US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1970

On May 16 2015 06:50 ZasZ. wrote:
My main beef is that it seems the majority of people who are opposed to the death penalty are pro-choice. I don't see how you can reconcile those two positions honestly.

On May 16 2015 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:
My opposition to the death penalty comes first from executing innocent people. It's impossible to give back what you take from an innocent person on death row but eventual freedom is a redemption one can offer. When you kill an innocent man or woman for a crime they didn't commit, posthumous redemption is of little-no value to the deceased.

This is why I am not a blind supporter of abortion, and have serious qualms about it in many cases (particularly after the first and especially the second trimester).

This particular case though doesn't really have that problem on it's face, there's no question he did what he did. Another qualm I have with the death penalty is whether it fits my perception of why we do the things we do. Rather than get all meta, I'll just say I'm not sure killing people for crimes (no matter how heinous) actually helps anyone in the long term.

Killing someone after something like this feels a lot more like vengeance than it does justice.

In a private meeting with fundraisers on Thursday, Hillary Clinton said that she would nominate justices to the Supreme Court who support overturning Citizens United, according to anonymous sources who heard the remarks and spoke to the Washington Post.

Citizens United is the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that made it possible for individuals, corporations, associations and unions to donate unlimited amounts of money to Super PACs to get candidates elected.

The case began when a conservative organization, called Citizens United, produced an unflattering film about Hillary called "Hillary: The Movie." The Federal Election Commission claimed that the movie violated campaign finance laws prohibiting ads mentioning candidates and funded by corporations or nonprofits from airing 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. Citizens United challenged the FEC ruling in court, claiming a violation of their right to free speech.

The Supreme Court ultimately decided to broaden the scope of the case beyond just this one movie, and ultimately ruled that bans on corporate spending on independent elections violated First Amendment free speech protections.

In an ironic twist, Clinton has perhaps become one of the biggest beneficiaries of the ruling.

On May 16 2015 07:08 Danglars wrote:
The reality of the death penalty these days is an extensive wait on death row. In a quip, the leading cause of death of death row inmates is natural causes.

My main beef is that it seems the majority of people who are opposed to the death penalty are pro-choice. I don't see how you can reconcile those two positions honestly.

The student has now become the teacher.

Sen. Marco Rubio, once viewed as a protege of presidential competitor Jeb Bush, schooled the former Florida governor Wednesday evening in the first national security address of his national campaign.

As compared to Jeb Bush, who fumbled and stumbled through his first major national security address, Marco Rubio delivered a master class on foreign policy that spoke to the soul of the right’s hawkish neoconservatives.

In New York City, before the Council of Foreign Relations and their foreign policy experts, Rubio showed himself to be a peer.

In an hour before the Council, he spoke about everything from Filipino typhoon survivors to keeping South China Sea transit ways accessible—and at one point corrected longtime broadcaster and forum moderator Charlie Rose about the extent to which there are Iranian fighters in Iraq.

And he got into the details: he condemned Iranian efforts to develop a long-range ballistic missile capability, a specific gripe of hawkish Iranian experts that doesn’t get much attention. He said the conditions don’t exist for a two-state solution; that the VA system needs to be reformed; that he’s open to Ukraine joining NATO.

Compare this to Jeb Bush’s first big national security speech in February, before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, where Bush mispronounced Boko Haram, misidentified Iraq, mistakenly placed the size of ISIS and couldn’t remember the title of ISIS’ Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Meanwhile, Bush has spent the last few days in a quagmire: asked if he would have still invaded Iraq given the benefit of hindsight, he told Fox that he would have. Then came the backpedaling: first, the claim that he misheard the question; then, dismissing the question as merely a hypothetical. Bush got battered by this misstep, drawing criticism from potential rivals New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Rand Paul.

When Charlie Rose asked Rubio the same hypothetical that Bush had been asked, Rubio swatted it away swiftly.

“Not only would I not have been in favor of it, President Bush would not have been in favor of it,” Rubio said.

Since the end of the Cold War, the threats facing America have changed, but the need for American strength has not. It's only grown more pressing as the world's grown more interconnected. In recent decades, technology has demolished the barriers to travel and to trade—transforming our national economy into a global one. The prosperity of our people now depends on their ability to interact freely, and safely, on the international market place. Turmoil across the world can impact American families almost as much as turmoil across town. It can cause the cost of living to rise, or entire industries to shed jobs, and crumble, and so today, as never before, foreign policy is domestic policy.

