American politics

[Rai]

^There should be an overtly religious president of a non-Chrisitan religion. I'd love to see a Sikh or a Rastafarian president

Seriously, one of the greatest problems of contemporary US politics (If not THE greatest is the meddling of the churches in policymaking.)

[Cali]

"Rastafarian president"

i would definitely support a rastafarian president

[SisterMidnight]

that would solve the whole medical marijuana issue, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by bearbait

Thanks SisterMidnight, that link is very helpful.

I still don't get how the USA Today quiz could have matched me with two rather out-there leftists and a republican!! Granted, it wasn't a very good quiz and I often felt I was forced to pick just one answer when I liked two or three responses . . . but still.

ETA: I re-took it after reconsidering the environmental question, and now it's got me matched with Gravel and Kucinich still as 1 & 2, but now Clinton is #3 instead of McCain.

you're welcome. there's a quiz on that page, too. i like it better, if only because it's the post and not usa today. plus it lets you rate the issues by importance. i thought my views would coincide most with clinton then obama, but my score actually had edwards in a close second to hillary.

[Hendrik]

Originally Posted by Cali

no, that's not it. the chart that i saw was sorted by issue. it was very didactic, i thought i had it bookmarked but i can't find it anywhere

"anyone but huckabee"

agree 100% he is the scariest one of them all. he talks about religion and morals but actually spreads hate. it's that dichotomy i don't get. here's a video from last week's real time, this is the huckabee part. check out minute 5:53

"What would Jesus do? - Not have a f*ckin gun."

[Cali]

actually, i would rather have a fellow pastafarian in the white house

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarian

[bearbait]

Originally Posted by SisterMidnight

you're welcome. there's a quiz on that page, too. i like it better, if only because it's the post and not usa today. plus it lets you rate the issues by importance. i thought my views would coincide most with clinton then obama, but my score actually had edwards in a close second to hillary.

My score was:
Obama 32 points
Edwards 31 points
Clinton 31 points

According to this, it really won't make much difference to me which one wins

ETA: I tried to take the republican quiz just now, but it was too hard - there were far too many questions where there weren't even any "lesser of the evils" answers.

[Cali]

did anybody catch the democratic debate. those dumasses! no wonder they say: "republicans don't win elections, democrats lose them"

[audity]

Originally Posted by SisterMidnight

that would solve the whole medical marijuana issue, that's for sure.

Wouldn't Ron Paul solve the medical marijuana issue ?

[buddy]

Originally Posted by bearbait

My score was:
Obama 32 points
Edwards 31 points
Clinton 31 points

According to this, it really won't make much difference to me which one wins

it probably doesn't make much of a difference to any of us who wins the nomination for the dems. as long as mccain doesn't get the nod for the republicans we're almost certainly going to have a democrat in the white house.

[Cali]

i like ron paul .. partly, but he's admitted before that he doesn't believe in evolution. i mean how can a person make good decisions based on facts, when they decide to disregard all the evidence and instead blindly accept what a book written 3500 years suggests. and he's also a libertarian, which is a fancy word for neo-liberal-anarchist. they assume that people can take care of themselves, when actually they can't when the whole system is design to serve just a few and not the people

[Five Leaves Left]

Originally Posted by Cali

i like ron paul .. partly, but he's admitted before that he doesn't believe in evolution. i mean how can a person make good decisions based on facts, when they decide to disregard all the evidence and instead blindly accept what a book written 3500 years suggests. and he's also a libertarian, which is a fancy word for neo-liberal-anarchist. they assume that people can take care of themselves, when actually they can't when the whole system is design to serve just a few and not the people

With the size of government he supports it doesn't even matter if he believes in the evolution theory, or God forbid: Religion!

In order to support libertarianism than you need to be willing to help others out of your own pocket rather than expect the government to do every damn thing for you from the cradle to the grave. It wouldn't be right for me as an individual to steal money from you to give to the poor, and it also isn't right for the government to coerce you into giving money to the poor. Also, the government does barely anything efficiently and when it gets too big than it serves a few people in collective groups rather than protecting rights of individuals.

[Hendrik]

It's so dumb if I read black people saying that Obama's speeches don't care for "black interests" or mock him for "not being black enough", cos his mother was a white from Kansas and his father from Kenia or if latinos won't vote for him only because he's black. Ridicolous, really. I don't think the USA, as one nation, can overcome racism at any sorts, if there are still people like that. It's a good thing that Obama doesn't seem to go those childish ways seperating people like that.

[Hendrik]

[carvinC980t_kid]

Originally Posted by Hendrik

"What would Jesus do? - Not have a f*ckin gun."

not true

[Five Leaves Left]

the other night at the Republican debate all the candidates (except Paul) said that in hindsight they would have still gone into Iraq and that it was a good idea it was just mismanaged after Hussein was killed. I thought that most of them disagreed with going into Iraq in hindsight and they only reason they support the war now was because they think "if you broke than you bought it." I guess not, that's kinda scary considering the things the President and some candidates are saying about Iran.

