>The survivors’ amendment passed in both chambers last session with bipartisan support, Kenyatta said, and to make its passage in the new session conditional, is holding it hostage.

What else can be said that hasn't already been said? I'm tired to the bone of this BS

One party screams about "protecting" children but is perfectly willing to ignore that in order to push their other nonsense under the guise of doing what their constituents want them to do, ignoring that they are the ones that made up the scenario that the constituents are demanding them to fix

TL;DR "protect" children unless it gets in the way of our made up scenario of election stealing

> because we know it doesn't deter a premeditated violent crime, I'm pretty sure it will also not deter a premeditated large scale financial crime

Why?

I provided a clear explanation of how these crimes are different. They are not at all alike. Financial crimes are dispassionate both in their planning and in their execution. Violent crimes, even when premeditated, are passionately executed (pardon the pun). The motivations for violence are entirely different than the motivations for financial crime. Wanting someone dead is very different from wanting to enrich oneself. The motive for financial crime is rooted in financial gain. Violent crime is not.

Even if you do not agree in principle, surely you can recognize these differences are real.

We probably both agree that the death penalty as it is currently applied is not effective. We may also agree that the injustice of killing the wrongfully accused outweighs any possible benefit to society. On moral principles, we may also agree that the state shouldn’t have the power to condemn people to die.

What remains a matter of speculation is whether or not people would willfully engage in large scale financial crimes if the penalties were absolute.

The GOP senators are literally standing in the way of prosecuting pedophiles by negotiating in bad faith. These people are psychopaths.

Contact them and let them know what you think.

https://www.pasenategop.com/meet-our-members/

I could have made my point more clear. What I mean to say is, because we know it doesn't deter a premeditated violent crime, I'm pretty sure it will also not deter a premeditated large scale financial crime and that is why I say the theory doesn't hold water. My greater implication being that the death penalty doesn't help in basically any way, there's no benefits that aren't based on emotional responses

I do agree with your point that something like that affects way way way more people and at larger scales than any isolated violent action. Steal $50 with a gun and you're away for 20, steal $50M with a Ponzi scheme and you're put away for a couple years at best

You can sign numerous petitions if eligible. The canvasser is responsible for determining eligibility.

Honestly I lean towards no. And there's slippery slope and liberty implications which I appreciate. But if we're asking, does a parent have the right to deprive their child of basic knowledge necessary to function in society, I gotta say no on the same grounds as beating your kid isn't ok. Being a parent isn't free reign to abuse your child and I very much think zero real education is abuse

> Capital punishment doesn't deter premeditated violent crime.

Yes, agreed. Did you even read the first paragraph? Or like, the first sentence? That was exactly the point I was driving at and I provided an explanation for why it doesn’t.

> I appreciate your thinking but I don't think it holds water

So you agree, but you don’t think the argument “holds water.” Okay. What am I supposed to do with this opinion?

Shapiro seems to be staying on top of the disaster. Representing Pennsylvania well.

The Trump Show is on tomorrow.

Edit: removed quotes that are no longer in the article. It appears the article was rewritten.

Guthriesville,?? Um near Downingtown ?

we still have quakers?

[deleted]

That dude is a loon. I wouldn’t want my child in his class.

Yet again proving that the Republicans have zero interest in going after molester priests, and all their talk about "groomers" are just bullshit attacks against gay people that they can longer use thier preferred slurs for.

You hit the nail on the head. “Purely public charity” is vague and up to the courts to interpret without clarification from the legislature. My interpretation is they don’t give any profit for shareholders. However people really hate highly paid executives and conflate that with profit distributed to shareholders. One of the judges even said he stretched the truth to get the case appealed bc he has no idea how to interpret the vague law.

Drugs are everywhere, especially with the opioid epidemic. I've heard of meth being around but I've never seen it in my 40-some years of living here.

I mean, you're not going to find a cabal of pedophiles that get together to ban sex education so it's easier to take advantage of kids. It's easy enough to hide amongst conservatives and evangelicals that are honestly convinced teaching kids about sex is bad (which is just another symptom of the horrible US education system).

There's plenty of evidence out there that there are far more instances of pedophilia amongst the people who are constantly screaming about pedophilia resulting from sex education and the LGBT than there are in the groups of people that they are screaming about. Just look at all of the scandals in Christian churches and youth groups.

Beware the day after the March of Ides.

The Boston Irish do not hate that March 17 is called St. Patty's Day. Not at all.

Rozzi has done his part. Time for him to step aside and allow for the Caucus to appoint its leader. Maybe they will retain him; maybe not. He kept the GQP from engaging in skullduggery; now it is time to get on with the rest of the people's business.

But it's ok when domestic terrorist trash use their dark age fairy tales to justify teaching their daughters to be obedient stay at home baby factories and not worry about their rapist being worshiped as a hero while taking their rights away.

Trash can only be trash. Take it out.

> Pennsylvania requires charities to be "institutions of purely public charity" to qualify for exemption. HUP test, which has 5 criteria ...... 5. Operates entirely free from private profit motive.

What is the definition of private profit motive?

> "The “eye popping” compensation paid to executives at four hospitals owned by Tower Health LLC disqualifies the nonprofits from charitable tax-exempt status, a Pennsylvania appeals court ruled in four related cases.

So highly compensated employees is the bar? Then let's remove non-profit status from all universities and colleges then.

Every single non-profit of note requires highly talented professionals to run it. Everyone knows how difficult it is for non profits to hire competent people as it is. So let's attack that aspect of non profits even more?

[deleted]

You're the one whining about being "punished" lol lmao conservatives

They're also anti government they DO benefit from, unless it harms someone they think is lesser than them

Capital punishment doesn't deter premeditated violent crime. I appreciate your thinking but I don't think it holds water