Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Frumple]

dictionaries will become mandatory. nothing else will change. except maybe our politicians vocabulary.

... wouldn't this be an improvement?

[Bauglir]

Edit: Also, have bills be unable to be longer than the constitution.

This sounds good, but it's a bad idea. On the one hand, it probably improves throughput by getting stuff everyone agrees on through, and keeps things from getting unreadable piles of garbage. On the other, some plans actually do need to be pretty comprehensive in what they change, lest the half-measures just cause a fustercluck of incompatible assumptions.

[Lord Shonus]

What really needs to be done is to put heavy restrictions on how wide a scope a bill can have. There's a lot of congressfolk that are taking a lot of undeserved heat for voting against bills because they objected to some of the riders on it, and it is very common to attach very unpopular policies to "can't-fail" bills.


Edit: Just came across these, which might be interesting to some.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/10/2014-campaign-whoppers/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/oct/24/9-biggest-whoppers-2014-campaign/

[RedKing]

What really needs to be done is to put heavy restrictions on how wide a scope a bill can have. There's a lot of congressfolk that are taking a lot of undeserved heat for voting against bills because they objected to some of the riders on it, and it is very common to attach very unpopular policies to "can't-fail" bills.


Edit: Just came across these, which might be interesting to some.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/10/2014-campaign-whoppers/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/oct/24/9-biggest-whoppers-2014-campaign/

Y'know, this highlights one of the things that irks me most about modern politics. Look at the range of terms used here in these articles: whoppers, distortions, inaccuracies...why doesn't anyone call them what they are? LIES. FUCKING LIES.

For example, when Duncan Hunter pulls some completely bogus claim out of his ass that "10 ISIS fighters have been apprehended at the Mexican border"...he's not "telling a whopper", HE'S A FUCKING LIAR.

Why is the word "lie" such a taboo word when it comes to politics?? "Telling a whopper" sounds harmless, like an old grandfatherly type talking about how he once caught a fish thiiiiiiiiis big. Call them what they are, people. FUCKING LIARS.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

By the way, currently in North Carolina there is a referendum for an amendment that would "allow" accused criminals not facing the death penalty to waive their right to a fair trial. Yeah. The fuck. I voted against it, and so should any other NC forumites.

EDIT: Alright, to be a bit more fair, it is supposed to allow judge trials instead of giving you no trial, but both of those things are bad. Perhaps worse, the wording says nothing about allowing judge trials.

[Frumple]

@RK, actually, I think what might be the issue with just calling the fucking liars fucking liars is slander/libel laws. Publicly calling someone a lying scumshit is something that can be legally complicated, iirc, whereas just saying they were mistaken, inaccurate, etc., etc., slips by civil suit happy assholes much more easily.

E: and @ MSH, can they even add that as an amendment? Isn't the right to a fair trial federal/constitutional level stuff?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You can add anything to the state constitutions, they can just be superseded by the federal level.

[Lord Shonus]

By the way, currently in North Carolina there is a referendum for an amendment that would "allow" accused criminals not facing the death penalty to waive their right to a fair trial. Yeah. The fuck. I voted against it, and so should any other NC forumites.

EDIT: Alright, to be a bit more fair, it is supposed to allow judge trials instead of giving you no trial, but both of those things are bad. Perhaps worse, the wording says nothing about allowing judge trials.

As if plea bargains weren't bad enough.

[Frumple]

... so it would be an entirely toothless amendment immediately overridden by the federal mandates related to the subject?

Though double checking it, it does look like fair trial is straight up constitutional. Looks like there's at least three constitutional amendments involving the subject, one of which (due process clause of the 14th) specifically applies it to states.

I think they literally can't waive their right to a fair trial, if I'm looking at this stuff correctly. State level amendment would mean precisely shit.

E: Though don't mistake me, it is still entirely bullshit. I'm just not entirely sure writing that into the state constitution would do anything.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No, it will be applied as soon as it is passed. It would have to be challenged and overturned by a federal court. Until then, if you get charged and are "persuaded" to waive your right (or your lawyer does it for you, which they can) then tough luck for you.

[Frumple]

So it'd last however long it took to get squished in real court. Yeah, that's a bit of a piece of shit. What feckless twits are pushing that bullshit, anyway?

[LordSlowpoke]

it is supposed to allow judge trials instead of giving you no trial, but both of those things are bad.

judge trials

bad

* LordSlowpoke kicks door in

heard you were talking shit

[Frumple]

LSP, the subject is about criminal trials, not civil. Which, yeah, both judge and no trials in that case is kinda' fucking bad. Doubly so considering this is the states and being an ex-con completely screws you basically forever.

[Cheeetar]

Care to explain why you think judge trials are a good thing, or are you more concerned with being as quirky as possible?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's an old English story I wish I could remember the name of, because it perfectly codifies why judge trials are bad things: to them, it's the same old criminal coming in day after day. The cynicism and blending of experience eliminates good judgement far more than any "easily manipulated 12 pack of plebs" could ever hope to.

Juries are the basis of all fair trials.