. Several times I scanned the articles for any mention of capital punishment, and was confused when I didn’t find it. This kind of language from a judge fails on even basic requirements of accuracy and clarity.

    • Replies: @a reader
    @Chief Seattle

    She acknowledged and even approved of the fact that Nassar would certainly be raped if not killed in jail, with the denial plausibility that she merely meant he would die in jail due to the length of the sentence.

    Why are rapes or murders committed under judicial supervision OK or even ridiculed?

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

  79. @whorefinder
    @reiner Tor

    That sounds like it's nice in theory but likely in practice it's "oh you confessed? great. Here's a police officer testifying that he saw you do it. Case closed."


    Why should it be different from other pieces of evidence?
     
    Confession is the "queen of evidence", as the old saying goes. A confession is much more weighty as proof than, say, a witness only identifying you by your common-looking jacket. Not all evidence is equal.

    Replies: @reiner Tor

    Confession is the “queen of evidence”

    Sure, in medieval or Stalinist justice systems. It’s just not a very good evidence in and of itself. A lot of people can be pressured into doing or saying things which they don’t want or don’t even think, there’s plenty of evidence of cases of weak minded, but usually otherwise decent, people being pressured into confessing to a crime they didn’t even commit. The most famous and well-known examples are the communist show trials, where the defendants confessed to non-existent crimes (like being American or Nazi German spies etc.) in front of American (etc.) journalists during trials. There was usually no other evidence (how could there be?), but they had the “queen of evidence.”

    Civil law systems are far from perfect, but if there’s no plea bargain (i.e. you don’t get a relatively good deal in exchange for confessing), then it’s more difficult to pressure you into confessing, because the incentives are different, so they cannot intimidate you like “you’ll get 50 years if you don’t confess, but we manage to convince the jury/judge on shaky evidence, but if you confess, you’ll only get 5 years.” Because confession is only one of many mitigating circumstances, and so it’s like “if we get you sentenced on shaky evidence, you’ll get 50 years. But if you confess, you’ll get 45 years.” The intimidation is much less. If you get a long prison sentence no matter what you do, then at least maintain your innocence, even weak-minded people will think like that.

    Also, at least in Hungary, the defense lawyers often argue that the confession was forced out of their client by a brutal police (which is sometimes even possible to prove, like medical examination shows the defendant has injuries consistent with having been beaten), and judges often accept it, unless there’s some other direct evidence. So not only is the motivation less for weak-minded defendants to confess, and more difficult for the investigators to pressure them into confessing, but there’s also less motivation to pressure them to do that, because ultimately confession will not be the be all and end all of solving a case, instead it will only be a piece of evidence.

    Still, some people are intimidated by investigators or occasionally even beaten by police to confess, and when that happens, a lot of judges might just convict the way you described it (but there’s no jury, and judges with their experience are way more wary of the “queen of evidence”!), but I’d suspect that ceteris paribus it happens way more in the American plea bargain system. The US, having a centuries old tradition of great jurisprudence and being a historically low corruption country (quite unlike Hungary) should have a much better ratio of forced confessions and convicting the innocent, yet my impression is that it is not so, if anything, it is the opposite. As I said, I’d rather be tried in Hungary than in the US, regardless of the crime, especially if I was innocent.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    @reiner Tor

    There's not a big problem with forced confessions in the US, despite what liberals would have you believe. So-called cases of "forced confessions" are mainly far-left lawyers suddenly discovering HBD as pertains to their dindu clients: "Dontarius has a measured IQ of 74. Forced confession!"

    The liberal poster child case for "forced confessions," the Central Park jogger case, is indeed a heinous and shocking judicial travesty, for 180 degrees the opposite reason as they claim: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-04-23.html

    Interrogations in the US must be videotaped, and the police must document any injuries suffered by the arrestee during his arrest. Failure to do so is likely to cause the judge to rule any confessions or interrogations inadmissible, and to result in disciplinary action or criminal charges for the arresting officer(s). The arrestee has a right to a medical examination by a doctor of his [attorney's] choosing.

    Before an interrogation, arrestees are repeatedly informed of their rights to have an attorney present and to remain silent.* Any statements, even volunteered ones, made by the arrestee after his arrest but prior to such a "Miranda warning" are inadmissible in court.

    The Supreme Court ruling behind this, Miranda v. Arizona, is probably the primary culprit both in the 1960's-present explosion in the US crime rate, and also the present-day ubiquity of plea bargains.

    Prosecutors favor them because the "confession = guilty" assumption works both ways, and defense attorneys very often convince low-information juries brought up on TV cop dramas and Perry Mason that "no confession = not guilty." Remember that prosecution witnesses typically know or can be intimidated by the defendant, so often drop out before the trial. (Another favorite talking point of ACLU types: "Key witnesses recanted their testimony! Another lynching in fascist AmeriKKKa!")

    It's a big country, so there are undoubtedly a few cases of actual forced confessions, or (more common, but still not very common) innocent people taking plea bargains. But for every one of those there are a thousand miscarriages of justice (incl. unsolved crimes and slap-on-the-wrist punishments) favoring the perps.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @North Carolina Resident

    , @utu
    @reiner Tor


    The US, having a centuries old tradition of great jurisprudence and being a historically low corruption country (quite unlike Hungary) should have a much better ratio of forced confessions and convicting the innocent, yet my impression is that it is not so, if anything, it is the opposite. As I said, I’d rather be tried in Hungary than in the US, regardless of the crime, especially if I was innocent.
     
    I have doubts about the low corruption. One should ask why Americans are so self-satisfied and have such a good opinion about their justice system. Is it because all Hollywood films and TV series show trials with caring and fair judges and thoughtful jurors and forensic experts (CSI) who will throw all available science and technology to uncover the truth so justice be done and no innocent ever is convicted? There are more trials on TV than in reality. Very small fraction of cases ever goes to trial. Justice for over 95% case does not look like the one that is shown on TV. People are forced to take the deals and they plea guilty. Why do they plea guilty? Because they do not believe in a fair trial and are sure that they would be convicted on many more charges if DA goes for it.

    As far as corruption of judge, of forensic labs, of police there are plenty of cases every year. Lawyers know which judge can be bought. Police plants evidence. Forensic labs make up evidence. Snitches are hired to lie about confessions that did not happen. Judges convict minors to sent to private detention systems for kick backs.

    A similar situation is with police and hospitals that prominently are covered by countless TV and Hollywood production and people are indoctrinated into believing in distinctly different version of reality. It is amazing how well it works. Most Americans have no clue and are absolutely buying the Hollywood version of reality of police, courts and hospitals. On the other hand Europeans and Eastern Europeans in particular seem to be born jaded which has its own price in lack of faith in the system and consequently much lower expectations. So people there are savvy which means more corrupt than American who are more naive and thus more virtuous. No wonder that Russians have a proverb: "He lied like an eyewitness." Anybody ever went to jail for lying in Russia? In America you go to jail if you lie to police? Anybody heard of it in Europe?
    , @whorefinder
    @reiner Tor

    Your paranoia is noted.

    Confessions are not, as the Left would have you believe, created by torture by the vast majority of defendants. Instead, defendants blither it all out on their own or with very little encouragement, because (1) criminals have a lower IQ than average, which means they don't understand that what they are saying will be repeated in court; (2) criminals (especially blacks) are wildly emotional on first arrest, and are either trying to "prove" how tough they are by proclaiming they did it (" represent 5th street gang, son!") or else crying like babies because they are terrified of the consequences and are admitting to everything hoping to get off lightly; and, in other cases (3) nasty criminals are usually sociopaths, which means they have very little concern for their victims (hence the common picture of black defendants laughing at murder trials or giving people the middle finger while smiling) and think they are smarter/more clever than everyone else and beat the rap, so they lie quite badly (remember rule 1: they are dumb), get caught, and giggle about being caught and confess, thinking that some later legal loophole (to sociopaths, everything they saw on TV is true) will seal the confession, but it won't.

    What's more, if a person isn't a nasty sociopath, they are likely more obedient to authority, so a cop demanding to know the truth will often elicit a confession.

    "Stalinist or medieval" comparisons are laughable. Yes, false confessions happen, just like Klan attacks on blacks happen, but they are far exaggerated by the media.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  80. @Crawfurdmuir
    @reiner Tor


    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.
     
    Milkwater stuff, really, compared to the sentencing style of Lord Chief Justice George Jeffreys, First Baron Jeffreys of Wem (1648-1688). According to Macaulay,

    ...when he had an opportunity of ordering an unlucky adventuress to be whipped at the cart's tail, "Hangman," he would exclaim, "I charge you to pay particular attention to this lady! Scourge her soundly man! Scourge her till the blood runs down! It is Christmas, a cold time for Madam to strip in! See that you warm her shoulders thoroughly!"
     
    Jeffreys was not above "gallows humor" when sending someone to that fate. Writes Macaulay,

    One wretched man moved the pity even of bitter Tories. "My Lord," they said, "this poor creature is on the parish."

    "Do not trouble yourselves," said the Judge, "I will ease the parish of the burden."

    [...]

    A still more frightful sentence was passed on a lad named Tutchin, who was tried for seditious words.

    He was, as usual, interrupted in his defence by ribaldry and scurrility from the judgment seat. "You are a rebel; and all your family have been rebels since Adam. They tell me that you are a poet. I'll cap verses with you." The sentence was that the boy should be imprisoned seven years, and should, during that period, be flogged through every market town in Dorsetshire every year.

    The women in the galleries burst into tears. The clerk of the arraigns stood up in great disorder. "My Lord," said he, "the prisoner is very young. There are many market towns in our county. The sentence amounts to whipping once a fortnight for seven years."

    "If he is a young man," said Jeffreys, "he is an old rogue. Ladies, you do not know the villain as well as I do. The punishment is not half bad enough for him. All the interest in England shall not alter it."
     
    The vividness of Jeffreys's language was long remembered; Montague James makes the Lord Chief Justice figure in several of his ghost stories, most notably "Martin's Close," the greater part of which is presented as a trial transcript. At one point in the proceedings, one of the witnesses mentions a tune played in a tavern, and its use as a signal between the defendant and a woman that he first seduced, and then murdered. Jeffreys then says to the witness:

    Ay, I remember it in my own country, in Shropshire. It runs somehow thus, doth it not? [Here his lordship whistled part of a tune, which was very observable, and seemed below the dignity of the court. And it appears he felt it himself, for he said:] But this is by the mark, and I doubt it is the first time we have had dance-tunes in this court. The most part of the dancing we give occasion for is done at Tyburn...
     

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Anonymous, @Harry Baldwin

    Well, this much is certain : times may change but the corruption of judges remains constant. Power does things like that to people.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    @Anonymous

    Forrest McDonald covers the Founders' distrust of judges/the judiciary in "Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution". Interesting reading and quite prescient!

  81. @education realist
    "Too often, Kaus & Coulter are too quick to “misunderestimate” Trump as much as the MSM does."

    As is Mark Krikorian. In Kaus's case, it's because he's a Dem who supports Trump purely for immigration reasons. But all restrictionists are terrified of him selling out. Yet every time we squawk, he walks back any error.

    I don't think this is part of any grand plan. Save for the idiotic grandfather clause on the waiting list, this is a very reasonable offer. I would have preferred more bargaining chips included, like E-verify. But the grandfather clause needs to go.

    I think it is quite likely that the Dems will refuse this, and planned or not it is very like the 2000 Israeli -Palestine deal.

    All that said, my god, are people here and elsewhere incapable of remembering anything more than a week ago? From 2005-2007, the GOP President actively sought amnesty for ALL illegal immigrants with NO reduction in immigration and called GOP voters racist for not supporting it. From 2008 on, we had a Dem president who dumped illegal immigrants and refugees on every state. And we came very close to having another Dem president who'd have done even worse. Have some fricking appreciation of how much better things are, ya ungrateful whiners.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson, @Whitey Whiteman III, @MEH 0910

    “Are people around here incapable of remembering anything from over a week ago?”

    Yes. You could cut and paste many of these histrionic responses from the past 20 times we were assured ‘Trump is fucking!’ by the Big Brain Commentators here.

