Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You become Benevolent Dictator and get to pass any series of laws you want to improve your country....

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    BTW...
    Post-Crisis Shob, I know you want to decriminalize drugs (and so do I, the drug war is as useless as when we fought booz), but do you have any other prison reformations in mind, out of curiosity...?

    Comment


      I do think that it's ridiculous that we have people waiting on death row for 20 or 30 years before finally being put down. I'm not one of the people that want to abolish the death penalty, however. Some people just don't deserve to be a drain our tax dollars. But in order to fix that problem, you need to figure out how to fix the justice system altogether. I don't want a serial killer that slit the throats of a half dozen women to sit in prison for 20 years, but I don't want to put an innocent person, that was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, to death without an opportunity to prove their innocence either.

      Law is tough.

      Comment


        You guys are silly. Legalize illegal drugs? You're aware the legal cigarettes have a 40% addiction rate and legal alcohol has a 40% addiction rate, with an 85% rate of social drinkers? 10,000 Drunk Driving related deaths per year? There's also a 30% obesity rate, so the trend looks like anything negative has a 30 to 40% addiction rate if legalized. But when illegal, it has only a 3% to 5% addiction rate.

        If you legalize cocaine, LSD, and PCP, and Heroin, you'll have some overlap, but you'll addict 40% of people to those drugs.

        One of the greatest disgraces in the U.S. is when any tee-totaler gets killed by an impaired driver.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Cid View Post
          I do think that it's ridiculous that we have people waiting on death row for 20 or 30 years before finally being put down. I'm not one of the people that want to abolish the death penalty, however. Some people just don't deserve to be a drain our tax dollars. But in order to fix that problem, you need to figure out how to fix the justice system altogether. I don't want a serial killer that slit the throats of a half dozen women to sit in prison for 20 years, but I don't want to put an innocent person, that was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, to death without an opportunity to prove their innocence either.

          Law is tough.
          I'll second this post, lest anybody think I have a different position. I agree whole heartedly with this post.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Cid View Post
            I do think that it's ridiculous that we have people waiting on death row for 20 or 30 years before finally being put down. I'm not one of the people that want to abolish the death penalty, however. Some people just don't deserve to be a drain our tax dollars. But in order to fix that problem, you need to figure out how to fix the justice system altogether. I don't want a serial killer that slit the throats of a half dozen women to sit in prison for 20 years, but I don't want to put an innocent person, that was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, to death without an opportunity to prove their innocence either.

            Law is tough.
            "We don't need to drain our tax dollars with long prison sentences for the serial killers."

            Fiiiiiiiinnnnnnneeeeee.

            I propose we just stuff them all into a barbed-wire pen in the middle of nowhere and let them starve to death.

            It'll only take 2 weeks, maybe 3 in rare cases.

            Don't have to use that much resources, pretty cost-efficient.
            Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; August 9th, 2018, 03:29 PM.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Wade View Post
              You guys are silly. Legalize illegal drugs? You're aware the legal cigarettes have a 40% addiction rate and legal alcohol has a 40% addiction rate, with an 85% rate of social drinkers? 10,000 Drunk Driving related deaths per year? There's also a 30% obesity rate, so the trend looks like anything negative has a 30 to 40% addiction rate if legalized. But when illegal, it has only a 3% to 5% addiction rate.

              If you legalize cocaine, LSD, and PCP, and Heroin, you'll have some overlap, but you'll addict 40% of people to those drugs.

              One of the greatest disgraces in the U.S. is when any tee-totaler gets killed by an impaired driver.
              Legalization is bad and should never be done. Decriminalization, however, is necessary. Decriminalizing these drugs would make it illegal to distribute them, so sellers would still be put away. But we wouldn't arrest the addicts. We could then take the money we save from tossing them all into prison and build federally funded rehabilitation centers across the country.
              Last edited by Cid; August 9th, 2018, 02:56 PM.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Cid View Post

                Legalization is bad and should never be done. Decriminalization, however, is necessary. Decriminalizing these jobs would make it illegal to distribute them, so sellers would still be put away. But we wouldn't arrest the addicts. We could then take the money we save from tossing them all into prison and build federally funded rehabilitation centers across the country.
                ^Pretty much the position we have, Wade.

                Comment


                  My reason for the technical changes to our Destroyers is that we haven't fired the main guns at a military target in decades. The COIL laser allows every Destroyer to shoot down enemy missiles and aircraft at any elevation from horizon level all the way to 400km. The Rail Gun has a 200km radius range, and is about a fact of 9 upgrade over the main guns anyway.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Cid View Post
                    Law is tough.
                    She's a cruel mistress, she is.


                    Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post
                    BTW...
                    Post-Crisis Shob, I know you want to decriminalize drugs (and so do I, the drug war is as useless as when we fought booz), but do you have any other prison reformations in mind, out of curiosity...?
                    ...mostly just get the non-violent drug offenders out of there, and refocus incarceration efforts on people who actually deserve to be in prison.

                    New Jersey has recently enacted some progressive policies on criminal justice reform that I'd like to see implemented nationwide. Big one is bail reform.

                    The old law (and this is still the law in most states) is that if you're arrested and charged with a crime, you go to the county jail and you're incarcerated pending trial, even though you've only been arrested and charged but have not actually been convicted of a crime.

                    You go to court for a bail hearing. The judge sets bail. And the only way you get out of jail before your charges are resolved is if you pay bail. (basically, its a way for the State to fill prisons with poor people and extort $$$ from persons charged with petty crimes)

                    ...the New Law in NJ completely did away with the bail system...

                    Now instead, you're arrested. You go in front of a judge within 48 hours of your arrest. The prosecution has the burden of showing that your release from custody would pose an unreasonable risk of witness tampering, an unreasonable risk to public health and safety, or an unreasonable likelihood that you will not appear for trial.

                    If the prosecution meets this burden, then and only then can you be held in jail pending trial.

                    If the prosecution fails to meet this burden, you cannot be imprisoned pending trial and must be released back into the community.

                    _________

                    Another program NJ has adopted is expanded access to alternative sentencing, making prison the sentence of last resort to try and stop qualifying offenders from becoming "institutionalized" and to promote the interests of rehabilitation.

                    -Court ordered drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs
                    -Court ordered home confinement on an ankle bracelet, with periodic check-ins from a Probation Officer
                    -The "Sheriff's Work Program" (i.e court ordered community service)
                    -"Suspended Sentence with a Conditional Dismissal" (a special program for certain first-time offenders which results in them being placed on probation for 2 years, then having the charges against them dropped and their record expunged if at the end of the two year period they have not violated the terms of probation)

                    ...these programs have been largely successful at diverting low level offenders from prison and further criminal exposure, to paths that actually let them get back on their feet and move on with their lives and become productive members of society.
                    Last edited by Post-Crisis Shob; August 9th, 2018, 03:19 PM.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post

                      She's a cruel mistress, she is.




                      ...mostly just get the non-violent drug offenders out of there, and refocus incarceration efforts on people who actually deserve to be in prison.

                      New Jersey has recently enacted some progressive policies on criminal justice reform that I'd like to see implemented nationwide. Big one is bail reform.

                      The old law (and this is still the law in most states) is that if you're arrested and charged with a crime, you go to the county jail and you're incarcerated pending trial, even though you've only been arrested and charged but have not actually been convicted of a crime.

                      You go to court for a bail hearing. The judge sets bail. And the only way you get out of jail before your charges are resolved is if you pay bail. (basically, its a way for the State to fill prisons with poor people and extort $$$ from persons charged with petty crimes)

                      ...the New Law in NJ completely did away with the bail system...

                      Now instead, you're arrested. You go in front of a judge within 48 hours of your arrest. The prosecution has the burden of showing that your release from custody would pose an unreasonable risk of witness tampering, an unreasonable risk to public health and safety, or an unreasonable likelihood that you will not appear for trial.

                      If the prosecution meets this modern, then and only then can you be held in jail pending trial.

                      If the prosecution fails to meet this burden, you cannot be imprisoned pending trial and must be released back into the community.

                      _________

                      Another program NJ has adopted is expanded access to alternative sentencing, making prison the sentence of last resort to try and stop qualifying offenders from becoming "institutionalized" and to promote the interests of rehabilitation.

                      -Court ordered drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs
                      -Court ordered home confinement on an ankle bracelet, with periodic check-ins from a Probation Officer
                      -The "Sheriff's Work Program" (i.e court ordered community service)
                      -"Suspended Sentence with a Conditional Dismissal" (a special program for certain first-time offenders which results in them being placed on probation for 2 years, then having the charges against them dropped and their record expunged if at the end of the two year period they have not violated the terms of probation)

                      ...these programs have been largely successful at diverting low level offenders from prison and further criminal exposure, to paths that actually let them get back on their feet and move on with their lives and become productive members of society.
                      That sounds pretty good. Don't see too much issue with it.

                      Comment


                        You know I wouldn't stay in office long. I'd set up the changes I described for the different branches, and then I'd just leave office after 8 years in office. Which is short for a "benevolent dictator".

                        I'd make it so the Supreme Court (12 members) appoints the President, and not the other way around. They must have 9 votes agree to the same man, just as they must have 9 votes agree to the same replacement Justice. The Supreme Court also appoints the Senate, but only the Senate may Impeach a President or a Supreme Court member. The Justices may also impeach another Justice, but they need a unanimous 11 votes to impeach another Justice.

                        The House of Representatives would be voted on by Popular Vote.

                        I would do the best to make the new constitution more self explanatory, so it cant' be hijacked by any one branch. Constitutional Amendments should be written with as much consideration as possible to exceptional circumstances in case contradictions are later discovered.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Cid View Post
                          I do think that it's ridiculous that we have people waiting on death row for 20 or 30 years before finally being put down. I'm not one of the people that want to abolish the death penalty, however. Some people just don't deserve to be a drain our tax dollars. But in order to fix that problem, you need to figure out how to fix the justice system altogether. I don't want a serial killer that slit the throats of a half dozen women to sit in prison for 20 years, but I don't want to put an innocent person, that was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, to death without an opportunity to prove their innocence either.

                          Law is tough.
                          That's why I feel it needs to be beyond a doubt that the person is responsible for the death penalty to be an option. Like it has to be so clear cut that an appeal is not even an option.


                          Also I'm not sure if any of my suggestions are landing or if they are dumb because every time I come back there's a page or two of insanity that cuts off my suggestions to you and shob's master plan.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by J peth View Post

                            That's why I feel it needs to be beyond a doubt that the person is responsible for the death penalty to be an option. Like it has to be so clear cut that an appeal is not even an option.


                            Also I'm not sure if any of my suggestions are landing or if they are dumb because every time I come back there's a page or two of insanity that cuts off my suggestions to you and shob's master plan.
                            I don't think I've seen any of your posts... lol

                            But being sure beyond a doubt is pretty difficult in real life. A ton of murder cases are mucked up by incompetent investigators and there is basically never a video depicting the murder. So you have to rely on witnesses, who absolutely suck by the way, and you have to rely on evidence found on the scene and on the victim. DNA, prints on the murder weapon, and stuff like that.

                            Say a woman gets murdered. The husband's prints are on the knife, her blood is all over his clothes from that night, and it comes out during the investigation that she was cheating and he knew about it. He doesn't have a solid alibi for the night she was killed. The husband's statement says he came home that night and found her dead on the floor with the knife in her chest. In a moment of shock and sudden grief, he rushed to her body, pulled the knife out, and held her against himself. That explains why his prints are on the murder weapon and why he's covered in her blood if it's true. The coroner's estimated time of death is within an hour of the husband's call to the police. The man she was cheating with had his DNA all over her and scratches on his chest, flakes from his skin are found under her nails. No blood is found in his vehicle, his clothes, his home, or on him. He was seen at the house an hour before the time of death, but no witnesses saw when the vehicle left. His reason for the scratches are that she likes scratching during sex, something he husband denies. He also says the husband caught them in the act and threw the man out, which the husband also denies.

                            Who's guilty?

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post
                              I'm not saying we force it on anyone, I'm saying that we don't force people to keep to their own people... which is what Shin wanted as dictator iirc.
                              I'm not for forced separation, either. Like I told Souls forever ago, I'm on the fence of even illegals being deported from the US because of the effects it has had on some families.

                              My approach to life is basically....make people happy. And, y'know, most people are happy when they're surrounded by what they know.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Helly View Post
                                My approach to life is basically....make people happy.
                                Good approach.


                                Originally posted by Helly View Post
                                I think they're just about the most adorable females our nonexistant God put on this Earth, so.....why not let Asians keep making more Asian girls?
                                Bitch plz.

                                My Half-Hebrew, Half-Asian daughter is going to be adorable.


                                Originally posted by ShinGaoKaiser View Post

                                I wish it were that easy to do the whole individual thing, trust me I do. And believe it or not, I don't support putting all people in one basket if there are those among them who have outdone themselves in one way or the other. However, the world isn't such a good place so then it ends up not being a realistic way to do things, because you have patterns as well as what's the rule and what's the exception.
                                You mean the world isn't such a simple place, so then it ends up not being a brainless way to do things.

                                Getting to know people as individuals and judging them accordingly requires an open mind, social connectivity, and the ability to be a sound judge of character.

                                Prejudging persons based on the assumed characteristics of their group is a simplifying mechanism for persons who can't be bothered to engage in higher-level thinking. That's why it appeals to the dumb-dumbs.

                                And of course there's always something crassly alluring about believing your "group" is the best group, and when your group does good that's just the natural order of things. That if other groups are doing bad that's proof they're inferior, but if other groups are doing better--well then--that must mean your group is being treated unfairly and the other groups have some sinister conspiracy going on. (easier than actually analyzing law, public policy, and geopolitics with a critical eye, to determine what has historically caused inequity and injustice at an institutional level and what progressive reforms have been most effective at combating it)

                                Again--race and the centrality of racial conflict is a simplifying mechanism. A crutch for feeble minds.



                                Originally posted by ShinGaoKaiser View Post
                                Total individualism would require there to be no form of collective identity that can actually exist for any reasons.
                                Nonsense.

                                [collective identity not defining how you feel about individuals or who you associate with] =/= [collective identity does not exist]

                                Like I don't associate exclusively with the Hebrews or have any preference towards associating with my own people, and I form relationships/friendships/acquaintanceships with persons of every race and creed/ I'm still culturally Jewish by background, and being culturally Jewish by background is part of my identity
                                • I go to holiday dinners on Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Passover
                                • I light a Menorah on Hannukah
                                • I had a bris and a bar mitzvah
                                • bagels, smoked fish, latkas, and matzaball soup is my soulfood
                                • I was married by a rabbi under a Chuppah
                                • My wedding ring is engraved with the traditional Hebrew wedding vow: אני לדודי ודודי לי ("I am hers, and she is mine")
                                • I have Jewish cultural values on frugality and education
                                My wife doesn't associate exclusively with the Taiwanese.
                                • she speaks mandarin
                                • she prefers Chinese food
                                • she listens to mandarin pop
                                • she follows the Chinese zodiac
                                • she celebrates the Chinese new year
                                • She has culturally Chinese values on family, education, discipline, money....
                                Not being a racist doesn't mean you don't have a race ya dingus.

                                It means you aren't limiting your sphere of relationships and life experiencing to a minuscule fragment of the humanity and the potential human experience, on some low-IQ batshit theory that persons who have the exact same ethnic background and upbringing as you are the only people you can realistically treat with.

                                Originally posted by ShinGaoKaiser View Post
                                there's lots of hard decisions to be made

                                I wouldn't want to be in the position of having to make those decisions.
                                That is the most profoundly correct thing you have ever said.
                                Last edited by Post-Crisis Shob; August 10th, 2018, 08:53 AM.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post
                                  My wife doesn't associate exclusively with the Taiwanese.
                                  • she speaks mandarin
                                  • she prefers Chinese food
                                  • she listens to mandarin pop
                                  • she follows the Chinese zodiac
                                  • she celebrates the Chinese new year
                                  • She has culturally Chinese values on family, education, discipline, money....

                                  Just curious, what does your wife think of China? The biggest China, that is.

                                  Like, in terms of her political opinions, if she's ever expressed them. I know that Hong Kongers' opinions on China is not entirely appreciative of the CCP, so does she have similar thoughts...? If so, how much does it reflect Taiwanese peoples' opinions on the CCP?
                                  Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; August 10th, 2018, 04:13 PM.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post
                                    You and Shin are just terrible.
                                    It's not your country, so you can piss off.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post
                                      You mean the world isn't such a simple place, so then it ends up not being a brainless way to do things.

                                      Getting to know people as individuals and judging them accordingly requires an open mind, social connectivity, and the ability to be a sound judge of character.
                                      But how many people do you think have that? The masses are too easily swayed for whatever reason in the first place. Especially when you live in a continent like mine where people are too quick to do whatever with regards to judging others.

                                      Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post
                                      Prejudging persons based on the assumed characteristics of their group is a simplifying mechanism for persons who can't be bothered to engage in higher-level thinking. That's why it appeals to the dumb-dumbs.

                                      And of course there's always something crassly alluring about believing your "group" is the best group, and when your group does good that's just the natural order of things. That if other groups are doing bad that's proof they're inferior, but if other groups are doing better--well then--that must mean your group is being treated unfairly and the other groups have some sinister conspiracy going on. (easier than actually analyzing law, public policy, and geopolitics with a critical eye, to determine what has historically caused inequity and injustice at an institutional level and what progressive reforms have been most effective at combating it)

                                      Again--race and the centrality of racial conflict is a simplifying mechanism. A crutch for feeble minds.
                                      Well like I already said, I'm not European or Asian, so I'd be far more likely to be on the receiving end of said prejudices (from other ethnic groups not just other races) than on the one that's dishing them out. Thus it should be obvious that I have no such belief that my own group is "the best", especially if the reality says otherwise.

                                      And like I've been saying so many times, I didn't originally believe or even understand what those who see race as being all important are saying, or how they could come to that belief, and even now I'm still trying to concretely understand them despite all the LARPers present in many places. Especially considering that Europeans themselves (like everyone else) never thought in terms of race historically, but as to their own tribe.

                                      Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post
                                      Nonsense.

                                      [collective identity not defining how you feel about individuals or who you associate with] =/= [collective identity does not exist]
                                      And it doesn't define how I feel about individuals. The point here is, the collective itself can't be judged by its individuals or outliers, it can only be judged or evaluated by the net impact that it has on something.

                                      Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post
                                      Like I don't associate exclusively with the Hebrews or have any preference towards associating with my own people, and I form relationships/friendships/acquaintanceships with persons of every race and creed/ I'm still culturally Jewish by background, and being culturally Jewish by background is part of my identity
                                      • I go to holiday dinners on Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Passover
                                      • I light a Menorah on Hannukah
                                      • I had a bris and a bar mitzvah
                                      • bagels, smoked fish, latkas, and matzaball soup is my soulfood
                                      • I was married by a rabbi under a Chuppah
                                      • My wedding ring is engraved with the traditional Hebrew wedding vow: אני לדודי ודודי לי ("I am hers, and she is mine")
                                      • I have Jewish cultural values on frugality and education
                                      My wife doesn't associate exclusively with the Taiwanese.
                                      • she speaks mandarin
                                      • she prefers Chinese food
                                      • she listens to mandarin pop
                                      • she follows the Chinese zodiac
                                      • she celebrates the Chinese new year
                                      • She has culturally Chinese values on family, education, discipline, money....
                                      Not being a racist doesn't mean you don't have a race ya dingus.

                                      It means you aren't limiting your sphere of relationships and life experiencing to a minuscule fragment of the humanity and the potential human experience, on some low-IQ batshit theory that persons who have the exact same ethnic background and upbringing as you are the only people you can realistically treat with.
                                      In my case, everything is on the table if those of different ethnic groups are willing to be friends.
                                      Except marriage. That's completely off the table.

                                      And I don't do that. Never did, really. I mean, you can most certainly have conflict between people of the same tribe, that's a given. You can have both a good and bad relationship with members of your own tribe or with other tribes. But again, it's only on the individual level, on the macro scale the scene changes big time.

                                      Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post
                                      That is the most profoundly correct thing you have ever said.
                                      Which is why I said this is a meme thread to me, because I wouldn't want to be a part of any government anyway.

                                      Comment


                                        I need to add "shutting down Breitbart" to my list.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by Cid View Post
                                          I need to add "shutting down Breitbart" to my list.
                                          Basically nationalizing the media.

                                          Good choice. They're con-op anyway.

                                          However, you should be shutting down the corporate media who really don't care about truth either since they're the ones who cause the most damage, but go ahead and do what you want.
                                          Last edited by ShinGaoKaiser; August 12th, 2018, 06:49 AM.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X