What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

No One Crips Like Gascón (1 Viewer)

John123 said:
I've been posting about him in the "are DA's lazy" thread.
Click to expand...
I've seen people doing that. He needs his own thread, even if just for sing-a-long niceties. He's really appallingly emblematic of how cities are choosing to lighten administrative and prison loads by decriminalizing crime instead of fighting it with resources given to them by the feds, the states, or raised by their own taxation mechanisms. 

The drug war, in my estimation, has been a terrible thing because it criminalizes consensual purchases between provider and recipient. Mainstreaming property and violent crime is a whole different matter, as far as I'm concerned. That's what some of these D.A.'s seem to be eschewing. Really bizarre how property crimes and crimes against the person are drawing out the unserious from the serious among us. And the unserious have decent numbers, it seems. 

Local elections are so important. It's time people started paying attention to them. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This goes well beyond Gascon.  George Soros realized a number of years ago that he could have a major impact implementing his progressive ideas by financing DA's like Gascon.  Here is a recent report that documents this going far beyond a single prosecutor:

https://www.scribd.com/document/577278421/Justice-for-Sale-LELDF-Report#fullscreen&from_embed

He's not just helping out prosecutor's in big cities like LA either.  Here is a quote from an article in Bangor, Maine, where Soros helped upset the incumbent DA:

Sartoris benefited from a wave of spending from Democratic megadonor George Soros, who has been running a national campaign to elect progressive prosecutors across the country. A group started by Soros’ network spent $440,000 in a bid to oust Sahrbeck, more than all the money spent in every Maine district attorney race from 2012 through 2020.
Click to expand...


https://www.bangordailynews.com/2022/06/14/politics/george-soros-candidate-ousts-cumberland-county-prosecutor/

Soros is simply flooding these races with money.  It's no longer a choice the people are making.  Soros is buying Prosecutors who will enforce the law as he thinks it should be enforced. 

I've been following this issue closely.  It's everything that's wrong with our political system right now.  A couple more articles I have bookmarked on this topic (one is on Gascon):

https://www.commonsense.news/p/when-a-prosecutor-wont-prosecute?s=r

https://nypost.com/2021/12/16/how-george-soros-funded-progressive-das-behind-us-crime-surge/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John123 said:
This goes well beyond Gascon.  George Soros realized a number of years ago that he could have a major impact implementing his progressive ideas by financing DA's like Gascon.  Here is a recent report that documents this going far beyond a single prosecutor:

https://www.scribd.com/document/577278421/Justice-for-Sale-LELDF-Report#fullscreen&from_embed

He's not just helping out prosecutor's in big cities like LA either.  Here is a quote from an article in Bangor, Maine, where Soros helped upset the incumbent DA:

https://www.bangordailynews.com/2022/06/14/politics/george-soros-candidate-ousts-cumberland-county-prosecutor/

Soros is simply flooding these races with money.  It's no longer a choice the people are making.  Soros is buying Prosecutors who will enforce the law as he thinks it should be enforced. 

I've been following this issue closely.  It's everything that's wrong with our political system right now.  A couple more articles I have bookmarked on this topic (one is on Gascon):

https://www.commonsense.news/p/when-a-prosecutor-wont-prosecute?s=r

https://nypost.com/2021/12/16/how-george-soros-funded-progressive-das-behind-us-crime-surge/
Click to expand...
You make this sound insidious, almost criminal. It isn’t. Soros and many liberals believe in reforming the judicial system and they support politicians pledged to do that. I personally think they go too far at times (Gascon being an example) but I also don’t love the typical conservative alternative, which are the “law and order no exceptions” types. 

 
timschochet said:
You make this sound insidious, almost criminal. It isn’t. Soros and many liberals believe in reforming the judicial system and they support politicians pledged to do that. I personally think they go too far at times (Gascon being an example) but I also don’t love the typical conservative alternative, which are the “law and order no exceptions” types. 
Click to expand...


It IS insidious, and SHOULD be illegal.  The voters of Bangor, Maine should decide who their DA is, not some guy who's probably never been there but inundates the electorate with ads such that it guarantees his chosen person wins.  86% of Stacey Abrams campaign contributions are from out of state donors.  That's ridiculous.  The people of Georgia should be deciding who their Governor is.  I know you'll disagree, and that's fine, but these are the things destroying this country.  The people who actually live in places have no say in who governs them.  And then when we complain about what our politicians are doing, people such as yourself suggest we vote them out.

:wall:

 
John123 said:
It IS insidious, and SHOULD be illegal.  The voters of Bangor, Maine should decide who their DA is, not some guy who's probably never been there but inundates the electorate with ads such that it guarantees his chosen person wins.  86% of Stacey Abrams campaign contributions are from out of state donors.  That's ridiculous.  The people of Georgia should be deciding who their Governor is.  I know you'll disagree, and that's fine, but these are the things destroying this country.  The people who actually live in places have no say in who governs them.  And then when we complain about what our politicians are doing, people such as yourself suggest we vote them out.

