Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Recommended Posts

It's late January, 2017. The newly elected president has been sworn in as the next president of the United States of America. In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues the incoming Chief Executive should endeavor to address in his/her first 100 Days in office?

I'll start. He/she should address in no particular order:

*The Economy (with a special emphasis upon restoring the middle class)...we are dangerously heading even further down a slippery-slope of a two-tier system of "rich" or "poor".

*Stabilizing the ongoing uncertainty in the Middle East, so we won't wake up one morning to breaking news about Iran launching a nuclear attack on Israel.

*Find a way to adequately address the widespread gun violence marring our communities, with an emphasis upon protecting 2nd Amendment Rights but shoring up the screening process for who or who doesn't have easy access to an arsenal of deadly weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

*Stabilizing the ongoing uncertainty in the Middle East, so we won't wake up one morning to breaking news about Iran launching a nuclear attack on Israel.

I would put that at about number 999.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First 100 days:

1. Make meaningful changes to US foreign policy.

2. Get cannabis off of its "Schedule I" classification.

Use the bully pulpit to pressure Congress to reform or eliminate Draconian drug laws.

3. Get DC's hands off the economy; that's the market's job, not the White House's.

Veto the vast majority of the "bipartisan" crap that comes out of Congress and have the kind of bipartisanship that can agree to Less.

In my last 100 days I'd release every non-violent drug offender wasting away behind bars. If that wasn't possible through the official channels I would use the power of the pardon in my final days.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would put that at about number 999.

Hi, Ninjadude

Though I gave you a "Like this", I'm just curious why so low as a priority @ 999 (Is it because you don't think such an attack would or could occur?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First 100 days:

1. Make meaningful changes to US foreign policy.

2. Get cannabis off of its "Schedule I" classification.

Use the bully pulpit to pressure Congress to reform or eliminate Draconian drug laws.

3. Get DC's hands off the economy; that's the market's job, not the White House's.

Veto the vast majority of the "bipartisan" crap that comes out of Congress and have the kind of bipartisanship that can agree to Less.

In my last 100 days I'd release every non-violent drug offender wasting away behind bars. If that wasn't possible through the official channels I would use the power of the pardon in my final days.

Hi, Yamato

Like your ideas, especially the sensible remark about, quote, "Get DC's hands off the economy; that's the market's job, not the White House's."

Now, just curious, upon their release during your last 100 days, Would you require these non-violent offenders to do some kind of community service as they work their way back into society? I do get your point about wasting their lives behind bars with much more hardened violent offenders, but what measures would you impose to ensure a sense of accountability?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's late January, 2017. The newly elected president has been sworn in as the next president of the United States of America. In your opinion, what are the three most pressing issues the incoming Chief Executive should endeavor to address in his/her first 100 Days in office?

I'll start. He/she should address in no particular order:

*The Economy (with a special emphasis upon restoring the middle class)...we are dangerously heading even further down a slippery-slope of a two-tier system of "rich" or "poor".

*Stabilizing the ongoing uncertainty in the Middle East, so we won't wake up one morning to breaking news about Iran launching a nuclear attack on Israel.

*Find a way to adequately address the widespread gun violence marring our communities, with an emphasis upon protecting 2nd Amendment Rights but shoring up the screening process for who or who doesn't have easy access to an arsenal of deadly weapons.

And...

Repeal and replace Obamacare.

Shore up Social Security and Medicare so those two programs aren't bankrupt ten years from now.

JMO. YMMV.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Yamato

Like your ideas, especially the sensible remark about, quote, "Get DC's hands off the economy; that's the market's job, not the White House's."

Now, just curious, upon their release during your last 100 days, Would you require these non-violent offenders to do some kind of community service as they work their way back into society? I do get your point about wasting their lives behind bars with much more hardened violent offenders, but what measures would you impose to ensure a sense of accountability?

I don't understand the purpose of the question. What's the intended result of the imposition? Accountability as opposed to individual accountability? They were already doing community service, that's what got them into prison in the first place. ;)

They'll be subjected to state laws in the states they're released into, if they're even released at all. Just because there is federal forgiveness, shy perhaps of pardons themselves, won't mean there aren't charges on the state or local levels running concurrently or sequentially. If they are released, some states may offer rehabilitation programs, some may offer none, some may put them back behind bars. I would tolerate this variety of outcomes, not impose upon the States more micromanagement from the feds. The most troubling of cases are where federal charges countermanded state laws and so these are the most important remedies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the purpose of the question. What's the intended result of the imposition? Accountability as opposed to individual accountability? They were already doing community service, that's what got them into prison in the first place. ;)

They'll be subjected to state laws in the states they're released into, if they're even released at all. Just because there is federal forgiveness, shy perhaps of pardons themselves, won't mean there aren't charges on the state or local levels running concurrently or sequentially. If they are released, some states may offer rehabilitation programs, some may offer none, some may put them back behind bars. I would tolerate this variety of outcomes, not impose upon the States more micromanagement from the feds. The most troubling of cases are where federal charges countermanded state laws and so these are the most important remedies.

When they are facing state charges, that is known as a "detainer". They couldn't even apply for clemency with a detainer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they are facing state charges, that is known as a "detainer". They couldn't even apply for clemency with a detainer.

If pardons proved necessary, they'd be issued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If pardons proved necessary, they'd be issued.

No. A pardon relinquishes the offense from your record. Clemency shortens the sentence. Under clemency, they are still convicted felons, just given shorter sentences.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And...

Repeal and replace Obamacare.

