[QUOTE=Reds;40478427]What he needs to do is parade this around and get the full public attention on him trying to close the place, make congress expose themselves as complete assholes when they block it and make sure that it doesn't look like it's his fault.[/QUOTE]
this won't do shit at all. whether healthcare reform or renewable energy, congress doesn't give a shit about public opinion and will do what they want regardless.
and it works because we can't throw out our congress.
Congress needs to GO, plain and simple. There is no point in congress. Why the fuck do we even elect a president in the first place if congress can overturn any decisions he makes? It's a completely contradictory system.
[QUOTE=Aetna;40480074]Congress needs to GO, plain and simple. There is no point in congress. Why the fuck do we even elect a president in the first place if congress can overturn any decisions he makes? It's a completely contradictory system.[/QUOTE]
Uh thats kinda the point
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;40480044]He promised to close Gitmo the first time in 2007 and has "pledged", "focused", "vowed", or "redoubled" efforts every year since.
It also doesn't help the 2012 dem platform still being followed is much weaker on Gitmo than the 2008 platform was.
U.S citizens as a whole don't want the inmates within the U.S, we can't send them back to their home countries who also
don't want them, and we can't just kill them because that would be awful.
Nothing is going to happen.[/QUOTE]
He issued an executive order not long after his first election that required it to be closed down within a year, but it never really went through for one reason or another. What more did you want him to do personally other than bring it up fairly often and issue more orders (which he did)?
[QUOTE=Megafan;40480171]What more did you want him to do personally other than bring it up fairly often and issue more orders (which he did)?[/QUOTE]
That's all he can do.
It's just not going to work.
[QUOTE=Aetna;40480074]Congress needs to GO, plain and simple. There is no point in congress. Why the fuck do we even elect a president in the first place if congress can overturn any decisions he makes? It's a completely contradictory system.[/QUOTE]
I kind of feel like that would put control of the country from the 'few' to the 'literally one person', and that doesn't tend to go well.
[QUOTE=Aetna;40480074]Congress needs to GO, plain and simple. There is no point in congress. Why the fuck do we even elect a president in the first place if congress can overturn any decisions he makes? It's a completely contradictory system.[/QUOTE]
That is the point in congress.
It's not a perfect system, but it's better than letting one person do whatever they want.
If this was a Republican president getting blocked by congress, then everybody would see congress as heroes. Just sayin'
[QUOTE=Aetna;40480074]Congress needs to GO, plain and simple. There is no point in congress. Why the fuck do we even elect a president in the first place if congress can overturn any decisions he makes? It's a completely contradictory system.[/QUOTE]
It's called checks and balances. The only problem with the president is that so many people don't have a fucking clue about what his actually powers are.
the better idea is to give more democratic authority directly to people.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40480309]the better idea is to give more democratic authority directly to people.[/QUOTE]
Via what exactly? National referendums on every bill?
[QUOTE=Megafan;40480390]Via what exactly? National referendums on every bill?[/QUOTE]
you can use referendums, proportional representation, and altered consensus decision-making methods to increase democratic participation.
[QUOTE=person11;40478323]Trying harder to punch a brick wall won't do much but hurt your hand.[/QUOTE]
Bulldoze congress!
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40480411]you can use referendums, proportional representation, and altered consensus decision-making methods to increase democratic participation.[/QUOTE]
Proportional representation voting is fine, but national referendums on every issue are impractical at best and ineffectual at worst.
[QUOTE=DrLuckyLuke;40478197]It's not his fault congress constantly keeps blocking him.[/QUOTE]
Wasnt closing guantano one of his campaign promises the first time he got elected?
he sure was easy letting that go.
[QUOTE=Megafan;40480444]Proportional representation voting is fine, but national referendums on every issue are impractical at best and ineffectual at worst.[/QUOTE]
not every issue. people shouldn't be forced to vote on issues that don't affect them at all. gay marriage, abortion, etc. would be examples of something that can be participated on by most of the nation. something like whether we should allow more oil drilling off the coast of alaska should be up to alaskans primarily.
i think people should have a say in matters that affect them without having to petition a corrupt congressional system.
He couldn't do it when his own party held supermajorities in both houses of Congress, what makes him think he can do it now?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40480553]not every issue. people shouldn't be forced to vote on issues that don't affect them at all. gay marriage, abortion, etc. would be examples of something that can be participated on by most of the nation. something like whether we should allow more oil drilling off the coast of alaska should be up to alaskans primarily.
i think people should have a say in matters that affect them without having to petition a corrupt congressional system.[/QUOTE]
This is very dumb. The reason why those things are not up for popular vote is because people are dumb. We have smart people in charge to make the real decisions. That's the entire premise of representation. You don't put people's rights (gay marriage, abortion) up to a popular vote.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40481472]This is very dumb. The reason why those things are not up for popular vote is because people are dumb. We have smart people in charge to make the real decisions. That's the entire premise of representation. You don't put people's rights (gay marriage, abortion) up to a popular vote.[/QUOTE]
And the problem is there are dumb greedy people that want to STAY there. And they outnumber the nice guys.
lets hope it actually happens
it probably wont
[QUOTE=Aetna;40480074]Congress needs to GO, plain and simple. There is no point in congress. Why the fuck do we even elect a president in the first place if congress can overturn any decisions he makes? It's a completely contradictory system.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you know how the three branches of the US government work.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40481472]This is very dumb. The reason why those things are not up for popular vote is because people are dumb. We have smart people in charge to make the real decisions. That's the entire premise of representation. You don't put people's rights (gay marriage, abortion) up to a popular vote.[/QUOTE]
so then would a fascist system be preferable in your eyes?
this is a serious question.
[editline]30th April 2013[/editline]
why should we choose our government at all if we are too stupid to make decisions for ourselves?
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40481472]This is very dumb. The reason why those things are not up for popular vote is because people are dumb. We have smart people in charge to make the real decisions. That's the entire premise of representation. You don't put people's rights (gay marriage, abortion) up to a popular vote.[/QUOTE]
Why do you think people are dumb in general? Do you ever refer to them as "sheeple" lol? Serious question bro
[QUOTE=>VLN<;40478448]And where are you going to put the people that are there?
In the states? I don't exactly like that idea.[/QUOTE]
They are your prisoners, take them or release them. You can't just keep people detained in a foreign country indefinitely.
Also I read somewhere that some formerly important person said that people could be held there till the "natural conclusion of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan", if that's the case, almost time to release them anyway.
(I mean that is what you do with POWs after a war ends)
[QUOTE=>VLN<;40478448]And where are you going to put the people that are there?
In the states? I don't exactly like that idea.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aKlMr-fcnM[/media]
What about Japanese and German POW camps located through out the Mid to South West? No one seemed to have an issue with that in WW2, so what changes with bringing a bunch of POWs stateside now?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40481614]so then would a fascist system be preferable in your eyes?
this is a serious question.
[editline]30th April 2013[/editline]
why should we choose our government at all if we are too stupid to make decisions for ourselves?[/QUOTE]
No? Why does disliking putting rights up for vote make me a fascist? I don't understand. All I'm saying is that there is a reason for high courts and a separation of powers in a representative government. I don't support the legislative branch passing judgements on these things either; that is the reason for high courts.
[QUOTE=CheesyTits;40481848]Why do you think people are dumb in general? Do you ever refer to them as "sheeple" lol? Serious question bro[/QUOTE]
I don't think people are dumb in general. I was making a very general and shallow statement. I don't actually think that "the people are dumb and the statesmen are smart".
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40482008]No? Why does disliking putting rights up for vote make me a fascist? I don't understand. All I'm saying is that there is a reason for high courts and a separation of powers in a representative government. I don't support the legislative branch passing judgements on these things either; that is the reason for high courts.[/quote]
high courts don't decide on rights, they decide on whether something is legal or not according to the existing laws.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40482022]high courts don't decide on rights, they decide on whether something is legal or not according to the existing laws.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. They decide whether something violates peoples rights or not.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40482037]Exactly. They decide whether something violates peoples rights or not.[/QUOTE]
no they don't, they decide whether something violates the law
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40482075]no they don't, they decide whether something violates the law[/QUOTE]
Yes... the law in the cases specified (abortion, gay marriage) being the Constitution and by extension, the Bill of Rights.
The law is supposed to represent your rights anyway you're kind of arguing a moot point.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40482109]Yes... the law in the cases specified (abortion, gay marriage) being the Constitution and by extension, the Bill of Rights.
The law is supposed to represent your rights anyway you're kind of arguing a moot point.[/QUOTE]
no it's not the law represents restrictions on your rights imposed by the government. restrictions cannot represent liberty, the two are opposite forces.
and what happens if the supreme court rules gay marriage is not protected by the constitution? instead of a democratic decision being made that might have been unsavory(wouldn't have happened since a majority support gay marriage last i checked), you have a small group of elite judges making a decision that restricts the rights of people.
you are taking decision-making power from the hands of most people and trusting that a very small, privileged group of people will make decisions for the benefit of everyone.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.