Trump: Death penalty for drug dealers - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14895390

Amen.

Death penalty for drug dealers? Count Trump in

Drug dealers kill people, destroy families and might deserve the death penalty or life in prison for their crimes, President Trump says.

Trump, speaking at a rally Saturday in Pennsylvania for congressional candidate Rick Saccone, said he got the idea from the leaders of China and Singapore. The U.S. criminal justice system, Trump said, is too soft on drugs.

“You kill 5,000 people with drugs because you’re smuggling them in and you are making a lot of money and people are dying. And they don’t even put you in jail,” Trump said. “That’s why we have a problem, folks. I don’t think we should play games.”

Trump said he recently asked the president of Singapore if that country has a drug problem.

"He said 'We have a zero tolerance policy. That means if we catch a drug dealer, death penalty,'" Trump said.

Trump said he wasn't sure whether the nation would be accepting of such a harsh penalty. But he said drug dealers destroy families.


"We can't just keep setting up blue ribbon committees" that do nothing but "talk, talk, talk," Trump said.

Trump has floated the idea before. Less than two weeks ago, Trump suggested "very strong" penalties to help address the nation's growing problem with opioid addiction.

"Some countries have a very, very tough penalty — the ultimate penalty," Trump said. "And, by the way, they have much less of a drug problem than we do."

Last May, Trump congratulated Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte for a "great job" in his crackdown on drugs. Duterte has boasted about personally shooting and killing at least three crime suspects. Human rights groups and the United Nations have condemned Duterte's vigilante-style campaign that has left thousands of suspected drug dealers and users dead.

Trump acknowledged Saturday that his idea might have dissenters.
#14896085
Suntzu wrote:The president doesn't get to decide the punishment for criminal offenses not even for federal crimes. Donald knows this and just does it to get a rise out of the press corp.


He definitely doesn't have any idea what the Executive branch does.

If Trump had any plan and it wasn't just his big boy good brain rattling off the remaining words he can remember, which aced 30 out of 30 on the hardest test ever administered during a physical and the doctor told him he'd never seen anyone do so well, then he's probably hoping to copy Duterte's "look tough on crime while accepting bribes" policy.

Lol naw, he's just a rambling moron.
#14907074
Oh sure ! Lets make the west more like Saudi Arabia ! Will make future arabic terrorist feel more at home, too ! I see no disadvantage whatsoever !


> "You kill 5,000 people with drugs because you’re smuggling them in and you are making a lot of money and people are dying. And they don’t even put you in jail"

Meh. Sounds like every second multi millionaire in our current capitalism. For example speculating with food prices or starting wars has pretty much the same, or worse effects.
#14907077
Good idea. People who do drugs don't have families, friends, or loved ones.

Trump is such a fucking tool. I can totally see why you support him, and the stupid things he says, @Albert.

Countries that have done this have had horrendous results, and haven't improved the situation one iota. The only success fighting drug use has been legalization and decriminalization.
#14907081
This is what Trump wants, because he's a fucking idiot.

Thousands dead: the Philippine president, the death squad allegations and a brutal drugs war
Now in a safe house, a former police officer fears for his life after allegedly exposing Rodrigo Duterte’s role in extrajudicial killings when mayor of Davao
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ath-squads
#14907084
How about if a drug dealer knowingly sells my kid a product cut with nastiness, and if my kid is harmed or killed, I can opt to harm or kill him the drug dealer in return?

Would that qualify as an agreement or disagreement with Trump? :lol:

I think I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the policy.

Godstud wrote:The only success fighting drug use has been legalization and decriminalization.


As an AnCap, I agree with this, but we should also be careful to qualify what this position entails because it is admittedly deceptive.

For instance, if we eliminated all traffic laws, there would be no traffic crimes (e.g. speeding), does that mean that people stopped driving at what might be considered an extremely dangerous speed? Of course not, there might even be a spike in such.

The point is, if there are no laws, there are no crimes, but that does not mean that those activities which were previously criminalized decreased after decriminalization post facto.

I am pretty sure studies have confirmed that decriminalization of marijuana in Colorado actually resulted in an increase in its rate of consumption and production. They are going through a boom not unlike the gold-rush out-west because of such.

But once again, I think we agree, decriminalization is the way to go.
#14907087
Albert wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V8UABh0pDw
Amen.


This is not really stupid but more of the same-old, same old.

Learn some history.

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did. 
#14907902
Duterte seems to be really popular in the Phillipines because a significant number of people actually have to deal with drug dealers IRL there.

