Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (150782)	1/22/2020 4:46:01 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361254

There's no compelling reason to disagree with your post. There's no compelling reason to disagree with your post, either. Except, of course, for this bit: I happen to think, however, he is exactly the type of personality our country needed at this moment in history because big changes were called for. It remains beyond my ken that anyone in his right mind could want to go Trump's way. Apparently California will no longer prosecute a theft unless the value of the stolen property exceeds $900. What do you think about the wisdom of that kind of change? It would reduce costs. On one hand you can make better use of scarce funds. On the other hand, you lose moral ground by tolerating deviance. It's also disdainful of the cohort for whom less than $900 can be a fortune. I would prefer finding a way to reduce costs of prosecution through some sort of JV justice system. We could also find ways to cut the costs of the varsity justice system. One wonders whether it needs all that overhead.