tvc184

I cannot agree with this.It is wrong and improper. It is White House, not Whitehouse.

That is not what I said. I was listing things that conservatives and liberals argue over and I can understand the disagreements. It is the stupid SJW comments that I don't get.

Is that some kind of triumph of spirit that makes straight party Democrats feel good about themselves? Trump won over a woman that was supposed to be so powerful that she was unbeatable. Since she was possibly the worst candidate in 50 years from either party, now you have a cad that is soon to occupy the White House. His term will be for the next four years. Going over his past exploits about woman will not change that. Trump's only message was "I am against the establishment" and that carried him past 16 Republicans and the smartest woman in the world. Maybe the Dems and some Republicans should take notes..........

What in the world does that have to do with SJW which is what you quoted?

I believe that many or maybe a majority of people on the left are social justice warriors. I understand beliefs like more welfare or other social programs need to distribute wealth better, taxes ought to be doled out differently and slanting it more toward the well off, should scale back our military ([part of the same thing perhaps ), right to abortions or we should all tighten our belts so others could benefit. I might not agree with it but I can appreciate the opinion. Some of the nonsense that I see in my belief is instigating an argument for the sake of an argument or an SJW.

I had to look up who the current Secretary of the Treasury was. I had no clue. I am sure that I have seen his name a couple of times but it isn't exactly a hot button issue. So no, I would not have cared. For all I knew Mnuchin could have been the current secretary under Obama. Has it ever dawned on you that the USA elected a billionaire who beyond being extremely rich, has never lived like a middle class family and has never even sought public office before? WOW, a billionaire that many people voted for because he was a billionaire and a businessman is hiring rich people to run his programs. Stunning, utterly stunning. I thought he was ask Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who they would like selected. I do not agree with it and never have but many people wanted an outsider that had run businesses. That is what he ran on and that is exactly what he is doing.

Are you aware that Castro installed nuclear missiles and brought us to as close to nuclear war as at any time in world history? Castro has not been avoided by every president since Eisenhower because he is a communist or ruthless. We routinely deal with such people but not ones that are 50 miles away and almost brought the world to destruction. It isn't like LBJ, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton as Democratic presidents loved to deal with Castro and then Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush were against it because of politics. All presidents for almost 60 years has kept away from Castro and it was one of the rare cases where almost everyone agreed .... until the apologist in chief came along. Nah.... probably not.

No.

Facts slow down the discussion.

Internment camps for the Chinese? I knew it was them that bombed Pearl Harbor and not the Japanese but we needed an excuse to go to work so we could get cheap Ramen noodles. And the Trump elections brings us back to the times of slavery and working on plantations? Geez.............. The sad part about it is that some will see this, believe it and use it as a talking point on internet forums.

As usual you spit out gibberish on something a person claimed on facebook that you took as fact or perhaps you made iu up. In 2004 G W Bush beat John Kerry just over 3 million votes. [Hidden Content],_2004 In another two elections the Republicans have won without the majority. I think that is beyond cool. In two of those elections Clinton got a plurality but never the majority. So.... you are correct in 4 out of 7 elections and two of those were won by the Republicans. Great try though.

She is a criminal and will pay some kind of price. That simply needs to happen. Like drug addicts, they have such a compulsion that they will grab anything of value that they can get their hands on to fill that addiction. I doubt that she targeted school kids though. I have seen drug addicts have a parent by a brand new big screen television and when they come home from work the first day it has been sold on the street for $20 for two hits of crack cocaine. The people don't hate their parents and it truly does hurt them inside but their addiction overcomes their rational behavior. I don't think they are evil in who they target but will grab any money seen hanging around and in this case, it happened to belong to school children. I hope she pays but in my experience and in many cases they get probation. That is paying under the law but it doesn't satisfy a lot of people and maybe rightfully so.

I hope he affects my healthcare by dropping the insurance premiums back to pre-Obama disaster levels. Other than that, I agree except you forgot guns.........

If you are asking me, honestly I have no clue what happened. I've seen lots of rumors and accusations. No matter what happened, the DA has the discretion over prosecution and what he feels is in the "interest of justice". I've worked cases where technically a crime could be proven but under the circumstances, it was understandable not to prosecute. As it says in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the duty of the DA is not to prosecute all crimes but to seek justice in a particular situation. Art. 2.01. DUTIES OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. Each district attorney shall represent the State in all criminal cases in the district courts of his district and in appeals therefrom, except in cases where he has been, before his election, employed adversely. When any criminal proceeding is had before an examining court in his district or before a judge upon habeas corpus, and he is notified of the same, and is at the time within his district, he shall represent the State therein, unless prevented by other official duties. It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress facts or secrete witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused. So even if the DA could maybe get charges past a jury, in some situations it might not be the best answer. The law is generally black and white. The correct response to those laws is not always so clear.

