|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 23 2024 07:50 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2024 06:11 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 23 2024 05:42 Sadist wrote:
The topic of poor security at these labs was a topic way before Covid happened. I remember reading articles about how close we were IN THE US to having something similar happen with small pox.
I would guess China implemented corrective actions or improvements after covid independent if it truly was a leak or not.
Every lab in the world and/or government should be doing this anyway.
That's not the only thing. Millions and millions of people have been labeled conspiracy theorists all around the world for this, starting from the POTUS at the time. If lab leak and then lying to the public is the correct answer to COVID, just brushing it away with "oh we learned THIS from this, and we will do better next time" is not enough. Maybe millions of people should stop being conspiracy theorists if they dislike the tag so much. That said I did at the time say I had no issue with discussion of the Lab Leak theory, seemed plausible given various bits of circumstantial evidence, or at least eminently possible. But equally let’s not pretend that folks weren’t saying it was definitely a Chinese engineered bio weapon or things such as that, I don’t think it’s a stretch to label that as somewhat conspiratorial. Also a remarkable crossover between folks who claimed such things and folks who subsequently said COVID was no big deal thru to being completely fictitious. The amount of absolute bollocks people were spouting in those times was off the charts, I must say I don’t miss it. It genuinely annoyed me more than life under COVID restrictions. Although on the flip side there also certainly are people who do erroneously dismiss others as being conspiracy theorists, and that was massively in evidence at the time as well. Myself I at least try to be somewhat stringent in applying that label, and I think a fair few within these hallowed halls do so as well.
Yeah i agree, claiming it was definitely a lab leak at the time was more of -- even if right -- spreading mistrust among people.
I for one think covid is not a big deal for a person who has maintained normal health, just like... for a normal person. Every person on my shift got it at the same time, except me and another guy. I got it 8 months after. Then I had it, lasted 1 day (or was a false positive), i smoke, i drink alcohol. Supposedly my immunity for diseases should be lower i guess. I won't argue about risk groups.
At least in Finland i KNOW that a lot of covid deaths have been put under "covid" just because the person who died had covid. It's easy yeah, requires less paperwork and investigation... (just because i know a lot of people in the healthcare sector -- i would imagine this has happened in other countries too, for whatever reason)
I am not really sure what your take is tbh.
|
On December 23 2024 07:55 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2024 04:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly think the main thing he wants to happen is for people to agree that lying to the public 'for the greater good' is a fucked principle and that the 'truth' should be pursued even if it's not politically expedient or whatnot. Haven't really ever seen BJ wishing for some type of punishment for anyone. That seems like a rational but extraordinarily naïve aim. And only rational if he holds it for everyone equally, which seems extremely unlikely.
Why is it naive and why wouldnt he hold it against everyone equally?
|
On December 23 2024 07:41 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2024 07:21 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2024 06:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 23 2024 05:14 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2024 04:42 Sadist wrote:
BlackJack what do you want to happen? You are just stating things but not what you want to happen. No one will argue that there shouldnt be more safety and controls at these labs.
What do you want to happen? How would you punish these people and/or china? How would it change how things end up?
