How long before the white working class realizes Trump was just scamming them?

[marriedimorocco 8]

Just a few ways he brought shame to the office:

When he was Senator, he blocked Katrina Aide

He hates white people

He brought socialism to America with the auto bailout, bank bailout and obamacare

Obamacare brought death panels to healthcare

Insurance costs have skyrocketed

He increased welfare benefits

He established Sharia law

He put together laws to take all guns away ( blocked by congress)

He has tripled the national debt and sold the debt to China

Solyndra

Sharia has been the in the US for centuries. Obama had nothing to do with it.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

[OriZ 3,157]

And then claim to be christian? I can't imagine that Jesus would have been pro-death penalty. Or maybe he got off on that sort of thing?

He came to fulfill/complete/perfect the law, not deliver from or abolish it. Not once did he order his followers to not follow the law, and not once did his Jewish apostles not follow it either (including the converted). Not every Christian will have the same outlook of course, depending on what their pastor tells them, and what translation or historical context they believe. Over a few thousand years people enjoyed screwing things up, taking poetic license, and conforming the masses to believe in a whole host of things contrary to scripture. Christianity of various sects today is nothing like of old, and is certainly not what was intended.

There's a reason why I don't believe in organized religion. Any organized religion.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Say WHAT? Name me a town that has been under Sharia law in the USA prior to January 1, 2016.

Sharia has been the in the US for centuries. Obama had nothing to do with it.

[TBoneTX 46,282]

More posts removed and two members thread-banned for ignoring previous Moderation warning.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Capital P would be a great deterrent I'd used properly. Make 100% sure they are guilty ...

Sounds easy enough. Wonder why we don't already do this?

[Transborderwife 4,666]

One is an innocent life and the other is far from it.

the error that I see is that in the pro life stance they say all life is sacred. if it truly is, then capital punishment should not be supported.

One is an innocent life and the other is far from it.

the error that I see is that in the pro life stance they say all life is sacred. if it truly is, then capital punishment should not be supported.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

That bears repeating.

The difference as I see it is that an unborn child is innocent of all wrongdoing. It has the potential to grow up and become great, do wonderful things for mankind; in essence, is will have a choice.

A convicted thief, maybe he/she made a mistake and can learn from it, never do it again. Or even if they DO it again, they are not violating the sanctity of life; in essence, they made their choice.

A convicted murderer or rapist OTOH, shows no respect for human life, and is willing to destroy anothers' life to further their own. They made their choice, and it was a horrible one.

People talk about rehabilitation in prison like it's a great thing. And for a small percentage, it may well be. However, the stats show it doesn't happen very often:

Bureau of Justice Statistics studies have found high rates of recidivism among released prisoners. One study tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after their release from prison in 2005.[1] The researchers found that:

Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.

Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.

Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.

Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx

the error that I see is that in the pro life stance they say all life is sacred. if it truly is, then capital punishment should not be supported.

the error that I see is that in the pro life stance they say all life is sacred. if it truly is, then capital punishment should not be supported.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

That bears repeating.

The difference as I see it is that an unborn child is innocent of all wrongdoing. It has the potential to grow up and become great, do wonderful things for mankind; in essence, is will have a choice.

A convicted thief, maybe he/she made a mistake and can learn from it, never do it again. Or even if they DO it again, they are not violating the sanctity of life; in essence, they made their choice.

A convicted murderer or rapist OTOH, shows no respect for human life, and is willing to destroy anothers' life to further their own. They made their choice, and it was a horrible one.

People talk about rehabilitation in prison like it's a great thing. And for a small percentage, it may well be. However, the stats show it doesn't happen very often:

http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx

that's all fine and good, but they shouldn't have tthe all life is sacred platform

[smilesammich 10,727]

People talk about rehabilitation in prison like it's a great thing. And for a small percentage, it may well be. However, the stats show it doesn't happen very often:

rehabilitation isn't the end goal. in fact, rehabilitation has nothing to do with our current prison system and prisoners leave having paid their dues via time, but still saddled with other fines, costs, and inability to escape a conviction in the real world. people talk about rehabilitation in prison like it's something we strive for, and that is simply untrue.

[bcking 3,157]

I can see people's points that as a "deterrant", capitol punishment could be useful. For the actual criminal you are subjecting it to, I think there are worse punishments. Yes it costs us money, but I think being in a maximum security prison with little to no interaction for 50 years until you die is far worse than a quick death.

As for comparing it to abortion. Since I don't think abortion is killing anything (before age of viability) I don't see any comparison. But I recognize that is not what everyone thinks. This could easily devolve into a whole different discussion so I'll leave it at that.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

And therein lies the rub. Such a hard figure to nail down. 21 weeks? 23? 28? In nature, it's almost always carried out after the birth, so I guess by us doing it early on, it can be seen as more "humane".

I can see people's points that as a "deterrant", capitol punishment could be useful. For the actual criminal you are subjecting it to, I think there are worse punishments. Yes it costs us money, but I think being in a maximum security prison with little to no interaction for 50 years until you die is far worse than a quick death.

As for comparing it to abortion. Since I don't think abortion is killing anything (before age of viability) I don't see any comparison. But I recognize that is not what everyone thinks. This could easily devolve into a whole different discussion so I'll leave it at that.

[bcking 3,157]

And therein lies the rub. Such a hard figure to nail down. 21 weeks? 23? 28? In nature, it's almost always carried out after the birth, so I guess by us doing it early on, it can be seen as more "humane".

Are you talking about in the absence of medical support ("In nature") or are you talking about with current medical advancements? With our current medical advancements it is not quite as variable as you suggest, and this is one of the few topics on these forums (perhaps the only) where I can argue that I have "expert opinion" over everyone else here (unless there are other Neo's hanging about).

