Guest MattP Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 15 hours ago, LanguedocFox said: I was wondering about that. I'm not a gambler, other than on certainties, and back in February I wasn't 100% sure about City (yeah, OK. Fvck off). I certainly didn't think the UK would be stupid enough to vote for Brexit, nor the Americans for Trump. I wonder how much a fiver on a three-horse accumulator would have made? Not that it matters. Surely given what has happened now it would have pretty stupid to stay in? We now have a very friendly ally in Trump who wants a trade deal instead of one who was so arrogant and sneering he was prepared to come over here and threaten us into voting for he wanted, add to that why would we want any part in the problems Europe is going to have to deal with with a recalcitrant USA towards NATO and a Russia with license to redraw the World's borders.
foxy boxing Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 you will always have extreme right wing bible bashers who love their gun and hate being told what to do by their government and think everything is a left wing conspiracy. they want the death penalty, are anti abortionists and hate immigrants. these people always come of as dumb and stupid just like George w bush did and so will Donald Trump certainly to the liberal elite
MPH Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 18 hours ago, Leicesterpool said: To be honest all this stuff Trump said could all be crap, probably said some stuff he didn't mean just to get extra votes. Stuff like building a big brick wall on the boarder of Mexico sounds so daft, banning muslims from flying into America... I think there will be some changes no doubt but I don't feel they'll be drastic changes as some have said. One thing that does concern me is the special relationship between us and America, I just can't see Teresa May and Donald Trump getting along that much. I'd still feel the same if David Cameron was still prime minster. I dont ever remember him saying it would be a brick wall.. I think a large concrete wall similar to what separates Israel and the Palestinian areas is what he is planning. and his 100 day plan for his first 100 days in office doesn't actually say he would ban all Muslim immigration, it says that he would halt immigration from high terrorist areas until there was a plan in place that makes sure they are all vetted properly..
Kitchandro Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 20 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said: Some people do deserve to die in my eyes, and not in such a painless manner. The issue I have with it is obviously it's a bit hard to undo once you've done it and there are numerous cases of people being found to be innocent post execution, so for that reason I am against it. But someone people in this world deserve nailing to a cross for what they've done. It's not even just about guilt & innocence though; some might think some people deserve 'nailing to a cross' for making someone else's life a misery, without them actually committing a crime. On the other side of the coin, a murderer may have a very good reason for killing some evil bastard, but could get the death penalty. I don't agree with 12 moronic Americans deciding that someone deserves to die, and I'm just as uncomfortable with the government deciding that a particular crime is deserving of it without assessing the circumstances of the case or the defendant themselves. We'd all like 'revenge' for crimes that offend us either personally or as an unconnected party but that's not what the legal system is about.
LanguedocFox Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 4 hours ago, MattP said: Surely given what has happened now it would have pretty stupid to stay in? We now have a very friendly ally in Trump who wants a trade deal instead of one who was so arrogant and sneering he was prepared to come over here and threaten us into voting for he wanted, add to that why would we want any part in the problems Europe is going to have to deal with with a recalcitrant USA towards NATO and a Russia with license to redraw the World's borders. Trump doesn't want trade deals with any country except on his own terms. He's made it very clear throughout his campaigning that it's America first or nothing.
Innovindil Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 Just now, LanguedocFox said: Trump doesn't want trade deals with any country except on his own terms. He's made it very clear throughout his campaigning that it's America first or nothing. So that automatically means the trade deal wouldn't be mutually beneficial right?
Guest MattP Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 11 minutes ago, LanguedocFox said: Trump doesn't want trade deals with any country except on his own terms. He's made it very clear throughout his campaigning that it's America first or nothing. As above, a trade deal can be mutually beneficial. We are in a pretty good position now, instead of Obama, who hated us, we've got a half British President who says we'll be at the front of the queue rather than back and a trade secretary who has close links and friendships with the Republican party. We could be look at another golden era ala Thatcher and Reagan.
