Elections Pro-life GOP senate candidate paid for girlfriend to get an abortion

[bootsy]

Vote Walker
Trigger Libs

 

[Hollywood Jack]

It's not supposed to be a deterrent, it's supposed to (permanently) incapacitate criminals, which is the only real method of lowering crime- ensuring they literally don't have the chance for recidivism. Saying this doesn't work is dishonest- it would work just as well as long sentences, which worked quite well in the 90s and 2000s, and since we've backed off from that, crime is going back up. Surprise!

Also, I believe we have a moral duty to execute serious criminals, it's simply the right thing to do. But just incapacitating the tiny % of the population that does serious crime until they are too old to do more would work too.

We'll have to agree or disagree. I also put a greater value on freedom than order and control. I don't want to trade freedom for security or safety. The 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments have both positive and negative effects but I value them immensely. I wouldn't give them up for anything in the world. Societies like the UK may be safer, but I wouldn't want to live in them. If executing 10k or 100k people every year guaranteed cutting crime tenfold, I still wouldn't support that. I support Blackstone's ratio and similar sentiments expressed by great men throughout history such as Voltaire, John Adams, Muhammad, etc.

 

[panamaican]

Right. Even right-wing thought leaders like Newt Gingrich and Dana Loesch have been openly talking about how many concussions he's had and his history of mental illness and that he paid a "skank" for an abortion. They're saying the quiet part out loud now. They just want power.

This is pretty much what we're talking about when we say the GOP has lost any sense or morality and principles. And why the evangelical right's partnership with the GOP underscores just how un-Christian they have become.

They want power and they will countenance anything that gets it for them. It's like the backstory to a bunch of evil Batman villains. They all start off with some grand design to better the world and slowly commit more and more evil acts to get there until, eventually, they've lost sight of why they got involved in the first place.

 

[Denter]

This is pretty much what we're talking about when we say the GOP has lost any sense or morality and principles. And why the evangelical right's partnership with the GOP underscores just how un-Christian they have become.

They want power and they will countenance anything that gets it for them. It's like the backstory to a bunch of evil Batman villains. They all start off with some grand design to better the world and slowly commit more and more evil acts to get there until, eventually, they've lost sight of why they got involved in the first place.

One take I've heard (which I don't really agree with) is that the evangelicals held their nose and voted for Trump, and they got the repeal of Roe v. Wade. They did this knowing Trump was a bad man, and this vindicates the "realist" school of political thinking, because they had been promised this for decades by conservative politicians, but always got rugpulled and lost again and again on social issues. Its like Jack says about the Ds- you are really voting for the party- and Trump proved that he could deliver for them, despite not being morally upright or really having any interest in religion at all. Its transactional. So if you want to see gay marriage repealed, or the VRA cut back, or whatever, you've got to think more like you are bargaining in a market rather than voting for a moral leader.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

One take I've heard (which I don't really agree with) is that the evangelicals held their nose and voted for Trump, and they got the repeal of Roe v. Wade. They did this knowing Trump was a bad man, and this vindicates the "realist" school of political thinking, because they had been promised this for decades by conservative politicians, but always got rugpulled and lost again and again on social issues. Its like Jack says about the Ds- you are really voting for the party- and Trump proved that he could deliver for them, despite not being morally upright or really having any interest in religion at all. Its transactional. So if you want to see gay marriage repealed, or the VRA cut back, or whatever, you've got to think more like you are bargaining in a market rather than voting for a moral leader.

Many of them delude themselves into thinking he's a messenger of God or a tool of His. Others are more realistic about it. I suppose it correlates with IQ and education levels. The ones like Loesch and Gingrich know what's up. The rubes do not.

 

[panamaican]

One take I've heard (which I don't really agree with) is that the evangelicals held their nose and voted for Trump, and they got the repeal of Roe v. Wade. They did this knowing Trump was a bad man, and this vindicates the "realist" school of political thinking, because they had been promised this for decades by conservative politicians, but always got rugpulled and lost again and again on social issues. Its like Jack says about the Ds- you are really voting for the party- and Trump proved that he could deliver for them, despite not being morally upright or really having any interest in religion at all. Its transactional. So if you want to see gay marriage repealed, or the VRA cut back, or whatever, you've got to think more like you are bargaining in a market rather than voting for a moral leader.

