TDAS04 vs. Jason Ravnsborg
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 09:59:31 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Forum Community
  Forum Community Election Match-ups (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, YE, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  TDAS04 vs. Jason Ravnsborg
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Who do you vote for/who wins?
#1
TDAS04/TDAS04
 
#2
TDAS04/Jason Ravnsborg
 
#3
Jason Ravnsborg/TDAS04
 
#4
Jason Ravnsborg/Jason Ravnsborg
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 37

Author Topic: TDAS04 vs. Jason Ravnsborg  (Read 1121 times)
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,580
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 21, 2022, 11:21:19 PM »

Battle of the SD posters.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,255


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2022, 12:06:50 AM »

Obviously TDAS
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2022, 01:30:33 AM »

To the best of my knowledge, TDASO4 hasn't killed anyone.
Logged
GregTheGreat657
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,920
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.77, S: -1.04

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2022, 01:10:05 AM »

The one who hasn't committed vehicular manslaughter
Logged
Fuzzy Won't Cover Up Biden's Senility
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,428
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2022, 10:40:50 PM »

Ravensborg.

I don't vote for people who consider me an HP.  

Ravensborg's situation is being misrepresented here, btw, and in a way that wouldn't be so if he were a Democrat.  He has not been charged with vehicular manslaughter.  From Wikipedia:

Quote
On February 17, 2021, Ravnsborg was charged with three misdemeanors: operating his vehicle while using his cell phone, driving outside his lane, and careless driving.[144] Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.[144] Prosecutors chose not to charge Ravnsborg with vehicular homicide or second-degree manslaughter, and South Dakota has no negligent homicide law.[145] On March 12, 2021, court officials moved the trial proceedings from Hyde County to Hughes County and Ravnsborg pleaded not guilty to all charges.[146] A trial date was set for August 2021.[147]

In July 2021, Ravnsborg's legal team filed a motion seeking release of Boever's psychiatric and psychological records, intending to learn whether he was treated for "suicidal ideation" that might have led him to cause the collision.[148] Boever's cousin disputed the idea that Boever would have committed suicide by allowing himself to be struck by a car.[148] Judge John Brown granted the motion and allowed for in camera review of Boever's mental health records.[149] The proceedings were subsequently moved to Stanley County for Brown's convenience.[150]

On August 26, 2021, as part of a plea deal, Ravnsborg pleaded no contest to making an illegal lane change and using a phone while driving. Prosecutors dropped the careless driving charge. Ravnsborg avoided jail time but was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay court costs. The victim's family was angered by the sentence, considering it too lenient, and was also upset that Ravnsborg was not required to attend the plea and sentencing hearing.[151]
Logged
Boobs
HCP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,511


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2022, 07:44:31 PM »

Ravensborg.

I don't vote for people who consider me an HP.  

To be fair, he probably just doesn’t know who you are.
Logged
Schiff for Senate
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,106
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2022, 06:11:34 PM »
« Edited: August 02, 2022, 01:03:00 AM by CentristRepublican »

The one who didn’t commit vehicular manslaughter (at least, to our knowledge…) and the part-Indian-American one gets my vote, and wins.

Ravensborg.

I don't vote for people who consider me an HP.  

Ravensborg's situation is being misrepresented here, btw, and in a way that wouldn't be so if he were a Democrat.  He has not been charged with vehicular manslaughter.  From Wikipedia:

Quote
On February 17, 2021, Ravnsborg was charged with three misdemeanors: operating his vehicle while using his cell phone, driving outside his lane, and careless driving.[144] Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.[144] Prosecutors chose not to charge Ravnsborg with vehicular homicide or second-degree manslaughter, and South Dakota has no negligent homicide law.[145] On March 12, 2021, court officials moved the trial proceedings from Hyde County to Hughes County and Ravnsborg pleaded not guilty to all charges.[146] A trial date was set for August 2021.[147]

In July 2021, Ravnsborg's legal team filed a motion seeking release of Boever's psychiatric and psychological records, intending to learn whether he was treated for "suicidal ideation" that might have led him to cause the collision.[148] Boever's cousin disputed the idea that Boever would have committed suicide by allowing himself to be struck by a car.[148] Judge John Brown granted the motion and allowed for in camera review of Boever's mental health records.[149] The proceedings were subsequently moved to Stanley County for Brown's convenience.[150]

On August 26, 2021, as part of a plea deal, Ravnsborg pleaded no contest to making an illegal lane change and using a phone while driving. Prosecutors dropped the careless driving charge. Ravnsborg avoided jail time but was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay court costs. The victim's family was angered by the sentence, considering it too lenient, and was also upset that Ravnsborg was not required to attend the plea and sentencing hearing.[151]

First two lines: Charming that you’d support someone who committed vehicular manslaughter just because the other person doesn’t like you. What’s a little vehicular manslaughter compared to disliking you, right?

To the rest of the post - He committed vehicular manslaughter and we all know it, and his being Republican or Democratic has nothing to do with it. The GOP-dominated legislature impeached him and the far right GOP governor supported his leaving office. He committed vehicular manslaughter whether or not he was charged as such, and there no getting around that or saying that stating established and obvious facts is “misrepresenting” the truth. Sickening that someone purportedly pro-life doesn’t mind vehicular manslaughter and tries to talk around  it if the perpetrator is from the same party as them.
Logged
Fuzzy Won't Cover Up Biden's Senility
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,428
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2022, 07:13:58 PM »

The one who didn’t commit vehicular manslaughter (at least, to our knowledge…) and the part-Indian-American one gets my vote, and wins.

Ravensborg.

I don't vote for people who consider me an HP.  

Ravensborg's situation is being misrepresented here, btw, and in a way that wouldn't be so if he were a Democrat.  He has not been charged with vehicular manslaughter.  From Wikipedia:

Quote
On February 17, 2021, Ravnsborg was charged with three misdemeanors: operating his vehicle while using his cell phone, driving outside his lane, and careless driving.[144] Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.[144] Prosecutors chose not to charge Ravnsborg with vehicular homicide or second-degree manslaughter, and South Dakota has no negligent homicide law.[145] On March 12, 2021, court officials moved the trial proceedings from Hyde County to Hughes County and Ravnsborg pleaded not guilty to all charges.[146] A trial date was set for August 2021.[147]

In July 2021, Ravnsborg's legal team filed a motion seeking release of Boever's psychiatric and psychological records, intending to learn whether he was treated for "suicidal ideation" that might have led him to cause the collision.[148] Boever's cousin disputed the idea that Boever would have committed suicide by allowing himself to be struck by a car.[148] Judge John Brown granted the motion and allowed for in camera review of Boever's mental health records.[149] The proceedings were subsequently moved to Stanley County for Brown's convenience.[150]

On August 26, 2021, as part of a plea deal, Ravnsborg pleaded no contest to making an illegal lane change and using a phone while driving. Prosecutors dropped the careless driving charge. Ravnsborg avoided jail time but was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay court costs. The victim's family was angered by the sentence, considering it too lenient, and was also upset that Ravnsborg was not required to attend the plea and sentencing hearing.[151]

First two lines: Charming that you’d support someone who committed vehicular manslaughter just because the other person doesn’t like you. What’s a little vehicular manslaughter compared to disliking you, right?

To the rest of the post - just  shut up. He committed vehicular manslaughter and we all know it, and his being Republican or Democratic has nothing to do with it. The GOP-dominated legislature impeached him and the far right GOP governor supported his leaving office. He committed vehicular manslaughter whether or not he was charged as such, and there no getting around that or saying that stating established and obvious facts is “misrepresenting” the truth. Sickening that someone purportedly pro-life doesn’t mind vehicular manslaughter and tries to talk around  it if the perpetrator is from the same party as them.

I won't shut up, especially not at the command of someone who doesn't work for a living (let alone function as my boss).

If the Rule of Law means anything, it ought to mean that people are not treated like felons when they are not convicted of felonies.   If you don't like Ravensborg, don't vote for him.  But if you cause him to suffer loss because you said he was "committed vehicular manslaughter" I won't cry for you when you lose your lawsuit and have to pay.  Ravensborg is noit a felon; he's a misdemeanant and ought to be officially treated as such.
Logged
Schiff for Senate
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,106
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2022, 05:42:17 PM »

The one who didn’t commit vehicular manslaughter (at least, to our knowledge…) and the part-Indian-American one gets my vote, and wins.

Ravensborg.

I don't vote for people who consider me an HP.  

Ravensborg's situation is being misrepresented here, btw, and in a way that wouldn't be so if he were a Democrat.  He has not been charged with vehicular manslaughter.  From Wikipedia:

Quote
On February 17, 2021, Ravnsborg was charged with three misdemeanors: operating his vehicle while using his cell phone, driving outside his lane, and careless driving.[144] Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.[144] Prosecutors chose not to charge Ravnsborg with vehicular homicide or second-degree manslaughter, and South Dakota has no negligent homicide law.[145] On March 12, 2021, court officials moved the trial proceedings from Hyde County to Hughes County and Ravnsborg pleaded not guilty to all charges.[146] A trial date was set for August 2021.[147]

In July 2021, Ravnsborg's legal team filed a motion seeking release of Boever's psychiatric and psychological records, intending to learn whether he was treated for "suicidal ideation" that might have led him to cause the collision.[148] Boever's cousin disputed the idea that Boever would have committed suicide by allowing himself to be struck by a car.[148] Judge John Brown granted the motion and allowed for in camera review of Boever's mental health records.[149] The proceedings were subsequently moved to Stanley County for Brown's convenience.[150]

On August 26, 2021, as part of a plea deal, Ravnsborg pleaded no contest to making an illegal lane change and using a phone while driving. Prosecutors dropped the careless driving charge. Ravnsborg avoided jail time but was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay court costs. The victim's family was angered by the sentence, considering it too lenient, and was also upset that Ravnsborg was not required to attend the plea and sentencing hearing.[151]

First two lines: Charming that you’d support someone who committed vehicular manslaughter just because the other person doesn’t like you. What’s a little vehicular manslaughter compared to disliking you, right?

