The Gaming Den

sabs wrote:Tzor just wants to drink the coolaid that Carter was a wimp.
Anything that detracts from that thought must be eradicated with extreme prejudice.

It's like how they turned Kerry's Silver medal into a negative.

Far from it. I'm just shooting down the myth of epic hero. I'd never call him a "wimp" ... I might accuse him of intellectually motivated wimpiness from tmie to time, but that's not the same as being a wimp.

And for the record, I hated swift boating Kerry as much as you did.

Ancient History wrote:It's fundamentally about people that are afraid of change and lack of trust in authority.

Firstly, what consistency of long-term policies? I don't agree with everything that's put in there but I think that A) excessive politicization of certain functions is a disaster and B) the oversight branches of these functions are too insulated by the voters.

I don't care much for the lifetime tenure of USSC justices. Yet in the state of Texas direct election of TSC justices has been an unmitigated disaster. You don't want a Federal Reserve Chairman to become completely insulated from their position, but you also don't want the Reserve to be directly run by Congress; in the UK that was an unmitigated disaster. Hence why I support things like national referendums where a group of concerned citizens can initiate legislation that subjects the Fed Chairman to a vote of confidence before their term is up and forcing the President to appoint a new one. But I don't support the Federal Reserve Chairman having to to run for election directly.


Secondly, you should lack trust in authority. Not in a nihilistic 'starve the beast' kind of fashion but in a way that forces both government and the voters to scrutinize the actions of the people ruling over them and the government actors they work with or supervise.

I mean, really, are you even aware of some of the heinous bullshit that's been going on in the U.S. recently, especially in the Executive Branch or the CIA? And it's not a recent thing, either, crap like FDR using the IRS to harass opponents or more famously the internment of Japanese-American citizens have been going on for a long-ass time. Hell, one of the first USSC rulings in the history of the country was that even though a government land deal was explicitly fraudulent it should still be upheld.

"Not in a nihilistic 'starve the beast' kind of fashion"

Hey, that works perfectly fine and is a rational decision these days.

No, corporations as people has led to horrible abuses. People do terrible, morally bankrupt things knowing full well that they almost certainly won't be held accountable. People screw regular people over with the protection of 'Corporations as people'.

I actually DO think that the Senate needs to stay. I think that States should have place in the Federal government where they get even footing. As for "states is meaningless" I'm sorry, but that's also wrong. I've lived in: NY, NJ, DE, PA, VA, GA, MD, and CA. Now while I joke that DE should just be part of Maryland, in actuallity each of those states has a very different culture than the others. People in those states have different values, with different focuses. NY is weird, because really NY State and NY City should be 2 different places. NY State (Upstate) has very little in common with the 5 Burroughs+Long Island.

State identity is actually a big part of the US, and yes, people move, but who move to a different state tend to assimilate into the culture of that state.

The problem of course, is that Senators are bought and sold by Corporations because of Campaign Finance. If you fix campaign Finance, you go to great lengths to fixing Senate powers.

If you combine that, with significant reform to the 'Rules of the Senate' to remove some of the REALLY stupid shit, and you have a governing body that serves a purpose.
The Senate is supposed to act as a calmer, more stable counter point to the house of congress. I think it's important for that, if for nothing else.

A 2 group congress is something I LIKE about the US system.

sabs wrote:No, corporations as people has led to horrible abuses. People do terrible, morally bankrupt things knowing full well that they almost certainly won't be held accountable. People screw regular people over with the protection of 'Corporations as people'.

You are aware that if corporations didn't count as people people could do horrible things in the name of the corporation without being held accountable, right?

The ideal fix is to hold both the organization and the individual actor accountable. Just like if a worker sexually harasses someone both the worker can be held liable and if it was shown that the behavior was due to the company's environment/policies the company is held accountable, too.

There's nothing wrong with the underlying structure of the law, just in its enforcement. The U.S. has an unduly pro-corporate bias in how it enforces its laws but it doesn't have anything to do with corporate personhood; it has to do with people turning their heads the other way in the interests of the rich and powerful. The 14th Amendment took around a century before it actually started protecting the people it was intended to, namely freed blacks. But was that a problem with the 14th Amendment or a problem with its enforcement?

sabs wrote: State identity is actually a big part of the US, and yes, people move, but who move to a different state tend to assimilate into the culture of that state.

1.) Culture does not conform to state! The culture of Los Angeles is distinct from the culture of Sacramento. The city of Austin is much more different in culture than any other city in Texas; it has more in common with Seattle than with Dallas, yet Austin and Dallas are both in Texas. Culture doesn't conform to state boundaries to begin with.

2.) Even if you could define a thing as State Culture the U.S. Constitution forbids the redrawing of state lines to accommodate the change in culture. So you have total fucking bullshit like post-colonial Africa where political boundaries are drawn and preserved without any consideration for the people who live in them.

3.) The idea of state culture is a totally arbitrary concept that gets the cart before the horse. Of friggin' course people who live in North Dakota are going to see themselves as distinct from South Dakota, that's the way the system is set up! Even if you were able to redraw the lines to preserve culture, as far as the next generation is concerned it's totally meaningless; do you think that your children will without outside prodding care if the United States is 50 states or 40 states? Fuck no. It's like religious indoctrination. No child is born Christian, they have to be raised Christian. If you're raised Muslim you generally don't just have some kind of sudden awareness that you should've been raised Christian. Being Muslim is just a thing that seems natural because it's been a part of your life. There's nothing special about your religious upbringing or identity so there's no need to celebrate or lament whatever arbitrary category you grew up in. In that light, why not arrange the categories so that the externalities are eliminated or at least ameliorated? Your grandchildren ain't going to care that North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana were combined into a region. The fact that immigrants foreign to the U.S. assimilate at all is ample reason that it's a waste of time to artificially preserve state cultural boundaries.

4.) State identities aren't positive or even value-neutral but something that actually creates harm. Preserving separate state identities is bullshit that leads to things like Texans stabbing Californians in the back to line their pockets. The fact that Senators from small states get a much larger share of pork relative to their proportion in population is the best evidence that small states enrich themselves at the expense of larger ones. Not 'poor' states, 'small' states.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

Ancient History wrote:At the best they're efforts to prevent gaming-the-system tactics like gerrymandering, which are well-meant if not fully considered, but at worse they're just missing-the-point nonsense like "populous states are under-represented" and "destruction of classified information should never occur," and then the complete mad-bastard-fantasy stuff like "no right to travel" and "the breakdown of the federal system."

I'd love to hear you break this down why they're bad ideas or why they're not fully thought through. Right now it sounds more like 'change is bad! Brrr!' stuff coming from you.

Sorry, had missed this one. (Seriously, you think I think change is bad?)

