World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[ElkinFencer10]

I feel like I got passive aggressively jabbed a page back when literally all I was doing was giving historical context without arguing for or against any opinion...This is why I try to avoid this thread...

[prfsnl_gmr]

We may have a few philosophical differences, but we agree about what's really important:

The U.S.A. is awesome, and platformers are awesome.

I was going to bring up separation of powers, but what happens when one branch lets the other get away with things, or they all work in collusion to subvert the Constitution? This is what I'm arguing. Adherence to the founding documents is still required, something I would argue that less and less of our leaders really care about.

I cannot think of an instance where multiple branches of government have worked together to subvert the Constitution. Even when the same party holds the executive and legislative branches, the two branches tend to guard their respective powers jealously.

Also - and while I disagree that many of our current leaders do not honor the Constitution - the republic was established to function regardless of their intentions. That is, it may work better with moral leaders, but in their wisdom, the founder's structured it function with even the wickedest people in power. (As James Madison wrote: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.")

I feel like I got passive aggressively jabbed a page back when literally all I was doing was giving historical context without arguing for or against any opinion...This is why I try to avoid this thread...

But...your video game patch analogy was so perfect! Thank you for that!

[Sarge]

I feel like I got passive aggressively jabbed a page back when literally all I was doing was giving historical context without arguing for or against any opinion...This is why I try to avoid this thread...

Stabbity!

As for subverting the Constitution, I think it happens a lot. The branches certainly guard their powers jealously, but I'm not entirely convinced that many of our lawmakers pay attention to the Constitution in the first place. And I think it's something that happens on both sides, although you can probably guess which side I think does it more.

But yes, we agree on platformers and that the USA is awesome!

[prfsnl_gmr]

And I think it's something that happens on both sides, although you can probably guess which side I think does it more.

You and me both!

[Sarge]

And I think it's something that happens on both sides, although you can probably guess which side I think does it more.

You and me both!

I would expect nothing less!

[Erik_Twice]

IMO, our constitutional republic ranks upon man's greatest achievements, and while any government can be overturned at the point of a spear, I think it is the best system of government ever created. If you think that I am wrong, however, please let me know of a system that beats it.

As a democracy, I think the vast majority of systems of goverment used in Europe are better than the American system simply by virtue of having proportional voting and not the easily exploited "winner takes all/FPTP/plurality rule".

Honest questions, what benefits are there to the American system compared to the French or German ones that compensate two-party rule, most votes being wasted by definition and a massive gerrymandering weakness?

[Ack]

IMO, our constitutional republic ranks upon man's greatest achievements, and while any government can be overturned at the point of a spear, I think it is the best system of government ever created. If you think that I am wrong, however, please let me know of a system that beats it.

As a democracy, I think the vast majority of systems of goverment used in Europe are better than the American system simply by virtue of having proportional voting and not the easily exploited "winner takes all/FPTP/plurality rule".

Honest questions, what benefits are there to the American system compared to the French or German ones that compensate two-party rule, most votes being wasted by definition and a massive gerrymandering weakness?

I would suggest, perhaps surprisingly, stability through continual change. The United States has had a relatively consistent government for nearly 250 years. While there have occasionally been uprisings of one form or another, most notably the US Civil War, our system of government has never actually been knocked out of power from internal dissent or taken over and thrown out by an external force.

Instead we have "peaceful transitions" in which our two parties take control over different branches of government...for a time. Inevitably things change and that particular party loses power to the other, in a steady back and forth. Furthermore, both parties are actually effectively composed of a variety of subsections and ideological camps within them, groups that may be able to support individual officials at some level but then must battle it out to put up a single individual for president and don't necessarily ever see eye to eye on certain issues. These groups vie internally and while from time to time any particular one might become the ideological mouthpiece for their respective party, they always do so for a relatively brief period of time before a different faction takes control.

Thus, US power balances are in a constant state of flux with no particular group really ever attaining full control. Now yes, particular factions will influence legislation, longstanding Supreme Court Justices will exercise their role through their views and legal interpretations, and one party may dominate the executive for however long they manage to successfully hold onto the presidency, but even then these folks have to worry about the diversity of views within their own parties which will prevent them from ever exercising in a totalitarian manner.

In short, "winner takes all" isn't actually the reality because our parties are so big and constantly changing and evolving that the "winner" politicians or officials must constantly be on their toes. And that's just the party members. There are thousands upon thousands of individuals working for the government that frankly don't care which party is in charge and continue to do their work without fail regardless of the letter next to the president's name.

For an example of how things change though, let's look at the Republican Party, which let's say has been dominated by the influence of the Tea Party Republicans...which is a populist group that did not exist at all a decade ago. Meanwhile it's battling other groups such as a variety of conservatives(Neoconservatives, Social Conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives, Paleoconservatives, Libertarian Conservatives, etc.). Before the Tea Party got big, the Neoconservative wing of the Republicans were big, but that's only after the changing landscape of conservatism in the Republican party that Ronald Reagan helped usher in. Before that, you still had groups like the Nixonians or Rockefeller Republicans which were more prevalent under the presidencies of Nixon and Eisenhower. All of these factions rose and fell or will fall, but they're all from the same party. It's just one that is constantly shifting, and where it currently is, it will shift away from again eventually.

[J T]

Great post Ack. A lot of insights are in there that I haven't considered before. Thanks for taking the time to type that all out. Actually, this whole discussion about the Constitution has been great.

[J T]

So Trump has announced who his economic advisers are. One of them is John Paulson, who I believe I mentioned earlier provided a considerable amount of funding for the Trump campaign. Doesn't this kind of take away from the whole idea that Trump is too rich to be bought, when this guy effectively bought himself an economic adviser seat?

John Paulson is also known for being one of the few people to foresee the 2008 housing market crash, and therefore invested heavily against the US so that he could make billions off of the crash of the economy. He may not be the slime that caused the crash, but he is the vulture feasting on America's economic carcass. Do we really want the president's US economic adviser to be a guy that profited so highly off of the most recent US economic crash? Trump himself has also said in the past that he hoped for a housing crash because it allowed him to buy a lot of cheap real estate for his business (Source). He has also previously bragged in 2000, when he considered running for president as an independent, “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.” (Source: Fortune)

Sorry, I know some of you plan to vote for Trump, but I just don't see how people can believe that we will get a more prosperous economy with more jobs from filthy rich men who profit off of the misfortunes of others. It just feels like a swindle from the outset, and diving deeper into his economic policies and tax policies to see what he has planned, doesn't really add confidence either.

[Ack]

Housing market aside, it is actually a fairly common practice in politics to award major donors with choice positions, particularly advisory or diplomatic. In fact, multiple donors to President Obama's campaigns were awarded ambassador positions despite having little to no knowledge of those nations, their languages, histories, or cultures. It may seem deplorable...but it's normal for both parties.