In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On September 26 2015 04:29 RenSC2 wrote: I'm glad Boehner is finally gone. This is the man who was caught handing out bribes from tobacco companies to his fellow congressmen on the floor of the house. He never even apologized for being a tobacco lobby shill. Instead, he only apologized for doing it on the floor.
He has been bought by so many different lobbies that I don't think he still owns a shred of himself. Guys like him are the reason why the Tea Party gained power in the first place. People were sick of all the corruption in government and wanted a smaller government instead. Then all the dissatisfied and unrepresented ideologues jumped onboard and we have the party of crazy killing our government from the inside.
If guys like Boehner would have been run out of office when his corruption was discovered, the Tea Party might not have ever existed. Instead, he became the Speaker of the House. What a joke.
You realize your describing 90% (probably more then 90) of politicians right? Almost everyone is bought and payed for and the few that aren't only stay so because they are not important enough.
As for Boehner, what could he do in his position? He either works with the Tea Party which leads to a shutdown (since the democrats can stop anything really dumb/Obama would Veto) or he ignores them because he feels the government working is more important then pointless statement with no chance of success.
And the Tea Party having a plan? I'm sorry but they don't. Have you already forgotten the last shutdown where Cruz, the originator of said shutdown, when confronted by Republican leadership about what step would come next he had nothing? I honestly believe people like Cruz only care about staying in power. He doesn't care about America being a better place. or improving people's lives. He wants to be re-elected and to ensure that he yells and stomps to show his constitutions how much he is trying to kill the 'big bad government'. The shutdown earned him favor with his voters, what it does to the country is not his concern. Same deal with PP now. His voters want to see him fight against the 'evil baby murderers' so he fights even tho everyone who can count knows its a fight he can never win.
On September 26 2015 04:24 zlefin wrote: your are denying the possibliity of making a slightly better system with a slightly lower chance of failure. You are strawmanning. I never talked about making a perfect system, only an improved one. Also, of course there are inherent flaws, one can argue how serious they are, and how fixable they are, but one can't argue that there are no inherent flaws. I am quite well aware of the point you seek to make, you have made it, and I would like to move on now with my thinking and discussion of it.
The problems are 1. Most changes would have a good chance of increasing the chance of failure 2. Evaluating other changes depend on defining what failure is
I mean if the US is conquered or all the citizens die, that is definitely failure (As the system you changed no longer exists)... but anything short of that, someone of 300+million people could legitimately view as success.
While it is worth trying to figure out what would make the system better according to you, you also need to think about what will make the system better to other people involved in the system. (for pragmatism if not altruism/equality)
The Founders weren't perfect, but they also weren't stupid. 150 years without a violent change/near change of government is pretty good for human society.
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
House Speaker John Boehner's sudden resignation Friday "signals that the crazies have taken over the party," New York Republican Peter King said Friday.
“I think it signals the crazies have taken over the party, taken over to the party that you can remove a speaker of the House who’s second in line to be president, a constitutional officer in the middle of his term with no allegations of impropriety, a person who’s honest and doing his job. This has never happened before in our country," King said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash on Friday afternoon. "He could have stayed on.”
Boehner has done "an outstanding job," King said, adding that he was "extremely disappointed" upon hearing the news of his resignation.
“There was actually, I thought, like a hush in the room for a few seconds where no one — people like looked at each other — they couldn’t believe it. And then he read the prayer of St. Francis, which was very moving," King said of the moment when Boehner told fellow lawmakers that he was leaving office.
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing.
A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election.
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing.
A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election.
That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision.
House Speaker John Boehner's sudden resignation Friday "signals that the crazies have taken over the party," New York Republican Peter King said Friday.
“I think it signals the crazies have taken over the party, taken over to the party that you can remove a speaker of the House who’s second in line to be president, a constitutional officer in the middle of his term with no allegations of impropriety, a person who’s honest and doing his job. This has never happened before in our country," King said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash on Friday afternoon. "He could have stayed on.”
Boehner has done "an outstanding job," King said, adding that he was "extremely disappointed" upon hearing the news of his resignation.
“There was actually, I thought, like a hush in the room for a few seconds where no one — people like looked at each other — they couldn’t believe it. And then he read the prayer of St. Francis, which was very moving," King said of the moment when Boehner told fellow lawmakers that he was leaving office.
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious.
I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways.
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing.
A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election.
That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision.
Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this).
Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern
Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd.
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious.
I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways.
The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic.
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing.
A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election.
That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision.
Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this).
Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern
Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd.
Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage.
House Speaker John Boehner's sudden resignation Friday "signals that the crazies have taken over the party," New York Republican Peter King said Friday.
“I think it signals the crazies have taken over the party, taken over to the party that you can remove a speaker of the House who’s second in line to be president, a constitutional officer in the middle of his term with no allegations of impropriety, a person who’s honest and doing his job. This has never happened before in our country," King said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash on Friday afternoon. "He could have stayed on.”
Boehner has done "an outstanding job," King said, adding that he was "extremely disappointed" upon hearing the news of his resignation.
“There was actually, I thought, like a hush in the room for a few seconds where no one — people like looked at each other — they couldn’t believe it. And then he read the prayer of St. Francis, which was very moving," King said of the moment when Boehner told fellow lawmakers that he was leaving office.
Reading this, I wonder if Boehner is throwing himself on the sword here in a last-ditch attempt to get the non-Tea Party House Republicans to unite to avoid a government shutdown...if he is I respect him a lot more.
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious.
I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways.
The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic.
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing.
A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election.
That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision.
Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this).
Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern
Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd.
Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage.
Imo hope it happens again and everything tangibly related to those guys will be unelectable for years to come.
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious.
I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways.
The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic.
On September 26 2015 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing.
A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election.
That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision.
Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this).
Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern
Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd.
Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage.
Imo hope it happens again and everything tangibly related to those guys will be unelectable for years to come.
There long term planning skills are not very good, so they could be burning bridges in their district. There is a reasonable chance a lot of the Tea Party darlings could get drummed out or loose to a moderate Democrat this cycle. The electoral map looks really bad for Republicans this election if I remember correctly.
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious.
I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways.
The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic.
On September 26 2015 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:
On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote: I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing.
It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing.
A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election.
That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision.
Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this).
Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern
Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd.
Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage.
Imo hope it happens again and everything tangibly related to those guys will be unelectable for years to come.
There long term planning skills are not very good, so they could be burning bridges in their district. There is a reasonable chance a lot of the Tea Party darlings could get drummed out or loose to a moderate Democrat this cycle. The electoral map looks really bad for Republicans this election if I remember correctly.
Electoral maps develop around the candidate. Obama was able to dominate the youth and minority votes to easily take battleground states and throw Florida into contention. Hillary will have a much harder time in the midwest and the southern east coast. NAFTA is not going to be a pleasant memory in the eyes of ohio illinois and penn.
I mean shit if we could pull a russia and have Hillary serve as a proxy for her husband it wouldn't be an election I don't think.
Imagine if this country had a common sense modern thinking government that overhauled and reformed the Recycling system...
If you worry that Americans produce too much garbage, you won’t get much reassurance from a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The study shows that landfills across the country are taking in more than twice as much solid waste as the government thought: a whopping 262 million tons of food scraps, paper products, and the like in 2012 rather than the 122 million tons that the EPA had estimated for that year.
In more personal terms, the new estimate suggests that our landfills are taking in roughly five pounds of solid waste per person per day, according to the Associated Press.
What explains the jarring discrepancy between the new estimate and EPA’s? It’s all about methodology.
The EPA traditionally has based its estimate on reports from businesses, industry associations, the U.S. Census, and other sources, according to a written statement released by Yale University.
Instead, the researchers behind the new study went directly to the operators of more than 1,200 municipal solid waste landfills across the nation, using four years of data through 2013. That makes the new estimate a “superior number,” Jon Powell, a Ph.D. student in Yale’s department of chemical and environmental engineering and the lead author of a paper describing the research, said in the statement.
“I am excited about the possibilities that the quality-assured, measured data we were able to leverage in this study holds in terms of informing our path forward to manage wastes more sustainably,” Powell told The Huffington Post in an email.
The nation isn’t about to run out of landfill space anytime soon. In fact, the new research suggests that the average landfill has enough capacity for another 30 to 40 years of use.
EPT
