What is wrong with being a left-leaning progressive?

I cannot understand the logic of some of these middle of the roaders, who think to be like a Republican, you will win. the only person that pulled off the DLC agenda was Clinton but he is not running for anything.


What is so wrong with not supporting Bush's Iraq War or the Patriot Act?

What is so wrong with being against pro-corporate free trade? It offers nothing to workers.


What is so wrong with Universal Health Care?


What is so wrong with a living wage?


What is so wrong with legalizing Marijuana?


What is so wrong with abolishing the death penalty?


What is so wrong with ending the embargo on Cuba?


I have many questions in regards to this but I will stick with the above for now.

John

and don't let anyone tell you there is.

Here's a few more:

What's wrong with calling a liar a liar?

What's wrong with wanting a higher education for all?

What's wrong with attempting to get rid of homelessness and hunger?

What's wrong with the government providing retraining for the unemployed?

Nothing.

But about 60% of people support the death penalty, so is that a smart move? Most people consider marijuana legalization a bad move and Cuba a terrible country. We need to educate before we legislate.

The Dem establishment had the Dems so scared that Janet Reno was too liberal to beat Jumbo Jeb, so they nominated what's-his-name--a nice enough guy, but he had no message.

I'll say it again--have a message and be sure you believe in it. That's more important than quibbling over individual issues.

If not for left leaning progressives, there would BE no US.

...but being right doesn't mean you're in the majority, most of whom have to be dragged kicking and screaming to any new thing, no matter how ethically justified and downright sensible it might be.

Nothing's wrong with any of those issues. Just be prepared to fight over them.

On why these are not supported by some of their people.

What, no takers?


John

'americans won't go for it, they just won't' ('so why even TRY!' being the unstated message)

they offer no imperical evidence to support their conclusions, coz it's just a gut feeling with them.

Sadly, they don't have the guts to.

John

just like ahhnuld in CA.

i hope the canidates r taking notes ;->

peace

It's hard. It's always been hard and will probably always be hard. We're a minority, and being part of a minority is hard. It's frustrating as hell because alot of people don't want to believe what you have to say. Occupying the middle of the road is easy; nobody can really hate you, because you're "with" both sides. If somebody turns up the heat, you can just go to the "safe" side. It's wimpy.

Win an election and get Bush out of the White House? Or prove to you that we're not "wimps"?

but since the dem party lost the will to fight the good fight in the 80's, minor tweakings of the status quo is all they can be counted on standing up for - if even that.

It's too easy to live with the status quo as long as you aren't the one effected. Dems used to fight for the little guy, they guy that had nothing. Now the centrists fight to maintain only what they have and see what it gets them. They forget that by lifting up those with less, we are all lifted up.

The right wing wants these things and others badly, but they can't just get them done, and they can't campaign on them, either. They would lose if they tried. So they campaign in the middle, and sneak their agendas through.

I love all but one of the things you mentioned (universal living wage-- and I believe parts of that. Although it depends on what you mean by "pro-corporate free trade--" I'm against that but for free trade in general.). I don't believe we can get elected by saying it, though. The death penalty is heavily supported. Ending the embargo on Cuba would cost us Florida, and would allow the Repub candidate to call us communists. Etc.

I believe in these issues. It's good to believe that way. It's good to preach that way and write that way and try to convert people to these beliefs. And I believe that our candidates should be more vocal at sounding like liberals, at supporting these beliefs and trying to convert people to them.

But those ideas will ensure a Repub election if we run a candidate on them completely. That's not helping our goal.

It;s a tricky question: How do we convince people to vote for these ideas without turning them off to our candidates? Clinton won by choosing a couple of liberal ideas that he thought he could convince people on, but the downside was he had to sound more moderate on other issues, to the point where he fooled even a lot of liberals. But he won campaigning on healthcare (dropped the ball afterwards, though). That's a good approach-- sound moderate on many issues, sell a couple of our issues, and build on that. Clinton did that, but the payoff (the much-more liberal agenda of Gore, which was part two of the Clinton plan) got defeated when liberals didn't understand the master plan.

That's a big part of the problem. If we are intractable on these ideas, we won't win. If we try a slow education program, sneaking a couple of these in while acting moderate enough to not scare the mainstream until our ideas become mainstream, too many liberals miss the wink (as they did with Clinton) and vote against our plan. So we keep taking a step forward and two back.

Keep plugging. We'll win one day. Liberals always do. Just takes a while because we have to change minds and hearts, and conquer fears. And then conservatives slowly corrupt what we've accomplished. But we'll win, in time. Think Civil Rights. Think Abolition. Think women's suffrage. All mainstream values that even conservatives have to support.

sneak the left agenda through. Instead of the other way around.


John

and governed from the mostly center/right.

To me, this nation was as far right as a nation could be. Clinton ran the country far to the right of where I would have liked to see it, but far to the left of where it was, and where the other side was trying to run it. Are you saying you would have preferred Gingrich's vision? Because the Repubs barely allowed Clinton's to get through, they wouldn't have allowed anything more liberal. And until the last two years, Clinton did not have support of the people. And he never had the media on his side.

Why anyone would want to be a Democratic candidate is beyond me. The core of the party hates anyone who wins.

wrong with that stuff, and a lot more.

But, as I keep harping, we do live in some sort of democracy here, and those things just don't get you votes.

Sad, but true.

So, we have to sneak them in to the extent we can. Just like the other side does.

We will never live in a liberal paradise. We can, however, stop them from making it a conservative paradise and try for a reasonable medium. They won't go away, and we have to live with them.

But only if we can win a few elections.

