[Discussion] The American Politics Discussion Thread

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

True - All the politicians care about is keeping their jobs, not making a better nation.

We really need a minimum approval rating or term limits for all.

Under the approval ratings, their pay would be linked to their ratings - the higher percentage their rating is, the more pay they get. If their rating is 80%, then they get 80% of their pay. Also, to this, should the ratings fall below... lets say, 40%, the their state would be allowed to automatically recall their represenatives and replace them with someone else.

Or for term limits, add term limits to congress and the senate like the presdiental seat has. To this, the limits would 4 and the presidental seat raised to that. However, they would count with each other - You serve three terms in congress/senate and one term as president and you can no longer run for either of those offices. Or one term congress/senate, three terms president. After that you can't run again. Additionally, in order to run for president, you'd have to have served at least one term in the congress/senate.

Or even better - use both plan.

Term limits, yes.

Tied to approval ratings, no. It shouldn't be a popularity contest. The right thing isn't always the most popular thing.

[Mr. X]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2665240.html

Irony - A conservative, touting fiscal and personal responsibility, can't pay his child support and is now asking for it to be reduced.

Essentially, he wants to not be held to his fiscal and personal responsibilities.

Even better - He says his job was terminated through no voluntary act of his own. This isn't the case - He wasn't reelected because he was going a ****** job - Essentially, he was fired. And he refuses to take responsibility, instead saying that he had nothing to do with getting fired.'

Even worse by the fact that he has condemned a lot of people because they couldn't pay the bills unless they got money from the government. Funny that now he is no longer getting money from the government, he can no longer pay his bills.

tl:dr, conservative who refuses to practice what he preached.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2665240.html

Irony - A conservative, touting fiscal and personal responsibility, can't pay his child support and is now asking for it to be reduced.

Essentially, he wants to not be held to his fiscal and personal responsibilities.

Even better - He says his job was terminated through no voluntary act of his own. This isn't the case - He wasn't reelected because he was going a ****** job - Essentially, he was fired. And he refuses to take responsibility, instead saying that he had nothing to do with getting fired.'

Even worse by the fact that he has condemned a lot of people because they couldn't pay the bills unless they got money from the government. Funny that now he is no longer getting money from the government, he can no longer pay his bills.

tl:dr, conservative who refuses to practice what he preached.

He's quite the idiot. Also, a tea partier so... probably really bad with math.

Anywho, he wasn't re-elected. He has no real voice, power, or influence. So... why give him the time day? You can come up with a bunch of dime a dozen stupid or hypocritical people of all political stripes, doesn't really mean much. Especially here. He sucked. He wasn't re-elected. The system works XD


Also, state of the union tonight. Got you popcorn ready? What are you hoping to hear?

[Went]

Okay okay I'll be the first one to post it:



I remember I also got my mouth completely dry during my job interview, but man, if you are a Senator and you still fall for this... XD

[Livewire]

Originally Posted by Went

Okay okay I'll be the first one to post it:



I remember I also got my mouth completely dry during my job interview, but man, if you are a Senator and you still fall for this... XD

For the man touted as the 'Republican Savior' he's not making things any easier for himself or the GOP. He voted no on the violence against women act and got grilled over his creationist viewpoints a few months ago. He's fodder for Hilary.

[Scarf]

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]

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]

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.

[CarcharOdin]

A little something to ponder:

http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/2...onomic-reality

Thoughts?

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin

A little something to ponder:

http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/2...onomic-reality

Thoughts?

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.

[Livewire]

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.

[Keiran777]

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.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Keiran777

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.

[CarcharOdin]

Guantanamo even worse under Obama.

What happened to the anti-war, anti-Guantanamo Obama?

Looks like he never really existed.

[Jay_37040]

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin

Guantanamo even worse under Obama.

What happened to the anti-war, anti-Guantanamo Obama?

Looks like he never really existed.

<rolls eyes> Yeah, because the President micro-manages everything. Your prejudice is showing.

[Mr. X]

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.

[Jay_37040]

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!

[CarcharOdin]

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.

[Jay_37040]

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin

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.

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin

Oh, and FYI, I hated Bush, too.

So?

[Livewire]

They tried to close Gitmo, and the Congress would have nothing of it. Along with literally all of Obama's proposed legislation.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin

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

[CarcharOdin]

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.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin

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.

Not necessarily. My understanding can also be wrong XD

[Went]

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.

[Mr. X]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=business

One skill that Republicans really really need - The ability to forsee the concequences of their actions.

Raising a middle finger to Obama, they rejected these medicaid expansions... And end up screwing over employers.