The lefts movement towards removing deterrents to crime

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Just look at how they defend the pedophile, attach the hero, and stand for the rioting to answer the question.

No thought required, they worship Lucifer.

Yep, that's why they passed that bill in California. Now adults can have sex with children provided they're within ten years of age.

Really? So a 21 year old can have sex with an 11 year old and that’s all good per California law? You sure about that Ray?

Nah, you got me. I just made it all up.

Democrat led California legislature passes bill reducing penalties for sexual relations with minors -

SACRAMENTO (KUSI) – A California bill that would lower penalties for sexual relations with minors is heading to Governor Newsom’s desk. SB 145 passed both legislative houses, and would remove the requirement for offenders to register as a sex offender after committing certain sex acts with...

www.kusi.com

 

[Slade3200]

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Youve been thinking on this for a while and that’s all you can come up with?? Can I ask a serious question... have you even tried to consider the other perspective? The reasons why the Left takes the positions that they do? or are you only capable of seeing it through a one sided partisan lens?

It's just the way they think and have for some time now. Between good and evil, the Democrats usually side with evil, and the Republicans with the good. It should be no surprise they want to lessen or remove deterrents for their own people.

What do you mean that's all I could come up with? I gave you eight examples, and there are others. How many more do I need in your opinion to support my point?

The problem is you frame it up like there is good and evil and dems just support evil. Why do you think they support evil Ray? Do you think they are just mentally ill people that in it for themselves or just out to get you?

Why are you asking me why they support evil? Ask them. They're the ones who do. Liberal think:

Law abiding gun owners vs criminals with guns--criminals with guns.
Police vs criminal--criminal.
US military vs foreign enemies--foreign enemies.
ICE vs illegal immigrants--illegal immigrants.
Killing murderers vs killing babies--killing babies.

So like I said, you'll have to ask them why they take these stances.

I dont think they see it as evil. I’m asking you because it’s healthy to try and understand the other perspective when engaging in debate so you can accurately frame your arguments. You don’t display understanding of the other side so your arguments don't sound real they sound partisan

 

[Slade3200]

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Just look at how they defend the pedophile, attach the hero, and stand for the rioting to answer the question.

No thought required, they worship Lucifer.

Yep, that's why they passed that bill in California. Now adults can have sex with children provided they're within ten years of age.

Really? So a 21 year old can have sex with an 11 year old and that’s all good per California law? You sure about that Ray?

Nah, you got me. I just made it all up.

Democrat led California legislature passes bill reducing penalties for sexual relations with minors -

SACRAMENTO (KUSI) – A California bill that would lower penalties for sexual relations with minors is heading to Governor Newsom’s desk. SB 145 passed both legislative houses, and would remove the requirement for offenders to register as a sex offender after committing certain sex acts with...

www.kusi.com

I see something about lowering penalties nothing about allowing adults to have sex with children. Can you point to the section that allows that?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Just look at how they defend the pedophile, attach the hero, and stand for the rioting to answer the question.

No thought required, they worship Lucifer.

Yep, that's why they passed that bill in California. Now adults can have sex with children provided they're within ten years of age.

Really? So a 21 year old can have sex with an 11 year old and that’s all good per California law? You sure about that Ray?

Nah, you got me. I just made it all up.

Democrat led California legislature passes bill reducing penalties for sexual relations with minors -

SACRAMENTO (KUSI) – A California bill that would lower penalties for sexual relations with minors is heading to Governor Newsom’s desk. SB 145 passed both legislative houses, and would remove the requirement for offenders to register as a sex offender after committing certain sex acts with...

www.kusi.com

I see something about lowering penalties nothing about allowing adults to have sex with children. Can you point to the section that allows that?

Please explain why you think they want to lower penalties.

 

[Slade3200]

I c

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Just look at how they defend the pedophile, attach the hero, and stand for the rioting to answer the question.

No thought required, they worship Lucifer.

Yep, that's why they passed that bill in California. Now adults can have sex with children provided they're within ten years of age.

Really? So a 21 year old can have sex with an 11 year old and that’s all good per California law? You sure about that Ray?

Nah, you got me. I just made it all up.

Democrat led California legislature passes bill reducing penalties for sexual relations with minors -

SACRAMENTO (KUSI) – A California bill that would lower penalties for sexual relations with minors is heading to Governor Newsom’s desk. SB 145 passed both legislative houses, and would remove the requirement for offenders to register as a sex offender after committing certain sex acts with...

www.kusi.com

I see something about lowering penalties nothing about allowing adults to have sex with children. Can you point to the section that allows that?

Please explain why you think they want to lower penalties.

I couldn’t tell ya, I haven’t read anything about it more than the fact that what Ray said was dead wrong

 

[Slade3200]

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Just look at how they defend the pedophile, attach the hero, and stand for the rioting to answer the question.

No thought required, they worship Lucifer.

Yep, that's why they passed that bill in California. Now adults can have sex with children provided they're within ten years of age.

Really? So a 21 year old can have sex with an 11 year old and that’s all good per California law? You sure about that Ray?

Nah, you got me. I just made it all up.

Democrat led California legislature passes bill reducing penalties for sexual relations with minors -

SACRAMENTO (KUSI) – A California bill that would lower penalties for sexual relations with minors is heading to Governor Newsom’s desk. SB 145 passed both legislative houses, and would remove the requirement for offenders to register as a sex offender after committing certain sex acts with...

www.kusi.com

I see something about lowering penalties nothing about allowing adults to have sex with children. Can you point to the section that allows that?

Please explain why you think they want to lower penalties.

If I’m guessing I’d say they see a difference between a 17 year old hooking up with a 25 year old and a 50 year old molesting a 15 year old... so they are adding degrees to the changes like they do with murder and assault

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Just look at how they defend the pedophile, attach the hero, and stand for the rioting to answer the question.

No thought required, they worship Lucifer.

Yep, that's why they passed that bill in California. Now adults can have sex with children provided they're within ten years of age.

Really? So a 21 year old can have sex with an 11 year old and that’s all good per California law? You sure about that Ray?

Nah, you got me. I just made it all up.

Democrat led California legislature passes bill reducing penalties for sexual relations with minors -

SACRAMENTO (KUSI) – A California bill that would lower penalties for sexual relations with minors is heading to Governor Newsom’s desk. SB 145 passed both legislative houses, and would remove the requirement for offenders to register as a sex offender after committing certain sex acts with...

www.kusi.com

I see something about lowering penalties nothing about allowing adults to have sex with children. Can you point to the section that allows that?

Try watching the video. In any case, this topic is about Democrats weakening or removing deterrents to crime. I don't care if it's legal to have sex with a minor in CA, it's still a crime in the mind of most rational Americans, and certainly all parents.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Just look at how they defend the pedophile, attach the hero, and stand for the rioting to answer the question.

No thought required, they worship Lucifer.

Yep, that's why they passed that bill in California. Now adults can have sex with children provided they're within ten years of age.

Really? So a 21 year old can have sex with an 11 year old and that’s all good per California law? You sure about that Ray?

Nah, you got me. I just made it all up.

Democrat led California legislature passes bill reducing penalties for sexual relations with minors -

SACRAMENTO (KUSI) – A California bill that would lower penalties for sexual relations with minors is heading to Governor Newsom’s desk. SB 145 passed both legislative houses, and would remove the requirement for offenders to register as a sex offender after committing certain sex acts with...

www.kusi.com

I see something about lowering penalties nothing about allowing adults to have sex with children. Can you point to the section that allows that?

Please explain why you think they want to lower penalties.

If I’m guessing I’d say they see a difference between a 17 year old hooking up with a 25 year old and a 50 year old molesting a 15 year old... so they are adding degrees to the changes like they do with murder and assault

It's written with a ten year window. If a 20 year old has sex with an 11 year old, that person will not have to register as a sex offender, and I don't know what kind of reduction of prison time is included in this bill. The Senator did say something about consent of the minor, but she didn't specify the minimum sentence to that, or even if there was one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Youve been thinking on this for a while and that’s all you can come up with?? Can I ask a serious question... have you even tried to consider the other perspective? The reasons why the Left takes the positions that they do? or are you only capable of seeing it through a one sided partisan lens?