  82. Trump is willing to “shift more” on border security and DACA, in order to get a deal. It sure sounds like cucking, but let’s hope he’ll somehow take it back.

  83. Will actual US citizens resent not getting any amnesty for their past crimes?

    Why do only non-citizens get this special treatment?

  84. @reiner Tor
    @27 year old

    You are probably correct. The leftist ideology is so insane that a lot of people can be redpilled by simply showing them what the leftists think.

    Question is, how much time you have left. The US will be majority nonwhite within a generation. Even in Europe, the clock is ticking fast.

    Replies: @415 reasons, @Anonymous, @27 year old

    Question is, how much time you have left. The US will be majority nonwhite within a generation. Even in Europe, the clock is ticking fast.

    We can thrive indefinitely as a plurality or even an actual minority — IF we have the desire to do so. Apartheid South Africa was stable until they blinked. Whites are higher quality, and we will win IF we want to win. If we don’t want acknowledge the game being played and we don’t want to win, it doesn’t matter how many of us there are.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    @27 year old

    There are cases of "partial will," when you want to do something, but not if it involves X, like you are willing to halt demographic decline, but not if it involves doing away with democracy. Democracy seems to be a pretty entrenched value of whites everywhere, kinda like a religion, so it will be a tough sell doing away with it. As long as whites have a majority, things will be easier.

    Then there is the matter of admixture. Half-whites have large numbers of white relatives. Admixture makes it very difficult to cut off all non-whites, because either you'll have to cut off white race-mixers (in which case you might piss off their relatives, also further decrease your own numbers, plus giving the enemy higher quality white or half-white leaders), or you cut off with the nonwhite relatives of mixed race people, in which case you're already far from a white only minority rule, or... you get the point.

    And even assuming this is all no problem, I don't find it possible to institute an apartheid-style white racial rule in the US without a civil war. With a white minority, it gets even harder, and an ever smaller portion of whites defecting to the other side could make it impossible.

    Replies: @German_reader

    , @ben tillman
    @27 year old


    We can thrive indefinitely as a plurality or even an actual minority — IF we have the desire to do so. Apartheid South Africa was stable until they blinked.
     
    In this country, non-Whites get to vote.
  85. @Rod1963
    @Mr. Blank

    I think Trump knew his offer would be rejected on the spot. The Donk leadership is patently nuts now because they sold the party out to the Hispanics. Hint: DNC run by Ellison and Perez.

    He knows there is no middle-ground with the Donks, only total capitulation. If he does what the Donks want he's finished politically in a bad way.

    If he doesn't he's left with one real option exposing the Donks to the normies as the party of the insane. Which isn't hard when you watch Tucker Carlson or Laura. Most of their leaders are either rage monsters, childless feminazis trying to emulate Merkel, race warriors or coke heads.

    Then let Schumer shut down the government again(which he will if he doesn't want his house burnt down by illegals) and Trump then pounds on the Democrats repeatedly showing white normies what nuts they are. Then he only has to bring up cutting back on government workers - Schumer will scream like a castrati over that.

    Repeat as necessary until the Donks fragment. They are already half way there. The Bernie Bros want no part of the Pelosi-Schumer illegal alien/anti-white express. This incessant pandering to illegals is just going to alienate a lot of whites.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Crawfurdmuir

    He only needs what 9 Democrats to vote in favor. He doesn’t need all of them.

  86. @whorefinder
    @reiner Tor


    I think guilt should never be established based on confession without a trial
     
    What country are you from where they don't accept guilty pleas and force everyone to go through trials? I have never heard of a 1st world country that doesn't have this process.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Anonymous, @Brutusale

    Countries without our levels of criminal activity may have the time and money to waste time with a trial after a guilty plea.

    Given what has happened in a lot of Europe over the last few years, they’re about to see what the crime rates in a truly vibrant multicultural society are like.

  87. @Dave Pinsen
    @whorefinder

    I also saw a couple of comments on Twitter suggesting he may have had more run-ins with the police than the media have mentioned so far. Maybe one of those precluded him applying for citizenship?

    Physicians have such high status in America we often forget they include bad apples too: pill mill runners, bilkers of Medicare, facilitators of false claims for disability pensions, etc. Don't know if that was the case with this guy, but I wouldn't rule it out.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @dr kill

    The world where Poles are MDs, is this the same world where Italians are mechanics and Brits are chefs?

  88. @27 year old
    @reiner Tor


    Question is, how much time you have left. The US will be majority nonwhite within a generation. Even in Europe, the clock is ticking fast.
     
    We can thrive indefinitely as a plurality or even an actual minority -- IF we have the desire to do so. Apartheid South Africa was stable until they blinked. Whites are higher quality, and we will win IF we want to win. If we don't want acknowledge the game being played and we don't want to win, it doesn't matter how many of us there are.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @ben tillman

    There are cases of “partial will,” when you want to do something, but not if it involves X, like you are willing to halt demographic decline, but not if it involves doing away with democracy. Democracy seems to be a pretty entrenched value of whites everywhere, kinda like a religion, so it will be a tough sell doing away with it. As long as whites have a majority, things will be easier.

    Then there is the matter of admixture. Half-whites have large numbers of white relatives. Admixture makes it very difficult to cut off all non-whites, because either you’ll have to cut off white race-mixers (in which case you might piss off their relatives, also further decrease your own numbers, plus giving the enemy higher quality white or half-white leaders), or you cut off with the nonwhite relatives of mixed race people, in which case you’re already far from a white only minority rule, or… you get the point.

    And even assuming this is all no problem, I don’t find it possible to institute an apartheid-style white racial rule in the US without a civil war. With a white minority, it gets even harder, and an ever smaller portion of whites defecting to the other side could make it impossible.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @reiner Tor


    Democracy seems to be a pretty entrenched value of whites everywhere
     
    It's an entrenched value in the US. Much less so in large parts of Europe. If the "transatlantic community" ever breaks up and US influence is reduced, there is no reason why there couldn't be right-wing authoritarian regimes in Europe again.
  89. @education realist
    "Too often, Kaus & Coulter are too quick to “misunderestimate” Trump as much as the MSM does."

    As is Mark Krikorian. In Kaus's case, it's because he's a Dem who supports Trump purely for immigration reasons. But all restrictionists are terrified of him selling out. Yet every time we squawk, he walks back any error.

    I don't think this is part of any grand plan. Save for the idiotic grandfather clause on the waiting list, this is a very reasonable offer. I would have preferred more bargaining chips included, like E-verify. But the grandfather clause needs to go.

    I think it is quite likely that the Dems will refuse this, and planned or not it is very like the 2000 Israeli -Palestine deal.

    All that said, my god, are people here and elsewhere incapable of remembering anything more than a week ago? From 2005-2007, the GOP President actively sought amnesty for ALL illegal immigrants with NO reduction in immigration and called GOP voters racist for not supporting it. From 2008 on, we had a Dem president who dumped illegal immigrants and refugees on every state. And we came very close to having another Dem president who'd have done even worse. Have some fricking appreciation of how much better things are, ya ungrateful whiners.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson, @Whitey Whiteman III, @MEH 0910

  90. @reiner Tor
    @whorefinder


    Confession is the “queen of evidence”
     
    Sure, in medieval or Stalinist justice systems. It's just not a very good evidence in and of itself. A lot of people can be pressured into doing or saying things which they don't want or don't even think, there's plenty of evidence of cases of weak minded, but usually otherwise decent, people being pressured into confessing to a crime they didn't even commit. The most famous and well-known examples are the communist show trials, where the defendants confessed to non-existent crimes (like being American or Nazi German spies etc.) in front of American (etc.) journalists during trials. There was usually no other evidence (how could there be?), but they had the "queen of evidence."

    Civil law systems are far from perfect, but if there's no plea bargain (i.e. you don't get a relatively good deal in exchange for confessing), then it's more difficult to pressure you into confessing, because the incentives are different, so they cannot intimidate you like "you'll get 50 years if you don't confess, but we manage to convince the jury/judge on shaky evidence, but if you confess, you'll only get 5 years." Because confession is only one of many mitigating circumstances, and so it's like "if we get you sentenced on shaky evidence, you'll get 50 years. But if you confess, you'll get 45 years." The intimidation is much less. If you get a long prison sentence no matter what you do, then at least maintain your innocence, even weak-minded people will think like that.

    Also, at least in Hungary, the defense lawyers often argue that the confession was forced out of their client by a brutal police (which is sometimes even possible to prove, like medical examination shows the defendant has injuries consistent with having been beaten), and judges often accept it, unless there's some other direct evidence. So not only is the motivation less for weak-minded defendants to confess, and more difficult for the investigators to pressure them into confessing, but there's also less motivation to pressure them to do that, because ultimately confession will not be the be all and end all of solving a case, instead it will only be a piece of evidence.

    Still, some people are intimidated by investigators or occasionally even beaten by police to confess, and when that happens, a lot of judges might just convict the way you described it (but there's no jury, and judges with their experience are way more wary of the "queen of evidence"!), but I'd suspect that ceteris paribus it happens way more in the American plea bargain system. The US, having a centuries old tradition of great jurisprudence and being a historically low corruption country (quite unlike Hungary) should have a much better ratio of forced confessions and convicting the innocent, yet my impression is that it is not so, if anything, it is the opposite. As I said, I'd rather be tried in Hungary than in the US, regardless of the crime, especially if I was innocent.

    Replies: @snorlax, @utu, @whorefinder

    There’s not a big problem with forced confessions in the US, despite what liberals would have you believe. So-called cases of “forced confessions” are mainly far-left lawyers suddenly discovering HBD as pertains to their dindu clients: “Dontarius has a measured IQ of 74. Forced confession!”

    The liberal poster child case for “forced confessions,” the Central Park jogger case, is indeed a heinous and shocking judicial travesty, for 180 degrees the opposite reason as they claim: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-04-23.html

    Interrogations in the US must be videotaped, and the police must document any injuries suffered by the arrestee during his arrest. Failure to do so is likely to cause the judge to rule any confessions or interrogations inadmissible, and to result in disciplinary action or criminal charges for the arresting officer(s). The arrestee has a right to a medical examination by a doctor of his [attorney’s] choosing.

    Before an interrogation, arrestees are repeatedly informed of their rights to have an attorney present and to remain silent.* Any statements, even volunteered ones, made by the arrestee after his arrest but prior to such a “Miranda warning” are inadmissible in court.

    The Supreme Court ruling behind this, Miranda v. Arizona, is probably the primary culprit both in the 1960’s-present explosion in the US crime rate, and also the present-day ubiquity of plea bargains.

    Prosecutors favor them because the “confession = guilty” assumption works both ways, and defense attorneys very often convince low-information juries brought up on TV cop dramas and Perry Mason that “no confession = not guilty.” Remember that prosecution witnesses typically know or can be intimidated by the defendant, so often drop out before the trial. (Another favorite talking point of ACLU types: “Key witnesses recanted their testimony! Another lynching in fascist AmeriKKKa!”)

    It’s a big country, so there are undoubtedly a few cases of actual forced confessions, or (more common, but still not very common) innocent people taking plea bargains. But for every one of those there are a thousand miscarriages of justice (incl. unsolved crimes and slap-on-the-wrist punishments) favoring the perps.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @snorlax

    The biggest problem here is a conflation (earlier in the exchange) of 1) confessions (usually to police and not even via sworn affidavit) with 2) pleas of guilty entered in open court following access to the assistance of competent counsel and painstaking efforts by a disinterested judge to ensure the defendant understands the consequences thereof.

    Confessions are indeed merely another form of evidence, more or less probative depending upon circumstances, and so on. Pleas are dispositive because they are something else entirely. Plea-bargains (almost always entered under extreme duress and empowering prosecutors with much of the authority more properly reserved for judges and jurors) are another animal entirely.

    , @North Carolina Resident
    @snorlax

    What do you mean by this, especially the Miranda part?

    "The Supreme Court ruling behind this, Miranda v. Arizona, is probably the primary culprit both in the 1960′s-present explosion in the US crime rate, and also the present-day ubiquity of plea bargains."

  91. @whyamihere
    I have a bad feeling about this.
    Trump seems to have made up his mind that these people can't be deported. Doesn't he realize this will turn America forever blue and make it into Bernie's socialist looneyland?!