There's a lot of these, so let's see how quickly I can go through this:

2.1 Bad foreign policy
Main point: to maintain foreign policy longer than the term of a single president, for fear that those dirty foreigners may play different aspects of the government against each other. This is, to put it kindly, bullshit. We live in a constantly changing world, and the President-at-the-moment needs to have the authority to respond to things as they happen. Yes, this can become an issue - if Lincoln had lost the election, the CSA would still exist - but it is an essential part of democracy that real change can occur, and that includes changes in foreign policy between administrations.

2.2 No real citizens
Bizarre argument trying to force people to participate in the political process instead of venting their energies through demonstrative protest or the like. It also reads like a back-alley way of trying to deny rights and privileges to some people by defining citizenship more explicitly, which is always a bad thing.

2.3 Awkward transition between presidents
Retarded, and the reason we have the 20th amendment. The sitting president still has authority until the end of the term, the nominee is getting spun up on things. Yes it can be weird, but it's very rarely disastrous.

2.4 Under-representation of voters from populous states
Bullshit argument to get rid of the Senate because it provides representation independent of population. Of course, that is the entire point of the Senate, to ensure that each state has some degree of equal representation as a political entity, and prevent California and Texas from running the entire nation (why is this an issue? Look at textbook committees. A textbook committee in Texas or California can determine which textbooks are used in public schools in all other states.) Aside from which, just by weight of votes populous states still get fair representation in the Electoral College and House of Representatives.

2.5 District of Columbia voters lack representation in Congress
This is fair, although I don't think you need a new constitution for it. Honestly, I think the majority of people living or working in DC are technically citizens of other states and can vote from their home states without issue, it probably isn't technically necessary to grant city-state status to DC, though I'd be down with that too.

2.6 Failure to specify a right of privacy
Arguably just some paranoid rambling, this is inherent in the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments, and the judiciary seem to have a solid grasp on it anyway. If you really need this (what DO you have to hide?), an amendment will do.

2.7 Danger of a military dictatorship
Somebody's been watching Five Days in May. Paranoid bullshit. Next.

2.8 Frontloaded primaries
Gaming the system at its best; it works because massives of voters insist on voting for the parties that follow these tactics ("We are all cogs in the great machine"). If you change the wording, people will just adapt new tactics to game the system again. The primaries are specifically designed to weed down candidates to a reasonable number to vote on, that's a feature by design and not a terrible one either.

2.9 Lack of competition for House seats
2.9.1 Gerrymandering
2.9.2 Access to cash
2.9.3 Franking privileges
Part of this is railing against incumbent politicians that know how to work the system to their advantage, and trying to change the system to prevent that abuse will just introduce new abuses. The other part of this is the complaint that Representives get re-elected more often and become "out of touch." This is, I submit, not a bad thing. Our three political government bodies (the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court) inhabit a spectrum from relative amateurdom (President) to seasoned professionals (Supreme Court); Congress falls in-between. The issues of interest to a given district are not always the issues of concern to a nation, and the longer a Congressman is installed and the more exposure they have to national politics, the less likely they may be to field bills specifically to aid their home state at the expense of all others. Granted, that's a best-case scenario.

2.10 Breakdown of the federal system
I would like to think it established that a strong central government is a good thing. One of the reasons the CSA and the Articles of Confederation did not work is that you need a central authority to get the various state governments to work together. Regional administration is a wonderful thing, but you cannot expect the people of West Bumfuck to rationally act on a national scale to their immediate disadvantage. Part of the reason we consolidate power in separate bodies (like corporations) is to take advantage of different economies of scale and perspective. Yes, there is redundancy, but that's part of the cost of doing business.

2.11 Dangerous concentration of power in the presidency
The "too many hats" argument. The president needs the authority granted by those different hats to do his job effectively: dividing the office can weaken the presidency to the point of ineffectiveness. Because while we all appreciate democracy (or at least republicanism), most people will agree there is a requirement for an executive to go through the general business of keeping things running - saying yes or no, choosing brown or yellow, etc. decisions have to be made, and someone needs the authority to do them. If you divvied up the presidential duties, you establish the very real possibility of conflict in the executive office, and then nothing would get done - like in a deadlocked Congress.

Now, there are forms of government where there were different executives with different functions that managed fairly well - so I'm not saying it is impossible - but I don't think it would be an improvement, at least how y'all discuss it here. The anti-Obama/Libya argument is a brilliant example, because there is a very good reason why the chief executive is granted limited power to deploy military forces - because Congress won't approve in time, or Congress won't approve at all.

2.12 Inability to get rid of an incompetent president quickly
We already have impeachment. Next.

2.13 Life tenure for Supreme Court judges
I think this is fitting, considering that Supreme Court judges among all others in Congress and the Presidency are expected to be qualified professionals. Yes, the President could nominate a celebrity or nephew or bum off the street, but every candidate that goes before Congress for approval has been an actual legal professional with schooling and experience. The proposal/approval process is unique, and to the benefit of that branch of government.

2.14 No right to travel
Weird and paranoid. Part of the rights of states is the explicit ability to police and maintain their own borders. In the extreme then yes, this does mean the government (federal or state) can restrict trespassing on certain lands, going to certain foreign countries, or leaving certain bounds altogether. This is not a problem unless abused, and it is rarely abused. Restriction of ability to travel/trade is an important tool in the government arsenal for dealing with other governments, and far trumps your desire to go get a decent mojito in Havana.

2.15 Requirement to Maintain a Monopoly of Force
If this were a gun control argument, I might understand - as it is, this seems bizarre and redundant to me. It's not like the state militias are buying fighter jets and rocket launchers, as far as I'm aware. The US generally does not permit private armies to operate with abandon on its own soil ... though it may hire them to go kill foreigners in Iraq.

2.16 Destruction of Classified Information
Impractical, particularly if you have any clear idea of how much information is considered classified. I agree that materials that are of a time-sensitive nature and enduring interest should be preserved (and they generally are), but the logistics involved in storing millions of classified government documents, in any format, is a waste of money and resources.

2.17 No provision for non-human sapients
I love science fiction and fantasy too, but unless and until we encounter/create one this is not a serious issue. Go argue about stem cells or something.

2.18 No provision to protect us from a Gattaca-like situation
As above. Also, this is part of the reason private health insurance is not the best of all possible worlds, given their attempts to use genetic information to accept or refuse clients.

2.19 Limitation on Pardons
Is this really an issue? I mean, it's not like Obama pardoned the Bush administration for war crimes - we already have laws in place that severely limit the ability of our elected officials to be charged with crimes in international courts, and even national courts. I get that Nixon getting pardoned hurt people deep inside, but in the end of the day Tricky Dick wasn't going to prison anyway.