The bigger issue is actually with uncertainty of gestational ages. An infant who is 23 1/7 may be anything from 21 to 25 or even more variable. If they were IVF we have a little more certainty. It also depends on the situation. Infants born at 23 weeks are generally more "viable" because we have developed interventions for the mother than increase the survival of the infant (giving steroids). Without administering steroids to the mother, or with limited time for them to work, lung development is much poorer and outcome is worse. If there is a medical indication (signs of infection), the chance of viability is much poorer. This is just talking about "viability" in terms of living through the NICU stay. Outcomes and "quality of life" is a whole different ballgame.

There will always be a grey area, but I think it is reasonable to have some sort of cut off (20 weeks perhaps, just pulling that number out of my head) and say definitely below there an infant is not a viable "being" yet and therefore would not be considered living and therefore termination would not be considered "murder". In the grey area you have to weigh things. I don't necessarily think a woman should be able to come in at 22 weeks and say "Okay I want an abortion" without any reason other than "I just don't want the child".

[OriZ 3,157]

rehabilitation isn't the end goal. in fact, rehabilitation has nothing to do with our current prison system and prisoners leave having paid their dues via time, but still saddled with other fines, costs, and inability to escape a conviction in the real world. people talk about rehabilitation in prison like it's something we strive for, and that is simply untrue.

We're in agreement there. The criminal psychologist I knew wasn't from the US she was from Canada and there they actually try to rehabilitate their inmates. In the US it's more about do your time and go away. I do believe that the US really should start putting more emphasis on rehabilitating people too and not just on punishing them. But even still with the stats LFEHFN gave you have almost one third who don't offend again, and I remember that for her, even being able to help one person was worth it.

Another issue is they aren't given the proper tools to make it back outside, so some of them commit crimes just so they can go back to prison which is what they know and are used to. Some of them also get into fights right before they are supposed to be released because they don't actually want to get out. So I think there needs to be more emphasis not just on rehabilitation but also education and providing them the right tools for the outside world so that they're not afraid of it.

Are you talking about in the absence of medical support ("In nature") or are you talking about with current medical advancements? With our current medical advancements it is not quite as variable as you suggest, and this is one of the few topics on these forums (perhaps the only) where I can argue that I have "expert opinion" over everyone else here (unless there are other Neo's hanging about).

The bigger issue is actually with uncertainty of gestational ages. An infant who is 23 1/7 may be anything from 21 to 25 or even more variable. If they were IVF we have a little more certainty. It also depends on the situation. Infants born at 23 weeks are generally more "viable" because we have developed interventions for the mother than increase the survival of the infant (giving steroids). Without administering steroids to the mother, or with limited time for them to work, lung development is much poorer and outcome is worse. If there is a medical indication (signs of infection), the chance of viability is much poorer. This is just talking about "viability" in terms of living through the NICU stay. Outcomes and "quality of life" is a whole different ballgame.

There will always be a grey area, but I think it is reasonable to have some sort of cut off (20 weeks perhaps, just pulling that number out of my head) and say definitely below there an infant is not a viable "being" yet and therefore would not be considered living and therefore termination would not be considered "murder". In the grey area you have to weigh things. I don't necessarily think a woman should be able to come in at 22 weeks and say "Okay I want an abortion" without any reason other than "I just don't want the child".

That is exactly what I believe.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

You have your years of education... I have Google. . J/K

I googled it before I posted those "weeks of viability". It seems medically, that 23 is the minimum at which the lungs are developed enough to have a chance at survival (assuming that is without steroids, as you mentioned). And as Teddy and I have discussed, aborting early on in a pregnancy can be much better for society as a whole, and probably the mother, than an unwanted child, or a child for whom the proper care will become an issue.

When I had kids, we had a choice. We chose to keep, even though looking back, the first one being aborted would have been the far better choice. But I grew up in an era where boys took responsibility for their deeds, and that was that. Not saying that is the way it should be going forward, at least not in every situation. But I AM very glad that choice will never have to be made by me again.

Your last paragraph pretty much sums up how I feel, I guess. Actually, I think that abortion should never be a "common contraceptive", and any woman who ever has abortions on a regular basis to correct "oopsies" has much bigger issues than are apparent on the surface. But that's a topic for another day...

Are you talking about in the absence of medical support ("In nature") or are you talking about with current medical advancements? With our current medical advancements it is not quite as variable as you suggest, and this is one of the few topics on these forums (perhaps the only) where I can argue that I have "expert opinion" over everyone else here (unless there are other Neo's hanging about).

The bigger issue is actually with uncertainty of gestational ages. An infant who is 23 1/7 may be anything from 21 to 25 or even more variable. If they were IVF we have a little more certainty. It also depends on the situation. Infants born at 23 weeks are generally more "viable" because we have developed interventions for the mother than increase the survival of the infant (giving steroids). Without administering steroids to the mother, or with limited time for them to work, lung development is much poorer and outcome is worse. If there is a medical indication (signs of infection), the chance of viability is much poorer. This is just talking about "viability" in terms of living through the NICU stay. Outcomes and "quality of life" is a whole different ballgame.

There will always be a grey area, but I think it is reasonable to have some sort of cut off (20 weeks perhaps, just pulling that number out of my head) and say definitely below there an infant is not a viable "being" yet and therefore would not be considered living and therefore termination would not be considered "murder". In the grey area you have to weigh things. I don't necessarily think a woman should be able to come in at 22 weeks and say "Okay I want an abortion" without any reason other than "I just don't want the child".