Jump to content
Crisis

American Politics

Recommended Posts

So I haven't seen a thread just for general political talk about candidates, new laws, new bills, etc. Now this is a debate, not an argument. I want this topic to be friendly, tolerant, and peaceful. Both sides of a debate are to be fully represented, and listened to. No mud-slinging or name calling. You can use sarcasm, but don't be an ass. And remember, we all have different opinions, and this is a just a place to express thoughts, ideas, and opinions, so be respectful of each other.

 

Edit to add:

 

This thread is for talking about American Politics. Anything that has to do with politics in the United States of America and/or its territories should take place here.

Edited by Shiny Hazard Sign

Share this post


Link to post

1941 is right around the time when the Fed was starting to get a bit big for its britches. I'm not surprised that that would be a time when case law would start to swing away from what was always accepted, that the Federal Government is subject to the States.

 

Wikipedia (not Wiki, that's general) is also not always a reliable source for politics.

Share this post


Link to post
1941 is right around the time when the Fed was starting to get a bit big for its britches. I'm not surprised that that would be a time when case law would start to swing away from what was always accepted, that the Federal Government is subject to the States.

 

Wikipedia (not Wiki, that's general) is also not always a reliable source for politics.

The fact that the exact case is cited should give it SOME credibility at least? Yes, Wikipedia isn't always a reliable source, however it's useful when a credible source is cited. If anyone wants, I can go look up a more reliable source later?

Share this post


Link to post

It wasn't that--it's that Wikipedia would be somewhat likely to mention things that support one side while not mentioning things that support another. Wikipedia has a certain bias. They have this rather preposterous idea that fascism is right-wing, for instance, when it is actually a form of Socialism, something that would, in many (but not all! not by a long shot!) ways, fit very comfortably in a lot of modern American Liberals' idea of a Good Thing. So while I'm not saying that that citation is inaccurate, I am saying that just because Wikipedia cited it doesn't mean it's the only valid opinion on the matter.

 

Again, check the date of the citation and take a look at the times the statement was made.

Share this post


Link to post

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment, or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers. See e.g., II Elliot's Debates, 123, 131; III id. 450, 464, 600; IV id. 140, 149; I Annals of Congress, 432, 761, 767-768; Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, §§ 1907-1908.

 

^ From an alternate source.

 

I'm aware of the times the statement was made, however the American court system does use precedent in deciding a case, and as such, any cases like the one quoted would likely be ruled the same way. Besides, it was directed as a rebuttal to philpot's post that it was a violation of the 10th amendment. If the argument that it's a violation of the constitution has any validity, it won't be found in the 10th amendment.

Share this post


Link to post

We'll see soon enough. IIRC, it's on the Supreme Court's docket for this coming year, so it's clearly in question. It might very well be a 10th Amendment issue.

Share this post


Link to post

It is very much a 10th amendment question. As long as we're quoting sources, why not quote the actual source?

 

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

 

That's pretty cut and dried. Not really any room for creative interpretation there. Court precedents do not necessitate truth, and are often ignored in rulings whether rightly or no. Otherwise we wouldn't have any major changes. If you want to get heavy with supreme court rulings, lets look at 19th century pro-Christianity rulings then? Or we could take the constitution at face value and leave out the oft-changed rulings altogether, how about that?

 

The fact remains, it is not a power granted to the government at the national level and thus should not be forced on the people. It's a pretty simple thing, not too hard to understand.

Share this post


Link to post

Voted today. Not a big mid-term election but we did have a City Council election. Also voted "Yes" on the one-percent local option sales tax.

 

Share this post


Link to post

*dodges dustbunnies from the spring cleaning* To put the bit that stayed in context, it was about the constitutionality of Obamacare's mandate.

 

Anyhow. Here's something kinda political. What do you think of unions grabbing the addresses of people unassociated with them of of non-profits' mailing lists in order to mass-mail them leaflets in support of their political agenda?

Share this post


Link to post
*dodges dustbunnies from the spring cleaning* To put the bit that stayed in context, it was about the constitutionality of Obamacare's mandate.

 

Anyhow. Here's something kinda political. What do you think of unions grabbing the addresses of people unassociated with them of of non-profits' mailing lists in order to mass-mail them leaflets in support of their political agenda?

Don't agree. The unions have way too much power as is IMO....

Share this post


Link to post
*dodges dustbunnies from the spring cleaning* To put the bit that stayed in context, it was about the constitutionality of Obamacare's mandate.

 

Anyhow. Here's something kinda political. What do you think of unions grabbing the addresses of people unassociated with them of of non-profits' mailing lists in order to mass-mail them leaflets in support of their political agenda?

Spam mail of all kinds annoys the hell out of me.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't see why spam bothers you. I just pitch it and the stories done.