Now if the rest of the sheeple could be educated on the issues, instead of staring at aaaaanold massive pecs and bunkerboys sock puppet in his flight suit, we'd be there in a split-second.

Unfortunately, the following maxim rules:

"If you repeat a lie often enough, and if it's big enough, people will come to believe it as truth".

Unfortunately, that's the conditions we're operating under.

"progressive" is not necessarily an idealogical term, it applies to a type of government form that places greater powers with the people as opposed to their elected officials.

The Referendum, Proposition and Recall are all remnants of late 19th/early 20th century progressivism that are still around in many states, most notably California. And I would hardly call the last Recall, or Proposition 13 "liberal".

In fact, Canada once had a major political party called the "Progressive Conservatives", so it's not only possible but has actually happened. Brian Mulruney(sp?), former Canadian PM, was a Progressive Conservative.

Progressivism itself is not tied to any ideology, but it is most closely identified with liberal politics, especially in the latter half of the 20th century and beyond. :)

The argument is that globalism will happen with us or without us. We can lead, follow, or get out of the way. In my personal opinion, the devil is in the details, as Ross Perot used to say. Globalization would be good if it were done with the rights of working people and the needs of the environment in mind. As it is currently being done primarily to give multinational corporations a choke-hold on debtor nations, it's a little harder to be enthusiastic about it. It's not wrong in principle, just presently wrong in practice.

As for the rest, I think you're preaching to the choir. We want all of these things. The question is, how many of them can we get through the consensus of the great mass of voters which does not post on DU? If you think the American electorate is as liberal as we are on the average, you are woefully out of touch.

Drugs & Death Penalty--that will open up the soft on crime tag that plagued other Democrats. And frankly why is the death penalty so bad? Why do you support criminals?

As for Cuba I guess that you if want the Democrats to run on a pro-Castro platform you can kiss the electoral votes of Cuba goodbye.

And frankly why is the death penalty so bad? Why do you support criminals?

You really do believe that, don't you? You really do think that opposition to a structure that puts innocent people at mortal risk for crimes they didn't commit equates to "supporting criminals", don't you?

Unbelievable.

This is one issue I feel strongly about. I think it should be used when people kill cops, children, or several people. I don't understand why some on the left are so concerned about criminals' rights. I am more concerned about the victims and their rights.

It's as if someone mugs a person the street. You come by. Instead of trying to assist the victim you ask how you can help the attacker.

I do agree that DNA testing should be done. But overall I think the death penalty is appropriate for some crimes.

that our justice system is human and therefore fallible (sleeping defense lawyers?) and that the death penalty is disproportionately meted out along racial lines, you see no problem with it?

Have you read this? http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=741&scid=64

Or this? http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=740&scid=64

It's as if someone mugs a person the street. You come by. Instead of trying to assist the victim you ask how you can help the attacker.

That's not even worthy of the sense god gave turds. You're really a piece of work.

I think the death penalty is appropriate for someone who kills a cop, a child, or several people. Those murders demand it.

I agree that there are problems with it. That's why I support DNA testing and restricitng it to the most horrendous murders.

But I just don't undestand why you sympathize with criminals and terrorists (Camp X-Ray). It's as if you do put the criminals/terrorists ahead of their victims.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have no misigivings about it. I think that too many on the left are "soft on crime".

It's not right wing spew. I do think there is too much sympathy for crminals and terrorists.

How is demanding a fair and public trial for Gitmo prisoners and opposing a punishment that most of the rest of the world has rightly come to regard as barbaric being "soft on crime"? How?

Yes, Carlos, it *is* right wing spew, whether you know it or not.

But frankly I think the death penalty is an apporpriate form of punishmnet. I don't know why those on the left are so hostile to law enforcement.

That's a meme, Carlos. A right-wing thought virus. It's hard to make myself keep believing that you don't damned well know that.

And I care that "most Americans don't see it that way" only to the extent that it defines how far we have to go. It doesn't make them right.

Bottom line, a hard stance against the death penalty costs us elections.

I suspect I already know the kind of moral arithmetic we're dealing with here, but I want to make sure for the next time someone calls me "immoral" for having voted for Nader.

for the time being. We need to pick our issues carefully. The money's against us, the media's against us. We have some major Bush screw-ups in our favor, but we have to be careful not to let ourselves be painted as the loony peace-and-love crowd in front of a nation that is still more than a little paranoid about security issues.

"What is wrong with being a left-leaning progressive?" is "It's impolitic".

Woohoo.

I prefer to go into the 2004 election with some chance of winning.

to go into 2004 with some chance of winning with a platform that actually means something.

It means whatever you say it means.

But the real question is, which is more important? Winning or getting the platform you want without compromise?

then, of course, it would be an inopportune moment to make an ethical argument since the Republicans might accuse the Democrats of threatening the economic stability and security by suggesting the abolution of slavery.

The point is it is up to the Democrats to sell their own message, and not be thrown in the continual position of reacting to Republican accusations of weakness of failure.

There's no national consensus. There's no national emergency, either. We need to pick our issues, and not look for opportunities to alienate voting blocks. Every issue can't be slavery.

Than why did Illinois' ex-governor Ryan put a moratorium on future state killings when overwhelming evidence suggested that many death row inmates were NOT GUILTY of the crimes they committed?

If you've got a wrongly-convicted friend/relateve on death row, I can guarantee you it's definately an "emergency".

What about those factory workers all over the nation whose jobs are off to Mexico or Taiwan or China, a nation which uses slave labor and was granted "Most Favored Nation" trade status with the help of our "moderate" Democratic elected officials? Is this not a "national emergency"?

What about the 70 MILLION AMERICANS who don't have adequate healthcare, and who put their lives at risk because they can't afford to go to the hospital? Is this also not a "national emergency"?

