Thank you for your continued efforts

It seems a smidge absurd to me that some people apparently expect that death row convicts won’t fight it, I must admit. Of course he fought it. He was terrified.

A method doomed to be painful because the convict inevitably fights it is still painful, and it can’t be deemed “okay” by blaming the convict for it as if he had any choice in the matter when fight-or-flight kicked in. It’s yet another failure in a long string of similar execution failures.

I think you’re right. If psychological torture is torture - and if things alont the lines of sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, and so on amount to such - then the psychological experience of being condemned to death, then while in prison fighting through appeal after appeal after appeal for years and being condemened again and again but still having that small sliver of hope, then finally (for those who aren’t ruled innocent or insane somewhere in that process) being marched to your end, must be torture too. Compared to that, a few moments of pain at the very end seems so small as to be beside the point.

Any improvement is an improvement, but there keep on being these news stories about “aha, we have finally found the way to do this painlessly!” that repeatedly don’t end up panning out for one reason or another. Even this relatively small improvement in the lot of death row convicts seems totally illusive.

Idk that I agree with Nitrogen leaks being a big concern - I don’t know enough for certain to say one way or another really - but supposing they are a risk, regardless I think the biggest risk to the executioners or viewers is the psychological one.

Even convulsions after death that truly aren’t experienced by the convict can still greatly disturb the people who see them. Plus, in general, the psychological toll of systematically killing people who can’t fight back as one’s ‘mundane’ job. It’s gotta fuck people up. Maybe along the lines of how drone pilots - who effectively go to war, but who aren’t surrounded by fellow soldiers all the time like regular soldiers, but instead who go home every to friends and family who aren’t at war, causing prolonged feelings of alienation and separation that tend to hit regular soldiers only after they come home from deployment - end up with a lot of ptsd problems.

Georgia didn’t flip because of the “might vote Republic or might vote Democrate” swing voters people usually talk about; it flipped because of hoards of people who don’t normally turn out at all finally were approached and motivated to do so. Another kind of swing voter, between “might not vote of all, or might vote Democrate.”

Pundits make much of the first group because they always have, and because politicians insist on putting that group front and center in their priorities, but I think they become less and less of a genuinely powerful block as the two major parties get farther and farther apart. Who is even left in the middle, anymore? Never Trumpers, who won’t vote for Trump anyway?

Meanwhile, Biden’s unconditional aid for Israel’s genocide is alienting Arab Americans, who have a lot of voting power in some key states, as well as a large (though I can’t say exactly how large) portion of young, Black, and Latin American voters who can see the obvious racism at play.

I think he’s made a political bet here to appeal to the people the DNC always tries to appeal to at the cost of other groups, but I genuinely think he may lose because of it, especially if Trump ends up sidelined and replaced with another Republican.

Then again, maybe pushing the abortion rights thing will make enough of a difference to counteract this. I don’t know. But I hate that I feel like this election could easily go either way.

I don’t think you can become a billionaire in an ethical way, without exploiting hundreds or thousands of people below you.

To me, the “good” billionaires participate in and create the system that keeps everyone else poor and without resources just as much; it’s just that they throw a few coins back to charity - what looks like a lot to us, but isn’t much to them - to a) make themselves look good and charitable or b) assuage any guilt they feel for their continually exploitation of workers and hoarding of wealth. Like a king gathering so many taxes all the peasants are destitute, then tossing some gold coins into a crowd and getting called generous for it even though it’s a pittance compared to what they took. There is no more powerful PR for a billionaire, no better way to steer public and media opinion, than strategically giving their money to charity.

They maybe aren’t intentionally evil, but if a bit of charity makes people praise them, and makes them feel like they’re using their wealth for the greater good, such that they can feel like they’re good people and sleep at night, I think they conveniently fail to think through whether the “good” they do by handing out their wealth outweighs the harm they caused by taking such an outsized share - one much larger than they ever give back - in the first place, because anyone would be extremely motivated to come to the conclusion that it’s ethical to keep being an mega-powerful billionaire.

If they didn’t exploit workers and hoard so much wealth in the first place, their “charity” wouldn’t be needed because all that wealth would be much better distributed to begin with, and it would be distributed more equitably rather than on the basis of whoever most appeals to an individual billionaire’s whims at a given moment. As it is, they’re like middlemen between workers and the causes that need funds, and in being so they are able to wield ridiculously outsized political power (via donations, being treated as important enough to talk to politicians, market manipulation, etc), and they will always oppose any measure that truly threatens their continued power and wealth.

Also they rely on our current capitalist system that requires the line to go up forever, with companies expected to make more and more money year after year (often by taking more and more from their workers), with no answer to where or when the line can stop going up, which is an incredibly stupid strategy on a planet with finite resources and a global warming problem.

This is true. But calling the worst case scenario “inevitable” is doom and gloom surrender before the fight - stuff like this will just make people think “well, it’s hopeless, there’s nothing I can do” and so they do nothing when maybe they could have done something.

What the fuck. What the fuck.

And just look at all the young, horrible GOP house reps. Or the young neo-lib reps. They’re certainly no better than the old ones.

An age limit would just result in the same exact situation as now, but with everyone younger.

The house and senate are old and terrible, but they’re not terrible because they’re old. The system just happens to promote both things.

I don’t think they agree with that lower limit either. They didn’t say anything to make me think it’s not included in the age limits they’re talking about.

Some people also young better than others, though. There are 18 year olds in the world I’ve have no problem voting for, if I could.

But yeah, a lot of age limit sentiment seems to be just straight up just ageism to me, as if every person becomes senile as soon as they turn 80, or even just 70 or 60, which just isn’t remotely true. Intelligence can remain sharp as ever, and sometimes elderly wisdom is indeed a thing. And every politician is surrounded by aids who will notice if something starts to go wrong.

I’d be sort of okay with a very high age limit, like 90, I guess, but on the whole I agree term limits are better anyway.

Are you 1) a christian person upset that I used Jesus as a swear and expressing this through sarcasm or 2) an anti-theist jumping on any opportunity to shit-talk christianity? I suspect #2 but I’m honestly not entirely sure. You know what I meant though, regardless.

Every day the GOP finds a new low to sink to and becomes more and more a terrifying caricature of itself.

Jesus.

I’m not prepared to call anyone still associating themselves with the GOP “reasonable” at this point. That’s like joining a neo-nazi militia and claiming that you’re just a member but not a neo-nazi.

Ditto for the people who voted for the Nazi party for “economic reasons” while turning a blind eye to… Fucking everything. They were not innocent. Very far from it. However ‘normal’ and ‘socially acceptable’ their day to day behavior may otherwise have seemed to those around them. Evil can be as banal and understated as anything.

Past a certain point, you just can’t declare affiliation with an organization, make-nice with its ‘more extreme’ members and overlook their behavior and actions, etc, and still claim that you’re uninvolved and not participating in and enabling what the organization has become as a whole.

Especially not when the GOP - in congress and in state houses - votes in near lockstep when it comes to their vilest culture war talking points. These supposedly “fringe” points that have such a mysterious tendency to become less and less and less fringe within the party as time passes and the line of what is or isn’t “acceptable” (or even encouraged) is shoved farther and farther out.

Any actually reasonable members of the GOP bailed and became right-wing dems or independants or libertarians ages ago at this point.