Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

oscarBravo

peddlelies wrote: »

In certain cases it could be seen as further mocking the victims by demanding control back from the prosecutors/family members etc.

Given the choice between interpreting his desire as "I don't want to choke on my own blood while I'm dying" and "I want to mock my victims by demanding control over my execution", I think the former is the saner explanation.

You never answered: would you have been OK with the execution of Steven Barnes?

batgoat

peddlelies wrote: »

In certain cases it could be seen as further mocking the victims by demanding control back from the prosecutors/family members etc.

It's not taking back control to disallow cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty doesn't exist to torture a person to death...

Leroy42

peddlelies wrote: »

In certain cases it could be seen as further mocking the victims by demanding control back from the prosecutors/family members etc.

Unfortunately some people are simply ar5eholes. You want to roll out torture based on how they act in court?

The whole point of the legal system is that it is supposed to be fair, emotions are meant to be taken out of it. If the family are really upset does the person get more tortured, what about if the family are more stoic, or the offender simply acts nicely in court?

I absolutely understand the desire for vengeance, as I said I would be thinking the same. But we need to draw a line. We need to aim for a society that is above those that we wish to hold accountable, otherwise what is the point.

What if the offender states that they killed your family because you fired them from their job, and now their sick child has no medicine? I'd be pretty vengeangeful towards you then, does that give me the right to torture you?

Or is it only if they go through the legal system, which we both know is hardly blemish free and free of its own bias. Plenty of crooked cops, lawyers and judges to see that certain people get dealt with in certain ways.

peddlelies

Leroy42 wrote: »

What if the offender states that they killed your family because you fired them from their job, and now their sick child has no medicine? I'd be pretty vengeangeful towards you then, does that give me the right to torture you?

The right no, but if that happened to me it wouldn't be human nature if I didn't think about doing it, maybe even going further than that. The movie prisoners comes to mind for some reason, I think it gives a fairly accurate account of what human nature is capable of in such situations.

I've said my spiel anyway, I'm not a huge advocate for those who commit the worst possible crimes. Obviously it's not a black and white issue because somewhere along the line people have been wrongly executed and on the other side of the coin the amount of grief people are left with must be unbearable and to know the perpetrator gets to live on is surely a daily soul destroying experience.

The only thing is that in this day and age you'd hope the cases where people are sentenced to death are cut and dry with the modern forensics, advocacy groups, oversight etc , but of course you can never say for sure that an innocent person won't be convicted again.

batgoat

peddlelies wrote: »

The right no, but if that happened to me it wouldn't be human nature if I didn't think about doing it, maybe even going further than that. The movie prisoners comes to mind for some reason, I think it gives a fairly accurate account of what human nature is capable of in such situations.

I've said my spiel anyway, I'm not a huge advocate for those who commit the worst possible crimes. Obviously it's not a black and white issue because somewhere along the line people have been wrongly executed and on the other side of the coin the amount of grief people are left with must be unbearable and to know the perpetrator gets to live on is surely a daily soul destroying experience.

The only thing is that in this day and age you'd hope the cases where people are sentenced to death are cut and dry with the modern forensics, advocacy groups, oversight etc , but of course you can never say for sure that an innocent person won't be convicted again.

They're not though, people still get off death row.... The US justice system is filled with injustices. Regardless, a justice system does not exist to torture.

circadian

He's away off on one on twitter about the Dems looking for the report to be made public and some nonsense about Puerto Rico getting 91bn dollars and, I think, he's alluding to the politicians there syphoning that money off for themselves.

He's in full distraction mode at the minute.

Walter Bishop

What a surprise that Trump thinks Puerto Rico got $91 Billion in aid when that's actually the damage the hurricane did. They've received about $1.5 Billion in actual aid so far.


And he also does not seem to know that Puerto Rico is part of the United States. Am I surprised? I am not.

Manic Moran

Interestingly, on this discussion, both the Supreme Court and the LA Times have stuck their oar into the death penalty issue this week.

