I think that's a massive overreaction. This will be long forgotten in two months, let alone two years. Sure Christie is ultimately responsible, but unless there's ever any actual evidence that he had actual knowledge, this blows over.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Agreed.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Its something his primary opponents can hit him with; a lot of things that blow over for Republicans has partly to do with the circling the wagons mentality, the right wing protection bubble does its best in those circumstances to insulate them. However Christie is outside of that bubble and he's being savaged by others on in the GOP and on the right, "if" this is just the tip of the iceberg as I've seen on other discussion forums, it could get a lot worse.
Like the "He killed grandma" thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you think that as long as this is the story-Christie staffers, even higher end staffers-went off the reservation and engaged in some political retaliation by screwing around with a city's roads-is anything like a nail in the coffin for Christie's 2016 chances...
Well, I don't know why you would think that. He's got more than enough time to weather this, and even weather it should things ratchet up a step or two.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It's one tiny talking point his opponents can't really peg on him since he fired those involved (as he should have).
Unless something surfaces linking Christie to the decision, he can simply parry with, "I felt absolutely awful for that, and I would never have authorized it had I known."
If his opponent keeps referencing it, it will have even less of an effect. Because he can start responding to his opponents wanting to focus on character smears instead of the issues.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I think that's a massive overreaction.
I actually think its a significant under-reaction. Using your political power to intentionally make life worse for thousands of your constituents for the sake of spite is just sickening to me. Not to mention the harm to democracy of forcing your political opponents to support you for fear of you intentionally harming their jurisdictions.
In a perfect world, I'd have everyone involved in this arrested for manslaughter in the death of the woman whose emergency rescue was impeded. Along with several other charges, and civil suits from everyone whose business that week was harmed.
(I'd like to think I'd have the same reaction if it was a democrat, perhaps with additional anger that the action harmed the party I am affiliated with.)
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Now every time traffic is bad, the thought will strike me that my enemies are the cause, maliciously wishing me annoyance.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think but I'm not sure that dansigal might have been referring to the idea that Christie's ship is sunk as the overreaction, not the firing.
As for the staffers, I would not bat an eye if they were clapped in irons and sent to prison. Preferably to build some roads. If only the people who made such decisions didn't keep a weather eye on themselves being subject to those decisions too.
Posted by dansigal (Member # 12661) on :
What Rakeesh said. Right now there is zero evidence that Christie was a decision maker or even aware of what was going on. If that changes, it's a different story, but as it is, the most that can really be pinned on him is poor judgment in picking one of his senior aides.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
You're probably correct that his aide takes the fall and nothing can be concretely pinned on Christie.
But I think the idea that an aide independently decided to punish a town's mayor for not endorsing the governor, without the knowledge or support of said governor, to be pretty laughable. Even if Christie didn't know (which I find unlikely), at the very least I would guarantee that the aide thought the governor would approve of the action.
Added: My longshot hope is that Kelly is arrested on a serious charge, offered immunity, and reveals Christie's role.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I actually think it's fairly likely Christie didn't know.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I actually think it's fairly likely Christie didn't know.
This does seem pretty equivalent to the times Obama has claimed ignorance. My guess is that most people's thoughts about whether he knew or didn't know divides pretty neatly down party lines.
Although in this case there are two lines with the second one being further right as they don't seem to be Christie fans either.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't like Christie much, but going solely off feelings and knowledge of what Christie has done in the past (which isn't reliable) it doesn't sound like something he would do.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
The guy who yelled at a teacher?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Well he did say "which isn't reliable"...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: The guy who yelled at a teacher?
Is there some sort of correlation between people who yell at teachers and people who block traffic?
Posted by dansigal (Member # 12661) on :
quote:My guess is that most people's thoughts about whether he knew or didn't know divides pretty neatly down party lines.
Eh, I'm a democrat, and I think it's more likely that he didn't know. Two reasons:
1) He has now come out and explicitly stated he didn't know. It's always the lie about the bad act that kills you more than the bad act. I have to think the guy is smart enough to know there's a chance he'd weather being involved in this, but there is ZERO chance he'd weather being involved in this and explicitly lying about it. Obviously people do dumb things, but I think this just makes it more likely he didn't know.
2) Running a state is HUGE job, I'm sure there are a ton of things he delegates that he doesn't have hands on knowledge about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: The guy who yelled at a teacher?
Is there some sort of correlation between people who yell at teachers and people who block traffic?
Blocking traffic in retribution and a governor yelling at a teacher are both the acts of a bully.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I can't wait for the upcoming republican primary. where a bunch of tea party weirdos with no chance of winning a general election whatsoever are going to be using this scandal to hammer at someone with a nonzero probability of winning a general election. That part is somewhat enjoyable.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The thing is, Christie already had a razor thin margin in 2016. Christie has a great, maybe fantastic chance at the general election, but his hopes of becoming the nominee were hanging by a thread.
Double Down suggested that Christie was a ticking time bomb of opposition research crap. I think there are already a ton of skeletons in his closet that primary challengers will dig up. And most of those things seem to be related to corruption and influence peddling. He also has a rather extreme history in the last two elections of putting a high value on loyalty and retribution. In other words, even if he didn't order this traffic snarl, his opponents will put it up against a history of behavior that makes it look likely he did in fact order it. I'm not 100% convinced he didn't order it.
So will this blow over? In the immediate aftermath, yeah, the primaries are still two years off. But once the primaries return, this is the sort of thing that will become a -gate - Trafficgate. The 2016 primaries won't be as bruising as the 2012 ones were, mostly because of how the GOP rejiggered everything. But he's going to take a ton of heat already and will be painted as a corrupt centrist. But you better bet two years from now this will come up, especially if there are special investigations that take up all of the next year to get to the bottom of the issue. Christie is a big name, and any news related to him is big news. This isn't blowing over, it's just going to get turned down from a boil to a simmer.
This issue is the star on top of an overloaded Christmas tree. By itself it won't kill him, but when taken with the weight of every thing else, it just might topple the tree.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'll just leave this here.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I don't get it.
Anyways, also apparently the Federal government will be investigating this now as it may have been a violation of the Commerce Clause/Interstate Commerce.
I'll agree with the sentiment I've seen elsewhere and I think originated by Ezra Klein, while it may be possible this isn't what "kills" his 2016 chances, its vastly increases the chances it'll lead to people finding something that will.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Presumably if Christie shut down traffic for days over the New Jersey election, if he is not elected president he will end humanity.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
The average American has a very short political memory. Everyone will forget about it in the short term until it is brought up during the primaries. The Republican nominees will most likely be:
Christie Rand Paul Paul Ryan Ted Cruz Marco Rubio (Not too sure on this one) One or two governors nobody has heard about
None of them have a chance of winning against Hillary. All of them have a chance against Biden. It's really the Democrat's race to lose. The only real issue that could cause the momentum to swing in the other direction of course is Obamacare and the continued implementation.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Obamacare implementation has been steadily improving so the Republicans are probly gonna lose again. The Democratic Party has been focused on income inequality as its platform (tying it to the PPACA, which helps alleviate poverty). While Republican plans/policies/soundbytes are entirely lacking, one particular sociopath even suggested eliminating the minimum wage or reducing it to 4$/hour.
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
I personally believe he had complete knowledge. And if they start getting into Jail time for those involved (which they have discussed, because of things it caused - Delayed Ambulances, etc.) That person won't want to take the fall anymore as they are doing now. A "Deputy Chief of Staff" is actually pretty close to working directly with Christie. If the Deputy Chief of Staff for Obama does something, you won't get people laying off and saying Obama probably didn't know.
There's a big difference between "Someone at the IRS / Obama" and "Someone at State / Obama"...
If Obama's Deputy CoS does something really really stupid, an attempt at impeachment would already be underway.
As for Christie, I don't think it was done because of the "Mayor of Fort Lee didn't support re-election" I think the version of event Maddow put out seem more likely. About it being a retaliation for a Senator voting against something Christie wanted.
Maybe I've been watching "The Wire" too much, and seeing how often people 'take the fall' or do things acting like they are "off the reservation", but personally... as much as I've seen of Christie, he seems just the type to pull some bullying tactics.
He might not have thought his Deputy CoS was stupid enough not to talk in code though.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Apparently Wildstein's lawyer offered that he'll testify in exchange for immunity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Geraine -
Christie and Rubio have a chance against Hillary.
I don't believe any of the others do.
Against Biden? I think Christie and Rubio win automatically and it's a dogfight with Ryan and Paul.
In no scenario is Ted Cruz a viable candidate. Frankly I don't think Rand Paul is either, because he's so much better on paper than he is in person, where he's an even bigger gaffe machine than Biden. Biden's gaffes are usually just embarrassing rather than providing evidence of his own naivete and stupidity.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I feel it would still be an uphill fight even against Biden, his 'gaffes' (accidentally saying something true) and his coming across as 'rude' to "Very Serious People" are his only downsides.
Heck, by virtue of being white he can afford to 'get angry' where Obama couldn't and not pull his punches. He'ld still get the nominally Democratic leaning Black vote, the Hispanic and asian votes are just if not more so democratic leaning now, and Biden would have the solid democratic platform of campaigning on the ACA and solving income inequality.
There is not currently a single Republican that as of now could reverse that trend and offer a solid alternative, not unless they elected to go full Single Payer, because whelp, They tried that before. Or actually for the whole 'minority outreach' thing down, which they have not been doing because Republican primary voters are actually surprisingly racist.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Biden is the comic relief of the current administration. Thank goodness he has no real power.
As for Christie, I would never vote for him for anything. But I do have to marvel at the hypocrisy of the liberal mainstream media for devoting more time to dissing Christie over Bridgegate, which is peanuts, than they ever did in the past year taking Obama to task for using the NSA and the IRS to get political payback against his conservative adversaries all over the country.
[ January 11, 2014, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
They spent weeks on the IRS thing. This has only been going on for a few days.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Biden is the comic relief of the current administration. Thank goodness he has no real power.
As for Christie, I would never vote for him for anything. But I do have to marvel at the hypocrisy of the liberal mainstream media for devoting more time to dissing Christie over Bridgegate, which is peanuts, than they ever did in the past year taking Obama to task for using the NSA and the IRS to get political payback against his conservative adversaries all over the country.
False equivalence ahoy! Typical right wing misdirection tactics, "We're being criticised so lets find something THEY did!".
1) The IRS official was not Obama's "Right hand man" or someone who reported directly to the Oval Office.
2) Not sure which NSA story your referring to, probably not to the illegal use of drones to target American civilians in Yemen deemed to be 'terrorists', so your certainly exaggerating or making something up, 'again'.
3) Your actually wrong about Biden, he actually as the VP is quite active as a part of the Executive branch, not to Cheney's level thankfully, there was enough of that to last 10 administrations there. However notwithstanding your patently ridiculous assertions of Biden being 'comic relief' its quite clear he has an active role in the formulation of policy. For instance Robert Gates's book "Duty" I've heard mention Biden's role as "Skeptic-in-chief", this is a man who sits in on meetings and has a clear say and is actively involved in the decision making process.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Biden is the comic relief of the current administration. Thank goodness he has no real power.
As for Christie, I would never vote for him for anything. But I do have to marvel at the hypocrisy of the liberal mainstream media for devoting more time to dissing Christie over Bridgegate, which is peanuts, than they ever did in the past year taking Obama to task for using the NSA and the IRS to get political payback against his conservative adversaries all over the country.
