Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Obama to use D.C. ‘taxation without representation’ license plates - Washington Post

Interesting enough despite being our capital DC is a colony in many ways since they don't have representation in Congress. While I can understand why red states would want to give DC 2 Senators (DC elected officals would certainly be democrat). I think though a fair solution solution would be to give DC one or two seats in the House. It would affect the majority and would give our fine citizens of DC representation.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,965
Reaction score
6,453
I'll drop one turd in the punchbowl.

I believe that it is at least a non-public agreement among major US players in business, military, and government that keeping the US "Leviathan" [the Military UberMonster] as a "unique asset" is the American Ace Card in the control of essential economic resources [translation: the extraction of valuables from the Earth], so that, as the sh!t hits the fan concerning diminishing supplies, we can not only stabilize the geography of the sources, but "get our cut".

If one looks at a more human-scale level, if you want to protect your "business" in a tough neighborhood, having the meanest SOB on the block backing you up pretty much secures the near future. I believe that our power-people don't want to talk about it, but the main reason for feeding the Leviathan is not "war" nor political terror, but being a violent policeman protecting oil and minerals. For our businesses and for our allies, the Leviathan is the For Hire Security Service on the planet. If you're not "us" nor a really close ally, you're just scared.

There are many people who like this "if it bugs you squash it" way of trying to run the world [I don't and believe employing it as a primary reason to have a military is immoral], and these folks basically have the power to continue this modus operandi. This is why more idealistic views of slashing the Leviathan are not [unfortunately] going to happen.
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
I'll drop one turd in the punchbowl.

I believe that it is at least a non-public agreement among major US players in business, military, and government that keeping the US "Leviathan" [the Military UberMonster] as a "unique asset" is the American Ace Card in the control of essential economic resources [translation: the extraction of valuables from the Earth], so that, as the sh!t hits the fan concerning diminishing supplies, we can not only stabilize the geography of the sources, but "get our cut".

If one looks at a more human-scale level, if you want to protect your "business" in a tough neighborhood, having the meanest SOB on the block backing you up pretty much secures the near future. I believe that our power-people don't want to talk about it, but the main reason for feeding the Leviathan is not "war" nor political terror, but being a violent policeman protecting oil and minerals. For our businesses and for our allies, the Leviathan is the For Hire Security Service on the planet. If you're not "us" nor a really close ally, you're just scared.

There are many people who like this "if it bugs you squash it" way of trying to run the world [I don't and believe employing it as a primary reason to have a military is immoral], and these folks basically have the power to continue this modus operandi. This is why more idealistic views of slashing the Leviathan are not [unfortunately] going to happen.

Being able to fly a rocket into any window or vent in the world does affect negotiations.
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
I thought it was a great speech.....and yes Michelle looked stunning.

President Obama’s second inaugural address (Transcript)

President Obama notes in his remarks at the 57th presidential inauguration that freedom does not mean perpetual war and emphasizes the need for peaceful engagement.

Here’s a full transcript of President Obama’s second inaugural address, delivered on Jan. 21, 2013 .

MORE COVERAGE: The Grid: Obama takes oath | A lighter crowd than four years ago | Obama starts term with eye on legacy

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much.

VIDEO

Inaugural speeches have inspired a nation and reaffirmed American ideals. Take a look back at addresses from every president from Franklin Delano Roosevelt to President Obama.
Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice, members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens, each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names.

OBAMA: What makes us exceptional, what makes us America is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

(APPLAUSE)

That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today we continue a never ending journey to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they’ve never been self-executing. That while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by his people here on earth.

OBAMA: The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few, or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people. Entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed. And for more than 200 years we have. Through blood drawn by lash, and blood drawn by sword, we noted that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half slave, and half free.

OBAMA: We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

Together we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce, schools and colleges to train our workers. Together we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play. Together we resolve that a great nation must care for the vulnerable and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all societies ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise, our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, these are constants in our character.

