Dems want a Civil War

[Faun]

And that number will be more than 98 million by this time next year.

That assistance rate will be higher by this time next year.

Your comment about health insurance makes no sense: trot that along.

Trump is the friend of Russia, the enemy of America.

more left wing bullshit. Trump has created more American jobs in the last month than obozo did in 8 years.

Hmm, let's see now...

Obama ... 12 million
Trump ..... zero

 

[Faun]

Straight up retarded post.

So you think Russia has to be our perpetual enemy? That we have nothing in common? That we should never work with them? That the cold war should be restarted?

Have you been to Russia? Do you know any Russian people? I have and do. They are just like us, have the same wants and desires. Putin is a leader who wants what it best for his country. In a few weeks we will also have such a leader. There is no reason why they cannot find common ground. No one trusted or respected Obama, he made the world a much more dangerous place. Peace through strength works.

Relations with Russia are strained because of Russia. They should not be appeased until they can prove to be worthy.


Tell us how Trump has even possibly created more jobs than Obama.

since Obama created zero, its pretty easy. 90 million americans are out of the workforce under Obama, there are more in poverty and on welfare than ever before. Real wages for working people have decreased under Obama. The "shovel ready" jobs that he spent a trillion on were a fantasy. 20% of American families have no one working in Obama's America. He has failed in every way the presidents are measured.

Like I said earlier, retarded.

I agree, Obama is retarded, as are you if you think he was a successful president.

Umm ... his job approval rating is about the same as Reagan's was on this date in 1988. That makes Obama as big a failure as Reagan. </sarcasm>

 

[Unkotare]

Preferred Democrat Weaponry?

Gay expression
BLM participants
Feminists
Sanctuary cities
Liberal media
Participation trophies
BB guns

It would never happen. If it did, the worst mistake you dopes would make is that there won't be return fire. People have a tendency to protect themselves and theirs when necessary.

. Whose protecting who against who again ??? So far the libs are or have become the violent ones. Hmmmm, oh so let's see now, otherwise if we were just intimidated enough by now, and we were to just throw up our hands finally, and give you all your pacifier you want, then you will be OK ???? The better question is, what will the butt hurt libs do after Monday ????? You know how babies are when they lose their pacifier. You would think the crying would have ended by now, so a time out of 8 years must be in order.

Libs won't start a war but we'll end it. Just like last time.

"Last time"?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Preferred Democrat Weaponry?

Gay expression
BLM participants
Feminists
Sanctuary cities
Liberal media
Participation trophies
BB guns

It would never happen. If it did, the worst mistake you dopes would make is that there won't be return fire. People have a tendency to protect themselves and theirs when necessary.

. Whose protecting who against who again ??? So far the libs are or have become the violent ones. Hmmmm, oh so let's see now, otherwise if we were just intimidated enough by now, and we were to just throw up our hands finally, and give you all your pacifier you want, then you will be OK ???? The better question is, what will the butt hurt libs do after Monday ????? You know how babies are when they lose their pacifier. You would think the crying would have ended by now, so a time out of 8 years must be in order.

Libs won't start a war but we'll end it. Just like last time.

Libs won't do squat unless they know they can get away with something or end up unharmed. They don't mind getting arrested because the cops won't knock the snot out of them.

When the RNC was held here, there were predictions of all kinds of violence and mayhem. That was until those Bikers for Trump rolled into town, and those libs didn't even throw a cigarette butt on the ground yet alone try to stop traffic or attack Trump supporters. Most of the local ones just stayed home where it was nice and safe.

 

[rahtruelies]

I don't see shooting unarmed people be them black or white is a triumph of good over evil. It destroys trust and without the trust of the people they protect, police can not do their job.

A police officers job is to defend the public. An officer is not going to put his life or safety on the line unless there is no other choice. So what trust are the people looking for--that if they disregard the law, put an officers life or safety on the line, he won't defend himself? That's not what cops are for.

We are a society of laws. The laws were created by our representatives. The police are the people that enforce the laws we created. If the public doesn't like that, they have no business living in a civilized society. They need to move to a country where any authority is overrun by the criminals and they make their own laws depending on the situation. We don't do that here.

