HawkShack.com

Since the current selling point amongst Republicans is that the Democrats have severely abused the legal system to take out their chosen presidential candidate. Republicans view this use of the legal system to attack their presidential candidate for charges they view as weak as politically motivated and biased. They feel if the justice system has been undermined and weaponized by the Democrats, they may have no choice but to do the same and to dig in to battle against the Democrats. Trump has apparently raised huge sums of money. In early polling he has gained some points on Biden due to this conviction.

Can this money raising and surge from the trial help Trump win the election? Will this trial galvanize the Republicans to vote in a higher percentage than usual? How do swing voters view the trial outcome?

On the flip side, the Democrats are selling this as using the legal system to punish powerful people for their crimes and this is an example of the legal system not allowing even a president to be above the law.

How strong a selling point is this to swing voters? Will this help Biden in the upcoming election?

Basically, who do you think this trial helps more in the lead up to this election?

My thinking is this is a short-term help to Trump, but will fizzle out by the actual election. I don't think it will have a substantial long-term effect on Democrats or Republicans who are already bought in on their chosen side.

Swing voters don't seem moved one way or the other in any large number. It's been mostly a mixed and muted reaction amongst swing voters. I think the economy will still be the number one vote driver for swing voters by the time the election comes around. People are very self-oriented and the pocketbook drives swing voters the most for presidential elections.

I think the election remains a coin flip and we could see either candidate win. It will be another tight election that will incredibly difficult to predict.

Biden wins. Trump is perceived to be the biggest threat to “democracy” in this country’s history and will be removed by any means necessary. Any means…….

It won't be close but it has nothing to do with Trump or Biden. This will be about backlash from the Roe v Wade rescinding.

Roe vs. Wade has been quiet a while, but could resurface closer to the election. Definitely a strong issue with women. Could move the needle against Trump or at least definitely move the needle in Congress creating a situation where even if Trump wins, Congress goes Democrat which is pretty much the same as if Trump lost if not worse.

curmudgeon wrote:Biden wins. Trump is perceived to be the biggest threat to “democracy” in this country’s history and will be removed by any means necessary. Any means…….

Likely would have already been done if that was the case.

I think this election will be closer than people would prefer in either Party and either side could win. It's that weird in America right now.

c_hawkbob wrote:It won't be close but it has nothing to do with Trump or Biden. This will be about backlash from the Roe v Wade rescinding.

That's yesterday's news. The American public doesn't have that long of an attention span. Inflation and the economy, health care, immigration, even the environment come in ahead of abortion:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/136 ... issues-us/

At 38%, Biden's job approval numbers are still in the toilet. Just for reference, Jimmy Carter's job approval in 1980 was nearly identical to Biden's at 37%, and he lost in a landslide. Ford's in 1976 was 45% and Bush 41's in 1992 was 34%. Both lost. Donald Trump's 46% looks stellar compared to Biden's, and he lost. Since 1950, the only incumbent POTUS with a sub 50% job approval rating to win re-election was Bush 43 in 2004, and he had a relatively high 48% job approval and barely won. And unlike other elections, age is going to be an issue, and it's not going to favor Sleepy Joe. One little blunder on a debate state, like stumbling, acting lost and confused, or reading exactly what the teleprompter says, things he's done in the past, and he's finished.

This is not going to be a slam dunk for either candidate. Just like the last two elections, this one will be decided in a handful of battleground states.

Let's see how the economy fares in the coming months. Biden has been taking some flak for trying to put a positive spin on the economy when most Americans are feeling pretty down about it. And, of course, it remains to be seen what the long-term effect, if any, will be on voters regarding Trump's conviction. Will actually sway voters who would have voted for him, or will it energize his base?

