1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice

If you were President/Prime Minister/King/Dear Leader/Taoiseach

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Taure, May 12, 2018.

  1. Arthellion

    Arthellion Supreme Mugwump

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,754
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    Depends on your definition of failure.

    *shrug*

    Articles needed work but I wouldn’t have implemented the strong federal government we have today.

    Today the values of Americans across the country are just too different to implement a “one size fits all” government.

    We will continue to be polarized which leaves us ripe for more Trumps and our enemies. Better to agree to disagree while working towards common goals

    Edit: And hardly freedom through poverty. More...make enough to subsist on, use the rest to help your fellow man. Happiness is found in more than just succeeding at your job/making/money etc.

    We've basically fallen into a mentality of the "haves" and "have nots"

    If you have, you should give your extra to the have nots. And if you have not, be content with what you do have. (Just to clarify, I'm not referring to starvation/extreme poverty. But even the poor in the USA are richer than pretty much most of the world.)
     
  2. VanRopen

    VanRopen Order Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    825
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Sure we would. Yours lost in 1789 when the country agreed that was a stupid form of government, :^)


    I guess my fundamental problem with your thesis is that you aren't actually arguing against top-down limitations. You're just doing exactly what Madison talks about Federalist 10, and preferring to break conversation down into smaller chunks so that you can achieve the top-down suppression that is in line with your own viewpoints within your locality - in this case, the state.

    Like, how do you reconcile this focus on crippling the national government in favor of state governments, when states themselves are often set up as centralized governments with total control over municipalities far in excess of the national control of the state government? What is it about the size of a state that suddenly makes that okay but falls apart when the logic is applied nationally?
     
  3. Arthellion

    Arthellion Supreme Mugwump

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,754
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    Valid question. And its one that would need to be hashed out with more detail than I can provide (not a poli sci major), but the genuine concept is

    "The further away you are from a situation, the less you know about the best decision to make. Get too close to a situation and the same problem occurs"

    Ultimately, I think the government (at the time of the founders) was well suited to the size of the nation...but I highly doubt any of them expected the USA to be as large as it is today.

    Its somewhat similar to the problem the Roman empire had. Grow so large that you cannot properly administrate.

    As for why states are the appropriate level of control? Its more expediency. They are already in place. The borders are already set in stone. If we were working with a blank slate thing would probably be different, but I'd argue that state governments are close enough to the people to know their needs without being so close they lose objectivity. Which is definitely a debatable point and I'd be open to other suggestions than simply the state.

    Its about providing a variety of options.
     
  4. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    I mean...it's not like states don't already have a fairly large degree of autonomy within the union. Republicans are always calling them the 'laboratories of democracy' because to a large degree, they're free to try out different policies to see what works and what doesn't, or to implement culturally specific tones of policy and priorities.

    In my opinion, the better arrangement is based on a simple paradigm: National problems handled nationally, local problems handled locally.
     
  5. Solfege

    Solfege Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,038
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Washington did, at least, which dictated in no small part his Farewell Address. He foresaw a nation mighty enough to stand on its own, given time for growth and settlement of the vast resources in a continental land, but also a time of danger in the short term — that America might be distracted and seduced by much greater powers of the time, its resources and body politic spent in, say, a feud between Francophile Jeffersonians and Anglophile Hamiltonians.

    The endemic mis-reading on his warning of foreign entanglements is, as I'm sure you know, an argument for isolation, now and forever. Nonsense. That was a temporary constraint. Wherefore to go, is up to us.

    And I'm sure Hamilton, if not others like him at least Washington's so-called amanuensis, foresaw such a great and mighty nation to stand among the first powers of the world; to which his American System of national commerce was dedicated to strengthening, internally.

    To suggest a compromise between the government we have today and the federation of many years' past, why not seek to restructure gubernatorial financial flows so that state budgets might better stand on their own?
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2018
  6. VanRopen

    VanRopen Order Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    825
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Okay. But that is in no way an actual argument. I can repeat that same statement and say it's exactly the justification necessary for the power of the federal government - states are too close to the situation.

    Size is a bit of a misnomer anyways. What you're actually describing is a far more nebulous measure of administrative efficiency, and...well, the Rome line is a tired old cop-out. It is an empty statement. We're not the Roman Empire. This isn't Roman society. We don't suffer under the limitations of Roman technology, and administration and political science have developed since then as well.


    You describe government at the time of the founders as well suited to the size of the nation, but that wasn't really the point. Alabama's population today is 4.8 million to 1790 America's 4 million. Yet Alabama has the longest constitution in the world, executing effective absolute control over all its subdivisions. It does so effectively. Perhaps not what I would consider well, but that is a matter of governing philosophy not capacity. It wasn't the limitations of what a government can control that had the Founders pursue the system that they did, and it is rarely a factor that goes into discussion of political power now. If there are various centralized governments in the world that can rule populations in the dozens of millions coherently, I'd need a pretty strong argument to accept the absolute idea that America's federal system - far, far more decentralized than those - is incapable of effectively administrating our 300 million.


    This is a discussion about factionalism, and how a faction can exert control over those not in its faction. You describe different locations as having different needs, with your proposal meant to provide variety...but that's obviously only a thing in the context of issues that would vary based on local conditions. It's one thing to suggest that agricultural regulations need to vary across regions based on local conditions, and something else entirely to say "the balance test that went into establishing this right yields one result here, but another result there". Not to go Slavery-Godwin, but "we have some states that allow slavery and some that don't - we're giving people options!" is a pretty intellectually dishonest position, and far more often that is a better analogy for these discussions than the agricultural regulations example. Somehow these conversations are more often about rights than they are about "local needs". You yourself brought up abortion as an example...that isn't "fulfilling local needs", that's trying to take what is fundamentally a discussion of rights balanced against each other and chopping it up into pieces. I doubt you actually think an unborn child's rights are or should be different in California than they are in Alabama.

    I personally strongly agree with what the Founders ultimately settled on vis a vis factionalism - the Federal government and the courts are a primary means by which we defend minority interests and curtail factionalism, because a fundamental part of a faction's tyranny is by obtaining a local majority. If we're talking about an issue with broad application, then...well, this is just like what I brought up in my other post. The division by state is artificial to the point of incoherence, because the interest groups involved are spread across states. There are rural Californians who empathize strongly with rural Alabamans and agree with them on issues, and if the issue in question is something that would conceivably affect all of them then I don't see why the discussion should be split into two smaller ones. It's weird to say the state is magically close enough when they are themselves massive bureaucracies serving millions of people across tens of thousands of square miles. Moreover, the states do have broad powers and even a cursory look at how laws can differ between them highlights that.
     
  7. Download

    Download Dark Lord DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,855
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    You're being overly paranoid. Other nations get one fine without the requirement to be born on the nation's soil.
     
  8. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,093
    High Score:
    1,802
    Yeah, the number one thing hurting any possible independence of state/local governments is the current budgetary setup where they are effectively dependent on federal subsidies to stay afloat. Threatening to reduce/remove federal subsidies is a very effective sledgehammer for knocking down any nails that poke their heads up. It's notable that in the ongoing clash between the Trump Administration and sanctuary cities the big battles have been about stopping him from defunding them; I don't believe there's been any serious consideration of just going without federal funding.

    Financial independence is a must for any other form of independence.

    As far as the grand centralized/decentralized argument goes, I don't really think the failure of the Articles of Confederation is all that valid. Yeah, they clearly didn't work in 1789, but 2018 is an almost completely different world. For that matter, the US constitution has plenty of things in it that haven't aged all that well, even if the government is pretty good at sidestepping a lot of those issues and/or finding ways to get what they want (The Interstate Commerce Clause in particular can justify anything).
     
  9. momo

    momo Groundskeeper

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    342
    Location:
    Your Mother's Basement
    High Score:
    0
    Fiscal policy
    • Cut down on income tax.
    • Legalize some drugs and prostitution to make up the tax lost by cutting down income tax.
    • Smarter budgeting. Seriously, the government should sponsor a think tank of some of the greatest financial minds in out country (after making sure that they are patriotic and trustworthy) to give advice and draft a tax plan while still fitting the priorities they decide. It will still need to be approved.
    • Increase fines on convicted criminals. Seriously, this is a potential jackpot we are missing. We should fine every person we send to jail a solid amount, giving out government much more money to spend.
    • Increase taxes on all high luxury items. I am opposed to increasing normal sales tax way too much but if you can afford a Ferrari or a Yacht, you can afford a couple extra thousand in taxes.
    • Incentivize people to create jobs. Like maybe keep the base income tax on the super rich high but give them deductions for every 100 people they employ. Give deductions to people bringing back jobs to America.

    Constitution, Law and Justice
    • On Law and Justice, we need a much stronger criminal justice system. Here are some ways to make that happen.
    • While some drugs would be legal, if you do anything that could harm someone else while on drugs, (attacking anyone, driving and injuring) your jail time and fine would be much higher.
    • If you are caught doing any illegal drugs that are kept illegal because they alter the mind too much, serious jail time and fines.
    • Legalize the death penalty in all fifty states and make clear guidelines on where its used so that it's efficient. No more keeping people on death row for 10+ years. That said, I do believe that there are certain crimes (i.e. murder) that require the death penalty. Especially if someone does something really horrific like shoot up a school.
    • Stop worrying so much about the insanity defense. If someone kills someone else or multiple other people, it doesn't matter if they're insane. They should be in jail or given the death penalty. I know that if an insane person killed my entire family or even one of my family members, I wouldn't want them going to a treatment facility. And no matter what people say. I'm fairly certain that if (god forbid) this situation ever happened to supporters of the insanity defense, they deep down would want the worst for the offender too.
    • Amendment: I would make affirmative action illegal. Seriously, this is a form of discrimination. This country does have a problem when it comes to race but I don't think affirmative action is the right path.
    • Making harassing a police officer illegal. Obviously some cops have done terrible things but most of these people volunteer to make their communities a better place. Unless they're harassing you for no reason, let them do their jobs and live their lives. Some of the stories of what has happened to normal cops I've read are honestly saddening.
    • Finally, make falsely accusing someone of a crime have the same punishment as what you accused them for. Seriously, the moment you accuse someone, you ruin their life forever. If they did commit the crime, that's great. But if they didn't, you've done a horrible thing and deserve punishment.
    • Bring back true due process. This is related to the above. Due to the internet (which is a great thing) once someone is brought to court, even if they're innocent, everything about the case becomes public. Matters of the court should be completely private until someone is found guilty. If they're found innocent, it should be the defendant's choice if the information becomes public.
    Jobs/Society.
    • I agree with the person who said the overtime thing. There should be a cap on overtime, obviously, and maybe overtime shouldn't be paid at the same rate as normal hours, but overtime should be a thing for most people.
    • Help match (4 year) college graduates to jobs. Seriously, people make huge investments when they choose to go to a four year university. Help the out. Incentivize companies that take on recent graduates. I specified the four year thing because its much harder to help everyone who goes to any kind of college and it is those going to four year ones that are making the bigger investments.
    • Make it a lot easier for high school students to get unpaid internships in a variety of fields. This is one case where I think unpaid internships are actually great. Because they are unpaid, companies can afford to take on larger amounts of students. This will provide students exposure in making a career and degree choice and make them connections in their fields.
    • Make unpaid internships illegal for college graduates. Seriously, internships are to learn and explore. These people did that when they went to college and now are in major debt. Get them a job.
    • Bring down college tuition by majorly taxing institutes that have very high tuition.

    Housing
    • Use all the open land to fun good, affordable senior centers. Seriously, you shouldn't have to pay a fortune to get quality care in your old age.
    • Beyond the elderly, I think the government shouldn't be spending money on housing. Seriously, people who develop homes do it for money which they can later use to develop more homes and create more jobs. We don't need income diversity in neighborhoods. That's not the government's job. People can sell and create whatever they want. This is america. The government doesn't need to meddle.

    Energy and Utilities
    • Fund research into alternate energy.
    • Use some of that open midwest land for alternate energy.
    • Make utilities more readily available so that people don't have to pay so much for things that are basically necessities.

    Transport
    • Upgrade transportation infrastructure, especially around cities.
    • Because of the environment, make public transport cheap and readily available.
    • Maybe give a small tax deduction to ordinary people who use public transport in cities (its impractical for the average suburban person)

    Defence
    • More to our veterans. Seriously, they served our country and they deserve the best. Not some of the worst.
    • Pay soldiers more. If you risk your life, you deserve a higher salary.
    • Fund research into high-tech weapons. Our position as the most powerful in the world is important to me. If we can reach new frontiers much before others, we can do so much more.

