Discussion in 'Politics & Debate' started by Fluffyman, Jun 16, 2015.
'American Exceptionalism', perhaps?
I'm checking on that, but it seems to be the case that that's what it was meant for, but not part of any explicit legal parameter of it as far as I can tell. FDR said that that's what should be the case for minimum wage, but reading the outline it seems more of a provision to stop businesses from unethical employment practices, like the 40-hour maximum work week, or age requirement conditions for work.
Yeah, I'm not sure if it's a state measurement, but each state has a poverty line for their areas, so you'd think that could be factored in.
Though what I was getting at had more to do with exploitation by businesses, and also it's a case of the federal government making a broad sweeping policy that gaves a single rate to every single business in the US despite the poverty wage line.
This is one of the most badass rants I've seen on the Election turnout. Probably the.
It's not bad.
Well I mean, just opinion-wise. I've said a lot of things about the election, in terms of how the liberals acted, and this sweeps some of that up nicely.
All I'm saying there is that Bernie supporters were fanatics. That's not supposed to be a generalizing thing, but I saw it on Facebook, and TGE was an example. Anti-Hillary rhetoric. Even when some turned around and said vote for Hillary to beat Trump, it's kind of conflicting.
It honestly really is still amazing how Donald Trump still bashes Hillary and on occasion Obama. I'm sure the majority of Bernie Sanders fans regret there vote in someway.
Bernie Sanders fans and some youtube liberal channels are trying to to get rid of the corrupted Democratic members... but all I got to say is that's a dangerous road for the next election as it can split the party but whatever that's a different discussion all together.
some of the rhetoric the "Justice Democrats" are spewing are most likely just going to divide the party even further.
and this which is from the official website.
"It’s time to rebuild the Democratic party from scratch and make it represent the American people."
I just got completely caught off guard by the internal strife. I really don't feel I'm nostalgic when I call back on the time when a lot of people were simply Democrat instead of Republican. As far as the DNC establishment up until Bernie, I really didn't catch any wind of antiestablishment rhetoric. Bernie slammed the establishment just like Trump did, and I get it. The DNC was pretty much seen as the idealistic limp wing of the government opposite the chroney wolf-pack GOP. The DNC was seen as people who were potentially just as tied down with corporate interests. So what happened? The Bernie crowd labeled Hillary a criminal just as Trump would later do. This is before TGE was screaming about voter fraud. Of course, when Bernie doesn't win, are people gonna still "fight the establishment"? What does it even mean at that point? Trump's not the establishment, but that doesn't matter two shits. Let's all bet on this horse we shot in the leg.
"In other news, Orville Redenbacher sales are on the rise..."
So, I didn't expect three hours of "I can't comment" and Republicans begging the question to be interesting, but damned if I wasn't rooted to my seat.
Brady's Super Bowl jersey found in Mexico...
How long will it take Trump to spin this somehow?
Not very, I suspect.
Things have just become real.
You know, that was a parody of the toothless political satire of the day..........
Holy shit, Democratic Party is calling shenanigans.
wait, that was from Oct. 2016.
What the hell are you guys even talking about, is there some live hearing going on that I dont know about?
Yeah. Comey came out and said that the FBI is actually investigating Trump.
Knowing Comey, nothing will come out of it, seeing as he is biased as fuck and should have investigated himself and if they find something anyway, it will somehow "vanish" or it will be played down as nothing serious.....
I kind of just assumed they were.
remember? Donald Trump was the one warning others that Mexicans were thief's! He warned you idiots and none of you listened!
Oh my god, the thieves raped the jersey as well?
"President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests."
I'm sure this Russian stuff is just a bunch of coincidences, though.
Not really, that's more of a stereotypical belief of the U.S. Growing up I was taught to respect and help others. People in the U.S. are raised under different beliefs. There is no single idea about what "Americiansm" is.
America's had the strongest immigration rates as long as it's been around. It's got broadening aspects to its society in several ways that suggest that it's actually devoid of a single describable culture. Having states' rights while also coordinating to operate a distinct union is kind of different as far as I can tell. Like, you can compare the US and the EU to Brazil and the rest of Latin America by way of how Portugal expanded its colony while Spain established more separate autonomous States, but then you look at Brazil and it's huge. It's got nearly a third of Latin America's population. Not to mention that the US has states of its own like in the EU. Another interesting point is that it's relatively young compared to even Latin America's countries, yet it just kind of blew up to the biggest economic power in the world.
That's correct, and that's what makes America so great. It's a bunch of different cultures. The issue is that people with differing somewhat ignorant views believe that America is great when its just "Americans", as if there a single idea of what an American is. It's how people like Trump get elected, well that and the electoral college.
Well on the tradition scale, you have Canada that's like a same-aged sibling, and Mexico and Central/South America are like older siblings. Otherwise the rest of the world is rooted in much deeper history than America which itself comes off as a bleached culture. That just feels like the natural condition for the head of the colonizing game. In Sociology 9, my textbook of essays had one stating that while colonization of the old world dominated through religion, Western colonization of the modern day is democracy. I'm pretty sure it was talking about the neoconservative agenda involving US establishing territories in Micronesia, Puerto Rico, etc... When your culture attempts to foster other cultures by means of implanting businesses and military bases, you kind of lose "culture" points.
Come to think of it, what does states' votes even mean in an election? I mean, what does it entail that's different from popular vote? I guess it kind of makes sense if states have so much power despite the parent State, but what does that mean as far as the individual vote goes? Realistically they'd be voting for how well the candidate is campaigning with regards to the state that the voter resides in's best interest, but there's quite clearly a campaign of broad sweeping federal policies that effect each and every state.
Plus, it's not so much that state's have all that much agency in the federal landscape. Does the House of Representatives really have that much agency that would correspond to the outcome of an election?
Considering the electors (who I presume are the same as the HoR, correct me if I'm wrong) can and did vote for candidates other than what the public picked, it means that the public can be outright ignored in favour of one man having a differing opinion.
Seven votes meant for Trump and Hillary went to other politicians or, in one case, an activist who wasn't even part of the race and had as much political power as Mickey Mouse. So you can't tell me a system where your vote can actually be ignored is a good system.
The difference between states votes and popular votes is simple: Popular vote means that the majority pick the president. State votes means that the minority picks the president. And if you're okay with the minority picking the president over the majority, then there's no convincing ya about why democracy is a better system.
(Also, if it wasn't for anti-faithless elector laws that forced electors to vote for the winner of the state's vote, you could very easily create a situation where the President wins with less than 1% of the popular vote, presuming that A)You have a four party race, B)The two front runners get almost all the states, but don't get 270, and a third party gets a small state like Nebraska, and C)Half of the electoral college votes for the third party winner of that state over the other two front runners. I've done the maths, if a somewhat improbable chain of events occurred, someone could become president with less than 1% of the popular vote).
Separate names with a comma.