If you think political targeting via the IRS is new (though it is news, and I wish we had more responsible safeguard sl against this sir of thing) then you're misinformed about the history of the IRS and politics.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's also worth noting that that particular interpretation of the IRS scandal -- that it was some sort of political targeting and/or payback -- is incorrect, verging on being a malicious falsehood.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The idea that it was a grand federal scheme? Sure. That there was some...reduced committment to avoiding inhibiting or retaliating against political opponents, though. Well, that seemed quite clear to me, and it doesn't rely on the current administration being especially nefarious, either.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
No wonder EVERYTHING gets past you liberals. You cannot see anything, nor grasp its real importance. You probably believe Obamacare is great and that Obama never tells any lies or does anything malicious or unamerican. You truly have the government people like you deserve. You probably will even think it is great when Obama invokes martial law and contrives a way to remain in power past 2016. He is truly your kind of president. The vast majority know your liberal political theories have never worked in all of human history, so you think it is proper to use force to compel everyone to accept your brainless policies. You are allowing a genuine tyrant to seize more and more power, and the most shameful thing is that you think that is good.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The vast majority know your liberal political theories have never worked in all of human history
The "vast majority" is not in agreement on pretty much anything. It's about 50/50 on any major issue you can think of, though on *most* issues, the polling swings a little in favor of the "liberal" (i.e. Democrat-advocated) position. But, since it's become a bit of a sport to get you to support any of your demonstrable and yet not demonstrated assertions of fact I'll go ahead and ask - on what specific policy do you believe a "vast majority" opposes a "liberal political theory" and what data do you use to substantiate that belief?
[ January 12, 2014, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You probably believe Obamacare is great and that Obama never tells any lies or does anything malicious or unamerican.
Dude, you're a Creationist.
quote:You probably will even think it is great when Obama invokes martial law and contrives a way to remain in power past 2016.
You willing to put some money where your mouth is, Ron? I'll bet you $1000, straight up, at 10:1 odds, that this will not happen.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
quote: No wonder EVERYTHING gets past you liberals. You cannot see anything, nor grasp its real importance. You probably believe Obamacare is great and that Obama never tells any lies or does anything malicious or unamerican. You truly have the government people like you deserve. You probably will even think it is great when Obama invokes martial law and contrives a way to remain in power past 2016. He is truly your kind of president. The vast majority know your liberal political theories have never worked in all of human history, so you think it is proper to use force to compel everyone to accept your brainless policies. You are allowing a genuine tyrant to seize more and more power, and the most shameful thing is that you think that is good.
I really want to save this for when one of my friends leaves their Facebook open.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I'm perfectly willing to admit that Obama and his administration have many faults, but I don't feel like I can have a rational conversation with people who seriously believe he was born in Kenya.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: No wonder EVERYTHING gets past you liberals. You cannot see anything, nor grasp its real importance. You probably believe Obamacare is great and that Obama never tells any lies or does anything malicious or unamerican. You truly have the government people like you deserve. You probably will even think it is great when Obama invokes martial law and contrives a way to remain in power past 2016. He is truly your kind of president. The vast majority know your liberal political theories have never worked in all of human history, so you think it is proper to use force to compel everyone to accept your brainless policies. You are allowing a genuine tyrant to seize more and more power, and the most shameful thing is that you think that is good.
Dude, I'm Canadian, our Conservatives are to the Left of your Democrats. Explain to me what 'Obamacare' is going to do that Canada hasn't already did but apparently not suffering for? Remember we have Universal Healthcare.
Lets take this apart though, lets deconstruct you piece by piece you miserable human being.
1. "You probably believe Obamacare is great"
False. Most 'liberals' and 'progressives' actually are NOT please at all with the PPACA, its a Conservative brainchild of the Heritage Foundation that has all sorts of issues built into it by lobbyists, such as religious whackjobs bitching about how now they have to pay their employees to do stuff with 'money' to do stuff they don't like. Single Payer would've completed side stepped this legal horseshit.
2. ' and that Obama never tells any lies', oh Obama has lied plenty, he's a politician, its what they do. But none of his lies, all put and packaged together come even remotely close to the LIE by George W. Bush to get America into an unprovoked war of aggression and commit crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes against peace; by every precedent of the Nuremburg Trials GWB should be behind bars as well as every other major US official involved except for maybe Colin Powell. And not even remotely close to the lies Fox News, "Very Serious People" and the GOP tell everyday about the PPACA.
3. 'or does anything malicious or unamerican'
Of course he does, just not anything you'ld object to because you're a racist religious fanatic who thinks bombing brown muslims is A-OK.
4. You truly have the government people like you deserve.
No one except maybe the Germans or whoever else have Mixed-Member proportional have a duly elected government that represents them.
5. You probably will even think it is great when Obama invokes martial law and contrives a way to remain in power past 2016.
I don't have the money but I'ld fork up 100$ towards Tom's betting pool. Though personally I think having another President be like Lyndon Johnson or FDR would be great.
6. The vast majority know your liberal political theories have never worked in all of human history.
Now this is just stupid. America was founded on liberal principles, modern representative democracy is a liberal development, not conservative. In fact the GOP are 'reactionaries', working against the flow of history. Conservatives work to preserve institutions and believe the role of government is to govern, which would be respectable.
Conservatives were originally Monarchists.
Look at Europe ron, they seem to have functioning governments to me.
Since democracy is liberal and you hate liberals or think anything by liberals is bad, why do you hate democracy?
7. 'so you think it is proper to use force to compel everyone to accept your brainless policies.'
Seems like Romney lost with, what was it now? 47% of the vote?
I'm confused why you seem to think 'liberals' are the same thing as 'communists'. As I know it isn't that your mistaking one group for the other, you genuinely believe they are the same.
8. 'You are allowing a genuine tyrant to seize more and more power, and the most shameful thing is that you think that is good. '
Obama is not a tyrant anymore than any other US President has been, nor has he been 'seizing' more power, merely using what Congress it is complicity has allowed him to wield and legitimized as now part of the day to day tools of the executive.
Take it from me, I *am* a Communist and I am personally insulted you think the modern spineless cowards that is the Democratic Party are even remotely close.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I'm perfectly willing to admit that Obama and his administration have many faults, but I don't feel like I can have a rational conversation with people who seriously believe he was born in Kenya.
Word.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Predictable, and typically thoughtless responses. How can you people be intelligent enough to read science fiction--or do you?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I'm never been formally trained in debate, but as I understand it, insulting your debaters while ignoring the actual content of what they said is a logical fallacy and doesn't count as refuting their argument. In fact, that is the mark of someone who is unintelligent.
Would you care to counteract to my post in a way the addresses the actual point I've made-- that someone who believes Obama was born in Kenya has consumed so much biased media that they do not distinguish among the bad things Obama has been accused of and decide which are true, which are true from the point of view of the opposition's value's system, and which are hallmarks of a lunatic fringe that are out of touch with reality. The Kenyan thing belongs to the latter category.
In my point of view, Ellison did a fantastic job responding to you. Not because his responses are correct (though I agree with many of them), but because he took each sentence that you wrote and addressed it directly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You probably will even think it is great when Obama invokes martial law and contrives a way to remain in power past 2016.
And here we have another example of the Ron Lambert Prediction:
1. Ron will predict something that is pretty much almost assuredly not going to happen, like that Obama will be impeached with the help of Democrats.
2. Before the timeframe in which it is supposedly going to happen, Ron will be mostly or even completely certain it is going to happen and will aggressively and tiresomely insult and degrade people who fail to see how 'clear' his truth obviously is.
3. It won't happen.
4. When it doesn't happen, Ron will literally just forget that he made the prediction, because he cannot reconcile the truth of his actual prediction track record against his self-image need to believe that he sees the truth. He will reframe the prediction in his mind and make it something that is at least technically correct, and firmly argue he never made the original prediction at all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Since democracy is liberal and you hate liberals or think anything by liberals is bad, why do you hate democracy?
this actually makes no sense
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
And let's not forget that people have been saying that Obama was going to destroy the Constitution, turn the country into a fascist/socialist/communist/atheist/Muslim dictatorship, create a Gestapo, and use it to round up his opponents and put them in death camps for over six years now. As far as I can tell, he hasn't done a single one of those yet.
Worst.
President.
Ever.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Since democracy is liberal and you hate liberals or think anything by liberals is bad, why do you hate democracy?
this actually makes no sense
That's kind of the point.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Predictable, and typically thoughtless responses. How can you people be intelligent enough to read science fiction--or do you?
The same fiction that supposed a Authoritarian government that restricted the number of children per family was actually necessary to save humanity, exempted the one family where classical notions of eugenics would result in the third child just being sufficiently ruthless but not as ruthless middle ground of the other two children?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the thing is is that it doesn't make sense in a way you did not intend. using the definition that we are all using (hopefully) democracy is neither liberal nor conservative, as both brands of political thought in this day and age are effectively democratic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I suspect this particular topic prompted Ron's particular brand of smug craziness because it is something which might, and is in some quarters being spoken of, as something which makes a Clinton presidency in 2016 more likely. Whether or not this is true as a practical matter, I wouldn't be surprised if that helped prompt another Hurricane Ron.
Although now I have another thing to be curious about with respect to the future. Whether it's because he's simply nuts and believes the absurd, contradictory, and not uncommonly probably untrue things he says*, or if it's because he's just so deeply partisan that lying to the bad guys doesn't seem wrong to him...
I think it's fair to say whichever of these is true, Ron conducts himself as though he were dead to all shame with respect to personal attacks and integrity when it comes to political discussion. But then we have 2016 drawing closer to us all. With a highly likely female Democratic presidential candidate who, if that wasn't trouble enough, is married to another loathed figure in Ron's eyes.
But...I don't know if Ron's bats#*t craziness has ever drifted into sexism and misogyny before. I can't recall if they have. So I'm wondering if it will in 2016, or if it won't? Normally I wouldn't consider it but the man still insists it's been proven Obama is Kenyan...when he can be brought to speak of it at all, which is rare. L
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: the thing is is that it doesn't make sense in a way you did not intend. using the definition that we are all using (hopefully) democracy is neither liberal nor conservative, as both brands of political thought in this day and age are effectively democratic.
Now one can argue its neither, but parliamentary/representative democracy has a history and developed from anti-absolutist monarch thinking from which liberalism developed.
quote: But...I don't know if Ron's bats#*t craziness has ever drifted into sexism and misogyny before. I can't recall if they have. So I'm wondering if it will in 2016, or if it won't? Normally I wouldn't consider it but the man still insists it's been proven Obama is Kenyan...when he can be brought to speak of it at all, which is rare. L
L? what does it mean!?
I think iirc Ron kinda backhandedly finally conceded that Obama might not be from Kenya? I don't quite remember but I vaguely recall him accusing Obama of making it up or something.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here the objective- and honest-minded can find a list of 500+ Examples of Obama’s Crimes, Lies, and Corruption:
"It is unconstitutional to force the American people to buy a product. The Supreme Court already called it unconstitutional, which is when the Obama Administration revised the law to say “tax” instead of “fine.” Nothing else changed."
It was Chief Justice Roberts who said that the individual mandate was within Congress's powers of taxation, the law was not changed.
No one lacks the sanity to literally go over every point on this website, its simply yet another super libertarian conservative wank site, yet no doubt unless we do you are going to claim we are "wrong, brainless, idiots, liars, etc" no matter how obviously biased this site is.
I'll grant that there's probably a couple of points I'll agree with that Obama has done "wrong" that the site in broken clock fashion lists, though none of them grounds for impeachment.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
"It is unconstitutional to force the American people to buy a product."
I'll remember that next time the government makes me buy one of their registration stickers this year. Or car insurance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, some of those items are perfectly legitimate. Some of them are outright lies. Some of them are laughably misstated or just plain unobjectionable. And some are arguably legitimate complaints, but can't be laid neatly at Obama's door and almost certainly didn't see his involvement (like forcing an Amish family farm to stop selling raw milk per existing regulations, or funding a study into how cocaine affects auditory stimulation in mice). Some are a combination of the above, like the one that accuses "Obama" of spending $200K on a $16 bush (which, if you get the actual details, is a really shocking misrepresentation of the truth.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But...I don't know if Ron's bats#*t craziness has ever drifted into sexism and misogyny before. I can't recall if they have.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There was at one time a rational reason born of psychological necessity for men to regard women as second-class people, much less important than men. Go back in time three hundred years, and you will find that one out of five women died in childbirth. This means that virtually every man was touched by the death of a woman he knew--mother, aunt, sister, wife--who died because a man had sex with her. Men had to diminish the psychological impact of this, otherwise it would have been hard to continue propagating the species. If a man really thinks to himself that when he is having sex with a woman he is likely killing her, he must either trivialize the life that is being put at risk, or else be unable to perform, out of sheer horror and guilt.
'way back when, women died in childbirth a lot, so they had a rational reason born of necessity to consider women second-class humans. otherwise we men wouldn't have been able to get it on if we didn't just think we were copulating with an object'
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hrm. Gotta disagree with you there, Samp. As it was quoted as without knowing the larger context I don't think it serves as an example of misogyny. A good heaping helping dose of patriarchal attitudes, of course, but reading that I don't exactly see an endorsement of the attitude either.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
It is eurocentric however, pretty sure large sections of the world 300+ years ago didn't quite have those mortality rates.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I provide it as just, well, it is just where batshit drifted into sexism.
and if this is the worst that can be said of it then he's probably pretty aok on the sexism front, all things considered
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: It is eurocentric however, pretty sure large sections of the world 300+ years ago didn't quite have those mortality rates.
... yes. large sections of the world 300+ years ago didn't quite have those mortality rates
(this includes europe)
(so, 'eurocentrism' isn't the issue, or relevant)
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
Dying at childbirth is a pretty bad evolutionary strategy, and therefore human women have always been naturally good at giving birth.
In my understanding, the historical, "natural" worldwide childbirth death ratio is around 1%. But the numbers get worse, if you give birth for example to 5 children. You're taking that 1% risk five times.
If you want, you can skew the historical numbers by concentrating on the widespread epidemics in early western hospitals, that caused exceptional childbirth death rates. It was an unfortunate transition period when we already had "modern" hospitals, but no understanding of germs.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Dying at childbirth is a pretty bad evolutionary strategy, and therefore human women have always been naturally good at giving birth.
That does not necessarily follow. If the adaptations that make childbirth more dangerous confer a greater overall survival benefit then it's possible for such deaths to be relatively frequent without contradicting evolutionary theory. When optimizing for multiple factors compromise is the name of the game.
I don't think there's a lot of good data on prehistoric deaths in childbirth which would be more relevant to the point than modern "natural" births which usually occur in the context of a world that understand hygiene and usually has relatively quick access to medical intervention.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: "It is unconstitutional to force the American people to buy a product."
I'll remember that next time the government makes me buy one of their registration stickers this year. Or car insurance.
False equivalence. Hate to nitpick, but the state government and federal government are different in that way. The state has the right to require registration and car insurance. The federal government had never had that power, which is why the "penalty" had to be considered a tax.
The other difference? You don't have to have a car or drive. You can take the bus, cabs, mass transit, etc as an alternative. As soon as we have proxy robots available I can download my brain and consciousness into as an alternative to traditional life, you can require me to get health insurance. Right now we don't have any alternatives to life except suicide.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The other difference? You don't have to have a car or drive. You can take the bus, cabs, mass transit, etc as an alternative. As soon as we have proxy robots available I can download my brain and consciousness into as an alternative to traditional life, you can require me to get health insurance. Right now we don't have any alternatives to life except suicide.
Except we're all required to pay for your emergency room medical treatment while you wait for the sci-fi robots to upload your brain to. Which, you know, you will be wanting when the time comes as just about everyone does when the time comes.
So which right trumps the other? Your right not to buy something, or everyone else's right not to pay for that same something later, at a higher cost, because you didn't buy it?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The federal government had never had that power, which is why the "penalty" had to be considered a tax.
Well that and whether it's considered a tax or not is a semantic matter. Buy insurance and get a tax break, or don't buy insurance and pay a higher tax to offset the burden of the uninsured. A large proportion of our taxes can be interpreted as being "forced to buy a product" if you are so inclined to interpret it that way.
The power to tax it the power to force me to give you money. There is also a well established history of setting conditions under which I may be compelled to give you more or less money. I can buy solar cells and owe less tax. I can also buy health insurance and owe less tax.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: "It is unconstitutional to force the American people to buy a product."
I'll remember that next time the government makes me buy one of their registration stickers this year. Or car insurance.
False equivalence. Hate to nitpick, but the state government and federal government are different in that way. The state has the right to require registration and car insurance. The federal government had never had that power, which is why the "penalty" had to be considered a tax.
The other difference? You don't have to have a car or drive. You can take the bus, cabs, mass transit, etc as an alternative. As soon as we have proxy robots available I can download my brain and consciousness into as an alternative to traditional life, you can require me to get health insurance. Right now we don't have any alternatives to life except suicide.
Sorry Geraine but I regret to inform you but this is actually false.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Christie is now under investigation for improperly using relief funds related to Hurricane Sandy. It's small time stuff, a couple million dollars, but, that's all it takes.
I was reading an article the other day that said what I'd been thinking about this Christie thing but couldn't articulate myself.
The worst scandals a politician can embroil himself in are ones where they reinforce a preconceived notion. People already think Christie is a vengeful, grudge-holding guy with a serious attitude. So whether he was actually involved or not is irrelevant. People will believe he did it because it fits the idea of Christie, and it will stay around as an issue for the same reason, and because investigations will keep it alive for months and months.
And now with new things starting to come out, on top of all the dirt that opposition research has dug up on him...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Obviously this revelation was strategically revealed by the Obama administration to distract from Benghazi.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Dying at childbirth is a pretty bad evolutionary strategy, and therefore human women have always been naturally good at giving birth.
That does not necessarily follow. If the adaptations that make childbirth more dangerous confer a greater overall survival benefit then it's possible for such deaths to be relatively frequent without contradicting evolutionary theory. When optimizing for multiple factors compromise is the name of the game.
I don't think there's a lot of good data on prehistoric deaths in childbirth which would be more relevant to the point than modern "natural" births which usually occur in the context of a world that understand hygiene and usually has relatively quick access to medical intervention.
I'm curious: What adaptations do humans have, that make childbirth considerably more dangerous, yet give other overall benefits?
I thought it would be a fairly logical evolutionary benefit that the mothers of human infants don't immediately die, considering how dependent the infants tend to be on their parents. And considering how in most human societies - historical and pre-historical - taking care of the infant has primarily been the mother's job.
Granted, in tribe-cultures the concept of shared parenthood among the tribe is fairly common. But passing the genes on the mother's side is much harder, if the mothers keep on regularly dying on their first attempt at giving birth. It creates a genetic bottleneck. And in my understanding maternal lineage among mankind is just as strong as the fraternal lineage.
Anyway, I'm not an expert on the issue, and googling this was surprisingly difficult. But the 1% number popped up in a lot of places. If the number is close to accurate, it's not much of a stretch to say that from an evolutionary perspective it was more beneficial to keep that number at 1%, instead of for example 50% (With the child mortality rates of the past, that percentage would have pretty much eradicated human race).
Written historical data does go back a few thousand years. Then there are many archeological ways to research the issue. And then there are many societies in the world where people still live and give birth in conditions, that are similar to our historical, and prehistorical past.
[ January 13, 2014, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote: Republicans, Krugman writes, have difficulty speaking coherently about anti-poverty measures, in large part because of their well-deserved “reputation for reverse Robin-Hoodism, for being the party that takes from the poor and gives to the rich.” To bolster this claim, Krugman notes GOP efforts on the state and federal level to deny the poor healthcare (via Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion) as well as economic support (via unemployment insurance) and education (via public financing for schools). “It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that right now Republicans are doing all they can to hurt the poor,” Krugman writes.
quote: “The point is that a party committed to small government and low taxes on the rich is, more or less necessarily, a party committed to hurting, not helping, the poor,”
That Maternal Death wiki link is one of the places where I got the 1% number from.
Thanks for the link to Obstetrical dilemma. According to that article, since human bipedalism started roughly 4 million years ago, evolution has helped us to adapt to obstetrical dilemma in numerous ways, making it easier for women to give birth.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The other difference? You don't have to have a car or drive. You can take the bus, cabs, mass transit, etc as an alternative. As soon as we have proxy robots available I can download my brain and consciousness into as an alternative to traditional life, you can require me to get health insurance. Right now we don't have any alternatives to life except suicide.
Except we're all required to pay for your emergency room medical treatment while you wait for the sci-fi robots to upload your brain to. Which, you know, you will be wanting when the time comes as just about everyone does when the time comes.
So which right trumps the other? Your right not to buy something, or everyone else's right not to pay for that same something later, at a higher cost, because you didn't buy it?
Why would you be required to pay for my emergency room costs?
This, I think, is the crux of the problem. We have come to believe that "society" is responsible to take care of you.
So to answer your question: Neither. It is not society's responsibility to pay for something I did not get due to being irresponsible.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So to answer your question: Neither. It is not society's responsibility to pay for something I did not get due to being irresponsible.
So how do you propose emergency medical care be managed? I'm in a terrible car wreck and an ambulance shows up - should that ambulance have been called before verifying my ability to pay? Should the EMTs check to see if I have insurance before administering care? Say I don't have insurance, but I claim that the accident was another driver's fault. Do they go check to see what his insurance coverage is before assisting me? If he doesn't have insurance either do they deny care? What if I claim to have insurance but they can't get through to the insurance company to verify? Wait 15 minutes on hold to verify that, then treat me?
I don't see any workable system where emergency care is not administered before verifying ability to pay. And if we can't verify ability to pay then ability to pay can't be a precondition for care.
We can, however, establish a system where everyone gets care and those who refuse to buy into the system that finances it are penalized for their irresponsibility.
[ January 14, 2014, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
First I should clarify. My statement about emergency rooms wasn't one of preference, it was a statement of fact. If you don't have health insurance and you get sick, you stand a chance of not just getting better on your own. Should that happen, eventually you or someone who encounters your stricken body will call an ambulance and take you to the emergency room. There some stopgap, extremely expensive measures will be taken and you then stand a chance of being on the street once more, and stand an even greater chance of it happening all over again. From a cost perspective if the rest of society is lucky, you're able to get yourself to the hospital for these steps to be taken.
It's not a question of 'should we do that', because that's the reality.
quote:This, I think, is the crux of the problem. We have come to believe that "society" is responsible to take care of you.
So to answer your question: Neither. It is not society's responsibility to pay for something I did not get due to being irresponsible.
We haven't 'come to believe' this, it's always been true for as long as there have been human societies. What changes is where the line is drawn. In the European societies from which we are generally as a culture descended, for example, the government had an obligation to take care of the individual basically to the extent that they wouldn't let foreign invaders or bandits come and kill them. They would then be free to yield up the work and resources their overlords needed. If you can name me a single society which doesn't have some minimum level at which it is responsible for the care of individuals, I'll be surprised. So let's set aside the notion that even considering this is some risky, adventurous new frontier.
As to my personal preference, though. Well, yes, I do prefer that people not be allowed to suffer too much even from the consequences of their own mistakes. Even if it costs me something. But let's just be clear about what you're endorsing, here, to really expose the ethics involved aside from a high-minded pursuit of personal responsibility and freedom. You're suggesting that the wealthiest society in the history of humanity should allow people to suffer and die in their homes and on the streets because they were either too unwise or too unfortunate to acquire health insurance when they were younger and healthier.
Let's just be clear about that. A libertarian ideal that admits that I can at least acknowledge for a willingness to face reality and admit it to others, however repellant it is.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Wow.
Survival of the Richest in reality. If you can't afford the doctor--die. If you can't afford shelter--die. If you can't afford food--die. That is the libertarian ideal?
Well sure, there are charities that might be able to feed you, run a hospital, give you a blanket during the coldest months. But if the charity runs out of what you need--die.
I am sure all these mega-churches out there will just jump at the chance to switch from using their limited funds from spreading the faith, to doctor duty. That's what happened before--hospitals were all church run, food for the poor was all church run, and homeless shelters were all church run.
And it worked so well that during the height of a downturn in the economy so many people put such demands on these services that they started to collapse. Movies and books were written by the likes of Dickens and Bronte about the unfairness of that charity system. A more efficient and fair way was demanded by all--so the government took over.
History, read it and know it all, not cherry pick it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Libertarian ideals have a really difficult time reconciling the reality of healthcare. It's very house-of-cards thinking (and geraine's upcoming replies will speak much to that fact) that requires you believe a minimum quantity of observable falsehoods about healthcare in order to support as not even just superior to uhc, but even vaguely tolerable. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"And their children, too." I want to insert that phrase into all those libertarian dreams. " If you can't afford the doctor--die. If you can't afford shelter--die. If you can't afford food--die." And your children, too.
"It is not society's responsibility to pay for something I did not get due to being irresponsible." Or for your children, either. Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
And its not even workable in reality, the ultimate, inevitable and irreversible result of the Libertarian policies as Geraine and Dan_Frank believe in would result in Communist revolution and the subsequent hanging of all capitalists unlucky enough to have not moved to Hong Kong or Singapore.
Its fact. Keynesian economics developed as an alternative to armed radical Communist uprisings of the proletariat and worked for decades in the United States thanks to the New Deal, whose purpose, to emphasize was not the ending of the Great Depression, but preventing the inevitable Communist Revolution.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dude, neither Dan nor Geraine are such purists of libertarianism as you're describing, and have said so repeatedly. It's a stretch to think you never noticed, so did you forget?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it's not just that it doesn't accurately portray dan nor geraine, but that additionally there's three parts of it which are completely false/made up
a completely free market economy isn't automatically assured to become a permanent communist country (in fact it is way from the most probable outcomes), AND keynesian economics didn't develop as an alternative to armed radical communism uprisings, AND the new deal's purpose was not to prevent the 'inevitable communist revolution' and did indeed center mostly around ending the great depression
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, those involve a) discussing politics *and* economics with Elison in areas that even remotely relate-or are made to relate to-communism, an activity which is let's just say fraught and b) were so bizzare even by the usual standards I wasn't sure it wasn't just trolling.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Let the backstabbing begin! Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Yup, I hereby pronounce Christie's national political career dead on arrival. He might somehow get the nomination (which is also unlikely as most of the GOP hates him) but now he's lost any possible crossover support with Democrats and is just "another horrible GOP politician" instead of "One of the good (moderate) ones".
Without Christie and especially if Hillary runs this seems like a solid win for Hillary and likely relection; there just might be some hope that American politics are un-fruited.
Even if the more Liberal justices retire either now or under Hillary they can be replaced, likewise at least one of the GOP appointed Justices are also likely to retire, the Supreme Court will shift liberal hopefully for a whole generation; and while I'm hopeful there's also the matter of the US Census and un-gerrymandering stuff.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think he's handling this all wrong. He's trying a combination of bluster and mea culpa that even the most artful politician would have a hard time navigating.
The injecting of "proof" into the discussion that he had a role in the lane closure will dog him all the way to 2016. He's locked in. Whether or not he can brush it off will depend on how he handles the next 6 months.
To be honest I think he was a longshot for the Republican primary anyway. But not I think it's really unlikely.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Christie's gonna rock back and forth in the night, pacing throughout his house, fretting, going mad. Eventually he will turn on the television and see what Rob Ford is getting away with. That, at a certain threshold, you're too ridiculous to do away with.
His laughter will last until the dawn.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Christie doesn't strike me as the 'rending his garments' type.
He strikes me as someone who punches holes in walls and beats interns with tire irons for getting his coffee wrong.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: And its not even workable in reality, the ultimate, inevitable and irreversible result of the Libertarian policies as Geraine and Dan_Frank believe in would result in Communist revolution and the subsequent hanging of all capitalists unlucky enough to have not moved to Hong Kong or Singapore.
Its fact. Keynesian economics developed as an alternative to armed radical Communist uprisings of the proletariat and worked for decades in the United States thanks to the New Deal, whose purpose, to emphasize was not the ending of the Great Depression, but preventing the inevitable Communist Revolution.
Wow Blayne... I don't even know what to say to this. Well, I know what I would like to say, but I don't feel like getting an email from Blackblade.
Point is this: The Federal Government should not be involved. Like 90% of what the Federal Government does. The Federal Government repeatedly inserts themselves into parts of our lives that should be taken care of by each individual state. Welfare programs, health coverage, marriage, etc. should all be handled by the state, not by the feds.
The country was designed with state's rights in mind. Over the last 100 years more and more of that power has been taken from the states by the federal government. What is good in one state is not always good in another. Generalizing the population by providing blanket regulations for the entire nation without taking into account the landscape of each individual state is, in my opinion, part of the reason our debt is so high, why our education system ranks so low, and why we are struggling with health insurance issues.
The Federal Government, in my opinion, should relinquish most of these powers they have back to the states, and have them operate on their own. The federal government should just do what it was designed to do in the Constitution.
These include:
•Print money (bills and coins)
•Declare war
•Establish an army and navy
•Enter into treaties with foreign governments
•Regulate commerce between states and international trade
•Establish post offices and issue postage
•Make laws necessary to enforce the Constitution
State Responsibilities:
•Establish local governments
•Issue licenses (driver, hunting, marriage, etc.)
•Regulate intrastate (within the state) commerce
•Conduct elections
•Ratify amendments to the U.S. Constitution
•Provide for public health and safety
•Exercise powers neither delegated to the national government or prohibited from the states by the U.S.
•Constitution
Shared Responsibilities:
•Setting up courts
•Creating and collecting taxes
•Building highways
•Borrowing money
•Making and enforcing laws
•Chartering banks and corporations
•Spending money for the betterment of the general welfare
•Taking (condemning) private property with just compensation
The problem is that the federal government, no matter who is in power, has the tendency to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever the hell it wants it to mean. What results is massive debt, gigantic government, and a centralized government, something the Constitution was trying to PREVENT.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
On your last point, that's not entirely true. The Constitution was not out to prevent a centralized government. Don't forget that it was written after years of a failed experiment with decentralized government under the Articles of Confederation.
They wanted a centralized government, they just didn't want an all powerful government.
But I also think states are different today. I think they're a bit anachronistic in the level of importance and power we invest in them, when for all intents and purposes they should be treated as administrative districts rather than sovereign entities. Otherwise you pit states against each other, create winners and losers, and lose sight of what's best for the nation as a whole.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Indeed, 'in a world' where the US was at the edge of the last unexploited land frontier and entirely uninvolved with the world and veltpolitik you could get away with that, but the steady consolidation and centralization of the power of the federal government is simply the logical result of the US becoming integrated with the world and taking a leading role thereof.
Want to stop the bad guys from setting off car bombs? You need the Statesec; you want to protect the borders from the Chinese? You need the military. You want the military to have the best equipment? Your forced the government to birth the military-industrial complex. You want to remain economically the most powerful nation? You need to have a central bureau that shifts around resources that can react to changing world circumstances. The US and by extension the world's economy could not function without the Federal Reserve, and the fact of a strong central US government able to do whatever is needed to back said currency.
quote: The Federal Government should not be involved. Like 90% of what the Federal Government does. The Federal Government repeatedly inserts themselves into parts of our lives that should be taken care of by each individual state. Welfare programs, health coverage, marriage, etc. should all be handled by the state, not by the feds.
Why? This is assertion, argument without logic or a supporting basis; they just "shouldn't" is all you're saying here.
quote: The country was designed with state's rights in mind.
The country was designed to have slaves, you don't have them anymore around do you? The Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional, but it still suited state interest, and so such hang wringing was ignored as the stupidity it was.
quote: Over the last 100 years more and more of that power has been taken from the states by the federal government. What is good in one state is not always good in another.
While the idea of local discretion has merit, the idea that there shouldn't be national standards of say, "don't poison the water tables with mercury" is kind of hard to figure out the compelling local state interest in modifying.
quote: Generalizing the population by providing blanket regulations for the entire nation without taking into account the landscape of each individual state is
Can you cite an example of a blanket regulation that ignores some compelling local fact?
quote: in my opinion, part of the reason our debt is so high, why our education system ranks so low, and why we are struggling with health insurance issues.
You debt is so high because you fought two wars without paying for it, cut taxes on the rich and because you run a fiat currency. Modern economics pre-assumes debt because taxation is no longer defined as "revenue" but instead is "currency being removed from circulation" as an anti-inflation measure.
You education system ranks low because of several reasons, but in general the crying about "But but local circumstances!" is just an attempt to rationalize the inevitable compelling counter argument of "If Y how come country X does it so much better?" Not because Georgians are somehow inherently unsuitable to be taught the same way as people from Iowa.
quote: The Federal Government, in my opinion, should relinquish most of these powers they have back to the states, and have them operate on their own. The federal government should just do what it was designed to do in the Constitution.
The problem is that the federal government, no matter who is in power, has the tendency to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever the hell it wants it to mean. What results is massive debt, gigantic government, and a centralized government, something the Constitution was trying to PREVENT.
Just to let you know, spoilers but Thomas Jefferson had thought the constitution should be changed every 30 years or so; the idea that the federal government should just do "whats in the constitution" has no merit, because the constitution has also in fact been amended several times.
Anyways your argument about the centralization of power and how it somehow maliciously conspired to "interpret" the constitution to grant itself those powers is woefully wrong, almost every increase in the Federal governments power has been aided and abetted by the Supreme Court and via the amendment process.
The list of items the US Federal government should "restrict" itself to is the very list of arguments used to justify the powers it gradually accumulated over the last four centuries of reacting to changing world circumstances.
The sad fact is it seems like the only reason why you think this way is because the federal government is doing stuff you don't like and would prefer the generally republican controlled states to not have to conform to the democratic will of the people of the United states as a whole.
Which beings me back to:
quote: Welfare programs, health coverage, marriage, etc. should all be handled by the state, not by the feds.
The economic and jurisprudence facts disagree with this so strongly that the internet should literally explode.
1. Its in the interest of the federal government and the other states that the "taker" states (cough, mostly republican states) don't collapse or bring down the economic well being of the nation as a whole. So this is why they step in to insure your poors don't make everyone else poorer. Also because money collected by the feds can be spent more efficiently than the states can, again, simple economic fact.
2. Ditto with healthcoverage, this one is a baffling point because you conceded in a previous thread that the United States should implement singlepayer, doing this efficiently at the state level would be extremely difficult, many states won't have the resources to do this effectively or have the GOP actively trying to undercut such programs. Also because someone being unhealthy in Alabama causes someones premiums in Kansas to go up, so this has to be done at the federal level.
Just like in any other developed first world country.
3. So if two women get married in California, and then move to Missouri (lets assume Missouri banned it), is their marriage getting annulled perfectly fine with you?
Also what you suggest here would also actually be unconstitutional because of the "full faith and credit" clause. What one state recognizes the others have to as well.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Technically it wouldn't be.
States have to honor the marriages of other states, but the federal government gets to say what marriage is within that context.
Besides, I'm not sure arguing against gay marriage will help you with Geraine. I think his libertarian leanings would suggest he doesn't think government should regulate marriage that closely. Or it could be that, like Jefferson, he didn't want the federal government oppressing you, he wanted states doing it. I'm not sure. I suspect it's the former.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Generally though my impression is that by saying "It should be up to the states" it also means "letting states ban it." Its hard to tell whether this includes or considers having to recognize them from out of state.
Following up on the "Why education should be nationalized" here's a post from SA:
quote: The tuition explosion is the clearest real world example you can point to when explaining why certain important societal functions need to be run by government rather than the free market. When they deregulated tuition in Texas in 2003, the university boards of regents and presidents swore up and down that there would only be, at most, a modest increase in the cost of a college education. Tuition rates at state schools have more than tripled in some cases in 10 years. It's not even because these regents are cackling money hoarding tycoons, it's that when you deregulate tuition and free market pressures start creating competition for things like faculty and facilities, the cost for those things has to come from somewhere. So you couple that with the current political reality of zero possibility of tax revenue increases and the only place that a cost can be borne is from the students.
Technically the post doesn't call for the Federal government to nationalize education, just for the 'invisible (cough)non existent(cough) hand of the market' to removed from higher education, but since leaving education "up to the states" is really just actually a part of the plan for Republican controlled states to auction off education to corporations whelp... The logical conclusion is to simply in my view remove the middle man and have the federal government directly control it rather than allow the possibility of unsupervised privatization.
Some very prominent scientists have come from states like Alabama, crippling education would deny the United States access to such individuals from such states and decrease the overall size of its knowledge pool, harming its relative geopolitical position, weakening its security.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The only true advantage of small government is that its cheaper for big business to buy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's pithy. I like it.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Spread it around. Maybe people will see that Small Government isn't that great an idea unless you can buy it.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)