As this has grown in America, Trump naturally becomes more popular because drug dealers indeed deserve the death penalty.
#14907905
Victoribus Spolia wrote:How about if a drug dealer knowingly sells my kid a product cut with nastiness, and if my kid is harmed or killed, I can opt to harm or kill him the drug dealer in return?

If this is what you're doing, don't try to meet these people half way, it's beneath you :lol:

They will just say it's the white man's fault because the government should be regulating all the drugs or something.
#14907953
Hong Wu wrote:If this is what you're doing, don't try to meet these people half way, it's beneath you


I'm meeting them half-way alright....halfway to my door with a glock. :D (i'm talking about the malicious drug-dealers who cut there stuff...of course)

Otherwise, that is my solution. Full legalization and the right for property owners to shoot those who knowingly sell you poison.
#14907954
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I'm meeting them half-way alright....halfway to my door with a glock. :D (i'm talking about the malicious drug-dealers who cut there stuff...of course)

Otherwise, that is my solution. Full legalization and the right for property owners to shoot those who knowingly sell you poison.

I dunno, my impression was that it's all poison. A common Chinese word for drugs and poison is the same thing, incidentally.
#14907955
Really, strong opposition to killing people who sell drugs to kids? I see no downside. The legalization of drugs argument has nothing to do with the lowlifes selling drugs to kids right now.
#14907961
Hong Wu wrote:I dunno, my impression was that it's all poison. A common Chinese word for drugs and poison is the same thing, incidentally.


Well, I cannot fault the Chinese for their particularly strong sentiment....after their experience with Opium in the 19th century and all... ;)

Nevertheless, I do want to qualify my position on this a bit.

Drugs and their availability is not what compels people to use them or creates the culture of addiction and decadence that we are currently facing in the west.

To the contrary, a pre-existing state of decadence is what allows drug-addiction to obtain.

Indeed, in a by-gone era where there were no real prohibitions for any such substances, abuse and addiction was not rampant.

Left-Libertarians make the foolish inference from this that legalization today, in our society, would result in a drop in both addiction and drug-abuse, but they are wrongly inferring causation from an observed correlation (post hoc/cum hoc) without examining other important factors and, most importantly, they are ignoring praexology.

In the past stateless or minarchist worlds, people survived based on self-reliance and their own labor and around such a culture; traditional and patriarchal values thrive. Under such conditions, even with drugs being legal, even the worst ones, addiction had little incentive. A drug addict had little or not support structure that would allow him to perpetuate his errors. The Church condemned the conduct, people wouldn't hire him, there were no state-run rehabs and private rehabs would not likely exist as their is little profit in rehabilitation (unless you are servicing rich people), and not being able to work, for any reason, was akin to being a leper in such a society.

Thus, the character of a people who are truly free and self-reliant gravitates against conditions of addiction, irrespective of the presence on these substances in the open market.

The Left-Libertarians delude themselves when they argue that decriminalizing these substance will lead to people using them less. This has NOT been the case in places like Colorado where such was legalized. The consumption and production of recreational pot has skyrocketed in those places. The only thing that would keep the same thing from happening with Heroin is the cultural stigma surrounding it, but that is it.

This is because, as long as welfare exists and we treat addiction like a medical condition that deserves pity instead of scorn, we will never have enough actual disincentive to correct the problem. Let me repeat, there was a time when you could run to the local market and grab a bottle of morphine, and yet we didn't have whole towns laying in ruin to drug-abuse, addiction, and the attendant crimes that follow such.

Thus, when I say I support legalization, I only mean that there should be no state at all. Legalization will solve nothing other than reducing criminal prosecutions for drug-use and drug-possession but to conflate that with solving the opioid epidemic as so many are apt to do, is patently false. Is it worth a shot? Sure, but I am skeptical that we have the social-vitality to overcome this problem.

In a private property world, everything is legal, and if you make the stupid mistake of becoming a non-functioning meth-head, you will die and the problem works itself out. Likewise, if you cut your product with garbage, no one will buy from you, and if you cut it with poison, you will find yourself hanging from the nearest oak tree.

The Natural Order Society is the only place where such substances can all be legal and find their place and use, without the issue and injustices we see today.

That is my position.
#14908011
Drug dealers are some of the worst of the capitalist class. They poisoning the working class to try and reduce us to the same state as the overwhelmingly drug addicted middle class. Working class people should drink heavily and nothing more.
#14908012
Victoribus Spolia wrote:To the contrary, a pre-existing state of decadence is what allows drug-addiction to obtain.

Always nice to see someone actually using that organ between their ears.

