[Discussion] The American Politics Discussion Thread

[twocows]

It's a toss-up at this point. Either they won't come up with one and each side will blame the other, or they will come up with one that's absolutely horrible but looks nice and makes them look good so they can all sell themselves as "masters of compromise" in their next election.

[Scarf]

I don't know why we can't have a deal for middle income people. Nobody is arguing that the middle class should pay more. We should get that done, spare most people, and then debate separately how much the higher income people should have to pay.

[Mr. X]

Part of the reason is the Republican in fighting. A group of Republicans tried working with the Dems, but the rest of the Repubs beat them down.

The parties refuse to work with each other, but the Republicans are refusing to work with other Republicans.

Imo, all of them need to be locked up in their buildings until they come up with a solution to this. Lock the congress and senate in their meeting rooms, lock the president in his office, and only let them out when they come up with and agree on a solution. Should this take time and they need food, they would be provided a basic meal of unsalted crackers and water.

Edit - I bet that if the stipulations package that they are trying to prevent from going into effect had writeins that would have prevented them from being paid for their terms, and required them to pay back pay they recieved the previous term, then they would be working together.

[Toujours]

Unsalted crackers and water would not meet their needs as far as nutrition goes.

And you have to remember - this is a job. Do we lock doctors in their practices because people die every day from no access to good healthcare?

[Mr. X]

Thats the point. The poor quality of the food will be another incentive for them to work together.

Their job is to make our country a better place. Their refusal to act will ruin our country. I don't care how it's done, but something needs to be done to force them to do their damn job.

A doctors job is to try, keyword try, to heal their patient of their ailments or to prevent them from dying. Even though they are not always sucuessful, their attempts to mean that they are doing their jobs.

[CarcharOdin]

When governments either fail or become too authoritarian, revolutions follow.

[Shiny Bidoof]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

Thats the point. The poor quality of the food will be another incentive for them to work together.

Their job is to make our country a better place. Their refusal to act will ruin our country. I don't care how it's done, but something needs to be done to force them to do their damn job.

A doctors job is to try, keyword try, to heal their patient of their ailments or to prevent them from dying. Even though they are not always sucuessful, their attempts to mean that they are doing their jobs.

I almost disagreed with you, but then I remembered how little this congress has actually done and... yeah, if anyone deserves punishment for not doing their jobs, it's these guys.

I encourage everyone to look up the "do-nothing congress" under Truman. They were universally despised for their inaction, and this congress has done waaaaaaaaay less.

Also, I agree that the more radical parts of the republican party need to just let go already. You shouldn't put the entire country at risk because you can't sufficiently harm old people (medicare and social security are not at risk, regardless of what Fox news says, there's no other reason to cut them and deny people over 60 healthcare and retirement).

Originally Posted by Scarf

I don't know why we can't have a deal for middle income people. Nobody is arguing that the middle class should pay more. We should get that done, spare most people, and then debate separately how much the higher income people should have to pay.

It gives them leverage over the president. If they don't pass his bills they can hold it over his head and say "sign what we tell you to and maybe you'll get what you want."

Democrats screwed up and gave away all their leverage, I don't expect the Republicans to do the same.

[Livewire]

Let the rage over the gun control executive orders begin! :D I would not be surprised if the NRA marched on the capital.

[Sweets Witch]

Originally Posted by Livewire

Let the rage over the gun control executive orders begin! :D I would not be surprised if the NRA marched on the capital.

I sincerely hope they do because there's no doubt that a majority of that crowd would be armed and the scene could easily be viewed as one of terrorism. That'd be some great publicity for the pro-gun movement.

[Mario The World Champion]

Originally Posted by Livewire

Let the rage over the gun control executive orders begin! :D I would not be surprised if the NRA marched on the capital.

I'm surprised they haven't done so already. Especially in New York where Cuomo signed some really tough gun laws in the past few days, IIRC

[CarcharOdin]

That's probably because not all gun owners are like that jackass Yeager.

[droomph]

Well one would think there would be at least a whole parade of them.

The loudest minority is perceived as the majority.

[Livewire]

Originally Posted by CarcharOdin

That's probably because not all gun owners are like that jackass Yeager.

But the top brass of the NRA and the GOP politicians in thier pocket are, unfortunately.

[Mr. X]

Originally Posted by Livewire

But the top brass of the NRA and the GOP politicians in thier pocket are, unfortunately.

And thats what sad - At first the NRA was about protecting the rights of the people but it has now put serving the intrests of big money, instead of the interests of the people.

[Livewire]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

And thats what sad - At first the NRA was about protecting the rights of the people but it has now put serving the intrests of big money, instead of the interests of the people.

Just another powerful lobbyist group is all. Made up of gun manufacturers, suppliers, etc. So naturally they espouse what will benefit them monetarily.

In happier news, Hilary eviscerated Rand Paul at the Benghazi hearings. 2016 is coming, Mr. Paul, and Hilary is currently our most popular elected official, by a wide margin. History should have told the GOP that picking on a Clinton is not a smart idea.

[CarcharOdin]

Not to mention they act like hypocrites sometimes. They blame video games for violent acts, then they make phone apps that teach people how to shoot.

I'm not even anti-gun and I have a hard time taking them seriously.

[Sweets Witch]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

And thats what sad - At first the NRA was about protecting the rights of the people but it has now put serving the intrests of big money, instead of the interests of the people.

The NRA's becoming more and more about covering its own ass, just like any other big-name political influence. The only difference between the NRA and, say, Citigroup is that the NRA has a really large following.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Livewire

Just another powerful lobbyist group is all. Made up of gun manufacturers, suppliers, etc. So naturally they espouse what will benefit them monetarily.

In happier news, Hilary eviscerated Rand Paul at the Benghazi hearings. 2016 is coming, Mr. Paul, and Hilary is currently our most popular elected official, by a wide margin. History should have told the GOP that picking on a Clinton is not a smart idea.

I missed it. What did she say?

[Mr. X]

Republican sets out to show how easy it is to commit voter fraud, hoping that it will get support for Voter ID laws - instead shows that it's not as easy as some politicians say it is.

A Nevada Republican arrested for voter fraud in the 2012 election, after claiming she was trying to test the system's integrity, pled guilty and accepted a plea deal Thursday, forcing her to pay almost $2,500 and promise to stay out of trouble.

Roxanne Rubin, 56, a casino worker on the Las Vegas Strip, was arrested on Nov. 3, 2012 after trying to vote twice, once at her poling site in Henderson and then at a second site in Las Vegas. The poll workers at the second site said that she had already voted, but Rubin said that she hadn't and insisted on casting a ballot, which the poll workers refused to allow her to do.

Rubin said that she was trying to show how easy it would be to commit voter fraud with just a signature. "This has always been an issue with me. I just feel the system is flawed," she told the AP Thursday. "If we’re showing ID for everything else, why wouldn’t we show our ID in order to vote?”

Rubin, like many Republicans, claim that the threat from voter fraud -- which is close to non-existent -- is why voter ID laws need to be in place. But Nevada has no voter ID law -- other than for first-time voters who didn't show ID when they registered to vote -- and she was caught anyway.

The prosecutor in the case said he knew of no other voters in Nevada or elsewhere arrested for voter fraud.

Democratic Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, who has called for a photo ID law, slammed Rubin in a statement. "If Ms. Rubin was trying to demonstrate how easy it is to commit voter fraud, she clearly failed and proved just the opposite," he said.

Rubin's deal requires her to pay $2,481 to the state in restitution, complete 100 hours of community service, stay out of trouble and complete an impulse control course.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ef=mostpopular

[Scarf]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

Republican sets out to show how easy it is to commit voter fraud, hoping that it will get support for Voter ID laws - instead shows that it's not as easy as some politicians say it is.

Looks like they're just trying to cover all the bases in case their gerrymandering attempts fail. The party has pretty much admitted that they can't win an election fair and square. After all, more people voted for Democrats than Republicans in 2012 for the Presidency, Senate and House (by a slim margin), and it's only because of gerrymandered districts that the House is Republican controlled.

[Mr. X]

Republicans now want to redraw the state senate district maps too.

And they also want to allocate the electoral votes by house districts.

Basically, they want to screw democrats over with the new maps, making it so that even though more democrats vote, their votes would be worth less (Or worthless. Either will work.).

[KriegStein]

Just foun this thread. Is the main topic here the inside politics of the U.S or the outside politics? Or both? And as for the thing about senators being inadept. Of course they are. They are thinking about their career. It does not pay to start renowing things etc if you are not elected next time. As such they want to be re-elected as many times as possible. So I think they dont want to dirty their hands? And as for the more radical members. I think atleast some of them are casting for votes. You know trying to get the other radicals vote you can realy boost your career... :/

[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.

[Scarf]

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.

I don't know if you're entirely serious, but this kind of proposal would just create gridlock. At least that's how it seems to me.

Let's assume that we can even get accurate approval numbers. 30-40% of people in a bunch of states are going to disapprove of their representative just based on the party they're associated with. If the representative does anything to upset their base (which in today's climate could mean as little as compromising on one issue with someone of the other party) they could easily fall below your threshold and have to be booted out. Then, depending on where you are, you'd end up with some extremist who will only listen to one end of the political spectrum and pander to keep their support, or you'd get a complete centrist populist who won't publicly commit to anything but the blandest of opinions to keep from being kicked out and we'd never know what they might vote on at any given moment.

[KriegStein]

Scarf does have a point. I think that politicians arent the only problem...its also the voters. Some vote to make the nation better.(atleast believe in it) Some vote the same person as their friend. Some vote just for the laughs. Some vote the one they are told to vote. And some vote based on biased oppinions. So the problem is also here in the voters. I am not an American so I cannot be sure about this but, do you agree with me that there is not enough talk about politics? I mean REAL talk. What I have seen politicians only try to badmouth oneanother. And the voters do it too. They do not discuss the issues but they are making new ones with their actions. They do not even try to understand one another. This is how I see it. Maybe this is because there are 2 dominating parties in the U.S? So most of the voters are divided between them?