[bearbait]

I agree Five Leaves. I don't understand why America seems to think we are the world's police force. Isn't that what the UN is for?? We need to stop invading everybody who breathes and start using that money to help people in our own country!!

And Carv - why do you say that Jesus would have a gun?

[Rai]

The UN has no power to police anything. It has the mandate for it, but it is crippled by bureaucracy, corruption, general idiocy and the Security Council vetoes. The US has the power, but it does not have the mandate. The only way swift intervention can come in a crisis situation is when the problem is with an outlying and geopolitically uninteresting place, like Sierra Leone. When at least one great power is involved, the others jump in and the usual endless quarrel starts with with everyone looking after their own interests. Eg. Iran or Sudan.

Still, intervention is needed sometimes. I would have 100% supported a unilateral military intervention in Rwanda, because it would have stopped the whole thing in an instant. Like the what happened with the aforementioned Sierra Leone.

[srahman24]

Originally Posted by Five Leaves Left

the other night at the Republican debate all the candidates (except Paul) said that in hindsight they would have still gone into Iraq and that it was a good idea it was just mismanaged after Hussein was killed.

It's just painful to hear them all talk like that. And now, McCain has said that if he were President, we should expect more wars. I cannot believe they think this is a winning strategy - don't most Americans want out of Iraq by now?

[audity]

Originally Posted by Cali

i like ron paul .. partly, but he's admitted before that he doesn't believe in evolution. i mean how can a person make good decisions based on facts, when they decide to disregard all the evidence and instead blindly accept what a book written 3500 years suggests. and he's also a libertarian, which is a fancy word for neo-liberal-anarchist. they assume that people can take care of themselves, when actually they can't when the whole system is design to serve just a few and not the people

Cali, you err in your classification of libertarianism as "neo-liberal-anarchism." Libertarianisn predates the neoliberal tradition, and would be rightly labeled as classical liberalism.

[Cali]

well, i was being very broad. but libertarianism is actually a very mild form of social anarchism, classical liberalism times a million. i mean libertarians want the government to have as little power as possible over social issues, which might work in a perfect society, but our societies are far from perfect; i think a libertarian government would make poor people even poorer

[Five Leaves Left]

Originally Posted by Cali

well, i was being very broad. but libertarianism is actually a very mild form of social anarchism, classical liberalism times a million. i mean libertarians want the government to have as little power as possible over social issues, which might work in a perfect society, but our societies are far from perfect; i think a libertarian government would make poor people even poorer

What kind of system do you think would work the best? I'm sure we can both agree that the current system needs some drastic changes.

I know that libertarianism seems like it would be a bad idea because you're counting on people to be compassionate towards others; but we have seen in history, and currently, how poorly the government handles money and how much more corrupt they become as they become larger and larger.

edit: Ultimately I believe that all political structures and governments lead to complete failure because there will always be greedy people that want power. Take the US Constitution for example, the founders sought to establish basically the smallest government in history and a couple of hundred years later it's become massive with 700 bases in 130 countries. I'm not promoting anarchy though, I think that would be an even greater failure.

[Cali]

"What kind of system do you think would work the best?"
i don't know, they all suck

actually i think (it's just my not-so-informed opinion) libertarianism wouldn't work because people (as a whole) aren't compassionate enough. i'm not saying that people are bad, i'm just saying that logically each group would promote their own agenda and there's always gonna be those with not enough power and not enough resources, and that is where the government should intervene. does that make any sense? i'm tired and what do i know anyway

[carvinC980t_kid]

Originally Posted by Five Leaves Left

What kind of system do you think would work the best? I'm sure we can both agree that the current system needs some drastic changes.

I know that libertarianism seems like it would be a bad idea because you're counting on people to be compassionate towards others; but we have seen in history, and currently, how poorly the government handles money and how much more corrupt they become as they become larger and larger.

edit: Ultimately I believe that all political structures and governments lead to complete failure because there will always be greedy people that want power. Take the US Constitution for example, the founders sought to establish basically the smallest government in history and a couple of hundred years later it's become massive with 700 bases in 130 countries. I'm not promoting anarchy though, I think that would be an even greater failure.

where did you learn they "Sought to establish the smallest goverment in history" thats rediculous

they actually made it complicated to allow more options.

our founding fathers of the constitution, also the oldest constituion, wrote it with intentions of hoping that the citizens would take and make use of the complications and use all their resources provided. they would be let down knowing we end up relying on one person, the president, when that was what they wanted to NOT happen. they wanted to establish a goverment that guarnteed its inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the purusit of happies

a "simple" goverment would be the type that americans revolted from. where you answer mainly to one person a king or queen. and to say their new way of things was intened to be the smallest goverment is just ignorant as it was designed to be more complicated and allow it's self to check its and have the peoples voice be herad.


like all this talk about elections. voting the house reps is EXTREMELY important, but the average citizens doesn't take the time to look into that election. infact we keep voting the same people into office every two years that we bitch about.

