On October 24 2012 10:55 Swazi Spring wrote: America is a federation, not a unitary state. The president should represent all of the states equally. How would you feel if the leaders of the EU only cared about Germany?
Wrong.
If this were true, Federal law would not supersede state law..it would be the reverse. America has not been a confederation since the decade after the Revolutionary war ended.
Where did I say America was a confederacy?
Either way, America's president does represent all Americans equally, as all federal laws and regulations affect all Americans equally. The Federal legislative, judicial, and executive powers cannot enact statutes that affect only one part of the country, which is by design of the constitution.
As other people here said, the president leads the STATES. It's bad enough the lefties passed the 17th Amendment, a "popular vote" would put the final nail in the coffin for federalism in America.
Oh other people said it?? IT MUST BE TRUE!!
But really, the President leads the Federal government, and Governors lead the State governments..If the president lead the states I seriously doubt that Wisconsin would have been passing a bill to end collective bargaining rights for Government employees, or that Ohio would have gotten so close to restricting the vote for constituents who were going to overwhelmingly vote for Obama...the President...
The president leads the coalition of states, yes.
You can just keep saying that if you want, but its not true. The United States is a unified nation, and you have provided absolutely no evidence otherwise (except for saying that other people said it was true!). POTUS leads the Federal government, as is laid out in the constitution, and only concerns himself with the workings on going-ons of the Federal Government. We stopped being a loose knit group of individual states, and began to be a unified nation a long time ago.
We are and were always intended to be a loose collection, even the federalists realized that they didn't want a completely "unified" state that is run from the top down. I recommend reading the Federalist Papers.
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
romney is so used to buying everything he wants since the day he was born of course he thinks he can buy the election. thank god for the unions and the small donors who are helping obama protect us from republicans
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
On October 24 2012 10:55 Swazi Spring wrote: America is a federation, not a unitary state. The president should represent all of the states equally. How would you feel if the leaders of the EU only cared about Germany?
Wrong.
If this were true, Federal law would not supersede state law..it would be the reverse. America has not been a confederation since the decade after the Revolutionary war ended.
Where did I say America was a confederacy?
Either way, America's president does represent all Americans equally, as all federal laws and regulations affect all Americans equally. The Federal legislative, judicial, and executive powers cannot enact statutes that affect only one part of the country, which is by design of the constitution.
As other people here said, the president leads the STATES. It's bad enough the lefties passed the 17th Amendment, a "popular vote" would put the final nail in the coffin for federalism in America.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the power of the federal government is given by the people and not the states. I happen to agree with this interpretation of the Constitution.
Can you please name the case in which they said that?
Story found that it was clear from history and the preamble of the Constitution that the Federal power was given directly by the people and not by the States.
This is a case that gave governmental power to the preamble of the Constitution, and as such, the Supreme Court claimed that their power came from "We, the People," which one can interpret to apply to both the legislative branches and executive branches as well. The Constitution gives each branch their power, and the Constitution is a representation of We, the People, therefore the President is first accountable to We, the People.
On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote: the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy.
Well the reasoning for this was that they didnt trust the common man to make correct decisions when it came to electing leaders, and thats why they set up the electoral college in the first place. They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle).
Also, the founding fathers also believed women shouldnt vote and that slavery should be allowed to exist (with slaves counting as 3/5 of a human being of course). The mark of an advancing and civilized society is to continually change with the times (which is also why the constitution can be amended btw), and those who dont are sure to fall off and whither with time.
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
romney is so used to buying everything he wants since the day he was born of course he thinks he can buy the election. thank god for the unions and the small donors who are helping obama protect us from republicans
Right, because Obama is getting all of his donations from the working-men! Just keep drinking that Kool-Aid.
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote: the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy.
They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle).
the news cycle is not your friend
don't assume that just because information travels faster that is good for democracy
I rather think that modern information technology is the undoing of democracy...
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
No. You just talked about people -- as in actual, living beings.
People coming together to speak about common political issues is called a POLITICAL PARTY, not a fucking corporation.
Citizens already have free speech, via themselves. Corporations are simple economic entities -- and some of them are internationally based. There is no need for corporations to have any say in our political process -- and giving them free reign to put money into our political process makes them worth MORE than actual people to our political process.
No actual living, breathing person was being denied free political speech before Citizens United. It's a horrible argument, for a horrible decision.
You can just keep saying that if you want, but its not true. The United States is a unified nation, and you have provided absolutely no evidence otherwise (except for saying that other people said it was true!). POTUS leads the Federal government, as is laid out in the constitution, and only concerns himself with the workings on going-ons of the Federal Government. We stopped being a loose knit group of individual states, and began to be a unified nation a long time ago.
We are and were always intended to be a loose collection, even the federalists realized that they didn't want a completely "unified" state that is run from the top down. I recommend reading the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist papers are over 200 years old bro, thus refer to the last sentence of the nestled quote above.
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
romney is so used to buying everything he wants since the day he was born of course he thinks he can buy the election.
Do you actually know the man? This just sounds like a prejudice against wealthy individuals.
On October 24 2012 11:29 Swazi Spring wrote: the undemocratic EU
didn't you JUST say more democratic wasn't better?
I support democracy, but much like the Founding Fathers, I am weary of too much democracy.
Well the reasoning for this was that they didnt trust the common man to make correct decisions when it came to electing leaders, and thats why they set up the electoral college in the first place. They feared that due to the inability for information to travel quickly, people would often be making uninformed choices, and simply voting on superfluous attributes. This is no longer really relevant in this day and age, as at no other time in history has the individual voter been as informed as they are now (thank you internet and new cycle).
People may have the ABILITY to be more informed, but that does not make them more informed. We've got idiots voting because "HE GAVE ME AN OBAMAPHONE" or "he has awesome hair," in fact, I'd argue that the reason presidential candidates (on both sides) have been so terrible these last few decades is because of too much democracy. When the states moved away from caucuses and towards primaries, the uneducated masses began voting.
Under a caucus system, only the most educated, intelligent, and (perhaps most importantly) passionate individuals choose who their party's nominee is.
On October 24 2012 10:58 Swazi Spring wrote: Jill Stein: "I want to get rid of our national debt! I also want to transform America into a completely socialist state, give away 'free' college, give away 'free' healthcare, and wage a war on climate change!"
I don't think she understands how economics work.
Denmark seems to be doing really well with their free healthcare and free education and I also hear those Europeans care very much about their enviroment. Why has their society not collapsed?
And please tell me you are not an economics student.
Europe is falling apart, though cradle to grave socialism is only a small part of the reason why. As Gary Johnson said in the debate: "'Free' comes at a cost."
Europe isn't falling apart. The Eurozone is in trouble, but that's got nothing to do with socialism. That's what happens when you have a single currency, losing exchange rates as an adjustment mechanism, without a single fiscal authority and banking union or your own central bank, and you get hit by a massive shock such as the GFC and the bursting of a giant housing bubble.
If it's all about socialism, by isn't Germany or Sweden falling apart? They have larger welfare states than Spain and Greece. Why isn't Australia falling apart?
What's the economic reasoning that leads from Socialism to the Eurozone crisis?
Again the welfare state is only part of the problem. You said it yourself that having a single-currency that spans various culturally diverse regions is another part of it. I wasn't just referring to Europe's economic failure though, in general they are falling part at the seems. You're right that we have seen economic crisis after economic crisis in Europe, but we've also seen the rise of Islamic extremism, the rise of extreme nationalism, the loss of civil liberties, and the undemocratic EU growing stronger and stronger.
Or indeed, the fallout from a financial crisis precipitated by largely deregulated/poorly regulated financial institutions, primarily starting in the old USA right?
Islamic extremism is a non-issue for the most part that is blown out of proportion by media stories catering to xenophobes, at least in the UK. Extreme nationalism hasn't really took hold, at least in the UK which is the only state I have first-hand experience of. It's pretty big in Greece at the minute from what I gather, but then Greece isn't representative of the rest of Europe.
What civil liberties are we losing over in Europe?
Oh, wow. I wonder if he thought to himself, "I shouldn't have said that", after he said that.
On the other hand, I give him credit more than most pro-lifers. If you think fetuses are humans, then it shouldn't matter how it was conceived, you shouldn't advocate its death just because the mother was raped.
But saying God planned you to get raped? Jesus Christ.
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? the same people want unions to not be able to spend their money to educate people on bad working conditions and bad teaching conditions but that's wrong because that leaves less profits for the companies
but a company has a right to take its profits and spread lies? Free speech is free speech. So even lying is protected (if they do lie). Companies don't take profits they make them. (I think your class warfare is showing.)
On October 24 2012 11:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: "End corporate personhood. Money is not speech and corporations are not people!" - Jill Stein
The biggest issue of any, to me, is this. Every other issue we discuss doesn't matter if our voice in this Republic is literally measured by the amount of money that comes with it. "Citizens United" is 100% oligarchy-style government, completely unethical, has no constitutional basis, and completely belittles what little say the average person has in the political process.
Obama has talked about it, but something needs to actually be done. We sure as hell know where Mitt Romney stands on Citizens United. For him, it's like having double citizenship. Or triple/quadruple, maybe.
Does one individual have the right to stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. Do two individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap box and speak? Yes. (You might say 'No' I guess.) Do a hundred individuals have the right to come together, stand on a soap and speak? Still Yes.
The Citizens United case was ruled correctly. It is free speech.
I am in favor of publicly financed elections, so I am opposed to Citizens' United.
What you just described is interest groups lobbying, which is different from them playing the campaign-finance game.
EPT
