I suppose an on-topic question would be: How does one go about making the Federal government more trusted? I honestly don't know.
Really about the only way is to make it far more effective and far more obviously effective. that will entail reversing citizens united, and throwing out all the fucking assholes we elected and keep doing that until we find a group of people that behave responsibly in government. from where we are now many decades will be required to buck the trend even slightly.
Yeah but you get the government you deserve and the people that demand to be represented by supporters of silly positions and the people who see politics as by itself corrupt and don't care/vote deserve the government we have.
You are saying so many things at once in this sentence that I can't really tell what you are saying. can you reword this please?
Sorry. The reason we have an ineffective government is because a lot of the people in our country want it that way. Money has a terrible influence on politics but no matter the money involved if the populous really wanted someone out they could kick them out. They don't want them out. Just enough people want these people in that they stay. The problem is the people.
A parliamentary or even semi-presidential system is probably going to be less inclined toward hobbling the executive via legislative rules. Do presidential systems anywhere have a good record? Isn't the United States even unexpectedly good in this regard?
The thing about the U.S. System is that the other two branches can "gang up" on the third and override.
What I find so amusing is that during the political seasons, the president is blamed for lots of things he doesn't have power over. People tend to forget that congress makes the laws. President only vetoes if it conflicts with his ability to execute other ones (In theory anyway)
I suppose an on-topic question would be: How does one go about making the Federal government more trusted? I honestly don't know.
Really about the only way is to make it far more effective and far more obviously effective. that will entail reversing citizens united, and throwing out all the fucking assholes we elected and keep doing that until we find a group of people that behave responsibly in government. from where we are now many decades will be required to buck the trend even slightly.
Yeah but you get the government you deserve and the people that demand to be represented by supporters of silly positions and the people who see politics as by itself corrupt and don't care/vote deserve the government we have.
You are saying so many things at once in this sentence that I can't really tell what you are saying. can you reword this please?
The manner of politics you have right now already enjoys legitimacy. You're not advocating anything that can be changed by any elected office or implemented policy, you want a wholesale change in what kind of government people want.
I hate America because of the capitalist evil pushing bad diets and poor health on everyone, I felt like I was expressing that hate. Ill stop though if its too much of a stretch.
If you really want to express your views and converse about it you can start a new topic about it.
I suppose an on-topic question would be: How does one go about making the Federal government more trusted? I honestly don't know.
Really about the only way is to make it far more effective and far more obviously effective. that will entail reversing citizens united, and throwing out all the fucking assholes we elected and keep doing that until we find a group of people that behave responsibly in government. from where we are now many decades will be required to buck the trend even slightly.
Yeah but you get the government you deserve and the people that demand to be represented by supporters of silly positions and the people who see politics as by itself corrupt and don't care/vote deserve the government we have.
You are saying so many things at once in this sentence that I can't really tell what you are saying. can you reword this please?
The manner of politics you have right now already enjoys legitimacy. You're not advocating anything that can be changed by any elected office or implemented policy, you want a wholesale change in what kind of government people want.
I hate America because of the capitalist evil pushing bad diets and poor health on everyone, I felt like I was expressing that hate. Ill stop though if its too much of a stretch.
If you really want to express your views and converse about it you can start a new topic about it.
You make it and I'll post the shit out of that topic.
We live in a country where it's difficult for a State to assert it's rights against Washington D.C, however, it's really easy to the White house to assert it's rights over the rest of the union. Sometime Washington likes to assert things that are not culturally appropriate for some states. This is where lots of the gnashing of teeth comes from. When you understand this, you can understand why things like public heath care is such a hot-button topic. The states don't have enough cash to create their own, and the federal government tries to create a "once size fits all" solution that is broken with hundreds of compromises.
Americans don't seem to want to; relegating issues to a state rather than federal level seems to be a statement that the issue isn't be taken seriously enough.
Economic forces militate in favor of the federal government, regardless of any historically reserved rights to the states. You have a combined market so your tax levels tend to converge, or you get problems with interstate movement.
I suppose an on-topic question would be: How does one go about making the Federal government more trusted? I honestly don't know.
Really about the only way is to make it far more effective and far more obviously effective. that will entail reversing citizens united, and throwing out all the fucking assholes we elected and keep doing that until we find a group of people that behave responsibly in government. from where we are now many decades will be required to buck the trend even slightly.
Yeah but you get the government you deserve and the people that demand to be represented by supporters of silly positions and the people who see politics as by itself corrupt and don't care/vote deserve the government we have.
You are saying so many things at once in this sentence that I can't really tell what you are saying. can you reword this please?
The manner of politics you have right now already enjoys legitimacy. You're not advocating anything that can be changed by any elected office or implemented policy, you want a wholesale change in what kind of government people want.
no that's not it. ok, i see where i got you guys confused. i was not suggesting that we go outside the electoral system to throw out the assholes, but rather use existing law and elections to toss them out by electing someone else. the citizens united bullshit should be done away with by a constitutional amendment, which given current status ... let's just say I'm hoping occupy has an effect on this, because it's really fucking hard to get one of those particularly from where we are. That is why I say it will take forever to make the federal government an institution that can be trusted, if it is a solvable problem in the first place. Making anything so powerful trustworthy would require that it act trustworthy for a very long time and that may be structurally impossible given our legal framework.
I suppose an on-topic question would be: How does one go about making the Federal government more trusted? I honestly don't know.
Really about the only way is to make it far more effective and far more obviously effective. that will entail reversing citizens united, and throwing out all the fucking assholes we elected and keep doing that until we find a group of people that behave responsibly in government. from where we are now many decades will be required to buck the trend even slightly.
Yeah but you get the government you deserve and the people that demand to be represented by supporters of silly positions and the people who see politics as by itself corrupt and don't care/vote deserve the government we have.
You are saying so many things at once in this sentence that I can't really tell what you are saying. can you reword this please?
The manner of politics you have right now already enjoys legitimacy. You're not advocating anything that can be changed by any elected office or implemented policy, you want a wholesale change in what kind of government people want.
I hate America because of the capitalist evil pushing bad diets and poor health on everyone, I felt like I was expressing that hate. Ill stop though if its too much of a stretch.
If you really want to express your views and converse about it you can start a new topic about it.
You make it and I'll post the shit out of that topic.
probably D&D would be a terrible place for that topic though.
I suppose an on-topic question would be: How does one go about making the Federal government more trusted? I honestly don't know.
Really about the only way is to make it far more effective and far more obviously effective. that will entail reversing citizens united, and throwing out all the fucking assholes we elected and keep doing that until we find a group of people that behave responsibly in government. from where we are now many decades will be required to buck the trend even slightly.
Yeah but you get the government you deserve and the people that demand to be represented by supporters of silly positions and the people who see politics as by itself corrupt and don't care/vote deserve the government we have.
You are saying so many things at once in this sentence that I can't really tell what you are saying. can you reword this please?
The manner of politics you have right now already enjoys legitimacy. You're not advocating anything that can be changed by any elected office or implemented policy, you want a wholesale change in what kind of government people want.
no that's not it. ok, i see where i got you guys confused. i was not suggesting that we go outside the electoral system to throw out the assholes, but rather use existing law and elections to toss them out by electing someone else. the citizens united bullshit should be done away with by a constitutional amendment, which given current status ... let's just say I'm hoping occupy has an effect on this, because it's really fucking hard to get one of those particularly from where we are. That is why I say it will take forever to make the federal government an institution that can be trusted, if it is a solvable problem in the first place. Making anything so powerful trustworthy would require that it act trustworthy for a very long time and that may be structurally impossible given our legal framework.
No I get it. The point is that we won't. People want it this way. Or at least enough want it or don't care to the same effect.
A parliamentary or even semi-presidential system is probably going to be less inclined toward hobbling the executive via legislative rules. Do presidential systems anywhere have a good record? Isn't the United States even unexpectedly good in this regard?
The thing about the U.S. System is that the other two branches can "gang up" on the third and override.
What I find so amusing is that during the political seasons, the president is blamed for lots of things he doesn't have power over. People tend to forget that congress makes the laws. President only vetoes if it conflicts with his ability to execute other ones (In theory anyway)
This is only true in high-school civics class theory, yes. In practice the presidency and its subordinate departments have a number of de facto legislative and minimally-legislatively-or-judicially overseen powers - less so than the so-called 'imperial presidency' era but still quite a lot. Secrecy powers, in particular. Presidents can and have exploited existing roadblocks in Congress to interpret discretionary powers granted by previous Congresses rather differently and watch Congress flail around trying to issue new legislation.
Informally the President always has the bully pulpit, first hundred days, and coat-tail effect, too.
Sorry. The reason we have an ineffective government is because a lot of the people in our country want it that way. Money has a terrible influence on politics but no matter the money involved if the populous really wanted someone out they could kick them out. They don't want them out. Just enough people want these people in that they stay. The problem is the people.
I'd agree partially with this, but televised & print media are hugely to blame for the framework of discourse. A lot of people in western democracies, America included, are demonstrably confused about political platforms & issues, so they often go and fill out a ballot for a candidate without realizing that they're voting against their own interests. If nobody understands what the intentions of various political contenders are, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the most visible & charismatic candidate is the one that most often wins.
I suppose an on-topic question would be: How does one go about making the Federal government more trusted? I honestly don't know.
Really about the only way is to make it far more effective and far more obviously effective. that will entail reversing citizens united, and throwing out all the fucking assholes we elected and keep doing that until we find a group of people that behave responsibly in government. from where we are now many decades will be required to buck the trend even slightly.
Yeah but you get the government you deserve and the people that demand to be represented by supporters of silly positions and the people who see politics as by itself corrupt and don't care/vote deserve the government we have.
You are saying so many things at once in this sentence that I can't really tell what you are saying. can you reword this please?
The manner of politics you have right now already enjoys legitimacy. You're not advocating anything that can be changed by any elected office or implemented policy, you want a wholesale change in what kind of government people want.
no that's not it. ok, i see where i got you guys confused. i was not suggesting that we go outside the electoral system to throw out the assholes, but rather use existing law and elections to toss them out by electing someone else. the citizens united bullshit should be done away with by a constitutional amendment, which given current status ... let's just say I'm hoping occupy has an effect on this, because it's really fucking hard to get one of those particularly from where we are. That is why I say it will take forever to make the federal government an institution that can be trusted, if it is a solvable problem in the first place. Making anything so powerful trustworthy would require that it act trustworthy for a very long time and that may be structurally impossible given our legal framework.
No I get it. The point is that we won't. People want it this way. Or at least enough want it or don't care to the same effect.
Shit. That's what you meant? Well then, I agree with you. Man I was off base there.
I suppose an on-topic question would be: How does one go about making the Federal government more trusted? I honestly don't know.
Let Multi-Vac be the decision maker.
Democracy doesn't work. It's one of those 'well, in an ideal world...' mechanisms that, when tested in real conditions, fails to achieve it's intended goals.
Academics & scientists should just run the show for us, in full dictator mode.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Once upon a time I was asked by a European friend why on earth America is so distrusting, and at times, openly hostile towards our own government. This is something that difficult to answer individually. America is a big country, and there are many different people who live here. Being somewhat pan-cultural myself. I really hate painting any type of culture, including my own, with a broad stroke.
It did make me think for a bit though.
In the end I realized that this question comes about because foreigners don't have a good understanding on how America is "put together". Not only this, there are some cultural hang-ups that Americans have that they don't realize they have. However, when pointing it out, many of the Americans I talk to tend to agree with my view. I'm able to explain, at least for me, why we tend to distrust our government.
1)I hold a tighter allegiance to my state, than I do my country.
2)Washington D.C. Is not a state.
To me, I am an "Wisconsinite" before I'm an "American". I have talked to Texans, Californians, New Yorkers, Floridians, and others, and have found that, in part, they feel the same way. This is why we almost never self-identify as Americans in our own country. To further explain why this is, I'm going to give you non-Americans out there a quick crash-course on American history and the structure of the country.
Before we were the United States of America, the name of the land here was called "Columbia". I like to think of Columbia as the name of the land "under" the United States. When our country popped into being, a small parcel of land in the shape of a diamond was created without statehood. It was a "District of Columbia", and named after our first president. Thus, Washington D.C. This seated the Federal Government that, in theory, coordinates and unites all the states together. Keep in mind for those with a weak grasp on U.S. Geography. Washington D.C. And Washington state are two different things and on opposite sides of the country. (I've seen people confused about this)
However, when it comes to paying for our country in the form of taxes, we do something really fucked up.
3)We get taxed twice on the same income. One tax goes to the state, the other goes to Washington D.C.
4)We don't often, and rarely see, a Return of Investment from Washington.
5)The taxes for our state is half of what counties of the same size are. We are underfunded.
Now, here's another little fact about states many foreigners don't know. Each state in our union has our own Constitution. We also have our own executive, legislative, and judicial branches. In fact, every state has the ability to run autonomously of the Federal Government in Washington, save for national defense. States don't have their own military, however, we do have our own militias, which are weaker and not supported by the government.
The question then comes up that if we don't like Washington so much, and we are so autonomous, why don't we just tell the Federal government to fuck off and leave us alone?
We did.
We lost.
During the civil war, the south attempted to assert state's rights and break away from the union. The war was a little more than North vs. South, and a fight to abolish of slavery, but also President Lincoln in the White House was trying to keep the states together. After the South lost, it was kind of set into our mind that Washington D.C. , and other states are willing to fight to keep the union from being broken. When you see Texas shake it's sabers and talk about succession, just remember that it's just hot air and they are full of shit.
But now here's the issue...
We live in a country where it's difficult for a State to assert it's rights against Washington D.C, however, it's really easy to the White house to assert it's rights over the rest of the union. Sometime Washington likes to assert things that are not culturally appropriate for some states. This is where lots of the gnashing of teeth comes from. When you understand this, you can understand why things like public heath care is such a hot-button topic. The states don't have enough cash to create their own, and the federal government tries to create a "once size fits all" solution that is broken with hundreds of compromises.
For sake of brevity to an otherwise long post already, I'm not going to go into interstate commerce and special interest lobbying, but there are other reasons we give Washington D.C. the stink-eye as well. I just want to pick at my own special theory and help educate our PA friends who live outside the United States.
I'm pretty open to question or comments of you want to add/comment on anything. I would like to have some of or foreign friends comment too. Has this been enlightening? Do you already know this due to your vastly superior educational system? I thinking about consolidating this as a YouTube sideshow speech and posting it. You have any input?
[TL;DR] Washington D.C. Like to piss on the states and it makes us mad and that's why we can't have healthcare. Let's talk about the U.S. From an outsider's view!
While this is certainly one American's view point, it isn't all American's view point and I don't think it's in the majority.
I don't know many people who have patriotism for their state over their country. We introduce ourselves in the US as from "Florida" or "Illinois" because that's where we're from.
We tried weak federal government, it was called the Articles of Confederation and it almost led to a collapse of the United States. This was why we have a Constitution and before you make a youtube slide, I'd encourage you to give it a look and maybe read the Federalist and/or AntiFederalist papers.
I'd like to specifically address the idea that we don't see return on investment from tax dollars. Ever used an interstate? Ever used anything your state provides (pretty much all states receive funding from the federal government)? Ever gotten cheap food at a supermarket? Ever driven a car that didn't explode randomly?
This is not to say that our federal government is perfect, but it's hardly a shadowy dictator telling us poor citizens what to do.
AManFromEarth on
0
Options
Alfred J. Kwakis it because you were insultedwhen I insulted your hair?Registered Userregular
Democracy doesn't work. It's one of those 'well, in an ideal world...' mechanisms that, when tested in real conditions, fails to achieve it's intended goals.
Academics & scientists should just run the show for us, in full dictator mode.
this post is probably meant to be ironic, but I'd basically agree with you.
I suppose an on-topic question would be: How does one go about making the Federal government more trusted? I honestly don't know.
Massive, comprehensive reform of our election process would be a high priority. This would probably have to include the dissolution of the Electoral College and a change to a straight popular vote, as well as meaningful changes in campaign funding. The way to make the government more trustworthy is to make the people working in the government more competent. If people see that the government is doing a good job and improving their lives, that will certainly help. Similarly, greater transparency in the way the government operates is important, which has to include significant improvements in education.
Part of the problem, I think, is that most people think "government=President, VP, Congress, and maybe the Supreme Court if I remember them." They don't think about the many, many, many people who work for the federal government in a vast variety of jobs, who work in offices and attend boring meetings and push papers around just like the average schmoe. "The government" automatically evokes images of elite, rich assholes who want your vote, but it (of course) also includes many anonymous people just trying to do their job as well as possible.
I don't get this crazy idea of identifying with one's state over the United States of America. I'm sure that having lived in three different states over the 26 years of my life is a factor but I'm pretty sure the majority of people who never leave the state they were born in, identify with the country over their state.
Frankly, it's a mixed bag on the trust issue. It depends on who is running things, I believe the GOP is morally bankrupt at this point and the dems certainly aren't perfect. Personally, I trust the federal government more than the state governments, some of that has to do with the fact that it has been far harder for the GOP to fuck things up at the federal level and fairly trivial for them to use their money to fill in local and state offices with their people. It's kind of sad because local and state seats do have arguable more impact on people's daily lives with national congressional offices being a fairly close second on the daily impact.
I don't know why people insist that the POTUS has so much control over the US when it doesn't. On that front, people also are too quick to blame the electoral college. Sure the electoral college isn't perfect but the real issue is the winner take all approach, if the electoral votes from states were divided up based on what proportion of the vote that each candidate earn it would be likely match up with the popular vote enough of the time (also has the bonus of not needing a US constitutional amendment and it might be easier to push for individual state amendments).
We need some serious fucking campaign reform laws. One of the reasons why are politicians are so willing to whore themselves out to wealthy special interests is because it costs a fortune to run for political office thanks to the price on getting one's name out there with traditional media. This also has the other nasty side of effect of making it so that only the well connected or rich have an easier time of entering political races and winning. So not only do we have special interest whores serving in elected positions, they tend to also be out of touch with the average American from the get go. Ultimately, the push to kill Super PACs also needs to be a game changer that makes running for political office accessible to the average American otherwise it won't be enough to really fix anything.
this post is probably meant to be ironic, but I'd basically agree with you.
Partly ironic, but it's an idea I'm fully in favour of.
Having a council of noblemen (or women) benevolently rule over us using their superior knowledge to guide the species is far more of a "in an ideal world..." solution than representative democracy. People have proven again and again that when put in a position of absolute power and zero accountability they abuse it. Every. Damn. Time. Your position that there is a "perfect" method of governing the species out there strikes me as relying on a flawed assumption, that perfection is something that humans can achieve.
Humans are a flawed species, the only way for us to proceed is to manage those flaws on an ongoing basis. Democracy isn't perfect but it's the best we have.
I posted this in [chat] a while ago; the obvious response is that it's not really obvious that France has a history of trust in government. I would say that there is indeed an unusual deference to its civil service, which is another thing altogether.
A parliamentary or even semi-presidential system is probably going to be less inclined toward hobbling the executive via legislative rules. Do presidential systems anywhere have a good record? Isn't the United States even unexpectedly good in this regard?
In the 19th and 20th century latin america tried various models, some of which were carbon copies of the US presidential model - things didn't end well. The US has the best record of implementations of its presidential model, with 0 coups and 1 civil war.
I just heard on the way home from work that the president of the Maldives got ousted by the police/military/corrupt judiciary. So they had 30 some years as a dictatorship, and 4 as a democracy.
Democacy, like most of advanced societies social constructs, relies partly on people having fate that the institution is somewhat capable and functional. That if there is a problem, there will be at least an attempt to fix it. If there is an expert, the institution will listen.
All this seems to not really be the case anymore in the USA. Congress is a constant war for political points, the lobbyist influence has become immense and does seem to drown out other voices. The Republicans especially (not saying the Dems don't do stupid shit, but there's a clear difference here) are just postering, yelling, and using talking points to win seats while doing nothing for the country. It's just one giant quagmire.
Over here in the Netherlands, people will also complain about politicians, what they do and how they act. But our country redesigns its policies constantly. Even if a government is pretty bad (like I believe our current one is) I can still have faith that another coalition will fix the worst of the mistakes made.
Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Democacy, like most of advanced societies social constructs, relies partly on people having fate that the institution is somewhat capable and functional. That if there is a problem, there will be at least an attempt to fix it. If there is an expert, the institution will listen.
All this seems to not really be the case anymore in the USA. Congress is a constant war for political points, the lobbyist influence has become immense and does seem to drown out other voices. The Republicans especially (not saying the Dems don't do stupid shit, but there's a clear difference here) are just postering, yelling, and using talking points to win seats while doing nothing for the country. It's just one giant quagmire.
Over here in the Netherlands, people will also complain about politicians, what they do and how they act. But our country redesigns its policies constantly. Even if a government is pretty bad (like I believe our current one is) I can still have faith that another coalition will fix the worst of the mistakes made.
I pretty much completely reject this summation of US politics. The current bullshit we've been dealing with has only come to a head in the last year. There are plenty of people who are working to stop the influence of money in politics and I'm predicting that the GOP is going to pay for their bullshit in November.
Politicians in both parties win points by casting politics as broken, if they can convince young people that their vote doesn't matter and that problems are beyond fixing, they get to hold onto power for longer (post baby boomers are more liberal and exist in much higher numbers than the boomers). Sadly, this seems to be working far too well.
this post is probably meant to be ironic, but I'd basically agree with you.
Partly ironic, but it's an idea I'm fully in favour of.
Having a council of noblemen (or women) benevolently rule over us using their superior knowledge to guide the species is far more of a "in an ideal world..." solution than representative democracy. People have proven again and again that when put in a position of absolute power and zero accountability they abuse it. Every. Damn. Time. Your position that there is a "perfect" method of governing the species out there strikes me as relying on a flawed assumption, that perfection is something that humans can achieve.
Humans are a flawed species, the only way for us to proceed is to manage those flaws on an ongoing basis. Democracy isn't perfect but it's the best we have.
There are also much better versions of democracy then the winner-take-all gerrymandered free flowing money democracy that America has.
I would support a system or candidate that wanted to give decision making power to groups of scientists and academics that had to prove their case based on fact. That said, some sort of check on and legitimizing of that power through a democratic process is necessary to prevent tyranny.
As far as the federal government in the united states, it was always understood to be a necessary compromise. No one liked it, except for all the parts that benefit people like a centralized military, an economic and currency union, a united diplomatic message, free-flow of labor and commerce, guarantee of civil liberties, large scale multi-state infrastructure projects, federal oversight of corruption, ect.
As for the civil war, it really was a states rights issue. In this case it was the right of NORTHERN states to outlaw slavery and the case of future western states and territories to be slave free. The international slave trade had died down at that point so that the only slaves the south had were those they could hold onto and a north with amnesty and prejudice sure as hell beat what they were offering.
The south realized it was being isolated and set up for failure. The industrializing north and the expansionist west could have easily absorbed any number of people seeking freedom.
I don't trust the government because politicians are corrupt crooks. Some are less corrupt. With our current system we choose the corrupt bastard who will give us what we want and we think wont screw everyone over too much.
They also lie and keep secrets. Constantly.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
I'll chime in because this is something I often wonder about.
1)I hold a tighter allegiance to my state, than I do my country.
2)Washington D.C. Is not a state.
To me, I am an "Wisconsinite" before I'm an "American". I have talked to Texans, Californians, New Yorkers, Floridians, and others, and have found that, in part, they feel the same way. This is why we almost never self-identify as Americans in our own country. To further explain why this is, I'm going to give you non-Americans out there a quick crash-course on American history and the structure of the country.
However, when it comes to paying for our country in the form of taxes, we do something really fucked up.
3)We get taxed twice on the same income. One tax goes to the state, the other goes to Washington D.C.
4)We don't often, and rarely see, a Return of Investment from Washington.
5)The taxes for our state is half of what counties of the same size are. We are underfunded.
I live in Canada, and 1 (especially in Quebec), 2 (Ottawa is the capital) and 3 apply. I would also say 4 and 5 applies, but it can depend on the province. Some provinces have higher taxes than others, and some get more money than most from the federal gov. Also, AFAIK, provinces in Canada, to this day, have more "power" than American states comparatively to their respective federal government. While we bitch a lot about our government, we don't share this belief that a fascist government takeover is right around the corner or that the federal government is out to get us and eat our bones.
Any other explanations?*
*I don't mean that in a dickish way, I really don't know what to specifically ask.
Oh also! The American Civil War was 100% about slavery. Anyone who says other wise is full of shit. Just look at the documents they used to justify secession, which have been conveniently white washed by Lost Causers.
The way I look at it, I'd say the motive was slavery and States' Rights was the argument used to protect it. Would that make sense?
That's about right, yeah. Slavery was the thing the South wanted to protect, so it was about States' Rights... to be slave states. People try to amputate that last bit, but it was the #1 issue.
Anyway, in regards to the OP, it is interesting to realize that I think of myself more as a Washingtonian than an American (not that Washington, the other one). I'm proud to be American, I suppose, but more proud to be Washingtonian. And even more proud to be a Western Washingtonian.
I'd say it was only 50% slavery. The other 50% was 80% racism outside the bounds of ownership and 20% hatred of northerners.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Oh also! The American Civil War was 100% about slavery. Anyone who says other wise is full of shit. Just look at the documents they used to justify secession, which have been conveniently white washed by Lost Causers.
The way I look at it, I'd say the motive was slavery and States' Rights was the argument used to protect it. Would that make sense?
That's about right, yeah. Slavery was the thing the South wanted to protect, so it was about States' Rights... to be slave states. People try to amputate that last bit, but it was the #1 issue.
Anyway, in regards to the OP, it is interesting to realize that I think of myself more as a Washingtonian than an American (not that Washington, the other one). I'm proud to be American, I suppose, but more proud to be Washingtonian. And even more proud to be a Western Washingtonian.
I'd say it was only 50% slavery. The other 50% was 80% racism outside the bounds of ownership and 20% hatred of northerners.
Bullshit.
The Civil War was 100% slavery and 100% state's rights. The south wanted the right to be slave owners. Both sides were equally racist. Abolition got sway because farmers and laborers couldn't compete with slave labor. That's why they north didn't want it to expand into the west. It had the added benefit of being the morally right thing to do as well.
Most hatred of northerners came after the war when the Johnson administration didn't go with Lincoln's more sane plan for reconstruction and instead basically Weimar'd the south.
Oh also! The American Civil War was 100% about slavery. Anyone who says other wise is full of shit. Just look at the documents they used to justify secession, which have been conveniently white washed by Lost Causers.
The way I look at it, I'd say the motive was slavery and States' Rights was the argument used to protect it. Would that make sense?
That's about right, yeah. Slavery was the thing the South wanted to protect, so it was about States' Rights... to be slave states. People try to amputate that last bit, but it was the #1 issue.
Anyway, in regards to the OP, it is interesting to realize that I think of myself more as a Washingtonian than an American (not that Washington, the other one). I'm proud to be American, I suppose, but more proud to be Washingtonian. And even more proud to be a Western Washingtonian.
I'd say it was only 50% slavery. The other 50% was 80% racism outside the bounds of ownership and 20% hatred of northerners.
Bullshit.
The Civil War was 100% slavery and 100% state's rights. The south wanted the right to be slave owners. Both sides were equally racist. Abolition got sway because farmers and laborers couldn't compete with slave labor. That's why they north didn't want it to expand into the west. It had the added benefit of being the morally right thing to do as well.
Most hatred of northerners came after the war when the Johnson administration didn't go with Lincoln's more sane plan for reconstruction and instead basically Weimar'd the south.
There was a large bit of fear that the former slaves may want revenge or would just run wild and rape women without the threat of slavery.
i don't know anyone here in the US who has more allegiance to their state instead of America as a whole
this is probably because i don't know any texans.
also, the reason why america distrusts government is that anyone who goes into politics becomes a slimeball. by the time they get elected, they simply become a slimeball with power.
add to that the general corruption of a two-party system* and it's a recipe for congress' 10% approval rating
*powerful corporate interests pay off a party to support them. REALLY powerful corporate interests pay off BOTH parties.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
If you weren't talking about some kind of wisemans committee made of of said scientists and academics, what exactly do you mean?
Having scientists dictate policy to the public is not the same thing as having a bunch of nobles & aristocrats (a system mired in superstition and religious dogma) dictating policy. It would be easy enough to adapt a process akin to peer review for the purposes of setting policy.
However, when it comes to paying for our country in the form of taxes, we do something really fucked up.
[code]
3)We get taxed twice on the same income. One tax goes to the state, the other goes to Washington D.C.
I know I'm seizing a single point that may not be all that significant, but is this "double taxation" so uncommon? Canadians pay Federal and Provincial income taxes on the same income. I think the feds are even responsible for all the collection and distribution as well.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
However, when it comes to paying for our country in the form of taxes, we do something really fucked up.
[code]
3)We get taxed twice on the same income. One tax goes to the state, the other goes to Washington D.C.
I know I'm seizing a single point that may not be all that significant, but is this "double taxation" so uncommon? Canadians pay Federal and Provincial income taxes on the same income. I think the feds are even responsible for all the collection and distribution as well.
Most people do. Hell, some have local, state, and national taxes. Some states in the US don't have state income taxes, either. Like Florida. And it's fantastic social, education, and infrastructure programs.
However, when it comes to paying for our country in the form of taxes, we do something really fucked up.
[code]
3)We get taxed twice on the same income. One tax goes to the state, the other goes to Washington D.C.
I know I'm seizing a single point that may not be all that significant, but is this "double taxation" so uncommon? Canadians pay Federal and Provincial income taxes on the same income. I think the feds are even responsible for all the collection and distribution as well.
That part doesn't really animate me... I always saw it as two pieces from the same pie. Then again, I live in Texas and we don't have a state income tax.
One of the better ways to understand why we don't trust government here is to read this book.
Posts
Sorry. The reason we have an ineffective government is because a lot of the people in our country want it that way. Money has a terrible influence on politics but no matter the money involved if the populous really wanted someone out they could kick them out. They don't want them out. Just enough people want these people in that they stay. The problem is the people.
The thing about the U.S. System is that the other two branches can "gang up" on the third and override.
What I find so amusing is that during the political seasons, the president is blamed for lots of things he doesn't have power over. People tend to forget that congress makes the laws. President only vetoes if it conflicts with his ability to execute other ones (In theory anyway)
Or that. Yeah that's what I was going for.
If you really want to express your views and converse about it you can start a new topic about it.
You make it and I'll post the shit out of that topic.
Americans don't seem to want to; relegating issues to a state rather than federal level seems to be a statement that the issue isn't be taken seriously enough.
Economic forces militate in favor of the federal government, regardless of any historically reserved rights to the states. You have a combined market so your tax levels tend to converge, or you get problems with interstate movement.
No I get it. The point is that we won't. People want it this way. Or at least enough want it or don't care to the same effect.
This is only true in high-school civics class theory, yes. In practice the presidency and its subordinate departments have a number of de facto legislative and minimally-legislatively-or-judicially overseen powers - less so than the so-called 'imperial presidency' era but still quite a lot. Secrecy powers, in particular. Presidents can and have exploited existing roadblocks in Congress to interpret discretionary powers granted by previous Congresses rather differently and watch Congress flail around trying to issue new legislation.
Informally the President always has the bully pulpit, first hundred days, and coat-tail effect, too.
I'd agree partially with this, but televised & print media are hugely to blame for the framework of discourse. A lot of people in western democracies, America included, are demonstrably confused about political platforms & issues, so they often go and fill out a ballot for a candidate without realizing that they're voting against their own interests. If nobody understands what the intentions of various political contenders are, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the most visible & charismatic candidate is the one that most often wins.
Let Multi-Vac be the decision maker.
Democracy doesn't work. It's one of those 'well, in an ideal world...' mechanisms that, when tested in real conditions, fails to achieve it's intended goals.
Academics & scientists should just run the show for us, in full dictator mode.
While this is certainly one American's view point, it isn't all American's view point and I don't think it's in the majority.
I don't know many people who have patriotism for their state over their country. We introduce ourselves in the US as from "Florida" or "Illinois" because that's where we're from.
We tried weak federal government, it was called the Articles of Confederation and it almost led to a collapse of the United States. This was why we have a Constitution and before you make a youtube slide, I'd encourage you to give it a look and maybe read the Federalist and/or AntiFederalist papers.
I'd like to specifically address the idea that we don't see return on investment from tax dollars. Ever used an interstate? Ever used anything your state provides (pretty much all states receive funding from the federal government)? Ever gotten cheap food at a supermarket? Ever driven a car that didn't explode randomly?
This is not to say that our federal government is perfect, but it's hardly a shadowy dictator telling us poor citizens what to do.
this post is probably meant to be ironic, but I'd basically agree with you.
Massive, comprehensive reform of our election process would be a high priority. This would probably have to include the dissolution of the Electoral College and a change to a straight popular vote, as well as meaningful changes in campaign funding. The way to make the government more trustworthy is to make the people working in the government more competent. If people see that the government is doing a good job and improving their lives, that will certainly help. Similarly, greater transparency in the way the government operates is important, which has to include significant improvements in education.
Part of the problem, I think, is that most people think "government=President, VP, Congress, and maybe the Supreme Court if I remember them." They don't think about the many, many, many people who work for the federal government in a vast variety of jobs, who work in offices and attend boring meetings and push papers around just like the average schmoe. "The government" automatically evokes images of elite, rich assholes who want your vote, but it (of course) also includes many anonymous people just trying to do their job as well as possible.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
Frankly, it's a mixed bag on the trust issue. It depends on who is running things, I believe the GOP is morally bankrupt at this point and the dems certainly aren't perfect. Personally, I trust the federal government more than the state governments, some of that has to do with the fact that it has been far harder for the GOP to fuck things up at the federal level and fairly trivial for them to use their money to fill in local and state offices with their people. It's kind of sad because local and state seats do have arguable more impact on people's daily lives with national congressional offices being a fairly close second on the daily impact.
I don't know why people insist that the POTUS has so much control over the US when it doesn't. On that front, people also are too quick to blame the electoral college. Sure the electoral college isn't perfect but the real issue is the winner take all approach, if the electoral votes from states were divided up based on what proportion of the vote that each candidate earn it would be likely match up with the popular vote enough of the time (also has the bonus of not needing a US constitutional amendment and it might be easier to push for individual state amendments).
We need some serious fucking campaign reform laws. One of the reasons why are politicians are so willing to whore themselves out to wealthy special interests is because it costs a fortune to run for political office thanks to the price on getting one's name out there with traditional media. This also has the other nasty side of effect of making it so that only the well connected or rich have an easier time of entering political races and winning. So not only do we have special interest whores serving in elected positions, they tend to also be out of touch with the average American from the get go. Ultimately, the push to kill Super PACs also needs to be a game changer that makes running for political office accessible to the average American otherwise it won't be enough to really fix anything.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Partly ironic, but it's an idea I'm fully in favour of.
Having a council of noblemen (or women) benevolently rule over us using their superior knowledge to guide the species is far more of a "in an ideal world..." solution than representative democracy. People have proven again and again that when put in a position of absolute power and zero accountability they abuse it. Every. Damn. Time. Your position that there is a "perfect" method of governing the species out there strikes me as relying on a flawed assumption, that perfection is something that humans can achieve.
Humans are a flawed species, the only way for us to proceed is to manage those flaws on an ongoing basis. Democracy isn't perfect but it's the best we have.
In the 19th and 20th century latin america tried various models, some of which were carbon copies of the US presidential model - things didn't end well. The US has the best record of implementations of its presidential model, with 0 coups and 1 civil war.
...Has nothing to do with what I was promoting.
All this seems to not really be the case anymore in the USA. Congress is a constant war for political points, the lobbyist influence has become immense and does seem to drown out other voices. The Republicans especially (not saying the Dems don't do stupid shit, but there's a clear difference here) are just postering, yelling, and using talking points to win seats while doing nothing for the country. It's just one giant quagmire.
Over here in the Netherlands, people will also complain about politicians, what they do and how they act. But our country redesigns its policies constantly. Even if a government is pretty bad (like I believe our current one is) I can still have faith that another coalition will fix the worst of the mistakes made.
I pretty much completely reject this summation of US politics. The current bullshit we've been dealing with has only come to a head in the last year. There are plenty of people who are working to stop the influence of money in politics and I'm predicting that the GOP is going to pay for their bullshit in November.
Politicians in both parties win points by casting politics as broken, if they can convince young people that their vote doesn't matter and that problems are beyond fixing, they get to hold onto power for longer (post baby boomers are more liberal and exist in much higher numbers than the boomers). Sadly, this seems to be working far too well.
There are also much better versions of democracy then the winner-take-all gerrymandered free flowing money democracy that America has.
I would support a system or candidate that wanted to give decision making power to groups of scientists and academics that had to prove their case based on fact. That said, some sort of check on and legitimizing of that power through a democratic process is necessary to prevent tyranny.
As far as the federal government in the united states, it was always understood to be a necessary compromise. No one liked it, except for all the parts that benefit people like a centralized military, an economic and currency union, a united diplomatic message, free-flow of labor and commerce, guarantee of civil liberties, large scale multi-state infrastructure projects, federal oversight of corruption, ect.
As for the civil war, it really was a states rights issue. In this case it was the right of NORTHERN states to outlaw slavery and the case of future western states and territories to be slave free. The international slave trade had died down at that point so that the only slaves the south had were those they could hold onto and a north with amnesty and prejudice sure as hell beat what they were offering.
The south realized it was being isolated and set up for failure. The industrializing north and the expansionist west could have easily absorbed any number of people seeking freedom.
I don't trust the government because politicians are corrupt crooks. Some are less corrupt. With our current system we choose the corrupt bastard who will give us what we want and we think wont screw everyone over too much.
They also lie and keep secrets. Constantly.
I understand that you have said this was partly ironic, but you also said you in part feel that,
If you weren't talking about some kind of wisemans committee made of of said scientists and academics, what exactly do you mean?
I live in Canada, and 1 (especially in Quebec), 2 (Ottawa is the capital) and 3 apply. I would also say 4 and 5 applies, but it can depend on the province. Some provinces have higher taxes than others, and some get more money than most from the federal gov. Also, AFAIK, provinces in Canada, to this day, have more "power" than American states comparatively to their respective federal government. While we bitch a lot about our government, we don't share this belief that a fascist government takeover is right around the corner or that the federal government is out to get us and eat our bones.
Any other explanations?*
*I don't mean that in a dickish way, I really don't know what to specifically ask.
I'd say it was only 50% slavery. The other 50% was 80% racism outside the bounds of ownership and 20% hatred of northerners.
Bullshit.
The Civil War was 100% slavery and 100% state's rights. The south wanted the right to be slave owners. Both sides were equally racist. Abolition got sway because farmers and laborers couldn't compete with slave labor. That's why they north didn't want it to expand into the west. It had the added benefit of being the morally right thing to do as well.
Most hatred of northerners came after the war when the Johnson administration didn't go with Lincoln's more sane plan for reconstruction and instead basically Weimar'd the south.
There was a large bit of fear that the former slaves may want revenge or would just run wild and rape women without the threat of slavery.
this is probably because i don't know any texans.
also, the reason why america distrusts government is that anyone who goes into politics becomes a slimeball. by the time they get elected, they simply become a slimeball with power.
add to that the general corruption of a two-party system* and it's a recipe for congress' 10% approval rating
*powerful corporate interests pay off a party to support them. REALLY powerful corporate interests pay off BOTH parties.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Having scientists dictate policy to the public is not the same thing as having a bunch of nobles & aristocrats (a system mired in superstition and religious dogma) dictating policy. It would be easy enough to adapt a process akin to peer review for the purposes of setting policy.
Most people do. Hell, some have local, state, and national taxes. Some states in the US don't have state income taxes, either. Like Florida. And it's fantastic social, education, and infrastructure programs.
That part doesn't really animate me... I always saw it as two pieces from the same pie. Then again, I live in Texas and we don't have a state income tax.
One of the better ways to understand why we don't trust government here is to read this book.