:wall:
Click to expand...
I 100% agree.  The only people should be allowed to donate to political campaigns are people that have a vote in that campaign. People/groups outside the state should not be allowed to donate. This should be an easy law to pass.

 
John123 said:
It IS insidious, and SHOULD be illegal.  The voters of Bangor, Maine should decide who their DA is, not some guy who's probably never been there but inundates the electorate with ads such that it guarantees his chosen person wins.  86% of Stacey Abrams campaign contributions are from out of state donors.  That's ridiculous.  The people of Georgia should be deciding who their Governor is.  I know you'll disagree, and that's fine, but these are the things destroying this country.  The people who actually live in places have no say in who governs them.  And then when we complain about what our politicians are doing, people such as yourself suggest we vote them out.

:wall:
Click to expand...
Well the Supreme Court disagrees with you. I’m kind of indifferent to campaign finance  restrictions but I could go along with it. But if you want that you’re going to need a liberal majority on the court. 

 
tymarsas said:
I 100% agree.  The only people should be allowed to donate to political campaigns are people that have a vote in that campaign. People/groups outside the state should not be allowed to donate. This should be an easy law to pass.
Click to expand...
It’s not an easy law to pass, but more importantly it’s unconstitutional according to the current Supreme Court. 

 
timschochet said:
It’s not an easy law to pass, but more importantly it’s unconstitutional according to the current Supreme Court. 
Click to expand...
Oh. I understand that. Supreme Court is wrong. Only people that have skin in the game should be allowed to donate. Everything else is undemocratic. 

 
tymarsas said:
Oh. I understand that. Supreme Court is wrong. Only people that have skin in the game should be allowed to donate. Everything else is undemocratic. 
Click to expand...
Like I said I’m not opposed to the idea. But I honestly don’t know how much difference it makes. 2016 caused me to believe that campaign spending may be overrated in the new social media age. The Koch brothers spent a ton of money trying to defeat Donald Trump and he crushed them and barely spent a cent doing so. Social media means the populist candidates are going to be much more powerful (which is not at all to my liking.) 

 
timschochet said:
Like I said I’m not opposed to the idea. But I honestly don’t know how much difference it makes. 2016 caused me to believe that campaign spending may be overrated in the new social media age. The Koch brothers spent a ton of money trying to defeat Donald Trump and he crushed them and barely spent a cent doing so. Social media means the populist candidates are going to be much more powerful (which is not at all to my liking.) 
Click to expand...
I don't care about the Koch brothers spending money against Trump. They have skin in that game. I do think they should be limited in how much they can spend.

I care more about people spending money to affect elections that they are not allowed to vote in. It is not controversial that foreigners shouldn't be able to donate to elections, it shouldn't be controversial that out of state people should be able to donate to elections.

 
tymarsas said:
I don't care about the Koch brothers spending money against Trump. They have skin in that game. I do think they should be limited in how much they can spend.

I care more about people spending money to affect elections that they are not allowed to vote in. It is not controversial that foreigners shouldn't be able to donate to elections, it shouldn't be controversial that out of state people should be able to donate to elections.
Click to expand...
Well it depends on the office doesn’t it? If someone runs for senator or congress in a different state from mine, I still have skin in that game because their votes affect me. 

 
timschochet said:
Well it depends on the office doesn’t it? If someone runs for senator or congress in a different state from mine, I still have skin in that game because their votes affect me. 
Click to expand...
You should have zero influence on who other states chose as senator or congressman. That is democracy. You should only be able to vote for/support the person  that represents you.

 
Juxtatarot said:
So the issue in this case is a minor involved in a murder may only serve 6-7 years (and possibly less). 
Click to expand...
Yes, but there are a lot of these cases.  Gascon’s stance is not to ruin the murderer’s life over “a bad decision” while showing little sympathy to the victim’s family.  
 

This is one of my favs - https://www.foxnews.com/media/convicted-murderer-gascons-name-tattoo-audio

How anyone can vote to keep this clown in office deserves what they get.  

 
FairWarning said:
Yes, but there are a lot of these cases.  Gascon’s stance is not to ruin the murderer’s life over “a bad decision” while showing little sympathy to the victim’s family.  
 

This is one of my favs - https://www.foxnews.com/media/convicted-murderer-gascons-name-tattoo-audio

How anyone can vote to keep this clown in office deserves what they get.  
Click to expand...
For that one, a guy robs and murders a marijuana delivery driver and may spend less than 25 years in prison (due to “youthful offender parole”).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Well the Supreme Court disagrees with you. I’m kind of indifferent to campaign finance  restrictions but I could go along with it. But if you want that you’re going to need a liberal majority on the court. 
Click to expand...


