Duke Of Dystopia
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,702
- Points
- 26
The wole point is that it is so much more complicated than hiding and distance... or not.
-
Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!
NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread
- Thread starter imaplanner
- Start date
The wole point is that it is so much more complicated than hiding and distance... or not.
rcgplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 1,730
- Points
- 20
Because flag-waving, patriotic songs, and parades are easy. The real paradox is how the GOP yells from the rooftops about America and the military, yet they pull s**t like this. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/27/us-usa-veterans-congress-idUSBREA1Q26O20140227 For those who didn't want to click the link, Senate Republicans blocked a veteran's health bill last spring because of budgetary concerns. Instead of actually debating alternatives and finding ways to cut excess from the bill, the Senate GOP killed the bill to score political points. Congress finally did pass a bill but not after tons of political grandstanding. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/us/senate-approves-veterans-health-care-bill.html?_r=0 Of course it is more flashy to vote for bloated Pentagon budgets to pay for projects the Pentagon don't even want. The lackeys in Congress would rather serve the masters of big business and pay lip-service to veterans. It is disgusting and the sad part is most of the flag-wavers vote for these fleas time and time again. :-@
The One
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,287
- Points
- 32
ColoGI
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,565
- Points
- 18
Come out to Denver while the snow is good and go look at our VA hospital construction FUBAR. Kiewit said "we're outta here" and walked away a few weeks ago. Likely to return soon, but has shone yet another light on the care our vets get.
rcgplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 1,730
- Points
- 20
rcgplanner is my hero
Haha, cheers! :b:
I was fired up after watching the State of the Union the other night. I am so tired of the Congress-critters and their complete inaction on anything meaningful. The GOP has been in control of Congress for nearly 3 weeks and yet little to no action on any jobs bills. Yet, they made damn sure to fight about abortion, including a probably unconstitutional 20-week ban on abortions (which was defeated by GOP women). And of course we can't forget the constant march to try to weaken Obamacare, including nearly 50 measures from the GOP controlled House, like the move to change the definition of full-time. Anyone who thought this Congressional session would be any different is foolish, the Congress is going to pass all of these crazy bills, trying to bait the President into using his veto power. Then of course the GOP can point to the democrats in 2016 and blame them for the inaction. The GOP has shown no interest in actually working with the democrats or the President, let alone any talk of compromise, since 2008. Congress has become nothing for both sides but a venue for tallying meaningless votes for future political ads. :-@:-{
I'm sick of being a less-than working class nobody in a two-party corporatocracy. I lack the resources to relocate or affect political change on any scale. I'm effectively pigeonholed for life. In the somewhat sophomoric words of Linklater: "The time has come to project my own inadequacies and dissatisfactions into the sociopolitical and scientific schemes. Let my own lack of a voice be heard."
That is all.
That is all.
Veloise
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,422
- Points
- 43
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,901
- Points
- 74
I read the book and watched the movie. Michael Moore is nothing but a loser who likes to use his stupid comments in a pathetic attempt to get attention from others.
This time, he realizes that he put his foot in it when he wrongly bashed someone who saved more than a few of his fellow troops, on, and off the battle field. At this point, Moore and his comments are completely irrelevant.
I hope everyone in there reads the book, and hopefully watch the movie. Without question there is a problem with PTSD and I don't think that we as a society do a good job of addressing that before or after deployment.
Veloise
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,422
- Points
- 43
ColoGI
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 2,565
- Points
- 18
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,901
- Points
- 74
Interesting... the same conclusion could apply to many groups in the US at all ends of the political spectrum. However, he is from Flint... it is not such a safe City.
I think it is apparent that there is a large population of don't agree with MM on this given the number of people who have paid to go see this movie... Over 200 million dollars in less than 10 days is a good turn around. Not to mention it also book the book back at number 1 for the New York Times Best Sellers list for non-fiction in e-book, paperback, and combined.
I am just curious, for those of you who agree with Michael Moore, have you read the book or watched the movie. I know it is available at many libraries under multiple formats if you don't want to buy it.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,901
- Points
- 74
I just heard that Romney is not running in 2016. Might be the best news of the day!