Abortion is a hard one to get everyone on the same page for because it's not a Federal ban like way back when. The overturning of Roe vs. Wade left it to the States. A lot of States including more than a few red states are still allowing abortions and have ensconced the right in their State Constitutions. So in states where you can still have an abortion, why would you make that your primary issue? You likely wouldn't. Just as you likely would not if you lived in an area where you could hop across the state line and get an abortion and you didn't have a lunatic state DA trying to prosecute you. For the states where abortion is a problem, maybe a bigger issue in those states. Back when Roe vs. Wade became law, most of the nation had outlawed abortion. Not the case today. So hard for it to be a big issue for enough people to drive the election.

Though in the short-term, I think a lot of Republicans are digging in behind Trump, but they don't matter as much as they think. Neither do the Democratic voters who hate Trump.

What matters is the swing voters in key battleground states who don't particularly hate or love Trump. They'll just look at the information and make a vote. Maybe it will be the economy or maybe some other personal issue like gun rights or abortion. Or maybe they do view misuse of the justice system as bad or maybe they don't want a president who is a felon. Could go a lot of different ways.

I don't think many swing voters like Biden, but I also don't think they like Trump either. I think being a felon if his appeal doesn't work is going to weight on him long-term. The Republican faithful may be up in arms as some of my Republican friends are donating when they've never donated before up in arms about abuse of legal system against their chosen candidate, but some of the undecideds could care less about the conviction, barely followed the trial, and don't really care. They'll decide closer to the date as they don't have a strong like for either candidate.

I have a hard time imagining swing voters being particularly happy to vote in a felon as president. It's embarrassing as an American if we do it. Funny, but truly embarrassing.

The person in me who enjoys watching really insane comedy wants to see it, but the proper American in me would prefer Trump to make a deal to go away and never enter politics again. It would be easier on everyone if he just tapped the mat, told the Democrats he gives up, save all the taxpayers the money spent trying him, and went away to try to save what is left of his reputation and businesses that he completely destroyed being a total narcissistic idiot. Maybe the Trump sickening sycophants once off the drug of Trump's voice can stop acting like they're backing a persecuted Christ-like figure and realize they backed some scumbag billionaire that cheated on his wife with pornstars and playboy models and is exactly the type of person they aren't supposed to like in the first place: a dirty politicians doing whatever he can do to cheat on his taxes and manipulate them like puppets for his own ends.

There's a couple of problems with hanging your hat on the abortion issue. First, the decision to overturn RvW was two years ago. It will be 29 months into the rear-view mirror by the time the election rolls around. It's a back burner topic, validated by numerous surveys, consistently taking a back seat to the economy/inflation, immigration, health care costs and several other issues. The other problem is that even if it were front and center, it's not going to change very many votes. The voters it affects most are 18–35-year-olds, and guess who they're going to vote for? The voters most upset about it were going to vote Democratic anyway.

The issue of Trump being a convicted felon might make some difference. Prior to the decision being handed down, polls show that even 7% of R's felt that Trump should drop out if he were convicted. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll suddenly vote for Biden. It could mean that they would prefer that another R pick up the baton but that they'll still be voting for him if he stays in the race. At this point, if I were to bet money, I'd put it on Trump.

I'm not going to go so far as to wish ill on another human being unless they were some sort of murderer or child molester, but I do have to admit that I wouldn't shed a tear if Trump were to disappear. He's the single worst thing to have happened to this country in my lifetime.

It’s going to be a messy election. I will do my best to not get too involved like I have the past several. While I am not thrilled with Biden’s age issues, his policies have been incredible for my line of work in the environment. I also believe the Roe issue will matter in the swing states.

This is a surprisingly good take from Cowherd:
https://x.com/kenny_mayne/status/179744 ... pMkhpLC7ng

Stream Hawk wrote:It’s going to be a messy election. I will do my best to not get too involved like I have the past several. While I am not thrilled with Biden’s age issues, his policies have been incredible for my line of work in the environment. I also believe the Roe issue will matter in the swing states.

