USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Panda-PL- 0]

Better explained earlier in this thread, so here it is again. Third party candidates for the president are pretty much going to continue to be shut out, and even if the two parties were abolished, the same system would eventually coalesce out of the remains.

Well, in my country parties get formed and split all the time. Every now and then some reject starts a "new political force" because "there is a need" for one.

Seriously, since 1989 we had solidarity, socialists, church going leftish populists and now church going centro-liberals.

If a US party makes a mistake they are back in power in 4-8 years. If you screw up here you are gone, end of career.

In my judgement Americans just voted into power their first ever populist president. The promisses have been piling up and someone will pay the bill.

This is a new quality, you guys are up for a lesson in democracy - you should never vote someone who openly promisses EVERYTHING.

I mean, he's gonna WIN war in Iraq FAST and CHEAP.

Good one but the dammage is done.

Lower taxes adn give freebies... the list of contradictions goes.

[Mr_Tea 0]

You can lower taxes and have an higher tax income, if you manage to bring many jobless into jobs.

To reach that will not be an easy task, but it is possible.

[Panda-PL- 0]

You can lower taxes and have an higher tax income, if you manage to bring many jobless into jobs.

To reach that will not be an easy task, but it is possible.

The conditions make it currently impossible. US economy is far from booming.

[General Barron 0]

isn't it like that already? with states having differences in their laws and stuff?

That was how the US originally was supposed to work. Heck, even before the Constitution, we had the Articles of Confederation, which had even less centralized government power.

As mentioned, we have slowly but surely been going towards one massive, all-mighty central government. The Civil War was one step towards that, so were the New Deal policies set during the great depression.

I agree, we are way too big. Why should people in Florida be able to tell people in Oregon whether they can own a gun, or take drugs? If someone lives in a state with 1 million people, why should he have to convince 300 million voters to enact policies in his home state? How many other countries have such a massive central government?

Quote[/b] ]The problem with decentralizing power is that states don't all have access to the same resources. West Virginia will never be able to afford the same amount of social programs as California, because the population of West Virginia is one of the poorest in the nation. I know that there's a lot of poor people in CA, but there's also a much larger population of rich people, with a greater gap between high and low earners in that state.

First off, I'm not sure where in the Constitution it mentions social welfare programs being the job of the Federal government.

Secondly, the voters of West Virginia can always vote to raise their taxes higher than that of California. Or, maybe those people don't believe in such programs as much as Californians do.

The beautiful thing about the US (as originally envisioned), is that there is a bit of competition between the states. If you don't like the laws of your state, you can move to another one. And the federal Constitution protects your right to do that, because states can't enact barriers to trade or immigration between each other.

So to an extent, you end up with states competing with one another. Whichever state has the "best" laws will draw the most people and businesses, and get the most tax money. The same thing happens on the County and City level as well. It's a beautiful thing, but the more power we take from the smaller governments and give to the larger ones, the less this can happen.

Stop the trend towards large, centralized government! Give the power back to the people! Vote Ron Paul!

Doh, too late...

[gsleighter 0]

Ahh, so you're a strict constitutionalist.

I would argue that the founding fathers had the wisdom to craft a flexible document for a government that could adapt to the changing needs of a country. There's no way Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson could have foreseen manifest destiny, railroad travel, automobiles, air travel, the internet, or a nation of over 300,000,000 citizens. The federal government needs to have some authority, or else we'd still have areas of the south that would probably still be racially segregated.

States also have power at the Federal level through elected representation, in the Senate and House.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]In my judgment Americans just voted into power their first ever populist president. The promises have been piling up and someone will pay the bill.

This is a new quality, you guys are up for a lesson in democracy - you should never vote someone who openly promises EVERYTHING.

IMO, the question is who is the last president Americans elected that was not a populist in some way or form. When it came to issues like abortion, gay marriage, and shooting holes in Arabs, Dubya certainly qualified as using populist politics. Clinton had lots of giveaway programs, Bush I led a hugely popular and successful war, Reagan was hugely populist at times, and so on... This might be partially responsible for the 10+ TRILLION dollar debt owed by the US.