By not addressing the issues that are part of this party's platform, we're letting the neoCons dictate the rules of discussion. And THAT'S why they've handed us our asses on platters over the last ten years.

IF we get a REAL DEMOCRAT nominated who WILL NOT let the Repubs set the agenda, we can win. Her/His courage will shine through, and show the electorate that this candidate is DIFFERENT, and won't be bullied by the right.

I am so sick of the defeatest attitude of this party (and so many ostensible "liberals" at DU) that says that in order to win, we have to have a "Republican-Lite" candidate to attract conservatives and moderates to our party, and that we should be grateful if our elected "moderate" throws us a bone once in a while. We liberal Democrats have been putting up with this bullshit for far too long, and we're not going to tolerate the takeover of our party by some corporatist-right wing hacks who would sell us down the river because they don't want to "offend" anybody on the right.

I say screw that. The conservatives already HAVE a party. It's called the "Republican" party. And they appear to like it very much, and don't WANT to vote for our "moderate" candidates.

Before, I had no idea where you stood on all these issues. I had no idea what you meant by "REAL DEMOCRAT," especially the necessity of the all-caps. I was completely unaware of the large number of things and people that you are sick of.

But now you've cleared all that up for me. Thank you for your original and informative post.

Clearly the person who you responded to just blew your ass right out of the water. Proof that he is correct in everything he said. Quite obviously you and your "moderate" brethren have no answer and that is why ALL CAPS blended with logic, humanity, accountability and fortitude WILL work in defeating those who you seek to emulate. You know....the ones who keep kicking your ass, as you have no message aside from "me too". Their/your arguments are weak and empty....as you have just demonstrated.

Thank you for your post.

RC

*

There, there's some logic for you. Refute that! If you can't refute it point by point, argument by argument, then you've proved that I'm right and you're wrong, so nyaahh!

Obviously, it's impossible to refute a rant. The one to which I was responding had been repeated, with very little variation, on a variety of boards addressing a variety of subjects. If you actually think there is a factual or logical argument in it somewhere, please pick it out of the invective and the rage and spittle and let me know what it is. But don't think you've won an argument just because you present an incoherent shriek of rage and nobody manages to "refute" it.

wrongly convicted of a crime...would it be an emergency then?

RC

I have said the selfsame thing for quite some time about him.

(this is not an insult, I don't thnik Carlos is a Freeper or anything, but it is a statment of what I perceive to be fact, which ulysses just touched on above)

He uses Bushevik stylings and talking points to denigrate the Left.

I disagree with you, ulysses, on the death penalty, but I would never use a Bushevik bludgeon to "win" an argument with you.

You'll notice Carlos didn't return to this sub-conversation.

Why?

(and this is only my opinion)

Because you correctly identified his "issue". The same one I have been identifying for quite some time.

Like so many Democrats he has been beaten and flogged with Bushevik language twisting and laundered lies and the rest of Goebbels v2.0 that he believes it.

Now I appreciate all that Carlos does for the Dems: Going out and registering voters not to mention the rest.

But to surrender to the Bushevik memes is to cower in the corner and whimper, "Please don't hurt me."

Goddamn it, we have done enough of that and look where it's gotten us!

Example: When the Busheviks exposed themselves and what wretches they were during the Attempted Coup of 1998, did they reverse course and apologize? Did they give in say, "Yes the Democrats are right, we are practicing a tremendous double-standard and that was wrong."?

No, the shameless, conscienceless Nazis pushed on as if nothing happened, as they do whenever one of their lies is exposed. They tell six more lies and "move on".

Now I am not saying that we should get as filthy, disgraceful and Soviet as the Busheviks, but clearly the Busheviks have enjoyed success after success.

And it is because, like all bullies, they can only succeed if no one stands up to them!

And being against the Death Penalty does not equal antipathy to law enforcement! Though I support the Death Penalty, there are many compelling arguments why it is badly run (not the least of which is the 7:1 ratio of minorities executed compared to whites doing the same crimes, not the least of which is the innocence question....it is nearly indisputable to say that innocent people have been executed for crimes that they didn't commit many times.

Please, Carlos, wake up. I understand that you don't believe a lot of what people advocate here, but for God sakes stop living inside the Bushevik Fantasy Bubble.

I disagree with you, ulysses, on the death penalty, but I would never use a Bushevik bludgeon to "win" an argument with you.

Fair enough, and thank you. Reasonable people can disagree, even on things like the dp, but now of course you've piqued my interest. Fodder for a more calm, focused thread I'd guess.

I don't have much to add to the rest of your post except a heartfelt :thumbsup:.

Oh yes. It was:

How is demanding a fair and public trial for Gitmo prisoners and opposing a punishment that most of the rest of the world has rightly come to regard as barbaric being "soft on crime"? How?"

And here's the ... "answer":

"Most Americans don't see it that way
But frankly I think the death penalty is an apporpriate form of punishmnet. I don't know why those on the left are so hostile to law enforcement."

Shall I assume that your answer to a question asking that you explain how "x" = "y" is to take a poll asking people whether "x" is a good thing, and report the results, and repeat the unsubstantiated false allegation that "x" = "y" that you started out with?

I truly can't think of any other possible interpretation of your post.

So, if you oppose stoning women for adultery, and I ask you why you're soft on crime, and you ask me how opposing stoning women for adultery is being "soft on crime", and I poll the residents of northern Nigeria and report back "most residents of northern Nigeria don't see it that way", and say "frankly, I think that stoning is an appropriate form of punishment and I don't know why those on the left are so hostile to law enforcement" ... well, I guess a lot of people might mistake me for jiacinto.