- Messages
- 38,501
- Points
- 78
Why do you say that?
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,901
- Points
- 74
Because he has flip flopped so much on so many positions, it is almost impossible to figure out what he does stand for. Additionally, he claimed that he wasn't for big government, but in 2008 many of the new programs that he wanted to start would have increased government spending without really addressing the cause of the problem. Finally, I don't like how he introduced government health care in MA when he was governor. He claims he is for free market healthcare but did the opposite.
I don't know who I would support in 2016, but the list of people I don't want in there has a lot of R's and D's behind their names.
One person that does interest me right now is Dr. Ben Carson, but I don't know enough about the guy to say if I would support him or not.
- Messages
- 8,313
- Points
- 57
Are you serious about Ben Carson? If you don't like flip-flops, then you really, really need to research & contrast what he is saying now versus what he has said in the past. And I'm tremendously uncomfortable with someone that has literally never held any elected office or any executive position other than director positions at hospitals. He is passionately opposed to any LGBTQ rights. He advocates for removal of judges and elimination of courts on the basis of the LGBTQ marriage issue, showing a woeful misunderstanding of fundamental Constitutional principles. He still legitimately believes weed is a gateway drug... most research these days indicates that gateway theory in drug addiction is largely a myth, particularly in respect to marijuana, and that the only strong gateway links are between prescription pain killers and heroine (due to heroine being less expensive & more readily accessed due to tight regs on doctors & pharmacies). He doesn't even believe in marijuana for medical reasons, which is close to becoming a laughable position in the medical field.
I think Mitt sat down and finally realized that voters have said "no, we don't like you" three times now. He is going to focus on positioning himself for a cabinet role or even VP role.
I think Mitt sat down and finally realized that voters have said "no, we don't like you" three times now. He is going to focus on positioning himself for a cabinet role or even VP role.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,901
- Points
- 74
I am still looking into Ben Carson. Like I mentioned, I don't know enough about him to decide.
SR, who do you like for 2016 and why?
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
Ben Carson is about equal to crazy Cruz or Ms. Bachman. I would give his chance a 7.5 on the chance in hell meter.
He could win the primary, but his views on abortion (like Michael Vick dog abuse), gay marriage (ruining the world), and how he views the United States under Obama, similarly to Nazi Germany, will not get him independent, democrats, or even clear minded individuals.
The Republicans can and should do much better than that guy. Although if you want the Republicans to lose, he is probably only second to Cruz in terms of who should win. Well maybe Palin would be first. She would be such a great shit show.
He also has/had generally liberal positions on lots of issues and has backed off most. The fact that he ran hospitals in and of itself, should make people say no. You want to know what is wrong with healthcare? Hospital Administration.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,901
- Points
- 74
Hink, who do you like for 2016?
Cruz and Bachman are both on my no list for various reasons.
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
Who do I like, or who do I think will win. Let's go with who I think will win:
Democrats: Hilary
Republicans: Pence, Kasich, Walker (it will be a Governor)
Winner: Hilary.
---
Who I like is completely different. I think the Democrats are hurting themselves by having Hilary on the ticket, but she has strong support, and will crush Biden or Warren. The D's don't have any all-stars in waiting. They are going to the veteran for this one. I couldn't say that any D excites me. They all are pretty bland.
As for the Republicans, I think their litmus test B.S. will kill their chances to win, as it seems to have done for the last 8 years. The primary will see crazy and crazy try and out crazy the other over topics like abortion, immigration, same sex marriage, etc. These are topics that are important, but have pretty well been determined by the country already beyond the neo-religious right and political point getters. I would like to see a republican run like a real person, not a fake moderate, or a fake republican. Run on the belief that you can actually do something for the country. I would like Jon Huntsman, but he has said he is out. Pragmatic leaders would be nice. Pushing their base to deal, not be the party of no. I couldn't tell you who that is right now in the republican mix.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,901
- Points
- 74
Oh dear God, I hope it's not Hilary.
Have have concerns with Kasich because of his background at Lehman Brothers, (and he is from Ohio... GO Blue) but I would be interested to hear more about his economics policies. Walker is someone I could support. Mike Pence cut taxes in Indiana, although I don't know the details behind the retroactive local tax.