    In California today a bill is being discussed that would fine waiters $1,000 and/or put them in jail for six months for giving plastic straws to customers in restaurants without asking first. Politicians like this who want to regulate every part of people's lives will get elected all over the US due to granting all these people (plus everyone tangentially related to them) amnesty.

    I predict a deal won't be made before March 5th and Trump will cave and keep extending Obama's DACA executive order for six months for the remainder of his presidency.

    Seeing those DACA people in politician's offices shouting them down, cussing at them and demanding citizenship really makes my blood boil.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Clyde, @Barnard, @Boethiuss

    Trump seems to have made up his mind that these people can’t be deported.

    The whole idea that they can’t be deported because of public opinion seems crazy to me. Obamacare was passed in clear violation of Congressional rules after the voters of Massachusetts elected Scott Brown in a last ditch effort to stop it. It wasn’t popular, was forced through and yet can’t seem to be undone. This whole immigration deal process demonstrates how strongly the powerful oppose what the people want on immigration.

  92. @education realist
    "Too often, Kaus & Coulter are too quick to “misunderestimate” Trump as much as the MSM does."

    As is Mark Krikorian. In Kaus's case, it's because he's a Dem who supports Trump purely for immigration reasons. But all restrictionists are terrified of him selling out. Yet every time we squawk, he walks back any error.

    I don't think this is part of any grand plan. Save for the idiotic grandfather clause on the waiting list, this is a very reasonable offer. I would have preferred more bargaining chips included, like E-verify. But the grandfather clause needs to go.

    I think it is quite likely that the Dems will refuse this, and planned or not it is very like the 2000 Israeli -Palestine deal.

    All that said, my god, are people here and elsewhere incapable of remembering anything more than a week ago? From 2005-2007, the GOP President actively sought amnesty for ALL illegal immigrants with NO reduction in immigration and called GOP voters racist for not supporting it. From 2008 on, we had a Dem president who dumped illegal immigrants and refugees on every state. And we came very close to having another Dem president who'd have done even worse. Have some fricking appreciation of how much better things are, ya ungrateful whiners.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson, @Whitey Whiteman III, @MEH 0910

    But all restrictionists are terrified of him selling out. Yet every time we squawk, he walks back any error.

    That’s like saying crime is low so why do we have so many people in prison. Imprisoning criminals is how we get the low crime rate. Trump walks back his errors because the immigration restrictionists squawk. Squawking is how we keep Trump from selling out.

    • Replies: @education realist
    @MEH 0910

    " Trump walks back his errors because the immigration restrictionists squawk. Squawking is how we keep Trump from selling out."

    No. How shocking. I'd never considered that possibility. How good of you to explain it. Next, find a 95 year old and teach eggsucking.

  93. @Anonymous
    @Opinionator


    Can anyone provide a primary source citation to Barak’s alleged “generous offer”?
     
    Read the fine print and you'll learn that the supposed 'generous offer' was full of BS. Arafat was right to reject what was in fact a suicidal agreement for the Palestinians. The MSM in the US continue to parrot the Zionist version, of course.

    https://fair.org/extra/the-myth-of-the-generous-offer/

    https://electronicintifada.net/content/misrepresentation-baraks-offer-camp-david-generous-and-unprecedented/3991

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/08/09/camp-david-the-tragedy-of-errors/

    The NYRB version omits, characteristically, that as part of the deal the Palestinians were to be completely disarmed with their security at the eternal mercy of IDF and Shin Bet. Hard to call that sovereignty.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Yes, a fair deal would have been like the deal the US gave to Japan at the end of WWII, where we allowed them to re-arm so that someday they could have another crack at Hawaii. That would only be fair, like when you win the game you let the other team have a rematch. No, wait we didn’t do that – that would be nuts. Somehow, even without full sovereignty (by your definition) the Japanese have done OK.

    The Israelis had (have) no reason to trust that the Palestinians would not take a “fully sovereign” Palestinian state as merely the first step in the full recovery of all of Palestine. Palestine is always only 1 election away from Hamas rule and Hamas is sworn to Israel’s destruction. They would have been crazy to allow a Palestinian state that was totally free to arm up for a future attack on Israel. The Palestinians were supposedly saying that they were asking for a peaceful state and not a staging ground for future attacks on Israel so it was appropriate to hold them to their word with treaty safeguards.

  94. @snorlax
    @reiner Tor

    There's not a big problem with forced confessions in the US, despite what liberals would have you believe. So-called cases of "forced confessions" are mainly far-left lawyers suddenly discovering HBD as pertains to their dindu clients: "Dontarius has a measured IQ of 74. Forced confession!"

    The liberal poster child case for "forced confessions," the Central Park jogger case, is indeed a heinous and shocking judicial travesty, for 180 degrees the opposite reason as they claim: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-04-23.html

    Interrogations in the US must be videotaped, and the police must document any injuries suffered by the arrestee during his arrest. Failure to do so is likely to cause the judge to rule any confessions or interrogations inadmissible, and to result in disciplinary action or criminal charges for the arresting officer(s). The arrestee has a right to a medical examination by a doctor of his [attorney's] choosing.

    Before an interrogation, arrestees are repeatedly informed of their rights to have an attorney present and to remain silent.* Any statements, even volunteered ones, made by the arrestee after his arrest but prior to such a "Miranda warning" are inadmissible in court.

    The Supreme Court ruling behind this, Miranda v. Arizona, is probably the primary culprit both in the 1960's-present explosion in the US crime rate, and also the present-day ubiquity of plea bargains.

    Prosecutors favor them because the "confession = guilty" assumption works both ways, and defense attorneys very often convince low-information juries brought up on TV cop dramas and Perry Mason that "no confession = not guilty." Remember that prosecution witnesses typically know or can be intimidated by the defendant, so often drop out before the trial. (Another favorite talking point of ACLU types: "Key witnesses recanted their testimony! Another lynching in fascist AmeriKKKa!")

    It's a big country, so there are undoubtedly a few cases of actual forced confessions, or (more common, but still not very common) innocent people taking plea bargains. But for every one of those there are a thousand miscarriages of justice (incl. unsolved crimes and slap-on-the-wrist punishments) favoring the perps.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @North Carolina Resident

    The biggest problem here is a conflation (earlier in the exchange) of 1) confessions (usually to police and not even via sworn affidavit) with 2) pleas of guilty entered in open court following access to the assistance of competent counsel and painstaking efforts by a disinterested judge to ensure the defendant understands the consequences thereof.

    Confessions are indeed merely another form of evidence, more or less probative depending upon circumstances, and so on. Pleas are dispositive because they are something else entirely. Plea-bargains (almost always entered under extreme duress and empowering prosecutors with much of the authority more properly reserved for judges and jurors) are another animal entirely.

  95. @27 year old
    The point of Trump was never to save America with One Weird Tip.

    Most seem to forget that this was the flight 93 election.

    The mindwar among Whites is more important than any policy change. Trump's job is to convince the normies that it is "let's roll" time. Any policy changes that happen are just a bonus.

    50% cut in legal immigration has become a normie position overnight. Hello?

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Ed, @AnotherDad

    Thank you. We were this close to Clinton. Trump doesn’t run we get a Jeb and the illegals are getting amnestied for nothing.

    Trump has shifted the Overton window and policy changes are gravy. However i think cons should jump on this offer. They won’t be able to restrict immigration in a Dem house. It’s now or never.

  96. German_reader says:
    @reiner Tor
    @27 year old

    There are cases of "partial will," when you want to do something, but not if it involves X, like you are willing to halt demographic decline, but not if it involves doing away with democracy. Democracy seems to be a pretty entrenched value of whites everywhere, kinda like a religion, so it will be a tough sell doing away with it. As long as whites have a majority, things will be easier.

    Then there is the matter of admixture. Half-whites have large numbers of white relatives. Admixture makes it very difficult to cut off all non-whites, because either you'll have to cut off white race-mixers (in which case you might piss off their relatives, also further decrease your own numbers, plus giving the enemy higher quality white or half-white leaders), or you cut off with the nonwhite relatives of mixed race people, in which case you're already far from a white only minority rule, or... you get the point.

    And even assuming this is all no problem, I don't find it possible to institute an apartheid-style white racial rule in the US without a civil war. With a white minority, it gets even harder, and an ever smaller portion of whites defecting to the other side could make it impossible.

    Replies: @German_reader

    Democracy seems to be a pretty entrenched value of whites everywhere

    It’s an entrenched value in the US. Much less so in large parts of Europe. If the “transatlantic community” ever breaks up and US influence is reduced, there is no reason why there couldn’t be right-wing authoritarian regimes in Europe again.

  97. @Dave Pinsen
    I think this is likely.

    One thing to bear in mind in this discussion is that a 40-something year old Polish immigrant doctor got picked up by ICE, apparently for having a couple of misdemeanors as a teen and a DUI ten years ago. This reminds me of Howard Stern describing how his elderly parents got searched on their way into the local, vibrant multiplex, so all the young blacks getting searched wouldn't feel singled out.

    And it suggests the anti-DACA powers available to the Trump administration. How many DACAns can get locked up, using the same low bar applied to the Polish doc?

    If the Dems want to shutdown the government over this, great. Let it stay shut longer this time. Trump should call for laying off "non-essential" federal workers, when everyone else realizes no one misses them. They're all Dem voters anyway.


    https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/955701166343643137

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Jack D, @North Carolina Resident

    I don’t understand. My parents were former Polish citizens and they became US citizens at the earliest opportunity because they had cast their lot with America. How did this guy stay here for 40 years and never become a citizen?

    • Replies: @utu
    @Jack D

    Perhaps he could not. He had a juvenile criminal record. Still I wonder why did they pick him up now if he had a green card. Somebody wanted to get him. In 2013 he was acquitted for some domestic violence. Ex wife?

    , @Olorin
    @Jack D

    This.

    Also when people are picked up for DUI, it's never the first instance of that behavior. We can have no idea of how many situations he may have caused or costs he accrued (to other people or the public) with this behavior elsewhere.

    A "doctor" (of what? trained where? practicing on whom?) who's out risking other people's lives and his own family's keep is showing a pattern of risk-taking and boundary-breaking behaviors that isn't tolerated in others...and that the AMA and Big Pharma/Big Insurance bashes and punishes if you or I did it.

    Disregard for American immigration and violation of citizenship law is just icing on the cake.

    As for why they picked him up, as per Dave's question, I wouldn't jump to the assumption that it's the Howard Stern's Poor Poor Parents factor. For all we know, ICE knows of other stuff this guy was doing.

    Which reminds me, from the CBS news piece:


    "He's a leading physician among the team," Dr. Hussein Akl said. "He helps and supports. He's just one of the better people you can know and connect with."
     
    I don't doubt some of his colleagues found him nice or helpful or likeable or whatever.

    Still, we're going to have to start grappling with the entire "health" "care" industry's collaboration with systematic breaking of US immigration law, the use of US taxpayer money to import lawbreakers, and private sector incentives for their trafficking.

    FWIW, "Hussein Akl" took his MD here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_of_the_Caribbean

  98. @Opinionator
    @International Jew


    What saved Israel wasn’t any triple-bankshot psychological stunt by Ehud Barak, but rather the election of Ariel Sharon. Who crushed the Intifada, and made no further idiotic gestures to the Palestinians.
     
    Sharon started the Intifada.

    Replies: @biz

    Sharon started the Intifada.

    Only, if you believe, like all Leftists, that Arabs, Muslims, and other non-white people have no agency.

    Sharon visited the Temple Mount and therefore Arabs had no choice but to riot. They could not have decided not to riot, of course.

  99. @Chief Seattle
    @Mr. Blank

    When I saw the headlines that the judge was "signing his death sentence", I took that literally. Several times I scanned the articles for any mention of capital punishment, and was confused when I didn't find it. This kind of language from a judge fails on even basic requirements of accuracy and clarity.

    Replies: @a reader

    She acknowledged and even approved of the fact that Nassar would certainly be raped if not killed in jail, with the denial plausibility that she merely meant he would die in jail due to the length of the sentence.

    Why are rapes or murders committed under judicial supervision OK or even ridiculed?

