US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

Yep, they put the poison pills inside delicious little pancakes for countries to swallow, remember the megaupload fiasco and how several countries have been coerced to fulfill the riaa and mpaa wishes. Insisting in making their laws international las has been an ongoing effort since wwII.

Because Obama is an employee of RIAA/MPAA What US law, exactly, has been made into "international law"? which btw is also the most pointless and unenforceable bunch of laws ever.

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

This line of thought makes me kind of sad. Europe as a whole has a longer story than the USA, why do they still training wheels to ride their bicycle (military)? Having a joint EU military force would not preclude military operations with the USA, Canada, Japan and other allies, but after the collapse of the USSR I see no further reason for NATOs existence. The sad truth is that the european union is not an union, is an association, unlike the USA, rusia, china or brazil (to mention examples of similar size).

Pray tell, which European military needs "training wheels"? Do you know their capabilities? Have you worked with any of them? I have, let's just say there are some badass mofos there.

TBH, this entire paragraph tells me you don't really have a grasp on what the EU is. Europe, and the EU, is not a singular sovereign state, it has never been, nor is it intended to be. It was created to prevent Europe from descending into yet another world war after falling into TWO of them in less than 40 years, by increasing the economic ties between the member nations.

Sounds like you want the European nations to cede their sovereignty to the EU, not going to happen.

[Vexx]

Part of me says, "set it on fire" but I do worry about all the individual pain to be inflicted on the vulnerable.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Because Obama is an employee of RIAA/MPAA What US law, exactly, has been made into "international law"?

Remember when Nixon declared some narcotics were now illegal drugs? Do tell me how well has that worked overall.

Pray tell, which European military needs "training wheels"? Do you know their capabilities? Have you worked with any of them? I have, let's just say there are some badass mofos there.

I am not saying they do not have some pretty nice hardware and very profesional personnel, but do tell me how strong the USA military would be if we divide them into division tied to every state and controlled by each governor.

Sounds like you want the European nations to cede their sovereignty to the EU, not going to happen.

I have heard that "sovereignty" speech in my own country so many times my ears could bleed, here and there it is just an excuse for politicians to keep their power cliques instead of doing the greater good. Britain, France, Germany, Spain, etc. will not loose their national identities if their economies, their laws and their governments merge, they have their own language, culture and history. But raising the sovereignty flag is just an excuse to keep living in the 20th century.

[monir]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The problem will be this little issue, when it comes to the Democratic and Republican parties:
Barack Obama---61910594
Mitt Romney----58654765

Over 58 million people voted for Romney whle nearly 62 million voted for Obama. While that is a about a 4 millions person difference, there is still a large number of people that vote Republican. They cannot all be stupid. They have there reasons aside from what would be classed as the silly ones.

I'll throw in my support to Ithekro's observation and say I also would like to think we aren't all stupid. I do think it's still possible to reshape GOP by curtailing its current path to irrelevancy with no more than some minor tweaking. I don't think everyone that votes Republican are foolish. What making this party rather questionable are certain fundamental issues that are being dictated by a very handful of people while others are going along with it either because they don't have much opinion as those issues don't affect them, or they strongly support a certain issue which allows them to look past these issues that is beneficial to a very handful of people. What's dangerous about it is that those handful of people may be disguising the larger picture which have their self interest in mind in the long run while everyone else (including the majority of the Republican party) loses out. While the Democratic party may not have been outstanding in those regards either, their records still have been better than the Republican party when in power.

That said, now that the Democrats are in the thick of things, everyone better brace yourself if you like your internet as it is now...... It's just a matter of time before we see more of those SOPA/PIPA pops up. It's not a coincidence why DNC's platform-stage (sound, video, lighting etc..) was so much better than the RNC one.

Btw, VCB's chart is so irrelevant when I take into accounts the structure of government, people and culture of those countries listed. Something that may appear good outside looking in, doesn't mean it will work out the same way if roles reversed. There is a lot of reason why Obama became so unpopular in the last two years of his presidency in the US, but the biggest reason was highlighted in his first debate. The guy essentially became ineffective at communicating (even with his own party.) Yeah, I know it's easier for outside-world to judge Obama when they are comparing it to the backdrop of 8 years of Bush, but the thing is, a lot of people were also hoping that things would turn around dramatically when Obama became president. For people outside, it's like how you have that adorable 2 year old nephew/niece that you can't have enough of, but at the end of the day you aren't going to deal with all the crying and fussing and pampering and all the hard work a parent put in to bring up that child..... because you are going to leave.

I personally don't want see a Obama-like in Germany in my life-time because that would seriously tarnish my entire image of the Blitzkrieg-nation I hold dear.

On an entirely different topic, I've been listening to the weekly House of Common questionnaire for England Prime Minister, and this thing is sheer entertainment. People are allowed to heckle in their for heaven's sake... And that Speaker, oh my gosh.... he is such a bad-ass.

P.S. Oh James... can we have a General US Politics thread once the excitement of the election dies down in here? I, for one, don't want to lose all the fun discussing US politics. Yeah, I'm pretty much relying on you to start up the thread since you've been proactive at engaging us with US politics.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

Remember when Nixon declared some narcotics were now illegal drugs? Do tell me how well has that worked overall.

what does that have to do with international law? did I miss the memo where countries started adopting the US's drug policies?

