Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Well I don't know what others may mean by no term limits, but I mean allow the President an unlimited number of terms if he/she can keep winning an election, not that the term itself would have an indeterminate end date. (I don't like that whole "vote of no confidence" thing). The 2012 election is no more or less important if President Obama can still run again in 2016. I get that, but incumbency is a feedback loop. A president who wins 2 elections in a row is going to be nearly impossible to unseat for a 3rd, and might as well skip the election for the 4th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 what about when we invade a country, we make that country pay for the war if we "win"And what about Iraq, which was not a war but a police action, or whatever the hell Bush called it at the time?Besides, Germany was whacked with massive debt (in the form of reparations) after WWI, and that didn't work out very well for Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywolf2375 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 lol good thing the gov't not run by BWB lol. Seriously The house of reps need no more people (im from NY huge population) why should my voice be substantially greater than lets say South Dakota.That's why the Senate wouldn't be going away. Your voice would not increase, it would decrease as your rep is there for a smaller portion of the populationAnd the Electoral College makes sense also, other wise NY and Cali would win all the time (even thou that would be awsome).What? If the electoral college went away, it would then be a popular vote - NY & CA would not "win". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Seriously The house of reps need no more people (im from NY huge population) why should my voice be substantially greater than lets say South Dakota.Why should the voice of someone from South Dakota count substantionally more than yours, as it does today? (Granted there are reasons why it should count more, the question is how much more.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 What's wrong with bicameralism?Because I believe in having a proportional legislature and there's not much point to having 2 chambers if both are going to be proportional.I get that, but incumbency is a feedback loop. A president who wins 2 elections in a row is going to be nearly impossible to unseat for a 3rd, and might as well skip the election for the 4th.Not sure about that. I think if anything it just better distills whats going on in a 1st election bid. If things are going well, sure it will be difficult to unseat him/her, but why should they lose if things are going well? And if things are going badly its much easier to make the argument that a change is needed. 4 years (or rather 2.5-3 considering when campaigns start) isn't really enough time for a President's policies to take effect and for their results to be seen. After 7 years that's no longer true, the President truly owns whatever has been going on and if people don't like it the President will get tossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slayer420 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 And what about Iraq, which was not a war but a police action, or whatever the hell Bush called it at the time?Besides, Germany was whacked with massive debt (in the form of reparations) after WWI, and that didn't work out very well for Europe.I think we should have took there oil, We gave them "freedom" but the American tax payer paid for that with money and blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerly Grumkin Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 lol no one in SD should have more of a voice than me, thats crazy! NY is the "center of the world" (you cant convince me its not) But our voice should not be that much larger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerly Grumkin Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 thats not a bad idea, you put in your SS# on-line, and then vote! But there is a shit load of hackers who could do sompthing, lets just hope that the feds give them a job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I think we should have took there oil, We gave them "freedom" but the American tax payer paid for that with money and blood.Ah. We invade the country, destabilize their social and political structures, then despoil it of its most valuable resource. Why don't we just complete the job by raping the women, eating the men and packing the children off to labor camps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 The problem with the line item veto is that it lets x and y through, but not z, depending on who is president. If X, Y, and Z are all important enough to become law, then Congress can debate them all on their individual merits, and send them to the president for individual veto.You're right, but I think that the effect would be the same in practice. If the President has the power to remove "Z", then there really isn't all that much incentive to send up bundled bills in the first place. So I think the Congressional response to a line-item veto power would be to de-bundle those bills in the first place.One problem with a constitutional amendment preventing "bundling" is that it can create all sorts of disputes over whether a bill is actually just one subject, or is really a bunch of different ones. For example, the defense department purchases hundreds of thousands of different items, from toiler paper, to post-it notes, to every different kind of ammunition, fuel, building a new little shed in some base, etc. Would each of those purchases require a separate bill, or not? I think it would be impossible to run even a normal sized-government that way. They could literally be voting constantly, and still not have enough time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 Tracker,Word.I must say that I am totally unsurprised at the strong support in this thread for legal secession. I've been on this board way too long for expect otherwise.You mean my years of arguing in favor of has had an impact?:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerly Grumkin Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Wait, What!!! Legal Secession! Its the fucking United States of America Ufuckingnited! What would seperating the nation do? Cause China/Russia/India to invade! EU is kind of a shitty ally now, and Israel got its own problems, America has to stay America, unless your cool with the "eastern way of life" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 what about when we invade a country, we make that country pay for the war if we "win"I'd like to see you try getting them to pay for our invasion if we lose. What are we going to do, threaten to lose even worse if they don't pay us?Besides, that's not a change to the political structure of the U.S. - that's a shift (in the idiotic direction) on foreign policy. Re: GeneralSo what I am hearing is that we want to shift the emphasis from United in the United States to the States of United States. Might as well just come out and say you want to abolish the Federal government completely and rever to 12 regional states, like what happened to the former USSR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I've just read this thread and I find I can't unread it.This saddens me.:leaving: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 So what I am hearing is that we want to shift the emphasis from United in the United States to the States of United States. Might as well just come out and say you want to abolish the Federal government completely and rever to 12 regional states, like what happened to the former USSR.I think I see the title of the next new thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 1. Ending gerrymandering and the disproportionate impact of redistricting on our political process is a must.2. DC Statehood3. Declare a fixed an election season, limit campaigning and advertisements outside this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 Maith,You would have to amend the freedom of speech to accomplish that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Wait, What!!! Legal Secession! Its the fucking United States of America Ufuckingnited! What would seperating the nation do? Cause China/Russia/India to invade! EU is kind of a shitty ally now, and Israel got its own problems, America has to stay America, unless your cool with the "eastern way of life"You should post more often here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 1. Give the federal government immediate veto-power over state/local officials and legislations (look at the clusterfuck that is arizone/alabama's racist laws and all the shitty local zoning laws).2. Get rid of popular referendums (people should learn from the lessons of california)3. Get rid of the electoral colleges (self-evident why that is disproportionally benefited rural states) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Maith,You would have to amend the freedom of speech to accomplish that.I don't think so. Sure, there's a balance, like with all constitutional interpretation, but declaring a six week election campaign and a limit on advertisements to during that period would be possible. I'm sure there would be workarounds of grassroots organizations supporting individual issues, and that would be fine, but exhorting people to Vote Obama/Romney can wait until the end of September. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.