home

Hillary on Death Penalty: Limit But Don't Abolish

By Jeralyn, Section Hillary Clinton
Posted on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 02:59:52 PM EST
Tags: death penalty (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Hillary Clinton today espoused her views on the death penalty.

"I think that we have a lot of evidence now that the death penalty has been too frequently applied and very unfortunately in a discriminatory way," Clinton said at Saint Anselm's College. "So I think we have to take a hard look at it and a lot of states are doing that."

Clinton said that the United State needs to be "smarter and more careful" about how the death penalty is applied, but that in some "egregious" cases, capital punishment is still needed.

"I do not favor abolishing it, however," Clinton said, arguing that it should be used in "very limited and rare" instances.

How about a moratorium then, until the system is fixed? Is it more important to kill an egregious offender or not to kill someone who was unfairly sentenced to death on the basis of race?

< Another Republican Debate Tonight | Wednesday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary on Death Penalty: Limit But Don't Abolish | 70 comments (70 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Unfortunately, I don't think enough people care (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by McBain on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 03:15:17 PM EST
    if a few innocent people are put to death.  

    With all the great work The Innocence Project has done, there should be enough compelling evidence to do away with the death penalty all together.

    Hillary's comments don't really help. The system will never be "smart" or "careful" enough to prevent the wrong people from being convicted.  

    "Smart" (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 04:47:35 PM EST
    executions.

    Cousin of the "smart bombs".

    Parent

    The Guy Who Never Found a Cop... (none / 0) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 02:52:38 PM EST
    ...he couldn't defend, even ones who kill innocent unarmed people, including children, isn't down with executions.

    OK then...  

    I'll put McBain down as being a descent human being for political purposes.

    Not to point out the obvious, but how do you think most innocent people end up on death row, the majority, 70% not being white.

    That being said I do agree with the post, just hard to imagine a person who defends the indefensible in regards to police behavior towards minorities not having the ability to link that same behavior, by the same people, to innocent people being locked up.  

    And I can't wait to read all the HRC apologist telling us how liberal she is...

    Parent

    A lot of innocent people are locked up, (none / 0) (#18)
    by McBain on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 03:13:17 PM EST
    sometimes even on death row, because of bad eyewitness identification.  I think race is overrated when it comes to wrongful incarcerations.  I believe it has more to do with money.  Poor people are more likely to get the shaft in our legal system.

    Parent
    You Really Don't Have to Post... (none / 0) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 04:14:12 PM EST
    ...for 1001 time that race has nothing to do with anything, we get it, you are colorblind.

    FWIW,  A lot more innocent people are locked up because the cops focused in on innocent black guy, and almost always ignoring other leads and evidence because he wasn't white.

    Do you never read about these people and how they ended up it in prison, there is always one common thread, the police, they steer witnesses, force confessions, and a whole lot of other bad deeds.

    But I guess if the cop would just have shot them in the back while they ran away you wouldn't have worry yourself with the morality of executions, because then they would have deserved it.


    Parent

    And you don't have to respond to my posts (none / 0) (#22)
    by McBain on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 04:42:27 PM EST
    with your straw man BS.

    I'm well aware of forced confessions.  I've posted comments about that problem several times, especially in the West Memphis Three and Amanda Knox cases.

    Take a deep breath, relax and stop taking things personally.  We mostly agree on this topic.  


    Parent

    You Understand... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 11:59:11 AM EST
    ...a straw is non-existent ?

    I don't even have to find the numbers since you used Knox & WM3, which clearly demonstrate that corrupt police are being innocent convictions all the time.

    Good GD gravy man, at least try to find some innocence people convicted in which the cops weren't responsible.  There is no straw man in my argument as you proved it.

    Thanks for proving my point very precisely.

    Remind me again why we should all just obey the police, like Knox and the Memphis Three did ?

    Parent

    having an issue (none / 0) (#40)
    by sj on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 12:19:15 PM EST
    with autocorrect, are we? :)

    Got your gist, though.

    Parent

    Scott you keep distorting/misrepresenting my posts (none / 0) (#41)
    by McBain on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 03:17:09 PM EST
    that's what a straw man is.  You stated my argument was race has "nothing to do with anything".  I clearly never said that.  By stating I did, you used a straw man argument.  You do that all the time.  It shows weakness and lack of confidence in your position.

    As for this....