This is a surprisingly good take from Cowherd:
https://x.com/kenny_mayne/status/179744 ... pMkhpLC7ng

That's a pretty accurate assessment by Cowherd. I too tell my friends to stop pretending the country is in bad shape. It isn't. There is no need to "Make America Great Again." We're great as it is. We could use some fine tuning and some better policies for some issues, but overall we're doing fine. We were doing fine before Trump was in office after recovering from the 2008 crisis which was handled better than than any precious crisis in history. We recovered from a pandemic and it was handled better than any previous pandemic with less loss of life and less economic destruction. We're doing fine economically now for the most part.

Trump keeps a lot of bad company telling him to do stupid things. He keeps listening to them which means his ability to follow good advice barely exists.

Trump don't know how to handle power at all. That's what I hate about him the most is his inability to operate a stable, well run government without putting himself in front of everything else just to feed his narcissistic ego. He doesn't know when to STFU and let things work. Always gotta run his mouth and keep fighting even when he has won. This dude got taxes lowered so all his businesses would do better and just had to keep on insulting people and starting petty fights. Just ridiculously undisciplined and stupid. He got handed one of the most favorable government set up in his first term with a Republican Congress and still screwed it up enough to lose it. He's just an idiot who should not hold power in the United States, much less be president.

River_Dog wrote:There's a couple of problems with hanging your hat on the abortion issue. First, the decision to overturn RvW was two years ago. It will be 29 months into the rear-view mirror by the time the election rolls around. It's a back burner topic, validated by numerous surveys, consistently taking a back seat to the economy/inflation, immigration, health care costs and several other issues. The other problem is that even if it were front and center, it's not going to change very many votes. The voters it affects most are 18–35-year-olds, and guess who they're going to vote for? The voters most upset about it were going to vote Democratic anyway.

The issue of Trump being a convicted felon might make some difference. Prior to the decision being handed down, polls show that even 7% of R's felt that Trump should drop out if he were convicted. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll suddenly vote for Biden. It could mean that they would prefer that another R pick up the baton but that they'll still be voting for him if he stays in the race. At this point, if I were to bet money, I'd put it on Trump.

I'm not going to go so far as to wish ill on another human being unless they were some sort of murderer or child molester, but I do have to admit that I wouldn't shed a tear if Trump were to disappear. He's the single worst thing to have happened to this country in my lifetime.

The main problem is abortion is it's not illegal. It just a state issue and the majority of states did not make it illegal. I grew up watching the movies about abortion in the 50s with the backroom abortions and woman dying from them coupled with the mistreatment of having a child out of wedlock and suffering community shaming. None of that exists any more. It's not the 50s with all the components that drove the Roe vs. Wade push. People seem really stuck in the past on some issues like racism and women's rights. I'm sorry, those circumstances just aren't the same anymore. It's not the 50s. We have some legacy issues to deal with, but nothing like back then, not even close. So replicating those movements in the modern day is nearly impossible because the circumstances that drove those movements don't exist any longer and are instead varied by state and general changes in American culture.

I don't like wishing death on anyone. Trump is the most annoying president of my lifetime. I don't even think he is near as dangerous as some claim he is because you'd have to be a whole lot smarter and better at manipulating power to be more dangerous. He's just too narcissistic and pugnacious to be truly dangerous at manipulating other powerful Republicans into backing him. The only thing I worry about is him inspiring some small scale violence on his behalf from his looney followers. He reminds me a lot of Huey Long.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The main problem is abortion is it's not illegal. It just a state issue and the majority of states did not make it illegal. I grew up watching the movies about abortion in the 50s with the backroom abortions and woman dying from them coupled with the mistreatment of having a child out of wedlock and suffering community shaming. None of that exists any more. It's not the 50s with all the components that drove the Roe vs. Wade push. People seem really stuck in the past on some issues like racism and women's rights. I'm sorry, those circumstances just aren't the same anymore. It's not the 50s. We have some legacy issues to deal with, but nothing like back then, not even close. So replicating those movements in the modern day is nearly impossible because the circumstances that drove those movements don't exist any longer and are instead varied by state and general changes in American culture.