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @a reader

    Why are rapes or murders committed under judicial supervision OK or even ridiculed?

    Enshrined in our Bill of Rights is a ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" and yet cops, corrections officers, and even judges can joke about prison rape. It's sick and disgraceful.

    Others have noted that while it's a mortal sin to joke about male-female rape, it's okay when it's male-male.

    Replies: @snorlax

  100. @O'Really
    @Catdog

    Fortunately, President Trump has better political instincts than Catdog.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    No, he doesn’t. The very smart negotiator set are the alt-right version of RINOs.

    The tears of Dreamers are an abyss, and America needs to look into it.

  101. @reiner Tor
    OT

    I just saw this video (scroll down for it) of the sentencing of a sexual offender doctor. I don’t know if it’s usual for such crimes to receive such harsh sentences (he certainly seems guilty), but I don’t really care except to remark that capital punishment would seemingly be more humane in this case. The guy could easily be a psychopath anyway.

    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.

    The reason I didn’t like it is because I think if judges are expected to absolutely conceal their personal animosity, it will become a second nature for them, and they will be probably more impartial. It’s especially important in cases where guilt is not known with absolute certainty, or if the defendant is a member of an unpopular group (like a white male or a racist), and similar cases.

    So, a question to the Americans here. Is it in the US appropriate for a judge to openly express her personal animosity towards the defendant, however vile or psychopathic he is? In Hungary the only time judges behaved that way (and even then only sometimes) was in political cases during the darkest period of communist dictatorship in the 1950s.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Daniel Chieh, @Thomas, @Dave Pinsen, @Dave Pinsen, @utu, @Crawfurdmuir, @Mr. Blank, @Anonymous, @Bleuteaux

    I think you answered your own question there at the end.

  102. You can’t get mad at Coulter, Krikorian and Kaus for going ballistic if this is the strategy – if the goal is proving the other side isn’t interested in moderation, you need to show that you were moderate enough to enrage your own flank.

    • Agree: MEH 0910
  103. @Dave Pinsen
    @Wilkey

    As I said in that thread, the are details are important, particularly how strictly they're implemented. For example, if a requirement to stay here and on the path to citizenship is having no criminal record of any kind, that's going to snag a whole bunch of DACAns. Same if the "public charge" part stays in, and is defined in a similarly strict way (e.g., any use of food stamps). A key is to write zero tolerance language into the law, so future Dem administrations have no wiggle room for interpretation.

    One risk on the criminal record side is that Dem localities will simply refuse to prosecute some DACAn offenders.

    Replies: @gregor

    I remember hearing that something like half of the winners of the diversity lottery don’t end up actually getting their visas since they don’t get the paperwork done.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    @gregor

    Boy, those sound like real bright bulbs whom we need in this country as soon as possible.

  104. @Rod1963
    @Mr. Blank

    I think Trump knew his offer would be rejected on the spot. The Donk leadership is patently nuts now because they sold the party out to the Hispanics. Hint: DNC run by Ellison and Perez.

    He knows there is no middle-ground with the Donks, only total capitulation. If he does what the Donks want he's finished politically in a bad way.

    If he doesn't he's left with one real option exposing the Donks to the normies as the party of the insane. Which isn't hard when you watch Tucker Carlson or Laura. Most of their leaders are either rage monsters, childless feminazis trying to emulate Merkel, race warriors or coke heads.

    Then let Schumer shut down the government again(which he will if he doesn't want his house burnt down by illegals) and Trump then pounds on the Democrats repeatedly showing white normies what nuts they are. Then he only has to bring up cutting back on government workers - Schumer will scream like a castrati over that.

    Repeat as necessary until the Donks fragment. They are already half way there. The Bernie Bros want no part of the Pelosi-Schumer illegal alien/anti-white express. This incessant pandering to illegals is just going to alienate a lot of whites.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Crawfurdmuir

    I think Trump knew his offer would be rejected on the spot.

    That’s my impression as well. It’s not a triple bank shot or 4-dimensional chess or any such brilliant move, just a rather obvious conclusion. Democrats would rather have the issue to campaign on, and it’s Trump’s conclusion that it is a loser for them.

    Time will tell whether this is true, but one point in favor of that conclusion is that amnesty is a high priority for very few rank-and-file voters, even among those that support it – whereas curtailing illegal immigration and limiting legal immigration poll remarkably well not only with Republicans but also with independents, and even attract support from some Democrats.

    One blessing of Trump’s presidency has been that it has caused so many politicians and pundits to reveal their true colors. It has particularly shown the extremism of the left.

  105. @Intelligent Dasein
    Absolute nonsense.

    The hermeneutic of "Trump is just doing this to make the other side look bad" is a species of hypnotic self-suggestion by which the true believers, who would otherwise suffer an unpleasant bout of cognitive dissonance, magically transmute defeat into ersatz victory.

    To believe this is to believe that the Democrats have good reason for accepting the proposal, such that rejecting it makes them look petty and deceitful. But they don't have any reason to accept it. They want as much immigration as possible and they clearly aren't worried about how it makes them look. They've set up sanctuary cities and states all over the country, flouted federal law, protected drug dealers, gang members, and murderers, and none of that has tarnished their image in their strongholds. They want to go to the mat with Trump. They believe they can win this, or at least obstruct long enough to paralyze his administration.

    And they will be right if Trump doesn't hit them back, hard. And that means advocating for the issue with a plain and simple stance, letting his speech be yea yea and nay nay. If he is against DACA, then he needs to stand in opposition to DACA, not play underwater triple bankshot 4D chess with it. Which, in any case he is not, because, as I explained in my long comment to the first of the 3 open threads on this same subject which Steve's frenetic posting is now pushing beneath the fold (damn it), such logic and strategy never entered into it. This framework is nothing more than the typical legislative sausage making that emanates from Washington with the regularity of the rising sun.

    But let's assume for argument's sake that you're right, and that Trump really does have some bold wizardry up his sleeve that will expose the true thinking of the Democrats for all the world to see. Who the heck would care? For whom is this deft feat of exposure being performed? Not us, certainly; not his base, not the Deplorables in flyover country, not the #NeverTrumpers, and definitely not the Democrats. Who is this mythical person who still needs to get clued in on the subject? Is there anybody sufficiently informed and engaged with the political process in this country so as to connect the dots on Trump's bankshot gambit, but who does not also already know what the Democrats "really think" about immigration? And is the risk of finding and persuading this rare specimen, this veritable white buffalo, really worth alienating the whole damn base on its signature issue?

    Of course not. This nonsensical thinking has got to stop. The only hope now is to make sure the administration knows that we are very unhappy with the proposal and that we will not stand by Trump if he doesn't fight it. The political battle will be lost irrevocably if an amnesty is passed. We are now at the hour of decision and failure is not an option.

    Replies: @Boethiuss

    If he is against DACA, then he needs to stand in opposition to DACA, not play underwater triple bankshot 4D chess with it. Which, in any case he is not, because, as I explained in my long comment to the first of the 3 open threads on this same subject which Steve’s frenetic posting is now pushing beneath the fold (damn it), such logic and strategy never entered into it.

    I’d like to agree with this, but I don’t. I also don’t know if Trump is playing 11-dimensional chess or not. To some extent I really don’t care.

    In any event, we have to make progress strategically as well as tactically. Tactically, there are issues in play like chain migration, the wall, e-Verify, etc. But strategically, the lay of the land is determined by the desire of the American people to assert our self-determination and protect the human capital of its citizens.

    We are emphatically not in dominant strategic position now. We may even be in a weak position, but we are certainly not in a dominant position. The only reason that Trump won the shutdown skirmish is because he was able to highlight the reality that Schumer and the Democrats held the interest of illegal aliens over that of American citizens.

    Without that, we would have lost. The American people are fine with normalizing the Dreamers. They are not particularly motivated to assert our self-determination and protect the human capital of our citizens.

    But this can change. But to change, people have to hear us. And people who sound like Charles Pewitt and Ann Coulter simply get tuned out. We can’t afford to be tuned out.

    • Replies: @Vinteuil
    @Boethiuss

    What you mean "we," kemosabe?

    Your posting history here is available to all at the click of a mouse.

    Replies: @Boethiuss

    , @Opinionator
    @Boethiuss

    What do you mean by "protect the human capital of our citizens"? What does that capital consist of and in what way is it threatened?

    Replies: @Boethiuss

  106. @Thomas
    @Anonymous

    Breitbart and other sources are also complaining that putting the 1.8 million marker down will turn out to be Trump negotiating with himself, they'll take that number as a floor.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Boethiuss

    Breitbart and other sources are also complaining that putting the 1.8 million marker down will turn out to be Trump negotiating with himself, they’ll take that number as a floor.

    I’m sure they will. But that doesn’t mean that they will actually get that as a floor. The most likely scenario is that there won’t be any deal at all.

    • Replies: @markm
    @Boethiuss

    Part of the problem is that there is still no fear of deportation or prosecution for employing illegals. Then Trump would have more leverage because the Dems would have no alternative but make a deal. Now they can live with the status quo. The invader population pumps out little U.S. citizens every years. They find ways to work.

    Replies: @Boethiuss

  107. @whyamihere
    I have a bad feeling about this.
    Trump seems to have made up his mind that these people can't be deported. Doesn't he realize this will turn America forever blue and make it into Bernie's socialist looneyland?!

    In California today a bill is being discussed that would fine waiters $1,000 and/or put them in jail for six months for giving plastic straws to customers in restaurants without asking first. Politicians like this who want to regulate every part of people's lives will get elected all over the US due to granting all these people (plus everyone tangentially related to them) amnesty.

    I predict a deal won't be made before March 5th and Trump will cave and keep extending Obama's DACA executive order for six months for the remainder of his presidency.

    Seeing those DACA people in politician's offices shouting them down, cussing at them and demanding citizenship really makes my blood boil.

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Clyde, @Barnard, @Boethiuss

    Politicians like this who want to regulate every part of people’s lives will get elected all over the US due to granting all these people (plus everyone tangentially related to them) amnesty.

    Why are we worried about what amnesty is going to do to our elections when there’s a decent proportion of us who intend to eliminate the middleman, ie, turn around and vote Democratic. If we can’t be bothered to vote Republican as it is, who could give a shit about amnesty?

  108. @Crawfurdmuir
    @reiner Tor


    What I didn’t understand was the tone of the judge, her words grabbed my attention and made me watch the video. The judge thought it appropriate to call the victims “survivors” and her “sisters.” She said she signed his “death warrant” and gleefully told him he will probably never leave prison alive, also informed him how many months the sentence would take (why did she do that, other than to try to torture the defendant?), and said it was her “privilege” to sentence him. I didn’t think these were appropriate from a sentencing judge.
     
    Milkwater stuff, really, compared to the sentencing style of Lord Chief Justice George Jeffreys, First Baron Jeffreys of Wem (1648-1688). According to Macaulay,

    ...when he had an opportunity of ordering an unlucky adventuress to be whipped at the cart's tail, "Hangman," he would exclaim, "I charge you to pay particular attention to this lady! Scourge her soundly man! Scourge her till the blood runs down! It is Christmas, a cold time for Madam to strip in! See that you warm her shoulders thoroughly!"
     
    Jeffreys was not above "gallows humor" when sending someone to that fate. Writes Macaulay,

    One wretched man moved the pity even of bitter Tories. "My Lord," they said, "this poor creature is on the parish."

    "Do not trouble yourselves," said the Judge, "I will ease the parish of the burden."

    [...]

    A still more frightful sentence was passed on a lad named Tutchin, who was tried for seditious words.

    He was, as usual, interrupted in his defence by ribaldry and scurrility from the judgment seat. "You are a rebel; and all your family have been rebels since Adam. They tell me that you are a poet. I'll cap verses with you." The sentence was that the boy should be imprisoned seven years, and should, during that period, be flogged through every market town in Dorsetshire every year.

    The women in the galleries burst into tears. The clerk of the arraigns stood up in great disorder. "My Lord," said he, "the prisoner is very young. There are many market towns in our county. The sentence amounts to whipping once a fortnight for seven years."

    "If he is a young man," said Jeffreys, "he is an old rogue. Ladies, you do not know the villain as well as I do. The punishment is not half bad enough for him. All the interest in England shall not alter it."
     