It's just the way they think and have for some time now. Between good and evil, the Democrats usually side with evil, and the Republicans with the good. It should be no surprise they want to lessen or remove deterrents for their own people.

What do you mean that's all I could come up with? I gave you eight examples, and there are others. How many more do I need in your opinion to support my point?

The problem is you frame it up like there is good and evil and dems just support evil. Why do you think they support evil Ray? Do you think they are just mentally ill people that in it for themselves or just out to get you?

Why are you asking me why they support evil? Ask them. They're the ones who do. Liberal think:

Law abiding gun owners vs criminals with guns--criminals with guns.
Police vs criminal--criminal.
US military vs foreign enemies--foreign enemies.
ICE vs illegal immigrants--illegal immigrants.
Killing murderers vs killing babies--killing babies.

So like I said, you'll have to ask them why they take these stances.

I dont think they see it as evil. I’m asking you because it’s healthy to try and understand the other perspective when engaging in debate so you can accurately frame your arguments. You don’t display understanding of the other side so your arguments don't sound real they sound partisan

There is nothing to explain. There is a good side and bad side, and the Democrats choose the bad side almost every time. There is nothing to understand about bad except that it is. If somebody rapes a woman walking down the street, why do you need to understand how he feels? He committed a terrible crime and should rot in jail over it.

 

[Slade3200]

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Just look at how they defend the pedophile, attach the hero, and stand for the rioting to answer the question.

No thought required, they worship Lucifer.

Yep, that's why they passed that bill in California. Now adults can have sex with children provided they're within ten years of age.

Really? So a 21 year old can have sex with an 11 year old and that’s all good per California law? You sure about that Ray?

Nah, you got me. I just made it all up.

Democrat led California legislature passes bill reducing penalties for sexual relations with minors -

SACRAMENTO (KUSI) – A California bill that would lower penalties for sexual relations with minors is heading to Governor Newsom’s desk. SB 145 passed both legislative houses, and would remove the requirement for offenders to register as a sex offender after committing certain sex acts with...

www.kusi.com

I see something about lowering penalties nothing about allowing adults to have sex with children. Can you point to the section that allows that?

Try watching the video. In any case, this topic is about Democrats weakening or removing deterrents to crime. I don't care if it's legal to have sex with a minor in CA, it's still a crime in the mind of most rational Americans, and certainly all parents.

Are you still claiming that it’s legal for a 21 year old to have sex with an 11 year old in California? Can you show the law that allows that because the last one you posted didn’t

 

[Slade3200]

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Just look at how they defend the pedophile, attach the hero, and stand for the rioting to answer the question.

No thought required, they worship Lucifer.

Yep, that's why they passed that bill in California. Now adults can have sex with children provided they're within ten years of age.

Really? So a 21 year old can have sex with an 11 year old and that’s all good per California law? You sure about that Ray?

Nah, you got me. I just made it all up.

Democrat led California legislature passes bill reducing penalties for sexual relations with minors -

SACRAMENTO (KUSI) – A California bill that would lower penalties for sexual relations with minors is heading to Governor Newsom’s desk. SB 145 passed both legislative houses, and would remove the requirement for offenders to register as a sex offender after committing certain sex acts with...

www.kusi.com

I see something about lowering penalties nothing about allowing adults to have sex with children. Can you point to the section that allows that?

Please explain why you think they want to lower penalties.

If I’m guessing I’d say they see a difference between a 17 year old hooking up with a 25 year old and a 50 year old molesting a 15 year old... so they are adding degrees to the changes like they do with murder and assault

It's written with a ten year window. If a 20 year old has sex with an 11 year old, that person will not have to register as a sex offender, and I don't know what kind of reduction of prison time is included in this bill. The Senator did say something about consent of the minor, but she didn't specify the minimum sentence to that, or even if there was one.

So in other words it’s not legal and it’s not allowed for a 21 year old to have sex with a 11 year old. Right?

 

[Slade3200]

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Youve been thinking on this for a while and that’s all you can come up with?? Can I ask a serious question... have you even tried to consider the other perspective? The reasons why the Left takes the positions that they do? or are you only capable of seeing it through a one sided partisan lens?