But apart from that, I must assume that you would find my "logic" flawless. Given that it's your "logic" and all.

Here's how it works, my young friend. Your constitution guarantees that no one shall "be deprived of life ... without due process of law". Without referring to what has most recently been said by your Supreme Court (given that I might think you would agree that not all its recent rulings are scrupulously faithful to your constitution, and also because I'd like to think you could do the math yourself), why don't you tell us exactly how the US criminal justice system guarantees the level of due process that must be required when the stakes are someone's life?

You might want to have a peek at what the Supreme Court of Canada thinks about that criminal justice system of yours in those instances. Of course, if you can find some reason for not respecting its rulings more than your own collection of lackeys when it comes to matters of human rights, I'd be interested.

Your opinions are not fact, or argument, and are of precisely zero persuasive value in the absence of fact or argument to support them. You might consider trying a little of those. Unless, of course, you find that misrepresenting your adversaries and claiming to have the pulse of the people is working for you. Dog knows it's worked well enough for a few people in history who managed to get their own way quite successfully through misrepresentation and pandering to prejudice. You can probably name a few without my help.



The Canadian constitution says:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2001/vol1/html/2001scr1_0283.html

Just some snippets from the headnote (summary):

In this case, it is said that a number of factors favour extradition without assurances <that the state of Washington would not seek the death penalty against the accused persons it sought to extradict from Canada>:
(1) individuals accused of a crime should be brought to trial to determine the truth of the charges, the concern being that if assurances are sought and refused, the Canadian government could face the possibility that the respondents might avoid a trial altogether;
(2) justice is best served by a trial in the jurisdiction where the crime was allegedly committed and the harmful impact felt;
(3) individuals who choose to leave Canada leave behind Canadian law and procedures and must generally accept the local law, procedure and punishments which the foreign state applies to its own residents; and
(4) extradition is based on the principles of comity and fairness to other cooperating states in rendering mutual assistance in bringing fugitives to justice, subject to the principle that the fugitive must be able to receive a fair trial in the requesting state.

Countervailing factors favour extradition only with assurances.

First, in Canada, the death penalty has been rejected as an acceptable element of criminal justice. Capital punishment engages the underlying values of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. It is final and irreversible. Its imposition has been described as arbitrary and its deterrent value has been doubted.

Second, at the international level, the abolition of the death penalty has emerged as a major Canadian initiative and reflects a concern increasingly shared by most of the world's democracies. Canada's support of international initiatives opposing extradition without assurances, combined with its international advocacy of the abolition of the death penalty itself, leads to the conclusion that in the Canadian view of fundamental justice, capital punishment is unjust and should be stopped. While the evidence does not establish an international law norm against the death penalty, or against extradition to face the death penalty, it does show significant movement towards acceptance internationally of a principle of fundamental justice Canada has already adopted internally -- namely, the abolition of capital punishment. International experience thus confirms the validity of concerns expressed in the Canadian Parliament about capital punishment. It also shows that a rule requiring that assurances be obtained prior to extradition in death penalty cases not only accords with Canada's principled advocacy on the international level, but also is consistent with the practice of other countries with which Canada generally invites comparison, apart from the retentionist jurisdictions in the United States.

Third, almost all jurisdictions treat some personal characteristics of the fugitive as mitigating factors in death penalty cases. Canada's ratification of various international instruments prohibiting the execution of individuals who were under the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the offence, and the language of the new Extradition Act which permits the Minister in certain circumstances to refuse to surrender persons who were under 18 at the time of the offence, support the conclusion that some degree of leniency for youth is an accepted value in the administration of justice. Accordingly, even though the respondents were 18 at the time of the crime, their relative youth constitutes a mitigating circumstance in this case, albeit of limited weight.

Fourth, the accelerating concern about potential wrongful convictions is a factor of increased weight since Kindler and Ng <cases in which the SCC allowed extradition in the past> were decided. The avoidance of conviction and punishment of the innocent has long been in the forefront of "the basic tenets of our legal system". The recent and continuing disclosures of wrongful convictions for murder in Canada and the United States provide tragic testimony to the fallibility of the legal system, despite its elaborate safeguards for the protection of the innocent. This history weighs powerfully in the balance against extradition without assurances when fugitives are sought to be tried for murder by a retentionist state, however similar in other respects to our own legal system.

Fifth, the "death row phenomenon" is another factor that weighs against extradition without assurances. The finality of the death penalty, combined with the determination of the criminal justice system to try to satisfy itself that the conviction is not wrongful, inevitably produces lengthy delays, and the associated psychological trauma to death row inhabitants, many of whom may ultimately be shown to be innocent. The "death row phenomenon" is not a controlling factor in the s. 7 balance, but even many of those who regard its horrors as self-inflicted concede that it is a relevant consideration.

Now those there, you might recognize as facts and argument. Care to see whether you can come up with any of your own?

.

You have simply got to awaken from your slumbers.....It has been shown, again and again that the poor are given almost no fit representation at trials involving the death penalty. Again and again we read about folks being freed after serving long prison sentences or being incarcerated on death row for years, freed by DNA evidence or by the real perpetrator confessing.

Despite reams of examples you blithely refuse to budge simply because it would not be politically expedient to do so.....that is simply cowardice and shows me yet again that you are following the course i prophesized for you ages ago, the course that leads to your becoming a staunch republican.......

I won't ever become a Republican. But I won't become an extremist like you either.

The center-right of the Democrats are the one living in a deluded world.

John

What is more deluded than being 2.74% of the vote?

Yeah. That's right. Only an 11th hour decision since I was watching Bush and Gore go neck and neck, I was going to vote for Nader. Gore gave in too much and this is part of the reason I am disgusted with the Democrats right now. How far to the right are you planning on leaning?