In truth we are at this time a society in something more like anarcho-tyranny. Anarchy in which a preferred/protected group is allowed to violently attack the rest of us with impunity as 'law enforcement' stays by but ready to intervene if the thugs receive a violent defensive response from the Community under attack. EXAMPLE- #blm vs ordinary folks who happen to be White. Tyranny in which 'color of law' is used to harass/intimidate targeted groups. EXAMPLE- crippling fines because your little bakery because you won't draw a penis image on a cake for the 'wedding' of two fags and then of course its OK for gofundme to block efforts of the Community to help you.'reason'/- why you are a 'hater' and we don't allow hate on our site.

 

[jasonnfree]

Preferred Democrat Weaponry?

Gay expression
BLM participants
Feminists
Sanctuary cities
Liberal media
Participation trophies
BB guns

It would never happen. If it did, the worst mistake you dopes would make is that there won't be return fire. People have a tendency to protect themselves and theirs when necessary.

. Whose protecting who against who again ??? So far the libs are or have become the violent ones. Hmmmm, oh so let's see now, otherwise if we were just intimidated enough by now, and we were to just throw up our hands finally, and give you all your pacifier you want, then you will be OK ???? The better question is, what will the butt hurt libs do after Monday ????? You know how babies are when they lose their pacifier. You would think the crying would have ended by now, so a time out of 8 years must be in order.

Libs won't start a war but we'll end it. Just like last time.

Which time was that?

 

[Flopper]

You guys are going to **** up the economy again.

Remember bush Tom delay and Dennis hastert? This is worse

. So far so good, and he hasn't even taken office yet.

Thanks Obama for handing him a good economy like bill handed bush. Don't **** up again.

There's a reason Republicans lost in 2006. America has a short memory

Most of the Bush years were successful and prosperous for many people.

The poorly educated low skill blue collar workers weren't doing well under bush. That's when their jobs went overseas. That's why the housing market crashed for all those people doing well under bush.

That's like saying lots of people were doing real well right up until the great depression.

I think you are too kind to the bush years and too hard on Obama. Clearly bias

I may be biased but I know I did better under Bush as most people did. It was a booming economy not only in wages, but in confidence as well. There was just a good feeling around when he was President.

The housing crash was due to government getting involved in the banks business, particularly giving homes to the poor and minorities who had no business owning them. No money down and no credit check is what caused the collapse. Too many home buyers created a huge bubble. The bigger the bubble, the bigger the burst.

That is the popular explanation of the housing crash. However, the evidence does not support the conclusion.

There was a rapid expansion in overall mortgage origination during the time period, but the fraction of new mortgage dollars going to each income group was stable. In other words, the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007. Taken together, the evidence suggests that there was no decoupling of mortgage growth from income growth where unsustainable credit was flowing dis-proportionally to poor people.
Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the Middle Class

 

[sealybobo]

. So far so good, and he hasn't even taken office yet.

Thanks Obama for handing him a good economy like bill handed bush. Don't **** up again.

There's a reason Republicans lost in 2006. America has a short memory

Most of the Bush years were successful and prosperous for many people.

The poorly educated low skill blue collar workers weren't doing well under bush. That's when their jobs went overseas. That's why the housing market crashed for all those people doing well under bush.

That's like saying lots of people were doing real well right up until the great depression.

I think you are too kind to the bush years and too hard on Obama. Clearly bias

I may be biased but I know I did better under Bush as most people did. It was a booming economy not only in wages, but in confidence as well. There was just a good feeling around when he was President.

The housing crash was due to government getting involved in the banks business, particularly giving homes to the poor and minorities who had no business owning them. No money down and no credit check is what caused the collapse. Too many home buyers created a huge bubble. The bigger the bubble, the bigger the burst.

That is the popular explanation of the housing crash. However, the evidence does not support the conclusion.

There was a rapid expansion in overall mortgage origination during the time period, but the fraction of new mortgage dollars going to each income group was stable. In other words, the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007. Taken together, the evidence suggests that there was no decoupling of mortgage growth from income growth where unsustainable credit was flowing dis-proportionally to poor people.
Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the Middle Class

Good point. In other words lots of rich people walked away from their mortgages too. This whole blaming it on just poor people who shouldn't have had mortgages or bought high so walked away when the home value crashed.