    Policing and Security
    • No prosecuting over the internet. Obviously we should flag people and put them on persons of interest lists if their behavior is concerning but no prosecuting people because of what they do in the internet.
    • Make sure that nobody is being censored. This is the one case when you can prosecute. If a major corporation is censoring a minority opinion.
    • The other main case to prosecute, improper use of someone's data. If they agree to whatever you have said in a terms and conditions policy, than that's fine. But if there is no reasonable way for someone to know what you're doing with their data and you get caught, big fines for your company.

    Immigration
    • Instead of deporting people who come into this country illegally, make it so that they have to deal with a substantially increased tax for the rest of their lives. They can stay in their new homes but are still punished for breaking the law, and the government makes money.
    • Since people are no longer getting deported, get rid of sanctuary cities. Seriously, with the above law, a sanctuary city would just be a city robbing the government.
    • Better background check system for legal immigrants.
    • That said, if people pass the background check and have a secured job, let them into the country. (A secured job includes them setting up a business or becoming a freelancer)
    Foreign Affairs
    • Stop fighting wars that we don't have a significant interest in. We don't need to fight people over what we believe is right.
    • Along with that, don't spend so much money on foreign aid. Continue spending some, but also bring up our own infrastructure. Use some of that money to provide better internet and other such modern services to people in rural areas.
    • Along with the above, make sure that whatever money we give for foreign aid is being used effectively. Before we give money to other governments, they must draw up a budget for that money with our government and must use it that way. Then the money will be given gradually to solve the items it was budgeted for. If a foreign nation stops following the budget they agreed upon, they'll lose aid.
    That's it for me. Any thoughts?
     
  10. VanRopen

    VanRopen Order Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    825
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    We do fine and charge prisoners for lots of things, on top of the monetary benefits from prison labor.

    It manages to simultaneously be fucked up and be shit at it’s stated purpose of yielding significant income for the state, on top of creating horrifically perverse incentives - rounding out the holy trinity of shitty policy.
     
  11. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,093
    High Score:
    1,802
    Yeah, there's a lot of charges/fees involved in just being arrested without any conviction. Pray you never piss off a cop and get arrested because he decides he smells marijuana on you, because in some jurisdictions you're the one who has to pay for your months of mandatory weekly pre-trial drug tests, even if the charges wind up being completely bogus and get tossed out before it even gets to a jury trial.

    Plus, of course, the other obvious problem with heavily fining criminals is that most of them aren't exactly swimming in money to begin with. And most of the ones who do can already have those assets seized under existing laws like RICO, or are keeping that wealth somewhere the government can't get to it.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2018
  12. apoc

    apoc The Once and Ginger King DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Messages:
    307
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    [​IMG]
     
  13. momo

    momo Groundskeeper

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    342
    Location:
    Your Mother's Basement
    High Score:
    0
    I admit to being a little bit ignorant on the fining convicts thing. Still I don't think my post was that bad. I think most of my points make sense.

    That said, I posted because I was interested in discussion. So maybe discuss instead of bash?
     
  14. Farhial

    Farhial First Year

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Occasionally Chicago
    Uh, how exactly do you expect this to work?
     
  15. apoc

    apoc The Once and Ginger King DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2012
    Messages:
    307
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Making a meme is far more efficient than trying to point out the holes in this plan because there are far, far, far more holes than there is actual substance.

    Why tho? Assuming you're implementing a progressive tax structure, income tax is a good thing. Also the vast majority of the policies you recommend would require a significant increase in tax revenue, not limited to infrastructure investment, alternative energy investment, raising the pay of military members, taking better care of veterans, funding military research, improving immigration checks, etc. etc. Not to mention income tax is the lion's share of federal tax income as it is, amounting for 47% or so of the US budget. What's the point of cutting it, and how much? Are you implementing a harsher income tax on the rich while relaxing it on the poor to compensate for the increasing wealth disparity, or just cutting taxes across the board? What are you trying to achieve here?

    Sounds fine but you're not going to make anywhere near enough money from just drugs and prostitution to compensate for cutting down on income taxes unless you're barely reducing the income tax. Also who decides which drugs are allowed and which aren't? Marijuana seems to be the obvious one people mean at this point, but you used broader language. Are we allowing opiates? Cocaine? Heroin?

    Generalized to the point of meaninglessness and also assumes that everyone involved in the tax/budget process is an idiot rather than taxation and budgeting just being a seriously complex process that is entangled in just about every aspect of politicking in our government and country.

    Also the Congressional Budget Office exists.

    Yes. Because the American justice system isn't punitive enough already. Let's make it more so. /s

    This "tough on crime" shit gets pushed constantly and there's just zero objective basis or reasoning for it beyond what appears to be some overwhelming urge to punish people. Heads up, a retributive and punitive legal system doesn't significantly lower crime because most of the people who commit them are either a) acting in crimes of passion rather than deliberately planning out criminal activity or b) stuck in desperate situations, often in poor communities with little education. All these policies do is intensify these factors - now people who commit crimes have to pay off higher fines, rooting them in debt and even more unlikely to make a recovery into a productive, noncriminal citizen or live a stable life afterwards or if they get out of prison.

    Justice systems may need punitive elements, yes, but the United States' is pretty clearly skewed far too much towards punishment rather than rehabilitation. (Fuck, just look at our overflowing prison system.) Significant results have come out of rehabilitation-focused systems in the Netherlands and Scandinavia which offer criminals chances to earn job-oriented skills and smooth their integration back into law abiding society rather than just continually punish them for behaviors that are often due primarily to their environment. It's possible going to that extent won't work, they're entirely different societies after all, but we certainly don't need to be more punitive and just throw some more burning shit onto the pile that is our exploitative, bursting at the seams prison system.

    "Stop worrying about the insanity defense." The insanity defense is used in less than 1% of criminal cases, it has a less than 26% success rate when it is used, and 90% of people who use it successfully have a history of mental issues and diagnosis. Also, you know, holding someone who is mentally unfit for crimes in the same way you might hold a sane and healthy person is kind of inhumane.

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    What kind of fascist fearmongering is this? Harassment of police officers is already a crime just like harassment of anyone else, as are most forms of intentional interference of police duty. If you seriously think that this is some sort of major issue that needs dramatic attention and policy change then I really doubt that you have a healthy and objective view on the problems of police-civilian relations.

    Holy shit I do not even have the ability to properly explain all the ways this would destroy the justice system. All that would result is that people would stop reporting crimes at all in fear that they are punished instead. And I'd bet all my dollarydoos this is just a dressed up response to rape accusations. Christ above.

    This is so far removed from the reality of the legal process I don't know where to start. Please take some law classes.

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    ??????????????????????????????

    I honestly don't know how to respond to this one. Jesus take the wheel.

    Oh thank god, that's all we had to do to solve the problem of our aging population and the need for more senior centers! How did no one think of this before?!?!?

    Land is never cheap, unless you're going to put senior centers out in the boonies, in the slums, or in rural areas (all of which are unlikely to have ready access to hospitals and medical infrastructure which is usually needed for senior centers. Also, most of the costs of senior care aren't real estate, but medical expenses and paying for trained staff.

    Why is this even an issue significant enough for it to be placed on this list anyway?

    Over half of the recommended policies in this list are the government meddling.

    The government doesn't even spend that much on housing. And the actual problem is that too much of it goes to higher income families rather than those actually in need.

    Oh look, government meddling. Also very vague and nonspecific. Hard to judge this at all because you might as well say. "Protect the environment, man."

    How can we do this with all the taxes you want to cut? Also again, all of these are extremely complicated, ferociously expensive processes. I'm entirely in favor of investing in and creating more robust public transportation networks but I really don't think you comprehend how they work, how expensive they are, or the federal government's role in creating them versus the city and state's role.

    All this stuff that requires money despite cutting taxes! First we pay all of our 3 million odd military personnel more (when they already have a pretty good payment package and extensive benefits) and now we have to pour more into supporting veterans too.

    It's not this is a bad idea, the veterans part especially, but its ludicrously simplified, reductionist, and just assumes that everyone in charge is pants on head retarded. "Why don't we just put more money into veteran affairs? Why don't we just pay soldiers more?" Yeah despite the fact that we just passed a tax cut. Uh huh.

    I'm in favor of increased military spending sure, but to pay for upkeep of bases and equipment, to expand capabilities and maintain strategic flexibility, not to make sure every soldier can buy another Dodge Charger.

    We already fund R&D. I'd make an argument we should have more investment in cyberwarfare and similar emerging fields, but you seem to just assume everyone in charge isn't already doing these things. They are. They're smart. These things are complicated.

    What the fuck.

    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    Why disincentivize immigration when its always been one of the United States' greatest strengths? The United States receives well educated, productive immigrants from all over the world, and also imports a significant degree of laborers for jobs that many of it's populace aren't willing to do itself. The US is also at a historic low as far as fertility rates go, making immigration one of the primary methods for expanding the population.

    It's also just cruel, considering that a great deal of our immigrant population migrates here based on the desire for a better life, escaping poverty to take low-income jobs here.

    Sanctuary Cities aren't even particularly relevant aside from being used as an immigration dog whistle. Their inclusion into this list just makes it very apparent where your viewpoint is coming from.

    Hard hitting, detailed policy proposals only eh?

    We already have one of the most stringent immigration systems beyond countries who pretty much just say "no." The rate of immigrants who commit crimes in the US is lower than the citizen population. Immigrants commit terrorist attacks at lower rates than the citizen population as well. And immigration has been broadly decreasing overall for quite a while.

    Countries almost never fight wars they don't have a significant interest in. The only one I can even passingly think of is Iraq.

    Aside from that, America is a significant part of the international community. Our significant interests are varied and far reaching, and just about any conflict in the world could be considered as being in our interest to intervene or participate in.

    And while this principle is fine in and of itself, its almost always peddled by people leaning isolationist, which is contributing in large part to our increasing loss of international influence.

    Foreign aid is a method by which we influence and invest in countries that we support and wish to sway. Foreign aid is literally one of the bedrocks of US foreign policy for the past sixty years ever since we helped rebuild Europe and Japan. It harnesses our economic power in a diplomatic fashion. Foreign aid is a useful tool and we are significantly neglecting it.

    Blah blah blah

    This reads like the power fantasy of an extremely young modern white middle-to-upper class conservative who gets their ill-defined picture of the state of America from a vastly distorted lens almost entirely devoid of policy nuance and with no idea of how basic governmental, economic, or legal systems work.

    I only quoted the most objectionable ones, the rest are a few issues that are either non-controversial or up for debate.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2018
  16. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,093
    High Score:
    1,802
    I can see a small basis for the due process one, since some of the companies that do background checks will pull not just criminal/conviction records, but arrest records as well. Though that's more of an issue with criminal background checks/tough on crime being a bit overdone in general. They certainly have their place for things like making sure child molesters aren't given a job that involves being alone with children or people with credit card fraud convictions having a job where they get access to a lot of credit card numbers, but often it becomes a case of not being able to get a job if you have any sort record at all. Which is the sort of thing that will push a criminal who's trying to reform right back into a life of crime.
     
  17. momo

    momo Groundskeeper

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    342
    Location:
    Your Mother's Basement
    High Score:
    0
    Okay big oof right here. Yall completely managed to kill my post. I have to get back to work but I'll be posting my response during lunch break. While I agree that the people who called me out have some decent points, I wasn't that clear on some stuff so I'll clear that up.
     
  18. Arthellion

    Arthellion Supreme Mugwump

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,754
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    Firstly, momos plan has a list of issues...but no reason to be an ass about it.

    He’s not claiming to be an expert. If anything it seems he wants to learn.

    Maybe explain more and condescend less.
     
  19. Zombie

    Zombie John Waynes Teeth Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,294
    High Score:
    2,094
    You're assuming an awful lot about momo. I think you should let him take the time to defend himself instead of trying to be his den mother or whatever the fuck it is you're doing.
     
  20. Moukaboy

    Moukaboy Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2016
    Messages:
    155
    High Score:
    0
    Take a glass of chill the fuck out.
    Sure he assumed a little but he was still right about the condescending tones in most of the replies.
    Not everyone is an edgelord.
     
Loading...