281–290 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they In democracy there is no "they". "In democracy you have to be a player" – Hunter S. Thompson, source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHeSC_Ws5Ic
Just so you know, we are a republic. Not quite as easy as a democracy, especially since we are more of an oligarchy (the ruling class is not subject to the complete rule of law).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they In democracy there is no "they". "In democracy you have to be a player" – Hunter S. Thompson, source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHeSC_Ws5Ic
Just so you know, we are a republic. Not quite as easy as a democracy, especially since we are more of an oligarchy (the ruling class is not subject to the complete rule of law).
That's very peculiar specially American internet thing to say. In 1787 the terminology was still unsettled but it's not so today. In both political science and in the common use outside the United States democracy and republic are not excluding each other.
United States is democracy (the source of power) and republic (the structure of the democracy as opposite of monarchy) and federation (structure of the government).
Most modern representative democracies are republics. The term republic can be used to any form of government in which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch. For example many communist states are Republics.
US is also first or one of the first liberal republics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because of the massive failure that congress is This is a conclusion I'm coming to more and more. It's easy to blame Presidential overreach or Supreme Court overreach, but the Congress seems to be steadily abdicating responsibility while still managing to get very little of substance accomplished. They are supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, but instead they have deadlocked themselves into useles…
>They are supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, but instead they have deadlocked themselves into uselessness. That's what many Americans wanted, and voted for. A government that governs least governs best, after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While in effect it is abdicating, in reality, Congress is spinlocked by indecision. There are deep divides between the branches of the electorate that have brought the representatives to office, as the United States faces a number of divisive issues. Those divides, and a preference for combat over compromise, leave us deadlocked. The center is there for the first party that chooses to leave its entrenchement. When Co…
Except this is demonstrably untrue. The 115th (2017-2018)[1] Congress had both a Republican House and Senate and it got extremely little done. Our Congress is completely ineffective. [1]:Fixed.
This is separation of powers at work and is a good thing.
Edit: the comment above was edited to change the congress and dates in question
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm tempted to say that the uselessness of Congress is in indication of something else - we've pushed too much to the federal level. The decades-long tooth-and-nail fighting over healthcare makes me think that an effective system just can't be done federally; there's too much disagreement between states. Why not scrap most of the social programs, cut federal taxes, and let states implement their own?
Rural counties are conservative, urban counties are liberal, and never the twain shall meet. I posit that there will always be this conflict until cities have a blue federation superimposed on a red countryside. But the constitution isn't set up that way. Maybe next time.
"We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." As with so many controversial court rulings like the ACA mandate case, our courts keep getting put into the decision because of the massive failure that congress is. Congress should either fulfill the promise or not, or whatever. instead the judicial bodies end up making legal judgements with big ramifcations that largely should b…
> because of the massive failure that congress is This is a conclusion I'm coming to more and more. It's easy to blame Presidential overreach or Supreme Court overreach, but the Congress seems to be steadily abdicating responsibility while still managing to get very little of substance accomplished. They are supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, but instead they have deadlocked themselves into useles…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If congress doesn't change something, then that means they have determined no change is necessary. This not accurate. Congress failing to act due to deadlock does not indicate that either party agrees that no change ought to be made, only that congress couldn’t come to an agreement about how it should be made. To say otherwise is akin to saying that, because you and your husband can’t agree on where to eat for dinn…
> This not accurate. Congress failing to act due to deadlock does not indicate that either party agrees that no change ought to be made, only that congress couldn’t come to an agreement about how it should be made. That is actually literally what it means. The way the Union is set up, there is a certain amount of consensus necessary to pass legislation over 50 States across 300+ million people. If there is a deadlock…
It also ignores the fundamental brokenness of the system through a sort of circular logic: things didn’t change since they didn’t need to be changed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While in effect it is abdicating, in reality, Congress is spinlocked by indecision. There are deep divides between the branches of the electorate that have brought the representatives to office, as the United States faces a number of divisive issues. Those divides, and a preference for combat over compromise, leave us deadlocked. The center is there for the first party that chooses to leave its entrenchement. When Co…
Except this is demonstrably untrue. The 115th (2017-2018)[1] Congress had both a Republican House and Senate and it got extremely little done. Our Congress is completely ineffective. [1]:Fixed.
Does anyone know the status of private land, not belonging to tribe members, now considered within the reservation? Can it be confiscated by the tribe?
I have no idea, but a policy what would make sense to me would be to respect existing private property, though layer a "right of first refusal" for the indigenous nation to buy it back if it comes up for sale.
If I buy a TV that "fell off the truck", I wouldn't expect the manufacturer to buy it back from me. I wouldn't expect the manufacturer to buy it back from my grandkids either.
Can someone explain why America has reservations? From what I know, Native Indians had this land almost 2+ centuries ago. Why have a special, looks like an autonomous, region and special treatment to people that are a few generations down from when this happened? How far back into the history should we go?
Because we systematically killed the majority of their race, culture, land, and way of life. So we’ve given them 1% of that back as penance. You can go as far back as you want and it’s still native Americans / native North Americans.
Vast majority of Native Americans, and estimated 90% died to disease. It was no more systemic killing than the plague in Europe, or coronavirus today.
>You can go as far back as you want and it’s still native Americans / native North Americans.
Go far enough back and you have empty land and Asian settlers.