You can't shrug your shoulders and say well the genie is already out of the bottle so what's the difference and then also insist you want more safety and controls at these labs. If you wanted change in the safety you would be arguing for more scrutiny and more public outcry and instead you are seemingly offering apathy. How do you expect to get more safety if the "completely nuts" "wild west" dangerous research these people are acknowledging in their private emails is allowed to be swept under the rug? It's easy to hollowly declare you want more safety at the labs while being seemingly unbothered that the way for it to come about is quashed. Do you seriously think lab safety standards are for labs in China haven't changed? The Chinese goverment are notorious for coming down hard on entire industries that makes problems appear. You think they were pleased about a pandemic? The time for criticism was before covid. That was when criticism could have done some good. At this point any changes will have been made already been made. And the lab in question will be squeky clean regardless if it was the source or not. You live in a fantasy. You want things that would never have happened. And you want Fauci to have done pointless things that would have done massive harm at precisly the wrong time because you don't like him and you want him to have been wrong. You might say it's about principle, others would say it's just dumb. If a Monsanto factory potentially leaked a pollutant into the environment that killed a few people I doubt you would defend an attempted cover-up and a maligning of people as conspiracy theorists for talking about it. You wouldn't be easily satisfied as long as they improved the factory's safety. You wouldn't be okay if they lied under oath to Congress about what they were doing at the factory. I'm not sure why your approach in this instance is that there's no use crying over spilled milk and the important thing is not straining relations with China. We had a President mocking China, calling it the Kung-flu, and I'm expected to believe that simple agnosticism over COVID origins would have irreparably alienated China? We must immediately commission a paper to declare it improbable it came from the lab? I'm happy to settle on the last sentence of your post. I think it's about principle. You can think it's dumb. Agree to disagree. Your entire argument falls apart in the first sentence since a pollutant from a factory can't occur naturally. You don't know. Fauci doesn't know. The only people who potentially know are either telling you the truth or are sure as fuck aint saying anything. You will never know. You just want Fauci and by extension the democrats to be wrong and China to be the bad guy. You are pissed because someone in a political position chose to act diplomatically. Seriously, what do you want? A commission to see if it could have been a lab leak? China will present you with evidence that it wasn't one. You'll say you can't trust that evidence. Different experts will say different things but in general that it could have been but we can't know. Relations will be damaged, money will be spent. For what? Something we can conclude right now? Yeah, I'd call that dumb.
I don't "want China to be the bad guy." Like I said, I would be happy with agnosticism. I don't need to justify agnosticism. That should be the default position. If you don't know if it came from the lab or if it came naturally then just say you don't know. It's not difficult. You're the one that's defending the cover-up, lying to the public, lying to Congress. And for what? Because you're scared of how China might react if we don't? You don't even want a commission to investigate because relations will be damaged, you don't think it will give us an answer, and because it will cost money? 7 million people died and trillions of economic dollars were lost and you want to pinch pennies on investigating the cause of it? The idea that we don't need an investigation because you can already conclude that nothing will come of the investigation is some clairvoyance that you might possess but I don't.
|
yeah that's basically how i would like it.
Thank you BJ.
|
On December 23 2024 08:08 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2024 07:55 Billyboy wrote:On December 23 2024 04:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly think the main thing he wants to happen is for people to agree that lying to the public 'for the greater good' is a fucked principle and that the 'truth' should be pursued even if it's not politically expedient or whatnot. Haven't really ever seen BJ wishing for some type of punishment for anyone. That seems like a rational but extraordinarily naïve aim. And only rational if he holds it for everyone equally, which seems extremely unlikely. Why is it naive and why wouldnt he hold it against everyone equally?
Quite a few reasons. National security is a pretty well known one. Next it would malicious actors who use the information to mislead. Then there is that lots of people just won't take the time or have the skills or horse power to understand it. And others, I can understand the want for total transparency though, if everyone was willing maybe.
Bias is the reason. Fauci has lied way less than most of the people in power right now, if not all. For sure WAY less than Trump, RFK jr and Musk. So as long as we get a bunch of talk about how bad they are, then it would be agnostic and not just against the other guy.
Did anyone say never investigate? Or just that, lets not investigate until after we have dealt with the far more pressing issue, the pandemic. One that many politicians, "non traditional media", MSM and others were actively sabotaging efforts to gain for themselves.
|
That does not answer anything i asked about?
Simply just a bullshit rant if you don't want to actually address the issue...
|
Northern Ireland26468 Posts
On December 23 2024 09:25 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2024 08:08 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 23 2024 07:55 Billyboy wrote:On December 23 2024 04:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly think the main thing he wants to happen is for people to agree that lying to the public 'for the greater good' is a fucked principle and that the 'truth' should be pursued even if it's not politically expedient or whatnot. Haven't really ever seen BJ wishing for some type of punishment for anyone. That seems like a rational but extraordinarily naïve aim. And only rational if he holds it for everyone equally, which seems extremely unlikely. Why is it naive and why wouldnt he hold it against everyone equally? Quite a few reasons. National security is a pretty well known one. Next it would malicious actors who use the information to mislead. Then there is that lots of people just won't take the time or have the skills or horse power to understand it. And others, I can understand the want for total transparency though, if everyone was willing maybe. Bias is the reason. Fauci has lied way less than most of the people in power right now, if not all. For sure WAY less than Trump, RFK jr and Musk. So as long as we get a bunch of talk about how bad they are, then it would be agnostic and not just against the other guy. Did anyone say never investigate? Or just that, lets not investigate until after we have dealt with the far more pressing issue, the pandemic. One that many politicians, "non traditional media", MSM and others were actively sabotaging efforts to gain for themselves.