I think that's pretty much on point, although I would argue the problem predates Trump. And if it's on point then it indicates that their morality isn't principled it's conditional (or transactional as you frame it). And conditional morality isn't really morality at all.

And if we wanted to look at the possibility of expanding moral rot in a nation, the best examples would be when your moral leaders openly treat their morality as something for sale. And "openly" is the important part because that indicates if they feel ashamed to do so. If my moral leader can put aside his morality to achieve some transactional goal then why should I hold fast to my morality when I can gain something by abandoning it...

Fast forward 50 years and you have a nation with a distinctly rotten ethical core.

 

[Denter]

I think that's pretty much on point, although I would argue the problem predates Trump. And if it's on point then it indicates that their morality isn't principled it's conditional (or transactional as you frame it). And conditional morality isn't really morality at all.

And if we wanted to look at the possibility of expanding moral rot in a nation, the best examples would be when your moral leaders openly treat their morality as something for sale. And "openly" is the important part because that indicates if they feel ashamed to do so. If my moral leader can put aside his morality to achieve some transactional goal then why should I hold fast to my morality when I can gain something by abandoning it...

Fast forward 50 years and you have a nation with a distinctly rotten ethical core.

They would claim that's already happened on the other side, and its time to fight fire with fire, ie, results speak louder than words.

 

[UFCUCF]

They would claim that's already happened on the other side, and its time to fight fire with fire, ie, results speak louder than words.

You are correct. There is also a claim in the right wing echo-chamber for every possible bad thing that could happen on the right. So, there will always be an excuse to "fight fire with fire." Or, in other words, cheat because "the libs" did it first.

This ploy is most obvious in the election deniers and Trump's Big Lie. Many Republicans are running this year on the election being "stolen." If they get into office, they will be more than willing to "fight fire with fire" and steel an election back. It is of little no consequence to them that the Biden election wasn't ACTUALY stolen.

 

[dirtypablo]

It's not supposed to be a deterrent, it's supposed to (permanently) incapacitate criminals, which is the only real method of lowering crime-

No, its not. Here's one link on the subject, I could post ten others that show the relationship between increased incarceration and long term reductions in crime is minimal at best, and likely non existant.

Notably, Massachusetts recorded the steepest decline in crime rate in the country in this period (about 40 percent) while reducing the number of people convicted of non-violent drug crimes in prison by 45 percent from 2008, cutting its overall imprisonment rate roughly in half. In fact, across the country, where the crime rate did fall, it fell faster, however slightly, in states with decreased imprisonment rates.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...states-reduced-crime-and-incarceration-tandem

Also, I believe we have a moral duty to execute serious criminals, it's simply the right thing to do. But just incapacitating the tiny % of the population that does serious crime until they are too old to do more would work too.

And, most serious criminals come from highly troubled, highly abusive backgrounds. Saying that the right thing to do is execute people who have committed awful crimes after being victims of awful crimes just demonstrates what a terrible human being you are. So, not only do you not understand the relationship between incarceration and crime, you're a shitty person. Stupid and shitty, that about sums up most of the modern right.

 

[panamaican]

They would claim that's already happened on the other side, and its time to fight fire with fire, ie, results speak louder than words.

That would be an empty claim -- what staunch principles did the other side abandon for political power? Please don't forget that I'm referring to the religious right, the evangelical right.

Nor does it change the point -- if one's morals are situational, transactional, conditional, etc. then those aren't morals. And if a moral leader has sold his or her principles in order to gain political power then they are actively undermining the principles of those who look to them for guidance.

"But the other guy does bad things..." is the weakest argument possible for abandoning one's principles. The other guy does bad things precisely because he doesn't have principles.

 

[Cajun]

That would be an empty claim -- what staunch principles did the other side abandon for political power? Please don't forget that I'm referring to the religious right, the evangelical right.

Nor does it change the point -- if one's morals are situational, transactional, conditional, etc. then those aren't morals. And if a moral leader has sold his or her principles in order to gain political power then they are actively undermining the principles of those who look to them for guidance.