2.20 Restoring Voting Rights
I'm actually down for this, but as-is it's a states rights issue. The American prison system and penal codes as a whole need an overhaul at this point, but getting the states to cooperate with the federal government on these kinds of issues is tricky at best, unfortunately.

2.21 Prohibition on Torture
I'm generally of a mind that "cruel and unusal" should cover this, but even if it didn't the bald fact is that torture and "enhanced interrogation" has proven to be of very little use to obtain accurate information. Hurt a man badly enough long enough he will say anything to end the pain, even if he's lying his ass off. The many exceptions and qualifications added on by later commenters really weaken what should be a no-brainer.

2.22 People invoking extra-Constitutional actions in emergency
While a nice thought (and yes, Lincoln was a bastard when time required it), we already have impeachment procedures in place. They are sufficient. The automatic-go-directly-to-jail card is so ambigious as to when it goes into effect as to be almost meaningless, and putting it in there just encourages people to think up a loophole.

2.23 Access to voting mechanisms
I get the idea is to make more people vote, but I can't say I've never heard of a (registered, willing) voter being unable to vote because of work or lack of access unless they were out of the country (which is what mail-in votes are for). Voting in the US is a right but not a requirement, while I approve of the desire to lower the potential energy barrier and thus encourage people to vote, I don't know if this is the best way.

2.24 Recalls
The key here is that while Representatives are there on behalf of their State, they should not be solely beholden to their state for their term. This means that they can vote on bills that their state doesn't approve of without worried about getting fired for it. A lot of arguments are made for states to have greater control of their representatives in this or similar fashion, and it all comes down to not trusting the bastards once they're "out of sight" so to speak.

2.25 Census and Redistricting
Not a horrible idea, but a hell of a lot of work considering you want to shrink the size of government too. And no one is going to do a hand count. Even the IRS has limits on that sort of thing. Ideally, I wish they'd do away with congressional disticts altogether, but c'est le vit.

2.26 National Referendums
Can I just say that systems put in place deliberately to circumvent the normal operation of government are prone to abuse? Moreso than in the normal course of things, I mean? National Referendums or State Conventions haven't been realized since the Continental Convention because they are huge, hideous, unwieldy things that require a lot of legwork and agreement before they can take place. Theoretically the internet could make it possible for everybody to vote yes or no on a single topic, but you're still looking at a relatively small body to write out the question and execute the will of the majority. The issue here is a lack of trust with Congress and a distaste with established methods: try fixing the system instead of avoiding it.

2.27 Standardization of fractions
The fuck? Really?

2.28 Splitting the Commander-in-Chief and Head of State Roles
See thing about presidents above. Also, "Warlord-for-Life!"...how does this not work into the miltiary coup fears above?

2.29 Size and organization of the U.S. Judiciary
Life terms for Supreme Court, see above. Also, reducing the size of the courts simply increases the workload per court...which is already backed up years. We really need an extension of the federal judiciary system with more specialized courts, like the medical courts dedicated to resolving Medicare fraud cases. Efficient!

2.30 Certain offices need to be explicitly spelled out and protected
As stated in the comments to this one, roles change over the years and the Executive branch needs the flexibility of adapting, eliminating, or creating a position as needs warrant. Otherwise, you're stuck with the Lord Privy Seal.

Side note: Dammit, I just spent an hour and a half going through the last one.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

Ancient History wrote:It's fundamentally about people that are afraid of change and lack of trust in authority.

Firstly, what consistency of long-term policies?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, so maybe expand on this a little?

I don't agree with everything that's put in there but I think that A) excessive politicization of certain functions is a disaster and B) the oversight branches of these functions are too insulated by the voters.

A) It depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You really do want an EPA, for example, and an IRS. You can sometimes get away with combining an Air Force and an Army. Bureaucracy is inefficient, but often better than nothing.
B) Well, no. You have votes in local and national elections, for all manner of positions. There are people to complain to who have to listen and record your complaint, and people you can ask questions of and reasonably expect answers. What most people are bitching about there is that the people as a mass cannot rise up and topple the President, or Congress, or the Supreme Court just by willing it because they made a bad call. The "Essay" basically wants a national referendum of no confidence to oust anybody they don't like at any time.

I don't care much for the lifetime tenure of USSC justices. Yet in the state of Texas direct election of TSC justices has been an unmitigated disaster. You don't want a Federal Reserve Chairman to become completely insulated from their position, but you also don't want the Reserve to be directly run by Congress; in the UK that was an unmitigated disaster. Hence why I support things like national referendums where a group of concerned citizens can initiate legislation that subjects the Fed Chairman to a vote of confidence before their term is up and forcing the President to appoint a new one. But I don't support the Federal Reserve Chairman having to to run for election directly.

Case in point, see above. People need enough relative security in their jobs to do their jobs.

Secondly, you should lack trust in authority. Not in a nihilistic 'starve the beast' kind of fashion but in a way that forces both government and the voters to scrutinize the actions of the people ruling over them and the government actors they work with or supervise.

You should always question authority, and hold those in power responsible for their actions, but a certain amount of trust is implicit in the positions they are elected or appointed to. If you "de-fang" the president by removing Commander-in-Chief powers, for example, the president may lack the ability to act when and how they need to.

I mean, really, are you even aware of some of the heinous bullshit that's been going on in the U.S. recently, especially in the Executive Branch or the CIA? And it's not a recent thing, either, crap like FDR using the IRS to harass opponents or more famously the internment of Japanese-American citizens have been going on for a long-ass time. Hell, one of the first USSC rulings in the history of the country was that even though a government land deal was explicitly fraudulent it should still be upheld.

Oh yes. I wrote many a long and pithy screed against President Bush and signing statements and the Patriot Act - and well I should. We as a people exist to hold our representatives to account; I would have brought Karl Rove up on war crimes. I admit the current system is flawed, I just don't think any of the changes suggested in the essay will fix it, and many will just create addditional problems.

The thing is, humans look for a way to game a system as soon as they perceive it. Politicians have spent their careers learning how to do that, and they are entrenched in that way of thought. I would love a bloodless revolution that did away with the "dead work" of Congress like non-binding resolutions and filibuster, but as it exists right now those are part of the system - and while it may not work well, it does actually work.

tzor wrote:I've bolded the important part you apparently missed..

Ah, I see. For future reference, 'later' is not the same as 'latter'. The former indicates position in time, the latter indicates position in time or position in a sentence. It is probably a good idea to check for spelling errors of this nature when talking about events in history. Unless, of course, you want to be intentionally ambiguous.

First of all, I didn't write the original problem for 'Problems with the U.S. Constitution'. Another rationalwiki poster. I don't agree with everything Thomas said, because, get this, he wanted site members to discuss and debate with him. He even changed some of his positions. So unless you see a 'Dr. Swordopolis' in a signature I may or may not support the thrust of it.

Ask me first rather than assuming it's a position I hold if you don't see a 'Dr. Swordopolis' signature. Okay?

Second of all, AH and everyone else, I'm aware that the vast majority of problems of the Constitution don't technically need a new one altogether. However, the main problem I have with it is the very idea of the existence of 'states'. You can't amend or treaty or law this issue away. You need a new Constitution altogether.

The thing is, after we fixed that issue, why not use that period of time to fix other issues?

With that in mind, when you say things like 'you don't need a new Constitution to fix this' you are totally missing the point. Geez laweez. Here's an analogy: if you are dissatisfied with the color of your pink car and both the body and engine are pieces of shit so you'd have to buy a new one anyway, it makes absolutely no sense for anyone to go 'dude, you don't need to get a new car if you want a black one, a paint job is a lot cheaper'. We're getting a new car, so any kind of change is on the table.

So if you or anyone else posts something stupid like 'I agree, but why do we need a new constitution to fix this' I'm just going to not respond to it. So with those two things in mind:

Ancient History wrote:but it is an essential part of democracy that real change can occur, and that includes changes in foreign policy between administrations.

I disagree. Changes in foreign policy should occur because of a change in the political philosophy of government, not because of an administrative change. Obama's foreign policy is not markedly different from Bush Jr.'s; if Bush Jr. had been elected for a third term but then silently took on all of Obama's foreign policy changes except for Libya (which is debatable) you probably would not have even noticed. Except for modest changes by Nixon and Carter, post-WWII to Clinton foreign policy changes have not been particularly internally distinct - that is, I have a hard time seeing the Clinton or Reagan or Ford administrations reacting differently to black swans like 9/11. Viewed in that light, if the administrations are not going to change their foreign policy all that much then why force a shakeup?

If a conservative or liberal or anti-this-Specific-War wave gets elected to Congress they should have the ability to appoint a new Commander-in-Chief if the current CiC's reality image conflicts with that of Congress. In fact this is much more flexible than the current state of affairs. We had to put up with an extra 3 years of Bush and LBJ well after voters got tired of their wars because their tenures of Commander-in-Chief were not based on popular opinion but on their terms.

IOW the shake-ups do need to occur but having them occur at a time period as arbitrary as every new Presidential election both causes minor disruptions when there's no difference between administrations but more troublingly forces the country to stick with a foreign policy that they do not like.

2.4 Under-representation of voters from populous states
Bullshit argument to get rid of the Senate because it provides representation independent of population. Of course, that is the entire point of the Senate, to ensure that each state has some degree of equal representation as a political entity, and prevent California and Texas from running the entire nation (why is this an issue? Look at textbook committees. A textbook committee in Texas or California can determine which textbooks are used in public schools in all other states.) Aside from which, just by weight of votes populous states still get fair representation in the Electoral College and House of Representatives.

I also seriously disagree with this. I'm not going to tell you why this is a problem in this post; just read my previous one and the ones me and Frank made.

But if I am going to boil this down to a pithy one-phrase reply: A tyranny of the majority is still better than a tyranny of the minority.

2.6 Failure to specify a right of privacy
Arguably just some paranoid rambling, this is inherent in the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments, and the judiciary seem to have a solid grasp on it anyway. If you really need this (what DO you have to hide?), an amendment will do.

Because the United States judiciary has never had situations when some Young Turk USSC decided that they really loved originalism (or dynamism) and that precedent and common law could go fuck itself because the Constitution doesn't say otherwise. Uh huh.

The entire existence of Dred Scott and Citizens United has told us that precedent, even superprecedent, is worth as much as a scrap of paper. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not trust courts like the Reinquist to protect rights 'just' because there's a history of them. That shit needs to be spelled out explicitly. Hell, I'd think that the U.S. Constitution also needs a clause stating that it needs to be interpreted dynamically with strict scrutiny. But that's another story.

2.7 Danger of a military dictatorship
Somebody's been watching Five Days in May. Paranoid bullshit. Next.

Somebody failed basic U.S. history. I guess the John Adams, Wilson, and especially Lincoln Administrations and their naked power grabs just slipped your mind? I guess the internment of Japanese citizens just slipped your mind? Along with the entire Reconstruction-era South?

Yeah, total fantasy-land. It can't happen here nor has it ever happened. Unless you're going to try to No True Scotsman me.

2.8 Frontloaded primaries
Gaming the system at its best; it works because massives of voters insist on voting for the parties that follow these tactics ("We are all cogs in the great machine"). If you change the wording, people will just adapt new tactics to game the system again. The primaries are specifically designed to weed down candidates to a reasonable number to vote on, that's a feature by design and not a terrible one either.

I'm actually reasonably neutral on the whole issue and don't care either way. I do want to say that 'well, someone will just find some other way to abuse it!' a terrible justification for not fixing the or any damn problem and this is a recurrent theme with your lazy and facile solutions. If a new problem comes up then fix that, too, you can go fuck yourself with that Better The Devil You Know bullshit.

2.9 Lack of competition for House seats
2.9.1 Gerrymandering
2.9.2 Access to cash
2.9.3 Franking privileges
Part of this is railing against incumbent politicians that know how to work the system to their advantage, and trying to change the system to prevent that abuse will just introduce new abuses. The other part of this is the complaint that Representives get re-elected more often and become "out of touch." This is, I submit, not a bad thing. Our three political government bodies (the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court) inhabit a spectrum from relative amateurdom (President) to seasoned professionals (Supreme Court); Congress falls in-between. The issues of interest to a given district are not always the issues of concern to a nation, and the longer a Congressman is installed and the more exposure they have to national politics, the less likely they may be to field bills specifically to aid their home state at the expense of all others. Granted, that's a best-case scenario.

Like right here.

I don't have a problem with incumbent politicians using their superior knowledge of how to work the system to their advantage, nor using their record to convince people that they have experience and will do what their constituents want. My problem are with methods that unduly lock out other qualified people and reduce competition. A challenger does not have access to the ability to redistrict themselves nor the ability to send out campaign literature for free. A challenger can convince constituents and interest groups that they're in their interest.

Ideally an incumbent's only weapons should be their voting record, their platform, and any constitutionally extra-electorical position (like Speaker of the House) they've earned in the government. Any other advantage is bullshit since it allows them to take advantage of or grate on their constitutents while still maintaining a competitive advantage. I have no idea why you want to support this other than omission bias.

2.10 Breakdown of the federal system
I would like to think it established that a strong central government is a good thing. One of the reasons the CSA and the Articles of Confederation did not work is that you need a central authority to get the various state governments to work together. Regional administration is a wonderful thing, but you cannot expect the people of West Bumfuck to rationally act on a national scale to their immediate disadvantage. Part of the reason we consolidate power in separate bodies (like corporations) is to take advantage of different economies of scale and perspective. Yes, there is redundancy, but that's part of the cost of doing business.

