LIVE COVERAGE of Rally for President Trump in DC! 01/06/2021

[jhkim]

The federal government has almost unlimited resources and power. Federal law is ridiculously punitive, and biased against defendants. Both are being wielded like a weapon, by an elite class who believe they are above everyone else, and they're being used to annihilate the people they're supposed to protect. This is an abomination.

I feel like this is yet another one of these issues which is being turned on its head recently -- like foreign military action and corporate power. I've been advocating for defendant rights for decades - constantly saying about how the justice system is punitive and biased against defendants. That is why the U.S. has more prisoners per capita than any other country in the world. Mass incarceration has been a broad progressive cause for ages, but whenever progressives say the law is punitive and biased against defendants - conservatives reply that we're bleeding hearts and against law-and-order.

You mention only federal law here, but I would say state law is just as punitive and biased. Less than 10% of incarcerated Americans are in the federal system.

If the world were sane, all of Congress would be thrown out in the next election cycle, and replaced by people who believe in serving the people, instead of the current cadre who see themselves as Lords and Ladies and the people as ants.

You're attributing this solely to personal views, but I think it is highly likely that even if we got rid of all current congress people that the next batch to be voted in would do more of the same. I think we need campaign finance reform to reduce the influence of money on politics - especially by greater public finance of campaigns and transparency.

[The Spaniard]

The federal government has almost unlimited resources and power. Federal law is ridiculously punitive, and biased against defendants. Both are being wielded like a weapon, by an elite class who believe they are above everyone else, and they're being used to annihilate the people they're supposed to protect. This is an abomination.

I feel like this is yet another one of these issues which is being turned on its head recently -- like foreign military action and corporate power. I've been advocating for defendant rights for decades - constantly saying about how the justice system is punitive and biased against defendants. That is why the U.S. has more prisoners per capita than any other country in the world. Mass incarceration has been a broad progressive cause for ages, but whenever progressives say the law is punitive and biased against defendants - conservatives reply that we're bleeding hearts and against law-and-order.

You mention only federal law here, but I would say state law is just as punitive and biased. Less than 10% of incarcerated Americans are in the federal system.

If the world were sane, all of Congress would be thrown out in the next election cycle, and replaced by people who believe in serving the people, instead of the current cadre who see themselves as Lords and Ladies and the people as ants.

You're attributing this solely to personal views, but I think it is highly likely that even if we got rid of all current congress people that the next batch to be voted in would do more of the same. I think we need campaign finance reform to reduce the influence of money on politics - especially by greater public finance of campaigns and transparency.

Term limits should be enacted immediately as well, but we all know they won't vote themselves out of power.

[Pat]

The federal government has almost unlimited resources and power. Federal law is ridiculously punitive, and biased against defendants. Both are being wielded like a weapon, by an elite class who believe they are above everyone else, and they're being used to annihilate the people they're supposed to protect. This is an abomination.

I feel like this is yet another one of these issues which is being turned on its head recently -- like foreign military action and corporate power. I've been advocating for defendant rights for decades - constantly saying about how the justice system is punitive and biased against defendants. That is why the U.S. has more prisoners per capita than any other country in the world. Mass incarceration has been a broad progressive cause for ages, but whenever progressives say the law is punitive and biased against defendants - conservatives reply that we're bleeding hearts and against law-and-order.

You mention only federal law here, but I would say state law is just as punitive and biased. Less than 10% of incarcerated Americans are in the federal system.

They're being charged with federal crimes, so bringing up state laws seems like another attempt at deflection.

But even in a broader discussion, you're wrong. Federal law is typically more punitive than state laws, federal courts are more heavily biased toward the prosecution than state courts, and there's been vast increase in both the number and the severity of federal laws over the last 30 to 40 years. Drug crimes were one of the early abuses, but another mostly invisible category are violations of environmental rules, which not only have been vastly increased, but the standards of proof have been lowered, and the penalties have been great increased. This isn't going after polluters, it's throwing people in jail because 2 endangered birds landed on their property and they didn't know it. Plus, there's been some progress in reforming state laws lately, with decriminalization and the move to eliminate bail in many states. There's no comparable movement regarding federal law; in fact, quite the reverse.

If the world were sane, all of Congress would be thrown out in the next election cycle, and replaced by people who believe in serving the people, instead of the current cadre who see themselves as Lords and Ladies and the people as ants.

You're attributing this solely to personal views, but I think it is highly likely that even if we got rid of all current congress people that the next batch to be voted in would do more of the same. I think we need campaign finance reform to reduce the influence of money on politics - especially by greater public finance of campaigns and transparency.

I'm not attributing anything solely to personal views. I'm calling out a specific group of people, and made the case for it. They're monsters. Once again, you're engaging in deflection.

Your conclusions are also suspect. If 100% of the Congressional seats up for election in 2022 flipped, that would be such a radical change that we'd see a seismic shift in politics. I don't know what we'd end up with, but there's no way the established political structure would remain intact without some massive changes.

Not to mention, "campaign finance reform" is a phrase full of self-satisfaction and smugness, and signifying nothing. I've never seen a proposal that wouldn't make things worse, and the specific but vague platitudes you've latched onto are nearly meaningless. More transparency? Except for PACs, there's near total transparency in everything. It's so transparent, that people use it to build political hit lists to go after regular people, which is something we should be blocking not enabling. And we've so limited campaign finance, that politicians spend some obscene percentage of their time making phone calls and attending events, instead of doing anything related to their jobs. State funding would just lock in the existing political class; we'd never see a real outsider, again.

[Eirikrautha]

You're attributing this solely to personal views, but I think it is highly likely that even if we got rid of all current congress people that the next batch to be voted in would do more of the same. I think we need campaign finance reform to reduce the influence of money on politics - especially by greater public finance of campaigns and transparency.

Your solution is like trying to stop drug use by making drug-dealing illegal.  Supply-side regulation has worked real well against that, huh?  Campaign finance laws are only necessary if there is a lot of money in politics.  And there is only a lot of money in politics if the contributors stand to make way more money than they contribute.  You can't stop money flowing into politicians with laws.  First, they write them.  Second, they ignore them with impunity.  Why do you think there was so much consternation about Ukraine once the Hunter Biden crap started circulating?  Because politicians have used off-shore "projects" to launder money to their families for decades.  It's the same way that they create PR firms for their family to run, then pay the PR firm from their campaign contributions (thereby turning public money into personal profit)... lookin' at you, AOC...

The reason that companies can make so much more money via contributions is because the government controls so much of the economy and day-to-day life.  You really think that the feds regulated the size and imports of toilets to "save the planet"?  Every federal legislation can be leveraged to line someone's pockets.  The reason there is too much money in politics is because the government has too much power.  The only way to reduce the amount of money in politics is to reduce the amount of money that can be made through corrupt politics, and that means reducing the size, scope, and power of government.  A giant, powerful government will always be worth the price paid to influence it.  No one is going to spend millions electing people who can't be used to get rich...

[Pat]

The reason that companies can make so much more money via contributions is because the government controls so much of the economy and day-to-day life.  You really think that the feds regulated the size and imports of toilets to "save the planet"?  Every federal legislation can be leveraged to line someone's pockets.  The reason there is too much money in politics is because the government has too much power.  The only way to reduce the amount of money in politics is to reduce the amount of money that can be made through corrupt politics, and that means reducing the size, scope, and power of government.  A giant, powerful government will always be worth the price paid to influence it.  No one is going to spend millions electing people who can't be used to get rich...

Agree, but with two caveats: The first is, it's not just about the size of the government, it's also about the size of the government in one place. If the overall governmental power remains constant, but the central government is limited, and most of their power is distributed to the 50 states and 90,000 municipalities, it costs a lot more to bribe them all. It makes lobbying a lot less efficient.

Second, it's not just about size or power, it's also about discretionary authority. If the government's job is enforcing a set of clear rules, with little wriggle room, lobbyists stand to gain a lot less than when government official have broad authority to make or interpret the rules (whether laws or regulations) as they see fit. We live under a vast morass of selectively applied and vague rules.

Decentralization and clear, unambiguous rules are just as important as reigning in the size and power of governments.

[jhkim]

Term limits should be enacted immediately as well, but we all know they won't vote themselves out of power.

I understand the motivation for term limits, but it seems to me they make things worse, not better. They offer no assurance that the new batch will be any better than the previous batch. And as far as I can see historically, lame ducks at the end of their career get even more corrupt than the long-term politicians. California enacted term limits for state legislature in 1990, and I don't feel that it has improved anything here.

Short-term politicians care even less about their popularity once elected, and are more beholden to the long-term lobbyists and department professionals.

[Pat]

Term limits should be enacted immediately as well, but we all know they won't vote themselves out of power.

I understand the motivation for term limits, but it seems to me they make things worse, not better. They offer no assurance that the new batch will be any better than the previous batch. And as far as I can see historically, lame ducks at the end of their career get even more corrupt than the long-term politicians. California enacted term limits for state legislature in 1990, and I don't feel that it has improved anything here.

Short-term politicians care even less about their popularity once elected, and are more beholden to the long-term lobbyists and department professionals.

Term limits where the politician is executed at the end of their term might solve that problem.

[Shasarak]

Short-term politicians care even less about their popularity once elected, and are more beholden to the long-term lobbyists and department professionals.

I have heard arguments for replacing elected politicians with a Monarchy because, in theory, the Monarch will be able to take a much longer term view of issues.

But probably not a popular opinion on the 4th July.

[Ratman_tf]

Short-term politicians care even less about their popularity once elected, and are more beholden to the long-term lobbyists and department professionals.

I have heard arguments for replacing elected politicians with a Monarchy because, in theory, the Monarch will be able to take a much longer term view of issues.

But probably not a popular opinion on the 4th July.

In theory. In practice, you get a person for life who might be nuts or incompetent or both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mentally_ill_monarchs#:~:text=authority%20to%20him.-,European%20monarchs,for%20more%20than%20a%20year.

[KingCheops]

Short-term politicians care even less about their popularity once elected, and are more beholden to the long-term lobbyists and department professionals.

I have heard arguments for replacing elected politicians with a Monarchy because, in theory, the Monarch will be able to take a much longer term view of issues.

But probably not a popular opinion on the 4th July.

It's a very seductive approach but really hard to get the checks and balances correct.  And God help you if you make the executive hereditary.

[Pat]

A Congressional lottery would be a good alternative.

A legislature that reflects the people.

[Ratman_tf]

A Congressional lottery would be a good alternative.

A legislature that reflects the people.

I'd want a caveat that people "drafted" can opt out if they don't want to serve.
Maybe anyone can put their name in the bucket to be drawn, but you don't have to put your name in the bucket if you don't want.
But then we have to ask who's holding the bucket...

[Shasarak]

Short-term politicians care even less about their popularity once elected, and are more beholden to the long-term lobbyists and department professionals.

I have heard arguments for replacing elected politicians with a Monarchy because, in theory, the Monarch will be able to take a much longer term view of issues.

But probably not a popular opinion on the 4th July.

In theory. In practice, you get a person for life who might be nuts or incompetent or both.

I am not sure that I see the difference with what you have now?

[Zelen]

One of the real advantages of a monarchy is we'd presumably have a person who was actually in charge and thus accountable. Heads on pikes is a good motivator, but the pikes are less of a threat when the people whose heads need to be on them are invisible bureaucrats or just jet away to different countries.

[Willmark]

I'm not attributing anything solely to personal views. I'm calling out a specific group of people, and made the case for it. They're monsters. Once again, you're engaging in deflection.

You're new here right?