This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
What's condescending, imo, is treating half of the electorate like they don't have any agency. The irony of your construction is that left-of-center folks are responsible not only for their own votes and their political party, but also responsible for the votes of the *other* major party.
How is this construction, where conservatives are helplessly driven to support Trump because lefty people hurt their feelings, not true condescension?
When you cast your vote for somebody, that's your responsibility and nobody else's. Anybody who passes the buck on that, again, doesn't understand or even respect democratic government, imo.
This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
What's condescending, imo, is treating half of the electorate like they don't have any agency. The irony of your construction is that left-of-center folks are responsible not only for their own votes and their political party, but also responsible for the votes of the *other* major party.
How is this construction, where conservatives are helplessly driven to support Trump because lefty people hurt their feelings, not true condescension?
When you cast your vote for somebody, that's your responsibility and nobody else's. Anybody who passes the buck on that, again, doesn't understand or even respect democratic government, imo.
Republican politicians and conservative voters skirting agency is one of the defining trends of this era. You know how many write-ups and CNN panels I've seen about Trump voters the past 3 years?? Dozens. Know how many panels on so-called "liberal' TV I have seen of Hillary supporters. Zero. I have actively searched high and low for the segment or article that puts twelve of them in a room and I have yet to find it.
Moreover, for a group of people whose sole defining political philosophy in this era seems to be that people are too emotional and that those who take offense to things need to "get over it", they sure are a sensitive bunch, to the point where you see people switch policy positions based on having their feelings hurt, which fundamentally exposes this whole "anti-PC" backlash. Which boils down to "I want to say this in public, but you have no right to critcize what I say yourself, and if you do, you're just proving why you forced me to want to say it in the first place". Personal responsibility is for other people, just like "wasteful spending" is always helping someone else, and just like deficits will magically start mattering again the second a Democrat is sworn in.
This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
What's condescending, imo, is treating half of the electorate like they don't have any agency. The irony of your construction is that left-of-center folks are responsible not only for their own votes and their political party, but also responsible for the votes of the *other* major party.
How is this construction, where conservatives are helplessly driven to support Trump because lefty people hurt their feelings, not true condescension?
When you cast your vote for somebody, that's your responsibility and nobody else's. Anybody who passes the buck on that, again, doesn't understand or even respect democratic government, imo.
Relevant, but... It isn't the person we're voting for necessarily, it's the philosophy. While I find Trump distasteful and a boor, at best I may not vote for him if the Dem candidate is OK. If I despise the Democrat (ie: Clinton) I'd vote for Trump. There is really no circumstance where I'd vote for a Democrat...
I shit you not, I found this story from the local news in NC not 10 minutes after I typed my other post, where a woman using a racial slur on camera says, VERBATIM when confronted about it, that they "forced her into it". Looks like the "economic anxiety" must really be getting to her:
This pretty much exactly what we are talking about. It's not just who they might support, or what they might say. That can be dealt with. But this abject refusal to take responsibility for ANYTHING one does and immediately try to turn it around is the thing that will really piss you off. Christ lady, if you are going go full n-word in front of a restaurant full of people, at least have the stones to own what you said. As someone astutely pointed out in a Twitter thread about this, she drops the bomb right after the black woman says "my money is as green as yours". That is not an accident. The idea that she was confronted with the fact she is not superior by default is what set her off.
This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
What's condescending, imo, is treating half of the electorate like they don't have any agency. The irony of your construction is that left-of-center folks are responsible not only for their own votes and their political party, but also responsible for the votes of the *other* major party.
How is this construction, where conservatives are helplessly driven to support Trump because lefty people hurt their feelings, not true condescension?
When you cast your vote for somebody, that's your responsibility and nobody else's. Anybody who passes the buck on that, again, doesn't understand or even respect democratic government, imo.
Relevant, but... It isn't the person we're voting for necessarily, it's the philosophy. While I find Trump distasteful and a boor, at best I may not vote for him if the Dem candidate is OK. If I despise the Democrat (ie: Clinton) I'd vote for Trump. There is really no circumstance where I'd vote for a Democrat...
So, what about Democratic polititians is worse than Trump's literal concentration camps?
This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
What's condescending, imo, is treating half of the electorate like they don't have any agency. The irony of your construction is that left-of-center folks are responsible not only for their own votes and their political party, but also responsible for the votes of the *other* major party.
How is this construction, where conservatives are helplessly driven to support Trump because lefty people hurt their feelings, not true condescension?
When you cast your vote for somebody, that's your responsibility and nobody else's. Anybody who passes the buck on that, again, doesn't understand or even respect democratic government, imo.
Relevant, but... It isn't the person we're voting for necessarily, it's the philosophy. While I find Trump distasteful and a boor, at best I may not vote for him if the Dem candidate is OK. If I despise the Democrat (ie: Clinton) I'd vote for Trump. There is really no circumstance where I'd vote for a Democrat...
So, what about Democratic polititians is worse than Trump's literal concentration camps?
They're not in power so I couldn't tell you yet...
This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
What's condescending, imo, is treating half of the electorate like they don't have any agency. The irony of your construction is that left-of-center folks are responsible not only for their own votes and their political party, but also responsible for the votes of the *other* major party.
How is this construction, where conservatives are helplessly driven to support Trump because lefty people hurt their feelings, not true condescension?