Regardless of who wins, I fear that things will not get better. With a potential Student Loan bubble being on the verge of popping, mass retirement of baby boomers with expectations of social security payments, and the likenesses that the feds will start jacking up interest rates, I think we are going to see another economic crisis before 2020 regardless of who is in office.
If it came down to Hillary or Sara Palin... I would vote for cookie monster.
DVD
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 20,266
- Points
- 62
I've gotta side with Hink on this one. I think Hillary has a good chance, but I'm not sure she's the right one for our country. She'll put the Rs into another 4 years (please not 8) of condemning everything and continuing that party of no thing. She might be presidential material, but she's not going to be the one to bring out country together. The Rs just don't have any good candidates. I haven't followed the latest crop much, but I'm used to fear mongering and working up the base about all the pointless issue Hink mentioned. That's why they'll lose.
So what issues do you think will be real issues and what made up issues will be made more important than they are.
My prediction for the issues:
Immigration
Abortion
Gay marriage
Economy
Obamacare
The real issue:
Restoring the middle class. There used to be a day that middle America felt like they were doing good for themselves. Poor people could get a job and work their way up to middle class. Sure it's idealistic and not entirely true, but I know I'm taking home less and less and I make a decent living (sorry just my rant)
Pointless topics (aka mudslinging):
Benghazi
Bridgegate (if he runs)
I'm sure there's more I just don't no the R candidates well enough to fling crap at them.
So what issues do you think will be real issues and what made up issues will be made more important than they are.
My prediction for the issues:
Immigration
Abortion
Gay marriage
Economy
Obamacare
The real issue:
Restoring the middle class. There used to be a day that middle America felt like they were doing good for themselves. Poor people could get a job and work their way up to middle class. Sure it's idealistic and not entirely true, but I know I'm taking home less and less and I make a decent living (sorry just my rant)
Pointless topics (aka mudslinging):
Benghazi
Bridgegate (if he runs)
I'm sure there's more I just don't no the R candidates well enough to fling crap at them.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,901
- Points
- 74
I agree with you on everything but two points... Hillary is not presidential material, and neither side has any good candidates. They are all lobbyist friendly, big government, lying politicians. The only real differences between all of them is the letter behind their name and what they claim they will do if elected. In the end, they are all doing to do the exact same thing... screw over the American public.
I think that you are right on with the real issue. I would love to see a candidate who steps up and finds a balanced way to reduce government spending, restructure the tax system to one that eliminates all deductions for everyone, and changes. Everyone pays a percentage of their income... period. The wealthy would pay a higher percentage than the middle class, and those living below the poverty line would pay nothing. But it needs to be part of a massive restructuring to eliminate all the stupid government waste. That way the D's can tell the middle class that their taxes won't go up, the R's can tell the world that the IRS is no more, and both can offer a hand up to those who need it instead of a hand out.
DVD
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 20,266
- Points
- 62
Hence the qualifier of "might be". She has the technical know how just like most of the other candidates. It's the political ability that I worry about. We need someone who will cross party lines (which takes leaders on both sides). We need to make America better and solve real problems like infrastructure funding, tax systems, and keep adding, not someone who will just follow some imaginary party line that trumps up fake problems. I look at things like abortion, and although it has some issues to talk about, I see it as your issue, not mine and certainly not the governments no matter what my personal beliefs are. You know, freedom of religion means you get yours and I don't have to follow yours. That and abortion just isn't the thing that's destroying our country. Neither is gay marriage and I'd even put immigration on the back burner although several million immigrants might not agree. But I know if you come out as a politician saying these just aren't the real problems your base will shoot you and you won't be a politician. Sorry, I'll stop ranting and go home. Have a good weekend.
The One
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,287
- Points
- 32
$%^&#!!!!!!
