The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Political and Internationl Political Issues
Hokutosei
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
If you know anything about politics, then you know that these issues are in fact true. They are policies that are in the system of our politics. They are issues that need to be addressed, and above that, they need to be altered to better fit what it should be.
National issues:
Congress:
Congress needs to be stripped of its ability (which it abuses regularly) to give itself a pay increase. Tell me, what other job exists that you can give yourself a pay raise that you never have to worry about? By that I mean, the money to give them this pay increase comes directly from our pockets via taxation. How does that make any sense? It is not as if they work that hard, most of the time when they meet is held solely to discuss giving themselves a pay raise. That doesn't seem right. If anything, it should be put to a national vote whether or not they get a pay raise based on how we think they are doing. I just think it was entirely idiotic to grant them this power in the first place, and it needs to be addressed.
Supreme Court:
Did you know that when they join the Supreme Court, they are there for life? That's right, regardless of how old, senile, crazy, racist, or whatever they become, they are still on the court until they either die or resign. Resign? With that much power? That hardly happens. We need to address this situation and fix it accordingly. We need to be able to strip them of their position due to matters excluding resigning/retiring or death.
Basic Political Officeholders:
I understand the voting system, and I hope you too as well. But there needs to be a protocol put in place to act as a safety net. For the president, that is impeachment, but that only covers if he/she commits a criminal act. What if we just decide that we do not want him as a leader any longer? We have that for lesser political leaders such as governors. Case in point, that is how California got Arnold as its governor, it took it to a vote and kicked out the previous governor and replaced him. Why should that not be allowed for major political leaders such as the president? He was voted by the people, but I say that if he/she starts doing stuff the people no longer like, we should be able to rid ourselves of him/her.
On a side note, I do not understand why we bother to pay for security for former presidents. There is no reason for it. The system is designed to take care of itself in the event the president dies/is killed. That's what the vice president, secretary of defense, speaker of the house, and others are to do if the event it ever occurs. There is no reason to guard the former presidents on the people dime.
International Issue(s):
There a several issues here that require addressing.
-First is the existence of the World Food Bank. This system was designed to store food and provide food for those countries struck by sudden and unforeseen emergencies. It was not designed so that poorer nations get a free source of sustained food. Now, I am not saying that nations should giving away food to those in need, but that is something other than the WFB. The WFB is broken as of now because it is only a one way road. By that I mean we have nations like the US, the UK, France, and Canada depositing food into in, and we have many poor nations, many in Africa, constantly withdrawing. I understand that they are starving and need the food, but it would be better to stop supplying them with food, and provide them the ability to actually make their own food. You know, make them self-reliant rather than depending on the good will of other nations.
-The UN, United Nations. Oh what a broken system it is. If you don't know what the UN is, a.) I can't believe it, and b.) I'll explain a quick summary.
What the UN is, is basically a very large committee (already speaks on something bad since most committees hardly do anything anyhow) which oversees and decides major international issues. Now this sounds good, but it's broken. Many nations make a decision on the issue and their votes are equal. Didn't get it? Ok read it again. The votes of all the nations in the UN are counted and regarded as equal. That means the first world nations and super-power nations such as the US, the UK, France, and Russia and counted as no more important than some third world, back water nation in Africa or the Middle East. That doesn't make any sense because clearly these nations are worlds apart from being anything close to equals. I would that those poorer nations should not even be in the UN. The UN is to take care of international and global issues. Should you really be getting your nose into such a big ballpark when you can't even handle your own backyard? Some of these nations are still having genocide and civil wars going on, all the while the majority of their populations is starving.
It doesn't help the fact that when a decision is made that requires anything big or large scale, the nations that are turned to: the US, the UK, France, Russia, Canada almost never change. Now, it seems to me that if those same nations are continually pulling the load of the UN that they should have more say in the decision, since they are the ones who are going to have to carry it out anyways. If The lesser nations in the UN want an equal vote in the UN, then I say let them take care of the next be international issue, watch them fail due to inadequacies, and then turn once again to the "big dogs".
Just my two cents.