Edit: While on the subject of what kind of debts can be accrued with the populist approach to spending (Demand services along with tax cuts), check this Government Accounting Office report out. As the Baby Boomers age and old people become a larger and larger segment of the population, watch "The Third Rail of American Politics" and other massive entitlement programs send debt levels into the stratosphere. And I guarantee you, if Obama rams some form of Universal Healthcare into action, it will not be fully funded. To do so violates the basic illusion of American democracy: You can get more out of the government than you put in through taxes!

Quote[/b] ]Ahh, so you're a strict constitutionalist.

I would argue that the founding fathers had the wisdom to craft a flexible document for a government that could adapt to the changing needs of a country.

The document is flexible in the sense that one can add or modify segments. However, one is supposed to acquire a large popular majority in order to do so. The government is not supposed to blithely ignore segments that it doesn't agree with. Giving the government permission to do so, even if you agree with the goals that are being pursued, pretty much destroys the entire concept of the Constitution as a check on government excess.

[scubaman3D 0]

I would argue that the founding fathers had the wisdom to craft a flexible document for a government that could adapt to the changing needs of a country.

Or maybe they are bending the constitution to fit their needs.

I think many of the abuses taking place, which are supposedly "constitutional" were never intended by the framers.

For example, this doctrine of the seperation of church and state does not appear in the constitution in the fashion by which it is exercised today. In fact, this phrase isn't even in the 1st Ammendment

The state cannot establish an official state religion but that doesn't mean they intended it to be illegal to have a monument of the 10 commandments in Alabama, outside a courthouse or a nativity scene at a town hall during Christmas time. It didn't matter that polls in Alabama showed 80 some % of people wanted them there.

Hell, the supreme court has a monument of Moses and the 10 commandments in their courthouse too.

The forefathers were clearly not atheist and, in fact, most of them were Christian. It would seem strange they would frame a constitution to make these sort of displayed illegal, when they themselves approved of the symbolism.

What you are describing by "flexible", I call judicial dictation.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]The state cannot establish an official state religion but that doesn't mean they intended it to be illegal to have a monument of the 10 commandments in Alabama, outside a courthouse or a nativity scene at a town hall during Christmas time. It didn't matter that polls in Alabama showed 80 some % of people wanted them there.

Yes, but when the government sponsors monuments to one particular deity, it looks like a state-endorsement of said deity.

Quote[/b] ]Hell, the supreme court has a monument of Moses and the 10 commandments in their courthouse too.

Yes, but the Supreme Court also has friezes commemorating characters like Hammurabi, Mohammed, Confucius, and Octavian. Hence it's not a state endorsement of one religion so much as a monument to the various sources from which we've created our body of law.

[scubaman3D 0]

Yes, but when the government sponsors monuments to one particular deity, it looks like a state-endorsement of said deity.

But this wasn't a federal courthouse - it was an Alabama state court.

So you believe the framers of the constitution intended to make such displays illegal or is this your interpretation around the "flexible" 1st amendment?

Also, you apparently don't believe in state's rights or respecting the majority opinion of the country. CNN reported that only 20% of people polled nation-wide supported the removal of the display, while 80% said the courthouse should be able to keep it.

This was a clear case of dictation from the supreme court, making laws as they go.

[Commando84 0]

hey guys its starts with centralized goverments.... then you all join the European Union!!!!          

Then we go out and conquer space togheter or some awesome sci-fi utopia like star trek... but they had some world war in between of course..   Hope I won't need to be near one..

Its been slowly crawling under the skin that the Eu politicians want to collect all power in brussels.. I dunno if that is a really good idea if say Brussels got bombed.. what would happen if most of the goverments was there?

[Baff1 0]

Or maybe they are bending the constitution to fit their needs.

Don't you think that after 200 years bending the constitution is perhaps a good idea.

Otherwise wouldn't you just have an inflexible system of government designed for a society that existed 2 hundred years ago and is unrecogniseable from the society you live in today?

Isn't there a very serious danger that a written constitution can become dogma?