When you cast your vote for somebody, that's your responsibility and nobody else's. Anybody who passes the buck on that, again, doesn't understand or even respect democratic government, imo.
Relevant, but... It isn't the person we're voting for necessarily, it's the philosophy. While I find Trump distasteful and a boor, at best I may not vote for him if the Dem candidate is OK. If I despise the Democrat (ie: Clinton) I'd vote for Trump. There is really no circumstance where I'd vote for a Democrat...
So, what about Democratic polititians is worse than Trump's literal concentration camps?
They're not in power so I couldn't tell you yet...
Not an excuse.
All of them have been sharing ideas and policies they’d Implement if elected.
What of those ideas that they have shared is worse than concentration camps?
Now I know you harp on the cost of programs (I do this as well) and what it will take the average person to actually get these policies implemented, and I respect that, but everything has a cost. Remember your tax money right now is funding concentration camps for children.
What of those ideas that they have shared is worse than concentration camps?
.
TBH- the election should be about this and healthcare. Trump's border camps and family separations + attempt to kill the ACA without any kind of a replacement plan should be a winning ticket.
Maybe spice the dish by mentioning his (still) unpopular tax cuts.
And that's before you factor in all the ways in which Trump is awful in a personal way.
This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
What's condescending, imo, is treating half of the electorate like they don't have any agency. The irony of your construction is that left-of-center folks are responsible not only for their own votes and their political party, but also responsible for the votes of the *other* major party.
How is this construction, where conservatives are helplessly driven to support Trump because lefty people hurt their feelings, not true condescension?
When you cast your vote for somebody, that's your responsibility and nobody else's. Anybody who passes the buck on that, again, doesn't understand or even respect democratic government, imo.
Relevant, but... It isn't the person we're voting for necessarily, it's the philosophy. While I find Trump distasteful and a boor, at best I may not vote for him if the Dem candidate is OK. If I despise the Democrat (ie: Clinton) I'd vote for Trump. There is really no circumstance where I'd vote for a Democrat...
So, what about Democratic polititians is worse than Trump's literal concentration camps?
They're not in power so I couldn't tell you yet...
So you prefer Trump to a party that you admit to not engaging with? "There really is no cicumstance where I'd vote for a Democrat," but you don't even know anything about any of their stances. So really, you've long decided to vote for a known racist who runs concentration camps, and are just putting up excuses to do so.
There is really no circumstance where I'd vote for a Democrat...
Exactly. So these lines that people who share your views give that "Dems did x so that's why I'm voting Trump" or "that's why Trump will win" are not really accurate. You were going to vote for him anyway.
Like you basically say there's nothing the other choice could do that will change your mind.
Elaborating on that premise, to me it grants him (Trump) any excuse - like he said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and still not lose any voters. Because there's no way people with these views would vote for a Democrat.
This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
What's condescending, imo, is treating half of the electorate like they don't have any agency. The irony of your construction is that left-of-center folks are responsible not only for their own votes and their political party, but also responsible for the votes of the *other* major party.
How is this construction, where conservatives are helplessly driven to support Trump because lefty people hurt their feelings, not true condescension?
When you cast your vote for somebody, that's your responsibility and nobody else's. Anybody who passes the buck on that, again, doesn't understand or even respect democratic government, imo.
Relevant, but... It isn't the person we're voting for necessarily, it's the philosophy. While I find Trump distasteful and a boor, at best I may not vote for him if the Dem candidate is OK. If I despise the Democrat (ie: Clinton) I'd vote for Trump. There is really no circumstance where I'd vote for a Democrat...
So, what about Democratic polititians is worse than Trump's literal concentration camps?
@ThacoBell I believe when it comes down to it voters like this have an image in their head of what a 'Democrat' is. This character in their imagination is in large part the result of 24/7 smears in right wing media.
These people hear ad nauseam about democrat=open borders, snowflakes, socialism, etc etc and they hate this strawman. They hear how Republicans are freedom, or whatever. Their whole worldview has been colored by right wing fake news and spin.
This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
What's condescending, imo, is treating half of the electorate like they don't have any agency. The irony of your construction is that left-of-center folks are responsible not only for their own votes and their political party, but also responsible for the votes of the *other* major party.
How is this construction, where conservatives are helplessly driven to support Trump because lefty people hurt their feelings, not true condescension?
When you cast your vote for somebody, that's your responsibility and nobody else's. Anybody who passes the buck on that, again, doesn't understand or even respect democratic government, imo.
Relevant, but... It isn't the person we're voting for necessarily, it's the philosophy. While I find Trump distasteful and a boor, at best I may not vote for him if the Dem candidate is OK. If I despise the Democrat (ie: Clinton) I'd vote for Trump. There is really no circumstance where I'd vote for a Democrat...
So, what about Democratic polititians is worse than Trump's literal concentration camps?
They're not in power so I couldn't tell you yet...
Not an excuse.
All of them have been sharing ideas and policies they’d Implement if elected.
What of those ideas that they have shared is worse than concentration camps?
Now I know you harp on the cost of programs (I do this as well) and what it will take the average person to actually get these policies implemented, and I respect that, but everything has a cost. Remember your tax money right now is funding concentration camps for children.
