Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because in reality the two party system is not accurate. It’s rich versus poor, those with power versus those without. Nobility versus peasants. That’s just how it works.
That's how it works in the USA, not necessarily how it works. Other forms of governing exists. A big step forward for the USA would be a vast reduction of federal power over the states.
Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight
191–200 of 243 posts
Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight
#192Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
The two-party system isn't so heavily institutionalized "by law". The law generally gives advantages to parties that pull in more than x% of the vote, and it so happens that the first-past-the-post system of electing representatives makes it very difficult for a third party to take root.
The first past the post system is encoding a two party system into law. If it makes to hard enough for a third party to take hold, there might as well not be one. Not everything is spelled in ink.
Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
The parties only have "disputes" on a short list of wedge issues, and either side winning on those removes the that issue as a cudgel that can motivate their base. If you look at their donors, you'll see the lines. The people who voted for it make money from the defense and intelligence industries, and the people who didn't, don't. Voting for for something majorities of the voters of both parties are against is expen…
I mean, except that many people can’t get either an abortion or IVF. This affects people’s entires lives, it’s not “pretend” unless you are unaffected.
Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, except that many people can’t get either an abortion or IVF. This affects people’s entires lives, it’s not “pretend” unless you are unaffected.
This happened under a Democratic president. And what have they done about it since?
Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight
#196It amazes me how we can pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights we want to abate, while all of it is being obscured into history. We were united around the Bill of Rights, now we've been brainwashed into believing no one should have rights. 1A, Nope, you have to have facts, and specific facts, and a subject-matter expert, source? 2A, Ban all guns, the government will protect us. 3A, No worry, they're not sol…
I can relate to your opinions. Still, I’m going to mentions this: please, vote. Otherwise you are a part of the problem.
If you wanted to be part of this experiment we call the United States, you could gain citizenship by learning and understanding what liberalism meant.
Not anymore, just cross the border, we will give you a debit card, and just wait, because we're going to make you a citizen, and your uneducated self will help us burn this nation to the ground.
No war will go unfunded, no problem will be solved, and we will teach you to hate everyone else. This while everyone is screaming about their abortion access while the Nation goes bankrupt.
We have $34T in debt, every 93 days we add another $1T. If you're all such internet geniuses, you should have figured that soon, and very soon, that starts walking away from the Treasuries' ability to pay just the interest.
Democrats will scream raise taxes on the rich, but guess what, there are not enough of them to tax. They won't agree to cutting spending cuts.
Republicans will refuse to cut the military because we have to defend Taiwan, and against every mythical and imaginary enemy.
But wait, there is more, Democrats want to expand surveillance on anyone practicing the 1A, the 2A, while violating the 4A & 5A.
Everything is about what you can get from this country. No one listened to John F. Kennedy. He was murdered. "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country..."
It is all about what you can get out of this for yourself. It doesn't matter if you're a billionaire or some guy on the street. You're trying to get what is best for you, not what is best for all of us.
I want what is best for this Nation. I served, my grandfathers served, my children serve now. But F-U when you tell me I'm part of the problem. I understood what I was fighting for, you have no clue why we're even here.
Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed that’s interesting. Really makes you think about all these crackpots talking about a uniparty, deep state vs the people, etc
Because in reality the two party system is not accurate. It’s rich versus poor, those with power versus those without. Nobility versus peasants. That’s just how it works.
Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a tension between the common belief that “when private citizens are able to vote privately, it protects their ability to vote their conscience, rather than allowing some third party to explicitly buy votes or bully someone into voting in line with someone else”, and the belief that somehow this doesn’t apply to congress members. Additionally, on hard philosophical and policy qurstions, some bits of negotiatio…
Elected officials should not vote their conscience, they should vote according to the wishes of their constituents
The 51% that voted for them out of the 20% of total voters?
I mean, this does get very hard to define.
Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Requiring battles to be approved by a judge has obvious practical problems, because they often happen in remote locations at unpredictable times, but Congress can pass all kinds of dumb requirements if they want to. That doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. You're proposing an alternative where the executive gets to decide how money is spent. As if mass surveillance, which is a waste of money, has to be funded in orde…
No, it really is unconstitutional for Congress to encroach on the enumerated powers of the executive. Just look at the recent SCOTUS cases around the setup of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to understand how consequential this constraint is.
Isn't this about the opposite issue, whether Congress can delegate control over funding to the executive? They were trying to get the executive to do the job of Congress and control the CFPB's funding.
Re: Senate passes reauthorization of key US surveillance program after midnight
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed that’s interesting. Really makes you think about all these crackpots talking about a uniparty, deep state vs the people, etc
Really makes you think about whether there are some things that can still transcend partisan showmanship, like national security. I still am a believer in digital freedom, I'm old enough to have seen the changes in the Internet, and it is a much more malevolent and fucked up force than it was even 15 years ago. Maybe, just maybe, the government needs the power to spy on international targets with oversight.
The constitution's term for this is "warrant".