Shore up Social Security and Medicare so those two programs aren't bankrupt ten years from now.

JMO. YMMV.

"Like this", especially the smart move to protect the Social Security and Medicare programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the purpose of the question. What's the intended result of the imposition? Accountability as opposed to individual accountability? They were already doing community service, that's what got them into prison in the first place. ;)

They'll be subjected to state laws in the states they're released into, if they're even released at all. Just because there is federal forgiveness, shy perhaps of pardons themselves, won't mean there aren't charges on the state or local levels running concurrently or sequentially. If they are released, some states may offer rehabilitation programs, some may offer none, some may put them back behind bars. I would tolerate this variety of outcomes, not impose upon the States more micromanagement from the feds. The most troubling of cases are where federal charges countermanded state laws and so these are the most important remedies.

I respect the emphasis upon protecting State rights, Yamato, because what may work in Vermont may not work in Texas. I get that. Of course, given the severity of the non-violent offense and frequency should factor into the equation as well. Are you aware of any countries demonstrating a best practice that others may wish to emulate? Why are so many offenders finding it hard to transition back into society?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No. A pardon relinquishes the offense from your record. Clemency shortens the sentence. Under clemency, they are still convicted felons, just given shorter sentences.

Appreciate the clarification, AgentOrange. So, if I understand you correctly, a pardon wipes the slate clean, but clemency leaves the "smudge" but allows a much quicker release to freedom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. A pardon relinquishes the offense from your record. Clemency shortens the sentence. Under clemency, they are still convicted felons, just given shorter sentences.

What do you mean "No?" A pardon relinquishes the offense from your record.

So, Yes. Ensure their release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect the emphasis upon protecting State rights, Yamato, because what may work in Vermont may not work in Texas. I get that. Of course, given the severity of the non-violent offense and frequency should factor into the equation as well. Are you aware of any countries demonstrating a best practice that others may wish to emulate? Why are so many offenders finding it hard to transition back into society?

The check box on every employment application that asks: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" might explain it. A less than complete set of rights and a host of mental illnesses would make it even worse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would trapse in a parade of people to the White House and take testimony for the healing powers of cannabis, and the amount of egg on our politicians' faces would grow too much to ignore. Eventually they would have their coming to Jesus moment. Congress has what, an 11% approval rating? You could blow on it, it'd fall over. Let's make Congress pay attention to things happening in this country, happening to Americans in America, instead of ignoring them and paying attention to our "allies" half the world away instead. If Obama does things like this in his last year, I will so respect that. Doesn't matter to me which party someone does the right thing from. The party is just a necessary evil.

Israel has advanced state-sanctioned research being done with cannabis. I would remind my neoconservative friends of that. Probably some of the best research there is given they're human studies. As one example, they're administering cannabis to elderly in nursing homes and they're able to smoke it, vaporize it, eat it, whatever they like, under the care of doctors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The check box on every employment application that asks: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" might explain it. A less than complete set of rights and a host of mental illnesses would make it even worse.

and your suggestion here, Yamato, would be to eliminate the box altogether?, or have a drop-down box where felony is chosen to add specifically an offense that isn't deemed violent in nature? Am not trying to put words in your mouth, am just trying to determine what your thoughts are on this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would trapse in a parade of people to the White House and take testimony for the healing powers of cannabis, and the amount of egg on our politicians' faces would grow too much to ignore. Eventually they would have their coming to Jesus moment. Congress has what, an 11% approval rating? You could blow on it, it'd fall over. Let's make Congress pay attention to things happening in this country, happening to Americans in America, instead of ignoring them and paying attention to our "allies" half the world away instead. If Obama does things like this in his last year, I will so respect that. Doesn't matter to me which party someone does the right thing from. The party is just a necessary evil.

Israel has advanced state-sanctioned research being done with cannabis. I would remind my neoconservative friends of that. Probably some of the best research there is given they're human studies. As one example, they're administering cannabis to elderly in nursing homes and they're able to smoke it, vaporize it, eat it, whatever they like, under the care of doctors.

Nothing wrong with studying the positive effects of anything. What the world could certainly use more of these days is a promotion of the general welfare of the people over the special interests of large corporations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and your suggestion here, Yamato, would be to eliminate the box altogether?, or have a drop-down box where felony is chosen to add specifically an offense that isn't deemed violent in nature? Am not trying to put words in your mouth, am just trying to determine what your thoughts are on this matter.

My thoughts are that I have compassion for these people. They've been run over by draconian drug laws like "zero tolerance" and "three strikes" and mandatory minimum sentencing circa 1980s. To quote Nick Hexum, "these are good people doing time y'all."

My main thoughts are I don't want their lives destroyed over it. They should be able to vote, to work, to enjoy their lives as individuals with liberty.

Eliminating the box would mean that if an employer wanted it on their application, the govt prohibits it? If so, then no. Employers can ask whatever they like. I would eliminate any govt mandate that required the box. Nothing specific here either, just get the govt out of the way whenever possible.

But it's not only about inmates integrating back into society, but our point of view on the Drug War itself and what we believe the role of govt ought to be when dealing with these flowering vegetables. There's at least a few hundreds of thousands of American citizens to release back "onto the streets" how we like to say it. It will surely cause some sensational problems here and there, and so be it. I'd rather attend to the hobgoblins of too much liberty than not enough of it.

We're feeding our people insecticides and rat poison and snubbing our noses at nature's most medicinal plant. Even if we weren't putting people in cages for it, it'd still be insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.