Manwell Pablo Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 20 minutes ago, Kitchandro said: It's not even just about guilt & innocence though; some might think some people deserve 'nailing to a cross' for making someone else's life a misery, without them actually committing a crime. On the other side of the coin, a murderer may have a very good reason for killing some evil bastard, but could get the death penalty. I don't agree with 12 moronic Americans deciding that someone deserves to die, and I'm just as uncomfortable with the government deciding that a particular crime is deserving of it without assessing the circumstances of the case or the defendant themselves. We'd all like 'revenge' for crimes that offend us either personally or as an unconnected party but that's not what the legal system is about. They don't, they decide guilt, death penalty's are handed out by Judges, who take the the circumstances and the defendant into account, the government simply gives the judge the power to do it if seen fit. As I have said I am against as a whole, therefore I am against it's use in the legal system. Therefore I agree with the sentiment If you continue to read on in this thread you will see the types of people I am talking about. These kind of people often end up dead anyway because they have "accidents" in prison. The people I am talking about are pretty much the lowest of the low.
leicsmac Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 27 minutes ago, MattP said: As above, a trade deal can be mutually beneficial. We are in a pretty good position now, instead of Obama, who hated us, we've got a half British President who says we'll be at the front of the queue rather than back and a trade secretary who has close links and friendships with the Republican party. We could be look at another golden era ala Thatcher and Reagan. I'm not sure the gay community, folks in the North of England or in Central America would agree with the golden era part, but yes, it does seem to be 1980 all over again - for good or bad. Just goes to show how things tend to repeat, I guess.
MPH Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 55 minutes ago, LanguedocFox said: Trump doesn't want trade deals with any country except on his own terms. He's made it very clear throughout his campaigning that it's America first or nothing. ? Is there a single other country that goes into ANY negotiation NOT wanting whats best for themselves firstly?
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 23 hours ago, David Guiza said: The death penalty is something that infuriates me and I genuinely believed that America were finally starting to make inroads, but it certainly seems as though it may have been a case of one step forwards and two steps back. How so many people can believe that the death penalty has a place in 2016 is beyond me. Dear God! Shame on you! I have said it before and I will say it again. Bring back the rope. It should never have been abolished. Killers living to kill again, is not an unusual occurrence, and people like you make it happen. Too many namby-pamby so called "do gooders" in this world.
David Guiza Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 32 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said: Dear God! Shame on you! I have said it before and I will say it again. Bring back the rope. It should never have been abolished. Killers living to kill again, is not an unusual occurrence, and people like you make it happen. Too many namby-pamby so called "do gooders" in this world. Yes, I and everybody else who doesn't believe that a state cannot morally portray that the killing of another human being is wrong and a crime, if it itself kills, are the problem. I'll just round us all up and climb back into Pandora's box so that you can get on with it all. I've seen and expressed the arguments for and against the death penalty done over and over on this forum in the past and, to an extent, in this thread and there is nothing that can change my mind on the matter. I'm just glad we moved on from it; the US were literally the only Western country to carry out a state execution last year so either the entire Western World is wrong and a bunch of liberal do gooders, or you're behind the times. It's as though some people who are in favour of the death penalty think all those who are opposed believe that heinous criminals are just misunderstood people who should serve a light sentence and then return to society, which is a load of nonsense.
Carl the Llama Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 14 hours ago, MattCan said: They voted also on porn? wtf? I'm not sure I understand the confusion here. In the USA they vote on all sorts of laws and regulations and the porn industry needs just as much regulating as any other industry.
Leicesterpool Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 16 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: I'm not sure I understand the confusion here. In the USA they vote on all sorts of laws and regulations and the porn industry needs just as much regulating as any other industry. Also in some states prostitution is legal, does that mean that'll be infected to?
Manwell Pablo Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 2 hours ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said: Dear God! Shame on you! I have said it before and I will say it again. Bring back the rope. It should never have been abolished. Killers living to kill again, is not an unusual occurrence, and people like you make it happen. Too many namby-pamby so called "do gooders" in this world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution
leicsmac Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 5 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution Yep. When a crime can be attributed and convicted absolutely, with zero fallibility, then we can talk about absolute punishments to go with it. Until then, you're leaving the door open for state sanctioned murder.
MPH Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 4 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Yep. When a crime can be attributed and convicted absolutely, with zero fallibility, then we can talk about absolute punishments to go with it. Until then, you're leaving the door open for state sanctioned murder. Tough one this And i am glad we dont have the death penalty for that very reason.... But for all the murderers who are in jail convicted of a crime and not sentenced to death under those terms.....one must surely ask the question ' if they are NOT convicted absolutely with zero falabilitity, then what are they doing in jail?'