This is what I meant when I said that I don't support everything that the author wrote. Most generally, I support a breakdown like this:

[*] A strong central government that every regional authority ultimately answers to.
[*] As few layers of regional administration as possible. Probably something like City (Optional) -> District -> National.
[*] The regional administration do not have powers that are not granted or delegated by the national government.
[*] The districts are population-proportionate to enforce the principle of 'one person, one vote'.

Thomas is identifying problems; I am recommend throwing the baby out with the bathwater, using it to save on dog food expenses for a week, and getting a brand spank-my-ass new genetically engineered superbaby instead of sinking resources into the deformed crackbaby we currently have. Any other fixes are optional and need to be discussed.

2.11 Dangerous concentration of power in the presidency

I talked about this earlier. But I generally support splitting the President into controlling military and foreign policy (Commander in Chief) and whatever other powers are in the executive branch (veto, pardons, appointments, etc.) get put into a new role.

The 20th Century American Presidency is a love letter to using military and foreign policy (where the President has a much more independent hand) to bleed into domestic policy (where the President should theoretically be restricted a lot more). This is not a good trend in my opinion. Do you think that the Commander-in-Chief being unable to affect budgets that go through Congress negatively affects his or her power unduly? If so, why, and also explain why this is preferable?

2.14 No right to travel
Weird and paranoid.

Hey, were you aware that the Federalists didn't even want a Bill of Rights in the original constitution, thinking that it was unnecessary and paranoid as most of the states already had one? Or how about that the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states as-is as the Founders just expected the state governments to protect the rights of the citizens.

Who gives a shit whether it's weird and paranoid? How about whether it makes peoples' lives better in the worst case scenario?

Part of the rights of states is the explicit ability to police and maintain their own borders. In the extreme then yes, this does mean the government (federal or state) can restrict trespassing on certain lands, going to certain foreign countries, or leaving certain bounds altogether. This is not a problem unless abused, and it is rarely abused.

But when it is abused it's abused spectacularly. See: internment, confining Native Americans to reservations, Jim Crow restrictions on travel, etc

Restriction of ability to travel/trade is an important tool in the government arsenal for dealing with other governments, and far trumps your desire to go get a decent mojito in Havana.

Again, so what? The right of free speech does not give you the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater or to release classified information. But most of the time it's a good right. A right isn't like a law of nature and has to be upheld 100% of the time or be worthless; if it's worth upholding as is in the general case the vast majority of the time then it's worth carrying out.

2.15 Requirement to Maintain a Monopoly of Force
If this were a gun control argument, I might understand - as it is, this seems bizarre and redundant to me. It's not like the state militias are buying fighter jets and rocket launchers, as far as I'm aware. The US generally does not permit private armies to operate with abandon on its own soil ... though it may hire them to go kill foreigners in Iraq.

Sure, it was a problem in the past (American Civil War) and it's still potentially a problem. But it's not a problem right this very second so let's not worry about it!

Jesus Christ.

2.16 Destruction of Classified Information
Impractical, particularly if you have any clear idea of how much information is considered classified. I agree that materials that are of a time-sensitive nature and enduring interest should be preserved (and they generally are), but the logistics involved in storing millions of classified government documents, in any format, is a waste of money and resources.

Are you saying that classified information should be destroyed while it's still being classified because of storage space issues? Gee, I definitely don't see a President or military leader abusing this in the future!

If it is a storage space issue, why not just declassify it and release it to the general public? If it can't be declassified, that should be a pretty strong indication that it still needs to be preserved, don't you think?

2.17 No provision for non-human sapients
I love science fiction and fantasy too, but unless and until we encounter/create one this is not a serious issue. Go argue about stem cells or something.

2.18 No provision to protect us from a Gattaca-like situation
As above.

Yeah, because when this issue comes up it will be so easy to just apply a post hoc fix that makes everyone happy. Every bit of democratic debate should be done as soon as a problem arises! Everyone can definitely agree on the best course of action in an emergency, especially when a group has a vested interest in ensuring that the status quo gets preserved.

That's the Ancient History way.

2.19 Limitation on Pardons
Is this really an issue?

Yes. Look up 'Iran Contra' and 'Casper Weinburger'. Easily twice as heinous as the Nixon pardons, which shouldn't have happened anyway.

2.20 Restoring Voting Rights
I'm actually down for this, but as-is it's a states rights issue.

:eyeroll:

I didn't know you were such a fan of Jim Crow.

2.21 Prohibition on Torture
I'm generally of a mind that "cruel and unusal" should cover this,

Well, GUESS WHAT, Ancient History? It fucking doesn't. We've had actual USSC debates on whether torturing should be allowed and shits like Antonin Scalia agree that torture should be allowed!

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-05-17/n ... ed-prisons
http://trueslant.com/allisonkilkenny/20 ... nsequence/

Here's just two instances. I can link to five more. Expecting the USSC to ban torture is not just naive, it's just fucking retarded, because the USSC has upheld or refused to comment on plenty of cases that allow the general use of torture.

2.23 Access to voting mechanisms
I get the idea is to make more people vote, but I can't say I've never heard of a (registered, willing) voter being unable to vote because of work or lack of access unless they were out of the country (which is what mail-in votes are for). Voting in the US is a right but not a requirement, while I approve of the desire to lower the potential energy barrier and thus encourage people to vote, I don't know if this is the best way.

Ancient History is obviously in the dark about states restricting the use of early voting and the whole Voter ID fiasco. Or states intentionally making access to voting mechanisms extra difficult (by restricting locations) in order to discourage the wrong kind of voters.

And this isn't some ancient history crap. This is going on right now. Hell, Rachel Maddow did a segment on a Tennesee voter being suddenly unable to exercise her right to vote after 30 years.

I never thought Ancient History was stupid, but this convinces me otherwise. He doesn't know history or current events and uses argument from incredulity to say that because it hasn't been a problem nor can he imagine it being a problem it will never be a problem. And if it was, we can take care of it then! Even when it has been a problem and even when it is a problem.

It's like I'm debating fucking Psychic Robot here.

2.24 Recalls
The key here is that while Representatives are there on behalf of their State, they should not be solely beholden to their state for their term. This means that they can vote on bills that their state doesn't approve of without worried about getting fired for it. A lot of arguments are made for states to have greater control of their representatives in this or similar fashion, and it all comes down to not trusting the bastards once they're "out of sight" so to speak.

That's NOT what Recalls are used for, or at least solely used for recently. Have you been paying attention to what's going on in Wisconsin and Ohio? Do you disagree with those citizens' current recalling attempt of the State Congress, Executive Branch, or Judiciary? If you don't, then why do you object to the lack of ability for any and every government office be subject to recall?