 

not sure if candidates have been covered lately as I just found this thread but should be fun to open this can of worms

 

Herman Cain- Like because he's not a "real" politician, he knows what a buisness needs. 9-9-9 seems like a good plain and will probably cause the price of several things to go down. (by replacing all the embedded taxes on items the cost on the item itself will go down, by lowering the tax rate a company pays the price of their product will go down... remember no business pays taxes, they just pass the bill off on their customers. A person will no longer be taxed for saving money, giving money to their children when they die, or simply earning it. the only things taxed are what you spend it on.) Dislike cause I'm not sure if I believe everything about the sexual harassment charges. Oh well at least he hasn't had anyone claimed to of raped them (as of yet) like a certain other president.... >.> (If you don't believe Google Juanita Broaddrick)

 

Mitt Romeny- Dislike, he's a rhino. when a person says that a republican is no different than a democrat they are talking about him. He's a smiley, shape-shifting, dirty politician.

 

Michele Bachmann- Get out of the race so Herman Cain can have you small amount of people. you're currently the least spectacular person up there.

 

Newt Gingrich- Like, He's seems extraordinarily smart. I remember being forced to study his policies when I was taking a political science class and his time as a speaker along with the contract with America. His new contract with America (or the steps he has listed, he's got a couple more things that he has room for but he's only left an anyoing "coming soon" on his site as though he can't think of what he wasn't to say yet.) What he did have was a promise to return to Regan-nomics (which really did lead to a much better economy than we have today). Dislike, The republican party has this... feeling... to them that the person that has been the party the longest is the most natural to run for president which is why I feel last time McCain got the nomination, and we've saw how well that worked >.> Newt has defiantly been their a long time, at this point he's party of the wood work. (Same with Romeny) Part of my problem with him is that he's been their so long >.> a person who's been a politician for so long can't possibly have many morals. (At least if you read a note from his daughter he didn't actually divorce his wife while she as she got cancer. The cancer apparently just happened to come after she had requested the divorce, and it was a begin tumor) Plus all the other dirty underwear that's been well aired out.

 

Rick Perry- get off the stage.

 

Obama-.........I have an old quote, from Regan actually, "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." Someone substitute Jimmy Carter with Obama please. Last week's Lansing State Journal said only 48% of those who are unemployed actually receive benefits currently. With unemployment being 9% that brings real unemployment (those who have been unemployed for more than 99 weeks, given up, underemployed, etc) up to slightly more than 18%..... so figuring that darn near 1/5 of the working able population is without a job, how much until will call this a depression?

 

sorry for those that hate conservative republicans Xp I speak my mind

 

add: BTW, My union doesn't even aid the employees Xp What's the point if we get fired for having 2 sick days within 120 days? What's the point if we come in for 5 hour shifts and end up working 13 with out overtime, then have to come back 5 hours later? What's the point of saying a part-timer can work as much as 50 hours a week and not turn into a full timer as long as by week nine they have at least one week in which they work less than 39.5 hours? (Meaning: my boss works us slaves about 45 hours a week with some time to hold up extra and once every nine weeks we get a major hour cut just so we can't go full time) I could go on for an hour. But I'm positive that my mandatory Union dues were spent buttering up some liberal as my company was one of the first 500 to get an acceptation from the mandate law. ^^ I am SOL

Edited by KidaYuki

Share this post


Link to post

Herman Cain

 

Don't like him, don't trust him do to his answers about the allegations that he's facing. Positionally, I agree with very little he says. His economy plan isn't horrible, but it isn't that great, either. His outright statement that he would eliminate a possible cabinet member or judge based on religion is unconstitutional and ridiculous. His opinions on same-sex marriage obviously bother me, that goes without saying. Again, his cuts to education and CPS are horrendous. His energy and enviromental plans are not contradictory like other, but not good. His healthcare stances are muddied, he never says what he wants to replace Obamacare with, without that clear, how are we supposed to form opinions. His immigration jokes are startling and should be watched. Not someone I could support.

 

Michele Bachmann

 

Don't like her, don't like her positions, find her lack of research appalling and don't care that I'll get accused of "hating women" for not voting for her, if, somehow she manages to grab the nomination. I won't even wwaste any time on her.

 

Newt Gingrich
Met him once, His education reform standards are terrifying, he opposes restrictions on campaign contributions, thereby supporting the buying of politicians. I don't support his widespread drilling ideas which contradict his so-called eviromental policy, and the cuts he wants CPS to take would leave thousands of children in unsuitable homes, destroy hundreds of careers, and make the already over-stressed system collapse. He finds torture to be "okay" in some situations, which makes him even more morally bankrupt. I don't like his stances on abortion, his stance on gay marriage which he wants to force on everyone else, his positions on prayer in schools, and his history with the freedom of speech is spotty. I do support him on most of his stances regarding the death penalty and gun control and his opinion on unemployment. However, his downright hallucinatory comments on some things make me doubt his stability.

 

Mitt Romeny

 

He flips depending on who will elect him, like McCain on various issues. As such, it's a blind take on what he would do in office and would depend on who was lining his pockets. Unable to draw conclusions, would not vote.

 

Rick Perry

 

he can't keep himself on a train of thought. He seems like he's imploding from the pressure. Could seem him in a subordinate role, but not a leadership one.