[Hendrik]

Isn't Ron Paul for getting rid of all social standards? (at least, that's what I've heard recently) A scary thought for a german.

Originally Posted by Cali

"What kind of system do you think would work the best?"
i don't know, they all suck

actually i think (it's just my not-so-informed opinion) libertarianism wouldn't work because people (as a whole) aren't compassionate enough. i'm not saying that people are bad, i'm just saying that logically each group would promote their own agenda and there's always gonna be those with not enough power and not enough resources, and that is where the government should intervene. does that make any sense?

Exactly. That's why libertarianism wouldn't work in reality. The failures of such system would lead to civil wars and riots in the end, cos the system is not aimed at helping the helpless. Not at all. And there will always be helpless people.
Here in Germany we still have a welfare system and you wanna know why it is slowly goin down the drain? Cos some twisted greedy devilish people got in power and damaged it on purpose to get more money in their own pockets. And now in Germany all the fu.cked up neo cons demonize socialism. It's that grotesque. If things don't change in Germany, we will get riots in ten or fifteen years, make no mistake. And to be honest, there is a point, where I would totally understand and empathise with such protests.

[Five Leaves Left]

Originally Posted by carvinC980t_kid

where did you learn they "Sought to establish the smallest goverment in history" thats rediculous

they actually made it complicated to allow more options.

our founding fathers of the constitution, also the oldest constituion, wrote it with intentions of hoping that the citizens would take and make use of the complications and use all their resources provided. they would be let down knowing we end up relying on one person, the president, when that was what they wanted to NOT happen. they wanted to establish a goverment that guarnteed its inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the purusit of happies

a "simple" goverment would be the type that americans revolted from. where you answer mainly to one person a king or queen. and to say their new way of things was intened to be the smallest goverment is just ignorant as it was designed to be more complicated and allow it's self to check its and have the peoples voice be herad.


like all this talk about elections. voting the house reps is EXTREMELY important, but the average citizens doesn't take the time to look into that election. infact we keep voting the same people into office every two years that we bitch about.

Just to clarify,
By "small" i meant it was created to have a small role in the life of the American people, I wasn't referring to the literal size of government. It was designed to let people do things themselves and not have the government intrude on them or take large quantities of their money every April. The balance of powers established in the Constitution was the genius idea that the founders came up with to keep the power in the hands of the people, unfortunately the Constitution has been abused lately.

[carvinC980t_kid]

Originally Posted by Five Leaves Left

Just to clarify,
By "small" i meant it was created to have a small role in the life of the American people, I wasn't referring to the literal size of government. It was designed to let people do things themselves and not have the government intrude on them or take large quantities of their money every April. The balance of powers established in the Constitution was the genius idea that the founders came up with to keep the power in the hands of the people, unfortunately the Constitution has been abused lately.

ok, i was like "wtf? it's hella complicated"

haha, didn't mean to come across rude if i did leaves!

i'll write more later, i'm studying political science and in a really good american national goverment class. my teacher is actually a british american who was educated in both america and britin, so it's cool to learn from her cause she's a lot less biased

ps. a really good book about the us coming into it's own goverment is called "the great improvistation" can't remember the author, but it's about ben franklin and his working with nothing to create something so large. pretty interseting if you are ever lookin for somethin to read. did you know ben's head/forehead was too big to get a wig made that fit in with the eruorpeans? haha random fact of the day lol

[Hendrik]

*lol*

[Bumpman]

Originally Posted by carvinC980t_kid

our founding fathers of the constitution, also the oldest constituion, wrote it with intentions of hoping that the citizens would take and make use of the complications and use all their resources provided.

The oldest still-functional Constitution is that of San Marino. The US Constitution is the second-oldest still-functional self-described Constitution. The first North American Constitution was solely for Connecticut. The first Constitution was Sumerian from about 5,000 years ago. Then there was Persia, Athens, Babylonia, Japan, Serbia, China. Then there was Magna Carta in 1215.

The list goes on.

[Rai]

The Magna Carta is only a constitution in a really loose sense...

[srahman24]

Originally Posted by Bumpman

The oldest still-functional Constitution is that of San Marino. The US Constitution is the second-oldest still-functional self-described Constitution. The first North American Constitution was solely for Connecticut. The first Constitution was Sumerian from about 5,000 years ago. Then there was Persia, Athens, Babylonia, Japan, Serbia, China. Then there was Magna Carta in 1215.

The list goes on.

Well, the U.S. Constitution is the oldest document that actually explicitly declares itself to be a Constitution. And the first whose weight is found in what Cameron was talking about - limiting the power of an elected government, of any one man in the government.

It was a pretty revolutionary thing for modern politics.