It's just the way they think and have for some time now. Between good and evil, the Democrats usually side with evil, and the Republicans with the good. It should be no surprise they want to lessen or remove deterrents for their own people.

What do you mean that's all I could come up with? I gave you eight examples, and there are others. How many more do I need in your opinion to support my point?

The problem is you frame it up like there is good and evil and dems just support evil. Why do you think they support evil Ray? Do you think they are just mentally ill people that in it for themselves or just out to get you?

Why are you asking me why they support evil? Ask them. They're the ones who do. Liberal think:

Law abiding gun owners vs criminals with guns--criminals with guns.
Police vs criminal--criminal.
US military vs foreign enemies--foreign enemies.
ICE vs illegal immigrants--illegal immigrants.
Killing murderers vs killing babies--killing babies.

So like I said, you'll have to ask them why they take these stances.

I dont think they see it as evil. I’m asking you because it’s healthy to try and understand the other perspective when engaging in debate so you can accurately frame your arguments. You don’t display understanding of the other side so your arguments don't sound real they sound partisan

There is nothing to explain. There is a good side and bad side, and the Democrats choose the bad side almost every time. There is nothing to understand about bad except that it is. If somebody rapes a woman walking down the street, why do you need to understand how he feels? He committed a terrible crime and should rot in jail over it.

Intelligent people always seek understanding. Simple minded people get angry and emotional when questioned. To address your example, why not try and understand what drove somebody to rape a woman? Don’t you think understanding the reasoning might help prevent and protect from future incidents

 

[WEATHER53]

The original request for homosexual rights was to prevent the denying of rights . That agenda pretty quickly switched to wholesale acceptance then embracement
This was the crack in the door to get pedos more mainstream as I so said to universal disagreement way back in 2005

 

[BigDave]

The Communist Democrats love crime if it helps them politically

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The original request for homosexual rights was to prevent the denying of rights . That agenda pretty quickly switched to wholesale acceptance then embracement
This was the crack in the door to get pedos more mainstream as I so said to universal disagreement way back in 2005

Correct. When was the last time the left pushed to get X, and they stopped at X? Never. X is just the starting point.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Youve been thinking on this for a while and that’s all you can come up with?? Can I ask a serious question... have you even tried to consider the other perspective? The reasons why the Left takes the positions that they do? or are you only capable of seeing it through a one sided partisan lens?

It's just the way they think and have for some time now. Between good and evil, the Democrats usually side with evil, and the Republicans with the good. It should be no surprise they want to lessen or remove deterrents for their own people.

What do you mean that's all I could come up with? I gave you eight examples, and there are others. How many more do I need in your opinion to support my point?

The problem is you frame it up like there is good and evil and dems just support evil. Why do you think they support evil Ray? Do you think they are just mentally ill people that in it for themselves or just out to get you?

Why are you asking me why they support evil? Ask them. They're the ones who do. Liberal think:

Law abiding gun owners vs criminals with guns--criminals with guns.
Police vs criminal--criminal.
US military vs foreign enemies--foreign enemies.
ICE vs illegal immigrants--illegal immigrants.
Killing murderers vs killing babies--killing babies.

So like I said, you'll have to ask them why they take these stances.

I dont think they see it as evil. I’m asking you because it’s healthy to try and understand the other perspective when engaging in debate so you can accurately frame your arguments. You don’t display understanding of the other side so your arguments don't sound real they sound partisan

There is nothing to explain. There is a good side and bad side, and the Democrats choose the bad side almost every time. There is nothing to understand about bad except that it is. If somebody rapes a woman walking down the street, why do you need to understand how he feels? He committed a terrible crime and should rot in jail over it.

Intelligent people always seek understanding. Simple minded people get angry and emotional when questioned. To address your example, why not try and understand what drove somebody to rape a woman? Don’t you think understanding the reasoning might help prevent and protect from future incidents

No, but I think a strong enough deterrent can, deterrents Democrats are trying to reduce or eliminate. If somebody has a knife and going to steal my wallet, I don't need to understand why. I just pull my gun and put a few rounds into him. Of course if he suspects that's what I'm going to do, he leaves me alone in the first place.

