U.S. Politics Thread

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by aldw

Thing is nobody really wants to pay taxes (even in places like the EU), just that the poor don't have the means to avoid/adjust them for their interests while the rich do.

You missed my point. I was very much suffering from culture shock when I was first told by an American that people shouldn't pay ANY taxes at all. That taxes is stealing and that everyone should be allowed to keep their money. I have never heard of this from any other country's citizens.

Sure, the anti-tax crowd is far from a large proportion of the United States, but the fact that they exist at all is fascinating. Especially since these same people take for granted many services provided by the tax dollars. And their very presence is enough to tint the entire nation, the same way a small number of extremists is able to tint Iraq and make everyone look bad.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

You missed my point. I was very much suffering from culture shock when I was first told by an American that people shouldn't pay ANY taxes at all. That taxes is stealing and that everyone should be allowed to keep their money. I have never heard of this from any other country's citizens.

Sure, the anti-tax crowd is far from a large proportion of the United States, but the fact that they exist at all is fascinating. Especially since these same people take for granted many services provided by the tax dollars. And their very presence is enough to tint the entire nation, the same way a small number of extremists is able to tint Iraq and make everyone look bad.

Tell them to move to communist Russia. I don't remember the Reds paying tax.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

So, yes, the Democrats have to move from the far-left "Progressives" (using US political spectrum here) back to the left-of-center JFK type of Democrat if they don't want to lose in 2016 and beyond.

I'm sorry, what? The Democrats are anything but far left. They're right of center, with a majority of their positions and actions today being far more in line with what the conservative right looked like in the 1980s.

There is no political representation for the far left in this country. The closest would be someone like Sanders or Warren, who are basically what the party should look like if they were center left (Kennedy/FDR types). No one else even comes close to that, even in the third parties, and anyone that tries is either ignored or laughed off the stage.

Far left people are almost immediately labeled as socialists or communists (at best), with all of the negativity that can be mustered against them as possible.

Except in some collegiate and internet circles, no one in America gives a shit about what people on the far left thinks. That's why Republicans have made it a point to use the label against anything liberal as much as possible.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

However, using a strictly US right-left scale, the Democrats only have to "move to the right" in so far as certain hot-button issues are concerned.
One thing that President Bill Clinton has consistently warned Democrats about is to knock off the gun control (at least the gun and magazine bans, those piss everybody off). Americans (right-center-left) are covetous of their firearms, especially military-style weapons. It is our right and attempting to take it away through statutory law rather than going through the proper amendment process is a sure way to lose votes.

I sorta agree with you that trying to enact wholesale bans on guns and ammo is political suicide. But i think most American would agree to some reasonable restrictions (ie, criminal and mentally unstable ppl are ban to own firearms).
This is where i fault both the Democrats and NRA. The Democrats try too much instead of small increment steps and the NRA won't even compromise on small stuff.

Another thing is the whole climate change hypothesis that few Americans believe in as a serious threat, and so are not willing to give up their right to own a car, have cheap fuel, etc over. It would have been far better to package it as pollution control rather than Al Gore's manbearpig.
While many believe in it, few are alarmist about it, so pushing a "green" agenda as the Democrats have, is a sure way to alienate voters.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167879/no...us-threat.aspx

while there some obnoxious "greenies" the real problem is there are too many vested interest in gas/coal/oil economy and these ppl are doing everything they can to block renewable energy. Including buying scientist who are willing to sell out their integrity for money and become mouth pieces for the oil/gas/coal companies. They muddie the waters so much, ordinary Americans who don't have the time to do research on the subject becomes confuse.

The Health Care law is another thing that has Americans up in arms at the Democrats and anything left of the American center (which is the Libertarian party for the most part). The real reason health care is so expensive in the US is due to a lack of tort-reform, Reagan making insurance for-profit, and increased devaluation of the dollar (which is the source of many of our ills here). If the Democrats had moved to correct those problems by enacting tort-reform, ending for-profit insurance, and ending Nixon's moratorium on the gold exchange, they would not be hated for the so called "Obamacare" law.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/ite...ce-and-for-all

If you ask ppl if they like obamacare ppl answer no. But if you ask if they like certain feature in Health Care Reform Act. They usually answer yes. The Democrats need better marketing ppl.