Oh, suddenly you care about the SCOTUS?  Will I find the same sentiment if I look through all the threads re:  Roe v Wade? 

 
Juxtatarot said:
So the issue in this case is a minor involved in a murder may only serve 6-7 years (and possibly less). 
Click to expand...


This isn't about one case.  Gascon has enacted a bunch of policies that are the antithesis of what his office is supposed to do.   His office no longer shows up for parole hearings to advocate for keeping criminals in jail.  His office no longer notifies victims when the person who committed the crime has a parole hearing scheduled so the victim can show up to contest the person being released.  Here is a case, Hannah Tubbs, a trans woman who sexually molested a 10 year old when she was 17 and before identifying as trans:

https://abc7.com/hannah-tubbs-sexual-assault-california-child-molester-juvenile-facility/11516315/

Due to Gascon's policies this person, who is now 26 and was just recently convicted of the crime, will serve her time in a juvenile facility with other minors.  So, a 26 year old who sexually molested a 10 year old will be housed with other minors.  How does that make sense?  Not to mention the short duration of the sentence. 

Miss Tubbs herself laughed about the disgustingly light sentence, and Gascon's office knew about that:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/more-disturbing-tubbs-calls-surface-email-gascons-office-aware-weeks-ago

Miss Tubbs had a history of offenses yet they still let her be sentenced as a minor:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/hannah-tubbs-trans-molester-arrest-assault

Fortunately, I guess, Miss Tubbs apparently committed a murder before being arrested for the molestation and is now being tried for that crime:

https://www.bakersfield.com/news/kern-judge-finds-sufficient-evidence-for-hannah-tubbs-murder-trial/article_e34dab90-db05-11ec-ad49-cf3a11c4e646.html

This person has no business being out in the free world.  But, due to Gascon's policies, she was. 

Hannah Tubbs isn't the only case like this.  The list is long.  George Gascon might make a good defense attorney, but he has no business being a DA.

 
Juxtatarot said:
I’d much rather get in the weeds. But I’ll bow out and let you guys do your thing.
Click to expand...


We can talk about this one case.  After reading the article, do you think it's appropriate that a gang member, with a history of offenses and showing zero remorse for his actions, should be released in just a few years for murder?

 
John123 said:
We can talk about this one case.  After reading the article, do you think it's appropriate that a gang member, with a history of offenses and showing zero remorse for his actions, should be released in just a few years for murder?
Click to expand...
“Few” as in, like, three? No, that seems too light. 
 

The biggest issue to me is that he was a minor. It makes intuitive sense, in my opinion, that we would treat those situations differently than adults. How much that should affects things, I’m not sure. No doubt, though, liberals will generally be on the side of more leniency  and conservatives would generally prefer longer sentences. 

 
John123 said:
I'm not talking about the makeup of the SC.  I'm asking if I'll find you agreeing with their decision in Roe v Wade if I peruse those threads. 
Click to expand...
Of course I don’t. And I’m not sure I agree with the Citizens United decision either. My point was, until that changes, I’m not sure what you’re going to do about this. 

 
John123 said:
We can talk about this one case.  After reading the article, do you think it's appropriate that a gang member, with a history of offenses and showing zero remorse for his actions, should be released in just a few years for murder?
Click to expand...
My own answer is no. 

But it’s the same problem with mandatory minimum sentencing, which so many conservatives seem to be in favor of. In both instances, it seems to me, the court is choosing to rely on a one size fits all mentality- and this often leads to unjust or unwise outcomes. Each case needs to be considered based on its own merits. 

 
timschochet said:
My own answer is no. 

But it’s the same problem with mandatory minimum sentencing, which so many conservatives seem to be in favor of. In both instances, it seems to me, the court is choosing to rely on a one size fits all mentality- and this often leads to unjust or unwise outcomes. Each case needs to be considered based on its own merits. 
Click to expand...
Southern Cal is seeing unjust and unwise outcomes now, thus the recall attempt.  

