Hillary Clinton's Death Penalty Answer
- Thread starter ballscout1
- Start date
you can't because it hasn't and won't work that way.
will the same people who are judging now who deserves to die going to be the ones you depend on ?
how many innocent people have to be killed in this arbitrary system until you realize.
The only thing she has said she would continue is the ACA which isn't up to her unless she gets the senate back.
Nothing is stopping the GOP from changing the super majority rule back to a simple majority which Reid should have done.
She has already said she'd be a better friend to Israel which is why Obama is thinking of passing an agreement through the UN.
She is and has been a war hawk and Obama has been diplomacy first.
She didn't really support the Iran deal.
With the exception of the ACA she hasn't said she would do anything.
BTW..
Should I be offended cause a blind cat that calls himself the watcher calls me a republican ?
Ralph Nader was crucial to George W. Bush's win in 2000 against Al Gore.
BTW..
Should I be offended cause a blind cat that calls himself the watcher calls me a republican ?
i disagree with you on a few things But i would never call you a Republican
they always do......that's the way the system works. whoever gets down first gets the deal.
which means the actual killer doesn't get executed but the accomplish does.
and don't forget how the law works.....I am riding with you and you pull into a gas station and rob it....even if I didn't know you were going to do it I get charged
now if you kill the clerk I face death...I am innocent so I want to got to trial. I didn't do anything and didn't know you were going to.
but because you savvy you decide to make a deal and put it on me.
What am blind to?
BTW..
Should I be offended cause a blind cat that calls himself the watcher calls me a republican ?
How are you any different from a republican if you actions help elect a republican?
LEARN YOUR HISTORY
Nader 2000 election
You and the others have convinced people to vote Trump if Hillary is the nomination. You barely say or post anything about republicans but duplicate posts on the same topic about Hillary.
Last edited:
IMO the only useful purpose of the death penalty is to give closure to the victims. It prevents them from having to attend hurtful parole hearings, testifying at appeals, and having taunting threatening letters sent by killers who have nothing to lose.
The final decision is made by victims next of kin. If the man kills multiple people then it only takes one next of kin to uphold the execution.
Those decisions won't change the racist miscarriage of justice, but it will improve things.
I didn't say Trump was honest. I said Trump was honest about his racism.
Two different things
Supreme Court 2000..
It came down to Florida.... Gore didn't lose any states that were anything but maybes.
Have you had anyone close to you murdered and their killer got put to death ?
There is no closure. That is made up but there is never any closure in that case.
Now if you had a missing loved one, finally knowing if they are alive or dead can give closure.
CNN’s Don Lemon tonight followed up on his past blunt questioning of Donald Trump by asking him if he’s racist, bigoted, or Islamophobic.
Trump bragged, “I am the least racist person that you have ever met.” He said he’s certainly not bigoted or Islamophobic, despite attacks of that nature after his proposal to ban all Muslims from coming to the United States.
still doesn't make sense to vote for someone out right telling you that they are racist
We all get it...you and Ball are against Hillary.
One more time. SOME PEOPLE DESERVE TO DIE.
Prosecutors to seek death penalty against mother, boyfriend in torture, killing of her son
Prosecutors to seek death penalty against mother, boyfriend in torture, killing of her son
Joseph SernaContact Reporter
The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office will seek the death penalty against a mother and her boyfriend, who are accused of torturing her 8-year-old son to death, prosecutors announced Wednesday.
Gabriel Fernandez died in May 2013. His mother, Pearl Fernandez, 31, and her boyfriend, Isauro Aguirre, 35, were indicted by a grand jury on a charge of murder and a special circumstance of torture.
Grand jury testimony revealed that Pearl Fernandez had called 911 after she and Aguirre allegedly beat Gabriel for not picking up his toys. After the beating, the boy went silent and stopped responding. When paramedics arrived, they found Gabriel naked in a bedroom, not breathing, with a cracked skull, three broken ribs and BB pellets embedded in his lung and groin. He died two days later.
"It was just like every inch of this child had been abused," testified James Cermak, a Los Angeles County Fire Department paramedic.
According to you I can't be against innocent people being convicted and killed but think people in this story need to die???
I think people like the ones in the story need to die too, but the system is broken so life in the bing will have to do. This isn't about whether or not scum deserve to die. It's the fact that too many innocent people are locked up. Fix the system, and then lets talk death penalty.
Thats interesting....
Whereas i think its a dumb reason to give him your vote...i understand the point that youre making.
Basically....
Btw.....every single one of those candidates have flaws.
Aint shit different but their names.... imho.
When H. Clinton threw in that "terrorist" word .....i actually smiled at my screen.