When a ass hole like this can speak at a major economic gathering (World Economic Forum) and have a voice while tens of millions of "middle class" and poor have NONE.....if what he is saying doesn't piss you off.....you either have NO pulse or net over $1million a year or are technically brain dead!
as taken from Robert Reich in his recent facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/944582962220967?fref=nf&pnref=story
At last month's confab of multi-millionaires and billionaires in Davos, billionaire Jeff Greene said the "lifestyle expectations" of average Americans have climbed "far too high and need to be adjusted so we have less things and a smaller, better existence." Greene owns three mansions in Los Angeles, two more in Palm Beach and the Hamptons, and a 145-foot party yacht.
The ultra-rich say the reason American wages aren't rising is average Americans have priced themselves out of the global labor market and must either content themselves with lower wages or fewer jobs. This view ignores the fact that the U.S. economy is more than twice the size it was thirty years ago, while the median wage is about the same as it was then, adjusted for inflation. All the gains have gone to people like Jeff Greene. The middle classes of other advanced nations, such as Germany, have done far better, while their richest 1 percent rake in a much smaller share of their total economy.
Rather than average Americans living beyond their means, the truth is average Americans are living well below the means the U.S. economy could otherwise provide, if the wealthy didn't take such a large portion of the gains and have such a strangle hold on the levers of political power.
When a ass hole like this can speak at a major economic gathering (World Economic Forum) and have a voice while tens of millions of "middle class" and poor have NONE.....if what he is saying doesn't piss you off.....you either have NO pulse or net over $1million a year or are technically brain dead!
as taken from Robert Reich in his recent facebook post: https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/944582962220967?fref=nf&pnref=story
At last month's confab of multi-millionaires and billionaires in Davos, billionaire Jeff Greene said the "lifestyle expectations" of average Americans have climbed "far too high and need to be adjusted so we have less things and a smaller, better existence." Greene owns three mansions in Los Angeles, two more in Palm Beach and the Hamptons, and a 145-foot party yacht.
The ultra-rich say the reason American wages aren't rising is average Americans have priced themselves out of the global labor market and must either content themselves with lower wages or fewer jobs. This view ignores the fact that the U.S. economy is more than twice the size it was thirty years ago, while the median wage is about the same as it was then, adjusted for inflation. All the gains have gone to people like Jeff Greene. The middle classes of other advanced nations, such as Germany, have done far better, while their richest 1 percent rake in a much smaller share of their total economy.
Rather than average Americans living beyond their means, the truth is average Americans are living well below the means the U.S. economy could otherwise provide, if the wealthy didn't take such a large portion of the gains and have such a strangle hold on the levers of political power.
Last edited:
The One
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,287
- Points
- 32
oh and
a great example of classic misdirection:
There is a plate with 12 cookies on a table. Sitting around the table are a CEO, a middle class worker, and a poor person.
The CEO grabs 11 of the cookies and turns to the middle class worker and says," The poor guy wants to eat your cookie."
another explanation:
Look over there....shiny objects:-o
Guns, God, Gays and big Gubment
as you get your pockets picked clean.
There, I just described the 'merican economy
a great example of classic misdirection:
There is a plate with 12 cookies on a table. Sitting around the table are a CEO, a middle class worker, and a poor person.
The CEO grabs 11 of the cookies and turns to the middle class worker and says," The poor guy wants to eat your cookie."
another explanation:
Look over there....shiny objects:-o
Guns, God, Gays and big Gubment
as you get your pockets picked clean.
There, I just described the 'merican economy
- Messages
- 8,313
- Points
- 57
Here's the thing... I don't see ANYONE yet at this point that I feel confident about. Most have some kind of "poison pill" issue with me.
Democrat:
This is a narrower slate, so I've actually looked at some of these...
Elizabeth Warren: I kind of like her and she seems authentic--she doesn't seem as much in the pocket of special interests. She hasn't always been a Democrat, which I think is a good thing. She might be from Mass, but she grew up in Oklahoma & Texas. She is a little unfiltered though, which isn't always a good thing. But she is personable, knowledgeable and has a good handle on what's going on in the country. I don't feel like she is feeding me lines of BS. She is willing to put forth creative solutions and her reputation is that she plays well with others. I think she has some useful ideas about the student loan issues. She strikes me as pragmatic more than dogmatic.
Martin O'Malley: He is kind of a pragmatic technocrat based on what I've seen. I like that he has been mayor of a major city--I think an understanding of local government is important. I like that he has been a governor and thus has executive branch experience. He is someone I plan to research more.