Sadly, I believe President Obama often disagrees with that simple truth. He entered office believing America was too hard on our adversaries, too engaged in too many places, but if we only took a step back and did more nation building at home—he enacted hundreds of billions of dollars in defense cuts that left our Army on track to be at pre-World War Two levels, our Navy at pre-World War One levels, and our Air Force with the smallest and oldest combat force in it's history.

He demonstrated a disregard for our moral purpose that at times flirted with disdain. He criticized America for having arrogance and the audacity to dictate our terms to other nations. From his reset with Russia, to his open hand to Iran, to his unreciprocated opening to Cuba.

He has embraced regimes that systematically oppose every principle our nation has long championed.

On May 16 2015 07:12 Aveng3r wrote:

I don't get why this is. Is there an appeal system? Lk do we have to go thru some extra process to make double extra triple certain that the person is actually guilty? Seems like it should be a quick process.

On May 16 2015 07:12 Aveng3r wrote:

I don't get why this is. Is there an appeal system? Lk do we have to go thru some extra process to make double extra triple certain that the person is actually guilty? Seems like it should be a quick process.

On May 16 2015 07:17 NovaTheFeared wrote:


That's correct. We have a lengthy appeals process in death penalty cases to prevent innocent people from being killed. It's far less expensive to house a person in prison for life without parole than to execute them. We could make it cheaper to kill people than to imprison them for life, but only at the cost of additional innocent people being executed. Are you comfortable with that?

On May 16 2015 07:19 zlefin wrote:


another method would be to fix the incompetence in the system that causes innocent people to be potentially executed; and use the death penalty very sparingly.

On May 16 2015 06:50 ZasZ. wrote:


Well for one, it's not up to me because I'm not the judge or jury in these trials, so asking me about individual cases is pointless. But let's be clear here, assuming we are able to remove the uncertainties about their conviction, such as in this case, they have put themselves in this position. In this case, Tsarnaev showed not only disregard but flat out malevolence for multiple lives, so why should I care about his life, or his opinion about his own life? I don't think him disagreeing with me on that carries any weight whatsoever.

The real reason is that it makes no sense to me to keep a person who has committed crimes against humanity on life support when society has come to the conclusion that this person must be kept separate from other people for their safety, and has no chance at rehabilitation. GH has a good point about work programs giving their life actual worth in prison, so I could see that as a good counter-argument.

If I had to live the rest of my life in jail, I would most likely be a violent criminal so it's hard for me to imagine my perspective in that case. Yeah, I would probably want to live, but the people I killed probably did too so why is my opinion relevant?

On May 16 2015 07:15 Danglars wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXo04FusMI&t=4m41s
Rubio looks strong on defining and explaining his foreign policy views
Daily Beast review
(Excerpt)
This is right up the alley of 'hawkish' conservatives, but he's still primarily known for the amnesty/pathway-to-citizenship stand in that crowd.

On May 16 2015 07:17 NovaTheFeared wrote:


That's correct. We have a lengthy appeals process in death penalty cases to prevent innocent people from being killed. It's far less expensive to house a person in prison for life without parole than to execute them. We could make it cheaper to kill people than to imprison them for life, but only at the cost of additional innocent people being executed. Are you comfortable with that?

On May 16 2015 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:


The Iraq question should be a gimmie. The real head-scratcher for potential republican nominees (and I encourage conservatives/republicans here to try it out) is.... (coutesy of CNN)

Who is the greatest living president? (Hint: Alive in your heart doesn't count) If one can't answer the question I don't really think they can think of themselves as above politics.

On May 16 2015 07:21 NovaTheFeared wrote:


If you know a way to make the justice system inerrant, I'd love to hear it.

On May 16 2015 06:50 ZasZ. wrote:My main beef is that it seems the majority of people who are opposed to the death penalty are pro-choice. I don't see how you can reconcile those two positions honestly.

On May 16 2015 07:15 Danglars wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXo04FusMI&t=4m41s
Rubio looks strong on defining and explaining his foreign policy views
Daily Beast review
(Excerpt)
This is right up the alley of 'hawkish' conservatives, but he's still primarily known for the amnesty/pathway-to-citizenship stand in that crowd.