Alternative headline: Trump finally tells the truth about something.

    • Boddhisatva@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      89
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Trump was talking about this country dumping all their criminals in the USA. He said:

      “He liked to say he did something with a social experiment. A criminal is a criminal as they generally say a criminal and we don’t have time to figure it out, but we’re not going to take criminals and we’re going to get rid of the criminals that we’ve been given by all these countries from all over the world.”

      Now if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt and interpret that “criminal is a criminal” line as something he is quoting from someone else, you go right ahead. I do not give him the benefit of the doubt though. Even if he is quoting someone else, he is not disputing the point. He appears to be accepting it as fact and his response is that he’s going to get rid of those criminals.

      /Apologies for deleting and then un-deleting, I hit enter too soon while transcribing and wanted to avoid confusion.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        5 months ago

        Trump / Vance 2024: A criminal is a criminal as they generally say a criminal

        It’s kind of Gilbert and Sullivan-esque. G&S would have a field day with trump.

      • aidan@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Yeah that’s fair, I’m not giving him the benefit of the doubt so much as just how I heard it(based on his voice, he wasn’t talking normally- instead he sounded like he was quoting), but there’s definitely two possible ways to interpret it.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Even if he is quoting someone… he’s quoting them for the justification of getting rid of them.

          He clearly agrees with the statement.

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Lol, context doesn’t help him at all. It sounds like he’s referring to the USA based on the words immediately around the statement.

      So this is just another one of demented don’s stupid slips of his tangled tongue.

    • worldwidewave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s the thing about living in your own reality, you’ve got no awareness of when your reality intersects with the real world.

      They’ll probably play this on Fox News, and not a soul will see the irony.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Trump could literally go up there and say “oogity boogity, shoo shoo macgoo wiggity wam wam” and his supporters would cheer like crazy. They’re brainwashed.

    • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      5 months ago

      I sure hope she doesn’t approve that message. I think with enough supports (food, housing, education, etc.), most people who commit crimes would stop. That, of course, is not enough for assholes like Trump. He’s racking them up like he’s going for the record.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        5 months ago

        In Norway, the recidivism rate, (percentage of people that end up back in prison for something else after being released) is around 20%. Here in the US its closer to 80%.

        So there are definitely different ways to approach the problem.

        • Boddhisatva@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          5 months ago

          Indeed! In the USA, the prison system is brutal and focused on punishment. There’s little chance of someone coming out of prison in the USA as a better, kinder, gentler person than they were when they went it. Hell, many prisons make it hard to get books even if a prisoner does want to better themselves.

          Meanwhile, Norway’s recidivism rate in the 90s was nearly as bad as the USA’s. They reformed their system though. They replaced large prisons with smaller community-based correctional facilities so convicts could be close to their homes and maintain relationships. Many allow visits, including conjugal visits, up to three times per week. As you mentioned, the recidivism rate after 2 years is only 20%, which is the lowest in the world, and rises to only 25% after 5 years. They treat prisoners like people and allow them to stay a part, to some extent, of their community.

          In a recent interview, Norwegian prison governor Are Hoidal talked about how prisoners are punished in the country. “In Norway, the punishment is to take away someone’s liberty,” he said. “The other rights stay.”

          Norwegian prisoners have the right to vote, attend school, learn new skills, exercise, see their families, and even participate in extracurricular activities. In fact, in many prisons, the security officers participate in activities like fitness and yoga right alongside the prisoners.

          This is all very deliberate, as Norway’s philosophy seeks to treat prisoners as human beings even as they are incarcerated. This approach is believed to make reentry into society easier. People still feel as valued as other citizens, and they leave prison with skills, confidence, and self-respect so they can become contributing members of society.

          If you want people to be good and valued members of society, you need to treat them like people and allow themselves to improve themselves while incarcerated. If however, you want a person to act like an animal, then treat them like an animal. The USA’s punishment focused model treats prisoners like animals where a prisoner’s only focus is sometimes just to survive. Naturally, those learned behaviors become ingrained and they behave like that when they get out of prison too.