As for tort reform, so if a doctor was drunk and kill his patience, the patients family should only receive something like 250k and the doctor can keep practicing medicine?

Besides which Tort reform alone isn't going to reduce high medical cost by much. You need to tackle the cost of becoming a doctor, cost of drugs, end of life care (when is enough is enough?) and high cost in lab testing and hospitalizion.

So, yes, the Democrats have to move from the far-left "Progressives" (using US political spectrum here) back to the left-of-center JFK type of Democrat if they don't want to lose in 2016 and beyond.

the major reason why the GOP has survive so far is because of gerrymandering house districts. Get rid of gerrymander and the house would majority Dem.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Solace

I'm sorry, what? The Democrats are anything but far left. They're right of center, with a majority of their positions and actions today being far more in line with what the conservative right looked like in the 1980s.

There is no political representation for the far left in this country. The closest would be someone like Sanders or Warren, who are basically what the party should look like if they were center left (Kennedy/FDR types). No one else even comes close to that, even in the third parties, and anyone that tries is either ignored or laughed off the stage.

Far left people are almost immediately labeled as socialists or communists (at best), with all of the negativity that can be mustered against them as possible.

Except in some collegiate and internet circles, no one in America gives a shit about what people on the far left thinks. That's why Republicans have made it a point to use the label against anything liberal as much as possible.

I believe that was my point Solace.
On a world-wide scale, the Democrats are right-wing.

BUT, for the US political scale, the Liberals are left of center, while so called "Progressives" are far-left...and they are for the United States.

A good example of this is how Hillary (a Neo-Liberal) has to meet with "Progressives" in her party to get the Democrat nomination. The "Progressive" camp is to the left of the Neo-Liberals, and for American politics, that IS FAR LEFT.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-c...essive-critics

The United States was founded to not be like Europe or any other country, and that is why it is a right-wing country. It's constitution is a right-wing document that when properly enforced would stop and abolish most, though not all, of the policies and laws imposed by the leftists in the US.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

I sorta agree with you that trying to enact wholesale bans on guns and ammo is political suicide. But i think most American would agree to some reasonable restrictions (ie, criminal and mentally unstable ppl are ban to own firearms).
This is where i fault both the Democrats and NRA. The Democrats try too much instead of small increment steps and the NRA won't even compromise on small stuff.

The problem is that neither party wants to enforce the 2nd amendment the way it is supposed to be enforced.
The Militia Act of 1792 illustrated the intent of the 2nd amendment quite clearly as did the Militia Act of 1903 (Teddy Roosevelt's law).

If you are a citizen ages 18 to 45, you should be REQUIRED to own a military firearm, train with it once a month, get tested by the local CMP board for marksmanship status, and be permanently on call should the local, state, or federal government need you to perform the three missions of the reserve militia (also known as the "unorganized" militia). Those missions are found in article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the US constitution: to uphold the laws of the union, put down insurrections, repel invasions.
There is no problem with mandatory background checks, provided they do not include a registration-license-confiscation scheme. Congress has no power to disarm the people in the US, if they do so they do so in violation of the constitution (which is treason in this country). Congress does have the power to require a citizen to train with their military arms, force them to join the CMP (or similar organization) to meet that obligation, and/or go through a background check to ensure they are abled bodied (meaning that they are not CRIMINALLY INSANE, or convicted of a VIOLENT CRIME).

while there some obnoxious "greenies" the real problem is there are too many vested interest in gas/coal/oil economy and these ppl are doing everything they can to block renewable energy. Including buying scientist who are willing to sell out their integrity for money and become mouth pieces for the oil/gas/coal companies. They muddie the waters so much, ordinary Americans who don't have the time to do research on the subject becomes confuse.

Big Oil controls both parties in the US, and I believe that is why Al Gore and company presented "manbearpig" the way they did. Mother nature itself is not going along with the theory, and is proving it wrong. I see that as a Hegelian problem-reaction-solution scheme on the part of Big Oil.
Their problem was that their product pollutes...and badly, and a viable replacement (hydrogen) can be made to replace petroleum using nuclear power.

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pr...n-economy.html

Thus, it is my pet theory, that making the green/environmental movement look like kooks, was the primary goal of the AGW nonsense. As I've said for years, global warming isn't the problem, the pollution will kill us way before any climatic change takes place due to hydrocarbon products.

Air pollution especially is a problem right now, and it is only getting worse.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...DgES_blog.html

If the Dems were really interested in saving our environment for future generations, they'd push a public message of anti-pollution, not global-cool...er....warm....er climate change....a.k.a. manbearpig.

If you ask ppl if they like obamacare ppl answer no. But if you ask if they like certain feature in Health Care Reform Act. They usually answer yes. The Democrats need better marketing ppl.

Actually marketing has nothing to do with people losing their insurance, seeing prices rise and hospitals laying off people as a result.
The Affordable Health Care act isn't what the GOP says it is: a piece of socialist legislation.
If it were actually socialist, then it would have placed the entire health care industry under government control.
Instead, it makes it mandatory to buy insurance from private insurance companies and adds taxpayer money into the mix for those who cannot afford the premiums.
That is corporatism, since this is essentially a back-door bailout of the private insurance companies in the US.

I already illustrated how the Democrats could have created a health care law in the US that the bulk of Americans would have supported. Additionally, an expansion of both medicare and medicaid under a new law that helped individuals making the poverty line or below would also have been supported, especially if the new law made it clear that it was intended to help those people and not act as a pay-off for the insurance companies.

As for tort reform, so if a doctor was drunk and kill his patience, the patients family should only receive something like 250k and the doctor can keep practicing medicine?

That question is a non sequitur since a doctor who killed someone is likely to be charged with murder/manslaughter, and lose their license.

But in answer to your question. No, the doctor should be charged with 2nd degree murder and sentenced to 15-life. The family shouldn't be getting more than the doctor can pay out of his personal assets. If the doctor doesn't have that kind of money, the family shouldn't get squat. Why should the hospital, insurance companies, or taxpayers have to pay for what your hypothetical doctor did? They shouldn't.

[quote]
Besides which Tort reform alone isn't going to reduce high medical cost by much. You need to tackle the cost of becoming a doctor, cost of drugs, end of life care (when is enough is enough?) and high cost in lab testing and hospitalizion. [/quot]

Actually, all the nay-saying about Tort reform is pure speculation. Just like the ACA, Tort reform would have to be passed and put into practice to see how well (or poorly) it would work. No amount of speculation is going to prove it's efficacy one way or the other.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/mal...-reconsidered/

the major reason why the GOP has survive so far is because of gerrymandering house districts. Get rid of gerrymander and the house would majority Dem.

No, actually that is a left-wing talking point and it is not true.
Cory Gardner and Mike Coffman won here in Colorado due to the fact that the Democrats in this state (Colorado) are Liberals, not Woodrow-Wilson Progressives. Hickenlooper nearly lost to Beauprez because of it, the only reason Beauprez lost (according to Scott Gessler, our secretary of state) is due to the illegal alien vote.
Personally, I talked to many Democrats out here while the 2014 election season was still hot, and most saw no real difference between Hick and Beauprez so they chose the "Evil they knew rather than the Evil that's new." Hickenlooper leans more into the Clinton-Neo-Liberal wing of the Democratic party than the Woodrow-Wilson-Progressive wing, and so he is more palatable to most Coloradans.
From all I read on the various political blogs and websites across the net about the 2014 elections, the simple fact is, if the Dems pushed a JFK style agenda, the GOP would become the "left-wing" and they'd be crushed at the polls in 2016 and beyond.
Americans want us to move to the right, but not in the Neo-Nazis, Redneck, Corporatist style. Instead, they want us to move back towards John Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Abe Lincoln. That isn't conservatism, it's actually real liberalism, which is something that the power elite of the US despise.

If either party ever pushes real liberalism in the US, that party will gain the upper hand.

http://mic.com/articles/4271/today-s...-real-liberals

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I believe that was my point Solace.
On a world-wide scale, the Democrats are right-wing.

BUT, for the US political scale, the Liberals are left of center, while so called "Progressives" are far-left...and they are for the United States.

A good example of this is how Hillary (a Neo-Liberal) has to meet with "Progressives" in her party to get the Democrat nomination. The "Progressive" camp is to the left of the Neo-Liberals, and for American politics, that IS FAR LEFT.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-c...essive-critics

Didn't you also say there's racist elements within Democrats?

whatever left or right they are, they are "politicians" at its core: "fake" to some extent.

The United States was founded to not be like Europe or any other country, and that is why it is a right-wing country. It's constitution is a right-wing document that when properly enforced would stop and abolish most, though not all, of the policies and laws imposed by the leftists in the US.

When the Constitution's written in 1787, I am really not sure if calling it "right wing" is the best description... think of all those right-wingers in 1787 and those of today... A "progressive" back then can be considered a conservative today.

But whatever, to me, it's merely semantics (with such "simplistic" label).

The family shouldn't be getting more than the doctor can pay out of his personal assets. If the doctor doesn't have that kind of money, the family shouldn't get squat. Why should the hospital, insurance companies, or taxpayers have to pay for what your hypothetical doctor did? They shouldn't.

Well, hypothetically speaking, if the family pays the money to the hospital directly, then the hospital has an obligation to provide the service that's up to standard, because it's a profession.

Accidents happen, but it's not ethically allowed within the medical profession to knowingly allow a drunk doctor to operate... that would be on the hospitals' shoulders.

If you bought a faulty ipad, you get a replacement from either the retailer or the manufacturer, not from the drunk worker himself.

I mean, I am talking about the "refund" type of compensation here instead of the punitive damage of tort reform. I am just saying that the hospital could indeed "pay for what the hypothetical doctor did", technically speaking. I remember a case where a nurse accidentally threw a liver into the bin, and the hospitals paid for the cost of the next surgery, not the nurse. And that's before going to court whatsoever.

[aldw]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

You missed my point. I was very much suffering from culture shock when I was first told by an American that people shouldn't pay ANY taxes at all. That taxes is stealing and that everyone should be allowed to keep their money. I have never heard of this from any other country's citizens.

Sure, the anti-tax crowd is far from a large proportion of the United States, but the fact that they exist at all is fascinating. Especially since these same people take for granted many services provided by the tax dollars. And their very presence is enough to tint the entire nation, the same way a small number of extremists is able to tint Iraq and make everyone look bad.

Yeah, those sorts of individualist extremists are at a point that they need to go to a place like Somalia to see what their paradise would actually look like (no taxes, guns everywhere, etc.)

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by aldw

Yeah, those sorts of individualist extremists are at a point that they need to go to a place like Somalia to see what their paradise would actually look like (no taxes, guns everywhere, etc.)

Erm in Somalia you have to be in a gang or security force to own a gun. Wear one in the public and you will have your house razed in no time and your gun confiscated from you.

[NinjaRealist]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Erm in Somalia you have to be in a gang or security force to own a gun. Wear one in the public and you will have your house razed in no time and your gun confiscated from you.

So if I want to carry my gun in Somalia I need to keep it concealed?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by NinjaRealist

So if I want to carry my gun in Somalia I need to keep it concealed?

With the AU around, yes.

[SaintessHeart]

Ohio bartender contemplated poisoning Boehner: court documents

Did I put this in the right place? Or should it be in the Silly news thread?

[AnimeFan188]

RNC on Clinton: 'Even Nixon didn't destroy the tapes':

"Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus blasted Hillary Clinton on
Saturday for wiping her server and permanently deleting all emails.

"Even Nixon didn't destroy the tapes," Priebus said in a statement."

See:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...troy-the-tapes

[Nicaea]

I'm slightly interested in what the White House did with the online petition concerning the infamous 47 "patriots". Did they release some kind of statement pertaining what course of action they will take?

[ganbaru]

The Note: Jeb Bush: 3 Days, 4 Different Answers About Iraq
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/note-...ry?id=31037863

Brother’s Past Proves Tricky for Jeb Bush
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/us...ttom-well&_r=0

On Iraq question, Jeb Bush stumbles and the GOP hopefuls pounce
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...51a_story.html

[Netto Azure]

Supreme Court Agrees to Settle Meaning of ‘One Person One Vote’

The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear a case that will answer a long-contested question about a bedrock principle of the American political system: the meaning of “one person one vote.”

The court’s ruling, expected in 2016, could be immensely consequential. Should the court agree with the two Texas voters who brought the case, its ruling would shift political power from cities to rural areas, a move that would benefit Republicans.

The court has never resolved whether voting districts should have the same number of people, or the same number of eligible voters. Counting all people amplifies the voting power of places with large numbers of residents who cannot vote legally, including immigrants who are here legally but are not citizens, illegal immigrants, children and prisoners. Those places tend to be urban and to vote Democratic.

A ruling that districts must be based on equal numbers of voters would move political power away from cities, with their many immigrants and children, and toward older and more homogeneous rural areas.

Well a couple of thoughts. I remember back in 2009 hearing from Bill Moyer's Journal about a certain case in the Supreme Court docket called Citizens United. Fast Forward to 2015. We have what? The Roberts Supreme Court that spawned SuperPACs and gutted provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

Sometimes I feel the past few years have been the final attempts by certain segments of the population to extend power to certain demographics.

[SeijiSensei]

Even if we restrict the discusssion to citizens, the Court would still have to choose among three competing definitions of "voters." Should they rely on actual voting turnout, registered voters, or citizens of voting age regardless of registration status? I strongly hope they would choose the last of these three, since the other two definitions would create even greater incentives to disenfranchise people as we have seen happening in states with Republican administrations since Obama's election in 2008.

One group that would be especially discriminated against is black men. Black males are much more likely to have felony records than black women, and all whites, and some states like Florida and Georgia specifically deny voting rights to convicted felons even after they have served their time. In those two states alone, nearly half a million people could not vote in 2012 because of their criminal records. One reason black males make up such a large fraction of this population is that they are much more likely to be charged with offenses like marijuana possession that would be ignored were they whites. If they are excluded when allocating legislative seats as well, that just doubles down on an already unjust system.

The uniquely American system of requiring citizens to register themselves to vote is estimated to reduce turnout in the US by as much as 14% compared to other democracies (PDF). In nearly every other democracy the state has the responsibility for identifying eligible citizens and compiling the voter rolls rather than the other way round. Not only does personal registration suppress turnout, it gives public officials way too much control over who can vote and who cannot.

[ganbaru]

Republican Santorum launches 2016 bid with appeal to middle class
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0OC1VC20150527

[MrTerrorist]

John Oliver goes for the jugular on critics of D.C. statehood

No more excuses. Give DC statehood.

[ganbaru]

Kasich, Christie make the cut for prime-time Republican debate
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0Q92D520150805

I am curious to see if it end up as a ''all vs Trump" debate or at least one of them will try something different.

[Soverence]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Kasich, Christie make the cut for prime-time Republican debate
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0Q92D520150805

I am curious to see if it end up as a ''all vs Trump" debate or at least one of them will try something different.

Well considering the opening question and the fact all of the questions directed towards Trump could be equated to "you called someone a mean name didn't you, you big meany", I will take it as a all vs Trump kind of debate.