The other thing about the abortion issue, and which is the main reason why I can't get too excited about it, is that women have a lot more options available to them to protect themselves from an unwanted pregnancy than they did back in the 50's. So long as they're provided relatively easy access to contraceptives, I don't see it as a problem worthy of the national stage. I think the main problem that most women have with the issue is that the government shouldn't be telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies, and to a certain extent, I agree.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't like wishing death on anyone. Trump is the most annoying president of my lifetime. I don't even think he is near as dangerous as some claim he is because you'd have to be a whole lot smarter and better at manipulating power to be more dangerous. He's just too narcissistic and pugnacious to be truly dangerous at manipulating other powerful Republicans into backing him. The only thing I worry about is him inspiring some small scale violence on his behalf from his looney followers. He reminds me a lot of Huey Long.

Well, we all know what happened to Huey Long.

It's going to be an interesting 6 months.

I can't remember which thread it was, but I said something to the effect that Biden was going to do something age related, ie trip and fall, start reading the exact words on a teleprompter, in front of the cameras or a live microphone, something that his handlers can't control that's going to show just how compromised he is.

Well, it just happened. In remarks commemorating the 80th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy, France, Biden appeared lost and confused, apparently looking for his chair in a moment that immediately went viral:

In the video, Biden shakes Macron's hand and then turns to his wife before appearing to try to sit down. As the video continues, Biden can be seen slightly kneeling down and reaching behind, seemingly looking for a chair.

Biden's age, 81, and mental acuity have remained a topic of discussion ahead of the 2024 presidential election, which is shaping up to be a rematch of the 2020 race between Biden and Trump. Many Republicans have called for the release of a transcript between Biden and Special Counsel Robert Hur, who led the investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents.

Hur's report described Biden as an "elderly man with a poor memory," and many Republicans have called for the full transcript of their interview to be released to the public.

The Wall Street Journal also recently published a report stating that Biden has recently shown signs of "slipping" amid questions surrounding his age.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/jo ... ngNewsSerp

So there's our two options: A man who belongs in prison or a man who belongs in a nursing home. Some choice.

The really sad part is I don't really see any leaders on the horizon capable of uniting people towards something better.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The really sad part is I don't really see any leaders on the horizon capable of uniting people towards something better.

Although I haven't looked that hard, I don't see any on the Democratic side, but I really like Nikki Haley. She has a good mix of running a state government and foreign policy by being a UN representative. She's also willing to tackle SS and Medicare, and being that I'm retired, that's an issue which is very important to me.

River_Dog wrote:Although I haven't looked that hard, I don't see any on the Democratic side, but I really like Nikki Haley. She has a good mix of running a state government and foreign policy by being a UN representative. She's also willing to tackle SS and Medicare, and being that I'm retired, that's an issue which is very important to me.

Haley is getting very little interest from the Republican Party. Republicans don't seem to want a middle of the road Republican. They want someone that will fight the Democrats on some of their more insane issues. She doesn't have a strong enough ability to orate to pull the Republicans from this desire. You live in a more Republican area than I do, did you talk to a bunch of Haley fans over where you live or with your conservative friends?

Aseahawkfan wrote:Haley is getting very little interest from the Republican Party. Republicans don't seem to want a middle of the road Republican. They want someone that will fight the Democrats on some of their more insane issues. She doesn't have a strong enough ability to orate to pull the Republicans from this desire. You live in a more Republican area than I do, did you talk to a bunch of Haley fans over where you live or with your conservative friends?

I don't necessarily think you're wrong about Republicans not liking a moderate like Nikki Haley, but with Trump still casting a spell over them, we don't really know how much they'd warm up to her. For sure, she'd attract conservative/moderate, career minded women, a lot of military types as her husband is a veteran of Afghanistan and an officer in the Army National Guard. The fact that she is willing to tackle entitlement programs should appeal to retired folks. We'll find out in 2028.