For we have always understood that when times change, so must we, that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges, that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.

For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future. Or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores.

OBAMA: Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

(APPLAUSE)

This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled (ph) our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending.

(APPLAUSE)

And economic recovery has begun.

(APPLAUSE)

America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive, diversity and openness, of endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention.

My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment and we will seize it, so long as we seize it together.

(APPLAUSE)

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.

(APPLAUSE)

We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work, when the wages of honest labor will liberate families from the brink of hardship.

OBAMA: We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.

(APPLAUSE)

We understand that outworn (ph) programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. So we must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work hard or learn more, reach higher.

But while the means will change, our purpose endures. A nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American, that is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit.

(APPLAUSE)

But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.

(APPLAUSE)

For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us at any time may face a job loss or a sudden illness or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative.

OBAMA: They strengthen us.

(APPLAUSE)

They do not make us a nation of takers. They free us to take the risks that make this country great.

(APPLAUSE)

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.

(APPLAUSE)

Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But American cannot resist this transition. We must lead it.

(APPLAUSE)

We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries. We must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure, our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

OBAMA: We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.

(APPLAUSE)

Our brave men and women in uniform tempered by the flames of battle are unmatched in skill and courage.

(APPLAUSE)

Our citizens seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace, and not just the war. Who turn sworn enemies into the surest of friends. And we must carry those lessons into this time as well. We will defend our people, and uphold our values through strength of arms, and the rule of law.

We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully. Not because we are naive about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe. And we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad. For no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa, from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice.

OBAMA: Not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes; tolerance and opportunity, human dignity and justice. We the people declare today that the most evident of truth that all of us are created equal -- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

(APPLAUSE)

It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began, for our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.

(APPLAUSE)

Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal, as well.

(APPLAUSE)

Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.

(APPLAUSE)

Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity, until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.

OBAMA: That is our generation’s task, to make these works, these rights, these values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness real for every American.

Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life. It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way or follow the same precise path to happiness.

Progress does not compel us to settle century’s long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time.

(APPLAUSE)

For now, decisions are upon us and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.

(APPLAUSE)

We must act. We must act knowing that our work will be imperfect (ph). We must act knowing that today’s victories will be only partial, and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years and 40 years and 400 years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.

OBAMA: My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction.

And we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty, or an immigrant realizes her dream.

My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride. They are the words of citizens, and they represent our greatest hope. You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course. You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time, not only with the votes we cast, but the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideas.

(APPLAUSE)

Let us each of us now embrace with solemn duty, and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

Thank you.

God bless you.

And may He forever bless these United States of America.

END


© Copyright 1996-2012 The Washington Post
View desktop site
POLITICS
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Regarding military spending, it obviously doesn't make sense when considered solely through the lens of self-defense. But that's not why we continue to spend so much.

Before I go on, let me preface this by saying that my political instincts are strongly libertarian, so I'm very sympathetic to the "cut military spending" arguments. It just seems like most of them approach the issue simplistically.

Since the turn of the 20th century, world geopolitics went from a multi-polar environment, to a bi-polar environment, and finally to a uni-polar environment. There's a very strong correlation to that trend with increasing peace and prosperity across the world, and it's not a coincidence. Historically, uni-polar systems are much more stable than multi-polar systems; successful empires of the past have allowed for tremendous leaps forward in human progress, mainly because they provide peace.

Since the dissolution of the USSR, the US has effectively been the world police force, and that is a very expensive role to play. As Buster touched on previously, the cost of simply defending ourselves from realistic threats would be a small fraction of our current military budget. It's our ability to project force in every corner of the world that is so costly to maintain, but such is the price of peace.

Significant decreases in the budget would threaten this whole system. If the US can't credibility match China in southeast Asia, then another Sino-Japanese war suddenly becomes much more likely as they vie to become the regional hegemon. Same with nuclear war between Pakistan and India. And any conflict of that sort would be disastrous for the world economy (especially ours, since we built it and still benefit from it more than anyone else).

The trick, then, is to force our allies to pony up their share. For years they've been free-riding on the stability our military spending provides; which is one reason all the comparisons between healthcare in Europe and America is misleading. They can afford to do that because they don't have to maintain anything but a token military force; conversely, their free-riding has forced us into under-investing in our own infrastructure, public health, etc.

Going forward, I think we'll see more operations like Libya; allied countries providing boots on the ground, with American forces providing naval and air power. That allows us to maintain our role as global hegemon (and continuing to provide stability), while forcing allies to shoulder a greater share of that cost (particularly the least politically palatable ones).
 
Last edited:

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
I thought it was a great speech.....and yes Michelle looked stunning.

I love how he quoted Jefferson ("we the people") right off the bat.

I love how we kept using we throughout the speech.

Obama stuck to the Paul Ryan's of the world with the Social Security/Medicare line. How they really don't hold us back but they do give us the strength to take chances.

I like the climate change line because if done right we can address climate change and create job.

I thought the speech overall was excellent.

Side Note: I'm interest to see if Michelle will run for Senate in Illinios in 2016. In a poll here in Illinios she leads current Senator moderate republican Mark Kirk by a whopping 11 points.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
As a progressive I'm more concerned over what happens tommorrow in the Senate. During Obama's first term almost nothing was able to get through the Senate because of the filibuster.

Vote on filibuster will come up tommorrow. Fillibuster reform can be passed with a simple majority when the Senate votes on rules which will happen tomorrow. If we want to break the gridlock in Washington fillibuster reform must get done.

I personally am hoping for an old school talking filibuster. To me if you oppose a bill you should have to step up and declare your position. Right now people can filibuster silently and you don't even know who it is. If you don't agree on an issue you should have to at least to the people know where you stand.

Will Harry Reid kill real filibuster reform? Vote is tomorrow, January 22. - AMERICAblog

On Filibusters, It's Groundhog Day in the Senate - Businessweek

Filibuster Reform Is Essential to Enacting Gun-Safety Legislation | The Nation
 
Last edited:

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,965
Reaction score
6,453
Normally I agree with Whiskey on basically everything, but not quite this time. Our area of disagreement is, however, a true and honest disagreement as there is reason to assume two diverse foundational assumptions and be led to different conclusions. I will therefore admit that my assumption may be wrong.

That assumption is that there will not be in anywhere in the foreseeable future anything like a Sino-Japanese war, nor a Russo-Sino war, nor any war whatsoever between two of the world's great economic powers. The only element of the theory of an intertwined Globalism of economics which I have any moral respect for is that, if played properly, all successful nations will have far too much to lose to ever seriously consider going to war with one of their "sister" global economic "family members". They might feel squeezed by them, irritated by them, hate their guts, but in contrast to the "bad old days", there will be far too much to lose to blow it on a global-economy-wrecking war. None of the other global "family" will condone that either.

Loser nations in this evolution will still want to make violent trouble, but because they are on the outside looking in at the wealth, they by definition will not be a major military threat, and the Leviathan will crush them in three days. This is why the only REAL military concern in the world [among ALL the "winners"] is nuclear proliferation and delivery systems --- it is the only way a mouse can hurt an elephant. Even then, the one-off nuke shot will result in massive total defeat to the shooter and leave the planet with a couple of nasty holes in the ground. The powers only care really where those holes are located. Persian Gulf oil fields is one of their last choices. Jerusalem might not be. Only the fact that a threat to Jerusalem might result in a counter-strike landing too near Persian Gulf oil fields results in widespread angst.

There are nice people in every sort of business, military, and political position; but if one believes that heavy decisions are going to be made on human kindness grounds when the nut-cutting begins, one has not read history too well. Money and power WILL speak.

What this leaves me with is little hope but not zero. Whiskey is correct in his statement about there being many dimensions beyond the simplistic as to why the Leviathan exists and is so large. Buster is right in that it doesn't have to be QUITE so big. At least some of that overweight excess is due to historical relationships now become irrelevant, and the inertia of procurement fundings and the felt need not to allow the military-industrial complex to wither. My opinion is that if we cut the useless procurement off [intelligently --- you can't put the aircraft-makers out of business], stop fighting genuinely unnecessary wars, and pressure the other successful nations to do their share of the policework, we could save a bundle. Not as much as Buster wants, but more than Whiskey sees. This wouldn't solve our budget crisis by itself, but it would help. It would however continue our theory of Pax Americana in a very brutal way. Maybe that's necessary. I can't be proud of it, however.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I don't think we really disagree here, Mike. If my above post came off as "Military cuts = WW III", then I apologize for the confusion. I absolutely support judicious pruning of the military budget, and I do believe there are significant savings to be realized that way, along with forcing our allies to shoulder their share of costs. I was merely addressing the argument for significant across-the-board cuts based only the requirements of our own national self-defense; such cuts could cause very problematic shifts in the current geopolitical calculus, and since such recommendations ultimately stem from an overly-simplistic view of the world, they should be distrusted.

I also subscribe to democratic peace theory, and the mutually assured destruction of economic interdepedence. But is war between Pakistan and India really unthinkable? China and Japan are currently engaged in some serious military posturing over the Senkaku islands. Many a war has been started over obscure pieces of strategically worthless land before; these nations are being directed, after all, by mere humans.

And even if we accept that outright war is very unlikely these days, a much diminished American military presence would undoubtedly result in a military buildup by many other nations in order to "fill the void". Russia already does a lot of sabre-rattling; if the US cut back by 30-50%, do you think Russia would become a more positive influence on international relations? Given that it's a plutocracy run by a macho ex-KGB dictator-in-all-but-name, I'd bet not. And what sort of response would that necessitate from the EU? Or from individual eastern European nations, if the EU proves too politically dysfunctional to provide for a common defense?

So even without all-out war (the prospect of which is incredibly terrifying given the technological advances that have occurred since WWII), a diminished American military presence could easily result in a less efficient allocation of resources overall. IMHO, American hegemony is well worth the cost of maintaining; we just need to allocate our military budget more efficiently, and prevent our allies from free-riding.
 
Last edited:

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
You really only have to look at the international waters that China "claims" against Australia and Japan to realize the threat of conflict looming between those countries.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
As a progressive I'm more concerned over what happens tommorrow in the Senate. During Obama's first term almost nothing was able to get through the Senate because of the filibuster.

Vote on filibuster will come up tommorrow. Fillibuster reform can be passed with a simple majority when the Senate votes on rules which will happen tomorrow. If we want to break the gridlock in Washington fillibuster reform must get done.

I personally am hoping for an old school talking filibuster. To me if you oppose a bill you should have to step up and declare your position. Right now people can filibuster silently and you don't even know who it is. If you don't agree on an issue you should have to at least to the people know where you stand.

Will Harry Reid kill real filibuster reform? Vote is tomorrow, January 22. - AMERICAblog

On Filibusters, It's Groundhog Day in the Senate - Businessweek

Filibuster Reform Is Essential to Enacting Gun-Safety Legislation | The Nation

I think it would be terrible to get rid of that rule. It was created for a reason. It has been used too much, I agree. But getting rid of the rule is not the answer.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
One thing you can always bet on in the Senate -- the majority party always wants to do-away with the filibuster.

I don't blame them, but sometimes I don't think they even realize how much cynicism they create.
 

irish1958

Príomh comhairleoir
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
112
I think it would be terrible to get rid of that rule. It was created for a reason. It has been used too much, I agree. But getting rid of the rule is not the answer.

It was created when the most efficient means of (distant),communication was the pony express. For example, the battle of New Orleans was fought after the end of the war of 1812.
The Senate was meant to be a slow moving, deliberate body which would restrain the House and the Ex branch, and to allow time for consultation with their respective legislatures which had appointed them
It is as outmoded as the defensive huddle in football is against the no-huddle, spread offense.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
I think it would be terrible to get rid of that rule. It was created for a reason. It has been used too much, I agree. But getting rid of the rule is not the answer.

Nobody is talking about getting rid of the filibuster. Both parties want it as the majority swings back and fourth. Having it maintains the minority voice.

Couple items of possible reform: (First 3 items likely will happen)

1 - Instead of 1 person forcing a filibuster it will take 41 votes to maintain a fillibuster, so a party can't filibuster if they don't have almost all Senators present. Also one person can't slow up the process when say 80 or even 65 Senators want something. Yes 60 votes can beat a filibuster but it takes 30 hours so it really slow things down.

2 - Prevent filibuster of select bills that need to go into conference with the house. So if Senate already passed a bill and the house already passed the bill with some admendments and a conference is needed you can't filibuster the conference.

3 - You can filibuster a vote but not a debate. I think the American people do deserve to have the bills debated.

4 - This doesn't look like it will happen but I would like filibusters to be public. If you filibuster the public should know who filibustered so they can be held accountable by the voters in their state. Some states may agree with their Senator for filibustering but the people have a right to know.

Even if you don't make people get up there and talk for hours like before they should have to at least have to say something. They need to at least make a statement of why they oppose a given bill in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Being able to fly a rocket into any window or vent in the world does affect negotiations.

We would be able to do that regardless. The US and Russia could easily agree to cut 5,000 warheads out of their arsenals.

I guess I'm not sure why we need to be spending twice as much as we did to prepare for the Soviets:

us_military_spending_1962-2015.gif


The big thing we should cut is overseas bases. I totally get that we need a world-wide military force, but "we" means the world, not the US. There is no reason France, Britain, Germany, Poland, Italy, and generally all of NATO can't take some of the massive burden.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Nobody is talking about getting rid of the filibuster. Both parties want it as the majority swings back and fourth. Having it maintains the minority voice.

Couple items of possible reform: (First 3 items likely will happen)

1 - Instead of 1 person forcing a filibuster it will take 41 votes to maintain a fillibuster, so a party can't filibuster if they don't have almost all Senators present. Also one person can't slow up the process when say 80 or even 65 Senators want something. Yes 60 votes can beat a filibuster but it takes 30 hours so it really slow things down.

2 - Prevent filibuster of select bills that need to go into conference with the house. So if Senate already passed a bill and the house already passed the bill with some admendments and a conference is needed you can't filibuster the conference.

3 - You can filibuster a vote but not a debate. I think the American people do deserve to have the bills debated.

4 - This doesn't look like it will happen but I would like filibusters to be public. If you filibuster the public should know who filibustered so they can be held accountable by the voters in their state. Some states may agree with their Senator for filibustering but the people have a right to know.

Even if you don't make people get up there and talk for hours like before they should have to at least have to say something. They need to at least make a statement of why they oppose a given bill in my opinion.

Okay that doesn't sound so bad haha

But I want that thing accompanied by a bill that says for every 100 pages in a bill, it has to wait a day for public reading.

And while you would argue filibusters are bad (anything with buster in it doesn't bother me so much haha), how about omnibus bills that are loaded with stuff that isn't even "named" on the front? Sneaking stuff through Congressional votes past the American people is a trillion times worse than filibusting. I want Congress to do less, not more; everything they touch they seem to screw up and/or hand over to the corporate interests.
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
We would be able to do that regardless. The US and Russia could easily agree to cut 5,000 warheads out of their arsenals.

I guess I'm not sure why we need to be spending twice as much as we did to prepare for the Soviets:

us_military_spending_1962-2015.gif


The big thing we should cut is overseas bases. I totally get that we need a world-wide military force, but "we" means the world, not the US. There is no reason France, Britain, Germany, Poland, Italy, and generally all of NATO can't take some of the massive burden.

Warheads as in intercontinental ballistic missiles is a whole other story. We could cut those by 50%. We have the nuclear ability to destroy the earth ten timesover, which is rediculous. Our smaller and higher tech stuff we gotta keep, update and grow . The rail gun is awesome fun and upcoming tech stuff that we need to continue with IMHO.
 

Old Man Mike

Fast as Lightning!
Messages
8,965
Reaction score
6,453
To my buddy, Whiskey: You and I both know that there are depths to this issue that we could never elaborate here on IE. In fact, merely by trying, we fall into simplicity ourselves and threaten to subtract from the total sum of human knowledge in other minds.

But knowing that you at least [and doubtless many others on this board] realize that our stated views just skim the surface I'll address a few of the concrete areas of your post. The matter of wars between major states.

1). I actually DO think that an outbreak of war between China and Japan over the "symbolic islands" is as close to inconceivable as you can get. There may well be plenty of political bullsh!tting that is hurled, but the only way either state would make anything other than bluffs would be if critical economic resources were involved. Even then, this would ultimately be "brokered" by the US, Australia [with whom both have BIG mining agreements on Ozzie soil], and probably the EEU and even Russia.

2). Russian sabre-rattling: more posturing. Putin has troubles on his hands. The general populace has finally gotten out of poverty and are feeling their oats. [There is a pretty well documented political phenomenon that shows that a population must be a bit on the rise, rather than at a nadir, before they seriously oppose embedded power.] They are making their voices heard about things that they don't like about Putin, and he is having to take it. The Russians are demanding that he get them into the race for the Big Pie and into the future.

Fortunately Putin is angling to do exactly that. His advisors have put together a plan based on Russia's strength --- which is not its old military and their unusable bombs [unusable because they destroy not create more economy], but is rather Russia's tremendous almost untapped resource base. Russia's time of standing outside Europe is over. There are HUGE trade agreements with Germany already signed and in motion. Germany will gobble up Russian oil and coal and other minerals and begin challenging China in manufacturing. Russia will ease into Europe as more countries want on the gravy train. Russia already has "too much to lose".

What Putin doesn't want is someone trying to muscle in on "his" areas like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan --- loaded with minerals and oil. He wants secure pipelines to Russia through horrible chaotic geographies. He doesn't want US planes and missiles all over his borders. He actually wouldn't mind a little more collegial respect out of us before we make some of these decisions. He in fact is all for "subduing Afghanistan" and some of those other wild areas if we can do it. Remember that Russia was there before we were, and Russia used to be the one with the military treaty with Iraq. Putin wants to be a player there. Reason? Big Oil and Big Money. That's all.

3). India and Pakistan. This is exactly the sort of situation the Global Economy puppetmasters don't want: one "winner" country which is never going to start a war [ unless they thought that they could end it in three days --- which they know they can't] and one "loser" country which has the bomb. Note by the way, if Pakistan launches on India it doesn't make any difference how big our Leviathan is, the nuclear damage is done regardless. This is why every national security colloquia held nowadays ends with labeling PAKISTAN [not Iran or pipsqueak North Korea] as the Number One state problem in the world. The world economy wants a successful, secure, orderly India. Pakistan is sort of "optional" but their craziness and nuke-ability make them a horror show. Some people thought that Bhutto might just be the leader to begin the civilizing of that state, but of course the crazies in power knew that too and killed her. The US is using a lot of pressure in an attempt to get these idiots [their government not their people] to back off their grievances with India, get a decent democracy, and "Open up for Business".

Pakistan is the problem to worry about, but you cannot solve it with the Leviathan unless you just decide to unilaterally first strike and level everything which could have The Bomb concealed. That's not the America I have in my vision, even though certain recent politicians had exactly that vision.
 
Top