Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
The main problem with the line item veto, which I accept if not completely agree with, is that it undermines Congress' Constitutional power to write the laws. Letting the President selectively cut out pieces of legislation means that what he signs is no longer what Congress passed.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Definitely, though, as President, Obama has more power to set the narrative. But then again, he's tried doing so a handful of times. I'd re-elect em.
Yes, that's the problem with the line item veto. Let's suppose Congress passed a reform bill adding restrictions to the legislative and executive branches:
- Members of Congress are now forbidden to place sugar in their morning tea.
- The President is henceforth never to bathe with a rubber duckie, on pain of death.
Suddenly the President line-item vetoes the restriction on him, and oops, the silly reform bill is gutted.
I;m totally fine with the line item veto. Congress has far too much power as it is.
Gingrich is still selling books
.
I've been trying to let stuff like this slide, but I want to ask—who would you have writing the laws?
edited 10th Dec '11 5:44:32 PM by feotakahari
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something AwfulThe problem isn't Congress, and never has been. The problem is the underlying party system, which consolidates political power and makes for easy gridlocks.
I am now known as Flyboy.^ And you won't break that system by advocating more parties just for the sake of more parties. Proportional voting won't break it.
Marketing (and Politics) 101: If a brand has widespread appeal to many segments of the population it will succeed better as a whole than stuff that caters more to specific segments. Meaning trying to split off liberal groups like a Green Party catering to specific causes will only alienate the Democrats and the Greens/other groups provided the Republicans aren't fractured either.
edited 10th Dec '11 5:58:49 PM by MajorTom
Except the Republicans may very well fracture if we had things like proportional representation, as people may start going to the Libertarian Party to avoid the fundies and social authoritarians, not to mention the neoconservatives.
So, I doubt it would only be the liberals who split.
I am now known as Flyboy.That's an incredibly conditional and unlikely if. Republican voters (and campaign folks) ain't dummies unlike what the media and activist groups like to portray them as. They know that broad appeal to the segments aligned with their side wins elections regardless if the voting system is by proportion or by simple majority voting.
In short, your side loses if you split the ticket. We Libertarians hate the fundies and the social authoritarians but they are useful in one regard: assuring that statist liberals who want to reach out and put intrusive government into every aspect of people's lives (well intentioned or otherwise) do not get to pass their agenda.
edited 10th Dec '11 6:16:36 PM by MajorTom
I like how the media's actually doing its job when it comes to the candidates. Hell, Brett Baer of Fox News bewildered Romney during an interview, at one point.
And yet, there's the equally bipartisan SOPA and Defense Authorization Act, both of whom are about to be signed into law.
edited 10th Dec '11 6:37:00 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.@Tom,
The Tea Party are the ones who said they'd loosen their stance against taxes if the liberals reversed their position on allowing women and gays in the military.
Preposterous, I say.
I am now known as Flyboy.^^ Citation Needed. And don't pull up some Daily Kos or Moveon.org activist shit. It better be a credible news link.
^ Frankly, I'm not quite sure why Rove chose Romney. (My best guess is year old predictions saying Romney was one of the few contenders estimated to possibly beat Obama.)
edited 10th Dec '11 6:42:29 PM by MajorTom
Obama's just as establishment as Rove and Romney. The Republican Party chose Romney; the Republican voters chose Gingrich. If Romney wins the nomination, it'll prove, even to right-wingers, that this democracy only applies to the rich. If Gingrich wins, it'll prove that there's some democracy left in this inherently corrupt system.
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.

Wow, that has the potential both for great good and for great stupidity.