John

Actually Carlos, what you call extremism is ,in the real world, compassion for those without a voice, those without any power, those who, to you, are simply a minor annoyance in your world.

All you continually advocate is taking no chances, voicing no opinions, disagreeing with Bush almost never . Now you support taking the lives of innocents whose only crime was being too poor to afford proper legal representation....why, becaue its politically expedient that those folks die.....sorry Carlos, as much as I respect your intellect I abhor your world view.......

Considering that we live in irrational times where logic and reason are constantly subordinated to a dominance/submission dichotomy.

In this crazy world, it is considered normal to sue a dirt-poor country like Bolivia for profits that you woulda made had you been able to come in and privatize their water and sell it to other countries, except that you were stopped. Lawsuit time!

These days, acceptable liberalism is framed by having only technical disagreements with a policy of invasion and killing civilians.

Human compassion is wacky 18th century stuff, or at least wacky 1960s stuff. You must be an extremist. Your extremist membership card will be arriving in the mail soon. I will show you the secret handshake when we meet.

that alot of the time you seem to view Democrats as extremists when they don't embrace a Republican agenda.

They want to not seem radical, but if standing up for voiceless, the impoverished, the disadvantaged is radical than what is being rational? They want to give way to the Republicans and expect something in return but I have not seen the Republicans give anything in return. Something is wrong here!


John

This is silly rhetoric. Every time the Democrats refuse to toe your ideological absolutist line, they are "giving" the Republicans this-or-that. The simple, practical truth is that parties and candidates have to consider what will and won't sell in the current political climate. You only change the climate by getting into office - whining won't change anything.

Now, if the Democrats were to adopt your agenda holus bolus nationwide, they'd be "giving" the Republicans permanent control of the government.

The current Dem leadership already are giving more power to the Repubs. Hello??? Wake up!!!!!



John

We're the minority in both houses, so could you kindly explain what in blazes you mean by the Dem leadership giving more power to the Repubs.? And you can keep "Hello" and "Wake Up" to yourself, thank you.

But political realities mean little to fundmenatlist ideologues/rhetoriticians.:eyes:

well the reality of which you prattle has cost the democrats two elections and counting, especially vulnerable were those legislators who refused to stand up and denounce Bush policies, while Mary Landreux (sic) ran on her beliefs and conscience and won........

Why can you not see that appeasment of Bush leads only to tacit agreement with his policies and makes him more valid in the eyes of the voters. you would much rather have the party remain an ideological
coward and continue to be increasingly irelevant in american politics.

Care to elaborate?

RC

An unjust war in Iraq? Destruction of the environment, loss of species that can never be replaced? Economic and health policies that condemn thousands to degradation, sickness and death?

You can make any of hundreds of priorities sound like the number one emergency in the country today. That won't change the fact that we can't hope to ram the whole laundry-list down the throats of the American electorate, no matter how sure we are that we're right about each and every item on that list. Political reality is what it is.

Why do YOU support the brutality happening at Camp XRAY to kids, where no one has legal representation?

How about you try something new?

How about you ARGUE IN FAVOUR OF YOUR OWN POSITION, and take a short break from misrepresenting other people's?

If your position is worthy of support, surely you should be able to do that. Persuade some of your colleagues to do the same, and a brief interlude of civil discourse might occur. If it were to continue, who knows what might happen?

"Why do you support criminals?" is the resort of the person who doesn't have the courage of his/her own convictions, or the evidence and argument to use to persuade others of their wisdom.

Your question is loaded with A STATEMENT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE. It is asked, not to elicit an answer, not to initiate fruitful discussion, but TO MISREPRESENT SOMEONE ELSE.

And it is stomach-turningly offensive.

But I'm very sure you've heard this before.

.

he's a stone.

Those who point out his clearly illogical, intentionally inciteful method of expression, he puts on ignore.

RC

What is wrong with it, is that there is no 100% guarantee that everyone that has been executed or is scheduled to be executed is actually guilty of the crime they have been convicted of. This simple fact has been proved over and over again. Your agreement as to the necessity of DNA testing only confirms this fact.

Now I might perhaps support the death penalty if it were equitably meted out. For example....If it were determined that a person had been erroneously convicted of a capital offense and the subsequent sentence of execution had been carried out,the jury who rendered a guilty verdict, the Judge who handed down the sentence, the Prosecutor who sought it and the executioner who carried it out should themselves be executed, as all were complicit in committing the murder of an innocent human being. If this were the law of the land...I suspect that we would see many less death sentences being handed down. In fact, I would suggest that we would see NO death sentences handed down. Would you be willing to put your own life on the line in such a scenario, Carlos? Do you suppose the average citizen, Judge, Prosecutor and Executioner would be willing to back up the confidence in their conviction of guilt and assignment of death to another human being, with their own lives? I would say most would not. And that does not speak well of our confidence in the infallibility of our Justice System, en toto. To suggest that the lives of those who wrongly convict and murder a fellow citizen are somehow worth more than the person they have wrongly killed for killing, throws the scales of justice out of balance and is, quite frankly illogical. In other words, equitably speaking, what is bad for the goose, should be bad for the gander. Anything less reeks of hypocrisy and paints clearly the willing and comfortable lack of accountability of those who suggest the life of one wrongly sentenced to death is worth anything less than their own.

Speaking of the worth of human life and as a former officer of law enforcement, I just have to ask....What makes a police officer's or kid's life worth more than that of a 68 year old cashier working at Wal-mart? Are you suggesting it is more wrong to kill certain individuals than it is others? After all, a police officer is paid and equipped to risk his/her life in the execution of his/her duties. That is part of the job. A cashier at Wal-mart is not, no more than a ten year old kid. I just can't see how the life of a police officer or kid is worth any more than yours Carlos...am I wrong?