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

I am not saying they do not have some pretty nice hardware and very profesional personnel, but do tell me how strong the USA military would be if we divide them into division tied to every state and controlled by each governor.

What are you trying to get at? what does that have anything to do with your claim that European militaries need training wheels? Would the combined strength of the various nation's military be stronger than a singular one? Of course, it's simple math, but British military serves Britain's security and interest, French military serves France's, and German military Germany's, they don't always align, in case you haven't noticed.

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

I have heard that "sovereignty" speech in my own country so many times my ears could bleed, here and there it is just an excuse for politicians to keep their power cliques instead of doing the greater good. Britain, France, Germany, Spain, etc. will not loose their national identities if their economies, their laws and their governments merge, they have their own language, culture and history. But raising the sovereignty flag is just an excuse to keep living in the 20th century.

....I'm at a loss for words.

Are you seriously saying that the various european countries should cede control of their military to a central EU government, but nothing else would change, and everything will just keep going as if nothing happened? really?

Let me ask you something, who is going to say no to the EU govt if it decide to impose a particular law or policy? or if it decides to enter into a war? What are the member nation going to do? ask nicely?

Seriously, please point out a single country on the planet that has some other governing entity controlling their military. It's ok, I'll wait.

[Iron Maw]

Christ, I can't believe Rove spent 400 million dollars on campaign and lost almost every single race. If Crossroads was a company and Karl the CEO, he would be fired so hard now that would be smoldering crater in his office. Think how much good that money have done.

Away some fascinating back-stage stories on Romney's campaign have been coming out in the last few days:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...Num=1&tag=page

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/the-donald-problem

This just further paints how so out of touch Romney and the rest of GOP were with reality, that they eventually believed in the bullshit they created themselves created. Now that the bubble has crashed, hopefully they can return being a sane party again, if that's even possible.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Solace

I'm aware of the older proposals for healthcare. There is no way you can push through single payer without everyone on board. You're fighting HUGE amounts of money and people swayed more by opinion than facts. You have to make inroads. The public option could have gone in, and liberals were a bit miffed at the idea that all of this stuff was negotiated away to get Republican votes, they didn't vote for it, so you're just going to pass it as is? It's a bad taste. The behind the scenes stories are interesting though. The bill really is a deal made between government and corporations. *cue dramatic music here*

Which is odd considering it wasn't that long ago that the GOP wanted a universal healthcare system.
That's how you know both of them want the same thing, they just play this game of "us verses them" to whip up support from their bases and pay off their handlers/backers.

That's why I said you're big on it, not that you are one. You frequently advocate similar positions to libertarianism, not that you're wrong for it or anything. It's just what you believe.

I see.
Well, let me point out some major differences between Libertarians and myself.
Libertarians don't believe in Jefferson's Government Healthcare system.
Many of them (though not all) don't believe in government police, fire departments, or paramedic services.
Whereas a classical liberal sees those as the exclusive jurisdiction of government.
In fact, many classical liberals see the public-private military industrial complex as offensive, and I'm one of them.
There shouldn't be private companies like McDonald-Douglas, Northrop-Grumman, Colt, Bushmasher, or other military contractors supplying the US government (unless there is an emergency like WWII).
That's not to say there shouldn't be private military producers for the civilian market, just they shouldn't be supplying the government.
However, outside of such an emergency, government shipyards, weapons manufacturers, and armories should be the only suppliers to the Federal and State armed forces.
It used to be that citizens could buy weapons directly from the old Springfield Armory in Springfield Mass. Springfield Armory was a government arsenal.

Unlike some Libertarians, I'm not for minimal government per se, I'm for minimal government intrusion into the lives of the citizenry and in the free market.
I wants limits on what government can tell us we can own, who we can have sex with, what we can do with our bodies, what we can put in our bodies, and what we can do with our property.
Unlike some Libertarians, I believe government should crush monopolies with an iron fist, and it should not allow for the creation of corporations.
Many classical liberals also don't believe in intellectual property rights (which is something some socialists agree with us on).

Classical Liberals are also completely opposed to Objectivism.
Something that many Libertarians embrace.

Healthcare isn't a product, it is needed for basic survival of the species. We could have put it into the Constitution, but since that never happened we got it as this mess. The marriage of corporation and state is the problem, certainly. The insurance industry is a middle man that should never have existed to begin with.

No Solace.
If healthcare were necessary for survival we'd have gone extinct as a species thousands of years ago since it didn't exist in its modern form prior to the 19th century.

If you mean that in the modern world it has become necessary for survival, then so is a house, a car, I'd argue a computer, self-defense, and yes health care.
So in the sense that in our modern society it is something necessary to survive, I would agree.
But not from a historical standpoint.

FDR's "2nd Bill of Rights" should have been passed and ratified, but the corporate influence in the 1930s was already well established thanks to Woodrow Wilson.

Bear in mind I don't have many issues with what the bill is trying to fix, but rather the way it attempts to do so. There just isn't enough political capital yet for a true single payer system, unfortunately.

There's a reason that John Roberts didn't strike it down, and it has more to do with what you posted earlier about insurance companies being the benefactors than anything else.
Thus we again agree, though from different angles of the issue.
I really wanted to see the mandate struck down and the bill reworked into an actual tax and/or expansion of medicare/aid to cover people making less than 30,000/year.
That would have made more sense then forcing people to buy insurance or pay a fine.