 

[Toro]

You people will get one if you prevent Trump from being President.

Those talking about another civil war are always from the right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

. So far so good, and he hasn't even taken office yet.

Thanks Obama for handing him a good economy like bill handed bush. Don't **** up again.

There's a reason Republicans lost in 2006. America has a short memory

Most of the Bush years were successful and prosperous for many people.

The poorly educated low skill blue collar workers weren't doing well under bush. That's when their jobs went overseas. That's why the housing market crashed for all those people doing well under bush.

That's like saying lots of people were doing real well right up until the great depression.

I think you are too kind to the bush years and too hard on Obama. Clearly bias

I may be biased but I know I did better under Bush as most people did. It was a booming economy not only in wages, but in confidence as well. There was just a good feeling around when he was President.

The housing crash was due to government getting involved in the banks business, particularly giving homes to the poor and minorities who had no business owning them. No money down and no credit check is what caused the collapse. Too many home buyers created a huge bubble. The bigger the bubble, the bigger the burst.

That is the popular explanation of the housing crash. However, the evidence does not support the conclusion.

There was a rapid expansion in overall mortgage origination during the time period, but the fraction of new mortgage dollars going to each income group was stable. In other words, the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007. Taken together, the evidence suggests that there was no decoupling of mortgage growth from income growth where unsustainable credit was flowing dis-proportionally to poor people.
Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the Middle Class

Correct. It's called Hopping On The Bandwagon.

With low interest rates and housing purchase on the increase, it created the same as any supply and demand situation. The higher the demand, the higher the price.

House flipping was on the rise, prices kept getting higher and higher. People were making money hand over fist. Houses and even developments were being built without one buyer in mind.

When the government makes regulation, they can't make it for a specific group of people even if that's the group of people they had in mind. Weak lending practices set forth by the government applied to all, including real estate tycoons.

But you can't look at the middle of the problem nor the end to say what the problem was. You have to look at where the problem started, and the problem started by creating such weak standards for home loans due to the outcry of the minority and poor communities that didn't have access to purchase their own homes.

 

[Flopper]

I don't see shooting unarmed people be them black or white is a triumph of good over evil. It destroys trust and without the trust of the people they protect, police can not do their job.

A police officers job is to defend the public. An officer is not going to put his life or safety on the line unless there is no other choice. So what trust are the people looking for--that if they disregard the law, put an officers life or safety on the line, he won't defend himself? That's not what cops are for.

We are a society of laws. The laws were created by our representatives. The police are the people that enforce the laws we created. If the public doesn't like that, they have no business living in a civilized society. They need to move to a country where any authority is overrun by the criminals and they make their own laws depending on the situation. We don't do that here.

In truth we are at this time a society in something more like anarcho-tyranny. Anarchy in which a preferred/protected group is allowed to violently attack the rest of us with impunity as 'law enforcement' stays by but ready to intervene if the thugs receive a violent defensive response from the Community under attack. EXAMPLE- #blm vs ordinary folks who happen to be White. Tyranny in which 'color of law' is used to harass/intimidate targeted groups. EXAMPLE- crippling fines because your little bakery because you won't draw a penis image on a cake for the 'wedding' of two fags and then of course its OK for gofundme to block efforts of the Community to help you.'reason'/- why you are a 'hater' and we don't allow hate on our site.

While Blacks are most likely to commit violent crime, they are also the most likely to be the victims of violent crimes. Chances of a black person being a victim is 5 times as great as a white person.

 

[Flopper]

Thanks Obama for handing him a good economy like bill handed bush. Don't **** up again.

There's a reason Republicans lost in 2006. America has a short memory

Most of the Bush years were successful and prosperous for many people.

The poorly educated low skill blue collar workers weren't doing well under bush. That's when their jobs went overseas. That's why the housing market crashed for all those people doing well under bush.

That's like saying lots of people were doing real well right up until the great depression.

I think you are too kind to the bush years and too hard on Obama. Clearly bias

I may be biased but I know I did better under Bush as most people did. It was a booming economy not only in wages, but in confidence as well. There was just a good feeling around when he was President.