Pretty much.
Oh veracity and transparency is a critical virtue for Fauci? Aight fair enough.
Why seemingly just him or associated agencies?
|
oh dear.
It defines your political view (and American politics) a lot.
Sad thing is it is the same in Europe, people have no balls to even say anything.
|
On December 23 2024 10:26 raynpelikoneet wrote:
oh dear.
It defines your political view (and American politics) a lot.
Sad thing is it is the same in Europe, people have no balls to even say anything.
This is so vague as to be entirely worthless.
[people] have [no balls] to [even say anything].
[Trump] has [the foresight] to [not openly declare war on China]?
[Alex Jones] has [the audacity] to [suggest school shootings were a hoax]?
Be less vague - what are you actually saying?
|
On December 23 2024 10:26 raynpelikoneet wrote:
oh dear.
It defines your political view (and American politics) a lot.
Sad thing is it is the same in Europe, people have no balls to even say anything.
What is this in reference to?
|
On December 23 2024 09:31 raynpelikoneet wrote:
That does not answer anything i asked about?
Simply just a bullshit rant if you don't want to actually address the issue...
I answered both parts of your question specifically, wtf are you even talking about.
Hold your own dudes accountable and not just the others and people will actually think you want "agnostic".
|
On December 23 2024 12:48 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2024 09:31 raynpelikoneet wrote:
That does not answer anything i asked about?
Simply just a bullshit rant if you don't want to actually address the issue... I answered both parts of your question specifically, wtf are you even talking about.
Yeah, you did. Rayn may disagree with your answers, but you certainly answered what they asked about. It doesn't look like Rayn had a relevant rebuttal to your answers though.
|
On December 23 2024 09:34 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2024 09:25 Billyboy wrote:On December 23 2024 08:08 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 23 2024 07:55 Billyboy wrote:On December 23 2024 04:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly think the main thing he wants to happen is for people to agree that lying to the public 'for the greater good' is a fucked principle and that the 'truth' should be pursued even if it's not politically expedient or whatnot. Haven't really ever seen BJ wishing for some type of punishment for anyone. That seems like a rational but extraordinarily naïve aim. And only rational if he holds it for everyone equally, which seems extremely unlikely. Why is it naive and why wouldnt he hold it against everyone equally? Quite a few reasons. National security is a pretty well known one. Next it would malicious actors who use the information to mislead. Then there is that lots of people just won't take the time or have the skills or horse power to understand it. And others, I can understand the want for total transparency though, if everyone was willing maybe. Bias is the reason. Fauci has lied way less than most of the people in power right now, if not all. For sure WAY less than Trump, RFK jr and Musk. So as long as we get a bunch of talk about how bad they are, then it would be agnostic and not just against the other guy. Did anyone say never investigate? Or just that, lets not investigate until after we have dealt with the far more pressing issue, the pandemic. One that many politicians, "non traditional media", MSM and others were actively sabotaging efforts to gain for themselves. Pretty much. Oh veracity and transparency is a critical virtue for Fauci? Aight fair enough. Why seemingly just him or associated agencies?
If you want to go around parroting “trust the experts” and demanding compliance for their recommendations then lying less than politicians like Trump is not as great of a selling point as you seem to think. What an incredibly low bar.
|
On December 23 2024 08:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2024 07:41 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 23 2024 07:21 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2024 06:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 23 2024 05:14 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2024 04:42 Sadist wrote:
BlackJack what do you want to happen? You are just stating things but not what you want to happen. No one will argue that there shouldnt be more safety and controls at these labs.