BTW if you want to read the entire PPACA, here is the PDF of it.
http://www.workplacefairness.org/lin...-as-passed.pdf

This is a bit of a strawman. You aren't incorrect, but it's not the whole picture. Companies are nothing more than a way to profit from goods and services. They are self serving before all else. It is not in the interest of a company to fix a problem, unless it becomes a matter of life and death for the company. Problems mean opportunities for more profit. Why cure diseases when you can treat them? Why prevent pollution if you can profit from cleaning it up? In a world driven by money, is it any wonder we find it so difficult to solve problems? It takes forcible change, through policy or technology, to make progress. I wish this wasn't true, but that's our history so far.

I don't disagree.
However I'll go one step farther and say that money isn't the problem per se.
Money is just labor in a tangible form that can be traded for poducts or services.
These large companies aren't motivated by profit as much as they're motivated by power.
I'd submit that power is the problem, and/or the lust for it on the part of both corporations and government.
Look at Fox News or MSNBC.
Both lust for the power to influence and manipulate the population into their view of the world. Profit is a factor to keep their businesses going, but the motivation is power.
I say this because governments are just as guilty of colluding with the very mega-corps and monopolies we've both mentioned here. Power corrupts and it is no wonder the US government has become corrupt due to its level of power.

Healthcare is no different.
If you control a person's health, you control that person, and there in lies the danger.

Washington was never a fan of the party system, but it is only natural for them to form when extremes in interests appear. I wouldn't say we had a fantastic government (that's too much rose colored goggles for my taste), in fact it's always been rather dysfunctional and full of special interests - especially rich ones. It's been punctuated by moments of people and leadership giving the finger to the establishment to a large enough degree that things change for the better, but progress happens in fits and starts.

Compared to socialist states, it's divine.

Government is what you make of it. It is the people that determine the government they want, but they have to be invested in that change to see it through. It is not the duopoly and force of government that people should fear, it is themselves. They are the instruments of change. It's the very purpose of a representative democracy - send the guy who advocates what you believe, and fire him if he doesn't represent you satisfactorily.

That's a nice notion, but history has proven that is not the case, Solace.
Stalin proved beyond any doubt that one man can hold so much power as to be able to apply deadly force against a population at his whim. North Korea is the same way right now.
That is why I say government is force, because it intimidates the populus into doing what the leaders want, that's how dictatorships operate.

Big or small, it doesn't matter. Taken to the extreme, the only good government is one that doesn't exist at all. Since that's an unpalatable concept to most, it's up to the people to determine what they want the government to do for them, and to pull it back when they think it goes too far.

Anarchy will degenerate into despotism quickly, survival of the fittest and all that.
Moderate, effective government in the sense of one that serves its people rather than the people serving it, is the most desirable form.

You will always be told, your entire life, how to live. Much of it will be subconscious. You won't even think about it. Do you use a chopstick or a fork? Do you wear jeans or a toga? Do you speak English or French? Even without government, society enforces the norms of the group. True freedom is an illusion. The better question to ask is "within this framework, can we solve problems with more freedom instead of less?". Sometimes the answer is no, and you move on.

Told, yes.
Listen? No.
I'm a rebellious SOB who does what he wants and doesn't listen to outside influence.
I don't watch the TV.
I think the last show I watched on TV was the X-files when it was brand new.
I do watch anime (like all of us here), but probably not as much as most people here.
Mostly I like to read.
As to your questions.

I wear both a toga and jeans, as well as sweatpants.
I use both chopsticks and a fork depending on the meal.
I speak English, some French, and a little Japanese (which I suck at ).
True Freedom is an idea.
Mortimer J. Adler explained it very well in his book "The Idea of Freedom."

Remember, even the Founding Fathers had slaves. Women and minorities couldn't vote, or even own property. Workers had no rights. For much of history, people just thought this was the way things were, and that they had no reason to change, or that it couldn't change. It's amazing to think back on all the change in the last 236 years, really.

Some of the founders worked very hard to end slavery.
Jefferson being one of the most outspoken.
Breaking the bonds of mercantilsm was certainly a difficult task, but things aren't better now.
We're now at the mercy of corporations.
Workers' rights are a joke if you can't even start a business or compete with the monopolies.
Being your own business owner is vastly superior to being a worker, which is why Marx was full of shit in Das Kapital.
As you know, I hate Marx. The dumbassitude he perpetuated on the world is still conning people into believing it and corporatism has benefited on a level that idiot never dreamed possible.
I'd like to go back in a Tardis and beat the snot out of him with a copy of R.J. Rummel's book in one hand and a copy of David Korten's book in the other.
I hope Lenin is kicking his ass in some other dimension right now.

So while the "good ol days" weren't always good, the "progress" over the last 236 years has brought with it a whole new slew of problems.

Not quite. The decision was to determine if the classification of the mandate as a tax was constitutional under the commerce clause. They said yes. It's a tax, according to the highest court of law.

Doesn't change how it functions.

I'd rather it just be "Medicare for all"; but I also recognize the complex issues of the matter.

As do I, but you're right, Medicare for all under the poverty line, would be far better than what was passed into law.

The men in black show up. They don't ask questions.