The housing crash was due to government getting involved in the banks business, particularly giving homes to the poor and minorities who had no business owning them. No money down and no credit check is what caused the collapse. Too many home buyers created a huge bubble. The bigger the bubble, the bigger the burst.

That is the popular explanation of the housing crash. However, the evidence does not support the conclusion.

There was a rapid expansion in overall mortgage origination during the time period, but the fraction of new mortgage dollars going to each income group was stable. In other words, the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007. Taken together, the evidence suggests that there was no decoupling of mortgage growth from income growth where unsustainable credit was flowing dis-proportionally to poor people.
Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the Middle Class

Correct. It's called Hopping On The Bandwagon.

With low interest rates and housing purchase on the increase, it created the same as any supply and demand situation. The higher the demand, the higher the price.

House flipping was on the rise, prices kept getting higher and higher. People were making money hand over fist. Houses and even developments were being built without one buyer in mind.

When the government makes regulation, they can't make it for a specific group of people even if that's the group of people they had in mind. Weak lending practices set forth by the government applied to all, including real estate tycoons.

But you can't look at the middle of the problem nor the end to say what the problem was. You have to look at where the problem started, and the problem started by creating such weak standards for home loans due to the outcry of the minority and poor communities that didn't have access to purchase their own homes.

There were a lot of culprits in the crash. The Bush administration like the Clinton administration pushed for more home ownership which led to the lowering of credit requirements by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's popular to make the government the sole culprit but remember it wasn't government that actually made those risky loans and it wasn't government that sold those loans to Wall Street Banks and it wasn't government that packaged those loans into collateral packages in a manner that credit worthiness could not be determined, and it wasn't government that used those packages as collateral for bonds to be sold by the top names on Wall Street. And it wasn't government that sold or bought that crap or gave it AAA bond ratings. There was plenty of blame to go around.

 

[Coyote]

If the question were slanted, it would be framed either the way you are trying to frame it or framed in terms of innocent people being executed, but it's not.

It's not a deterrent because most of the time, criminals are acting in the moment or under compulsion, not thinking of consequences, or they think they won't get caught.

It's more than likely they figure they'll escape the death penalty, or it will take so long to carry out they will die of natural causes first which has happened here a few times.

Let me handle the death penalty cases in this country, and I guarantee you I could cut the murder rate by at least half. A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried. After all, are you worried about what's going to happen to you 15 years from today? Most people aren't and criminals feel the same way.

How exactly would you handle death penalty cases? How would insure that no innocent people got killed? How would you ensure EQUITY - so that certain groups were not unfairly penalized while others got off? Or...does that matter? Sure, you can cut the time spent on death row drastically, but then you may very well increase the number of innocent people put to death. Is that a risk that is worth it to you?

You are assuming a number of things. Not all death row cases have DNA evidence to support them. A great many rely on eye witness testimony which can be notoriously unreliable. Also, they aren't necessarily the worst of the worst. The crimes vary by state law. The death penalty is also grossly unjust in its application, with disproportionate numbers of minorities and poor people getting the death penalty for the same crimes another might get a prison term for.

Wrong. Remember that minorities murder way more people than whites per capita. In the US, you are six times more likely to be murdered by a black than a white, and they only make up about 13% of our population.

Wrong. For one - those statistics are misleading. It depends on WHERE YOU LIVE as to the racial make up of crime. I am far more likely to be murdered by a white person where I live, then a black person. Your claim ignores a lot of other factors that go into crime statistics, most notably the persons economic class.

It also doesn't explain what occurs in death penalty cases.

- murders where the victim is white and the defendent is black is far more likely to get the death penalty than vice versa or same-race murders.

The death penalty is also very ARBRITRARY in how it's applied:

Imagine that speeders who drive yellow cars are ticketed but speeders who drive other colored cars are not. Even if the law does not explicitly single out yellow cars, a system that consistently fines only the drivers of yellow cars would be unfair. In a death penalty system in which less than 2% of known murderers are sentenced to death, fairness mandates that those few who are sentenced to death should be guillty of more heinous crimes or have worse criminal records than those who are not. A system in which the likelihood of a death sentence depends more on the race of the victim or the county in which the crime was committed, rather than on the severity of the offense, is also arbitrary.​

