So this is summarized as “admitted … that he did it to make money.” It sounds like the policy was around before he was there, and he said that it was wrong and he’d end it. No?
What exactly is the full statement that he said, that’s being summarized as that he did it to make money?
I have not looked into this. I just want to vent a bit. If indeed this dude is corrupt, I wish I had a party to vote for that I didn’t have to compromise my morals. I want a society where corruption is low and every decision we make is to make the world better for all people.
I wish I had a party to vote for that I didn’t have to compromise my morals
Progress doesn’t work that way, though. You don’t hear Ukrainians say “I wish I had a peacetime so I didn’t have to fight; fighting is wrong” or Germans in 1932 saying “I wish I had a really good government so I didn’t have to compromise my morals and vote for the SPD” (oh wait…).
Or… I mean, they might wish it, but it’s not like it becomes a reason why all of a sudden the better outcome and the worse outcome become indistinguishable and we should let the worse one happen. One, this post is actually pretty dishonest and the guy’s actually by far one of the better sheriffs in the country and has actually made this specific reform already (see my longer post). But two, even if he hasn’t, that doesn’t mean that all of a sudden it’s okay to have the sheriff who wants to shoot all the Mexicans instead.
If you want change, vote for the Democrats in this election, so that Trump doesn’t make change illegal. Keep protesting for Gaza, keep trying to ditch FPTP, keep trying to push the Democrats to the left, absolutely. The sooner we can get a third party, the better; on that I definitely agree. Definitely you’re gonna be able to find some Democrats who are corrupt as fuck within the system. But I wouldn’t really use “this outcome isn’t what I want” as a reason not to try to figure out how to get the outcome you want, or to get discouraged away from participating in the system at all. That happened after 1968, and that’s how we got Reagan and the modern economic nightmare in the whole first place – was “I don’t want to compromise my morals and interact with the system and what’s the worst that could happen.”
So you have no idea what the full statement was, that they’re summarizing? I mean what I’m asking is, is this true, or spinning up some expansive bullshit from a little nugget of approximate truth combined with a heavy sprinkling of lies.
Also “American Fourth Reich Convention” is a little bit of a red flag 🙂
Kinda silly calling it that when the actual A4RC happened already and they called it the RNC. Both sides are garbage, but there’s only one fascist party. Democrats are absolute shit for always siding with and trying to appeal to conservatives, but this feels very similar to how tankies literally only ever have problems with and try to stop democrats when there’s very obviously a bigger threat in republicans
Explain how kamala will end elections and genocide everyone who isn’t a WASP
She, like all liberals, is a massive piece of shit. But comparing them to actual nazis just makes you look like an edgy 13 year old dumbass with very little at stake if trump wins. Republicans will always be fascists, and liberals will always work closely with them. That doesn’t mean you’re not stupid for saying they’re the same, because you very much are
In 2012, during a meeting with county officials and a Securus representative, Swanson said the system needed to be “a revenue generating machine.”
But in a recent interview with Holt, Swanson — who became the county’s sheriff in 2019 — said he now thinks that his past stance was wrong.
“The person I am today is not the same person I was in 2012, 2014,” Swanson told Holt.
He said George Floyd’s murder began to shift his outlook.
“It was a moment that was pivotal in my life not just as the sheriff, as Chris Swanson.”
In 2020, as people took to the streets across the nation, a video of Swanson went viral as he addressed the protesters. "I want to make this a parade, not a protest,” he told the crowd, and then marched with them.
Since then, said Swanson — who was elected to a full term as sheriff in 2020 and is running for re-election this fall — his perspective has focused more on helping people, instead of just jailing them.
He said the lawsuit has reinforced his new point of view. He said he has come to view the revenue from the video visits as money that comes not from the detainees, but “from their families. And so you’re penalizing people. And I see that now.”
Even though Genesee County lawyers are fighting to have the suit dismissed, Swanson told Holt that he is reintroducing in-person visits starting this summer, calling it “Operation Restoration.” The first Saturday of each month will be for children under 12, and by August a different Saturday will be for people 13 and older.
A judge will now decide whether the case against him and the county will move forward. Whatever the court decides, Swanson said, his mind is already made up.
“This initiative is about restoring families, breaking generational cycles of incarceration and poverty, and instilling hope,” he asserts. “We’re finally aligning with what’s right.”
“Right now, we’re just playing some basketball. I brought some smacks out of him to eat. Then we’re going to go back and color just have fun and enjoy time with kids,” said Blake Taylor, an inmate at the Genesee County Jail.
Taylor said that he usually gets to see his kids a few times a month, but thanks to Operation Restoration, he gets to spend an hour playing with his boys just like they would do at home.
“It’s wonderful. It’s really wonderful,” Taylor said. “We get more time to spend with our children. We’ve got guys that have been here multiple years that haven’t seen their children in a long time. It’s rare to get the opportunity for us to be with our children.”
Genesee County Sheriff Chris Swanson tells TV5 that the driving force behind this program is keeping families together.
“I understand family connection. I understand that if you can change the mindset and the culture of an individual then it changes their decision making,” Swanson said. “When I see dads on the floor playing Tic-Tac-Toe and putting puzzles together, and they’re clean; they’re dry; they’re safe; that really is the breakdown of this whole thing.”
TV5 talked to incarcerated parents who said that they’re simply grateful for more opportunities to see their kids with more in-person visits now guaranteed on the first Saturday of every month.
“It’s been wonderful,” said inmate Darequis Williams. “It made my day. At first I was locked in my cell, all depressed until I saw him. Brought a tear to my eye.”