To be honest, I don't talk a lot about politics with my friends. I try to abide by not discussing the three taboos you don't want to talk about on a first date: Sex, religion, and politics. It's something I've learned not to do during my working career. I'm also retired, so I don't get a chance to associate with a lot of people anyway.

River_Dog wrote:I don't necessarily think you're wrong about Republicans not liking a moderate like Nikki Haley, but with Trump still casting a spell over them, we don't really know how much they'd warm up to her. For sure, she'd attract conservative/moderate, career minded women, a lot of military types as her husband is a veteran of Afghanistan and an officer in the Army National Guard. The fact that she is willing to tackle entitlement programs should appeal to retired folks. We'll find out in 2028.

To be honest, I don't talk a lot about politics with my friends. I try to abide by not discussing the three taboos you don't want to talk about on a first date: Sex, religion, and politics. It's something I've learned not to do during my working career. I'm also retired, so I don't get a chance to associate with a lot of people anyway.

I figured you had a core group of friends that talked a little politics with. I have a core group of friends, most of whom are pretty conservative and at least two of them are fairly fervent Trump supporters. The other two generally vote Republican, but those two don't care for Trump and miss the Ronald Reagan style, pro-business, pro-military conservatives of the past. Another buddy is indifferent to politics and couldn't care less who is president. Most of even my Trump buddies are almost purely fueled by hating the Democrats and are constantly getting information about the loonier aspects of the Democratic agenda as well as having to deal with the insane local Washington Democratic politics, which further inflames anti-Democrat hate. Often the local politics are worse than the national politics. I wonder if Red State people experience that with Republican politics. I know these weird taxes and ordinances in blue states are pretty annoying.

And my personal pet peeve of Jay Inslee's moratorium on the death penalty after the Carnation Murders where that scumbag couple murdered three generations of a family and now to get to sit in jail on our dime. You should not be able to murder grandparents, parents, and 3 and 5 year old grandchildren and sit their in jail. You should be fast-tracked to the afterlife, so if there happens to be a Hell, they'll be burning there.

River_Dog wrote:I don't necessarily think you're wrong about Republicans not liking a moderate like Nikki Haley, but with Trump still casting a spell over them, we don't really know how much they'd warm up to her. For sure, she'd attract conservative/moderate, career minded women, a lot of military types as her husband is a veteran of Afghanistan and an officer in the Army National Guard. The fact that she is willing to tackle entitlement programs should appeal to retired folks. We'll find out in 2028.

To be honest, I don't talk a lot about politics with my friends. I try to abide by not discussing the three taboos you don't want to talk about on a first date: Sex, religion, and politics. It's something I've learned not to do during my working career. I'm also retired, so I don't get a chance to associate with a lot of people anyway.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I figured you had a core group of friends that talked a little politics with. I have a core group of friends, most of whom are pretty conservative and at least two of them are fairly fervent Trump supporters. The other two generally vote Republican, but those two don't care for Trump and miss the Ronald Reagan style, pro-business, pro-military conservatives of the past. Another buddy is indifferent to politics and couldn't care less who is president. Most of even my Trump buddies are almost purely fueled by hating the Democrats and are constantly getting information about the loonier aspects of the Democratic agenda as well as having to deal with the insane local Washington Democratic politics, which further inflames anti-Democrat hate. Often the local politics are worse than the national politics. I wonder if Red State people experience that with Republican politics. I know these weird taxes and ordinances in blue states are pretty annoying.

And my personal pet peeve of Jay Inslee's moratorium on the death penalty after the Carnation Murders where that scumbag couple murdered three generations of a family and now to get to sit in jail on our dime. You should not be able to murder grandparents, parents, and 3 and 5 year old grandchildren and sit their in jail. You should be fast-tracked to the afterlife, so if there happens to be a Hell, they'll be burning there.

