I like the Nordic social democracy model. They seem to produce happier results. I think our current system of pure capitalist (99% vs 1%) cruelty has just revealed itself as an abject failure and future times are only gonna get tougher.
The Nordic model emphasizes society-wide risk sharing and the use of a social safety net to help workers and families adapt to changes in the overall economy brought on by increased global competition for goods and services. It combines features of capitalism, such as a market economy and economic efficiency, with social benefits, such as state pensions and income distribution. Also known as the Scandinavian model, it is most commonly associated with the countries of Scandinavia: Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland.
Towards that direction I would be for:
-Popular vote only...end the electoral college
-Access to mandatory universal health and mental care
-End offshore tax evasion banking and corporations
-Decriminalization of recreational drug use and prostitution
-Simple more progressive tax rates (plus carbon use taxes, plus wealth tax for billionaires)
-Added taxes/fees for offshoring jobs and outsourcing labor.
What changes would you like to see?
I'd like to see candidates for office be examined by independent specialists to filter out those who are just plain bat-shit crazy.
For starters...
Quote from: Cassia on December 16, 2020, 04:58:03 PMI like the Nordic social democracy model. They seem to produce happier results.
I would say that's just plain common sense, but apparently, that's not widely known in some circles.
QuoteTowards that direction I would be for:
-Popular vote only...end the electoral college
-Access to mandatory universal health and mental care
-End offshore tax evasion banking and corporations
-Decriminalization of recreational drug use and prostitution
-Simple more progressive tax rates (plus carbon use taxes, plus wealth tax for billionaires)
-Added taxes/fees for offshoring jobs and outsourcing labor.
Same. Add a living wage, an increased protection of natural resources (curbing water/air pollution), modernized energy policy (i.e. phasing out coal), and criminal justice reform (elimination of for-profit prisons, lockup quotas)
Though I note that your first proposal would inexorably lead to the rest - strange that there's such a discrepancy between the popular will and the representatives who are supposed to represent the popular will. Who benefits?
Frankly I think representatives should come from the common. Just pull names from a hat. Give them their 230 grand a year. No more making up special committees where you can get another 200 grand. I think most people picked this way would do a much better job than currently. And give them 4 year terms. The electoral was started by people far smarter than me to check mob rule. I am still on the fence on that one.
Truck drivers, school teachers, bakers, bricklayers, grandmas, would be a far more responsible and concerned electorate. And of course abolish lobbyist.
Cassia's and Hydra's suggestions--yes. Term limits. Redraw all voting districts; somehow set up nonpartial boards that oversee the drawing of districts. Restricting the profit margins of cooperate CEO's; 900+ the average wage is simply criminal. And all of congress receives the retirement and health care of the nations average citizen.
Hell, let's just surrender to the Swedes and let them govern us. :)) And Mandate that the Yankees win the WS every year!! Oh--and free ice cream for all!!
Quote from: aitm on December 16, 2020, 06:28:28 PMThe electoral was started by people far smarter than me to check mob rule.
By wealthy aristocrats. It's not surprising that they wouldn't particularly like a simple popular vote (they didn't particularly like the idea of phasing out slavery, either)
Do you know that state referendums are decided by simple popular vote? Do they seem unusually horrific when compared to Congressional legislation?
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 16, 2020, 06:56:36 PM
By wealthy aristocrats. It's not surprising that they wouldn't particularly like a simple popular vote (they didn't particularly like the idea of phasing out slavery, either)
Do you know that state referendums are decided by simple popular vote? Do they seem unusually horrific when compared to Congressional legislation?
I think he was being sarcastic
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 16, 2020, 06:56:36 PM
By wealthy aristocrats. It's not surprising that they wouldn't particularly like a simple popular vote (they didn't particularly like the idea of phasing out slavery, either)
Do you know that state referendums are decided by simple popular vote? Do they seem unusually horrific when compared to Congressional legislation?
I know what the Puritans did to Quakers in Pennsylvania where they ruled the state. I know that Jefferson and Madison were aware of the very present rule of the Church of England, I know how the Baptist’s and Catholics were like to each other in the 1650’s I know what Jews were subjected to in the early 1600’s. So did they. The rule was to prevent one large mass of people overwhelming a smaller one. The rule of religious freedom was that one man had the same right as the 100 trying to burn down his house.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on December 16, 2020, 07:09:32 PM
I think he was being sarcastic
Not quite. But thanks anyway.
Quote from: aitm on December 16, 2020, 07:18:15 PMThe rule was to prevent one large mass of people overwhelming a smaller one.
Indeed it was. Would you prefer a system where the minority rules or one in which the majority rules? Also, would you like your vote to count less than another person's vote?
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 16, 2020, 07:22:32 PM
Indeed it was. Would you prefer a system where the minority rules or one in which the majority rules? Also, would you like your vote to count less than another person's vote?
