LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Proctopeo]

He’s more moderate and will likely attract less opposition. That would allow for good ideas to be passed with less resistance from conservative Democrats and other groups that can be reasoned with. Biden and Sanders are the strongest candidates, but the Republicans go insane over Bernie’s type. Biden would allow for a quieter presidency with less idiotic accusations and more work done in the government. Also, there are policies associated with that part of the Democratic Party I don’t agree with that also don’t represent all of the party. Biden has good experience and would be a great president.

Biden only looks good on the surface. Policy-wise he has nothing to offer to the young voters that Bernie attracts, and on a personal level... he's likeable, sure, but there's no way he gets to survive the campaign without getting drowned in an avalanche of harsh scrutiny over several comments and instances of weird behavior.

I see him and Bernie as the only ones with any real chance.

Sanders is good, appeals to (most of) the progressive wing, but a bit too "out there" on some things for the moderate Democrats and the average independent (though he could definitely draw some Greens, he's broadly not nutty enough for them). That and he's old as balls without enough "your nice grandpa" charm to fully counterbalance it.

Biden is inoffensive and safe while not being boring, like O'Rourke is, and has more "your nice grandpa" charm than Sanders. He makes gaffes, sure, but the last nominee had chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome and it was her own hubris that lost her more than anything. He'd be fine, assuming the horde of progressives don't dogpile him for whatever reason they think of at the time.

Anyone else, I'd wager them having a snowball's chance in hell. They'd feed the Greens and even the Libertarians some easy votes, though, so someone would get a leg up. Just not the Democrats, is the thing.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Biden only looks good on the surface. Policy-wise he has nothing to offer to the young voters that Bernie attracts, and on a personal level... he's likeable, sure, but there's no way he gets to survive the campaign without getting drowned in an avalanche of harsh scrutiny over several comments and instances of weird behavior.

I see him and Bernie as the only ones with any real chance.

Sanders is good, appeals to (most of) the progressive wing, but a bit too "out there" on some things for the moderate Democrats and the average independent (though he could definitely draw some Greens, he's broadly not nutty enough for them). That and he's old as balls without enough "your nice grandpa" charm to fully counterbalance it.

Biden is inoffensive and safe while not being boring, like O'Rourke is, and has more "your nice grandpa" charm than Sanders. He makes gaffes, sure, but the last nominee had chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome and it was her own hubris that lost her more than anything. He'd be fine, assuming the horde of progressives don't dogpile him for whatever reason they think of at the time.

Anyone else, I'd wager them having a snowball's chance in hell. They'd feed the Greens and even the Libertarians some easy votes, though, so someone would get a leg up. Just not the Democrats, is the thing.

I think Bernie is far more "your nice grandpa" likable than Biden.

[Grenartia]

So today in high school psychology class was passing out surveys. I got 3: bullying, suicide and the death penalty. It's something the popped up in my mind and I wanna discuss it with y'all.
Bullying:
1: Does/Has bullying happened a lot in your school/workplace? For me, I wouldn't think so. I'm not saying it doesn't happen at all, but in my school I don't think it's that big.
2: Have you bullied someone or were you bullied? Or both? Personally neither has happened to me, AlHamdulillah.
3: What do you think could be done to prevent it? Because I really don't know beyond what we have now.
Suicide:
What do you think can be done to prevent it? Because I really don't know beyond what we have now.
Death Penalty:
Are you for or against the death penalty and why? Personally, I support it because it's part of Shari'ah. And I agree with the "life for a life" philosophy as long as it's within the bounds of Shari'ah.

Theocracy is bad, yo.

Also, what happens when an innocent person who was falsely convicted is executed? Does Allah magically resurrect them? Do the people who ordered and carried it out get punished? Do they get executed for spilling the blood of an innocent?

[Proctopeo]

I see him and Bernie as the only ones with any real chance.

Sanders is good, appeals to (most of) the progressive wing, but a bit too "out there" on some things for the moderate Democrats and the average independent (though he could definitely draw some Greens, he's broadly not nutty enough for them). That and he's old as balls without enough "your nice grandpa" charm to fully counterbalance it.

Biden is inoffensive and safe while not being boring, like O'Rourke is, and has more "your nice grandpa" charm than Sanders. He makes gaffes, sure, but the last nominee had chronic foot-in-mouth syndrome and it was her own hubris that lost her more than anything. He'd be fine, assuming the horde of progressives don't dogpile him for whatever reason they think of at the time.