The crimes for which the death penalty can be applied vary - and certainly aren't the "worst of the worst". The death penalty can be applied for crimes where the defendent hasn't even killed someone:

Treason (Arkansas, Calif., Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Washington)
Aggravated kidnapping (Co., Idaho, Il., Missouri, Mont.)
Drug trafficking (Fl., Missouri)
Aircraft hijacking (Ga., Mo.)
Placing a bomb near a bus terminal (Mo.)
Espionage (New Mexico)
Aggravated assault by incarcerated, persistent felons, or murderers (Mont.)​

The death penalty is seldom if ever given to a suspect of questionable guilt. In most cases, it's the jury that makes the recommendation and the judge who honors it. What murders take place where they are able to fool forensic scientists? Those people can find a single strand of hair on the victim or on the grounds which they were murdered.

Really? Death Penalty and Innocence

View attachment 102451

Race of Death Row Inmates Executed Since 1976 | Death Penalty Information Center

We have a lot more Flintstones then you might think, communities with lead problems. And other problems. WV has had at least two serious water problems with chemical spill contaminstion, one of which resulted in instituting new regulations.

Would your tenants rent if you told them you water was undrinkable due to high levels of lead and maybe not even safe for bathing?

Of course not, but in too many cases the water is fine and they institute unnecessary regulations. Could water always be cleaner or better? Sure it can, but at what cost?

If an area has problems with their water, it's up to them to find a solution and perhaps request federal help if needed. But again, that's up to them--not Washington DC.

Years ago the feds decided that our air wasn't good enough for them. Okay, so stay the hell out of our city! No, instead, they forced regulations on us in way of vehicle inspections. So we had to spend (and are still spending) millions and millions of dollars to keep the feds happy. Ten years after the program started, they measured the air again, and found no change from ten years early. So what did they do? They extended the program.

Money wasted to solve a problem that wasn't there. That money could have been used for much better things and more necessary things.

[/quote]

Clean water at what cost? What price do you put on lead poisoning? (there is no way to remove it from a child's body). Flint MI didn't do so well did it? And you're talking about removing federal regulations?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The crimes for which the death penalty can be applied vary - and certainly aren't the "worst of the worst". The death penalty can be applied for crimes where the defendent hasn't even killed someone:

Treason (Arkansas, Calif., Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Washington)
Aggravated kidnapping (Co., Idaho, Il., Missouri, Mont.)
Drug trafficking (Fl., Missouri)
Aircraft hijacking (Ga., Mo.)
Placing a bomb near a bus terminal (Mo.)
Espionage (New Mexico)
Aggravated assault by incarcerated, persistent felons, or murderers (Mont.)

Wrong again. Here is what you can be executed for in the United States:

Other crimes against persons[edit]

In June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held 5–4 in Kennedy v. Louisiana that the death penalty cannot be imposed for non-homicidal crimes against the person. In this case, it struck down a Louisiana statute providing capital punishment for raping a child under the age of 12. Only two death row inmates (both in Louisiana) have been affected by the decision.[48] Nevertheless, the ruling came less than five months before the 2008 presidential election and was criticized by both major party candidates Barack Obama and John McCain.[49]

Numerous states still have on their statutes books various provisions allowing the death penalty for child rape or other non-homicidal crimes such as kidnapping.[50]

Crimes against the state[edit]
The opinion of the court in Kennedy v. Louisiana says that the ruling does not apply to "treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the State".[51]

Since no one is on death row for such offenses, the court has yet to rule on the constitutionality of the death penalty applied for them.

Capital punishment in the United States - Wikipedia

Wrong. For one - those statistics are misleading. It depends on WHERE YOU LIVE as to the racial make up of crime. I am far more likely to be murdered by a white person where I live, then a black person. Your claim ignores a lot of other factors that go into crime statistics, most notably the persons economic class.

It also doesn't explain what occurs in death penalty cases.

- murders where the victim is white and the defendent is black is far more likely to get the death penalty than vice versa or same-race murders.

The death penalty is also very ARBRITRARY in how it's applied:
Imagine that speeders who drive yellow cars are ticketed but speeders who drive other colored cars are not. Even if the law does not explicitly single out yellow cars, a system that consistently fines only the drivers of yellow cars would be unfair. In a death penalty system in which less than 2% of known murderers are sentenced to death, fairness mandates that those few who are sentenced to death should be guillty of more heinous crimes or have worse criminal records than those who are not. A system in which the likelihood of a death sentence depends more on the race of the victim or the county in which the crime was committed, rather than on the severity of the offense, is also arbitrary.

