NationStates

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

SangMar wrote:
Fuck. Just put me in charge of America. I’m sure everyone can find something they like about my policies.

I don't even know what your policies would entail.

Finally. The day has come, SangMar. You get to say your political policies - and it’s justified. Oh boy!

Obviously, if I was to be in charge of America these would be my policies:

-Legalise marijuana, decriminalise all other drugs. Also a clean slate for anyone convicted of drug related crime.

-Universal healthcare, with the option for those who wish to receive private healthcare available too - just they still have to pay in the universal system.

-Progressive taxes and penalties - you pay more if you’re wealthier than a poorer person. Also, you pay higher fines if you’re wealthy and break the law when compared to a poorer person.

-Universal basic income... of food? Essentially, you can buy other kinds of food, but just as a safety net, every citizen and legal resident (your illegal residents aren’t going to make themselves known after all) gets a basic amount of food each month - bread, eggs, meat, milk, vegetables, milk - etc. It stops them starving, and the Government can help out agricultural workers too: they give them subsidies in return for the food, which then gets allocated per household.

-A points based immigration system and free language and cultural classes for all legally residing immigrants who do not yet speak the language and who might suffer from cultural shock. Also, no border wall - it’s a waste of money and damages the environment. Instead, increase the Border Patrol’s numbers, and use drones, dogs and aircraft with infrared cameras en masse to find illegal immigrants crossing at non-legal entry points.

-Renewable energy all the way, more charging points for electric vehicles, while also cutting oil and gas subsidies per year. Invest more money into electric cars, so that the cost can be brought down too. Slowly wean the state off of fossil fuels. A massive re-forestation campaign, as it’ll stop desertification and floods too.

-Free university for STEM subjects, and more emphasis placed up vocational qualifications.

-Focus on the mental health and criminality side of things when it comes to guns, don’t restrict the types of firearms that can be purchased at this point - further entrench this into law by executive order. Instead, invest more into mental health services, close the “gun show loophole” and establish a national database for all the guns currently circulating, where guns can be flagged as stolen and such by their owners. It’ll keep no personal data except the name of a person currently owning any guns, whether they have any felonies and the type of guns owned. Also, establish a scheme granting tax cuts to those who can prove they train at least once per month with their guns - I.E, at a shooting range etc.

Done. Now let’s watch as people say I’ve missed things or just want to tear it to shreds.

Satuga wrote:

Slavakino wrote:I'm seeing less riots so far. Either that or I'm blind

There's an 6-8pm curfew in effect so that is probably why.

Given that the curfews on previous nights have been repeatedly disobeyed I don't see that making an appreciable difference...

The New California Republic wrote:

Satuga wrote: There's an 6-8pm curfew in effect so that is probably why.

Given that the curfews on previous nights have been repeatedly disobeyed I don't see that making an appreciable difference...

Well true, but I assume cops would be much more umm thorough during these times, especially after what happened last night with the two car chases.

San Lumen wrote:

Estanglia wrote:
Then the police force becomes illegitimate for ignoring the law, the very thing they should be upholding, and thus should be forced to comply, either by the government or by community protests.



Yes. They change nothing.



Considering what's going on right now and the buildup to it, I have no trust in the police to clean themselves out.



I'm not advocating for coroners to be elected, unless coroners make policy decisions, in which case if it's so problematic they can be one of the few exceptions.

As for the health commissioners, I'm of the opinion that every person in a government who has the power to enact rules and regulations should be elected. If they can set down legally-binding rules that their community has to follow, their community should have the right to choose that person.

and what if they decide not to listen to community protests? That is what we have attorney generals and district attorneys for.

I don't recall arguing against the existence of attorney generals and district attorneys.

And how do you know that the attorney generals and district attorneys do nothing? You have evidence of this claim

I meant that they don't change my argument.
A community should have a direct way to hold the police accountable. Right now, every option they have is indirect and depends upon someone else doing something the community can't guarantee that they'll do.

In other words cabinets and heads of agencies should not be appointed but instead elected? I rather not inject politics into things like public health or the fire department. What's to do stop anyone from being elected health commissioner or sheriff? Being sheriff requires a law enforcement background in most cases. there might be exceptions

Should health commissioner require a medical degree, agriculture head a background in farming?

I'm of the opinion that people responsible for legally-binding rules should both be qualified (if they're in a head of state's cabinet/if being qualified is possible) and be accountable to their community directly.