Hillary Clinton: I could hold my nose if need be depending on the other options, but I'm not a huge fan. I believe there is talent beyond the Bush & Clinton last names. I don't like her ties to big banking & particularly Goldman Sachs.
Joe Biden: ummmm.... yeah. Nice guy, but doesn't strike me as Presidential. Just can't take him serious.
There are others, but I don't see any of them gaining momentum yet this far out.
Republican:
Very hard to sort through this huge field at this point. I've looked at a few of the wild cards like Carson, but I'm really not going to expend the effort until it starts to narrow a bit.
- If they waiver at all on vaccination requirements, they will not get my vote.
- If they are not supportive or at least neutral/silent on gay marriage/equivalent, they will not get my vote.
- If they advocate getting rid of judges or judicial districts as a means to influence the judiciary, they will not get my vote.
- If they routinely wrap their positions in religion, reference a "war on religion/Christians" or similar BS, they will not get my vote.
- If they deny climate change, they will not get my vote.
- If they advocate further "culture war" efforts like abortion restrictions, they will not get my vote.
- If they advocate ACA repeal without proposing a reasonable alternative, they will not get my vote.
- If they have in any way represented the State of Texas in official capacity, they will not get my vote. I'm allowed to say that since I'm from here.
I recognize that this eliminates nearly all Republican candidates. Sorry. But if the GOP is going to be the party of quacks, anti-science wackjobs, bigots & sexists, which is where all of the hyperbole of most candidates lands thus far, then they do not deserve my consideration. Simple. as. that.
The Republicans need to draft Jon Huntsman, or he needs to run as an indy. Unfortunately, he appears like so many on both sides of the aisle... skilled enough to do a great job as President, but smart enough not to run.
Basically, I want a pragmatic, technocrat optimist that collaborates rather than incites, and acts rationally even if I don't agree on everything. Or a unicorn apparently.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,901
- Points
- 74
Basically, I want a pragmatic, technocrat optimist that collaborates rather than incites, and acts rationally even if I don't agree on everything. Or a unicorn apparently.
Here's your guy... um unicorn.
DVD
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 20,266
- Points
- 62
Sadly the reason I can't vote R this year (or the past few) is because I hold similar values to SR. I'm just not big on gay bashing or freedom of my religion, but not yours, or Obama bashing (it's okay to bash policy, but get over it, he was born here and is not a Muslin - not that that would matter, see freedom of religion). Sure change the ACA, but repeal is not the answer. Replace it with something better, whatever that is, but flat repeal still not the answer. I can keep going, but I think SR said it, I'm voting unicorn in 2016. Barring that, I guess I'll be stuck voting D.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,901
- Points
- 74
You forgot socialist... Obama is a socialest who hates puppies... Yea that's it.
I gave up on both parties. They both suck. Unicorn in 2016!
DVD
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 20,266
- Points
- 62
What I find scary, at least in local talk radio, they always compare him to Hitler and the Nazi party. The scary part, it's the Republican bills and agendas that have more leaning to Nazi philosophy. The best example I can give at the moment is the attempt to suppress or control the judicial system. Kansas wants to get judges elected instead of appointed because they know it will be a republican judicial system and not a balanced professional that actually thinks about the case.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,901
- Points
- 74
Not that I agree with many of the Republican bills these days, but I am curious regarding which bills you think are more leaning to the Nazi philosophy. I am not saying that your wrong, but I am curious for more information. The example of having someone elected instead of appointed seems to be the opposite what Hitler wanted.
I also don't think that Obama's proposals going that direction and I think that he truly believes that what he proposes is in the best interest of the American People.
DVD
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 20,266
- Points
- 62
I'll start with the fact that I'm not as politically active and aware as most people in this thread so feel free to bash my thoughts (not that I need to tell people to do that). I don't take any offense.
