| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21712 Posts
On October 12 2018 03:37 IgnE wrote: Republicans don't want to secede because they will be left with the poor half.what about seriously considering just splitting the country in two? why not let them/us secede? maybe we should reexamine that option | ||
|
Slydie
1922 Posts
It puzzles me that the laws of the US apparently are so vague that the small surpreme court gets an incredible amount of political power! Of course there is debate about the rulings of the Norwegian SC too, but in a juridical way. Recently, a catholic doctor lost her job for refusing to give a spiral to women, and won her case in the SC. That is as far as they go in terms of being politicians. If the actual politicians don't like that ruling, they can always change the law... | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35154 Posts
On October 12 2018 03:37 IgnE wrote: what about seriously considering just splitting the country in two? why not let them/us secede? maybe we should reexamine that option Which side gets where? Do people have to pay to move from the "wrong" part of the country to the "right" part of it for their political beliefs, where they currently live, or where they are moving to? Is it possible for either of these new nations to be viable? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
On October 12 2018 03:57 Plansix wrote: Secession would fail because neither side would be willing to take Florida. Florida is actually a wondeful place if you are an orange | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
(Sorry, couldn't help myself) | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 12 2018 03:42 farvacola wrote: Without looking into the specifics, that seems like a recipe for Brexit 2.0, only much, much worse. whats so bad about brexit? lets just assume that yes there will be a brief period of economic cost to the split. the question is whether the long-term equilibrium is favorable over maintainig the status quo. we can agree, i think, that the euro as a whole presents long-term equilibrium problems for the EU which does not have the latitude the US has to prop up less economically productive states with monetary policies. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 12 2018 03:54 Gahlo wrote: Which side gets where? Do people have to pay to move from the "wrong" part of the country to the "right" part of it for their political beliefs, where they currently live, or where they are moving to? Is it possible for either of these new nations to be viable? yes they would have to pay to move. the question, again, is one whether the cost of moving is worth the perceived costs of relocating, and the long-term equilibrium. presuming both halves retain some democratic governance structure, the risk to minority opinion of not liking democratic outcomes is inherent to the system. the key thing to consider is that theres already a lot of discontentment in the larger internally fractured whole | ||
KwarK
United States42803 Posts
On October 12 2018 04:32 IgnE wrote: whats so bad about brexit? lets just assume that yes there will be a brief period of economic cost to the split. the question is whether the long-term equilibrium is favorable over maintainig the status quo. we can agree, i think, that the euro as a whole presents long-term equilibrium problems for the EU which does not have the latitude the US has to prop up less economically productive states with monetary policies. What's bad about Brexit is that there is no consensus on whether to Brexit. The same is true for a hypothetical Calxit. Even if it were 60/40, and not 51/49 as Brexit was, there would still be a lot of internal disagreement over what to do. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On October 12 2018 04:36 IgnE wrote: yes they would have to pay to move. the question, again, is one whether the cost of moving is worth the perceived costs of relocating, and the long-term equilibrium. presuming both halves retain some democratic governance structure, the risk to minority opinion of not liking democratic outcomes is inherent to the system. the key thing to consider is that theres already a lot of discontentment in the larger internally fractured whole Societal unity is an inevitable part of technological advances in communication and travel. As much as it sends shivers down the spines of the Cletuses of the country, there won't always be a notable distinction between coastal cities and areas where cattle outnumber humans. Secession is a long term cost to a short term solution. States used to be much more distinct and culturally specific than they are today. Hell, even Asian and European culture is significantly more involved in American society than it was 20 years ago. A lot of the problems we have today are essentially caused by low societal mobility in rotten pockets of the country. There are places where mixing can't easily occur because no one wants to go there. These places end up continually rotting through brain drain as people say "or I could live somewhere else and be much happier". Coastal areas tend to advance more rapidly because of ports. More people in, more people out, lots of industry reason for them to exist. Lots of benefits of being near the ocean. Coastal/Cletus societal difference, in my eyes, is largely created by different rates of change which are a result of different rates of mixing, which are a result of differences in suitability/desirability of areas. | ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4774 Posts
On October 12 2018 00:00 Doodsmack wrote: To be clear the reasoning stated by Republicans in 2016 was not that the president and Senate were controlled by different political parties, it was only that we were in a presidential election year. This revisionism that talks about the parties being different is now being used by Republicans to justify potentially confirming a nominee in 2020 if it were to come up. But doing that would directly contradict the clearly stated reasoning in 2016. Which is fine if you're now saying the party should just use the power that it has, just be honest about the inconsistency. I said at the time their reasoning was bad. they have the power of advise and consent, and its what they used. so it should have been what they appealed to. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4774 Posts
On October 12 2018 00:07 Mohdoo wrote: Sorry to be responding late, In an ideal case, which of these would be decided by a court and which of these would be decided by congress/senate? Healthcare Immigration Gay marriage Abortion In an ideal case, do you prefer those issues are solved by a court, or solved by elected officials? My main criticism of the court isn't even because of the court. My main criticism is that deference to the supreme court allows for our shitbag senators and congressmen to hide behind court rulings. When our elected officials have less of a voting record, they are less accountable. When everything goes to the supreme court, politicians are less accountable. We aren't allowing our democracy to properly function when we defer to the courts with every single major issue. Furthermore, the idea of lifelong appointment is inherently flawed as it pertains to law. The idea that it prevents partisanship is shot 6 times in the head by just reviewing the last 10 years. We can find other methods of making the court more neutral. The current system is not good and I would be very surprised if you think the supreme court is functioning in a healthy way. We aren't stuck with the current system. Nothing about our laws and institutions is defined by god or any other greater than human being. This is an entirely man-made system that is born with all the same flaws as the people who crafted it. It is important to recognize that in every single other situation in life, we can look back at decisions made 80 years ago and think "yeah, but obviously we know a lot more now and would not do that today". The same is also true of American law and institutions. We didn't just magically come up with the most slam dunk system you could ever imagine our first try. Our system is bad and it shouldn't be surprising. It is super old and old ideas are generally improved on over time. It is how every single thing in the world works. healthcare: it is complicated, but it should be worked out by legislative bodies. immigration: if you look at us history, for the large majority of it the courts were loath to get involved here. the constitution gives Congress power and the courts generally have deferred to Congress on what rules to make and to the executive on how he enforces them. gay marriage: the states abortion: the states what needs to happen is for Congress to exercise it's own power and start to rein in the courts. then it wont matter as much who is there. this is obviously a hard problem, but I hope some of our left friends see the supreme court they now face and decide they like restraint and Congress again. and I sincerely hope a newly conservative supreme court, instead of going activist, starts to restrain itself and the courts below it. in that case a 5-4 might actually incentivize this movement. it remains to be seen. some libertarians, especially, favor a more active court. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On October 12 2018 05:02 Introvert wrote: healthcare: it is complicated, but it should be worked out by legislative bodies. immigration: if you look at us history, for the large majority of it the courts were loath to get involved here. the constitution gives Congress power and the courts generally have deferred to Congress on what rules to make and to the executive on how he enforces them. gay marriage: the states abortion: the states what needs to happen is for Congress to exercise it's own power and start to rein in the courts. then it wont matter as much who is there. this is obviously a hard problem, but I hope some of our left friends see the supreme court they now face and decide they like restraint and Congress again. and I sincerely hope a newly conservative supreme court, instead of going activist, starts to restrain itself and the courts below it. in that case a 5-4 might actually incentivize this movement. it remains to be seen. some libertarians, especially, favor a more active court. Marriage comes with federal benefits though? Taxes go down for married couples. How could the states have the right to effect their citizens at a federal level? What if you are married in one state, but get hurt in another where they are not married? Would the spouse not be able to ride in the ambulance with them? Have less rights at the hospital bedside? Maybe I am wrong but a state does not have a right to take away another states protections right? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42803 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21712 Posts
On October 12 2018 05:02 Introvert wrote: Democrats don't have a problem with Congress and would love to do their job.healthcare: it is complicated, but it should be worked out by legislative bodies. immigration: if you look at us history, for the large majority of it the courts were loath to get involved here. the constitution gives Congress power and the courts generally have deferred to Congress on what rules to make and to the executive on how he enforces them. gay marriage: the states abortion: the states what needs to happen is for Congress to exercise it's own power and start to rein in the courts. then it wont matter as much who is there. this is obviously a hard problem, but I hope some of our left friends see the supreme court they now face and decide they like restraint and Congress again. and I sincerely hope a newly conservative supreme court, instead of going activist, starts to restrain itself and the courts below it. in that case a 5-4 might actually incentivize this movement. it remains to be seen. some libertarians, especially, favor a more active court. The Congress of 'meh whatever, I dont want to work let the Judicial and Executive handle it' came into being after the Tea Party took over. Complaining about things they have the power to change without actually doing something is their favorite pastime. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 12 2018 05:05 KwarK wrote: Gay marriage can't be a state to state thing. It's a Federally recognized status which means that all states would have to recognize the marriages of other states. Also it's a fundamental right so why would you even want some states to be allowed to not recognize it. And marriage also provides the rights to inherit and guardianship over children. Like, what the hell to gay parents do when one state doesn’t accept that they are parent? On October 12 2018 05:07 farvacola wrote: Allowing states discretion in recognizing gay marriage also runs afoul of full faith and credit. People don’t get that the states lost this fight in the 1960s over interracial marriage. They don’t to do it with gay marriage and religion without reopening Pandora’s box. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Dewalt
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
SC Evo League
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Classic vs Percival
Spirit vs NightMare
CSO Cup
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