The most direct way is an election, but I'll settle for alternate mechanisms (such as legally-binding petitions to make the rule changes voted on by the legislature/populace) if an election is unfeasible or negative.

I am not sure if coroners make policy positions. about 1600 counties still elect the positions and in many cases no medical background is required.

Here are two articles on electing coroners: https://archive.thinkprogress.org/elect ... d4c6e3281/

https://www.npr.org/2013/11/03/24241670 ... -necessary

Elections for coroners sound strange, especially if they don't need a medical background.

SangMar wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:I don't even know what your policies would entail.

Finally. The day has come, SangMar. You get to say your political policies - and it’s justified. Oh boy!

Obviously, if I was to be in charge of America these would be my policies:

-Legalise marijuana, decriminalise all other drugs. Also a clean slate for anyone convicted of drug related crime.

-Universal healthcare, with the option for those who wish to receive private healthcare available too - just they still have to pay in the universal system.

-Progressive taxes and penalties - you pay more if you’re wealthier than a poorer person. Also, you pay higher fines if you’re wealthy and break the law when compared to a poorer person.

-Universal basic income... of food? Essentially, you can buy other kinds of food, but just as a safety net, every citizen and legal resident (your illegal residents aren’t going to make themselves known after all) gets a basic amount of food each month - bread, eggs, meat, milk, vegetables, milk - etc. It stops them starving, and the Government can help out agricultural workers too: they give them subsidies in return for the food, which then gets allocated per household.

-A points based immigration system and free language and cultural classes for all legally residing immigrants who do not yet speak the language and who might suffer from cultural shock. Also, no border wall - it’s a waste of money and damages the environment. Instead, increase the Border Patrol’s numbers, and use drones, dogs and aircraft with infrared cameras en masse to find illegal immigrants crossing at non-legal entry points.

-Renewable energy all the way, more charging points for electric vehicles, while also cutting oil and gas subsidies per year. Invest more money into electric cars, so that the cost can be brought down too. Slowly wean the state off of fossil fuels. A massive re-forestation campaign, as it’ll stop desertification and floods too.

-Free university for STEM subjects, and more emphasis placed up vocational qualifications.

-Focus on the mental health and criminality side of things when it comes to guns, don’t restrict the types of firearms that can be purchased at this point - further entrench this into law by executive order. Instead, invest more into mental health services, close the “gun show loophole” and establish a national database for all the guns currently circulating, where guns can be flagged as stolen and such by their owners. It’ll keep no personal data except the name of a person currently owning any guns, whether they have any felonies and the type of guns owned. Also, establish a scheme granting tax cuts to those who can prove they train at least once per month with their guns - I.E, at a shooting range etc.

Done. Now let’s watch as people say I’ve missed things or just want to tear it to shreds.

Nah, because discussing your personal political views is not the subject of the thread.

Satuga wrote:

Slavakino wrote:I'm seeing less riots so far. Either that or I'm blind

There's an 6-8pm curfew in effect so that is probably why.

A two hour curfew that doesn't sound effective.

Estanglia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
and what if they decide not to listen to community protests? That is what we have attorney generals and district attorneys for.

I don't recall arguing against the existence of attorney generals and district attorneys.

And how do you know that the attorney generals and district attorneys do nothing? You have evidence of this claim

I meant that they don't change my argument.
A community should have a direct way to hold the police accountable. Right now, every option they have is indirect and depends upon someone else doing something the community can't guarantee that they'll do.

In other words cabinets and heads of agencies should not be appointed but instead elected? I rather not inject politics into things like public health or the fire department. What's to do stop anyone from being elected health commissioner or sheriff? Being sheriff requires a law enforcement background in most cases. there might be exceptions

Should health commissioner require a medical degree, agriculture head a background in farming?

I'm of the opinion that people responsible for legally-binding rules should both be qualified (if they're in a head of state's cabinet/if being qualified is possible) and be accountable to their community directly.

The most direct way is an election, but I'll settle for alternate mechanisms (such as legally-binding petitions to make the rule changes voted on by the legislature/populace) if an election is unfeasible or negative.

I am not sure if coroners make policy positions. about 1600 counties still elect the positions and in many cases no medical background is required.

Here are two articles on electing coroners: https://archive.thinkprogress.org/elect ... d4c6e3281/

https://www.npr.org/2013/11/03/24241670 ... -necessary

Elections for coroners sound strange, especially if they don't need a medical background.

