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…….
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Aseahawkfan wrote:The really sad part is I don't really see any leaders on the horizon capable of uniting people towards something better.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests