[Discussion] The American Politics Discussion Thread

[Toujours]

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89

Indeed.

But, we're talking about private insurance plans here. They're not all created equal. I agree with Obama in that an employer should not be to exclude contraception coverage solely on the basis of their own moral or religious beliefs. They should not be in a position to enforce that on their employees. No more so than if you had some employer who only agreed with "new agey" treatments. That employer should not deny traditional coverage because that's what the "feel" is the right thing to do. That'd be imposing on you and your well-being.

However, generally the insurance plan a company offers is tailored to what they deem are the needs of their employees. If the demographics of that organization don't support giving everyone a plan that includes contraception then they could probably go for a lesser plan that doesn't include it.

It should be covered and addressed as anything else with insurance. If it's needed, they should include it. If it isn't, they shouldn't have to - based only on that reasoning and not one's morals. The question is though, how would you prove their intentions? Tricky.

Maybe something along the lines of "If X% of your company is women" or "If X% of your company indicates in an anonymous survey that they use hormonal contraception", then it must be provided? This is just me brainstorming though, feel free to tell me if this isn't a great idea for a reason I didn't think of offhand.

[Mr. X]

Imo, best solution would be to include everything in the package, but let the employee pick what parts they want from the full package. What they pick is what they pay for, what they pick is what they get.

Edit - Since diffrient plans would have diffrient prices on the specific packages, the person coule pick parts of a plan from multiple providers.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Toujours

Maybe something along the lines of "If X% of your company is women" or "If X% of your company indicates in an anonymous survey that they use hormonal contraception", then it must be provided? This is just me brainstorming though, feel free to tell me if this isn't a great idea for a reason I didn't think of offhand.

Nah. That's probably fine.

(Also, not saying I'm against the mandate. I'm just saying... I can see that argument)

[FreakyLocz14]

Jobs should go to the most qualified appplicants. If more happen to be men rather than women, then that's just how the cookie crumbles.

[Rodriguezjames55]

gary johnsons now polls at 10% (without media coverage)

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by Rodriguezjames55

gary johnsons now polls at 10% (without media coverage)

Gary has my vote!

He's also polling at 13% in New Mexico.

[Mr. X]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

Jobs should go to the most qualified appplicants. If more happen to be men rather than women, then that's just how the cookie crumbles.

That I can agree with, however a lot of the time they are denied just because they are female.

Edit - Although, I can sometimes see the point to this. When a person is hiring, they are usually looking for someone to fill a long-term positon, not someone who is liable to need a quarter of the year off with pay, all while forcing the company to hire a temp to fill this position.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Rodriguezjames55

gary johnsons now polls at 10% (without media coverage)

All power to him. The more parties (or lack there of) and more representation, the better.

On that note, Jesse Venture may run four years from now. How do you think he'll fare?

[Mario The World Champion]

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89

All power to him. The more parties (or lack there of) and more representation, the better.

On that note, Jesse Venture may run four years from now. How do you think he'll fare?

Both parties probably don't like that. Especially Mitt Romney.

I wouldn't mind supporting "The Body", mainly because I'm a wrestling fan and I enjoyed his commentary during matches back in the day. Wasn't he on Piers Morgan talking about if there were no political parties in the U.S.?

[Scarf]

No political parties would be kind of interesting. Only if we had runoff elections though. We really should have runoffs regardless.

[Mr. X]

What needs to be done is something to reduce the hatred between parties.

Imo, heres my plan.

Presidents can't run for consecutive terms. You serve a term, you can;t run for the next. (Imo, should be in place already. We want the president to run our country for his full term, not spend the last year of in campaigning all around the nation.) They can still serve two terms, they just can't be consecutive terms. This also applies to the VP, they can't serve consecutive terms either.

Because we will now have new people campaigning each election, lets change the VP system. Once the canadiates, for each party, are decided they then go against each other. The winner becomes the president, and then the remaining canadiates then compete to become the vice president.

[Scarf]

I think it used to be true that in a presidential election the runner up became the vice president. Like, back in the original days of the US.

Not the best idea in current politics, I think. Personally, I believe the biggest problem isn't with politicians, but with money in politics, followed closely by (and somewhat related to) problems with the media which don't inform us as well as they should.

[Mario The World Champion]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

What needs to be done is something to reduce the hatred between parties.

Imo, heres my plan.

Presidents can't run for consecutive terms. You serve a term, you can;t run for the next. (Imo, should be in place already. We want the president to run our country for his full term, not spend the last year of in campaigning all around the nation.) They can still serve two terms, they just can't be consecutive terms. This also applies to the VP, they can't serve consecutive terms either.

Because we will now have new people campaigning each election, lets change the VP system. Once the canadiates, for each party, are decided they then go against each other. The winner becomes the president, and then the remaining canadiates then compete to become the vice president.

What about Congressmen who keep serving multiple terms? Would your idea of not being able to serve consecutive terms be good since this will also have new people in the House and Senate instead of the same faces that have been serving for as long as I have been on this earth? Or at least limit their terms to 2?

[Netto Azure]

One of the problems with term limits that arisen here in California is that during the first term lawmakers just try to get as much for their district to get re-elected for the next term since they know that they only get 2 never the less.

There's no incentive to specialize for committees in the long term.

[Went]

Originally Posted by Scarf

No political parties would be kind of interesting. Only if we had runoff elections though. We really should have runoffs regardless.

No political parties would end up causing the same political parties to exist but by any other name. After all, if you have two "Republicans", they'll split their votes up reducing their chances to be elected if the "Democrats" had only one candidate (and viceversa). So, in the end, it would be 1 VS 1 as it is now but without party banners.

After all, look at the campaigns. It's "Romney-Ryan" and "Obama-Biden", not "Vote Republican Party" or "Vote Democratic Party", as it goes in most European countries where presidents/prime ministers aren't nominally elected. If you have a personalist persidential system, this is what usually ends up happening- you end up voting for the guy, not for his party. Removing parties wouldn't make almost any difference.

[Toujours]

I don't know, it would be a long hard road to convince the American people to actually care about all the issues but, for example, my aunt is a hardcore Catholic. She's a one-issue voter: abortion. If someone is pro-choice, she can't vote for him because that would be voting for murder. So she votes for Romney. But if there were 3 different candidates that all were pro-life, then she would have to actually look at other issues to decide which one to vote for. Kind of similar to me; I'm a social issues vote, and regardless of Obama's economic policies I'm voting for him because I vote on social issues and no one else with good social issues records have a chance of winning. But if there were 2-3 people that had similar views on social issues but different economic policies, I would be forced to compare and contrast their other qualities.

But I'm not sure if it's possible for the US, as bipartisan as it is, to get to that point. :/

[Went]

The problem, the gigantic problem, is the one-round winner-takes-all system, in State level no less. Simply that has the direct effect of concentrating support in two parties alone, because any third party voters will realize that their votes are absolutely worthless. In France, for instance, a first round is held with all candidates from all parties, and the two with the best result go on to a second round. This year, no candidate got over 30% of the votes, a handful got at least 5% and a few of them were overlapping- three conservatives, two social-democrats, etc.

Meanwhile, here in Spain or in Germany, we vote parties and seats are given proportionally, and the party which gets more support (or that can unite a coalition of parties behind them) gets to elect the President/Prime Minister. That way, your vote for Random Party can matter if they get enough votes to get one seat and use it to negotiate policies in exhange for support to the President.

The US system, as it is right now, pretty much makes any third party useless as their chances of ever getting ONE electoral vote out of 538 are microscopycal unless they get millions of people to support them in a State- let's not even talk about 270. Specially now that, after decades and decades of the same parties over and over, the tipping point where lots of people vote not to choose someone but to prevent someone else from being elected has been reached. "Voting for a third party means giving the presidency to the other guy" is the best way to keep your base together.

Meanwhile, I'm going to watch the results of the elections today in Galicia and the Basque Country, two of our states, and where 4/6 parties are expected to get elected to their respective Parliaments with our proportional system, with a possible Galician Government being made out of 3 different parties. I, for one, think that's much more representative.

[Livewire]

You kind of need political parties. Imagine if instead of two, we had ten, or even twelve. Think about how confusing and how much of a logistical nightmare that would be. There are some benefits to a two party system/political parties.

[Went]

Originally Posted by Livewire

You kind of need political parties. Imagine if instead of two, we had ten, or even twelve. Think about how confusing and how much of a logistical nightmare that would be. There are some benefits to a two party system/political parties.

The UK has three major parties, and there aren't any major issues- they only have to get a third chair in the debates. And it allows some degree of freedom to "punish" your favourite party if they screw up without directly favouring the one you hate the most.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Livewire

You kind of need political parties. Imagine if instead of two, we had ten, or even twelve. Think about how confusing and how much of a logistical nightmare that would be. There are some benefits to a two party system/political parties.

Canada has (at least):
- New Democratic Party
- Green Party
- Bloc Québécois
- Liberal Party of Canada
- Conservative Party of Canada

Those are the big ones, with Liberal, Conservative, and NDP being the major players.

The Conservatives actually used to be two separate parties: Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (which I affiliate myself with) and the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance. I wish they'd split up again :(

So, you don't need just two. I would hate if Canada went to a two party system. I wouldn't feel like I have much of a choice.

[Keiran777]

I don't like the party system as it is because you can never be fully satisfied with a candidate (unless you actually agree with 100% of their stances and plans). Since Obama and Romney are the only well-advertised candidates I'm forced to vote for Obama because I agree with his plans more than Romneys (which are fairly non-existent). So basically, my vote is going for NOT electing Romney rather than voting for someone I truly want in office.

What I would like to see happen is the law-making power of Congress/Senate and the President halted after the construction of a bill. The bill is then introduced to and truthfully translated for the public and then voted on by the people. A person should be able to represent themselves as a whole, and not forced to choose the lesser of an evil. Every party can be equally represented in the Government, but the public majority will always win. People who only care about things like abortion would only influence decisions made about abortion, rather than vote for a whole package they choose to ignore.

If that can't happen, or wouldn't work, we should at least do better to make sure other parties are in the mainstream. Not having Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and the other candidates represent themselves in a debate is a disgrace and really shows how influenced by media we are as a nation. A leader of a nation shouldn't "win" a debate because they attacked the opponent better (which makes them look better the next day in media), it's not a rap battle. The winner of a debate should be a personal decision of whose argument resonated with you best.

[Netto Azure]

Sadly I was too sick and tired to live blog this event today. But I managed to watch the debate after I woke up and I have to say I wasn't disappointed. I thought the third and last presidential debate was a clear win for the President. He displayed the authority of the nation’s Commander-in-Chief: He was calm, dignified, and confident. He explained to a clueless Mitt Romney the way the world actually works.

Romney seemed out of his depth. His arguments were more a series of bromides than positions – “we have to make sure arms don’t get into the wrong hands,” “we want a peaceful planet,” “we need to stand by our principles,” “we need strong allies,” “we need a comprehensive strategy to move the world away from terrorism.”

In tonight’s debate, Romney seemed to wander. He often had difficulty distinguishing his approach from the President’s, except to say, repeatedly, “America needs strong leadership.”

On the few occasions when Romney managed to criticize the President, he called for a more assertive foreign policy – but he never specified exactly what that assertiveness would entail. He wanted “tougher economic sanctions on Iran,” for example, or “stronger support for Israel” – the details of which were never revealed.

Obama’s most targeted criticism of Romney, on the other hand, went to Romney’s core weakness – that Romney’s positions have been inconsistent, superficial, and often wrong: “Every time you’ve offered an opinion,” said Obama, “you’ve been wrong.”

[Mr. X]

Everyones opinion is wrong. Thats why its called a opinion, instead of fact.

Anyway, I doubt that Romney would put more scantions on Iran. He'd be to busy waging a 'economic war' on China. (Which is, very, stupid since the, majority of, the things we buy, minus food, are made in China.)

Just to drive home that point, a picture.

(Basically, China has all of us by the balls. And, ironically, Capitalism is why.)

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

Everyones opinion is wrong. Thats why its called a opinion, instead of fact.

Anyway, I doubt that Romney would put more scantions on Iran. He'd be to busy waging a 'economic war' on China. (Which is, very, stupid since the, majority of, the things we buy, minus food, are made in China.)

Just to drive home that point, a picture.

(Basically, China has all of us by the balls. And, ironically, Capitalism is why.)

Capitilaism is what would prevent outsourcing to China. China attracts jobs because businesses don't have to deal with nearly as many burdensome regulations that they have to here.

[Netto Azure]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

Capitilaism is what would prevent outsourcing to China. China attracts jobs because businesses don't have to deal with nearly as many burdensome regulations that they have to here.

Don't forget the awesome $1 a day wages and non-existent Health and Safety Regulations! :DDDDD

Or if you want to be more Data driven, The Awesome $4,940 GDP per capita. Way better than the US' $48,450 GDP per capita. :3