They do have a direct way. by voting for the sheriff. The sheriff doesnt have to be current member of the force. They merely need a law enforcement background or at the very least a law degree.

A governors or mayors cabinet should therefore be elected not appointed and they possibly have people serving with them that openly disagree on everything?

Coroners ought to be appointed not elected. In most cities and urban counties they are not elected

SangMar wrote:
-Legalise marijuana, decriminalise all other drugs. Also a clean slate for anyone convicted of drug related crime.

-Universal healthcare, with the option for those who wish to receive private healthcare available too - just they still have to pay in the universal system.

It’ll keep no personal data except the name of a person currently owning any guns, whether they have any felonies and the type of guns owned. Also, establish a scheme granting tax cuts to those who can prove they train at least once per month with their guns - I.E, at a shooting range etc.

Done. Now let’s watch as people say I’ve missed things or just want to tear it to shreds.

These are the points I have the most issues with, A clean slate for people convicted of drug related crime? Unless this is limited to crimes of possession rather than distrubution as well as having no other crimes attached to said possession then this is an absolutely hard pass.

Universal healthcare is umm tricky to say the least, specifically will it decrease professionalism and quality in the care and will it increase tax rates substantially?

Also there needs to be information on their mental evaluation as well or else the mental health focus of this part gets completely thrown out of the window.

Greed and Death wrote:

Satuga wrote: There's an 6-8pm curfew in effect so that is probably why.

A two hour curfew that doesn't sound effective.

It's not a two hour curfew, its the range of the curfew because i cant remember if its 6 or 8 or different in each county.

San Lumen wrote:

Estanglia wrote:
I don't recall arguing against the existence of attorney generals and district attorneys.



I meant that they don't change my argument.
A community should have a direct way to hold the police accountable. Right now, every option they have is indirect and depends upon someone else doing something the community can't guarantee that they'll do.



I'm of the opinion that people responsible for legally-binding rules should both be qualified (if they're in a head of state's cabinet/if being qualified is possible) and be accountable to their community directly.

The most direct way is an election, but I'll settle for alternate mechanisms (such as legally-binding petitions to make the rule changes voted on by the legislature/populace) if an election is unfeasible or negative.



Elections for coroners sound strange, especially if they don't need a medical background.

They do have a direct way. by voting for the sheriff. The sheriff doesnt have to be current member of the force. They merely need a law enforcement background or at the very least a law degree.

A governors or mayors cabinet should therefore be elected not appointed and they possibly have people serving with them that openly disagree on everything?

Coroners ought to be appointed not elected. In most cities and urban counties they are not elected

Electing the sheriff is not good enough. It does not guarantee accountability. There needs to be a more direct way for the people to check the police.

Andsed wrote:

San Lumen wrote:They do have a direct way. by voting for the sheriff. The sheriff doesnt have to be current member of the force. They merely need a law enforcement background or at the very least a law degree.

A governors or mayors cabinet should therefore be elected not appointed and they possibly have people serving with them that openly disagree on everything?

Coroners ought to be appointed not elected. In most cities and urban counties they are not elected

Electing the sheriff is not good enough. It does not guarantee accountability. There needs to be a more direct way for the people to check the police.

elect better DA's and attorney generals.

San Lumen wrote:

Andsed wrote:Electing the sheriff is not good enough. It does not guarantee accountability. There needs to be a more direct way for the people to check the police.

elect better DA's and attorney generals.

Still not enough. Lumen what you don´t understand is that even if we elect someone who will try and do something it is entirely possible they will be unable due to just how deeply dug in a lot of this corruption is. The government and the police cannot be trusted to regulate police.

San Lumen wrote:

Estanglia wrote:
I don't recall arguing against the existence of attorney generals and district attorneys.



I meant that they don't change my argument.
A community should have a direct way to hold the police accountable. Right now, every option they have is indirect and depends upon someone else doing something the community can't guarantee that they'll do.



I'm of the opinion that people responsible for legally-binding rules should both be qualified (if they're in a head of state's cabinet/if being qualified is possible) and be accountable to their community directly.

The most direct way is an election, but I'll settle for alternate mechanisms (such as legally-binding petitions to make the rule changes voted on by the legislature/populace) if an election is unfeasible or negative.



Elections for coroners sound strange, especially if they don't need a medical background.

They do have a direct way. by voting for the sheriff. The sheriff doesnt have to be current member of the force. They merely need a law enforcement background or at the very least a law degree.

That's indirect.

Direct would mean that the community can hold the police accountable without depending upon anyone other than themselves. Like an election, where the only thing needed to fire a police officer is enough of the community saying so.
Indirect means they need something other than the community to hold the police accountable.

A sheriff is indirect, since the community have to depend on the sheriff to hold the police accountable, rather than hold the police accountable themselves.

If no sheriff they could possibly elect will hold the police accountable, the police will not be held accountable, no matter how much the people desire it.

A governors or mayors cabinet should therefore be elected not appointed and they possibly have people serving with them that openly disagree on everything?

Either elected or there's mechanisms in place for the community to remove them/reverse their rules.

Coroners ought to be appointed not elected. In most cities and urban counties they are not elected

Agreed.

Andsed wrote:

San Lumen wrote:elect better DA's and attorney generals.

Still not enough. Lumen what you don´t understand is that even if we elect someone who will try and do something it is entirely possible they will be unable due to just how deeply dug in a lot of this corruption is. The government and the police cannot be trusted to regulate police.

Well we also can't just wipe the slate clean either, that leaves a lot of places open to a vast majority of crimes.

San Lumen wrote:

Andsed wrote:Electing the sheriff is not good enough. It does not guarantee accountability. There needs to be a more direct way for the people to check the police.

elect better DA's and attorney generals.

That presumes there are better available DAs and AGs.

And why hope that there are better DAs and AGs, when you can change the rules so the community doesn't have to hope that someone comes along who is good enough, they can just do it themselves?

Satuga wrote:

Andsed wrote:Still not enough. Lumen what you don´t understand is that even if we elect someone who will try and do something it is entirely possible they will be unable due to just how deeply dug in a lot of this corruption is. The government and the police cannot be trusted to regulate police.

Well we also can't just wipe the slate clean either, that leaves a lot of places open to a vast majority of crimes.

Yes. And we don´t need to. The people should have some kind of direct(and by that not just electing a sheriff or DA) way to check the police and hold them accountable. Whether it be what I suggest or something else there just need to be a way for us to hold the police accountable when they do this kind of shit as the police and government have time and time again failed to do so.

Andsed wrote:

Satuga wrote:Well we also can't just wipe the slate clean either, that leaves a lot of places open to a vast majority of crimes.

Yes. And we don´t need to. The people should have some kind of direct(and by that not just electing a sheriff or DA) way to check the police and hold them accountable. Whether it be what I suggest or something else there just need to be a way for us to hold the police accountable when they do this kind of shit as the police and government have time and time again failed to do so.

Hmm local police watches maybe? As well as stricter identification and recording of police officers. That's about all I can see the public having better ways to hold police accountable.

Satuga wrote:

Slavakino wrote:I'm seeing less riots so far. Either that or I'm blind

There's an 6-8pm curfew in effect so that is probably why.

Anyone complaining about it? Even so, good thing because keep the corona contained

San Lumen wrote:

Andsed wrote:Electing the sheriff is not good enough. It does not guarantee accountability. There needs to be a more direct way for the people to check the police.

elect better DA's and attorney generals.

In the UK we experimented with the 'electing police comissioners' thing and really no one gives a fuck. In some areas there have been independant candidates winning as people are so sick of party politics being injected into jobs which shouldn't be thinking about politics in the first place.

Estanglia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:They do have a direct way. by voting for the sheriff. The sheriff doesnt have to be current member of the force. They merely need a law enforcement background or at the very least a law degree.

That's indirect.

Direct would mean that the community can hold the police accountable without depending upon anyone other than themselves. Like an election, where the only thing needed to fire a police officer is enough of the community saying so.
Indirect means they need something other than the community to hold the police accountable.

A sheriff is indirect, since the community have to depend on the sheriff to hold the police accountable, rather than hold the police accountable themselves.

If no sheriff they could possibly elect will hold the police accountable, the police will not be held accountable, no matter how much the people desire it.

A governors or mayors cabinet should therefore be elected not appointed and they possibly have people serving with them that openly disagree on everything?

Either elected or there's mechanisms in place for the community to remove them/reverse their rules.

Coroners ought to be appointed not elected. In most cities and urban counties they are not elected

Agreed.

A sheriff sets policy. I dont see why that's not enough

If this is such a great policy you advocate then people can get a referendum and put it on the ballot in their city or county

Why should they all be elected for mechanisms in place to remove or reverse their rules? Governors are elected and they appoint people to boards and to lead government agencies. If your going to have a system in place to remove them or vote on their rules you run the risk of nothing ever getting done and them constantly being overruled. if your dont look whose there vote out the governor or mayor

Andsed wrote:

Satuga wrote:Well we also can't just wipe the slate clean either, that leaves a lot of places open to a vast majority of crimes.

Yes. And we don´t need to. The people should have some kind of direct(and by that not just electing a sheriff or DA) way to check the police and hold them accountable. Whether it be what I suggest or something else there just need to be a way for us to hold the police accountable when they do this kind of shit as the police and government have time and time again failed to do so.

go put a referendum on the ballot in your city or county with such a proposal

Estanglia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:elect better DA's and attorney generals.

That presumes there are better available DAs and AGs.

And why hope that there are better DAs and AGs, when you can change the rules so the community doesn't have to hope that someone comes along who is good enough, they can just do it themselves?

Because that is what an election is for. if you don't like whose in office vote them out or if you dont like whose running run yourself.

As long as you have a law degree and are a licensed attorney you can run for DA or AG.

Slavakino wrote:

Satuga wrote: There's an 6-8pm curfew in effect so that is probably why.

Anyone complaining about it? Even so, good thing because keep the corona contained

Probably, but I think it's likely to be mostly looters who want to steal in the dead of night. Also that is one thing I was concerned about, with the mass groups the corona is likely gonna flare up.

Satuga wrote:

Slavakino wrote:Anyone complaining about it? Even so, good thing because keep the corona contained

Probably, but I think it's likely to be mostly looters who want to steal in the dead of night. Also that is one thing I was concerned about, with the mass groups the corona is likely gonna flare up.

Cops probably patrol more during curfew probably

Slavakino wrote:

Satuga wrote:Probably, but I think it's likely to be mostly looters who want to steal in the dead of night. Also that is one thing I was concerned about, with the mass groups the corona is likely gonna flare up.

Cops probably patrol more during curfew probably

And they can stop anyone they see and ask them what they are doing. A lot of videos of the looters have them chilling by a store waiting for the cops to leave then looting.

San Lumen wrote:

Estanglia wrote:
That's indirect.

Direct would mean that the community can hold the police accountable without depending upon anyone other than themselves. Like an election, where the only thing needed to fire a police officer is enough of the community saying so.
Indirect means they need something other than the community to hold the police accountable.

A sheriff is indirect, since the community have to depend on the sheriff to hold the police accountable, rather than hold the police accountable themselves.

If no sheriff they could possibly elect will hold the police accountable, the police will not be held accountable, no matter how much the people desire it.



Either elected or there's mechanisms in place for the community to remove them/reverse their rules.



Agreed.

A sheriff sets policy. I dont see why that's not enough

Because the community doesn't set that policy, and has no way to make the sheriff enact certain policies other than voting them out and replacing them with someone they also can't force to enact policies.

It's not direct enough, and considering the police culture I don't trust a sheriff to properly hold their police force to account.

If this is such a great policy you advocate then people can get a referendum and put it on the ballot in their city or county

As they should.

Why should they all be elected for mechanisms in place to remove or reverse their rules?

Because people should have a direct say in the rules they are made to follow. People not having a direct say is part of the reason why a bunch of democratic revolutions/changes occurred.

Governors are elected and they appoint people to boards and to lead government agencies. If your going to have a system in place to remove them or vote on their rules you run the risk of nothing ever getting done and them constantly being overruled. if your dont look whose there vote out the governor or mayor

If they get railroaded, unfortunate, but I don't particularly find that a good enough excuse to not give the public a direct say in the rules they have to obey.

Estanglia wrote:
That presumes there are better available DAs and AGs.

And why hope that there are better DAs and AGs, when you can change the rules so the community doesn't have to hope that someone comes along who is good enough, they can just do it themselves?

Because that is what an election is for. if you don't like whose in office vote them out or if you dont like whose running run yourself.

As long as you have a law degree you can run for DA or AG.

So your answer to "why rely on the current systems?" is "because the current systems exist"?

Greed and Death wrote:

Slavakino wrote:Cops probably patrol more during curfew probably

And they can stop anyone they see and ask them what they are doing. A lot of videos of the looters have them chilling by a store waiting for the cops to leave then looting.

People need to protect their store more when the cops aren't around. Hell use a claymore if you have to