The death penalty varies based on criminal history and other crimes associated with the murder. If blacks fall into that category, it's not because of their race. It has nothing to do with their race. In fact, you are more likely to be executed if you are white than black in the United States:

The relationship between race and capital punishment in the United States has been studied extensively. As of 2014, 42% of those on death row in the United States were black, which is almost triple the percent of the general population that is black.[1]

According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and Native Americans and Asians 2.2%. This means African Americans are less likely to be sentenced to death on a per capita basis.[2]

Race and capital punishment in the United States - Wikipedia

How exactly would you handle death penalty cases? How would insure that no innocent people got killed? How would you ensure EQUITY - so that certain groups were not unfairly penalized while others got off? Or...does that matter? Sure, you can cut the time spent on death row drastically, but then you may very well increase the number of innocent people put to death. Is that a risk that is worth it to you?

Yes it is because nobody today is executed without technology and hard evidence. The link you posted gave stories of people that were sentenced to death in the 80's and 90's when such technology was not available. Today if you are sentenced to death, the prosecutor has absolute proof you were the murderer.

As you stated, the first step I would take to reduce murder is fast-tracking death penalties.. All appeals exhausted in five months no questions asked. The execution would be available to the public perhaps on a pay-per-view channel. Some people (particularly violent juvenile delinquents) would be able to witness the execution in person as it happens. We would no longer use lethal injection. The family of the victim would be able to choose the electric chair, hanging or firing squad.

 

[Coyote]

The crimes for which the death penalty can be applied vary - and certainly aren't the "worst of the worst". The death penalty can be applied for crimes where the defendent hasn't even killed someone:

Treason (Arkansas, Calif., Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Washington)
Aggravated kidnapping (Co., Idaho, Il., Missouri, Mont.)
Drug trafficking (Fl., Missouri)
Aircraft hijacking (Ga., Mo.)
Placing a bomb near a bus terminal (Mo.)
Espionage (New Mexico)
Aggravated assault by incarcerated, persistent felons, or murderers (Mont.)

Wrong again. Here is what you can be executed for in the United States:

Other crimes against persons[edit]

In June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held 5–4 in Kennedy v. Louisiana that the death penalty cannot be imposed for non-homicidal crimes against the person. In this case, it struck down a Louisiana statute providing capital punishment for raping a child under the age of 12. Only two death row inmates (both in Louisiana) have been affected by the decision.[48] Nevertheless, the ruling came less than five months before the 2008 presidential election and was criticized by both major party candidates Barack Obama and John McCain.[49]

Numerous states still have on their statutes books various provisions allowing the death penalty for child rape or other non-homicidal crimes such as kidnapping.[50]

Crimes against the state[edit]
The opinion of the court in Kennedy v. Louisiana says that the ruling does not apply to "treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the State".[51]

Since no one is on death row for such offenses, the court has yet to rule on the constitutionality of the death penalty applied for them.

Capital punishment in the United States - Wikipedia

Not wrong. That essentially echos what I said above, and the statutes listed still exist on the books. The death penalty can be incurred for terrorism for example, even if the person did not directly kill someone.

 

[Coyote]

How exactly would you handle death penalty cases? How would insure that no innocent people got killed? How would you ensure EQUITY - so that certain groups were not unfairly penalized while others got off? Or...does that matter? Sure, you can cut the time spent on death row drastically, but then you may very well increase the number of innocent people put to death. Is that a risk that is worth it to you?

Yes it is because nobody today is executed without technology and hard evidence. The link you posted gave stories of people that were sentenced to death in the 80's and 90's when such technology was not available. Today if you are sentenced to death, the prosecutor has absolute proof you were the murderer.

And you know this how? People sentenced to death in the 80's and 90's are still on death row.

Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row | Death Penalty Information Center

This list of exonerations includes people sentenced as late as 2013. Most have no DNA evidence. You don't have DNA evidence with every conviction. Your fast track system would have had them all killed before exoneration.

