Political discussion thread

Epignosis wrote: HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: Either the polls are wrong or the cult of personality is now more important to people than their own personal well-being. Sadly, I expect it's the latter. You're making two wrong assumptions here: That people think Obama is somehow damaging their well-being. Believe it or not, there are people who are satisfied with Obama's record. I'm not an American, but I am among those people. Think what you may of Obama, but I think it's a stretch to say he will harm your own personal well-being. Same goes for Romney, by the way. That just because you're dissatisfied with the incumbent, you should vote for the challenger. This only makes sense as long as you're convinced that the challenger will actually do better. Sadly, many people don't seem to aware of this. <font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">I suspect many people abroad support Obama because they care very little about the US Constitution, which a President swears to uphold.  Our President has trampled our nation's fundamental code.

Putting the economic stuff aside, because I'm all in favor of Obama's policies (he just doesn't go far enough), I can agree that Obama's record on civil liberties is on the poor side.

thellama73 wrote: The bill of rights is part of the constitution.

Dean wrote: thellama73 wrote: The bill of rights is part of the constitution.   yeah, yeah, yeah... and the Bill of Rights is an amendment to the Constitution - and is basically some of the bits they didn't think were that important at the time, followed by 17 more things they forgot to think about the first time... Most people tend to focus on ammendments I, II and V rather than "The Constitution" itself.

That's because much of the constitution itself is procedural, concerned with how elections work, how congress works etc. It answers questions like "who becomes president if both the president and vice-president die?" "What happens if the electoral college is tied?" and "how many votes does are required to amend the constitution?" These are important questions, but not very controversial or interesting to the average voter.

The first ten amendments to the constitution, known as the bill of rights, contain most of the principles of limited government. These amendments were created just a year after the ratification of the original constitution, so it's not quite the same as the others that were added much later in response to changing circumstances in the country.

tamijo wrote: All fun and stuff aside, if we should debate this more seriusly, we need more sufficient evidence to back up this claim : Our President has trampled our nation's fundamental code.   What part of it - when - how ?

To understand this, it's important to understand that our Constitution is a list of all the powers the federal government has. It specifically says any powers not listed shall be reserved for the states or the people. So anytime the federal government does anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it is in violation of it.

This administration has said it's okay to kill American citizens without a trial. That goes against the constitution.

For another, the president proposed and signed into law a requirement that citizens purchase a privately provided product (health insurance) or face a penalty. That power is not granted in the constitution.

He has refused to prosecute voter intimidation cases, interfering with free elections.

He appoints numerous regulatory "czars" who do not require the approval of congress, yet are given broad powers to dictate the actions of private companies with no Democratic process.

Agents from his administration raided a Gibson Guitar factory and seized private property without a warrant and without filing any formal charges to allow the company to defend themselves in court.

I could go on, but I think that's enough for now.

tamijo wrote: This administration has said it's okay to kill American citizens without a trial. That goes against the constitution. In this case i think you are right ! But can you explain to me how this is diffrent from the case of José Padilla, who was held in prison by the Bush administration without trail. As I understand it, both cases are against the "trial first" rules. I dont remember anything about enemy combatant in the constitution.

It is different in the sense that killing and imprisoning are different, but otherwise I agree with you.

smartpatrol wrote: A debate between Gary Johnson and Jill Stien tonight.

It's sad that most people outside the US (and I suspect a fair few in the US) probably don't even know who these people are.

"For another, the president proposed and signed into law a requirement that citizens purchase a privately provided product (health insurance) or face a penalty. That power is not granted in the constitution."

It's going to be great when this election is finally over.

tamijo wrote: He appoints numerous regulatory "czars" who do not require the approval of congress, yet are given broad powers to dictate the actions of private companies with no Democratic process.The use of czars exploded under Bush, not under Obama, he just keeps it high. Havent dug deep enough to prove or disprove, that his czars do any more damage than those under Bush.

You must admit 'Czar' or 'Tzar' is a strange title to award to someone in this context. I think the literal translation is emperor or king or something.

It certainly doesn't imply a vast wealth of knowledge; more a ruling hand.

Yes, Bush had Tzars, and I believe we had a few under Blair. I think they are supposed to inspire confidence in people. You may want to read up on Prof John Holdren who works as Obama's science Tzar. He was all for sterilizing everyone with chemicals in the food supply in the 70's. He looks like a disgraced geography teacher crossed with Jerry Adams of IRA fame. Not that that's relevent..just a observation.