The law used to say that you have to prove that the person did it for sexual purposes as it does in many laws. There had to be the intent to have "sexual gratification" for any person. They changed the law that the only required is intent to invade privacy. That is it. There has to be no other intent to use the photos or video and there is no defense to prosecution that you were trying to catch a thief. Also under wiretapping, it even specifically mentions law enforcement to try and stop crimes (much more serious than misdemeanor theft). Even if attempting to stop a crime, it is a crime to record anyone without consent of at least one person in the conversation or without a warrant/judge's order.

It depends on how what you call criminal. By law, yes they all should be. Entry into the USA without the lawfully required documentation is against the law. Under that law you should be deported and if you reenter, it is a crime that carries a prison sentence. Under the current administration we do not deport found illegal aliens. Oh yeah, we do if we stop them at the border. Once they get past the Border Patrol, they are free to roam even if caught. That is not the law but what the current administration allows to happen. In a way they are getting a presidential pardon for criminal reentry as the current administration refuses to enforce those laws. It is like saying that DWI is legal because the local police department does not like to get tied up with those long winded arrests and simply refuses to make them and instead gets the offender a ride home. So, it is criminal for many and should be criminal for the rest once they are found by the police. I am assuming that soon many or most of those getting a pass in the criminal law will not be doing so. From the previous administration I can assure you that if I found an illegal alien and placed a hold on the person, it would be dealt with. Now? They don't even want to hear about it. We can actually catch an illegal alien in a crime and unless it is a felony, the current administration will not deport the person, much less file charges.

Trump obviously espoused hate by saying that he was against illegal aliens and terrorists. The Dems have a soft spot for criminals and to say anything against them is hate.

Gambling takes a lot of 'em down.

More like the people went from hope and change to hope for a change.

Just a tad of a problem with your post. You posted a law that no longer exists. Oops!! Now go peruse the actual law and see what you highlighted that no longer exists. If it helps, look up the 2015 legislature and SB 1317.

Of course you would. Lawyers are paid to argue. However and for the sake of discussion........ There are many laws in this category that say things like with intent to arouse sexual gratification of any person. In other words merely committing an act in itself might be no crime. This law carries no such element and only requires that intent to invade privacy in an area where privacy is expected. I have no clue as to the facts of this case (but read tons of speculation) but recording in a locker room fits the law as to location and it also appears to fit the invasion of privacy. There is no other intent in the law except that privacy intended to be invaded. I can only assume that the "intent to invade" is an issue like a coach has a camera in his office in order to secure it and a person opens the door and in the background you can see a locker room. I believe such as case would be hard to prove intent to invade privacy. Much like many stores have huge camera systems and if one of them happens to catch an open door to a restroom or locker room, it is not likely a crime as there was no intent that could be proven to record that background glimpse. That does not appear to be the if a person actually planted a camera in the locker room and with it focused on lockers and where people undress. Note that this very law mentions no defense to prosecution that there was a sign saying it was being recorded. While a sign is not in question in this case, a store putting up a sign in a dressing room that this area is being recorded is still a crime. This also appears to fly in the face of an earlier comment by someone else that it is legal to catch people stealing by placing a camera in a locker room. The state seems to negate that claim in this very law. For further discussion ....... There is what is commonly called wiretapping. This is the TX law on that and it includes "oral communication". Sec. 16.02. UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION, USE, OR DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS. (b) A person commits an offense if the person: (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures another person to intercept or endeavor to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication. Here we can see that merely intercepting oral communication is a crime. Again, I do not know what happened but if there is also audio and at least one person in a conversation did know that it was being recorded (a defense to prosecution), it appears to be wiretapping. Unlike the video/photography issue in the locker room, the wiretapping law requires no other intent that I can see other than the intent to intercept the conversation. I know that any lawyer could argue a case (but might not take a case). At the very least it appears that making a video and/or audio in a dressing room for video or conversation anywhere if not a crime, is right up to the threshold of one. In fact it might be close enough to require your argument in court. To restate, I have no clue what evidence anyone has, if any at all and if any does exist, whether it rises to the level of a crime. The laws listed are interesting on whether you can record audio, video or photographs in a private location no matter any sexual intent or while trying to catch a crook. I am sure that you know that even law enforcement cannot do either without a wiretapping warrant. In my opinion.

Can you cite that law?

The following quote is attributed to several people but no matter who actually said it, the sentiment is correct. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

This is kind of the actual answer. Obviously both issues are legal. On one issue many (most?) people on the left are offended or at least claim to be as they are told that it is offensive. On the other it is perfectly acceptable for some of those same people to burn the American flag but not fly the other. It depends on who is offended or who is given their marching orders.

Both are equal.