They try to make it seem as if the American people are exempt from their bs...but the Patriotic Act says otherwise.
I know a few folks who got denied jobs because of verbiage thats in the Patriot Act.
When THEY talk about terrorist...theyre mainly talking about ANYONE who doesnt cosign their bs.
Which means 90% of the people in this thread would be labeled terrorist.
Last edited:
Wrong again
NADER MADE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENT.
Nader-voters who spurned Democrat Al Gore to vote for Nader ended up swinging both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush in 2000. Charlie Cook, the editor of the Cook Political Report and political analyst for National Journal, called "Florida and New Hampshire" simply "the two states that Mr. Nader handed to the Bush-Cheney ticket," when Cook was writing about "The Next Nader Effect," in The New York Times on 9 March 2004. Cook said, "Mr. Nader, running as the Green Party nominee, cost Al Gore two states, Florida and New Hampshire, either of which would have given the vice president [Gore] a victory in 2000. In Florida, which George W. Bush carried by 537 votes, Mr. Nader received nearly 100,000 votes [nearly 200 times the size of Bush's Florida 'win']. In New Hampshire, which Mr. Bush won by 7,211 votes, Mr. Nader pulled in more than 22,000 [three times the size of Bush's 'win' in that state]." If either of those two states had gone instead to Gore, then Bush would have lost the 2000 election; we would never have had a U.S. President George W. Bush, and so Nader managed to turn not just one but two key toss-up states for candidate Bush, and to become the indispensable person making G.W. Bush the President of the United States -- even more indispensable, and more important to Bush's "electoral success," than were such huge Bush financial contributors as Enron Corporation's chief Ken Lay.
All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn't even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn't count in these calculations at all.) Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, "Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?" (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, "We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore." David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, "Nader to Crash Dems Party?" and he wrote: "In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader's Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore's loss." Nationwide, Harvard's Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, "Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?" (also on the internet) presented "Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates," showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader's voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn't have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn't been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida's Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn't included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.
Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader's campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP's Laura Meckler headlined "GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads." She opened: "Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... 'Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,' Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: 'What's Al Gore's real record?' Nader says: 'Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.'" Meckler's report continued: "A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader's speeches." Bush's people - the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council - knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not. Anyone who drives a car the way those liberal fools voted, faces charges of criminal negligence, at the very least. But this time, the entire nation crashed as a result; not merely a single car.
Furthermore, it seems that during the closing days of the 2000 political contest, Ralph Nader was choosing to campaign not in states where polls showed that he had a chance to win (of which states there were none), but instead in states where Gore and Bush were virtually tied and Nader's constant appeals to "the left" would be the likeliest to throw those states into Bush's column. One political columnist noted this fact: On 26 October 2000, Eric Alterman posted online for the Nation, "Not One Vote!" in which he observed with trepidation, that during the crucial final days of the campaign, "Nader has been campaigning aggressively in Florida [get that - in Florida!], Minnesota, Michigan, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin. If Gore loses even a few of those states, then Hello, President Bush." This was prophetic - but also knowable in advance. Nader wasn't stupid; his voters were, but he certainly was not.
That list of states where Nader was concentrating near the end of the campaign consisted of the large states that were the closest between Bush and Gore. Everyone knew that Nader's appeal was being made to "the left," and Nader was concentrating his campaign now on sucking foolish leftist voters away from Gore. He was claiming to be the preferable leftist candidate. He wasn't campaigning at all to draw votes away from the conservative end of the political spectrum. So: Nader clearly was targeting to throw this "election" to Bush - and he succeeded in Florida, at doing precisely that.
On 30 October 2000, an unsigned article at Slate headlined "Ralph the Leninist" and it noted: "Over the past 10 days, liberals have been voicing shock and dismay at the imminent prospect of their old hero, Ralph Nader, intentionally throwing the election to George W. Bush. A first, eloquent protest came 10 days ago from a group of a dozen former 'Nader's Raiders,' who asserted that their former mentor had broken a promise not to campaign in states where he could hurt Gore and begged him to reconsider doing so. Others, including Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter, have expressed a similar sense of disappointment and betrayal. Nader's response to all this heartfelt hand-wringing has been to scoff and sneer. On Good Morning America, he referred contemptuously to his old disciples as 'frightened liberals.'" Since Nader was not stupid, the only explanation for this behavior is that he was evil; and now he was expressing his contempt for his former followers - a contempt that he actually had for all of his followers but was only now starting to express, by lashing out at the ones who were finally becoming deprogrammed from his cult.
During the 2004 election contest, a local AP story from Salem, Oregon, on June 25th, was similarly headlined "Pro-GOP Groups Seek to Aid Nader, Hurt Kerry," and reported, "Two conservative groups [the business-oriented Citizens for a Sound Economy, and the fundamentalist Christian Oregon Family Council] have been phoning people around Oregon this week, ... in hopes of putting Nader's name on Oregon's presidential ballot." Oregon was one of 18 tight "battleground" states in the 2004 Presidential election, and Republicans wanted Nader's name to be on the Presidential ballot in order to draw votes away from Democratic candidate John Kerry, and thus throw Oregon's electoral college votes to Bush, and so make Bush the winner, just as had crucially happened in 2000 in both Florida and New Hampshire. (Here is how Citizens for a Sound Economy explained it to their members accompanying their 27 June 2004 "Phone Script": "Liberals are trying to unite in Oregon and keep Nader off the ballot to help their chances of electing John Kerry. We could divide this base of support" between "the uber-liberal Nader and John Kerry," so as to produce a Republican win.)
The board of directors of one of these groups, the Koch brothers' Citizens for a Sound Economy, happened to have been headed by two longtime personal friends of George W. Bush: the former Republican House leader Dick Armey of Texas, and the former counselor to President G.H.W. Bush, C. Boyden Gray. It's virtually certain that these two men authorized this backroom campaigning for Ralph Nader's candidacy. Mr. Gray was an heir to the Reynolds Tobacco fortune. CSE was financed by the foundations of Richard Mellon Scaife, of the Coors family, as well as of the Koch families, and by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the J.M. Olin Foundation. Jane Mayer, on 30 August 2010, headlined in the New Yorker, "Covert Operations" (of the Koch brothers), and wrote: "'Ideas don't happen on their own,' Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks, a Tea Party advocacy group, told me. 'Throughout history, ideas need patrons.' The Koch brothers, after helping to create Cato and Mercatus, concluded that think tanks alone were not enough to effect change. They needed a mechanism to deliver those ideas to the street, and to attract the public's support. In 1984, David Koch and Richard Fink [whom she called 'the central nervous system of the Kochtopus'] created yet another organization, and Kibbe joined them. The group, Citizens for a Sound Economy, seemed like a grassroots movement, but ... was sponsored principally by the Kochs."
On 5 July 2004, BusinessWeek (p. 53) similarly headlined "Bush Bigs Open Their Wallets For Nader," and reported that among Nader's largest donors was Richard J. Egan, who was a Bush "Ranger," having raised more than $200,000 for his friend, George W. Bush. Egan, whom President Bush appointed Ambassador to Ireland, contributed the maximum allowed, $2,000, to Nader, and Egan's son also did. Unknown other Bush contributors, whom the senior Egan had previously "bundled" into that $200,000+ for Bush, also contributed to Nader. BusinessWeekreported that Richard J. Egan denied being the same person as the Richard J. Egan who contributed to Nader. However, the magazine reported that the Richard J. Egan, whom the records showed to have contributed to Nader, happened to live at the very same address, and that only one Richard J. Egan happened to live there.
The Quinnipiac University poll in yet another battleground state, Pennsylvania, at around the same time, on June 24th, projected a 6-point margin for Kerry (49% to 43%) without Nader, but only a wafer-thin 1% margin for Kerry (44% to 43%) with Nader in the race (7%), so that Nader would take 5% away from Kerry, and 0% -- nothing at all -- away from Bush, in that tightly contested state. Five days later, another Quinnipiac poll, this time in a different battleground state, Florida, showed a 2% Kerry edge without Nader, and a dead-even tie with Nader in that contest; Nader was subtracting 3 votes from Kerry for each vote he was taking from Bush in Florida. Nader knew what he was doing. Stupid he's not; his voters are, but he isn't - he is merely using them.
On July 9th, the San Francisco Chronicle headlined "GOP Doners Funding Nader: Bush Supporters Give Independent's Bid a Financial Lift," and reported that the Nader campaign "has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party," according to "an analysis of federal records." Perhaps these contributors were Ambassador Egan's other friends. Mr. Egan's wife was now listed among the Nader contributors. Another listed was "Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year." Furthermore, Ari Berman reported 7 October 2004 at the Nation, under "Swift Boat Veterans for Nader," that some major right-wing funders of a Republican smear campaign against Senator John Kerry's Vietnam service contributed also $13,500 to the Nader campaign, and that "the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader's signatures in their state" (90%!) to place Nader on the ballot so Bush could win that swing state's 17 electoral votes. Clearly, the word had gone out to Bush's big contributors: Help Ralphie boy! In fact, on 15 September 2005, John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader, reported that, "A year ago, as the Presidential general election campaign raged in battleground state New Hampshire, consumer advocate Ralph Nader found his way onto the ballot, with the help of veteran Republican strategist David Carney and the Carney-owned Norway Hill Associates consulting firm."
