Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset5

like 0

[ "Bakserfield is one of those towns you drive through and say, “thank god I don’t live here”.", ">\n\nYou could tour the shitty places on that highway. Pass by Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton eventually.", ">\n\nI did this on this on the Amtrak for 4.5 years going to college. Thank goodness the stops were briefs.", ">\n\nHim being from Bakersfield makes perfect sense.", ">\n\n“We do not need any more negative publicity.” \nWell look at who you sent to congress. Your community elected him so good ole Mac can make you guys shine. Live by the sword and die by the sword ⚔️. 😵🤷🏼‍♂️", ">\n\nThe part got me is “We are top in so many negatives.” the listed a bunch of thing that, I don’t know, you may hope a representative would work on fixing. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result.", ">\n\nLearned helplessness is a real thing. Source: live in Texas.", ">\n\nJust because you find that life's not fair, it\nDoesn't mean that you just have to grin and bear it\nIf you always take it on the chin and wear it\nNothing will change\n/ your are right, just made me think of this", ">\n\n“All of this stems from his decision to kiss Trump’s ring,” said Mari Goodman, one of the protesters outside McCarthy’s district office.\n“We’re here to remember the people who were hurt and the damage caused,” said Laura Hardman, one of a cluster of January 6 protesters at a busy traffic intersection in Tehachapi, a farm town in McCarthy’s district 40 miles from Bakersfield. “The leaders are still not accountable.”", ">\n\nAs a California native, I’m comfortable saying, Fuck Bakersfield.", ">\n\nI try to get gas before or after Bakersfield on way from SF to Vegas so I don't have to stop.", ">\n\nGas is also insanely expensive in Bakersfield too. Last time I drove thru it was about $1/gal more than a few miles before and after that shithole.", ">\n\nIf you have enough drive straight through to Baker, CA. Cheaper gas and a really good authentic taqueria down the street.", ">\n\nAnd the 76 in Baker has a great convenience store with tons of snacks and jerky! \nBaker > Bakersfield", ">\n\nWhat if they just stopped electing this stained linoleum tile of a man? The Speaker of the House losing reelection needs to be the final layer of this humiliation sandwich.", ">\n\nCan we pay people to move to Bakersfield for this purpose? No?", ">\n\nYoud have to pay a lot. When I drive through Bakersfield I turned off outside air it was so polluted", ">\n\nThat was the smell of Bull-Shit", ">\n\nAhh Bakersfield…. the taint of California.", ">\n\nHe'll have many more embarrassments. He only won because enough people voted present. He couldn't even get a majority of the House to vote for him to lead them. He's never going to have the votes to pass real legislation.", ">\n\nHe doesn't have any intentions of passing any real legislation.", ">\n\nAs someone who was born and raised, and subsequently GTFO of Bakersfield… He very very accurately represents his constituents. \nI stop there to get gas and occasionally eat at local spots, and then hit the freeway.", ">\n\nSame. I still have occasional business there--inherited property--and everytime I visit I see Trump signs everywhere. It was so anti-vax that, back in the early weeks of the vaccination when it was extremely hard to get, people were driving from L.A. to Bakersfield, where anyone could walk in and get one. They have one of the highest muder and violent crime rates in the U.S., but of course rant about crime waves in big cities. It's basically a slice of Oklahoma or Texas plopped in California.", ">\n\nMcCarthy didn't \"prevail\". McCarthy caved.", ">\n\nanyone that has been to bakersfield will agree that there is no way the fucking guy honestly lives in that town.", ">\n\nI agree. Doesn't he represent Bakersfield and Lamcaster or am I confused? Both are pretty terrible. Bakersfield is probably worse but not by much.", ">\n\nFrom Bakersfield, it’s full of a bunch of racists who die from the bad air quality, bad hospital system/health care, bad criminal justice system. The higher education and school system is full of quanon nut jobs as professors and administrators. Agricultural and oil industry works hard to ensure education is hard to get and only want to partner when they have bad PR cases then they reach out to higher education to offer a couple of classes for their employees then when the publicity changes they go back to actively work against education except for their charter schools which they hope to raise indoctrinated kids (yup we have a charter school by an agricultural company). I have had swastikas drawn on my car where I work. The relatively cheap cost of housing comes with immense racism, misogyny, homophobia/transphobia and we have incredibly high crime and health issues. PLUS, we have absolutely nothing entertainment wise to do so you end up driving to LA anyway. PLUS, if you get sick no one here who has good health insurance utilizes our hospitals or doctors beyond just getting referrals you have to go to LA or Bay Area to get the medical assistance you need. We have had people move to Bakersfield then immediately get a job elsewhere as soon as possible as they realized that yes the cost of living is low economically, but the high cost of your health more than outweighs the relative cheapness of getting a house.", ">\n\nSpot on, friend.", ">\n\nUh…”we don’t talk about Kevin, no more”", ">\n\nFormer Bakersfield resident. I’m used to seeing my home town with negative connotations. I’d be surprised if there was anything positive to come out of it.", ">\n\nOne time when I was hitchhiking through CA, I got picked up in Bakersfield by an old lady and her two singing poodles. They sang for me while they gave me a ride towards LA.\nOnly time I’ve ever been near/through Bakersfield and it wasn’t a bad experience? This was in late ‘88 or early ‘89? Can’t remember exactly.", ">\n\nNo sympathy for his constituents. They keep sending this spineless windsock so they should be used to the embarrassment by now.", ">\n\nBakersfield is such a shithole.", ">\n\nWell why the f*ck do they keep electing him?", ">\n\nHave you been to Kern County, CA?", ">\n\nYeah. There’s a reason we call Bakersfield the armpit of Ca", ">\n\nJust checkin.", ">\n\nSomeone bought an add on a digital billboard on I-5 in Sacramento congratulating him on his election to Speaker. What a joke. We'll see if he can beat Liz Truss's tenure.", ">\n\nBakersfield.....Hemet'sbig brother", ">\n\nYawn. The central valley is blighted and should be returned to nature. Cut off all outside water, reroute all the rivers hijacked by their farmers, and let them parch.", ">\n\nIt would become a giant tule marsh.", ">\n\nThere’s not enough water for that, it would be scrubland with a couple large shallow lakes at best." ]

[ "Bakserfield is one of those towns you drive through and say, “thank god I don’t live here”.", ">\n\nYou could tour the shitty places on that highway. Pass by Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton eventually.", ">\n\nI did this on this on the Amtrak for 4.5 years going to college. Thank goodness the stops were briefs.", ">\n\nHim being from Bakersfield makes perfect sense.", ">\n\n“We do not need any more negative publicity.” \nWell look at who you sent to congress. Your community elected him so good ole Mac can make you guys shine. Live by the sword and die by the sword ⚔️. 😵🤷🏼‍♂️", ">\n\nThe part got me is “We are top in so many negatives.” the listed a bunch of thing that, I don’t know, you may hope a representative would work on fixing. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result.", ">\n\nLearned helplessness is a real thing. Source: live in Texas.", ">\n\nJust because you find that life's not fair, it\nDoesn't mean that you just have to grin and bear it\nIf you always take it on the chin and wear it\nNothing will change\n/ your are right, just made me think of this", ">\n\n“All of this stems from his decision to kiss Trump’s ring,” said Mari Goodman, one of the protesters outside McCarthy’s district office.\n“We’re here to remember the people who were hurt and the damage caused,” said Laura Hardman, one of a cluster of January 6 protesters at a busy traffic intersection in Tehachapi, a farm town in McCarthy’s district 40 miles from Bakersfield. “The leaders are still not accountable.”", ">\n\nAs a California native, I’m comfortable saying, Fuck Bakersfield.", ">\n\nI try to get gas before or after Bakersfield on way from SF to Vegas so I don't have to stop.", ">\n\nGas is also insanely expensive in Bakersfield too. Last time I drove thru it was about $1/gal more than a few miles before and after that shithole.", ">\n\nIf you have enough drive straight through to Baker, CA. Cheaper gas and a really good authentic taqueria down the street.", ">\n\nAnd the 76 in Baker has a great convenience store with tons of snacks and jerky! \nBaker > Bakersfield", ">\n\nWhat if they just stopped electing this stained linoleum tile of a man? The Speaker of the House losing reelection needs to be the final layer of this humiliation sandwich.", ">\n\nCan we pay people to move to Bakersfield for this purpose? No?", ">\n\nYoud have to pay a lot. When I drive through Bakersfield I turned off outside air it was so polluted", ">\n\nThat was the smell of Bull-Shit", ">\n\nAhh Bakersfield…. the taint of California.", ">\n\nHe'll have many more embarrassments. He only won because enough people voted present. He couldn't even get a majority of the House to vote for him to lead them. He's never going to have the votes to pass real legislation.", ">\n\nHe doesn't have any intentions of passing any real legislation.", ">\n\nAs someone who was born and raised, and subsequently GTFO of Bakersfield… He very very accurately represents his constituents. \nI stop there to get gas and occasionally eat at local spots, and then hit the freeway.", ">\n\nSame. I still have occasional business there--inherited property--and everytime I visit I see Trump signs everywhere. It was so anti-vax that, back in the early weeks of the vaccination when it was extremely hard to get, people were driving from L.A. to Bakersfield, where anyone could walk in and get one. They have one of the highest muder and violent crime rates in the U.S., but of course rant about crime waves in big cities. It's basically a slice of Oklahoma or Texas plopped in California.", ">\n\nMcCarthy didn't \"prevail\". McCarthy caved.", ">\n\nanyone that has been to bakersfield will agree that there is no way the fucking guy honestly lives in that town.", ">\n\nI agree. Doesn't he represent Bakersfield and Lamcaster or am I confused? Both are pretty terrible. Bakersfield is probably worse but not by much.", ">\n\nFrom Bakersfield, it’s full of a bunch of racists who die from the bad air quality, bad hospital system/health care, bad criminal justice system. The higher education and school system is full of quanon nut jobs as professors and administrators. Agricultural and oil industry works hard to ensure education is hard to get and only want to partner when they have bad PR cases then they reach out to higher education to offer a couple of classes for their employees then when the publicity changes they go back to actively work against education except for their charter schools which they hope to raise indoctrinated kids (yup we have a charter school by an agricultural company). I have had swastikas drawn on my car where I work. The relatively cheap cost of housing comes with immense racism, misogyny, homophobia/transphobia and we have incredibly high crime and health issues. PLUS, we have absolutely nothing entertainment wise to do so you end up driving to LA anyway. PLUS, if you get sick no one here who has good health insurance utilizes our hospitals or doctors beyond just getting referrals you have to go to LA or Bay Area to get the medical assistance you need. We have had people move to Bakersfield then immediately get a job elsewhere as soon as possible as they realized that yes the cost of living is low economically, but the high cost of your health more than outweighs the relative cheapness of getting a house.", ">\n\nSpot on, friend.", ">\n\nUh…”we don’t talk about Kevin, no more”", ">\n\nFormer Bakersfield resident. I’m used to seeing my home town with negative connotations. I’d be surprised if there was anything positive to come out of it.", ">\n\nOne time when I was hitchhiking through CA, I got picked up in Bakersfield by an old lady and her two singing poodles. They sang for me while they gave me a ride towards LA.\nOnly time I’ve ever been near/through Bakersfield and it wasn’t a bad experience? This was in late ‘88 or early ‘89? Can’t remember exactly.", ">\n\nNo sympathy for his constituents. They keep sending this spineless windsock so they should be used to the embarrassment by now.", ">\n\nBakersfield is such a shithole.", ">\n\nWell why the f*ck do they keep electing him?", ">\n\nHave you been to Kern County, CA?", ">\n\nYeah. There’s a reason we call Bakersfield the armpit of Ca", ">\n\nJust checkin.", ">\n\nSomeone bought an add on a digital billboard on I-5 in Sacramento congratulating him on his election to Speaker. What a joke. We'll see if he can beat Liz Truss's tenure.", ">\n\nBakersfield.....Hemet'sbig brother", ">\n\nYawn. The central valley is blighted and should be returned to nature. Cut off all outside water, reroute all the rivers hijacked by their farmers, and let them parch.", ">\n\nIt would become a giant tule marsh.", ">\n\nThere’s not enough water for that, it would be scrubland with a couple large shallow lakes at best.", ">\n\nTrue story. While driving through Bakersfield going home from Vegas we saw a -totally naked- woman walking on the freeway. She looked like a total crackhead. Hubby was disappointed his first naked-woman-on-the-freeway sighting was so disappointing." ]

[ "Bakserfield is one of those towns you drive through and say, “thank god I don’t live here”.", ">\n\nYou could tour the shitty places on that highway. Pass by Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton eventually.", ">\n\nI did this on this on the Amtrak for 4.5 years going to college. Thank goodness the stops were briefs.", ">\n\nHim being from Bakersfield makes perfect sense.", ">\n\n“We do not need any more negative publicity.” \nWell look at who you sent to congress. Your community elected him so good ole Mac can make you guys shine. Live by the sword and die by the sword ⚔️. 😵🤷🏼‍♂️", ">\n\nThe part got me is “We are top in so many negatives.” the listed a bunch of thing that, I don’t know, you may hope a representative would work on fixing. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result.", ">\n\nLearned helplessness is a real thing. Source: live in Texas.", ">\n\nJust because you find that life's not fair, it\nDoesn't mean that you just have to grin and bear it\nIf you always take it on the chin and wear it\nNothing will change\n/ your are right, just made me think of this", ">\n\n“All of this stems from his decision to kiss Trump’s ring,” said Mari Goodman, one of the protesters outside McCarthy’s district office.\n“We’re here to remember the people who were hurt and the damage caused,” said Laura Hardman, one of a cluster of January 6 protesters at a busy traffic intersection in Tehachapi, a farm town in McCarthy’s district 40 miles from Bakersfield. “The leaders are still not accountable.”", ">\n\nAs a California native, I’m comfortable saying, Fuck Bakersfield.", ">\n\nI try to get gas before or after Bakersfield on way from SF to Vegas so I don't have to stop.", ">\n\nGas is also insanely expensive in Bakersfield too. Last time I drove thru it was about $1/gal more than a few miles before and after that shithole.", ">\n\nIf you have enough drive straight through to Baker, CA. Cheaper gas and a really good authentic taqueria down the street.", ">\n\nAnd the 76 in Baker has a great convenience store with tons of snacks and jerky! \nBaker > Bakersfield", ">\n\nWhat if they just stopped electing this stained linoleum tile of a man? The Speaker of the House losing reelection needs to be the final layer of this humiliation sandwich.", ">\n\nCan we pay people to move to Bakersfield for this purpose? No?", ">\n\nYoud have to pay a lot. When I drive through Bakersfield I turned off outside air it was so polluted", ">\n\nThat was the smell of Bull-Shit", ">\n\nAhh Bakersfield…. the taint of California.", ">\n\nHe'll have many more embarrassments. He only won because enough people voted present. He couldn't even get a majority of the House to vote for him to lead them. He's never going to have the votes to pass real legislation.", ">\n\nHe doesn't have any intentions of passing any real legislation.", ">\n\nAs someone who was born and raised, and subsequently GTFO of Bakersfield… He very very accurately represents his constituents. \nI stop there to get gas and occasionally eat at local spots, and then hit the freeway.", ">\n\nSame. I still have occasional business there--inherited property--and everytime I visit I see Trump signs everywhere. It was so anti-vax that, back in the early weeks of the vaccination when it was extremely hard to get, people were driving from L.A. to Bakersfield, where anyone could walk in and get one. They have one of the highest muder and violent crime rates in the U.S., but of course rant about crime waves in big cities. It's basically a slice of Oklahoma or Texas plopped in California.", ">\n\nMcCarthy didn't \"prevail\". McCarthy caved.", ">\n\nanyone that has been to bakersfield will agree that there is no way the fucking guy honestly lives in that town.", ">\n\nI agree. Doesn't he represent Bakersfield and Lamcaster or am I confused? Both are pretty terrible. Bakersfield is probably worse but not by much.", ">\n\nFrom Bakersfield, it’s full of a bunch of racists who die from the bad air quality, bad hospital system/health care, bad criminal justice system. The higher education and school system is full of quanon nut jobs as professors and administrators. Agricultural and oil industry works hard to ensure education is hard to get and only want to partner when they have bad PR cases then they reach out to higher education to offer a couple of classes for their employees then when the publicity changes they go back to actively work against education except for their charter schools which they hope to raise indoctrinated kids (yup we have a charter school by an agricultural company). I have had swastikas drawn on my car where I work. The relatively cheap cost of housing comes with immense racism, misogyny, homophobia/transphobia and we have incredibly high crime and health issues. PLUS, we have absolutely nothing entertainment wise to do so you end up driving to LA anyway. PLUS, if you get sick no one here who has good health insurance utilizes our hospitals or doctors beyond just getting referrals you have to go to LA or Bay Area to get the medical assistance you need. We have had people move to Bakersfield then immediately get a job elsewhere as soon as possible as they realized that yes the cost of living is low economically, but the high cost of your health more than outweighs the relative cheapness of getting a house.", ">\n\nSpot on, friend.", ">\n\nUh…”we don’t talk about Kevin, no more”", ">\n\nFormer Bakersfield resident. I’m used to seeing my home town with negative connotations. I’d be surprised if there was anything positive to come out of it.", ">\n\nOne time when I was hitchhiking through CA, I got picked up in Bakersfield by an old lady and her two singing poodles. They sang for me while they gave me a ride towards LA.\nOnly time I’ve ever been near/through Bakersfield and it wasn’t a bad experience? This was in late ‘88 or early ‘89? Can’t remember exactly.", ">\n\nNo sympathy for his constituents. They keep sending this spineless windsock so they should be used to the embarrassment by now.", ">\n\nBakersfield is such a shithole.", ">\n\nWell why the f*ck do they keep electing him?", ">\n\nHave you been to Kern County, CA?", ">\n\nYeah. There’s a reason we call Bakersfield the armpit of Ca", ">\n\nJust checkin.", ">\n\nSomeone bought an add on a digital billboard on I-5 in Sacramento congratulating him on his election to Speaker. What a joke. We'll see if he can beat Liz Truss's tenure.", ">\n\nBakersfield.....Hemet'sbig brother", ">\n\nYawn. The central valley is blighted and should be returned to nature. Cut off all outside water, reroute all the rivers hijacked by their farmers, and let them parch.", ">\n\nIt would become a giant tule marsh.", ">\n\nThere’s not enough water for that, it would be scrubland with a couple large shallow lakes at best.", ">\n\nTrue story. While driving through Bakersfield going home from Vegas we saw a -totally naked- woman walking on the freeway. She looked like a total crackhead. Hubby was disappointed his first naked-woman-on-the-freeway sighting was so disappointing.", ">\n\nEverything about Bakersfield is disappointing.\nThey always think they’re 5 years away from land value skyrocketing but nobody wants to live near a goddamn oil field unless they have to" ]

[ "Bakserfield is one of those towns you drive through and say, “thank god I don’t live here”.", ">\n\nYou could tour the shitty places on that highway. Pass by Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton eventually.", ">\n\nI did this on this on the Amtrak for 4.5 years going to college. Thank goodness the stops were briefs.", ">\n\nHim being from Bakersfield makes perfect sense.", ">\n\n“We do not need any more negative publicity.” \nWell look at who you sent to congress. Your community elected him so good ole Mac can make you guys shine. Live by the sword and die by the sword ⚔️. 😵🤷🏼‍♂️", ">\n\nThe part got me is “We are top in so many negatives.” the listed a bunch of thing that, I don’t know, you may hope a representative would work on fixing. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result.", ">\n\nLearned helplessness is a real thing. Source: live in Texas.", ">\n\nJust because you find that life's not fair, it\nDoesn't mean that you just have to grin and bear it\nIf you always take it on the chin and wear it\nNothing will change\n/ your are right, just made me think of this", ">\n\n“All of this stems from his decision to kiss Trump’s ring,” said Mari Goodman, one of the protesters outside McCarthy’s district office.\n“We’re here to remember the people who were hurt and the damage caused,” said Laura Hardman, one of a cluster of January 6 protesters at a busy traffic intersection in Tehachapi, a farm town in McCarthy’s district 40 miles from Bakersfield. “The leaders are still not accountable.”", ">\n\nAs a California native, I’m comfortable saying, Fuck Bakersfield.", ">\n\nI try to get gas before or after Bakersfield on way from SF to Vegas so I don't have to stop.", ">\n\nGas is also insanely expensive in Bakersfield too. Last time I drove thru it was about $1/gal more than a few miles before and after that shithole.", ">\n\nIf you have enough drive straight through to Baker, CA. Cheaper gas and a really good authentic taqueria down the street.", ">\n\nAnd the 76 in Baker has a great convenience store with tons of snacks and jerky! \nBaker > Bakersfield", ">\n\nWhat if they just stopped electing this stained linoleum tile of a man? The Speaker of the House losing reelection needs to be the final layer of this humiliation sandwich.", ">\n\nCan we pay people to move to Bakersfield for this purpose? No?", ">\n\nYoud have to pay a lot. When I drive through Bakersfield I turned off outside air it was so polluted", ">\n\nThat was the smell of Bull-Shit", ">\n\nAhh Bakersfield…. the taint of California.", ">\n\nHe'll have many more embarrassments. He only won because enough people voted present. He couldn't even get a majority of the House to vote for him to lead them. He's never going to have the votes to pass real legislation.", ">\n\nHe doesn't have any intentions of passing any real legislation.", ">\n\nAs someone who was born and raised, and subsequently GTFO of Bakersfield… He very very accurately represents his constituents. \nI stop there to get gas and occasionally eat at local spots, and then hit the freeway.", ">\n\nSame. I still have occasional business there--inherited property--and everytime I visit I see Trump signs everywhere. It was so anti-vax that, back in the early weeks of the vaccination when it was extremely hard to get, people were driving from L.A. to Bakersfield, where anyone could walk in and get one. They have one of the highest muder and violent crime rates in the U.S., but of course rant about crime waves in big cities. It's basically a slice of Oklahoma or Texas plopped in California.", ">\n\nMcCarthy didn't \"prevail\". McCarthy caved.", ">\n\nanyone that has been to bakersfield will agree that there is no way the fucking guy honestly lives in that town.", ">\n\nI agree. Doesn't he represent Bakersfield and Lamcaster or am I confused? Both are pretty terrible. Bakersfield is probably worse but not by much.", ">\n\nFrom Bakersfield, it’s full of a bunch of racists who die from the bad air quality, bad hospital system/health care, bad criminal justice system. The higher education and school system is full of quanon nut jobs as professors and administrators. Agricultural and oil industry works hard to ensure education is hard to get and only want to partner when they have bad PR cases then they reach out to higher education to offer a couple of classes for their employees then when the publicity changes they go back to actively work against education except for their charter schools which they hope to raise indoctrinated kids (yup we have a charter school by an agricultural company). I have had swastikas drawn on my car where I work. The relatively cheap cost of housing comes with immense racism, misogyny, homophobia/transphobia and we have incredibly high crime and health issues. PLUS, we have absolutely nothing entertainment wise to do so you end up driving to LA anyway. PLUS, if you get sick no one here who has good health insurance utilizes our hospitals or doctors beyond just getting referrals you have to go to LA or Bay Area to get the medical assistance you need. We have had people move to Bakersfield then immediately get a job elsewhere as soon as possible as they realized that yes the cost of living is low economically, but the high cost of your health more than outweighs the relative cheapness of getting a house.", ">\n\nSpot on, friend.", ">\n\nUh…”we don’t talk about Kevin, no more”", ">\n\nFormer Bakersfield resident. I’m used to seeing my home town with negative connotations. I’d be surprised if there was anything positive to come out of it.", ">\n\nOne time when I was hitchhiking through CA, I got picked up in Bakersfield by an old lady and her two singing poodles. They sang for me while they gave me a ride towards LA.\nOnly time I’ve ever been near/through Bakersfield and it wasn’t a bad experience? This was in late ‘88 or early ‘89? Can’t remember exactly.", ">\n\nNo sympathy for his constituents. They keep sending this spineless windsock so they should be used to the embarrassment by now.", ">\n\nBakersfield is such a shithole.", ">\n\nWell why the f*ck do they keep electing him?", ">\n\nHave you been to Kern County, CA?", ">\n\nYeah. There’s a reason we call Bakersfield the armpit of Ca", ">\n\nJust checkin.", ">\n\nSomeone bought an add on a digital billboard on I-5 in Sacramento congratulating him on his election to Speaker. What a joke. We'll see if he can beat Liz Truss's tenure.", ">\n\nBakersfield.....Hemet'sbig brother", ">\n\nYawn. The central valley is blighted and should be returned to nature. Cut off all outside water, reroute all the rivers hijacked by their farmers, and let them parch.", ">\n\nIt would become a giant tule marsh.", ">\n\nThere’s not enough water for that, it would be scrubland with a couple large shallow lakes at best.", ">\n\nTrue story. While driving through Bakersfield going home from Vegas we saw a -totally naked- woman walking on the freeway. She looked like a total crackhead. Hubby was disappointed his first naked-woman-on-the-freeway sighting was so disappointing.", ">\n\nEverything about Bakersfield is disappointing.\nThey always think they’re 5 years away from land value skyrocketing but nobody wants to live near a goddamn oil field unless they have to", ">\n\nThen vote him out you dumb asses" ]

[ "Bakserfield is one of those towns you drive through and say, “thank god I don’t live here”.", ">\n\nYou could tour the shitty places on that highway. Pass by Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton eventually.", ">\n\nI did this on this on the Amtrak for 4.5 years going to college. Thank goodness the stops were briefs.", ">\n\nHim being from Bakersfield makes perfect sense.", ">\n\n“We do not need any more negative publicity.” \nWell look at who you sent to congress. Your community elected him so good ole Mac can make you guys shine. Live by the sword and die by the sword ⚔️. 😵🤷🏼‍♂️", ">\n\nThe part got me is “We are top in so many negatives.” the listed a bunch of thing that, I don’t know, you may hope a representative would work on fixing. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result.", ">\n\nLearned helplessness is a real thing. Source: live in Texas.", ">\n\nJust because you find that life's not fair, it\nDoesn't mean that you just have to grin and bear it\nIf you always take it on the chin and wear it\nNothing will change\n/ your are right, just made me think of this", ">\n\n“All of this stems from his decision to kiss Trump’s ring,” said Mari Goodman, one of the protesters outside McCarthy’s district office.\n“We’re here to remember the people who were hurt and the damage caused,” said Laura Hardman, one of a cluster of January 6 protesters at a busy traffic intersection in Tehachapi, a farm town in McCarthy’s district 40 miles from Bakersfield. “The leaders are still not accountable.”", ">\n\nAs a California native, I’m comfortable saying, Fuck Bakersfield.", ">\n\nI try to get gas before or after Bakersfield on way from SF to Vegas so I don't have to stop.", ">\n\nGas is also insanely expensive in Bakersfield too. Last time I drove thru it was about $1/gal more than a few miles before and after that shithole.", ">\n\nIf you have enough drive straight through to Baker, CA. Cheaper gas and a really good authentic taqueria down the street.", ">\n\nAnd the 76 in Baker has a great convenience store with tons of snacks and jerky! \nBaker > Bakersfield", ">\n\nWhat if they just stopped electing this stained linoleum tile of a man? The Speaker of the House losing reelection needs to be the final layer of this humiliation sandwich.", ">\n\nCan we pay people to move to Bakersfield for this purpose? No?", ">\n\nYoud have to pay a lot. When I drive through Bakersfield I turned off outside air it was so polluted", ">\n\nThat was the smell of Bull-Shit", ">\n\nAhh Bakersfield…. the taint of California.", ">\n\nHe'll have many more embarrassments. He only won because enough people voted present. He couldn't even get a majority of the House to vote for him to lead them. He's never going to have the votes to pass real legislation.", ">\n\nHe doesn't have any intentions of passing any real legislation.", ">\n\nAs someone who was born and raised, and subsequently GTFO of Bakersfield… He very very accurately represents his constituents. \nI stop there to get gas and occasionally eat at local spots, and then hit the freeway.", ">\n\nSame. I still have occasional business there--inherited property--and everytime I visit I see Trump signs everywhere. It was so anti-vax that, back in the early weeks of the vaccination when it was extremely hard to get, people were driving from L.A. to Bakersfield, where anyone could walk in and get one. They have one of the highest muder and violent crime rates in the U.S., but of course rant about crime waves in big cities. It's basically a slice of Oklahoma or Texas plopped in California.", ">\n\nMcCarthy didn't \"prevail\". McCarthy caved.", ">\n\nanyone that has been to bakersfield will agree that there is no way the fucking guy honestly lives in that town.", ">\n\nI agree. Doesn't he represent Bakersfield and Lamcaster or am I confused? Both are pretty terrible. Bakersfield is probably worse but not by much.", ">\n\nFrom Bakersfield, it’s full of a bunch of racists who die from the bad air quality, bad hospital system/health care, bad criminal justice system. The higher education and school system is full of quanon nut jobs as professors and administrators. Agricultural and oil industry works hard to ensure education is hard to get and only want to partner when they have bad PR cases then they reach out to higher education to offer a couple of classes for their employees then when the publicity changes they go back to actively work against education except for their charter schools which they hope to raise indoctrinated kids (yup we have a charter school by an agricultural company). I have had swastikas drawn on my car where I work. The relatively cheap cost of housing comes with immense racism, misogyny, homophobia/transphobia and we have incredibly high crime and health issues. PLUS, we have absolutely nothing entertainment wise to do so you end up driving to LA anyway. PLUS, if you get sick no one here who has good health insurance utilizes our hospitals or doctors beyond just getting referrals you have to go to LA or Bay Area to get the medical assistance you need. We have had people move to Bakersfield then immediately get a job elsewhere as soon as possible as they realized that yes the cost of living is low economically, but the high cost of your health more than outweighs the relative cheapness of getting a house.", ">\n\nSpot on, friend.", ">\n\nUh…”we don’t talk about Kevin, no more”", ">\n\nFormer Bakersfield resident. I’m used to seeing my home town with negative connotations. I’d be surprised if there was anything positive to come out of it.", ">\n\nOne time when I was hitchhiking through CA, I got picked up in Bakersfield by an old lady and her two singing poodles. They sang for me while they gave me a ride towards LA.\nOnly time I’ve ever been near/through Bakersfield and it wasn’t a bad experience? This was in late ‘88 or early ‘89? Can’t remember exactly.", ">\n\nNo sympathy for his constituents. They keep sending this spineless windsock so they should be used to the embarrassment by now.", ">\n\nBakersfield is such a shithole.", ">\n\nWell why the f*ck do they keep electing him?", ">\n\nHave you been to Kern County, CA?", ">\n\nYeah. There’s a reason we call Bakersfield the armpit of Ca", ">\n\nJust checkin.", ">\n\nSomeone bought an add on a digital billboard on I-5 in Sacramento congratulating him on his election to Speaker. What a joke. We'll see if he can beat Liz Truss's tenure.", ">\n\nBakersfield.....Hemet'sbig brother", ">\n\nYawn. The central valley is blighted and should be returned to nature. Cut off all outside water, reroute all the rivers hijacked by their farmers, and let them parch.", ">\n\nIt would become a giant tule marsh.", ">\n\nThere’s not enough water for that, it would be scrubland with a couple large shallow lakes at best.", ">\n\nTrue story. While driving through Bakersfield going home from Vegas we saw a -totally naked- woman walking on the freeway. She looked like a total crackhead. Hubby was disappointed his first naked-woman-on-the-freeway sighting was so disappointing.", ">\n\nEverything about Bakersfield is disappointing.\nThey always think they’re 5 years away from land value skyrocketing but nobody wants to live near a goddamn oil field unless they have to", ">\n\nThen vote him out you dumb asses", ">\n\nThen they should be more careful who they’re voting for" ]

[ "Bakserfield is one of those towns you drive through and say, “thank god I don’t live here”.", ">\n\nYou could tour the shitty places on that highway. Pass by Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton eventually.", ">\n\nI did this on this on the Amtrak for 4.5 years going to college. Thank goodness the stops were briefs.", ">\n\nHim being from Bakersfield makes perfect sense.", ">\n\n“We do not need any more negative publicity.” \nWell look at who you sent to congress. Your community elected him so good ole Mac can make you guys shine. Live by the sword and die by the sword ⚔️. 😵🤷🏼‍♂️", ">\n\nThe part got me is “We are top in so many negatives.” the listed a bunch of thing that, I don’t know, you may hope a representative would work on fixing. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result.", ">\n\nLearned helplessness is a real thing. Source: live in Texas.", ">\n\nJust because you find that life's not fair, it\nDoesn't mean that you just have to grin and bear it\nIf you always take it on the chin and wear it\nNothing will change\n/ your are right, just made me think of this", ">\n\n“All of this stems from his decision to kiss Trump’s ring,” said Mari Goodman, one of the protesters outside McCarthy’s district office.\n“We’re here to remember the people who were hurt and the damage caused,” said Laura Hardman, one of a cluster of January 6 protesters at a busy traffic intersection in Tehachapi, a farm town in McCarthy’s district 40 miles from Bakersfield. “The leaders are still not accountable.”", ">\n\nAs a California native, I’m comfortable saying, Fuck Bakersfield.", ">\n\nI try to get gas before or after Bakersfield on way from SF to Vegas so I don't have to stop.", ">\n\nGas is also insanely expensive in Bakersfield too. Last time I drove thru it was about $1/gal more than a few miles before and after that shithole.", ">\n\nIf you have enough drive straight through to Baker, CA. Cheaper gas and a really good authentic taqueria down the street.", ">\n\nAnd the 76 in Baker has a great convenience store with tons of snacks and jerky! \nBaker > Bakersfield", ">\n\nWhat if they just stopped electing this stained linoleum tile of a man? The Speaker of the House losing reelection needs to be the final layer of this humiliation sandwich.", ">\n\nCan we pay people to move to Bakersfield for this purpose? No?", ">\n\nYoud have to pay a lot. When I drive through Bakersfield I turned off outside air it was so polluted", ">\n\nThat was the smell of Bull-Shit", ">\n\nAhh Bakersfield…. the taint of California.", ">\n\nHe'll have many more embarrassments. He only won because enough people voted present. He couldn't even get a majority of the House to vote for him to lead them. He's never going to have the votes to pass real legislation.", ">\n\nHe doesn't have any intentions of passing any real legislation.", ">\n\nAs someone who was born and raised, and subsequently GTFO of Bakersfield… He very very accurately represents his constituents. \nI stop there to get gas and occasionally eat at local spots, and then hit the freeway.", ">\n\nSame. I still have occasional business there--inherited property--and everytime I visit I see Trump signs everywhere. It was so anti-vax that, back in the early weeks of the vaccination when it was extremely hard to get, people were driving from L.A. to Bakersfield, where anyone could walk in and get one. They have one of the highest muder and violent crime rates in the U.S., but of course rant about crime waves in big cities. It's basically a slice of Oklahoma or Texas plopped in California.", ">\n\nMcCarthy didn't \"prevail\". McCarthy caved.", ">\n\nanyone that has been to bakersfield will agree that there is no way the fucking guy honestly lives in that town.", ">\n\nI agree. Doesn't he represent Bakersfield and Lamcaster or am I confused? Both are pretty terrible. Bakersfield is probably worse but not by much.", ">\n\nFrom Bakersfield, it’s full of a bunch of racists who die from the bad air quality, bad hospital system/health care, bad criminal justice system. The higher education and school system is full of quanon nut jobs as professors and administrators. Agricultural and oil industry works hard to ensure education is hard to get and only want to partner when they have bad PR cases then they reach out to higher education to offer a couple of classes for their employees then when the publicity changes they go back to actively work against education except for their charter schools which they hope to raise indoctrinated kids (yup we have a charter school by an agricultural company). I have had swastikas drawn on my car where I work. The relatively cheap cost of housing comes with immense racism, misogyny, homophobia/transphobia and we have incredibly high crime and health issues. PLUS, we have absolutely nothing entertainment wise to do so you end up driving to LA anyway. PLUS, if you get sick no one here who has good health insurance utilizes our hospitals or doctors beyond just getting referrals you have to go to LA or Bay Area to get the medical assistance you need. We have had people move to Bakersfield then immediately get a job elsewhere as soon as possible as they realized that yes the cost of living is low economically, but the high cost of your health more than outweighs the relative cheapness of getting a house.", ">\n\nSpot on, friend.", ">\n\nUh…”we don’t talk about Kevin, no more”", ">\n\nFormer Bakersfield resident. I’m used to seeing my home town with negative connotations. I’d be surprised if there was anything positive to come out of it.", ">\n\nOne time when I was hitchhiking through CA, I got picked up in Bakersfield by an old lady and her two singing poodles. They sang for me while they gave me a ride towards LA.\nOnly time I’ve ever been near/through Bakersfield and it wasn’t a bad experience? This was in late ‘88 or early ‘89? Can’t remember exactly.", ">\n\nNo sympathy for his constituents. They keep sending this spineless windsock so they should be used to the embarrassment by now.", ">\n\nBakersfield is such a shithole.", ">\n\nWell why the f*ck do they keep electing him?", ">\n\nHave you been to Kern County, CA?", ">\n\nYeah. There’s a reason we call Bakersfield the armpit of Ca", ">\n\nJust checkin.", ">\n\nSomeone bought an add on a digital billboard on I-5 in Sacramento congratulating him on his election to Speaker. What a joke. We'll see if he can beat Liz Truss's tenure.", ">\n\nBakersfield.....Hemet'sbig brother", ">\n\nYawn. The central valley is blighted and should be returned to nature. Cut off all outside water, reroute all the rivers hijacked by their farmers, and let them parch.", ">\n\nIt would become a giant tule marsh.", ">\n\nThere’s not enough water for that, it would be scrubland with a couple large shallow lakes at best.", ">\n\nTrue story. While driving through Bakersfield going home from Vegas we saw a -totally naked- woman walking on the freeway. She looked like a total crackhead. Hubby was disappointed his first naked-woman-on-the-freeway sighting was so disappointing.", ">\n\nEverything about Bakersfield is disappointing.\nThey always think they’re 5 years away from land value skyrocketing but nobody wants to live near a goddamn oil field unless they have to", ">\n\nThen vote him out you dumb asses", ">\n\nThen they should be more careful who they’re voting for", ">\n\nHe represents the values of the majority of people who live there." ]

[ "Bakserfield is one of those towns you drive through and say, “thank god I don’t live here”.", ">\n\nYou could tour the shitty places on that highway. Pass by Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton eventually.", ">\n\nI did this on this on the Amtrak for 4.5 years going to college. Thank goodness the stops were briefs.", ">\n\nHim being from Bakersfield makes perfect sense.", ">\n\n“We do not need any more negative publicity.” \nWell look at who you sent to congress. Your community elected him so good ole Mac can make you guys shine. Live by the sword and die by the sword ⚔️. 😵🤷🏼‍♂️", ">\n\nThe part got me is “We are top in so many negatives.” the listed a bunch of thing that, I don’t know, you may hope a representative would work on fixing. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result.", ">\n\nLearned helplessness is a real thing. Source: live in Texas.", ">\n\nJust because you find that life's not fair, it\nDoesn't mean that you just have to grin and bear it\nIf you always take it on the chin and wear it\nNothing will change\n/ your are right, just made me think of this", ">\n\n“All of this stems from his decision to kiss Trump’s ring,” said Mari Goodman, one of the protesters outside McCarthy’s district office.\n“We’re here to remember the people who were hurt and the damage caused,” said Laura Hardman, one of a cluster of January 6 protesters at a busy traffic intersection in Tehachapi, a farm town in McCarthy’s district 40 miles from Bakersfield. “The leaders are still not accountable.”", ">\n\nAs a California native, I’m comfortable saying, Fuck Bakersfield.", ">\n\nI try to get gas before or after Bakersfield on way from SF to Vegas so I don't have to stop.", ">\n\nGas is also insanely expensive in Bakersfield too. Last time I drove thru it was about $1/gal more than a few miles before and after that shithole.", ">\n\nIf you have enough drive straight through to Baker, CA. Cheaper gas and a really good authentic taqueria down the street.", ">\n\nAnd the 76 in Baker has a great convenience store with tons of snacks and jerky! \nBaker > Bakersfield", ">\n\nWhat if they just stopped electing this stained linoleum tile of a man? The Speaker of the House losing reelection needs to be the final layer of this humiliation sandwich.", ">\n\nCan we pay people to move to Bakersfield for this purpose? No?", ">\n\nYoud have to pay a lot. When I drive through Bakersfield I turned off outside air it was so polluted", ">\n\nThat was the smell of Bull-Shit", ">\n\nAhh Bakersfield…. the taint of California.", ">\n\nHe'll have many more embarrassments. He only won because enough people voted present. He couldn't even get a majority of the House to vote for him to lead them. He's never going to have the votes to pass real legislation.", ">\n\nHe doesn't have any intentions of passing any real legislation.", ">\n\nAs someone who was born and raised, and subsequently GTFO of Bakersfield… He very very accurately represents his constituents. \nI stop there to get gas and occasionally eat at local spots, and then hit the freeway.", ">\n\nSame. I still have occasional business there--inherited property--and everytime I visit I see Trump signs everywhere. It was so anti-vax that, back in the early weeks of the vaccination when it was extremely hard to get, people were driving from L.A. to Bakersfield, where anyone could walk in and get one. They have one of the highest muder and violent crime rates in the U.S., but of course rant about crime waves in big cities. It's basically a slice of Oklahoma or Texas plopped in California.", ">\n\nMcCarthy didn't \"prevail\". McCarthy caved.", ">\n\nanyone that has been to bakersfield will agree that there is no way the fucking guy honestly lives in that town.", ">\n\nI agree. Doesn't he represent Bakersfield and Lamcaster or am I confused? Both are pretty terrible. Bakersfield is probably worse but not by much.", ">\n\nFrom Bakersfield, it’s full of a bunch of racists who die from the bad air quality, bad hospital system/health care, bad criminal justice system. The higher education and school system is full of quanon nut jobs as professors and administrators. Agricultural and oil industry works hard to ensure education is hard to get and only want to partner when they have bad PR cases then they reach out to higher education to offer a couple of classes for their employees then when the publicity changes they go back to actively work against education except for their charter schools which they hope to raise indoctrinated kids (yup we have a charter school by an agricultural company). I have had swastikas drawn on my car where I work. The relatively cheap cost of housing comes with immense racism, misogyny, homophobia/transphobia and we have incredibly high crime and health issues. PLUS, we have absolutely nothing entertainment wise to do so you end up driving to LA anyway. PLUS, if you get sick no one here who has good health insurance utilizes our hospitals or doctors beyond just getting referrals you have to go to LA or Bay Area to get the medical assistance you need. We have had people move to Bakersfield then immediately get a job elsewhere as soon as possible as they realized that yes the cost of living is low economically, but the high cost of your health more than outweighs the relative cheapness of getting a house.", ">\n\nSpot on, friend.", ">\n\nUh…”we don’t talk about Kevin, no more”", ">\n\nFormer Bakersfield resident. I’m used to seeing my home town with negative connotations. I’d be surprised if there was anything positive to come out of it.", ">\n\nOne time when I was hitchhiking through CA, I got picked up in Bakersfield by an old lady and her two singing poodles. They sang for me while they gave me a ride towards LA.\nOnly time I’ve ever been near/through Bakersfield and it wasn’t a bad experience? This was in late ‘88 or early ‘89? Can’t remember exactly.", ">\n\nNo sympathy for his constituents. They keep sending this spineless windsock so they should be used to the embarrassment by now.", ">\n\nBakersfield is such a shithole.", ">\n\nWell why the f*ck do they keep electing him?", ">\n\nHave you been to Kern County, CA?", ">\n\nYeah. There’s a reason we call Bakersfield the armpit of Ca", ">\n\nJust checkin.", ">\n\nSomeone bought an add on a digital billboard on I-5 in Sacramento congratulating him on his election to Speaker. What a joke. We'll see if he can beat Liz Truss's tenure.", ">\n\nBakersfield.....Hemet'sbig brother", ">\n\nYawn. The central valley is blighted and should be returned to nature. Cut off all outside water, reroute all the rivers hijacked by their farmers, and let them parch.", ">\n\nIt would become a giant tule marsh.", ">\n\nThere’s not enough water for that, it would be scrubland with a couple large shallow lakes at best.", ">\n\nTrue story. While driving through Bakersfield going home from Vegas we saw a -totally naked- woman walking on the freeway. She looked like a total crackhead. Hubby was disappointed his first naked-woman-on-the-freeway sighting was so disappointing.", ">\n\nEverything about Bakersfield is disappointing.\nThey always think they’re 5 years away from land value skyrocketing but nobody wants to live near a goddamn oil field unless they have to", ">\n\nThen vote him out you dumb asses", ">\n\nThen they should be more careful who they’re voting for", ">\n\nHe represents the values of the majority of people who live there.", ">\n\nI hate everything about this town, especially McCarthy." ]

[ "Bakserfield is one of those towns you drive through and say, “thank god I don’t live here”.", ">\n\nYou could tour the shitty places on that highway. Pass by Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton eventually.", ">\n\nI did this on this on the Amtrak for 4.5 years going to college. Thank goodness the stops were briefs.", ">\n\nHim being from Bakersfield makes perfect sense.", ">\n\n“We do not need any more negative publicity.” \nWell look at who you sent to congress. Your community elected him so good ole Mac can make you guys shine. Live by the sword and die by the sword ⚔️. 😵🤷🏼‍♂️", ">\n\nThe part got me is “We are top in so many negatives.” the listed a bunch of thing that, I don’t know, you may hope a representative would work on fixing. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result.", ">\n\nLearned helplessness is a real thing. Source: live in Texas.", ">\n\nJust because you find that life's not fair, it\nDoesn't mean that you just have to grin and bear it\nIf you always take it on the chin and wear it\nNothing will change\n/ your are right, just made me think of this", ">\n\n“All of this stems from his decision to kiss Trump’s ring,” said Mari Goodman, one of the protesters outside McCarthy’s district office.\n“We’re here to remember the people who were hurt and the damage caused,” said Laura Hardman, one of a cluster of January 6 protesters at a busy traffic intersection in Tehachapi, a farm town in McCarthy’s district 40 miles from Bakersfield. “The leaders are still not accountable.”", ">\n\nAs a California native, I’m comfortable saying, Fuck Bakersfield.", ">\n\nI try to get gas before or after Bakersfield on way from SF to Vegas so I don't have to stop.", ">\n\nGas is also insanely expensive in Bakersfield too. Last time I drove thru it was about $1/gal more than a few miles before and after that shithole.", ">\n\nIf you have enough drive straight through to Baker, CA. Cheaper gas and a really good authentic taqueria down the street.", ">\n\nAnd the 76 in Baker has a great convenience store with tons of snacks and jerky! \nBaker > Bakersfield", ">\n\nWhat if they just stopped electing this stained linoleum tile of a man? The Speaker of the House losing reelection needs to be the final layer of this humiliation sandwich.", ">\n\nCan we pay people to move to Bakersfield for this purpose? No?", ">\n\nYoud have to pay a lot. When I drive through Bakersfield I turned off outside air it was so polluted", ">\n\nThat was the smell of Bull-Shit", ">\n\nAhh Bakersfield…. the taint of California.", ">\n\nHe'll have many more embarrassments. He only won because enough people voted present. He couldn't even get a majority of the House to vote for him to lead them. He's never going to have the votes to pass real legislation.", ">\n\nHe doesn't have any intentions of passing any real legislation.", ">\n\nAs someone who was born and raised, and subsequently GTFO of Bakersfield… He very very accurately represents his constituents. \nI stop there to get gas and occasionally eat at local spots, and then hit the freeway.", ">\n\nSame. I still have occasional business there--inherited property--and everytime I visit I see Trump signs everywhere. It was so anti-vax that, back in the early weeks of the vaccination when it was extremely hard to get, people were driving from L.A. to Bakersfield, where anyone could walk in and get one. They have one of the highest muder and violent crime rates in the U.S., but of course rant about crime waves in big cities. It's basically a slice of Oklahoma or Texas plopped in California.", ">\n\nMcCarthy didn't \"prevail\". McCarthy caved.", ">\n\nanyone that has been to bakersfield will agree that there is no way the fucking guy honestly lives in that town.", ">\n\nI agree. Doesn't he represent Bakersfield and Lamcaster or am I confused? Both are pretty terrible. Bakersfield is probably worse but not by much.", ">\n\nFrom Bakersfield, it’s full of a bunch of racists who die from the bad air quality, bad hospital system/health care, bad criminal justice system. The higher education and school system is full of quanon nut jobs as professors and administrators. Agricultural and oil industry works hard to ensure education is hard to get and only want to partner when they have bad PR cases then they reach out to higher education to offer a couple of classes for their employees then when the publicity changes they go back to actively work against education except for their charter schools which they hope to raise indoctrinated kids (yup we have a charter school by an agricultural company). I have had swastikas drawn on my car where I work. The relatively cheap cost of housing comes with immense racism, misogyny, homophobia/transphobia and we have incredibly high crime and health issues. PLUS, we have absolutely nothing entertainment wise to do so you end up driving to LA anyway. PLUS, if you get sick no one here who has good health insurance utilizes our hospitals or doctors beyond just getting referrals you have to go to LA or Bay Area to get the medical assistance you need. We have had people move to Bakersfield then immediately get a job elsewhere as soon as possible as they realized that yes the cost of living is low economically, but the high cost of your health more than outweighs the relative cheapness of getting a house.", ">\n\nSpot on, friend.", ">\n\nUh…”we don’t talk about Kevin, no more”", ">\n\nFormer Bakersfield resident. I’m used to seeing my home town with negative connotations. I’d be surprised if there was anything positive to come out of it.", ">\n\nOne time when I was hitchhiking through CA, I got picked up in Bakersfield by an old lady and her two singing poodles. They sang for me while they gave me a ride towards LA.\nOnly time I’ve ever been near/through Bakersfield and it wasn’t a bad experience? This was in late ‘88 or early ‘89? Can’t remember exactly.", ">\n\nNo sympathy for his constituents. They keep sending this spineless windsock so they should be used to the embarrassment by now.", ">\n\nBakersfield is such a shithole.", ">\n\nWell why the f*ck do they keep electing him?", ">\n\nHave you been to Kern County, CA?", ">\n\nYeah. There’s a reason we call Bakersfield the armpit of Ca", ">\n\nJust checkin.", ">\n\nSomeone bought an add on a digital billboard on I-5 in Sacramento congratulating him on his election to Speaker. What a joke. We'll see if he can beat Liz Truss's tenure.", ">\n\nBakersfield.....Hemet'sbig brother", ">\n\nYawn. The central valley is blighted and should be returned to nature. Cut off all outside water, reroute all the rivers hijacked by their farmers, and let them parch.", ">\n\nIt would become a giant tule marsh.", ">\n\nThere’s not enough water for that, it would be scrubland with a couple large shallow lakes at best.", ">\n\nTrue story. While driving through Bakersfield going home from Vegas we saw a -totally naked- woman walking on the freeway. She looked like a total crackhead. Hubby was disappointed his first naked-woman-on-the-freeway sighting was so disappointing.", ">\n\nEverything about Bakersfield is disappointing.\nThey always think they’re 5 years away from land value skyrocketing but nobody wants to live near a goddamn oil field unless they have to", ">\n\nThen vote him out you dumb asses", ">\n\nThen they should be more careful who they’re voting for", ">\n\nHe represents the values of the majority of people who live there.", ">\n\nI hate everything about this town, especially McCarthy.", ">\n\nI mean it’s not like it will end any time soon." ]

[ "Bakserfield is one of those towns you drive through and say, “thank god I don’t live here”.", ">\n\nYou could tour the shitty places on that highway. Pass by Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton eventually.", ">\n\nI did this on this on the Amtrak for 4.5 years going to college. Thank goodness the stops were briefs.", ">\n\nHim being from Bakersfield makes perfect sense.", ">\n\n“We do not need any more negative publicity.” \nWell look at who you sent to congress. Your community elected him so good ole Mac can make you guys shine. Live by the sword and die by the sword ⚔️. 😵🤷🏼‍♂️", ">\n\nThe part got me is “We are top in so many negatives.” the listed a bunch of thing that, I don’t know, you may hope a representative would work on fixing. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result.", ">\n\nLearned helplessness is a real thing. Source: live in Texas.", ">\n\nJust because you find that life's not fair, it\nDoesn't mean that you just have to grin and bear it\nIf you always take it on the chin and wear it\nNothing will change\n/ your are right, just made me think of this", ">\n\n“All of this stems from his decision to kiss Trump’s ring,” said Mari Goodman, one of the protesters outside McCarthy’s district office.\n“We’re here to remember the people who were hurt and the damage caused,” said Laura Hardman, one of a cluster of January 6 protesters at a busy traffic intersection in Tehachapi, a farm town in McCarthy’s district 40 miles from Bakersfield. “The leaders are still not accountable.”", ">\n\nAs a California native, I’m comfortable saying, Fuck Bakersfield.", ">\n\nI try to get gas before or after Bakersfield on way from SF to Vegas so I don't have to stop.", ">\n\nGas is also insanely expensive in Bakersfield too. Last time I drove thru it was about $1/gal more than a few miles before and after that shithole.", ">\n\nIf you have enough drive straight through to Baker, CA. Cheaper gas and a really good authentic taqueria down the street.", ">\n\nAnd the 76 in Baker has a great convenience store with tons of snacks and jerky! \nBaker > Bakersfield", ">\n\nWhat if they just stopped electing this stained linoleum tile of a man? The Speaker of the House losing reelection needs to be the final layer of this humiliation sandwich.", ">\n\nCan we pay people to move to Bakersfield for this purpose? No?", ">\n\nYoud have to pay a lot. When I drive through Bakersfield I turned off outside air it was so polluted", ">\n\nThat was the smell of Bull-Shit", ">\n\nAhh Bakersfield…. the taint of California.", ">\n\nHe'll have many more embarrassments. He only won because enough people voted present. He couldn't even get a majority of the House to vote for him to lead them. He's never going to have the votes to pass real legislation.", ">\n\nHe doesn't have any intentions of passing any real legislation.", ">\n\nAs someone who was born and raised, and subsequently GTFO of Bakersfield… He very very accurately represents his constituents. \nI stop there to get gas and occasionally eat at local spots, and then hit the freeway.", ">\n\nSame. I still have occasional business there--inherited property--and everytime I visit I see Trump signs everywhere. It was so anti-vax that, back in the early weeks of the vaccination when it was extremely hard to get, people were driving from L.A. to Bakersfield, where anyone could walk in and get one. They have one of the highest muder and violent crime rates in the U.S., but of course rant about crime waves in big cities. It's basically a slice of Oklahoma or Texas plopped in California.", ">\n\nMcCarthy didn't \"prevail\". McCarthy caved.", ">\n\nanyone that has been to bakersfield will agree that there is no way the fucking guy honestly lives in that town.", ">\n\nI agree. Doesn't he represent Bakersfield and Lamcaster or am I confused? Both are pretty terrible. Bakersfield is probably worse but not by much.", ">\n\nFrom Bakersfield, it’s full of a bunch of racists who die from the bad air quality, bad hospital system/health care, bad criminal justice system. The higher education and school system is full of quanon nut jobs as professors and administrators. Agricultural and oil industry works hard to ensure education is hard to get and only want to partner when they have bad PR cases then they reach out to higher education to offer a couple of classes for their employees then when the publicity changes they go back to actively work against education except for their charter schools which they hope to raise indoctrinated kids (yup we have a charter school by an agricultural company). I have had swastikas drawn on my car where I work. The relatively cheap cost of housing comes with immense racism, misogyny, homophobia/transphobia and we have incredibly high crime and health issues. PLUS, we have absolutely nothing entertainment wise to do so you end up driving to LA anyway. PLUS, if you get sick no one here who has good health insurance utilizes our hospitals or doctors beyond just getting referrals you have to go to LA or Bay Area to get the medical assistance you need. We have had people move to Bakersfield then immediately get a job elsewhere as soon as possible as they realized that yes the cost of living is low economically, but the high cost of your health more than outweighs the relative cheapness of getting a house.", ">\n\nSpot on, friend.", ">\n\nUh…”we don’t talk about Kevin, no more”", ">\n\nFormer Bakersfield resident. I’m used to seeing my home town with negative connotations. I’d be surprised if there was anything positive to come out of it.", ">\n\nOne time when I was hitchhiking through CA, I got picked up in Bakersfield by an old lady and her two singing poodles. They sang for me while they gave me a ride towards LA.\nOnly time I’ve ever been near/through Bakersfield and it wasn’t a bad experience? This was in late ‘88 or early ‘89? Can’t remember exactly.", ">\n\nNo sympathy for his constituents. They keep sending this spineless windsock so they should be used to the embarrassment by now.", ">\n\nBakersfield is such a shithole.", ">\n\nWell why the f*ck do they keep electing him?", ">\n\nHave you been to Kern County, CA?", ">\n\nYeah. There’s a reason we call Bakersfield the armpit of Ca", ">\n\nJust checkin.", ">\n\nSomeone bought an add on a digital billboard on I-5 in Sacramento congratulating him on his election to Speaker. What a joke. We'll see if he can beat Liz Truss's tenure.", ">\n\nBakersfield.....Hemet'sbig brother", ">\n\nYawn. The central valley is blighted and should be returned to nature. Cut off all outside water, reroute all the rivers hijacked by their farmers, and let them parch.", ">\n\nIt would become a giant tule marsh.", ">\n\nThere’s not enough water for that, it would be scrubland with a couple large shallow lakes at best.", ">\n\nTrue story. While driving through Bakersfield going home from Vegas we saw a -totally naked- woman walking on the freeway. She looked like a total crackhead. Hubby was disappointed his first naked-woman-on-the-freeway sighting was so disappointing.", ">\n\nEverything about Bakersfield is disappointing.\nThey always think they’re 5 years away from land value skyrocketing but nobody wants to live near a goddamn oil field unless they have to", ">\n\nThen vote him out you dumb asses", ">\n\nThen they should be more careful who they’re voting for", ">\n\nHe represents the values of the majority of people who live there.", ">\n\nI hate everything about this town, especially McCarthy.", ">\n\nI mean it’s not like it will end any time soon.", ">\n\nMcCarthy's voters, like all Republican voters are much more despicable than the shit stains they send to DC." ]

[]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nThere is an argument for people preferring college football over the NFL." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nThere is an argument for people preferring college football over the NFL.", ">\n\nI wouldn’t call college players amateur. Maybe journeymen?" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nThere is an argument for people preferring college football over the NFL.", ">\n\nI wouldn’t call college players amateur. Maybe journeymen?", ">\n\nJust look at how popular YouTube videos are compared to professionally produced entertainment, especially with younger people." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nThere is an argument for people preferring college football over the NFL.", ">\n\nI wouldn’t call college players amateur. Maybe journeymen?", ">\n\nJust look at how popular YouTube videos are compared to professionally produced entertainment, especially with younger people.", ">\n\nYeah but also look at how much YouTube content isn't watchable." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nThere is an argument for people preferring college football over the NFL.", ">\n\nI wouldn’t call college players amateur. Maybe journeymen?", ">\n\nJust look at how popular YouTube videos are compared to professionally produced entertainment, especially with younger people.", ">\n\nYeah but also look at how much YouTube content isn't watchable.", ">\n\nOnly other one I can think of is college sports, and it’s for similar reasons. \n“They’re aren’t just doing it for the money”\n“Some of them WILL go pro” \n“You can tell they love what they’re doing”" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nThere is an argument for people preferring college football over the NFL.", ">\n\nI wouldn’t call college players amateur. Maybe journeymen?", ">\n\nJust look at how popular YouTube videos are compared to professionally produced entertainment, especially with younger people.", ">\n\nYeah but also look at how much YouTube content isn't watchable.", ">\n\nOnly other one I can think of is college sports, and it’s for similar reasons. \n“They’re aren’t just doing it for the money”\n“Some of them WILL go pro” \n“You can tell they love what they’re doing”", ">\n\nBoxing. Outside of a couple big money matches, the amateur circuit is a lot more entertaining than the pro" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nThere is an argument for people preferring college football over the NFL.", ">\n\nI wouldn’t call college players amateur. Maybe journeymen?", ">\n\nJust look at how popular YouTube videos are compared to professionally produced entertainment, especially with younger people.", ">\n\nYeah but also look at how much YouTube content isn't watchable.", ">\n\nOnly other one I can think of is college sports, and it’s for similar reasons. \n“They’re aren’t just doing it for the money”\n“Some of them WILL go pro” \n“You can tell they love what they’re doing”", ">\n\nBoxing. Outside of a couple big money matches, the amateur circuit is a lot more entertaining than the pro", ">\n\nThey do have way more heart and hunger." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nThere is an argument for people preferring college football over the NFL.", ">\n\nI wouldn’t call college players amateur. Maybe journeymen?", ">\n\nJust look at how popular YouTube videos are compared to professionally produced entertainment, especially with younger people.", ">\n\nYeah but also look at how much YouTube content isn't watchable.", ">\n\nOnly other one I can think of is college sports, and it’s for similar reasons. \n“They’re aren’t just doing it for the money”\n“Some of them WILL go pro” \n“You can tell they love what they’re doing”", ">\n\nBoxing. Outside of a couple big money matches, the amateur circuit is a lot more entertaining than the pro", ">\n\nThey do have way more heart and hunger.", ">\n\nYou never heard the expression 'home cooked' as a compliment to food?" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nThere is an argument for people preferring college football over the NFL.", ">\n\nI wouldn’t call college players amateur. Maybe journeymen?", ">\n\nJust look at how popular YouTube videos are compared to professionally produced entertainment, especially with younger people.", ">\n\nYeah but also look at how much YouTube content isn't watchable.", ">\n\nOnly other one I can think of is college sports, and it’s for similar reasons. \n“They’re aren’t just doing it for the money”\n“Some of them WILL go pro” \n“You can tell they love what they’re doing”", ">\n\nBoxing. Outside of a couple big money matches, the amateur circuit is a lot more entertaining than the pro", ">\n\nThey do have way more heart and hunger.", ">\n\nYou never heard the expression 'home cooked' as a compliment to food?", ">\n\nThat’s a good one" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nThere is an argument for people preferring college football over the NFL.", ">\n\nI wouldn’t call college players amateur. Maybe journeymen?", ">\n\nJust look at how popular YouTube videos are compared to professionally produced entertainment, especially with younger people.", ">\n\nYeah but also look at how much YouTube content isn't watchable.", ">\n\nOnly other one I can think of is college sports, and it’s for similar reasons. \n“They’re aren’t just doing it for the money”\n“Some of them WILL go pro” \n“You can tell they love what they’re doing”", ">\n\nBoxing. Outside of a couple big money matches, the amateur circuit is a lot more entertaining than the pro", ">\n\nThey do have way more heart and hunger.", ">\n\nYou never heard the expression 'home cooked' as a compliment to food?", ">\n\nThat’s a good one", ">\n\nI don't mind if the pros make it look Amateurish. Something about it looking like real passion that's hot. (Like it's not just a job) Just like I don't like to pay the prostitute directly. I likes it if she pretend she actually likes me and I just leave the money on the nightstand. And pretend there wasn't an actual transaction. This sounds pathetic as i write it down but idgaf" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nThere is an argument for people preferring college football over the NFL.", ">\n\nI wouldn’t call college players amateur. Maybe journeymen?", ">\n\nJust look at how popular YouTube videos are compared to professionally produced entertainment, especially with younger people.", ">\n\nYeah but also look at how much YouTube content isn't watchable.", ">\n\nOnly other one I can think of is college sports, and it’s for similar reasons. \n“They’re aren’t just doing it for the money”\n“Some of them WILL go pro” \n“You can tell they love what they’re doing”", ">\n\nBoxing. Outside of a couple big money matches, the amateur circuit is a lot more entertaining than the pro", ">\n\nThey do have way more heart and hunger.", ">\n\nYou never heard the expression 'home cooked' as a compliment to food?", ">\n\nThat’s a good one", ">\n\nI don't mind if the pros make it look Amateurish. Something about it looking like real passion that's hot. (Like it's not just a job) Just like I don't like to pay the prostitute directly. I likes it if she pretend she actually likes me and I just leave the money on the nightstand. And pretend there wasn't an actual transaction. This sounds pathetic as i write it down but idgaf", ">\n\nDifference bw amateurs vs pros: 5 lbs of a silicone and a production team." ]

[]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?" ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter" ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?" ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?" ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome" ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?" ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society.", ">\n\nAnd I just disagree with this" ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society.", ">\n\nAnd I just disagree with this", ">\n\nOutcome of an action could have varied extremely due to many circumstances, that would have cause way more injustice. In a buffet style Justice system you are either letting creative murders walk free or punishing people who did nothing wrong.\nNothing is perfect under all circumstances, but that’s not the reason to convert into a worse alternative." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society.", ">\n\nAnd I just disagree with this", ">\n\nOutcome of an action could have varied extremely due to many circumstances, that would have cause way more injustice. In a buffet style Justice system you are either letting creative murders walk free or punishing people who did nothing wrong.\nNothing is perfect under all circumstances, but that’s not the reason to convert into a worse alternative.", ">\n\nThen the US government (which I believe is what we are referring too) can just determine intent on person and the circumstances leading to it. If say you were being lazy on building a structure and a party happens in it and people end up leaving and only moments later it all came down, should the punishment be different if they were still inside and died/got seriously injured?" ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society.", ">\n\nAnd I just disagree with this", ">\n\nOutcome of an action could have varied extremely due to many circumstances, that would have cause way more injustice. In a buffet style Justice system you are either letting creative murders walk free or punishing people who did nothing wrong.\nNothing is perfect under all circumstances, but that’s not the reason to convert into a worse alternative.", ">\n\nThen the US government (which I believe is what we are referring too) can just determine intent on person and the circumstances leading to it. If say you were being lazy on building a structure and a party happens in it and people end up leaving and only moments later it all came down, should the punishment be different if they were still inside and died/got seriously injured?", ">\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \nLiterally every action, even considering the intention, could have caused extremely varied outcome.\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action? \nFor example, A who DUI luckily got home safe vs B who DUI and caused a chain accident with multiple death and injuries. Same action with same intention of getting home, what universal punishment is fair to both?" ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society.", ">\n\nAnd I just disagree with this", ">\n\nOutcome of an action could have varied extremely due to many circumstances, that would have cause way more injustice. In a buffet style Justice system you are either letting creative murders walk free or punishing people who did nothing wrong.\nNothing is perfect under all circumstances, but that’s not the reason to convert into a worse alternative.", ">\n\nThen the US government (which I believe is what we are referring too) can just determine intent on person and the circumstances leading to it. If say you were being lazy on building a structure and a party happens in it and people end up leaving and only moments later it all came down, should the punishment be different if they were still inside and died/got seriously injured?", ">\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \nLiterally every action, even considering the intention, could have caused extremely varied outcome.\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action? \nFor example, A who DUI luckily got home safe vs B who DUI and caused a chain accident with multiple death and injuries. Same action with same intention of getting home, what universal punishment is fair to both?", ">\n\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \n\nTo be honest I don't see the analogy here, think you can give more detail on what you mean here?\n\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action?\n\nNo but that's what much of CMV is about, suggesting ideas to get closer and closer to a never achievable Narnia that are actually very difficult to implement." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society.", ">\n\nAnd I just disagree with this", ">\n\nOutcome of an action could have varied extremely due to many circumstances, that would have cause way more injustice. In a buffet style Justice system you are either letting creative murders walk free or punishing people who did nothing wrong.\nNothing is perfect under all circumstances, but that’s not the reason to convert into a worse alternative.", ">\n\nThen the US government (which I believe is what we are referring too) can just determine intent on person and the circumstances leading to it. If say you were being lazy on building a structure and a party happens in it and people end up leaving and only moments later it all came down, should the punishment be different if they were still inside and died/got seriously injured?", ">\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \nLiterally every action, even considering the intention, could have caused extremely varied outcome.\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action? \nFor example, A who DUI luckily got home safe vs B who DUI and caused a chain accident with multiple death and injuries. Same action with same intention of getting home, what universal punishment is fair to both?", ">\n\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \n\nTo be honest I don't see the analogy here, think you can give more detail on what you mean here?\n\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action?\n\nNo but that's what much of CMV is about, suggesting ideas to get closer and closer to a never achievable Narnia that are actually very difficult to implement.", ">\n\nMy apologies, I thought that was a simple analogy, we both went to the auto center with the intention of getting our car fixed, but the bill will varied based on how much labor and parts we cost the auto center.\nThe thing is, punishment base on action instead of damage is actually less Narnia, because a universal punishment is more unfair, unless that’s the route you want to go." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society.", ">\n\nAnd I just disagree with this", ">\n\nOutcome of an action could have varied extremely due to many circumstances, that would have cause way more injustice. In a buffet style Justice system you are either letting creative murders walk free or punishing people who did nothing wrong.\nNothing is perfect under all circumstances, but that’s not the reason to convert into a worse alternative.", ">\n\nThen the US government (which I believe is what we are referring too) can just determine intent on person and the circumstances leading to it. If say you were being lazy on building a structure and a party happens in it and people end up leaving and only moments later it all came down, should the punishment be different if they were still inside and died/got seriously injured?", ">\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \nLiterally every action, even considering the intention, could have caused extremely varied outcome.\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action? \nFor example, A who DUI luckily got home safe vs B who DUI and caused a chain accident with multiple death and injuries. Same action with same intention of getting home, what universal punishment is fair to both?", ">\n\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \n\nTo be honest I don't see the analogy here, think you can give more detail on what you mean here?\n\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action?\n\nNo but that's what much of CMV is about, suggesting ideas to get closer and closer to a never achievable Narnia that are actually very difficult to implement.", ">\n\nMy apologies, I thought that was a simple analogy, we both went to the auto center with the intention of getting our car fixed, but the bill will varied based on how much labor and parts we cost the auto center.\nThe thing is, punishment base on action instead of damage is actually less Narnia, because a universal punishment is more unfair, unless that’s the route you want to go.", ">\n\nSo if I punch someone and they die or are badly injured I would get the same punishment as if I punch someone and they hardly get a bruise? \nIt's common sense that result effects the sentence. Especially in violent crimes. That gives incentive to stop or restrain in certain situations. And the important thing that the punishment is in some way relative to what happened. Beating someone close to death is different than just leaving someone bruised. Stealing millions is different than stealing a wallet. \nThere's a lot wrong with the justice system but this isn't one of them." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society.", ">\n\nAnd I just disagree with this", ">\n\nOutcome of an action could have varied extremely due to many circumstances, that would have cause way more injustice. In a buffet style Justice system you are either letting creative murders walk free or punishing people who did nothing wrong.\nNothing is perfect under all circumstances, but that’s not the reason to convert into a worse alternative.", ">\n\nThen the US government (which I believe is what we are referring too) can just determine intent on person and the circumstances leading to it. If say you were being lazy on building a structure and a party happens in it and people end up leaving and only moments later it all came down, should the punishment be different if they were still inside and died/got seriously injured?", ">\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \nLiterally every action, even considering the intention, could have caused extremely varied outcome.\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action? \nFor example, A who DUI luckily got home safe vs B who DUI and caused a chain accident with multiple death and injuries. Same action with same intention of getting home, what universal punishment is fair to both?", ">\n\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \n\nTo be honest I don't see the analogy here, think you can give more detail on what you mean here?\n\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action?\n\nNo but that's what much of CMV is about, suggesting ideas to get closer and closer to a never achievable Narnia that are actually very difficult to implement.", ">\n\nMy apologies, I thought that was a simple analogy, we both went to the auto center with the intention of getting our car fixed, but the bill will varied based on how much labor and parts we cost the auto center.\nThe thing is, punishment base on action instead of damage is actually less Narnia, because a universal punishment is more unfair, unless that’s the route you want to go.", ">\n\nSo if I punch someone and they die or are badly injured I would get the same punishment as if I punch someone and they hardly get a bruise? \nIt's common sense that result effects the sentence. Especially in violent crimes. That gives incentive to stop or restrain in certain situations. And the important thing that the punishment is in some way relative to what happened. Beating someone close to death is different than just leaving someone bruised. Stealing millions is different than stealing a wallet. \nThere's a lot wrong with the justice system but this isn't one of them.", ">\n\nWhat do you think punishment is for? Preventing future harm right?\nWell giving a larger punishment to acts that result in harm or death prevents future harm. It prevents someone that was caught doing what they were doing from thinking, \"well, i can't make it any worse now anymore, might as well rape and kill, if nothing else then to get rid of witnesses\". There needs to be a mental out of, \"if i stop now, things will stop getting worse\". And that only works if the punishment can get worse." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society.", ">\n\nAnd I just disagree with this", ">\n\nOutcome of an action could have varied extremely due to many circumstances, that would have cause way more injustice. In a buffet style Justice system you are either letting creative murders walk free or punishing people who did nothing wrong.\nNothing is perfect under all circumstances, but that’s not the reason to convert into a worse alternative.", ">\n\nThen the US government (which I believe is what we are referring too) can just determine intent on person and the circumstances leading to it. If say you were being lazy on building a structure and a party happens in it and people end up leaving and only moments later it all came down, should the punishment be different if they were still inside and died/got seriously injured?", ">\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \nLiterally every action, even considering the intention, could have caused extremely varied outcome.\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action? \nFor example, A who DUI luckily got home safe vs B who DUI and caused a chain accident with multiple death and injuries. Same action with same intention of getting home, what universal punishment is fair to both?", ">\n\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \n\nTo be honest I don't see the analogy here, think you can give more detail on what you mean here?\n\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action?\n\nNo but that's what much of CMV is about, suggesting ideas to get closer and closer to a never achievable Narnia that are actually very difficult to implement.", ">\n\nMy apologies, I thought that was a simple analogy, we both went to the auto center with the intention of getting our car fixed, but the bill will varied based on how much labor and parts we cost the auto center.\nThe thing is, punishment base on action instead of damage is actually less Narnia, because a universal punishment is more unfair, unless that’s the route you want to go.", ">\n\nSo if I punch someone and they die or are badly injured I would get the same punishment as if I punch someone and they hardly get a bruise? \nIt's common sense that result effects the sentence. Especially in violent crimes. That gives incentive to stop or restrain in certain situations. And the important thing that the punishment is in some way relative to what happened. Beating someone close to death is different than just leaving someone bruised. Stealing millions is different than stealing a wallet. \nThere's a lot wrong with the justice system but this isn't one of them.", ">\n\nWhat do you think punishment is for? Preventing future harm right?\nWell giving a larger punishment to acts that result in harm or death prevents future harm. It prevents someone that was caught doing what they were doing from thinking, \"well, i can't make it any worse now anymore, might as well rape and kill, if nothing else then to get rid of witnesses\". There needs to be a mental out of, \"if i stop now, things will stop getting worse\". And that only works if the punishment can get worse.", ">\n\nNah bro if you rob my store and trip on a cord and cause a fire or something, you should also be responsible for the destruction of my property. I had signs up and told people to be careful. If you weren’t running around trying to rob me, it wouldn’t have happened. Both crime and outcome should be taken into consideration. If you shoot the driver of a loaded car, you just killed three other people. If you cause an accident on the highway, it could cause a chain-crash. \nNot to mention paying emotional damage to family members of the deceased? What happens if you get into a car crash cuz you were speeding. You were only going 5 over on the freeway, but it was raining hard and you hydroplaned into another driver and killed them. Sure, it wasn’t your fault and the only real crime was speeding. But what about the driver and the people who care about them?\nBad take IMO" ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society.", ">\n\nAnd I just disagree with this", ">\n\nOutcome of an action could have varied extremely due to many circumstances, that would have cause way more injustice. In a buffet style Justice system you are either letting creative murders walk free or punishing people who did nothing wrong.\nNothing is perfect under all circumstances, but that’s not the reason to convert into a worse alternative.", ">\n\nThen the US government (which I believe is what we are referring too) can just determine intent on person and the circumstances leading to it. If say you were being lazy on building a structure and a party happens in it and people end up leaving and only moments later it all came down, should the punishment be different if they were still inside and died/got seriously injured?", ">\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \nLiterally every action, even considering the intention, could have caused extremely varied outcome.\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action? \nFor example, A who DUI luckily got home safe vs B who DUI and caused a chain accident with multiple death and injuries. Same action with same intention of getting home, what universal punishment is fair to both?", ">\n\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \n\nTo be honest I don't see the analogy here, think you can give more detail on what you mean here?\n\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action?\n\nNo but that's what much of CMV is about, suggesting ideas to get closer and closer to a never achievable Narnia that are actually very difficult to implement.", ">\n\nMy apologies, I thought that was a simple analogy, we both went to the auto center with the intention of getting our car fixed, but the bill will varied based on how much labor and parts we cost the auto center.\nThe thing is, punishment base on action instead of damage is actually less Narnia, because a universal punishment is more unfair, unless that’s the route you want to go.", ">\n\nSo if I punch someone and they die or are badly injured I would get the same punishment as if I punch someone and they hardly get a bruise? \nIt's common sense that result effects the sentence. Especially in violent crimes. That gives incentive to stop or restrain in certain situations. And the important thing that the punishment is in some way relative to what happened. Beating someone close to death is different than just leaving someone bruised. Stealing millions is different than stealing a wallet. \nThere's a lot wrong with the justice system but this isn't one of them.", ">\n\nWhat do you think punishment is for? Preventing future harm right?\nWell giving a larger punishment to acts that result in harm or death prevents future harm. It prevents someone that was caught doing what they were doing from thinking, \"well, i can't make it any worse now anymore, might as well rape and kill, if nothing else then to get rid of witnesses\". There needs to be a mental out of, \"if i stop now, things will stop getting worse\". And that only works if the punishment can get worse.", ">\n\nNah bro if you rob my store and trip on a cord and cause a fire or something, you should also be responsible for the destruction of my property. I had signs up and told people to be careful. If you weren’t running around trying to rob me, it wouldn’t have happened. Both crime and outcome should be taken into consideration. If you shoot the driver of a loaded car, you just killed three other people. If you cause an accident on the highway, it could cause a chain-crash. \nNot to mention paying emotional damage to family members of the deceased? What happens if you get into a car crash cuz you were speeding. You were only going 5 over on the freeway, but it was raining hard and you hydroplaned into another driver and killed them. Sure, it wasn’t your fault and the only real crime was speeding. But what about the driver and the people who care about them?\nBad take IMO", ">\n\nI don't think you're entirely wrong in principle, but in practice, there would be a host of undesirable effects of this. By basing crimes on outcome, there's a deterrence effect, preventing certain behavior that exacerbates the damage of crimes. Ideally, the same effect could be achieved by writing hyper-specific laws that actually connect the potential damage of the crime to the behavior of the criminal. In reality, it's unlikely legislators would actually be capable of considering all the factors that increase danger and properly weigh them, so we'd end up with punishments that are too harsh or too lenient.\nConsider battery. Since punishment is linked to outcome, I'm less likely to batter someone who's likely to be substantially damaged, or batter someone in a way that'd increase damage or whatever. For example, I may be less likely to round house kick a small woman on the sidewalk (where she's likely to suffer substantial damage if she hits her head) than slap a large man standing on a carpet. Sure, laws could be written that punish the former more than the latter, but I don't know if legislators could.\nEDIT: I think this may be a slightly better example. Let's say two people are drunk drivers. Both are equally drunk and both get into a car crash, while travelling 10mph over the speed limit. One crash results in the death of a family of four. The other crash results in no deaths. The difference? One was driving an F-150 and the other was driving a smart car. I doubt laws would be written that punish drunk drivers based on the make and model of their car. But drunk driving and speeding in an F-150 is substantially more dangerous than doing the same thing in a smart car. We ought to punish more dangerous behavior more than less dangerous behavior, and punishing based on outcome does that efficiently." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society.", ">\n\nAnd I just disagree with this", ">\n\nOutcome of an action could have varied extremely due to many circumstances, that would have cause way more injustice. In a buffet style Justice system you are either letting creative murders walk free or punishing people who did nothing wrong.\nNothing is perfect under all circumstances, but that’s not the reason to convert into a worse alternative.", ">\n\nThen the US government (which I believe is what we are referring too) can just determine intent on person and the circumstances leading to it. If say you were being lazy on building a structure and a party happens in it and people end up leaving and only moments later it all came down, should the punishment be different if they were still inside and died/got seriously injured?", ">\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \nLiterally every action, even considering the intention, could have caused extremely varied outcome.\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action? \nFor example, A who DUI luckily got home safe vs B who DUI and caused a chain accident with multiple death and injuries. Same action with same intention of getting home, what universal punishment is fair to both?", ">\n\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \n\nTo be honest I don't see the analogy here, think you can give more detail on what you mean here?\n\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action?\n\nNo but that's what much of CMV is about, suggesting ideas to get closer and closer to a never achievable Narnia that are actually very difficult to implement.", ">\n\nMy apologies, I thought that was a simple analogy, we both went to the auto center with the intention of getting our car fixed, but the bill will varied based on how much labor and parts we cost the auto center.\nThe thing is, punishment base on action instead of damage is actually less Narnia, because a universal punishment is more unfair, unless that’s the route you want to go.", ">\n\nSo if I punch someone and they die or are badly injured I would get the same punishment as if I punch someone and they hardly get a bruise? \nIt's common sense that result effects the sentence. Especially in violent crimes. That gives incentive to stop or restrain in certain situations. And the important thing that the punishment is in some way relative to what happened. Beating someone close to death is different than just leaving someone bruised. Stealing millions is different than stealing a wallet. \nThere's a lot wrong with the justice system but this isn't one of them.", ">\n\nWhat do you think punishment is for? Preventing future harm right?\nWell giving a larger punishment to acts that result in harm or death prevents future harm. It prevents someone that was caught doing what they were doing from thinking, \"well, i can't make it any worse now anymore, might as well rape and kill, if nothing else then to get rid of witnesses\". There needs to be a mental out of, \"if i stop now, things will stop getting worse\". And that only works if the punishment can get worse.", ">\n\nNah bro if you rob my store and trip on a cord and cause a fire or something, you should also be responsible for the destruction of my property. I had signs up and told people to be careful. If you weren’t running around trying to rob me, it wouldn’t have happened. Both crime and outcome should be taken into consideration. If you shoot the driver of a loaded car, you just killed three other people. If you cause an accident on the highway, it could cause a chain-crash. \nNot to mention paying emotional damage to family members of the deceased? What happens if you get into a car crash cuz you were speeding. You were only going 5 over on the freeway, but it was raining hard and you hydroplaned into another driver and killed them. Sure, it wasn’t your fault and the only real crime was speeding. But what about the driver and the people who care about them?\nBad take IMO", ">\n\nI don't think you're entirely wrong in principle, but in practice, there would be a host of undesirable effects of this. By basing crimes on outcome, there's a deterrence effect, preventing certain behavior that exacerbates the damage of crimes. Ideally, the same effect could be achieved by writing hyper-specific laws that actually connect the potential damage of the crime to the behavior of the criminal. In reality, it's unlikely legislators would actually be capable of considering all the factors that increase danger and properly weigh them, so we'd end up with punishments that are too harsh or too lenient.\nConsider battery. Since punishment is linked to outcome, I'm less likely to batter someone who's likely to be substantially damaged, or batter someone in a way that'd increase damage or whatever. For example, I may be less likely to round house kick a small woman on the sidewalk (where she's likely to suffer substantial damage if she hits her head) than slap a large man standing on a carpet. Sure, laws could be written that punish the former more than the latter, but I don't know if legislators could.\nEDIT: I think this may be a slightly better example. Let's say two people are drunk drivers. Both are equally drunk and both get into a car crash, while travelling 10mph over the speed limit. One crash results in the death of a family of four. The other crash results in no deaths. The difference? One was driving an F-150 and the other was driving a smart car. I doubt laws would be written that punish drunk drivers based on the make and model of their car. But drunk driving and speeding in an F-150 is substantially more dangerous than doing the same thing in a smart car. We ought to punish more dangerous behavior more than less dangerous behavior, and punishing based on outcome does that efficiently.", ">\n\nTo clarify: Are you suggesting that stealing a car and stealing a candy bar should carry the same legal weight because both are thefts and someone being deprived of the use of a car shouldn't matter more than someone being deprived of the enjoyment of a candy bar?" ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society.", ">\n\nAnd I just disagree with this", ">\n\nOutcome of an action could have varied extremely due to many circumstances, that would have cause way more injustice. In a buffet style Justice system you are either letting creative murders walk free or punishing people who did nothing wrong.\nNothing is perfect under all circumstances, but that’s not the reason to convert into a worse alternative.", ">\n\nThen the US government (which I believe is what we are referring too) can just determine intent on person and the circumstances leading to it. If say you were being lazy on building a structure and a party happens in it and people end up leaving and only moments later it all came down, should the punishment be different if they were still inside and died/got seriously injured?", ">\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \nLiterally every action, even considering the intention, could have caused extremely varied outcome.\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action? \nFor example, A who DUI luckily got home safe vs B who DUI and caused a chain accident with multiple death and injuries. Same action with same intention of getting home, what universal punishment is fair to both?", ">\n\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \n\nTo be honest I don't see the analogy here, think you can give more detail on what you mean here?\n\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action?\n\nNo but that's what much of CMV is about, suggesting ideas to get closer and closer to a never achievable Narnia that are actually very difficult to implement.", ">\n\nMy apologies, I thought that was a simple analogy, we both went to the auto center with the intention of getting our car fixed, but the bill will varied based on how much labor and parts we cost the auto center.\nThe thing is, punishment base on action instead of damage is actually less Narnia, because a universal punishment is more unfair, unless that’s the route you want to go.", ">\n\nSo if I punch someone and they die or are badly injured I would get the same punishment as if I punch someone and they hardly get a bruise? \nIt's common sense that result effects the sentence. Especially in violent crimes. That gives incentive to stop or restrain in certain situations. And the important thing that the punishment is in some way relative to what happened. Beating someone close to death is different than just leaving someone bruised. Stealing millions is different than stealing a wallet. \nThere's a lot wrong with the justice system but this isn't one of them.", ">\n\nWhat do you think punishment is for? Preventing future harm right?\nWell giving a larger punishment to acts that result in harm or death prevents future harm. It prevents someone that was caught doing what they were doing from thinking, \"well, i can't make it any worse now anymore, might as well rape and kill, if nothing else then to get rid of witnesses\". There needs to be a mental out of, \"if i stop now, things will stop getting worse\". And that only works if the punishment can get worse.", ">\n\nNah bro if you rob my store and trip on a cord and cause a fire or something, you should also be responsible for the destruction of my property. I had signs up and told people to be careful. If you weren’t running around trying to rob me, it wouldn’t have happened. Both crime and outcome should be taken into consideration. If you shoot the driver of a loaded car, you just killed three other people. If you cause an accident on the highway, it could cause a chain-crash. \nNot to mention paying emotional damage to family members of the deceased? What happens if you get into a car crash cuz you were speeding. You were only going 5 over on the freeway, but it was raining hard and you hydroplaned into another driver and killed them. Sure, it wasn’t your fault and the only real crime was speeding. But what about the driver and the people who care about them?\nBad take IMO", ">\n\nI don't think you're entirely wrong in principle, but in practice, there would be a host of undesirable effects of this. By basing crimes on outcome, there's a deterrence effect, preventing certain behavior that exacerbates the damage of crimes. Ideally, the same effect could be achieved by writing hyper-specific laws that actually connect the potential damage of the crime to the behavior of the criminal. In reality, it's unlikely legislators would actually be capable of considering all the factors that increase danger and properly weigh them, so we'd end up with punishments that are too harsh or too lenient.\nConsider battery. Since punishment is linked to outcome, I'm less likely to batter someone who's likely to be substantially damaged, or batter someone in a way that'd increase damage or whatever. For example, I may be less likely to round house kick a small woman on the sidewalk (where she's likely to suffer substantial damage if she hits her head) than slap a large man standing on a carpet. Sure, laws could be written that punish the former more than the latter, but I don't know if legislators could.\nEDIT: I think this may be a slightly better example. Let's say two people are drunk drivers. Both are equally drunk and both get into a car crash, while travelling 10mph over the speed limit. One crash results in the death of a family of four. The other crash results in no deaths. The difference? One was driving an F-150 and the other was driving a smart car. I doubt laws would be written that punish drunk drivers based on the make and model of their car. But drunk driving and speeding in an F-150 is substantially more dangerous than doing the same thing in a smart car. We ought to punish more dangerous behavior more than less dangerous behavior, and punishing based on outcome does that efficiently.", ">\n\nTo clarify: Are you suggesting that stealing a car and stealing a candy bar should carry the same legal weight because both are thefts and someone being deprived of the use of a car shouldn't matter more than someone being deprived of the enjoyment of a candy bar?", ">\n\nThis leads to an interesting thought: Lets say someone drives drunk, and crashes into a bus or something, do they get the same dui as someone who just got pulled over for drunk driving? Because that's what this suggests. \nAlternatively, you could base punishment purely on outcome. If you drive home drunk and don't hit anyone, then clearly you're sober enough to drive home. If you hit someone, you're punished for hitting someone, but why you did doesn't matter. \nIn the former case, taking risks would be punished, regardless of how they turn out. In the latter, taking risks is free, but if you screw things up, you're screwed, at least if you get caught. The implications of either of these are interesting." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society.", ">\n\nAnd I just disagree with this", ">\n\nOutcome of an action could have varied extremely due to many circumstances, that would have cause way more injustice. In a buffet style Justice system you are either letting creative murders walk free or punishing people who did nothing wrong.\nNothing is perfect under all circumstances, but that’s not the reason to convert into a worse alternative.", ">\n\nThen the US government (which I believe is what we are referring too) can just determine intent on person and the circumstances leading to it. If say you were being lazy on building a structure and a party happens in it and people end up leaving and only moments later it all came down, should the punishment be different if they were still inside and died/got seriously injured?", ">\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \nLiterally every action, even considering the intention, could have caused extremely varied outcome.\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action? \nFor example, A who DUI luckily got home safe vs B who DUI and caused a chain accident with multiple death and injuries. Same action with same intention of getting home, what universal punishment is fair to both?", ">\n\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \n\nTo be honest I don't see the analogy here, think you can give more detail on what you mean here?\n\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action?\n\nNo but that's what much of CMV is about, suggesting ideas to get closer and closer to a never achievable Narnia that are actually very difficult to implement.", ">\n\nMy apologies, I thought that was a simple analogy, we both went to the auto center with the intention of getting our car fixed, but the bill will varied based on how much labor and parts we cost the auto center.\nThe thing is, punishment base on action instead of damage is actually less Narnia, because a universal punishment is more unfair, unless that’s the route you want to go.", ">\n\nSo if I punch someone and they die or are badly injured I would get the same punishment as if I punch someone and they hardly get a bruise? \nIt's common sense that result effects the sentence. Especially in violent crimes. That gives incentive to stop or restrain in certain situations. And the important thing that the punishment is in some way relative to what happened. Beating someone close to death is different than just leaving someone bruised. Stealing millions is different than stealing a wallet. \nThere's a lot wrong with the justice system but this isn't one of them.", ">\n\nWhat do you think punishment is for? Preventing future harm right?\nWell giving a larger punishment to acts that result in harm or death prevents future harm. It prevents someone that was caught doing what they were doing from thinking, \"well, i can't make it any worse now anymore, might as well rape and kill, if nothing else then to get rid of witnesses\". There needs to be a mental out of, \"if i stop now, things will stop getting worse\". And that only works if the punishment can get worse.", ">\n\nNah bro if you rob my store and trip on a cord and cause a fire or something, you should also be responsible for the destruction of my property. I had signs up and told people to be careful. If you weren’t running around trying to rob me, it wouldn’t have happened. Both crime and outcome should be taken into consideration. If you shoot the driver of a loaded car, you just killed three other people. If you cause an accident on the highway, it could cause a chain-crash. \nNot to mention paying emotional damage to family members of the deceased? What happens if you get into a car crash cuz you were speeding. You were only going 5 over on the freeway, but it was raining hard and you hydroplaned into another driver and killed them. Sure, it wasn’t your fault and the only real crime was speeding. But what about the driver and the people who care about them?\nBad take IMO", ">\n\nI don't think you're entirely wrong in principle, but in practice, there would be a host of undesirable effects of this. By basing crimes on outcome, there's a deterrence effect, preventing certain behavior that exacerbates the damage of crimes. Ideally, the same effect could be achieved by writing hyper-specific laws that actually connect the potential damage of the crime to the behavior of the criminal. In reality, it's unlikely legislators would actually be capable of considering all the factors that increase danger and properly weigh them, so we'd end up with punishments that are too harsh or too lenient.\nConsider battery. Since punishment is linked to outcome, I'm less likely to batter someone who's likely to be substantially damaged, or batter someone in a way that'd increase damage or whatever. For example, I may be less likely to round house kick a small woman on the sidewalk (where she's likely to suffer substantial damage if she hits her head) than slap a large man standing on a carpet. Sure, laws could be written that punish the former more than the latter, but I don't know if legislators could.\nEDIT: I think this may be a slightly better example. Let's say two people are drunk drivers. Both are equally drunk and both get into a car crash, while travelling 10mph over the speed limit. One crash results in the death of a family of four. The other crash results in no deaths. The difference? One was driving an F-150 and the other was driving a smart car. I doubt laws would be written that punish drunk drivers based on the make and model of their car. But drunk driving and speeding in an F-150 is substantially more dangerous than doing the same thing in a smart car. We ought to punish more dangerous behavior more than less dangerous behavior, and punishing based on outcome does that efficiently.", ">\n\nTo clarify: Are you suggesting that stealing a car and stealing a candy bar should carry the same legal weight because both are thefts and someone being deprived of the use of a car shouldn't matter more than someone being deprived of the enjoyment of a candy bar?", ">\n\nThis leads to an interesting thought: Lets say someone drives drunk, and crashes into a bus or something, do they get the same dui as someone who just got pulled over for drunk driving? Because that's what this suggests. \nAlternatively, you could base punishment purely on outcome. If you drive home drunk and don't hit anyone, then clearly you're sober enough to drive home. If you hit someone, you're punished for hitting someone, but why you did doesn't matter. \nIn the former case, taking risks would be punished, regardless of how they turn out. In the latter, taking risks is free, but if you screw things up, you're screwed, at least if you get caught. The implications of either of these are interesting.", ">\n\nWhile it is true that the circumstances surrounding a crime, including the victim's condition and access to resources, should not be the primary determining factor in the severity of punishment, it is also important to consider the impact of the crime on the victim and society.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one results in harm or death to the victim while the other does not, it is appropriate for the former to face a harsher punishment. The outcome of the crime, in this case, is a direct result of the actions of the offender and should be taken into consideration when determining the appropriate punishment.\nAdditionally, the impact of a crime on society should also be considered when determining punishment. If a crime causes widespread fear or trauma within a community, it is reasonable to impose a more severe punishment in order to deter future occurrences and protect the public." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society.", ">\n\nAnd I just disagree with this", ">\n\nOutcome of an action could have varied extremely due to many circumstances, that would have cause way more injustice. In a buffet style Justice system you are either letting creative murders walk free or punishing people who did nothing wrong.\nNothing is perfect under all circumstances, but that’s not the reason to convert into a worse alternative.", ">\n\nThen the US government (which I believe is what we are referring too) can just determine intent on person and the circumstances leading to it. If say you were being lazy on building a structure and a party happens in it and people end up leaving and only moments later it all came down, should the punishment be different if they were still inside and died/got seriously injured?", ">\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \nLiterally every action, even considering the intention, could have caused extremely varied outcome.\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action? \nFor example, A who DUI luckily got home safe vs B who DUI and caused a chain accident with multiple death and injuries. Same action with same intention of getting home, what universal punishment is fair to both?", ">\n\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \n\nTo be honest I don't see the analogy here, think you can give more detail on what you mean here?\n\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action?\n\nNo but that's what much of CMV is about, suggesting ideas to get closer and closer to a never achievable Narnia that are actually very difficult to implement.", ">\n\nMy apologies, I thought that was a simple analogy, we both went to the auto center with the intention of getting our car fixed, but the bill will varied based on how much labor and parts we cost the auto center.\nThe thing is, punishment base on action instead of damage is actually less Narnia, because a universal punishment is more unfair, unless that’s the route you want to go.", ">\n\nSo if I punch someone and they die or are badly injured I would get the same punishment as if I punch someone and they hardly get a bruise? \nIt's common sense that result effects the sentence. Especially in violent crimes. That gives incentive to stop or restrain in certain situations. And the important thing that the punishment is in some way relative to what happened. Beating someone close to death is different than just leaving someone bruised. Stealing millions is different than stealing a wallet. \nThere's a lot wrong with the justice system but this isn't one of them.", ">\n\nWhat do you think punishment is for? Preventing future harm right?\nWell giving a larger punishment to acts that result in harm or death prevents future harm. It prevents someone that was caught doing what they were doing from thinking, \"well, i can't make it any worse now anymore, might as well rape and kill, if nothing else then to get rid of witnesses\". There needs to be a mental out of, \"if i stop now, things will stop getting worse\". And that only works if the punishment can get worse.", ">\n\nNah bro if you rob my store and trip on a cord and cause a fire or something, you should also be responsible for the destruction of my property. I had signs up and told people to be careful. If you weren’t running around trying to rob me, it wouldn’t have happened. Both crime and outcome should be taken into consideration. If you shoot the driver of a loaded car, you just killed three other people. If you cause an accident on the highway, it could cause a chain-crash. \nNot to mention paying emotional damage to family members of the deceased? What happens if you get into a car crash cuz you were speeding. You were only going 5 over on the freeway, but it was raining hard and you hydroplaned into another driver and killed them. Sure, it wasn’t your fault and the only real crime was speeding. But what about the driver and the people who care about them?\nBad take IMO", ">\n\nI don't think you're entirely wrong in principle, but in practice, there would be a host of undesirable effects of this. By basing crimes on outcome, there's a deterrence effect, preventing certain behavior that exacerbates the damage of crimes. Ideally, the same effect could be achieved by writing hyper-specific laws that actually connect the potential damage of the crime to the behavior of the criminal. In reality, it's unlikely legislators would actually be capable of considering all the factors that increase danger and properly weigh them, so we'd end up with punishments that are too harsh or too lenient.\nConsider battery. Since punishment is linked to outcome, I'm less likely to batter someone who's likely to be substantially damaged, or batter someone in a way that'd increase damage or whatever. For example, I may be less likely to round house kick a small woman on the sidewalk (where she's likely to suffer substantial damage if she hits her head) than slap a large man standing on a carpet. Sure, laws could be written that punish the former more than the latter, but I don't know if legislators could.\nEDIT: I think this may be a slightly better example. Let's say two people are drunk drivers. Both are equally drunk and both get into a car crash, while travelling 10mph over the speed limit. One crash results in the death of a family of four. The other crash results in no deaths. The difference? One was driving an F-150 and the other was driving a smart car. I doubt laws would be written that punish drunk drivers based on the make and model of their car. But drunk driving and speeding in an F-150 is substantially more dangerous than doing the same thing in a smart car. We ought to punish more dangerous behavior more than less dangerous behavior, and punishing based on outcome does that efficiently.", ">\n\nTo clarify: Are you suggesting that stealing a car and stealing a candy bar should carry the same legal weight because both are thefts and someone being deprived of the use of a car shouldn't matter more than someone being deprived of the enjoyment of a candy bar?", ">\n\nThis leads to an interesting thought: Lets say someone drives drunk, and crashes into a bus or something, do they get the same dui as someone who just got pulled over for drunk driving? Because that's what this suggests. \nAlternatively, you could base punishment purely on outcome. If you drive home drunk and don't hit anyone, then clearly you're sober enough to drive home. If you hit someone, you're punished for hitting someone, but why you did doesn't matter. \nIn the former case, taking risks would be punished, regardless of how they turn out. In the latter, taking risks is free, but if you screw things up, you're screwed, at least if you get caught. The implications of either of these are interesting.", ">\n\nWhile it is true that the circumstances surrounding a crime, including the victim's condition and access to resources, should not be the primary determining factor in the severity of punishment, it is also important to consider the impact of the crime on the victim and society.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one results in harm or death to the victim while the other does not, it is appropriate for the former to face a harsher punishment. The outcome of the crime, in this case, is a direct result of the actions of the offender and should be taken into consideration when determining the appropriate punishment.\nAdditionally, the impact of a crime on society should also be considered when determining punishment. If a crime causes widespread fear or trauma within a community, it is reasonable to impose a more severe punishment in order to deter future occurrences and protect the public.", ">\n\n\nThe act of committing a crime, regardless of the consequences, is a serious offense and should be punished accordingly.\n\nWhat's the incentive for violent criminals not just execute eyewitnesses if the OUTCOME of the crime is irrelevant? If I'm caught and go to prison for life, might as well maximize my chances of not getting caught." ]

[ "What's wrong with the system where both are factored in and weighted accordingly? \nFor example, premeditated murder, attempted murder, manslaughter and assault are all different crimes but the difference is based on the outcome, the difference between attempted murder and murder is simply the outcome same with assault and manslaughter. \nI mean manslaughter and assault in particular are a hard one to square. Murder and attempted murder you could charge them both as murder and that'd be a at least function but you can't charge every assault as manslaughter nor do I think dropping down the sentencing for manslaughter to assault levels would fly. Assault in general the punishment is varies greatly just as a consequence of the nature of it, someone could be beating you repeatedly on the ground vs a slap in the face and both are generally considered assault there's degrees and stuff in some places but those are often faced on the outcome largely as well and I really don't see how you could possibly remove outcome from the equation entirely at least when it comes to assault and manslaughter.", ">\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind. And indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions. \nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator. \nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?", ">\n\n\nBut manslaughter and assault differ considerably from premeditated murder in aspects other than the outcome, most notably in the intent and state of mind.\n\nYes but the only difference between manslaughter and assault is outcome. \n\nAnd indeed different instances of assault will have different levels of severity, separate from (though not uncorrelated with) the outcome. Someone getting a single shove, and someone getting violently beaten for minutes, those clearly are very different events and should lead to different repercussions.\n\nAgreed, but if the shove usually gets a person like 3 months but in this case the person fell over and hit their head and died do you think 3 months is still appropriate? \n\nDepending on the circumstances, the consequences of what happened can be quite informative about the chain of events as well as their severity, and in that sense would still be relevant. But I generally agree with OP that it doesn’t really make a lot of sense with these kinds of crimes for those to factor directly into the punishment beyond that, since they are outside the control of the perpetrator.\n\nSo you're basically saying you disagree with the charge of manslaughter existing. \n\nIf, say, I attempt to kill someone but due to chance or incompetence or timely intervention of emergency services the victim survives, why should that give me a lesser sentence than had they ended up dying? Or conversely, if I get into a heated argument with someone, and there’s a bit of a minor scuffle in which I give them a push, and due to some unforeseeable fluke they get severely injured, why should that give me a more severe punishment than if they had remained entirely unscathed like with almost any other push?\n\nBecause the victims family is going to be pissed if the person who killed their member only got 3 months because he died to a shove.", ">\n\nSo what your proposing is that deontological ethics (actions) are better than teleological ethics (consequences). \nOne problem with removing the real world from ethics is that it won't be as clear that whoever is deciding right and wrong is doing so fairly rather than in a way that benefits them.\nThis would also lead to distracted driving carrying the same penalty as vehicular manslaughter since it's the action and not the result that matters in this worldview. vehicular manslaughter carries the same punishment as murder One which in a lot of places is the death penalty. So if you get caught eating a cheeseburger while you're driving you get killed by the state.\nAnother problem with it is in thorny cases like self defense. If killing is blindly interpreted as wrong in all cases then people will go to prison for defending themselves and their families universally.\nYou say that extraneous factors should not be considered when dealing out punishments, but this would imply that if a child kills their rapist then the state would execute the child if they had capital punishment.", ">\n\nI think the ones that end up killing people should see the same charge as the ones who don't if it was actual manslaughter", ">\n\nSimilar was just posted yesterday:\nScenario A: Individual drives under the influence and hits someone. Victim survives with either minor injuries or none at all.\nWhat if this driver does this exact same thing over and over? Should the legal consequences remain exactly the same each time or should they become more severe with each repetition of the exact same infraction(s)? Let’s say after the first time you hit someone you then know that the possibility of driving under the influence can kill somebody by hitting them, is it okay that the driver takes this chance with other peoples’ lives over and over and gets the same consequences repetitively as if they don’t know what they’re doing could kill someone? Even though the outcome of their actions don’t change, no one is killed, shouldn’t the consequences become more severe because they’re repeatedly ignoring the law?", ">\n\nPlease correct me if I am wrong because I may well be, but I always thought that this wasn’t necessarily the case. Like the punishment for attempted murder is the same as for murder. You don’t get off easy because you were bad at it.\nBut I would put forward that impact has some bearing because otherwise we can extrapolate almost infinitely what the impact may have been. For example, you carjacked a car and drove dangerously. You could have killed someone but didn’t. Should the crime of carjacking now be considered on the same basis as manslaughter because of the potential harm you could have done?", ">\n\nPunishments are based on the crime. Attempted murder is a different crime from successful murder, and therefore are punished differently.", ">\n\nThat crime is still based on outcome", ">\n\nThere is some merit to the argument that punishments should be based on the crime itself rather than the outcome. It's important to hold individuals accountable for their actions and to focus on the wrongdoing that they have committed.\nHowever, it's also important to consider the impact that the crime has had on the victim and the community. In some cases, the consequences of a crime can be severe and long-lasting, and it may be appropriate to take these into account when determining the punishment.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one causes serious harm to the victim while the other does not, it may be appropriate to impose a harsher punishment on the offender who caused harm. This is because the impact of the crime on the victim and the community may be greater in this case, and a punishment that takes this into account may be seen as more fair and just.\nUltimately, it's important to strike a balance between holding offenders accountable for their actions and considering the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.", ">\n\n\nIt is commonly accepted that harsher punishments should be imposed for crimes that result in harm or death to the victim. However, I believe that the punishment should be based on the nature of the crime itself, rather than the outcome.\n\nAgain, they are DIFFERENT CRIMES.\nCrimes are not just the original precipitating action.", ">\n\nI guess Tyler Skaggs death is a decent test case for your theory. You can get two years 10 years or 20 years for distributing fentanyl. Eric Kay received 22 years, largely because Skaggs died and was pro baseball player. \nSo what should of happened?", ">\n\nPunishment should be logically proportional to the damage, not the act.\nA who started a fire that went out by itself vs. B who started a fire that burned down the entire city and killed thousands of people.\nA who broke into a safe and stole all 10 dollars in it vs. B who broke into a safe and stole all 10 millions in it.\nThe damage can be depended on luck, but luck is irrelevant to the punishment, you are being punished for the damage you inflicted on other people or the society.", ">\n\nAnd I just disagree with this", ">\n\nOutcome of an action could have varied extremely due to many circumstances, that would have cause way more injustice. In a buffet style Justice system you are either letting creative murders walk free or punishing people who did nothing wrong.\nNothing is perfect under all circumstances, but that’s not the reason to convert into a worse alternative.", ">\n\nThen the US government (which I believe is what we are referring too) can just determine intent on person and the circumstances leading to it. If say you were being lazy on building a structure and a party happens in it and people end up leaving and only moments later it all came down, should the punishment be different if they were still inside and died/got seriously injured?", ">\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \nLiterally every action, even considering the intention, could have caused extremely varied outcome.\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action? \nFor example, A who DUI luckily got home safe vs B who DUI and caused a chain accident with multiple death and injuries. Same action with same intention of getting home, what universal punishment is fair to both?", ">\n\n\nIf I go to an auto center to get oil changed, should I pay as much as the next guy who is getting his engine replaced? Or another way around? \n\nTo be honest I don't see the analogy here, think you can give more detail on what you mean here?\n\nCould you suggest an universal punishment that fairly covers every possible outcome of an action?\n\nNo but that's what much of CMV is about, suggesting ideas to get closer and closer to a never achievable Narnia that are actually very difficult to implement.", ">\n\nMy apologies, I thought that was a simple analogy, we both went to the auto center with the intention of getting our car fixed, but the bill will varied based on how much labor and parts we cost the auto center.\nThe thing is, punishment base on action instead of damage is actually less Narnia, because a universal punishment is more unfair, unless that’s the route you want to go.", ">\n\nSo if I punch someone and they die or are badly injured I would get the same punishment as if I punch someone and they hardly get a bruise? \nIt's common sense that result effects the sentence. Especially in violent crimes. That gives incentive to stop or restrain in certain situations. And the important thing that the punishment is in some way relative to what happened. Beating someone close to death is different than just leaving someone bruised. Stealing millions is different than stealing a wallet. \nThere's a lot wrong with the justice system but this isn't one of them.", ">\n\nWhat do you think punishment is for? Preventing future harm right?\nWell giving a larger punishment to acts that result in harm or death prevents future harm. It prevents someone that was caught doing what they were doing from thinking, \"well, i can't make it any worse now anymore, might as well rape and kill, if nothing else then to get rid of witnesses\". There needs to be a mental out of, \"if i stop now, things will stop getting worse\". And that only works if the punishment can get worse.", ">\n\nNah bro if you rob my store and trip on a cord and cause a fire or something, you should also be responsible for the destruction of my property. I had signs up and told people to be careful. If you weren’t running around trying to rob me, it wouldn’t have happened. Both crime and outcome should be taken into consideration. If you shoot the driver of a loaded car, you just killed three other people. If you cause an accident on the highway, it could cause a chain-crash. \nNot to mention paying emotional damage to family members of the deceased? What happens if you get into a car crash cuz you were speeding. You were only going 5 over on the freeway, but it was raining hard and you hydroplaned into another driver and killed them. Sure, it wasn’t your fault and the only real crime was speeding. But what about the driver and the people who care about them?\nBad take IMO", ">\n\nI don't think you're entirely wrong in principle, but in practice, there would be a host of undesirable effects of this. By basing crimes on outcome, there's a deterrence effect, preventing certain behavior that exacerbates the damage of crimes. Ideally, the same effect could be achieved by writing hyper-specific laws that actually connect the potential damage of the crime to the behavior of the criminal. In reality, it's unlikely legislators would actually be capable of considering all the factors that increase danger and properly weigh them, so we'd end up with punishments that are too harsh or too lenient.\nConsider battery. Since punishment is linked to outcome, I'm less likely to batter someone who's likely to be substantially damaged, or batter someone in a way that'd increase damage or whatever. For example, I may be less likely to round house kick a small woman on the sidewalk (where she's likely to suffer substantial damage if she hits her head) than slap a large man standing on a carpet. Sure, laws could be written that punish the former more than the latter, but I don't know if legislators could.\nEDIT: I think this may be a slightly better example. Let's say two people are drunk drivers. Both are equally drunk and both get into a car crash, while travelling 10mph over the speed limit. One crash results in the death of a family of four. The other crash results in no deaths. The difference? One was driving an F-150 and the other was driving a smart car. I doubt laws would be written that punish drunk drivers based on the make and model of their car. But drunk driving and speeding in an F-150 is substantially more dangerous than doing the same thing in a smart car. We ought to punish more dangerous behavior more than less dangerous behavior, and punishing based on outcome does that efficiently.", ">\n\nTo clarify: Are you suggesting that stealing a car and stealing a candy bar should carry the same legal weight because both are thefts and someone being deprived of the use of a car shouldn't matter more than someone being deprived of the enjoyment of a candy bar?", ">\n\nThis leads to an interesting thought: Lets say someone drives drunk, and crashes into a bus or something, do they get the same dui as someone who just got pulled over for drunk driving? Because that's what this suggests. \nAlternatively, you could base punishment purely on outcome. If you drive home drunk and don't hit anyone, then clearly you're sober enough to drive home. If you hit someone, you're punished for hitting someone, but why you did doesn't matter. \nIn the former case, taking risks would be punished, regardless of how they turn out. In the latter, taking risks is free, but if you screw things up, you're screwed, at least if you get caught. The implications of either of these are interesting.", ">\n\nWhile it is true that the circumstances surrounding a crime, including the victim's condition and access to resources, should not be the primary determining factor in the severity of punishment, it is also important to consider the impact of the crime on the victim and society.\nFor example, if two individuals commit the same crime, but one results in harm or death to the victim while the other does not, it is appropriate for the former to face a harsher punishment. The outcome of the crime, in this case, is a direct result of the actions of the offender and should be taken into consideration when determining the appropriate punishment.\nAdditionally, the impact of a crime on society should also be considered when determining punishment. If a crime causes widespread fear or trauma within a community, it is reasonable to impose a more severe punishment in order to deter future occurrences and protect the public.", ">\n\n\nThe act of committing a crime, regardless of the consequences, is a serious offense and should be punished accordingly.\n\nWhat's the incentive for violent criminals not just execute eyewitnesses if the OUTCOME of the crime is irrelevant? If I'm caught and go to prison for life, might as well maximize my chances of not getting caught.", ">\n\nIt’s more about how hard it is to actually properly consider these factors when punishing someone. How much value would you assign to each contributing circumstance? How would this then empirically determine the punishment? Seems like a lot of subjectiveness based on the judge, which is exactly what we tried to get away from in our original justice system by instituting common law. \nIt’s much more practical and consistent to judge action and outcome rather than the circumstances in which an action was committed. You also run the risk of negating centuries of precedent or even creating new dangerous ones." ]

[]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race..." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly)." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis", ">\n\nLarry Hogan should never be president. When the GOP was at it's worst, he refused to stand up to it or Trump. The only time he ever actually stood up to anyone was Dan Cox in a local election where it was safe to do so. Any time he is questioned by the media about what's happening at the national level he ducks the question. He even endorsed a slightly less radical candidate because \"it's bad to let Democrats have all the positions of power.\"\nThen let's get to his moment of history on January 6th. Governor Hogan was well aware of the chaos and how beleaguered the Capitol Police were. His response to the coup was \"I have not been asked to send in the national guard and I am waiting for that call.\" That was his excuse for not taking timely action. So the guy that wants to be in charge of defending the country didn't want to actually do that in the face of a coup.\nHe won't defend his country and he won't stand against the fascism that has taken over his party." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis", ">\n\nLarry Hogan should never be president. When the GOP was at it's worst, he refused to stand up to it or Trump. The only time he ever actually stood up to anyone was Dan Cox in a local election where it was safe to do so. Any time he is questioned by the media about what's happening at the national level he ducks the question. He even endorsed a slightly less radical candidate because \"it's bad to let Democrats have all the positions of power.\"\nThen let's get to his moment of history on January 6th. Governor Hogan was well aware of the chaos and how beleaguered the Capitol Police were. His response to the coup was \"I have not been asked to send in the national guard and I am waiting for that call.\" That was his excuse for not taking timely action. So the guy that wants to be in charge of defending the country didn't want to actually do that in the face of a coup.\nHe won't defend his country and he won't stand against the fascism that has taken over his party.", ">\n\nMarylander here. This isn’t accurate. He indeed offered the services of the Maryland National Guard, but was rejected by the powers that be in DC. You can’t just send in your NG units into the nation’s capital against the will of the decision makers that preferred to keep the fire roaring.\nHe has very overtly stood up to Trump and his bullshit. His handling of COVID was a prime example of that. While Trump was holding federal aid and supplies back, particularly from Democrat-heavy states (Maryland is despite having a Republican governor at the time). Dude went out and sourced what he could on his own while Trump pitted states against each other to get whatever crumbs of help they could get from the feds.\nHe’s not perfect, not by a long shot. However, he has done a pretty good job as Governor and I think he’s be a better Republican candidate than most of the alternatives." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis", ">\n\nLarry Hogan should never be president. When the GOP was at it's worst, he refused to stand up to it or Trump. The only time he ever actually stood up to anyone was Dan Cox in a local election where it was safe to do so. Any time he is questioned by the media about what's happening at the national level he ducks the question. He even endorsed a slightly less radical candidate because \"it's bad to let Democrats have all the positions of power.\"\nThen let's get to his moment of history on January 6th. Governor Hogan was well aware of the chaos and how beleaguered the Capitol Police were. His response to the coup was \"I have not been asked to send in the national guard and I am waiting for that call.\" That was his excuse for not taking timely action. So the guy that wants to be in charge of defending the country didn't want to actually do that in the face of a coup.\nHe won't defend his country and he won't stand against the fascism that has taken over his party.", ">\n\nMarylander here. This isn’t accurate. He indeed offered the services of the Maryland National Guard, but was rejected by the powers that be in DC. You can’t just send in your NG units into the nation’s capital against the will of the decision makers that preferred to keep the fire roaring.\nHe has very overtly stood up to Trump and his bullshit. His handling of COVID was a prime example of that. While Trump was holding federal aid and supplies back, particularly from Democrat-heavy states (Maryland is despite having a Republican governor at the time). Dude went out and sourced what he could on his own while Trump pitted states against each other to get whatever crumbs of help they could get from the feds.\nHe’s not perfect, not by a long shot. However, he has done a pretty good job as Governor and I think he’s be a better Republican candidate than most of the alternatives.", ">\n\nHe’s still a Republican and still supports most of their shitty ideology, especially on economic issues, he’s just a little bit softer around the edges when it comes to social issues" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis", ">\n\nLarry Hogan should never be president. When the GOP was at it's worst, he refused to stand up to it or Trump. The only time he ever actually stood up to anyone was Dan Cox in a local election where it was safe to do so. Any time he is questioned by the media about what's happening at the national level he ducks the question. He even endorsed a slightly less radical candidate because \"it's bad to let Democrats have all the positions of power.\"\nThen let's get to his moment of history on January 6th. Governor Hogan was well aware of the chaos and how beleaguered the Capitol Police were. His response to the coup was \"I have not been asked to send in the national guard and I am waiting for that call.\" That was his excuse for not taking timely action. So the guy that wants to be in charge of defending the country didn't want to actually do that in the face of a coup.\nHe won't defend his country and he won't stand against the fascism that has taken over his party.", ">\n\nMarylander here. This isn’t accurate. He indeed offered the services of the Maryland National Guard, but was rejected by the powers that be in DC. You can’t just send in your NG units into the nation’s capital against the will of the decision makers that preferred to keep the fire roaring.\nHe has very overtly stood up to Trump and his bullshit. His handling of COVID was a prime example of that. While Trump was holding federal aid and supplies back, particularly from Democrat-heavy states (Maryland is despite having a Republican governor at the time). Dude went out and sourced what he could on his own while Trump pitted states against each other to get whatever crumbs of help they could get from the feds.\nHe’s not perfect, not by a long shot. However, he has done a pretty good job as Governor and I think he’s be a better Republican candidate than most of the alternatives.", ">\n\nHe’s still a Republican and still supports most of their shitty ideology, especially on economic issues, he’s just a little bit softer around the edges when it comes to social issues", ">\n\nHogan would win in a lndlsude" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis", ">\n\nLarry Hogan should never be president. When the GOP was at it's worst, he refused to stand up to it or Trump. The only time he ever actually stood up to anyone was Dan Cox in a local election where it was safe to do so. Any time he is questioned by the media about what's happening at the national level he ducks the question. He even endorsed a slightly less radical candidate because \"it's bad to let Democrats have all the positions of power.\"\nThen let's get to his moment of history on January 6th. Governor Hogan was well aware of the chaos and how beleaguered the Capitol Police were. His response to the coup was \"I have not been asked to send in the national guard and I am waiting for that call.\" That was his excuse for not taking timely action. So the guy that wants to be in charge of defending the country didn't want to actually do that in the face of a coup.\nHe won't defend his country and he won't stand against the fascism that has taken over his party.", ">\n\nMarylander here. This isn’t accurate. He indeed offered the services of the Maryland National Guard, but was rejected by the powers that be in DC. You can’t just send in your NG units into the nation’s capital against the will of the decision makers that preferred to keep the fire roaring.\nHe has very overtly stood up to Trump and his bullshit. His handling of COVID was a prime example of that. While Trump was holding federal aid and supplies back, particularly from Democrat-heavy states (Maryland is despite having a Republican governor at the time). Dude went out and sourced what he could on his own while Trump pitted states against each other to get whatever crumbs of help they could get from the feds.\nHe’s not perfect, not by a long shot. However, he has done a pretty good job as Governor and I think he’s be a better Republican candidate than most of the alternatives.", ">\n\nHe’s still a Republican and still supports most of their shitty ideology, especially on economic issues, he’s just a little bit softer around the edges when it comes to social issues", ">\n\nHogan would win in a lndlsude", ">\n\nA republican hasn't won the popular vote without incumbency since Reagan. They might win, but they're not winning shit in a landslide." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis", ">\n\nLarry Hogan should never be president. When the GOP was at it's worst, he refused to stand up to it or Trump. The only time he ever actually stood up to anyone was Dan Cox in a local election where it was safe to do so. Any time he is questioned by the media about what's happening at the national level he ducks the question. He even endorsed a slightly less radical candidate because \"it's bad to let Democrats have all the positions of power.\"\nThen let's get to his moment of history on January 6th. Governor Hogan was well aware of the chaos and how beleaguered the Capitol Police were. His response to the coup was \"I have not been asked to send in the national guard and I am waiting for that call.\" That was his excuse for not taking timely action. So the guy that wants to be in charge of defending the country didn't want to actually do that in the face of a coup.\nHe won't defend his country and he won't stand against the fascism that has taken over his party.", ">\n\nMarylander here. This isn’t accurate. He indeed offered the services of the Maryland National Guard, but was rejected by the powers that be in DC. You can’t just send in your NG units into the nation’s capital against the will of the decision makers that preferred to keep the fire roaring.\nHe has very overtly stood up to Trump and his bullshit. His handling of COVID was a prime example of that. While Trump was holding federal aid and supplies back, particularly from Democrat-heavy states (Maryland is despite having a Republican governor at the time). Dude went out and sourced what he could on his own while Trump pitted states against each other to get whatever crumbs of help they could get from the feds.\nHe’s not perfect, not by a long shot. However, he has done a pretty good job as Governor and I think he’s be a better Republican candidate than most of the alternatives.", ">\n\nHe’s still a Republican and still supports most of their shitty ideology, especially on economic issues, he’s just a little bit softer around the edges when it comes to social issues", ">\n\nHogan would win in a lndlsude", ">\n\nA republican hasn't won the popular vote without incumbency since Reagan. They might win, but they're not winning shit in a landslide.", ">\n\nLandslide was surely a poor choice of word on my part. Let’s change that to an overwhelming victory. This sub leans heavily left and frequently overestimates the share of the population that identifies as democrat or liberal. The battle is not for the left or the right, it is for the middle and the moderates. It’s how Biden, Trump, Obama, and Bush all won, in the middle. Las poll I saw has even democrats wanting someone other than Biden to run. Hogan took on Trump and was a popular R governor in a reliably blue state. I doubt he can win the primary, but if he did Biden or Harris would not stand a chance." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis", ">\n\nLarry Hogan should never be president. When the GOP was at it's worst, he refused to stand up to it or Trump. The only time he ever actually stood up to anyone was Dan Cox in a local election where it was safe to do so. Any time he is questioned by the media about what's happening at the national level he ducks the question. He even endorsed a slightly less radical candidate because \"it's bad to let Democrats have all the positions of power.\"\nThen let's get to his moment of history on January 6th. Governor Hogan was well aware of the chaos and how beleaguered the Capitol Police were. His response to the coup was \"I have not been asked to send in the national guard and I am waiting for that call.\" That was his excuse for not taking timely action. So the guy that wants to be in charge of defending the country didn't want to actually do that in the face of a coup.\nHe won't defend his country and he won't stand against the fascism that has taken over his party.", ">\n\nMarylander here. This isn’t accurate. He indeed offered the services of the Maryland National Guard, but was rejected by the powers that be in DC. You can’t just send in your NG units into the nation’s capital against the will of the decision makers that preferred to keep the fire roaring.\nHe has very overtly stood up to Trump and his bullshit. His handling of COVID was a prime example of that. While Trump was holding federal aid and supplies back, particularly from Democrat-heavy states (Maryland is despite having a Republican governor at the time). Dude went out and sourced what he could on his own while Trump pitted states against each other to get whatever crumbs of help they could get from the feds.\nHe’s not perfect, not by a long shot. However, he has done a pretty good job as Governor and I think he’s be a better Republican candidate than most of the alternatives.", ">\n\nHe’s still a Republican and still supports most of their shitty ideology, especially on economic issues, he’s just a little bit softer around the edges when it comes to social issues", ">\n\nHogan would win in a lndlsude", ">\n\nA republican hasn't won the popular vote without incumbency since Reagan. They might win, but they're not winning shit in a landslide.", ">\n\nLandslide was surely a poor choice of word on my part. Let’s change that to an overwhelming victory. This sub leans heavily left and frequently overestimates the share of the population that identifies as democrat or liberal. The battle is not for the left or the right, it is for the middle and the moderates. It’s how Biden, Trump, Obama, and Bush all won, in the middle. Las poll I saw has even democrats wanting someone other than Biden to run. Hogan took on Trump and was a popular R governor in a reliably blue state. I doubt he can win the primary, but if he did Biden or Harris would not stand a chance.", ">\n\nIt's very cute that the US media still thinks moderate Republicans exist in the US electorate. All of those people are Independent now. The only Republicans left are the Qrazies" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis", ">\n\nLarry Hogan should never be president. When the GOP was at it's worst, he refused to stand up to it or Trump. The only time he ever actually stood up to anyone was Dan Cox in a local election where it was safe to do so. Any time he is questioned by the media about what's happening at the national level he ducks the question. He even endorsed a slightly less radical candidate because \"it's bad to let Democrats have all the positions of power.\"\nThen let's get to his moment of history on January 6th. Governor Hogan was well aware of the chaos and how beleaguered the Capitol Police were. His response to the coup was \"I have not been asked to send in the national guard and I am waiting for that call.\" That was his excuse for not taking timely action. So the guy that wants to be in charge of defending the country didn't want to actually do that in the face of a coup.\nHe won't defend his country and he won't stand against the fascism that has taken over his party.", ">\n\nMarylander here. This isn’t accurate. He indeed offered the services of the Maryland National Guard, but was rejected by the powers that be in DC. You can’t just send in your NG units into the nation’s capital against the will of the decision makers that preferred to keep the fire roaring.\nHe has very overtly stood up to Trump and his bullshit. His handling of COVID was a prime example of that. While Trump was holding federal aid and supplies back, particularly from Democrat-heavy states (Maryland is despite having a Republican governor at the time). Dude went out and sourced what he could on his own while Trump pitted states against each other to get whatever crumbs of help they could get from the feds.\nHe’s not perfect, not by a long shot. However, he has done a pretty good job as Governor and I think he’s be a better Republican candidate than most of the alternatives.", ">\n\nHe’s still a Republican and still supports most of their shitty ideology, especially on economic issues, he’s just a little bit softer around the edges when it comes to social issues", ">\n\nHogan would win in a lndlsude", ">\n\nA republican hasn't won the popular vote without incumbency since Reagan. They might win, but they're not winning shit in a landslide.", ">\n\nLandslide was surely a poor choice of word on my part. Let’s change that to an overwhelming victory. This sub leans heavily left and frequently overestimates the share of the population that identifies as democrat or liberal. The battle is not for the left or the right, it is for the middle and the moderates. It’s how Biden, Trump, Obama, and Bush all won, in the middle. Las poll I saw has even democrats wanting someone other than Biden to run. Hogan took on Trump and was a popular R governor in a reliably blue state. I doubt he can win the primary, but if he did Biden or Harris would not stand a chance.", ">\n\nIt's very cute that the US media still thinks moderate Republicans exist in the US electorate. All of those people are Independent now. The only Republicans left are the Qrazies", ">\n\nIt's a sacrifice the MAGA hordes are willing to accept. Indeed, any RINO who considers Hogan will be consigned to electoral oblivion in the GQP.\nIs anything more pathetic than the liberal WaPo believing it could use moral suasion to affect change in the GOP?" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis", ">\n\nLarry Hogan should never be president. When the GOP was at it's worst, he refused to stand up to it or Trump. The only time he ever actually stood up to anyone was Dan Cox in a local election where it was safe to do so. Any time he is questioned by the media about what's happening at the national level he ducks the question. He even endorsed a slightly less radical candidate because \"it's bad to let Democrats have all the positions of power.\"\nThen let's get to his moment of history on January 6th. Governor Hogan was well aware of the chaos and how beleaguered the Capitol Police were. His response to the coup was \"I have not been asked to send in the national guard and I am waiting for that call.\" That was his excuse for not taking timely action. So the guy that wants to be in charge of defending the country didn't want to actually do that in the face of a coup.\nHe won't defend his country and he won't stand against the fascism that has taken over his party.", ">\n\nMarylander here. This isn’t accurate. He indeed offered the services of the Maryland National Guard, but was rejected by the powers that be in DC. You can’t just send in your NG units into the nation’s capital against the will of the decision makers that preferred to keep the fire roaring.\nHe has very overtly stood up to Trump and his bullshit. His handling of COVID was a prime example of that. While Trump was holding federal aid and supplies back, particularly from Democrat-heavy states (Maryland is despite having a Republican governor at the time). Dude went out and sourced what he could on his own while Trump pitted states against each other to get whatever crumbs of help they could get from the feds.\nHe’s not perfect, not by a long shot. However, he has done a pretty good job as Governor and I think he’s be a better Republican candidate than most of the alternatives.", ">\n\nHe’s still a Republican and still supports most of their shitty ideology, especially on economic issues, he’s just a little bit softer around the edges when it comes to social issues", ">\n\nHogan would win in a lndlsude", ">\n\nA republican hasn't won the popular vote without incumbency since Reagan. They might win, but they're not winning shit in a landslide.", ">\n\nLandslide was surely a poor choice of word on my part. Let’s change that to an overwhelming victory. This sub leans heavily left and frequently overestimates the share of the population that identifies as democrat or liberal. The battle is not for the left or the right, it is for the middle and the moderates. It’s how Biden, Trump, Obama, and Bush all won, in the middle. Las poll I saw has even democrats wanting someone other than Biden to run. Hogan took on Trump and was a popular R governor in a reliably blue state. I doubt he can win the primary, but if he did Biden or Harris would not stand a chance.", ">\n\nIt's very cute that the US media still thinks moderate Republicans exist in the US electorate. All of those people are Independent now. The only Republicans left are the Qrazies", ">\n\nIt's a sacrifice the MAGA hordes are willing to accept. Indeed, any RINO who considers Hogan will be consigned to electoral oblivion in the GQP.\nIs anything more pathetic than the liberal WaPo believing it could use moral suasion to affect change in the GOP?", ">\n\nYou already know the answer to that question. They’re republicans." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis", ">\n\nLarry Hogan should never be president. When the GOP was at it's worst, he refused to stand up to it or Trump. The only time he ever actually stood up to anyone was Dan Cox in a local election where it was safe to do so. Any time he is questioned by the media about what's happening at the national level he ducks the question. He even endorsed a slightly less radical candidate because \"it's bad to let Democrats have all the positions of power.\"\nThen let's get to his moment of history on January 6th. Governor Hogan was well aware of the chaos and how beleaguered the Capitol Police were. His response to the coup was \"I have not been asked to send in the national guard and I am waiting for that call.\" That was his excuse for not taking timely action. So the guy that wants to be in charge of defending the country didn't want to actually do that in the face of a coup.\nHe won't defend his country and he won't stand against the fascism that has taken over his party.", ">\n\nMarylander here. This isn’t accurate. He indeed offered the services of the Maryland National Guard, but was rejected by the powers that be in DC. You can’t just send in your NG units into the nation’s capital against the will of the decision makers that preferred to keep the fire roaring.\nHe has very overtly stood up to Trump and his bullshit. His handling of COVID was a prime example of that. While Trump was holding federal aid and supplies back, particularly from Democrat-heavy states (Maryland is despite having a Republican governor at the time). Dude went out and sourced what he could on his own while Trump pitted states against each other to get whatever crumbs of help they could get from the feds.\nHe’s not perfect, not by a long shot. However, he has done a pretty good job as Governor and I think he’s be a better Republican candidate than most of the alternatives.", ">\n\nHe’s still a Republican and still supports most of their shitty ideology, especially on economic issues, he’s just a little bit softer around the edges when it comes to social issues", ">\n\nHogan would win in a lndlsude", ">\n\nA republican hasn't won the popular vote without incumbency since Reagan. They might win, but they're not winning shit in a landslide.", ">\n\nLandslide was surely a poor choice of word on my part. Let’s change that to an overwhelming victory. This sub leans heavily left and frequently overestimates the share of the population that identifies as democrat or liberal. The battle is not for the left or the right, it is for the middle and the moderates. It’s how Biden, Trump, Obama, and Bush all won, in the middle. Las poll I saw has even democrats wanting someone other than Biden to run. Hogan took on Trump and was a popular R governor in a reliably blue state. I doubt he can win the primary, but if he did Biden or Harris would not stand a chance.", ">\n\nIt's very cute that the US media still thinks moderate Republicans exist in the US electorate. All of those people are Independent now. The only Republicans left are the Qrazies", ">\n\nIt's a sacrifice the MAGA hordes are willing to accept. Indeed, any RINO who considers Hogan will be consigned to electoral oblivion in the GQP.\nIs anything more pathetic than the liberal WaPo believing it could use moral suasion to affect change in the GOP?", ">\n\nYou already know the answer to that question. They’re republicans.", ">\n\nno satire allowed on the sub" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis", ">\n\nLarry Hogan should never be president. When the GOP was at it's worst, he refused to stand up to it or Trump. The only time he ever actually stood up to anyone was Dan Cox in a local election where it was safe to do so. Any time he is questioned by the media about what's happening at the national level he ducks the question. He even endorsed a slightly less radical candidate because \"it's bad to let Democrats have all the positions of power.\"\nThen let's get to his moment of history on January 6th. Governor Hogan was well aware of the chaos and how beleaguered the Capitol Police were. His response to the coup was \"I have not been asked to send in the national guard and I am waiting for that call.\" That was his excuse for not taking timely action. So the guy that wants to be in charge of defending the country didn't want to actually do that in the face of a coup.\nHe won't defend his country and he won't stand against the fascism that has taken over his party.", ">\n\nMarylander here. This isn’t accurate. He indeed offered the services of the Maryland National Guard, but was rejected by the powers that be in DC. You can’t just send in your NG units into the nation’s capital against the will of the decision makers that preferred to keep the fire roaring.\nHe has very overtly stood up to Trump and his bullshit. His handling of COVID was a prime example of that. While Trump was holding federal aid and supplies back, particularly from Democrat-heavy states (Maryland is despite having a Republican governor at the time). Dude went out and sourced what he could on his own while Trump pitted states against each other to get whatever crumbs of help they could get from the feds.\nHe’s not perfect, not by a long shot. However, he has done a pretty good job as Governor and I think he’s be a better Republican candidate than most of the alternatives.", ">\n\nHe’s still a Republican and still supports most of their shitty ideology, especially on economic issues, he’s just a little bit softer around the edges when it comes to social issues", ">\n\nHogan would win in a lndlsude", ">\n\nA republican hasn't won the popular vote without incumbency since Reagan. They might win, but they're not winning shit in a landslide.", ">\n\nLandslide was surely a poor choice of word on my part. Let’s change that to an overwhelming victory. This sub leans heavily left and frequently overestimates the share of the population that identifies as democrat or liberal. The battle is not for the left or the right, it is for the middle and the moderates. It’s how Biden, Trump, Obama, and Bush all won, in the middle. Las poll I saw has even democrats wanting someone other than Biden to run. Hogan took on Trump and was a popular R governor in a reliably blue state. I doubt he can win the primary, but if he did Biden or Harris would not stand a chance.", ">\n\nIt's very cute that the US media still thinks moderate Republicans exist in the US electorate. All of those people are Independent now. The only Republicans left are the Qrazies", ">\n\nIt's a sacrifice the MAGA hordes are willing to accept. Indeed, any RINO who considers Hogan will be consigned to electoral oblivion in the GQP.\nIs anything more pathetic than the liberal WaPo believing it could use moral suasion to affect change in the GOP?", ">\n\nYou already know the answer to that question. They’re republicans.", ">\n\nno satire allowed on the sub", ">\n\nThey want someone who will stoke and validate their Fury, not someone who is competent and level headed.\nSo many of them still think Trump was the greatest ever despite his many manifest failures and outright lies. But they are practiced in believing contradictory things, like how the border is wide open despite Trump \"completing the wall.\"" ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis", ">\n\nLarry Hogan should never be president. When the GOP was at it's worst, he refused to stand up to it or Trump. The only time he ever actually stood up to anyone was Dan Cox in a local election where it was safe to do so. Any time he is questioned by the media about what's happening at the national level he ducks the question. He even endorsed a slightly less radical candidate because \"it's bad to let Democrats have all the positions of power.\"\nThen let's get to his moment of history on January 6th. Governor Hogan was well aware of the chaos and how beleaguered the Capitol Police were. His response to the coup was \"I have not been asked to send in the national guard and I am waiting for that call.\" That was his excuse for not taking timely action. So the guy that wants to be in charge of defending the country didn't want to actually do that in the face of a coup.\nHe won't defend his country and he won't stand against the fascism that has taken over his party.", ">\n\nMarylander here. This isn’t accurate. He indeed offered the services of the Maryland National Guard, but was rejected by the powers that be in DC. You can’t just send in your NG units into the nation’s capital against the will of the decision makers that preferred to keep the fire roaring.\nHe has very overtly stood up to Trump and his bullshit. His handling of COVID was a prime example of that. While Trump was holding federal aid and supplies back, particularly from Democrat-heavy states (Maryland is despite having a Republican governor at the time). Dude went out and sourced what he could on his own while Trump pitted states against each other to get whatever crumbs of help they could get from the feds.\nHe’s not perfect, not by a long shot. However, he has done a pretty good job as Governor and I think he’s be a better Republican candidate than most of the alternatives.", ">\n\nHe’s still a Republican and still supports most of their shitty ideology, especially on economic issues, he’s just a little bit softer around the edges when it comes to social issues", ">\n\nHogan would win in a lndlsude", ">\n\nA republican hasn't won the popular vote without incumbency since Reagan. They might win, but they're not winning shit in a landslide.", ">\n\nLandslide was surely a poor choice of word on my part. Let’s change that to an overwhelming victory. This sub leans heavily left and frequently overestimates the share of the population that identifies as democrat or liberal. The battle is not for the left or the right, it is for the middle and the moderates. It’s how Biden, Trump, Obama, and Bush all won, in the middle. Las poll I saw has even democrats wanting someone other than Biden to run. Hogan took on Trump and was a popular R governor in a reliably blue state. I doubt he can win the primary, but if he did Biden or Harris would not stand a chance.", ">\n\nIt's very cute that the US media still thinks moderate Republicans exist in the US electorate. All of those people are Independent now. The only Republicans left are the Qrazies", ">\n\nIt's a sacrifice the MAGA hordes are willing to accept. Indeed, any RINO who considers Hogan will be consigned to electoral oblivion in the GQP.\nIs anything more pathetic than the liberal WaPo believing it could use moral suasion to affect change in the GOP?", ">\n\nYou already know the answer to that question. They’re republicans.", ">\n\nno satire allowed on the sub", ">\n\nThey want someone who will stoke and validate their Fury, not someone who is competent and level headed.\nSo many of them still think Trump was the greatest ever despite his many manifest failures and outright lies. But they are practiced in believing contradictory things, like how the border is wide open despite Trump \"completing the wall.\"", ">\n\nWell then call it their loss cause guess what? They are not considering Larry Hogan." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis", ">\n\nLarry Hogan should never be president. When the GOP was at it's worst, he refused to stand up to it or Trump. The only time he ever actually stood up to anyone was Dan Cox in a local election where it was safe to do so. Any time he is questioned by the media about what's happening at the national level he ducks the question. He even endorsed a slightly less radical candidate because \"it's bad to let Democrats have all the positions of power.\"\nThen let's get to his moment of history on January 6th. Governor Hogan was well aware of the chaos and how beleaguered the Capitol Police were. His response to the coup was \"I have not been asked to send in the national guard and I am waiting for that call.\" That was his excuse for not taking timely action. So the guy that wants to be in charge of defending the country didn't want to actually do that in the face of a coup.\nHe won't defend his country and he won't stand against the fascism that has taken over his party.", ">\n\nMarylander here. This isn’t accurate. He indeed offered the services of the Maryland National Guard, but was rejected by the powers that be in DC. You can’t just send in your NG units into the nation’s capital against the will of the decision makers that preferred to keep the fire roaring.\nHe has very overtly stood up to Trump and his bullshit. His handling of COVID was a prime example of that. While Trump was holding federal aid and supplies back, particularly from Democrat-heavy states (Maryland is despite having a Republican governor at the time). Dude went out and sourced what he could on his own while Trump pitted states against each other to get whatever crumbs of help they could get from the feds.\nHe’s not perfect, not by a long shot. However, he has done a pretty good job as Governor and I think he’s be a better Republican candidate than most of the alternatives.", ">\n\nHe’s still a Republican and still supports most of their shitty ideology, especially on economic issues, he’s just a little bit softer around the edges when it comes to social issues", ">\n\nHogan would win in a lndlsude", ">\n\nA republican hasn't won the popular vote without incumbency since Reagan. They might win, but they're not winning shit in a landslide.", ">\n\nLandslide was surely a poor choice of word on my part. Let’s change that to an overwhelming victory. This sub leans heavily left and frequently overestimates the share of the population that identifies as democrat or liberal. The battle is not for the left or the right, it is for the middle and the moderates. It’s how Biden, Trump, Obama, and Bush all won, in the middle. Las poll I saw has even democrats wanting someone other than Biden to run. Hogan took on Trump and was a popular R governor in a reliably blue state. I doubt he can win the primary, but if he did Biden or Harris would not stand a chance.", ">\n\nIt's very cute that the US media still thinks moderate Republicans exist in the US electorate. All of those people are Independent now. The only Republicans left are the Qrazies", ">\n\nIt's a sacrifice the MAGA hordes are willing to accept. Indeed, any RINO who considers Hogan will be consigned to electoral oblivion in the GQP.\nIs anything more pathetic than the liberal WaPo believing it could use moral suasion to affect change in the GOP?", ">\n\nYou already know the answer to that question. They’re republicans.", ">\n\nno satire allowed on the sub", ">\n\nThey want someone who will stoke and validate their Fury, not someone who is competent and level headed.\nSo many of them still think Trump was the greatest ever despite his many manifest failures and outright lies. But they are practiced in believing contradictory things, like how the border is wide open despite Trump \"completing the wall.\"", ">\n\nWell then call it their loss cause guess what? They are not considering Larry Hogan.", ">\n\nHe’d match up well against Klink for sure." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis", ">\n\nLarry Hogan should never be president. When the GOP was at it's worst, he refused to stand up to it or Trump. The only time he ever actually stood up to anyone was Dan Cox in a local election where it was safe to do so. Any time he is questioned by the media about what's happening at the national level he ducks the question. He even endorsed a slightly less radical candidate because \"it's bad to let Democrats have all the positions of power.\"\nThen let's get to his moment of history on January 6th. Governor Hogan was well aware of the chaos and how beleaguered the Capitol Police were. His response to the coup was \"I have not been asked to send in the national guard and I am waiting for that call.\" That was his excuse for not taking timely action. So the guy that wants to be in charge of defending the country didn't want to actually do that in the face of a coup.\nHe won't defend his country and he won't stand against the fascism that has taken over his party.", ">\n\nMarylander here. This isn’t accurate. He indeed offered the services of the Maryland National Guard, but was rejected by the powers that be in DC. You can’t just send in your NG units into the nation’s capital against the will of the decision makers that preferred to keep the fire roaring.\nHe has very overtly stood up to Trump and his bullshit. His handling of COVID was a prime example of that. While Trump was holding federal aid and supplies back, particularly from Democrat-heavy states (Maryland is despite having a Republican governor at the time). Dude went out and sourced what he could on his own while Trump pitted states against each other to get whatever crumbs of help they could get from the feds.\nHe’s not perfect, not by a long shot. However, he has done a pretty good job as Governor and I think he’s be a better Republican candidate than most of the alternatives.", ">\n\nHe’s still a Republican and still supports most of their shitty ideology, especially on economic issues, he’s just a little bit softer around the edges when it comes to social issues", ">\n\nHogan would win in a lndlsude", ">\n\nA republican hasn't won the popular vote without incumbency since Reagan. They might win, but they're not winning shit in a landslide.", ">\n\nLandslide was surely a poor choice of word on my part. Let’s change that to an overwhelming victory. This sub leans heavily left and frequently overestimates the share of the population that identifies as democrat or liberal. The battle is not for the left or the right, it is for the middle and the moderates. It’s how Biden, Trump, Obama, and Bush all won, in the middle. Las poll I saw has even democrats wanting someone other than Biden to run. Hogan took on Trump and was a popular R governor in a reliably blue state. I doubt he can win the primary, but if he did Biden or Harris would not stand a chance.", ">\n\nIt's very cute that the US media still thinks moderate Republicans exist in the US electorate. All of those people are Independent now. The only Republicans left are the Qrazies", ">\n\nIt's a sacrifice the MAGA hordes are willing to accept. Indeed, any RINO who considers Hogan will be consigned to electoral oblivion in the GQP.\nIs anything more pathetic than the liberal WaPo believing it could use moral suasion to affect change in the GOP?", ">\n\nYou already know the answer to that question. They’re republicans.", ">\n\nno satire allowed on the sub", ">\n\nThey want someone who will stoke and validate their Fury, not someone who is competent and level headed.\nSo many of them still think Trump was the greatest ever despite his many manifest failures and outright lies. But they are practiced in believing contradictory things, like how the border is wide open despite Trump \"completing the wall.\"", ">\n\nWell then call it their loss cause guess what? They are not considering Larry Hogan.", ">\n\nHe’d match up well against Klink for sure.", ">\n\nHogan got elected because many people just didn't like Ron Brown. Brown was the lieutenant gov under O'Malley and was in charge of setting up the system for getting health care from the ACA exchanges. The system bombed for 3 months (I think) so many people just wrote him off.\nThings in Maryland are OK especially for seniors since part of our pensions (up to 34,300) and all of our SS income are not taxed \nI don't know if race had anything to do with it since Wes Moore won by almost exactly 2-1 over Cox (a typical totally wacko election denier) in 2022. Both Moore and Brown are black.\nAs someone else noted, the legislature just overrode dozens of Hogan vetoes. \nHe did do some good things, of course, like suing Trump's EPA because we kept getting all the pollution from the west after they dropped emission/pollution rules. He also got a whole lot of masks and other PPE from South Korea (his wife is Korean I believe) when Trump/Kushner cornered the market away from Dem states. He worked closely with local officials on many issues, increasing his favorability. People didn't notice he's an \"old school\" Repub because of all the overridden vetoes.\nHe also didn't vote for Trump in 2020 (he voted for Reagan.) I'm not sure about 2016. He also said he would have voted \"guilty\" in the first Trump impeachment. Trump endorsed Cox in the Repub primary for 2022, Hogan endorsed Kathy Schultz instead. After Cox won Hogan said he wouldn't endorse Moore or Cox.\nNo, he just isn't crazy/bigoted/disgusting/fascist enough for today's Repub party.\nCharlie Baker would have the same non-crazy problem as Hogan." ]

[ "It's Trump or DeSantis. Devils we know.", ">\n\nThey aren't supposed to nominate actual devils, that's just a saying", ">\n\nDevils are Lawful Evil.\ntrump is lawless. \nDemons are Chaotic Evil. So trump is closer to a demon than a devil.", ">\n\nWouldn't Trump be chaotic evil and DeSantis lawful evil?", ">\n\nDesantis is actually NE, he’s doing evil for evils sake", ">\n\nI probably have a better chance of winning a GOP primary then he does.", ">\n\nhe doesn't stand a chance because he's sane and not an asshole", ">\n\nAs a Maryland resident i will say he sucks, acts moderate and is racist", ">\n\nDitto", ">\n\nDitto ditto", ">\n\nThe media needs to stop chasing so called moderate Republicans. The voters don't want them. They want crazy.", ">\n\nThe same voters stock piling assault rifles and telling us they're going to start a 2nd Civil war? And forming militias and attacking the power grid and firing rounds into the homes of democratic lawmakers", ">\n\nWhich is why the media needs to stop trying to save the Republican party and instead call it out for what it is. A white nationalist cult.", ">\n\nIf it drives subscriptions, ad revenue, and social media interaction I'm sure the \"media\" will call it anything you want.", ">\n\nDear god, they aren’t going to become Diet Coke Democrats. \nStart taking Republicans seriously as a fascist movement.", ">\n\nHogan supports all the terrible, inequitable, racist, misogynistic policies that today's GOP does. He just does it without saying overtly mean or salacious things. He sucks. (I live in MD, and am overjoyed he is no longer governor.)", ">\n\nI don't think they want people who don't say the quiet part out loud anymore.", ">\n\nOnly a spineless, mealy mouthed RINO believes there ought to be any quiet parts.", ">\n\nthat is indeed what they seem to think, so he will never survive a primary\ni DO wonder how he would fair vs OMailey's \"run\"", ">\n\nHe’s too sane for them.", ">\n\nLooks at the year, looks at the GOP.... either the author is crazy or I am.", ">\n\nNah, MSM insists on pretending there's a valid position right of the dems.\n-\nDems are not left, many aren't even centrist on the global spectrum.\n-\nOnly a hateful wasteland to the right, but the MSM needs their horse race...", ">\n\nThey won’t.", ">\n\nand you have Larry Hogan, and he didn't treat me very fairly that much I can tell you, he was against your Favorite President, who's done nothing wrong, I'm Perfectly Innocent, way Way More Innocent than Obama, he tried to take out Israel remember that, he wanted all of your children to go to Mosks because he's very against God and against Jesus, just like Sleepy Joe, and now you're seeing what they're doing in the Senate and it's a disgrace, they're still going with the Incompetent Chuck Schumer who couldn't even pass a Bill if his life depended on it, but that's ok because we have the House, it belongs to Trump and it's gonna be very very Strongly Investigating the Bidens and Crooked Hillary and we're really really gonna be looking into the Obamas because they've done a lot of horrible things, and people know it.", ">\n\nBravo (reluctantly).", ">\n\nNo shot. All Fox News has to do is point to Reddit posts like this and tell their audience that if liberals want him then he’s no good for republicans. The base will it eat it up. I mean, these are are same guys who now carry putin’s water when they used to despise Russia.", ">\n\nOf course the WaPo writers love him because he's Republican Lite . . . but he screwed over Baltimore time and time again by blocking their transportation funding, and doing everything he could to interfere with their ability to solve their economic problems. \nLook, this is a harsh analogy, but you don't get to be a good Nazi because you beat the prisoners less often than the other guards at the extermination camp. There are no good Nazis. And, in 2023, there are no good Republicans.", ">\n\nLmao, good luck Larry. 🫡", ">\n\nDoesn’t stand a chance because he has no national name recommendation. \nAnd I doubt that Washington Post is where republicans go for their political strategy.", ">\n\nWould not be surprised if he's on the vice president list", ">\n\nPut him in the House of Representatives and he is still voting for Kevin McCarthy, against the debt ceiling, and talking about how Hunter Biden's dick is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.\nLarry Hogan doesn't have morals or clarity. He had a Legislature and electorate dominated by Democrats. He's just as sane as any Blue State Republican. Meaning he keeps his crazy to himself until he's in a position that the only hurdle he faces is a Republican primary... then you will see what he really thinks.\nIf you're sane you ain't Republican.", ">\n\nThe political media is so unbelievably derelict and malfeasant.", ">\n\nWe are under the assumption that republicans as a party are heading towards a place of sanity. The reality is that they want someone as vindictive and petty as trump, but who can put a better face on it and have plausibly deniable excuses for their disgusting conduct, ladies and gentlemen, Ron Desantis", ">\n\nLarry Hogan should never be president. When the GOP was at it's worst, he refused to stand up to it or Trump. The only time he ever actually stood up to anyone was Dan Cox in a local election where it was safe to do so. Any time he is questioned by the media about what's happening at the national level he ducks the question. He even endorsed a slightly less radical candidate because \"it's bad to let Democrats have all the positions of power.\"\nThen let's get to his moment of history on January 6th. Governor Hogan was well aware of the chaos and how beleaguered the Capitol Police were. His response to the coup was \"I have not been asked to send in the national guard and I am waiting for that call.\" That was his excuse for not taking timely action. So the guy that wants to be in charge of defending the country didn't want to actually do that in the face of a coup.\nHe won't defend his country and he won't stand against the fascism that has taken over his party.", ">\n\nMarylander here. This isn’t accurate. He indeed offered the services of the Maryland National Guard, but was rejected by the powers that be in DC. You can’t just send in your NG units into the nation’s capital against the will of the decision makers that preferred to keep the fire roaring.\nHe has very overtly stood up to Trump and his bullshit. His handling of COVID was a prime example of that. While Trump was holding federal aid and supplies back, particularly from Democrat-heavy states (Maryland is despite having a Republican governor at the time). Dude went out and sourced what he could on his own while Trump pitted states against each other to get whatever crumbs of help they could get from the feds.\nHe’s not perfect, not by a long shot. However, he has done a pretty good job as Governor and I think he’s be a better Republican candidate than most of the alternatives.", ">\n\nHe’s still a Republican and still supports most of their shitty ideology, especially on economic issues, he’s just a little bit softer around the edges when it comes to social issues", ">\n\nHogan would win in a lndlsude", ">\n\nA republican hasn't won the popular vote without incumbency since Reagan. They might win, but they're not winning shit in a landslide.", ">\n\nLandslide was surely a poor choice of word on my part. Let’s change that to an overwhelming victory. This sub leans heavily left and frequently overestimates the share of the population that identifies as democrat or liberal. The battle is not for the left or the right, it is for the middle and the moderates. It’s how Biden, Trump, Obama, and Bush all won, in the middle. Las poll I saw has even democrats wanting someone other than Biden to run. Hogan took on Trump and was a popular R governor in a reliably blue state. I doubt he can win the primary, but if he did Biden or Harris would not stand a chance.", ">\n\nIt's very cute that the US media still thinks moderate Republicans exist in the US electorate. All of those people are Independent now. The only Republicans left are the Qrazies", ">\n\nIt's a sacrifice the MAGA hordes are willing to accept. Indeed, any RINO who considers Hogan will be consigned to electoral oblivion in the GQP.\nIs anything more pathetic than the liberal WaPo believing it could use moral suasion to affect change in the GOP?", ">\n\nYou already know the answer to that question. They’re republicans.", ">\n\nno satire allowed on the sub", ">\n\nThey want someone who will stoke and validate their Fury, not someone who is competent and level headed.\nSo many of them still think Trump was the greatest ever despite his many manifest failures and outright lies. But they are practiced in believing contradictory things, like how the border is wide open despite Trump \"completing the wall.\"", ">\n\nWell then call it their loss cause guess what? They are not considering Larry Hogan.", ">\n\nHe’d match up well against Klink for sure.", ">\n\nHogan got elected because many people just didn't like Ron Brown. Brown was the lieutenant gov under O'Malley and was in charge of setting up the system for getting health care from the ACA exchanges. The system bombed for 3 months (I think) so many people just wrote him off.\nThings in Maryland are OK especially for seniors since part of our pensions (up to 34,300) and all of our SS income are not taxed \nI don't know if race had anything to do with it since Wes Moore won by almost exactly 2-1 over Cox (a typical totally wacko election denier) in 2022. Both Moore and Brown are black.\nAs someone else noted, the legislature just overrode dozens of Hogan vetoes. \nHe did do some good things, of course, like suing Trump's EPA because we kept getting all the pollution from the west after they dropped emission/pollution rules. He also got a whole lot of masks and other PPE from South Korea (his wife is Korean I believe) when Trump/Kushner cornered the market away from Dem states. He worked closely with local officials on many issues, increasing his favorability. People didn't notice he's an \"old school\" Repub because of all the overridden vetoes.\nHe also didn't vote for Trump in 2020 (he voted for Reagan.) I'm not sure about 2016. He also said he would have voted \"guilty\" in the first Trump impeachment. Trump endorsed Cox in the Repub primary for 2022, Hogan endorsed Kathy Schultz instead. After Cox won Hogan said he wouldn't endorse Moore or Cox.\nNo, he just isn't crazy/bigoted/disgusting/fascist enough for today's Repub party.\nCharlie Baker would have the same non-crazy problem as Hogan.", ">\n\nWhat do you mean he voted Reagan? Like he wrote in a dead ex-president? That actually really irks me because Reagan was a terrible president and human being. How do Republicans still get to openly like Reagan? That should be shamed like the Vietnam War is in hindsight." ]