If the majority were truly allowed to rule we would still have slavery. Here we are nearly 300 years later and still 30 % of the population would put them uppity blacks back in their place. Do you think Mississippi would agree to let California interfere with their god given rights to majority rule? Do you really want unfettered majority rule?
Great question. Answering neutrally ... I want the rule of law to be followed, or if a law is obsolete or can't or won't be followed, it needs to be removed from the books., but until then, it needs to be followed. This basically defines what is lawful or not, what is normal procedure or not. The current lawless government (from at least 1950, no declaration of war in Korea) is a scandal of epic proportions. Right now the law isn't what is on the books, but what current D/R consensus is. If that is all the law is, then the US doesn't need any statutory or regulatory law, we only need to rely on the corruptible people who happen to hold particular offices.
That is a procedural POV, not about what policy I want started or what other policy I want stopped. Without proper procedure, then getting what I want positive or negative merely requires the right carrot/stick against a corruptible official.
I think states rights is getting a bit thin. The entire country has a constitution and it should be followed in all states.
Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker (sp)..The Puritan Oligarchy....good read, small book more like a large pamphlet, read it about 20 years ago. Interesting stories on early us history, includes some eye raising stuff on the Mathers and the witch trials and Puritans hanging Quakers and ....oh lots of good stuff.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 16, 2020, 08:26:21 PM
I think states rights is getting a bit thin. The entire country has a constitution and it should be followed in all states.
If you mean uniformity of law, that takes a constitutional amendment (say regarding voting uniformity). Corrections like that have been made historically in state and local procedures, particularly when the gerrymandering has gotten completely out of hand. Get to work ;-) Making the US into just one big unit is a bad idea.
But I don't like the idea of the people of a state voting for senators, or electing the WH occupants. The legislatures of the states should choose who the national senators are, because a state let alone a country, is too big to hold a general election for a state-wide or nation-wide office. More like GB in fact, Parliament works out who the PM is (along party lines). In that case, Lincoln wouldn't have been elected, since the Dems were 65% of the legal vote in 1860, presumably controlling that much of the national senate, who would be the electors in my system. Balance has to be made between city and country, between large and small states. Otherwise you simply have Twitter decide everything ;-(
Quote from: aitm on December 16, 2020, 08:32:18 PM
Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker (sp)..The Puritan Oligarchy....good read, small book more like a large pamphlet, read it about 20 years ago. Interesting stories on early us history, includes some eye raising stuff on the Mathers and the witch trials and Puritans hanging Quakers and ....oh lots of good stuff.
Yes, Yankees are assholes. Just ask the British ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on December 16, 2020, 08:35:30 PM
Yes, Yankees are assholes. Just ask the British ;-)
But they weren’t Yankees, they were British subjects...🤫
As I mentioned earlier, I am on the fence with regard to electoral college. I see what majority rule is like in a small town. Why would we think it would be that much different or better on a large scale?
Quote from: aitm on December 16, 2020, 07:36:29 PMIf the majority were truly allowed to rule we would still have slavery.
Would we?
QuoteHere we are nearly 300 years later and still 30 % of the population would put them uppity blacks back in their place.
Is 30% a majority?
And with regards to racial justice / policing reform, the general public is far ahead of Congress. QED.
QuoteI see what majority rule is like in a small town.
And Shoe can see minority rule in hers. Again, which one would you prefer?
I prefer what we have, a system, though perhaps not perfect, that grants a semblance of balance to a large diverse population of divergent interests where one local could overun the minority unless checked by other interests not so inclined.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 16, 2020, 09:10:51 PM
Is 30% a majority?
Not as a nation, but as far as states go, when 65% of one is in the majority and in another that is only 35% then we reach a mutual agreement for the betterment of all. No different that the simple concept of mutual beneficiaries of tribal collective.
Quote from: aitm on December 16, 2020, 09:16:14 PMI prefer what we have, a system, though perhaps not perfect, that grants a semblance of balance to a large diverse population of divergent interests where one local could overun the minority unless checked by other interests not so inclined.
And this system gives someone living in Wyoming more of a say in presidential elections than someone living in California. It does indeed protect minority interests, though not in the way you think. It allows a campaign with minority support (read: less votes) to win elections and it allows a small number of well-connected individuals to push through agendas that are wildly unpopular. The Founders were not perfect, and in fact, made plenty of mistakes (they were aware of this as well, hence the Amendment system)
And Americans largely understand that it's a mistake because you never see Americans tout the wisdom of the electoral college to people from other Western countries. "It's so great, ya gotta try it!" Never happens. No, the electoral college is either a source of embarrassment/shame or something that people wrongly believe is a load-bearing fixture of democracy (other Western countries are proof that it's not, but they rarely realize this)
I believe in majority rule. And I believe in one-person-one-vote.
An electoral college system is not only fundamentally incompatible with those ideas, it was set up for that express purpose, apparently under the idea that us common people can't be trusted. And bizarrely, you have common people buy into that idea. Sheesh! Have some self-respect!