The President doesn't simply 'implement' his policies. He needs them to be law first which requires Congress. Sharing wonderful, beautiful, heart-warming ideas before you're in power is all well and good but I'll believe it when I see a signed bill...
As for 'Concentration Camp', just because you call them that doesn't mean it's true. I'm not even going to argue with a question phrased that way...
There is really no circumstance where I'd vote for a Democrat...
Exactly. So these lines that people who share your views give that "Dems did x so that's why I'm voting Trump" or "that's why Trump will win" are not really accurate. You were going to vote for him anyway.
Like you basically say there's nothing the other choice could do that will change your mind.
Elaborating on that premise, to me it grants him (Trump) any excuse - like he said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and still not lose any voters. Because there's no way people with these views would vote for a Democrat.
I have voted for Democrats in the past. The current Democratic Party does not give a shit about me. It's been obvious the way they've been heading for at least 10-15 years. The moderates that have gotten my votes on your side of the spectrum either don't exist anymore or are being gagged by the party. The Republican Party doesn't give a shit about me either, but I lean right so lately I've mostly thrown my votes their way. Simple as that.
This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
What's condescending, imo, is treating half of the electorate like they don't have any agency. The irony of your construction is that left-of-center folks are responsible not only for their own votes and their political party, but also responsible for the votes of the *other* major party.
How is this construction, where conservatives are helplessly driven to support Trump because lefty people hurt their feelings, not true condescension?
When you cast your vote for somebody, that's your responsibility and nobody else's. Anybody who passes the buck on that, again, doesn't understand or even respect democratic government, imo.
Relevant, but... It isn't the person we're voting for necessarily, it's the philosophy. While I find Trump distasteful and a boor, at best I may not vote for him if the Dem candidate is OK. If I despise the Democrat (ie: Clinton) I'd vote for Trump. There is really no circumstance where I'd vote for a Democrat...
So, what about Democratic polititians is worse than Trump's literal concentration camps?
They're not in power so I couldn't tell you yet...
Not an excuse.
All of them have been sharing ideas and policies they’d Implement if elected.
What of those ideas that they have shared is worse than concentration camps?
Now I know you harp on the cost of programs (I do this as well) and what it will take the average person to actually get these policies implemented, and I respect that, but everything has a cost. Remember your tax money right now is funding concentration camps for children.
The President doesn't simply 'implement' his policies. He needs them to be law first which requires Congress. Sharing wonderful, beautiful, heart-warming ideas before you're in power is all well and good but I'll believe it when I see a signed bill...
As for 'Concentration Camp', just because you call them that doesn't mean it's true. I'm not even going to argue with a question phrased that way...
Except when he uses Executive Orders.
Or he does plays the “National Security Card”
Or when he uses the military as a national political prop.
Those are the three off the top of my head.
About the camps:
What would you want to call them? If one side is saying this is extremely bad and the other side saying “no it’s not, but we’re not going to let you look behind the curtain,” shouldn’t an independent third party be able to intervene, like a court appointed auditor, to determine if it is really that bad and if any laws (international, national, state or municipal) are being broken in these -fill in what ever word you want here, it’s all semantics- camps? If anything, just to shut up the people who are using exaggeration to sell their point to the public.
Or is it just that much easier to scoff and turn a blind eye because it does not effect you personally?
(And please note, I am not attempting to personally attack you, or accuse you of any behaviour. The last line is very much more rhetorical than what I personally think of you.)
Let's face the facts here, if even ONE innocent person is on death row or has been killed (and we already know that it is many, many more than that), then the system is not worth keeping. But the problem remains that plenty of people are perfectly willing to kill innocent people as long as it satisfies their overall desire for revenge. As far as I'm concerned this position against the death penalty is basically unassailable unless the other side admits they are ok with wrongfully convicted people being killed.
If even a number as low as 1 in 100 people executed are innocent, by supporting this knowing what we know about exonerations years later, you are by default saying that the societal bloodlust and revenge for the families of the victims of the 99 cases is MORE important than the life of the innocent one, and that their death is an acceptable cost. Which then brings up the question?? Who do we kill for family of the unjustly executed man to get their revenge?? The answer is, of course, that no one cares about this person, so the question is never asked.
This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
What's condescending, imo, is treating half of the electorate like they don't have any agency. The irony of your construction is that left-of-center folks are responsible not only for their own votes and their political party, but also responsible for the votes of the *other* major party.
How is this construction, where conservatives are helplessly driven to support Trump because lefty people hurt their feelings, not true condescension?
When you cast your vote for somebody, that's your responsibility and nobody else's. Anybody who passes the buck on that, again, doesn't understand or even respect democratic government, imo.
Relevant, but... It isn't the person we're voting for necessarily, it's the philosophy. While I find Trump distasteful and a boor, at best I may not vote for him if the Dem candidate is OK. If I despise the Democrat (ie: Clinton) I'd vote for Trump. There is really no circumstance where I'd vote for a Democrat...
So, what about Democratic polititians is worse than Trump's literal concentration camps?
They're not in power so I couldn't tell you yet...
Not an excuse.
All of them have been sharing ideas and policies they’d Implement if elected.
What of those ideas that they have shared is worse than concentration camps?
Now I know you harp on the cost of programs (I do this as well) and what it will take the average person to actually get these policies implemented, and I respect that, but everything has a cost. Remember your tax money right now is funding concentration camps for children.