See, that's the oppressive force of government I'm talking about.
In proper constitutional republic, the gestapo isn't even supposed to exist, let alone show up at your door.

But it is just a piece of paper. What you're clinging to are the ideals of the paper, the symbolism, and those change. Contracts only hold meaning when everyone agrees with them. We all agree on "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"....but the details, not so much.

No one is clinging to anything.
A contract is an agreement between two parties.
The constitution is an agreement between the people of the states and the federal government.
If political parties abuse their positions of federal power and seek to impose their agenda on states that don't want it, then they've violated the constitution.
The constitution protects minority rights (all minorities now with the amendments) in opposition to the whim of the collective.
That's why it matters so much, Solace.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by kyp275

what does that have to do with international law? did I miss the memo where countries started adopting the US's drug policies?

Indeed.

What are you trying to get at? what does that have anything to do with your claim that European militaries need training wheels? Would the combined strength of the various nation's military be stronger than a singular one? Of course, it's simple math, but British military serves Britain's security and interest, French military serves France's, and German military Germany's, they don't always align, in case you haven't noticed.

Weren't you the one stating just a hours ago that the NATO served to prevent another european war? The only way to truly prevent another one if there is only one military, otherwise down there is the possibility that not only they do not align, but that they are in opposite directions and in a collision course. It is simple math, there is a higher probability of a border conflict that of Russia coming to invade the whole continent.

Let me ask you something, who is going to say no to the EU govt if it decide to impose a particular law or policy? or if it decides to enter into a war? What are the member nation going to do? ask nicely?

How is that different from a province preventing a federal law or policy of being enacted? do you think the french provinces with a border with germany were very happy when WWI broke out, was there something they could do to prevent it? Did the rest of the provinces even asked them nicely?

Seriously, please point out a single country on the planet that has some other governing entity controlling their military. It's ok, I'll wait.

That is the problem, you still have a nationalist mentality that prevents you from seeing the bigger picture, the true potential of the EU is not being attained because of that,do you think that China is an homogeneous country with only one language or one culture? or are you going to tell me the USA is homogeneous, has one official language? or the you even believe that Mexico has an homogeneous culture, ethnicity and language and therefore the military should be divided? Stop drinking the sovereignty kool-aid and you might start seeing the bigger picture.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

Weren't you the one stating just a hours ago that the NATO served to prevent another european war? The only way to truly prevent another one if there is only one military, otherwise down there is the possibility that not only they do not align, but that they are in opposite directions and in a collision course. It is simple math, there is a higher probability of a border conflict that of Russia coming to invade the whole continent.

No. You're the one that brought up NATO, I was just explaining the nature of the EU, which is an economic initiative aimed at increasing the economic ties between the various european nations, thus decrease the chance that it'll spiral into yet another world war.

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

How is that different from a province preventing a federal law or policy of being enacted? do you think the french provinces with a border with germany were very happy when WWI broke out, was there something they could do to prevent it? Did the rest of the provinces even asked them nicely?

For one thing, Britain, France, Germany are their own nation, they are not a province of some other governing entity.

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

That is the problem, you still have a nationalist mentality that prevents you from seeing the bigger picture, the true potential of the EU is not being attained because of that,do you think that China is an homogeneous country with only one language or one culture? or are you going to tell me the USA is homogeneous, has one official language? or the you even believe that Mexico has an homogeneous culture, ethnicity and language and therefore the military should be divided? Stop drinking the sovereignty kool-aid and you might start seeing the bigger picture.

No, I have a realistic view of the "big picture", you on the other hand are talking about the stuff of pipe dreams here. There are so many strawman in your arguments I don't know where to start. I mean, seriously, you're literally trying to equate Britain, France, and other European nations that have existed as independent entities for hundreds of years or longer as nothing more than mere provincial governments. I can't even begin poke holes in your statement since it's already riddled with so many. There is indeed someone drinking the kool-aid here, but it's certainly not me.

If you want to debate the merits of a single-world government, we can do that (thought frankly it would be more appropriate in an alternate history or sci-fi thread, as the chance of that happening is probably about the same as being invaded by aliens), but you'd have to come back down to Earth first.

[Ithekro]

Technically the United States of America is a collection of 50 sovereign states (countries), that for a century or so had their own militaries (the state militia) until they were all combined into the National Guard in the 20th century. The Civil War was a collection of State armies, volunteers, drafted soldiers, as well as the national Army. On both sides.

Speaking of Civil War and secession...those 15 states actually cannot break away from the United State, even with a write in vote. It is considered illegal under the Constitution. Texas v. White (1869) holds that once a state enter the Union, it becomes part of a indissoluble political body that is the United States of America.

"The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States" ~Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase

Which to me reads that unless all the states agree that a state can leave (one assumed via a vote of some kind, be it popular, or Congressional) that the state may not leave the Union. It would be about the reverse of the statehood application as currently enacted. Basically the what Puerto Rico was doing, save that they would not have the statehood option onthe ballot. Instead it would be a vote for independance. If the majority of the State says they should leave, they then have to go though Congress to ask permission to leave, than have the President sign it, releasing them from the United States of America. (because independance was an option for Puerto Rico and the President said he would follow the will of the Puerto Ricans on their referendum. But they picked statehood, so unless something stalls it in Congress or their is a legal battle over the referendum, We will have a 51st state.

