• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best places on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! Community members will not see the bottom screen advertisements.

The American Politics Discussion Thread

10,769
Posts
14
Years
I knew someone was going to post that video here. (And if no one else had I would have.) I'm really glad I bothered to watch that response after the address. It had a great buildup, too, what with Rubio touching his face over and over, and then we got the lurch.

All that aside, it wasn't a good response. Rubio talked about how big government doesn't work... then talked about how it helped him get through school and helped his parents. Oops. Undermined his own message there.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
I really liked Obama's address. I kept watching until Rubio started and then I switched channel. I know they write these ahead of time, so it isn't really in response to the State of the Union address but... like... cut some stuff on the fly at least? The imaginary State of the Union that he was responding to didn't sound at all like anything Obama actually said. So, I just changed channel.

And as a result missed the water gaff.

Part of me goes, it's not a big deal. The other part of me goes, why would they not make it on a table that was level with him? Or why did the camera pan down with him? It was a horrible lack of professionalism and planning. Like this time a Liberal candidate in Canada essentially made their presentation to the nation on a horribly distorted webcam. Just think it out first people. Jeeze. Do a practice run.
 

BlazingLink

Sergeant Serious
135
Posts
15
Years
Mississippi Finally Ratifies the 13th Ammendment

Here's an outcome the producers of the movie Lincoln probably never expected: it indirectly led to the official ratification of the 13th amendment to ban slavery in Mississippi, nearly 150 years after its adoption.
The story began in November last year, when Ranjan Batra, an associate professor at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, went to see director Steven Spielberg's Oscar-nominated historical drama Lincoln, reports the Jackson, Miss. Clarion-Ledger. Spielberg's civics lesson tells the story of the final months of President Abraham Lincoln's life and his efforts to get the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed by the House of Representatives.


After watching the film, Batra was curious to find out what happened to the amendment once it was passed. It went on to be adopted in less than a year when 27 of the then 36 states ratified it by the end of 1865. Mississippi was the last of these states to do so — they finally got around to it in 1995 — but Batra spotted a curious detail next to the state's name on thewebsite usconstitution.net: the ratification was unofficial, as Mississippi never formally notified the U.S. archivist.
Batra mentioned the oversight to a friend, Ken Sullivan, who recalled the 1995 debate over the law and tracked down a copy of the resolution. It had been passedby the Mississippi Senate and House — unanimously, recalled the bill's introcuder, Sen. Hillman Frazier to the Clarion-Ledger — but inexplicably had never beensent to the Office of the Federal Register.


Once the paperwork was eventually filed, the state received notification on Feb. 7 from the director of the Federal Register that it had officially ratified the 13th Amendment — 148 years late. "We finally got it right," Frazier said to the newspaper.

Source

Woops, eh? Kinda crazy that it took 148 years to settle that.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
If they're price gouging or fixing or if there's a monopolistic environment, sure, go after them. If not, and in most cases that is probably the case, then no. You should not be limited, by the government, as to how much profit you can make. That's for the free market to decide. If you're set to high, and competition is set lower, then the consumers go for the cheaper option and you lose business. Simple.

If you want someone to offer $1 bread, then go start that company on your own. Figure out how to do it and go to town. Compete with the other guys and succeed. But, you shouldn't legislate a maximum price. That defeats the entire purpose.
 
14,092
Posts
14
Years
For starters, the effects of raising the minimum wage on unemployment, etc, is hotly contested and reaaaaaly ambiguous. The last time the minimum wage was in line with worker productivity, inflation, etc, unemployment was a third of what it is today.

Secondly, if you're a Mississippian, you should be embarrassed.
 

Keiran

[b]Rock Solid[/b]
2,455
Posts
12
Years
Change "it's what they buy that costs too much" to "it's what they're being charged for living that's too high" and I might agree with the article. Food and gas could be free, and someone working 1 full-time job here in New Jersey still wouldn't be able to pay rent with minimum wage, let alone the robbery that are taxes, insurance, and costs of education.
 
