|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff, the system is done. Unworkable. Our Constitution has been ignored for far too long to go back to anything resembling a "constitutional" government.
Woodrow Wilson basically decided it was an antiquated document that hindered "progress", and every government we've had has basically taken his cue and ignored it for the most part. The Constitution at this point is a highly revered piece of toilet paper for all the good it does.
So, yeah, if we want to go back to a government America was founded on, one that protects individual liberty as the foundation of a free nation, blood probably will have to be spilled. Crying about it isn't going to change anything. Grassroots movements aren't going to change anything. India used non-violence against an occupier with an unwieldy empire crumbling after the economic burden of rebuilding after a world war. It doesn't work against an entrenched domestic government that holds all of the cards.
Plus, it won't work in a nation that isn't even united on what it wants out of government. OWS and the Tea Party have zero chance of effecting change, because at least 60% of the population disagrees with each's positions. Voter turn out is 50% or less because people don't see any real choices. They know the game is rigged against them. People go on about Bush and Florida in 2000, but they forget Kennedy and Illinois/Texas in '60. Both parties cheat, both lie and both manipulate their bases with rhetoric that appeals to them, and then do whatever they want to keep the fat cats in power.
This country is in the decline. The gap between the haves and have nots will continue to grow, our personal liberties will continue to be stripped (the real ones, fourth fifth and sixth amendment ones, not silly crap like marriage and abortions - those are just distractions from actual liberty being stolen from us), and the "American Dream" will continue to evaporate.
Yeah, I'm cynical. But it's the cynicism Bierce described.
Maybe we should look at getting rid of the electoral college.
Open it up for more of a popular vote?
Then maybe a third party canidate would have a chance...
I'm not ready to write off America.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes.
Also, I realized that I failed in my duty to post and oppose Citizen HD every time he talks shiznit about the unions. Unfortunately, he's pretty much right. The average union member is not a revolutionary socialist (boo!), or even a liberal.
So, instead, I'll tell a funny story:
Spoilered for Teamster thuggery
Anyway, we were talking when a part-time supervisor came our way. The BA said "Here comes my boy" and we stopped talking as the supe walked by. "Good morning" said the BA. The supe mumbled something under his breath and left.
"You know Jimmy McDuff? (not real name) Drives in the Lowell center?" says the BA to me. "Well, one day back when XXXX XXXXX was the district manager, XXXX handed Jimmy package and asked him to walk it over to Marlboro. Jimmy looked at him and said 'Number one, you're not supposed to be handling packages. Number two (chucks package across the room), no.'
"So, XXXX comes over to me, and he's steaming mad and he says 'XXXX, I'm firing Jimmy McDuff! I'm walking him out right now!' He tells me what happened and I go 'Now, XXXX, I understand that you're mad, but insubordination is not a cardinal infraction, you can't walk him out, he gets his hearing like the contract says.'
"So XXXX grumbles some and walks off. After I finish work, I go home, and I come back at midnight to patrol the building. And what do I find? My boy (first supervisor mentioned in the story) loading trailers. So, I stand in the trailer and start yelling 'What the f+!@ are you doing?!?' and he tries to leave, but I won't get out of his way. 'Get the f$~% out of my way!' he yells and I respond 'F!#* you! What are you doing? You're not supposed to be working!'
"So he hockey checks me out of the way and I call up the district manager. 'XXXX, I was just assaulted by one of your supervisors!' The district manager sighs and goes 'Let me guess. If the insubordination charges against McDuff are dropped, you'll be fine.' 'Well, XXXX, I can't promise anything, I'm going to have to have a doctor check me out.'"
Needless to say, all charges were dropped.
The union forever, baby!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, sure, I'll favorite Comrade Jeff's post.
America's decline, of course, has little to do with its safeguarding of individual liberties, because it never did a really good job of safeguarding those to begin with.
