That headline is golden. But boy is it depressing that this is where we’re at as a nation. And it’s all because the GOP has been taken over by fascists and their army of useful idiots in tacky red hats.
At the time he was considerably farther to the left than the rest of the field short of Dennis Kucinich. Opposition to the Iraq war was central to his campaign when half the party was still trying to justify it. He wanted to push universal healthcare before that was a common position within the party. He was on the cutting edge of promoting gay rights and was extremely popular in the gay community when that community didn’t have the voice it does now. His stint as DNC chair built real party infrastructure and helped set the stage for Obama’s 2008 run.
The country – and the Democratic Party – were considerably more conservative 20 years ago and he definitely helped push things toward where we are now.
That said, he’s absolutely said and done some things in recent year that make it pretty clear he’s not the progressive vanguard he was back then. He’s stood still, and arguably regressed, while the country kept moving. It’s unfortunate. But I think it’s also a mistake to dismiss him outright; he was a pretty important figure in getting the party to where it is now.
The article title implies that he’s already been sentenced and is on probation. That’s what that string of words means. The probation officer he met with is doing a presentence investigation. They aren’t assigned to him.
I.e. not his probation officer because he’s not on probation because this is still pre-sentencing.
Well just under the headline the article states “pre-sentencing”
So you didn’t take the time to understand the article, didn’t take the opportunity to realize your lack of understanding of the various roles and duties of a New York probation officer, and still haven’t, even though multiple inaccuracies in your statements have been pointed out to you.
Obtuse throughout.
Edit: engaging has been my mistake. I thought your original comment was in regards to the headline. This makes clear you are speaking to the article. Had I understood that, I would have not replied, as there would be little point.
That headline is golden. But boy is it depressing that this is where we’re at as a nation. And it’s all because the GOP has been taken over by fascists and their army of useful idiots in tacky red hats.
What’s depressing is if literally any of our institutions acted how they were supposed to, this wouldn’t be an issue.
The 4th estate is failing the country because they’ve been bought by oligarchs.
The judicial apparatus is failing because it’s been bought by oligarchs.
The political apparatus is failing because it’s been bought by oligarchs.
Man I wish we could put our finger on the reason why everything is coming down around us…
It’s awesome how we can trace so much evil back to Southern Strategy and Reaganomics.
It’s very frustrating, yeah. All the progress this country was making was thwarted by a bunch of butt-hurt southerners and racists.
Hell, you can take it further back to the failure of Reconstruction and the resulting propaganda wave creating a massive reactionary base.
Remember when Dean had to drop out because he showed excitement about doing well?
Incredible, isn’t it? Dean continues to be eviscerated.
To be fair, his campaign was already on the rocks at that point. It wasn’t the scream alone that did him in.
Tobefaaaaair.
He sucked anyways.
He came to suck years later.
At the time he was considerably farther to the left than the rest of the field short of Dennis Kucinich. Opposition to the Iraq war was central to his campaign when half the party was still trying to justify it. He wanted to push universal healthcare before that was a common position within the party. He was on the cutting edge of promoting gay rights and was extremely popular in the gay community when that community didn’t have the voice it does now. His stint as DNC chair built real party infrastructure and helped set the stage for Obama’s 2008 run.
The country – and the Democratic Party – were considerably more conservative 20 years ago and he definitely helped push things toward where we are now.
That said, he’s absolutely said and done some things in recent year that make it pretty clear he’s not the progressive vanguard he was back then. He’s stood still, and arguably regressed, while the country kept moving. It’s unfortunate. But I think it’s also a mistake to dismiss him outright; he was a pretty important figure in getting the party to where it is now.
🎵To Be Fay-aaah🎵
It’s golden and also inaccurate.
Probation officers aren’t assigned until somebody has been sentenced. This is a pre-sentencing investigation to see if he is eligible for probation.
If he’s not, he doesn’t meet with his probation officer until after he gets out of jail.
deleted by creator
Actually I edited the italics for clarity.
Either way, this is an investigation with a probation officer.
He’s not on probation yet, and may not be eligible and have to do straight time.
That’s what I was trying to clarify that the headline implied. That he’d already been sentenced, when he hasn’t.
deleted by creator
Yes. Doesn’t change the inaccuracies in the headline.
So… Trump met with a probation officer that is assigned to his case currently. Right? So… His probation officer.
Super curious. What about this hair makes you think you needed to split it(and edit your error without acknowledging its correction)?
The article title implies that he’s already been sentenced and is on probation. That’s what that string of words means. The probation officer he met with is doing a presentence investigation. They aren’t assigned to him.
I.e. not his probation officer because he’s not on probation because this is still pre-sentencing.
I edited italics for clarity. Don’t be an ass.
Edit I also edited this post for clarity. Twice!
Well just under the headline the article states “pre-sentencing”
So you didn’t take the time to understand the article, didn’t take the opportunity to realize your lack of understanding of the various roles and duties of a New York probation officer, and still haven’t, even though multiple inaccuracies in your statements have been pointed out to you.
Obtuse throughout.
Edit: engaging has been my mistake. I thought your original comment was in regards to the headline. This makes clear you are speaking to the article. Had I understood that, I would have not replied, as there would be little point.