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

[Ithekro]

They don't want to be treeaty bound if either some other country claims we are breaking said laws, or be hampered if the UN changes said laws. They don't want to open that door to the UN holding sway on the US, even if it is for something they agree on. It allows for potental other things to happen (in their eyes).

UN ban of hand weapons that keeps getting thrown up in internet ads all the time (no idea if it even really exists or if Hillary Clinton is for it or not). They don't want the UN to overwrite the Constitution based on treaties. That is their fear I think.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Unless they're bizarrely planning to roll back the ADA by some witchery (and doom their party once and for all by making enemies with US veterans),

Sorry but US veterans do not have a lobby group in washington, expect to be profusely screwed.

@Itherko Under that line of thought the USA should pull IMMEDIATELY from any UN treaties, no and if or buts.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

They don't want to be treeaty bound if either some other country claims we are breaking said laws, or be hampered if the UN changes said laws. They don't want to open that door to the UN holding sway on the US, even if it is for something they agree on. It allows for potental other things to happen (in their eyes).

So "maybe if something changes which we're not sure what but maybe conspiracy maybe UN evil maybe" is worth fucking over an honored ex-Senator in a public fashion and garnering public outrage? It was going to be a routine vote nobody thought twice about and a chance to pat themselves in the back over "honored service in the Senate" until it isn't.

The US is already treaty-bound over a bunch of very important things (like, oh, papers that say you shouldn't commit genocide on your own people because it's really not a Nice Thing to do), I take it the vast majority of the Republican Senators in Congress are of the mind to withdraw the United States from the international system, forthwith, for the freedom to commit genocide if a sovereign nation intends to do so is inviolable.

Sarcasm I know, but seriously, what.

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

Sorry but US veterans do not have a lobby group in washington, expect to be profusely screwed.

No, there are a number of veterans' advocacy groups in D.C. and scattered across the country. They are, as a whole, very influential, not just in the core numbers of members but also in terms of public support. If you haven't noticed, the United States is a nationalistic country, relatively speaking, and waving that star-spanking flag or whatever still gets people whooping and the rhetoric of "our heroes" is a common and noncontroversial one.

Not to mention people probably hold grudges, strong grudges, if their disabled war buddies get fucked over in the implausible scenario that the Republican Party will ever marshall enough legislative supermajorities (yes, super) to overturn a major and lasting legislative piece as the ADA, for, well, I don't know, ask the Onion.

[Ithekro]

This seems to be a more recent development. During the Cold War there were clear sides to most things. After that ended, counties started to do their own thing outside the circles of US/NATO and USSR/Warsaw Pact. In the aftermath there are a lot of contries that do not share Western ideologies that can easily outvote the old Western (and Eastern Block) countries. The Security Council Veto is about all the US has left in the UN.

The older treaties were signed when the US considered itself in control of the situation. Now it is clearly not in control anymore, and the conservatives really don't like that. Nor do they like the idea that an entity they can't control can have power over them (or over the United States actually, since the people still have a monicum of power over any elected officials).

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

This seems to be a more recent development. During the Cold War there were clear sides to most things. After that ended, counties started to do their own thing outside the circles of US/NATO and USSR/Warsaw Pact. In the aftermath there are a lot of contries that do not share Western ideologies that can easily outvote the old Western (and Eastern Block) countries. The Security Council Veto is about all the US has left in the UN.

The older treaties were signed when the US considered itself in control of the situation. Now it is clearly not in control anymore, and the conservatives really don't like that. Nor do they like the idea that an entity they can't control can have power over them (or over the United States actually, since the people still have a monicum of power over any elected officials).

when did the UN receive any kind of power?

No matter what the vote is like, currently speaking the UN is only as powerful as the US is willing to back it.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

If you haven't noticed, the United States is a nationalistic country, relatively speaking, and waving that star-spanking flag or whatever still gets people whooping and the rhetoric of "our heroes" is a common and noncontroversial one.

I do not live in the USA, but really? I have no doubt that in the 50s that was the feeling of 99.9% of the population. But since WWII the USA has battled only worthless wars --> Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan & Iraq. I do not think the average citizen feels safer because the USA has played globocop, quite the opposite, so I think you overestimate the lengths the population will go to defend their veterans.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

I think you overestimate the lengths the population will go to defend their veterans.

That depends on what you mean by "defend". But if you're doubting the support the veterans have in the general population in the US, then all I can say is...

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

I do not live in the USA

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by kyp275

That depends on what you mean by "defend".

That would be 1 and 3

[Ithekro]

The population leaded to defend the veterans following Desert Storm because from Vietnam until then, Veterans were mostly looked down on. Since the 1990s, veterans are more supported as the population focuses the blame for things were it needs to go...the government policy makers, not the soldiers.

Vietnam the public turned on the soldiers more than against the government. The "Peace Movement" did a lot of harm to those that had already seem too much in Vietnam. We still have Vets from that war that are not right in this world, more from what they got when they got home than from what they experianced in Vietnam.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Since the 1990s, veterans are more supported as the population focuses the blame for things were it needs to go...the government policy makers, not the soldiers.

If that was totally true (and not a half-assed effort), wouldn't the population be rallying against the "use military force" that the executive branch has abused, the USA has not declared any war since WWII but has been involved in more wars than any other country. The soldiers are being put in harms way because they are seen merely as pawns by the politician class.

[Ithekro]

The US Constitution says that Congress as the power to declare war on another nation. It does not say how they must go about it. There have been few "Formal" declarations of war. There have been many wars authorized by Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara..._United_States

This include the one that are ongoing in Afghanistan.

[lordblazer]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

I'll just leave this here. As it summarizes the past 30 years:

Yea, the story telling is in "fairy tale" format. But it spells out everything.

I enjoyed the video and it pretty much illustrates the situation in a coherent narrative for anyone to understand.

Anyway just for fun I will show you the weak response that How The World Works had on this video.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

when did the UN receive any kind of power?

No matter what the vote is like, currently speaking the UN is only as powerful as the US is willing to back it.

Thank you!!

This is what many Americans don't get about IGOs they're only as powerful as the power players allow them to be and only in certain areas that interest the world's hegemon.

I am worried that if the US doesn't show leadership in the int'l community then a lot of goals in genocide prevention won't be reached. That's my real concern.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

This include the one that are ongoing in Afghanistan.

You overlap the fact that the executive has waged many wars without the consent of congress, but you seem to have a ludicrous definition of war; the war in Afghanistan ended years ago, you wage against governments, what we have now is an extended operation to support a puppet ruler so feeble he has little relevance beyond Kabul and his head (just like the goverment put in place by the USSR) will fall the moment he no longer receives support from the exterior.

But back to the case in point, many US troop lifes were lost in illegal wars that if they were not fought little would have changed in the local and global scale, with the added bonus that the billions of dollars spent in said conflicts could have been spent in better endeavors (like science and technology) or not spent at all.

[ganbaru]

U.S. Adds 146,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.7%
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/bu.../bBkpv3Eedr3Lg

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

I'll just leave this here. As it summarizes the past 30 years:

I'm definitely no big fan of how the mega corporations and Wall Street CEOs have basically strip mined the country in the past few decades, but this video's attempt to glorify certain people totally misses the mark.

At least in California the hugest problem we have in this state is not corporations, but government unions. Unions are meant to be a way for labor to negotiate with their companies for fairer pay. They are not meant to be political campaigners. The idea that anytime this state tries to do something about corrupt union organizers (We have people in this state retiring in their 50's while private workers are lucky if they can get out by the time they're 70), that it gets blocked by unions who proclaim that weakening their political power will destroy our school systems, or *insert government job here* is divorced from reality.

It's popular these days to bash the GOP because well it's just so damn easy, but the special interests that are aligned with the Democrats are only marginally less bad. If there is a big reason why I would want to see a saner GOP, it's so that they can properly slap the Democrats on the wrists about issues that actually matter.

[willx]

^ Now now, don't forget that massive consumer debt is prevalent due to the average person living far beyond their means with the expectation that it would continue forever. Strip mining the country is hard work and requires the dedicated work of millions of people. The future wasn't mined away.. it was "consumed" cause everyone deserves 2 vacations a year, a 40"+ flatscreen TV and 3 cars ..

Here's an example of what happened in the U.S. and might happen in Canada right now:
1) Bought house for $250,000 10 years ago
2) House Prices skyrocket, sell house for $400,000 and get new house worth $600,000
3) House Prices go up more, sell house for $800,000 and move into $1.2 million house
4) $600,000 mortgage on $1.2 million house makes family feel rich with $600,000 in "equity"
5) Live like I have $600,000 in savings, take out home equity line of credit, spend spend spend
6) Total debt on house is now $800,000 -- still feeling good, house prices start falling
7) Suddenly house prices start falling, $800,000 debt on $900,000 house means life savings wiped out?
8) -> Negative equity scenario, $800,000 debt on .. $700,000 house? What now?

Outlook is negative

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

At least in California the hugest problem we have in this state is not corporations, but government unions.

Guess what, we have here in Mexico the exact same problem only it is a lot worse. In the end the problem is the accumulation of political power and wealth within a few individuals or organizations, they will bend the system to their needs even if the public at large suffers.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

This really isn't a surprise; Democrats of today is just Republicans of old. So anyone who isn't crazy is finding themselves right at home moving to Democrats.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...es-a-democrat/

Hey, he got purged from the GOP for not being pure enough; he is free to go where he wants now.

[Lost Cause]

^Yup, straight into the Democratic party.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

^Yup, straight into the Democratic party.

Someone else did make the point that this isn't a good thing for the actual LEFT people. If everyone sane joins the Democrats then the party isn't left any more. It means the GOP disappears but so would the Democrats as we know it. Politically it is better for the Left that all the Fiscal Conservatives join the Libertarians instead.