this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
500 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3799 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Newsmax host Carl Higbie went on a tirade on Friday after former President Donald Trump was convicted by a Manhattan jury the day before.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments to cover up extramarital affairs. Trump was concerned the affairs would come to light and harm his presidential aspirations. The Republican freakout has been swift if not predictable. Despite their outrage and indignation, some conservatives insist that being a convicted felon will help Trump’s chances of returning to the White House in November’s election.

During Friday’s edition of Frontline on Newsmax, Higbie demanded congressional Republicans drop everything and go after those involved in Trump’s prosecution.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Prison is ostensibly for either prevention of crime or rehabilitation of criminals (ignoring the American for profit prison system for a moment). This one has proven himself willing to perform crime despite the threat of prison, and has proven himself unwilling to rehabilitate. As you said, proven no capacity for contrition.

Therefore, the stated reason for prison would have next to no effect on this prisoner. He will not rehabilitate and has proven himself undeterred by threat of punishment. Ergo, sounds like an excellent target for the death penalty, in fact that sounds like the exact sort of person the death penalty was originally instated for. People too dangerous to be left alive that refuse to change their ways.

Just saying, all the pieces fit.

[–] timmy_dean_sausage 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We don't sentence people based on our feelings about them because it's impossible to do so in an objective, fair way across all courts. This man has enjoyed an absurd level of luxury/freedoms throughout his life, relative to just about everyone else. Let him rot in prison for the rest of his life. I hope he lives to 100 in there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

None of that involved my feelings about him, only facts about how he has acted under his own power. If we were basing this on my feelings about him we'd have been rid of him in 2015. It is a fact that he will perform crimes constantly and it is a fact that he has not shown a shred of remorse or reconciliation even once, ever.

[–] timmy_dean_sausage 2 points 5 months ago

I agree with you that he's a serial criminal. I don't agree that he should be given the death penalty, unless he's found guilty of a crime that would warrant that punishment.