I don't know. (and the rest of my answer does not answer your question, I know). I'm just processing. Do know, as an individual citizen, I'm consciously giving the new president much clearance for him to broaden my opinion of him.
But, so far, for me, after looking at some of the executive orders, and disagreeing with him on more than several --
Remaining the Gulf of Mexico is silly to me. Such a non-issue to me.
And let's disrespect the Alaska Natives who had named Mount Denali. I believe it does not weaken nor hurt the integrity of The United States to use the name the Alaska Natives used, rather then change the name again to Mount McKinley.
I am very much against the death penalty. He wants to expand it and make it easier to use it for states, and he probably won't get any hassle to do that. But two wrongs do not make a right in my book -- but, hey, as an organized government, let's just continue killing and murdering people to show people that killing and murdering people is wrong.
Sarcasm used, yes.
But I appreciate your question. After a busy two days, seeing your question inspired me to look up the orders.
Thanks for the link. I read a while there, may go back.
I get and understand your points on the death penalty. I may be simplifying too much in my thoughts about the death penalty but I can't get beyond --
when we adults speak to children as they're growing up -- "Just because so-and-so hit you/called you a bad name/threw something at you does not mean you get to/have to call them a bad name back/ hit them back/ throw something back at them." Yet, that is what parts of our judicial system do. "Hey, they killed someone. We'll kill them back." So, to me, with that logic, children have it correct - - whatever someone does to you, do it back.
And I don't agree with that.
This post was edited by WelbyQuentin at January 23, 2025 6:31 AM MST
I used to feel the same about 30yrs ago, but my beliefs have changed.
However, as a parent I never told my school aged they could not hit back etc. I told them if you can solve the problem by peacefully that was the way and should be the first route attempted. But they absolutely have the right to defend themselves and never to let someone bully them. You have to stand up for yourself. I did explain that sometimes at school there maybe co sequences for defending yourself but sometimes it is necessary.
I see the death penalty as defending innocent lives by preventing it from happening again by the same person.
This post was edited by my2cents at January 23, 2025 6:28 AM MST
Yes, I agree with you, especially the first route you mentioned -- (and everything that I write now, I realize there are exceptions) -- one needs to defend one's self. Especially in life-threatening situations and heat-of-the-moment situations. In general, though, I also don't believe I need to lower myself to other's behavior and words with which I simply disagree. So far in my life, (even in my young years), I had only one physical fight in my life ( a young peer of mine said something I didn't like about my sister -- fight was over when he sat on me, ha). In my life, I've heard many cruel things said to me (including threats) and I've chosen to either walk away or just shake my head in disbelief. I chose/choose not to lower my beliefs to others' actions and words when they say or do things with which I disagree. I guess I'm fortunate that that for whatever reasons, no one has actually gone to the length that I need to forcibly defend myself to the point of bodily harm, name-calling or huge verbal accosting.
With the death penalty, I've grown to believe in my belief as I've aged. That same person who murdered need not be killed to prevent others from being killed. Yes, I'd rather see that person held in prison, and not killed. The death penalty need not be used to prevent that person from killing again. Yes, I still believe it is not our right to systematically kill other people, especially after a long-term calm judicial procedure. To me, it's another example of "Do as I say, not as I do" - i.e., "How dare you, and horrible that you killed - - we're now going to kill you That'll show you." The death penalty comes after months or years of a judicial procedure. With everyone calm. And some morning comes, "Good morning sir/ma'am - - today we kill you. It's all good."
To me, it has nothing to do, at that point, of defending one's self or others. It's calm murder.
And I've read/researched many true crime/murder events. Many victims/victims' families even disagree with the death penalty. They believe that killing the murderer is not going to bring back their loved one/s. And some of them even have met with the murderer and forgiven them.
I realize there are many exceptions. Abuse, etc, one must get out of the situation.
And I realize in military and country's defences and police work, and in wars, people kill each other. I wish we humans weren't this way but I honor and express thankfulness to those in such positions, and honor those in military and police, and to those who have given their lives for others.
I know I'm in the minority in many more ways than one. I have been aware of it a very long time. And treating others as I wish they treat me has worked for me very well.
This post was edited by WelbyQuentin at January 23, 2025 6:25 PM MST
As I said it is always the first option to try a peaceful way. But it is not always possible. I have never been in a physical fight in my life (aside from spats with siblings growing up) But more than once, I have came close enough I thought at the time it was going to happen. However, by showing the person I was willing to defend myself they backed down.
The people who I believe should get the death penalty, are people who are a danger to innocent people. We disagree. It happens.
It will come down to the meaning of "and under the jurisdictions of the United States" as interpreted by the courts likely the SCOTUS before it is done.
It's been ruled that way every single time in the 125 years since the 14th was first tested in court since it was ratified. Trump may have stacked the SCOTUS, but unless he actually does overturn the Constitution and no elections happen in 2026 and 2028, those justices will find out that they're not immune to impeachment either.
This post was edited by Slartibartfast at January 22, 2025 6:12 PM MST
Trump actually told a church congregation that if they voted for him this time, they'd never have to vote again. That can only be interpreted one way.
This post was edited by Slartibartfast at January 23, 2025 4:30 AM MST
That he was telling them, the country needs them to vote him in so he can fix the country. After that he will have fixed the issues they wanted and will not need to vote again.
(Of course, the next Dem to get in will screw things up, and we will need them to vote again. But it maybe different people by then likely 2040+)
WelbyQuentin 