Koch Brothers want to rewrite the constitution, they may succeed. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52373284]That you do and other stereotypical Democratic/Republic members are doing now. Ignoring your nation's mixed diplomatic/espionage history since 1945. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States[/URL] and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change[/URL] And it's seemly finally catching America's butt.[/QUOTE] I guarantee you anyone upset about that Russia stuff doesn't support that either.

[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52373284]That you do and other stereotypical Democratic/Republican members are doing now. Ignoring your nation's mixed diplomatic/espionage history since 1945. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States[/URL], [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_United_States_foreign_policy"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_United_States_foreign_policy[/URL] and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change[/URL] And it's seemly finally catching America's butt. With the last thing, I'm trying to be neutral about this issue.[/QUOTE] Yeah my country has been a cunt in the past. I fail to see how to is relevant to my comments on others' posts though.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52373290]I guarantee you anyone upset about that Russia stuff doesn't support that either.[/QUOTE] I add some more things to last post. [editline]18th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Destroyox;52373291]Yeah my country has been a cunt in the past. I fail to see how to is relevant to my comments on others' posts though.[/QUOTE] It seems Russia want their revenge on their democracy in their 1996 election and the lead rise of Putin. [IMG]http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/YeltsinTimemagazine.jpg[/IMG] I don't really know but this probable clue that we "save" Russia somehow back to Soviet Union. With a more reliable source that site accepts too. [URL="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html"]http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52373292]It seems Russia want their revenge on their democracy in their 1996 election. With more reliable source that site accept too. [URL="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html"]http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html[/URL][/QUOTE] So Russia wants to avenge their democracy by having an authoritarian leader who supports right-wing candidates in democratic countries in order to cause political unrest?

[QUOTE=Destroyox;52373302]So Russia wants to avenge their democracy by having an authoritarian leader who supports right-wing candidates in democratic countries in order to cause political unrest?[/QUOTE] I think so. And also found kinda more proof from an reliable source. [URL="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-03-07/the-u-s-election-s-echoes-of-1996-russia"]https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-03-07/the-u-s-election-s-echoes-of-1996-russia[/URL]

[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52373305]I think so.[/QUOTE] It doesn't sound like something believers in democracy would want.

[QUOTE=Destroyox;52373309]It doesn't sound like something believers in democracy would want.[/QUOTE] Are you trying sound more ironically right-winger with that theoric? And course want "save" America is too stop repeating history is by reform your way of election and what type is allowed for elections.

[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52373318]Are you trying sound more ironically right-winger with that theoric?[/QUOTE] What? I'm saying people who want to avenge an interfered democracy probably don't want to weaken democracy internationally.

[QUOTE=Destroyox;52373320]What? I'm saying people who want to avenge an interfered democracy probably don't want to weaken democracy internationally.[/QUOTE] Again dude. And please stop posting before I change my current post. (And now continue to criticize me if you want and keep mine I still keep doing this every post) As I was typing. And course want "save" America is too stop repeating history is by reform your way of election via Voting system works and what type is allowed for elections. Instead, keep scapegoating I would think the whole ethicality people (in a literal sense) just for one election. (Until actual physical proof come forward by Donald "Donny hands" Trump himself saying this is true for once) [editline]18th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52373290]I guarantee you anyone upset about that Russia stuff doesn't support that either.[/QUOTE] Yes, the Soviet Union and pre-2016 Russia would instantly disagree of intervene elections.

This is actually not a half bad deal. The businesses have state oversight and have an established plan of action: [QUOTE] The amendments passed would: Require a vote of two-thirds in both houses of Congress to increase the public debt for one year. Restrict Congress’ powers to regulate goods to only “the sale, shipment, transportation, or other movement of goods, articles or persons” across state lines. Congress would not have the power to “regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state.” Limit members of the House to six terms and senators to two terms. Give the collective states the power to void any law, statute, executive order, or regulatory rule issued by Congress, the president or regulatory agencies if three-fifths of the states vote against the federal action. Repeal the 16th Amendment and require a three-fifths vote by the House and Senate to increase or implement new taxes. Implement a mechanism that would allow a quarter of the House to declare opposition to any federal regulation. If that happened, it would trigger a congressional vote on the regulation and would require a majority of the House and Senate to affirm the regulation. [/QUOTE] I have no problem with this and i'm surprised to see this thread all riled up when many of these points have been brought up and supported by a majority of facepunchers.

[QUOTE=Shirt.;52376074]This is actually not a half bad deal. The businesses have state oversight and have an established plan of action: I have no problem with this and i'm surprised to see this thread all riled up when many of these points have been brought up and supported by a majority of facepunchers.[/QUOTE] The Articles of confederation is why i'm against this.

[QUOTE=Shirt.;52376074]I have no problem with this and i'm surprised to see this thread all riled up when many of these points have been brought up and supported by a majority of facepunchers.[/QUOTE] These amendments would bring the government to a screeching halt. Where did you get the idea that the majority of facepunchers would support that? It's clear as day that these amendments have the sole purpose of allowing Republicans to obstruct the government in the event of a democratic majority. Basically what the amendment is doing is making it so that if the Republicans open the can of worms by ignoring filibusters and simply forcing their shit through (as many are afraid they will), there will be a constitutional amendment in place that SPECIFICALLY prevents the Democrats from doing the same thing when they're in power, because now you need a 3/5th majority to create new taxes but not to cut them.

[QUOTE=Shirt.;52376074]This is actually not a half bad deal. The businesses have state oversight and have an established plan of action: I have no problem with this and i'm surprised to see this thread all riled up when many of these points have been brought up and supported by a majority of facepunchers.[/QUOTE] I've seen maybe one of these actively supported by people on facepunch.

[quote]Require a vote of two-thirds in both houses of Congress to increase the public debt for one year.[/quote] I don't think there's a question any more, the Republicans like the Koch brothers want to destroy the US government. There's no way they'd be pushing shit like this otherwise after the multiple crises and shutdowns we've had, when this would only make it even worse. They want to cause a crisis. They want the government to shutdown so that they can sell America their "fix" that involves more cuts, privatization and giving even more power to corporations.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52371765]While difficult and unlikely from a practical standpoint, claiming that it is "virtually impossible" is quite silly. Doubly so, when you consider that the article just outlined the decidedly [I]not[/I] impossible methods by which it could actually be accomplished. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] While it might be sad that we [I]have[/I] to check sources, it's good that we [I]are[/I] checking sources. Some of us, at least. Don't let misinformation and propaganda rule you, as it has so many people in this country.[/QUOTE] Oh no, I fully agree with you. I was simply remarking on the fact that ever since the 2015/2016 elections in the west the misinformation wars we've seen have slowly kicked up in scale and the way of life we live now having to check everything.

[QUOTE=Shirt.;52376074]This is actually not a half bad deal. The businesses have state oversight and have an established plan of action: I have no problem with this and i'm surprised to see this thread all riled up when many of these points have been brought up and supported by a majority of facepunchers.[/QUOTE] outside of the budget thing I really don't see any problems with this

[QUOTE]Require a vote of two-thirds in both houses of Congress to increase the public debt for one year.[/QUOTE] Read: I love private debt [QUOTE]Limit members of the House to six terms and senators to two terms.[/QUOTE] Read: We want to dislodge genuine people who have gotten wedged into the system despite lack of corporate support (Sanders, anyone?) so we can better continue to spam our cookie-cutter establishment politicians easier [QUOTE]Implement a mechanism that would allow a quarter of the House to declare opposition to any federal regulation. If that happened, it would trigger a congressional vote on the regulation and would require a majority of the House and Senate to affirm the regulation[/QUOTE] AKA no more new regulation

[QUOTE=Goberfish;52376849][quote]Limit members of the House to six terms and senators to two terms.[/quote] Read: We want to dislodge genuine people who have gotten wedged into the system despite lack of corporate support (Sanders, anyone?) so we can better continue to spam our cookie-cutter establishment politicians easier[/QUOTE] Actually I kind of like the sound of that one if it would get people in the White House to actually do something instead of sitting on their asses getting reelected for decades

[QUOTE=d00msdaydan;52376871]Actually I kind of like the sound of that one if it would get people in the White House to actually do something instead of sitting on their asses getting reelected for decades[/QUOTE] Who do you think lives in the White House?

[QUOTE=d00msdaydan;52376871]Actually I kind of like the sound of that one if it would get people in the White House to actually do something instead of sitting on their asses getting reelected for decades[/QUOTE] It's debatable that term limits would have that effect. You lose out on a lot of experience and in return get a lot of fresh faces that may or may not know how everything works. Also I can only imagine individuals on their final term with nothing to lose would be a huge target for lobbyists.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52371401]If the Koch brothers aren't careful, they're going to find out what happens when you push an angry mob of a few hundred million people to their limits. When people have nothing to eat, they'll eat the rich.[/QUOTE] they can just decide to move away from whatever hellhole they created, they don't have to suffer like the rest of us which means they'll find a way to avoid that every time

[QUOTE=d00msdaydan;52376871]Actually I kind of like the sound of that one if it would get people in the White House to actually do something instead of sitting on their asses getting reelected for decades[/QUOTE] You mean Congress, white house exclusively belongs to the president

textbook example of why shortsightedness, and blind ideology leads to unintended consiquences

[QUOTE=d00msdaydan;52376871]Actually I kind of like the sound of that one if it would get people in the White House to actually do something instead of sitting on their asses getting reelected for decades[/QUOTE] I personally don't mind people getting re-elected if they're actually worth a shit. They should be eligible for re-election based on approval ratings; anything less than 50-60% means you're ineligible for re-election.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52378130]I personally don't mind people getting re-elected if they're actually worth a shit. They should be eligible for re-election based on approval ratings; anything less than 50-60% means you're ineligible for re-election.[/QUOTE] I actually like the sound of this a lot better. You can be re-elected however many times you want, but you have to make sure enough people actually like you and feel you're doing a decent job before you're allowed re-election.

Is it just me or did US Debt only become a big deal when obama became president?

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52379067]Is it just me or did US Debt only become a big deal when obama became president?[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President_%281940_to_2015%29.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/USdebt.svg/800px-USdebt.svg.png[/IMG]

Too bad my state has the strictest gun laws, there ain't much people can do except protest in front of the White House. Not that it's possible to get in arm's reach of Trump or whoever and give them the ol' jabberoni with a sword or a knife.

[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;52379163]Too bad my state has the strictest gun laws, there ain't much people can do except protest in front of the White House. Not that it's possible to get in arm's reach of Trump or whoever and give them the ol' jabberoni with a sword or a knife.[/QUOTE] Boy Howdy it sure does suck that you can't just waltz up and kill the president. Why the fuck do I even come to Facepunch any more

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52379144][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President_%281940_to_2015%29.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/USdebt.svg/800px-USdebt.svg.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Gotta love how it climbs under Reagan and Bush, stabilizes and falls under Clinton, then climbs again under Bush Jr. Gotta love the part of fiscal responsibility. And that skyrocket under Obama? We can thank reckless financial practices by our countries top bankers for causing the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent recession. And the GOP is currently undoing regulations put in place to prevent it from happening again! Not only this, but the debt can be solved the same way we solved our World War 2 debt: through taxation, except the modern Republicans wouldn't agree to that anymore.