 

Ron Paul

 

If I had to vote Republican, it would probably be for this guy unless I could see in Romney's brain. I definitely don't agree with him on abortion. I don't care how many babies he's delivered, but his views on adoption are decent. His budget plans aren't bad, though they could use another look over and some more particulars. I like his idea of a complete lack of marriage licenses, let the churches do what they want, as they want, according to conscience. It'll never fly, but it's nice. I don't agree with his death penalty stance, or his views on hate crimes, but I understand what he means. He also has a reasonable stance on many education issues, I especially love "Evolution doesn't support atheism nor diminish God." It makes the wife happy as a Jewish scientist, but his home-school options and support of abstinence only sex-ed makes me wary.His energy voting record is ridiculously bad, however. Not as bad as opposing the AMBER alerts, which makes me doubt his sanity.

 

You know what I want from the GOP? Someone that actually makes me struggle with my decision. Someone that actually makes me weigh what issues are the most important, and have to sacrifice something. It can happen, I know it can. The party is just not supporting the sane moderates the way they should. It's all extremist backlash politics. I want something to challenge me as an independent. I'm an independent for a reason, but the way the parties are going, it's just getting ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest?

 

The whole thing- the Tea Party and their ilk, the ideas they sometimes come up with, the way they seem to think that insulting your opponant is good debating skills, the way religion seems to be ingrained into everything- scares me. Yes, American politics, what little I know of it anyway, scares me.

 

From England I look at America through the lenses of news reports about plans to make abortion extremely difficult to get in some states, their ridiculously heavy punishments for the smallest of drug crimes (this one may be out of date...), the religious groups who plan to ban the teaching of Evolution and replace it with Creationism, Sarah Palin, the plans to outlaw/not make legal same-sex marriage, severe education cuts, awful record on the environment and other things that occasionally leap up and grab my attention and I am very relived that British politics- while bad at times- is not anything like this... Yet.

 

Sorry Americans, but that's just the way I feel. You won't be seeing Ruins in your country an time soon...

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry Americans, but that's just the way I feel. You won't be seeing Ruins in your country an time soon...

Thank you for having the humility to apologize.

 

Don't see why spam bothers you. I just pitch it and the stories done.

 

It bothers me because I've been careful with my address, not giving it to people I knew would seek to abuse it. I made the mistake of thinking Doctors Without Borders would respect my address but they didn't, they sold it and now it's in the hands of every charity under the sun. All right, fine, all these charities can waste their money and all that paper by sending me mail...at least they are charities. Unions, on the other hand, are not charities and should not have access to the mailing lists of non-profits. That they have my address from the hands of charities indicates how scuzzy they are in their tactics and how low they will go to try to push the Federal government around.

 

As far as the Republican offerings for President, honestly, I wish they'd nominate Ron Paul. I don't agree with everything he says, but that's how it goes.

Edited by Princess Artemis

Share this post


Link to post
The whole thing- the Tea Party and their ilk, the ideas they sometimes come up with, the way they seem to think that insulting your opponant is good debating skills, the way religion seems to be ingrained into everything- scares me. Yes, American politics, what little I know of it anyway, scares me.

Just to argue a point. The tea party isn't a political group at all. Don't treat them as such. Political commentators often group them with Republicans and conservatives. The tea party are American CIVILIANS mostly. Republicans simply support various shared ideals.

 

Research back to when tea partying got big back in March 2010, people who formed this group originally were protesting Obamacare when it was being voted on in congress. There were other things being protested, I'm sure, but the main issue was the healthcare bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Just to argue a point. The tea party isn't a political group at all. Don't treat them as such. Political commentators often group them with Republicans and conservatives. The tea party are American CIVILIANS mostly. Republicans simply support various shared ideals.

 

Research back to when tea partying got big back in March 2010, people who formed this group originally were protesting Obamacare when it was being voted on in congress. There were other things being protested, I'm sure, but the main issue was the healthcare bill.

They're moving to make themselves a party, however. They're already a political movement endorsing politicians, running caucuses, having televised responses to the Sate of the Union Address along with the GOP -- that's more than actual parties get.

Share this post


Link to post
Just to argue a point. The tea party isn't a political group at all. Don't treat them as such. Political commentators often group them with Republicans and conservatives. The tea party are American CIVILIANS mostly. Republicans simply support various shared ideals.

I'm a little confused what them being mostly civilians has to do with political groups? o.o Did I miss something? Dx

Share this post


Link to post
I'm a little confused what them being mostly civilians has to do with political groups? o.o Did I miss something? Dx

I think the point is "not politicians."

Share this post


Link to post
I think the point is "not politicians."

Oooooooooooooooooooooh, okay, thanks!

(Sorry, I'm around way too many military people. =P )

Share this post


Link to post
Everyone is allowed an opinion, even if it doesn't agree with yours. :3[/color]

Seeing this, this is what everyone want's to think American politics is like.

And of course, nothing like the pit of bureaucracy it really is

Share this post


Link to post
I think the point is "not politicians."

Yeah... That was basically it. Sorry I'm not always the best with being clear about wording. sad.gif

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.