Yeah, that's not the world I live in. Occasionally, we'll talk about some local politics, but I try to stay away from anything like what we discuss here, which is one of the reasons why I'm so active. It all goes back to my time as a supervisor. If a subordinate knows that you harbor some strong political or religious beliefs opposite of your own, they're less likely to come talk to you. I learned that lesson the hard way, when I was just starting out and in my 20,'s. I started spouting off about the Iran Hostage Crisis, that we ought to turn that place into the world's largest parking lot. An employee of mine, a native Iranian and a fantastic worker, years later when I saw him in a bar, told me how afraid of me that he was after he heard me jacking my jaws. Now, I won't wear any buttons, no bumper stickers, or signs in my yard.

I have a lot of problems with Jay Inslee, but not the death penalty. My objections all have to do with cost, not morality. If it were up to me, I'd go back to the old west days when they had public executions, no black hoods, let people see the fear in their eyes as they are about to come face-to-face with their maker. If the death penalty is a deterrent, then let's make the most use out of it. But the process has been so corrupted by the lawyers and politicians that all we have is endless trials and years long delays in carrying out sentences.

River_Dog wrote:Yeah, that's not the world I live in. Occasionally, we'll talk about some local politics, but I try to stay away from anything like what we discuss here, which is one of the reasons why I'm so active. It all goes back to my time as a supervisor. If a subordinate knows that you harbor some strong political or religious beliefs opposite of your own, they're less likely to come talk to you. I learned that lesson the hard way, when I was just starting out and in my 20,'s. I started spouting off about the Iran Hostage Crisis, that we ought to turn that place into the world's largest parking lot. An employee of mine, a native Iranian and a fantastic worker, years later when I saw him in a bar, told me how afraid of me that he was after he heard me jacking my jaws. Now, I won't wear any buttons, no bumper stickers, or signs in my yard.

I have a lot of problems with Jay Inslee, but not the death penalty. My objections all have to do with cost, not morality. If it were up to me, I'd go back to the old west days when they had public executions, no black hoods, let people see the fear in their eyes as they are about to come face-to-face with their maker. If the death penalty is a deterrent, then let's make the most use out of it. But the process has been so corrupted by the lawyers and politicians that all we have is endless trials and years long delays in carrying out sentences.

I have never seen the death penalty as a deterrent as I don't think criminals are deterred by the law. Most people simply aren't criminals and wouldn't steal to start with unless they had some extreme reason to do so. If you analyze tribal societies, there never was a natural propensity to steal or murder amongst human beings. In fact, most human groups prefer to get along and have low levels of violence and mistreatment of other humans. So given the rarity of a murderer like the one that did he Carnation murderers, the death penalty was appropriate and should have been applied. The punishment for a vile crime falls on the individual who did the crime, not some example of a deterrent. But more an example that government is truly going to protect the citizens and punish wrongdoers for doing evil. Right now the people can have no faith the government will properly administer its protective duties enforcing laws, which is the entire reason we empower government to provide law enforcement and military services.

The death penalty is more akin to putting down a rabid dog or a wolf that has tasted human blood. It's a necessary function because once a human being has tasted human blood murdering other humans for criminal purposes, especially children, you can no longer trust that human around others in the same way you can no longer trust a wolf around human habitations, so you put them down.

Given the low likelihood criminals repeating a vile crime, you don't need the death penalty as a deterrent other than to permanently deter the one committing the vile crime. The bigger problem that should be legislated is the media popularizing mass murderers turning them into sympathetic figures like they do with school killings when try to reason that bullying or something caused it even when bullying has been around for all of human history and mass murdering people has never been an acceptable response to it.

You have to hunt and kill the evil humans of the world. Modern people don't believe in evil humans, so they just continue to let them do what they do coming up with some psychological excuse for their behavior while using amoral reasoning disguised as morality for their absolutism in regards to the death penalty pretending they are more moral for not inflicting it, when they are really just too morally weak to put down an evil human that is a threat other humans. It's something similar to veganism where vegans think they are more ethical and moral for not eating animals even while animals, which humans are, consume other animals as a matter of survival. Elminating threats to the human herd is an intelligent method of ensuring the survival of your actual moral, decent people which the death penalty accomplishes by putting down the worst human threats.