It's decline has more to do with the fact that it no longer is the preeminent capitalist power in the world that can afford to do whatever it wants and still buy off its domestic population. All empires rise and fall, after all.
It took a while for the effects to be obvious, but I'd date the start of the end of the American Century with Nixon's abandonment of the Bretton Woods agreement. It's pretty much been downhill since then.
Also, "You have no values. With you it's all nihilism, sarcasm, cynicsm and orgasm." "Hey! In France I could run on that slogan--and win!" (Paraphrase)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any violent overthrow of the government would come at a very high cost in blood.
I would, of course, prefer a peaceful overthrow of the government based upon a socialist program.
But, I'd be remiss in not pointing out that allowing this present government to continue ruling us also comes with a very high cost in blood. Maybe not necessarily ours so much (although there's plenty of that, too) but, for example, there's been something like 2 million dead Iraqis since Gulf War I.
I know there's no need to explicate the crimes of American imperialism to Comrade Jeff, so I'll just leave it at that.
Pretty smart for a communist goblin.
All hail Leafar!
Ok. I'm calling this Poll a win for:
"Democrats"
.
Good work people.
Seems a safe bet.
I'd bet on Obama winning and Dems picking up seats in Congress come fall. I'd probably be tempted to vote for Ron Paul, just to see what real change looks like even if it's half crap I don't want, but he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell due to the manipulation and gerrymandering of the primaries by his own party. He should drop out and run as a 3rd party candidate. I think that might ensure Obama's win, much like Nader in 2000, but his voice needs to be heard to steer the campaigns of whoever the two nominees end up being.
The thing is, the judge's argument is how it is, regardless of whether the judge is in fact correct, because the judge is the lawful authority on this matter, not the president.
A bit late with the fact-checking. And all the fact-checking is from wikipedia, but...
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in parts of Maryland, leading to Ex parte Merryman, a decision by Chief Justice Taney sitting as a federal circuit judge.
You guys know better me, but I thought a case had to go up to the SCOTUS before it could be declared unconstitutional. Anyway, the White House ignored the decision, but released all its prisoners nine months later. And then got passed:
Now, before anyone accuses me of going soft and hiding behind the Constitution, I should point out that Ex parte Merryman was only Taney's second most important decision. His most important decision, of course, was the infamous Dred Scott case in which he opined that "They [blacks] had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
F*## Chief Justice Taney and his opinions!
Republicans
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Republicans
...don't read instructions?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Republicans
Good luck with that. :)
now, i'd just like to ask something of you guys:
at what point would you consider the system so broken that you'd be willing to do your duty as layed down by the declaration of independence and overthrow your existing government.i do genuinely like this about america. they have a failsafe inbuilt incase their government becomes so corrupt that it no longer serves the people.
The local Magistrate invokes prima nupti on my wedding night.
He's getting his head staved in with a horseman's flail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I vote END OF CHOICES for next president. It's the most accurate prediction.
That is all.
|
And applied some sense. I started with the 2004/2008 map which showed solid red/solid blue and states that changed hands in 2004/2008 elections.
I see nothing huge to change things on a national level like a 30% approval rating for President Obama. We are basically still a 40/40/20 (independent) society with some states always going Democrat or Republican.
So I looked at the states that changed hands; North Carolina, Virgina, Indiana, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada.
North Carolina, Virgina, Indiana all are states that usually Republican and only changed hands because 2008 was a heavily Democratic year, so I'll put them in the Republican camp.
In Ohio, the Tea Party Republicans have really ticked off the Unions and other key Democratic constituencies, leading to record fundraising for the Ohio Democrats and an energized base. So I'll give that to the Democrats.
I'll give Florida to the Republicans to bolst their numbers but reserve the right for it to go Democratic as a margin of error against Ohio.
That brings the delegate count to 264 for the Democrats and 248 for the Republicans. It takes 270 to win.
That leaves 3 states, Colorado, Nevada, and Iowa as states with 6 or more delegates which would be enough to put the Democrats over the top and for everything I've seen or heard, all three are genuninely toss up states. I live in Colorado and I see it trending Democratic just slightly. Therefore, I think at least one of these states will go Democratic. Republicans have to win all three plus New Mexico (another genuninely toss up state) to go over the top.
Therefore the Democrats most likely win.
Game Changers
Corporate Superpacts outspend the Democrats badly.
Republican voter suppression tactics take a toll.
Romney (the only viable Republican canidate) wins something in New England or picks up LDS support in Colorado/Nevada. Truthfully, I don't see this happening. Mass will go Democrat the same way Tennesse went Republican in 2000. LDS support will hurt Romney elsewhere and make up for it.
Ron Paul runs as third party canidate.
Something goes horribly wrong like another 9-11.
|
Interesting analysis, but I'm curious about a couple things...
I started with the 2004/2008 map which showed solid red/solid blue and states that changed hands in 2004/2008 elections.
I would think starting with the 2008 elections would be a mistake. The 2010 elections showed some change in voting trends after 2 years under the new administration. Unless I'm missing something (and I can't get your interactive map you linked to load, so my apologies if there's something there.)
I see nothing huge to change things on a national level like a 30% approval rating for President Obama. We are basically still a 40/40/20 (independent) society with some states always going Democrat or Republican.
Where are you getting your 40/40/20 number?
Gallup Feb 2012 Poll has the breakdown as 27% Repub, 29% Demo and 43% Inde. With those numbers, I think you're discounting the swing of the Independent voters. Their approval or disapproval COULD swing the race either way.Then Gallup Aug 2011 Poll has the ideological breakdown of the country as 41% con, 36% mod and 21% lib. That's not party breakdown of course, but tells you which way ideologically leaners may lean.
And your "game changers" are quite biased. I actually thought your analysis was good until then ("Republican voter suppression tactics"? Come on.)
And your "game changers" are quite biased. I actually thought your analysis was good until then ("Republican voter suppression tactics"? Come on.)
It's all over the news.
|
|
And your "game changers" are quite biased. I actually thought your analysis was good until then ("Republican voter suppression tactics"? Come on.)
Here is an example from 2004 from Ohio, and we all know Jeb Bush removed voters from the roles in Florida prior to 2000 (regardless of what did or didn't happen in Bush vs Gore).
Come on. These are tactics designed to suppress voter turn out by groups that tend to vote Democratic, and nothing else.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question was which would win and not which should win. It is very difficult to unseat a sitting president unless there are clouds over the presidency, like the Iran Hostage crisis over President Carter. It is very likely that President Obama will be re-elected. The Republican field of candidates is far from ideal. This of course means we will have four more years of a steady move toward a Marxist/Socialist government. Oh well!
Later,
Mazra
|
|
Come on. These are tactics designed to suppress voter turn out by groups that tend to vote Democratic, and nothing else.
Oh! You mean Voter Identification laws. See I didn't even recognize it when you say "Voter Suppression". You'd think I'd be better at that coming from the land where the Civil War is the "War of Northern Aggression." :)
But, whatever. You've already decided these laws are to stop people from voting. I look at it as protection against election fraud (whether it's a real or imagined problem).
Either way it's a thread derailment so we should drop it.
-J
|
|
t
Mazra, Obama is more conservative than Clinton. Obama being a Maxist is just a GOP talking point. The reason why all the republican candidates are so far right (anti-gay, bomb Iran right now, return to pre 1980 regulations) isnt because they really are crazy: it's because Obama is so far right (killing US citizens without a trial, increasing executive power, unilateral use of the military without congress, cap and tax - a republican idea) that the only way to distinguish themselves as conservative is to run that way.