    The vividness of Jeffreys's language was long remembered; Montague James makes the Lord Chief Justice figure in several of his ghost stories, most notably "Martin's Close," the greater part of which is presented as a trial transcript. At one point in the proceedings, one of the witnesses mentions a tune played in a tavern, and its use as a signal between the defendant and a woman that he first seduced, and then murdered. Jeffreys then says to the witness:

    Ay, I remember it in my own country, in Shropshire. It runs somehow thus, doth it not? [Here his lordship whistled part of a tune, which was very observable, and seemed below the dignity of the court. And it appears he felt it himself, for he said:] But this is by the mark, and I doubt it is the first time we have had dance-tunes in this court. The most part of the dancing we give occasion for is done at Tyburn...
     

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Anonymous, @Harry Baldwin

    Great stories, thanks for sharing.

  109. @Juan DeShawn Arafat
    @whorefinder

    “Remember, it was Coulter’s book that gave Trump the inspiration to make immigration his base plank”

    It was Steve’s blog that inspired and informed Ann’s book. Without him, Hillary would have won. Then again, without that giant Titantic set, Steve might not be around. So thank you James Cameron!

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Harry Baldwin

    Love the screen name.

  110. Unfortunately, I think this was just Steve Miller getting outnumbered by Gen. Kelly, Marc Short and the blonde haired DHS woman. Those were the four advisors credited with the framework.

    The globalists won. Preventing the permanent destruction of the U.S. seems less likely now that our negotiation position has been lost.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    @Markm

    Gen Kelly: "The ideal number of refugees is between zero and one."

    "Blonde DHS Lady": "There is no border security without a wall...The President has no legal authority to extend the DACA deadline."

    I don't know who Marc Short is but given the line up so far he probably advocates for the President to override Phyllis v Dwyer through EO.

    Some of you people are posting from a different fucking planet.

  111. @Boethiuss
    @Thomas


    Breitbart and other sources are also complaining that putting the 1.8 million marker down will turn out to be Trump negotiating with himself, they’ll take that number as a floor.
     
    I'm sure they will. But that doesn't mean that they will actually get that as a floor. The most likely scenario is that there won't be any deal at all.

    Replies: @markm

    Part of the problem is that there is still no fear of deportation or prosecution for employing illegals. Then Trump would have more leverage because the Dems would have no alternative but make a deal. Now they can live with the status quo. The invader population pumps out little U.S. citizens every years. They find ways to work.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
    @markm


    Part of the problem is that there is still no fear of deportation or prosecution for employing illegals. Then Trump would have more leverage because the Dems would have no alternative but make a deal. Now they can live with the status quo. The invader population pumps out little U.S. citizens every years. They find ways to work.
     
    Yeah, as a substantive policy I'd prefer to have a strong e-Verify and nothing else over the Trump proposal.

    But to get there we have to be able to make the case that Dreamers and other illegals have already been illegal for a long time. There's no rush right this second to make them legal now. And most importantly, have that train of thought be heard.

    As things right now, the Democrats, the media, the activists, etc., have convinced at least a significant number of Americans that the Dreamers is Something That Must Be Addressed. We need to point out that's not necessarily so, even if you believe the business about "no fault of their own, etc". Until then, we are still in a weak position, even if we win the occasional skirmish like this latest shutdown thing.
  112. @a reader
    @Chief Seattle

    She acknowledged and even approved of the fact that Nassar would certainly be raped if not killed in jail, with the denial plausibility that she merely meant he would die in jail due to the length of the sentence.

    Why are rapes or murders committed under judicial supervision OK or even ridiculed?

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    Why are rapes or murders committed under judicial supervision OK or even ridiculed?

    Enshrined in our Bill of Rights is a ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” and yet cops, corrections officers, and even judges can joke about prison rape. It’s sick and disgraceful.

    Others have noted that while it’s a mortal sin to joke about male-female rape, it’s okay when it’s male-male.

    • Agree: reiner Tor, a reader
    • Replies: @snorlax
    @Harry Baldwin


    Others have noted that while it’s a mortal sin to joke about male-female rape, it’s okay when it’s male-male.
     
    Except if you’re Pax Dickinson, or the Penny Arcade guys.
  113. @Dave Pinsen
    @reiner Tor

    The whole case seems odd to me, like the claim that he was molesting a girl while her mother was in the exam room, but the mother didn't see because she was behind him? That's bizarre.

    But yes, some people have criticized the judge's comments, e.g.,

    https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/956255775646625792

    https://twitter.com/varadmehta/status/956320811861925888

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @RadicalCenter

    This woman should not be entrusted with judicial power. Utterly unacceptable comments for a judge.

  114. @gregor
    @Dave Pinsen

    I remember hearing that something like half of the winners of the diversity lottery don’t end up actually getting their visas since they don’t get the paperwork done.

    Replies: @RadicalCenter

    Boy, those sound like real bright bulbs whom we need in this country as soon as possible.

  115. @Jack D
    @Dave Pinsen

    I don't understand. My parents were former Polish citizens and they became US citizens at the earliest opportunity because they had cast their lot with America. How did this guy stay here for 40 years and never become a citizen?

    Replies: @utu, @Olorin

    Perhaps he could not. He had a juvenile criminal record. Still I wonder why did they pick him up now if he had a green card. Somebody wanted to get him. In 2013 he was acquitted for some domestic violence. Ex wife?

  116. @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    When the empire implodes, as all empires do, if there is a racially conscious and tough white remnant they'll have a shot (but only one) at establishing an all white republic in North America, it could happen. The other parts will become semifunctional or wholly dysfunctional. Some may stratify out like Mexico or Brazil and preserve an internal mostlywhite remnant, but they will be required to rule a mestizo or mulatto polity and won't get much done.

    There will be another Dark Age. Eventually mankind may resume upward progress, but at the price of ten to a hundred lost generations. Much of our knowledge will be lost and have to be reinvented or rediscovered. Some never will be.

    Ancient civilizations unquestionably had a lot of knowledge that is still lost to us. Many things now commonly known will be lost: indeed, we have already lost a surprising amount of knowledge in the last fifty years. Many things made in the recent past cannot be reproduced today. The makers died and never wrote down what they did or succeeding owners of the material destroyed it.

    Replies: @Robert Hume, @AnotherDad

    Many things now commonly known will be lost: indeed, we have already lost a surprising amount of knowledge in the last fifty years. Many things made in the recent past cannot be reproduced today. The makers died and never wrote down what they did or succeeding owners of the material destroyed it.

    Sounds plausible. Examples?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Robert Hume

    It is quite common to show modern sand-casting foundries some of the more ornate castings done in the 1930s and have them shake their heads at the thought of pouring one today. It's not that they absolutely could not, it's more that it would be more time and bother and the yield would be relatively poor. But many old machine tools, antique car and aircraft engines, etc, had castings no one would call economically feasible today.

    Old fire equipment buffs all know the story of the Ahrens Fox pumper and the round accumulator ball on the front of the pump. One man made them all and he was very secretive how he did it, and no one has been able to figure out how to make another. If one splits, freezes or is caved in, you are out of business. For its time it was a very thin and strong structure, with no visible welds.

    I was into building vacuum tube hi fi amplifiers for a long time, and in addition to the tubes, the bigger "black art" was the winding of the output transformers. Most of the better brands used transformers designed by a few different people and all kept their designs secret. One can tear them down, but there were a lot of tricks in precisely how they were wound that if you are not very experienced to begin with you'd never pick up on.

    There are also a number of manufactured glass items that no one today knows how to duplicate.

  117. Trump is showing himself to be incredibly stupid in handling this. Especially his negotiating with himself.

    Trump has the positions the American people want. On almost EVERY individual issue the public overwhelmingly is on Trump’s side. That is the reason the other side wants “comprehensive immigration reform” so that they can take a bunch of unpopular turds and get as much as they can by hiding the details from the American public. This also gives the pro-amnesty Republicans alot of room to maneuver and screw their base.

    Trump should have kept his promises on day one and cancelled DACA on paper. He should have started deporting the parents of the DACAs to put pressure on the Democrats.

    However, the best way to get everything you want and force the Democrats is to split the issues out and squeeze the weak Democrats.

    Take the visa lottery. It is very unpopular. Have somebody in the House bring a bill up that ONLY deals with getting rid of the visa lottery. After it easily passes the House, start turning the screws on the Senate. Trump should call each Senator and remind them how unpopular this visa is. He should then schedule rallies in support of it’s repeal to every red state with a Democrat Senator and invite that Senator to attend. The Senator will have to make a decision, stand with Schumer or get some points for reelection with his constituents.

    Continue with each issue in order of popularity by the puplic, E-verify, ending chain migration, lowering immigration totals.

    The great thing about this is that every issue that is pulled out weakens the pro-amnesty crowd by removing issues on the table. At some point the pro-amnesty crowd will have nothing to offer in return for a deal on things at the margin like funding for the border wall.

  118. @Boethiuss
    @Intelligent Dasein


    If he is against DACA, then he needs to stand in opposition to DACA, not play underwater triple bankshot 4D chess with it. Which, in any case he is not, because, as I explained in my long comment to the first of the 3 open threads on this same subject which Steve’s frenetic posting is now pushing beneath the fold (damn it), such logic and strategy never entered into it.
     
    I'd like to agree with this, but I don't. I also don't know if Trump is playing 11-dimensional chess or not. To some extent I really don't care.

    In any event, we have to make progress strategically as well as tactically. Tactically, there are issues in play like chain migration, the wall, e-Verify, etc. But strategically, the lay of the land is determined by the desire of the American people to assert our self-determination and protect the human capital of its citizens.

    We are emphatically not in dominant strategic position now. We may even be in a weak position, but we are certainly not in a dominant position. The only reason that Trump won the shutdown skirmish is because he was able to highlight the reality that Schumer and the Democrats held the interest of illegal aliens over that of American citizens.

    Without that, we would have lost. The American people are fine with normalizing the Dreamers. They are not particularly motivated to assert our self-determination and protect the human capital of our citizens.

    But this can change. But to change, people have to hear us. And people who sound like Charles Pewitt and Ann Coulter simply get tuned out. We can't afford to be tuned out.

    Replies: @Vinteuil, @Opinionator

    What you mean “we,” kemosabe?

    Your posting history here is available to all at the click of a mouse.

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
    @Vinteuil


    What you mean “we,” kemosabe?
     
    I mean "we", the patriotic, civic-minded, Republican Americans whose intentions are toward the betterment of America and Americans, as opposed to the could-give-a-shit-about-anybody-else, useless quasi-American cranks.

    Replies: @Vinteuil

  119. @27 year old
    The point of Trump was never to save America with One Weird Tip.

    Most seem to forget that this was the flight 93 election.

    The mindwar among Whites is more important than any policy change. Trump's job is to convince the normies that it is "let's roll" time. Any policy changes that happen are just a bonus.

    50% cut in legal immigration has become a normie position overnight. Hello?

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @Ed, @AnotherDad

    The mindwar among Whites is more important than any policy change. Trump’s job is to convince the normies that it is “let’s roll” time. Any policy changes that happen are just a bonus.

    Agree. We need any policy changes that limit future immigration. But even more importantly we need to win mindshare.

    Unfortunately this is the part that “how about this … how about that … let’s make a deal!” Trump is terrible at.

    Trump ought to be hammering home the point that he won’t sign any DACA amnesty that doesn’t fix the problem and close the border so we never face the DACA problem in the future. Unfortunately he not only isn’t beating that point home … Trump didn’t even include mandatory e-verify, so this isn’t going to stop illegal immigration even temporarily. Hard to highlight the Democrats lack of interest in stemming the flow of illegals, when Trump isn’t even proposing to grab the low hanging fruit.

    The Democrats immigration extermism provides the perfect opportunity to wake up white people–and interested patriotic minorities–and build a nationalist coalition. But to do that Trump needs to be using the bully-pulpit to call out the “progressive”/Democrat/leftist-Jewish immigration insanity. (Most people aren’t reading Steve.)

