[Ravenholme]

>Implying American Politics can be taken seriously. Har Har.

Okay, I'm kidding, but to the eyes of those of us outside the country who pay more than passing attention to the American Political situation, it's becoming increasingly like watching two kids bickering in the school yard.

I think your nation needs to shake it's bipartisan political system and introduce some diversity/new blood, the political gene pool is stagnating. And enforce Media impartiality.

N.B. I'm not saying that political systems such as the one in my own country are better, just pointing out what I see as the most obvious flaw in the American system.

There should have been no kidding! American politics is exactly like two kids bickering in the school yard.

Well, yes, but people might be offended by a non-american making that sort of statement.

[Unknown Target]

TBH I and a lot of other people would love to get rid of those two bickering kids. The issue is not that people don't want to, it's that in many ways we can't, short of some widespread social revolution or unrest. They pretty much hold all the keys to power.

[Ravenholme]

TBH I and a lot of other people would love to get rid of those two bickering kids. The issue is not that people don't want to, it's that in many ways we can't, short of some widespread social revolution or unrest. They pretty much hold all the keys to power.

I imagine that you might be something of a minority though, as your state (in terms of sovereign state, not the individual States), despite the immaturity of the politicians running it, does a great job of teaching you from birth that your political system (backed up by the constitution and the founding fathers) is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that no other political system compares.

And that's the kind of thing your 'average' person laps up and doesn't question, hence some of the rabid divisions inspired by your political system

"Ignorance is the greatest weapon of tyranny..." (Not a fully accurate quote for the situation, but topical of the forum)

And, inspired by far too much Crysis over the past week: MAXIMUM Respect to you Unknown Target.

[mxlm]

Wait, no, nevermind

[Nuclear1]

I imagine that you might be something of a minority though, as your state (in terms of sovereign state, not the individual States), despite the immaturity of the politicians running it, does a great job of teaching you from birth that your political system (backed up by the constitution and the founding fathers) is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that no other political system compares.

A lot of Americans treat the founders like they were prophetic, infallible wise men whose opinions on 18th-century, slave-owning, isolationist, and fairly heterogeneous 13 states America should all still be rigidly applied to 50 state, 300+ million, multicultural, 21st century world superpower America.  I mean, the guys were smart, and certainly knew their history, but times change.

The government does like to ingrain that idea of 'American Exceptionalism' though...

[DarkBasilisk]

I imagine that you might be something of a minority though, as your state (in terms of sovereign state, not the individual States), despite the immaturity of the politicians running it, does a great job of teaching you from birth that your political system (backed up by the constitution and the founding fathers) is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that no other political system compares.

A lot of Americans treat the founders like they were prophetic, infallible wise men whose opinions on 18th-century, slave-owning, isolationist, and fairly heterogeneous 13 states America should all still be rigidly applied to 50 state, 300+ million, multicultural, 21st century world superpower America.  I mean, the guys were smart, and certainly knew their history, but times change.

The government does like to ingrain that idea of 'American Exceptionalism' though...

What's more ironic is while people rant about this, we've broken from the couple things the founders actually *did* want us to do : Legislative Supremacy, Senate elected by legislature, etc. Now, not all of these breaks are bad, but why doesn't anyone bring them up when we're ranting about what the founders would have wanted?

[Nuke]

leegalize whorehouses!

[Mars]

The founders had a lot of good ideas. . . a wall of separation between church and state for one. . ..

That America has made a lot of headway in dismantling.

[Nuclear1]

The founders had a lot of good ideas. . . a wall of separation between church and state for one. . ..

That America has made a lot of headway in dismantling.

Double standards are awesome though.  Tell a religious conservative about that wall and they'll tell you that quote's being taken out of the context of colonial society, but if you mention repealing the Second Amendment, they'll scream bloody murder without considering the same context.

[Unknown Target]

The founders had a lot of good ideas. . . a wall of separation between church and state for one. . ..

That America has made a lot of headway in dismantling.

Double standards are awesome though.  Tell a religious conservative about that wall and they'll tell you that quote's being taken out of the context of colonial society, but if you mention repealing the Second Amendment, they'll scream bloody murder without considering the same context.

That's really the failing of the interpreter, not the interpretee, IMO.

[Nuclear1]

That's really the failing of the interpreter, not the interpretee, IMO.

Or how the interpretee views the interpreter.  Someone proposes repealing the Second Amendment or supporting the wall of separation, the conservative will usually look at them as a godless, anti-American liberal who hates their freedoms and will shut them out purely for that reason.

[Luis Dias]

2037?

Now that's a ****ing model you got there pal!

No government predicted 2008's crash within months, and now we get the idea that we are able to predict the point where american economy stops sustaining itself to that precision?

ROFLMAO

[Hades]

What's more ironic is while people rant about this, we've broken from the couple things the founders actually *did* want us to do : Legislative Supremacy, Senate elected by legislature, etc. Now, not all of these breaks are bad, but why doesn't anyone bring them up when we're ranting about what the founders would have wanted?

Not to mention that George Washington warned specifically against a two party system, which in itself could be viewed as 'breaking' as well.

[achtung]

I just thought I'd point something out.

Planned cuts for Planned Parenthood - $300 million

Cost of two F-22 Raptors - $300 million

Republicans now have my full and unfiltered rage.

[Unknown Target]

I just thought I'd point something out.

Planned cuts for Planned Parenthood - $300 million

Cost of two F-22 Raptors - $300 million

Quoted on my page

[BlueFlames]

What's more ironic is while people rant about this, we've broken from the couple things the founders actually *did* want us to do : Legislative Supremacy, Senate elected by legislature, etc. Now, not all of these breaks are bad, but why doesn't anyone bring them up when we're ranting about what the founders would have wanted?

Not to mention that George Washington warned specifically against a two party system, which in itself could be viewed as 'breaking' as well.

(1)  George Washington's farewell address warning was against "political parties", not a two-party system.

(2)  At the time, Washington's concern was that political parties would be based on geography, rather than political issues.  As much as we like to break the nation down into "red states" and "blue states," the truth is that in Presidential elections, candidates rarely capture more than 70% of the popular vote in any given state, meaning that even in the "safe red" and "safe blue" states, there is a spectrum of political ideologies.  No one party represents every New Englander or every Southerner, so the nation is very unlikely to actually fracture along party lines.

(3)  Technically, we don't have a two-party system, but very rarely are enough people convinced of the viability of third-party candidates to vote for them.  I will point out, though, that the Senate has an independent member from Connecticut and a Democratic Socialist from Vermont, both of whom are lumped in with the Democratic caucus.

Planned cuts for Planned Parenthood - $300 million

Cost of two F-22 Raptors - $300 million

While I agree wtih your sentiment, I want to play devil's advocate for a moment:  Cut two Raptors to continue subsidising Planned Parenthood.  Cut two Raptors to save NPR.  Cut two Raptors to save a few farm subsidies.  Cut two Raptors to build a bridge to another abandoned island in Alaska.  Eventually, you have no Raptors left, and the Russian Federation leverages its oil revenues to field a more advanced air force than the United States.

I'll agree that defense spending is completely bonkers in the United States, but the Raptor is a scapegoat, and using it as the sole scapegoat is dangerous.

I'll also point out that V-22 Ospreys are $110 million a piece, and they're just glorified helicopters that Marines jump out of, as if we didn't have a dozen different varieties of those already anyway. 

[General Battuta]

While I agree wtih your sentiment, I want to play devil's advocate for a moment:  Cut two Raptors to continue subsidising Planned Parenthood.  Cut two Raptors to save NPR.  Cut two Raptors to save a few farm subsidies.  Cut two Raptors to build a bridge to another abandoned island in Alaska.  Eventually, you have no Raptors left, and the Russian Federation leverages its oil revenues to field a more advanced air force than the United States.

I'd be more worried about this (and I know you're playing devil's advocate) if I didn't suspect our local USAF member would think it was not a huge concern.

[achtung]

While I agree wtih your sentiment, I want to play devil's advocate for a moment:  Cut two Raptors to continue subsidising Planned Parenthood.  Cut two Raptors to save NPR.  Cut two Raptors to save a few farm subsidies.  Cut two Raptors to build a bridge to another abandoned island in Alaska.  Eventually, you have no Raptors left, and the Russian Federation leverages its oil revenues to field a more advanced air force than the United States.

I'll agree that defense spending is completely bonkers in the United States, but the Raptor is a scapegoat, and using it as the sole scapegoat is dangerous.

I'll also point out that V-22 Ospreys are $110 million a piece, and they're just glorified helicopters that Marines jump out of, as if we didn't have a dozen different varieties of those already anyway. 

Not specifically picking on the raptor, air superiority fighters are very nice to have, I just wanted to find something expensive to use as an example. V-22/F-35 substitutes just as easily. Sadly, a good portion of those price tags are just pork anyway.

[BlueFlames]

Not specifically picking on the raptor...

Ah.  I just remembered it coming up in the NPR thread a few weeks back as well, so I wanted to point out that cutting Raptors isn't a viable solution to every budget problem.

[Mars]

How about we stop spending like we're in a World War? Make peace with China, mothball or discount our excessive assets to friendly nations in Europe; maybe mind our own business for a little. Hell, we could even replace our current assets with ones that would be useful in the wars we're fighting - A10s instead of F22s, keep doing research in artillery countermeasures, and still have a tiny military budget.

While we're doing that, why not completely overhaul our hemorrhaging healthcare and social security systems . . . get them to stop being so inefficient. Also, improving technique in education instead of throwing money at it.

Oh yeah, because for some reason, in America, nothing ever gets done.