U.S. Politics, 10

[Tempra]

Here is a nice article about Obama's efforts in the Middle East:

It's pretty long so there is a lot more in it about Syria, Iraq and various other things, but "amateur hour" is a good summary. I particularly like this statement: "They have fallen into every trap the Israelis have set for them. And they have fallen into every trap we have set for them." Somebody should draw a cartoon of Abbas and Netanyahu discussing what else each can get from Obama by starting and stopping negotiations.

Another fine example of Obama's leadership skills. Not. (sorry, i just watched some 80s movies).

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yes. I don't think people should be forced to sit a jury.

The problem with that is your juries will then consist primarily of people with nothing better to do. That means juries will consist disproportionately of the unemployed, etc., which wipes out the whole premise of a jury-representing a cross-section of the population.

Nor is the average person always intelligent or objective enough to properly judge somebody.

The average person possesses sufficient intelligence, though some below-average (intellectually speaking) folk will not. But you get a higher percentage of the latter if you make jury duty purely voluntary, because more of your "average" folk will have better/more interesting (to them) things to do with their time.

[一方通行]

Shouldn't the law, whatever it is, be applied equally to all companies, not just those big enough to have political pull in D.C.?

sure, but any company can apply for an exemption if they can show that complying the standards sans-subsidy will increase costs or decrease access to care. find a company that qualifies for exemption, has applied for one, and been denied and you'll have a point.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

sure, but any company can apply for an exemption if they can show that complying the standards sans-subsidy will increase costs or decrease access to care. find a company that qualifies for exemption, has applied for one, and been denied and you'll have a point.

No, I have a point regardless. That entire process inherently favors large companies over smaller ones, because larger companies have the compliance/legal staff and expertise to keep track of those type of things, submit the statements, etc. A lot of smaller businesses simply can't afford that. It's just another exazmple of how the regulatory environment inhernetly favors big businesses over little ones.

Moreover, there's no reason that the scope of a laws coverage should ever be based on case-by-case determinations made by unelected bureaucrats, based on who has the best waiver-request drafters.

[dalThor]

Where would we be without the antics of the likes of O'Donnell and Sharron Angle?

Sharron Angle, the Republican candidate for Senate in Nevada, who is in a tight race with Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was recorded at a rally saying America has a militant terrorist situation that has allowed Islamic religious law to take hold in some cities and cited Dearborn (Michigan) as an example.

A robo call is going out to more than 250,000 people in Nevada, and it’s coming from metro Detroit. The message centers on controversial comments made by U.S. Senate GOP candidate Sharron Angle of Nevada.

She’s the Republican Tea Party candidate who’s trying to unseat Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

At a recent rally, Angle said she’s worried about Muslims wanting to take over the United States.

She singled out Dearborn as an example, making a Dearborn man angry enough to send out a plea to the voters of Nevada.

This is a transcript of the message, in part:

“My name is Tarek Beydoun and I am a Muslim-American from Dearborn, Mich. I am proud of who I am as an American and a Muslim. I regret the fact that Senate candidate Sharron Angle has raised the specter of Muslims taking over Dearborn, Michigan or any part of our great country. It is a shame in this day and age that any candidate like Sharron Angle would use my religion to stigmatize my city and score cheap political points.”

WDIV Detroit

It's teh eval Muslims, again!

Let me assure you, there's nothing like religious law in Dearborn, MI. Sadly, I think this sort of crap plays well to her supporters.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

King Abdullah of Jordan said in 2008 that time is running out to create a two state solution. The next administration, IMO, will be less inclined to do anything if Obama fails, so this is it.

I saw him on the Daily Show a couple weeks ago. What an impressive, educated, well mannered guy. I was left wondering why he (and Jordan) is not being put forward by everyone as the face of moderate Islam to the world.

[drawkcabi]

I am so tired of hearing Christine O'Donnell tell me "I am not a witch" every damn commercial break.

The most criminal part of it, IMO, is the fucking money being wasted by the teabaggers on this unelectable twit.

Not that I actually think it likely the teabaggers would put their money towards something I would think of as a good use, but still the waste sickens me.

[TrackerNeil]

I am so tired of hearing Christine O'Donnell tell me "I am not a witch" every damn commercial break.

Are you kidding me? The fact that a candidate for the US Senate must deny that she practices witchcraft is golden. I love it. I keep waiting for Christopher Coons to release an attack ad featuring Mrs. Kravitz.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I've wondered that too, but I believe that Queen Raina is a columnist at HuffPo, and, as you've seen, the King makes his rounds (I've seen more than one interview with him in Newsweek, also).

He and that whole royal family are western educated and the rulers of one of two countries that have peace agreements with Israel. Arab Islam couldn't ask for a better ambassador.

I actually felt bad that I didn't know more about him and his country. I think guys like Stewart, and other progressives should be actively promoting Jordanian-American relations as a gateway to Islamic acceptance.

Also in reading up on the matter, I found out that Queen Raina is smoking hot. Put that lady on TV every once in a while and you'll have a lot more interest.

[Ken Stone]

Well, I have served on two juries, both murder cases, and in each I was impressed by the attention my fellow jurors showed to the evidence, and by the seriousness with which they approached their judgments. I think people are capable of more than even they themselves expect, but sometimes it takes a bit of pressure (i.e., a mandate to serve) to get them to rise to the challenge.