I mean what what is the population of the U.S. these days? What do people do for jobs, for recreation. What part of your daily life resembles the constitution days in anyway?

@Commander, if you bomb Brussels they will just raise taxes from Strasbourg!

Unfortunately bombing EU politicians is about as close to public accountablility as we are going to get.

[scubaman3D 0]

Don't you think that after 200 years bending the constitution is perhaps a good idea.

You completely ignored my argument about constitutional abuse. Sometimes people are "flexing" the constitution so much that it is breaking.

The constitution is clear in that it says anything that cannot be ascertained from the text, the bill of rights, and the rest of the amendments should fall to the states.

Still, the federal government continues to trample on states rights by "bending" the constitution to consolidate more power to itself, rather than leaving the decisions to the states.

I already gave the example of this false doctrine of the "seperation of church and state" - which is a statement not found in the constitution.

The abortion debate and homosexual "rights" also should fall under the state authority - for voters in each state to decide on matters like this. Neither of these issues are mentioned in the constitution.

So I would say the flexibility of the constitution comes because it limits the power that the federal government should exercise. When new issues arise, they should be left to the state to decide - and if then, the states decide to let the fed deal with it - so be it.

[Sophion-Black 0]

hey guys its starts with centralized goverments.... then you all join the European Union!!!!          

Kinda the idea, The EU is a "Confederation" but its not really something the US should join. That's like recruiting an 18 year old on kids baseball team. most of the attention would be on what that 18yo wants

But I really do think that people just complain too much about everything and Washington ended up, like i said, being a platform for everyone else to knock at other state's policies.

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ahh, so you're a strict constitutionalist.

No, I'm a strict individualist. And I'm realizing that a smaller democracy does a better job of promoting and protecting individual liberties. A massive, one-size-fits-all government simply doesn't represent the people as well as a smaller one.

Quick question: which election does your vote count more in?

A) A place with population = 300 million (a federal election)

B) A place with population = 1 million (the state of Rhode Island)

C) A place with population = 173,000 (the city of Providence, R.I.)

I'd argue that C is a better form of democracy, because it will result in a government that better represents the will of its people. We should keep as many issues on the lowest level of government that is practical. That way democracy works the best.

You make the argument that the south might still be racially segregated. My question to you: if you believe in democracy, then shouldn't that be allowed, if that is what 51% of the people vote for? Sure, it hurts the other 49%. But that is how government and democracy works.

I'm part of the 47% of the US that didn't vote for Obama, and I feel very oppressed by the 53% of the population that DID. I will be forced to work to support government programs that I don't agree with, and which I think will hurt my country and its economy. That, or I simply don't work and I force someone else to pay my bills. That is an oppressive choice that I don't like.

In any democracy, the losing side will feel wronged. That is why we should take steps to reduce the size of that losing side, as much as possible.

Of course, better yet IMO would be to reduce the size and scope of government as much as possible. Simply put, lets just vote on less issues, and pass less laws. That way, we have less issues where one side or another is wronged.

After all, government is the only organization in the world that can legally FORCE you to do something against your will. We should be a lot more careful about how we use that force then we currently are.

[gsleighter 0]

A lot of people claim to be strict individualists, as long as their individual rights aren't the ones being trampled upon. Yeah, there would still be segregation in parts of the south if the US operated on your model. I submit that an individualist values their own freedom, but also to be a true individualist you must also value the freedoms of others. Part of freedom is freedom from the tyranny of the majority. Put yourself in a minority position, and think about how your views affect others for a minute.

The American tradition has always been a shift in ideals to further value individual liberty. Any race or sex can have any job, and given enough time, any person will be able to enjoy a relationship with any other person, regardless of sex or race and take that relationship as far as they want.

And now, religion and government:

If you want to know about it in regards to the Constitution, I'd ask the gentlemen who wrote it.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." -Thomas Jefferson

To truly value freedom, you can't allow the government to make laws at any level that restrict the rights of others based on your own religious beliefs. I think this guy said it the best:

"...it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour." -Pope John Paul II Sep 1998 vatican.va

So, according to the head of the largest sect of Christianity, if you live a good, just life, you receive God's invitation. Turning a blind eye to injustice and inequality, and allowing the freedoms of others to be trampled on or denied because they offend your religious sensibilities is not living a just life. You can be individualistic and also realize that no man exists in a vacuum apart from other men.