Not so likely we will have a mass reduction in the number of states, given how realities are these days. Unless the President or Congress do something vile enough to warrent a real rebellion, the states will hold together.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

Just for starters the fiscal cliff is dometic policy and is what is on the mind of all the international stock exchanges this week (and maybe the whole month, rest of this year, etc).

You may not have noticed, but most people only care about the stock market when it seriously messes up. The DOW losing 5 points doesn't quite inflame passions the way death, destruction and war does. I'm not saying no one cares, but the man on the street (who doesn't read financial newspapers ) can take it or leave it. I don't think I've met many Irish people who really care what way the fiscal cliff is resolved, because we have little skin in the game regarding taxes.

If you get a fiasco similar to the debt ceiling stuff, more people might start paying attention. That hasn't borne out yet.

I would say instead that they had after wwII a very successful diplomacy effort for the rest of the XX century.

Generally yes, there were a few bad spots.

Though in 2000, with the cold war long over, many countries were fairly enamored of the USA. George Bush squandered a lot of good will.

Yep, they put the poison pills inside delicious little pancakes for countries to swallow, remember the megaupload fiasco and how several countries have been coerced to fulfill the riaa and mpaa wishes. Insisting in making their laws international las has been an ongoing effort since wwII.

I think you'll find that there are equivalents of the MPAA and RIAA around the world with just as much influence. America doesn't control the world as much as you think...

This line of thought makes me kind of sad. Europe as a whole has a longer story than the USA, why do they still training wheels to ride their bicycle (military)?

Europeans have good reason to not be enthusiastic for military spending. Any American cities turn out like this?

Having a joint EU military force would not preclude military operations with the USA, Canada, Japan and other allies, but after the collapse of the USSR I see no further reason for NATOs existence.

I disagree, the Alliance between the European and USA is extremely important for all involved. Members on both sides of the Atlantic are more similar then different, and it means that western democracy stands together with a strong united front. Europe and America are stronger together then they are apart. Ideally an equivalent organization is needed for the Pacific.

The sad truth is that the european union is not an union, is an association, unlike the USA, rusia, china or brazil (to mention examples of similar size).

Europe's level of integration is generally fine(debt crisis aside). Don't forget, in the US, Russia, China and Brazil everyone generally speaks the same language, and if they don't, they're only kept in their federations by tyrannical central government control (Russia and China).

Originally Posted by kyp275

Pray tell, which European military needs "training wheels"? Do you know their capabilities? Have you worked with any of them? I have, let's just say there are some badass mofos there.

TBH, this entire paragraph tells me you don't really have a grasp on what the EU is. Europe, and the EU, is not a singular sovereign state, it has never been, nor is it intended to be. It was created to prevent Europe from descending into yet another world war after falling into TWO of them in less than 40 years, by increasing the economic ties between the member nations.

Sounds like you want the European nations to cede their sovereignty to the EU, not going to happen.

Exactly. Also, it's not a case that Europe underspends on military, but that the US overspends. The EU has probably done a lot more to expand western influence in the last 20 years then America, through it's expansion into Eastern Europe. I think Europe could do the same in the Middle East, not necessarily offering EU membership, but some kind of associated status. You also have many other blocs popping up seeking to copy the European model (ASEAN, USAN)

Economically, the EU is almost integrated enough, with movement and work being easy enough that most of the national borders may as well not exist for day to day life. In military matters, Europe doesn't need a joint force. Most of the powerful states are already part of the unified command structure of NATO.

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

Remember when Nixon declared some narcotics were now illegal drugs? Do tell me how well has that worked overall.

He made them illegal drugs in the US, not outside of it. America doesn't control how other countries define drug policy. The same forces that pushed for the US to crack down on narcotics are what caused European states to do the same.

I am not saying they do not have some pretty nice hardware and very profesional personnel, but do tell me how strong the USA military would be if we divide them into division tied to every state and controlled by each governor.

America is a different country. But I'd argue that it wouldn't be so different, so long as there was a unified command structure.

I have heard that "sovereignty" speech in my own country so many times my ears could bleed, here and there it is just an excuse for politicians to keep their power cliques instead of doing the greater good. Britain, France, Germany, Spain, etc. will not loose their national identities if their economies, their laws and their governments merge, they have their own language, culture and history. But raising the sovereignty flag is just an excuse to keep living in the 20th century.

Disagree, I'd say national governments are much more responsive towards the needs of their citizens then distant federal governments. The principal of self determination is one which is very important.

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

Weren't you the one stating just a hours ago that the NATO served to prevent another european war? The only way to truly prevent another one if there is only one military, otherwise down there is the possibility that not only they do not align, but that they are in opposite directions and in a collision course. It is simple math, there is a higher probability of a border conflict that of Russia coming to invade the whole continent.

That's the EU, not NATO. NATO was formed to defend against the Warsaw pact, not to prevent another European war.

European states differ on more minor conflicts, but where it counts (defending against Russia) you'll find Europe quite unified.

How is that different from a province preventing a federal law or policy of being enacted? do you think the french provinces with a border with germany were very happy when WWI broke out, was there something they could do to prevent it? Did the rest of the provinces even asked them nicely?

They probably were quite happy, as they were about to "liberate" their brothers in Alsace Lorraine. Pre World War 1 Europe was a messed up Jingoistic place. It's hard to imagine, but Post WW1 Europe was even worse.

That is the problem, you still have a nationalist mentality that prevents you from seeing the bigger picture, the true potential of the EU is not being attained because of that,do you think that China is an homogeneous country with only one language or one culture? or are you going to tell me the USA is homogeneous, has one official language? or the you even believe that Mexico has an homogeneous culture, ethnicity and language and therefore the military should be divided? Stop drinking the sovereignty kool-aid and you might start seeing the bigger picture.

The EU contains many of the most prosperous nations in the world, and actively works to bring up the standards of it's lesser developed parts. I think there are parts where a bit more centralization is needed, but I do not wish for an America style federal state. For one thing, that would mean Ireland could no longer maintain it's Neutrality. For another, Ireland experienced many problems because it was controlled from London. I find it difficult to imagine that control from Brussels, Paris or Berlin would be any different. A central government would have little concern for the welfare of it's smaller regions.

In terms of US politics, I would see nothing wrong with loosening the Union. If Texans disagree with New Yorkers, then let the Texas have different laws on the matter then New York.

[Jinto]

@kyp275,

The EU was meant to provide a foundation for economic cooperation between european nations before the Euro was introduced in the Euro-nations.

Singular countries could be considered fully independent before the introduction of the Euro. Whatever that means, because when you want to live with your neighbours, you will never be fully independent (nor is it a bad thing to find solutions that are internationally accepted - at least from most like minded neighbours).

The Euro was one step to decrease the independence, since now fiscal policies are felt everywhere in Euro-nations. As you can currently see, the northern and southern nations contradict in their policies... and now they have to find a consensus, because the Euro took them the ability to this for their own. We as nations lost independence, but we gained the need for consistent policies.

Another nation independence decreasing factor is the recent introduction of the EU-treaties. It doesn't seem like much, but these two things are now among the major competitors to e.g. Germany's basic law (and certainly for other nation's constitutions too). For example the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany usually meant to defend Germany's basic law is very eager to find loopholes in the interpretation to make it not clash with EU-law.
In my oppinion this is a major sign for giving up national independence (and I doubt Germany is the only country in this process).

So, yeah technically, the EU (except Great Britain) nowadays is meant to de-nationalize EU-nations. If that is a good or bad thing, is stuff for another debate.

@ogon_bat,

The EU-nations are not as dependent as you think yet. But thats not really the issue here, its just a strawman - you clearly are against the RIAA/MPAA and the attempts to make supranational law. US law is not applicaple to other nations. The only thing that makes other nations follow US law is powerful US-embargos.

If that is what really irks you, you should concentrate the debate on it.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Speaking of Civil War and secession...those 15 states actually cannot break away from the United State, even with a write in vote. It is considered illegal under the Constitution.

They're trying to break away from the country. They don't give a damn about whether it's legal or not.

[ganbaru]

U.S. Congress created this cliff and may now plunge off it
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8AA02620121111

[Mr. DJ]

Letter to a future Republican Strategist regarding white people

awesome read and if the link doesn't work for some odd reason click teh sp0iler :3

Spoiler for Long letter is long:

Letter to a future Republican strategist regarding white people

To whom it may concern regarding the United States federal elections of 2014, 2016 and beyond:

Allow me to introduce myself to you, the existing (or aspiring!) strategist for the Republican Party. My name is Eric Arnold Garland and I am a White Man. Boy, am I ever – you need sunglasses just to look at my photo!

If I read the news correctly, I fit a profile that is of extreme importance to the GOP, as I embody the archetype that fits your narrative of Real Americans. Just how much should my profile interest you? Are you sitting down?

My family lineage goes back to the MAYFLOWER, BOAT ONE!!! (Garland family of New England-> John Adams -> Howard Alden -> Plymouth colony ->KINGS OF MUTHAF***IN’ ENGLAND)
I am a heterosexual, married to the super Caucasian mother of my two beautiful children who are, inexplicably, EVEN WHITER THAN I AM.
I am college educated (Master’s degree!) and affluent.
I am a job creator and small businessman.
We pay a lot of taxes! Every year!
I grew up in a rural area and despise laziness!
Having started my own business, I have complained at length about the insanity of federal, state and local bureaucracy – and its deleterious impact on the innovative small businessman.
I currently live in the suburbs in a historically Red state.

HOLY WHITE PEOPLE, BATMAN!!! Wow, you’re thinking – this is not some Mexirican in the Sun Belt we need to attract via harsh anti-Castro policies or appeals to “valores de familia” - this is the BREAD AND BUTTER OF THE GRAND OLD PARTY, a Mayflower-descended small business owner, burdened by taxation, looking out for his beautiful White family in the suburbs of a city (St Louis) surrounded by racial tension and urban blight!

How can I put this gently? My wife and I are not sensitive to your messaging, nor did we vote for the candidates you proposed for us this past Tuesday.

B-b-but, what? Aren’t we investors, hard-workin’ white folk surrounded by same in a manicured cul-de-sac, scared by a vision of economic collapse amidst the takers in a land of fewer givers? Didn’t Mitt Romney’s strong family, wealth, leadership history and chiseled chin give us the uncontrollable urge to high-five him into the White House?

No.