SCOTUS just released the opinion in Bucklew vs MO Dept of Corrections: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-8151_1qm2.pdf

The meat of the decision was on the merits of the method of execution, and was a split decision over the effect the injection would have on Bucklew's tumours, (On another topic above, both sides agreed that the inmate could not request a method of execution not approved by the State, as it happens, but some States do provide the inmate a choice, such as Gardner, executed 2010 by Utah who chose firing squad over lethal injection) but the opinion made mention of the effect of the process : In this case, Bucklew waited until all other legal attempts to avoid execution had been tried, then eight days before the scheduled date, filed the objection to the method.
The people of Missouri, the surviving victims of Mr. Bucklew's crimes, and others like them deserve better. Even the principal dissent acknowledges that "the long delays that now typically occur between the time an offender is sentenced to death and his execution" are "excessive."

I agree with Leroy's position that the death penalty does not deter the crimes. However, it is my position that that is not the primary function of it (Though it certainly does deter repeat offenses). As the court observed, the victims have their right to see justice done. Though one may well disagree with the "eye for an eye" sortof theory of justice (and actually only a very small minority of first degree murderers are sentenced to death, the crimes have to be unusually heinous), the fact remains that American society generally doesn't. The execution is not a deterrence for others, it is a method of providing satisfactory resolution to the population.

I would refer you to the most recent referendum on the matter in California. For several years, the referendum was generally split on abolishing it in California, the trend was moving closer and closer towards "repeal it". In 2012, Prop 34 was narrowly defeated, 52:48. It was presumed that with the changing demographics and continued progressivism in California that next time around, the repeal would pass. Enter Props 62 and 66 in 2016. Prop 62 would repeal the death penalty, it failed with 47% approval. Prop 66 said "Keep it, and make the process faster". It passed. Basically, if the death penalty meant millions of dollars being spent and half the the families of the victims had died of old age before the execution, Californians were more likely to be against: It was a practical issue, not a moral one.

In the meantime, Newsom has declared he will not sign off on any executions as long as he is governor. If he really does represent the will of the people in this matter, the LA Times is correct: There's a correct way of doing it, the ballot box, and the persistent failures to date indicate that he may not have the support at the ballot box to do it. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-ppic-death-penalty-newsom-20190328-story.html

Newsom took another hit from the LA Times yesterday, as it happens, due to his announcement that he's going to El Salvador on a fact-finding mission to find out why people are migrating to the US. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-gavin-newsom-el-salvador-20190401-story.html

Edit: Oh, and on California matters, a federal judge just ruled the most recently amended version of the firearms magazine ban in California unconstitutional. From about 2000 until now, manufacture, sale and import of magazines in excess of ten rounds was prohibited, but folks who had them before could keep them. Almost nobody on either side was happy with the compromise, but it seemed that as long as the Takings Clause wasn't violated, there wasn't enough traction to get it repealed. Then recently the law was amended to prohibit possession even if previously lawfully owned. That seems to have been the straw which broke the camel's back, and the amended version was declared unlawful. For the last three days, there has been a run on standard and large capacity magazines in the US, as gun owners in California (And there are millions) are mail-ordering the hell out of them (It should be observed that inserting one into what would be considered an 'assault weapon' is still unlawful.)

serfboard

Manic Moran wrote: »

Newsom took another hit from the LA Times yesterday, as it happens, due to his announcement that he's going to El Salvador on a fact-finding mission to find out why people are migrating to the US. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-gavin-newsom-el-salvador-20190401-story.html

That article in the LA Times was written by someone called George Skelton, who also wrote this:

George Skelton wrote:

Trump ... is the Democratic Party’s best friend in California.

His classless demeanor was largely responsible for Republicans losing half their California congressional seats in November — seven.

Only 36% of the state’s likely voters approved of the president’s job performance in a January poll by the Public Policy Institute of California.

State Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra is practically living off the guy politically. He has sued the Trump Administration 46 times, raising his profile.

Conversely, Trump loves California Democrats. The left coasters are easy marks and ripe fodder for red state Trumpsters.

California Democrats and Trump feed off each other.

Manic Moran

serfboard wrote: »

That article in the LA Times was written by someone called George Skelton, who also wrote this:

That seems accurate. Is there anything in that with which you disagree?

hotmail.com

Leroy42 wrote:

It is always ironic that the 'right' are always so quick to demand certain behaviour from others whilst never bothering with it themselves.

Leroy42 wrote:

Fox, as the biggest network, could easily change the dynamic. In fact, one could argue that it was as a result of Fox News that the news environment changed to the extent that today it is all about sensationail and less about actual news.

Did you think I was defending Fox News?