"But the other guy does bad things..." is the weakest argument possible for abandoning one's principles. The other guy does bad things precisely because he doesn't have principles.

Christianity is made up of real and fake. I knew Christians who did not vote Trump. There are people that go to church on Sunday and go home and beat their wives as well. But overall I think the mindset is it there are very few clean politicians. I don't know anyone knew exactly what Trump would do when he got in office. He turned out to act in conservative interests. But he was never a conservative. I think in the end seem clean and moral can have all kinds of skeletons in their closet. I did not vote for Trump in the primary. I only voted in the general. Once it gets down to the general election you either abstain or you vote. The Bible says give to Caesar what is Caesar's and basically the people had no choice. This country does give people a choice to vote for who you think May hold your best interest. And it's more than just the president is the makeup of the whole party and how the numbers look to push conservative viewpoints. Conservative does not mean Christian but there is a lot of overlap with Christian interest.

 

[helltoupee]

Our execution rates have gone way down from even twenty years ago. If you think executing serious criminals is morally evil, then congrats, I guess every country before 1970 was evil. Descended from monsters, how could we be so ignorant!

Well, people also used to live in caves and shit over a hole in the ground. I don't see you running out to do that based on some spurious argument that because people did something in the past, it must be the correct way to do things.

The funny thing is, I actually agree with you that more prisoners should be executed. However, my contingency to that is only for cases that have been proven without a shadow of a doubt. If there is any question whatsoever as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, there is no turning back from an execution.

And that would be my guess as to why we are executing fewer people. Just the appearance and advancement of DNA testing has had a significant effect in overturning cases where everyone thought the accused was guilty, but everyone turned out to be wrong. The justice system has learned to be more careful and that often takes time (appeals/etc.).

On a macro level, you may say 'well you've got to sacrifice some of the good ones to get the bad ones - collateral damage', however this kind of thinking reeks of an inability to empathize. If it were you, or your parents, or your wife, or your brother, who were wrongly accused of something and set to be executed just because that's what's necessary to catch the bad guys, I highly expect you would probably be singing a different tune.

So while I agree that certain cases that leave no questions unanswered should be fast tracked to death row, it strikes me as odd that you would offer an argument that 'well we were executing more people in 1970 so those people must of known what they were doing...'. Let me know when you start going to the local barber to have all of your dentistry taken care of. After all, before there were dentists, people went to their barber to have teeth pulled and who are we to say they were doing things wrong?

 

[Denter]

No, its not. Here's one link on the subject, I could post ten others that show the relationship between increased incarceration and long term reductions in crime is minimal at best, and likely non existant.



https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...states-reduced-crime-and-incarceration-tandem



And, most serious criminals come from highly troubled, highly abusive backgrounds. Saying that the right thing to do is execute people who have committed awful crimes after being victims of awful crimes just demonstrates what a terrible human being you are. So, not only do you not understand the relationship between incarceration and crime, you're a shitty person. Stupid and shitty, that about sums up most of the modern right.

Yes, I, who want to punish evil people for their deeds, are "stupid and shitty"- you, who wish to "reform" them (which almost never happens) are compassionate, noble, above such petty notions of proportional justice. All mankind can be redeemed, and walk into a glorious future of perpetual love and plenty!

 

[Denter]

Well, people also used to live in caves and shit over a hole in the ground. I don't see you running out to do that based on some spurious argument that because people did something in the past, it must be the correct way to do things.

The funny thing is, I actually agree with you that more prisoners should be executed. However, my contingency to that is only for cases that have been proven without a shadow of a doubt. If there is any question whatsoever as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, there is no turning back from an execution.

And that would be my guess as to why we are executing fewer people. Just the appearance and advancement of DNA testing has had a significant effect in overturning cases where everyone thought the accused was guilty, but everyone turned out to be wrong. The justice system has learned to be more careful and that often takes time (appeals/etc.).

On a macro level, you may say 'well you've got to sacrifice some of the good ones to get the bad ones - collateral damage', however this kind of thinking reeks of an inability to empathize. If it were you, or your parents, or your wife, or your brother, who were wrongly accused of something and set to be executed just because that's what's necessary to catch the bad guys, I highly expect you would probably be singing a different tune.

