u/engadine_maccas1997

I’m a bit split on this. On one hand, this stunt was undeniably entertaining. It wasn’t exactly a “victimless crime” (there was allegedly $2K in damage from them breaking in, & taxpayer resources had to be used to apprehend them). But it’s as close to that as you can get.

But on the other hand, there are some real public interest concerns at play here. One is the possibility that the publicity around this case inspired copycat stunts. If more and more people try stunts like this, it’s only a matter of when, not if, people get themselves and others killed.

They also used no safety equipment. While they have experience climbing and doing similar stunts, there was also a degree of luck involved that they did not slip up. If someone were to throw rocks or pieces of furniture from the observation deck, they would be arrested for public endangerment because of the threat falling objects impose on those on the ground. A falling body also imposes a significant public safety threat to those on the ground, as well.

I feel like if the judge were to simply impose a fine, covering the cost of the damage and then some, it would easily be covered by a GoFundMe page due to the publicity and would just be the cost of doing business. They might even profit off of this. This would provide every incentive to others to attempt similar stunts.

I feel like you’d have to impose some actual jail time here - not a lot, but just enough to create a decent public deterrence. And for what it’s worth, doing some jail time over this stunt makes the proposal a bit more romantic and badass, I guess.

But what are your thoughts? How should this case be handled?

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/01/us/empire-state-building-banner

There was a controversial case of Tou Vang - a Laotian immigrant who was set to be deported due to his undocumented status. In 2006, Tou Vang was convicted of repeatedly sexually abusing a 10 year-old girl. Of course DHS and the Trump Administration is having a field day over this, how “Democrats are protecting child rapists from deportation.” And honestly, I do find it to be hard to defend or justify.

Most of us on the left agree that it is not only infeasible but immoral to deport every single person in the U.S. who is undocumented. But where do you draw the line on who should go?

Those who commit serious violent felonies like murder, rape, etc? Those who commit any felonies at all? What level would you draw the line at?

I personally have no objection to serious violent felons being deported. I think low level felonies is another matter, because those are so broad. Technically having non-prescribed medication can be considered a felony.

And then there’s the basic test of whether they are a net positive to society. I think an unemployed gang member who makes his income dealing drugs is clearly a drain on society, while the restaurant worker is likely a net positive. The problem is the Trump Administration tends to throw both of them in the same boat.

What are your thoughts? Was Gov. Walz right to pardon a child sex offender to hinder deportation proceedings? When should we deport people? And if this doesn’t cross the line, what does in your view?

https://www.fox9.com/news/dhs-condemns-gov-walz-after-minnesota-pardons-man-convicted-child-sexual-assault

Today’s Republican Party is a Mos Eisley Cantina of weirdos & degenerates. It did not become this way in a vacuum. There was the Southern Strategy that tolerated white supremacists having a seat at the table, the Gingrich era scorched earth politics that welcomed those who saw public service as an arena for combative sport, the rise of right wing media that catered to anti-intellectualism and collective grievance, and the McConnell era “ends justifies the means” approach that held there was not a principle or moral standard that would not be compromised if it meant the acquisition of political power. The inevitable result of this is the looney bin wing of the party, who the establishment long tolerated having a seat at the table, are now at the head of the table. They are running the show. This is what ultimately led to Donald Trump - a man with no prior political experience who was widely viewed by elite social circles as a joke - being able to capture the party, turn it into a cult, and remake it in his image.

This could have easily been prevented. There were certain standards of degeneracy and idiocy that the Republican Party and its voters could have drawn a line at in the Tea Party era. Two easy lines to draw during the Obama years would’ve been holding that engaging in Birtherism is disqualifying, and anyone who says things like “rape victims should be forced to carry their pregnancy to term because it’s God’s will” is unfit for office. These are easy tests of lunacy that would’ve prevented a lot of cranks from achieving political power and subsequently hijacking the party if Republicans held their own to those basic standards of decency.

Which gets me to the crossroads Democrats are in with respect to the New York primaries. Darializa Avila Chevalier won the primary in NY13 on Tuesday. Even looking at her in the most charitable light possible, I find her to be a paragon of imbecility and manifestly unfit for office.

She has professed to support prison and police abolition. She has parroted Russian propaganda, saying that the U.S. has “bullied” Russia since the end of the Cold War and blamed NATO expansion for justification of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. She has called American veterans “war criminals.” She posted that she wiped her hands on the American flag when she found there were no napkins available. She has said she believes lsraeI should not exist as a country. She said she believes COVID originated in France. She has criticized interracial relationships, slamming Black and Arab men for “fetishizing ugly colonizers.” She has expressed support for government seizing means of production and seizing property from landlords - in other words, literal communism.

The list goes on, but suffice it to say Chevalier crosses so many lines of basic decency and intelligence. My question is, where do we as progressives draw the line? What do we consider to be beyond the pale? Where do say that “vote blue no matter who” becomes “this person is unfit and unacceptable at so many levels that I think we can live without them in a position of power”?

For Republicans over 3 decades ago, that moment came when David Duke won the Republican primary for Governor of Louisiana. George Bush Sr, who was President at the time, publicly denounced Duke and endorsed the Democrat in that race.

Where is the line of our side’s David Duke moment?
How do we prevent the Democratic Party from following the GOP into the descent of indecency and idiocy?

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/01/politics/kfile-ny-13-darializa-avila-chevalier-deleted-tweets-defund-abolish-police-prisons-deportations