As you stated, the first step I would take to reduce murder is fast-tracking death penalties.. All appeals exhausted in five months no questions asked. The execution would be available to the public perhaps on a pay-per-view channel. Some people (particularly violent juvenile delinquents) would be able to witness the execution in person as it happens. We would no longer use lethal injection. The family of the victim would be able to choose the electric chair, hanging or firing squad.

That's what ISIS does. Public executions to make a public point. Of course, they don't have the economic aspect. Maybe they should.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Most of the Bush years were successful and prosperous for many people.

The poorly educated low skill blue collar workers weren't doing well under bush. That's when their jobs went overseas. That's why the housing market crashed for all those people doing well under bush.

That's like saying lots of people were doing real well right up until the great depression.

I think you are too kind to the bush years and too hard on Obama. Clearly bias

I may be biased but I know I did better under Bush as most people did. It was a booming economy not only in wages, but in confidence as well. There was just a good feeling around when he was President.

The housing crash was due to government getting involved in the banks business, particularly giving homes to the poor and minorities who had no business owning them. No money down and no credit check is what caused the collapse. Too many home buyers created a huge bubble. The bigger the bubble, the bigger the burst.

That is the popular explanation of the housing crash. However, the evidence does not support the conclusion.

There was a rapid expansion in overall mortgage origination during the time period, but the fraction of new mortgage dollars going to each income group was stable. In other words, the poor did not represent a higher fraction of the mortgage loans originated over the period. In addition, borrowers in the middle and top of the distribution are the ones that contributed most significantly to the increase in mortgages in default after 2007. Taken together, the evidence suggests that there was no decoupling of mortgage growth from income growth where unsustainable credit was flowing dis-proportionally to poor people.
Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the Middle Class

Correct. It's called Hopping On The Bandwagon.

With low interest rates and housing purchase on the increase, it created the same as any supply and demand situation. The higher the demand, the higher the price.

House flipping was on the rise, prices kept getting higher and higher. People were making money hand over fist. Houses and even developments were being built without one buyer in mind.

When the government makes regulation, they can't make it for a specific group of people even if that's the group of people they had in mind. Weak lending practices set forth by the government applied to all, including real estate tycoons.

But you can't look at the middle of the problem nor the end to say what the problem was. You have to look at where the problem started, and the problem started by creating such weak standards for home loans due to the outcry of the minority and poor communities that didn't have access to purchase their own homes.

There were a lot of culprits in the crash. The Bush administration like the Clinton administration pushed for more home ownership which led to the lowering of credit requirements by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's popular to make the government the sole culprit but remember it wasn't government that actually made those risky loans and it wasn't government that sold those loans to Wall Street Banks and it wasn't government that packaged those loans into collateral packages in a manner that credit worthiness could not be determined, and it wasn't government that used those packages as collateral for bonds to be sold by the top names on Wall Street. And it wasn't government that sold or bought that crap or gave it AAA bond ratings. There was plenty of blame to go around.

Wrong. The only one that can rate securities is the federal government, and our federal government gave those bad securities a triple A rating.

If you wish to make a loan and sell it on the market, you have to abide to federal requirements. Prime loans are excluded since prime loans are loans where the bank uses their own money. But subprime loans are under the regulation of F & F which are under the supervision of HUD who creates the regulations.

Banks made a killing on processing the loans. They could care less about the security of the loans since they were not keeping them anyway. Those loans were going to be sold off. If you were running a bank at the time, you could either get in on the action or be totally left out as your competitors raked in all the money.

As you stated, many got in on the action, but the action started by reducing regulations on home purchases aimed at pleasing the minority communities that often complained about discrimination in loan practices. It had nothing to do with race, it had to do with savings, credit history, and ability to repay the loan--requirements that many blacks didn't meet.

And again, they couldn't write loan practices specifically for certain race of people. Those lowered guidelines were for everybody regardless who you were. I was a victim of all this as two of my best tenants left here because they both purchased homes with 0% down and no credit check. Both were working and made a decent living, but both were also very extended on their credit. One had a car payment, a motorcycle payment, and a new camper that cost him over $30,000. The other had two new cars for he and his wife, and they didn't even own their own television set. They rented it.

I warned both about what was going to happen, but they assumed I was looking out for my own best interest and went ahead and purchased their homes. A few years later, both regretted their decision and openly said they wished they would have listened to me in the first place.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And you know this how? People sentenced to death in the 80's and 90's are still on death row.

Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row | Death Penalty Information Center

This list of exonerations includes people sentenced as late as 2013. Most have no DNA evidence. You don't have DNA evidence with every conviction. Your fast track system would have had them all killed before exoneration.

Out of the 156 cases of exoneration, only two of them were more recent: 2011 and 2013. The rest were all years ago from the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

I don't believe in applying the death penalty unless there is empirical evidence that the subject did commit such a crime. By that I mean video, forensic science and of course DNA. I don't believe in giving executions to people based on eye witness or other unreliable evidence.

That's what ISIS does. Public executions to make a public point. Of course, they don't have the economic aspect. Maybe they should.

Well if you want the death penalty to be a deterrent, you have to provide such a deterrent. That's the idea of a public point.

When somebody uses a deadly weapon to commit a crime, they understand well in advance that using a weapon may involve death. Very few people use weapons with the expectation they will never need them. By witnessing an execution, or even knowing you could be dead in less than six months by committing the crime just may deter you enough from doing so.

 

[Coyote]

And you know this how? People sentenced to death in the 80's and 90's are still on death row.

Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row | Death Penalty Information Center

This list of exonerations includes people sentenced as late as 2013. Most have no DNA evidence. You don't have DNA evidence with every conviction. Your fast track system would have had them all killed before exoneration.

Out of the 156 cases of exoneration, only two of them were more recent: 2011 and 2013. The rest were all years ago from the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

I don't believe in applying the death penalty unless there is empirical evidence that the subject did commit such a crime. By that I mean video, forensic science and of course DNA. I don't believe in giving executions to people based on eye witness or other unreliable evidence.

That's what ISIS does. Public executions to make a public point. Of course, they don't have the economic aspect. Maybe they should.

Well if you want the death penalty to be a deterrent, you have to provide such a deterrent. That's the idea of a public point.

When somebody uses a deadly weapon to commit a crime, they understand well in advance that using a weapon may involve death. Very few people use weapons with the expectation they will never need them. By witnessing an execution, or even knowing you could be dead in less than six months by committing the crime just may deter you enough from doing so.

How would you address the inequity and injustice in the way the death penalty is applied in the US? Or would that matter?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The crimes for which the death penalty can be applied vary - and certainly aren't the "worst of the worst". The death penalty can be applied for crimes where the defendent hasn't even killed someone:

Treason (Arkansas, Calif., Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Washington)
Aggravated kidnapping (Co., Idaho, Il., Missouri, Mont.)
Drug trafficking (Fl., Missouri)
Aircraft hijacking (Ga., Mo.)
Placing a bomb near a bus terminal (Mo.)
Espionage (New Mexico)
Aggravated assault by incarcerated, persistent felons, or murderers (Mont.)

Wrong again. Here is what you can be executed for in the United States:

Other crimes against persons[edit]

In June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held 5–4 in Kennedy v. Louisiana that the death penalty cannot be imposed for non-homicidal crimes against the person. In this case, it struck down a Louisiana statute providing capital punishment for raping a child under the age of 12. Only two death row inmates (both in Louisiana) have been affected by the decision.[48] Nevertheless, the ruling came less than five months before the 2008 presidential election and was criticized by both major party candidates Barack Obama and John McCain.[49]

Numerous states still have on their statutes books various provisions allowing the death penalty for child rape or other non-homicidal crimes such as kidnapping.[50]

Crimes against the state[edit]
The opinion of the court in Kennedy v. Louisiana says that the ruling does not apply to "treason, espionage, terrorism, and drug kingpin activity, which are offenses against the State".[51]

Since no one is on death row for such offenses, the court has yet to rule on the constitutionality of the death penalty applied for them.

Capital punishment in the United States - Wikipedia

Not wrong. That essentially echos what I said above, and the statutes listed still exist on the books. The death penalty can be incurred for terrorism for example, even if the person did not directly kill someone.

Yes, that's true because it's a crime against the state. As for violent crime however, it has to be associated with a murder.