    Remind me again why we should all just obey the police, like Knox and the Memphis Three did ?
     

    You should obey the police so you don't end up injured or dead.  If they violate your rights, you can sue them later.  Don't end up like Michael Brown or Walter Scott.  

    Parent

    Well Stating... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 04:06:06 PM EST
    ...that white cops beating up black people isn't about race in every single instance that you comment on, is, more or less, the equivalent to saying "race has nothing to do with anything".

    Prove me wrong, name two instances in which a white cop beating up or killing a black person was about race.

    No one should have to obey the police so they don't end up,  injured or dead, not in America at least.  You should fear the legal consequences of breaking the law, not a beat down or getting shot, its the entire reason laws and courts exist.  

    That is just so... whatever, but please state the police policy or law in which injury/death is a punishment for not obeying the police.

    Parent

    And when you're arrested, ask for a lawyer (none / 0) (#42)
    by McBain on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 03:36:29 PM EST
    The cops might be completely in the wrong.  Let a good lawyer speak for you.  This is why I think the problem with our justice system has more to do with money than race.  Poor people can't afford good or non overworked attorneys. They're also less likely to be educated about the risks of talking to the police when arrested.

    You can "obey" the police and protect your rights at the same time.  

     

    Parent

    I have to disagree with Mrs. Clinton. (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 04:22:41 PM EST
    Capital punishment is both barbaric and immoral. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever as a deterrent to criminal behavior. Its practical purpose is nothing more than a misguided sense of societal vengeance upon not only the convicted but also his / her relations, who likely had nothing to do with the original offense. As such, the death penalty is inherently unworthy of any society whose members stake a claim to being both civilized and enlightened.

    What conclusion do we draw? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 08:08:36 PM EST
    Capital punishment is both barbaric and immoral. ... the death penalty is inherently unworthy of any society whose members stake a claim to being both civilized and enlightened

    To sum up:

    Our front-runner is a supporter of something that is barbaric and immoral.

    Our front-runner supports a practice that is unworthy of any society whose members stake a claim to being both civilized and enlightened.

    This is a problem we, as Democrats, should vigorously confront.

    Parent

    Won't vote for HRC (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 05:44:47 PM EST
    at all now. Not a fan to begin with. Will vote for Bernie in the PA primary. If HRC is the nominee, I'll be looking for another candidate to cast my vote for. Green, Libertarian, but based on this alone, will not ever vote for Hillary Clinton.
    I'm voting for Clinton come November. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 06:43:29 PM EST
    Come hell or high water.

    But in the primary, Bernie's got my vote.  Pure protest.  Since everyone says H.C. has it all sewn up, it hurts no one to throw Bernie a sliver of support.  Let him know we give a rip.  Nothing gets changed by agreeing with platforms and policies.  Nothing.

    Besides, Bernie reminds me of me, raging ineffectually against the machine.  Even if it doesn't change much initially, even if nothing changes, you get to meet the best people.

    Parent

    Don't let the door hit you (2.00 / 2) (#7)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 06:24:35 PM EST


    Parent
    I will vote for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MKS on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 11:44:37 PM EST
    but I don't like her position on this.....

    Parent
    The innocent (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 07:31:42 PM EST
    prisoners on death row who will be executed probably don't care for her position on this either...

    Parent
    You think a Republican would be better? (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 12:43:25 AM EST
    And, yes, it does boil down to this.

    Parent
    It really (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 06:14:52 AM EST
    is tiresome to me to be told that we should consider supporting someone because someone else is "worse".

    Do you realize that there are teenagers today who have not known one day in their lives in which the US has not been at war in several countries? Not one day.

    This is what we get for voting for the least-worst.

    Perpetual war.

    Is there any other country on Earth that has consistently been bombing people - day after day - year after year - without a single pause - for over a decade?

    If we vote - or support someone - it should be because they represent our views.

    If your view is that capital punishment is bad - but not so bad that we should put a moratorium on killing prisoners - it just warrants taking a "hard look" - then go ahead and support the "front-runner".

    If you think that capital punishment is barbaric and a blot on the honor of our country, I would suggest supporting someone else - like the person dubbed "he can't win".

    Parent

    As someone who has had a lot to say (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 09:49:46 AM EST
    about voting for the least worst candidate (as in: I hate it), I share many of your feelings; I've been saying for a long time that when the metric is "better than the other guy," it can do little but lower the bar.