If your will is to strip or deny others of their freedoms, either by religious or economic injustice, then YES, the government should restrict your will, to make sure EVERYBODY enjoys freedom, not just the majority, whether they're white, christian, Muslim, male, female, gay, straight, Zoroastrian, or anything I haven't mentioned.

-Gabe

[scubaman3D 0]

Nobody is talking about restricting others freedoms. Also, freedom dosn't mean the freedom to do anything you could possible want. Thats called anarchy.

Having a statue of the 10 commandments in a state courthouse in Alabama isn't restricting anybody's religious freedoms.

Also the 10 commandments are respected and followed by Muslims, Jews, and Christians. That covers probably 90% of people in the country.

What you are describing is minority rule. This is a ridiculous assertion to make since we live in a democracy. Majority rules - the constitution says so.

[baddo 0]

Well, I have not been happy with our President here in Finland. I would not have wanted her to be elected for a second term after I learned some things about her past and after I saw what kind of things she thinks as important to accomplish (for our nation).

But there was actually nothing I could change about it, enough people wanted her to continue and I have accepted that. I don't feel that I am oppressed in any way even though I don't like many of our President's opinions on some very important issues.

Many other people learned the same things about her and unpleasant writings started to appear in newspapers, saying "had I known" type of things, suggesting that these people voted for her but realized their mistake after the elections. They had not studied the backgrounds of the candidate and only after the mainstream media had revealed some facts about her, they realized "wait, that's not who I wanted to vote!" Some of the things not in her favour in the modern-day Finland are tens of years old so it's not like people didn't have enough time to read about her. The same things still can be seen in her politics today, she has demonstrated it in practice many times and then people started to think, "wait, what is she thinking, which side is she taking?"

A lot of the blame for uneducated votes goes to the general "It is your responsibility to vote!" atmosphere which is driven strongly by the mainstream media. Because of that atmosphere people feel guilty if they don't vote and then they just pick someone they already know, someone "safe", or someone else who is popular for one reason or other. Background research of the candidates is not done and people just feel better that they have done their "responsibility" so they don't feel so guilty. Like just voting for someone takes the guilt away from their shoulders, but I don't think it's that simple. I think the people who vote like that are much worse than those who decide not to vote after doing some research on the candidates. At least the ones who decide not to vote based on at least some research other than watching news from television or reading their daily newspaper. According to my experience doing that is clearly not sufficient to get a good understanding of what the candidates really represent and what their values are.

This is democracy. People vote and a President gets elected. And that's fine. I am not so radical that I would, because of the things our President has done and said as President and before that, to demand her to be removed from the job. It's not that serious. We have disagreements but as long as it's not really seriously crossing my moral values and other values, I have no reason to feel oppressed or to feel that the President should be removed from her job (before her term ends, I mean).

I think the same mechanics work in the U.S. Presidential elections as well. People don't generally pay much attention to who they are voting for. The mainstream media has a lot of influence in who gets a lot of votes and who doesn't. They have too much influence but that is not the fault of the media, it is the fault of the voters who do not bother to do some research on their own and making an educated decision instead of just watching television news and reading their daily newspaper.

Examples of someone "safe" in the USA are G.W.B. and in Finland as well our current President. Both were "safe" choices for the second terms. Both were elected for their second terms. I personally think that G.W.B. together with his administration has done more damage to the USA than Al-Qaeda ever can. And I was thinking so before he was elected for the second term. So I clearly think it wasn't at all a smart choice by you to give him his second term in the Presidential office. In Finland, things are not so serious and big as there in the "big world" as we like to call it. Just some small things our tiny nation thinks are important. But anyways, it was "safe" to let her continue as the President even though a lot of people here do not associate at all with her ideologies of the past and of today.