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
If it means that nobody who lives outside of Florida should be allowed to publicly criticize Matt Gaetz, I think that would run into some First Amendment problems.
Click to expand...
I'd make an exception for criticizing Gaetz. I was mostly thinking about money as influence, but afterwards wondering if it should apply to campaigning as well. Should a DA in California be able to bring in a national celebrity to campaign for them? That might be too restrictive. And obviously this is all theoretical anyway cause any law would likely be struck down by the supreme court. In this world where I can make my own election rules, I would definitely ban donations from non-individuals as well. No corporations, unions, or associations. But that one has already been decided by the Supreme Court.

 
tymarsas said:
I would definitely ban donations from non-individuals as well. No corporations, unions, or associations. But that one has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Yes, the ban on campaign contributions from corporations and unions has been upheld by the Supreme Court. (Corporations and unions are allowed to spend money publishing speech critical of Matt Gaetz, however, as long as it's not coordinated with his opponent's campaign.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tymarsas said:
I'd make an exception for criticizing Gaetz. I was mostly thinking about money as influence, but afterwards wondering if it should apply to campaigning as well. Should a DA in California be able to bring in a national celebrity to campaign for them? That might be too restrictive. And obviously this is all theoretical anyway cause any law would likely be struck down by the supreme court. In this world where I can make my own election rules, I would definitely ban donations from non-individuals as well. No corporations, unions, or associations. But that one has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
I see no harm in criticizing Garth, but the outside money from non-eligible voters has to go. I see this happening in every swing state, and it’s not fair to the eligible voters of the state.

 
Astounding article from Peter Savodnik. 

https://www.commonsense.news/p/when-a-prosecutor-wont-prosecute

Money quote:

John Lewin, a deputy D.A. who has been in the Major Crimes Division for nearly two decades, said: “What happened is the D.A.’s Office was taken over by somebody who, in my opinion, has no interest in prosecuting criminals.” Another longtime deputy D.A. who voted for Gascon and has since revised his opinion told me: “Voters expect their district attorney to protect the public. Instead, they got a Trojan horse—a D.A. and his coterie of radicals and sycophants who are hellbent on blowing up the criminal-justice system in the name of ‘progress.’”

 
rockaction said:
Astounding article from Peter Savodnik. 

https://www.commonsense.news/p/when-a-prosecutor-wont-prosecute

Money quote:

John Lewin, a deputy D.A. who has been in the Major Crimes Division for nearly two decades, said: “What happened is the D.A.’s Office was taken over by somebody who, in my opinion, has no interest in prosecuting criminals.” Another longtime deputy D.A. who voted for Gascon and has since revised his opinion told me: “Voters expect their district attorney to protect the public. Instead, they got a Trojan horse—a D.A. and his coterie of radicals and sycophants who are hellbent on blowing up the criminal-justice system in the name of ‘progress.’”
Click to expand...
Atrocious 

 
On a side note: these continual recall efforts in California are terrible. They’re almost always started by conservatives who can’t seem to abide the democratic process, they almost always fail, and they cost the taxpayer millions each time. Can’t you guys just wait until the next election? 

 
timschochet said:
On a side note: these continual recall efforts in California are terrible. They’re almost always started by conservatives who can’t seem to abide the democratic process, they almost always fail, and they cost the taxpayer millions each time. Can’t you guys just wait until the next election? 
Click to expand...
Oh fun....Tim blaming conservatives again for the woes of the nation.  Shocker.  In similar news, the sun rose in the east today and water is still wet.

 
supermike80 said:
Oh fun....Tim blaming conservatives again for the woes of the nation.  Shocker.  In similar news, the sun rose in the east today and water is still wet.
Click to expand...
Not the nation- California. And again you misunderstand me. I would like to see conservatives do better in California. The economic ones that is. But they’re wasting a lot of time. 

 
timschochet said:
Not the nation- California. And again you misunderstand me. I would like to see conservatives do better in California. The economic ones that is. But they’re wasting a lot of time. 
Click to expand...
No I understand completely.  Conservatives are bad.   Your narrative isn't hard to fathom

 
Back to Gascon- while there are things I like about him, overall he seems far too leftist for me. Not the the sort of Democratic politician I prefer (I’m pretty excited about Rick Caruso’s campaign; centrist Democrats need to be more prominent.) But if I were in Los Angeles I’d vote against the recall based on the principle I’ve always had that recalls are only legitimate for corruption, never for policy disagreements. 

 
timschochet said:
On a side note: these continual recall efforts in California are terrible. They’re almost always started by conservatives who can’t seem to abide the democratic process, they almost always fail, and they cost the taxpayer millions each time. Can’t you guys just wait until the next election? 
Click to expand...
Wasn’t the SF DA recall mainly D’s?  I doubt there are many R’s there.  Don’t blame the R’s when Gascon is thrown out either.  I couldn’t make a good case to keep him.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
How NYC Bodega Clerk Jose Alba's "Self Defense" Became Political Persecution ( 7/10/22 2:12 PST)
2
Replies
97
Views
4K
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus
GordonGekko
New York Times: "Will Asian Americans Bolt From The Democratic Party?" (6/20/22 23:20 PST)
Replies
36
Views
2K
jon_mx
J
HellToupee
Ted Kennedy , the liberal lion, attempted to conspire and collude with the Kremlin to defeat Ronald Reagan
2
Replies
61
Views
4K
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top