EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 620
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On August 17 2018 09:34 Ryzel wrote: Who else are you going to trust to determine legal verdicts? Judges. People with extreme legal and philosophical expertise. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 17 2018 10:16 Mohdoo wrote: Judges. People with extreme legal and philosophical expertise. well, you're free to do that. But the US constitution gives people a right to jury trials. I doubt you could find enough support to change that. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On August 17 2018 10:21 zlefin wrote: well, you're free to do that. But the US constitution gives people a right to jury trials. I doubt you could find enough support to change that. Yeah, I'm not saying I'm in legal majority. I just think from a technical perspective, I believe a jury will on average have a less polished perspective and will thus deliver on average less justice. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 17 2018 10:34 Mohdoo wrote: Yeah, I'm not saying I'm in legal majority. I just think from a technical perspective, I believe a jury will on average have a less polished perspective and will thus deliver on average less justice. quite plausible (depending on how you measure justice; that sounds like a tricky thing to measure). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 17 2018 10:34 Mohdoo wrote: Yeah, I'm not saying I'm in legal majority. I just think from a technical perspective, I believe a jury will on average have a less polished perspective and will thus deliver on average less justice. Judges are more predictable than juries, but also easier to corrupt and compromise. You just trading one set of problems for another, while putting all the power of final judgment in the hands of the state. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On August 17 2018 12:52 Plansix wrote: Judges are more predictable than juries, but also easier to corrupt and compromise. You just trading one set of problems for another, while putting all the power of final judgment in the hands of the state. Yeah totally agree with this. I'm happy with jury of my peers thx very much. I guess I fall further to the libertarian axis of the graph than authoritarian. Amazing to me that it is even considered. On August 17 2018 07:13 ticklishmusic wrote: we went over why the government can't keep the presses printing money like two pages ago, too. Are we back to Venezuela and apples and oranges? The US economy is much more similar to that of Japan by the way. On August 17 2018 07:53 On_Slaught wrote: FYI, Trumps masturbatory military parade's estimated cost has ballooned to $92million, up from $12million and then $30 million. There is no way this farce can go forward now, right? The VA is broke but they will spend that much money on a pointless, un-American parade? I imagine Republicans will be fighting hardest to end this since it will be a big story going into the elections. Kelly and Mattis must be shitting themselves. “Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter,” -Dick Cheney (Which is a half-truth... they do matter, but not the way people perceive). | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On August 17 2018 12:52 Plansix wrote: Judges are more predictable than juries, but also easier to corrupt and compromise. You just trading one set of problems for another, while putting all the power of final judgment in the hands of the state. Definitely, but on the other hand, in a state that isn't wholly corrupt there'd be checks and balances, and in the instance of a judge handing down a bullshit verdict, once proven that judge would themselves be potentially on trial. Honestly I don't think it actually makes a difference. Most of the time the system works, and when there's outrage it's usually over too harsh or too light sentencing, and that part already is in the hands of the judges. I do wonder if a judge-centric system might be easier to correct, though. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On August 17 2018 17:40 iamthedave wrote: Definitely, but on the other hand, in a state that isn't wholly corrupt there'd be checks and balances, and in the instance of a judge handing down a bullshit verdict, once proven that judge would themselves be potentially on trial. Honestly I don't think it actually makes a difference. Most of the time the system works, and when there's outrage it's usually over too harsh or too light sentencing, and that part already is in the hands of the judges. I do wonder if a judge-centric system might be easier to correct, though. Not in the US certainly. We have lifetime appointments to SCOTUS and quite politically charged. I would place my faith in a more educated populace rather than the whims of the Judicial system. I am enamored by the idea that a person's fate is up to their peers- blame can be issued to society itself and lack of fundamentals in cases of error rather than partisan bs. How do you correct corruption and strict ideology in such a system? | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On August 17 2018 18:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote: That would be down to "the people" (tm). Then again how would you correct a system where blame is laid towards society itself and lack of fundamentals in cases of error? Increased investment in education for starters.  In cases of error, I would hope- whatever faith in humanity I have left- that people would steer towards progress I guess. Preferable to complete authoritarian rule I suppose, and who would want to survive that anyway? Rather that my peers decide as I am stuck with them either way. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On August 17 2018 07:53 On_Slaught wrote: FYI, Trumps masturbatory military parade's estimated cost has ballooned to $92million, up from $12million and then $30 million. There is no way this farce can go forward now, right? The VA is broke but they will spend that much money on a pointless, un-American parade? I imagine Republicans will be fighting hardest to end this since it will be a big story going into the elections. Kelly and Mattis must be shitting themselves. Source: It boggles the mind how it's even possible to wage a war if making them move in a line for a few hours costs 90 million. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On August 17 2018 18:41 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: It boggles the mind how it's even possible to wage a war if making them move in a line for a few hours costs 90 million. It's not about the money. This should be clear by now. It's not mind boggling at all. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11626 Posts
On August 17 2018 18:43 screamingpalm wrote: It's not about the money. This should be clear by now. It's not mind boggling at all. What is not about the money? I agree that it is pretty weird that having military dudes walking done a street for an hour or two costs 90 million. And i seriously wonder where those costs come from. They can't be from soldier salaries, as these must be paid anyways, and you don't hire new soldiers for a parade. The equipment must exist, too. They don't shoot any ammunition either. What exactly costs 90 million in having them walk instead of sitting around a base? The fuel for the tanks? I don't dispute that number, i am just really surprised. And as FUARTG stated, waging a war would be absurd if the costs are even slightly proportional. | ||
|
Furikawari
France2522 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11626 Posts
On August 17 2018 20:57 Furikawari wrote: Moving people there, moving vehicles and stuff there, locking, securing the area... Yeah, that cost money. As a french, all those parades are just fascist bullshit see-my-penis stuff, nothing more annoying that the 14th of july. Younger my father wanted to have the tv on (not even watching it): "I wanna see my taxes parade". I agree on the sentiment that a parade is a complete waste of everyones time and money with scary authoritarian undertones. Maybe i just have a wrong impression of how a military works. I just kind of assume that unless there is a war going on, soldiers just kind of sit about bases, doing some training, and maybe having patrols and shit to keep them busy. And in that case, moving them someplace shouldn't really cost a lot of extra money. You just take the people you are already paying to sit around, tell them to get in the trucks you have sitting around in case they need them, and drive to the place they need to be. So fuel and truck repairs should be the only "extra" costs. Or do you have to pay your soldiers more if they actually do stuff? Where do these costs come from? I'd really like to have some breakdown of that. | ||
|
Ryzel
United States535 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28706 Posts
| ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On August 17 2018 21:14 Ryzel wrote: Someone posted something here a while ago about how they completely need to redo the roads of Washington DC to be able to handle the tanks, because as it is now they would destroy the roads. Maybe auxiliary costs like that are part of why it’s so high. No tanks. This was always specified. The 90M figure is about a tankless parade. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35161 Posts
| ||
| ||