Anyone else, I'd wager them having a snowball's chance in hell. They'd feed the Greens and even the Libertarians some easy votes, though, so someone would get a leg up. Just not the Democrats, is the thing.

I think Bernie is far more "your nice grandpa" likable than Biden.

Bernie comes off more as "your quirky grand-uncle who sometimes accidentally causes a political shouting match at Thanksgiving but he's a pretty nice guy regardless, though he only gives you socks and shirts at Christmas" to me.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I think Bernie is far more "your nice grandpa" likable than Biden.

Bernie comes off more as "your quirky grand-uncle who sometimes accidentally causes a political shouting match at Thanksgiving but he's a pretty nice guy regardless, though he only gives you socks and shirts at Christmas" to me.

That's fair, but Biden on the other hand, to me comes off as "Beige."

[Proctopeo]

Bernie comes off more as "your quirky grand-uncle who sometimes accidentally causes a political shouting match at Thanksgiving but he's a pretty nice guy regardless, though he only gives you socks and shirts at Christmas" to me.

That's fair, but Biden on the other hand, to me comes off as "Beige."

Biden comes off to me as "your nice grandpa who always dresses in beige slacks and washed-out polo shirts but is legitimately fun, if not slightly dry at times".
Charisma is subjective, of course, but I see my analyses as unusually specific yet relatively accurate.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

That's fair, but Biden on the other hand, to me comes off as "Beige."

Biden comes off to me as "your nice grandpa who always dresses in beige slacks and washed-out polo shirts but is legitimately fun, if not slightly dry at times".
Charisma is subjective, of course, but I see my analyses as unusually specific yet relatively accurate.

I wish I could be as confident in my own analyses. Or better yet, that my analyses could be good enough for me to be confident in them.

[Proctopeo]

Biden comes off to me as "your nice grandpa who always dresses in beige slacks and washed-out polo shirts but is legitimately fun, if not slightly dry at times".
Charisma is subjective, of course, but I see my analyses as unusually specific yet relatively accurate.

I wish I could be as confident in my own analyses. Or better yet, that my analyses could be good enough for me to be confident in them.

It comes with time. Keep practicing and you'll at least get the confidence, if not the quality.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I wish I could be as confident in my own analyses. Or better yet, that my analyses could be good enough for me to be confident in them.

It comes with time. Keep practicing and you'll at least get the confidence, if not the quality.

Having confidence but not having quality is worse than having neither.

[Valrifell]

Biden only looks good on the surface. Policy-wise he has nothing to offer to the young voters that Bernie attracts, and on a personal level... he's likeable, sure, but there's no way he gets to survive the campaign without getting drowned in an avalanche of harsh scrutiny over several comments and instances of weird behavior.

I see him and Bernie as the only ones with any real chance.

Predictions this far out are fairly useless, tbh.

It looks like that now but there's a lot of ground to cover between now and the Iowa caucus and the electorate has severe ADD, you just never know these days.

[Proctopeo]

It comes with time. Keep practicing and you'll at least get the confidence, if not the quality.

Having confidence but not having quality is worse than having neither.

Confidence allows you to fake quality. Or most anything, really, assuming you've got enough. You know the trope Bavarian Fire Drill? Yeah, it works in real life too.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Having confidence but not having quality is worse than having neither.

Confidence allows you to fake quality. Or most anything, really, assuming you've got enough. You know the trope Bavarian Fire Drill? Yeah, it works in real life too.

Maybe, but fake quality is worse than an honest lack of quality.

[Dresderstan]

Biden over Sanders honestly. And I'm not just saying that because he's a native near my area of PA.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

So today in high school psychology class was passing out surveys. I got 3: bullying, suicide and the death penalty. It's something the popped up in my mind and I wanna discuss it with y'all.
Bullying:
1: Does/Has bullying happened a lot in your school/workplace? For me, I wouldn't think so. I'm not saying it doesn't happen at all, but in my school I don't think it's that big.
2: Have you bullied someone or were you bullied? Or both? Personally neither has happened to me, AlHamdulillah.
3: What do you think could be done to prevent it? Because I really don't know beyond what we have now.
Suicide:
What do you think can be done to prevent it? Because I really don't know beyond what we have now.
Death Penalty:
Are you for or against the death penalty and why? Personally, I support it because it's part of Shari'ah. And I agree with the "life for a life" philosophy as long as it's within the bounds of Shari'ah.