What do you want to happen? How would you punish these people and/or china? How would it change how things end up?
You can't shrug your shoulders and say well the genie is already out of the bottle so what's the difference and then also insist you want more safety and controls at these labs. If you wanted change in the safety you would be arguing for more scrutiny and more public outcry and instead you are seemingly offering apathy. How do you expect to get more safety if the "completely nuts" "wild west" dangerous research these people are acknowledging in their private emails is allowed to be swept under the rug? It's easy to hollowly declare you want more safety at the labs while being seemingly unbothered that the way for it to come about is quashed. Do you seriously think lab safety standards are for labs in China haven't changed? The Chinese goverment are notorious for coming down hard on entire industries that makes problems appear. You think they were pleased about a pandemic? The time for criticism was before covid. That was when criticism could have done some good. At this point any changes will have been made already been made. And the lab in question will be squeky clean regardless if it was the source or not. You live in a fantasy. You want things that would never have happened. And you want Fauci to have done pointless things that would have done massive harm at precisly the wrong time because you don't like him and you want him to have been wrong. You might say it's about principle, others would say it's just dumb. If a Monsanto factory potentially leaked a pollutant into the environment that killed a few people I doubt you would defend an attempted cover-up and a maligning of people as conspiracy theorists for talking about it. You wouldn't be easily satisfied as long as they improved the factory's safety. You wouldn't be okay if they lied under oath to Congress about what they were doing at the factory. I'm not sure why your approach in this instance is that there's no use crying over spilled milk and the important thing is not straining relations with China. We had a President mocking China, calling it the Kung-flu, and I'm expected to believe that simple agnosticism over COVID origins would have irreparably alienated China? We must immediately commission a paper to declare it improbable it came from the lab? I'm happy to settle on the last sentence of your post. I think it's about principle. You can think it's dumb. Agree to disagree. Your entire argument falls apart in the first sentence since a pollutant from a factory can't occur naturally. You don't know. Fauci doesn't know. The only people who potentially know are either telling you the truth or are sure as fuck aint saying anything. You will never know. You just want Fauci and by extension the democrats to be wrong and China to be the bad guy. You are pissed because someone in a political position chose to act diplomatically. Seriously, what do you want? A commission to see if it could have been a lab leak? China will present you with evidence that it wasn't one. You'll say you can't trust that evidence. Different experts will say different things but in general that it could have been but we can't know. Relations will be damaged, money will be spent. For what? Something we can conclude right now? Yeah, I'd call that dumb. I don't "want China to be the bad guy." Like I said, I would be happy with agnosticism. I don't need to justify agnosticism. That should be the default position. If you don't know if it came from the lab or if it came naturally then just say you don't know. It's not difficult. You're the one that's defending the cover-up, lying to the public, lying to Congress. And for what? Because you're scared of how China might react if we don't? You don't even want a commission to investigate because relations will be damaged, you don't think it will give us an answer, and because it will cost money? 7 million people died and trillions of economic dollars were lost and you want to pinch pennies on investigating the cause of it? The idea that we don't need an investigation because you can already conclude that nothing will come of the investigation is some clairvoyance that you might possess but I don't.
I don't need to be clairvoyant when it has already been investigated before.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/scicheck-fauci-and-paul-round-2/
Fauci didn't lie (but yes, a few people disagree with that assessment) to congress. The origins of Covid were looked at extensivly.
The answer is we can't be completely sure.
You can do the dance again but without new input the answers will be the same. But you aren't interested in that. You don't like the answers given the first time so you want to repeat the process untill you do. That's dumb.
Save yourself some trouble and find a shady Ted Cruz affiliated website which gives you the answers you want and take that as truth. Much easier and you will get what you want.
|
On December 23 2024 18:59 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2024 08:41 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2024 07:41 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 23 2024 07:21 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2024 06:32 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On December 23 2024 05:14 BlackJack wrote:On December 23 2024 04:42 Sadist wrote:
BlackJack what do you want to happen? You are just stating things but not what you want to happen. No one will argue that there shouldnt be more safety and controls at these labs.
What do you want to happen? How would you punish these people and/or china? How would it change how things end up?
You can't shrug your shoulders and say well the genie is already out of the bottle so what's the difference and then also insist you want more safety and controls at these labs. If you wanted change in the safety you would be arguing for more scrutiny and more public outcry and instead you are seemingly offering apathy. How do you expect to get more safety if the "completely nuts" "wild west" dangerous research these people are acknowledging in their private emails is allowed to be swept under the rug? It's easy to hollowly declare you want more safety at the labs while being seemingly unbothered that the way for it to come about is quashed. Do you seriously think lab safety standards are for labs in China haven't changed? The Chinese goverment are notorious for coming down hard on entire industries that makes problems appear. You think they were pleased about a pandemic? The time for criticism was before covid. That was when criticism could have done some good. At this point any changes will have been made already been made. And the lab in question will be squeky clean regardless if it was the source or not. You live in a fantasy. You want things that would never have happened. And you want Fauci to have done pointless things that would have done massive harm at precisly the wrong time because you don't like him and you want him to have been wrong. You might say it's about principle, others would say it's just dumb. If a Monsanto factory potentially leaked a pollutant into the environment that killed a few people I doubt you would defend an attempted cover-up and a maligning of people as conspiracy theorists for talking about it. You wouldn't be easily satisfied as long as they improved the factory's safety. You wouldn't be okay if they lied under oath to Congress about what they were doing at the factory. I'm not sure why your approach in this instance is that there's no use crying over spilled milk and the important thing is not straining relations with China. We had a President mocking China, calling it the Kung-flu, and I'm expected to believe that simple agnosticism over COVID origins would have irreparably alienated China? We must immediately commission a paper to declare it improbable it came from the lab? I'm happy to settle on the last sentence of your post. I think it's about principle. You can think it's dumb. Agree to disagree. Your entire argument falls apart in the first sentence since a pollutant from a factory can't occur naturally. You don't know. Fauci doesn't know. The only people who potentially know are either telling you the truth or are sure as fuck aint saying anything. You will never know. You just want Fauci and by extension the democrats to be wrong and China to be the bad guy. You are pissed because someone in a political position chose to act diplomatically. Seriously, what do you want? A commission to see if it could have been a lab leak? China will present you with evidence that it wasn't one. You'll say you can't trust that evidence. Different experts will say different things but in general that it could have been but we can't know. Relations will be damaged, money will be spent. For what? Something we can conclude right now? Yeah, I'd call that dumb. I don't "want China to be the bad guy." Like I said, I would be happy with agnosticism. I don't need to justify agnosticism. That should be the default position. If you don't know if it came from the lab or if it came naturally then just say you don't know. It's not difficult. You're the one that's defending the cover-up, lying to the public, lying to Congress. And for what? Because you're scared of how China might react if we don't? You don't even want a commission to investigate because relations will be damaged, you don't think it will give us an answer, and because it will cost money? 7 million people died and trillions of economic dollars were lost and you want to pinch pennies on investigating the cause of it? The idea that we don't need an investigation because you can already conclude that nothing will come of the investigation is some clairvoyance that you might possess but I don't. I don't need to be clairvoyant when it has already been investigated before. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/scicheck-fauci-and-paul-round-2/Fauci didn't lie (but yes, a few people disagree with that assessment) to congress. The origins of Covid were looked at extensivly. The answer is we can't be completely sure. You can do the dance again but without new input the answers will be the same. But you aren't interested in that. You don't like the answers given the first time so you want to repeat the process untill you do. That's dumb. Save yourself some trouble and find a shady Ted Cruz affiliated website which gives you the answers you want and take that as truth. Much easier and you will get what you want.
Your factcheck article predates the redacted emails that came to light where Anthony Fauci explicitly states they are doing gain-of-function research at Wuhan. That was before he went to Congress and said they weren't doing gain-of-function research. Well they can't be doing and also not doing it. So that's a lie.
Sure you could believe that between the two statements something came to light where he decided it wasn't gain-of-function research being done. Or given the circumstances one might determine that denying gain-of-function research was the politically expedient thing to do at the time. In my opinion that's by far the less foolish thing to believe, especially as you defend Fauci for taking the path of political expediency over loyalty to the truth.
|
Northern Ireland26468 Posts
On December 23 2024 14:21 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2024 09:34 WombaT wrote:On December 23 2024 09:25 Billyboy wrote:On December 23 2024 08:08 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 23 2024 07:55 Billyboy wrote:On December 23 2024 04:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I honestly think the main thing he wants to happen is for people to agree that lying to the public 'for the greater good' is a fucked principle and that the 'truth' should be pursued even if it's not politically expedient or whatnot. Haven't really ever seen BJ wishing for some type of punishment for anyone. That seems like a rational but extraordinarily naïve aim. And only rational if he holds it for everyone equally, which seems extremely unlikely. Why is it naive and why wouldnt he hold it against everyone equally? Quite a few reasons. National security is a pretty well known one. Next it would malicious actors who use the information to mislead. Then there is that lots of people just won't take the time or have the skills or horse power to understand it. And others, I can understand the want for total transparency though, if everyone was willing maybe. Bias is the reason. Fauci has lied way less than most of the people in power right now, if not all. For sure WAY less than Trump, RFK jr and Musk. So as long as we get a bunch of talk about how bad they are, then it would be agnostic and not just against the other guy. Did anyone say never investigate? Or just that, lets not investigate until after we have dealt with the far more pressing issue, the pandemic. One that many politicians, "non traditional media", MSM and others were actively sabotaging efforts to gain for themselves. Pretty much. Oh veracity and transparency is a critical virtue for Fauci? Aight fair enough. Why seemingly just him or associated agencies? If you want to go around parroting “trust the experts” and demanding compliance for their recommendations then lying less than politicians like Trump is not as great of a selling point as you seem to think. What an incredibly low bar.
Can only speak to myself but not something I’ve parroted as a mantra.
Yes, it’s an incredibly low bar, it’s sitting on the floor and still one many people fail to leap over. So expecting people to execute a pole vault in other domains feels a bit much of a demand.
Extraordinary times, expecting people to do extraordinary things, yeah the bar should certainly be set high. On the flip side I do expect some errors, or indeed errors of judgement in such a scenario as well.
There are other countries than the US, and other experts other than Fauci, so an overall trust in the process doesn’t hinge wholly on those utterances and policy.
|
|
|
On December 24 2024 03:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Nice to see the Democrats commute 37 of 40 death penalty sentences. You can't really credit Biden for it... He is not fully lucid. Whoever made it happen... Good for them. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgkxe4xlvgxo
The fact that there are over 2000 people being sentenced to death in the US... especially knowing how many of those cases are most likely innocent. Unbelievable.
|
On December 24 2024 03:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Nice to see the Democrats commute 37 of 40 death penalty sentences. You can't really credit Biden for it... He is not fully lucid. Whoever made it happen... Good for them. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgkxe4xlvgxo
Yes, you absolutely can, and you absolutely should. He's the one who did it.
"Today, President Biden announced that he is commuting the sentences of 37 individuals on federal death row."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/12/23/fact-sheet-president-biden-commutes-the-sentences-of-37-individuals-on-death-row/
"Biden commutes sentences of 37 federal death row prisoners
President Biden used his clemency authority Monday to commute the sentences of 37 of the 40 men on federal death row to life without parole, in one of the most significant moves taken against capital punishment in recent presidential history. ... In a statement, the president said the commutations are in line with the 2021 moratorium his administration imposed on federal executions. "Make no mistake: I condemn these murderers, grieve for the victims of their despicable acts, and ache for all the families who have suffered unimaginable and irreparable loss," Biden said. Citing his experience as a public defender and an elected official, Biden added, "I am more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level."
https://www.npr.org/2024/12/23/g-s1-38794/biden-death-row-commutations
|
Biden in particular and the left in general really covering themselves in glory after the election. "But we're better than they are" really taking a hit recently, from crony pardons, justifying lying by public health officials, cheering the death of a CEO they don't like while simultaneously cheering the commutation of murderers (but not all of them, very principled! ). If to some it was ever for a brief moment believable, we are again reminded it isn't actually true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