I don't think I can get behind the idea that "Everyone should vote". If you believe that there exists people who are more informed and people who have superior decesion making ability, then there must also exist people who are less informed with inferior decesion making ability. If you don't feel like you are informed enough to vote, then it is your patriotic duty NOT to vote.

[drawkcabi]

Are you kidding me? The fact that a candidate for the US Senate must deny that she practices witchcraft is golden. I love it. I keep waiting for Christopher Coons to release an attack ad featuring Mrs. Kravitz.

But it's on so damn much. I'm sick of it. I mean I know Teabaggers aren't that bright but this campaign blitz is only hurting them, yeah that's a good thing from my perspective, but the race is all ready in the bag for Coons just let it go.

[Swordfish]

I actually felt bad that I didn't know more about him and his country. I think guys like Stewart, and other progressives should be actively promoting Jordanian-American relations as a gateway to Islamic acceptance.

Also in reading up on the matter, I found out that Queen Raina is smoking hot. Put that lady on TV every once in a while and you'll have a lot more interest.

I just saw her on TV this morning actually.

I concur with your conclusions.

I don't think I can get behind the idea that "Everyone should vote". If you believe that there exists people who are more informed and people who have superior decesion making ability, then there must also exist people who are less informed with inferior decesion making ability. If you don't feel like you are informed enough to vote, then it is your patriotic duty NOT to vote.

The obvious disconnect here is that those who are not informed enough to vote rarely believe themselves to be so.

[TrackerNeil]

I don't think I can get behind the idea that "Everyone should vote". If you believe that there exists people who are more informed and people who have superior decesion making ability, then there must also exist people who are less informed with inferior decesion making ability. If you don't feel like you are informed enough to vote, then it is your patriotic duty NOT to vote.

It's possible that a voting requirement might spur people to read a bit more about the races that affect them. After all, part of living in a democratic society is involving oneself, even peripherally, in the democratic process.

However, for those who absolutely refuse to get themselves even the most basic political education, we could include a voting option, "None of the above."

[Swordfish]

It's possible that a voting requirement might spur people to read a bit more about the races that affect them. After all, part of living in a democratic society is involving oneself, even peripherally, in the democratic process.

However, for those who absolutely refuse to get themselves even the most basic political education, we could include a voting option, "None of the above."

I would love to have a 'No Confidence' option.

[kairparavel]

It's possible that a voting requirement might spur people to read a bit more about the races that affect them. After all, part of living in a democratic society is involving oneself, even peripherally, in the democratic process.

However, for those who absolutely refuse to get themselves even the most basic political education, we could include a voting option, "None of the above."

For some, it might spur them to get more up to speed with what's going on. Some might even use that 'None' option, but really, if you force a group of individuals to do something they wouldn't otherwise have any interest in doing, aren't you risking spite votes, thus fucking with the intent of the voting mechanism?

If the choice is between voter malaise or disinterest and voter fuckery, wouldn't you just rather people stay at home?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

However, for those who absolutely refuse to get themselves even the most basic political education, we could include a voting option, "None of the above."

This would be the single greatest revolution since...the revolution. I have long advocated this.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

For some, it might spur them to get more up to speed with what's going on. Some might even use that 'None' option, but really, if you force a group of individuals to do something they wouldn't otherwise have any interest in doing, aren't you risking spite votes, thus fucking with the intent of the voting mechanism?

If the choice is between voter malaise or disinterest and voter fuckery, wouldn't you just rather people stay at home?

That's a very good point. You might get people who are just so pissed off at being required to vote that they'd mark their ballots arbitrarily. Plus, you can make them go into the voting booth, but how do you confirm that they actually voted without examining their ballot? There are some local races I don't vote in sometimes if I've unfamiliar with the candidates or issue, and that's a conscious, deliberate choice. Why should I be forced to vote in a race where I know I'm not sufficiently well-informed to cast a vote?

It's possible that a voting requirement might spur people to read a bit more about the races that affect them. After all, part of living in a democratic society is involving oneself, even peripherally, in the democratic process.

Shouldn't that be their decision to make? Anyway, I can't see how this would in any way improve the process. Presumably, the people who vote voluntarily are also the most interested and informed. Why would we expect voting results to improve by deliberately diluting the votes of the more informed by requiring the less-informed to vote as well?

[Reek]

Presumably, the people who vote voluntarily are also the most interested and informed.

I agree with the interested part for sure. The informed? Not so much sometimes.

[kairparavel]

That's a very good point. You might get people who are just so pissed off at being required to vote that they'd mark their ballots arbitrarily. Plus, you can make them go into the voting booth, but how do you confirm that they actually voted without examining their ballot? There are some local races I don't vote in sometimes if I've unfamiliar with the candidates or issue, and that's a conscious, deliberate choice. Why should I be forced to vote in a race where I know I'm not sufficiently well-informed to cast a vote?

Shouldn't that be their decision to make?

FLOW brings up the next point I was going to make. And now I have a some sort of FLOW agreement rash... :blink:

Anyways, isn't being part of a democracy about having options and choices? Like choosing to not involve yourself? Opting out from voting?

Choosing what you can and can't do with your body.....

[TrackerNeil]

Shouldn't that be their decision to make? Anyway, I can't see how this would in any way improve the process. Presumably, the people who vote voluntarily are also the most interested and informed. Why would we expect voting results to improve by deliberately diluting the votes of the more informed by requiring the less-informed to vote as well?

Why FLoW...I thought I was the one who considered Americans stupid? ;)