 

[Slade3200]

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Youve been thinking on this for a while and that’s all you can come up with?? Can I ask a serious question... have you even tried to consider the other perspective? The reasons why the Left takes the positions that they do? or are you only capable of seeing it through a one sided partisan lens?

It's just the way they think and have for some time now. Between good and evil, the Democrats usually side with evil, and the Republicans with the good. It should be no surprise they want to lessen or remove deterrents for their own people.

What do you mean that's all I could come up with? I gave you eight examples, and there are others. How many more do I need in your opinion to support my point?

The problem is you frame it up like there is good and evil and dems just support evil. Why do you think they support evil Ray? Do you think they are just mentally ill people that in it for themselves or just out to get you?

Why are you asking me why they support evil? Ask them. They're the ones who do. Liberal think:

Law abiding gun owners vs criminals with guns--criminals with guns.
Police vs criminal--criminal.
US military vs foreign enemies--foreign enemies.
ICE vs illegal immigrants--illegal immigrants.
Killing murderers vs killing babies--killing babies.

So like I said, you'll have to ask them why they take these stances.

I dont think they see it as evil. I’m asking you because it’s healthy to try and understand the other perspective when engaging in debate so you can accurately frame your arguments. You don’t display understanding of the other side so your arguments don't sound real they sound partisan

There is nothing to explain. There is a good side and bad side, and the Democrats choose the bad side almost every time. There is nothing to understand about bad except that it is. If somebody rapes a woman walking down the street, why do you need to understand how he feels? He committed a terrible crime and should rot in jail over it.

Intelligent people always seek understanding. Simple minded people get angry and emotional when questioned. To address your example, why not try and understand what drove somebody to rape a woman? Don’t you think understanding the reasoning might help prevent and protect from future incidents

No, but I think a strong enough deterrent can, deterrents Democrats are trying to reduce or eliminate. If somebody has a knife and going to steal my wallet, I don't need to understand why. I just pull my gun and put a few rounds into him. Of course if he suspects that's what I'm going to do, he leaves me alone in the first place.

You’re a simple thinker... nothing wrong with that but you like to address issues as they arise instead of understanding the underlying causes. To fix the larger problem you need to understand the root causes

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Youve been thinking on this for a while and that’s all you can come up with?? Can I ask a serious question... have you even tried to consider the other perspective? The reasons why the Left takes the positions that they do? or are you only capable of seeing it through a one sided partisan lens?

It's just the way they think and have for some time now. Between good and evil, the Democrats usually side with evil, and the Republicans with the good. It should be no surprise they want to lessen or remove deterrents for their own people.

What do you mean that's all I could come up with? I gave you eight examples, and there are others. How many more do I need in your opinion to support my point?

The problem is you frame it up like there is good and evil and dems just support evil. Why do you think they support evil Ray? Do you think they are just mentally ill people that in it for themselves or just out to get you?

Why are you asking me why they support evil? Ask them. They're the ones who do. Liberal think:

Law abiding gun owners vs criminals with guns--criminals with guns.
Police vs criminal--criminal.
US military vs foreign enemies--foreign enemies.
ICE vs illegal immigrants--illegal immigrants.
Killing murderers vs killing babies--killing babies.

So like I said, you'll have to ask them why they take these stances.

I dont think they see it as evil. I’m asking you because it’s healthy to try and understand the other perspective when engaging in debate so you can accurately frame your arguments. You don’t display understanding of the other side so your arguments don't sound real they sound partisan

There is nothing to explain. There is a good side and bad side, and the Democrats choose the bad side almost every time. There is nothing to understand about bad except that it is. If somebody rapes a woman walking down the street, why do you need to understand how he feels? He committed a terrible crime and should rot in jail over it.

Intelligent people always seek understanding. Simple minded people get angry and emotional when questioned. To address your example, why not try and understand what drove somebody to rape a woman? Don’t you think understanding the reasoning might help prevent and protect from future incidents

No, but I think a strong enough deterrent can, deterrents Democrats are trying to reduce or eliminate. If somebody has a knife and going to steal my wallet, I don't need to understand why. I just pull my gun and put a few rounds into him. Of course if he suspects that's what I'm going to do, he leaves me alone in the first place.