To the rest of the post - just  shut up. He committed vehicular manslaughter and we all know it, and his being Republican or Democratic has nothing to do with it. The GOP-dominated legislature impeached him and the far right GOP governor supported his leaving office. He committed vehicular manslaughter whether or not he was charged as such, and there no getting around that or saying that stating established and obvious facts is “misrepresenting” the truth. Sickening that someone purportedly pro-life doesn’t mind vehicular manslaughter and tries to talk around  it if the perpetrator is from the same party as them.

I won't shut up, especially not at the command of someone who doesn't work for a living (let alone function as my boss).

If the Rule of Law means anything, it ought to mean that people are not treated like felons when they are not convicted of felonies.   If you don't like Ravensborg, don't vote for him.  But if you cause him to suffer loss because you said he was "committed vehicular manslaughter" I won't cry for you when you lose your lawsuit and have to pay.  Ravensborg is noit a felon; he's a misdemeanant and ought to be officially treated as such.

Regarding the first paragraph: You're right and I apologise. I will also strike those words from my post. I should have held my tongue, given that you are a senior (IIRC) and seniors deserve to be treated with respect and not rudeness (especially not by kids), and considered doing so, but it's just that I found the content of your post especially frustrating. Now regarding that...

Regarding the rest of the post: He committed vehicular manslaughter. He drove rashly, and somebody died as a result of it.

My problem is that you don't seem to have a problem with that and are hiding behind legal technicalities or whatever. The Republican-dominated SD legislature impeached and removed him from office because he committed vehicular manslaughter. It shouldn't be much of an ask for you to say, all legalities aside, that vehicular manslaughter is BAD and that Ravnsborg is a massive HP for committing it. Partisanship and political affiliation have nothing to do with it.

My disgust also stems from the fact that you proclaim to be 'pro-life', yet have no regard for the loss of life caused by Ravnsborg's actions (which he should be held accountable for). You haven't even acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter (whether or not he's been charged as such is a different matter - the point is, he hit and killed somebody with his vehicle out of his own carelessness), and that that is bad. All you've done is come up with a stupid defence: 'This is liberal bias because Ravnsborg's not been legally charged with vehicular manslaughter.'

What I know is this: he committed vehicular manslaughter and Republicans and Democrats alike have decried him for it (again - it was the Republican-supermajority SD legislature that removed him from office). Yet, you have not criticised him for this or decried that action...I suspect because he is a Republican. I know that if the situation was reversed and a Democrat had committed vehicular manslaughter, 99% of the people angry with Ravnsborg on this site would be angry with that Democrat, too. And so would you. You wouldn't bother with legal technicalities or try to skirt around the fact that the person in question committed vehicular manslaughter.

In this case, simply because he's a Republican, you have the nerve to say that criticism of him is a liberal double-standard, and you've hidden behind legal technicalities and ignored the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

SDoes the fact that Ravnsborg committed vehicular manslaughter mean nothing to you? Or does partisanship - and Ravnsborg's being a fellow right-wing Republican - win the day for you? Because you've not admitted or acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter, nor have you criticised him for it. THAT'S extreme Republican partisanship. Democrats (and Republicans) criticising him for killing somebody is NOT Democratic bias or whatever you're calling it.

And what makes your behaviour here doubly sickening is that you proclaim to respect sanctity of life, proclaim to be pro-life. Yet, here you're insulting Ranvsborg's victim and his family by literally refusing to acknowledge what happened, calling anger at Ravnsborg over what he did liberal double-standards and liberal bias, and hiding behind legalities and hiding from the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter, of killing this man, of depriving his children from the two-parent household you so fervently promote and of widowing his wife.

Ravnsborg KILLED somebody and YOU are the ultra-partisan who refuses to acknowledge or fault him for it because he agrees with you politically - and who then argues with people who acknowledge and fault Ravnsborg for committing vehicular manslaughter. I mean, seriously. Do you or do you not acknowledge that he is responsible for killing somebody? Do you really have no problem at all with that? Because, with the spirited defence of Ravnsborg's actions you're mounting, it most certainly seems that way.
Logged
Fuzzy Won't Cover Up Biden's Senility
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,428
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2022, 09:29:42 PM »

The one who didn’t commit vehicular manslaughter (at least, to our knowledge…) and the part-Indian-American one gets my vote, and wins.

Ravensborg.

I don't vote for people who consider me an HP.  

Ravensborg's situation is being misrepresented here, btw, and in a way that wouldn't be so if he were a Democrat.  He has not been charged with vehicular manslaughter.  From Wikipedia:

Quote
On February 17, 2021, Ravnsborg was charged with three misdemeanors: operating his vehicle while using his cell phone, driving outside his lane, and careless driving.[144] Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.[144] Prosecutors chose not to charge Ravnsborg with vehicular homicide or second-degree manslaughter, and South Dakota has no negligent homicide law.[145] On March 12, 2021, court officials moved the trial proceedings from Hyde County to Hughes County and Ravnsborg pleaded not guilty to all charges.[146] A trial date was set for August 2021.[147]

In July 2021, Ravnsborg's legal team filed a motion seeking release of Boever's psychiatric and psychological records, intending to learn whether he was treated for "suicidal ideation" that might have led him to cause the collision.[148] Boever's cousin disputed the idea that Boever would have committed suicide by allowing himself to be struck by a car.[148] Judge John Brown granted the motion and allowed for in camera review of Boever's mental health records.[149] The proceedings were subsequently moved to Stanley County for Brown's convenience.[150]

On August 26, 2021, as part of a plea deal, Ravnsborg pleaded no contest to making an illegal lane change and using a phone while driving. Prosecutors dropped the careless driving charge. Ravnsborg avoided jail time but was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay court costs. The victim's family was angered by the sentence, considering it too lenient, and was also upset that Ravnsborg was not required to attend the plea and sentencing hearing.[151]

First two lines: Charming that you’d support someone who committed vehicular manslaughter just because the other person doesn’t like you. What’s a little vehicular manslaughter compared to disliking you, right?

To the rest of the post - just  shut up. He committed vehicular manslaughter and we all know it, and his being Republican or Democratic has nothing to do with it. The GOP-dominated legislature impeached him and the far right GOP governor supported his leaving office. He committed vehicular manslaughter whether or not he was charged as such, and there no getting around that or saying that stating established and obvious facts is “misrepresenting” the truth. Sickening that someone purportedly pro-life doesn’t mind vehicular manslaughter and tries to talk around  it if the perpetrator is from the same party as them.

I won't shut up, especially not at the command of someone who doesn't work for a living (let alone function as my boss).

If the Rule of Law means anything, it ought to mean that people are not treated like felons when they are not convicted of felonies.   If you don't like Ravensborg, don't vote for him.  But if you cause him to suffer loss because you said he was "committed vehicular manslaughter" I won't cry for you when you lose your lawsuit and have to pay.  Ravensborg is noit a felon; he's a misdemeanant and ought to be officially treated as such.

Regarding the first paragraph: You're right and I apologise. I will also strike those words from my post. I should have held my tongue, given that you are a senior (IIRC) and seniors deserve to be treated with respect and not rudeness (especially not by kids), and considered doing so, but it's just that I found the content of your post especially frustrating. Now regarding that...

Regarding the rest of the post: He committed vehicular manslaughter. He drove rashly, and somebody died as a result of it.

My problem is that you don't seem to have a problem with that and are hiding behind legal technicalities or whatever. The Republican-dominated SD legislature impeached and removed him from office because he committed vehicular manslaughter. It shouldn't be much of an ask for you to say, all legalities aside, that vehicular manslaughter is BAD and that Ravnsborg is a massive HP for committing it. Partisanship and political affiliation have nothing to do with it.

My disgust also stems from the fact that you proclaim to be 'pro-life', yet have no regard for the loss of life caused by Ravnsborg's actions (which he should be held accountable for). You haven't even acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter (whether or not he's been charged as such is a different matter - the point is, he hit and killed somebody with his vehicle out of his own carelessness), and that that is bad. All you've done is come up with a stupid defence: 'This is liberal bias because Ravnsborg's not been legally charged with vehicular manslaughter.'

What I know is this: he committed vehicular manslaughter and Republicans and Democrats alike have decried him for it (again - it was the Republican-supermajority SD legislature that removed him from office). Yet, you have not criticised him for this or decried that action...I suspect because he is a Republican. I know that if the situation was reversed and a Democrat had committed vehicular manslaughter, 99% of the people angry with Ravnsborg on this site would be angry with that Democrat, too. And so would you. You wouldn't bother with legal technicalities or try to skirt around the fact that the person in question committed vehicular manslaughter.

In this case, simply because he's a Republican, you have the nerve to say that criticism of him is a liberal double-standard, and you've hidden behind legal technicalities and ignored the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

SDoes the fact that Ravnsborg committed vehicular manslaughter mean nothing to you? Or does partisanship - and Ravnsborg's being a fellow right-wing Republican - win the day for you? Because you've not admitted or acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter, nor have you criticised him for it. THAT'S extreme Republican partisanship. Democrats (and Republicans) criticising him for killing somebody is NOT Democratic bias or whatever you're calling it.