The President doesn't simply 'implement' his policies. He needs them to be law first which requires Congress. Sharing wonderful, beautiful, heart-warming ideas before you're in power is all well and good but I'll believe it when I see a signed bill...
As for 'Concentration Camp', just because you call them that doesn't mean it's true. I'm not even going to argue with a question phrased that way...
Except when he uses Executive Orders.
Or he does plays the “National Security Card”
Or when he uses the military as a national political prop.
Those are the three off the top of my head.
About the camps:
What would you want to call them? If one side is saying this is extremely bad and the other side saying “no it’s not, but we’re not going to let you look behind the curtain,” shouldn’t an independent third party be able to intervene, like a court appointed auditor, to determine if it is really that bad and if any laws (international, national, state or municipal) are being broken in these -fill in what ever word you want here, it’s all semantics- camps? If anything, just to shut up the people who are using exaggeration to sell their point to the public.
Or is it just that much easier to scoff and turn a blind eye because it does not effect you personally?
(And please note, I am not attempting to personally attack you, or accuse you of any behaviour. The last line is very much more rhetorical than what I personally think of you.)
Where the Hell are we supposed to keep them? Seriously, should we rent them rooms at the local Weston, or what?
Also, apparently the Germans seem to be having trouble with the very same thing...
If killing unborn children is acceptable, then so is killing convicted murderers.
This is the biggest non-sequiter I have ever seen, and also happens to be the one that is constantly brought up when this topic comes up by the right. I am talking about people who have spent DECADES on death row being completely exonerated. What does this have to do with abortion??
Where the Hell are we supposed to keep them? Seriously, should we rent them rooms at the local Weston, or what?
Also, apparently the Germans seem to be having trouble with the very same thing...
It would cost a lot less, based on the $700 per day figure that has been floating around.
A lot of these centers have been around since before Trump - but they have gotten objectively worse under him (and the child separation thing is entirely Trump).
Any way you slice it - Trump has done an awful job with the border. It took no new legislation for him to do it.
I would actually disagree with the idea that capital punishment is unacceptable because it's irreversible. The only form of punishment that is reversible is a fine. Being imprisoned for 2 years is not something you can ever reverse; people who have been wrongly imprisoned will never get those 2 years back. Being raped in prison isn't something you can reverse, either.
I'm still opposed to capital punishments for issues of cost and practicality. It can take millions of dollars in appeals and legal proceedings to execute a single person, and there are better things to spend millions of dollars on than having lawyers argue the same case over and over, particularly since people often spend years on death row anyway, just like they would with life imprisonment.
Frankly, a death sentence is far more humane than a life sentence given the absolutely hellish conditions of American prisons. I would recommend suicide for almost anyone who got a life sentence (or even just 20 years) and didn't have a realistic shot at getting out. In theory, I'd be in favor of the death penalty. But our legal system makes it incredibly impractical to implement what I view as the more humane option, so I'm against it in practice.
Incidentally, it's perfectly possible to be both pro-choice and anti-death penalty, or pro-life and pro-death penalty, without being a hypocrite. A person who opposes the death penalty doesn't necessarily view a fetus as equivalent to a human (it ain't murder if it ain't a person), and a person who views a fetus as equivalent to a human doesn't necessarily believe the right to life is irrevocable (murderers don't deserve to live).
This seems like a good time to remind people that Trump took out a full page ad calling for the death penalty for the so called central park 5 in the 80s.
These men were later exonerated based on DNA evidence and a confession from the real killer.
The men spent years in prison for a crime they didn't commit and if Donald Trump and the Bill Barr's of the world had got their way they would have been executed.
Not so fun fact is Trump still smears these men saying there's good people on both sides and something something something the disgraced prosecutor never admitted they were wrong.
So no, the Trump administration in particular should not be trusted with life and death. Even administrations not built on lies should not be trusted with this power because they get it wrong.
And Barr deploying this the day after the Mueller hearing is an attempt to shift the story because he's Trump's lawyer and doesn't represent America.
Incidentally, it's perfectly possible to be both pro-choice and anti-death penalty, or pro-life and pro-death penalty, without being a hypocrite. A person who opposes the death penalty doesn't necessarily view a fetus as equivalent to a human (it ain't murder if it ain't a person), and a person who views a fetus as equivalent to a human doesn't necessarily believe the right to life is irrevocable (murderers don't deserve to live).
For completeness sake, there is also the not uncommon view that even if the fetus were a person it does outweigh the body autonomy of the potential mother. Personally I hold both views (non-personhood & body autonomy being more important).
As for imprisonment not being reversible - this is true of course. But I think there is still a difference in degree - for imprisonment you can at least try to give some sort of financial compensation. Which BTW is one of the few good things about the imprisonment system in the US - at least some of the people who got imprisoned unjustly got a substantial amount of money for it. E.g. in Germany what you get per day unjustly imprisoned is a joke.
Finally, prison rape is not a punishment of the state, even though it seems that it is often tolerated. I think I said it before somewhere in this thread - there are few things seemingly acceptable in conversation that are more disgusting to me than gleefully talking about people getting raped in prison.
If killing unborn children is acceptable, then so is killing convicted murderers.
