dwayneshintzy wrote: » Are you sure you know anything about San Francisco, at all? Apart from the fact that it's a city with a (slight) growth rate, nobody is leaving because of crime. If people are leaving SF, it's almost always because of the high cost of living and ridiculous rents.
LessOutragePlz wrote: » Well he certainly didn't know that they were crooks before he hired them otherwise he wouldn't have hired them.
[Deleted User] wrote: » As already pointed out, the fact they had pre-existing conditions does not mean they would be dead even if we didn't have covid. Excess deaths are over two hundred thousand, care to explain that one? Pretty shameful that you're choosing to misrepresent the CDC and ignore the hundreds of thousands who have died that would still be alive today.
da_miser wrote: » Who is in charge of SF? Could the city be run by Dems? Could it be the Dems who legalised shop lifting? Could it be the city is going to rack and ruin under Dem control?
da_miser wrote: » Who is in charge of SF? Could the city be run by Dems?Could it be the Dems who legalised shop lifting?Could it be the city is going to rack and ruin under Dem control?
ohnonotgmail wrote: »
WrenBoy wrote: » Does this purile messaging actually work you reckon ?
namloc1980 wrote: » Sure you did. :pac:
da_miser wrote: » I have no reason to lie, Trump will win again and will make me money this November. Its as good as a sure thing at this stage.
1800_Ladladlad wrote: » Simpletons seem to think it does.
namloc1980 wrote: » Lies again. Can you show us exactly where "the Dems legalised shop lifting"? Exactly show us that.
da_miser wrote: » The Dems brought in a law if the value is less than $950 you wont be arrested, as you can imagine chaos
Prop 47, which California voters approved in 2014, reclassified some minor crimes as misdemeanors instead of felonies, with the intent of reducing what was at the time a severely overcrowded prison population. The aim was also to reduce the number of people serving long sentences and ending up with felony-conviction records for petty crimes. Prop 47 increased the felony threshold for certain types of theft from $450 to $950 — meaning the simple theft of property valued below $950 is a misdemeanor. It also reduced simple drug possession (possession of drugs without the intent to sell) to a misdemeanor. The claim that Prop 47 is to blame for the incident depicted in the video is representative of misinformation that has been circulating about the law for years, said George Gascón, the former district attorney of San Francisco who is now running for the same position in Los Angeles County and who co-authored Prop 47. Although the threshold for misdemeanor-versus-felony theft prior to Prop 47 was $450, it’s unclear whether the new law makes any potential difference in the San Francisco case. In the video, the thieves are seen stuffing drugstore-brand cosmetics into bags. It’s unknown how much the items were worth — SFPD would not give us an estimate. “Prop 47 doesn’t cover robberies, theft by the use of force or fear. It doesn’t cover burglaries,” Gascón said. “If you break into a structure with the intent to commit theft or another felony, that continues to be a felony. If someone breaks into your car to steal even a pack of cigarettes, that’s still a felony. Even the crimes that are covered by Prop 47, they were not decriminalized. We moved them from a felony to a misdemeanor. [Perpetrators] can still go to county jail” if they are convicted.
dwayneshintzy wrote: » Prop 47 didn't legalize shoplifting. Prop 47 was also a Californian-wide ballot initiative. There are huge problems in SF. Most of them are to due with wealth, with high income earners driving everyone else out. Have you lived in San Francisco?
dwayneshintzy wrote: » And "The Dems" didn't bring in anything, it was a ballot measure voted on directly by the people of California.
namloc1980 wrote: » So they didn't legalize shoplifting so as you claimed?
Penn wrote: » https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/san-francisco-shoplifting-video/ No they didn't. Are you going to retract your claim?
namloc1980 wrote: » Yeah he's gone fully down the rabbit hole now. Ranting and raving over baseless conspiracy theories and making absolutely no sense. I think his handlers need to keep him off the TV and possibly away from the debates at this stage. I mean if he goes this far off-piste in a friendly interview with Laura Ingraham doing her best to keep him on track and not sound completely nuts, imagine him in the debates. Planeful of thugs wearing dark uniforms flying into Washington apparently! Kind of sad really..
da_miser wrote: » The Dems brought in a law if the value is less than $950 you wont be arrested, nowthat sounds like legalised shoplifting to me. Sure why not go downtown and rob, if you get caught the police wont arrest you, just send you on your way, nothing to loose by shoplifting, thats what i would call legalised shoplifting, of course the Dem supporters wont see anything wrong with this, and this is precisely why Trump will win in November
da_miser wrote: » Snopes? really? The owner left his wife and ran off with a prostitute amongst other unsavoury things
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