President Obama is a self-styled Keynesian Socialist far left of the Moderate Southern Democrat President Clinton. In his three years as President he has done almost nothing to improve Capitalism in the US. The US Corporate tax burden still remains amongst the highest in the world, a terribly restrictive collar choking job growth. President Obama actually believed that he could create jobs by increasing Federal spending. It is the private sector that creates jobs. It takes a Socialist to NOT understand this.
By the way Republican Ron Paul is not anti-gay, want to bomb Iran, or return to pre 1980 regulations.
Later,
Mazra
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Capitalism doesn't need improved -- it needs reined in.
Profits are not a right. Corporations are not people and do not deserve the rights of citizens. Business is a privilege -- our current economic system is not enshrined in the Constitution and all moneys exists solely at the digression of the USA government (as it should be).
Capitalism by itself will never make things better, it never has and it never will.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All governments only rule by the consent of the governed.
I think you must have been missing your history classes. Throughout history despots have ruled over their peoples by force, and not by the consent of the governed. If you look as recently as the regime of Saddam Hussein, you will find a brutal despotic regime that ruled by intimidation and murder. All that politically opposed him within his nation was executed. It was fear that maintained control in Iraq under the Hussein regime. The same could be said for Pol pot's regime in Cambodia, and the current Assad regime in Syria.
However, I would agree with you that revolution is rarely a good thing. The American Revolution was a very rare instance when revolution lead to an improvement for the peoples revolting.
Later,
Mazra
While I agree that despots and tyrants have ruled I would also point out the often fall when the people say enough -- this is rarely painless or blood free, but they still do fall, generally with little (if any) outside help.
|
|
Capitalism doesn't need improved -- it needs reined in.
Profits are not a right. Corporations are not people and do not deserve the rights of citizens. Business is a privilege -- our current economic system is not enshrined in the Constitution and all moneys exists solely at the digression of the USA government (as it should be).
Capitalism by itself will never make things better, it never has and it never will.
I am truly not surprised to find this viewpoint on Paizo's boards. A Republican Capitalist is as rare as a Goblin dentist.
I agree that Capitalism needs controls. There must always be checks and balances.
But who says Profits are a right. Profits are earned.
Corporations are treated as entities. And it is the citizens that make Corporations. However, most of the free market countries of the world have less restrictions on their business than in the United States. This makes businesses in the US less competitive with businesses of other nations. It is businesses that hire people and create jobs. The more that businesses are allowed to strive, then the more jobs they will create.
Technically the Constitution doesn't even provide the government the right to impose an income tax. The powers of the Federal government in the Constitution is very limited. I don't think there were too many Socialist among the founding fathers. Most of them were either lawyers, plantation owners, or other business men. They truly had no intention to create a government that would restrict the continuity or the growth of the businesses they owned and managed.
The invention of a National Bank and a common currency was to create financial order within the new nation. This common currency helped spread wealth and trade throughout the States. Before each State had their own currency and trade was more difficult. This common currency helped to grow businesses throughout the Colonial States. Within a very short period of time Alexander Hamilton's plan allowed the new United State nation to pay off its Revolutionary War debts.
Later,
Mazra
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Seems to me they had all the legitimate power they needed to do exactly that already since the Constitution itself lays out that such is their duty. Please note the following was supposed to be prohibited of the states:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
|
|
While I agree that despots and tyrants have ruled I would also point out the often fall when the people say enough -- this is rarely painless or blood free, but they still do fall, generally with little (if any) outside help.
I agree. My point was the idea that "ALL governments only rule at the consent of the govern" is just not correct.
However, look at the despotism in North Korea. They have essentially established a despotic Monarchy in this nation. I doubt seriously that this government exist at the consent of the governed. And this has been true for generations in North Korea now. It may be a very long time before this regime falls on its on.
Later,
Mazra
While I agree that despots and tyrants have ruled I would also point out the often fall when the people say enough -- this is rarely painless or blood free, but they still do fall, generally with little (if any) outside help.I agree. My point was the idea that "ALL governments only rule at the consent of the govern" is just not correct.
