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
Or hijinks.
One of the two.
ninja'd, but I've got a source so there.
My favorite suggestion was to have them live on a capped stipend equal to the median wage. Less petty than the poverty thing, and gives a direct incentive to undo business bullshit.
edited 27th Jan '13 9:23:35 PM by Pykrete
While there might not be a way for everyone to vote on a national law, there IS a legal way for the entire country to vote on an amendment to the Constitution. It is just EXTREMELY hard to do and has only been done once in our history.
It was to repeal Prohibition.
Guess we really wanted our alcohol.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!![]()
Yup. The 18th Amendment to the US Constitution:
It was repealed with the 21st Amendment, which returned power to the states:
edited 28th Jan '13 2:36:27 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiRE: Congressional pay. The Constitution requires that members of Congress receive a salary. It also prohibits changes in salary until after the next election. But that doesn't apply to cost-of-living increases.
I would like for a Congressman who opposes health care reform to be interviewed and explain why he should have taxpayer-funded health care for life, but his average voter should't.
Also, I think all election campaigns should be publicly-funded. Every candidate who gets on the ballot gets a budget, and that's what he gets to get the message out.
And there is no national initiative or referendum provision. The Constitution can be amended by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states, or conventions in 3/4 of the states.
edited 28th Jan '13 7:54:31 AM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.And they would then grind to a halt, reducing the money received on both sides.
Because face it, people are less likely to contribute if it's not to give themselves a political advantage...
edited 28th Jan '13 8:20:09 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."I believe that all elections should be publicly funded. You get a certain number of signatures to get on the primary ballot, and then all your advertising and campaigning is paid for at negotiated rates out of the primary pool. Then the candidates get an equal share of the pool of funds for the general election.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"While it's true that "Ph.D." stands for "Doctor of Philosophy" and some sciences refer to themselves as philosophies, it's a bit disingenuous to equate noodling over the meaning of existence to digging around in existence and figuring out how it works.
edited 28th Jan '13 9:15:12 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I pretty much say that everyone who thinks that philosophy has more common with religion than science has never done philosophy :P Though it does have common with both in the way, but not really "religion" in "Christianity" sense since Christianity is rather bad example of religion anyway.(as in, Christianity isn't good example since other religions can be rather radically different from it)
Also, it isn't 'just' pondering about meaning of life, its also pondering about metaphysics like whether concepts exist without object(or however you say that "Concept of roundness exists without world having any round objects" theory which name I don't remember) and substance and stuff :p Also pondering about ethics and development of society and stuff.
Better way to explain it would be saying that philosophy studies (mostly) abstract concepts that you have no clear cut answer for :P And really, I'd like to do more explaining about it, but philosophy is based heavily on logic and arguments that calling it religion makes more sense when referring to eastern philosophies which almost everyone of them has religion version of them.(only eastern philosophy thing without religion that I can think of is Zen. Also, Confucianism(stupid English name of Kunfutze) isn't really religion at all, its ethics code thing. Only reason it is referred to religion is that it contains ancestor respect part of eastern cultures and Confucious/Kunfutze wasn't even religious person)
Also, its bit of derail to talk about it here ^^; So umm, is someone seriously considering making philosophy same thing as religion law wise in USA? That wouldn't really make sense since philosophies don't have rules that you have to live by stuff and such.
edited 28th Jan '13 9:59:05 AM by SpookyMask
@funding the elections: The problem is that just about everyone hates one of the parties and wants to make sure that their money goes to their party. How many people would donate to a fair/ballanced fund when they know that their money could be used to help the other party's canidate?
Face it, people want their party to win more than they want fair elections. That would have to change if we wanted to reform that aspect of govornment.
I could probably come up with other ways to make that initial pool of money (a MINIMAL increase in taxes), but there is just no political or public will to truely change it.
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!Study: Palin paid $15.85 per word at Fox
Secret Service dog falls to death at Biden event
Clinton backers launch ‘Ready for Hillary’ super-PAC in hopes of 2016 campaign
Bipartisan Senate group reaches immigration deal
Representative Lamar Smith pans Senate immigration proposal as 'amnesty'
Senator Reid vows to do 'everything in my power' to pass immigration reform
edited 28th Jan '13 2:47:59 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Aside of the practicality of a politician actually voting to approve of that, that's a bit much to ask of anyone, particularly as they quite often go into other fields of employment after quitting politics, when they don't flat out retire. I mean, I think it's ridiculous the sort of bubble these guys live in, but I'm not going to begrudge someone the right to enjoy or buy a fancy house or car if that's what they want to do with their own money. I'm not asking any representative to deny themselves nice things. I'm asking them to consider the fact that it's nearly impossible for others to get those nice things.