No Carlos...until you can guarantee that EVERY person sentenced to capital punishment is truly guilty the crime for which they have been convicted, you cannot state that every person executed was not murdered. The fact is, is that you advocate a policy that is and has been responsible for the murder of innocent human beings. How does that make you anything less than a criminal yourself? There is only one that is infallable....and that is God. To suggest you or our justice system are on that same level is sacrilegious and the height of arrogance. I cannot abide by that....no truly civilized person could.

RC

I'd appreciate it if you would copy and post the above...as I can't let this slide. Generally I could care less if my good buddy Carlos sees what I write....this is an exception however.

Incidently.....in my state people with brown skin and names like Carlos and Jiacinto get the death penalty much more often than people with white skin and names like Anderson. Guess that means Hispanics are genetically predisposed to commit more heinous crimes than Anglos, eh?

RC

Nobody is pro-criminal here but why have a death penalty. We are the only industrialized democracy that still kills it's criminals. It is a waste of money and if you ask me we should study these people instead.

The idea of legalizing drugs can be controlled and those who use them should be treated medically not criminally.


As for Cuba, uh Carlos? Cuba has no electoral votes. Cuba is not a state and opening the doors to Cuba is not necessarily pro-Castro but you got to handed it to Castro at least they have universal health care and a high literarcy rate. We trade with the Chinese and Vietnamese so why not Cuba?

This staying the status quo is such a waste of time. IMHO!


John

And frankly why is the death penalty so bad? Why do you support criminals?

and people get pissed at me?!?!?!

Innocents, as well as guilty, are convicted. Once death occurs, there's no going back. If he is actuallly innocent, and it's proven, well, too bad. If they're in life, however, they can be let back out.

Pro-innocent Cubans is not pro-Castro. The sanctions hurt everyone, not just the government.

nt

that some innocents won't still be convicted - with evidence still to be found somewhere against their guilt.

Death is final. It can't be rectified. NO TO THE DEATH PENALTY!

Edited for better analogy.

There are plenty of capital cases where DNA evidence isn't available. What do you do with those? Rely on the proven fallibility of eyewitnesses.

Riddle me this:

One of the reasons people make the easy slide from opposing the death penalty to "coddling criminals" is simple lack of empathy: "I'm not a criminal, so that could never happen to me."

But y'know those people who are cleared through late-breaking application of DNA evidence? They're just as innocent as you are. They got swept up into a Kafka-esque nightmare scenario.

I guarantee that, if you got caught up in that kind of a nightmare, you'd think the death penalty was a bad idea.

Your strange vehement contention that affording the prisoners at Guantanamo some form of due process is "supporting terrorists" is cut from the same bolt of cloth. You have nothing--literally not one thing--to support your belief that those people are terrorists other than the word of the Bush regime.

Now, you may consider that to be all the evidence you need (and I don't use that "may" as a purely rhetorical device--based on your posts, I think you really may believe that), but, last I heard, that group of folks doesn't have that good a reputation for credibility.

It is truly amazing that anybody who claims to be a patriotic American could argue that basic due process, which is prescribed by the Constitution, is coddling anybody. How far would you like to take that argument? Who's entitled to due process, and who isn't. John Ashcroft says drug users support terrorists. Should we do away with trials for them, too? For that matter, those really wicked murderers you think should die right away--why give them trials?

You've got some lines you think are really bright. But where do you really draw them? Who deserves no due process? Who deserves to die without benefit of an adequate defense?

Just repeating, "I support the death penalty, and you people support criminals," doesn't get it done. Support your position if you can. But saying it over and over proves nothing.

... private investigators, videotaped statements, requiring defense attorneys to have previous capital trial experience, paying for expert *independent* examination of ALL evidence, the banning of 'jailhouse' witnesses, etc., etc. ? DNA is the TIP of the iceberg, Carlos!

and if you knew what the hell you were talking about you would know that as well.

Once convicted an inmate must prove his innocence, wrongly convicted or not, understand? In other words, regardless of DNA testing which might aid in proving onces innocence if it is even available...that in and of itself is not, all that is required to do so,beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a damn site harder to prove ones innocence beyond reasonable doubt than it is to prove ones guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Don't believe me? Prove to me that you've never humped a dog.

RC

... that it's a barbaric remnant of a past where the burning of witches and the drawing and quartering of horse thieves was NOT 'cruel and unusual punishment'; breaking on or with the wheel was also popular.

It is wrong on sooooo many levels...

but I decided to argue against it pragmatically, aiming for a pragmatic argument and not a moral one.

"why is the death penalty so bad? Why do you support criminals?"

That sounded so much like the "Why do you support terrorists?" response we get for questioning the "war on terror," that I almost laughed before realizing you may be serious.

It is not that black and white. The justice, jury, and penal systems make errors that result in innocent people being executed. The numbers may be relatively tiny compared to rightfully prosecuted and convicted murderers, but they are numbers nonetheless.

I can see both sides of the argument. Murderers break the social contract in the worst way and therefore should not be allowed to remain in the social fabric. But I also feel that it should be a proven certainty, i.e. DNA and/or witness evidence. Properly educating juries prior to trial is another matter that is leaving much to be desired. Most people have never heard of jury nullification, for one unrelated example.

On the other end of the spectrum, personally, I do not want to be responsible for killing an innocent human being in the name of justice or any other name. Victims die, families mourn, and that is the way of things, but too often we seek justice indiscriminately; we want someone to pay for our pain. I presume this end of the spectrum is why so many oppose the death penalty flatly.