And what makes your behaviour here doubly sickening is that you proclaim to respect sanctity of life, proclaim to be pro-life. Yet, here you're insulting Ranvsborg's victim and his family by literally refusing to acknowledge what happened, calling anger at Ravnsborg over what he did liberal double-standards and liberal bias, and hiding behind legalities and hiding from the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter, of killing this man, of depriving his children from the two-parent household you so fervently promote and of widowing his wife.

Ravnsborg KILLED somebody and YOU are the ultra-partisan who refuses to acknowledge or fault him for it because he agrees with you politically - and who then argues with people who acknowledge and fault Ravnsborg for committing vehicular manslaughter. I mean, seriously. Do you or do you not acknowledge that he is responsible for killing somebody? Do you really have no problem at all with that? Because, with the spirited defence of Ravnsborg's actions you're mounting, it most certainly seems that way.

Talk about excessive hyperbole.

Every fatal traffic accident isn't a criminal act.  It just isn't.  If you want to prove (not allege, but prove) that Ravnsborg got a sweet deal because of who he was in some way, that is one thing, but you havenb't provebn it. 

I doubt that Ravnsborg intended to kill that girl.  If he's civilly liable, that's fine, but a civil tort is different from a criminal act. 
Logged
Schiff for Senate
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,106
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2022, 09:35:13 PM »

The one who didn’t commit vehicular manslaughter (at least, to our knowledge…) and the part-Indian-American one gets my vote, and wins.

Ravensborg.

I don't vote for people who consider me an HP.  

Ravensborg's situation is being misrepresented here, btw, and in a way that wouldn't be so if he were a Democrat.  He has not been charged with vehicular manslaughter.  From Wikipedia:

Quote
On February 17, 2021, Ravnsborg was charged with three misdemeanors: operating his vehicle while using his cell phone, driving outside his lane, and careless driving.[144] Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.[144] Prosecutors chose not to charge Ravnsborg with vehicular homicide or second-degree manslaughter, and South Dakota has no negligent homicide law.[145] On March 12, 2021, court officials moved the trial proceedings from Hyde County to Hughes County and Ravnsborg pleaded not guilty to all charges.[146] A trial date was set for August 2021.[147]

In July 2021, Ravnsborg's legal team filed a motion seeking release of Boever's psychiatric and psychological records, intending to learn whether he was treated for "suicidal ideation" that might have led him to cause the collision.[148] Boever's cousin disputed the idea that Boever would have committed suicide by allowing himself to be struck by a car.[148] Judge John Brown granted the motion and allowed for in camera review of Boever's mental health records.[149] The proceedings were subsequently moved to Stanley County for Brown's convenience.[150]

On August 26, 2021, as part of a plea deal, Ravnsborg pleaded no contest to making an illegal lane change and using a phone while driving. Prosecutors dropped the careless driving charge. Ravnsborg avoided jail time but was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay court costs. The victim's family was angered by the sentence, considering it too lenient, and was also upset that Ravnsborg was not required to attend the plea and sentencing hearing.[151]

First two lines: Charming that you’d support someone who committed vehicular manslaughter just because the other person doesn’t like you. What’s a little vehicular manslaughter compared to disliking you, right?

To the rest of the post - just  shut up. He committed vehicular manslaughter and we all know it, and his being Republican or Democratic has nothing to do with it. The GOP-dominated legislature impeached him and the far right GOP governor supported his leaving office. He committed vehicular manslaughter whether or not he was charged as such, and there no getting around that or saying that stating established and obvious facts is “misrepresenting” the truth. Sickening that someone purportedly pro-life doesn’t mind vehicular manslaughter and tries to talk around  it if the perpetrator is from the same party as them.

I won't shut up, especially not at the command of someone who doesn't work for a living (let alone function as my boss).

If the Rule of Law means anything, it ought to mean that people are not treated like felons when they are not convicted of felonies.   If you don't like Ravensborg, don't vote for him.  But if you cause him to suffer loss because you said he was "committed vehicular manslaughter" I won't cry for you when you lose your lawsuit and have to pay.  Ravensborg is noit a felon; he's a misdemeanant and ought to be officially treated as such.

Regarding the first paragraph: You're right and I apologise. I will also strike those words from my post. I should have held my tongue, given that you are a senior (IIRC) and seniors deserve to be treated with respect and not rudeness (especially not by kids), and considered doing so, but it's just that I found the content of your post especially frustrating. Now regarding that...

Regarding the rest of the post: He committed vehicular manslaughter. He drove rashly, and somebody died as a result of it.

My problem is that you don't seem to have a problem with that and are hiding behind legal technicalities or whatever. The Republican-dominated SD legislature impeached and removed him from office because he committed vehicular manslaughter. It shouldn't be much of an ask for you to say, all legalities aside, that vehicular manslaughter is BAD and that Ravnsborg is a massive HP for committing it. Partisanship and political affiliation have nothing to do with it.

My disgust also stems from the fact that you proclaim to be 'pro-life', yet have no regard for the loss of life caused by Ravnsborg's actions (which he should be held accountable for). You haven't even acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter (whether or not he's been charged as such is a different matter - the point is, he hit and killed somebody with his vehicle out of his own carelessness), and that that is bad. All you've done is come up with a stupid defence: 'This is liberal bias because Ravnsborg's not been legally charged with vehicular manslaughter.'

What I know is this: he committed vehicular manslaughter and Republicans and Democrats alike have decried him for it (again - it was the Republican-supermajority SD legislature that removed him from office). Yet, you have not criticised him for this or decried that action...I suspect because he is a Republican. I know that if the situation was reversed and a Democrat had committed vehicular manslaughter, 99% of the people angry with Ravnsborg on this site would be angry with that Democrat, too. And so would you. You wouldn't bother with legal technicalities or try to skirt around the fact that the person in question committed vehicular manslaughter.

In this case, simply because he's a Republican, you have the nerve to say that criticism of him is a liberal double-standard, and you've hidden behind legal technicalities and ignored the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

SDoes the fact that Ravnsborg committed vehicular manslaughter mean nothing to you? Or does partisanship - and Ravnsborg's being a fellow right-wing Republican - win the day for you? Because you've not admitted or acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter, nor have you criticised him for it. THAT'S extreme Republican partisanship. Democrats (and Republicans) criticising him for killing somebody is NOT Democratic bias or whatever you're calling it.

And what makes your behaviour here doubly sickening is that you proclaim to respect sanctity of life, proclaim to be pro-life. Yet, here you're insulting Ranvsborg's victim and his family by literally refusing to acknowledge what happened, calling anger at Ravnsborg over what he did liberal double-standards and liberal bias, and hiding behind legalities and hiding from the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter, of killing this man, of depriving his children from the two-parent household you so fervently promote and of widowing his wife.

Ravnsborg KILLED somebody and YOU are the ultra-partisan who refuses to acknowledge or fault him for it because he agrees with you politically - and who then argues with people who acknowledge and fault Ravnsborg for committing vehicular manslaughter. I mean, seriously. Do you or do you not acknowledge that he is responsible for killing somebody? Do you really have no problem at all with that? Because, with the spirited defence of Ravnsborg's actions you're mounting, it most certainly seems that way.

Talk about excessive hyperbole.

Every fatal traffic accident isn't a criminal act.  It just isn't.  If you want to prove (not allege, but prove) that Ravnsborg got a sweet deal because of who he was in some way, that is one thing, but you havenb't provebn it.  

I doubt that Ravnsborg intended to kill that girl.  If he's civilly liable, that's fine, but a civil tort is different from a criminal act.  

He is guilty of vehicular manslaughter and somebody died because of his carelessness. Do you or do you not deny that? I’m sure he didn’t intend to kill anybody, but neither do most who commit vehicular manslaughter, and had he been more careful, his victim would be alive right now. None of this is “excessive hyperbole.” I’m not alleging Ravnsborg got any special treatment or favoritism. I am stating the fact that he is responsible of somebody’s death, that somebody’s death was caused by his carelessness and irresponsibility. The fact that you STILL refusing to acknowledge those facts, calling them “excessive hyperbole,” and hiding behind straw men show without question who the hyperpartisan here is - you, somebody who’s willing to let vehicular manslaughter slide (despite allegedly being pro-life) if the perpetrator happens to be someone who you agree with politically, and who then calls any attempt to criticize said perpetrator for his actions liberal bias. In any case, you didn’t answer a single one of the questions I asked you earlier, so I’ll ask another and hope you answer (and honestly): Would you have mounted this spirited a defense if it was not Jason Ravnsborg, but say, Keith Ellison or Rob Bonta (both Democratic state attorney generals), who had done this?
Logged
Fuzzy Won't Cover Up Biden's Senility
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,428
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2022, 09:45:29 PM »

The one who didn’t commit vehicular manslaughter (at least, to our knowledge…) and the part-Indian-American one gets my vote, and wins.

Ravensborg.

I don't vote for people who consider me an HP.  

