First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply My SAY. If you could make your own political policies.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 22 days ago

ClothStatue wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:



Sure sure, but then you aren't protesting a split second decision made by an officer in a tough situation at all, you're protesting the courts, and that's something else entirely.

This isn't to discourage protesting, but to stop people from stirring up shit about the wrong shit.


I don't... agree with it per say, but I would tolerate if this carried at the very least two requirements (amendments if you will): A: body cameras on police at all times. B:The cameras would be retrieved by a designated court official traveling to the scene of the incident, the footage of such things being readily and publicly available and easily accessible within 24 hours, with all uncut footage from at least that day to prevent tampering or only showing partial footage.Strict, but the way I see it the added trouble will keep police from being trigger happy and then hiding behind the court, and we can instead invest in non lethal (or at least mostly non lethal) weapons and training for police officers; we spend far too much time with police at the gun range in this country and far too little in situation deescalation training.

That's actually fair, and I'm all for the body camera route. That protects innocent victims, regardless of if it is the cop or the suspect.

I would also go a step farther and state that body camera should constantly automatically wirelessly upload (maybe in small chunks) to a server, if the camera is not working properly, the officer must replace it immediately, while not acting as a law officer until the replacement is attached.

In such an incident, failure to produce body camera footage could be considered evidence of guilt of the officer, because there'd be very little excuse at that point.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 22 days ago
No one has commented on my economic policies. That makes me sad.
22114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 22 days ago

HolyDrumstick wrote:


ClothStatue wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:



Sure sure, but then you aren't protesting a split second decision made by an officer in a tough situation at all, you're protesting the courts, and that's something else entirely.

This isn't to discourage protesting, but to stop people from stirring up shit about the wrong shit.


I don't... agree with it per say, but I would tolerate if this carried at the very least two requirements (amendments if you will): A: body cameras on police at all times. B:The cameras would be retrieved by a designated court official traveling to the scene of the incident, the footage of such things being readily and publicly available and easily accessible within 24 hours, with all uncut footage from at least that day to prevent tampering or only showing partial footage.Strict, but the way I see it the added trouble will keep police from being trigger happy and then hiding behind the court, and we can instead invest in non lethal (or at least mostly non lethal) weapons and training for police officers; we spend far too much time with police at the gun range in this country and far too little in situation deescalation training.

That's actually fair, and I'm all for the body camera route. That protects innocent victims, regardless of if it is the cop or the suspect.

I would also go a step farther and state that body camera should constantly automatically wirelessly upload (maybe in small chunks) to a server, if the camera is not working properly, the officer must replace it immediately, while not acting as a law officer until the replacement is attached.

In such an incident, failure to produce body camera footage could be considered evidence of guilt of the officer, because there'd be very little excuse at that point.


I agree with pretty much everything of what you said, one thing I would say I would be concerned about with a wireless connection to a server would be the implications of a wireless feed, such as: Who has custody and maintenance of the server, I'll just take initiative and say it's stationed at the local court system, but even then there are a few issues: connections can be faulty at times, depending on the location and that can impede or result in a loss of data (though if it both saved to itself and uploaded that might not be an issue), and most of all a wireless connection can be infiltrated easily, which can result in either internal, or worse, external wireless acquisition and tampering of footage. I think the best solution is to keep things a little more rudimentary. If we keep it to hardware with a court official until it is uploaded, we wouldn't have to worry about cyber attacks which are only getting more dangerous as things progress.
664 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 22 days ago
Alright, sure. Just a few that matter to me more than others.

1) Increase the minimum wage to a living wage, adjusted yearly, while also creating regulations on the percentage of a company's income that must go to employees' salary. If that number falls above the minimum wage, then the company must pay higher wages or - in agreement with their workers' union - agree to another form of compensation (extra vacation days, enhancements to the lounge, whatever). If that number falls below the minimum wage, they may seek government aide in subsidizing their income at the cost of a small percentage of stock being given to the government. It may be bought back from them once profits can pay for their workers.

2) Ensure paid maternity leave is guaranteed in all workplaces, for a minimum of 52 weeks, and ensure paid paternity leave of equal length is guaranteed in all workplaces. This is important for many reasons, including a rise in LGBT couples with children and cases where a woman makes more money than her husband. This also benefits single fathers, if the mother dies or chooses to give up her rights to the child after it is born.

3) Increased funding to public transit, and a massive effort to build both passenger and freight trains across America. The lack of transcontinental railroads is appalling, and freight costs are expensive for farmers and businesses. Reduce air traffic, and invest in eco-friendly infrastructure for our transit system. Additionally, invest in monorails and bus systems that extend into the suburbs. More pedestrian areas where private automobiles are not allowed, especially in dense city spaces. And more bike paths and sidewalks.

4) Subsidize and support small farmers, fisherman, and other food producers.

5) Total opposition to NAFTA, CAFTA, the TPP, and most other proposed trade agreements, until such time that they are rewritten entirely to benefit the workers, environment, and people of the involved nations before corporate interests.

6) An end to all U.S. aid to Israel, until the end of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and West Bank.

7) Greater enforcement of our anti-discrimination laws, Americans with Disabilities Act, Native American treaty rights, and affirmative action. Expand anti-discrimination laws to greater protect LGBT people, especially transgender individuals. Scratch off all of the 'men' and 'women' signs in America and just write "it's a bathroom, just piss and shut up for goodness' sake". That last bit was a joke, but seriously, let everyone use whatever bathroom they desire, or simply make all bathrooms gender neutral.

8) Clinics providing abortions must have the full protection of the law, and there must be one available in every state. Birth control is a required service of all relevant health care providers and health insurance companies, and no corporation can decide not to provide it for their employees. (Or, save us all the trouble, a single-payer healthcare system that subsidizes it so your employer needn't have to concern themselves with it one way or the other.) Increased funding to child care services, including government-subsidized day cares. Increased funding for adoption agencies, and better protections and aid for children who 'grow up in the system'. Also, comprehensive sex ed.

9) Publicly funded higher education, with greater opportunities for students to get grants instead of loans. Student loan relief plans for all unemployed students, as well as those paid the minimum wage (even the increased minimum wage from my first point). More work available for high school graduates without a degree or diploma, and a greater emphasis put on vocational schools. Specialization options available for students in secondary school, and de-emphasizing standardized tests like the SAT.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 22 days ago

ClothStatue wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:


ClothStatue wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:



Sure sure, but then you aren't protesting a split second decision made by an officer in a tough situation at all, you're protesting the courts, and that's something else entirely.

This isn't to discourage protesting, but to stop people from stirring up shit about the wrong shit.


I don't... agree with it per say, but I would tolerate if this carried at the very least two requirements (amendments if you will): A: body cameras on police at all times. B:The cameras would be retrieved by a designated court official traveling to the scene of the incident, the footage of such things being readily and publicly available and easily accessible within 24 hours, with all uncut footage from at least that day to prevent tampering or only showing partial footage.Strict, but the way I see it the added trouble will keep police from being trigger happy and then hiding behind the court, and we can instead invest in non lethal (or at least mostly non lethal) weapons and training for police officers; we spend far too much time with police at the gun range in this country and far too little in situation deescalation training.

That's actually fair, and I'm all for the body camera route. That protects innocent victims, regardless of if it is the cop or the suspect.

I would also go a step farther and state that body camera should constantly automatically wirelessly upload (maybe in small chunks) to a server, if the camera is not working properly, the officer must replace it immediately, while not acting as a law officer until the replacement is attached.

In such an incident, failure to produce body camera footage could be considered evidence of guilt of the officer, because there'd be very little excuse at that point.


I agree with pretty much everything of what you said, one thing I would say I would be concerned about with a wireless connection to a server would be the implications of a wireless feed, such as: Who has custody and maintenance of the server, I'll just take initiative and say it's stationed at the local court system, but even then there are a few issues: connections can be faulty at times, depending on the location and that can impede or result in a loss of data (though if it both saved to itself and uploaded that might not be an issue), and most of all a wireless connection can be infiltrated easily, which can result in either internal, or worse, external wireless acquisition and tampering of footage. I think the best solution is to keep things a little more rudimentary. If we keep it to hardware with a court official until it is uploaded, we wouldn't have to worry about cyber attacks which are only getting more dangerous as things progress.


It isn't hard to encrypt things. Hell, military radios are still relevant, and they're not that complicated.

But, I'd personally say that the camera has internal storage which it uploads to servers via the computer system already installed in most police units.

It isn't really that complicated. Also, I'd recommend the footage only be accessible to the local law enforcement and courts through the direct camera save data or unit computer. The servers could be federal or state, and only accessible if such a need for an investigation arose. Like you said, if local and external storage were used, gaps in transmission wouldn't cause issue.

Also, I don't think police cam footage is sensitive enough to worry about hacking. Even if and when cops do stupid shit, they are not going to have the time to premeditate messing with the footage. And lack of footage can be presented as evidence of guilt.

I understand your concerns, but I think they're all easily worked around.

22114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 22 days ago , edited 22 days ago

HolyDrumstick wrote:

No one has commented on my economic policies. That makes me sad.



I'll humor you DivineChickenLeg ;)


1 - Deregulate but offer tax breaks to companies with good environmental policies.


I think this is a good step, but I think what's more important is to stop funding and subsidizing big oil and agriculture. We pay them ridiculous amounts of money, our taxes, to keep their pockets nice and full. These guys don't need our help funding their ambitions and we sure aren't getting much out of them, if they wanna keep their activities as they are they are more than capable of taking it out of their absurd pay packages. We can take that money and put it into the green energy you're talking about, as well as perhaps looking into some public works projects for environmental protection, or just save some cash and relieve our deficit.

I think a tax on carbon is not a bad idea at this point. While you want to deregulate, things are beyond horrible right now, we need some strict action or we'll be paying a far worse price. Besides, the tech for keeping things green is there and it's readily available it's not like taking environmentally friendlier methods is going to absolutely decimate their businesses.

You might disagree but I think one thing that really just needs to be off the table, or at least on the road to it, is fracking. It can make jobs and it may be able to make us less fuel dependent but it's a simply dangerous practice, we need to start investing in electric transportation if we really wanna be fuel independent and truly make a difference in our carbon output.
22114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 22 days ago

HolyDrumstick wrote:


ClothStatue wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:


ClothStatue wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:



Sure sure, but then you aren't protesting a split second decision made by an officer in a tough situation at all, you're protesting the courts, and that's something else entirely.

This isn't to discourage protesting, but to stop people from stirring up shit about the wrong shit.


I don't... agree with it per say, but I would tolerate if this carried at the very least two requirements (amendments if you will): A: body cameras on police at all times. B:The cameras would be retrieved by a designated court official traveling to the scene of the incident, the footage of such things being readily and publicly available and easily accessible within 24 hours, with all uncut footage from at least that day to prevent tampering or only showing partial footage.Strict, but the way I see it the added trouble will keep police from being trigger happy and then hiding behind the court, and we can instead invest in non lethal (or at least mostly non lethal) weapons and training for police officers; we spend far too much time with police at the gun range in this country and far too little in situation deescalation training.

That's actually fair, and I'm all for the body camera route. That protects innocent victims, regardless of if it is the cop or the suspect.

I would also go a step farther and state that body camera should constantly automatically wirelessly upload (maybe in small chunks) to a server, if the camera is not working properly, the officer must replace it immediately, while not acting as a law officer until the replacement is attached.

In such an incident, failure to produce body camera footage could be considered evidence of guilt of the officer, because there'd be very little excuse at that point.


I agree with pretty much everything of what you said, one thing I would say I would be concerned about with a wireless connection to a server would be the implications of a wireless feed, such as: Who has custody and maintenance of the server, I'll just take initiative and say it's stationed at the local court system, but even then there are a few issues: connections can be faulty at times, depending on the location and that can impede or result in a loss of data (though if it both saved to itself and uploaded that might not be an issue), and most of all a wireless connection can be infiltrated easily, which can result in either internal, or worse, external wireless acquisition and tampering of footage. I think the best solution is to keep things a little more rudimentary. If we keep it to hardware with a court official until it is uploaded, we wouldn't have to worry about cyber attacks which are only getting more dangerous as things progress.


It isn't hard to encrypt things. Hell, military radios are still relevant, and they're not that complicated.

But, I'd personally say that the camera has internal storage which it uploads to servers via the computer system already installed in most police units.

It isn't really that complicated. Also, I'd recommend the footage only be accessible to the local law enforcement and courts through the direct camera save data or unit computer. The servers could be federal or state, and only accessible if such a need for an investigation arose. Like you said, if local and external storage were used, gaps in transmission wouldn't cause issue.

Also, I don't think police cam footage is sensitive enough to worry about hacking. Even if and when cops do stupid shit, they are not going to have the time to premeditate messing with the footage. And lack of footage can be presented as evidence of guilt.

I understand your concerns, but I think they're all easily worked around.



I see. Honestly I don't know enough about these specifics to have an educated discussion on it on my part, so I'll take your word for it here ^.^
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 22 days ago

pansyforyourthoughts wrote:

1) Increase the minimum wage to a living wage, adjusted yearly, while also creating regulations on the percentage of a company's income that must go to employees' salary. If that number falls above the minimum wage, then the company must pay higher wages or - in agreement with their workers' union - agree to another form of compensation (extra vacation days, enhancements to the lounge, whatever). If that number falls below the minimum wage, they may seek government aide in subsidizing their income at the cost of a small percentage of stock being given to the government. It may be bought back from them once profits can pay for their workers.


I'm personally against high minimum wages, in terms of flat rates, because it cripples small business.


Rather than a hard cap on salaries, require that minimum wage of companies fall within a certain percentage of the max.


The reason I go for this policy is because small businesses can easily work within these parameters with a lower minimum wage, until they get on their feet, yet larger businesses will be forced to raise the wages of lower paid employees if they wish to continue to pay CEOs crazy salaries. Though, I imagine they'd find a middle ground, and that's the point.

So, in short, my policy was designed in such a way as to close the wage gap throughout the nation without crippling small business in the process.

Make sense?
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 22 days ago

ClothStatue wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:

No one has commented on my economic policies. That makes me sad.



I'll humor you DivineChickenLeg ;)


1 - Deregulate but offer tax breaks to companies with good environmental policies.


I think this is a good step, but I think what's more important is to stop funding and subsidizing big oil and agriculture. We pay them ridiculous amounts of money, our taxes, to keep their pockets nice and full. These guys don't need our help funding their ambitions and we sure aren't getting much out of them, if they wanna keep their activities as they are they are more than capable of taking it out of their absurd pay packages. We can take that money and put it into the green energy you're talking about, as well as perhaps looking into some public works projects for environmental protection.

I think a tax on carbon is not a bad idea at this point. While you want to deregulate, things are beyond horrible right now, we need some strict action or we'll be paying a far worse price. Besides, the tech for keeping things green is there and it's readily available it's not like taking environmentally friendlier methods is going to absolutely decimate their businesses.

You might disagree but I think one thing that really just needs to be off the table, or at least on the road to it, is fracking. It can make jobs and it may be able to make us less fuel dependent but it's a simply dangerous practice, we need to start investing in electric transportation if we really wanna be fuel independent and truly make a difference in our carbon output.


I understand what you're saying, but hard regulations damage business.

You want to coax business into becoming more efficient and environmentally friendly. If businesses know they can get tax breaks for lowering their carbon footprint, they'll put money into researching and developing how to do that, while not losing money in the meantime.

If you encourage people to do something properly, but don't make a bunch of stupid regulations to make it happen, they'll work in their best interest to find the most efficient way to make that happen. And, in the end, the only way we're ever going to get environmentally friendly policy to work is by making it efficient.

664 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 22 days ago

HolyDrumstick wrote:

Make sense?


I understand your perspective, I just disagree with it. I'll always put the worker before the business, even if it is a small business, but I don't dislike the idea of proportional pay increase between the lowest tier employees and the CEO in large corporations. There is merit to that, but it can't come at the expense of anybody's ability to afford their livelihood.
19506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / NYC Metro Area
Online
Posted 22 days ago

HolyDrumstick wrote:


ClothStatue wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:

No one has commented on my economic policies. That makes me sad.



I'll humor you DivineChickenLeg ;)


1 - Deregulate but offer tax breaks to companies with good environmental policies.


I think this is a good step, but I think what's more important is to stop funding and subsidizing big oil and agriculture. We pay them ridiculous amounts of money, our taxes, to keep their pockets nice and full. These guys don't need our help funding their ambitions and we sure aren't getting much out of them, if they wanna keep their activities as they are they are more than capable of taking it out of their absurd pay packages. We can take that money and put it into the green energy you're talking about, as well as perhaps looking into some public works projects for environmental protection.

I think a tax on carbon is not a bad idea at this point. While you want to deregulate, things are beyond horrible right now, we need some strict action or we'll be paying a far worse price. Besides, the tech for keeping things green is there and it's readily available it's not like taking environmentally friendlier methods is going to absolutely decimate their businesses.

You might disagree but I think one thing that really just needs to be off the table, or at least on the road to it, is fracking. It can make jobs and it may be able to make us less fuel dependent but it's a simply dangerous practice, we need to start investing in electric transportation if we really wanna be fuel independent and truly make a difference in our carbon output.


I understand what you're saying, but hard regulations damage business.

You want to coax business into becoming more efficient and environmentally friendly. If businesses know they can get tax breaks for lowering their carbon footprint, they'll put money into researching and developing how to do that, while not losing money in the meantime.

If you encourage people to do something properly, but don't make a bunch of stupid regulations to make it happen, they'll work in their best interest to find the most efficient way to make that happen. And, in the end, the only way we're ever going to get environmentally friendly policy to work is by making it efficient.



Take solar panels for example. Why do most people not have them? Simple still too damn expensive. Get alternative technology more efficient and cheaper and most people will get them. Instead of special interests driving who gets subsidies and who doesn't let's get more money into research and development.

Completely agree with what you said.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 22 days ago , edited 18 days ago

pansyforyourthoughts wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:

Make sense?


I understand your perspective, I just disagree with it. I'll always put the worker before the business, even if it is a small business, but I don't dislike the idea of proportional pay increase between the lowest tier employees and the CEO in large corporations. There is merit to that, but it can't come at the expense of anybody's ability to afford their livelihood.


I feel like you're perceiving problems that would not exist. Most of business is big business.

So, if you absolutely could not live off of the minimum wage at a small business, you go to a big business which under my policy would be paying a much higher wage. There'd be plenty of high paying jobs.

Yet, at the same time, small business could get on its feet. Those who CHOSE to work there would do so because they believed in the businesses' potential and were hoping to grow with the business. They would choose to work for these small businesses only then. So, it wouldn't be at the expense of anyone's livelihood. There'd be way too many higher paying jobs for anyone to be forced to work for a lower paying small business.

In your scenario, you simply destroy the economy altogether.

But, hey, keep believing those hard regulations don't force business out of the country, and keep watching while our economy takes a nose dive, and no one ends up with a decent paying job.
22114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 22 days ago

HolyDrumstick wrote:


ClothStatue wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:

No one has commented on my economic policies. That makes me sad.



I'll humor you DivineChickenLeg ;)


1 - Deregulate but offer tax breaks to companies with good environmental policies.


I think this is a good step, but I think what's more important is to stop funding and subsidizing big oil and agriculture. We pay them ridiculous amounts of money, our taxes, to keep their pockets nice and full. These guys don't need our help funding their ambitions and we sure aren't getting much out of them, if they wanna keep their activities as they are they are more than capable of taking it out of their absurd pay packages. We can take that money and put it into the green energy you're talking about, as well as perhaps looking into some public works projects for environmental protection.

I think a tax on carbon is not a bad idea at this point. While you want to deregulate, things are beyond horrible right now, we need some strict action or we'll be paying a far worse price. Besides, the tech for keeping things green is there and it's readily available it's not like taking environmentally friendlier methods is going to absolutely decimate their businesses.

You might disagree but I think one thing that really just needs to be off the table, or at least on the road to it, is fracking. It can make jobs and it may be able to make us less fuel dependent but it's a simply dangerous practice, we need to start investing in electric transportation if we really wanna be fuel independent and truly make a difference in our carbon output.


I understand what you're saying, but hard regulations damage business.

You want to coax business into becoming more efficient and environmentally friendly. If businesses know they can get tax breaks for lowering their carbon footprint, they'll put money into researching and developing how to do that, while not losing money in the meantime.

If you encourage people to do something properly, but don't make a bunch of stupid regulations to make it happen, they'll work in their best interest to find the most efficient way to make that happen. And, in the end, the only way we're ever going to get environmentally friendly policy to work is by making it efficient.



I get where you're coming from. I've grown up with a family of environmental scientists and representatives. The hard truth of this matter is that when it comes to environmental protection these companies don't give a crap about moral implications to begin with. So I agree wholeheartedly with incentivizing more than regulating, but I think there are some lines that simply should not be crossed. Ideally I just simply do not think fracking should be a business period, so I'm not really concerned with hurting a business I simply don't want to exist, that's more or less the point.

I think that as long as we invest in clean energy the way that we did for the oil and agriculture businesses starting back 120 years ago and taking the money from those projects we're mindlessly stuffing big oil and agriculture with to this day, we'll be well on our way to a cleaner and healthier society. We don't need to regulate as much as we need to start jumpstarting and supporting green business on a much much larger scale. We also can forward that money to job retraining for oil and natural gas workers, since honestly the long run plan is to kill or greatly inhibit their business more or less whether they like it or not. Those workers might not like it but massive, unnatural global climate shifts and monumental environmental devastation > workers liking to drill oil and frack for lots of money.
664 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 22 days ago , edited 22 days ago

HolyDrumstick wrote:

But, hey, keep believing those hard regulations don't force business out of the country, and keep watching while our economy takes a nose dive, and no one ends up with a decent paying job.


Don't think I said they wouldn't leave the country. One of the big things you have to accommodate for in this form of government is compensating workers in areas with small job markets when a large business leaves. It allows people to get back on their feet and, ultimately, come together to fill the gap left by a corporation. The end goal is government-subsidized businesses paying heavy taxes (or else giving stocks to the government), owned by the workers. But there needs to be a smooth way to transition, and to allow some companies capable of handling the burden to remain in the country if that is their desire. Some people have proposed outright banning the sale of any product made by a corporation that has abandoned a certain percentage of its American factories for cheaper, foreign ones as an incentive to remain in the market or else allow the new businesses that replace it to smoothly take their place -- I don't know if I would go that far, but it's one possibility, at least.
22114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 22 days ago , edited 22 days ago

9) Publicly funded higher education, with greater opportunities for students to get grants instead of loans. Student loan relief plans for all unemployed students, as well as those paid the minimum wage (even the increased minimum wage from my first point). More work available for high school graduates without a degree or diploma, and a greater emphasis put on vocational schools. Specialization options available for students in secondary school, and de-emphasizing standardized tests like the SAT.


I've mentioned it already a few times in this thread but I'd also think about job retraining. The fact of the matter is that the job market will change with time, for the majority of work, there will be shifts in what jobs are available and what are not, so it's very important that we not only focus on helping people get a trade skill but be able to gain a more relevant one if their market takes a dive.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.