May I explain why not, purely for your education, such that you might be interested in winning an election on the national level at some point in the future? It bears pointing out that I should be your Low Hanging Fruit, the easy vote to get as opposed to, say, African-Americans, Latinos, or Asians – and you’re not even speaking well to me. The reasons why ought to concern you deeply.

As a Card-Carrying White Male I love expressing my opinion irrespective of whether people care to hear it, so let’s get started.

>>>>>>

Science - One of the reasons my family is affluent is that my wife and I have a collective fifteen years of university education between us. I have a Masters degree in Science and Technology Policy, and my wife is a physician who holds degrees in medicine as well as cell and molecular biology. We are really quite unimpressed with Congressional representatives such as Todd Akin and Paul Broun who actually serve on the House science committee and who believe, respectively, that rape does not cause pregnancy and that evolution and astrophysics are lies straight from Satan’s butt cheeks. These are, sadly, only two of innumerable assaults that the Republican Party has made against hard science – with nothing to say of logic in general. Please understand the unbearable tension this might create between us and your candidates.

Climate - Within just the past 18 months the following events have come to our attention: a record-breaking drought that sent temperatures over 100 degrees for weeks, killing half the corn in the Midwest and half the TREES on our suburban property – AND – a hurricane that drowned not New Orleans or Tampa or North Carolina but my native state of VERMONT. As an encore, a second hurricane drowned lower Manhattan, New Jersey and Long Island. The shouted views of decrepit mental fossil Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma that this is a fraud perpetrated on the American people by evil, conspiring climate scientists is belied by such events and is looking irresponsible to even the most skeptical.

Healthcare - My wife and I are quite familiar with America’s healthcare system due to our professions, and having lived abroad extensively, also very aware of comparable systems. Your party’s insistence on declaring the private U.S. healthcare system “the best in the world” fails nearly every factual measure available to any curious mind. We watch our country piss away 60% more expenditures than the next most expensive system (Switzerland) for health outcomes that rival former Soviet bloc nations. On a personal scale, my wife watches poor WORKING people show up in emergency rooms with fourth-stage cancer because they were unable to afford primary care visits. I have watched countless small businesses unable to attract talented workers because of the outrageous and climbing cost of private insurance. And I watch European and Asian businesses outpace American companies because they can attract that talent without asking people to risk bankruptcy and death. That you think this state of affairs is somehow preferable to “Obamacare,” which you compared ludicrously to Trotskyite Russian communism, is a sign of deficient minds unfit to guide health policy in America.

War - Nations do have to go to war sometimes, but that Iraq thing was pretty bad, to put it mildly. Somebody should have been, I dunno – FIRED for bad performance. Aren’t you the party of good corporate managers or something? This topic could get 10,000 words on its own. Let’s just leave it at: You guys suck at running wars.

Deficits and debt - Whenever the GOP is out of power, it immediately appeals to the imagination of voters who remember the Lyndon Baines Johnson (!) administration and claim that the Republican alternative is the party of “cutting spending” and “reducing the deficit.” The only problem with your claim is that Republican governments throughout my entire 38 year life (Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43) have failed to cut spending and deficit and debt EVEN ONCE. I hope you understand that your credibility suffers every time you promise one thing for three decades and do the EXACT OPPOSITE. Egads – if you actually were the party of fiscal responsibility – you might win our votes despite your 13th century view of science!

Gay marriage - As the child of Baby Boomers who got divorced (as was the fashion!) in the 80s and 90s, and for whom 50% of my friends had their homes broken by divorce in the critical years before age 18, I sure am unsympathetic to your caterwauling bullshit that “gays will destroy the sanctity of marriage.” Perhaps if everyone in your generation didn’t take the period of 1978 – 1995 to start surreptitiously banging their neighbors and coworkers, only to abandon their kids because “they just weren’t happy,” I would take your defense of marriage more seriously. The institution of Middle Class suburban marriage was broken by the generation of aging white Baby Boomers who populate what is left of the Republican Party, so your defense is wrongheaded and disingenuous. And moreover, as someone who got called “faggot” about 127 times a day from the years 1985 through 1991 – guess what – I grew up to be pretty good friends with actual homosexuals, whose sexual orientation is usually the least significant thing about them. The Republican perseveration on homosexuals as any sort of threat consigns them to history’s trough of intellectual pig dung.

>>>>>>

That’s quite enough for one essay, wouldn’t you say? Now, given my initial description as a wealthy, hard-working, job creating, heterosexual, married suburban White Male – doesn’t your current platform look woefully insufficient to the task of gaining my vote? This doesn’t even get into the demographic tensions that show that people of my exact profile are going away permanently in America. You can’t even win on what you perceive to be “home field advantage.”

Uh oh, wait, I can already hear you through the web browser, dismissing all of my above points because THAT GUY WAS NEVER GONNA BE A REPUBLICAN ANYHOW, CUZ HE’S A LIBRUL WHO HATES AMERICA AND…

All right, let’s do one last point:

Meanness- Your party is really mean, mocking and demonizing everyone who does not follow you into the pits of hell. You constantly imply – as Mitt Romney did in his “47% speech” – that anybody who disagrees with you does so not by logic or moral conviction, but because they are shiftless, lazy parasites who want “free stuff” from “traditional Americans.” Wow, you guys managed to follow up a stunning electoral defeat with insulting the very people you wish to attract for a majority in the political system! Brilliant! You are losing elections because being angry and defensive and just-plain-mean is more important than being smart and winning elections – and thus you deserve everything happening to you.