Ravensborg's situation is being misrepresented here, btw, and in a way that wouldn't be so if he were a Democrat.  He has not been charged with vehicular manslaughter.  From Wikipedia:

Quote
On February 17, 2021, Ravnsborg was charged with three misdemeanors: operating his vehicle while using his cell phone, driving outside his lane, and careless driving.[144] Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.[144] Prosecutors chose not to charge Ravnsborg with vehicular homicide or second-degree manslaughter, and South Dakota has no negligent homicide law.[145] On March 12, 2021, court officials moved the trial proceedings from Hyde County to Hughes County and Ravnsborg pleaded not guilty to all charges.[146] A trial date was set for August 2021.[147]

In July 2021, Ravnsborg's legal team filed a motion seeking release of Boever's psychiatric and psychological records, intending to learn whether he was treated for "suicidal ideation" that might have led him to cause the collision.[148] Boever's cousin disputed the idea that Boever would have committed suicide by allowing himself to be struck by a car.[148] Judge John Brown granted the motion and allowed for in camera review of Boever's mental health records.[149] The proceedings were subsequently moved to Stanley County for Brown's convenience.[150]

On August 26, 2021, as part of a plea deal, Ravnsborg pleaded no contest to making an illegal lane change and using a phone while driving. Prosecutors dropped the careless driving charge. Ravnsborg avoided jail time but was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay court costs. The victim's family was angered by the sentence, considering it too lenient, and was also upset that Ravnsborg was not required to attend the plea and sentencing hearing.[151]

First two lines: Charming that you’d support someone who committed vehicular manslaughter just because the other person doesn’t like you. What’s a little vehicular manslaughter compared to disliking you, right?

To the rest of the post - just  shut up. He committed vehicular manslaughter and we all know it, and his being Republican or Democratic has nothing to do with it. The GOP-dominated legislature impeached him and the far right GOP governor supported his leaving office. He committed vehicular manslaughter whether or not he was charged as such, and there no getting around that or saying that stating established and obvious facts is “misrepresenting” the truth. Sickening that someone purportedly pro-life doesn’t mind vehicular manslaughter and tries to talk around  it if the perpetrator is from the same party as them.

I won't shut up, especially not at the command of someone who doesn't work for a living (let alone function as my boss).

If the Rule of Law means anything, it ought to mean that people are not treated like felons when they are not convicted of felonies.   If you don't like Ravensborg, don't vote for him.  But if you cause him to suffer loss because you said he was "committed vehicular manslaughter" I won't cry for you when you lose your lawsuit and have to pay.  Ravensborg is noit a felon; he's a misdemeanant and ought to be officially treated as such.

Regarding the first paragraph: You're right and I apologise. I will also strike those words from my post. I should have held my tongue, given that you are a senior (IIRC) and seniors deserve to be treated with respect and not rudeness (especially not by kids), and considered doing so, but it's just that I found the content of your post especially frustrating. Now regarding that...

Regarding the rest of the post: He committed vehicular manslaughter. He drove rashly, and somebody died as a result of it.

My problem is that you don't seem to have a problem with that and are hiding behind legal technicalities or whatever. The Republican-dominated SD legislature impeached and removed him from office because he committed vehicular manslaughter. It shouldn't be much of an ask for you to say, all legalities aside, that vehicular manslaughter is BAD and that Ravnsborg is a massive HP for committing it. Partisanship and political affiliation have nothing to do with it.

My disgust also stems from the fact that you proclaim to be 'pro-life', yet have no regard for the loss of life caused by Ravnsborg's actions (which he should be held accountable for). You haven't even acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter (whether or not he's been charged as such is a different matter - the point is, he hit and killed somebody with his vehicle out of his own carelessness), and that that is bad. All you've done is come up with a stupid defence: 'This is liberal bias because Ravnsborg's not been legally charged with vehicular manslaughter.'

What I know is this: he committed vehicular manslaughter and Republicans and Democrats alike have decried him for it (again - it was the Republican-supermajority SD legislature that removed him from office). Yet, you have not criticised him for this or decried that action...I suspect because he is a Republican. I know that if the situation was reversed and a Democrat had committed vehicular manslaughter, 99% of the people angry with Ravnsborg on this site would be angry with that Democrat, too. And so would you. You wouldn't bother with legal technicalities or try to skirt around the fact that the person in question committed vehicular manslaughter.

In this case, simply because he's a Republican, you have the nerve to say that criticism of him is a liberal double-standard, and you've hidden behind legal technicalities and ignored the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

SDoes the fact that Ravnsborg committed vehicular manslaughter mean nothing to you? Or does partisanship - and Ravnsborg's being a fellow right-wing Republican - win the day for you? Because you've not admitted or acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter, nor have you criticised him for it. THAT'S extreme Republican partisanship. Democrats (and Republicans) criticising him for killing somebody is NOT Democratic bias or whatever you're calling it.

And what makes your behaviour here doubly sickening is that you proclaim to respect sanctity of life, proclaim to be pro-life. Yet, here you're insulting Ranvsborg's victim and his family by literally refusing to acknowledge what happened, calling anger at Ravnsborg over what he did liberal double-standards and liberal bias, and hiding behind legalities and hiding from the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter, of killing this man, of depriving his children from the two-parent household you so fervently promote and of widowing his wife.

Ravnsborg KILLED somebody and YOU are the ultra-partisan who refuses to acknowledge or fault him for it because he agrees with you politically - and who then argues with people who acknowledge and fault Ravnsborg for committing vehicular manslaughter. I mean, seriously. Do you or do you not acknowledge that he is responsible for killing somebody? Do you really have no problem at all with that? Because, with the spirited defence of Ravnsborg's actions you're mounting, it most certainly seems that way.

Talk about excessive hyperbole.

Every fatal traffic accident isn't a criminal act.  It just isn't.  If you want to prove (not allege, but prove) that Ravnsborg got a sweet deal because of who he was in some way, that is one thing, but you havenb't provebn it.  

I doubt that Ravnsborg intended to kill that girl.  If he's civilly liable, that's fine, but a civil tort is different from a criminal act.  

He is guilty of vehicular manslaughter and somebody died because of his carelessness. Do you or do you not deny that? I’m sure he didn’t intend to kill anybody, but neither do most who commit vehicular manslaughter, and had he been more careful, his victim would be alive right now. None of this is “excessive hyperbole.” I’m not alleging Ravnsborg got any special treatment or favoritism. I am stating the fact that he is responsible of somebody’s death, that somebody’s death was caused by his carelessness and irresponsibility. The fact that you STILL refusing to acknowledge those facts, calling them “excessive hyperbole,” and hiding behind straw men show without question who the hyperpartisan here is - you, somebody who’s willing to let vehicular manslaughter slide (despite allegedly being pro-life) if the perpetrator happens to be someone who you agree with politically, and who then calls any attempt to criticize said perpetrator for his actions liberal bias. In any case, you didn’t answer a single one of the questions I asked you earlier, so I’ll ask another and hope you answer (and honestly): Would you have mounted this spirited a defense if it was not Jason Ravnsborg, but say, Keith Ellison or Rob Bonta (both Democratic state attorney generals), who had done this?

To the latter, I would say and emphatic yes.  Keith Ellison is someone I would never vote for, but he is not deserving of being labeled something he's not, and if he were in Ravnsborg's situation, I would say the same things I am saying about Ravnsborg now.  And the same goes for Rob Bonta, Tish James, and Dana Nessel; Democratic HP AGs everyone.  They deserve defeat at the polls, but they don't deserve to be labeled as felons and treated as felons when they have not been charged with felonies (let alone convicted of felonies).
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,255


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2022, 10:53:39 PM »

The one who didn’t commit vehicular manslaughter (at least, to our knowledge…) and the part-Indian-American one gets my vote, and wins.

Ravensborg.

I don't vote for people who consider me an HP.  

Ravensborg's situation is being misrepresented here, btw, and in a way that wouldn't be so if he were a Democrat.  He has not been charged with vehicular manslaughter.  From Wikipedia:

Quote
On February 17, 2021, Ravnsborg was charged with three misdemeanors: operating his vehicle while using his cell phone, driving outside his lane, and careless driving.[144] Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.[144] Prosecutors chose not to charge Ravnsborg with vehicular homicide or second-degree manslaughter, and South Dakota has no negligent homicide law.[145] On March 12, 2021, court officials moved the trial proceedings from Hyde County to Hughes County and Ravnsborg pleaded not guilty to all charges.[146] A trial date was set for August 2021.[147]

In July 2021, Ravnsborg's legal team filed a motion seeking release of Boever's psychiatric and psychological records, intending to learn whether he was treated for "suicidal ideation" that might have led him to cause the collision.[148] Boever's cousin disputed the idea that Boever would have committed suicide by allowing himself to be struck by a car.[148] Judge John Brown granted the motion and allowed for in camera review of Boever's mental health records.[149] The proceedings were subsequently moved to Stanley County for Brown's convenience.[150]

On August 26, 2021, as part of a plea deal, Ravnsborg pleaded no contest to making an illegal lane change and using a phone while driving. Prosecutors dropped the careless driving charge. Ravnsborg avoided jail time but was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay court costs. The victim's family was angered by the sentence, considering it too lenient, and was also upset that Ravnsborg was not required to attend the plea and sentencing hearing.[151]

First two lines: Charming that you’d support someone who committed vehicular manslaughter just because the other person doesn’t like you. What’s a little vehicular manslaughter compared to disliking you, right?

To the rest of the post - just  shut up. He committed vehicular manslaughter and we all know it, and his being Republican or Democratic has nothing to do with it. The GOP-dominated legislature impeached him and the far right GOP governor supported his leaving office. He committed vehicular manslaughter whether or not he was charged as such, and there no getting around that or saying that stating established and obvious facts is “misrepresenting” the truth. Sickening that someone purportedly pro-life doesn’t mind vehicular manslaughter and tries to talk around  it if the perpetrator is from the same party as them.

I won't shut up, especially not at the command of someone who doesn't work for a living (let alone function as my boss).

If the Rule of Law means anything, it ought to mean that people are not treated like felons when they are not convicted of felonies.   If you don't like Ravensborg, don't vote for him.  But if you cause him to suffer loss because you said he was "committed vehicular manslaughter" I won't cry for you when you lose your lawsuit and have to pay.  Ravensborg is noit a felon; he's a misdemeanant and ought to be officially treated as such.