I particularly like the artful construction of that he said he would end the ban, but his lawyers (i.e. the county’s lawyers, presumably) are arguing in court something different (maybe as part of the effort to get the suit dismissed). So they’re implying that he hasn’t actually ended the policy, but wording it in such a way that it’s clear they’re dodging around the fact that he has, now that (a) he’s the boss and is fully in charge of it (b) he’s changed his mind after having seen 10+ years of criminal justice system misconduct getting the spotlight.
So yeah TL;DR it’s some bullshit; they’re taking a good guy and trying to make him into a bad guy, so that you’ll let the actual bad guys come to power, and derail the effort to continue reforming the system and making it better. I sorta knew it but it was worth looking into the details a little bit.
Personally, I’d prefer if people voted in all available races, and not focus on one that has the smallest effect on their every day lives and has the least likelihood of effecting long term systemic change.
That’s why the original twitter post is so dishonest – the policies are not still in place. That was the whole point of my post. And they clearly know that, since they artfully constructed it (he said that he would end the ban, and yet blah blah something which isn’t “he hasn’t ended the ban” but sounds enough like it to fool the reader).
I actually kind of came here to say hey, this is actually pushing the Democrats to the left, fair play. But apparently Chris Swanson was sworn in in January 2021 and it looks like the deal and the money happened in 2018. Do I have that right?
So this is summarized as “admitted … that he did it to make money.” It sounds like the policy was around before he was there, and he said that it was wrong and he’d end it. No?
What exactly is the full statement that he said, that’s being summarized as that he did it to make money?
I have not looked into this. I just want to vent a bit. If indeed this dude is corrupt, I wish I had a party to vote for that I didn’t have to compromise my morals. I want a society where corruption is low and every decision we make is to make the world better for all people.
Progress doesn’t work that way, though. You don’t hear Ukrainians say “I wish I had a peacetime so I didn’t have to fight; fighting is wrong” or Germans in 1932 saying “I wish I had a really good government so I didn’t have to compromise my morals and vote for the SPD” (oh wait…).
Or… I mean, they might wish it, but it’s not like it becomes a reason why all of a sudden the better outcome and the worse outcome become indistinguishable and we should let the worse one happen. One, this post is actually pretty dishonest and the guy’s actually by far one of the better sheriffs in the country and has actually made this specific reform already (see my longer post). But two, even if he hasn’t, that doesn’t mean that all of a sudden it’s okay to have the sheriff who wants to shoot all the Mexicans instead.
If you want change, vote for the Democrats in this election, so that Trump doesn’t make change illegal. Keep protesting for Gaza, keep trying to ditch FPTP, keep trying to push the Democrats to the left, absolutely. The sooner we can get a third party, the better; on that I definitely agree. Definitely you’re gonna be able to find some Democrats who are corrupt as fuck within the system. But I wouldn’t really use “this outcome isn’t what I want” as a reason not to try to figure out how to get the outcome you want, or to get discouraged away from participating in the system at all. That happened after 1968, and that’s how we got Reagan and the modern economic nightmare in the whole first place – was “I don’t want to compromise my morals and interact with the system and what’s the worst that could happen.”
For sure I know what system we are in and I vote.
I get that we have to fight for what we believe in, but I disagree that it is analogous to war.
Remember… ACAB
So you have no idea what the full statement was, that they’re summarizing? I mean what I’m asking is, is this true, or spinning up some expansive bullshit from a little nugget of approximate truth combined with a heavy sprinkling of lies.
Also “American Fourth Reich Convention” is a little bit of a red flag 🙂
Kinda silly calling it that when the actual A4RC happened already and they called it the RNC. Both sides are garbage, but there’s only one fascist party. Democrats are absolute shit for always siding with and trying to appeal to conservatives, but this feels very similar to how tankies literally only ever have problems with and try to stop democrats when there’s very obviously a bigger threat in republicans
Explain how kamala will end elections and genocide everyone who isn’t a WASP
She, like all liberals, is a massive piece of shit. But comparing them to actual nazis just makes you look like an edgy 13 year old dumbass with very little at stake if trump wins. Republicans will always be fascists, and liberals will always work closely with them. That doesn’t mean you’re not stupid for saying they’re the same, because you very much are
More info
https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/many-us-jails-video-calls-are-only-way-detainees-can-see-loved-ones-rcna158048
There’s also this
I particularly like the artful construction of that he said he would end the ban, but his lawyers (i.e. the county’s lawyers, presumably) are arguing in court something different (maybe as part of the effort to get the suit dismissed). So they’re implying that he hasn’t actually ended the policy, but wording it in such a way that it’s clear they’re dodging around the fact that he has, now that (a) he’s the boss and is fully in charge of it (b) he’s changed his mind after having seen 10+ years of criminal justice system misconduct getting the spotlight.
So yeah TL;DR it’s some bullshit; they’re taking a good guy and trying to make him into a bad guy, so that you’ll let the actual bad guys come to power, and derail the effort to continue reforming the system and making it better. I sorta knew it but it was worth looking into the details a little bit.
Nah, he’s still a POS. Gets elected and now is “oops my bad!” Meanwhile the policies are still in place. ACAB
Disclosure: Still vote for Harris to stop Trump blah blah blah etc etc. Just vote Harris in November.
Personally, I’d prefer if people voted in all available races, and not focus on one that has the smallest effect on their every day lives and has the least likelihood of effecting long term systemic change.
That’s why the original twitter post is so dishonest – the policies are not still in place. That was the whole point of my post. And they clearly know that, since they artfully constructed it (he said that he would end the ban, and yet blah blah something which isn’t “he hasn’t ended the ban” but sounds enough like it to fool the reader).