Last edited:

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
Change "it's what they buy that costs too much" to "it's what they're being charged for living that's too high" and I might agree with the article. Food and gas could be free, and someone working 1 full-time job here in New Jersey still wouldn't be able to pay rent with minimum wage, let alone the robbery that are taxes, insurance, and costs of education.
Wages haven't really gone up in thirty years. The cost of living has, as it does. Wages are what needs to change.

But the conditions aren't there for it to happen.

Back in yesteryear, Ford didn't raise his employee's wages so that they would be able to buy his cars. That angle was a marketing ploy. He had very large employee turnover and wanted to keep them to increase productivity. Increasing wages actually saved him money. No one is paying a competitive wage and hiring on mass for scenario to recreate itself.

But today, that's not how how it works. The standard isn't to a have a "job" anymore, but a "role". Temporary positions working on a project, for cheap. Project is over, you move on to another role, another project, another company. Never moving up the ladder.

That needs to change somehow. Companies are sitting on a lot of dead money.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
He existed - It's just that with the Republicans saying that their main concern was making Obama a one term president, he never got the numbers required to do something about Gitmo during his first term.

He has yet to do anything this term but, really, he's had more important things to worry about.
 
900
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 51
  • Seen Jul 22, 2016
With partisanship so bloody high in the U.S. government these days it's a wonder they can even agree on what planet they're on!

The right attacks the left, the left attacks the right, etc. etc. etc. and nothing gets done. People think prejudice against race or sexual orientation is a problem, but an even bigger problem that I'm seeing right now is political prejudice. What people fail to realize is that there is no such thing as a pure conservative or a pure liberal. We are all of us both conservative and liberal in our thoughts and beliefs.

The Republicans and the Democrats would be wise to acknowledge that fact. Instead, they both seem hell-bent on entrenching themselves in tired partisan positions that in the end do nothing except to excite their base and stroke their egos (how they can wrap their hands around egos that large is beyond me!). Gitmo will remain so long as the big-heads in Washington continue this senseless tug of war.

God, looking at how congress acts these days, even 5 year old kids would be embarrassed by their behaviour!
 

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
What about executive orders? Closing Guantanamo was one of Obama's biggest campaign promises. Seems if he really wanted to close Guantanamo, he would've done so already.

Oh wait, nevermind, but then wouldn't that mean a president can use an executive order to justify anything? We can't have that, great, we're right back where we started.

Oh, and FYI, I hated Bush, too.
 
900
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 51
  • Seen Jul 22, 2016
What about executive orders? Closing Guantanamo was one of Obama's biggest campaign promises. Seems if he really wanted to close Guantanamo, he would've done so already.

Gitmo cannot be closed by executive order, otherwise he would have done it already. It will take legislative action to accomplish that. And since the Republicans, and some Democrats, are vociferously opposed to having any Gitmo prisoner tried on U.S. soil, there is little chance that there will be any movement there. Just like everything else that is stuck in Congress.

Oh, and FYI, I hated Bush, too.

So?
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
What about executive orders? Closing Guantanamo was one of Obama's biggest campaign promises. Seems if he really wanted to close Guantanamo, he would've done so already.
My understanding was that the home countries of those who are being held there didn't want them back.

Which never made sense to me, because I thought the point of closing it was to hold trials in the US - not send them back
 

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
Fine, so I'm a f***ing idiot for not knowing these things.

I'm just pissed as to why it hasn't happened yet.
 

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
21,082
Posts
17
Years
They did manage to agree with many countries to send some of the sentenced interns, but there was that huge chunk of non-sentenced people in a legal limbo that couldn't be transfered to anywhere else. The idea was sending them to the US, granting them rights and transfering them to federal courts, but the House Reps screamed "What? Giving them rights? Having them on trial on our soil instead of in a foreign place?" and took away any funds for any federal prisons that would accept them. Then the States decided that they would not volunteer to be the first one to offer the federal Government a prison to keep them in. So the only option left was keeping them in Guantánamo and keep holding military pseudo-trials. It was either that or release them on the spot, which would have been... not the best option.
 
Back
Top