Regarding the first paragraph: You're right and I apologise. I will also strike those words from my post. I should have held my tongue, given that you are a senior (IIRC) and seniors deserve to be treated with respect and not rudeness (especially not by kids), and considered doing so, but it's just that I found the content of your post especially frustrating. Now regarding that...

Regarding the rest of the post: He committed vehicular manslaughter. He drove rashly, and somebody died as a result of it.

My problem is that you don't seem to have a problem with that and are hiding behind legal technicalities or whatever. The Republican-dominated SD legislature impeached and removed him from office because he committed vehicular manslaughter. It shouldn't be much of an ask for you to say, all legalities aside, that vehicular manslaughter is BAD and that Ravnsborg is a massive HP for committing it. Partisanship and political affiliation have nothing to do with it.

My disgust also stems from the fact that you proclaim to be 'pro-life', yet have no regard for the loss of life caused by Ravnsborg's actions (which he should be held accountable for). You haven't even acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter (whether or not he's been charged as such is a different matter - the point is, he hit and killed somebody with his vehicle out of his own carelessness), and that that is bad. All you've done is come up with a stupid defence: 'This is liberal bias because Ravnsborg's not been legally charged with vehicular manslaughter.'

What I know is this: he committed vehicular manslaughter and Republicans and Democrats alike have decried him for it (again - it was the Republican-supermajority SD legislature that removed him from office). Yet, you have not criticised him for this or decried that action...I suspect because he is a Republican. I know that if the situation was reversed and a Democrat had committed vehicular manslaughter, 99% of the people angry with Ravnsborg on this site would be angry with that Democrat, too. And so would you. You wouldn't bother with legal technicalities or try to skirt around the fact that the person in question committed vehicular manslaughter.

In this case, simply because he's a Republican, you have the nerve to say that criticism of him is a liberal double-standard, and you've hidden behind legal technicalities and ignored the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

SDoes the fact that Ravnsborg committed vehicular manslaughter mean nothing to you? Or does partisanship - and Ravnsborg's being a fellow right-wing Republican - win the day for you? Because you've not admitted or acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter, nor have you criticised him for it. THAT'S extreme Republican partisanship. Democrats (and Republicans) criticising him for killing somebody is NOT Democratic bias or whatever you're calling it.

And what makes your behaviour here doubly sickening is that you proclaim to respect sanctity of life, proclaim to be pro-life. Yet, here you're insulting Ranvsborg's victim and his family by literally refusing to acknowledge what happened, calling anger at Ravnsborg over what he did liberal double-standards and liberal bias, and hiding behind legalities and hiding from the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter, of killing this man, of depriving his children from the two-parent household you so fervently promote and of widowing his wife.

Ravnsborg KILLED somebody and YOU are the ultra-partisan who refuses to acknowledge or fault him for it because he agrees with you politically - and who then argues with people who acknowledge and fault Ravnsborg for committing vehicular manslaughter. I mean, seriously. Do you or do you not acknowledge that he is responsible for killing somebody? Do you really have no problem at all with that? Because, with the spirited defence of Ravnsborg's actions you're mounting, it most certainly seems that way.

Talk about excessive hyperbole.

Every fatal traffic accident isn't a criminal act.  It just isn't.  If you want to prove (not allege, but prove) that Ravnsborg got a sweet deal because of who he was in some way, that is one thing, but you havenb't provebn it.  

I doubt that Ravnsborg intended to kill that girl.  If he's civilly liable, that's fine, but a civil tort is different from a criminal act.  

He is guilty of vehicular manslaughter and somebody died because of his carelessness. Do you or do you not deny that? I’m sure he didn’t intend to kill anybody, but neither do most who commit vehicular manslaughter, and had he been more careful, his victim would be alive right now. None of this is “excessive hyperbole.” I’m not alleging Ravnsborg got any special treatment or favoritism. I am stating the fact that he is responsible of somebody’s death, that somebody’s death was caused by his carelessness and irresponsibility. The fact that you STILL refusing to acknowledge those facts, calling them “excessive hyperbole,” and hiding behind straw men show without question who the hyperpartisan here is - you, somebody who’s willing to let vehicular manslaughter slide (despite allegedly being pro-life) if the perpetrator happens to be someone who you agree with politically, and who then calls any attempt to criticize said perpetrator for his actions liberal bias. In any case, you didn’t answer a single one of the questions I asked you earlier, so I’ll ask another and hope you answer (and honestly): Would you have mounted this spirited a defense if it was not Jason Ravnsborg, but say, Keith Ellison or Rob Bonta (both Democratic state attorney generals), who had done this?

To the latter, I would say and emphatic yes.  Keith Ellison is someone I would never vote for, but he is not deserving of being labeled something he's not, and if he were in Ravnsborg's situation, I would say the same things I am saying about Ravnsborg now.  And the same goes for Rob Bonta, Tish James, and Dana Nessel; Democratic HP AGs everyone.  They deserve defeat at the polls, but they don't deserve to be labeled as felons and treated as felons when they have not been charged with felonies (let alone convicted of felonies).

Do you think he was unjustly impeached
Logged
Fuzzy Won't Cover Up Biden's Senility
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,428
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2022, 06:15:57 AM »

The one who didn’t commit vehicular manslaughter (at least, to our knowledge…) and the part-Indian-American one gets my vote, and wins.

Ravensborg.

I don't vote for people who consider me an HP.  

Ravensborg's situation is being misrepresented here, btw, and in a way that wouldn't be so if he were a Democrat.  He has not been charged with vehicular manslaughter.  From Wikipedia:

Quote
On February 17, 2021, Ravnsborg was charged with three misdemeanors: operating his vehicle while using his cell phone, driving outside his lane, and careless driving.[144] Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.[144] Prosecutors chose not to charge Ravnsborg with vehicular homicide or second-degree manslaughter, and South Dakota has no negligent homicide law.[145] On March 12, 2021, court officials moved the trial proceedings from Hyde County to Hughes County and Ravnsborg pleaded not guilty to all charges.[146] A trial date was set for August 2021.[147]

In July 2021, Ravnsborg's legal team filed a motion seeking release of Boever's psychiatric and psychological records, intending to learn whether he was treated for "suicidal ideation" that might have led him to cause the collision.[148] Boever's cousin disputed the idea that Boever would have committed suicide by allowing himself to be struck by a car.[148] Judge John Brown granted the motion and allowed for in camera review of Boever's mental health records.[149] The proceedings were subsequently moved to Stanley County for Brown's convenience.[150]

On August 26, 2021, as part of a plea deal, Ravnsborg pleaded no contest to making an illegal lane change and using a phone while driving. Prosecutors dropped the careless driving charge. Ravnsborg avoided jail time but was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay court costs. The victim's family was angered by the sentence, considering it too lenient, and was also upset that Ravnsborg was not required to attend the plea and sentencing hearing.[151]

First two lines: Charming that you’d support someone who committed vehicular manslaughter just because the other person doesn’t like you. What’s a little vehicular manslaughter compared to disliking you, right?

To the rest of the post - just  shut up. He committed vehicular manslaughter and we all know it, and his being Republican or Democratic has nothing to do with it. The GOP-dominated legislature impeached him and the far right GOP governor supported his leaving office. He committed vehicular manslaughter whether or not he was charged as such, and there no getting around that or saying that stating established and obvious facts is “misrepresenting” the truth. Sickening that someone purportedly pro-life doesn’t mind vehicular manslaughter and tries to talk around  it if the perpetrator is from the same party as them.

I won't shut up, especially not at the command of someone who doesn't work for a living (let alone function as my boss).

If the Rule of Law means anything, it ought to mean that people are not treated like felons when they are not convicted of felonies.   If you don't like Ravensborg, don't vote for him.  But if you cause him to suffer loss because you said he was "committed vehicular manslaughter" I won't cry for you when you lose your lawsuit and have to pay.  Ravensborg is noit a felon; he's a misdemeanant and ought to be officially treated as such.

Regarding the first paragraph: You're right and I apologise. I will also strike those words from my post. I should have held my tongue, given that you are a senior (IIRC) and seniors deserve to be treated with respect and not rudeness (especially not by kids), and considered doing so, but it's just that I found the content of your post especially frustrating. Now regarding that...

Regarding the rest of the post: He committed vehicular manslaughter. He drove rashly, and somebody died as a result of it.

My problem is that you don't seem to have a problem with that and are hiding behind legal technicalities or whatever. The Republican-dominated SD legislature impeached and removed him from office because he committed vehicular manslaughter. It shouldn't be much of an ask for you to say, all legalities aside, that vehicular manslaughter is BAD and that Ravnsborg is a massive HP for committing it. Partisanship and political affiliation have nothing to do with it.

My disgust also stems from the fact that you proclaim to be 'pro-life', yet have no regard for the loss of life caused by Ravnsborg's actions (which he should be held accountable for). You haven't even acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter (whether or not he's been charged as such is a different matter - the point is, he hit and killed somebody with his vehicle out of his own carelessness), and that that is bad. All you've done is come up with a stupid defence: 'This is liberal bias because Ravnsborg's not been legally charged with vehicular manslaughter.'

What I know is this: he committed vehicular manslaughter and Republicans and Democrats alike have decried him for it (again - it was the Republican-supermajority SD legislature that removed him from office). Yet, you have not criticised him for this or decried that action...I suspect because he is a Republican. I know that if the situation was reversed and a Democrat had committed vehicular manslaughter, 99% of the people angry with Ravnsborg on this site would be angry with that Democrat, too. And so would you. You wouldn't bother with legal technicalities or try to skirt around the fact that the person in question committed vehicular manslaughter.

