Sorry for bumping this, but I'm procrastinating from my homework by reading old topics that I never read.
I used to follow politics but now I just got tired of the whole thing. What I was interested in was the technical aspects behind certain issues. For example, I heard a Florida court ruled the health care law unconstitutional on the grounds that it forced citizens to purchase health insurance. I was interested in whether or not it really was constitutional, because in reality it's not all that clear, you could argue both ways. And there have been other state courts that ruled in favor of the bill, so I'm interested in what the Supreme Court will say.
However, everyone else seems more interested in the war between the two sides. They see it as: will this be a win for my side or the enemy? Look at global warming. A perfectly legitimate concern, but when Al Gore got behind it, the issue was politicized, and now many Republicans don't even see it as an issue but rather as an attempt to attack the Republican party. Now I have to say that this is just sad. You can't even recognize an issue (or even a potential issue) just because the people you don't like are talking about it.
And what's worse is that Democrats like to blame the Republicans by saying that it's the other side who has it all wrong. But the Democrats are playing the same game. Sure they might not act so blatantly stupid all the time, but the Democrats don't want the Republicans to improve. They love how Republicans act, so they provoke them and try to make them look dumb just so they themselves can look good. In other words, they're keeping the wheel spinning.
I think it would be cool if governing was seen more as a serious job, or a science. Right now voters vote for whoever agrees with them, or whoever is against those they don't like. If only we could focus instead on who's actually doing a good job governing, looking for whoever has the best, most brilliant ideas, writes good and efficient laws, and actually helps the country run better.
I think it would be cool if governing was seen more as a serious job, or a science. Right now voters vote for whoever agrees with them, or whoever is against those they don't like. If only we could focus instead on who's actually doing a good job governing, looking for whoever has the best, most brilliant ideas, writes good and efficient laws, and actually helps the country run better.
This isn't really true. People don't vote for who they agree with most. They vote for who they think they should vote for. If you are a progressive intellectual from either coast, you should vote for the Democrats. If you are a patriotic American from the center of the US, you should vote for the Republicans. Do you think anybody actually bothers to compare the two agendas point by point?
No not really. The way I see it, people associate themselves with either party depending on which one fights for most of the ideas they believe in, and once they pick a side, they stick with it.
Apparently Congress was supposed to take down webgiants or megasites--whatever you want to call them--like YouTube, Twitter, Google, Tumblr, etc., due to users uploading or saying things that featured copyright infringements and/or different forms of pirating... today (Nov 30). You can read the full article here.
So I read this, and I'm not sure I understood. what I understand is that they're somehow allowed to take down sites that use the infringement, not the infringement itself? but that just doesn't make much sense so....
Exactly, that's what worrisome. If a single user on Youtube uploads something that would be considered copyright infringement, they can, without a trial and by putting the burden of proof on the defendant to prove himself innocent, put down the whole Youtube.
Apparently Congress was supposed to take down webgiants or megasites--whatever you want to call them--like YouTube, Twitter, Google, Tumblr, etc., due to users uploading or saying things that featured copyright infringements and/or different forms of pirating... today (Nov 30).
No, lol. SOPA hasn't passed, and I'd be surprised if it did with the amount of (rightfully) bad press it's been getting. It's up for debate/amendment later this month, but I think it's beyond repair; it was written to provide power through ambiguity, and attempting to take that away will reveal how broken it is as a legitimate bill.
Of course, when it fails, they'll just come back with a new one next year... which, as it so happens, already exists, and is equally troubling. More so because SOPA has been absorbing all the media attention.
I'm not worrying; youtube has been working on taking care of rights infringement alot, so even if they do come to court, I doubt it'll be taken down. it's just gonna be easy to beat the burden of proof", and I doubt anyone will sue them to take them down temporarily(during the trial) because then they'll be sued for the waste of time and loss by youtube and google, and will have to pay them gazillions...
The thing is that THEY WON'T HAVE TO GO TO COURT. They can say "Hey, SpongeBob is on here without our allowance!" and force it to be taken down without any courts involved.
In other news, Belgium finally has a new government. The various parties have made an agreement. Now it will only have to be accepted and the new government can start next Monday.
In other news, Belgium finally has a new government. The various parties have made an agreement. Now it will only have to be accepted and the new government can start next Monday.
Results are in - Mayor is Conservative Boris Johnson. I really didn't particularly support anyone this election. I don't like Ken Livingstone despite being a Labour supporter, I don't want to live under Sharia law ('Respect', I'm not anti-immigration (UKIP and BNP), I'm not that Green, and in London, supporting for Lib Dem or Independent is pointless. What I am happy about is the major country-wide Conservative losses however.
I've heard that Ken Livingstone is kind of like a Swedish politician called HÃ¥kan Juholt. He became the leader of what's essentially the Labour party...one year ago, roughly. He had to step down from his post this January because he told flat-out lies about the government, flipflopped on important issues like Libya and what Sweden should do there, suggested ridiculous ideas like forcing all mobile phone operators to be able to cover 100% of the Swedish population (for those who don't know, 90% of the Swedish population lives in the southern 50% of the area, and in the northern parts you have areas as big as Slovenia with only 5000 inhabitants). I don't know if Ken Livingstone is the same, but if he is, I can certainly understand why you wouldn't support him.
Lol, it's a label that the Respect party has gained due certain acts such as not being respectful (ironic, right) when discussing dead Britih soldiers, electing Galloway as mayor of Bradford, voting fraud in Tower Hamlets and threatening members of other parties and getting arrested at polling stations.
I might as well catch everyone up on Dutch politics.
About two months ago it turned out that the 2013 deficit is going to be a few billion higher than expected. The EU will force the euro-members to get their deficit below 3% at the risk of a fine. So the ruling parties (the Liberals, the Christian Democrats and the Populists) got together for negotiations. This has always been a shaky coalition, mainly due to the Populists. It is basically Geert Wilders with a lot of fillers that do nothing but nod at him and he doesn't care about anything other than his own party. The coalition also only held 50%+1 members of both the Second Chamber (House of Commons) and First Chamber (House of Lords) and members of the Christian Democrats had already expressed their dissatisfaction with the coalition with the Populists.
Then the second most prominent member of the Populists decided to quit the party and continue on his own. The coalition could still count on support from the Christian Conservatists, so this wasn't a huge problem. At least, until the Populists decided to walk away from the negotiations. They didn't agree with the savings and didn't agree with the 3% rule, or anything else from Brussels, anyway.
So the coalition fell and we're getting elections in September.
The deadline for the saving plans was April 30. So on April 23 the Democrats and Christian Progressives got together to get their own agreement together. They also got the Greens into the negotiations and then with the Liberals and the Christian Democrats pumped out a new agreement in two days. This temporary coalition holds 50%+2 votes in the government.
The Labours and Socialists turned down this agreement because it was too harsh on the lower incomes, especially government employed jobs such as the police or teachers, the Populists turned it down because Brussels benefits too much, the Animal Rights Party (yes, lol) turned it down because it cut back too much on nature preservation and the Christian Conservatives turned it down because they hate the Democrats or something. Anyway, the political situation in the Netherlands is currently a bit chaotic, but still far better than two months ago and a lot more interesting.
Age: 31 Karma: 136 Posts: 1307 Gender:Male Location: Arizona, United States pm | email
Yeah, I'd say you were lucky, but then I think "Which would I rather deal with, petty politics, or bombs?" Hmmm.
Random bits about US politics:
Spoiler:
So I don't know how much of US politics gets covered outside the US, but the main argument here is along parties lines, at least in the press. The Democrats want to raise taxes on rich people; the Republicans want to lower taxes on rich people. Democrats want to keep our new healthcare shindig; Republicans want to get rid of it. In general, everything is about money, jobs, and national debt, with the Democrats on the left and Republicans on the right, and America getting shot from both sides because their all silly. It just frustrates me when there are obvious solutions, but people don't want to do anything about them, and by people, I mean government. Healthcare -- Why the hell are we spending trillions of dollars on health insurance? For god's sake, if we have trillions of dollars sitting around, why don't we just put it in a fund, and then give it to sick people? More importantly, we should just think about the numbers for a second. The main purpose of healthcare reform was to get 30 million people health insurance who didn't have it. Ok. Then we spend a trillion dollars on it. That's, what, $300,000 per year, per person? Clearly, something is off here. Defense -- Our main problem with defense is that people get ticky when we have a big army. So, we make our army smaller by having less soldiers, but we want the same level of power, so instead we hire civilian contractors to do the exact same job for 20 times as much money. That's idiotic. Why don't we just let as many people as want to be soldiers, be soldiers? Give em jobs, and skills, and education that way, instead of just giving the money to people who are already skilled and educated. Debt -- I think most people know that I'm conservative. I like the whole "balance the damn budget, a-wholes" deal. The debt isn't really an issue that can be solved in isolation; it's all of the other things that combine to make a solution. We have a boat load of debt, and we spend more money than our entire nation makes. Not cool. Yes, we have to take things away from people. Don't get me wrong, I like my government interest free student loans, but at some point, you have to realize that the government can't and shouldn't provide it's people with everything; it should only provide the absolute basics and only if you can't get them otherwise. You get rice and beans for food and you get water to drink. You don't like that? Work hard, search the city for any work to get you something better. Beggars can't be choosers. That goes for everyone, even single moms with sick children, sorry as I am to say that. Charities should look after people like that, not government, because government is horrendously inefficient money-wise.
The hardest part about talking politics is that I honestly love people, but I know that you can't use government to make life fair. It's so impossible to make rules that work in every situation that it seems like the best choice is to make a flexible, context sensitive system. I don't know of any system of government that does that because government is supposed to be constant and inflexible. So, that leads me to think that the best choice must be to give people as much individual freedom as is tolerable, which means not giving them things, but letting them get whatever things they want and can manage to get on their own, so long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
I've always been pretty curious about how European style socialism works, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way. It seems like it shouldn't, and indeed it appears like it doesn't, but if anyone knows a lot about how the centralized power approach is supposed to work, feel free to monologue a bit.
I've always been pretty curious about how European style socialism works, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way. It seems like it shouldn't, and indeed it appears like it doesn't, but if anyone knows a lot about how the centralized power approach is supposed to work, feel free to monologue a bit.
Try having a lower unemployment rate, a balanced budget (with much higher taxes!), overall some of the happiest people in the whole world, a high BNP and GDP, healthcare affordable for everyone, a more liberal approach to the individual (gay marriage, partly legalized drugs, partly legal prostitution - though I think the Netherlands is the only country where all three of these are found - and of course, it's easy to have an abortion), secularization, embrace of science, higher access to public education, higher pay for women, etc. etc.
Your government is inflexible because the American political system is absolutely horrid (and one of the only two parties represented have moved so far to the wing-side, the parliament is more or less locked down and the word "compromise" has become a curse word).
Moreover about the US economy, don't forget the part where the Republicans raise the taxes on the low-income population, slashing public education, slashing Medicare, mostly slashing everything that's not part of the defense, in order to "pay" for the tax cuts for the rich (which they claim don't cost anything - check out the Bush tax cuts, all of the Republicans in the House said in a voting session that they did not have a negative impact on the budget, which is dismissed by all economists claiming to be serious).
Regarding universal health care in the US, it's a good thing - I have pre-existing conditions. I'm an asthmatic (it's chronic and a very serious case of it as well), I'm a multi-allergic, I even need glasses for my poor eyesight. Especially being an asthmatic would make it very difficult if not downright impossible for me to get insurance and should I get it, it'd be very expensive as private companies are allowed to charge you loads of additional money for these faults of mine. Due to the universal health care system here in socialist Sweden, I'm still breathing.
Yeah, I always thought it was neat how in most European gov'ts, parties get representation in the gov't based on how many votes they got in the election, unlike in the US where if it's extremely hard for 3rd parties to get representation in congress and a 3rd party president would simply be impossible. I'm not saying that they'd make the American political system better, but it'd certainly make politics more interesting. The thing with 2 parties dominating the system, is each side has a clear cut response to every issue, so they easily run out of things to counter each other with, and end up spewing complete ****. Both sides. I have liberal views, but even I can tell when Democrats are saying stuff that's never going to happen in response to Republicans saying stuff that's never going to happen.
And like Isa said, Europe just seems more forward thinking than the US. I'm one of those liberals that thinks the same set of rules can't apply to something forever, so I'm always for progressive policies. I know it's obviously more complicated under the surface, but I can't understand why pretty much more than half of America doesn't want free healthcare. I mean, I know it's not exactly free, but it seems like a step towards the future in my opinion. Same thing with drugs, marriage, abortion, the environment (how can somebody think global warming doesn't exist), etc. I just don't get why people think forbidding things or reverting to older policy is a step forward.
As for the economy and debt, I'm liberal there because 1.) I'm soon going to be a collegiate getting ****** over by debt 2.) the rich/corporations can spare some more money when it comes to taxes. I think it's ironic that the really rural evangelical states support the party because of their stance on guns, religion, and marriage, but they're also rooting for the part that'd hurt them economically. I'm pretty sure neither party can fix the economy now without serious reform (liberal or conservative reforms) and using ideas from both ends of the political spectrum. Of course that'll never happen due to the 2 party system.
Sometimes I imagine myself in the future not even living in America because no matter which party is in office, I just think it's not how they will make the country better, it's how longer can they keep it from getting worse./frightening thought
And yeah, I'm on of those people that thinks The Pledge of Allegiance violates the 1st amendment.
COMING SOON: A giant meteor. Please.
Give me +karma. Give me +karma.