This is the biggest non-sequiter I have ever seen, and also happens to be the one that is constantly brought up when this topic comes up by the right. I am talking about people who have spent DECADES on death row being completely exonerated. What does this have to do with abortion??
I don't disagree that putting people to death who might be innocent is a very serious problem, but then every aborted fetus is an innocent person, as well. At the end of the day, killing people is killing people regardless of the circumstances--why is it okay to kill a 4-month-old fetus that has never hurt anyone but not a convicted murderer? Why does the murderer receive more leniency?
I have always favored exile, in any event. Find a remote island, drop them off, and wish them good luck.
If killing unborn children is acceptable, then so is killing convicted murderers.
This is the biggest non-sequiter I have ever seen, and also happens to be the one that is constantly brought up when this topic comes up by the right. I am talking about people who have spent DECADES on death row being completely exonerated. What does this have to do with abortion??
I don't disagree that putting people to death who might be innocent is a very serious problem, but then every aborted fetus is an innocent person, as well. At the end of the day, killing people is killing people regardless of the circumstances--why is it okay to kill a 4-month-old fetus that has never hurt anyone but not a convicted murderer? Why does the murderer receive more leniency?
Because as every single discussion both in this thread and the rest of the internet pointed out, the situations are not the same and there are important differences. You may argue that they do not matter for reasons that you would need to give, but you can't really argue that they do not exist.
But, again, to re-iterate:
The personhood of a 4 month old fetus is very debatable.
You need to have a person incubate the fetus, against her will. While the murderer is still around, the state is not coming to you personally and tell you that you need to feed him and let him live in your basement.
I just want to point out that the US does not even have a duty to rescue as a legal concept.
If you want a honest discussion then come from a reasonable starting point, instead of claiming that no one ever pointed out the differences between the two scenarios.
Suggesting exile is exactly the same as condoning prison rape. It is not ok to leave anyone without protection against violent criminals - anyone, includes people convicted as violent criminals (regardless of the truth of their convictions).
This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
What's condescending, imo, is treating half of the electorate like they don't have any agency. The irony of your construction is that left-of-center folks are responsible not only for their own votes and their political party, but also responsible for the votes of the *other* major party.
How is this construction, where conservatives are helplessly driven to support Trump because lefty people hurt their feelings, not true condescension?
When you cast your vote for somebody, that's your responsibility and nobody else's. Anybody who passes the buck on that, again, doesn't understand or even respect democratic government, imo.
Relevant, but... It isn't the person we're voting for necessarily, it's the philosophy. While I find Trump distasteful and a boor, at best I may not vote for him if the Dem candidate is OK. If I despise the Democrat (ie: Clinton) I'd vote for Trump. There is really no circumstance where I'd vote for a Democrat...
So, what about Democratic polititians is worse than Trump's literal concentration camps?
They're not in power so I couldn't tell you yet...
Not an excuse.
All of them have been sharing ideas and policies they’d Implement if elected.
What of those ideas that they have shared is worse than concentration camps?
Now I know you harp on the cost of programs (I do this as well) and what it will take the average person to actually get these policies implemented, and I respect that, but everything has a cost. Remember your tax money right now is funding concentration camps for children.
The President doesn't simply 'implement' his policies. He needs them to be law first which requires Congress. Sharing wonderful, beautiful, heart-warming ideas before you're in power is all well and good but I'll believe it when I see a signed bill...
As for 'Concentration Camp', just because you call them that doesn't mean it's true. I'm not even going to argue with a question phrased that way...
Except when he uses Executive Orders.
Or he does plays the “National Security Card”
Or when he uses the military as a national political prop.
Those are the three off the top of my head.
About the camps:
What would you want to call them? If one side is saying this is extremely bad and the other side saying “no it’s not, but we’re not going to let you look behind the curtain,” shouldn’t an independent third party be able to intervene, like a court appointed auditor, to determine if it is really that bad and if any laws (international, national, state or municipal) are being broken in these -fill in what ever word you want here, it’s all semantics- camps? If anything, just to shut up the people who are using exaggeration to sell their point to the public.
Or is it just that much easier to scoff and turn a blind eye because it does not effect you personally?
(And please note, I am not attempting to personally attack you, or accuse you of any behaviour. The last line is very much more rhetorical than what I personally think of you.)
Where the Hell are we supposed to keep them? Seriously, should we rent them rooms at the local Weston, or what?
Also, apparently the Germans seem to be having trouble with the very same thing...
Canada set them up in university dorm rooms, community centres and yes hotels and started processing them right away.
That’s the issue. The speed of processing them. I have no qualms keeping them in fenced in areas for a day or two when processing them gets overwhelming. But, we all saw this caravan coming miles away and the US had the resources to set up proper temporary shelters as well hire temporary workers to process this increased flux of people instead of stamping their feet and saying “their not coming in- Close the Border!!!!”
Hey so remember Anne Frank? The Jewish young girl who hid in an attic and was killed by the Nazis? The emblematic person we think of when we think of victims of the Holocaust?
She did not die in a gas chamber or in a death camp. She died in a ‘temporary’ detention center for the mass deportations which preceded the death camps. She was in that camp because a patriotic neighbor ratted her out to the German deportation force. She died, not of a bullet to the back of the head or choking on gas, but of typhus. She contracted typhus because the Nazis couldn’t realistically deport people at the rate they wanted to, because before the death camps their infrastructure couldn’t handle the sudden influx of ethnic minorities they had decided to imprison, and because they didn’t care about the consequences of that so their deportation detention centers were unhygienic and prisoners were underfed and overcrowded.
