Rand Paul confirms he is human scum, again

[Landslide Lyndon]

https://politicalwire.com/2020/06/03/rand-paul-admits-blocking-anti-lynching-bill/

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) “acknowledged that he is holding up a bill with broad bipartisan support that would make lynching a federal hate crime, saying he fears it could allow enhanced penalties for altercations that result in only ‘minor bruising,'” the Washington Post reports.

“Paul’s objection halted a measure that appeared on the verge of getting to the president’s desk earlier this year after more than a century of stymied attempts by Congress to pass anti-lynching legislation. And it comes amid a nationwide convulsion over the treatment of black Americans by law enforcement officers.”

[PSOL]

Remember how much of a racist neo-confederate his father is? Yeah, this is all unsurprising.

[sparkey]

So does anybody actually have a justification for why it's important to immediately begin giving federal charges resulting in 10 year penalties for bruisings? Or is the moment so emotionally charged that we're ready to give the federal government whatever power it asks for if their bills have titles that make us feel strong enough feels?

[HisGrace]

So does anybody actually have a justification for why it's important to immediately begin giving federal charges resulting in 10 year penalties for bruisings? Or is the moment so emotionally charged that we're ready to give the federal government whatever power it asks for if their bills have titles that make us feel strong enough feels?

Unless they have an especially broad definition of "lynching" even if it failed it would still constitute attempted murder since you were trying to hang someone and ten years is not an excessive sentence for that. Not sure it needs to be federal but that is not an unreasonable sentence.

[Türkisblau]

Federally-enforced mandatory minimum sentencing but woke.

[dead0man]

isn't it already illegal to lynch people?

[Sir Mohamed]

isn't it already illegal to lynch people?

Probably under state laws, but said proposed bill would make it a federal crime similar to terrorism. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

He's right.

1. We already have laws against lynching, both in all 50 states and federally.

2. This new law is too broad and applies to cases that clearly do not meet the standard of lynching or any other such crime.

3. The proper responsibility of the federal government in regards to criminal lawmaking under the Constitution is to regulate interstate crime and crime occuring on federal territory (ie military bases/the District of Columbia). Passing a nationwide anti-lynching law does not fall under this category. And yes, for the lefties about to call hypocrisy, I do also oppose federal criminal lawmaking on a variety of other subjects, including generic murder, assault, pornography, etc (Insofar as they intrude on the rights of states to determine their own laws). My view of this matter has few exceptions, and the main one is when those laws end up interfering with the constitutional mandate of republican (lower case r) governance for the states, so ie slavery (denial of individual freedoms and personal sovereignty) or abortion (murder of children) but even then, I mainly support action there as a short term remedy to rectify the situation.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

isn't it already illegal to lynch people?

Probably under state laws, but said proposed bill would make it a federal crime similar to terrorism. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/congress-makes-lynching-federal-crime-65-years-after-emmett-till-n1143626

We literally passed a different bill making lynching a federal crime just this year, which Rand Paul even supported. This second bill is just virtue signaling, but also has the side effect of intruding on the rights of states and simply being a bad law all round.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

It's even in the CNN article lmao

The language of the House bill, which was named for Emmett Till, the 14-year-old murdered in Mississippi in 1955, is very similar to another anti-lynching bill that passed the Senate last year by unanimous consent. It was authored by the only three African Americans currently serving in the Senate, Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/politics/rand-paul-lynching-legislation/index.html

And he doesn't even want to stop it! He's just offering an amendment. Y'all really need to learn to read before jumping onto the body pile.

[Badger]

See that conservatives and Libertarians suddenly become fearful of the overreach of police Authority when it's used to actually PROTECT minorities. However when it's used to keep them in their place instead of protesting, of course the sky's the limit.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Wtf is a “menorah tease?”

[dead0man]

See that conservatives and Libertarians suddenly become fearful of the overreach of police Authority when it's used to actually PROTECT Menorah tease. However when it's used to keep them in their place instead of protesting, of course the sky's the limit.

"menorah tease" is pretty funny and the last bit is just wrong

[Badger]

Wtf is a “menorah tease?”

God dammit voice to text app. I say the word minorities oh, and you actually decide what I meant to say where the words menorah tease? Really?

[jaymichaud]

lynch
/lɪn(t)ʃ/

verb
gerund or present participle: lynching; noun: lynching
(of a group of people) kill (someone) for an alleged offence without a legal trial, especially by hanging.

This is legal to begin with?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

So, let me get this straight. If somebody attempts to lynch another person but said person manages to escape, the would-be lyncher is only eligible for a light sentence for causing some "bruising"?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

So, let me get this straight. If somebody attempts to lynch another person but said person manages to escape, the would-be lyncher is only eligible for a light sentence for causing some "bruising"?