If you want to know exactly where you failed in 2012, and will continue to fail, here it is. Look you assholes, I’m as traditional an American as it gets, and I do not “want free stuff.” I am a taxpayer, and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. I got my first job – dragging bags of cow manure, horse feed and fertilizer around a farm store – when I was 12. I started my first company when I was 28. I have followed the vast majority of the rules set out for middle class white males (for good and for ill.) And if it weren’t bad enough that your policy positions are a complete clusterfuck for the reasons I lay out in great detail, you manage to follow up the whole exercise with insulting me, my wife, and my friends of every stripe who didn’t vote for your political party – all of whom are hard-working, taxpaying, job creating, law abiding, great AMERICANS of EVERY COLOR AND CREED.

From this white, Mayflower-descended strategic analyst, allow me to offer you the three strategic options you have before you:

1. You drastically moderate your platform to harmonize with the policy positions I present above

2. You disband the party and reorganize it to reflect current realities

3. You kick and scream and stamp your feet and call me and my friends names – and submit to several decades of one party rule

While I do not want a one-party system, I also don’t particularly care which of these options you choose. If you look carefully at the numbers on Tuesday, nobody else cares, either.

Just a word to the wise from one White Man to (presumably) another.

[Iron Maw]

Originally Posted by GDB

They're trying to break away from the country. They don't give a damn about whether it's legal or not.

It would pretty hilarious if did just so reality of situation would sink and everyone there realizes how screw their are without the Federal Govt. I hope hurricane prone states like Louisiana have fun without that aid.

But that said, the petitions are just from some morons who no idea what they're saying. I doubt the major of populace in those states actually want secede. It's not the first time in recent history crazy people have brought this up IIRC, some guys wanted Texas to break from U.S in 2008. This post election hysteria will probably die down in couple of months when their realize the Obama isn't going to sell the country to China, take their guns or bring about whatever conspiracies they have been lead to believe.

[GundamFan0083]

E.T Williams weighs in on the idea that conservatives are only "angry old White Men."

Perhaps the GOP is changing already, as we see more and more people of color gaining a foothold within it.

http://blackgop.ning.com/

However, that said I don't think that race should matter should it?
To truly be above racism we need to judge a person based on their character and political beliefs, not their race.

[ganbaru]

The GOP's media cocoon
http://www.politico.com/news/stories...704.html?hp=f1

In this reassuring conservative pocket universe, Rasmussen polls are gospel, the Benghazi controversy is worse than Watergate, “Fair and Balanced” isn’t just marketing and Dick Morris is a political seer.

Even this past weekend, days after a convincing Obama win, it wasn’t hard to find fringes of the right who are convinced he did so only because of mass voter fraud and mysteriously missing military ballots. Like a political version of “Thelma and Louise,” some far-right conservatives are in such denial that they’d just as soon keep on driving off the cliff than face up to a reality they’d rather not confront.

[totoum]

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

Indeed.That is the problem, you still have a nationalist mentality that prevents you from seeing the bigger picture, the true potential of the EU is not being attained because of that,do you think that China is an homogeneous country with only one language or one culture? or are you going to tell me the USA is homogeneous, has one official language? or the you even believe that Mexico has an homogeneous culture, ethnicity and language and therefore the military should be divided? Stop drinking the sovereignty kool-aid and you might start seeing the bigger picture.

Sorry if this wasn't your intent but you seem to be implying that european states are homogeneous which just isn't the case.

Just look at the UK,it's the union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,those are four different cultures all with strong national identities,they even compete against each other at sporting events like the soccer world cup.

Belgium is the federal alliance of two different regions that don't speak the same language.

Italy was a collection of different states for centuries until it was unified in the 19th century, but strong regional identity is still present.

Spain has strong regional identities and different languages as well,go to Barcelona and you'll hear plenty of people speak Catalan.

I'll stop there for the examples but my point is that some european countries are hard enough to govern as is (belgium recently stayed 541 days without a formal government for example) that trying to add another layer is just asking for too much.

Just the fact there hasn't been a war between western european countries for nearly 70 years now is already quite an achievement in itself since these are countries that spent centuries fighting each other routinely.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by totoum

Sorry if this wasn't your intent but you seem to be implying that european states are homogeneous which just isn't the case.

I am well aware of the examples (except belgium) at hand but I would suggest that of instead another layer on top of that, simply dissolve and let the top layer be the EU, not the goverment at london, madrid or rome. In the past it has already been done with the roman empire and it worked for centuries, nowadays with the advances in telecommunications it would be even easier.

Just the fact there hasn't been a war between western european countries for nearly 70 years now is already quite an achievement in itself since these are countries that spent centuries fighting each other routinely.

Sadly these 70 years of peace have been the result of the menace that represented the USSR and the warsaw pact (and I am not talking about communism, I am talking about a the clear and present danger of a military invasion if they lowered their guard) than of some real advancement of the human being. It saddens me that people like to think "we have advanced so much since then, we are beyond that kind of barbaric behavior" because that line of thought lends to repeating the errors of the past, we haven't really changed, if anything we have technology which makes easier than ever to kill people with efficiency unheard off 70 years ago.