And she was picked up by the deportation force not because she was an illegal citizen but because, just like the US is doing with asylum seekers, she was part of a formerly recognized class of citizens who were legally redefined to lack citizenship by a new administration.
Anne Frank is exactly like the children who have already died in the United State’s detention camps. Exactly. Down to the very last detail. There. Is. Not. A. Single. Difference.
So yes, they ARE CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Historians say they are, people who suvived Nazi concentration camps say they are. You have a single shred of evidence that says otherwise? Or any that can even remotely outweigh the educated, professional, and lived through experience of experts?
There have been two major news stories the last two weeks that are showing increasing number of CITIZENS being caught unawares at any given moment without the proper documentation on them and getting caught up in ICE's extra-judicial web for months or years at a time. And I've literally seen arguments that amount to "so what if some people we're inconvenienced, that is no reason to criticize the policy as a whole". Ummmm, yes it is. Because, from the beginning, I and others have been warning that it was impossible to take this kind of broad approach and not stomp all over the rights of legitimate citizens. Now, if you LOOK like what ICE is searching for, and if you don't happen to have your birth certificate in your back pocket, you're then at their mercy. And we know by now that they have no mercy. John Creese is a better human being than most of these ICE agents. In the case of the guy from Dallas I posted about yesterday, he DID provide his documentation. The agents simply decided on the spot they were fake.
There is a brilliant indie-game released in the past couple years called "Papers, Please". The problem, is, in this environment, it's almost too disturbing to play. Because we are now in a papers please universe. If you look like you are of latino heritage and live anywhere NEAR a border at this point, you are at risk of having to prove your existence. And even if you do, Trump's stormtroopere can just unilaterally decide they are forgeries and lock you up outside the judicial system.
Regarding the prison rape issue: in theory, it is a state punishment. In practice, though, it's very much part of the package, and given the sheer frequency of the event, it should be considered relevant for the purposes of the criminal justice system--and the Eighth Amendment. The state is responsible for prison conditions. Prison rape might not be an official part of the sentence, but judges and juries sentence convicted criminals to imprisonment knowing full well that certain prisoners have a high chance of being raped, particularly the youngest and smallest inmates.
The government has a responsibility to prevent prison rape, and it is doing a disgracefully incompetent and halfhearted job of it.
Suggesting exile is exactly the same as condoning prison rape. It is not ok to leave anyone without protection against violent criminals - anyone, includes people convicted as violent criminals (regardless of the truth of their convictions).
The victims of violent criminals did not have protection against their attackers. The fates of violent criminals are not my problem--they made their choices and now they have to live with the consequences. I don't see the point in spending money to feed and house people who have, through their actions, demonstrated that they do not wish to be a part of any sort of civilized society.
edit/add: before you think me cruel, this logic applies to my own brother--he made his choices and now he has to live with them.
*************
Meanwhile, 16 Marines were just arrested--while in formation--at Camp Pendleton in connection with a human- and drug-trafficking ring.
Comments
relevant:
Republican politicians and conservative voters skirting agency is one of the defining trends of this era. You know how many write-ups and CNN panels I've seen about Trump voters the past 3 years?? Dozens. Know how many panels on so-called "liberal' TV I have seen of Hillary supporters. Zero. I have actively searched high and low for the segment or article that puts twelve of them in a room and I have yet to find it.
Moreover, for a group of people whose sole defining political philosophy in this era seems to be that people are too emotional and that those who take offense to things need to "get over it", they sure are a sensitive bunch, to the point where you see people switch policy positions based on having their feelings hurt, which fundamentally exposes this whole "anti-PC" backlash. Which boils down to "I want to say this in public, but you have no right to critcize what I say yourself, and if you do, you're just proving why you forced me to want to say it in the first place". Personal responsibility is for other people, just like "wasteful spending" is always helping someone else, and just like deficits will magically start mattering again the second a Democrat is sworn in.
Relevant, but... It isn't the person we're voting for necessarily, it's the philosophy. While I find Trump distasteful and a boor, at best I may not vote for him if the Dem candidate is OK. If I despise the Democrat (ie: Clinton) I'd vote for Trump. There is really no circumstance where I'd vote for a Democrat...
https://www.wral.com/raleigh-woman-defends-use-of-racial-slur/18530502/
This pretty much exactly what we are talking about. It's not just who they might support, or what they might say. That can be dealt with. But this abject refusal to take responsibility for ANYTHING one does and immediately try to turn it around is the thing that will really piss you off. Christ lady, if you are going go full n-word in front of a restaurant full of people, at least have the stones to own what you said. As someone astutely pointed out in a Twitter thread about this, she drops the bomb right after the black woman says "my money is as green as yours". That is not an accident. The idea that she was confronted with the fact she is not superior by default is what set her off.
So, what about Democratic polititians is worse than Trump's literal concentration camps?
They're not in power so I couldn't tell you yet...
Not an excuse.
All of them have been sharing ideas and policies they’d Implement if elected.
What of those ideas that they have shared is worse than concentration camps?
Now I know you harp on the cost of programs (I do this as well) and what it will take the average person to actually get these policies implemented, and I respect that, but everything has a cost. Remember your tax money right now is funding concentration camps for children.
TBH- the election should be about this and healthcare. Trump's border camps and family separations + attempt to kill the ACA without any kind of a replacement plan should be a winning ticket.
Maybe spice the dish by mentioning his (still) unpopular tax cuts.
And that's before you factor in all the ways in which Trump is awful in a personal way.
So you prefer Trump to a party that you admit to not engaging with? "There really is no cicumstance where I'd vote for a Democrat," but you don't even know anything about any of their stances. So really, you've long decided to vote for a known racist who runs concentration camps, and are just putting up excuses to do so.
Exactly. So these lines that people who share your views give that "Dems did x so that's why I'm voting Trump" or "that's why Trump will win" are not really accurate. You were going to vote for him anyway.
Like you basically say there's nothing the other choice could do that will change your mind.
Elaborating on that premise, to me it grants him (Trump) any excuse - like he said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and still not lose any voters. Because there's no way people with these views would vote for a Democrat.
@ThacoBell I believe when it comes down to it voters like this have an image in their head of what a 'Democrat' is. This character in their imagination is in large part the result of 24/7 smears in right wing media.
These people hear ad nauseam about democrat=open borders, snowflakes, socialism, etc etc and they hate this strawman. They hear how Republicans are freedom, or whatever. Their whole worldview has been colored by right wing fake news and spin.
The President doesn't simply 'implement' his policies. He needs them to be law first which requires Congress. Sharing wonderful, beautiful, heart-warming ideas before you're in power is all well and good but I'll believe it when I see a signed bill...
As for 'Concentration Camp', just because you call them that doesn't mean it's true. I'm not even going to argue with a question phrased that way...
I have voted for Democrats in the past. The current Democratic Party does not give a shit about me. It's been obvious the way they've been heading for at least 10-15 years. The moderates that have gotten my votes on your side of the spectrum either don't exist anymore or are being gagged by the party. The Republican Party doesn't give a shit about me either, but I lean right so lately I've mostly thrown my votes their way. Simple as that.
Except when he uses Executive Orders.
Or he does plays the “National Security Card”
Or when he uses the military as a national political prop.
Those are the three off the top of my head.
About the camps:
What would you want to call them? If one side is saying this is extremely bad and the other side saying “no it’s not, but we’re not going to let you look behind the curtain,” shouldn’t an independent third party be able to intervene, like a court appointed auditor, to determine if it is really that bad and if any laws (international, national, state or municipal) are being broken in these -fill in what ever word you want here, it’s all semantics- camps? If anything, just to shut up the people who are using exaggeration to sell their point to the public.
Or is it just that much easier to scoff and turn a blind eye because it does not effect you personally?
(And please note, I am not attempting to personally attack you, or accuse you of any behaviour. The last line is very much more rhetorical than what I personally think of you.)
Let's face the facts here, if even ONE innocent person is on death row or has been killed (and we already know that it is many, many more than that), then the system is not worth keeping. But the problem remains that plenty of people are perfectly willing to kill innocent people as long as it satisfies their overall desire for revenge. As far as I'm concerned this position against the death penalty is basically unassailable unless the other side admits they are ok with wrongfully convicted people being killed.
If even a number as low as 1 in 100 people executed are innocent, by supporting this knowing what we know about exonerations years later, you are by default saying that the societal bloodlust and revenge for the families of the victims of the 99 cases is MORE important than the life of the innocent one, and that their death is an acceptable cost. Which then brings up the question?? Who do we kill for family of the unjustly executed man to get their revenge?? The answer is, of course, that no one cares about this person, so the question is never asked.
Where the Hell are we supposed to keep them? Seriously, should we rent them rooms at the local Weston, or what?
Also, apparently the Germans seem to be having trouble with the very same thing...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dw.com/en/asylum-seekers-left-in-inhumane-conditions-in-german-refugee-center/a-48592696
This is the biggest non-sequiter I have ever seen, and also happens to be the one that is constantly brought up when this topic comes up by the right. I am talking about people who have spent DECADES on death row being completely exonerated. What does this have to do with abortion??
http://www.ncadp.org/pages/innocence
It would cost a lot less, based on the $700 per day figure that has been floating around.
A lot of these centers have been around since before Trump - but they have gotten objectively worse under him (and the child separation thing is entirely Trump).
Any way you slice it - Trump has done an awful job with the border. It took no new legislation for him to do it.
I'm still opposed to capital punishments for issues of cost and practicality. It can take millions of dollars in appeals and legal proceedings to execute a single person, and there are better things to spend millions of dollars on than having lawyers argue the same case over and over, particularly since people often spend years on death row anyway, just like they would with life imprisonment.
Frankly, a death sentence is far more humane than a life sentence given the absolutely hellish conditions of American prisons. I would recommend suicide for almost anyone who got a life sentence (or even just 20 years) and didn't have a realistic shot at getting out. In theory, I'd be in favor of the death penalty. But our legal system makes it incredibly impractical to implement what I view as the more humane option, so I'm against it in practice.
These men were later exonerated based on DNA evidence and a confession from the real killer.
The men spent years in prison for a crime they didn't commit and if Donald Trump and the Bill Barr's of the world had got their way they would have been executed.