    I get that, I do.  And the GOP is nothing if not proof of that.

    But.

    There is no way on God's green earth I will risk electing one of the Insane Clown Posse that is the GOP field.  No freaking way.  

    None of the Democratic candidates is ideal.  All have their flaws, some of them worse than others.  From a strictly ideological perspective, I align much more with Sanders than either Clinton or O'Malley - and while I do not believe he will be the nominee, we owe him a huge debt of gratitude for forcing Clinton to evolve a lot sooner than anyone thought she would.  He has put issues that affect most Americans in the spotlight, and given them a glimpse into what life with a Republican president, Republican Congress and possible Republican appointments to the Supreme Court would look like.    

    I know what the negatives are.  Clinton is too authoritarian for me, too much of a hawk, too doctrinaire on matters of law-and-order.  I know that if Clinton is the nominee, we can look forward to months of ugly and vicious re-hashing of all of her and Bill's "crimes."   I think we can expect her to move more to the right in the general election.

    But.

    This country will be orders of magnitude worse off with a Republican in the White House.  The rich will get richer, more people will fall into poverty, any hope of expanding access to and affordability of health care will vanish.  Jobs will keep going elsewhere, the environment will suffer.  Education will take a step back into the dark.  Women will be relegated to the back of the bus.  Race relations will suffer.  Civil and human rights will regress.  

    I can't take the chance of that happening.  I can't sit this one out, can't leave it up to others, can't demand purity of ideology as the price of my vote.  

    We each will do what we feel is best, what we can live with; we can only hope we make the right decisions.

    Parent

    Least-worst... (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by lentinel on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 06:37:07 AM EST
    This country will be orders of magnitude worse off with a Republican in the White House.  The rich will get richer, more people will fall into poverty, any hope of expanding access to and affordability of health care will vanish.  Jobs will keep going elsewhere, the environment will suffer.  Education will take a step back into the dark.  Women will be relegated to the back of the bus.  Race relations will suffer.  Civil and human rights will regress

    Under Obama, the rich have gotten much richer.
    More have fallen into poverty.
    Healthcare.gov is a landmine thanks to Obama shunning single-payer in order to accommodate powerful corporate lobbys.
    Jobs are fleeing the country --- and what about that TPP?
    Education? What about it?
    Women - fighting to simply have control over their bodies. No aggressive leadership from the WH on that either - so we see a downward spiral.
    Civil rights? More and more incidents of police abuse. Have the conditions in Baltimore, for example, gotten any better with Obama at the helm?
    Human Rights? Drones. Snowden. Guantanamo.
    And let us not forget - THE WARS!
    Still Gitmo.
    Still Afghanistan.
    Still Iraq.
    Boots on the ground into Syria....

    I am entirely sympathetic to your point of view.
    I would choose the least worst looking piece of fruit at the supermarket.

    But - after watching the results of the "least-worst" option for many many moons, I have begin to identify it with Einstein's dictum about repeating the same action and expecting a different result.

    At the moment, many, including you, have expressed that you agree more with the positions taken by Sanders. Yet, there is little or no support for him being expressed here. The only mantra seems to be that "he can't win" - so we should shuffle onto the HRC bandwagon and be grateful that Sanders moved her slightly (in her measured rhetoric) to the "left".

    Saying "he can't win' appears to me to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    And where does this certainty come from?
    Who is telling us that "he can't win"?
    Is it the same source that told us we couldn't elect a "black person"?

    If we on the left - people identifying themselves with progressive causes - can't get enthusiastic about someone who has taken the risk to get out there and campaign unapologetically and forcefully on the issues which are meaningful to us - then we are doomed to continue in the downward spiral of watching our Dems morph more and more into being the Republicans we claim to abhor.

    Parent

    Bravo (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 08:16:02 AM EST
    This is also reality.

    Parent
    As tiresome as you may (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 09:07:40 AM EST
    find it, it is reality.

    In your search for ideological purity, you will miss any chance of doing anything positive.

    Parent

    I am (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 06:19:48 PM EST
    NOT asking for ideological purity.

    I don't even know what that might be.

    I am asking for someone who tells me exactly what they think about the issues I care about - and that I can identify with their framing of those issues and their proposed solutions.

    Is that so much to ask?