Most of what I'm seeing is local politics. A consolidation of power. If you want to change a republic into a dictatorship similar to what Hitler did you consolidate power. In Kansas the Governor is trying to do that by getting control of the judicial branch (they already have the other two). At issue was a judge who let a criminal go on a technicality. He followed the law whether we like it or not. Sadly he was a D and was labeled socialist and bad for society and now the Gov wants to have judges elected by the public versus appointed by a panel of piers. The Gov is smart enough to know this will consolidate power to the R party. It sounds nice that they are elected, but I believe firmly that there needs to be two or more parties to represent all the people, not just the people who think like us. No this would never turn America into a Nazi haven, we wouldn't allow that, but when you decry Obama as a Nazi dictator, think about what your own party is doing that was similar to Hitler.
On the national stage, look at how the party is playing on fear mongering and trying to control personal rights like abortion. If you remember the rise of Hilter he started with great speeches that basically equated to, "you either with us or against us". Rally the people for the cause of patriotism. That's been done. Next, you start laying out some mandates that control people - you know for your own safety. If you refuse, you must be against us. I'm pretty sure that's been done - Patriot Act. or desired. If I were a true gun toting 'Merican I'd be afraid of the Rs as much as the Ds. It starts to get a little Machiavellian and none of this will happen, I'm just tapping my inner black helicopter nut job. Once the Rs get enough power and control enough rights through the law, then you start to figure out you better control things like guns and other weapons. Then the gubmint will be after your guns.
I'm not saying the Republicans ARE acting like Hilter, they're just closer to it in my mind than they claim Obama is with all his executive orders. Granted I know they're over sensationalizing the idea that he's over stepping his authority and this is how Hitler gained power, but I'm not smart enough to tell you whether he is or not. What I do know is that Hitler's real power came from the people who gave it to him. Once they gave it to him it was too late and he became the ruthless dictator we know.
Sorry, kind of ranting, but I just don't like how political parties today over hype and have to make drastic comparisons. I don't like the lack of respect for the presidents office - it's fine to not like the man, but at least have some respect. Hitler was an evil monster, I don't think Obama qualifies as that. I also hate the fear mongering and with us or against us attitude. We need to get back to working on the problems of America, not the shiny political goals, but hey, preaching to the choir on that one.
After thought, maybe everyone likes to think on the Nazi party as the ruthless dictatorship it was, but they forget how it came into power in the first place and only people can give you that power. That to me is what the Republican party (unintentionally or not) is aiming for. Once you give them full authority, then what? Sorry tapping inner nut job again.
Most of what I'm seeing is local politics. A consolidation of power. If you want to change a republic into a dictatorship similar to what Hitler did you consolidate power. In Kansas the Governor is trying to do that by getting control of the judicial branch (they already have the other two). At issue was a judge who let a criminal go on a technicality. He followed the law whether we like it or not. Sadly he was a D and was labeled socialist and bad for society and now the Gov wants to have judges elected by the public versus appointed by a panel of piers. The Gov is smart enough to know this will consolidate power to the R party. It sounds nice that they are elected, but I believe firmly that there needs to be two or more parties to represent all the people, not just the people who think like us. No this would never turn America into a Nazi haven, we wouldn't allow that, but when you decry Obama as a Nazi dictator, think about what your own party is doing that was similar to Hitler.
On the national stage, look at how the party is playing on fear mongering and trying to control personal rights like abortion. If you remember the rise of Hilter he started with great speeches that basically equated to, "you either with us or against us". Rally the people for the cause of patriotism. That's been done. Next, you start laying out some mandates that control people - you know for your own safety. If you refuse, you must be against us. I'm pretty sure that's been done - Patriot Act. or desired. If I were a true gun toting 'Merican I'd be afraid of the Rs as much as the Ds. It starts to get a little Machiavellian and none of this will happen, I'm just tapping my inner black helicopter nut job. Once the Rs get enough power and control enough rights through the law, then you start to figure out you better control things like guns and other weapons. Then the gubmint will be after your guns.
I'm not saying the Republicans ARE acting like Hilter, they're just closer to it in my mind than they claim Obama is with all his executive orders. Granted I know they're over sensationalizing the idea that he's over stepping his authority and this is how Hitler gained power, but I'm not smart enough to tell you whether he is or not. What I do know is that Hitler's real power came from the people who gave it to him. Once they gave it to him it was too late and he became the ruthless dictator we know.