No, he'd be arrested under our attempted murder laws, as we already have in 50/50 states.

[Alben Barkley]

So does anybody actually have a justification for why it's important to immediately begin giving federal charges resulting in 10 year penalties for bruisings? Or is the moment so emotionally charged that we're ready to give the federal government whatever power it asks for if their bills have titles that make us feel strong enough feels?

What part of the bill makes you and Rand think it would apply for mere "bruisings?" Do you know what a lynching is? You'd still have to prove in court that the suspect was trying to kill someone, and that it was a hate crime. Someone couldn't just claim "He bruised me, but he was trying to lynch me!" and then with no evidence that means he would be convicted and sentenced to 10 years under this law. Which does not alter the burden of proof for a criminal conviction or redefine what a lynching is, as Rand is disingenuously pretending it does. The main thing it does, if you actually read the text, is provide prosecutors and judges the option to exceed what would normally be a less than 10 year max sentence for some crimes by bringing it up to 10. Not even beyond that. And again, only in cases where it can be proven it was part of an attempted lynching.

Believe it or not, there are actually logical reasons I and over 400 members of Congress might support this bill. Rand is just grandstanding as ususal. And blindly assuming that his contrarian grandstanding is somehow more "logical" and everyone else is simply too "emotional" to see it is ironically itself illogical and emotional reasoning.

“You think I’m getting any good publicity out of this? No. I will be excoriated by simple-minded people on the Internet who think somehow I don’t like Emmett Till or appreciate the history of Emmett Till,” Paul said. “I’ll be lectured by everybody.”

F--k you, Rand. You have no business calling anyone else "simple-minded" and you deserve all those lectures. Not that you actually listen to what the citizens of Kentucky who contact you say, as I know all too well. Guess you think not only the overwhelming majority of the public, but also the overwhelming majority of your own colleagues, including Tim Scott who introduced the bill to the senate alongside Booker and Harris, are "simple-minded." God I hate this prick.

[Coldstream]

I’ll bet he is getting good publicity from the lunatic paleocon fringe he and his father represent. People like him and Massie are an embarrassment in a modern democracy.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

So does anybody actually have a justification for why it's important to immediately begin giving federal charges resulting in 10 year penalties for bruisings? Or is the moment so emotionally charged that we're ready to give the federal government whatever power it asks for if their bills have titles that make us feel strong enough feels?

What part of the bill makes you and Rand think it would apply for mere "bruisings?" Do you know what a lynching is? You'd still have to prove in court that the suspect was trying to kill someone, and that it was a hate crime. Someone couldn't just claim "He bruised me, but he was trying to lynch me!" and then with no evidence that means he would be convicted and sentenced to 10 years under this law. Which does not alter the burden of proof for a criminal conviction or redefine what a lynching is, as Rand is disingenuously pretending it does. The main thing it does, if you actually read the text, is provide prosecutors and judges the option to exceed what would normally be a less than 10 year max sentence for some crimes by bringing it up to 10. Not even beyond that. And again, only in cases where it can be proven it was part of an attempted lynching.

Believe it or not, there are actually logical reasons I and over 400 members of Congress might support this bill. Rand is just grandstanding as ususal. And blindly assuming that his contrarian grandstanding is somehow more "logical" and everyone else is simply too "emotional" to see it is ironically itself illogical and emotional reasoning.

“You think I’m getting any good publicity out of this? No. I will be excoriated by simple-minded people on the Internet who think somehow I don’t like Emmett Till or appreciate the history of Emmett Till,” Paul said. “I’ll be lectured by everybody.”

F--k you, Rand. You have no business calling anyone else "simple-minded" and you deserve all those lectures. Not that you actually listen to what the citizens of Kentucky who contact you say, as I know all too well. Guess you think not only the overwhelming majority of the public, but also the overwhelming majority of your own colleagues, including Tim Scott who introduced the bill to the senate alongside Booker and Harris, are "simple-minded." God I hate this prick.

You make a great argument for why we shouldn’t have specific anti lynching laws, which serve 0 point and must either be too broad or pointlessly limited.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Atlas 99% of the time: wHy cAn’T tHeSe eViL rEtHuGlIcAnS sHoW pRiNcIpLe??

Atlas the 1% of the time a politician does show principle:

Rand Paul confirms he is human scum, again

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Atlas 99% of the time: wHy cAn’T tHeSe eViL rEtHuGlIcAnS sHoW pRiNcIpLe??

Atlas the 1% of the time a politician does show principle:

Rand Paul confirms he is human scum, again

They just move the goal posts every chance they get.

[😥]

He again confirms that he is the worst incumbent U.S. Senator

[Santander]

I'm so proud to be a Kentuckian.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I'm so proud to be a Kentuckian.

And that's it for today's edition of "Words I Never Thought I'd Read".