GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4 - Page 30 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-15-2012, 09:49 AM   #436
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,284
Local Time: 11:56 PM
^ true, he could always add an amendment saying english is the official language. though i think it's ridiculous. and again, i fail to see how this is even an important issue. what language puerto ricans speak in puerto rico doesn't affect me or anyone in any of the states, or even the other territories. though at this point the government either needs to start making these territories states (including d.c.) or these territories need to have all the rights states do, including being able to vote in federal elections.
__________________

__________________

"Because a senator - a politician - a person - who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot - has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States." -- Keith Olbermann
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:35 AM   #437
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas
Posts: 13,753
Local Time: 11:56 PM
D.C. is a problem because it leans so far to the left. Republicans will come up with arguments against allowing D.C. to have Congressional representation based on things like "the founders intended for Congress to represent the states" as long as that's the case, when in reality state identity is becoming more and more meaningless and this really just amounts to disenfranchisement of 617,996 people, more than Wyoming.
__________________

__________________
digitize is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:46 AM   #438
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,284
Local Time: 11:56 PM
oh exactly, but if we were to ever make puerto rico a state, it'd look incredibly ridiculous to completely ignore d.c. like that. the whole thing with wyoming ticks me off. i don't think its statehood should be revoked or anything like that, but given that the u.s. hasn't added any states in over 50 years even though we have a territory with a greater population than almost half of the states and the capital district with a greater population than wyoming (and not far off from vermont), it's ridiculous.

if it were up to me, all territories (and d.c.) would become states, though that would bring the total to 56 and zomg the number of stars would probably look like shit or something so we can't have that.
__________________

"Because a senator - a politician - a person - who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot - has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States." -- Keith Olbermann
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 10:50 AM   #439
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,837
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Freudian slip?

8 AM to noon-control of pubic region

noon to close-move on to uteri



Santorum Campaign Releases "Pubic Schedule"
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 11:02 AM   #440
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas
Posts: 13,753
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes View Post
oh exactly, but if we were to ever make puerto rico a state, it'd look incredibly ridiculous to completely ignore d.c. like that. the whole thing with wyoming ticks me off. i don't think its statehood should be revoked or anything like that, but given that the u.s. hasn't added any states in over 50 years even though we have a territory with a greater population than almost half of the states and the capital district with a greater population than wyoming (and not far off from vermont), it's ridiculous.

if it were up to me, all territories (and d.c.) would become states, though that would bring the total to 56 and zomg the number of stars would probably look like shit or something so we can't have that.
But most of those territories would probably elect Democrats. And we can't have that. The current voting maps were carefully gerrymandered just perfectly to create exactly the balance that this nation needs.
__________________
digitize is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 11:40 AM   #441
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 38,358
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Exactly ^ There's a reason Republicans are violently opposed to making any of the territories states and thwarting the Hispanic vote. Otherwise they'd never win another presidency ever again on their current platform.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 11:48 AM   #442
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas
Posts: 13,753
Local Time: 11:56 PM
There is something weird about giving Guam, population 159358, two Senators, though. My city has about four times as many people as Guam. It's a very blue city in a very red state and effectively gets no representation in the US Senate whatsoever.

Maybe we should just abolish the Senate
__________________
digitize is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 12:12 PM   #443
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,951
Local Time: 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
Maybe we should just abolish the Senate
Well, obviously. It's been the biggest roadblock to getting anything done and Democrats can never get anywhere close to the majority that Republicans are able to when they control the Senate because there's always the south + small states to ensure that there's at least 40-ish Republicans sitting in there. It's extremely unfair to say the least. Why on Earth should Wyoming have the same representation in a branch of Congress as California with like 70 times the amount of people? At the very least, get rid of these god-damn supermajorities of sixty and let bills pass the senate with 51 votes, damn it. Have all the Senators up for re-election every four years along with the President so that the Senate best reflects what the people want when they actually bother to vote. Let the House be up for re-election every two years so that the people not in power can whine and gain back some seats (which has nearly always happened since the days of FDR). Right now, a minority of the American population is having a huge say in causing our government's inaction and it's because 1) Nobody votes in non-Presidential elections and 2) The damn Senate always contains relics since only a third are up for re-election at any given time. If it were all tied together with the Presidential elections, Obama would have had like 70+ Senators and achieved insane progress right away. The way it stands now, he could theoretically lose the Senate despite winning the November election, simply because it just so happens that the 1/3 of Senators up for re-election this year are mostly Democrats and mostly in states were they could easily lose (ones carried back in the '06 anti-Bush wave).

The fair way to do things would be to just have the house only and have the entire thing be done off of proportional representation. The third party vote would skyrocket immediately, regardless of whether or not any of the minor parties had much in terms of cash flow, and we'd see parties like the Greens netting 15% of the overall vote and getting like 60 people in the House of Representatives. As for pork or whatever, it would lead to a great decrease in that, but anybody could form coalitions to get what they need for their given states or local districts.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 12:20 PM   #444
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,284
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
But most of those territories would probably elect Democrats. And we can't have that. The current voting maps were carefully gerrymandered just perfectly to create exactly the balance that this nation needs.
yep. it's just like the slave vs. free states all over again. perhaps if we can persuade the other four territories to promise they'll vote republican for ever and ever!, then all five can be added.

i definitely think an overhaul of senate is needed, or maybe removing some of their power and giving it to the house. at least they're proportionally represented. they're not perfect either, but like bigmacphisto said, it's ridiculous that wyoming gets equal representation to a state like california.
__________________

"Because a senator - a politician - a person - who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot - has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States." -- Keith Olbermann
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 12:29 PM   #445
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas
Posts: 13,753
Local Time: 11:56 PM
I wasn't being totally serious when I suggested abolishing the Senate. I don't know how I feel about it, but I think that in an ideal world where I could amend the Constitution however I wanted to, it would be worth considering.

The Senate is absolutely not something that is good for ensuring equal enfranchisement of voters, for obvious reasons. I think that the only reasonable argument in favor of it is as an intentional retard on progressive movements, which may theoretically be good for the US in a long term sense, even if it is often very annoying in the short term.

The idea of a proportionally representative House and no Senate really appeals to me. Of course, that system severs representative ties to geography, but in some ways, that would definitely be a good thing. It would be good for getting people what they want and allowing people to fairly evaluate the performance of a party with the option of getting rid of them painlessly. Honestly, a full-on Westminster system with a proportional Congress would be best for that. But Britain and America have very different visions of government; in Britain, one party is the government and does whatever they want until they are voted out, while in America, one party controlling the Senate, the House, and the presidency is very rare, but it's harder to get rid of anyone or anything. The progressive in me likes the idea of a system modeled more after Britain, but there is part of me that likes the more slow nature of the American system.

Regardless, I think it's a little ridiculous that the founding fathers tend to be treated as demigods in America. The Constitution is flawed but outlines a good, working form of government. However, there's no reason why the political and economic philosophy of the late 1700s has to be revered forever. I think more debate in the United States about the fundamental nature of how our government is run (and no, I don't mean things like we should adopt Marxist-Leninist communism) would be a good thing, but there seems to be this mentality of "the founding fathers thought this so this is how the United States should be run forever and ever".
__________________
digitize is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 12:37 PM   #446
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,951
Local Time: 12:56 AM
The Senate made more sense when they were trying to protect state's rights and the federal government wasn't as big as it is now. I think part of that though has to do with the ruling elites controlling so much land that they just wanted to have their own rules/laws that they could dictate by being a representative of their own State. I mean, this country really only exists because the rich wanted to make sure they had control over their wide swaths of land rather than somebody across the pond.