You’re a simple thinker... nothing wrong with that but you like to address issues as they arise instead of understanding the underlying causes. To fix the larger problem you need to understand the root causes

For what? I don't need to understand anything. I need to stop the action. Even if I understand one persons reason, it doesn't stop the next, or the next after him. You can't extrapolate what might work on one person to the next. They all have different reasons for committing crimes.

 

[Slade3200]

I've been thinking about this for some time now. The left have called themselves progressives in the past, but now this is evident more than ever. They keep progressing towards removing deterrents to crime. Let's look at it:

*The left consistently tries to remove (or restrict) firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.

*They have taken the stance that ICE should be dissolved.

*They have created sanctuary cities, and after Trump's election, sanctuary states.

*These riots could have been stopped, or even prevented by liberal Mayors asking the state for National Guard aid, but didn't. Nor did any of them accept the Presidents generous offer to help. Some of these disorders have been going on for months.

*They've long stood against the death penalty. They are fine with killing babies, but not killing murderers or mass murderers.

*They are now trying to defund, or even eliminate their police departments.

*They (Soros) have started organizations to provide bail to rioters who were arrested so they can get out to continue their crime spree.

*They shutdown the government for the longest time in history to prevent the President from building a wall.

So what do all these leftist policies have in common? They are all designed to weaken or remove deterrents to crime. While I understand the left is pretty much void of logic, the question is, what would weakening or removing these deterrents accomplish? The answer is, to promote more illegal activity.

Now that an election is coming up, do you vote for a candidate who's party is for getting rid of deterrents, or do you vote for a candidate that's for deterrents, and even stronger deterrents to help slow down or stop illegal activity?

Youve been thinking on this for a while and that’s all you can come up with?? Can I ask a serious question... have you even tried to consider the other perspective? The reasons why the Left takes the positions that they do? or are you only capable of seeing it through a one sided partisan lens?

It's just the way they think and have for some time now. Between good and evil, the Democrats usually side with evil, and the Republicans with the good. It should be no surprise they want to lessen or remove deterrents for their own people.

What do you mean that's all I could come up with? I gave you eight examples, and there are others. How many more do I need in your opinion to support my point?

The problem is you frame it up like there is good and evil and dems just support evil. Why do you think they support evil Ray? Do you think they are just mentally ill people that in it for themselves or just out to get you?

Why are you asking me why they support evil? Ask them. They're the ones who do. Liberal think:

Law abiding gun owners vs criminals with guns--criminals with guns.
Police vs criminal--criminal.
US military vs foreign enemies--foreign enemies.
ICE vs illegal immigrants--illegal immigrants.
Killing murderers vs killing babies--killing babies.

So like I said, you'll have to ask them why they take these stances.

I dont think they see it as evil. I’m asking you because it’s healthy to try and understand the other perspective when engaging in debate so you can accurately frame your arguments. You don’t display understanding of the other side so your arguments don't sound real they sound partisan

There is nothing to explain. There is a good side and bad side, and the Democrats choose the bad side almost every time. There is nothing to understand about bad except that it is. If somebody rapes a woman walking down the street, why do you need to understand how he feels? He committed a terrible crime and should rot in jail over it.

Intelligent people always seek understanding. Simple minded people get angry and emotional when questioned. To address your example, why not try and understand what drove somebody to rape a woman? Don’t you think understanding the reasoning might help prevent and protect from future incidents

No, but I think a strong enough deterrent can, deterrents Democrats are trying to reduce or eliminate. If somebody has a knife and going to steal my wallet, I don't need to understand why. I just pull my gun and put a few rounds into him. Of course if he suspects that's what I'm going to do, he leaves me alone in the first place.

You’re a simple thinker... nothing wrong with that but you like to address issues as they arise instead of understanding the underlying causes. To fix the larger problem you need to understand the root causes

For what? I don't need to understand anything. I need to stop the action. Even if I understand one persons reason, it doesn't stop the next, or the next after him. You can't extrapolate what might work on one person to the next. They all have different reasons for committing crimes.

I understand that. You address the events in front of you. You don’t like thinking about the bigger picture. That’s fine. That’s also where we differ

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Rittenhouse was looking for trouble