    Everyday, Trump should be pointing out that the Democrats:
    — don’t actually want illegal immigration to stop
    — don’t believe in a secure border
    — have become ideologically committed to open borders extremism

    Repeatedly Trump should be
    — asking the Democrats how many people they want in America?
    do they want us to grow to the size of China and India?
    why do the Democrats want lower wages? more income inequality? higher housing prices?
    more congestion? more sprawl? a crappier environment?
    — asking the Demcrats how many immigrants they want to take every year?
    make them pick a number.
    — saying “employers should start hiring American kids”
    and “we have lots of Americans graduating high school and college every year”, employers should be hiring them first.”
    — saying “the American people get to choose any immigration policy they want”
    and “the only immigrants we should take are those whose presence actually benefits Americans”
    — saying “there is no civil right to immigrate to America”

    The leftist program is evil, against the interests of American citizens (and European citizens in Europe). It’s easy to point that out.

    Unlike Steve, Trump has the bully pulpit and he *can* rip this thing up and point out the emperor has no clothes. But he’s got to do it.

  120. It is no mistake that the proponents of open borders hold the DACA pukes out in front of them like a shield. It’s the best face they can put on such an ugly coalition. The reality is that most of the Senators at the White House meeting with Trump are under orders to not cut the number of cheap workers entering the country. The DACA bums are just window dressing. So if you think Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, or Mitch Mc Connell is willing to give up E-Verify, a fence, or secure Bio-metric ID for the ‘Dreamers’, they are not; ever. The US Chamber has given them marching orders and the best way to carry that out is to look like they are being nice to brown people when in fact they just want them picking lettuce.

  121. @Anonymous
    @Crawfurdmuir

    Well, this much is certain : times may change but the corruption of judges remains constant. Power does things like that to people.

    Replies: @William Badwhite

    Forrest McDonald covers the Founders’ distrust of judges/the judiciary in “Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution”. Interesting reading and quite prescient!

  122. @reiner Tor
    @whorefinder


    Confession is the “queen of evidence”
     
    Sure, in medieval or Stalinist justice systems. It's just not a very good evidence in and of itself. A lot of people can be pressured into doing or saying things which they don't want or don't even think, there's plenty of evidence of cases of weak minded, but usually otherwise decent, people being pressured into confessing to a crime they didn't even commit. The most famous and well-known examples are the communist show trials, where the defendants confessed to non-existent crimes (like being American or Nazi German spies etc.) in front of American (etc.) journalists during trials. There was usually no other evidence (how could there be?), but they had the "queen of evidence."

    Civil law systems are far from perfect, but if there's no plea bargain (i.e. you don't get a relatively good deal in exchange for confessing), then it's more difficult to pressure you into confessing, because the incentives are different, so they cannot intimidate you like "you'll get 50 years if you don't confess, but we manage to convince the jury/judge on shaky evidence, but if you confess, you'll only get 5 years." Because confession is only one of many mitigating circumstances, and so it's like "if we get you sentenced on shaky evidence, you'll get 50 years. But if you confess, you'll get 45 years." The intimidation is much less. If you get a long prison sentence no matter what you do, then at least maintain your innocence, even weak-minded people will think like that.

    Also, at least in Hungary, the defense lawyers often argue that the confession was forced out of their client by a brutal police (which is sometimes even possible to prove, like medical examination shows the defendant has injuries consistent with having been beaten), and judges often accept it, unless there's some other direct evidence. So not only is the motivation less for weak-minded defendants to confess, and more difficult for the investigators to pressure them into confessing, but there's also less motivation to pressure them to do that, because ultimately confession will not be the be all and end all of solving a case, instead it will only be a piece of evidence.

    Still, some people are intimidated by investigators or occasionally even beaten by police to confess, and when that happens, a lot of judges might just convict the way you described it (but there's no jury, and judges with their experience are way more wary of the "queen of evidence"!), but I'd suspect that ceteris paribus it happens way more in the American plea bargain system. The US, having a centuries old tradition of great jurisprudence and being a historically low corruption country (quite unlike Hungary) should have a much better ratio of forced confessions and convicting the innocent, yet my impression is that it is not so, if anything, it is the opposite. As I said, I'd rather be tried in Hungary than in the US, regardless of the crime, especially if I was innocent.

    Replies: @snorlax, @utu, @whorefinder

    The US, having a centuries old tradition of great jurisprudence and being a historically low corruption country (quite unlike Hungary) should have a much better ratio of forced confessions and convicting the innocent, yet my impression is that it is not so, if anything, it is the opposite. As I said, I’d rather be tried in Hungary than in the US, regardless of the crime, especially if I was innocent.

    I have doubts about the low corruption. One should ask why Americans are so self-satisfied and have such a good opinion about their justice system. Is it because all Hollywood films and TV series show trials with caring and fair judges and thoughtful jurors and forensic experts (CSI) who will throw all available science and technology to uncover the truth so justice be done and no innocent ever is convicted? There are more trials on TV than in reality. Very small fraction of cases ever goes to trial. Justice for over 95% case does not look like the one that is shown on TV. People are forced to take the deals and they plea guilty. Why do they plea guilty? Because they do not believe in a fair trial and are sure that they would be convicted on many more charges if DA goes for it.

    As far as corruption of judge, of forensic labs, of police there are plenty of cases every year. Lawyers know which judge can be bought. Police plants evidence. Forensic labs make up evidence. Snitches are hired to lie about confessions that did not happen. Judges convict minors to sent to private detention systems for kick backs.

    A similar situation is with police and hospitals that prominently are covered by countless TV and Hollywood production and people are indoctrinated into believing in distinctly different version of reality. It is amazing how well it works. Most Americans have no clue and are absolutely buying the Hollywood version of reality of police, courts and hospitals. On the other hand Europeans and Eastern Europeans in particular seem to be born jaded which has its own price in lack of faith in the system and consequently much lower expectations. So people there are savvy which means more corrupt than American who are more naive and thus more virtuous. No wonder that Russians have a proverb: “He lied like an eyewitness.” Anybody ever went to jail for lying in Russia? In America you go to jail if you lie to police? Anybody heard of it in Europe?

  123. @markm
    @Boethiuss

    Part of the problem is that there is still no fear of deportation or prosecution for employing illegals. Then Trump would have more leverage because the Dems would have no alternative but make a deal. Now they can live with the status quo. The invader population pumps out little U.S. citizens every years. They find ways to work.

    Replies: @Boethiuss

    Part of the problem is that there is still no fear of deportation or prosecution for employing illegals. Then Trump would have more leverage because the Dems would have no alternative but make a deal. Now they can live with the status quo. The invader population pumps out little U.S. citizens every years. They find ways to work.

    Yeah, as a substantive policy I’d prefer to have a strong e-Verify and nothing else over the Trump proposal.

    But to get there we have to be able to make the case that Dreamers and other illegals have already been illegal for a long time. There’s no rush right this second to make them legal now. And most importantly, have that train of thought be heard.

    As things right now, the Democrats, the media, the activists, etc., have convinced at least a significant number of Americans that the Dreamers is Something That Must Be Addressed. We need to point out that’s not necessarily so, even if you believe the business about “no fault of their own, etc”. Until then, we are still in a weak position, even if we win the occasional skirmish like this latest shutdown thing.

  124. @Anonymous
    @whorefinder

    The Republicans would join the Democrats in congress and impeach him in a minute. To imagine otherwise is to be totally disconnected from reality.

    Replies: @whorefinder

    lol. Oh yeah, that’s an echo of the “this will finally finish Trump” refrain the cucks and Left kept spewing every week about Trump.

    You, like many of your ilk, misremember the power of the mob, the power of the populace, and wildly overestimate how much “respect” judges, the judicial system, and California officials have.

    The R’s and D’s think if the corporate media and the donor class are on their side, they can do that. They forget that the mass of angry, watchful patriots in this country are on Trump’s side and can see the judges as corrupt.

    But it’s humorous to watch you whistling past the graveyard, son.

  125. @Vinteuil
    @Boethiuss

    What you mean "we," kemosabe?

    Your posting history here is available to all at the click of a mouse.

    Replies: @Boethiuss

    What you mean “we,” kemosabe?

    I mean “we”, the patriotic, civic-minded, Republican Americans whose intentions are toward the betterment of America and Americans, as opposed to the could-give-a-shit-about-anybody-else, useless quasi-American cranks.

    • Replies: @Vinteuil
    @Boethiuss

    "I mean 'we', the patriotic, civic-minded, Republican Americans whose intentions are toward the betterment of America and Americans, as opposed to the could-give-a-shit-about-anybody-else, useless quasi-American cranks."

    You mean like, say, Jeb? or Marco?

    Or McCain?

    Or Romney?

    Replies: @Boethiuss

  126. @reiner Tor
    @whorefinder


    Confession is the “queen of evidence”
     
    Sure, in medieval or Stalinist justice systems. It's just not a very good evidence in and of itself. A lot of people can be pressured into doing or saying things which they don't want or don't even think, there's plenty of evidence of cases of weak minded, but usually otherwise decent, people being pressured into confessing to a crime they didn't even commit. The most famous and well-known examples are the communist show trials, where the defendants confessed to non-existent crimes (like being American or Nazi German spies etc.) in front of American (etc.) journalists during trials. There was usually no other evidence (how could there be?), but they had the "queen of evidence."

    Civil law systems are far from perfect, but if there's no plea bargain (i.e. you don't get a relatively good deal in exchange for confessing), then it's more difficult to pressure you into confessing, because the incentives are different, so they cannot intimidate you like "you'll get 50 years if you don't confess, but we manage to convince the jury/judge on shaky evidence, but if you confess, you'll only get 5 years." Because confession is only one of many mitigating circumstances, and so it's like "if we get you sentenced on shaky evidence, you'll get 50 years. But if you confess, you'll get 45 years." The intimidation is much less. If you get a long prison sentence no matter what you do, then at least maintain your innocence, even weak-minded people will think like that.

    Also, at least in Hungary, the defense lawyers often argue that the confession was forced out of their client by a brutal police (which is sometimes even possible to prove, like medical examination shows the defendant has injuries consistent with having been beaten), and judges often accept it, unless there's some other direct evidence. So not only is the motivation less for weak-minded defendants to confess, and more difficult for the investigators to pressure them into confessing, but there's also less motivation to pressure them to do that, because ultimately confession will not be the be all and end all of solving a case, instead it will only be a piece of evidence.

    Still, some people are intimidated by investigators or occasionally even beaten by police to confess, and when that happens, a lot of judges might just convict the way you described it (but there's no jury, and judges with their experience are way more wary of the "queen of evidence"!), but I'd suspect that ceteris paribus it happens way more in the American plea bargain system. The US, having a centuries old tradition of great jurisprudence and being a historically low corruption country (quite unlike Hungary) should have a much better ratio of forced confessions and convicting the innocent, yet my impression is that it is not so, if anything, it is the opposite. As I said, I'd rather be tried in Hungary than in the US, regardless of the crime, especially if I was innocent.

    Replies: @snorlax, @utu, @whorefinder

    Your paranoia is noted.

    Confessions are not, as the Left would have you believe, created by torture by the vast majority of defendants. Instead, defendants blither it all out on their own or with very little encouragement, because (1) criminals have a lower IQ than average, which means they don’t understand that what they are saying will be repeated in court; (2) criminals (especially blacks) are wildly emotional on first arrest, and are either trying to “prove” how tough they are by proclaiming they did it (” represent 5th street gang, son!”) or else crying like babies because they are terrified of the consequences and are admitting to everything hoping to get off lightly; and, in other cases (3) nasty criminals are usually sociopaths, which means they have very little concern for their victims (hence the common picture of black defendants laughing at murder trials or giving people the middle finger while smiling) and think they are smarter/more clever than everyone else and beat the rap, so they lie quite badly (remember rule 1: they are dumb), get caught, and giggle about being caught and confess, thinking that some later legal loophole (to sociopaths, everything they saw on TV is true) will seal the confession, but it won’t.

    What’s more, if a person isn’t a nasty sociopath, they are likely more obedient to authority, so a cop demanding to know the truth will often elicit a confession.