    Parent

    That's the whole point (none / 0) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    I am asking for someone who tells me exactly what they think about the issues I care about - and that I can identify with their framing of those issues and their proposed solutions.
    Is there enough of "you" to carry a national  national election? Is there enough of us? Can Bernie attract enough converts? Maybe yes maybe no, but is it worth the risk?
    Is that so much to ask?
    It's too much when failure is not an option.

    In my opinion Bernie's "political revolution" is not yet ready for success. Even if he were to become president it is unlikely that he would be able to come through on most of his promises and probably add to the cycle of disillusion that has  crushed the spirits of progressive Democrats since as long as I can remember.  

    Parent

    And in your search for (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Zorba on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 03:22:36 PM EST
    "Reality," which amounts to "go along to get along," nothing will ever change in any kind of profoundly substantive manner.

    Parent
    The (none / 0) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 03:39:02 PM EST
    "Reality" amounts to facing a cover three defense and realizing you can't throw deep.

    "Reality" is accepting the fact that changes will will be incremental and hard fought and "profound" is out of the question.

    Parent

    No, Sanders can't win (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 09:09:30 AM EST
    The idea that you can accomplish a political goal through being more ideologically pure is naïve in the extreme.

    Bernie has been ideologically pure, but has he accomplished anything?

    Parent

    Who knows? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 05:02:18 PM EST
    Bernie has been ideologically pure, but has he accomplished anything?

    I think he could accomplish a lot.

    But - I'll ask you - what has HRC accomplished?

    Parent

    Off the top of my head (none / 0) (#50)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 08:26:05 PM EST
    she got the Russians and Chinese to agree to sanctions against Iran....

    It is a long story, but I credit HRC for blowing the lid off of U.S. support for atrocities in Guatemala...which led to the Peace Accords in 1996.  She was the driving force behind the government's release of decades of damaging documents regarding U.S. involvement in Guatemala....

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#54)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 09:53:26 PM EST
    so Bernie can't win.

    So you say.

    I say that you should perhaps consider where you are getting that information from. What is the source of this certainty?

    I would say that it is the media.
    The same media that gave us the war in Iraq -- and everywhere else.

    So they tell us not to pay attention to someone actually addressing some of our concerns.

    And so -- we pay no attention.
    And we wind up with a candidate for whom voting requires some nose-holding.

    I think we're being play for saps.

    Parent

    Aw, Mo and sj didn't like that (1.25 / 4) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 06:59:05 PM EST
    Boo frickin hoo. My feelings are so hurt. More thin-skinned Bernie supporters.

    Chuck wasn't ever gonna support HRC - this was just an excuse to pretend that this issue tipped it for him. So go, vote for whom you support - no need to make excuses.

    God bless America.

    Parent

    You are hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 07:08:36 PM EST
    You, who are in the habit of giving out troll ratings for comments that disagree with your POV, are really funny.

    Parent
    Not thin skinned at all. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 07:52:26 AM EST
    This just happens to be an important issue to me. As well as getting marijuana off Schedule 1. Another issue Hillary waffles on. She an old school law and order Democrat in the same vein as Biden in that respect. Those are very important issues to me. I cannot, will not, support someone who thinks it's OK for the government to commit murder in my name.

    Parent
    I Think You are Missing the Point... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 03:01:59 PM EST
    ...HRC position is in direct conflict with the party's and that is problematic, not just for this.

    BooHoo, we have only killed a couple innocent people and tried to kill many more, who by luck, were exonerated because they were lucky enough to have the actual criminal leave DNA and an investigator smart enough to save a sample for the future.

    It's positions like this that IMO cost Hillary the last election, so Boohoo all you want, but I am positive Bernie isn't BooHoo-ing any of it.  For me, it reminds me, if elected we will be knee deep in the ME, because at her core, she has some very republican-esque views on life, sans the fetus'.

    Parent

    I'm pretty sure (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CST on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 03:12:11 PM EST
    Obama in 2008 was also in favor of the death penalty so I'm not sure that it cost her anything in the last election.

    I also haven't seen this as a part of the Dem party platform, although I'd be more than happy if it were.  In fact, what Hillary is saying today seems to be directly in line with the party platform.  Popular opinion (especially among Dems) is moving in that direction, but it wasn't that long ago that the death penalty was widely popular among Dems as well.  

    It doesn't surprise me at all to see her take this position as it strikes me as extremely politically calculating, acknowledging the Dem "point of view" without alienating the "independents".

    I still think it's awful policy, but politically it makes sense and likely won't cost her anything.