It was obvious, based upon the 2000 election results, that a dollar contributed to Nader in the 2004 contest would probably be a more effective way to achieve a Bush win against Kerry in the U.S. Presidential election than were perhaps even ten dollars contributed to Bush. This was a way of peeling crucial votes off from Bush's real opponent - votes that otherwise would have gone to the Democrat. That's why the smartest Republican money in the 2004 Presidential election was actually going to Nader, even more so than to Bush himself: these indirect Bush contributions provided by far the biggest bang for the right-wing buck.
Furthermore, federal election law limited each individual's political contributions to any candidate to only $2,000; Nader's presence in the Presidential race therefore provided each Republican the opportunity to contribute personally $4,000 toward a Bush win: $2,000 directly, plus $2,000 indirectly (though far more potently) by means of Nader's candidacy weakening the Democrat. And this, of course, is what these people were doing - playing liberal voters as suckers, and donating twice as much money to Bush's cause that would otherwise have been legal.
Considering how highly placed this group of contributors were, the likelihood that the White House was being kept in the dark about these contributions to Nader was virtually nil; far likelier is that the idea originated from the Bush campaign. Indeed, the Bush strategists would need to have been stupid not to have thought this idea up, especially because the Republican Party has routinely funded, and otherwise helped, in Democratic primaries, the weak political candidate to win the Democratic nomination, in order to enhance the chances for the Republican candidate to beat his ultimate Democratic opponent. This has been one of the Republican Party's most effective tactics.
Liberal suckers might not have known that Nader was working for the Republicans, but the Republican Party's leadership certainly did - and they acted accordingly. The only people who didn't were Nader's own voters.
Agree 100%
Maybe upfront racism is what black people need to see and hear.
It might just wake them up that we live in a white supremacist system.
I think life with no parole in a super max type prison is more of a punishment than going to sleep and never waking up.
23 hours a day in a cell by yourself
very limited phone or visits ( especially since most super max's ain't down the street)
no conjugal visits
very little human contact..
i need to know more about the people in the story and what really happened.....was one of the other forced.. did the state know there were issues and leave the child there anyway..
but even if these two doing life as stated means that the 20 or so that get foud innocent each year don't become a oops my bad I am good with it
and do you know why the system can't be fixed and is broken ?
becuase there will always be bigots and incompetence and shortcuts among those sitting in judgement
Listen there is not enough racist white people in this country to let trump near the white house.......the key is to clean house on the local and state level
He did say that.
And yet he lets David Duke former grand wizard of the Klan and other various white supremacist organizations openly endorse him without disavowing them.
I just don't follow their words, I follow the actions also.
How much more can Trump openly broadcast that he is a proud racist?
I believe where on the same page. And you're right.
I just want Trump to succeed as much as he can by ultimately ruining the Republican Party.
agreed
Since I am a republican I want Trump to win so he can fuck everything up and in 4 years Warren can win the White House and the congress and senate ..
Think about it....Would Obama have won in 2008 if Bush hadn't fucked up everything or would Hillary have gotten the nod ?
Think about it....Would Obama have won in 2008 if Bush hadn't fucked up everything or would Hillary have gotten the nod ?
You'll have at least a 6-3 Republican Supreme Court so it wont really matter at that point. Republicans can take Warren to court and overturn all her initiatives.
I doubt Ball overlooked that. He knows what he is doing
Yeah they thought Earl Warren was in their pocket too and he became the most liberal justice on the court.
you also seem to think Obama won't get his nominee through and I do.
then you are assuming that two other liberals don't make it through 4 years.
that is a lot of maybes to use as the only reason to vote a certain way
No
The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
are you really that dense ?
to overturn a decision .....pass a law..
that means they decided on a current law such as Citizens United......pass a law that addresses whatever they ruled on to overturn it.
and the SCOTUS does not review every law.,
Be careful, there is a blind guy in this thread that will call you a republican.
Just don't trust this woman.
And to stop a law in Congress, all you need is one senator to Filibuster. Unless you get 60 votes in the Senate.
Let's get this straight...you think a republican led Sepreme Court 6-3 wouldn't review every law passed by democrats? Now your just saying silly shit just to say it.
Supreme Court Block on Climate Change Rule Is Unprecedented
02/10/2016 08:28 am ET | Updated Feb 11, 2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/davidhalperin/supreme-court-block-on-cl_b_9200952.html
Similar threads