Not so fun fact is Trump still smears these men saying there's good people on both sides and something something something the disgraced prosecutor never admitted they were wrong.
So no, the Trump administration in particular should not be trusted with life and death. Even administrations not built on lies should not be trusted with this power because they get it wrong.
And Barr deploying this the day after the Mueller hearing is an attempt to shift the story because he's Trump's lawyer and doesn't represent America.
For completeness sake, there is also the not uncommon view that even if the fetus were a person it does outweigh the body autonomy of the potential mother. Personally I hold both views (non-personhood & body autonomy being more important).
As for imprisonment not being reversible - this is true of course. But I think there is still a difference in degree - for imprisonment you can at least try to give some sort of financial compensation. Which BTW is one of the few good things about the imprisonment system in the US - at least some of the people who got imprisoned unjustly got a substantial amount of money for it. E.g. in Germany what you get per day unjustly imprisoned is a joke.
Finally, prison rape is not a punishment of the state, even though it seems that it is often tolerated. I think I said it before somewhere in this thread - there are few things seemingly acceptable in conversation that are more disgusting to me than gleefully talking about people getting raped in prison.
I don't disagree that putting people to death who might be innocent is a very serious problem, but then every aborted fetus is an innocent person, as well. At the end of the day, killing people is killing people regardless of the circumstances--why is it okay to kill a 4-month-old fetus that has never hurt anyone but not a convicted murderer? Why does the murderer receive more leniency?
I have always favored exile, in any event. Find a remote island, drop them off, and wish them good luck.
Because as every single discussion both in this thread and the rest of the internet pointed out, the situations are not the same and there are important differences. You may argue that they do not matter for reasons that you would need to give, but you can't really argue that they do not exist.
But, again, to re-iterate:
I just want to point out that the US does not even have a duty to rescue as a legal concept.
If you want a honest discussion then come from a reasonable starting point, instead of claiming that no one ever pointed out the differences between the two scenarios.
Suggesting exile is exactly the same as condoning prison rape. It is not ok to leave anyone without protection against violent criminals - anyone, includes people convicted as violent criminals (regardless of the truth of their convictions).
Canada set them up in university dorm rooms, community centres and yes hotels and started processing them right away.
That’s the issue. The speed of processing them. I have no qualms keeping them in fenced in areas for a day or two when processing them gets overwhelming. But, we all saw this caravan coming miles away and the US had the resources to set up proper temporary shelters as well hire temporary workers to process this increased flux of people instead of stamping their feet and saying “their not coming in- Close the Border!!!!”
Hey so remember Anne Frank? The Jewish young girl who hid in an attic and was killed by the Nazis? The emblematic person we think of when we think of victims of the Holocaust?
She did not die in a gas chamber or in a death camp. She died in a ‘temporary’ detention center for the mass deportations which preceded the death camps. She was in that camp because a patriotic neighbor ratted her out to the German deportation force. She died, not of a bullet to the back of the head or choking on gas, but of typhus. She contracted typhus because the Nazis couldn’t realistically deport people at the rate they wanted to, because before the death camps their infrastructure couldn’t handle the sudden influx of ethnic minorities they had decided to imprison, and because they didn’t care about the consequences of that so their deportation detention centers were unhygienic and prisoners were underfed and overcrowded.
And she was picked up by the deportation force not because she was an illegal citizen but because, just like the US is doing with asylum seekers, she was part of a formerly recognized class of citizens who were legally redefined to lack citizenship by a new administration.
Anne Frank is exactly like the children who have already died in the United State’s detention camps. Exactly. Down to the very last detail. There. Is. Not. A. Single. Difference.
So yes, they ARE CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Historians say they are, people who suvived Nazi concentration camps say they are. You have a single shred of evidence that says otherwise? Or any that can even remotely outweigh the educated, professional, and lived through experience of experts?
There is a brilliant indie-game released in the past couple years called "Papers, Please". The problem, is, in this environment, it's almost too disturbing to play. Because we are now in a papers please universe. If you look like you are of latino heritage and live anywhere NEAR a border at this point, you are at risk of having to prove your existence. And even if you do, Trump's stormtroopere can just unilaterally decide they are forgeries and lock you up outside the judicial system.
Regarding the prison rape issue: in theory, it is a state punishment. In practice, though, it's very much part of the package, and given the sheer frequency of the event, it should be considered relevant for the purposes of the criminal justice system--and the Eighth Amendment. The state is responsible for prison conditions. Prison rape might not be an official part of the sentence, but judges and juries sentence convicted criminals to imprisonment knowing full well that certain prisoners have a high chance of being raped, particularly the youngest and smallest inmates.
The government has a responsibility to prevent prison rape, and it is doing a disgracefully incompetent and halfhearted job of it.
The victims of violent criminals did not have protection against their attackers. The fates of violent criminals are not my problem--they made their choices and now they have to live with the consequences. I don't see the point in spending money to feed and house people who have, through their actions, demonstrated that they do not wish to be a part of any sort of civilized society.
edit/add: before you think me cruel, this logic applies to my own brother--he made his choices and now he has to live with them.
*************
Meanwhile, 16 Marines were just arrested--while in formation--at Camp Pendleton in connection with a human- and drug-trafficking ring.