I wasn't.

But it's disappointing that Irish people can only see the media in terms of pro and anti Trump. If you make a criticism of CNN, it means you're right wing.

Some weird world we live in where Irish people think CNN isn't right wing.

Midlife

Great article about Trump's attitude towards cheating as evidenced by the lies he tells about Golf.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/apr/02/donald-trump-golf-28-club-championships

I think overall, the approach towards Trump should encapsulate things like this. He should be jeered and made fun of for being such terrible liar.

IMO treating him like a regular person merely validates his nonsense.

The choice the democrats should be giving the people is like when Homer ran against the Garbage comissioner guy in the Simpsons.

'If you want to believe all this lunacy, vote for him. If you want someone rational and experienced who knows what to do, don't'

In that episode, Springfield elected Homer so that could happen I guess.

serfboard

Manic Moran wrote: »

That seems accurate. Is there anything in that with which you disagree?

Not at all.

The Republicans are repugnant, but The Democrats are really full of sh1t. They're bought by different types of people, but, for the most part, they're still bought.

I see people talking up Kamala Harris, for example. In 2017, Kamala went to The Hamptons and was later anointed by the .01%ers:

The Guardian wrote:

Kamala Harris, the California senator and new darling of the left, did what all liberal darlings do when their stars begin to burn bright: she went east, way east, to the Hamptons.
...
Harris met with some of Hillary Clinton’s beloved megadonors this past weekend. Reportedly, they were all smitten.
...
her Hamptons gallivant with Clinton plutocrats is a dispiriting reminder that the Democratic party thinks all can be as it once was, and the status quo isn’t worth being ruffled. Donors can still vet candidates and propel them forward in the press. Anyone beyond the upper crust isn’t a serious agenda setter.

Reminds me of the time during the 2016 election where Donald Trump got free unchallenged coverage, while Hilary Clinton was walking around Martha's Vineyard with her hand out for donations. And $1.4 Billion dollars didn't buy her the election.

Stallingrad

Midlife wrote: »

Great article about Trump's attitude towards cheating as evidenced by the lies he tells about Golf.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/apr/02/donald-trump-golf-28-club-championships
I think overall, the approach towards Trump should encapsulate things like this.

Read that with amazement. All the caddies know you have to cheat and manipulate for the guy, or cover for his cheating. These are working guys with no agenda, not politics or 'fake news'. He is an morale void, and his supporters are cut of the same cloth.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

so what if trump supposedly cheats at golf. since when that become the final arbitrator on someones character.
its not like trump is a professional sports man, he plays mostly his own golf courses so i assume his own rules apply.
i will encourage people to look at rick reillys tweets
i think he might little biased?

https://twitter.com/ReillyRick?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Thepoet85

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote:

so what if trump supposedly cheats at golf. since when that become the final arbitrator on someones character. its not like trump is a professional sports man, he plays mostly his own golf courses so i assume his own rules apply. i will encourage people to look at rick reillys tweets i think he might little biased?

So what if he cheats at golf, is a racist, adultering, draft dodging, tax dodging, narcissistic egomaniac?

He ticks all the boxes, cheating at golf is the tip of the iceberg.

oscarBravo

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

so what if trump supposedly cheats at golf. since when that become the final arbitrator on someones character.

It's not; it's just perfectly typical of the man. He truly is devoid of any redeeming features whatsoever.

duploelabs

Thepoet85 wrote: »

So what if he cheats at golf, is a racist, adultering, draft dodging, tax dodging, narcissistic egomaniac?

He ticks all the boxes, cheating at golf is the tip of the iceberg.

Always pictured him as a failed goldfinger type

Danzy

Kamala Harris is the Clinton camp favourite.

Biden will not get it because of his creepy vids online, among more mundane reasons, he would probably win the race though.

Harris is too bland, too inside to win.

ECO_Mental

Is there no end to the straight up lying, can he not help himself? obviously it must be an illness.:eek::eek::eek:

Here he is saying he father was German when he was actually born in New York..... why even lie about this

https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/status/1113151453554769920

Water John

I think it would be classified as a disorder not an illness. Pretty much incurable just managed. Without his father, he'd be a used car salesman, sorry to the profession.

amandstu

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Is there no end to the straight up lying, can he not help himself? obviously it must be an illness.:eek::eek::eek:

Here he is saying he father was German when he was actually born in New York..... why even lie about this

https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/status/1113151453554769920

Would make my skin crawl if he said he had great respect for me (other than that he would be lying mechanically)

1eg0a3xv7b82of

Thepoet85 wrote: »

So what if he cheats at golf, is a racist, adultering, draft dodging, tax dodging, narcissistic egomaniac?

