I think I may technically be a traitor.

[Pimppeter2]

I don't know anything about the treaty, but your friends have every right to vote for whatever reason.

Even if they have been lied to about the issues? as an extreme example if i told you we were voting to protect jobs, when what was really going to happen was rounding up and executing immigrants. would you still be intitled to vote yes?

My point still stands. They might have dumb/unreasonable reasons, but they still have the right to make the decision they want.

But thats not how teh system works. democracys are based on peopel deciding what they want and voting yes or no, the people here literally dont knwo what they want?

They think they know, and that suits them. Unless they're told otherwise and change their decision, it still their right to make an uninformed one.

 

[Epitome]

some one better give a clear less vage explanation of this new law. Otherwise its a deffinate no to the law. Jees your explinations are more vague than any politions answer.

Its not a law. Okay from the top. The EU is a group of 27 countries who formed a trading block and built a Framework around it. We abolished individual currencies and created the Euro giving us all much greater bargaining power, we lifted taxes on trading between our countries, loads of stuff. But the frameork on which it all stands was designed for the original 6 members, now we have expanded and that framework no longer works efficently. Too many states have vetoes, the Heads of state meet in private, the european parliment does not have much power theres alot of problems. The Lisbon treaty would combine and replace all previous treaties as well as update the Frmaework to be more transparent and democraitc. The tradeoff is that countries lose vetoes and issues like neutarlity are brought up. The US doesnt like it because it binds us all in a military manner aswell tackling terrorism and cross border crime etc, though neutral countries may opt-out of this. Essentially its like a federal setup butr with a much greater degree of transparency and accountability, we enjoy the benefits of numbers, trading, etc but sometimes the EU's wishes will run contrary to our own. There are setups that the EU may never force change in a country but of course nay sayers see globalisation as the end of the world. Where a si realise the world isnt going to wait for us and your either in or your out.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, speaking from an American perspective I tend to agree with you to an extent. I also feel there should be some limitations placed on who can vote. The slippery slope of goverment power is a very slippery one however. To do it, you'd pretty much need to come up with a list of objective standards that need to be met.

Like for example if given the question "What is the dividing line between the two major political partys in The United States" probably 90% of the people couldn't answer it. All of the various political arguements aside the basic issue is that the Democrats believe in a single all powerful Federal goverment that controls everything (ie very weak or non existant state and local goverments) and The Republicans do not, and feel power should be based more on the states and towns.

Of course the education system being what it is, I'd imagine a lot of minorities would wind up failing, and then people would scream "racism" and how it's a conspiricy to prevent "colored" folks from voting, rather than minorities being encouraged to educate themselves better so they could pass.

I'd also include objective standards like being able to speak, read, and write english, and probably some very basic general knowledge stuff.

You really couldn't do anything beyond that because it would get scewed. A very basic set of universal standards, and a simple pass/fail system.

I do understand why we do not do this however, and yes it could be easily abused without some major watchdogging.

On an aside, I actually have always had a serious problem with your two party setup in the states. for all teh cries of "Soclialism is communism[its not]" you are only the loss of one party shy of being a one party state. Tell me are there others who simply cannot pick up the momentum or finance, or do the two parties have a controlling interest in keeping it that way? Because for me no right minded human is all teh way liberal or conservative on anything. Its possible to say, oppose the war and gay marrige but come voting time which way do you vote? Yeah i can imagine when the Deep South lost 50% of the vote they would be pissed. I may be exaggerating but I have seen their standardised scores :O

Well a lot of the people who would be setting those low scores would be minorities in the Deep South, sure plenty of trailer trash too, but the end result would be that the resulting issue would probably be drawn along the lines of race if it was to ever happen. Almost guaranteed.

As far as the rest goes, the US does *NOT* have a two party system. In the end we effectively have an infinate party system, it's just that most of the support is based around one of those two partys and their point of view. Technically it's pretty easy to start your own party in the US, but actually succeeding with it is something else entirely.

Unlike another response on the subject I do not see The Republican party as "failing". It won two elections in a row, and then lost one. When The Democrats lost two in a row they were whining about their own party failing. Right now the country is pretty much polarized, Obama came in with a 7% lead, and now it seems to be eroding due to current issues, of course it's WAY too early to determine what is going to happen in the next election.

Honestly though, if one of these parties "failed" it would just lead to another party or two stepping up.

Truthfully the big thing though is that the central divide between a powerful federal goverment and powerful state and local goverments is something that everyone is involved in and has an opinion on. The various issues being secondary before that (no matter what some might want to believe). The reason why a viable third party has not formed is because they lack an equal degree of resonance. Enviromentalism for example is a powerful message, but not enough people believe you could run the country based on those principles effectively and remain competitive globally. Libertarians talk a good game but in the end they tend to be out there waaay in left field when it comes to handling situations realistically, they get a lot of support due to their social policies, but in the end again a lot of people don't see them as being viable. Guys like Ron Paul are simply a bit messed up in the head with their talk about going back to gold standards and stuff like that.

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

Well a lot of the people who would be setting those low scores would be minorities in the Deep South, sure plenty of trailer trash too, but the end result would be that the resulting issue would probably be drawn along the lines of race if it was to ever happen. Almost guaranteed.

As far as the rest goes, the US does *NOT* have a two party system. In the end we effectively have an infinate party system, it's just that most of the support is based around one of those two partys and their point of view. Technically it's pretty easy to start your own party in the US, but actually succeeding with it is something else entirely.

Unlike another response on the subject I do not see The Republican party as "failing". It won two elections in a row, and then lost one. When The Democrats lost two in a row they were whining about their own party failing. Right now the country is pretty much polarized, Obama came in with a 7% lead, and now it seems to be eroding due to current issues, of course it's WAY too early to determine what is going to happen in the next election.

Honestly though, if one of these parties "failed" it would just lead to another party or two stepping up.

Truthfully the big thing though is that the central divide between a powerful federal goverment and powerful state and local goverments is something that everyone is involved in and has an opinion on. The various issues being secondary before that (no matter what some might want to believe). The reason why a viable third party has not formed is because they lack an equal degree of resonance. Enviromentalism for example is a powerful message, but not enough people believe you could run the country based on those principles effectively and remain competitive globally. Libertarians talk a good game but in the end they tend to be out there waaay in left field when it comes to handling situations realistically, they get a lot of support due to their social policies, but in the end again a lot of people don't see them as being viable. Guys like Ron Paul are simply a bit messed up in the head with their talk about going back to gold standards and stuff like that.

I said if they continue. The problem from my POV, is that the crazy Tax Tea Party, Birthers, and Death Panel thing was said or supported by pretty mainstream conservative voices like Fox News, Limbaugh, and even people within the Republican Party.Even when the Democrats were out of power they didn't lend support to the anarcho-socialists and communists participating in the anti-war marches and calling for Bush's death.The crazy base is scaring away independents and moderates, meaning that a third party might have a chance, considering not everyone is happy with the Democratic Party right now. Recently an abortion doctor, cops, and churches have been shot up for being liberals or practicing abortion, which also lends an anti-conservative bias.

And from the polls I've seen Obama/ the public option is supported by the majority of Americans in most polls, except Rasmussen, which is a historical outlier.

You're right though, it might be personal bias/hope.

 

[Therumancer]

Well a lot of the people who would be setting those low scores would be minorities in the Deep South, sure plenty of trailer trash too, but the end result would be that the resulting issue would probably be drawn along the lines of race if it was to ever happen. Almost guaranteed.

As far as the rest goes, the US does *NOT* have a two party system. In the end we effectively have an infinate party system, it's just that most of the support is based around one of those two partys and their point of view. Technically it's pretty easy to start your own party in the US, but actually succeeding with it is something else entirely.

Unlike another response on the subject I do not see The Republican party as "failing". It won two elections in a row, and then lost one. When The Democrats lost two in a row they were whining about their own party failing. Right now the country is pretty much polarized, Obama came in with a 7% lead, and now it seems to be eroding due to current issues, of course it's WAY too early to determine what is going to happen in the next election.

Honestly though, if one of these parties "failed" it would just lead to another party or two stepping up.

Truthfully the big thing though is that the central divide between a powerful federal goverment and powerful state and local goverments is something that everyone is involved in and has an opinion on. The various issues being secondary before that (no matter what some might want to believe). The reason why a viable third party has not formed is because they lack an equal degree of resonance. Enviromentalism for example is a powerful message, but not enough people believe you could run the country based on those principles effectively and remain competitive globally. Libertarians talk a good game but in the end they tend to be out there waaay in left field when it comes to handling situations realistically, they get a lot of support due to their social policies, but in the end again a lot of people don't see them as being viable. Guys like Ron Paul are simply a bit messed up in the head with their talk about going back to gold standards and stuff like that.

I said if they continue. The problem from my POV, is that the crazy Tax Tea Party, Birthers, and Death Panel thing was said or supported by pretty mainstream conservative voices like Fox News, Limbaugh, and even people within the Republican Party.Even when the Democrats were out of power they didn't lend support to the anarcho-socialists and communists participating in the anti-war marches and calling for Bush's death.The crazy base is scaring away independents and moderates, meaning that a third party might have a chance, considering not everyone is happy with the Democratic Party right now. Recently an abortion doctor, cops, and churches have been shot up for being liberals or practicing abortion, which also lends an anti-conservative bias.

And from the polls I've seen Obama/ the public option is supported by the majority of Americans in most polls, except Rasmussen, which is a historical outlier.

You're right though, it might be personal bias/hope.

Well the largest majority the Democrats had recently was 7% when Obama was elected. One of the reasons why people accuse the media of left wing bias is that if you take it seriously most channels talk it up to make it sound like the Democrats have a much clearer majority, and they do not. In general the nation has been polarized for quite a while, and even a "big" lead is a highly subjective thing.

As far as "crazies" on both sides, I guess it depends heavily on your opinion. Truthfully I agree with a lot of the so called "Neo-Cons" on most things. I have become both heavily militant and heavily nationalistic nowadays.

As far as people involved in anti-war marches and calling for The President's death, that in of itself shows a failing of his presidency. The responsible thing for "W" to do would have been to invoke war powers while we were effectively invading two nations at the same time. We saw all of this stuff back in like the 1960s with Vietnam and obviously we learned nothing from it. Despite a lot of left wing claims that people would not stand for it, I think most would especially seeing as our goverment has a postive track record of relinquishing such powers post-war.

Had The President gagged the media, instated WW II propaganda, and other things from the very beginning (not part way through), I think things would have played out a lot more efficiently. Truthfully World War II is remembered as a "good" war because the goverment basically prohibited coverage of things like US troops slaughtering children and the like (The Hitler Youth did indeed engage the military in the final days of the world). In the final days of the war the fighting was building to building and the realities of control and the Volkssturm was basically that anyone who was not an allied troop was killed. We left behind plenty of civilian corpse piles of our own, and I've even seen photographic evidence that was "gagged" by the goverment. You have to really dig for it though, and you'll find a lot of people like Holocaust deniers and the like have archives that don't prove the holocaust was false, but DO prove that we were at least lying about it being a nice, clean war. Our atrocities being just as bad as those of the other side, and arguably worse since in the end we won (and when it comes to war between major forces, it's generally the biggest B@stard that wins).

So basically there would have been no media gitmo contreversy, no stunts by guys like Geraldo, no "exposes" on prisoners, no accusations of atrocities by our troops or Blackwater. At least not until decades after the fact, Instead of argueing every move and seeing things delayed politically we could have gone in, done the job, and got out. There would have been no real protesters (Hitler was massively popular in the US being an international man of the year, but in general people who were pro-Nazi, or against the war were heavily gagged during the conflict). The only remaining issue would have been Bush (and Cheney) trying to run rebuilding efforts for kickbacks from the guys he awarded them to, but that kind of thing is actually harder to do under war powers due to the realities of maintaining them. Not nice, but true.

It's also notable that the left wing has a serious bug up their butt about Bill Clinton who was brought up for impeachement, and was quite probably a traitor to the country. Bill ran the country during one of it's most prosperous times, despite handing off the bill to the next president (ie needing to rebuild things like our Intelligence services which he gutted). It became a political grudge match.

No matter what the reasoning is, a lot of people who were Clinton supporters basically want to see a popular right wing cantidate strung up for payback. Logic doesn't much enter into it, and Bush was under assault from the very beginning due to this.

I say Clinton was probably a traitor because he "lost" those hard drives to the Chinese, and it's debatable as to whether it was incompetance or if he effectively sold them. While people focused on Lawinski, they were totally ignoring the much bigger issue which seemed to have been sort of sidestepped by the media who didn't give it the coverage it deserved.

It's also noteworthy that most of the situations that Bush (and now Obama) has to deal with can be traced back to Clinton at least indirectly. New North Korean missle tech? Well guess what we lost to that region of the world? 9/11? Well if we hadn't gutted our intelligence services it probably never would have happened.

Strangely to an extent left wing politics have become a "team" thing it seems and more about them dominating than what they do. A lot of left wingers basically figuring the other side is corrupt, so it justifies them being even more over the top.

Rambling and off topic, but the point I'm making here is that even ignoring the "crazies" there are a lot of problems with the left wing, and the fact that Hillary Clinton made it into Obama's cabinet doesn't help. You just don't hear as much about those problems.

Neither side has a clear majority, and right now your seeing Obama's popularity wane because of things like his plans for socialized health care. Consider that part of his 7% was very much due to his race, a lot of black conservatives jumped sides for him figuring he wasn't that stupid and they wanted a person of color in The White House. Now that he's there though (and the precedent has been established) your seeing some of that base eroding.

Since his lead was so slight to begin with every little slip up he makes actually means more and even omitting race in a nation divided 50-50 pretty much every single issue he goes left on (like Health care) causes him to lose those fence jumpers.

That's not really wishful thinking on my part, since in the end I don't think Obama is terrible for a Democrat (I like him more than say I did Kerry... or getting ancient, Dukakis).

Truthfully though he has a major uphill battle if he wants someone like me to jump sides for him. See, despite voting against him, I took a "wait and see" attitude. The first thing he did upon entering office was to drop a giant steaming turd on America. He did this buy throwing this major gala of an inaugeration which I believe set new records... at a time when the nation is facing an economic crisis. The appropriate/responsible thing to do would have been to keep it small and humble. To me that showed that in his underlying personality he does not take the needs of the nation seriously. I also would have criticizsed Republicans if they did the same thing under the circumstances, but he's there and he did it. Stuff like that is why I believe reports that he's slipping in the numbers. I'm not the only person with issues over that.

Apologies for the length.

 

[Bladecatcher]

Wow, its so weird to hear someone competently talk about politics. Here in the states, no one dares to start a political conversation for fear of an angry mod of southerners toting "Obamaunism" signs and shouting phrases like "kill the bill" at you until your eyeballs explode. Although, i imagine it cant be too different in Ireland, what with the domestic terrorism and all.

But that being said, id have to say that your heart is in the right place, (wishing people were more informed)but you cant take democratic power away from people, because its only a small step from there to a dictatorship. Dont get me wrong, i have a very low tolerance for stupid, and i would love to see people like the "Birthers" have their voting rights taken away, and then be wiped from the face of the earth. (and if you dont know who the "Birthers" are, your better off.) But i know this isnt fair, and im sure i look just as insane to them.

But i guess part of the solution lies with the media- they need to be held accountable for all the bs they spew, and realize that when they perpetuate party-politics propaganda, they anre basically turning themselves into journalistic whores. But in the words of Ron White, you cant fix stupid.

I watched a high-larious youtube vid of some conservative explaining why Obamas poster when running for office was a iconographic masterpiece explaining how he is going to destroy american freedoms. I know what a birther is and I pity you having to tolerate them. I will say this, the rest of the world, (myself included) for the most love Obama, even the haters go " He's shit, but a step up from Bush" lol Oh and the Tea Party, wheres a terrorist attack when you need one?.... Okay thats a lil cold but still.

Wow, its so weird to hear someone competently talk about politics.

If you're interested, join this group:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/Reasoned-political-discussion
It's been quiet for a while but that's mainly because we need a few more people.

Joined I look forward to reasoned discussion, serious it is so so so hard to try hold a coherant debate because as soon as somebody feels they have lost upperhand they resort to slogans and name calling etc

You know, i have to say i feel a little bad when foreigners(myself being an American) talk about Obama, or American politics at all, because honestly we Americans in general have no idea whats going on outside our borders. Even among fairly well informed people, youll be hard pressed to find someone who knows who the PM of England is right now. However, its not entirely our fault, seeing as the only time Europe is mentioned in the news is when France disagrees with us and we decide to boycott them.

Thanks for the link, i might check it out sometime. But I must say, I sometimes do have irrational thoughts when it comes to politics, but thats mostly just when it comes to Sarah Palin; and its only because i love wolves and hate stupid people.

 

[Epitome]

You know, i have to say i feel a little bad when foreigners(myself being an American) talk about Obama, or American politics at all, because honestly we Americans in general have no idea whats going on outside our borders. Even among fairly well informed people, youll be hard pressed to find someone who knows who the PM of England is right now. However, its not entirely our fault, seeing as the only time Europe is mentioned in the news is when France disagrees with us and we decide to boycott them.

Thanks for the link, i might check it out sometime. But I must say, I sometimes do have irrational thoughts when it comes to politics, but thats mostly just when it comes to Sarah Palin; and its only because i love wolves and hate stupid people.

Well in fairness your media coverage is very very very very biased, I had the sad misfortune to be in LV for the MJ death, Now I loved LV but Fox and CNN are the two most sensationalost, biased and downright lying media outlets i have ever seen. Not just on the MJ thing on everything they ran while I was visiting. I promise you most of the whole western world hates sarah Palin outside your borders, shes such a redneck. A walking stereotyoe seriously. I was and am so pleased Obama won You may not see or hear it much but he has done so so much toward mending your image with the rest of us.