3 ms·

We all know what ultimately needs to happen. Marijuana needs legalized. Minimum sentencing guidelines need to be replaced with maximums. For-profit prisons n

by Zikes 11y ago

We all know what ultimately needs to happen. Marijuana needs legalized. Minimum sentencing guidelines need to be replaced with maximums. For-profit prisons need to disappear. More work needs put into counseling and mentoring at-risk youths. But how do we get there? Do we find another politician to hang our hopes on? Last time I voted for someone campaigning on Hope and Change we saw more civil rights disappear than ever, and Gitmo is still running.

thirsteh 11y ago
Why use Gitmo as an example when there are plenty of other areas where you can bash Obama, like continuing many of the Executive Order programs? At least he genuinely tried to shut down Gitmo and was blocked from doing so. I think believing a single person/president/whatever can fix all problems is wishful thinking, and indeed a system in which that was possible would likely not be a democracy. Start by blaming all the representatives who pushed for or voted against ending the programs you don't like, and voting accordingly. Look at the voting histories of candidates rather than what they say. Look at who funds the candidates , not at what the candidates say. Actually, listen to everything other than what candidates say during election season; the game is set up in such a way that you will always be disappointed if you simply believe what is said, no matter the candidate.
- Zikes 11y ago
  There are plenty of other examples where he's let me down, and plenty of good he's done, but the fact remains that Gitmo is still running. He's literally the leader of the armed forces, he has all the power he needs to shut that place down any time he wants.
  - revscat 11y ago
    This is factually and legally incorrect. The President cannot use any federal funds to modify the prison at Gitmo, or to transfer prisoners. This was part of the budget in I believe 2012, and has been every year since. (Should you need citations I will find them when I return home later.) Point is that shutting down Gitmo was something the Administration attempted to do and that Congress forcefully blocked.
    - kefka 11y ago
      The POTUS has, and I quote, the following: "The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 They are detainees of the USA. He has full power to bestow each and every one of them a full unequivocal presidential pardon for all crimes accused and committed against the US. No if's, and's, or but's.
      - mmanfrin 11y ago
        Extremes should not be remedied with extremes.
        task_queue 11y ago
        You're right. Those presidential pardons are reserved for important people.
        Terr_ 11y ago
        Side note: Presidential pardons are the ultimate answer to any argument for "torture the terrorist to stop the nuclear bomb" scare-stories. If you aren't willing to gamble that you'll need/get a Presidential pardon, then you clearly don't know enough to justify what you're about to do to the suspect.
        lugg 11y ago
        Maybe if he threatened to pardon them they might get trials? That'd be a little less extreme, and a little more, I dunno, constitutional?
      - A_COMPUTER 11y ago
        Pardon isn't on the table, his plan was to move them to a mainland US prison. I don't think he's ever said anything other than the people there are dangerous. Which, based on the way they were captured and held for over a decade without charges or rights, is kinda disgusting in itself that he supports that.
  - fredgrott 11y ago
    Let me tell you a story..Mr Lincoln did not free the slaves...Congress did by enforcing martial law until the South Legislatures passed new state Constitutions and allowed Blacks to vote..time taken ten years after CW ended. Gitmo does not get closed by one lone person..it takes Congress
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > He's literally the leader of the armed forces, he has all the power he needs to shut that place down any time he wants. Actually, the Congress governs the armed forces; the Constitutional designation of the President as Commander-in-Chief simply means limits the Congress, in adopting rules governing the military, from appointing someone else as supreme commander of the military within those rules. The President isn't the King of the military, or anything else.
pasbesoin 11y ago
Bottom up. Which is why local (1) entities and jurisdictions are going to increase in favor, once again. Akin: Employment. Personally, I am finished watching my local labor force hollowed out because some version of... "labor arbitrage", I guess, can save a buck an hour moving the work over a border. (And, as often as not, that saving is being indirectly paid for by me, anyway: Outsized military to secure energy interests used for attendant goods transportation. Inflated retail prices feeding telecom oligopolies whose networks, while I like the connectivity, similarly afford displacement of intellectual labor.) Is such localization perfect? No. But, you asked what/how things might change. People will start tending to their own communities, as a priority, if and when they want them to get better. There will be significant downsides to this, as well (e.g. the potential for increased prejudice, perhaps). But, as one old supervisor used to like to state, "everything is a pendulum." I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, but as I get older and my perspective... "matures?", there does seem to be a lot of it around. -- 1. For various and significantly differing values of "local".
minthd 11y ago
As a non-american, i wonder - is there even an agreement among the population about what needs to happen ? And do most of the population even care about those unjust things , or each group cares about their own problems ? And do they care enough to do something about it ?
- task_queue 11y ago
  No. A good portion of the population never has to see this problem ever and gets uncomfortable by the implications of why that is. Another possibly overlapping portion believes the executive and judicial branches need more power to do their jobs correctly. That usually means legislating away rights and reducing accountability for those involved. And yet another portion is being too systemically harassed and locked up on a massive scale to have a real front for public discourse. The rest/majority don't give a shit unless it becomes their problem and it rarely does.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by Zikes 11y ago

thirsteh 11y ago

Why use Gitmo as an example when there are plenty of other areas where you can bash Obama, like continuing many of the Executive Order programs? At least he genuinely tried to shut down Gitmo and was blocked from doing so. I think believing a single person/president/whatever can fix all problems is wishful thinking, and indeed a system in which that was possible would likely not be a democracy. Start by blaming all the representatives who pushed for or voted against ending the programs you don't like, and voting accordingly. Look at the voting histories of candidates rather than what they say. Look at who funds the candidates , not at what the candidates say. Actually, listen to everything other than what candidates say during election season; the game is set up in such a way that you will always be disappointed if you simply believe what is said, no matter the candidate.

Zikes 11y ago
There are plenty of other examples where he's let me down, and plenty of good he's done, but the fact remains that Gitmo is still running. He's literally the leader of the armed forces, he has all the power he needs to shut that place down any time he wants.
- revscat 11y ago
  This is factually and legally incorrect. The President cannot use any federal funds to modify the prison at Gitmo, or to transfer prisoners. This was part of the budget in I believe 2012, and has been every year since. (Should you need citations I will find them when I return home later.) Point is that shutting down Gitmo was something the Administration attempted to do and that Congress forcefully blocked.
  - kefka 11y ago
    The POTUS has, and I quote, the following: "The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 They are detainees of the USA. He has full power to bestow each and every one of them a full unequivocal presidential pardon for all crimes accused and committed against the US. No if's, and's, or but's.
    - mmanfrin 11y ago
      Extremes should not be remedied with extremes.
      - task_queue 11y ago
        You're right. Those presidential pardons are reserved for important people.
        Terr_ 11y ago
        Side note: Presidential pardons are the ultimate answer to any argument for "torture the terrorist to stop the nuclear bomb" scare-stories. If you aren't willing to gamble that you'll need/get a Presidential pardon, then you clearly don't know enough to justify what you're about to do to the suspect.
      - lugg 11y ago
        Maybe if he threatened to pardon them they might get trials? That'd be a little less extreme, and a little more, I dunno, constitutional?
    - A_COMPUTER 11y ago
      Pardon isn't on the table, his plan was to move them to a mainland US prison. I don't think he's ever said anything other than the people there are dangerous. Which, based on the way they were captured and held for over a decade without charges or rights, is kinda disgusting in itself that he supports that.
- fredgrott 11y ago
  Let me tell you a story..Mr Lincoln did not free the slaves...Congress did by enforcing martial law until the South Legislatures passed new state Constitutions and allowed Blacks to vote..time taken ten years after CW ended. Gitmo does not get closed by one lone person..it takes Congress
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > He's literally the leader of the armed forces, he has all the power he needs to shut that place down any time he wants. Actually, the Congress governs the armed forces; the Constitutional designation of the President as Commander-in-Chief simply means limits the Congress, in adopting rules governing the military, from appointing someone else as supreme commander of the military within those rules. The President isn't the King of the military, or anything else.

pasbesoin 11y ago

Bottom up. Which is why local (1) entities and jurisdictions are going to increase in favor, once again. Akin: Employment. Personally, I am finished watching my local labor force hollowed out because some version of... "labor arbitrage", I guess, can save a buck an hour moving the work over a border. (And, as often as not, that saving is being indirectly paid for by me, anyway: Outsized military to secure energy interests used for attendant goods transportation. Inflated retail prices feeding telecom oligopolies whose networks, while I like the connectivity, similarly afford displacement of intellectual labor.) Is such localization perfect? No. But, you asked what/how things might change. People will start tending to their own communities, as a priority, if and when they want them to get better. There will be significant downsides to this, as well (e.g. the potential for increased prejudice, perhaps). But, as one old supervisor used to like to state, "everything is a pendulum." I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, but as I get older and my perspective... "matures?", there does seem to be a lot of it around. -- 1. For various and significantly differing values of "local".

minthd 11y ago

As a non-american, i wonder - is there even an agreement among the population about what needs to happen ? And do most of the population even care about those unjust things , or each group cares about their own problems ? And do they care enough to do something about it ?

task_queue 11y ago
No. A good portion of the population never has to see this problem ever and gets uncomfortable by the implications of why that is. Another possibly overlapping portion believes the executive and judicial branches need more power to do their jobs correctly. That usually means legislating away rights and reducing accountability for those involved. And yet another portion is being too systemically harassed and locked up on a massive scale to have a real front for public discourse. The rest/majority don't give a shit unless it becomes their problem and it rarely does.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]