He ticks all the boxes, cheating at golf is the tip of the iceberg.

I would thought just playing golf would have been the tip of the iceberg
It is a classist pastime according to many
Your post above could have been said of every president of the US including Obama

Thepoet85

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote:

I would thought just playing golf would have been the tip of the iceberg It is a classist pastime according to many Your post above could have been said of every president of the US including Obama

Could you back that up and show us proof that Obama was an adulterer, or a racist, or a narcissistic egomaniac?

Very well could have been a tax and draft Dodger, but would love clarification on the three examples above.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

Thepoet85 wrote: »

^^^

Could you back that up and show us proof that Obama was an adulterer, or a racist, or a narcissistic egomaniac?

Very well could have been a tax and draft Dodger, but would love clarification on the three examples above.

Edit: I come from a working class family and we all play golf. And I can tell you, if we knew of anyone who cheated they wouldn't hold much regard in our eyes.

You made those claims first against trump
How about you back ur post up with clear concise proven factual evidence
Does that seem fair

Thepoet85

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote:

You made those claims first against trump How about you back ur post up with clear concise proven factual evidence Does that seem fair

Wait, you need more proof that he's an adultering draft dodging tax dodging racist. Have you been asleep for 3 years.

You're literally the first person I've seen who is accusing Obama of these things.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

Thepoet85 wrote: »

Wait, you need more proof that he's an adultering draft dodging tax dodging racist. Have you been asleep for 3 years.

You're literally the first person I've seien who is accusing Obama of these things.

Edit: Off topic, how can I add someone to the ignore list on mobile?

You called him a racist an adulterer and an egomaniac
If it is so well known you can easily provide the evidence

jooksavage

Karsyn Tender Rifle wrote: »

You called him a racist an adulterer and an egomaniac
If it is so well known you can easily provide the evidence

We'll limit this to one example each.

Trump the racist: sued by the U.S. Department of Justice for housing discrimination against black renters. He settled.

Trump the adulterer: Stormy Daniels paid off to conceal affair just after the birth of his youngest son.

Trump the egomanic: Literally sticks his name on everything. You know. Just like real billinaires like Bezos, Gates, Ellison and Buffet don't.

Manic Moran

jooksavage wrote: »

Trump the egomanic: Literally sticks his name on everything. You know. Just like real billinaires like Bezos, Ellison and Buffet don't.

/me looks at what was formerly San Francisco General Hospital, and is now Zuckerberg General Hospital for some reason... probably strongly correlated with Zuckerberg's money. Or the Geffen Concert Hall in the Lincoln Center, formerly the Fisher hall until Geffen handed over $100million last year. That big famous New York Public Library? $100million was also the asking price to give it Schwarzman. David Koch's name is now on the New York State Theater. And the Dinosaur Wing of the American History Museum a few blocks away. Or Bloomberg tower, Hearst Tower, Falcone tower... Or the Rockerfeller Building or the Chrysler building... You can't walk down New York City without seeing rich peoples' names on everything.

frag420

Manic Moran wrote: »

/me looks at what was formerly San Francisco General Hospital, and is now Zuckerberg General Hospital for some reason... probably strongly correlated with Zuckerberg's money. Or the Geffen Concert Hall in the Lincoln Center, formerly the Fisher hall until Geffen handed over $100million last year. That big famous New York Public Library? $100million was also the asking price to give it Schwarzman. David Koch's name is now on the New York State Theater. And the Dinosaur Wing of the American History Museum a few blocks away. Or Bloomberg tower, Hearst Tower, Falcone tower... Or the Rockerfeller Building or the Chrysler building... You can't walk down New York City without seeing rich peoples' names on everything.

Most of those are public facilities, theatres, museums, libraries and were named as such after substantial donations that others (the public) benefit from.

Trump sticks his name on anything that will make him money, anything that he will benefit from!

Could you imagine if he tried to stick his name on a library, they would need a whole wing dedicated to books about Irony!