Left-Libertarians make the foolish inference from this that legalization today, in our society, would result in a drop in both addiction and drug-abuse, but they are wrongly inferring causation from an observed correlation (post hoc/cum hoc) without examining other important factors and, most importantly, they are ignoring praexology.

And the legalization of recreational pot is proving your point nicely.

Thus, the character of a people who are truly free and self-reliant gravitates against conditions of addiction, irrespective of the presence on these substances in the open market.

The Natural Order Society is the only place where such substances can all be legal and find their place and use, without the issue and injustices we see today. That is my position.

Very reasonable ... But I don't think a "Natural Order Society" is possible given the present level of human consciousness.

The western frontier in America was, I think, the last outcrop of "natural order." It flourished briefly and was then inundated by opportunist who proceeded to justify their avarice with legislation and limitation. The next possible window for a "Natural Order" society will be the colonization of space. But that will require cooperative effort and will face a similar onslaught of opportunists.

Human consciousness has advanced since the days of the western frontier. Have we come far enough to compromise and cooperate in unity? And resist opportunistic greed?

Zam
#14908095
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Well, I cannot fault the Chinese for their particularly strong sentiment....after their experience with Opium in the 19th century and all... ;)

Nevertheless, I do want to qualify my position on this a bit.

Drugs and their availability is not what compels people to use them or creates the culture of addiction and decadence that we are currently facing in the west.

To the contrary, a pre-existing state of decadence is what allows drug-addiction to obtain.

Indeed, in a by-gone era where there were no real prohibitions for any such substances, abuse and addiction was not rampant.

Left-Libertarians make the foolish inference from this that legalization today, in our society, would result in a drop in both addiction and drug-abuse, but they are wrongly inferring causation from an observed correlation (post hoc/cum hoc) without examining other important factors and, most importantly, they are ignoring praexology.

In the past stateless or minarchist worlds, people survived based on self-reliance and their own labor and around such a culture; traditional and patriarchal values thrive. Under such conditions, even with drugs being legal, even the worst ones, addiction had little incentive. A drug addict had little or not support structure that would allow him to perpetuate his errors. The Church condemned the conduct, people wouldn't hire him, there were no state-run rehabs and private rehabs would not likely exist as their is little profit in rehabilitation (unless you are servicing rich people), and not being able to work, for any reason, was akin to being a leper in such a society.

Thus, the character of a people who are truly free and self-reliant gravitates against conditions of addiction, irrespective of the presence on these substances in the open market.

The Left-Libertarians delude themselves when they argue that decriminalizing these substance will lead to people using them less. This has NOT been the case in places like Colorado where such was legalized. The consumption and production of recreational pot has skyrocketed in those places. The only thing that would keep the same thing from happening with Heroin is the cultural stigma surrounding it, but that is it.

This is because, as long as welfare exists and we treat addiction like a medical condition that deserves pity instead of scorn, we will never have enough actual disincentive to correct the problem. Let me repeat, there was a time when you could run to the local market and grab a bottle of morphine, and yet we didn't have whole towns laying in ruin to drug-abuse, addiction, and the attendant crimes that follow such.

Thus, when I say I support legalization, I only mean that there should be no state at all. Legalization will solve nothing other than reducing criminal prosecutions for drug-use and drug-possession but to conflate that with solving the opioid epidemic as so many are apt to do, is patently false. Is it worth a shot? Sure, but I am skeptical that we have the social-vitality to overcome this problem.

In a private property world, everything is legal, and if you make the stupid mistake of becoming a non-functioning meth-head, you will die and the problem works itself out. Likewise, if you cut your product with garbage, no one will buy from you, and if you cut it with poison, you will find yourself hanging from the nearest oak tree.

The Natural Order Society is the only place where such substances can all be legal and find their place and use, without the issue and injustices we see today.

That is my position.

Good post, my issue is that I gave up on having a stateless society.

Since we touched on patriarchy, it seems to be the case that more genetics come from the male (and if the woman is not a virgin, RNA can potentially come from multiple males). I suspect it may be as simple as, when genetics are stable we see patriarchy, when they are in flux we see "matriarchy" (which is usually just chaos). The west is mostly matriarchal right now because the genetics were put into a state of flux by mass immigration policies. In developed countries that lack mass immigration, the "patriarchy" is alive and well, whether it is a democracy or communism.

@Reichstraten Did you know that, in most wester[…]

@Atlantis I compared you to Rees-Mogg in the se[…]

EU-BREXIT

They believe in unfettered capitalism and in the […]

Election 2020

Who would've thought? Maybe everyone who underst[…]