          • Carrolade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Thank you for adding the context to my 20% figure. I remembered running into it, but did not know it was the two year rate, and an improper comparison.

            For proper comparison, the US 2 year recidivism rate is 35%. (and that 80% figure I cited is a 10 year rate)

            • Boddhisatva@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Thank you. I actually didn’t realize that the 80% rate for the USA was a 10 year rate. 20% vs. 35% over two years is clearly still impressive, but now I want to see what the Norwegian rate is at 10 years for a proper comparison but I can’t seem to quickly find it.

        • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Norways priority is rehibilitation, they understand that crime and the justice system are complex and some people just need help. I would argue that their system is successful at its goals.

          The US decided a long time ago that punishment was the main priority, so much so that there is a carve out for it in the 13th ammendment. The US criminal justice system is a complete inhumane failure.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            The US prison industrial complex is a complete success and working as intended, from the slaveholder capitalist perspective.

        • VicVinegar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          I fully agree with this statement. You are correct. That said, I am starting to believe that maybe it’s something to do with culture overall. It’s hard to explain, but as an American I feel we tend to focus heavily on reward, as opposed to risk versus reward. That blind spot is what I think makes us too stupid to get it right. Like, we think about risk but we’re so constantly enticed by excess (reward) that the risk doesn’t register the way reward does. Poverty is a factor (there are dozens of factors) but if we’re poor, the reward is stability. If we’re middle class, the reward is wealth. If we’re wealthy, the reward is status. No matter what there’s another reward. We tend to view crimes committed by the poor as more scummy or punishable because the reward isn’t generally that great, and it hurts another person directly. To that person who has nothing, $1000 would be seen as life changing. To a person who makes 70-80k, $1000 is not worth the charges. Where a crime committed by a wealthy business owner for hundreds of thousands or millions is seen as just a man being competitive and aggressive (to achieve what we all really want deep down), so is met with a slap on the wrist. It’s a lot to talk about. Too much for an internet comment. Our system is trash for sure, but I just can’t shake the feeling that it’s a bigger issue that needs addressing.

      • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        As a DA, her record shows a focus on keeping non-violent criminals out of jail, and violent criminals in it.

        She started the back on track program as well.

        So her position, I think, is pretty clear. I don’t agree with the drug crime approach, but in general I approve of her approach as a DA/AG.

        That said - I do thoroughly hope she takes that clip, notes that she has zero criminal convictions, and a (hopefully running) tally of Trump’s convictions, and then signs off with “I am Kamala Harris and I approve this message”.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Honestly, the clip of him saying “they’re gonna say ‘im a prosecutor and he’s a felon’” and then her endorsing that message is so much more direct and unnuanced. Doesn’t need to be cut or contextualized. The entire 10 second clip is the whole thing.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              True.

              The worry with letting your opponent make your case for you is that it means you need to give your opponent screentime.
              The more you need to rely of the person being spoken to to think about what your opponent is saying as opposed to just listening, the more you risk the viewer agreeing with what you’re showing them as opposed to parsing it as hypocrisy.

              If someone isn’t looking, and they just hear trump yelling about how criminals are criminals and they never change, they don’t get to see the contextualization that he has dozens of felony convictions and Harris has precisely zero.

              It’s why trump talking about her credentials as a prosecutor and him being a felon, in a dumb voice to boot, is such a perfect setup: there’s no way to misinterpret it.

              So while more clips are definitely feasible, a clip making trump sound tough on crime might not be ideal for the sound bite circuit.

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    5 months ago

    every time i say there’s no fucking way anyone will ever do something dumber than that, he proves me wrong the next day

  • Glitterbomb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    5 months ago

    Nice, does this mean the people given 10 month sentences for Jan 6th are going back to jail for life? Thats what he means, right?