5 ms·

In this case the prosecutor actively pushed against the execution, arguing that his guilt was no longer beyond a reasonable doubt. The blame for this lies squa

In this case the prosecutor actively pushed against the execution, arguing that his guilt was no longer beyond a reasonable doubt. The blame for this lies squarely on the Missouri Supreme Court and Gov. Parson (who has never once granted clemency in a capital case).

EasyMark 2y ago
As well as the US Supreme Court
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    Democrats had cumulative decades of opportunity to instate abortion access in national law and declined to ever do so. All of the things you're pointing out are true but downstream of that.
    - BadHumans 2y ago
      Democrats would need a super majority to pass abortion and the last time that happened was 09.
      - giraffe_lady 2y ago
        Yes they should have done it in 09 then or one of the many other times. It's been half a century since roe they've had opportunity if it had been important to them.
        BadHumans 2y ago
        Formally codifying abortion was not a popular issue among voters in 09. In other words, you're somewhat right, it wasn't important to them because it wasn't important to voters. People seem to think that this issue has always had the support it has now.
        giraffe_lady 2y ago
        [flagged]
        BadHumans 2y ago
        This is not even close to what I'm saying and I'm sure you know that.
        giraffe_lady 2y ago
        Come on it's kind of close.
  - snapcaster 2y ago
    No, we lost Roe v. Wade because the democrat party is so useless at representing our interests they failed to ever pass any law granting the right to abortion. Republicans didn't sit on their hands complacently for 40 years like democrats they followed a systematic approach to overturning it. Meanwhile the democrats did nothing except ask me for more money and continue to take L after L
    - JohnMakin 2y ago
      > Meanwhile the democrats did nothing except ask me for more money and continue to take L after L I agree with you, except to me it's far more insidious - they used the threat of things like roe v wade being overturned and reproductive rights being taken away to drive donations and voter turnout, thus incentivizing themselves to never actually deal with that looming problem.
      - snapcaster 2y ago
        Good point! I'm just so frustrated by it because while I don't agree with their positions on basically anything, the republican party appears to do a good job furthering the interests of their voters. I know they're less diverse etc. etc. but it just sucks to see
        mindslight 2y ago
        As a libertarian, analyzing the information flow of the political parties in reverse of how it's normally assumed is illuminating - how good is each party at building support for the policies that their sponsors have bought? In this sense on the national stage, the republican party does a much better job convincing its members that the party's policies are their own interests. Whereas democrats are more likely to begrudgingly but pragmatically vote for their party's candidates while actually disliking their policies. See also the quick about-face dynamic of "I never thought the leopard would eat MY face" when the larger cognitive dissonance ends up collapsing in a very personal way.
    - michaelmrose 2y ago
  - rendang 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - mardifoufs 2y ago
    It's funny that you are making this argument due to this execution (which I'm against) while arguing for voting for a party that currently is in power and actively supports, almost unconditionally so, a state that is committing a genocide that killed tens of thousands in Gaza. The most ironic part is your last argument: "None of this affects me so I don't bother voting", which is funnily enough better than voting for a party that actually enables genocide because said genocide does not affect you. The other funny thing is that I know that the usual counter to that from the Democrats is to claim that "both sides are bad, Trump would've done the same!". Which is again, extremely ironic. (And I'm not here to argue if it's a genocide or not. Let's say it's not. It's still an administration that de facto unconditionally supports and arms a war that has killed 50 000 civilians).
xyzzyz 2y ago
“The” prosecutor was not pushing against the execution. “A” prosecutor was, who did not have significantly greater relationship to the case than thousands of other prosecutors in this country. I don’t see how this guy’s opinion is more relevant that anyone else’s.
concordDance 2y ago
> the prosecutor actively pushed against the execution Reading this thread, it's obvious there's been a big game of telephone with regards to what happened (half saying "a", half saying "the"). I hope this reminds people that they need to chase down sources as close to the original information source as possible as things can get misunderstood or distorted along the way.

EasyMark 2y ago

As well as the US Supreme Court

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
[flagged]
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  Democrats had cumulative decades of opportunity to instate abortion access in national law and declined to ever do so. All of the things you're pointing out are true but downstream of that.
  - BadHumans 2y ago
    Democrats would need a super majority to pass abortion and the last time that happened was 09.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      Yes they should have done it in 09 then or one of the many other times. It's been half a century since roe they've had opportunity if it had been important to them.
      - BadHumans 2y ago
        Formally codifying abortion was not a popular issue among voters in 09. In other words, you're somewhat right, it wasn't important to them because it wasn't important to voters. People seem to think that this issue has always had the support it has now.
        giraffe_lady 2y ago
        [flagged]
        BadHumans 2y ago
        This is not even close to what I'm saying and I'm sure you know that.
        giraffe_lady 2y ago
        Come on it's kind of close.
- snapcaster 2y ago
  No, we lost Roe v. Wade because the democrat party is so useless at representing our interests they failed to ever pass any law granting the right to abortion. Republicans didn't sit on their hands complacently for 40 years like democrats they followed a systematic approach to overturning it. Meanwhile the democrats did nothing except ask me for more money and continue to take L after L
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    > Meanwhile the democrats did nothing except ask me for more money and continue to take L after L I agree with you, except to me it's far more insidious - they used the threat of things like roe v wade being overturned and reproductive rights being taken away to drive donations and voter turnout, thus incentivizing themselves to never actually deal with that looming problem.
    - snapcaster 2y ago
      Good point! I'm just so frustrated by it because while I don't agree with their positions on basically anything, the republican party appears to do a good job furthering the interests of their voters. I know they're less diverse etc. etc. but it just sucks to see
      - mindslight 2y ago
        As a libertarian, analyzing the information flow of the political parties in reverse of how it's normally assumed is illuminating - how good is each party at building support for the policies that their sponsors have bought? In this sense on the national stage, the republican party does a much better job convincing its members that the party's policies are their own interests. Whereas democrats are more likely to begrudgingly but pragmatically vote for their party's candidates while actually disliking their policies. See also the quick about-face dynamic of "I never thought the leopard would eat MY face" when the larger cognitive dissonance ends up collapsing in a very personal way.
  - michaelmrose 2y ago
- rendang 2y ago
  [flagged]
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  It's funny that you are making this argument due to this execution (which I'm against) while arguing for voting for a party that currently is in power and actively supports, almost unconditionally so, a state that is committing a genocide that killed tens of thousands in Gaza. The most ironic part is your last argument: "None of this affects me so I don't bother voting", which is funnily enough better than voting for a party that actually enables genocide because said genocide does not affect you. The other funny thing is that I know that the usual counter to that from the Democrats is to claim that "both sides are bad, Trump would've done the same!". Which is again, extremely ironic. (And I'm not here to argue if it's a genocide or not. Let's say it's not. It's still an administration that de facto unconditionally supports and arms a war that has killed 50 000 civilians).

xyzzyz 2y ago

“The” prosecutor was not pushing against the execution. “A” prosecutor was, who did not have significantly greater relationship to the case than thousands of other prosecutors in this country. I don’t see how this guy’s opinion is more relevant that anyone else’s.

concordDance 2y ago

> the prosecutor actively pushed against the execution Reading this thread, it's obvious there's been a big game of telephone with regards to what happened (half saying "a", half saying "the"). I hope this reminds people that they need to chase down sources as close to the original information source as possible as things can get misunderstood or distorted along the way.