    Parent

    I think you are correct (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 03:52:37 PM EST
    The Dem party has not had an anti-death penalty stance since I have been paying attention. Maybe the rank and file poll as anti, but it is not any official party position I have ever heard.  

    Parent
    Clinton, (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 07:46:06 PM EST
    Bill, that is... was the first member of the family to be pro-death penalty. He let some poor slob with an IQ in the single digits be executed on the eve of the 1990 election to show that he, a liberal, was tough on crime.

    Progressives settled for that.
    So here we are again.

    Parent

    Ricky Rector (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 08:33:56 PM EST
    He said he would save his dessert from his last meal until after the execution.

    The counter argument was that he was mentally competent when he committed the murder and a subsequent accident made him mentally deficient.

    Parent

    Platform is Not... (none / 0) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 04:30:03 PM EST
    ...always the will of the party.  And just because it hasn't changed doesn't mean much, other than they certainly can't do it anytime soon unless they want HRC changing another position before the election or running a campaign that varies platform.

    And Obama was against same sex marriage eight years ago, that like many social issues, evolve, and sometimes very quickly.

    How many states have stopped executions because they can't get the drugs, I want to say 5.  Oklahoma being the big one that wass actually executing people.  I want to say two states are no longer doing executions when O took office, including his home state, but it may be 3.  The country and the party is shifting, and right now there is a candidate who doesn't want to kill people.  

    HRC would be in like company last night on the stage over this issue, that is a problem to me, she the DP the same as the lunatics/clown car passengers, and that is problematic to me and I don't think I am alone.

    The notion that voters want the same things as they did post-Bush is simply not true.  Back then, no one cared because the economy was in a free fall and we were still in a ridiculous war.

    Parent

    Obama is still "evolving" (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 09:17:45 AM EST
    On this issue.  And I can only hope that Hillary is as well, along with the rest of the party and country.

    I agree it's like same sex marriage and other social issues where opinions change quickly - but it's not there yet, and it's been something that's been up for debate a lot longer than gay marriage.  And more than 5 states were on board with that by the time the president and the rest of the party were.  And this particular court will not be our friend on this issue the way they were on gay marriage.

    I have a huge problem with the death penalty.  Especially as it's abundantly clear to me just who would still be on the chopping block in this "limited" scenario.

    Hillary's hawkishness has always been my biggest problem with her.  But I think right now the economy is still the number 1 problem.  Maybe even more so than 2008, because it's clear that "not Bush" isn't good enough.

    But if we want this to change federally, we're gonna need more than 5 states.

    Parent

    "Extremely politically calculating"... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 07:17:37 AM EST
    Nail on the head. That's Clinton's modus operandi.

    Give me moral calculations over that sh:t any day.

    Parent

    The best way to abolish (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 08:31:33 PM EST
    the death penalty is to appoint a couple of additional liberal Justices to the Supreme Court.   I think Hillary would do just that.

    Parent
    You can (3.67 / 3) (#25)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 07:42:27 PM EST
    be quite nasty jbindc. Doesn't seem necessary. Most of the people here are quite civil. But you leave civility far behind.

    People who are put off by HRC's rightwing positions on domestic and international issues do not need excuses to not vote for her.

    Some of us are looking for a reason to vote for her... without much luck.

    Parent

    jb's always been our resident (3.00 / 2) (#28)
    by jondee on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 09:06:59 PM EST
    tough-on-crime dominitrix.

    Parent
    Ah (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by sj on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 11:15:45 AM EST
    tough-on-crime dominitrix.
    I hope I can  remember that the next time it's appropriate. Which happens often, but isn't now.

    You should have saved that.

    Parent

    Since I didn't say anything about (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jbindc on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 10:01:54 AM EST
    "Law and Order, " just that Chuck already said he wouldnt vote for Hillary, so this wasn't what put him over the edge, your comment, as usual is nasty and completely bat$hit crazy ( Jim territory).  And once again shows you don't know how to comprehend what you read, but would rather read in your own little interpretations.  Wev.

    And lentinel, you are never going to be happy with any candidate, so do what ya gotta do.  My guess is, even if Bernie was president, you'd still be unhappy.


    Parent

    Now you're putting words in my mouth. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 12:00:15 PM EST
    I NEVER said I wouldn't vote for Hillary in the past. In fact, I said many times that I would most likely be voting for her whilst holding my nose should she be nominee. This issue has changed my nose-holding position and will likely have me cast my vote for someone else (not a Repulican).


