Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 22, 2015, 12:05:21 PM

Quote from: spewky bewgie on October 22, 2015, 11:51:24 AM

Another fun note. This can effectively clinch the nomination for Clinton.

Not sure how I feel about that. I agree with Bernie's general policy, but I really don't like how he wants to execute it. It's the reverse for Hillary; I agree with fewer of her policies, but I think she'd be more effective at actually getting them passed. Bernie's a guaranteed "nothing happened" presidency, but Hillary has the prospect of going either way.

Add in the fact that there's like no chance that Bernie would hold the lead in a general election by a safe margin, if leading at all, a Clinton nomination is the only chance for a Democrat President. At the same time, I'd rather have a couple of Republican candidates over Hillary.

Why can't this just be an easy vote like Romney vs Obama?

The right wing doesn't want another FDR (as in a popular candidate that consistently beats them) so Obama and Bill can't run for a third term.

22nd Amendment, dog. Hasn't been legal since 1951.

I think some of Bernie's social policies can get through. I just think its his economic policies that are going to get bricked by congress.

Under heavy scrutiny and alteration, sure. And yeah, there is no way in hell that interest groups would allow even more lopsided taxation than we currently have or a $15 minimum wage.

Quote from: SoporificSlash on October 22, 2015, 12:10:32 PM

I think some of Bernie's social policies can get through. I just think its his economic policies that are going to get bricked by congress.

It's called the executive order.

That can be challenged or defunded by Congress. Legislative Branch controls revenue; no working money for the program means no program, or a severely butchered version of it.

Quote from: Republicunt on October 22, 2015, 12:12:02 PM

Quote from: SoporificSlash on October 22, 2015, 12:10:32 PM

I think some of Bernie's social policies can get through. I just think its his economic policies that are going to get bricked by congress.

It's called the executive order.

Oh so you want the president to become a dictator?

Checks and balances exist for a reason

Yeah, to curtail progress.

I know, I'm just being facetious.

From my perspective, almost nothing Bernie wants to get done is a bad idea, so halting his executive orders for any reason would be curtailing progress, of course.

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 22, 2015, 12:17:04 PM

Quote from: LC on October 22, 2015, 12:14:11 PM

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 22, 2015, 12:11:26 PM

Quote from: LC on October 22, 2015, 12:08:28 PM

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 22, 2015, 12:05:21 PM

Quote from: spewky bewgie on October 22, 2015, 11:51:24 AM

Another fun note. This can effectively clinch the nomination for Clinton.

Not sure how I feel about that. I agree with Bernie's general policy, but I really don't like how he wants to execute it. It's the reverse for Hillary; I agree with fewer of her policies, but I think she'd be more effective at actually getting them passed. Bernie's a guaranteed "nothing happened" presidency, but Hillary has the prospect of going either way.

Add in the fact that there's like no chance that Bernie would hold the lead in a general election by a safe margin, if leading at all, a Clinton nomination is the only chance for a Democrat President. At the same time, I'd rather have a couple of Republican candidates over Hillary.

Why can't this just be an easy vote like Romney vs Obama?

The right wing doesn't want another FDR (as in a popular candidate that consistently beats them) so Obama and Bill can't run for a third term.

22nd Amendment, dog. Hasn't been legal since 1951.

Yeah, that's what I was referencing.

Not really limited to the right wing. Amendments require a 75% ratification from states (38 states), of which the 1950s were more evenly divided between Republican and Democrat than 2010. It was made a policy by both parties, not just the right.

I said nothing about democrats and republicans. I said right wing. Democrat =/= left wing.

I still don't see how limiting the President's amount of terms is right-wing; it was made to prevent the incumbent from staying for too long, especially given how radically administrations change from president to president. Creating the amendment to promote progress is as much a reason as preventing Authoritarianism (being that they could be considered two sides of the same coin).

And the executive has evolved into the figurehead of government; the founding fathers intended for the Legislature to be the primary division of government, as it represents the will of the people more directly. It's why before the 17th Amendment, the House of Representatives elected the Senate, and why Representatives represent by district (local influence) and have two year terms (to reflect changes in public opinion).

Whens the last time you took an economics course?

11th grade, where we learned about the current system.

I want to blow up the current system. And assuming he's not a liar, so does Bernie.

If they really wanted to prevent authoritarianism they would have set term limits across the board and them both for the senate and supreme court. However then they'd have to give up their cushy jobs as senators and representatives where they're able to vote to give themselves pay raises and they wouldn't be able to dictate the law of the land for 60+ years with their justice nominations.

And honestly, if term limits are going to be a thing they're needed on those two branches more than they are on the executive one. Good luck getting congress to give up unlimited terms though.

Fuck yeah.

The fact that the GOP still controls Congress is the very reason why this "Bernie would be a do-nothing president" meme still persists, and it's unfortunate there's a kernel of truth in it. "The GOP's not gonna let Bernie do what he wants, so let's elect some horrible Republican instead, because it'll make Congress happy."

Quality system.

Absolutely. It's just that, at this moment, it's the GOP, so...
Any democrat elected would be reduced to a lame duck, or an over-compromising republican in disguise, like Obama.

Of course it's a bipartisan issue, though.

It was made to stop a popular left wing candidate from continually being elected and dressed up to look like "progress", kind of like PIPA, SOPA, and the Patriot Act. The top earning percent of Americans absolutely hated FDR for making them pay for WW2 and bail out the economy they ruined and they feared the prospect of having another FDR come up later down the line.

Yeah, and Teddy's support of Taft (immediately after his second term) was seen at the time as "announcing an heir", drawing parallels to a Monarchy--

Which was greatly politicized. Americans, especially still at that time, despised the idea of a monarchy with a strong head of state. Before the 22nd Amendment, it wasn't a rule that a president doesn't have more than two terms; but it was generally understood that you shouldn't. And top earning Americans might influence a degree of legislation, but that's impossible to the extent that it passed with the necessary super-majority (3/4ths of the states) that they had that much influence over the Amendment beyond possibly its introduction to the floor. The tough requirements are specifically so to prevent unjust curbing of rights and liberties, in that in a well-regulated Democracy, these checks are precisely to insure that the government runs closely in accordance with the public at large.

Telling people that they can't vote for who they want because they've been in office to long and forcing them to pick between a bunch of people they don't want isn't progress nor is it democratic. If they really wanted to prevent authoritarianism they would have set term limits across the board and them both for the senate and supreme court. However then they'd have to give up their cushy jobs as senators and representatives where they're able to vote to give themselves pay raises and they wouldn't be able to dictate the law of the land for 60+ years with their justice nominations.

27th Amendment checks pay raises-- they take effect the term after it's ratified by Congress. I agree that there should be term limits on Congress as well, so no argument there, but you can't deny that it's a step in the right direction. Especially so being that there is a clear head of the Executive (the president, indisputably), and the voice of Congress is heard in the majority party (which has the ability to change entirely between an two and six year period), so it's much less clear cut to enact greater checks given the enumerable possibilities that arise from a corrupt or malrepresented Congress other than removing them from office after their agreed term.

And let's not forget that FDR wasn't even president when the Amendment went into effect. Harry Truman had been president for two years at the point it was introduced, and he was considered absolved from the amendment considering his term in office was a carry over as Vice President of FDR's fourth term in office, which was equally opposed by conservatives as much as the public for completely disregarding Washington's precedence of how long a President should hold office.

And honestly, if term limits are going to be a thing they're needed on those two branches more than they are on the executive one. Good luck getting congress to give up unlimited terms though.

Still not a right-wing stance; going back to the original point of content, both progressives and conservatives would disavow the other from monopolizing legislation.

If you're really worried about getting a similar situation that we currently have with congress (where as in some states it's impossible to beat the incumbents because they just so much money that you'd burn out your own cash reserves trying to compete) you could solve that through campaign finance reform and allocate the same amount of money to every candidate that runs. Thus preventing what are essentially election buy outs (like what happened when the tea party took power).

That's a state issue. Look no further than Ohio, in that the law is written in such a way that third-parties have no way to access public funds (it has to be evenly divided between the Republican and Democrat candidates). In addition, if a candidate chooses to use public funds (practically never before 2008) they have an upper limit set on how much money they can raise. In the case of Obama in 2008, he chose not to use the available public funds and instead relied entirely on donations; the Citizens United v. FEC ruled that citizens, corporations, and the like cannot be limited in how much they spend on issue advertisements (commonly confused with PAC donations). There are campaign contribution limits already in place for either case, but it's limited to the individual in the one that people talk about now; not the candidate.