In this case, simply because he's a Republican, you have the nerve to say that criticism of him is a liberal double-standard, and you've hidden behind legal technicalities and ignored the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

SDoes the fact that Ravnsborg committed vehicular manslaughter mean nothing to you? Or does partisanship - and Ravnsborg's being a fellow right-wing Republican - win the day for you? Because you've not admitted or acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter, nor have you criticised him for it. THAT'S extreme Republican partisanship. Democrats (and Republicans) criticising him for killing somebody is NOT Democratic bias or whatever you're calling it.

And what makes your behaviour here doubly sickening is that you proclaim to respect sanctity of life, proclaim to be pro-life. Yet, here you're insulting Ranvsborg's victim and his family by literally refusing to acknowledge what happened, calling anger at Ravnsborg over what he did liberal double-standards and liberal bias, and hiding behind legalities and hiding from the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter, of killing this man, of depriving his children from the two-parent household you so fervently promote and of widowing his wife.

Ravnsborg KILLED somebody and YOU are the ultra-partisan who refuses to acknowledge or fault him for it because he agrees with you politically - and who then argues with people who acknowledge and fault Ravnsborg for committing vehicular manslaughter. I mean, seriously. Do you or do you not acknowledge that he is responsible for killing somebody? Do you really have no problem at all with that? Because, with the spirited defence of Ravnsborg's actions you're mounting, it most certainly seems that way.

Talk about excessive hyperbole.

Every fatal traffic accident isn't a criminal act.  It just isn't.  If you want to prove (not allege, but prove) that Ravnsborg got a sweet deal because of who he was in some way, that is one thing, but you havenb't provebn it.  

I doubt that Ravnsborg intended to kill that girl.  If he's civilly liable, that's fine, but a civil tort is different from a criminal act.  

He is guilty of vehicular manslaughter and somebody died because of his carelessness. Do you or do you not deny that? I’m sure he didn’t intend to kill anybody, but neither do most who commit vehicular manslaughter, and had he been more careful, his victim would be alive right now. None of this is “excessive hyperbole.” I’m not alleging Ravnsborg got any special treatment or favoritism. I am stating the fact that he is responsible of somebody’s death, that somebody’s death was caused by his carelessness and irresponsibility. The fact that you STILL refusing to acknowledge those facts, calling them “excessive hyperbole,” and hiding behind straw men show without question who the hyperpartisan here is - you, somebody who’s willing to let vehicular manslaughter slide (despite allegedly being pro-life) if the perpetrator happens to be someone who you agree with politically, and who then calls any attempt to criticize said perpetrator for his actions liberal bias. In any case, you didn’t answer a single one of the questions I asked you earlier, so I’ll ask another and hope you answer (and honestly): Would you have mounted this spirited a defense if it was not Jason Ravnsborg, but say, Keith Ellison or Rob Bonta (both Democratic state attorney generals), who had done this?

To the latter, I would say and emphatic yes.  Keith Ellison is someone I would never vote for, but he is not deserving of being labeled something he's not, and if he were in Ravnsborg's situation, I would say the same things I am saying about Ravnsborg now.  And the same goes for Rob Bonta, Tish James, and Dana Nessel; Democratic HP AGs everyone.  They deserve defeat at the polls, but they don't deserve to be labeled as felons and treated as felons when they have not been charged with felonies (let alone convicted of felonies).

Do you think he was unjustly impeached

Not particularly.   Impeachment is a POLITICAL process,  not a legal one.
Logged
Schiff for Senate
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,106
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2022, 06:11:58 PM »

The one who didn’t commit vehicular manslaughter (at least, to our knowledge…) and the part-Indian-American one gets my vote, and wins.

Ravensborg.

I don't vote for people who consider me an HP.  

Ravensborg's situation is being misrepresented here, btw, and in a way that wouldn't be so if he were a Democrat.  He has not been charged with vehicular manslaughter.  From Wikipedia:

Quote
On February 17, 2021, Ravnsborg was charged with three misdemeanors: operating his vehicle while using his cell phone, driving outside his lane, and careless driving.[144] Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.[144] Prosecutors chose not to charge Ravnsborg with vehicular homicide or second-degree manslaughter, and South Dakota has no negligent homicide law.[145] On March 12, 2021, court officials moved the trial proceedings from Hyde County to Hughes County and Ravnsborg pleaded not guilty to all charges.[146] A trial date was set for August 2021.[147]

In July 2021, Ravnsborg's legal team filed a motion seeking release of Boever's psychiatric and psychological records, intending to learn whether he was treated for "suicidal ideation" that might have led him to cause the collision.[148] Boever's cousin disputed the idea that Boever would have committed suicide by allowing himself to be struck by a car.[148] Judge John Brown granted the motion and allowed for in camera review of Boever's mental health records.[149] The proceedings were subsequently moved to Stanley County for Brown's convenience.[150]

On August 26, 2021, as part of a plea deal, Ravnsborg pleaded no contest to making an illegal lane change and using a phone while driving. Prosecutors dropped the careless driving charge. Ravnsborg avoided jail time but was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay court costs. The victim's family was angered by the sentence, considering it too lenient, and was also upset that Ravnsborg was not required to attend the plea and sentencing hearing.[151]

First two lines: Charming that you’d support someone who committed vehicular manslaughter just because the other person doesn’t like you. What’s a little vehicular manslaughter compared to disliking you, right?

To the rest of the post - just  shut up. He committed vehicular manslaughter and we all know it, and his being Republican or Democratic has nothing to do with it. The GOP-dominated legislature impeached him and the far right GOP governor supported his leaving office. He committed vehicular manslaughter whether or not he was charged as such, and there no getting around that or saying that stating established and obvious facts is “misrepresenting” the truth. Sickening that someone purportedly pro-life doesn’t mind vehicular manslaughter and tries to talk around  it if the perpetrator is from the same party as them.

I won't shut up, especially not at the command of someone who doesn't work for a living (let alone function as my boss).

If the Rule of Law means anything, it ought to mean that people are not treated like felons when they are not convicted of felonies.   If you don't like Ravensborg, don't vote for him.  But if you cause him to suffer loss because you said he was "committed vehicular manslaughter" I won't cry for you when you lose your lawsuit and have to pay.  Ravensborg is noit a felon; he's a misdemeanant and ought to be officially treated as such.

Regarding the first paragraph: You're right and I apologise. I will also strike those words from my post. I should have held my tongue, given that you are a senior (IIRC) and seniors deserve to be treated with respect and not rudeness (especially not by kids), and considered doing so, but it's just that I found the content of your post especially frustrating. Now regarding that...

Regarding the rest of the post: He committed vehicular manslaughter. He drove rashly, and somebody died as a result of it.

My problem is that you don't seem to have a problem with that and are hiding behind legal technicalities or whatever. The Republican-dominated SD legislature impeached and removed him from office because he committed vehicular manslaughter. It shouldn't be much of an ask for you to say, all legalities aside, that vehicular manslaughter is BAD and that Ravnsborg is a massive HP for committing it. Partisanship and political affiliation have nothing to do with it.

My disgust also stems from the fact that you proclaim to be 'pro-life', yet have no regard for the loss of life caused by Ravnsborg's actions (which he should be held accountable for). You haven't even acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter (whether or not he's been charged as such is a different matter - the point is, he hit and killed somebody with his vehicle out of his own carelessness), and that that is bad. All you've done is come up with a stupid defence: 'This is liberal bias because Ravnsborg's not been legally charged with vehicular manslaughter.'

What I know is this: he committed vehicular manslaughter and Republicans and Democrats alike have decried him for it (again - it was the Republican-supermajority SD legislature that removed him from office). Yet, you have not criticised him for this or decried that action...I suspect because he is a Republican. I know that if the situation was reversed and a Democrat had committed vehicular manslaughter, 99% of the people angry with Ravnsborg on this site would be angry with that Democrat, too. And so would you. You wouldn't bother with legal technicalities or try to skirt around the fact that the person in question committed vehicular manslaughter.

In this case, simply because he's a Republican, you have the nerve to say that criticism of him is a liberal double-standard, and you've hidden behind legal technicalities and ignored the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

SDoes the fact that Ravnsborg committed vehicular manslaughter mean nothing to you? Or does partisanship - and Ravnsborg's being a fellow right-wing Republican - win the day for you? Because you've not admitted or acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter, nor have you criticised him for it. THAT'S extreme Republican partisanship. Democrats (and Republicans) criticising him for killing somebody is NOT Democratic bias or whatever you're calling it.

And what makes your behaviour here doubly sickening is that you proclaim to respect sanctity of life, proclaim to be pro-life. Yet, here you're insulting Ranvsborg's victim and his family by literally refusing to acknowledge what happened, calling anger at Ravnsborg over what he did liberal double-standards and liberal bias, and hiding behind legalities and hiding from the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter, of killing this man, of depriving his children from the two-parent household you so fervently promote and of widowing his wife.

Ravnsborg KILLED somebody and YOU are the ultra-partisan who refuses to acknowledge or fault him for it because he agrees with you politically - and who then argues with people who acknowledge and fault Ravnsborg for committing vehicular manslaughter. I mean, seriously. Do you or do you not acknowledge that he is responsible for killing somebody? Do you really have no problem at all with that? Because, with the spirited defence of Ravnsborg's actions you're mounting, it most certainly seems that way.

Talk about excessive hyperbole.

Every fatal traffic accident isn't a criminal act.  It just isn't.  If you want to prove (not allege, but prove) that Ravnsborg got a sweet deal because of who he was in some way, that is one thing, but you havenb't provebn it.  