Why should people be forced to put up with a representative that they don't like for several years? If some dickhead like Sen. Ben Nelson (ND) acts contrary to the will of the people in the state a year after getting into office, why should they have to put up with him for the next five?

If you're worried about people abusing the recall measures, please suggest a time limit, subjection limit, and voter threshold before it's initiated.

2.26 National Referendums
Can I just say that systems put in place deliberately to circumvent the normal operation of government are prone to abuse?

Unless you have some evidence for it, I'm going to say no, it's just your ignorant assertion.

2.27 Standardization of fractions
The fuck? Really?

Yes, really. Even fucking D&D realized it was a good idea. Why not have it in there? It hasn't caused any problems yet but it easily could. You know, like the whole Constitutional Amendment process.

What is your objection to this? Does a 'if there is a fraction, round down' clause just reduce the gravitas of the language so much that it offends you? Bitch, please. No one with a brain should give a shit how well the prose of the Constitution flows, what matters is whether it's effective or not.

2.28 Splitting the Commander-in-Chief and Head of State Roles
See thing about presidents above. Also, "Warlord-for-Life!"...how does this not work into the miltiary coup fears above?

The Warlord-for-Life would be less powerful than the current President because he can be Vote of Confidenced whenever and would have no control over his own military budget. If you think that the new setup would create a problem with military coups, you should be fucking terrified of our current system.

It's seriously like saying that you're terrified of the fatty content of french fries so we should keep using coconut oil rather than canola oil.

2.29 Size and organization of the U.S. Judiciary
Life terms for Supreme Court, see above. Also, reducing the size of the courts simply increases the workload per court...which is already backed up years. We really need an extension of the federal judiciary system with more specialized courts, like the medical courts dedicated to resolving Medicare fraud cases. Efficient!

Way to miss the point.

The Constitution has very little to say about the U.S. Supreme Court and virtually nothing on the lower courts. So we have our current hodge-podge Double Secret Judiciary system that's invisible to the vast majority of voters - including you, apparently - and it's all technically constitutional. I recommend actually spelling out all of the district and appellate courts rather than just leave the creation and organization to the whims and dictates of Congress.

That's what that paragraph was about. I didn't say anything about the merits of specialized courts or whether we should have more or fewer or more specialized or less specialized courts. Just that the basic U.S. judiciary backbone should be spelled out and a clear procedure for changing it.

Right now, the U.S. Supreme Court (and all of the lower courts, which hear well over 99% of federal cases) can technically just be changed to suit the whims of Congress. In fact if FDR wasn't such a stubborn fuckwit we could easily have had a 11-15 member sized USSC. Hell, just look up 'secret tribunal' and tell me that it's not a problem.

2.30 Certain offices need to be explicitly spelled out and protected
As stated in the comments to this one, roles change over the years and the Executive branch needs the flexibility of adapting, eliminating, or creating a position as needs warrant. Otherwise, you're stuck with the Lord Privy Seal.

Sure, I can see a situation where the Department of Nuclear Energy can be made redundant, but can you imagine a situation in which we don't need a Federal Reserve Chairman, a Secretary of the Interior, a Secret of Defense, an Attorney General, etc.? It's the U.S. Judiciary system all over again. Just because the system needs to be flexible doesn't mean that it doesn't need a backbone.

Okay, I went through this crap once and I'm don't want to through it again. I wasn't happy reading the essay and its badwrongcrap in the first place.

Foreign Policy:
We appear to have a fundamental disagreement, because I believe the government is a living organization that shouldn't be stuck to one philosophy of government, law, or foreign policy but should adapt as times and cultural evolution dictate. So, let's leave that out.

Senate:
Yes, I read your posts with Frank. I still think you're wrong. I just wanted to be clear about why. Also, your ability to define "equal representation" as "tyranny of the minority" is horrible.

Right of Privacy:
I have never enjoyed the system of precedence, and it's something I would change if I ever form my own island government, but it's what we've got. Again, this is an issue with trust in authority: if you don't trust the courts, then no law you write is going to change that because you can't control how they choose to interpret it.

Military Coup:
Okay, the thing about a military coup is that it involves using the military to seize power unlawfully. An elected official using their military power illegally or unethically isn't the same thing unless they use it to maintain power beyond their term or to seize more power or position. So yes, Lincoln was a dick for doing away with habeas corpus, the Trail of Tears was an atrocity, and Japanese internment camps were horrible abuses of power, even by the standards of their time. But not military coups.

Primaries/Incumbents:
The system isn't broken just because people already know how to play it; if you're going to put in a new system you need to prove it's at least a little better than the old one.

Political Breakdown:
Again, agree to disagree. I don't care for your breakdown and I don't think the population/district restriction is either possible or desirable.

Presidential Power:
It is necessary to balance foreign and domestic policy, because the two are not separate. For example, given the tremendous government monies thrown into the defense industry, yes I think the president as Commander-in-Chief should balance the needs of the military to fulfill their mission with the needs to make and balance a budget for the entire nation. If you split up the role of the president, you risk different parts of the government working against each other, or at least not as efficiently as they might.

Travel:
I think we've both made our arguments, and I don't see this as needing its own separate spelled-out-explicitly right. It would already necessitate many restrictions or exceptions with regards to right-of-way, trespassing, etc. ... hell, you could even argue against tolls and tariffs.

I would also argue that internment/imprisonment is not a viable counterargument; incarceration/restricted movement is a recognized form of punishment. It's still an abuse of power and horrible to do that without good legal reason, but by the argument you're making there's no need for prisons of any sort because it would be illegal for governments to confine prisoners.

Monopoly of Force:
The Civil War is not an argument about monopoly of force, it's an example of the US Federal government asserting its monopoly of force. The rebel states were drawn from the state militia system and seized Federal arsenals, and were eventually put down by Union troops.

Classified Info:
There are valid reasons to destroy classified material without disclosing it or declassifying it first. A lot of it has to do with simple data management: once you're doing with X copies of a classified report, it's easier to keep track of one instead of X, so you get rid of X-1.

Non-Humans/Gattaca:
Empty laws that are both unenforceable and inapplicable do nothing but clutter up law books and inspire contempt for the law. The last thing we need is to complicate things - the politicians have a good enough time arguing about creating human chimeras and restricting cloning as it is.

Pardons:
They're not all abusive uses of power. Pardons are a check on the judiciary, and are a valid part of the checks and balance system.

Voting Rights:
If you want to get into racial discrimination instead of discrimination-because-of-criminal records, that's different than the thrust of the essay. Where no one, even you, addresses that subject. Do I take by the fact that you didn't bring it up there that you support Jim Crow? Or can we agree that in the original essay we were talking about a more limited case of voting rights just for convicted criminals that had served their time?