I wish we hadn't gotten so stupid as a species as we are now.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I have never seen the death penalty as a deterrent as I don't think criminals are deterred by the law. Most people simply aren't criminals and wouldn't steal to start with unless they had some extreme reason to do so. If you analyze tribal societies, there never was a natural propensity to steal or murder amongst human beings. In fact, most human groups prefer to get along and have low levels of violence and mistreatment of other humans. So given the rarity of a murderer like the one that did he Carnation murderers, the death penalty was appropriate and should have been applied. The punishment for a vile crime falls on the individual who did the crime, not some example of a deterrent. But more an example that government is truly going to protect the citizens and punish wrongdoers for doing evil. Right now the people can have no faith the government will properly administer its protective duties enforcing laws, which is the entire reason we empower government to provide law enforcement and military services.

The death penalty is more akin to putting down a rabid dog or a wolf that has tasted human blood. It's a necessary function because once a human being has tasted human blood murdering other humans for criminal purposes, especially children, you can no longer trust that human around others in the same way you can no longer trust a wolf around human habitations, so you put them down.

Given the low likelihood criminals repeating a vile crime, you don't need the death penalty as a deterrent other than to permanently deter the one committing the vile crime. The bigger problem that should be legislated is the media popularizing mass murderers turning them into sympathetic figures like they do with school killings when try to reason that bullying or something caused it even when bullying has been around for all of human history and mass murdering people has never been an acceptable response to it.

You have to hunt and kill the evil humans of the world. Modern people don't believe in evil humans, so they just continue to let them do what they do coming up with some psychological excuse for their behavior while using amoral reasoning disguised as morality for their absolutism in regards to the death penalty pretending they are more moral for not inflicting it, when they are really just too morally weak to put down an evil human that is a threat other humans. It's something similar to veganism where vegans think they are more ethical and moral for not eating animals even while animals, which humans are, consume other animals as a matter of survival. Elminating threats to the human herd is an intelligent method of ensuring the survival of your actual moral, decent people which the death penalty accomplishes by putting down the worst human threats.

I wish we hadn't gotten so stupid as a species as we are now.

I really don't want to change the subject to a debate on the death penalty, but I will clear up a couple of misconceptions. First of all, I said "if" the death penalty is a deterrent. I'm sure that it varies, and that you may be right that it isn't much of one if at all.

Secondly, I was using the old west public hangings example to demonstrate my lack of a moral conviction of taking another human life following due process. My major objection to the death penalty is the endless delays in carrying out executions. At this point, it would be more economical to just sentence them to life in prison and give them nothing but subsistence resources and the minimum required so as for it not to be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

River_Dog wrote:I really don't want to change the subject to a debate on the death penalty, but I will clear up a couple of misconceptions. First of all, I said "if" the death penalty is a deterrent. I'm sure that it varies, and that you may be right that it isn't much of one if at all.

Secondly, I was using the old west public hangings example to demonstrate my lack of a moral conviction of taking another human life following due process. My major objection to the death penalty is the endless delays in carrying out executions. At this point, it would be more economical to just sentence them to life in prison and give them nothing but subsistence resources and the minimum required so as for it not to be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

I understood the intent of your objection and desire. Making the death penalty public at least showed the government was ensuring the protection of the decent humans. The death penalty being public sent a clear message the government was putting down the violent, problematic humans and doing so without hiding their actions or intent. Public justice is an important element of a free society to instill trust in the system, which we sorely lack right now with the inconsistent morality currently infesting government.

I'll leave it there so as not to go too far off.

We need a new topic. You gotta find something interesting. Trump doesn't get sentenced until July 11th, then we might see something interesting, maybe more interesting than we all like.