National issues:
Congress:
Congress needs to be stripped of its ability (which it abuses regularly) to give itself a pay increase. Tell me, what other job exists that you can give yourself a pay raise that you never have to worry about? By that I mean, the money to give them this pay increase comes directly from our pockets via taxation. How does that make any sense? It is not as if they work that hard, most of the time when they meet is held solely to discuss giving themselves a pay raise. That doesn't seem right. If anything, it should be put to a national vote whether or not they get a pay raise based on how we think they are doing. I just think it was entirely idiotic to grant them this power in the first place, and it needs to be addressed.
Supreme Court:
Did you know that when they join the Supreme Court, they are there for life? That's right, regardless of how old, senile, crazy, racist, or whatever they become, they are still on the court until they either die or resign. Resign? With that much power? That hardly happens. We need to address this situation and fix it accordingly. We need to be able to strip them of their position due to matters excluding resigning/retiring or death.
Basic Political Officeholders:
I understand the voting system, and I hope you too as well. But there needs to be a protocol put in place to act as a safety net. For the president, that is impeachment, but that only covers if he/she commits a criminal act. What if we just decide that we do not want him as a leader any longer? We have that for lesser political leaders such as governors. Case in point, that is how California got Arnold as its governor, it took it to a vote and kicked out the previous governor and replaced him. Why should that not be allowed for major political leaders such as the president? He was voted by the people, but I say that if he/she starts doing stuff the people no longer like, we should be able to rid ourselves of him/her.
On a side note, I do not understand why we bother to pay for security for former presidents. There is no reason for it. The system is designed to take care of itself in the event the president dies/is killed. That's what the vice president, secretary of defense, speaker of the house, and others are to do if the event it ever occurs. There is no reason to guard the former presidents on the people dime.
International Issue(s):
There a several issues here that require addressing.
-First is the existence of the World Food Bank. This system was designed to store food and provide food for those countries struck by sudden and unforeseen emergencies. It was not designed so that poorer nations get a free source of sustained food. Now, I am not saying that nations should giving away food to those in need, but that is something other than the WFB. The WFB is broken as of now because it is only a one way road. By that I mean we have nations like the US, the UK, France, and Canada depositing food into in, and we have many poor nations, many in Africa, constantly withdrawing. I understand that they are starving and need the food, but it would be better to stop supplying them with food, and provide them the ability to actually make their own food. You know, make them self-reliant rather than depending on the good will of other nations.
-The UN, United Nations. Oh what a broken system it is. If you don't know what the UN is, a.) I can't believe it, and b.) I'll explain a quick summary.
What the UN is, is basically a very large committee (already speaks on something bad since most committees hardly do anything anyhow) which oversees and decides major international issues. Now this sounds good, but it's broken. Many nations make a decision on the issue and their votes are equal. Didn't get it? Ok read it again. The votes of all the nations in the UN are counted and regarded as equal. That means the first world nations and super-power nations such as the US, the UK, France, and Russia and counted as no more important than some third world, back water nation in Africa or the Middle East. That doesn't make any sense because clearly these nations are worlds apart from being anything close to equals. I would that those poorer nations should not even be in the UN. The UN is to take care of international and global issues. Should you really be getting your nose into such a big ballpark when you can't even handle your own backyard? Some of these nations are still having genocide and civil wars going on, all the while the majority of their populations is starving.
It doesn't help the fact that when a decision is made that requires anything big or large scale, the nations that are turned to: the US, the UK, France, Russia, Canada almost never change. Now, it seems to me that if those same nations are continually pulling the load of the UN that they should have more say in the decision, since they are the ones who are going to have to carry it out anyways. If The lesser nations in the UN want an equal vote in the UN, then I say let them take care of the next be international issue, watch them fail due to inadequacies, and then turn once again to the "big dogs".
Just my two cents.
If nothing is impossible, then would that not mean that it would be impossible to find something that is impossible?
"It is not enough that I succeed, all other must fail." -Genghis Khan
"It is not enough that I succeed, all other must fail." -Genghis Khan
Hokutosei on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
bwah?
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
thanks for telling me what the UN is, guy, I had no idea before
Also, welcome to D&D.