    Parent
    This is not a new position for her (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 06:26:07 PM EST
    Clinton has been a longtime advocate of the death penalty. Clinton cosponsored the Innocence Protection Act of 2003 which became law in 2004 as part of the Justice for All Act. The bill provides funding for post-conviction DNA testing and establishes a DNA testing process for individuals sentenced to the death penalty under federal law. As first lady, she lobbied for President Clinton's crime bill, which expanded the list of crimes subject to the federal death penalty.
    Source: Pew Forum on Religion and Politics 2008 , Jan 1, 2008

    I've long disagreed with her on it. Just wondering why it just now put you over the top into not voting for her.


    Parent

    But then I was just reading this, (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Anne on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 07:37:28 PM EST
    and it makes me want to stick needles in my eyes:

    Clinton on Wednesday raised some eyebrows on the left during her own appearance in the Granite State when she did not categorically rule out Social Security benefit cuts or raising the retirement age. And she declined to endorse an across-the-board expansion of benefits, as favored by many progressives.

    "If there were a way to [raise the retirement age] that would not penalize or punish laborers and factory workers and long distance truck drivers and people who really are ready for retirement at a much earlier age, I would consider it. But I have yet to find any recommendation that I would think would be suitable," she said.

    Clinton added that she would "look at raising the [payroll tax] cap," but did not endorse it, saying she did not want to increase the tax burden on middle class families.

    That led some progressive activists to wonder about Clinton's plans for Social Security.

    I do not know why we are having this fight within our own party, nor can I even believe the front-runner for the nomination seems to be trying to find a way to raise the retirement age.

    Ugh.

    Parent

    Sounds like in a more nuanced (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 07:47:43 PM EST
    way she has just put S.S. on the table. Here we go again.

    Parent
    I think she is in favor (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 08:38:33 PM EST
    of a donut hole for Social Security Taxes.

    Not just lifting the cap.....but imposing the tax again after the current limit on those making over 500, for example....

    Parent

    If that is her position, (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 10:50:36 PM EST
    she had the opportunity to clearly state that she favored raising the cap for those making over $500,000. She chose not to do so. Instead she did not endorse raising the cap, "saying she did not want to increase the tax burden on middle class families."

    I have to say that I find it ironic that the threshold for raising the cap is over $500,000 but the threshold for people to pay taxes on their SS benefit is $25,000. Or how about this:

    Here's a riddle: What's the difference between $107,000 and $107,001? Answer: $974.40, at least that's how much more that $1 in income will raise your client's annual Medicare premiums for Part B and Part D in 2013.

    BTW, raising the retirement age would be cutting benefits significantly for the poor and lower middle class. According to numerous studies:

    "Life expectancy has increased mainly among the privileged class," economist Monique Morrissey of the Economic Policy Institute told Fletcher. "For many people, raising the retirement age would amont to a significant benefit cut."

    Link

    Parent
    I have been advocating (none / 0) (#60)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 10:57:25 AM EST
    for something like a donut hole to friends and family for years.

    If you are earning millions per year, why should you be paying the same amount of SS tax as the guy who makes exactly whatever the cap is?

    Parent

    Ooof. (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by lentinel on Fri Oct 30, 2015 at 04:59:25 PM EST
    And lentinel, you are never going to be happy with any candidate, so do what ya gotta do.  My guess is, even if Bernie was president, you'd still be unhappy.

    Kinda stupid and petulant comment,  jbindc


    Parent

    ::shrug:: (3.00 / 2) (#14)
    by sj on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 01:09:28 PM EST
    Whatever. You are back to making unnecessary, obnoxious and hostile comments.

    I know it's a phase, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't acknowledge it.

    Parent

    Yes. Limit. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 29, 2015 at 07:37:09 PM EST
    Only execute a little bit.
    Maybe half a vein.

    She'll (none / 0) (#3)
    by lentinel on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 04:46:29 PM EST
    "take a hard look at it".

    Thanks a bunch.

    ugh (none / 0) (#5)
    by sj on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 04:52:20 PM EST
    And what, pray tell, exactly are those "limited and rare" instances?

    From your link:

    "States are beginning to pull back from either applying the death penalty or narrowing the scope of the cases where it can be applied," Clinton said approvingly.