However, look at the despotism in North Korea. They have essentially established a despotic Monarchy in this nation. I doubt seriously that this government exist at the consent of the governed. And this has been true for generations in North Korea now. It may be a very long time before this regime falls on its on.
Later,
Mazra
Yeah but the great thing (for me at least) is I can say, "Time is on my side" or give the infamous parental response of, "you just wait and see."
All it takes is for the people to decide that the conditions of their life is intolerable. Until that point by not rising against their government they give de facto right of rule to said government.
When it was written that certain rights are inalienable they didn't mean that there wouldn't be consequences for exercising those rights, only that at any point in time you may do so regardless of what the law states.
I am reminded of a Robert Heinlein quote:
I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm guessing Obama will win again, putting two nutjob religious fanatics as your front runners seems to be the best way to not get them elected. But if they ARE elected, I'll be seeking residence outside the US...
|
|
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;[/b]
In the 1895 case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. the Supreme Court ruled that Income Taxes were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned. It took the passage of the 1913 XVI Amendment to allow the US government to impose an Income Tax.
Later,
Mazra
P.S. to thejeff: Our posting crossed. As you can see, I referred to the Constitution in my original statement and not the amendments. And btw I was referring to many free market nations and not the third world. China is not a free market nation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm guessing Obama will win again, putting two nutjob religious fanatics as your front runners seems to be the best way to not get them elected. But if they ARE elected, I'll be seeking residence outside the US...
I started the new year with a vague amusement at what was going on with the republicans which quickly turned to shock and dismay as they continued to jump the rails. I honestly didn't expect what I've seen from them. It looks to me almost like a textbook case of everything to not do during an election year.
Xaanon and thejeff, there's this book called It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis; you'll experience it. :)
It has a very happy ending, I don't know why you'd even ask about that...
Agree 110% Abraham. I am baffled by the GOP primary.
Hitdice, it has always been my personal policy to ask about a "happy ending", no matter what the situation is. Heyyy-oo!
I wish there were people somewhere between Socialist/Marxists and the American Taliban. Unfortunately, life is a clean set of binary options, and nothing else could possibly exist between the two.
Oh well indeed.
I know which side I'm on!
Vive le Galt!
EDIT 1: @Maza-- "As rare as a goblin dentist"?!? Bigot!
EDIT 2: Happy endings! Goblins do it in the street!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
President Obama is a self-styled Keynesian Socialist far left of the Moderate Southern Democrat President Clinton.
You know that "keynesian socialist" is an oximoron, right? Keynes is the name associated with the "golden age of capitalism" in the 50-60 in about every history book.
Seriously, only if you don't get the difference between a market regulated by government investment and state owned property can you say Obama is a socialist. And yes, government spending creates jobs - again, to not understand that is to have a very poor grasp of the after war economics. Every savage deregulation of the market since then has seen an increase in the gap between rich and poor, a diminution of social mobility and a increase in unemployment.
Will all due respect, Keynes is not a socialist, he is but a capitalist using capitalist tools to aim at a full employment society (something the global state property of the USSR was never able to provide).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
P.S. to thejeff: Our posting crossed. As you can see, I referred to the Constitution in my original statement and not the amendments. And btw I was referring to many free market nations and not the third world. China is not a free market nation.Obviously China isn't a free market nation. Who is? That's my point. Most of Europe is more socialist and less free market than the US is. The US is the poster child for free market theory. Not that we're actually all that free market, but who, outside of some 3rd world hellholes, is more so?
And when someone refers to the Constitution I assume they're discussing the whole document. Would you also claim it's not Constitutional for women to vote? Doing otherwise leads to stupid pointless arguments.
We don't have a free market. We have crony Capitalism, and both major parties are guilty of allowing Wall Street to run rampant and criminally mess with our markets.
The term "Capitalism" was coined by Marx, and he defined it as the collusion between government and business to screw the common man. It's one thing I do agree with ole Karl on, actually.