|
|
What an eyesore.
That's why we have checks and balances, so that politicians keep each other in check. The problem we're experiencing right now is that these checks and balances are at risk from executive overreach.
Yeah, okay. I had no idea.
You're saying that the fault with government (and you are clearly unhappy about it) is that we elect the wrong presidents
I'm saying the president is only one part of the problem.
and if people only paid more attention and elected better people and maybe we got a few more parties, things would improve.
If by "better people," you're referring to better congressmen, representatives, and other public officials all around, then yes.
It doesn't matter who we put in the White House
Of course it does, but electing a president who is willing to advocate for change and not abuse the powers that we currently give presidents is only one of the steps. You're acting like it's the entire plan, but it's not. I believe electing greedy, power-hungry imbeciles is bad no matter how much power presidents have.
I think that's what he was pointing out: copyrights and patents don't seem to be promoting the progress of science and useful arts any longer (putting aside that there's no real evidence that they ever did so in this day and age), and since that's the entire reason they exist, the laws could be considered unconstitutional.
It's not a terrible system if those two parties actually represent the will of the American people.
You can only represent the will of a majority (which can be as few as more than 50%) of the American people, not all of them.
And they do
No, they represent some of what the people want. Hot button issues get all the attention and everything else is shoved into the back of a closet. Plenty of people likely vote for the two main parties because they're afraid the Worst Party will win if they don't vote for the 'lesser of two evils,' and they're too ignorant to realize that that attitude is partly what causes the problem to begin with.
you tend to have half a dozen parties, each with their own extremist positions, and there is little reason to pay attention to what the mainstream wants
Same here, but because people are afraid to vote for third parties because they feel it will increase the likelihood of their most hated party winning. They have free reign unless they really, really anger people, but they know the other guys will eventually do the same. The system is broken, I think.
We voted for a "better" president last time around: a Harvard educated constitutional scholar, Nobel prize winner, and community organizer who talked the talk and walked the walk... until he became president, started having delusions of grandeur, and became intoxicated with his own power and myth.
Not really what I'm talking about, but okay.
The US system is a good one
What part of the system? The voting system? Because any system that tends towards two parties is pretty terrible in my eyes.
If we really wanted the kind of do-good-activist-president you imagine
What? I'm not saying that electing different presidents is all we should do, though. I just think that people definitely should not vote for the lesser of two 'evils.' They should vote for better parties/candidates all around, too.
And of course you are so much smarter than they all, right? I don't think so.
Well, I do. If you don't think that most people are unintelligent, I invite you to look at how easily manipulated so many people were after 9/11 (which is just one example of chronic stupidity).
It's not difficult to be smarter than most people, but it is difficult to be so intelligent that you became a noteworthy individual, but I did not claim to be such a person anyway.
Actually, not voting at all is entirely rational if you look at return on time invested.
Only if you also disregard any possible benefits that change could bring. It isn't even that time-consuming compared to other things that people do, even if you actually take the time to research the candidates.
And, more generally, the low voter turnout in US elections tells you that most people just don't give a sh*t. They have low expectations of the government, but they are personally doing well enough that they don't really care.
It almost seemed like you disagreed with me that most people are unintelligent. Your reply is a mystery to me.
That's why you get so few third party votes.
And because most people are unintelligent and apathetic.
You are simply barking up the wrong tree.
I did not say that we can only do a single thing to solve the problem.
Why don't you tell us what you meant instead of giving us this roundabout bullshit?
Obviously, I meant to say that people should vote for a third party rather than voting for those who they consider to be a 'lesser evil.'
In your opinion, what should people have done in the 2012 presidential election to "throw out Obama"?
If you mean get rid of him, then not much. But it is not even remotely intelligent to vote for either of the two main parties.
But it's thanks to that nonsense that we have abominations like the Patriot Act, the TSA, free speech zones, and all that other garbage. I'm not exactly sure what the solution is, but I don't like this "living document" nonsense that pretty much gives them free reign. Want change? Amend it, but don't outright ignore it.
It seems there are a lot of things that were originally (or amended to include) aren't reflected in current law.
Because the government just does whatever it wants (as long as the public doesn't get too angry). Nothing new here.
Easy: All patents are low quality.
and people made a rational choice.
It wasn't rational; it was mindless and destructive.
So you are saying that you think Romney would have been greatly superior to Obama?
Yeah, of course. What else could I have been saying?
They won't defend the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Unless it's the second amendment, or politicians failed to frame their constitutional violations in a way that suggests they did it to keep us all safe from the bogeymen.
Your good nature will bring unbounded happiness.