I can very much agree with General Barron that "government is the only organization in the world that can legally FORCE you to do something against your will. We should be a lot more careful about how we use that force then we currently are." Indeed, be more careful and don't let people like G.W.B. or the ones serving as his closest advisers ever again into the White House. Meanwhile, I will do my best here and try to make sure that people like our current President are never again elected to serve as our President. I remind, what they have done wrong in my opinion are not at all comparable, I could even go as far and say "G.W.B. should be charged" while I can never say that about my President, but that's not relevant, the point is that people with ideologies which are not serving our countries well have been elected and should not be again.

[Commando84 0]

I saw a documentary of sorts on the net a few days ago called zeitgeist and it made me shit my pants almost :P

Some of the 9/11 stuff was a bit to crazy but some of the stuff about money and the banks and big corporations controlling the world sounded really bad.

Interesting also it was said in the movie was that only a very few percent of dollars was available in physical shape and the 90% something was digital.

the presidents in different countries that get elected are usually elected cause they seem safe but are presidents never elected that are totally crazy?

[scubaman3D 0]

I saw a documentary of sorts on the net a few days ago called zeitgeist and it made me shit my pants almost

That documentary brings out some good points but don't believe all of it, exactly

[Commando84 0]

I've went around some research after a few days and some of the stuff was to crazy, Im not sure the banks control the world even though it could be possible they did.

Cause now when the crisis hits they scream for help and goverments all over the world jump in to bail them out.

Guess im to blonde for my own good sometimes  

I think the world is to random to be controlled by one organisation to rule it all.

I read in the news that a Nato base in pakistan where they had trucks stashed that they use to drop hmw's and also shiped out aid convoys to Afghanistan got burned down by taliban rebels. Like lol I thought Nato bases should been guarded by more than 10 guards    

I would never trust some other guys to guard my computer from hackers :P when the dude has it online all the time so they can just jump in at random cause they live next door...  

[baddo 0]

Interesting also it was said in the movie was that only a very few percent of dollars was available in physical shape and the 90% something was digital.

I think there is a law at least here that the banks need to keep a certain percentage of money available at the bank in relation to the amount of money people have stored in that bank. So they don't need to have all the money available all the time. I think this isn't even a sensible thing to do. Banks would have huge amounts of cash and for what purpose? All customers of the bank are very unlikely to come to the bank at the same time and demand all their money back. It makes sense to only have as much cash stored at the bank as is needed for the daily operations.

It has been said to me many times in a bank that if you want to withdraw or transfer a big amount of money then you should tell us about it a couple of days before. This will allow them to make sure that they actually can do it when I want it happen. Not that I have so big sums that it would matter

The same goes for paying off mortgages in advance. They ask to tell them in advance so they can prepare for it. I wouldn't care much about this though, it's their job to arrange it. But in principle, if you sign a mortgage contract, it has certain normal rules of how the mortgage can be paid off and the bank has the upper hand regarding that, because you would be wanting to terminate a contract, a certain payment plan which spans across a certain time, and you need to get the bank to agree that it will be terminated before it would naturally come to an end.

[General Barron 0]

A lot of people claim to be strict individualists, as long as their individual rights aren't the ones being trampled upon. Yeah, there would still be segregation in parts of the south if the US operated on your model. I submit that an individualist values their own freedom, but also to be a true individualist you must also value the freedoms of others. Part of freedom is freedom from the tyranny of the majority. Put yourself in a minority position, and think about how your views affect others for a minute.

I'm not sure what you think my "model" is here.

You ask me to put myself in a minority position, but I am already there. Every day laws are passed that restrict my freedoms, in the name of what somebody else thinks is best.

My definition of human rights is basically that "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, as long as I'm not using force against someone else." A couple notes here:

-I do NOT believe that a "right" ever includes something that someone else must do for me ("free" health care, for example, is not a right, it is a form of slavery levied upon those funding it).

-There are very fuzzy grey-areas, especially when it comes to environmental issues, about whether me doing something actually means I'm using force against you. I am open to debate on these issues, and don't pretend to have all the answers.