I doubt that Ravnsborg intended to kill that girl.  If he's civilly liable, that's fine, but a civil tort is different from a criminal act.  

He is guilty of vehicular manslaughter and somebody died because of his carelessness. Do you or do you not deny that? I’m sure he didn’t intend to kill anybody, but neither do most who commit vehicular manslaughter, and had he been more careful, his victim would be alive right now. None of this is “excessive hyperbole.” I’m not alleging Ravnsborg got any special treatment or favoritism. I am stating the fact that he is responsible of somebody’s death, that somebody’s death was caused by his carelessness and irresponsibility. The fact that you STILL refusing to acknowledge those facts, calling them “excessive hyperbole,” and hiding behind straw men show without question who the hyperpartisan here is - you, somebody who’s willing to let vehicular manslaughter slide (despite allegedly being pro-life) if the perpetrator happens to be someone who you agree with politically, and who then calls any attempt to criticize said perpetrator for his actions liberal bias. In any case, you didn’t answer a single one of the questions I asked you earlier, so I’ll ask another and hope you answer (and honestly): Would you have mounted this spirited a defense if it was not Jason Ravnsborg, but say, Keith Ellison or Rob Bonta (both Democratic state attorney generals), who had done this?

To the latter, I would say and emphatic yes.  Keith Ellison is someone I would never vote for, but he is not deserving of being labeled something he's not, and if he were in Ravnsborg's situation, I would say the same things I am saying about Ravnsborg now.  And the same goes for Rob Bonta, Tish James, and Dana Nessel; Democratic HP AGs everyone.  They deserve defeat at the polls, but they don't deserve to be labeled as felons and treated as felons when they have not been charged with felonies (let alone convicted of felonies).

Do you think he was unjustly impeached

Not particularly.   Impeachment is a POLITICAL process,  not a legal one.

And do you acknowledge that he did commit vehicular manslaughter (manslaughter meaning that he didn't have the intent to kill anybody, but that that's what ultimately happened), and that his carelessness resulted in the loss of human life? And that that's a bad thing?
Logged
Fuzzy Won't Cover Up Biden's Senility
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,428
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2022, 09:01:18 PM »

The one who didn’t commit vehicular manslaughter (at least, to our knowledge…) and the part-Indian-American one gets my vote, and wins.

Ravensborg.

I don't vote for people who consider me an HP.  

Ravensborg's situation is being misrepresented here, btw, and in a way that wouldn't be so if he were a Democrat.  He has not been charged with vehicular manslaughter.  From Wikipedia:

Quote
On February 17, 2021, Ravnsborg was charged with three misdemeanors: operating his vehicle while using his cell phone, driving outside his lane, and careless driving.[144] Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.[144] Prosecutors chose not to charge Ravnsborg with vehicular homicide or second-degree manslaughter, and South Dakota has no negligent homicide law.[145] On March 12, 2021, court officials moved the trial proceedings from Hyde County to Hughes County and Ravnsborg pleaded not guilty to all charges.[146] A trial date was set for August 2021.[147]

In July 2021, Ravnsborg's legal team filed a motion seeking release of Boever's psychiatric and psychological records, intending to learn whether he was treated for "suicidal ideation" that might have led him to cause the collision.[148] Boever's cousin disputed the idea that Boever would have committed suicide by allowing himself to be struck by a car.[148] Judge John Brown granted the motion and allowed for in camera review of Boever's mental health records.[149] The proceedings were subsequently moved to Stanley County for Brown's convenience.[150]

On August 26, 2021, as part of a plea deal, Ravnsborg pleaded no contest to making an illegal lane change and using a phone while driving. Prosecutors dropped the careless driving charge. Ravnsborg avoided jail time but was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay court costs. The victim's family was angered by the sentence, considering it too lenient, and was also upset that Ravnsborg was not required to attend the plea and sentencing hearing.[151]

First two lines: Charming that you’d support someone who committed vehicular manslaughter just because the other person doesn’t like you. What’s a little vehicular manslaughter compared to disliking you, right?

To the rest of the post - just  shut up. He committed vehicular manslaughter and we all know it, and his being Republican or Democratic has nothing to do with it. The GOP-dominated legislature impeached him and the far right GOP governor supported his leaving office. He committed vehicular manslaughter whether or not he was charged as such, and there no getting around that or saying that stating established and obvious facts is “misrepresenting” the truth. Sickening that someone purportedly pro-life doesn’t mind vehicular manslaughter and tries to talk around  it if the perpetrator is from the same party as them.

I won't shut up, especially not at the command of someone who doesn't work for a living (let alone function as my boss).

If the Rule of Law means anything, it ought to mean that people are not treated like felons when they are not convicted of felonies.   If you don't like Ravensborg, don't vote for him.  But if you cause him to suffer loss because you said he was "committed vehicular manslaughter" I won't cry for you when you lose your lawsuit and have to pay.  Ravensborg is noit a felon; he's a misdemeanant and ought to be officially treated as such.

Regarding the first paragraph: You're right and I apologise. I will also strike those words from my post. I should have held my tongue, given that you are a senior (IIRC) and seniors deserve to be treated with respect and not rudeness (especially not by kids), and considered doing so, but it's just that I found the content of your post especially frustrating. Now regarding that...

Regarding the rest of the post: He committed vehicular manslaughter. He drove rashly, and somebody died as a result of it.

My problem is that you don't seem to have a problem with that and are hiding behind legal technicalities or whatever. The Republican-dominated SD legislature impeached and removed him from office because he committed vehicular manslaughter. It shouldn't be much of an ask for you to say, all legalities aside, that vehicular manslaughter is BAD and that Ravnsborg is a massive HP for committing it. Partisanship and political affiliation have nothing to do with it.

My disgust also stems from the fact that you proclaim to be 'pro-life', yet have no regard for the loss of life caused by Ravnsborg's actions (which he should be held accountable for). You haven't even acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter (whether or not he's been charged as such is a different matter - the point is, he hit and killed somebody with his vehicle out of his own carelessness), and that that is bad. All you've done is come up with a stupid defence: 'This is liberal bias because Ravnsborg's not been legally charged with vehicular manslaughter.'

What I know is this: he committed vehicular manslaughter and Republicans and Democrats alike have decried him for it (again - it was the Republican-supermajority SD legislature that removed him from office). Yet, you have not criticised him for this or decried that action...I suspect because he is a Republican. I know that if the situation was reversed and a Democrat had committed vehicular manslaughter, 99% of the people angry with Ravnsborg on this site would be angry with that Democrat, too. And so would you. You wouldn't bother with legal technicalities or try to skirt around the fact that the person in question committed vehicular manslaughter.

In this case, simply because he's a Republican, you have the nerve to say that criticism of him is a liberal double-standard, and you've hidden behind legal technicalities and ignored the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

SDoes the fact that Ravnsborg committed vehicular manslaughter mean nothing to you? Or does partisanship - and Ravnsborg's being a fellow right-wing Republican - win the day for you? Because you've not admitted or acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter, nor have you criticised him for it. THAT'S extreme Republican partisanship. Democrats (and Republicans) criticising him for killing somebody is NOT Democratic bias or whatever you're calling it.

And what makes your behaviour here doubly sickening is that you proclaim to respect sanctity of life, proclaim to be pro-life. Yet, here you're insulting Ranvsborg's victim and his family by literally refusing to acknowledge what happened, calling anger at Ravnsborg over what he did liberal double-standards and liberal bias, and hiding behind legalities and hiding from the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter, of killing this man, of depriving his children from the two-parent household you so fervently promote and of widowing his wife.

Ravnsborg KILLED somebody and YOU are the ultra-partisan who refuses to acknowledge or fault him for it because he agrees with you politically - and who then argues with people who acknowledge and fault Ravnsborg for committing vehicular manslaughter. I mean, seriously. Do you or do you not acknowledge that he is responsible for killing somebody? Do you really have no problem at all with that? Because, with the spirited defence of Ravnsborg's actions you're mounting, it most certainly seems that way.

Talk about excessive hyperbole.

Every fatal traffic accident isn't a criminal act.  It just isn't.  If you want to prove (not allege, but prove) that Ravnsborg got a sweet deal because of who he was in some way, that is one thing, but you havenb't provebn it.  

I doubt that Ravnsborg intended to kill that girl.  If he's civilly liable, that's fine, but a civil tort is different from a criminal act.  

He is guilty of vehicular manslaughter and somebody died because of his carelessness. Do you or do you not deny that? I’m sure he didn’t intend to kill anybody, but neither do most who commit vehicular manslaughter, and had he been more careful, his victim would be alive right now. None of this is “excessive hyperbole.” I’m not alleging Ravnsborg got any special treatment or favoritism. I am stating the fact that he is responsible of somebody’s death, that somebody’s death was caused by his carelessness and irresponsibility. The fact that you STILL refusing to acknowledge those facts, calling them “excessive hyperbole,” and hiding behind straw men show without question who the hyperpartisan here is - you, somebody who’s willing to let vehicular manslaughter slide (despite allegedly being pro-life) if the perpetrator happens to be someone who you agree with politically, and who then calls any attempt to criticize said perpetrator for his actions liberal bias. In any case, you didn’t answer a single one of the questions I asked you earlier, so I’ll ask another and hope you answer (and honestly): Would you have mounted this spirited a defense if it was not Jason Ravnsborg, but say, Keith Ellison or Rob Bonta (both Democratic state attorney generals), who had done this?