    “Stalinist or medieval” comparisons are laughable. Yes, false confessions happen, just like Klan attacks on blacks happen, but they are far exaggerated by the media.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @whorefinder

    I was once reciting the standard argument against torture, and was refuted by a Russian, who agreed that confession through torture is useless, but pointed out that physical evidence located through torture continues to exist after a confession is withdrawn.

  127. @whorefinder
    @reiner Tor

    Your paranoia is noted.

    Confessions are not, as the Left would have you believe, created by torture by the vast majority of defendants. Instead, defendants blither it all out on their own or with very little encouragement, because (1) criminals have a lower IQ than average, which means they don't understand that what they are saying will be repeated in court; (2) criminals (especially blacks) are wildly emotional on first arrest, and are either trying to "prove" how tough they are by proclaiming they did it (" represent 5th street gang, son!") or else crying like babies because they are terrified of the consequences and are admitting to everything hoping to get off lightly; and, in other cases (3) nasty criminals are usually sociopaths, which means they have very little concern for their victims (hence the common picture of black defendants laughing at murder trials or giving people the middle finger while smiling) and think they are smarter/more clever than everyone else and beat the rap, so they lie quite badly (remember rule 1: they are dumb), get caught, and giggle about being caught and confess, thinking that some later legal loophole (to sociopaths, everything they saw on TV is true) will seal the confession, but it won't.

    What's more, if a person isn't a nasty sociopath, they are likely more obedient to authority, so a cop demanding to know the truth will often elicit a confession.

    "Stalinist or medieval" comparisons are laughable. Yes, false confessions happen, just like Klan attacks on blacks happen, but they are far exaggerated by the media.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    I was once reciting the standard argument against torture, and was refuted by a Russian, who agreed that confession through torture is useless, but pointed out that physical evidence located through torture continues to exist after a confession is withdrawn.

  128. @Harry Baldwin
    @a reader

    Why are rapes or murders committed under judicial supervision OK or even ridiculed?

    Enshrined in our Bill of Rights is a ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" and yet cops, corrections officers, and even judges can joke about prison rape. It's sick and disgraceful.

    Others have noted that while it's a mortal sin to joke about male-female rape, it's okay when it's male-male.

    Replies: @snorlax

    Others have noted that while it’s a mortal sin to joke about male-female rape, it’s okay when it’s male-male.

    Except if you’re Pax Dickinson, or the Penny Arcade guys.

  129. @Boethiuss
    @Vinteuil


    What you mean “we,” kemosabe?
     
    I mean "we", the patriotic, civic-minded, Republican Americans whose intentions are toward the betterment of America and Americans, as opposed to the could-give-a-shit-about-anybody-else, useless quasi-American cranks.

    Replies: @Vinteuil

    “I mean ‘we’, the patriotic, civic-minded, Republican Americans whose intentions are toward the betterment of America and Americans, as opposed to the could-give-a-shit-about-anybody-else, useless quasi-American cranks.”

    You mean like, say, Jeb? or Marco?

    Or McCain?

    Or Romney?

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
    @Vinteuil


    You mean like, say, Jeb? or Marco?

    Or McCain?

    Or Romney?
     
    I mean what I said: patriotic, civic-minded, Republican Americans whose intentions are toward the betterment of America and Americans. It's not hieroglyphics.

    If you're not one, you don't really count for America.
  130. @Parsifal
    @International Jew


    What saved Israel wasn’t any triple-bankshot psychological stunt by Ehud Barak, but rather the election of Ariel Sharon.
     
    You start from a wrong premise. Barak did not *intend* to make the stunt, it inadvertently turned out to be one. And without it, Sharon would not have been elected he was pretty much radioactive when it comes to electability.

    Replies: @International Jew

    Sharon was elected because Israelis were desperate to put an end to the Intifada. The sequence was: Camp David in July 2000, the Intifada begins in September 2000, and Sharon is elected (by a 70-30 landslide) in February 2001. Granted, the Intifada got a lot worse under Sharon, before he finally subdued it.

    • Replies: @utu
    @International Jew

    Sharon provokes Palestinians. Intifada begins. Sharon is elected.

  131. Even if Trump’s offer is a “triple bankshot” as you say, it’s a huge mistake for him to even suggest such a capitulation, because of the respectability that gives the crazy open-borders position. It’s as though, negotiating with people who want to destroy the United States, he said, “OK, I guess destroying the United States wouldn’t be all that bad a thing…” He shouldn’t say (much less offer) such things even “strategically”.

  132. @Dave Pinsen
    I think this is likely.

    One thing to bear in mind in this discussion is that a 40-something year old Polish immigrant doctor got picked up by ICE, apparently for having a couple of misdemeanors as a teen and a DUI ten years ago. This reminds me of Howard Stern describing how his elderly parents got searched on their way into the local, vibrant multiplex, so all the young blacks getting searched wouldn't feel singled out.

    And it suggests the anti-DACA powers available to the Trump administration. How many DACAns can get locked up, using the same low bar applied to the Polish doc?

    If the Dems want to shutdown the government over this, great. Let it stay shut longer this time. Trump should call for laying off "non-essential" federal workers, when everyone else realizes no one misses them. They're all Dem voters anyway.


    https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/955701166343643137

    Replies: @whorefinder, @Jack D, @North Carolina Resident

    An average drunk driver has driven drunk over 80 before their first arrest.

    https://www.madd.org/statistics/

    Arrest data: Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States: 2014” https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-29 Incidence data: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Alcohol-Impaired Driving Among Adults — United States, 2012.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. August 7, 2015 / 64(30);814-817. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6430a2.htm

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @North Carolina Resident


    An average drunk driver has driven drunk over 80 before their first arrest.
     
    Over 80 what? 80 mph? 80 times? 80 years of age? 80 children? Help us out here.
  133. @snorlax
    @reiner Tor

    There's not a big problem with forced confessions in the US, despite what liberals would have you believe. So-called cases of "forced confessions" are mainly far-left lawyers suddenly discovering HBD as pertains to their dindu clients: "Dontarius has a measured IQ of 74. Forced confession!"

    The liberal poster child case for "forced confessions," the Central Park jogger case, is indeed a heinous and shocking judicial travesty, for 180 degrees the opposite reason as they claim: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2014-04-23.html

    Interrogations in the US must be videotaped, and the police must document any injuries suffered by the arrestee during his arrest. Failure to do so is likely to cause the judge to rule any confessions or interrogations inadmissible, and to result in disciplinary action or criminal charges for the arresting officer(s). The arrestee has a right to a medical examination by a doctor of his [attorney's] choosing.

    Before an interrogation, arrestees are repeatedly informed of their rights to have an attorney present and to remain silent.* Any statements, even volunteered ones, made by the arrestee after his arrest but prior to such a "Miranda warning" are inadmissible in court.

    The Supreme Court ruling behind this, Miranda v. Arizona, is probably the primary culprit both in the 1960's-present explosion in the US crime rate, and also the present-day ubiquity of plea bargains.

    Prosecutors favor them because the "confession = guilty" assumption works both ways, and defense attorneys very often convince low-information juries brought up on TV cop dramas and Perry Mason that "no confession = not guilty." Remember that prosecution witnesses typically know or can be intimidated by the defendant, so often drop out before the trial. (Another favorite talking point of ACLU types: "Key witnesses recanted their testimony! Another lynching in fascist AmeriKKKa!")

    It's a big country, so there are undoubtedly a few cases of actual forced confessions, or (more common, but still not very common) innocent people taking plea bargains. But for every one of those there are a thousand miscarriages of justice (incl. unsolved crimes and slap-on-the-wrist punishments) favoring the perps.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @North Carolina Resident

    What do you mean by this, especially the Miranda part?

    “The Supreme Court ruling behind this, Miranda v. Arizona, is probably the primary culprit both in the 1960′s-present explosion in the US crime rate, and also the present-day ubiquity of plea bargains.”

  134. @Anonymous
    @Anonymous

    When the empire implodes, as all empires do, if there is a racially conscious and tough white remnant they'll have a shot (but only one) at establishing an all white republic in North America, it could happen. The other parts will become semifunctional or wholly dysfunctional. Some may stratify out like Mexico or Brazil and preserve an internal mostlywhite remnant, but they will be required to rule a mestizo or mulatto polity and won't get much done.

    There will be another Dark Age. Eventually mankind may resume upward progress, but at the price of ten to a hundred lost generations. Much of our knowledge will be lost and have to be reinvented or rediscovered. Some never will be.

    Ancient civilizations unquestionably had a lot of knowledge that is still lost to us. Many things now commonly known will be lost: indeed, we have already lost a surprising amount of knowledge in the last fifty years. Many things made in the recent past cannot be reproduced today. The makers died and never wrote down what they did or succeeding owners of the material destroyed it.

    Replies: @Robert Hume, @AnotherDad

    There will be another Dark Age. Eventually mankind may resume upward progress, but at the price of ten to a hundred lost generations. Much of our knowledge will be lost and have to be reinvented or rediscovered. Some never will be.

    Overstated. We are indeed entering a dark age for the West–which pisses me off because it’s in my opinion the best civilization, the best of mankind.

    But the knowledge–at least the technical knowledge–will not be lost. The Chinese are going to keep on motoring on. And they’ll motor on with a few additional pieces of knowledge from the example of the West:
    — Don’t let a minority tribe take over your nation or its culture.
    — Don’t let your women run free nor give them a strong political/cultural role.
    — Above all else do not allow your nation to be innudated with foreigners.

    I’ll grant these aren’t exactly rocket science, beyond the historical examples, intelligent thoughtful people could figure them out from experience and common sense. But they will be hammered home in no uncertain terms by the collapse of the West.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @AnotherDad

    But the Chinese, who as you say will rule the world, already know these things. White people will either be gone or completely marginalized. Not sure if it matters what they'll remember, but if recent history is any guide, they'll "remember" the exact opposite of what really happened.

    , @Anonymous
    @AnotherDad

    The White man invents and forgets.
    The yellow man copies and remembers.
    The black man does neither.


    -Attributed to Robert Frenz

  135. @North Carolina Resident
    @Dave Pinsen

    An average drunk driver has driven drunk over 80 before their first arrest.

    https://www.madd.org/statistics/

    Arrest data: Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Crime in the United States: 2014” https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-29 Incidence data: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Alcohol-Impaired Driving Among Adults — United States, 2012.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. August 7, 2015 / 64(30);814-817. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6430a2.htm

    Replies: @Anonymous

    An average drunk driver has driven drunk over 80 before their first arrest.

    Over 80 what? 80 mph? 80 times? 80 years of age? 80 children? Help us out here.

  136. @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    There will be another Dark Age. Eventually mankind may resume upward progress, but at the price of ten to a hundred lost generations. Much of our knowledge will be lost and have to be reinvented or rediscovered. Some never will be.
     
    Overstated. We are indeed entering a dark age for the West--which pisses me off because it's in my opinion the best civilization, the best of mankind.

    But the knowledge--at least the technical knowledge--will not be lost. The Chinese are going to keep on motoring on. And they'll motor on with a few additional pieces of knowledge from the example of the West:
    -- Don't let a minority tribe take over your nation or its culture.
    -- Don't let your women run free nor give them a strong political/cultural role.
    -- Above all else do not allow your nation to be innudated with foreigners.

    I'll grant these aren't exactly rocket science, beyond the historical examples, intelligent thoughtful people could figure them out from experience and common sense. But they will be hammered home in no uncertain terms by the collapse of the West.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    But the Chinese, who as you say will rule the world, already know these things. White people will either be gone or completely marginalized. Not sure if it matters what they’ll remember, but if recent history is any guide, they’ll “remember” the exact opposite of what really happened.

  137. @Jack D
    @Dave Pinsen

    I don't understand. My parents were former Polish citizens and they became US citizens at the earliest opportunity because they had cast their lot with America. How did this guy stay here for 40 years and never become a citizen?

    Replies: @utu, @Olorin

    This.

    Also when people are picked up for DUI, it’s never the first instance of that behavior. We can have no idea of how many situations he may have caused or costs he accrued (to other people or the public) with this behavior elsewhere.

    A “doctor” (of what? trained where? practicing on whom?) who’s out risking other people’s lives and his own family’s keep is showing a pattern of risk-taking and boundary-breaking behaviors that isn’t tolerated in others…and that the AMA and Big Pharma/Big Insurance bashes and punishes if you or I did it.

