So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[OtherJen]

We have to register in order to vote in the primaries. Registered Dems vote for the Democrat they want to represent their party, registered Republicans vote for the Republican they want to represent their party. Independents don't get to vote in primaries.

It depends on the state, and whether that state has ‘open’ primaries or not.

This. My state has open primaries. Any registered voter can vote in any single party’s primary. Everything is on the same ballot because not all primary races are partisan, so there are warnings about not voting mixed-party in the partisan section, which would invalidate the ballot.

[former player]

We have to register in order to vote in the primaries. Registered Dems vote for the Democrat they want to represent their party, registered Republicans vote for the Republican they want to represent their party. Independents don't get to vote in primaries.

So the weird thing is the government getting involved in the internal organisation of political parties, right?  You effectively have political parties which are defined by and dependent on the State.

[nereo]

We have to register in order to vote in the primaries. Registered Dems vote for the Democrat they want to represent their party, registered Republicans vote for the Republican they want to represent their party. Independents don't get to vote in primaries.

So the weird thing is the government getting involved in the internal organisation of political parties, right?  You effectively have political parties which are defined by and dependent on the State.

The constitution gives the power of administering federal elections to each individual state under the Elections Clause,  which gives each state the power to determine the "Time, Places and Manner" (while allowing Congress some oversight power).  It's mute on primaries, as there's no mention or acknowledgement of how to handle political parties (even though they were a thing even back then).

[former player]

We have to register in order to vote in the primaries. Registered Dems vote for the Democrat they want to represent their party, registered Republicans vote for the Republican they want to represent their party. Independents don't get to vote in primaries.

So the weird thing is the government getting involved in the internal organisation of political parties, right?  You effectively have political parties which are defined by and dependent on the State.

The constitution gives the power of administering federal elections to each individual state under the Elections Clause,  which gives each state the power to determine the "Time, Places and Manner" (while allowing Congress some oversight power).  It's mute on primaries, as there's no mention or acknowledgement of how to handle political parties (even though they were a thing even back then).

So if a State said "we are getting out of the business of organising primaries: anyone who wants can put their name down for an election and if a political party wants to field one candidate it's up to them to work out who" there could be no legal or policy objection?

[sherr]

Why would you register one way or another?  I thought that your vote was supposed to be secret.

We have to register in order to vote in the primaries. Registered Dems vote for the Democrat they want to represent their party, registered Republicans vote for the Republican they want to represent their party. Independents don't get to vote in primaries.

Right, although that varies by state. Here in North Carolina we have semi-closed primaries so there's very little reason to be anything other than unaffiliated. If you register with a party you're locked in to only voting in that party's primary, if you're unaffiliated you can choose which ballot you want each year.

In any case your actual vote in either the primary or the general election is always secret.

[nereo]

We have to register in order to vote in the primaries. Registered Dems vote for the Democrat they want to represent their party, registered Republicans vote for the Republican they want to represent their party. Independents don't get to vote in primaries.

So the weird thing is the government getting involved in the internal organisation of political parties, right?  You effectively have political parties which are defined by and dependent on the State.

The constitution gives the power of administering federal elections to each individual state under the Elections Clause,  which gives each state the power to determine the "Time, Places and Manner" (while allowing Congress some oversight power).  It's mute on primaries, as there's no mention or acknowledgement of how to handle political parties (even though they were a thing even back then).

So if a State said "we are getting out of the business of organising primaries: anyone who wants can put their name down for an election and if a political party wants to field one candidate it's up to them to work out who" there could be no legal or policy objection?

In theory, but Congress could exercise it's oversight authority should the resulting system be overly chaotic.  That's the legal underpinnings for the Voting Acts Act of 1965, which forced several southern states to adjust how they conducted elections (as they were grossly discriminatory). 

Of course congress would have to actually ACT, which is why a whole long list of schenanigans still takes place with states changing voter registration logs and polling places and whatnot in a translucent attempt to limit the turnout of certain groups.

[sherr]

We have to register in order to vote in the primaries. Registered Dems vote for the Democrat they want to represent their party, registered Republicans vote for the Republican they want to represent their party. Independents don't get to vote in primaries.

So the weird thing is the government getting involved in the internal organisation of political parties, right?  You effectively have political parties which are defined by and dependent on the State.

The constitution gives the power of administering federal elections to each individual state under the Elections Clause,  which gives each state the power to determine the "Time, Places and Manner" (while allowing Congress some oversight power).  It's mute on primaries, as there's no mention or acknowledgement of how to handle political parties (even though they were a thing even back then).

So if a State said "we are getting out of the business of organising primaries: anyone who wants can put their name down for an election and if a political party wants to field one candidate it's up to them to work out who" there could be no legal or policy objection?

Whether that's a decision that the state or the party is entitled to make varies by state too, but practically speaking it would never happen because neither party's politicians want the general election to be a crazy vote-splitting free-for-all where their voters are split amongst multiple candidates and the other party's voters maybe aren't. The state is involved in candidate selection because that's how the parties want it.

However the states can and do differ on how they want to run things. Some states for example have caucuses instead of primaries, which is basically where the voters get together in a conference room and argue about who they want to support.

And those differences can affect which candidate gets selected too. In 2016 for example Bernie won 2/3ds of the caucus states and Hillary won 3/4s of the primary states (which there are more of). There are probably other differences in there muddying the water like region, but it's hard to think that that makes no difference.

[former player]

So what happens if one party starts to fail (oh, for instance, because it's a racist party in an increasingly diverse country) and a new party wants to come along and organise primaries in a State.  Do the existing parties freeze the new one out?  Because having the State determine that there should be unequal grounds for parties to fight elections is to me profoundly undemocratic, and no doubt a big contribution to policy stagnation and political corruption.

[nereo]

So what happens if one party starts to fail (oh, for instance, because it's a racist party in an increasingly diverse country) and a new party wants to come along and organise primaries in a State.  Do the existing parties freeze the new one out?  Because having the State determine that there should be unequal grounds for parties to fight elections is to me profoundly undemocratic, and no doubt a big contribution to policy stagnation and political corruption.

Yup.  Welcome to why we have a two-party system.  There's a dozen or more active political parties at the national level, but the current two biggies actively limit how so-called 3rd party candidates can compete in many state elections.  Gary Johnson (libertarian) was the first 3rd party candidate in 20 years to get his name on the ballot in all 50 states (The Green Party / Jill Stein managed only 45 states).

[sherr]

In theory, but Congress could exercise it's oversight authority should the resulting system be overly chaotic.  That's the legal underpinnings for the Voting Acts Act of 1965, which forced several southern states to adjust how they conducted elections (as they were grossly discriminatory). 

Of course congress would have to actually ACT, which is why a whole long list of schenanigans still takes place with states changing voter registration logs and polling places and whatnot in a translucent attempt to limit the turnout of certain groups.

Funny you should mention it. In 2013 the conservatives in the Supreme Court struck down the formula for which states required federal oversight before they changed election laws, claiming it was out-of-date. The very next day the Republican legislature in North Carolina requested statistics on how people vote by race, and started working on and eventually passed a "voter ID" bill to cut out all of the forms that black people use (cut early voting, don't accept forms of ID that black people are more likely to have, eliminating same-day voter registration which black people are more likely to use, etc.). It was eventually unanimously struck down by a 3-judge panel as being intentionally racist and therefore unconstitutional, ruling that "it targeted African-Americans with almost surgical precision" and that the state's defence of "we're not targeting black voters because they're black, we're targeting black voters because they're more likely to be Democrats" was not good enough. No seriously, that was the defence.

Not to mention that our state's district map has also been thrown out as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, but Republicans have managed to slow-walk the process of justice so well that we've been voting under it for the entire decade anyway. And the current event is that the new map for 2020 which is supposed to just be regular-old partisan gerrymandered (thanks again Supreme Court) after the courts ordered the legislature to redraw the maps without using race data, once again were drawn with race data. We only found out about that because the Republican's map-drawer died and his daughter inherited his computer.

Now that Democrats have recaptured the majority in the House they are  currently working on revising the pre-clearance formula like the Supreme Court said they should (which the Republicans ignored for the last 6 years). It remains to be seen if the Republican Senate would be interested in picking that up and/or if Trump would veto. After all, why would they want to hurt their own party's representation? Still, I'm hopeful that one day this state may once again be a functioning democracy.

[OtherJen]

In my state, any registered party with multiple valid candidates will be on the partisan primary ballot. Usually the smaller parties don't have enough candidates, but I've seen Libertarian primary races before.

I don't like the lack of national standards for federal-level primaries (or electoral college voting, but that's a different matter).

[Glenstache]

Meanwhile, the conservative dream of strangling the government is continuing apace.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/in-40-seconds-mulvaney-revealed-truth-about-moving-govt-scientists-to-real-america

TL:DR: Move a federal agency headquarters with short (30 day) notice in order to force a significant portion of employees to quit.

“Now, it’s nearly impossible to fire a federal worker,” he continued Friday, citing his own experiences. But by simply saying to workers that they would have to move “out into the real part of the country,” the agency had achieved its goal.

“What a wonderful way to streamline government, and do what we haven’t been able to do for a long time,” Mulvaney said.

At least those agencies completing politically-inconsistent research (aka, inconvenient truths) won't have as many employees anymore.... /s

[LennStar]

We have to register in order to vote in the primaries. Registered Dems vote for the Democrat they want to represent their party, registered Republicans vote for the Republican they want to represent their party. Independents don't get to vote in primaries.

So the weird thing is the government getting involved in the internal organisation of political parties, right?  You effectively have political parties which are defined by and dependent on the State.

The constitution gives the power of administering federal elections to each individual state under the Elections Clause,  which gives each state the power to determine the "Time, Places and Manner" (while allowing Congress some oversight power).  It's mute on primaries, as there's no mention or acknowledgement of how to handle political parties (even though they were a thing even back then).

So if a State said "we are getting out of the business of organising primaries: anyone who wants can put their name down for an election and if a political party wants to field one candidate it's up to them to work out who" there could be no legal or policy objection?

But thats communism!

Proof: That is nearly how it is done in Socialist Germany.

Everyone can get into the election on all levels (based on where he lives for that area). The only requirement is a number of signatures (with varying degrees of easyness and numbers between 100-1000).
In non-communal-level elections those direct candidates make 50% of the seats. All parties get the other half, and they decide internally on a list with what candidates they field (those are often direct candidates too, and that can make the result complicated, but on the whole it works).
So basically everyone can put themselves on the ballot (with a certain amount of time and a bit of money).

It is far better system than any 2-party one. 

[FIPurpose]

We have to register in order to vote in the primaries. Registered Dems vote for the Democrat they want to represent their party, registered Republicans vote for the Republican they want to represent their party. Independents don't get to vote in primaries.

So the weird thing is the government getting involved in the internal organisation of political parties, right?  You effectively have political parties which are defined by and dependent on the State.

The constitution gives the power of administering federal elections to each individual state under the Elections Clause,  which gives each state the power to determine the "Time, Places and Manner" (while allowing Congress some oversight power).  It's mute on primaries, as there's no mention or acknowledgement of how to handle political parties (even though they were a thing even back then).

So if a State said "we are getting out of the business of organising primaries: anyone who wants can put their name down for an election and if a political party wants to field one candidate it's up to them to work out who" there could be no legal or policy objection?

Washington State does a top-two open primary so the first voting round eliminates all but the top two candidates. Although they have an exception for the presidential election, so that still works the same way. Washington however is dismantling their caucus primary this year. Should save the state a few million bucks a year.

[sequoia]

I wonder if in the middle of a tragedy, the victims has ever refuse to meet a sitting president, Democrat or Republican. Not one time that I can recall, but someone can correct me if I am wrong here.

They actually has to bring back two patients just so someone will meet him. One of them is a two months old...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/08/politics/trump-el-paso-victims-hospital-visit/index.html

The overwhelming majority of patients at two El Paso hospitals who the White House had reached out to in preparation for President Donald Trump's Wednesday visit said that they did not want to spend any time with the President, an individual who had been briefed on the matter tells CNN.

The source confirmed the Washington Post report that not one of the eight patients still being treated at University Medical Center wanted to meet with the President, so administrators brought back two patients who had already been discharged who expressed a willingness to meet with the President.
Almost all of the patients at the second hospital, Del Sol Medical Center, declined to meet with Trump, the source tells CNN. The White House did not ultimately set up a visit to Del Sol, which is currently treating six patients from the shooting.

....

The official confirmed that one of the two patients who were brought back to the hospital to meet with Trump was two-month-old Paul Gilbert who lost both his parents in the shooting. His relatives brought him back to the hospital and met with both Trump and first lady Melania Trump.

[Kris]

I wonder if in the middle of a tragedy, the victims has ever refuse to meet a sitting president, Democrat or Republican. Not one time that I can recall, but someone can correct me if I am wrong here.

They actually has to bring back two patients just so someone will meet him. One of them is a two months old...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/08/politics/trump-el-paso-victims-hospital-visit/index.html

The overwhelming majority of patients at two El Paso hospitals who the White House had reached out to in preparation for President Donald Trump's Wednesday visit said that they did not want to spend any time with the President, an individual who had been briefed on the matter tells CNN.

The source confirmed the Washington Post report that not one of the eight patients still being treated at University Medical Center wanted to meet with the President, so administrators brought back two patients who had already been discharged who expressed a willingness to meet with the President.
Almost all of the patients at the second hospital, Del Sol Medical Center, declined to meet with Trump, the source tells CNN. The White House did not ultimately set up a visit to Del Sol, which is currently treating six patients from the shooting.

....

The official confirmed that one of the two patients who were brought back to the hospital to meet with Trump was two-month-old Paul Gilbert who lost both his parents in the shooting. His relatives brought him back to the hospital and met with both Trump and first lady Melania Trump.

Can you blame them?

Those poor people.

[Kyle Schuant]

That may not be Trump-specific. In the army whenever we had VIP visits it was a giant pain in the arse. Everything has to be super-cleaned, security has to be there hours ahead and gives hostile questioning to everyone, none of your normal work can get done, and so on. And the conversations are always awkward, they don't know you so they don't know what to say to you, and you're trying not to say something offensive or irritated.

I mean, when Obama visited India, they cut all the trees in a street down, and there was an African visit where the Secret Service insisted they cut down all these historic trees on a main boulevard he was going to drive down just in case a sniper hid in a tree. 

They don't just walk in, shake hands and then go on their way. VIP visits are a pain, if the people involved have the chance to refuse them, they often do.

[Glenstache]

I'm finding that each successive mass shooting is losing the ability to shock me, but is increasing in the heartbreak at the senselessness of it. The senselessness is coupled with frustration at our nation's inability (unwillingness) to confront the ugliness, hatred, and disregard for human life that underlies it. In the last week I saw a comment that Sandy Hook was likely the end of the gun debate because if piles of children being slaughtered wouldn't spur action nothing would. There is a cold logic to this. I think that action will be delayed until our demographics change such that the majority can finally outvote the disproportionately represented minority. The bloodshed that will happen between now and then is disheartening.

The modern interpretation of the second amendment (meaning, after 1930 or thereabouts) seems at odds with the preamble of the Constitution. I hope we can find a way to thread the constitutional needle on gun reform as soon as possible.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[RetiredAt63]

This kind of summarizes things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F84_NdAsqvY

[nereo]

This kind of summarizes things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F84_NdAsqvY

... well now I want to go get a stick.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

This kind of summarizes things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F84_NdAsqvY

... well now I want to go get a stick.

My dog really likes sticks.  Fortunately she, nor any of her kind, has ever intentionally killed a fellow dog with one, so apparently dogs can responsibly coexist with sticks.  Sadly, sticks are a metaphor for guns in this example, so humans are unique in how we turn things into weapons and/or kill each other with stuff we think is cool and fun.

[ysette9]

The metaphor breaks down in that sticks can be used for all sorts of cool and fun things without harming people. Guns have a single design goal of causing harm. If some people find them fun that that is sort of a pleasant side effect.

[Roland of Gilead]

Guns are a equalizer for people who are no good with sticks

[nereo]

Guns are a equalizer for people who are no good with sticks

so.... the solution is bigger, pointer sticks?

[partgypsy]

https://www.theonion.com/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attack-1819574361

[GuitarStv]

Guns are a equalizer for people who are no good with sticks

Grenades are an equalizer for people who are no good with guns.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

You know you live in a great country when you get to the weekend and your first thought is, I sure hope there are no shootings like last weekend.

[turketron]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/09/trump-el-paso-melania-orphan-baby-thumbs-up

[runbikerun]

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1836949580

They've run this with tiny amendments dozens of times in the last decade.

[ysette9]

https://www.theonion.com/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attack-1819574361

+1

[partgypsy]

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1836949580

They've run this with tiny amendments dozens of times in the last decade.

yes, unfortunately, because nothing seems to change.

[Roland of Gilead]

Well technically at least for 2019 New Zealand is still way ahead of us on mass murder by gun.

51 deaths with a population of 5 million vs the USA population of 350 million, which would need 3570 deaths in 2019 for mass killings to catch up.

The mass shootings make the headlines but it is the day to day violence in the USA which is out of control and most of that is done by non assault weapon handguns.

[nereo]

Well technically at least for 2019 New Zealand is still way ahead of us on mass murder by gun.

51 deaths with a population of 5 million vs the USA population of 350 million, which would need 3570 deaths in 2019 for mass killings to catch up.

No.  This is what happens when you compare populations that are orders (plural) of magnitude different, particularly with discrete categories (can only be a whole number) - you get stupid extrapolations like the one you mentioned above.  It's just as absurd to say that California would need to have 57 people die from mass shootings in order to "catch up" with Ohio for 2019 (ergo California is somehow less prone to mass shootings than Ohio).

There has been exactly one mass shooting in New Zealand in 2019, and exactly one in the last 20 years for that matter. 

The mass shootings make the headlines but it is the day to day violence in the USA which is out of control and most of that is done by non assault weapon handguns.

I agree that we have an enormous problem with people being killed by firearms in this country; roughly 30,000/year. New Zealand (nor any other developed nation) doesn't come anywhere close, even when adjusting for population

[GuitarStv]

The mass shootings make the headlines but it is the day to day violence in the USA which is out of control and most of that is done by non assault weapon handguns.

I agree that we have an enormous problem with people being killed by firearms in this country; roughly 30,000/year. New Zealand (nor any other developed nation) doesn't come anywhere close, even when adjusting for inflation

Sounds like they need to loosen their gun laws and catch up!


Wait . . . I forgot that that line of reasoning only exists in the US.

[Roland of Gilead]

I guess my point was the press is always there to hype up the assault weapon as the main problem in the USA when actually you are much more likely to die by a simple handgun.

I am much more afraid of someone pulling out a handgun during a road rage incident or robbery than the statistically unlikely case of being shot during a mass murder assault weapon event.

There are so many handguns out there now though that I do not know of a solution.   Outlawing drugs has not stopped drug use and I don't see how outlawing handguns would even stop the bad guys from gaining access to those.  Unless we are willing to go far down the path of extremely harsh penalties, something that I have not seen either political party really willing to do.

[bacchi]

I guess my point was the press is always there to hype up the assault weapon as the main problem in the USA when actually you are much more likely to die by a simple handgun.

I am much more afraid of someone pulling out a handgun during a road rage incident or robbery than the statistically unlikely case of being shot during a mass murder assault weapon event.

There are so many handguns out there now though that I do not know of a solution.   Outlawing drugs has not stopped drug use and I don't see how outlawing handguns would even stop the bad guys from gaining access to those.  Unless we are willing to go far down the path of extremely harsh penalties, something that I have not seen either political party really willing to do.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

(Note that the tables show the # of firearm homicides; since the population is rising, the rate has gone down a lot more than shown.)

There's a correlation-causation problem here but the evidence does strongly suggest that firearm suicides are down dramatically because of the restrictions.

[Davnasty]

I guess my point was the press is always there to hype up the assault weapon as the main problem in the USA when actually you are much more likely to die by a simple handgun.

I am much more afraid of someone pulling out a handgun during a road rage incident or robbery than the statistically unlikely case of being shot during a mass murder assault weapon event.

There are so many handguns out there now though that I do not know of a solution.   Outlawing drugs has not stopped drug use and I don't see how outlawing handguns would even stop the bad guys from gaining access to those.  Unless we are willing to go far down the path of extremely harsh penalties, something that I have not seen either political party really willing to do.

I agree with your first two points but I don't think they diminish the relevance of mass shootings.

As for comparing drugs to guns, I just don't think there's enough similarities to use that analogy. Drugs are easy to manufacturer. Prohibition failed because anyone with yeast and sugar can make alcohol. Anyone with seeds can grow weed. With a little more chemistry knowledge or a simple how to you can find online, other drugs can be manufactured with not to difficult to source ingredients. 2) Drugs are easy to transport. There's no reliable way to detect the presence of drugs (unlike metal). They can be packed into any size or shape of container. 3) Drugs are easy to distribute and are consumed on a regular basis by most users whereas guns are not consumed like drugs. This makes them less attractive to dealers as there's no regular transactions.

Interestingly much of the illegal use of handguns is related to the fact that drugs are illegal. If we didn't ban drugs there would be much less money to be made and in turn less people would be willing to shoot each other over them.

[GuitarStv]

Outlawing drugs has not stopped drug use and I don't see how outlawing handguns would even stop the bad guys from gaining access to those.

This is some odd logic to present.

Outlawing red light running has not stopped people from running red lights.  Therefore we shouldn't have laws regarding red lights . . . a criminal can just run a red light!

Are you really arguing that traffic laws and regulation don't make our lives a lot safer . . . therefore there's no point in having them?

[Davnasty]

I guess my point was the press is always there to hype up the assault weapon as the main problem in the USA when actually you are much more likely to die by a simple handgun.

I am much more afraid of someone pulling out a handgun during a road rage incident or robbery than the statistically unlikely case of being shot during a mass murder assault weapon event.

There are so many handguns out there now though that I do not know of a solution.   Outlawing drugs has not stopped drug use and I don't see how outlawing handguns would even stop the bad guys from gaining access to those.  Unless we are willing to go far down the path of extremely harsh penalties, something that I have not seen either political party really willing to do.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

(Note that the tables show the # of firearm homicides; since the population is rising, the rate has gone down a lot more than shown.)

There's a correlation-causation problem here but the evidence does strongly suggest that firearm suicides are down dramatically because of the restrictions.

I think this says a lot about the argument that people can still find a way to have guns. Of course they can; where there's a will, there's a way. But in the real world availability and ease of access are incredibly important.

Not everyone who kills themselves with a handgun plans it out for days. It's often a moment of intense depression or a drug related incident. Without an accessible gun they are much likely to succeed. The same can be said of many homicides. Fights happen and people end up hurt. But if somebody involved in the fight has a gun quickly accessible, people end up dead.

[Roland of Gilead]

Outlawing drugs has not stopped drug use and I don't see how outlawing handguns would even stop the bad guys from gaining access to those.

This is some odd logic to present.

Outlawing red light running has not stopped people from running red lights.  Therefore we shouldn't have laws regarding red lights . . . a criminal can just run a red light!

Are you really arguing that traffic laws and regulation don't make our lives a lot safer . . . therefore there's no point in having them?

I am saying the laws don't make our lives safer if the laws are not enforced.   There are many cases right now in Seattle where a person arrested for a homicide or other serious crime has 30 to 50 prior convictions.  I mean seriously?  Is our justice system that much of a revolving door?

If there were zero penalty for running a red light even though it was against the law, then yes I say the law would not make our lives a lot safer.

[nereo]

I am saying the laws don't make our lives safer if the laws are not enforced. 

I don't think anyone here is advocating passing laws but not enforcing them.

  There are many cases right now in Seattle where a person arrested for a homicide or other serious crime has 30 to 50 prior convictions.  I mean seriously?  Is our justice system that much of a revolving door?

Well, we've essentially given up on the rehabilitation side of the legal system, and we have the highest incarceration rate of any large developed country, and one of the worst recidivism rates as well.  Since we cannot (and ethically should not) lock people up indefinitely for all but the worst crimes the net result is that we've got lots of repeat offenders who cannot function within the straight and narrow (e.g. cannot get a job with most employers, or rent a normal apartment)... 

[Roland of Gilead]

Well, we've essentially given up on the rehabilitation side of the legal system, and we have the highest incarceration rate of any large developed country, and one of the worst recidivism rates as well.  Since we cannot (and ethically should not) lock people up indefinitely for all but the worst crimes the net result is that we've got lots of repeat offenders who cannot function within the straight and narrow (e.g. cannot get a job with most employers, or rent a normal apartment)...

Right.  It does seem like fixing this somehow would fix a lot of the other problems, maybe even stem some of the gun violence (although it would not stop crazy....you can't really ever stop crazy, they can always rent a 9,000 pound U-haul truck for $35 and head for the nearest farmer's market crowded street.

[Kyle Schuant]

The public demand TOUGH ON CRIME!!!
The courts then imprison people for even minor offences.
The prisons become overcrowded.
Then to relieve overcrowding, they release offenders early.
This includes some serious offenders.
Some of them go on to commit more serious offences.
Thus, "tough on crime" ultimately creates more crime... :)

[LennStar]

The public demand TOUGH ON CRIME!!!

THe best way to do this - to lower crimes really rough - would be to use the model e.g. Norway has, where even murderers live in prisons that look more like a normal house than a cell, and even in a high security prison the warden generally don't carry guns.

Heck, they even have to close down prisons because they don't have enough criminals left!

[Kris]

The public demand TOUGH ON CRIME!!!

THe best way to do this - to lower crimes really rough - would be to use the model e.g. Norway has, where even murderers live in prisons that look more like a normal house than a cell, and even in a high security prison the warden generally don't carry guns.

Heck, they even have to close down prisons because they don't have enough criminals left!

Yes, it definitely would be.

Unfortunately, we have a heavy culture of punishment and blame and us/themism in the US. Any talk of treating prisoners like human beings and focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment is met with rage by a lot of the population.

Oh. And I forgot to add the fact that we have a for-profit prison system. So politicians (most of them on the right, but not all) are courted by or even benefiting financially from the people who make money from people being locked up.

We have a lot of sick thinking in our country.

[Roland of Gilead]

The public demand TOUGH ON CRIME!!!

THe best way to do this - to lower crimes really rough - would be to use the model e.g. Norway has, where even murderers live in prisons that look more like a normal house than a cell, and even in a high security prison the warden generally don't carry guns.

Heck, they even have to close down prisons because they don't have enough criminals left!

We could pay Norway to take our murderers!

[GuitarStv]

The public demand TOUGH ON CRIME!!!

THe best way to do this - to lower crimes really rough - would be to use the model e.g. Norway has, where even murderers live in prisons that look more like a normal house than a cell, and even in a high security prison the warden generally don't carry guns.

Heck, they even have to close down prisons because they don't have enough criminals left!

Yes, it definitely would be.

Unfortunately, we have a heavy culture of punishment and blame and us/themism in the US. Any talk of treating prisoners like human beings and focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment is met with rage by a lot of the population.

Oh. And I forgot to add the fact that we have a for-profit prison system. So politicians (most of them on the right, but not all) are courted by or even benefiting financially from the people who make money from people being locked up.

We have a lot of sick thinking in our country.

The current profit model rewards keeping people locked up and treating them in an inhumane manner, rather than getting to and fixing the problem.  However, a for profit prison system isn't necessarily a bad thing . . . if we paid prisons based on the recidivism rates of their inmates (for example), I suspect that we would see some radically different changes for the better in how they operate.  They would likely start to use the mountains of evidence that shows re-offending is lessened by treating prisoners well and rehabilitating them.

[former player]

The current profit model rewards keeping people locked up and treating them in an inhumane manner, rather than getting to and fixing the problem.  However, a for profit prison system isn't necessarily a bad thing . . . if we paid prisons based on the recidivism rates of their inmates (for example), I suspect that we would see some radically different changes for the better in how they operate.  They would likely start to use the mountains of evidence that shows re-offending is lessened by treating prisoners well and rehabilitating them.

Given that between 60% and 75% of prisoners in the USA are illiterate just getting some literacy teachers in prisons would do a lot of good - not a lot of options for paid employment these days if you can't fill out even the most basic of forms, and if you can't get work what can you do?

[GuitarStv]

The current profit model rewards keeping people locked up and treating them in an inhumane manner, rather than getting to and fixing the problem.  However, a for profit prison system isn't necessarily a bad thing . . . if we paid prisons based on the recidivism rates of their inmates (for example), I suspect that we would see some radically different changes for the better in how they operate.  They would likely start to use the mountains of evidence that shows re-offending is lessened by treating prisoners well and rehabilitating them.

Given that between 60% and 75% of prisoners in the USA are illiterate just getting some literacy teachers in prisons would do a lot of good - not a lot of options for paid employment these days if you can't fill out even the most basic of forms, and if you can't get work what can you do?

There's a pretty huge correlation between criminals and poverty too.  Supporting better social programs (more socialism) is generally considered an effective way to be tough on crime . . . if you're serious about preventing it.

[nereo]

round 3 (?) of the US-China trade war has been put on hold "for Christmas".  So DJT has called for a cease-fire when he's largely the one that keeps ordering the volleys.
I'm guessing China sees this as a win, and evidence that the US's position is tenuous.  After Christmas there's just 11 months until the US elections, and I wonder why the Chinese would agree to a deal before then.