Democrats Abandoned Their Anti-Death Penalty Stance. Those on Federal Death Row May Pay the Price. (theintercept.com)

submitted 2 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

57 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 37 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That's a weird claim, when the Central Park Five were speakes at the DNC, probably the most well known symbol against death penalty.
And the democrats have both a presidential candidate and VP candidate that are clearly against the death penalty.

Download the party program pdf:
Link to page:
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

Direct link to download:
https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf

Page 38 of the party program:
>And Democrats continue to support abolishing the death penalty.

Article is bullshit because the claim in the headline:

Democrats Abandoned Their Anti-Death Penalty Stance.

Is easily refuted by the facts of the policies of their candidates.

And the claim below the headline:

remove death penalty opposition from their party platform.

Is evidently false. It's right there on page 38 of their official program!!!

[-] villainy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Here's a link to the 2024 platform. It does not include the quoted line from the 2020 platform document, or any other reference to "death penalty".

https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTER-PLATFORM.pdf

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Imagine how wonderful it would be, if journalists linked sources that are essential to their story.
That said, this is not their official program, it's based heavily on Biden policies, not Kamala Harris.
I imagine with Harris as their new candidate, democrats will make a new program. As it is, this program is basically meaningless. Both Harris and Walz strongly oppose death penalty.
So I maintain the story is grossly misleading. As is evident by the invitation of one of the Exonerated Five to the DNC.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I was unable to find any mention of it in the 2024 platform. But then they didn't even have time to change the names in it. So I'm not sure what, if anything, it actually signifies.

[-] Carvex@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

They step right, we meet them in the new middle.

[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

How's that ratchet go again?

[+] tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago

They keep bragging about many Republicans they had on stage. Great, I guess the Democrats are just the Republicans from 10-20 years ago if those speakers find the current Democratic party palatable. I'm sure that will rally people to vote blue like they did in 2008. Was it caving on immigration, peace, and crime what made Obama so popular?

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago

This is why I think it's not impossible that we'll have a party swap where these right wing politicians all become the new democratic party and the progressives fuck off to form a new left wing.

[-] ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 months ago

They're not even Republicans from 10-20 years ago. They're Republicans from five years ago.

[-] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

Yes because Republicans from five years ago would definitely have all the largest union leaders and several socialists speaking at their convention.

[-] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago

If they were speaking at the DNC, they were not socialists. They had more Republicans and cops speaking at that convention than marginalized communities.

[-] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If they were speaking at the DNC, they were not socialists.

So Bernie and AOC aren't socialists now?

They had more Republicans and cops speaking at that convention than marginalized communities.

Uh? No they didn't? Did you even watch the convention? They had a few Republicans and cops who spoke for less than ten minutes each. Meanwhile they had dozens of women of color, and women's rights were one of the main themes of the entire convention.

[-] VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 months ago

Why would they watch the conversation when you can just make up what you feel probably happened based on emotion?

Lemmy has a real feelings = facts problem and it's sad.

[-] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml -5 points 2 months ago

Bernie and AOC have never been socialists.

[-] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Lol, he literally argues for the means of production being owned by workers.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

I mean, he does argue for worker co-ops, yes.

[-] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yes, he also supports forcefully cooperativizing companies over time. He wanted to create a program to gradually have a federally backed buyout of the largest 1000 U.S companies, with mandatory partial worker ownership of any company over a certain number of employees, and mandatory votes for the corporate boards for workers.

Here was the plan from the campaign.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago

Sounds like a great idea.

[-] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It also sounds like socialism.

I mean I agree it's a good idea of course. I just wanted to make the point that Bernie and AOC are, in fact, socialists. Way too many people from all sides of the political spectrum think "Oh he just wants to be like Denmark he's not really socialist" or "Bernie would be right wing in Europe" just because the media didn't really ever cover his cooperativization plan or talk of workplace democracy.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024

54 points (69.9% liked)

politics

19104 readers

2030 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News