- Joined
- Aug 26, 2012
- Messages
- 8,247
- Reaction score
- 2,713
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I can see what you wrote.
Now I am asking you a question based on what you wrote.
So you believe proposing the death penalty for a non capital crime in which no persons life was taken or even harmed and then failing to demonstrate that it is indeed a national problem which requires such a drastic and severe sanction is perfectly rational and stands as an idea without any further documentation?
Exactly, and that mixed bag includes the death penalty, so it isn't inherently unchristian.
My opinion is yes, I think it's possible to consider the punishment for an act based on the act itself, independent of the frequency with which the act may or may not be committed.
And in this case the act itself merits the death penalty in your opinion?
does voite fraud exist?
People are caught at it and convicted.
search "vote fraud convictions", generates more than 30 pages of links (that's as far as I punched NEXT).
Are ALL guilty caught?
I suspect only a tiny % are caught and/or convicted.
Why do people vote illegally, twice or more, or in other peoples name?
Obviously, THEY believe they are having an effect on the election.
Is there a conspiracy of vote fraud? Do these people know each other, and are confident their combined efforts sway the election?
I doubt most are in mutual contact, but I also suspect everyone involved in vote fraud has "friends" also involved in vote fraud.
I can't believe people would go to the trouble of voting fraudulently, UNLESS they believed it was WORTH the effort!
But even ONE fraudulent vote, robs ALL the American people! And is TREASON in my opinion!
So tell us then - how many people were convicted of voter fraud since the year 2000?
Would you propose different penalties depending upon the number?
I would need a number to know if a significant problem exists or if this is just small potatoes.
I would need a number to know if a significant problem exists or if this is just small potatoes.
That's irrelevant to the OP, and to the question you quoted. Try answering it, you might see how completely irrelevant your point is.
And once you know the number, you would then propose different penalties based on that number?
Hold on there speedy. Once we have the number we can then evaluate if indeed we have any sort of significant problem that even merits consideration of action. That would be the conservative and prudent approach.
If one person gets cancer and dies from it every year - it is only a problem for that person and their family and close friends. If hundreds of thousands of people get cancer and die every year it becomes a national issue with significant numbers to prove it.
The same is true for a measurement of almost everything that one believes is a national problem which needs some sort of action or law to deal with it.
The fact is that your own tactics here - and the inability of your side to quantify this so called problem - is a loud and clear admission that you have no such national problem that requires any sort of serious solution.
Conservative and prudent to wait until after multiple serious criminal offenses have been committed before discussing how they should be dealt with? Do you know what "prudent" actually means?haymarket said:That would be the conservative and prudent approach.
And once you know the number, you would then propose different penalties based on that number?
Yet again I ask, what on earth is conservative or prudent about waiting until after a serious crime has been committed on a mass scale before even discussing what appropriate punishment would be? Seriously, get a dictionary, look up the word "prudent", and tell me how it has any relevance what so ever to your stance on the issue. The the complete and utter opposite of prudent.Some people don't deal in hypothetical questions but want to be conservative and prudent
Yet again I ask, what on earth is conservative or prudent about waiting until after a serious crime has been committed on a mass scale before even discussing what appropriate punishment would be? Seriously, get a dictionary, look up the word "prudent", and tell me how it has any relevance what so ever to your stance on the issue. The the complete and utter opposite of prudent.
Don't ask me, I'm the one for advocating the death penalty for destroying a sun in an uninhabited solar system. Why wait until it happens?
This isn't cancer, because it's intentional. Murder, rape, or other current criminal offenses would be better comparisons. You don't wait until millions of people are being murdered or raped to decide what punnishment is appropriate for such crimes.
Conservative and prudent to wait until after multiple serious criminal offenses have been committed before discussing how they should be dealt with? Do you know what "prudent" actually means?
Voter fraud is an attempt to change the outcome of an election.
And THEN you would propose different punishments based your evaluation of the number?
That definition could also apply to a variety of legal campaign activities including making speeches, kissing babies, debating, distributing materials, door to door visits, advertising in media outlets and all sorts of other perfectly fine and good activities.
Try again please.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?