Sorry, kind of ranting, but I just don't like how political parties today over hype and have to make drastic comparisons. I don't like the lack of respect for the presidents office - it's fine to not like the man, but at least have some respect. Hitler was an evil monster, I don't think Obama qualifies as that. I also hate the fear mongering and with us or against us attitude. We need to get back to working on the problems of America, not the shiny political goals, but hey, preaching to the choir on that one.
After thought, maybe everyone likes to think on the Nazi party as the ruthless dictatorship it was, but they forget how it came into power in the first place and only people can give you that power. That to me is what the Republican party (unintentionally or not) is aiming for. Once you give them full authority, then what? Sorry tapping inner nut job again.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,901
- Points
- 74
I see where you are going with this. It is interesting the way you see that, and I can't say I disagree. In the City that I live in, the voters approved language that would put term limits on the Mayor and City Council. The Mayor here leans quite a bit to the left as does several members of Council and those who support the Mayor are outraged by this decision and are trying to figure out some way to keep him in office. They are saying that it is limiting their freedom to vote for a particular person just because he has experience in the job. If he didn't do a great job, people could elect someone else.
There are a few issues that I don't agree with him on (gun control) but otherwise, I think he has done a great job, and I know that I would vote for him again if he ran. One of the City Council members who is now also terming out is running for mayor. She too leans left and seeing what she has been able to do with our neighborhood, I am likely to vote for her if I am still living in the City. However I still don't like that the freedom to elect someone is being taken away in this context.
Much like Washington stated when he left office, I don't think someone should be in office forever. However I also believe that 2 times is too few.
DVD
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 20,266
- Points
- 62
Feel free to disagree, I'm just running my mouth in general with little to back it up. I just think if you're going to pull the Nazi card you have to look at all angles and I think some sheep forget that.
Another local argument over Obama, he's a Muslim - firm belief, no doubt about it. He's also allied with that radical Christian preacher (I forget his name) that tell him to do horrible things (sorry no examples). Can't the local sheep see the fault in their own argument? Either he's a devote Muslim or a radical Christian. I don't see a lot of Muslims taking advice from Christian. Pick an insult and stick with it.
Term limits are a whole different set of problems. I like the term limits on the President. I could see the struggle in local elections like yours. You have to take into account limited candidates versus change and accumulation of power and other intended or unintended consequences. I guess part of the argument is how long are the terms? If you're talking a maximum potential for say 10 years of service I guess that would be a good thing at any level. There has to be enough time for a leader to set a course and get some results. I can also see the argument that a good leader should stay, but that allows bad leaders to stay as well. Term limits do seem to be pretty well set at the national level, but the local seems to be always triggered by one political event or a strong push by the party not in power. I just think those are the wrong reasons to set limits.
Mastiff
Gunfighter
- Messages
- 7,170
- Points
- 36
I'd love to see it changed to a single 6 year term. No re-election crap to handle.
The One
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 8,287
- Points
- 32
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
The fewer elections the better. Since money is so involved in this process now, it really hurts the process.
For me, we need limits for all elected offices:
- President, One six year term.
- Senate, 2 six year terms.
- House, 4 three year terms
That means we only have blowhards for 12 years max. 24 if they get elected in different chambers. 30 if they get the presidency as well.
The sooner we make being elected a second job again, I think the better off we are. The problem is that these people only ever are in the world of politics and don't know the real world, but make policies about the real world.
WSU MUP Student
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,397
- Points
- 59
I like the idea of one 6 year term for president. I don't like the idea of term limits for the house or the senate. I think it's been a disaster here in Michigan for our state house and cannot see it being any better at the national level.
There is definitely something to be said for the institutional knowledge that comes with serving for a while. It takes more than a few cycles for most legislators to learn how a budget is actually formed and/or how a bill is written and passed.
There is definitely something to be said for the institutional knowledge that comes with serving for a while. It takes more than a few cycles for most legislators to learn how a budget is actually formed and/or how a bill is written and passed.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,901
- Points
- 74
Can you guys explain more about the benefits of a 6 year one term president? It is an interesting concept and I am open to the idea, but would like to hear more about what you would see as the benefits of that.