Theocracy is bad, yo.

Nice opinion.

Also, what happens when an innocent person who was falsely convicted is executed? Does Allah magically resurrect them?

Nope

Do the people who ordered and carried it out get punished? Do they get executed for spilling the blood of an innocent?

Yes they get punished, but I don't think they'd get executed since it was a mistake. They'd pay diyah (blood money) instead.

[Conserative Morality]

So today in high school psychology class was passing out surveys. I got 3: bullying, suicide and the death penalty. It's something the popped up in my mind and I wanna discuss it with y'all.
Bullying:
1: Does/Has bullying happened a lot in your school/workplace? For me, I wouldn't think so. I'm not saying it doesn't happen at all, but in my school I don't think it's that big.
2: Have you bullied someone or were you bullied? Or both? Personally neither has happened to me, AlHamdulillah.
3: What do you think could be done to prevent it? Because I really don't know beyond what we have now.

1. Not much. Mostly in Middle School.
2. I was bullied when I was younger. Taught me to give as good as I got. Not necessarily a lesson I would recommend, but a valuable one nonetheless.
3. Abolish Middle Schools.

Suicide:
What do you think can be done to prevent it? Because I really don't know beyond what we have now.

Increased access to mental health services.

Death Penalty:
Are you for or against the death penalty and why? Personally, I support it because it's part of Shari'ah. And I agree with the "life for a life" philosophy as long as it's within the bounds of Shari'ah.

Against, except in cases of treason and martial law. The risk of executing innocents is too great.

[First American Empire]

Don't execute people even if you do have 100% proof that they're guilty. If they're imprisoned, they're no longer a threat to anyone else, so killing them is just pointlessly cruel.

[North German Realm]

Don't execute people even if you do have 100% proof that they're guilty. If they're imprisoned, they're no longer a threat to anyone else, so killing them is just pointlessly cruel.

That's not a good reason against Capital Punishment though. Imprisonment (and in cases where the punishment could have been execution, the imprisonment is more often than not for life) can, and often is, costly. It puts a toll on the people's tax, it puts a toll on the nation's resources that could be used better. Why should we pay tax for the upkeep and three square meals (and that's not even considering the fact that modern prisons do more than 'upkeep and three meals') for someone who fucking raped a child or shot down a mosque?

A better reason not to execute would be because there's always a possibility that some new evidence turns out to prove the guy was not guilty -or at least, not that much- but too late for the state to compensate them. Or, you know, the fact that the loss of an individual's life is a toll on a nation's manpower and resources that should be avoided when possible.

(Then again, I am against both imprisonment and execution, so meh)

[Grenartia]

Theocracy is bad, yo.

Nice opinion.

One that can be backed up by facts and logic.

Also, what happens when an innocent person who was falsely convicted is executed? Does Allah magically resurrect them?

Nope

Too bad, because that's the only thing that could possibly justify capital punishment.

Do the people who ordered and carried it out get punished? Do they get executed for spilling the blood of an innocent?

Yes they get punished, but I don't think they'd get executed since it was a mistake. They'd pay diyah (blood money) instead.

To who? And how much is paid? And who determines that? And it must be nice to think you can ever truly wash away the guilt of the execution of an innocent by paying someone some completely arbitrary amount of money.

[Grenartia]

Don't execute people even if you do have 100% proof that they're guilty. If they're imprisoned, they're no longer a threat to anyone else, so killing them is just pointlessly cruel.

That's not a good reason against Capital Punishment though. Imprisonment (and in cases where the punishment could have been execution, the imprisonment is more often than not for life) can, and often is, costly. It puts a toll on the people's tax, it puts a toll on the nation's resources that could be used better. Why should we pay tax for the upkeep and three square meals (and that's not even considering the fact that modern prisons do more than 'upkeep and three meals') for someone who fucking raped a child or shot down a mosque?

A better reason not to execute would be because there's always a possibility that some new evidence turns out to prove the guy was not guilty -or at least, not that much- but too late for the state to compensate them. Or, you know, the fact that the loss of an individual's life is a toll on a nation's manpower and resources that should be avoided when possible.

(Then again, I am against both imprisonment and execution, so meh)

Actually, IIRC, in the US (I can't say about other countries, but I don't see how it wouldn't also be true in most other western nations), life in prison is actually cheaper for the state than execution, because of all the legal fees and mandatory appeals (which are necessary to reduce the likelihood of innocent people getting executed, but even then, they don't work 100%).

And I think imprisonment is justified, particularly for cases where the individual is a danger to society at large (like a serial child-rapist-murderer who cannot be rehabilitated). It is certainly justified for separating individuals as they are being rehabilitated (which should be the entire point of most prison sentences).

[Hanafuridake]

Don't execute people even if you do have 100% proof that they're guilty. If they're imprisoned, they're no longer a threat to anyone else, so killing them is just pointlessly cruel.

At the point that somebody has been detained and is no longer a threat to society, killing them is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder. There is no motive besides anger, which makes it a heinous act.

[North German Realm]

That's not a good reason against Capital Punishment though. Imprisonment (and in cases where the punishment could have been execution, the imprisonment is more often than not for life) can, and often is, costly. It puts a toll on the people's tax, it puts a toll on the nation's resources that could be used better. Why should we pay tax for the upkeep and three square meals (and that's not even considering the fact that modern prisons do more than 'upkeep and three meals') for someone who fucking raped a child or shot down a mosque?

A better reason not to execute would be because there's always a possibility that some new evidence turns out to prove the guy was not guilty -or at least, not that much- but too late for the state to compensate them. Or, you know, the fact that the loss of an individual's life is a toll on a nation's manpower and resources that should be avoided when possible.

(Then again, I am against both imprisonment and execution, so meh)

Actually, IIRC, in the US (I can't say about other countries, but I don't see how it wouldn't also be true in most other western nations), life in prison is actually cheaper for the state than execution, because of all the legal fees and mandatory appeals (which are necessary to reduce the likelihood of innocent people getting executed, but even then, they don't work 100%).

And I think imprisonment is justified, particularly for cases where the individual is a danger to society at large (like a serial child-rapist-murderer who cannot be rehabilitated). It is certainly justified for separating individuals as they are being rehabilitated (which should be the entire point of most prison sentences).

Yeah, but quality of prison life in the US is considerably poor compared to most other countries of its caliber in development.

[Grenartia]

Actually, IIRC, in the US (I can't say about other countries, but I don't see how it wouldn't also be true in most other western nations), life in prison is actually cheaper for the state than execution, because of all the legal fees and mandatory appeals (which are necessary to reduce the likelihood of innocent people getting executed, but even then, they don't work 100%).

And I think imprisonment is justified, particularly for cases where the individual is a danger to society at large (like a serial child-rapist-murderer who cannot be rehabilitated). It is certainly justified for separating individuals as they are being rehabilitated (which should be the entire point of most prison sentences).

Yeah, but quality of prison life in the US is considerably poor compared to most other countries of its caliber in development.

Trust me, I'm entirely in favor of reforming prisons to something like what they do in Scandinavia.

[Conserative Morality]

Don't execute people even if you do have 100% proof that they're guilty. If they're imprisoned, they're no longer a threat to anyone else, so killing them is just pointlessly cruel.

That presumes prisons are 100% effective. Just as you cannot rescue the innocent from death, so too can evil men not rescue the guilty from death. Furthermore, the state must at least formally retain the right to execute those who make war upon the institution they pledge their loyalty to, for reasons of moral authority, and the military must retain the right as an institution whose purpose is dealing in death for the security of the state.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Don't execute people even if you do have 100% proof that they're guilty. If they're imprisoned, they're no longer a threat to anyone else, so killing them is just pointlessly cruel.

That presumes prisons are 100% effective. Just as you cannot rescue the innocent from death, so too can evil men not rescue the guilty from death. Furthermore, the state must at least formally retain the right to execute those who make war upon the institution they pledge their loyalty to, for reasons of moral authority, and the military must retain the right as an institution whose purpose is dealing in death for the security of the state.

The military must be allowed to take lives obviously, but no one should be able to take the life of an unarmed prisoner. Whether a civil prisoner or a prisoner of war.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Don't execute people even if you do have 100% proof that they're guilty. If they're imprisoned, they're no longer a threat to anyone else, so killing them is just pointlessly cruel.

At the point that somebody has been detained and is no longer a threat to society, killing them is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder. There is no motive besides anger, which makes it a heinous act.

I used to be for the death penalty, but as my political stances shifted more and more onto the pragmatic side, I see the pointlessness of executing somebody that has already been disarmed and detained, effectively rendering him harmless.

Forced labour would be a far more efficient use of their lives anyways.