-These rights include the right to do things you don't like me doing, as long as I'm not using force against you or someone else. Freedom of speech, thought, religion, the right to keep and bear arms, all fall into this category of contentious rights.

-The government's sole and only purpose is to protect these rights. The government should not give preference to anyone or anything, it should exist ONLY to protect these rights. It is up to society, not government legislators, to determine how we use those rights.

I believe that the above provides for the best possible world, as a whole. Of course, one person is always better off when the government takes his side, but overall society is worse off.

I think it is a problem, that everyone wants the government to take their side, at the expense of others. Of course, we don't talk about the expense to others, just the benefit to our side. It doesn't matter if you your side is the majority or the minority, it is still wrong.

Government should be a neutral force, instead of this almighty force that is always up for grabs, one way or the other.

[Commando84 0]

Im wondering though what do people think about goverments and people trying to mak goverments put out laws and restrictions on the internet? good, bad?

[General Barron 0]

Hey awesome. I just learned that my government spent $1.34 BILLION of our dollars to buy digital converter boxes for people who have analog TVs still.

Isn't that awesome?

Oh, and Obama wants to spend even more money, because there is still a backlog of people who want the coupons. He's adding it into his "economic stimulus package".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28562781/

Garbage.

Why should *I* have to buy such devices for other people? Why shouldn't they buy it themselves?! I don't even own a TV!

As always is the case with government spending... they are taking money from the overall population, and giving it to a certain sub-segment of it. I don't see how this is the government's job at all.

But hey, I guess people today don't really believe in a limited government anymore. We seem to think that the government should be able to do *anything*.

[baddo 0]

General Barron, I read about the digi-tv thing going on there from my local newspaper. The Finnish journalist who wrote it (lives in USA) had the opinion that it was not handled so well here in Finland when we had the same thing. Her opinion was that it is better how you are doing it there in the USA. That the government actually gives people such coupons.

When I just had to go and pay it all by myself. I could afford it, but still it sucked that I had to pay, just because a new technology was introduced. I didn't really ask for it but I am not against it either.

Here, only in cases where it is difficult to get the digi-tv signal to your house, will the government step in and help with the costs. That would be in places where you can't, due to for example the shape of the terrain around your house, get a good-enough signal with normal equipment. They have promised that everyone will get it so if it is not possible by normal equipment then they will come and arrange it for you. In some places where the analog signal worked OK, the digital signal didn't. You get it "fixed" with public money and I think it is fair.

The thing why a lot of people think it sucks to have to pay for it is that the change was forced on us. If we wanted to continue watching tv, we had to pay. Actually the alternative, not watching tv at all after the analog signal disappears, is a good option but not many people went for that.

I bet you can find millions of people from the USA who did not know about the digi-tv at all and who did not ask for the digi-tv and do not need it, but still they need to pay the cost of the equipment if they want to keep watching tv. I see it so that the government there is willing to compensate at least a little bit for that. The television networks can be considered being part of the "infrastructure" of your country and as such the government can't just ignore it and not care if millions of people are left outside it (against their will).

In Finland it is clear that the television networks are considered important infrastructure of the country so the government is not letting private companies do whatever they want with the networks. It is like this in the USA as well as far as I know. And they want to ensure that television networks are a country-wide service also like in Finland the government will help if you live in a geographically challenging place for the tv signal. I don't see much wrong with this approach. It is quite clear from your post that you do not want your government to take care of the television infrastructure of your country. Would you think differently if it was a question of phone networks? Television networks are (normally) one-way communication networks but they can as well be considered as very important part of the communications infrastructure of your country. As such, your government has the right to act if they see a need to ensure that that sub-system of the infrastructure of your country is in danger.

I think you have valid arguments but I think you go too extreme with your arguments (not just this but I have read some of your earlier posts as well). The good way to go about it is somewhere in the middle I think. It is not possible to keep everyone happy, that's a fact I think we can agree on that... and one extreme is very unfair to the other extreme, while the other extreme is again very unfair to the others. What to do? Go middle-road and accept to get the relatively small whining from the two extremes. Whining is always going to happen, so there is no point trying to avoid it completely