So while I agree that certain cases that leave no questions unanswered should be fast tracked to death row, it strikes me as odd that you would offer an argument that 'well we were executing more people in 1970 so those people must of known what they were doing...'. Let me know when you start going to the local barber to have all of your dentistry taken care of. After all, before there were dentists, people went to their barber to have teeth pulled and who are we to say they were doing things wrong?

This isn't a naked argument for tradition. And it isn't impersonal to me- I have two first cousins I grew up with, one of whom died in prison, the other who is serving out a life sentence. I knew these kids growing up- they were bad seeds, there was no redeeming them- not in this world, anyway.

Part of the reason the UK had shockingly low crime rates in the Victorian era was 500 years of executions where .5% to 1% of the male population were executed every generation. Much of impulse control and other anti-social tendencies are genetic- this tactic only works of course if they are incapacitated before they can pass on their genes ( in England, children as young as 8 were regularly hung).

I've been trying to look further into Japan, because the anecdotes suggest a similar very harsh criminal system with high rates of execution, but its hard to get information as the system was so decentralized. I suspect something similar happened there.

As far as criminal procedure- sure, we have the system already set up. Why not use it?

 

[Denter]

That would be an empty claim -- what staunch principles did the other side abandon for political power? Please don't forget that I'm referring to the religious right, the evangelical right.

Nor does it change the point -- if one's morals are situational, transactional, conditional, etc. then those aren't morals. And if a moral leader has sold his or her principles in order to gain political power then they are actively undermining the principles of those who look to them for guidance.

"But the other guy does bad things..." is the weakest argument possible for abandoning one's principles. The other guy does bad things precisely because he doesn't have principles.

The deontology poster has entered the chat. IMO morals are always situational, relative- that's why we talk about virtues and not rule followers.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Good god man! What the hell are you reading? We already lead the world in incarceration rates, I doubt doubling down is the cure for society’s ills.
I get the idea of making crime a less attractive option, but maybe a better way is to make life a little easier for everyone? This plan would come with the bonus of reduced abortion rates. Just spitballing.

Edit: I would agree one of our problems is that, once a criminal is in the system, a criminal they shall likely remain. Very hard to make a good living with a record.

It's actually possible to reduce incarceration rates while putting more people in prison--we just need to catch everyone who commits a serious crime and reduce the sentence length. I think that's actually the ideal approach--heavy but benevolent police presence, lots of surveillance, good community relations, etc. combined with shorter sentences and more humane treatment of people in the system (every instance of prisoner-on-prisoner violence should be seen as a failure of the system, for one thing).

 

[K1levelgrappler]

lol

 

[Denter]

It's actually possible to reduce incarceration rates while putting more people in prison--we just need to catch everyone who commits a serious crime and reduce the sentence length. I think that's actually the ideal approach--heavy but benevolent police presence, lots of surveillance, good community relations, etc. combined with shorter sentences and more humane treatment of people in the system (every instance of prisoner-on-prisoner violence should be seen as a failure of the system, for one thing).

A fairly moderate take, but I'd take it over what we are doing now. There is also a massive police shortage which is one of the main drivers of increased crime.

 

[sickc0d3r]

It's actually possible to reduce incarceration rates while putting more people in prison--we just need to catch everyone who commits a serious crime and reduce the sentence length. I think that's actually the ideal approach--heavy but benevolent police presence, lots of surveillance, good community relations, etc. combined with shorter sentences and more humane treatment of people in the system (every instance of prisoner-on-prisoner violence should be seen as a failure of the system, for one thing).

I agree with all of that, actually. I’m a big fan of law and order. I also don’t think reform is possible for some people. Much less so in a prison system that turns a blind eye or even encourages atrocities committed inside its walls.
I think any effort should include a parallel focus on reducing the number of criminals (incarcerated or not). Greater access to health care, good education, housing, transportation, child care, etc. Generally improved quality of life, especially for those who struggle with lower incomes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

A fairly moderate take, but I'd take it over what we are doing now. There is also a massive police shortage which is one of the main drivers of increased crime.

We also have a largely rotten culture inside police forces around the country that should be addressed.