Humorless Politics Thread

[fonpr]

Unlike probably all of you, I've gone back and forth on capital punishment over the years, but this simply takes the cake:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/16/duane-buck-execution-stayed-supreme-court

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/15/texas-executions-controversial-cases?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487


This MF wants to be president of the United States?  And might well be in January 2013.  This is a guy who has to be overruled by a Supreme Court that hates with a passion to overrule death penalty cases.  His bloodthirstiness seems to know absolutely no bounds.

It may surpise you to know, I too, have gone back and forth on the death penalty.  It is expensive to lock someone up for life.  Why should we spend the money on someone who is not going to be rehabilitated or released?

Ultimately, I end up opposing it.  If one innocent person is put to death then the whole idea crumbles.  I'm certain that has happened more than once.



http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/gop-debate-audience-cheers-perrys-execution- 

[Kormod]

Unlike probably all of you, I've gone back and forth on capital punishment over the years, but this simply takes the cake:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/16/duane-buck-execution-stayed-supreme-court

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/15/texas-executions-controversial-cases?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487


This MF wants to be president of the United States?  And might well be in January 2013.  This is a guy who has to be overruled by a Supreme Court that hates with a passion to overrule death penalty cases.  His bloodthirstiness seems to know absolutely no bounds.

It may surpise you to know, I too, have gone back and forth on the death penalty.  It is expensive to lock someone up for life.  Why should we spend the money on someone who is not going to be rehabilitated or released?

Ultimately, I end up opposing it.  If one innocent person is put to death then the whole idea crumbles.  I'm certain that has happened more than once.



http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/gop-debate-audience-cheers-perrys-execution-

Sentencing someone to death is actually more expensive than sentencing someone to life in prison (in other words, the overall cost of a Death Row inmate from sentencing until death is greater than the overall cost of an inmate who's in prison for life) (http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42):

The High Cost of the Death Penalty

The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated.

If the death penalty was replaced with a sentence of Life Without the Possibility of Parole*, which costs millions less and also ensures that the public is protected while eliminating the risk of an irreversible mistake, the money saved could be spent on programs that actually improve the communities in which we live. The millions of dollars in savings could be spent on: education, roads, police officers and public safety programs, after-school programs, drug and alcohol treatment, child abuse prevention programs, mental health services, and services for crime victims and their families.

*More than 3500 men and woman have received this sentence in California since 1978 and NOT ONE has been released, except those few individuals who were able to prove their innocence.

California could save $1 billion over five years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment.

California taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement.

[cavorting with nudists]

I think there are people who commit crimes so heinous that they forfeit their right to live.  But I can't conceive of a justice system infallible enough to be trusted with taking it away from them.  Lock 'em up for life, it's not like prison is a big ol' ice cream party.

What appalls me is when someone builds a political career on saying "Government sucks! Government can't do anything right!" and then claims we should trust the government's spotless inerrancy when it comes to executing people.

[buffcoat]

I consider "Rick Perry is elected president" to be the second most likely outcome, looking today, of the 2012 election, after "Barack Obama is reelected" but before "Mitt Romney is elected president."


At this point I would probably put the sum of options 2 & 3 at about the same number as option 1.  I am appalled at this idea.

[Kormod]

I think there are people who commit crimes so heinous that they forfeit their right to live.  But I can't conceive of a justice system infallible enough to be trusted with taking it away from them.  Lock 'em up for life, it's not like prison is a big ol' ice cream party.

What appalls me is when someone builds a political career on saying "Government sucks! Government can't do anything right!" and then claims we should trust the government's spotless inerrancy when it comes to executing people.

Conservatives shamelessly pick and choose which areas of the government they consider "the government." The army isn't the government, police officers and firefighters aren't the government, the justice system is only the government when it does things that conservatives don't like ("activist judges" are the government, while heroes like Scalia aren't), and Republican government officials, of course, are not the government. A wrongly convicted person getting sent to the electric chair wouldn't even register with them as a failing of the government, unless they could find a way to blame the wrongful execution on a part of the government they don't like (e.g., "If it weren't for big government bureaucracies, they would have found the real killer!).

[dave from knoxville]

What appalls me is when someone builds a political career on saying "Government sucks! Government can't do anything right!" and then claims we should trust the government's spotless inerrancy when it comes to executing people.

Exceptional sentence. May I quote you?

[Kormod]

I consider "Rick Perry is elected president" to be the second most likely outcome, looking today, of the 2012 election, after "Barack Obama is reelected" but before "Mitt Romney is elected president."


At this point I would probably put the sum of options 2 & 3 at about the same number as option 1.  I am appalled at this idea.

The only way I can see Obama winning in 2012 is if A) he whips the country into a furor over the House Republicans not wanting to do anything about unemployment, the House then passes the jobs bill, and the economy improves as a result, making Obama popular enough to win the election (this is probably the least likely possibility -- the chances of the bill passing, even with massive public pressure put on the Republicans, is next to nil), B) Rick Perry is the nominee and "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme" becomes a huge problem for him or C) Rick Perry is the nominee and there's a career-ending scandal (evidence comes out that he's gay, for example). I'd list "the economy improves on its own" as a fourth possibility, but that seems as likely as "Mitt Romney dies in a car accident."

[buffcoat]

We may not have to "worry" about the election results much longer, anyway.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/gop-electoral-college-plan-beat-obama-2012

[Kormod]

the chances of the bill passing, even with massive public pressure put on the Republicans, is next to nil)

This is an exaggeration. If Obama starts sticking it to these jerks and gets public opinion on his side, I bet some of them will roll over and vote for the bill. At the moment, though, it seems unlikely. The Republicans and the "Blue Dogs" have been doing a pretty good job so far framing the bill as a dumb political thing that won't decrease unemployment (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/584793/201109141832/Jobs-Bill-Gets-The-Pink-Slip.htm).

[cavorting with nudists]

Exceptional sentence. May I quote you?

Why the hell not, I steal most of the stuff I post anyway.

[Kormod]

We may not have to "worry" about the election results much longer, anyway.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/gop-electoral-college-plan-beat-obama-2012

Not surprisingly, Rick Perry is doing this too: http://www.chron.com/news/article/Texas-redistricting-trial-wraps-up-without-ruling-2174411.php

[Sarah]

You people are trying to kill me.

[wood and iron]

I seriously dislike Corbett and what he is doing to PA.

I did have breakfast with him (along with other people) in the state dining room this summer. The food was good, the politics were bad.

[Gilly]

I just can't see enough moderates voting for Perry. Palin probably lost McCain the election because of her crazy ranting. At the very least, it would have been a lot closer. I just feel there are more people are turned off by that garbage than those who get excited about it. Romney would win pretty handily in my opinion, because despite any hangups about religion, life long GOPers are still going to vote for him and he's definitely the candidate that would bring the most moderates over. But the Republicans will probably nominate Perry and Obama will win.

[crumbum]

If one innocent person is put to death then the whole idea crumbles.  I'm certain that has happened more than once.

This New Yorker article from a few years back makes a pretty much airtight case showing that in all likelihood an innocent man was very recently executed under Perry's watch.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all

And it turns out that the committee formed in the wake of this debacle to help improve the standards of evidence in similar cases in Texas was thoroughly and consciously sabotaged by Perry. From an article yesterday in Slate: 'when Texas' "thoughtful, clear process" for capital punishment created a commission to investigate flawed arson science used in criminal trials, Perry scuppered its work by removing and replacing three members, just as the commission was preparing to announce that the Willingham case had been tainted by error.'