Honestly if they somehow conduct an entire inquiry without bringing that up it will be inconceivably suspicious in its absence. I feel like that would make the Republican members appear MORE guilty, not less. If you’re a Republican who had nothing whatsoever to do with Epstein, you’ve gotta consider that avoiding the single largest and most disturbing cover up in (potentially global) political history is essentially going to drag you right into it.

I was referring to past treatment of elite financial crimes.

You’re right, we haven’t seen the fallout from the Epstein files yet. Not that I’m aware of.

So did Finland and Norway and not with the death penalty.

Again… To do that, you need to classify everyone accordingly as elite or not, which is subject to systematic error. Which is why we should just choose not to do it, since the death penalty is irreversible, and killing an innocent person runs counter to the way in which a liberal democracy chooses the values that structure its justice system - that is, that we prefer to run the risk that a guilty person go free to avoid, as much as possible, that an innocent person suffers.

If you prefer a justice system built on different fundamental values, maybe you prefer China, Russia or Saudi Arabia.

I think you’re making my point.

France was talking about systemic inequality, and he’s right: Systems claim to be fair and equal but they still make systematic errors. So why would we add an irreversible punishment, plus a vague ‘elite’ category that invites political targeting and misclassification?

Well, that understandable drive for retribution - which blinds us to principles of equality and justice - is exactly why we don’t let victims administer justice or mete out punishments.

Uhhh no.

Again outsider perspective: I think Hillary is perhaps the most representative of American pragmatism, and probably a ball buster in her interactions. Kamala seems a bit gentle, I guess, for lack of a better word.

As is typical of American politics and in particular Democrats, it’s difficult to pin down beliefs or predict what they will actually do in office, and it always looked like status quo based on corporate donors. But status quo is still better than fascism.

In the end I don’t think Obama performed much better than Hillary would have. He had a lot of promise but for whatever reason - constraints, his real personality, whatever - he let a lot of people down as well.

I’m pretty sure we couldn’t agree on a universal definition that wouldn’t be subject to error or interpretation, and after we’ve killed an innocent person and likely created a martyr and a drive to retribution by some segment of the population, we can’t really back out of that mess.

There’s a perfectly workable solution that aligns with the imperfections and uncertainties of justice, and conveniently also achieves the same or better metrics as evidenced by countless studies on the topic. Seems like an easy decision.

However that won’t satisfy retributive blood lust, or make anyone feel like a tough guy when advocating for it, so the death penalty persists where those things are important.

In guessing you get to decide who is an elite.

Look, I’m all for enforcing our laws and punishing elites and I happen to believe that billionaires shouldn’t even exist, but frankly on the three main claimed benefits of the death penalty - deterrence, cost and incapacitation - the evidence is nonexistence or in outright opposition, and would be met with proper life without parole without running afoul of the Blackstone dilemma.

As an outsider with high vested interest in American politics, without a doubt both Kamala and Hillary were better than the Republican alternative in 2016 and 2020, but I would hope they were not the best the Democrats have to offer (which could very well be a woman), and they were rather forced onto the electorate which has the air of unearned inevitability, to say the least.

The country still should have voted for them.

Obama was a better choice than Hillary for the Dem nomination though.

Hahaha I had a typo in the last sentence, but you go off on that if you need it bud.

The research is pretty clear that there is no demonstrable effect of the death penalty on deterrence (eg https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/13363/chapter/2), and the many other negative benefits would outweigh even minor positive benefits.

How would you know what Antifa looks like?.. They all wear masks.

To me this guy looks like a Nick Fuentes, Jackson Hinckle, or any other alt right gamer or YouTuber. At the same time he looks like the son of one of our close family friends, who is a wonderful, intelligent and compassionate kid.

Which is why categorizing someone based on their looks is, well…categorically stupid.

Give me one tangible, evidenced benefit. Not sure how you grew up with it and are still unable to figure out that your position is entirely supported by emotion.

You’re not going to insult me by suggesting that I respect my thinking on this topic.

This response is a perfect example of the lowered expectations in the US.

What happens if you lose your job? I’m not sure I’d want to have job security and health care coupled together.

I don’t think you understood what I meant when I referred to liberal justice systems, because you can’t conceive of any understanding of the word liberal unless it’s in a portmanteau with the word retard.

The many demonstrable downsides of the death penalty (and lack of any evidenced differential benefits) goes well beyond Louis CK. Congratulations, you just discovered that comedians rehash ancient and serious political and philosophical discussions for laypersons. But you may wish to read the original material.

Ok so you’re not talking about CSA in general;, in fact you’re not talking about any crime in particular, but rather the power possessed by those who perpetrate them?

How would this work? Is torture ok? How do you determine who is powerful enough? How do you prevent uncertainty and/or other powerful interests hijacking the justice system?

You know what’s easier and remains in line with fundamental values of liberal justice systems? Just no death penalty. Start by actually enforcing laws against the powerful, with penniless and impotent lifetimes spent in prison. Avoid creating martyrs and endless cycles of violence and retribution.

And in the case of CSA, again, avoid creating piles of dead kids. If all of these criminals thought they were facing the death penalty the crimes and corruption would just get worse, to absolutely no benefit to us other than satisfying emotional blood lust.

These crimes are horrendous, but I’m guessing you haven’t really thought about the implications of the death penalty very deeply, and in particular in relation to crimes of CSA. For one thing, it’s a sure fire way to end up with a lot more dead kids.

The original comment was about Clinton’s blowjob only. I was very clear in my question, and constrained it to that only because at the time you had not explicitly extended it to all of Clinton’s involvement with Epstein.

Now that you’ve decided to do so, I’ll preface by saying I’m Canadian, and I don’t give a shit about Clinton, so if indeed his involvement is as bad as Trump, then punish him the same. Obviously they should be punished - as the law is intended to do - according to the severity of their crimes. I will say this: The Trump involvement in the last drop has been nightmarish, if even 5% is true, and I can’t help but consider that the Justice department is incentivized to release material that amplifies Clinton’s involvement and diminishes Trump’s, and if this is the best they can do then Trump is truly a monster.

Are you suggesting that Clinton getting a blowjob from Lewinsky and then lying about it is the same in kind and degree to what is alleged in the released pages of the Epstein files?

Resistors need to answer question 2A, learn to build and fly drones, and join an improv group.