Manwell Pablo Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 25 minutes ago, MPH said: Tough one this And i am glad we dont have the death penalty for that very reason.... But for all the murderers who are in jail convicted of a crime and not sentenced to death under those terms.....one must surely ask the question ' if they are NOT convicted absolutely with zero falabilitity, then what are they doing in jail?' This is the problem. obviously there are cases with zero falability. But if you start to separate them from those where clearly there can be an decent argue end made from both defence and prosecution you make a mockery of the legal system, as everything supposed to be proven beyond "reasonable doubt"
leicsmac Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 33 minutes ago, MPH said: Tough one this And i am glad we dont have the death penalty for that very reason.... But for all the murderers who are in jail convicted of a crime and not sentenced to death under those terms.....one must surely ask the question ' if they are NOT convicted absolutely with zero falabilitity, then what are they doing in jail?' Yeah, its a conundrum. But the way I see it, if you get something wrong, you can let someone out of jail and compensate them for the years they lost. You can't bring them back to life. So jail isn't really an absolute punishment and so the burden of proof need to send someone there need not be absolute either.
Vlad the Fox Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 1 hour ago, leicsmac said: Yep. When a crime can be attributed and convicted absolutely, with zero fallibility, then we can talk about absolute punishments to go with it. Until then, you're leaving the door open for state sanctioned murder. Surely any conviction of any kind has to be made with zero fallibility.
leicsmac Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 23 minutes ago, Vlad the Fox said: Surely any conviction of any kind has to be made with zero fallibility. Nah, the burden of proof is only "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond any doubt whatsoever", because the process is human and therefore is always going to be fallible. I'm not even sure it's possible to prove that a crime has been committed without any doubt whatsoever - you cannot be absolutely certain that witness testimony is 100% true or that CCTV or DNA evidence has not been tampered with, for instance. Which brings me rather neatly back to the death penalty - it's a 100% punishment in a world where you can't get a 100% conviction.
Vlad the Fox Posted 10 November 2016 Posted 10 November 2016 11 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Nah, the burden of proof is only "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond any doubt whatsoever", because the process is human and therefore is always going to be fallible. I'm not even sure it's possible to prove that a crime has been committed without any doubt whatsoever - you cannot be absolutely certain that witness testimony is 100% true or that CCTV or DNA evidence has not been tampered with, for instance. Which brings me rather neatly back to the death penalty - it's a 100% punishment in a world where you can't get a 100% conviction. Ha, misunderstood what you were getting at. That for me is one of the reasons I'd be against the death penalty if it ever got to vote.
MPH Posted 11 November 2016 Posted 11 November 2016 5 hours ago, leicsmac said: Yeah, its a conundrum. But the way I see it, if you get something wrong, you can let someone out of jail and compensate them for the years they lost. You can't bring them back to life. So jail isn't really an absolute punishment and so the burden of proof need to send someone there need not be absolute either. Fair answer
Guest MattP Posted 11 November 2016 Posted 11 November 2016 22 hours ago, leicsmac said: I'm not sure the gay community, folks in the North of England or in Central America would agree with the golden era part, but yes, it does seem to be 1980 all over again - for good or bad. Just goes to show how things tend to repeat, I guess. Ian Dale, Matthew Pierce, Douglas Murray and Milo, four gays in the last 24 hours I've seen either say Reagan is the greatest President in history or express great support for him. You are doing identity politics at it's worst again, not every Homosexual or Northerner is automitically on your side just because you assume they share your beliefs because you think you know what is best for them.
leicsmac Posted 11 November 2016 Posted 11 November 2016 8 minutes ago, MattP said: Ian Dale, Matthew Pierce, Douglas Murray and Milo, four gays in the last 24 hours I've seen either say Reagan is the greatest President in history or express great support for him. You are doing gender politics at it's worst again, not every Homosexual or Northerner is automitically on your side just because you assume they share your beliefs because you think you know what is best for them. Yeah, pardon the generalisation. Can't quite get my head round a gay guy thinking Reagan was great when he said nothing and did little to stop a disease that affected so many gay people at the time, and also said, verbatim: "My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn’t just asking for civil rights; it’s asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I." Just the same as most Northerners and Thatcher, considering her policies. But yeah, shouldn't generalize. People should think as they wish.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.