Like WSU said, term limits have been a nightmare here in MI...
Like WSU said, term limits have been a nightmare here in MI...
DVD
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 20,266
- Points
- 62
just to throw out an odd idea. I've always felt the senate should be the professional law makers and the house should just be people. You know, like it was intended to be. We could actually elect and have longer terms for the senate, but I've always felt the house should be done like jury duty. Congrats, you've been selected as a representative for the next term. You would get a real cross section of America in the house. You would have minimal rich people, a lot of middle class, and some poor. People in thoery would vote for what they believe in. Poor people would probably push for welfare and social services, middle class would maybe push for good tax systems, the few rich would push for tax breaks, but with the majority being middle class actual American values would come out on top. Things like abortion and gun control I would expect wouldn't go anywhere because those tend to be 50/50 issues (I could be wrong in my numbers just pulling crap out of my ass). Besides, I would hope real people would know these are more flashy political problems than they are actual services provided by the federal government. The sentate would be there to knock out any of the truly stupid things that might get passed. There would be hopefully less campaign financing/bribery, but I would be afraid of what lobbying groups could do.
Just a random thought from a sick person.
Just a random thought from a sick person.
WSU MUP Student
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,397
- Points
- 59
I've met the current and former head of the state's congressional budget office as well as a few other managers in that office and they all need to start over from scratch teaching the members of the house how to write a budget, what items are constitutionally mandated and cannot be cut, what funds are directed to certain line items and cannot be moved, etc. etc. It takes many of the individual house members 2 or 3 cycles to get up to snuff. That is potentially half of the time that they will spend in office. And because there are constantly new house members coming in every two years (while others who may have had the system figured out are leaving), it's a learning process that never really ends. So much time is wasted basically teaching the legislators, "No, you cannot legally do what you promised in your campaign" and the turnover is so high (and they spend so little time in actual session) that no rapport is built up between the legislators even of the same party that you end up with gridlock.
Also, since any individual legislators will be gone within 6 years it's easier for them to say "No" to any new taxes or revenue, even to fund things that are woefully under-funded currently, build up their conservative bona fides, and just pass off the problem to the next person in office. This is especially true if the legislator has any ambition to run for higher office after they finish their 6 years.
We've been trying to get some sort of road funding pushed through for a decade now and every time we get close, they just continue to pass the buck. I am 100% convinced that term limits are a big reason for the delay.
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
So would longer terms help? Less elections to me is key. Fewer elections, means more value on each election. More voter turn out. Less time campaigning. Less time spending money on ads.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,901
- Points
- 74
That alone would sell me on the idea! I also think that DVD might be on to something... returning the process of the Senate into what it was intended to be... appointed by the states.
WSU MUP Student
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,397
- Points
- 59
I think longer terms (3 years, as opposed to 2 years for House of Representatives) would help, but really what's the use if they will still be gone in 6 years? I sternly believe that there is some merit to having professional politicians. Yes, it might sound quaint to be electing a farmer or a teacher or doctor, but what I really want is somebody who has studied (or has quite a few years experience with) public budgeting, forecasting, community organizing, economics and economic development, etc.
I also see value in having those "Grand Old Men (or women)" of the House who have been there for many years and have a plethora of institutional knowledge and can recall first-hand why effort X didn't work in 1982 or 2002 but why it did work in 1992 and hopefully help pass that knowledge on to others on the same committee or the other members in general.
I also see value in having those "Grand Old Men (or women)" of the House who have been there for many years and have a plethora of institutional knowledge and can recall first-hand why effort X didn't work in 1982 or 2002 but why it did work in 1992 and hopefully help pass that knowledge on to others on the same committee or the other members in general.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,901
- Points
- 74
Despite it being a stupid rule and screwing over the American public who elected them to do a job... your correct.
- Messages
- 38,501
- Points
- 78
So for a while you couldn't legally discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation in Kansas. Seems they've decided it's okay to resume discrimination.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ing-gay-state-workers/ar-AA9enrk?ocid=bdt3dhp
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ing-gay-state-workers/ar-AA9enrk?ocid=bdt3dhp