But anyway, back then, there were like no real infrastructure programs or much to really be divided on given the lack of technology or huge religious divide or whatever. More importantly, the difference in state populations was so damn minimal as well that you didn't have anything as lopsided as we do now in terms of Senate representation. If my place has 7,000 people and its own set of laws and yours has 7,600 or whatever, who really gives a fuck?
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 12:40 PM   #447
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,284
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
Regardless, I think it's a little ridiculous that the founding fathers tend to be treated as demigods in America.
this. they wrote what they did based on how they felt at the time, and also being sick of the king having absolute power in the uk. things aren't even like that in the uk anymore. i'm not suggesting if thomas jefferson were around now he'd wished we had remained part of the monarchy or anything ridiculous, but rather that if they can change over a couple hundred years, so can we. like you said, not some huge drastic overhaul. i may be a socialist at heart but i'm also a realist and i know that would never happen in the states. but there needs to be some sort of way to help things move faster.

and yes, i'm sure the founding fathers weren't even thinking at the time whether or not the country would still be using the constitution all this time later. shit changes and time changes, things that weren't an issue back in the 1770s are now. i feel like i'm not articulating myself well enough, but yeah.
__________________

"Because a senator - a politician - a person - who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot - has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States." -- Keith Olbermann
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 06:14 PM   #448
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsspringsteen View Post
8 am to noon-control of pubic region

noon to close-move on to uteri



santorum campaign releases "pubic schedule"

__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 03-15-2012, 06:18 PM   #449
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 18,704
Local Time: 11:56 PM
Indeed. Times have changed and the way we do things needs to change along with it. And god, YES, term limits for Congress, please. Please. I'm really tired of seeing people who've been there since...what...the early '60s, it seems? That's ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes View Post
if it were up to me, all territories (and d.c.) would become states, though that would bring the total to 56 and zomg the number of stars would probably look like shit or something so we can't have that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
8 AM to noon-control of pubic region

noon to close-move on to uteri



Santorum Campaign Releases "Pubic Schedule"
at both of these.

Though I do agree with Khanada, I don't know why we own all these territories and such yet can't seem to move forward with making them states. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I think before we adopt English as our official language, we should require and IQ test for Presidential candidates.


Yeah, so, um, Santorum IS aware we don't have an official language in this country, right? I'll give him this, at least he was bluntly honest towards Puerto Ricans. How in the hell he thinks that'll endear them to him, I don't know, but at least he isn't shying away from his true feelings on the subject.

(Also, geez, there are people who are born and raised here whom I think would do well to learn some decent English-speaking skills before we start yelling at immigrants about it )
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 03-15-2012, 08:51 PM   #450
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Winterfell
Posts: 3,825
Local Time: 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
I wasn't being totally serious when I suggested abolishing the Senate. I don't know how I feel about it, but I think that in an ideal world where I could amend the Constitution however I wanted to, it would be worth considering.

The Senate is absolutely not something that is good for ensuring equal enfranchisement of voters, for obvious reasons. I think that the only reasonable argument in favor of it is as an intentional retard on progressive movements, which may theoretically be good for the US in a long term sense, even if it is often very annoying in the short term.

The idea of a proportionally representative House and no Senate really appeals to me. Of course, that system severs representative ties to geography, but in some ways, that would definitely be a good thing. It would be good for getting people what they want and allowing people to fairly evaluate the performance of a party with the option of getting rid of them painlessly. Honestly, a full-on Westminster system with a proportional Congress would be best for that. But Britain and America have very different visions of government; in Britain, one party is the government and does whatever they want until they are voted out, while in America, one party controlling the Senate, the House, and the presidency is very rare, but it's harder to get rid of anyone or anything. The progressive in me likes the idea of a system modeled more after Britain, but there is part of me that likes the more slow nature of the American system.

Regardless, I think it's a little ridiculous that the founding fathers tend to be treated as demigods in America. The Constitution is flawed but outlines a good, working form of government. However, there's no reason why the political and economic philosophy of the late 1700s has to be revered forever. I think more debate in the United States about the fundamental nature of how our government is run (and no, I don't mean things like we should adopt Marxist-Leninist communism) would be a good thing, but there seems to be this mentality of "the founding fathers thought this so this is how the United States should be run forever and ever".
Go back to England, Tory.
__________________

__________________
Steved1998 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com