Finally, here is an example of "tyranny of the majority": a majority of Americans support universal healthcare. It hit a majority way back in 2016, over 4 years ago. That's what would be enacted today if the majority truly ruled in America. In our current system, how many years (or decades) will it take for that majority support to translate into actual policy?
It's like that for a whole lot of issues, everything from the War on Drugs (minority wisdom right there) to racial justice (what happens to a dream deferred?). Congress always lags behind the people. And thereby, America lags behind a lot of other countries.
This isn't one of those issues where there's a case to be made for both sides. This is an inherently disenfranchising system and it's long past time for it to go.
Quote from: aitm on December 16, 2020, 09:31:22 PMNot as a nation, but as far as states go, when 65% of one is in the majority and in another that is only 35% then we reach a mutual agreement for the betterment of all. No different that the simple concept of mutual beneficiaries of tribal collective.
Run that by me again, I don't think I fully understand what you're getting at. My source of confusion is the fact that in state elections, candidates win by popular vote (which, presumably, you have no problem with) but presidential candidates win by electoral votes (which you apparently prefer to popular vote).
Do you have a truly consistent position?
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 16, 2020, 09:51:56 PM
Finally, here is an example of "tyranny of the majority": a majority of Americans support universal healthcare. It hit a majority way back in 2016, over 4 years ago. That's what would be enacted today if the majority truly ruled in America. In our current system, how many years (or decades) will it take for that majority support to translate into actual policy?
Americans are not allowed to vote by popular vote on such issues, we have to bow to a rep who bests fits our interest. Same can be said of gay rights 20 years ago, or abortion 60 years ago, Majority rule can be awful fickle if it disagrees with you.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 16, 2020, 09:57:24 PMMy source of confusion is the fact that in state elections, candidates win by popular vote (which, presumably, you have no problem with) but presidential candidates win by electoral votes (which you apparently prefer to popular vote).
I fail to see your confusion. The whole of this conversation is that ,majorities cannot over run neighboring minorities simply by force. Better arguments were made by the founders, it was their idea, and for the most part I think correct.
Quote from: aitm on December 16, 2020, 10:07:43 PM
Americans are not allowed to vote by popular vote on such issues, we have to bow to a rep who bests fits our interest. Same can be said of gay rights 20 years ago, or abortion 60 years ago
That proves my point. A majority backed gay rights before Congress. Same with abortion. The popular opinion is pretty solid for gay rights, less solid for abortion, but still a majority. Yet Presidential administrations have often come out against both and we've often had a majority in Congress against both. Why, when they represent us so well? There's an undeniable discrepancy between popular consensus and the agendas of those in high office, and a big part of that is the fact that citizens don't directly elect Presidents.
QuoteMajority rule can be awful fickle if it disagrees with you.
It wouldn't be much of a democracy if things always go the way that I want. I'm prepared to hash it out even if I'm talking to a brick wall at times. The people can eventually be convinced, it's the minority special interests who cannot be reasoned with. A less-than-perfect majority rule is practically utopian compared to minority rule by a corrupt oligarchy. You can see a lot of that in Russia and China and North Korea, even here to some extent. The choice couldn't be more stark or obvious.
Not my country of course, but how 'bout giving the right to vote to the 3.5 million Americans living in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.
Oh, and unless anyone can give areal good explanation, what about cutting out the electoral college? Or at least revising it completely.
Quote from: aitm on December 16, 2020, 10:10:59 PMI fail to see your confusion.
The point is that sometimes we elect representatives by popular vote and sometimes we do not. My argument is for consistent popular vote. Your argument is that popular vote is bad except when it isn't, which is not an internally consistent argument, let alone a good argument.
I think this whole issue hinges on a willingness to change convention. If the US did not already have an electoral college, I doubt that you would propose one.
QuoteThe whole of this conversation is that ,majorities cannot over run neighboring minorities simply by force.
Should 50 million people outvote 60 million people? That seems to be what you're arguing for. It's honestly hard to believe that you don't notice the many ways this is a bad thing.
And do you honestly not realize that many other countries do not have an electoral college system and they're not hellscapes where electoral minorities are "over run" by "tyrannical" mobs? Pump your brakes with that rhetoric.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 17, 2020, 01:08:10 AMNot my country of course, but how 'bout giving the right to vote to the 3.5 million Americans living in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.
I 100% agree. If it's land controlled by the US, then it should be incorporated into the US and therefore its people should enjoy the same rights as other Americans. D.C. should have statehood as well for identical reasons.
QuoteOh, and unless anyone can give areal good explanation, what about cutting out the electoral process? Or at least revising it completely.
You mean the electoral college? Tell me about it.
Does your country have an electoral college? Do you want one?
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 17, 2020, 01:29:26 AM
I 100% agree. If it's land controlled by the US, then it should be incorporated into the US and therefore its people should enjoy the same rights as other Americans. D.C. should have statehood as well for identical reasons.
You mean the electoral college? Tell me about it.
Does your country have an electoral college? Do you want one?
Yeah, meant college, fixed it.
We don't. And I don't. Seems to serve no purpose but to make things less democratic.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 17, 2020, 01:33:20 AMYeah, meant college, fixed it.
We don't. And I don't. Seems to serve no purpose but to make things less democratic.
But as a voter, don't you distrust voters? They make some bad calls every now and then, you know.
Plus, it makes everything so simple when you combine people voting and land voting. You hardly ever have to stay up till 5am only to find out that the guy with less votes won because he got votes from people living in special places where people's votes disproportionately have more of an impact on the election. I hardly ever get heart palpitations from the stress of it anymore.
And don't forget to make sure these regions hold their primaries at different days, that way you often know who the party pick for head of state is going to be before you've cast your vote. That's always nice. Makes you feel like they really care about your thoughts and are willing to work hard to earn your vote.
Quote from: aitm on December 16, 2020, 08:44:03 PM
But they weren’t Yankees, they were British subjects...🤫
British explicative deleted ;-) Yankee was what the British called them (Yankee Doodle Dandy was an insult).
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 16, 2020, 09:10:51 PM
Would we?
Is 30% a majority?
And with regards to racial justice / policing reform, the general public is far ahead of Congress. QED.
And Shoe can see minority rule in hers. Again, which one would you prefer?
Lincoln was elected with 35% of the vote. Without Lincoln the South would be its own country, or the whole Union would be more similar to 1860. Except I expect a lot more races would have joined the Africans in the cotton fields .. so slavery is less racist. Also North would have to admit that wage slavery was a thing too. Did you know that Lincoln suppressed the (majority) Dem voters in the Union army in the 1864 election, to secure his reelection? The majority of the North were Democrats, called Copperheads.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 17, 2020, 01:08:10 AM
Not my country of course, but how 'bout giving the right to vote to the 3.5 million Americans living in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.
Oh, and unless anyone can give areal good explanation, what about cutting out the electoral college? Or at least revising it completely.
We could always divide into France, Belgium and the Netherlands over language and religion ;-) In the case of Belgium, agree to have a common religion but not divide over language (awkward compromise). I see no reason to give anyone the vote, no matter where they live. Unless of course they only vote the way I want them to ;-)
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 17, 2020, 01:29:26 AM
I 100% agree. If it's land controlled by the US, then it should be incorporated into the US and therefore its people should enjoy the same rights as other Americans. D.C. should have statehood as well for identical reasons.
You mean the electoral college? Tell me about it.
Does your country have an electoral college? Do you want one?
Every county (3000) should be independent city states, joined in a lose confederation (make Classical Greece great again) ;-) How about a micro version of the pre-civil war conflict over congressional representation? Every city state has to have the same number of voters, you can't just move from one city state to another without getting permission from both. And domestically nobody can make babies until authorized, to keep the population static? Otherwise you are trying to get one-up on the other city states.
Quote from: aitm on December 16, 2020, 08:44:03 PM
But they weren’t Yankees, they were British subjects...🤫
Don't confuse him with the facts, he's on a roll...
We are a far cry from the progressive climate when FDR worked his New Deal (adding things we take for granted such as Social Security and the FDIC to insure our bank accounts). The US had powerful labor unions as well as active communist and socialist parties. Bush and Trump ended their terms with the US economy in volatile, smoldering ruins. That suits the super wealthy 'investor class' who only need volatility. They have the capital to make money if valuations and interest rates go up -or- down. They don't want social stability.
Maybe Sleepy Joe will surprise us with some progressiveness. I have a silly gut feeling he may give it a go. Surprise us Joe !!!
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 17, 2020, 05:37:43 PM
Don't confuse him with the facts, he's on a roll...
Yes, there were no Yankees until the baseball team ;-)
Quote from: Cassia on December 17, 2020, 07:16:29 PM
We are a far cry from the progressive climate when FDR worked his New Deal (adding things we take for granted such as Social Security and the FDIC to insure our bank accounts). The US had powerful labor unions as well as active communist and socialist parties. Bush and Trump ended their terms with the US economy in volatile, smoldering ruins. That suits the super wealthy 'investor class' who only need volatility. They have the capital to make money if valuations and interest rates go up -or- down. They don't want social stability.
Maybe Sleepy Joe will surprise us with some progressiveness. I have a silly gut feeling he may give it a go. Surprise us Joe !!!
FDR had to work tooth and nail to get anywhere (bad domestic economy, bad world economy, resisting SCOTUS, attempted coup, attempted assassination). The country was unified by WW II, after Japan attacked us. Up until then public opinion could tolerate Japan (in China) and Italy (in Africa), and supported Germany (against communism). But Hitler's treaty with Stalin, and shifting alliance from KMT to Japan in China, totally blew that narrative. Hitler didn't have to declare war on the US. The Soviet Union, after being invaded by Germany, didn't declare war on Japan until the end of 1945. Hitler was a very stable genius ;-)
A great many of Americans hated FDR, for being rich, for being East Coast, for being Democrat (pro-South), for devaluing the dollar, for seizing the gold, for giving a nod and wink to the British Empire and to the Soviet Union. The majority of Americans still hated the British Empire even after WW I and they certainly hated the Soviet Union (except among American intelligencia who fought against Franco in Spain). His socialist attempts to stimulate the economy failed by 1937. Lend-lease in 1940 saved him. My father's father (anti-communist anarcho-capitalist) hated FDR and he wasn't alone. Multiple people in DC knew the Japanese were going to attack shortly before it happened, and wanted it to happen. WW II, and FDR dying on schedule (for Truman to step in after VP Wallace was dumped for being too friendly to the Soviet Union) made him a saint (same as Lincoln was hated in life but martyred into sainthood). Republicans hate FDR on the dime, as they do Kennedy on the half. This is why it took decades to build any monument to FDR in Washington DC.
I like FDR and Eleanor, after the fact, he had a hard job and did the best he could under the circumstances. Same reason why I admire or feel sorry for Lincoln and Mary Todd. The idea that Americans even know who FDR is, is laughable. And the portrait of Lincoln (even recently) is hagiography. As persons I like Truman and Eisenhower better than FDR. FDR was slick even around his intimates.
Quote from: Cassia on December 17, 2020, 07:16:29 PM
We are a far cry from the progressive climate when FDR worked his New Deal (adding things we take for granted such as Social Security and the FDIC to insure our bank accounts). The US had powerful labor unions as well as active communist and socialist parties. Bush and Trump ended their terms with the US economy in volatile, smoldering ruins. That suits the super wealthy 'investor class' who only need volatility. They have the capital to make money if valuations and interest rates go up -or- down. They don't want social stability.
Maybe Sleepy Joe will surprise us with some progressiveness. I have a silly gut feeling he may give it a go. Surprise us Joe !!!
FDR's predecessor tried hard to screw things up during the transition, he was hoping for support for the next election. It didn't work.
The main change that I'm welcoming is Presidential decisions not being made by a spoiled three year old. Anything after that is gravy.
Quote from: Cassia on December 16, 2020, 04:58:03 PM
Towards that direction I would be for:
-Popular vote only...end the electoral college
-Access to mandatory universal health and mental care
-End offshore tax evasion banking and corporations
-Decriminalization of recreational drug use and prostitution
-Simple more progressive tax rates (plus carbon use taxes, plus wealth tax for billionaires)
-Added taxes/fees for offshoring jobs and outsourcing labor.
What changes would you like to see?
I would like to see all that. In my fantasies, I would also like:
-stronger antitrust laws
-a justice system that focused more on rehabilitation
-an end to "stand your ground" laws and more serious consequences for people who recklessly endanger others with firearms
-limits on campaign spending
-reduced gerrymandering
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 17, 2020, 10:54:50 PM-reduced gerrymandering
Weird that people who get elected due to gerrymandering haven't stamped that out by now. Ranked choice voting would do a lot to dampen its power to make it much easier to dispose of. Ideally, an independent, non-partisan commission to draw up new districts along the Iowa model (https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/the-iowa-model-for-redistricting.aspx).
Oh, and put a cap on the filibuster.
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 18, 2020, 01:42:20 AM
Oh, and put a cap on the filibuster.
The Soul of the Senate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate)? You know, this is something we have in common with several other countries. Sometimes used for good, sometimes for evil.
And fun fact: legislation that could do away with the filibuster could theoretically itself be filibustered. Metabustered, if you will.
Quote from: Cassia on December 16, 2020, 04:58:03 PM
I like the Nordic social democracy model. They seem to produce happier results. I think our current system of pure capitalist (99% vs 1%) cruelty has just revealed itself as an abject failure and future times are only gonna get tougher.
The Nordic model emphasizes society-wide risk sharing and the use of a social safety net to help workers and families adapt to changes in the overall economy brought on by increased global competition for goods and services. It combines features of capitalism, such as a market economy and economic efficiency, with social benefits, such as state pensions and income distribution. Also known as the Scandinavian model, it is most commonly associated with the countries of Scandinavia: Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland.
Towards that direction I would be for:
-Popular vote only...end the electoral college
-Access to mandatory universal health and mental care
-End offshore tax evasion banking and corporations
-Decriminalization of recreational drug use and prostitution
-Simple more progressive tax rates (plus carbon use taxes, plus wealth tax for billionaires)
-Added taxes/fees for offshoring jobs and outsourcing labor.
What changes would you like to see?
In which country do you live and what is / are you
(s) citizenship ? I suppose you live in USA as the majority of people on this board.
Did you already lived in another country than the one in which you live now ?
I live in France and I lived my whole life in France as a French citizen
(I haven't another citizenship).
You're speaking about the Nordic model and I have things to say about it.
"-Decriminalization of recreational drug use and prostitution" is one of your will for your country but you cited Nordic model.
Do you know in Iceland , Norway ,Sweden people face prosecution if they pay for sex ?
Wikipedia about prostitution in the country of ice : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland
Wikipedia about prostitution in Kingdom of Norway : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Norway
Wikipedia about prostitution in Kingdom of Sweden : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Sweden
"Eva Marree Kullander Smith" "AKA""Petite Jasmine" a victim of Swedish policy about selling sex : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Marree_Kullander_Smith
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on December 18, 2020, 01:42:20 AM
Oh, and put a cap on the filibuster.
We need to return to pre-Civil War incivility ;-) ... Cane other members of the Congress, and have open carry of guns in the chamber ;-))
BTW - the Swiss model of public/private health insurance is very well designed. Americans will never copy it, because our whole existence is to game or rip off whatever system we have, because Americans are shit.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 17, 2020, 09:57:51 PM
FDR's predecessor tried hard to screw things up during the transition, he was hoping for support for the next election. It didn't work.
Herbert Hoover was an engineer, same as Jimmy Carter. Don't elect engineers!
So, even though FDR/Dems won both House and Senate, they were destroyed by the all powerful Republicans? It was a little more complicated than that. Prior to being President, Hoover was admired, and his work after being President was also admired (same as Jimmy Carter). Compare Obama/Hillary/Biden after 2016. Hoover was the first President who tried to deal with the Stock Market Crash and resulting bank failures. Mad investment speculation had been going on since 1914 (war profiteering). The Smootâ€"Hawley Tariff was a huge mistake, and Hoover signed it. But neither President can be blamed for the Dust Bowl, the farmers and the weather created that. FDR benefited from Hoover's failure, he could see that bolder action was required, and FDR did it. That is why there was the attempted coup and the attempted assassination.
Our current mad investment speculation has the same cause (war profiteering). The reforms to the investment system put in by FDR were repealed by Bill Clinton et al in 2000. That is why 2008/2009 happened, and will happen again.
viocjit,
Yes, thankyou, I am talking general attitudes. I would say they are more open-minded about it and that decriminalization of the prostitutes in the Nordic countries is a step in the right direction. It is a difficult law to enforce and being illegal, prostitution leads to all sorts of other harmful issues. In general, I think that much of the religious US is really uptight about sex. They are sexually repressed and immature and see it as 'dirty' and 'sinful' and prostitutes end up being victimized much more here.
Quote from: Cassia on December 18, 2020, 10:14:59 AM
viocjit,
Yes, thankyou, I am talking general attitudes. I would say they are more open-minded about it and that decriminalization of the prostitutes in the Nordic countries is a step in the right direction. It is a difficult law to enforce and being illegal, prostitution leads to all sorts of other harmful issues. In general, I think that much of the religious US is really uptight about sex. They are sexually repressed and immature and see it as 'dirty' and 'sinful' and prostitutes end up being victimized much more here.
Go back in time, forbid the Puritans/Yankees to come here. I am not repressed.
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2020, 09:45:56 AM
BTW - the Swiss model of public/private health insurance is very well designed. Americans will never copy it, because our whole existence is to game or rip off whatever system we have...
I think a healthcare system similar to the Swiss model could pass with bipartisan support because it provides affordable healthcare to everyone while preserving private insurance. Eliminating private insurance in the US will be extremely difficult, especially with the current justices on the Supreme Court.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 18, 2020, 10:43:11 AM
I think a healthcare system similar to the Swiss model could pass with bipartisan support because it provides affordable healthcare to everyone while preserving private insurance. Eliminating private insurance in the US will be extremely difficult, especially with the current justices on the Supreme Court.
Well, the current SCOTUS is no problem, just have a violent communist revolution if they don't do what you want?
In a Swiss system, how can the rich nakedly exploit the poor? How can the poor nakedly game the rich? Can the US even make decent chocolates?
Quote from: viocjit on December 18, 2020, 06:58:25 AMYou're speaking about the Nordic model and I have things to say about it.
"-Decriminalization of recreational drug use and prostitution" is one of your will for your country but you cited Nordic model.
Do you know in Iceland , Norway ,Sweden people face prosecution if they pay for sex ?
And in Denmark? Couldn't help but notice the conspicuous omission.
(Note to my FBI agent: I googled "Denmark legal prostitution" for educational purposes only! I'm not planning a trip. Unless... no wait, that's against the rules. Yeah, no trip for me)
While you do have a good point that all the Nordic countries aren't exactly all on the same page (so it's a good idea to be more specific about policies we would like to see adapted here), I think we can all agree that overall there is quite a glaring policy difference from the USA.
The electoral college may have made sense to protect rural areas from being overwhelmed by urban interests until the advent of social media, data collection, and machine learning. If elections are coming down to a few states and a few hundreds of thousand of votes....I can only imagine how voters are being targeted by political action groups. The general election is 'safer' from that bullshit. However after thinking about this a little more I am curious about the ranked choice voting system as implemented by the State of Maine.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/ranked-choice-voting636934215.aspx
Yes, back in the day when 90% of us were honest hard working farmers (ripping off Natives and Slaves) ... the cities (which control so much of banking for example) are a threat ;-0
Now that we are exploring the Gamma Quadrant with Captain Janeway ... the US government system is obsolete. Give me warp drive, or give me Klingons!
I look forward to our Chinese overlords making the BLM etc into chop suey.
Quote from: Cassia on December 18, 2020, 10:14:59 AM
viocjit,
Yes, thankyou, I am talking general attitudes. I would say they are more open-minded about it and that decriminalization of the prostitutes in the Nordic countries is a step in the right direction. It is a difficult law to enforce and being illegal, prostitution leads to all sorts of other harmful issues. In general, I think that much of the religious US is really uptight about sex. They are sexually repressed and immature and see it as 'dirty' and 'sinful' and prostitutes end up being victimized much more here.
Even if prostitution was decriminalized in the countries mentioned in my previous message. Prostitutes are living in conditions that aren't suitable for a Western country
(As a French citizen who did never hold another citizenship. As a person who did never lived elsewhere than France. I'm not legitimate to criticize as I'm a not a citizen of one of these countries and did never lived in one of these) and this is a shame for these places in my opinion.
The states of the Western world pretend to respect human rights and being free.
I don't think it is normal to criminalize buying of sexual services between consenting adults. Where is freedom when no one is injured and can't do it legally ? If prostitution is considered as self-harm why not decriminalize buying of sexual services to improve life conditions of sex workers.
The laws against those who want purchase sexual services have negative impacts on the life of the workers like hide theirs occupations to avoid social services take custody of theirs children , hide from landlord if work happens at home because the landlord must not accept you work in his/her property because if so he/she became a criminal under the law and many others consequences.
One of the consequence is the fact people working with theirs body can work with violent criminal networks to avoid problems with pacific landlords who observe law
(Immigrants from Eastern Europe and Balkan , Africa , South and Central America , Asia. Immigrants from these part of the world are the most impacted in my knowledge).
Sex workers can look for pacific landlords who don't care about law but it does seem there are more possibilities to fall on a violent criminal network than a pacific landlord and if you don't know the language of the country in which you live this is more difficult to meet a pacific landlord who don't care about law.
Landlords can make a denunciation to theirs activities to social service to take custody of children of prostitutes.
A landlord can blackmail sex workers to get sex for free and if the prostitute accept he/she won't speak to social services.
Decriminalization doesn't means end of persecutions. No criminal prosecutions doesn't means no persecutions.
In USA prostitution is illegal in many parts of this country and the same for buying sexual services.
Yes , it is worse than the northern European countries that did only prohibited purchase of sexual services but these nordic countries can't be an example for the world in this matter.
In a safe and sane world (I know--what world is that??) legal prostitution would be the norm. Nevada has had a dual system for decades. Anybody who compares the legal brothels to the illegal sex trade in Reno and Las Vegas can see the stark contrast. Just getting rid of the primps is a huge improvement for the sex workers. Apparently 66 times the money is spent in illegal sex in those two cities, compared to the 21 legal brothels around the state. And the legal sex workers enjoy much better conditions than the illegal ones. Once again, religion rears its ugly head in all of this.
"The prostitution laws in the state of Nevada comes with a number of requirements which need to be met before it can be considered legal. Prostitution is only legal in licensed brothels and condoms must be used. ... Other counties where prostitution is illegal includes Douglas County, Eureka County, and Pershing County." .. so yes, part of the US is like the Netherlands, but much dryer.
Proper courtesans cost real money, and you can't abuse them. I don't see Johns as being nice people. Once of my cousins, a hundred years ago, ran a bordello in Dallas, and was murdered by a John. Men think with their dicks. It would be wise to exterminate them or cut their dicks off ;-)
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 23, 2020, 01:43:05 PM
Just getting rid of the primps is a huge improvement for the sex workers.
I know that is a typo but it cracked me up!
Sex work isn't the same as typical work, just as sexual assault isn't the same as physical assault. It is understandable there are taboos and prejudices regarding selling sex. My feeling is that, as with illegal drugs, prohibition often leads to worse outcomes than the acts themselves. From what I know of some of the legal brothels in Nevada, prostitution can be done safely for everyone involved. There are also "massage parlors" and online arrangements where transactions are conducted safely and discreetly. I'm for decriminalizing and regulating sex work to protect those involved but not eliminating all restrictions.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 18, 2020, 06:12:50 PM
And in Denmark? Couldn't help but notice the conspicuous omission.
(Note to my FBI agent: I googled "Denmark legal prostitution" for educational purposes only! I'm not planning a trip. Unless... no wait, that's against the rules. Yeah, no trip for me)
While you do have a good point that all the Nordic countries aren't exactly all on the same page (so it's a good idea to be more specific about policies we would like to see adapted here), I think we can all agree that overall there is quite a glaring policy difference from the USA.
I don't read Danish , Finnish
(Not a language of the Scandinavian area. This language is not a Germanic language a subfamily of Indo-European languages like DK , IS , NO and SE. This is not even an Indo-European one. This is a Finno-Uralian one) , Icelandic , Norwegian
(There are two writing standard one is bokmål and the other is nynorsk) and Swedish.
Therefore I can't read law texts and read what local say about enforcement of these policies in the reality
(With laws. It can happens there are a huge difference between what say texts that is the theory and the enforcement in real world that is the practice) on websites used by locals.
It is better if we can read websites in local languages to have access to a better plurality of opinion.
A local on a foreign website would lead to partial information and partial opinions of the population because we haven't sufficient people to know what local think and understand rightly the situation.
Never forget each countries are different. If you haven't sufficient people to explain you the differences
(Police structure , judicial structure , laws etc...) you can misunderstood things. You can find information in English on Internet but often information that aren't in local languages are not complete.
For example to understand the police structure of France
(I'm a citizen of this country and lived there my whole life) you must understand this is a
"Constitutional semi-presidential unitary republic" unlike USA that is a
"Constitutional presidential federal republic".
In United States of America there are federal law enforcement
(ATF aka Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives , DEA aka Drug Enforcement Administration , FBI aka Federal Bureau of Investigation etc...) , states law enforcement
(CHP aka California Highway Patrol , Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas , NYSP aka New York State Police etc...) and law enforcement acting at a local levels
(Boroughs , Counties , Cities , Parishes , Towns , Universities etc...) like CPD aka Cleveland Division of Police , LVMPD aka Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department , MIT Police aka Massachusetts Institute of Technology Police Department etc...
In French Republic that is a unitary state and not a federal one. The notion of federal crime doesn't exist. Therefore we haven't federal law enforcement but national law enforcement.
As the law is the same everywhere
(With some adaptations and derogation write in the laws for some place. For example the police can keep you for a duration of 4 hours for a verification of your identity if you're not accused to have violated the law. But in Mayotte an overseas department and region it can be up to 8 hours. I won't explain you what is an overseas department and region unless someone ask because my message is long) because it is a unitary state the laws are the same in all the regions of France.
France, Spain, Italy, Ireland etc have National Police that are a cross between FBI and National Guard. They are heavily armed. This is because the organized crime and terrorists they work against are also heavily armed. Courts have a varying effectiveness, given intimidation and bribery of courts. I would think that the US is the same in this regard, except for the Federalism which creates jurisdiction problems. In the case of the US, the US Marshalls report to the President, not to the local municipalities or counties or state police.
In France the national police (French : Police Nationale) is the main law enforcement agency that is a force composed of civil servant with a statute of civil alongside National Gendarmerie (French : National Gendarmerie) that is a police force composed of military and this a components of French armed forces.
The NP depend of Ministery of Interior (French : Ministère de l'Intérieur) that have functions similar to DHS (United States Departement of Homeland Security) in USA.
The NG depend of Ministery of Interior for its law enforcement functions and the Ministery of Armed Forces (French : Ministère des Armées) for its military functions that is the homologous of DoD (United States Department of Armed Forces).
The national police act generally in urban area when Gendarmerie act generally in rural areas.
In the majority of cases they don't fall on armed criminals but it can happens. It does happens only with organized crime and terrorists in the majority of situations but sometime they can meet people with guns (Possession of rifle are authorized if this is for hunting. Possessions of pistols are authorized if you practice shooting sports. Some people like policemen are allowed to carry theirs weapons at any moment. The right to own a weapon doesn't means you have the right to carry a weapons. Someone who want to carry one to protect himself/herself because he/she think being in danger must to get an authorization and in practice no people or few people get it)
Corruption does exist in all countries and my country is far to be protected. Did I already spoke there about suspicions of Masonic corruptions in the justice system in France by some people ?
When it isn't the Jews behind evil it is the Jesuits or the Freemasons ;-) But then again, the Freemasons in France and the Illuminati in Bavaria weren't like the English/Scottish system. Most suspect that those folks on the Continent were behind all the revolutionary conspiracies of the 18th and 19th centuries ;-) Washington was publicly part of English Freemasonry, but Jefferson is suspected of being part of the French Freemasonry, but they kept their membership list secret. Being a Freemason of any kind was considered heresy for any Catholic.