I’m not saying they’re wrong…


ST. PAUL — Republicans introduced a bill Monday to define “Trump Derangement Syndrome” as a mental illness under Minnesota statute.

The bill defines Trump Derangement Syndrome as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal persons that is in reaction to the policies and presidencies of President Donald J. Trump.”

Sen. Eric Lucero, R-St. Michael, is chief author of the bill ( SF2589 ), which was introduced Monday, March 17, and referred to the Health and Human Services Committee. Co-authors are Sens. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa; Nathan Wesenberg, R-Little Falls; Justin Eichorn, R-Grand Rapids; and Glenn Gruenhagen, R-Glencoe.

“Mental illness is a real problem for many, and I’ve supported resources for those who need help," Lucero said in a statement Monday. "But Democrats need to get real and understand they can’t blame Trump for everything they’ve done. That’s exactly what this bill is highlighting."

Lucero said that in the weeks since Trump took office, Democrats have attempted to make Trump the "scapegoat" for Minnesota’s problems, including the state's $6 billion looming deficit .

The bill identifies symptoms of the syndrome as "Trump-induced general hysteria, which produces an inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and signs of psychic pathology in President Donald J. Trump's behavior.” Psychic pathology refers in general to disorders and dysfunctions affecting a person's mental and/or behavioral health.

The bill outlines two ways the syndrome might be expressed: “verbal expressions of intense hostility toward President Donald J. Trump; and overt acts of aggression and violence against anyone supporting President Donald J. Trump or anything that symbolizes President Donald J. Trump.”

Majority Leader Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, said in a statement Monday that the bill should be withdrawn immediately and that it “trivializes” mental health issues.

“This is possibly the worst bill in Minnesota history,” she said. “If it is meant as a joke, it is a waste of staff time and taxpayer resources that trivializes serious mental health issues. If the authors are serious, it is an affront to free speech and an expression of a dangerous level of loyalty to an authoritarian president.”

quote:

Originally posted by bcereuss:
I’m not saying they’re wrong…


“This is possibly the worst bill in Minnesota history,” she said. “If it is meant as a joke, it is a waste of staff time and taxpayer resources that trivializes serious mental health issues. If the authors are serious, it is an affront to free speech and an expression of a dangerous level of loyalty to an authoritarian president.”

^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
Says someone suffering from TDS.



ARman

quote:

“This is possibly the worst bill in Minnesota history,” she said. “If it is meant as a joke, it is a waste of staff time and taxpayer resources that trivializes serious mental health issues. If the authors are serious, it is an affront to free speech and an expression of a dangerous level of loyalty to an authoritarian president.”

Right, right. Sure thing. Different state, but these objections still come from the same party who put forth the Contraception Begins at Erection Act, so they can spare us all the hand-wringing.

Bad idea. It would make half the country eligible for government disability checks...

It should be classified as End Stage Demorrhoidal TDS.

quote:

“Mental illness is a real problem for many, and I’ve supported resources for those who need help," Lucero said in a statement Monday. "But Democrats need to get real and understand they can’t blame Trump for everything they’ve done. That’s exactly what this bill is highlighting. "

Lucero said that in the weeks since Trump took office, Democrats have attempted to make Trump the "scapegoat" for Minnesota’s problems, including the state's $6 billion looming deficit.

Cute. It's a publicity stunt.
But what else are Republicans to do in Minnesota?
It highlights a real problem there.

A bill memorializing the movie Fargo would be better.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Cute. It's a publicity stunt.
But what else are Republicans to do in Minnesota?
It highlights a real problem there.

One of the authors was just arrested for soliciting a 16yo (actually a cop).

https://www.kare11.com/article...28-bc54-946bd449e82c

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

One of the authors was just arrested for soliciting a 16yo (actually a cop).

https://www.kare11.com/article...28-bc54-946bd449e82c

Pedophiles are despicable; it's not easy to imagine punishment.

But, how can this putz be accused of soliciting a 16 year old, when he was actually soliciting an adult? Yeah, maybe he thought he was soliciting a minor, but this is not Orwell-land, so how can he be nailed for thought-crime?

NOTE: I am not defending him, far from it, but I just do not understand the concept of arresting somebody who has not actually committed a crime except in his imagination.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

One of the authors was just arrested for soliciting a 16yo (actually a cop).

https://www.kare11.com/article...28-bc54-946bd449e82c

Pedophiles are despicable; it's not easy to imagine punishment.

But, how can this putz be accused of soliciting a 16 year old, when he was actually soliciting an adult? Yeah, maybe he thought he was soliciting a minor, but this is not Orwell-land, so how can he be nailed for thought-crime?

NOTE: I am not defending him, far from it, but I just do not understand the concept of arresting somebody who has not actually committed a crime except in his imagination.