    Disregard for American immigration and violation of citizenship law is just icing on the cake.

    As for why they picked him up, as per Dave’s question, I wouldn’t jump to the assumption that it’s the Howard Stern’s Poor Poor Parents factor. For all we know, ICE knows of other stuff this guy was doing.

    Which reminds me, from the CBS news piece:

    “He’s a leading physician among the team,” Dr. Hussein Akl said. “He helps and supports. He’s just one of the better people you can know and connect with.”

    I don’t doubt some of his colleagues found him nice or helpful or likeable or whatever.

    Still, we’re going to have to start grappling with the entire “health” “care” industry’s collaboration with systematic breaking of US immigration law, the use of US taxpayer money to import lawbreakers, and private sector incentives for their trafficking.

    FWIW, “Hussein Akl” took his MD here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_of_the_Caribbean

  138. @International Jew
    @Parsifal

    Sharon was elected because Israelis were desperate to put an end to the Intifada. The sequence was: Camp David in July 2000, the Intifada begins in September 2000, and Sharon is elected (by a 70-30 landslide) in February 2001. Granted, the Intifada got a lot worse under Sharon, before he finally subdued it.

    Replies: @utu

    Sharon provokes Palestinians. Intifada begins. Sharon is elected.

  139. Jack Hanson says:
    @Markm
    Unfortunately, I think this was just Steve Miller getting outnumbered by Gen. Kelly, Marc Short and the blonde haired DHS woman. Those were the four advisors credited with the framework.

    The globalists won. Preventing the permanent destruction of the U.S. seems less likely now that our negotiation position has been lost.

    Replies: @Jack Hanson

    Gen Kelly: “The ideal number of refugees is between zero and one.”

    “Blonde DHS Lady”: “There is no border security without a wall…The President has no legal authority to extend the DACA deadline.”

    I don’t know who Marc Short is but given the line up so far he probably advocates for the President to override Phyllis v Dwyer through EO.

    Some of you people are posting from a different fucking planet.

  140. @Vinteuil
    @Boethiuss

    "I mean 'we', the patriotic, civic-minded, Republican Americans whose intentions are toward the betterment of America and Americans, as opposed to the could-give-a-shit-about-anybody-else, useless quasi-American cranks."

    You mean like, say, Jeb? or Marco?

    Or McCain?

    Or Romney?

    Replies: @Boethiuss

    You mean like, say, Jeb? or Marco?

    Or McCain?

    Or Romney?

    I mean what I said: patriotic, civic-minded, Republican Americans whose intentions are toward the betterment of America and Americans. It’s not hieroglyphics.

    If you’re not one, you don’t really count for America.

  141. Even if Trump’s offer is a “triple bankshot” as you say, it’s a huge mistake for him to even suggest such a capitulation, because of the respectability that gives the crazy open-borders position. It’s as though, negotiating with people who want to destroy the United States, he said, “OK, I guess destroying the United States wouldn’t be all that bad a thing…” He shouldn’t say (much less offer) such things even “strategically”.

    How? I think you’re horribly mis-perceiving things if you think that somehow that open borders is somehow outside the Overton Window now.

    In truth, most immigration liberals are not open borders in the final analysis. But they borrow a lot rhetorically from them to oppose us. In any event, it seems unlikely in the extreme that there’s some immigration Valhalla out there that we can reach if we just hold out long enough.

  142. I have no great faith that Trump is going to squeeze a deal out of the dems. If they counteroffer with a Happy Meal, he might use that as an excuse to take whatever else they throw out there.

  143. @Dave Pinsen
    @reiner Tor

    I was pleasantly surprised to see the word "survivor" put in quotes in an article in last week's FT about an African immigrant in Britain was a victim of female genital mutilation and is an advocate against it.

    "Survivor" used to denote someone who managed to not die from an often-fatal experience, e.g., Holocaust survivor, survivor of a gunshot wound, etc. But I'd venture about 100% of women who experienced an unexpected digital penetration by Dr. Nassar during an osteopathic adjustment survived. Really, they were victims, but, despite victims being celebrated, they're called survivors instead.

    The other odd thing about the judge's comments is that she thinks what Nassar did to those girls is worse than him spending the rest of his life in prison. Every time he goes for his physical, he gets digitally penetrated. It's nothing to look forward to, but I'm sure the bad doctor would take a few hundred prostate exams over life in prison in a heartbeat, if that was on offer.

    Replies: @Bill B.

    The doctor is an evil man who deserves to spend a long time in jail. I would myself also add in some Singapore-style birching to help sharpen his remorse.

    But for once it is clearly reported what his crimes were and, repugnant at his actions were, the punishment appears to me excessive and unnecessary.

    Gang rapists, drug feeders, slavers and those who force children into prostitution are often (invariably in the UK) treated more leniently.

    The current era campaign against sex offenders seems to me flawed in that there is far to little parsing of the actual offenses: a lonely old man’s hand on a boys trousers is treated as the equivalent of gang rape, at least in rhetoric.

    • Agree: Autochthon
  144. Noah172’s comment is a much-needed “glass is half full” POV in any otherwise bummer past 48 hours.

  145. @Boethiuss
    @Intelligent Dasein


    If he is against DACA, then he needs to stand in opposition to DACA, not play underwater triple bankshot 4D chess with it. Which, in any case he is not, because, as I explained in my long comment to the first of the 3 open threads on this same subject which Steve’s frenetic posting is now pushing beneath the fold (damn it), such logic and strategy never entered into it.
     
    I'd like to agree with this, but I don't. I also don't know if Trump is playing 11-dimensional chess or not. To some extent I really don't care.

    In any event, we have to make progress strategically as well as tactically. Tactically, there are issues in play like chain migration, the wall, e-Verify, etc. But strategically, the lay of the land is determined by the desire of the American people to assert our self-determination and protect the human capital of its citizens.

    We are emphatically not in dominant strategic position now. We may even be in a weak position, but we are certainly not in a dominant position. The only reason that Trump won the shutdown skirmish is because he was able to highlight the reality that Schumer and the Democrats held the interest of illegal aliens over that of American citizens.

    Without that, we would have lost. The American people are fine with normalizing the Dreamers. They are not particularly motivated to assert our self-determination and protect the human capital of our citizens.

    But this can change. But to change, people have to hear us. And people who sound like Charles Pewitt and Ann Coulter simply get tuned out. We can't afford to be tuned out.

    Replies: @Vinteuil, @Opinionator

    What do you mean by “protect the human capital of our citizens”? What does that capital consist of and in what way is it threatened?

    • Replies: @Boethiuss
    @Opinionator



    What do you mean by “protect the human capital of our citizens”? What does that capital consist of and in what way is it threatened?
     
    Most directly, it consists of employment and educational opportunities to give Americans the chance to support themselves and make a life they choose. But it goes beyond that as well. It also consists of cultural stability, where long-held local cultural norms aren't gratuitously tossed away willy-nilly. Because, in that environment people will be too scared and defensive to do significant things toward their own long-term betterment. And, it consists of a floor of social support, at least in the imagination, if things get really desperate. Ie, that the government, churches, social services, etc., are going to help me instead of trying to end poverty in Nigeria, or among Nigerians living in the US.
  146. @eah
    I won't advocate "racial hatred" -- but maybe it's time for Whites to self-identify as white and show some racial solidarity? -- not to mention concern about their future and the future of their children as a minority population in America (and in other white countries) -- perhaps it's also time for a little less "wry detachment".

    https://twitter.com/Steve_Sailer/status/956721402849124352

    Replies: @Bill B.

    There doesn’t seem to be much interest on our side of pushing alternatives to the term “White Supremacist” when it refers to someone who is clearly an identitarian or merely an aware pragmatist.

    Is it because the term is useful to showing up the extremism of the open borders crowd?

  147. @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    There will be another Dark Age. Eventually mankind may resume upward progress, but at the price of ten to a hundred lost generations. Much of our knowledge will be lost and have to be reinvented or rediscovered. Some never will be.
     
    Overstated. We are indeed entering a dark age for the West--which pisses me off because it's in my opinion the best civilization, the best of mankind.

    But the knowledge--at least the technical knowledge--will not be lost. The Chinese are going to keep on motoring on. And they'll motor on with a few additional pieces of knowledge from the example of the West:
    -- Don't let a minority tribe take over your nation or its culture.
    -- Don't let your women run free nor give them a strong political/cultural role.
    -- Above all else do not allow your nation to be innudated with foreigners.

    I'll grant these aren't exactly rocket science, beyond the historical examples, intelligent thoughtful people could figure them out from experience and common sense. But they will be hammered home in no uncertain terms by the collapse of the West.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anonymous

    The White man invents and forgets.
    The yellow man copies and remembers.
    The black man does neither.

    -Attributed to Robert Frenz

  148. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Robert Hume
    @Anonymous


    Many things now commonly known will be lost: indeed, we have already lost a surprising amount of knowledge in the last fifty years. Many things made in the recent past cannot be reproduced today. The makers died and never wrote down what they did or succeeding owners of the material destroyed it.
     
    Sounds plausible. Examples?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    It is quite common to show modern sand-casting foundries some of the more ornate castings done in the 1930s and have them shake their heads at the thought of pouring one today. It’s not that they absolutely could not, it’s more that it would be more time and bother and the yield would be relatively poor. But many old machine tools, antique car and aircraft engines, etc, had castings no one would call economically feasible today.

    Old fire equipment buffs all know the story of the Ahrens Fox pumper and the round accumulator ball on the front of the pump. One man made them all and he was very secretive how he did it, and no one has been able to figure out how to make another. If one splits, freezes or is caved in, you are out of business. For its time it was a very thin and strong structure, with no visible welds.

    I was into building vacuum tube hi fi amplifiers for a long time, and in addition to the tubes, the bigger “black art” was the winding of the output transformers. Most of the better brands used transformers designed by a few different people and all kept their designs secret. One can tear them down, but there were a lot of tricks in precisely how they were wound that if you are not very experienced to begin with you’d never pick up on.

    There are also a number of manufactured glass items that no one today knows how to duplicate.

  149. Triple bank shots are not something to mention.

  150. @Opinionator
    @Boethiuss

    What do you mean by "protect the human capital of our citizens"? What does that capital consist of and in what way is it threatened?

    Replies: @Boethiuss

    What do you mean by “protect the human capital of our citizens”? What does that capital consist of and in what way is it threatened?

    Most directly, it consists of employment and educational opportunities to give Americans the chance to support themselves and make a life they choose. But it goes beyond that as well. It also consists of cultural stability, where long-held local cultural norms aren’t gratuitously tossed away willy-nilly. Because, in that environment people will be too scared and defensive to do significant things toward their own long-term betterment. And, it consists of a floor of social support, at least in the imagination, if things get really desperate. Ie, that the government, churches, social services, etc., are going to help me instead of trying to end poverty in Nigeria, or among Nigerians living in the US.

  151. @MEH 0910
    @education realist


    But all restrictionists are terrified of him selling out. Yet every time we squawk, he walks back any error.
     
    That's like saying crime is low so why do we have so many people in prison. Imprisoning criminals is how we get the low crime rate. Trump walks back his errors because the immigration restrictionists squawk. Squawking is how we keep Trump from selling out.

    Replies: @education realist

    ” Trump walks back his errors because the immigration restrictionists squawk. Squawking is how we keep Trump from selling out.”

    No. How shocking. I’d never considered that possibility. How good of you to explain it. Next, find a 95 year old and teach eggsucking.

  152. @27 year old
    @reiner Tor


    Question is, how much time you have left. The US will be majority nonwhite within a generation. Even in Europe, the clock is ticking fast.
     
    We can thrive indefinitely as a plurality or even an actual minority -- IF we have the desire to do so. Apartheid South Africa was stable until they blinked. Whites are higher quality, and we will win IF we want to win. If we don't want acknowledge the game being played and we don't want to win, it doesn't matter how many of us there are.

    Replies: @reiner Tor, @ben tillman

    We can thrive indefinitely as a plurality or even an actual minority — IF we have the desire to do so. Apartheid South Africa was stable until they blinked.

    In this country, non-Whites get to vote.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS