[wat0n]

One thing @wat0n is leaving out: under the old law, things such as sexual abuse of minors, corruption of minors, or possession of child pornography were often non-violent offenses. Under the new law, punishments are worse for these crimes. The PP proposal to go back to the two tiered system would be more lenient on child abusers, workplace sexual harassments, chemical abusers (sex with intoxicated people past the point of being able to consent), etc than the current law.

Going back to the old law won't fix the problem of the early release of rapists, it's too late for that.

If Podemos and others wanted to increase the punishment for those types of sexual abuse the only thing they had to do was to either add them as aggravations or erase the distinction while keeping the harsher minimum penalties.

Erasing the distinction between the violent and non violent sexual abuse does indeed have the possible effect of eliminating the disincentive of using violence at the margin, which is why most countries make it. But that was the big selling point of the law.

[Fasces]

You're wrapping the argument "harsher criminal penalties are better" inside the example.

Do harsher penalties lead to better societal outcomes?

I agreed with you they should have taken existing minimums (though they'd then apply to "they were drunk and I fucked them" cases).

[Fasces]

Del

[wat0n]

You're wrapping the argument "harsher criminal penalties are better" inside the example.

Do harsher penalties lead to better societal outcomes?

I agreed with you they should have taken existing minimums (though they'd then apply to "they were drunk and I fucked them" cases).

Wasn't the outcry over la manada case ultimately about increasing the punishment for sex crimes?

[Fasces]

Don't know. Your point is ultimately "young people can make mistakes" and I never argued that.

[Tainari88]

@Fasces and @Steve_American I think the problem with politics in most nations are about six things.

1. Corruption. Politicians accepting money whether legally or illegally to circumvent a representative or direct democracy.

2. Corporations and banks and the military leadership in a nation have an unholy Trinity in keeping popular social and democratic movements from gaining freedom and momentum without state repression sponsored by greedy leaders in greedy corporations.

3. Environmental lack of regulations in general. For the environment, but also with banking cartels and business interests that love taking the money made out of the nations whom they sack and exploit to death. They need to be spanked internationally. So they can't hide and deny responsibility.

4. Investors need to be held accountable and freeze their assets and bank accounts as they do to international drug dealers caught red-handed. If these people manipulate money by terrorizing the working class and torturing and sponsoring killers and torturers to ensure their ill-gotten profits? Their profits need to be confiscated and their corporations stripped and dissolved and not only that all their assets seized. Absolutely pauperizing them and also giving them a criminal record barring them from any trade or transactions where they can benefit financially. They need to be punished where it hurts them the most. Their PURSES.

5. Democratize the workplace. All employees are the owners. Not stockholders or investors who wash their hands of what the corporation is about. If you have a full democracy going on with the workers themselves owning everything and everyone having one vote and one voice for all decisions and majority rules? You have accountability, stability, and full participation in productive output. Not some absentee imperial-style landlords who don't sweat the work, and don't understand the sacrifices the workers make to make something successful.

6. All decisions should be done from a place of absolutely well thought out and well documented and researched scientific analysis and not manipulative ads or propaganda. All people need to know the difference between opinions and manipulation and facts and analysis and statistics related to gains or losses in revenue. It implied a well-educated workforce. That is critical. Not some zombies or workers never getting in-depth training, educational material and access to data that helps them make sound decisions over the long haul.

[Politics_Observer]

@XogGyux

Sorry I was late responding. I have been studying for these CompTIA certifications. Yes, strict enforcement of term limits with real teeth for members of Congress and the Presidency is crucial. My reasoning is that power is intoxicating and when somebody has power for too long he or she can become a threat to themselves and others around them and society in general. This is why term limits are necessary.

Even the most sane-minded, wise, and smart individual will fall victim to the toxic effects of having power for too long and become a threat to themselves and the people they are supposed to serve and make very bad decisions simply by having power for too long. This is the reasoning behind the necessity of term limits.

Moreover, you mentioned how a lot of people vote irresponsibly and are contributors to some of the problems we see today. This is why ensuring that society, in general, has top-notch education. Without an extremely well-educated population along with education qualifications for those running for public office and mental and emotional fitness tests required of those running for office, then you will have a society that will decay from a representative form of government to tyranny and a dictatorship.

The Donald Trumps, Vladimir Putins, and Xis of the world can after all go and get degrees in public policy and foreign policy to meet the criteria for educational qualification for public office. They might fool trained professionals into passing them on the emotional and mental fitness criteria for running for office.

But then, that same person would have to deal with a far better-educated populace than what we have today when they run for public office and seek election. All these factors added together ensure that a representative republic survives. They ensure that these sorts of people who only seek public office purely for the purpose of power and establishing a dictatorship for themselves are far less likely to get elected.

Of course, the Trumps, Putins, and Xis of the world understand that having such a widely and well-educated populace would not serve their desire for absolute, unchecked power and their desire to establish an authortarian dictatorship. So, they will attack education and try to deny education to voters. That way they are easier to control and manipulate.

But this is also why a President or a Congressman should be held to the same standard of the law as everybody else. If the President of the U.S. commits any sort of crime, he is immediately charged, arrested, quickly removed from office, brought before a court for trial, and the Vice President takes over. If a member of Congress is arrested, then somebody is appointed to serve in that Congressman's spot while a new election for that seat is immediately scheduled without delay.

[Drlee]

I have been refraining from posting since many of you have made it clear that you do not value the thoughts of just another over 70 boomer. I get that even the most "progressive" of us finds it hard to believe that their beliefs are pure bigotry.

So I will not make any special claims for those of us over 64. 64 because your 70 age limit would eliminate anyone over 64 from serving in the US Senate as they would exceed your deadly age 70. At age 63 a presidential candidate would not be attractive because he/she would not be able to serve a second term. And the incumbent advantage would be hard to let go when doing the political calculus.

I could observe that my college students consistently give the classes in which I have the honor to participate the highest marks of any in the entire college of Sociology. Obviously a miracle in light of my 71 year induced mental debility.

I could honor your desire to keep America in the bloom of youth and require that doctors and professors to retire at 70. Their threat to the public welfare is more immediate and far more personal than those of the temporary occupants of DC or Whitehall. The horror of even imagining that over 85% the heroic pulmonologists who saw us through the Covid debacle are over 55 and that half of them over 70. And when it comes to the coveted Nobel Prize competition the fact that most in the hard-sciences are over 72 years old. Well. Time to get out of the way and let the kids figure out what we spent a lifetime studying. (They won't need it anyway. AI will run the place not long after I achieve room temperature.)

But there is a punchline. There always is. This entire thread has been focused on we geezers' diminishing faculties. It frets and storms about how we are not doing a very good job. (Tip of the hat to @late and @Politics_Observer . You two are excused.)

But, back to the punchline. The transcendent reason that we Buick pilots stay in the most powerful jobs in the world is actually quite simple. You young fuckers keep electing us. Time and again you turn down the young hotshot and put the steady hand back on the tiller.

At some level a great many (most) of you voters out there realize that there is no substitute for wisdom, experience and maturity. Calm and steady wins the race. And we were not afraid to paddle your little asses when you were naughty before and we are not afraid to keep doing it until you ascend into the ranks of the wizened. You know, at some level, that there is more to growing old than the stunning ability to grow ear hair and sport eyebrows of monumental proportions.

But here is a secret I will share with you. The only reason that my generation did not elect more people who were over 70 is that they were more dead than is quite right. The life expectancy when I became old enough (and we only presume mature enough) to vote was about 70. But when we could we voted for the ranks of the hairy also.

So there is your solution. If you want to lower the age of government turn off the VPN, put down the hand lotion and go vote for younger people. But you won't. In fact, if history is any indicator, you will do just the opposite.

To borrow from Oscar Wilde, “I am not young enough to know everything.” But here is a little secret we geezers hide from you. One thing that stokes the wisdom of the old is that we are willing to learn from the young. When you are right, we go with you all-in. The only difference is that when you are wrong we are not afraid to tell you so. Or, at least ignore you. And at a certain age one acquires the genteel habit of turning away when one is rolling one's eyes.

So regarding the entire premise of this thread. Don't look.

[XogGyux]

I have been refraining from posting since many of you have made it clear that you do not value the thoughts of just another over 70 boomer. I get that even the most "progressive" of us finds it hard to believe that their beliefs are pure bigotry.

So I will not make any special claims for those of us over 64. 64 because your 70 age limit would eliminate anyone over 64 from serving in the US Senate as they would exceed your deadly age 70. At age 63 a presidential candidate would not be attractive because he/she would not be able to serve a second term. And the incumbent advantage would be hard to let go when doing the political calculus.

I could observe that my college students consistently give the classes in which I have the honor to participate the highest marks of any in the entire college of Sociology. Obviously a miracle in light of my 71 year induced mental debility.

I could honor your desire to keep America in the bloom of youth and require that doctors and professors to retire at 70. Their threat to the public welfare is more immediate and far more personal than those of the temporary occupants of DC or Whitehall. The horror of even imagining that over 85% the heroic pulmonologists who saw us through the Covid debacle are over 55 and that half of them over 70. And when it comes to the coveted Nobel Prize competition the fact that most in the hard-sciences are over 72 years old. Well. Time to get out of the way and let the kids figure out what we spent a lifetime studying. (They won't need it anyway. AI will run the place not long after I achieve room temperature.)

But there is a punchline. There always is. This entire thread has been focused on we geezers' diminishing faculties. It frets and storms about how we are not doing a very good job. (Tip of the hat to @late and @Politics_Observer . You two are excused.)

But, back to the punchline. The transcendent reason that we Buick pilots stay in the most powerful jobs in the world is actually quite simple. You young fuckers keep electing us. Time and again you turn down the young hotshot and put the steady hand back on the tiller.

At some level a great many (most) of you voters out there realize that there is no substitute for wisdom, experience and maturity. Calm and steady wins the race. And we were not afraid to paddle your little asses when you were naughty before and we are not afraid to keep doing it until you ascend into the ranks of the wizened. You know, at some level, that there is more to growing old than the stunning ability to grow ear hair and sport eyebrows of monumental proportions.

But here is a secret I will share with you. The only reason that my generation did not elect more people who were over 70 is that they were more dead than is quite right. The life expectancy when I became old enough (and we only presume mature enough) to vote was about 70. But when we could we voted for the ranks of the hairy also.

So there is your solution. If you want to lower the age of government turn off the VPN, put down the hand lotion and go vote for younger people. But you won't. In fact, if history is any indicator, you will do just the opposite.

To borrow from Oscar Wilde, “I am not young enough to know everything.” But here is a little secret we geezers hide from you. One thing that stokes the wisdom of the old is that we are willing to learn from the young. When you are right, we go with you all-in. The only difference is that when you are wrong we are not afraid to tell you so. Or, at least ignore you. And at a certain age one acquires the genteel habit of turning away when one is rolling one's eyes.

So regarding the entire premise of this thread. Don't look.

Don't take it to heart, some people are just wrong

[XogGyux]

@XogGyux

Sorry I was late responding. I have been studying for these CompTIA certifications. Yes, strict enforcement of term limits with real teeth for members of Congress and the Presidency is crucial. My reasoning is that power is intoxicating and when somebody has power for too long he or she can become a threat to themselves and others around them and society in general. This is why term limits are necessary.

Even the most sane-minded, wise, and smart individual will fall victim to the toxic effects of having power for too long and become a threat to themselves and the people they are supposed to serve and make very bad decisions simply by having power for too long. This is the reasoning behind the necessity of term limits.

Moreover, you mentioned how a lot of people vote irresponsibly and are contributors to some of the problems we see today. This is why ensuring that society, in general, has top-notch education. Without an extremely well-educated population along with education qualifications for those running for public office and mental and emotional fitness tests required of those running for office, then you will have a society that will decay from a representative form of government to tyranny and a dictatorship.

The Donald Trumps, Vladimir Putins, and Xis of the world can after all go and get degrees in public policy and foreign policy to meet the criteria for educational qualification for public office. They might fool trained professionals into passing them on the emotional and mental fitness criteria for running for office.

But then, that same person would have to deal with a far better-educated populace than what we have today when they run for public office and seek election. All these factors added together ensure that a representative republic survives. They ensure that these sorts of people who only seek public office purely for the purpose of power and establishing a dictatorship for themselves are far less likely to get elected.

Of course, the Trumps, Putins, and Xis of the world understand that having such a widely and well-educated populace would not serve their desire for absolute, unchecked power and their desire to establish an authortarian dictatorship. So, they will attack education and try to deny education to voters. That way they are easier to control and manipulate.

But this is also why a President or a Congressman should be held to the same standard of the law as everybody else. If the President of the U.S. commits any sort of crime, he is immediately charged, arrested, quickly removed from office, brought before a court for trial, and the Vice President takes over. If a member of Congress is arrested, then somebody is appointed to serve in that Congressman's spot while a new election for that seat is immediately scheduled without delay.

Well, as for the power corrupts part. Limits addresses that way better than age restriction. Age restriction can weed out a first timer that is a bit older but it does nothing to weed out a Matt Gaetz or any of the well connected "dynasty". So if I had to choose between 1 policy that addresses the problem and another policy that doesnt, I know which one to choose .

Look, in general, I am all in favor of having a very well-educated president and a very well-educated populous to select that president (and senators/representatives/governors). I am, however, not willing to sacrifice democracy for the sake of perceived efficiency. As I said prior, Trump himself is proof that you don't need to be particularly prepared a priori. He was an embarrassment and he fucked up a few things for many years to come (courts) but it was not related to his lack of preparation, to the contrary, the things that you and I might consider awful mishaps were actually by design and the republicans embrace it... so "failure" is tied to points of view. For all his defects, he proved that in the US Democracy exists, albeit it is imperfect, and that our system is very robust... it stood the implosion of his presidency and still stands strong.

[Fasces]

I think the Greeks had it best when they governed by sortition. Every year pick some random 500 Americans to fill out Congress and call it a day.

[Tainari88]

The big problem for US democracy is what Thomas Jefferson stated that might be a big problem way back in his time period.

You allow the financiers and the banksters and the corporations to control the society? The democracy goes up in smoke.

The problem with a lot of true believers in bullshit about how great the US democracy is today, are people who never really studied US history. Run over by cheap propaganda. Jefferson was one of the writers there of the whole deal. And he knew the greedy and the corporate where going to smoke the democracy for sure.

If you don't stop believing in fucking myth? Jefferson is gonna be a prophet in 2024.

[Politics_Observer]

@Drlee

You'll have to excuse some of these folks in this thread. They are a bit wet behind the ears.

[Drlee]

@Drlee

You'll have to excuse some of these folks in this thread. They are a bit wet behind the ears.

Indeed they are.

Old people are used to ignoring young people when they are just running on testosterone. It is a right of passage.

Now I wonder, if mental ability, education and experience is the issue, as many here seem to think it is, why we think that 18 or even 21 is mature enough to vote. Perhaps we should have something like proportional voting. If someone is older and more educated they get more "votes" and younger/less educated, fewer. Perhaps a 60 year old PhD might get 10 votes and a newly minted high school 18 year old, two.

[wat0n]

It would be probably more productive to try to understand why is it that Americans are voting for super old politicians, though. I can't quite figure out why, but it is likely a symptom of something else.

[Godstud]

To quote David Mamet:

"Old age and treachery will always beat youth and exuberance."



Whereas I think you need to make sure they aren't affected(mentally) by old age(dementia/senility), you don't need physical fitness of body. Didn't USA have a President confined to a wheelchair, already(Roosevelt)?

[XogGyux]

To quote David Mamet:

"Old age and treachery will always beat youth and exuberance."



Whereas I think you need to make sure they aren't affected(mentally) by old age(dementia/senility), you don't need physical fitness of body. Didn't USA already have a President confined to a wheelchair, already(Roosevelt)?

You know, but we can do better, we can select the better candidates with the better physique. You know how we could improve the odds? by having people with good genetic apply. But, why stop there... how about we ensure our population also has good genetics and only those that are fit mentally and physically can vote. It is only obvious right? Better voters and better candidates = better leadership and better citizens. How about we facilitate all of this by promoting the procreation of those with good genetics and try to avoid those with bad genetics from doing the same. In fact, lets just agree they are inferior and just put them on a gas chamber.

[Godstud]

Physique? I don't need my leader to run a marathon or deadlift 200 kg. I need them to lead, and they can do that even if they have one eye and are in a wheelchair(eg. Dan Crenshaw). Genetics don't make you a good leader, or at least we have no way to determine this, at this time, so we can't do a test for this. We have to be realistic and that means people picking the best candidate, based on the little information they do have.

[XogGyux]

Physique? I don't need my leader to run a marathon or deadlift 200 kg. I need them to lead, and they can do that even if they have one eye and are in a wheelchair(eg. Dan Crenshaw). Genetics don't make you a good leader, or at least we have no way to determine this, at this time, so we can't do a test for this. We have to be realistic and that means people picking the best candidate, based on the little information they do have.

you realize this is sarcasm right?

[Godstud]

@XogGyux When it comes to Americans, it's extremely hard to tell what is sarcasm because some actually think like that.