Soliciting a person under the age of 18 is a felony in Minnesota.

quote:

(c) Whoever intentionally does any of the following may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both:
(1) engages in prostitution with an individual under the age of 18 years but at least 16 years;
(2) hires or offers or agrees to hire an individual under the age of 18 years but at least 16 years to engage in sexual penetration or sexual contact; or
(3) hires or offers or agrees to hire an individual who the actor reasonably believes to be under the age of 18 years but at least 16 years to engage in sexual penetration or sexual contact.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

NOTE: I am not defending him, far from it, but I just do not understand the concept of arresting somebody who has not actually committed a crime except in his imagination.

I understand what you are saying, and I guess this gets into the question of entrapment. But he thought he was soliciting a minor for sex, and apparently followed that up with the intentional trip to see the minor for sex.

Yes, the cop wasn't actually a minor, but is this any different than the female cop who poses as a hooker to catch men soliciting prostitution?

Maybe this is entrapment, and maybe I have been so glad to see these animals caught that I have been happy to overlook whether or not this is a legal means of taking them out of society.


.

If the officer is "cat fishing" for pedophiles, then shouldn't that be called "kitten fishing", or am I over thinking this.

So you're saying we need to use actual children to get solicited by predators in order to file charges? That seems...counterproductive.

In our state an attempt to commit a crime is the same as actually doing it. Provided the evidence is there to prove the mens rea of intent to solicit a minor, it doesn't matter if the person they are communicating with is actually a minor or not.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

One of the authors was just arrested for soliciting a 16yo (actually a cop).

https://www.kare11.com/article...28-bc54-946bd449e82c

Pedophiles are despicable; it's not easy to imagine punishment.

But, how can this putz be accused of soliciting a 16 year old, when he was actually soliciting an adult? Yeah, maybe he thought he was soliciting a minor, but this is not Orwell-land, so how can he be nailed for thought-crime?

NOTE: I am not defending him, far from it, but I just do not understand the concept of arresting somebody who has not actually committed a crime except in his imagination.

The difference here as laid out in the news story is that he BELIEVED he was communicating with a 16 year old. If he was meeting up with someone who told him she was over 18 but in reality was not, it might be more defensible.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
The difference here as laid out in the news story is that he BELIEVED he was communicating with a 16 year old. If he was meeting up with someone who told him she was over 18 but in reality was not, it might be more defensible.

Right. Whether he went looking for sex in a chatroom or someone sent an email to his official Senate address is irrelevant. He had multiple opportunities to STOP this interaction when age was revealed. Beyond that, he is married with 4 kids. He has no business engaging in this type of activity regardless of the age of the "woman".

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
One of the authors was just arrested for soliciting a 16yo (actually a cop).

quote:

Whether he went looking for sex in a chatroom or someone sent an email to his official Senate address is irrelevant.

Maybe... My follow up question would be: Are the cops trolling him, in particular, for a reason? Do they troll the email of all politicians in the State of Minnesota, hoping for a bite? Or just the Republicans?

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Maybe... My follow up question would be: Are the cops trolling him, in particular, for a reason? Do they troll the email of all politicians in the State of Minnesota, hoping for a bite? Or just the Republicans?

My statement was hypothetical. I haven't read anything to suggest that the police initiated the solicitation.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
My statement was hypothetical. I haven't read anything to suggest that the police initiated the solicitation.

Ok... I don't know anything about this particular case.

quote:

Maybe... My follow up question would be: Are the cops trolling him, in particular, for a reason? Do they troll the email of all politicians in the State of Minnesota, hoping for a bite? Or just the Republicans?

I've never been involved in this type of investigation personally, but from my understanding there are pretty specific rules that investigators have to follow to demonstrate that it's not entrapment. If they don't follow proper procedure, their case won't hold up in court.

They don't go soliciting perps directly...they put the profile out there and wait for perps to come to them. From the stories I've heard, they usually don't have to wait long. Once communication is initiated, they're going to make it very clear that the kid in the profile is underage. If the perp continues to solicit after that has been made clear, that's on them.

I highly doubt they targeted this guy or cold-emailed his inbox pretending to be a 16 year-old girl asking to meet up for sex. He went looking, found what he wanted, and knowing full well what he was doing took a substantial step by showing up for the meet. Unless the PD was way off the reservation, which I highly doubt, he's cooked. And rightly so.

The world is full of scumbags, and sometimes they're the people you least suspect. My job doesn't involve looking for them online, but I've encountered a few working the road. And I work in a small town, so it's often people that I've known or at least been familiar with for years.

Personally I don't give a shit if some chomo has an R or a D after his name, is a pastor, teacher, dentist, or whatever. They all need locked up.