To the latter, I would say and emphatic yes.  Keith Ellison is someone I would never vote for, but he is not deserving of being labeled something he's not, and if he were in Ravnsborg's situation, I would say the same things I am saying about Ravnsborg now.  And the same goes for Rob Bonta, Tish James, and Dana Nessel; Democratic HP AGs everyone.  They deserve defeat at the polls, but they don't deserve to be labeled as felons and treated as felons when they have not been charged with felonies (let alone convicted of felonies).

Do you think he was unjustly impeached

Not particularly.   Impeachment is a POLITICAL process,  not a legal one.

And do you acknowledge that he did commit vehicular manslaughter (manslaughter meaning that he didn't have the intent to kill anybody, but that that's what ultimately happened), and that his carelessness resulted in the loss of human life? And that that's a bad thing?

There are people who are at fault for accidents where people die that are nowhere near guilty of "manslaughter".

People should not be labeled felons when they're not.  That's basic fairness. 
Logged
Schiff for Senate
CentristRepublican
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,106
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2022, 03:31:26 PM »

The one who didn’t commit vehicular manslaughter (at least, to our knowledge…) and the part-Indian-American one gets my vote, and wins.

Ravensborg.

I don't vote for people who consider me an HP.  

Ravensborg's situation is being misrepresented here, btw, and in a way that wouldn't be so if he were a Democrat.  He has not been charged with vehicular manslaughter.  From Wikipedia:

Quote
On February 17, 2021, Ravnsborg was charged with three misdemeanors: operating his vehicle while using his cell phone, driving outside his lane, and careless driving.[144] Each charge carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.[144] Prosecutors chose not to charge Ravnsborg with vehicular homicide or second-degree manslaughter, and South Dakota has no negligent homicide law.[145] On March 12, 2021, court officials moved the trial proceedings from Hyde County to Hughes County and Ravnsborg pleaded not guilty to all charges.[146] A trial date was set for August 2021.[147]

In July 2021, Ravnsborg's legal team filed a motion seeking release of Boever's psychiatric and psychological records, intending to learn whether he was treated for "suicidal ideation" that might have led him to cause the collision.[148] Boever's cousin disputed the idea that Boever would have committed suicide by allowing himself to be struck by a car.[148] Judge John Brown granted the motion and allowed for in camera review of Boever's mental health records.[149] The proceedings were subsequently moved to Stanley County for Brown's convenience.[150]

On August 26, 2021, as part of a plea deal, Ravnsborg pleaded no contest to making an illegal lane change and using a phone while driving. Prosecutors dropped the careless driving charge. Ravnsborg avoided jail time but was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay court costs. The victim's family was angered by the sentence, considering it too lenient, and was also upset that Ravnsborg was not required to attend the plea and sentencing hearing.[151]

First two lines: Charming that you’d support someone who committed vehicular manslaughter just because the other person doesn’t like you. What’s a little vehicular manslaughter compared to disliking you, right?

To the rest of the post - just  shut up. He committed vehicular manslaughter and we all know it, and his being Republican or Democratic has nothing to do with it. The GOP-dominated legislature impeached him and the far right GOP governor supported his leaving office. He committed vehicular manslaughter whether or not he was charged as such, and there no getting around that or saying that stating established and obvious facts is “misrepresenting” the truth. Sickening that someone purportedly pro-life doesn’t mind vehicular manslaughter and tries to talk around  it if the perpetrator is from the same party as them.

I won't shut up, especially not at the command of someone who doesn't work for a living (let alone function as my boss).

If the Rule of Law means anything, it ought to mean that people are not treated like felons when they are not convicted of felonies.   If you don't like Ravensborg, don't vote for him.  But if you cause him to suffer loss because you said he was "committed vehicular manslaughter" I won't cry for you when you lose your lawsuit and have to pay.  Ravensborg is noit a felon; he's a misdemeanant and ought to be officially treated as such.

Regarding the first paragraph: You're right and I apologise. I will also strike those words from my post. I should have held my tongue, given that you are a senior (IIRC) and seniors deserve to be treated with respect and not rudeness (especially not by kids), and considered doing so, but it's just that I found the content of your post especially frustrating. Now regarding that...

Regarding the rest of the post: He committed vehicular manslaughter. He drove rashly, and somebody died as a result of it.

My problem is that you don't seem to have a problem with that and are hiding behind legal technicalities or whatever. The Republican-dominated SD legislature impeached and removed him from office because he committed vehicular manslaughter. It shouldn't be much of an ask for you to say, all legalities aside, that vehicular manslaughter is BAD and that Ravnsborg is a massive HP for committing it. Partisanship and political affiliation have nothing to do with it.

My disgust also stems from the fact that you proclaim to be 'pro-life', yet have no regard for the loss of life caused by Ravnsborg's actions (which he should be held accountable for). You haven't even acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter (whether or not he's been charged as such is a different matter - the point is, he hit and killed somebody with his vehicle out of his own carelessness), and that that is bad. All you've done is come up with a stupid defence: 'This is liberal bias because Ravnsborg's not been legally charged with vehicular manslaughter.'

What I know is this: he committed vehicular manslaughter and Republicans and Democrats alike have decried him for it (again - it was the Republican-supermajority SD legislature that removed him from office). Yet, you have not criticised him for this or decried that action...I suspect because he is a Republican. I know that if the situation was reversed and a Democrat had committed vehicular manslaughter, 99% of the people angry with Ravnsborg on this site would be angry with that Democrat, too. And so would you. You wouldn't bother with legal technicalities or try to skirt around the fact that the person in question committed vehicular manslaughter.

In this case, simply because he's a Republican, you have the nerve to say that criticism of him is a liberal double-standard, and you've hidden behind legal technicalities and ignored the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter.

SDoes the fact that Ravnsborg committed vehicular manslaughter mean nothing to you? Or does partisanship - and Ravnsborg's being a fellow right-wing Republican - win the day for you? Because you've not admitted or acknowledged that he did in fact commit vehicular manslaughter, nor have you criticised him for it. THAT'S extreme Republican partisanship. Democrats (and Republicans) criticising him for killing somebody is NOT Democratic bias or whatever you're calling it.

And what makes your behaviour here doubly sickening is that you proclaim to respect sanctity of life, proclaim to be pro-life. Yet, here you're insulting Ranvsborg's victim and his family by literally refusing to acknowledge what happened, calling anger at Ravnsborg over what he did liberal double-standards and liberal bias, and hiding behind legalities and hiding from the fact that Ravnsborg is guilty of vehicular manslaughter, of killing this man, of depriving his children from the two-parent household you so fervently promote and of widowing his wife.

Ravnsborg KILLED somebody and YOU are the ultra-partisan who refuses to acknowledge or fault him for it because he agrees with you politically - and who then argues with people who acknowledge and fault Ravnsborg for committing vehicular manslaughter. I mean, seriously. Do you or do you not acknowledge that he is responsible for killing somebody? Do you really have no problem at all with that? Because, with the spirited defence of Ravnsborg's actions you're mounting, it most certainly seems that way.

Talk about excessive hyperbole.

Every fatal traffic accident isn't a criminal act.  It just isn't.  If you want to prove (not allege, but prove) that Ravnsborg got a sweet deal because of who he was in some way, that is one thing, but you havenb't provebn it.  

I doubt that Ravnsborg intended to kill that girl.  If he's civilly liable, that's fine, but a civil tort is different from a criminal act.  

He is guilty of vehicular manslaughter and somebody died because of his carelessness. Do you or do you not deny that? I’m sure he didn’t intend to kill anybody, but neither do most who commit vehicular manslaughter, and had he been more careful, his victim would be alive right now. None of this is “excessive hyperbole.” I’m not alleging Ravnsborg got any special treatment or favoritism. I am stating the fact that he is responsible of somebody’s death, that somebody’s death was caused by his carelessness and irresponsibility. The fact that you STILL refusing to acknowledge those facts, calling them “excessive hyperbole,” and hiding behind straw men show without question who the hyperpartisan here is - you, somebody who’s willing to let vehicular manslaughter slide (despite allegedly being pro-life) if the perpetrator happens to be someone who you agree with politically, and who then calls any attempt to criticize said perpetrator for his actions liberal bias. In any case, you didn’t answer a single one of the questions I asked you earlier, so I’ll ask another and hope you answer (and honestly): Would you have mounted this spirited a defense if it was not Jason Ravnsborg, but say, Keith Ellison or Rob Bonta (both Democratic state attorney generals), who had done this?

To the latter, I would say and emphatic yes.  Keith Ellison is someone I would never vote for, but he is not deserving of being labeled something he's not, and if he were in Ravnsborg's situation, I would say the same things I am saying about Ravnsborg now.  And the same goes for Rob Bonta, Tish James, and Dana Nessel; Democratic HP AGs everyone.  They deserve defeat at the polls, but they don't deserve to be labeled as felons and treated as felons when they have not been charged with felonies (let alone convicted of felonies).

Do you think he was unjustly impeached

Not particularly.   Impeachment is a POLITICAL process,  not a legal one.

And do you acknowledge that he did commit vehicular manslaughter (manslaughter meaning that he didn't have the intent to kill anybody, but that that's what ultimately happened), and that his carelessness resulted in the loss of human life? And that that's a bad thing?

There are people who are at fault for accidents where people die that are nowhere near guilty of "manslaughter".

People should not be labeled felons when they're not.  That's basic fairness. 

Manslaughter aside, Ravnsborg's carelessness and irresponsibility resulted in the death of somebody, in the loss of human life. Does that not mean anything to you? Had he not driven rashly and focused on the road instead of on his phone, his victim would be alive right now, not six feet under. That really should have some value with someone purportedly 'pro-life,' and the fact that partisanship trumps that to you is what makes me think of you as the fiery hyperpartisan.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.311 seconds with 15 queries.