Getting a meeting means you can see what they are doing easier. Jeeze. Are you really this cynical about civic participation? Do you really not value meeting and understanding the people that represent you in the legislature?... What is wrong with you?
People don't care because states have been neutered of power.
It requires the electorate and the legislature to have maturity in deciding something like a senator. That is not a bad thing. If a state cannot get its shit together they have less power.
I think in some instances separation between the people and officials are a good thing. James Madison was concerned of "excessive democracy" because the passion of the people and the politicians using that passion for their own ends can be counter to the needs of the nation.
We need a legislative body divorced of the tumultuous popularity contests that the people demand. There needs to be a bulwark to keep mob rule in check. Right now, there doesn't seem to by any check against the people tearing at each others throats (politically, physically, and legally) at the expense of stability and future of the nation. Laws are drafted to create a problem so that an ideological solution be implemented regardless of efficacy.
DACA puts hundreds of thousands of people in limbo because not citizen not illegal, a giant band aide that doesn't solve the problem that will have to be torn off. Deportation isn't a solution if the original country says no nor is that moral if someone lived here their whole life. Amnesty is the only answer. Normally, if you want amnesty you compromise with stronger border protection but that is no longer an option because it's racist because of popular passions turning into mob rule from sound bite rhetoric and crocodile tears. Something fundamental to defining a nation, a border, now becomes a political football for politicians and a ideological purity test to judge morality. That is not healthy for any nation. This is not the first time this has been done where laws/executive action create a problem to later implement an ideological solution.
You worded it quite well and explained the problem and why so many on the right are skeptical of the left's plan for immigration/amnesty (or many other policies).
"it also lacked any kind of path to naturalization and didn't really offer the people it covered all that much more than simply staying in the country illegally"... Those people are then used as an example to justify laws to allow amnesty. A problem created specifically to be solved by amnesty the left have been wanting. It's rather dishonest if you ask me. Today I saw in the local papers "DACA end spells doom for Dreamer college dreams". It's emotional manipulation to get the laws wanted regardless of efficacy or thought to the people or nation (both us and host). All the while the anyone anti-immigration is demonized as racist because "think of the children" because merely following the existing laws is bad now.
"one big band-aid that had to be removed at some point..." Again, well said. Who gains the political points depends on who can use the outrage best next election cycle. This isn't the first time this has been done either. It's like the ACA, design it to fail for democrats to "fix" it to get what they want i.e. single payer (whether SP is right or wrong doesn't matter, the way it's done is dishonest). All that we get are broken laws because compromise is too hard.
It's rather cynical that politics have become like this. It makes me worry for the future of the nation.
That has always been the case and probably always will be. How do you limit corruption and tyranny? I think the only reason you think the balance between state and federal power doesn't matter is because the states have been neutered of any power partly because of the civil war.
In reality, the difference between the states and federal government is as different as the civil war compared to the battle of athens.
That makes the state every bit as capable of corruption and tyranny as the federal government
Yes, that is why the states are a check on the federal government and the federal government is a check on the states.
I've yet to see either work as advertised in the real world.
Case in point, marijuana.
Doesn't that mean that compromise there is all the more important when it happens?
Yes, but compromise is hard. Especially when you have either side feeling like the other isn't being honest about their compromises. An example I think is gun laws/restrictions. Everyone agrees that there are reasonable gun laws that can be put in place. We have those put in place that we all agree on. It becomes an issue when the goal is gun bans or unreasonable laws and using crocodile tears to sell it.
Why? You can vote a president out every 4 years, senators out every 6, or house members out every 2.
You can vote for your one senator and one House rep and POTUS. It requires everyone else in the country to think your issue important. See the polls that check if constituents trust congress (they don't) unless it's their congressmen.
Why is it any easier to overthrow state tyranny than federal tyranny if the federal government is not allowed to intervene?
State is smaller and any law is will affect people more directly. I didn't say the federal government is not allowed to intervene. Again, an example is marijuana. The Feds are stuck with the DEA classifying it schedule one without anyone's input. Now, many states are saying no your wrong.
different about the state that stops them from being able to do what you're afraid of the federal government doing or allows you to undo their changes any easier?
The federal government is more powerful. It has the military. Is larger. Slower and more bureaucratic and set up to be as much. The Battle of Athens becomes the civil war. Have you participated in your local and state politics?
Immigration is something that the constitution gives power to the federal government because if Arizona decides its immigration policy and the contract between the states is free movement then the neighboring states feel the effects of Arizonans decision.
Closer == less corrupt and tyrannical
I never said that. Battle of Athens vs civil war.
Didn't black people rise up against jim crow laws before the Civil rights act? You made my point because jim crow laws had a direct effect on people and it took those people to stand up against it. Their actions convinced enough people to get the federal government to intervene.... I don't think it shows my statement wrong I would argue it shows it true. What would have happened if Jim Crow was a federal law?
Anyone saying states can't be tyrannical is only you. Again, the state is a check on the federal power just as the federal government is a check on state power. The difference is that the federal government is designed to be slow. It is more powerful than the states.
. The Senators are far more accountable to the people of the state with the current system than if they were elected by the legislature.
Considering reelection rates for incumbents... but beyond that. It was never intended to be accountable to the people just as the federal judiciary isn't. When you have Montana senators with the same power as Californian Senators, popular opinion is rather... Irrelevant. Besides, that is what the House is for.
The point was to have a legislative body detached from the popular whims and passions of the people because they change so fast (hence 2 year terms for the House compared to 6 year Senate terms). Every promise that was made by the advocates of the 17th amendment has not happened. It didn't limit corruption and it increased money in politics. Instead of the Senate being a bulwark to the House it is identical with politics over state.
This x2.... Seriously, repeal the 17th amendment. It is a failure. It failed to deliver on any of the promises during the last century by it's supporters. It has only caused more problems.
I would say giving the slow rollback is indeed a show of good faith to the Dreamers and supports of DACA. It wasn't Trumps fault that DACA was rolled out by Obama who overstepped his authority doing so. It wasn't Trumps fault that DAPA (the parental version) was ruled unconstitutional by the courts. From what I understand, a number of attorney generals threatened suit on DACA to get it rolled back and considering the precedent set by DAPA they would have won that suit.
If Congress had passed a law this wouldn't have happened. Trump saying that congress can save DACA I think is a show of good faith because it says he won't veto it. If Congress doesn't save DACA that isn't Trumps fault it's Obama's for overstepping executive authority and the previous Congress inaction. There seems to be support on both sides of the aisle for DACA.
As for the Wall, at some point Mexico needs to solve their problems and the US allowing an open border for anyone willing an able to solve those problems hurt Mexico and the people still living there. Why would the Mexican government try and solve any problems the poor are facing when the rabble rousers leave?
I don't think you understand the point of separate governments between the state and federal if you think the position is "federal == bad && state == good". Hint, power corrupts which causes tyranny. People are closer to state governments and are better able to change it so any tyranny will be short lived as the people vote it out. The federal government on the other hand, by it's nature represents a diverse set of ideas and politics and compromise is very hard. That means federal tyranny is harder to undo.
In addition, the role of the federal government should only deal with matters that deal with the states as a whole not the individual citizens. However, the state government will be closer to the citizens so should handle the more direct laws affecting the citizens.
He began by saying most mexicans were what rapists and worst, with only some being good people.
When you can't even get the facts straight from a year ago... It's hard to take your comment seriously talking about what education we need for history when you fail so spectacularly.
false simplification
Kind of like what you just did. Do you think making the distinction between Mexican people, Mexican immigrants and illegal Mexican immigrants is a distinction worth mentioning when talking about immigration policy or platform and any speech associated with such topics?
We need sceptical people who take the time to get the truth,
Those people are branded as racist, sexist, xenophobes, or nazi apologists. They get fired from their jobs and branded as pariahs. There is no debate worth having if it costs you your livelihood and then all the polls will get it wrong when the lever is pulled in an anonymous voting booth.
It doesn't matter how you try or how well positioned your argument. If it is against the dogmatic religion of social justice you are already a nazi apologist. If you don't support the correct politician you are a Russian propagandist. I have been called both for having an opinion. Shame on me.
You don't know any position I have or held particularly so on this topic. Why are you generalizing and treating me as a group instead of an individual?
ow go vote for some communists
why would anyone be a communist with such a body count? I also think that I own my labor and can sell it at my discretion and economic transactions are not inherently evil.
You know. Never mind. I don't want to have a conversation with an ideologue that treats an individual as a group through generalizations and ideological purity tests. You are why we can't have nice things.
Slashdot Mirror
As a vague confederation of states they are the most opaque. They must choose so that I can properly align my outrage meters to their actions!
Could you measure their good/bad as compared to Obama drinking Coke or Pepsi as a moral issue? I need help. :-(
Getting a meeting means you can see what they are doing easier. Jeeze. Are you really this cynical about civic participation? Do you really not value meeting and understanding the people that represent you in the legislature? ... What is wrong with you?
People don't care because states have been neutered of power.
IOW. I am going to create a problem that can be solved by something I want. Who needs compromise when I have manufactured outrage?
Damn politics are cynical these days and have been for a while.
It requires the electorate and the legislature to have maturity in deciding something like a senator. That is not a bad thing. If a state cannot get its shit together they have less power.
I think in some instances separation between the people and officials are a good thing. James Madison was concerned of "excessive democracy" because the passion of the people and the politicians using that passion for their own ends can be counter to the needs of the nation.
We need a legislative body divorced of the tumultuous popularity contests that the people demand. There needs to be a bulwark to keep mob rule in check. Right now, there doesn't seem to by any check against the people tearing at each others throats (politically, physically, and legally) at the expense of stability and future of the nation. Laws are drafted to create a problem so that an ideological solution be implemented regardless of efficacy.
DACA puts hundreds of thousands of people in limbo because not citizen not illegal, a giant band aide that doesn't solve the problem that will have to be torn off. Deportation isn't a solution if the original country says no nor is that moral if someone lived here their whole life. Amnesty is the only answer. Normally, if you want amnesty you compromise with stronger border protection but that is no longer an option because it's racist because of popular passions turning into mob rule from sound bite rhetoric and crocodile tears. Something fundamental to defining a nation, a border, now becomes a political football for politicians and a ideological purity test to judge morality. That is not healthy for any nation. This is not the first time this has been done where laws/executive action create a problem to later implement an ideological solution.
You worded it quite well and explained the problem and why so many on the right are skeptical of the left's plan for immigration/amnesty (or many other policies).
"it also lacked any kind of path to naturalization and didn't really offer the people it covered all that much more than simply staying in the country illegally"... Those people are then used as an example to justify laws to allow amnesty. A problem created specifically to be solved by amnesty the left have been wanting. It's rather dishonest if you ask me. Today I saw in the local papers "DACA end spells doom for Dreamer college dreams". It's emotional manipulation to get the laws wanted regardless of efficacy or thought to the people or nation (both us and host). All the while the anyone anti-immigration is demonized as racist because "think of the children" because merely following the existing laws is bad now.
"one big band-aid that had to be removed at some point..."
Again, well said. Who gains the political points depends on who can use the outrage best next election cycle. This isn't the first time this has been done either. It's like the ACA, design it to fail for democrats to "fix" it to get what they want i.e. single payer (whether SP is right or wrong doesn't matter, the way it's done is dishonest). All that we get are broken laws because compromise is too hard.
It's rather cynical that politics have become like this. It makes me worry for the future of the nation.
Schedule an appointment with your state legislators and then schedule and appointment with your congresscritters. Tell me the results.
I've had state legislatures in my home. I have never met my congresscritters in person.
Do you ask for a source that water is wet?
That has always been the case and probably always will be. How do you limit corruption and tyranny? I think the only reason you think the balance between state and federal power doesn't matter is because the states have been neutered of any power partly because of the civil war.
In reality, the difference between the states and federal government is as different as the civil war compared to the battle of athens.
That makes the state every bit as capable of corruption and tyranny as the federal government
Yes, that is why the states are a check on the federal government and the federal government is a check on the states.
I've yet to see either work as advertised in the real world.
Case in point, marijuana.
Doesn't that mean that compromise there is all the more important when it happens?
Yes, but compromise is hard. Especially when you have either side feeling like the other isn't being honest about their compromises. An example I think is gun laws/restrictions. Everyone agrees that there are reasonable gun laws that can be put in place. We have those put in place that we all agree on. It becomes an issue when the goal is gun bans or unreasonable laws and using crocodile tears to sell it.
Why? You can vote a president out every 4 years, senators out every 6, or house members out every 2.
You can vote for your one senator and one House rep and POTUS. It requires everyone else in the country to think your issue important. See the polls that check if constituents trust congress (they don't) unless it's their congressmen.
Why is it any easier to overthrow state tyranny than federal tyranny if the federal government is not allowed to intervene?
State is smaller and any law is will affect people more directly. I didn't say the federal government is not allowed to intervene. Again, an example is marijuana. The Feds are stuck with the DEA classifying it schedule one without anyone's input. Now, many states are saying no your wrong.
different about the state that stops them from being able to do what you're afraid of the federal government doing or allows you to undo their changes any easier?
The federal government is more powerful. It has the military. Is larger. Slower and more bureaucratic and set up to be as much. The Battle of Athens becomes the civil war. Have you participated in your local and state politics?
Immigration is something that the constitution gives power to the federal government because if Arizona decides its immigration policy and the contract between the states is free movement then the neighboring states feel the effects of Arizonans decision.
Closer == less corrupt and tyrannical
I never said that. Battle of Athens vs civil war.
Didn't black people rise up against jim crow laws before the Civil rights act? You made my point because jim crow laws had a direct effect on people and it took those people to stand up against it. Their actions convinced enough people to get the federal government to intervene. ... I don't think it shows my statement wrong I would argue it shows it true. What would have happened if Jim Crow was a federal law?
Anyone saying states can't be tyrannical is only you. Again, the state is a check on the federal power just as the federal government is a check on state power. The difference is that the federal government is designed to be slow. It is more powerful than the states.
. The Senators are far more accountable to the people of the state with the current system than if they were elected by the legislature.
Considering reelection rates for incumbents... but beyond that. It was never intended to be accountable to the people just as the federal judiciary isn't. When you have Montana senators with the same power as Californian Senators, popular opinion is rather... Irrelevant. Besides, that is what the House is for.
The point was to have a legislative body detached from the popular whims and passions of the people because they change so fast (hence 2 year terms for the House compared to 6 year Senate terms). Every promise that was made by the advocates of the 17th amendment has not happened. It didn't limit corruption and it increased money in politics. Instead of the Senate being a bulwark to the House it is identical with politics over state.
This x2.... Seriously, repeal the 17th amendment. It is a failure. It failed to deliver on any of the promises during the last century by it's supporters. It has only caused more problems.
From Trumps statements it sounds like he wouldn't veto it.
Could be lie but speculating as much is rather pointless. A lot of things could happen.
I would say giving the slow rollback is indeed a show of good faith to the Dreamers and supports of DACA. It wasn't Trumps fault that DACA was rolled out by Obama who overstepped his authority doing so. It wasn't Trumps fault that DAPA (the parental version) was ruled unconstitutional by the courts. From what I understand, a number of attorney generals threatened suit on DACA to get it rolled back and considering the precedent set by DAPA they would have won that suit.
If Congress had passed a law this wouldn't have happened. Trump saying that congress can save DACA I think is a show of good faith because it says he won't veto it. If Congress doesn't save DACA that isn't Trumps fault it's Obama's for overstepping executive authority and the previous Congress inaction. There seems to be support on both sides of the aisle for DACA.
As for the Wall, at some point Mexico needs to solve their problems and the US allowing an open border for anyone willing an able to solve those problems hurt Mexico and the people still living there. Why would the Mexican government try and solve any problems the poor are facing when the rabble rousers leave?
Why do people keep saying he is the most powerful man in the world then?
Because he controls the military and has broad authority do so without the consent of congress.
Some people like to conflate that broad authority to other legal or government matters which is very wrong.
But I got a pen and a phone to get my way and a photo op. >:(
Now call the press! I got babies to kiss. Voters love that shit.
I don't think you understand the point of separate governments between the state and federal if you think the position is "federal == bad && state == good". Hint, power corrupts which causes tyranny. People are closer to state governments and are better able to change it so any tyranny will be short lived as the people vote it out. The federal government on the other hand, by it's nature represents a diverse set of ideas and politics and compromise is very hard. That means federal tyranny is harder to undo.
In addition, the role of the federal government should only deal with matters that deal with the states as a whole not the individual citizens. However, the state government will be closer to the citizens so should handle the more direct laws affecting the citizens.
Your straw-man is a tired and overused trope.
lol, ur a funny little guy aren't you. so cute. i bet you are the center of attention in party. women want to be with you men want to be like you.
truly a model citizen for us all to follow. now tell me. who do i need to punch to be as hip as you ?
they don't reek of lies, deceits, and frauds at all!
I know you'd like to thank your shit don't stank but lean a little bit closer See that roses really smell like poo-oo-ooo.
He began by saying most mexicans were what rapists and worst, with only some being good people.
When you can't even get the facts straight from a year ago... It's hard to take your comment seriously talking about what education we need for history when you fail so spectacularly.
false simplification
Kind of like what you just did. Do you think making the distinction between Mexican people, Mexican immigrants and illegal Mexican immigrants is a distinction worth mentioning when talking about immigration policy or platform and any speech associated with such topics?
We need sceptical people who take the time to get the truth,
Those people are branded as racist, sexist, xenophobes, or nazi apologists. They get fired from their jobs and branded as pariahs. There is no debate worth having if it costs you your livelihood and then all the polls will get it wrong when the lever is pulled in an anonymous voting booth.
It doesn't matter how you try or how well positioned your argument. If it is against the dogmatic religion of social justice you are already a nazi apologist. If you don't support the correct politician you are a Russian propagandist. I have been called both for having an opinion. Shame on me.
Diaper. I am also an armchair astronaut.
My armchair has a NASA sticker on it! My bed is also in the shape of a rocket ship.
Whose the expert now? Check mate atheists.
10/10 would read ur comment again.
only interesting thing to read on the internet is comment threads
clearly you have never read the Linux manual. sig be damned.
and i am sure you read that commenting history, right?
u r my safe space.
only thing better than a dead commie is a dying commie telling me where more commies are.
I'm hazing you for being late to the party
You don't know any position I have or held particularly so on this topic. Why are you generalizing and treating me as a group instead of an individual?
ow go vote for some communists
why would anyone be a communist with such a body count? I also think that I own my labor and can sell it at my discretion and economic transactions are not inherently evil.
You know. Never mind. I don't want to have a conversation with an ideologue that treats an individual as a group through generalizations and ideological purity tests. You are why we can't have nice things.