As for murderers of children, police, etc., who are convicted with indisputable evidence such as DNA and/or witnesses, at the moment I feel capital punishment for them is appropriate.

"Who dunnit?" is simply not the only question to be answered in a criminal case, including a murder case.

There are various factors that could have been in play in a situation that would mean that the person who undeniably dunnit was still not guilty of murder.

One would be that s/he acted in self-defence. And that is a matter that must be proved at trial, at least on a balance of probabilities (depending on the specific rules in a jurisdiction). And that is something that an accused would likely need competent counsel to establish at trial.

Another would be that s/he was "insane" (or whatever formulation is used in a particular jurisdiction to indicate that the accused lacked the requisite mental capacity to form the intent to commit murder). And again, that is something that an accused would likely need competent counsel to establish.

And in neither case is there any guarantee that a person who truly acted in self-defence, or a person who truly was insane, would be recognized to have done or been that by the judge or jury hearing the case, despite how competent counsel was or how intelligent and properly instructed the jury.

And then there's that circumstantial evidence problem. DNA evidence could establish indisputably, for instance, that the accused had had sexual intercourse with the victim. It does not in any way establish whether the sexual intercourse was consensual, or that the person who engaged in that sexual intercourse with the victim, consensual or non-consensual, killed the victim. Someone's hair on the floor or on a victim's clothing can establish his/her presence at a scene or contact with a victim; it does not establish what s/he did there or did to the victim.

Direct -- eye-witness -- evidence is notoriously unreliable. I know; I've been both a lawyer and an eye-witness. If the case in which I was an eye-witness had involved a homicide, I could never have lived with myself if conviction had turned on my testimony, even though there was every indication that I reported what I saw accurately and my identification was correct. Had it been a capital case, I would have refused to testify.

Other kinds of witnesses and their testimony suffer from other flaws. Witnesses are individuals, many of whom have their own agendas or mistaken ideas about a lot of things. Memory is fallible.

Juries suffer from all those flaws to the 12th degree. Good grief, would anyone who has heard what some jurors say after trial ever agree to have his/her own driver's licence depend on their intelligence and comprehension and good faith, let alone his/her LIFE?

And then there is the sentencing phase itself.

The fact is that the death penalty in the US is applied unequally to different classes of persons convicted of murder. And the fact is also that in any society in which there are some classes of people who are victims of systemic discrimination in multiple aspects of their lives and of the society, based on race or any other characteristic, it is absolutely unrealistic to imagine that the criminal justice system, alone among societal systems, will be immune to that pervasive and poisonous influence.

There are also factors that are commonly regarded as mitigating, when it comes to sentencing. Age, condition at the time of the offence, intellectual capacity, remorse, prospects for rehabilitation, and so on. It is impossible to control how those factors are considered and applied from one case to another; it is impossible to ensure that equivalent cases are treated equally. This is of varying consequence in non-capital cases, but in capital cases it is obviously not a negligible factor. It's all very well to say "only in the most heinous cases" and that sort of thing, but that truly is not what happens, and it is unreasonable to expect it to happen.


I am simply at a loss to know, quite apart from the completely unnecessary and unjustified barbarism of the practice, what argument can be made for capital punishment, even in particular cases, but most certainly as a practice. It is practised in a system that is so flawed that there is simply no conceivable way that the practice can stand up to scrutiny under that "no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law" guarantee. It is simply impossible for the system in which it is applied to achieve the level of due process that must be demanded when the intention is to deprive someone of life.

.

More and more I am inspired to go to law school.

RC

So it's no big loss there, if you think about it ;)

And I would hardly call normalizing trade "pro-Castro". The worst that would happen to the dems is that they lose the radical anti-Castro votes, which have overwhelmingly voted for the Repubs since Nixon anyway.

Most Americans believe our current "Drug War" is a complete joke that has done NOTHING to curb drug addiction in this country. The last few decades are conclusive proof that trying to eradicate the source of drugs DOES NOT WORK in curbing drug problems in the U.S. Most Americans would support a drug program that treats drug addiction as a medical problem instead of a criminal problem.

What we need is DEMOCRATS who are not afraid to RUN AS DEMOCRATS and GOVERN AS DEMOCRATS. Why even bother voting for them if they'll be just like the Republicans they're opposing? What's the point in a two-party system if they're indistinguishable on so many issues? :shrug:

Democrats like George McGovern, for example, or Adlai Stevenson or Walter Mondale. Woo Hoo! All aboard the "victory" train!

:eyes:

Fine, if you like moderate republicans (and a <50% voter turnout), keep nominating "moderate" Democrats who think Waffling is good, or those who are too damn afraid to argue for what's RIGHT as opposed to what's politically expedient.

Yeah, THAT's a fucking winner alright. :nuke:

Sweet holy Odin...

I'd outline the usual suspects' problems with "left wing extremists", but I'm too tired to muster that kind of sarcasm right now.

repukes...er uh republicans do. If we START from the middle we can only negotiate to the reight...if we START from the left we negotiate to the middle...that is just FACT!!! DOH!!!

Let's nominate Kucinich and have 100% turnout.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And watch him lose 40 or more states.

There's a reason I produly support DK for US President!

echoed in the corporate media 24/7 that what is in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans is un-American. And the Democrats would rather pander to the same sponsors than offer and alternative view with matching enthusiasm.

Many seem almost unconsciously convinced that their identity is profoundly unpopular and unelectable so they must resort to passing themselves off as Republicans to get elected---after which they will then transform back into Democrats, I presume.

Not a damn thing wrong with it.

I equate left-leaning progressive politics with sanity and common sense.

