Discussion about hot topics trending today

[imzadi35]

Got a question for those in the US here. Why do they do caucuses in some states like Iowa? My state of South Dakota has primaries, and I thought that all states did. And what's with the coin toss thing? I don't understand it at all. I'm not trying to start anything, I'm just trying to understand how they do things in Iowa. Any answers out there? Thanks!

[Falcon Horus]

Got a question for those in the US here. Why do they do caucuses in some states like Iowa? My state of South Dakota has primaries, and I thought that all states did. And what's with the coin toss thing? I don't understand it at all. I'm not trying to start anything, I'm just trying to understand how they do things in Iowa. Any answers out there? Thanks!

Can't answer your question - It would be easier for me to explain the complicated structure of Belgian government than the presidential elections in the US.

However, the coin toss -- democracy at its finest.

Forgot to ask: who takes your fancy? And will you go out and vote?

Caucusus & Primaries explained

[Annoyed]

I can't believe they are even considering this:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...02-02-13-17-17

WASHINGTON (AP) -- They say crime doesn't pay, but that might not be entirely true in the District of Columbia as lawmakers look for ways to discourage people from becoming repeat offenders.

The D.C. Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a bill that includes a proposal to pay residents a stipend not to commit crimes. It's based on a program in Richmond, California, that advocates say has contributed to deep reductions in crime there.

Under the bill, city officials would identify up to 200 people a year who are considered at risk of either committing or becoming victims of violent crime. Those people would be directed to participate in behavioral therapy and other programs. If they fulfill those obligations and stay out of trouble, they would be paid.

The bill doesn't specify the value of the stipends, but participants in the California program receive up to $9,000 per year.

This is absurd.

[Falcon Horus]

Actually, if it works -- good on them. Keeping people out of trouble, better then letting them ruin their lives, and the lives of others.

[Annoyed]

Whether it works or not, I don't care.
Paying people to behave is just wrong.

If they need further incentive to abide by the law, then stiffer penalties are needed, longer prison terms, etc.

[pookey]

Why are they paying people who MIGHT become victims of violent crime? Can everybody claim that then? Unless i read it wrong

[Falcon Horus]

That part is perhaps a bit weird...

However, the other half of the article speaks of programs, and when completed succesfully, only then do they have a right to a stipend. Not before, not halfway through either.

If you can prevent even 1 person to go down the road of crime, I'd call that a win. And a life without a fellon-tag attached to it, is one with a lot less trouble finding a decent job for example and thus a way to provide for themselves. Thinking long run here...

[pookey]

True, but they cannot project who would be a victim surely.
Yes, i agree, to a certain degree, some one will find someway to abuse it, they always do
Forgive me, but i tend to be a pessimist when it comes to the human race

[Gatefan1976]

True, but they cannot project who would be a victim surely.
Yes, i agree, to a certain degree, some one will find someway to abuse it, they always do
Forgive me, but i tend to be a pessimist when it comes to the human race

100 people abuse the program, costing 900k per year.
1 person does not shoot your Parents/ partner / children.
Are they worth less than a million?
Would it cost more to put the 100 behind bars for a year?

[Gatefan1976]

Whether it works or not, I don't care.

That's why you are a Republican

[pookey]

You make a good point Mr Gate
But what about the bit about probable victims of crime being paid, i do not understand that

[Falcon Horus]

It's not victims as in innocent bystanders, but the same who would be at risk of taking the wrong turn.

Their goal specifically is to reduce homicides. However, it remains still rather vague.

[pookey]

Ah i see, thanks. it was the way it was worded

[Gatefan1976]

You make a good point Mr Gate
But what about the bit about probable victims of crime being paid, i do not understand that

An equally good point Ms Key.
All I can think of is it directed towards people in high risk area's and training them to be able to defend themselves, be that physically, or situational awareness, or just a smegging great lock on their house.
Makes little sense to me as well.

[Annoyed]

That's why you are a Republican

It may very well be that I have that attitude because I am a Republican/Conservative.
In my mind, paying someone to not break the law is just plain wrong.