Torture:
I said "should." What the courts should do and what they do is the difference between the laws on paper and the actual justice system.

Voting:
Again, where was all this shit before? Yes various groups have worked to fuck with voting by shaping districts, adding poll taxes and grandfather clauses yadda yadda but none of this shit was brought up in the essay, because it's not talking about that. More specifically, YOU didn't bring it up. Go post some more shit on there then come back and we can talk about how people are assholes for counting hanging chads and shit.

Recall:
Because, and I like to stress this, recall systems are ripe for abuse. Representatives and Senators are free to vote how they think best, not just for the specific interests of the loudest mob back home. It's the same reason we set up the electoral college, to keep ignorant fucks out of politics for a little while. Just because John Q. Representative (R. Miss.) doesn't vote for the new navy contract in New Orleans doesn't mean he should be recalled from his office for not following through the will of the people - they can vote against him next election if they don't like him.

National Referendum/Example of Why Bypassing Proper Procedures Is A Bad Idea:

Example: Florida has a relatively easy system of acquiring concealed carry permits, much easier than other states. It also has agreements with those states so that they recognize concealed carry permits from Florida. People in those states get Florida concealed carry permits so they can carry concealed weapons in states where they would not normally be able to get concealed carry permits.

Result: By offering a means to bypass the restrictions of their state with Florida permits, people show their contempt for the law instead of seeking a more normal solution within the limits of the system (i.e. campaigning to change the law). This is an inherently unstable development, instead of participating in legitimate government it encourages people to sidestep local laws, and encourages contempt for the government. See also: Prohibition.

Fractions:
Let me expand: The fuck? Really? Fractional people is an issue? If it's so close that people are going to argue over that, do a re-vote.

Warlord-for-Life:
Now you're just in crazy land. We have impeachment. Congress has to approve the budget. The President can only deploy troops for a limited time before Congress has to bless it. You are imagining a scenario where someone who has already achieved the highest office in the land suddenly has the unwavering and complete loyalty of all military everywhere - even our ex-military presidents never had that kind of clout.

Judiciary/Positions:
The Constitution, wonderful living document that it is, also doesn't specify the system of postal service. There is a lot of basic details in the Constitution that are left up to supplementary rules and statutes (which are subject to change), and that is OK. Not everything needs to be spelled out in explicit detail. A little room is necessary. Otherwise we'd still be stuck with black people only counting as 3/5 of a person.

Also, seriously: Lord Privy Seal.

Daiba wrote:Ah, I see. For future reference, 'later' is not the same as 'latter'.

For future reference. I type badly. The regular keyboard on my latest Dell is most annoying for reasons I haven't quite figured out yet. Even knowing how the word is supposed to be spelled doesn't mean my fingers will get it right when it comes out. Since I am not typing one word at a time but complete sentences I will miss some of these types of mistakes. I also, on occasion, dyslexically type words in the wrong order, especially if they are really short and commonly together. I also frequently type words dyslexically, but that may be because I have a crude two handed typing style and sometimes the one hand acts before it is supposed to.

I'll proof read for gather, and for a comment to a blog, but not here.

Clearly the Constitution isn't perfect. Clearly there are many things that have problems. Clearly there are some things that are not in the Constitution that we take for granted (technically speaking, judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution). If I were rewriting the Constitution I would change a lot of things right off the bat. I think most people miss the point when discussing the Constitution. The real point is the fundamental structure that forms the constitution. Simply put, the pillars of the constitution are:

1. Representative Government
2. Separation of Powers – Horizontal and Vertical
3. Hierarchical top/down limits on government functionality.

The opposite, and by far the most commonly “desired” form of government (and generally loved by many on this forum) is the grand unified all powerful bureaucracy.

Now I have been writing a few articles on this subject on Gather. I won't quote my arguments here, but I will quote from some of the quotes I used. Here is President Wilson talking wonderfully about bureaucracy:

But to fear the creation of a domineering, illiberal officialism as a result of the studies I am here proposing is to miss altogether the principle upon which I wish most to insist. That principle is, that administration in the United States must be at all points sensitive to public opinion. A body of thoroughly trained officials serving during good behavior we must have in any case: that is a plain business necessity. But the apprehension that such a body will be anything un-American clears away the moment it is asked. What is to constitute good behavior? For that question obviously carries its own answer on its face. Steady, hearty allegiance to the policy of the government they serve will constitute good behavior. That policy will have no taint of officialism about it. It will not be the creation of permanent officials, but of statesmen whose responsibility to public opinion will be direct and inevitable. Bureaucracy can exist only where the whole service of the state is removed from the common political life of the people, its chiefs as well as its rank and file. Its motives, its objects, its policy, its standards, must be bureaucratic. It would be difficult to point out any examples of impudent exclusiveness and arbitrariness on the part of officials doing service under a chief of department who really served the people, as all our chiefs of departments must be made to do. It would be easy, on the other hand, to adduce other instances like that of the influence of Stein in Prussia, where the leadership of one statesman imbued with true public spirit transformed arrogant and perfunctory bureaux into public-spirited instruments of just government.

Now Wilson's words make sense at first glance. This is only because, at the time, James Madison was unable to personally bitch slap Wilson in the face (being dead, that can't be done). But we can see his rebuttal in the Federalist Papers (#51 if you want to read the whole thing):

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

“Bureaucracy can exist only where the whole service of the state is removed from the common political life of the people,” according to Wilson. But according to Hamilton, you can't remove all trace of politics from people. Men are not angels. Angels would make the best bureaucrats, but men cannot. Therefore the bureaucracy of men will by the very nature of man eventually fail; it is not a matter of whether but when. Only when ambition is made to counter ambition do you have a structure that can endure over generations.

Now if you want to give old Tzor a micro-mill, (I'll bet none of you know what a mill is … I should have said nano-cent) more or less because I don't really know the relation of an article read to a Gather point, here are the links to my recent articles on Gather.

“We hold these truths to be intuitively obvious to the casual observer”

“Separation of Powers; Checks and Balances; this isn’t rocket science]”

“Federalism; vertical separation of powers; well it was a nice idea”

The Constitution has a lot of traction. If you throw it out, you'd need to show that the new version is not just better, but so much better that it's worth losing the inherent respect people have for the current version. It gives the government a huge amount of legitimacy that it just wouldn't have otherwise.

Lago wrote:I disagree. Changes in foreign policy should occur because of a change in the political philosophy of government, not because of an administrative change. Obama's foreign policy is not markedly different from Bush Jr.'s; if Bush Jr. had been elected for a third term but then silently took on all of Obama's foreign policy changes except for Libya (which is debatable) you probably would not have even noticed.

