logoalt Hacker News

ceejayoz • today at 7:03 PM • 1 reply • view on HN

> Deciding not to prosecute crimes they agree with / which are commonly committed by their base.

Like the Jan 6 pardons and Trump's immunity?

> Speech controls (they wanted compelled speech...)

https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/ooo-win-law...

"A federal court today ruled that the Trump-Vance administration unlawfully compelled civil servants at the U.S. Department of Education to transmit partisan political messaging from their government email accounts during the ongoing federal shutdown — violating core First Amendment protections."

> Rabid, senseless, confusing opposition to gun rights, a civil right in the U.S.

As is their First Amendment right. Do you oppose that civil right?

> Totally opposing widespread, bipartisan support for voter ID

Why not? When put to the people for a vote, it fails. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6178993-california-pro...


Replies

NoImmatureAdHom • today at 7:25 PM

I can understand having strong feelings, but the question was about the Democrats so my answer was about the Democrats. The "what about"s aren't compelling.

- Jan 6 was bad. People who were charged, put on trial, and convicted for being part of that very, very clearly did not get a fair trial. Some went to prison for years for ... walking in to a building, looking around a bit, taking some pictures, and walking out. This does not come close to comparing to the scale of destruction visited on American cities by the Floyd riots. Almost none of those people were punished. We're talking a 100x difference, maybe more. Don't forget the "oh jk jk gathering is fine if it's for political purposes we approve of" move by the dems during covid too.

- This is a really specific case! Seems like they shouldn't have done that. It does not compare to, "We're going to create this category of speech we'll call "hate speech", and make that illegal for everyone. Also, we'll force everyone to say stuff they don't want to say". That specific case hinges on what the Dept. of Ed's remit is. It's totally cool to ask your gov't employees to send emails promoting things they don't agree with, it's not cool to ask them to do it if it's too partisan.

- I don't understand the 1A comment about 2A rights. I support 1A rights?

- CA is not the US, and it's disingenuous to point to that. Presumably this would have been obvious to you. Here's evidence: https://electionconfidence.org/issues/voter-id/broad-support...

➕ show 1 reply