    If she truly approves of this then it is another "There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader." moment.

    A moot point anyway, since there is also a Federal DP. Apparently she is a "hawk" at home as well as a hawk abroad -- this is not the first evidence of that.

    Yeah this really seems like one of those carefully (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 28, 2015 at 07:44:50 PM EST
    gauged to public opinion positions where I would much prefer a leader say outright it is just plain wrong.

    Not happy about this at all.

    Parent

    How I wish (none / 0) (#58)
    by Nemi on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 10:38:40 AM EST
    she had said this or something similar instead. :(

    When we talk about criminal justice reform, I believe it is time for the United States of America to join almost every other Western, industrialized country on Earth in saying no to the death penalty. We are all shocked and disgusted by some of the horrific murders that we see in this country, seemingly every week. And that is precisely why we should abolish the death penalty. At a time of rampant violence and murder, the State should not be part of that process.
    You have the opportunity (none / 0) (#59)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 10:42:32 AM EST
    to vote for the person who made that comment.

    Parent
    Actually I don't (none / 0) (#61)
    by Nemi on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 01:20:14 PM EST
    but even if I did, being Social Democrat-ish I wouldn't vote for a self-declared socialist.

    But that doesn't stop me from wishing and hoping that people with power and influence would realize that capital punishment have absolutely no place in a civilized society.

    Parent

    Well if you could vote, (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 01:42:35 PM EST
    and would rather vote for a candidate who supports the death penalty, you have chosen the power that believes and clearly states that capital punishment absolutely has a place in civilized society.

    Your wishes are not going to help those being executed in this country. Policians rarely change positions as long as people continue to support their positions with their votes.

    BTW, for the sake of accuracy, Sanders is a self-declared Democratic Socialist who tends to favor policies similar to those of social democratic parties in Europe.

    Parent

    Having no way to know (none / 0) (#66)
    by Nemi on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 04:35:23 PM EST
    if your first response to me was made with a smile or a sneer, it certainly felt like both dismissing and condescending. With your second response you confirm that feeling.

    What makes you think, that because I don't vote 'your way', that means I

    would rather vote for a candidate who supports the death penalty, [thereby having] chosen the power that believes and clearly states that capital punishment absolutely has a place in civilized society.

    Jumping to conclusions, pointing fingers much?

    My wishes certainly won't help people being executed in the US. Or in China, or in Saudi Arabia or numerous other places. But that doesn't - nor should it! - stop me from wishing there'll be ... I hesitate to use the term but ... change.

    As for Bernie Sanders and his Democratic Socialism, if he wants to compare his stance to Scandinavian Social Democracies, which he apparently does, I would recommend that he informed himself of what Scandinavian Social Democracy actually stands for. And it's not socialism. Just for the sake of accuracy.

    Parent

    Sanders policies are not (none / 0) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 31, 2015 at 09:22:59 PM EST
    Socialist either so you might want to inform yourself of the difference between Sander's actual policies and true socialism. Your comment about Sander's political affiliation still lacks accuracy.

    I have absolutely no control over how you want to interpret simple comments. My original comment was not written with either a smile or a sneer. It was a very simple statement that you could vote for the person you quoted. If you choose to see a sneer in a simple statement, you will of course see a sneer even when none exists. If you choose to see a comment as being condenscending, you will of course view it as condescending whether it is or not.

    You say you wish that people with power and influence would realize that capital punishment has absolutely no place in a civilized society and yet you say, you would never vote for a candidate that has consistently held the position that capital punishment has no place in a civilized society.

    Votes are a method of making your voice heard on numerous policies. Politicians stake out various policy positions and every time a person votes for someone who wants to retain capital punishment they are IMO validating that politician's stand.  Wishes are nice but they don't have the same effect on political policies as votes.

     BTW, since you indicated earlier that you could not vote, your comment about not voting my way doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

    Parent

    "Sanders policies ... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Nemi on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 07:17:04 AM EST
    are not Socialist either so you might want to inform yourself of the difference between Sander's actual policies and true socialism.

    No need to for me to further 'inform' myself and no need for you to be condescending - yes you are, whether you acknowledge it or not. I know very well, that much of his policy is like Scandinavian Socialdemocracy, but still he self identifies as a Socialist. There's absolutely no need to if he isn't! Maybe it's due to his economic policies? But as Denmark's prime minister recently stated, Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist. So I maintain that Sanders - not you, that's not what I wrote - should inform himself.