This is extremely not true. Bush was putting up a missile shield in Poland and Czech Republic that was clearly pointed at Russia. Russia was responding by doing nuclear bomber overflights over London and putting nuclear missiles in Kalinningrad. Obama scrapped the missile shield and got Putin to stop pointing nuclear weapons at London and Stockholm in his first year in office. This is such a radical turnaround and such a big fucking deal that he got the Nobel Peace Prize for it.

Elections need to have consequences. The idea that we can't stop building up a cold war against Russia just because the American people vote for someone who says that we should stop flushing resources on a cold war with Russia is fucking insane.

-Username17

I don't really understand the panty-twisting that people get into over the Constitution.

It's a fucking mission statement and a propaganda artifact.

The Supreme Court has always interpreted it in such a way that Congress won't come in and line them up against a wall and shoot them, meaning they have been wildly conservative and non-activist throughout their entire history and have reflected the will of the masses and the ruling political parties.

It's just a few yahoos in the last thirty years that have tried to pretend that it's some kind of sacred text and that only they know the true meaning. That kind of religious nonsense has no place in the law or in the decision-making of a free society.

Seriously. The Constitution means whatever we say it means as long as we keep uninspired dicks like Scalia out of the Supreme Court.

unfortunately, Scalia IS on the supreme court.

And the whole POINT of electing new presidents is to get a shift in foreign policy. Bush's foreign policy basically amounted to, "suck my dick, or suck on my gun" He took unprecedented good will, and managed to flush it down the toilet within 2 years.

Literally, we had a foreign policy of, "if you're not with us, you're a fucking traitor and we're going to fuck you up" America with Bush in charge acted like a fucking bully all in the name of "fighting terrorism".

We tortured people, we arrested people with no rights. He actually thought that because Guantanamo wasn't on US Soil, then the US Constitution didn't apply to a US base there.

One of the main reasons I voted for Obama was so that SOMEONE would change all that shit back. Now, he didn't do as good a job as I would like, but certainly large chunks of those things were undone.

sabs wrote:And the whole POINT of electing new presidents is to get a shift in foreign policy. Bush's foreign policy basically amounted to, "suck my dick, or suck on my gun" He took unprecedented good will, and managed to flush it down the toilet within 2 years.

As opposed to the Obama doctrine of "Let me bend over and kiss your ass." The three years of the Obama doctrine has only made our reputation even worse in the world, not better.

You want to know something, we never had any "good will." Europe always hates us because they are Europe and still think they are the fucking Roman / Holy Roman Empire. They danced in the streets after 9/11 in the middle east.

No sabs, everything wasn't my little pony until Bush took over. You really need to get over him. Seriously.

You are a fucking idiot if you think we didn't have good will. I have family abroad who I talk to on a regular basis, we completely had good will. And Europe doesn't hate the US. They just get tired of the US acting like a douchebag. The idea that you think Europe still thinks it's the Roman Empire shows a complete lack of understanding.

I didn't say everythingwas my little pony before Bush. But it certainly was a hell of a lot better. And Obama hasn't made our reputation even worse. He's had some definite stumbling blocks. But after 8 years of assdickery, someone who is actually polite is an interesting change.

It's certainly not perfect. But you can't have a foreign policy of We're #1 listen to us or we'll fuck you up, when your hold on #1 is tenous at best, and you require the goodwill of the rest of the world in order to get your economy back on track.

Europe has not always hated the US. They don't even hate the US now, they're just not rolling over and asking to have their belly rubbed.

sabs wrote:I didn't say everythingwas my little pony before Bush. But it certainly was a hell of a lot better. And Obama hasn't made our reputation even worse. He's had some definite stumbling blocks. But after 8 years of assdickery, someone who is actually polite is an interesting change.

Polite? You have got to be kidding me. He given the flying fuck so many times to Great Britian that it is almost a running joke now. Bending over to your enemies and insulting your allies is no way to be "polite." Especially if you don't really understand the culture you are pandering to.

Obama was able to get the German People to have a favorable attitude towards the US in just one year. A far cry from the Bush Administration, which over seven years took a favorable opinion of America in 2001 to a twenty percent approval rating in 2008.

The Conservative fairy tale that Europeans always hated the US and thus it doesn't matter how much the American Conservative platform angers Europeans is completely counter factual. I mean, it probably makes them feel better when they pull their bullshit and it demonstrably pisses foreigners off to claim that they would have hated us anyway, but this is simply not true. Like, factually, demonstrably, demonstratedly not true.

America has the potential to be the leader of Europe. I mean, we're the fucking leader of NATO for fuck's sakes. Europeans want and expect the US to take a leadership role in the ideological battles between Western Socialism and totalitarianism and religious extremism. It actually blows their fucking minds to find out that actually the US is both more totalitarian and more religiously fundamentalist than much of Europe and that the conservatives here hate and resent Europe.

The US is the biggest country in all the Western Treaty Blocs. The other member states want us to be likable. Because the alternative is that they've hitched their wagon to another Soviet Union and they get to be Mongolia.

-Username17

Important bit:

I personally would totally vote for the CPUSA if it had a chance of winning

I'm going to put this under: "Why Frank Trollman shouldn't be listened when it comes to politics, and why he should be shipped to Cuba ASAP".

Gx1080 wrote:Important bit:

I personally would totally vote for the CPUSA if it had a chance of winning

I'm going to put this under: "Why Frank Trollman shouldn't be listened when it comes to politics, and why he should be shipped to Cuba ASAP".

CPUSA is not the same as the CPC. In other news, the Liberal Party of Australia is not the same as the Liberal Party of Canada. Also the Socialist party of Sweden is not the same as the National Socialists of Germany.

Now that we have that out of the way, the CPUSA is basically just a branch of Occupy Wall Street. I thought you liked those guys?

-Username17

Gx1080 wrote:Important bit:

I personally would totally vote for the CPUSA if it had a chance of winning

I'm going to put this under: "Why Frank Trollman shouldn't be listened when it comes to politics, and why he should be shipped to Cuba ASAP".

And we'll file this away under Why GX is a raving idiot who shouldn't get to run the tap, much less a country.

the CPUSA is basically just a branch of Occupy Wall Street

Bullshit.

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

tzor wrote:

sabs wrote:I didn't say everythingwas my little pony before Bush. But it certainly was a hell of a lot better. And Obama hasn't made our reputation even worse. He's had some definite stumbling blocks. But after 8 years of assdickery, someone who is actually polite is an interesting change.

Polite? You have got to be kidding me. He given the flying fuck so many times to Great Britian that it is almost a running joke now.

He has? News to me. Only thing I remember is the unfortunate gift exchange with Gordon Brown a couple years back, and no-one here was really all that pissed off with it.