Only the big-money white guys figure that it threatens their cheap labor. Republicans protect and nurture big money/cheap labor, and have worked the devil's magic in convincing Joe and Josephine Six-Pack that big money is gonna keep them safe from everything they fear, and will help them later on the trickle-down road. The conservative media supports this lie 24/7.

It's hard to hold your beer?

Of course, being a left-leaning progressive, I may be showing some bias here.

;-)

Actually, there's nothing wrong with having the positions you list. The only thing wrong about those positions is if you think it's wrong to vote for a politician that disagrees with any of those positions.

Heretic! Witch! Consort of Satan! /sarcasm off :P

YOU know.

:)

The only one I can respond to without saying "nothing" is this one:

What is so wrong with ending the embargo on Cuba?

I don't think we're handling Cuba very well, but would it really be right to excuse their human rights violations? Is there a better way to address this than the embargo? A perplexing question.

...and their human rights violations are MUCH worse than Cuba's. Not to mention how bad things were in El Salvador in the early 80s, when we bankrolled the reign of terror there; or with Chile under Pinochet, when we still traded with them.

Not that I'm dismissing human rights concerns, but if we're going to use that as a criteria, shouldn't we apply it fairly to every country we trade with?

obsolutely we should. These are huge issues for me. And I didn't mean to single out Cuba. I just wonder what we can do to fix this, you know? I mean I have to believe that he embargo has decent intentions as flawed and pointless as it has turned out to be.

As long as you realize that on many of these issues you have a great number of good friends that happen add up to 15 to 20 percent of the public.

You can count me among them. We are a great people, and I truly enjoy hanging out here.

We can all gather around the campfire, sing protest songs, pickett a place or two, have some lovely rallies, listen to wonderful speakers, and have great pot-luck suppers. I have the skills to organize these events and have had a lot of fun doing so over the years.

While we are there we can discuss all the great candidates we have run and how much better off the country would be if any of them had won.

Sounds like a good time to me, hell I like it so much, I have been doing it practically since I could vote.

To tell you the truth though, this time I would like to vote for a winner.

If all else fails though, I still have the liberal organizing skills to fall back on.

I agree with all of those above (except for free trade; I'm out of place at DU on that). The question is how do you implement those?

Lots of people (stupidly) think that Bush is a moderate and a centrist when in fact he is a right-wing radical.

You have to follow the same formula: sound centrist and moderate, but push forth progressive policies. Not all at once: some whole, some incrementally, some you save for another day. At the same time you build up a liberal infrastructure to combat the right-wing think tanks (which is finally happening). This has the effect of pushing the center to the left and making liberal politics mainstream, and more unabashed liberal rhetoric possible.

The Right wing knows the formula. Unfortunately, so so so so many foolish people on DU don't realize you need centrist-but-inspiring soundbyte, and a MODERATE MANNER, in order to pull the country your way ideologically.

But DUers want to have their ears pandered to. Jesus.

Reading through this thread, however, I am absolutely FLABBERGASTED how some people think that basic decency and humanity has no place in the political sphere.

(Yes, J. Carlos Jiacinto, I'm talking about you. Yes, library_max, I'm talking about you.)

IMHO, it is chilling how far we've drifted from the goal of creating a better, healthier society and how much it's just about WINNING. Fuck what happens afterward, it's just important to WIN.

I'm sorry, but winning is not that important to this off-the-scale progressive. What does a man have if he gains the world but loses his soul in the process?

If your political opposition controls all three branches of government and the media?

In politics, winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. If you don't win, what are you doing except talking to yourself?

We can accomplish a lot, long-term, if we can build on success. We can show regular people who don't read much and don't think much about politics that Democrats, and then progressives, can improve their lives in ways that they can understand and appreciate. If we can get into office, we can set the agenda. We can move the spectrum of left and right.

But if we are too pure for actual politics and concede all the elections to the Republicans, they will set the agenda and they will control the process and the country will continue to move to the right.

We're not talking about existential dilemmas of the individual, we're talking about moving an agenda forward. You don't do that by losing elections. This isn't just philosophical hogwash, this is people's lives! This is important stuff! That's why winning matters so much. Without winning, I repeat, we are just talking (or whining) to ourselves.

*THIS* year, winning IS more important, because if we don't win this year, we may lose our sovereign right to self-governance forever. That's why i will vote ABB. NEXT election we can hash out the 'how progressive do we wanna be?' matters; this election is about even HAVING a next ('08) election, IMO.

How about blowing some major holes in the pro-death camp's weak justifications for a flawed and barbaric system which has no place in an enlightened society.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=209&scid=23#alt

Alternatives to the Death Penalty - Public support for the death penalty drops to below 50 percent when voters are offered alternative sentences. More people would support life without parole plus restituion to the victim's family than would choose the death penalty.

Law Enforcement Views on the Death Penalty - A 1995 Hart Research Poll of police chiefs in the U.S. found that the majority of the chiefs do not believe that the death penalty is an effective law enforcement tool.

My boyfreind is a cop, and he modifies the old quote to say that "The death penalty shows respect for the sanctity of human life in the same way an orgy shows respect for virginity."

(and political non starter)of dope legalization you'll find thousands of elected dems who agree with all of these issues unless you're as wacky as the one-percenters on the "free market" issue.

I, for one, agree with you on every issue except maybe the "corporatism" one. The overwhelming majority of american liberals believe in the free market, corporations included, with the following caveats: 1)The government plays a vital role in capitalism by filling the gaps inevitably created by free markets and 2)that corporations should be prevented from acting in ways that harm more than help the public good.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

we do live in the United States afterall, so those questions will remain unanswered..........