    Your comment about Sander's political affiliation still lacks accuracy.

    Saying that he self identifies as a Democratic Socialist, is actually pretty accurate. And that was all I said.

    I have absolutely no control over how you want to interpret simple comments. My original comment was not written with either a smile or a sneer.

    "Want to"? Where do you get that? It puzzled me, why you reacted at all (for the first time, I believe) to something I wrote. I put up a video with a speech from Bernie Sanders lamenting that I wished Hillary Clinton agreed with that. And then you saw fit to tell me I could vote for him!? Yes I could. Or not. But why the need for you to point that out? Didn't you think I was able to figure that out all by myself? Now, if your comment had had a smiley attached, I would have taken it as a nudge-nudge, wink-wink, would have smiled and left it at that. But your next comment confirmed my suspicion that there was absolutely nothing humorous ment by you/your comment.

    It was a very simple statement that you could vote for the person you quoted.

    And totally unnecessary! As if I needed to be lectured about that.

    If you choose to see a sneer in a simple statement, you will of course see a sneer even when none exists. If you choose to see a comment as being condenscending, you will of course view it as condescending whether it is or not.

    Wow, just ... wow. That's some backwards deductive reasoning right there, wow!

    You say you wish that people with power and influence would realize that capital punishment has absolutely no place in a civilized society and yet you say, you would never vote for a candidate that has consistently held the position that capital punishment has no place in a civilized society.

    No, that's not what I said. I said I wouldn't vote for a Socialist. Read. My. Words.

    Votes are a method of making your voice heard on numerous policies. Politicians stake out various policy positions and every time a person votes for someone who wants to retain capital punishment they are IMO validating that politician's stand.

    You can't always get everything you want from a politician and have to compromise. To mention just one example: What about his view on gun control? Deal breaker or part of a compromise? To me the alternative of not voting has never been an option.

    Wishes are nice but they don't have the same effect on political policies as votes.

    So should I just stop wishing for reform in countries where I have no vote?

    BTW, since you indicated earlier that you could not vote, your comment about not voting my way doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

    But it does to me as in your very first - redundant - reply to me you lectured me on who I could vote for, namely your choice of candidate. And it certainly didn't stop you from later jumping to conclusions about my choice - and morals! - if I could vote.

    I really don't see the point of this back and forth, and I still don't see the need for your very first reply to me. But it saddens me to witness a commenter I have always held in high regard turn into an angry, always combative commenter. Not meant to condescend or anything, but actually complimentary of your earlier, before this election, comments, which I often agreed with. How did we end up here. :(

    Parent

    If you do not see the point of this back, (none / 0) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 09:43:35 AM EST
    I don't know why you are bound and determined to continue it. You started this back and forth over a very simple statement which you decided for whatever reason to turn Into a melodrama where you are somehow being picked on.

    Now let's deal with some facts regarding your current claims. Your current claim:

    Saying that he self identifies as a Democratic Socialist, is actually pretty accurate. And that was all I said.

    No, that is not what you said In your original comment.

    A direct quote.

    ...but even if I did, being Social Democrat-ish I wouldn't vote for a self-declared socialist
    .

    That is a totally inaccurate statement. Sen. Sanders is not a self-declared socialist. He is a self-declared Democratic Socialist.

    You continue to distort my comments. First and foremost a simple one sentence comment  that you could vote for the person you quoted is not a lecture by any definition of the word. Once again, you chose to take umbrage at what was a very simple statement and build straw men around that statement. That was your choice. Why, because I didn't put a smiley face with my comment. Wow

    Throughout your current rant you have distorted my comments, built straw men and put words into my mouth to fit the argument that you evidently want to have.

    Now so that you can legitimately justify your indication:

    Just think all of the energy you have put into this could have been avoided if you hadn't needed a smiley face on my original comment to make you happy.  

    I am beginning to get quite a few chuckles out of your melodrama and can't wait for the next episode of this ongoing drama. So rant away.

    Parent

    Should read (none / 0) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Sun Nov 01, 2015 at 02:04:57 PM EST
    If you don't see the point of this back and forth, I don't know why you are bound and determined to continue it.

    Should read:

    Now so that you can legitimately justify your indignation:

    Parent

    Hillary on Death Penalty: Limit But Don't Abolish | 70 comments (70 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment