I'm going to give it a shot.

That's great and you can get plenty debate practice here with the amount of libtards we have running around!

<like>

By 2024, there will no longer be elections. Senators will be appointed to lifelong terms!

There's one right now ^

pfft, obongo's going to do away with the elections and remain in office FOR EV ER

[quote poster=Pang; 34393; 622329]By 2024, there will no longer be elections. Senators will be appointed to lifelong terms! [/quot

if obama wins twe nty sixteen it will..

I dont think these forums are a good place to debate anything let alone practice debating. A topic would be posted then quickly altered-flamed-deleted. I guess that could help you get used to having your hands tied. Wtf would you want to work for obama on 9 or 10 years anyway?😜

By 2014, the gridlock in congress will be replaced by trolling and flaming eachother :p

The best part about dems is that they preach tolerance left and right, yet, they are not tolerant of differing opinions. "Faux news" for example. As if fox is any more bias in its reporting than others. I don't even watch fox as I don't pay for cable/sat tv but I have gotten more info from fox news via my progressive fb aquaintences than I have via any other source. Its quite funny, the obsession.

I would tune into cspan every day!

I don't know if you know or not but congress is supposed to be gridlock, especially on major pieces of legislation. That is by design, to prevent bills from passing only to find out they were inherently flawed and not at all what was thought to be on them (*cough* ACA *cough*) I don't understand where people get the idea that congress is supposed to pass thousands of laws every year to be a successful congress. That is far from the truth.

+10. An inactive Congress is not necessarily a bad Congress. Every new bill passed that isn't a budget bill is a NEW restriction on what you can do, or what a new thing you MUST do. As times changes, laws need updated, or new ones created, but the system was designed intentionally to make new laws hard to pass. Only if there is a major push for a change, will a new law be passed to address that change.

The system was also designed over 200 years ago and the founding fathers could not foresee what we would become today. Do you think they'd be happy with the ridiculous amount of money in politics? Hell, they didn't even predict parties, and that started almost immediately after ratification.

If anyone wants to fluff about anything, it should be about the plutocratic control by moneyed interests. THAT is what's wrong with the damn country more than anything else...

Uh, washington totally predicted parties, and was pretty spot on in his assessment of what that would lead to. What history books do you read?

Actually the founding fathers foresaw a remarkable amount of what's happening right now. A bunch of people got together and basically came up with powers and limitations on government that they thought might slow down the leviathan. Unfortunately we tend to distort or ignore a good portion of it these days, probably most important article 1 section 8 of the constitution.

The reverence towards the founding fathers and the belief that they somehow knew better than the rest of us (omg they could predict the future!) is one of the worst diseases in US political discourse. They were just men doing the best they could; what they did is not perfect and flawless by any stretch.

Do u really think technology has changed man kind that much? Tyranny is tyranny weather inforced by the sword, f-35 or law of the land in any time period. Btw are you not a US citizen? If so your opinion means jack fluff.

It isn't that technology has changed humanity, it is that we're all very much the products of our environment. The founding fathers lived in an era where slavery was common, women couldn't vote, and where the US was a new country finding it's way in the world.

The system they put into place does not directly protect against tyranny: what it does instead is protect the status quo. The system they set up instituted it's own hard-to-change tyrannies, by doing things like not giving women the vote and by not recognizing all people as equal, but sure, the relatively blank slate they had made it significantly less likely that there'd ever be a dictatorship of any kind in the US. Now, though, there's over 300 years of laws on the books that are being protected by the system they put in place and rather than "slow down the leviathan" they ensure it remains in place, warts and all.

Women rights, slavery are all things of the past in the usa. Its not surprising that you mention them though. You said a whole lot of nothing above.

Womens rights is a thing of the past in the US? :P

You seem to want to cherry pick which stuff belongs in the past and which doesn't. The constitution could well be argued to be a "thing of the past", in much the same way, yet you provide no reason for why it shouldn't be.

The constitution is what our laws today are based on, and grants us our freedoms that so many people try to take away every day.

and MDevol if you are serious about running I wish you the best my friend.

The US is STILL trying to find its way in the world. The only difference now is that we have established ourselves as world leaders and others are looking to us for what to do next. So when we elect shoddy leaders like Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama, the rest of the world questions the audacity of the US peoples, and rightfully so.

To say that the civil issues in the US are unique to the US is to lack the understanding of global civil rights issues.
racial and women rights issues have been issues around the world, not just in the US so don't pretend that these are just US things, the whole world was pretty actively practicing slavery until about 1800-1850ish Some still are, despite it being outlawed in every nation. As for women rights across the world, the United States is in the top group of gender equality. Is there room for improvement in both race and gender issues and relations, of course, there always will be, that is called what some of you refer to as evolving, or do we not believe in that in this context?

Addressing the founding fathers vision, yes, they did see parties and they did see the potential for corruption, that is wel documented, actually. That is precisely why we have the bill of rights and the provisions that explicitly state that if the government no longer represents the will of the people, it is our duty to correct course or to change governments. Which is also 100% of the reason for the first 10 amendments.

I agree that monies in government are a huge problem that is wrong with the US, I have written papers on the topic, specifically in elections. While money in politics is a major issue, I believe that the biggest issue that we face in the US is that the states have conceded too much authority to the central federal government over the years and once you give them an inch they try to take a mile (give them a centimeter and they try to take a kilometer, for those of your non-Americans out there) and once you give them that, it is very difficult to get it back. This is why we are seeing states offer legislation stating they are free standing states, as much as they to do nothing bills, they send a message. Without follow up, they are just that. Utah is working currently to take back its public land. That will be an interesting case to follow come the new year.

The country, and frankly the world, is dependent upon a well educated peoples. We are not a well educated peoples. Some of us are. Everybody that plays this game, as smart or as stupid that others assume them to be, are MUCH more educated than segments of folks right here within the US, let alone around the world. If people are not educated on how our government works, how it is designed to work, what it is intended for, how are they in any position to make a qualified vote for either party or measure on a ballot?

/me votes for mdevol.

The 10th Admendment is rarely quoted, but it should be a lot more releveant. I see too much power grabbing by the federal government.

Actual text:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Don't confuse me as a pre-civil war nullifcatoin junkie. Several of the laws being passed are gross oversteps of Congress and the Executive Branch. If the law is in such a dire need of being changed, there is a way to admend the Consitution, do it that way.

But where I disagree mdevol, I argure that stupid, aka non-informed people should get to vote. This differs from the orignial electoral system for the this country. Two prime exmples of the orginals plan are the Elecotral College, still in effect, and non-direct election of Senators which was fixed by the 17th Admendment. I am not even touching the issue of women not being able to vote, which was addressed far too late . The country deserves the leaders it elects, if an uninformed elecorate elects idiot leaders, then that is an indication of a social, education breakdown that deservers to be radically changed.

1) The US has modified it's constitution over time via amendments and the founding fathers made provision for that knowing they could not predict the future.

2) SCOTUS has been rather inconsistent in its ruling based on the *same* constitution and legislation over time (See the history of segregation for example but there are others.. (SCOTUS has said that insurance is and is not interstate commerce over time.. fortunately US congress got the last word in via legislation in that case).

3) any modern functional democratic system is not going to be 100% democratic. its success is measured on how well it can reflects the balance of desires of its citizens which is best done under some form of democratic system. As times/attitudes change, the government must change either legislatively or structurally to adapt.

4) economic systems have nothing to do with democracy no matter how much Ayn Rand ranting you want to read (or Upton Sinclair). The economic system in place should best reflect the will of the people so to speak.

5) practically everything becomes a question of balance. Extremism and pure idiology doesn't work. The West tried that before from the enlightenment until the 20th century and it always ended very badly. The most successful countries are the ones that are flexible over time, low corruption, and best reflect the will of the masses (when it is sane).

Every system of democracy has it's advantages and disadvantages but folks should be open to sharing/importing ideas from other democracies based on what might work better.

The biggest challenge is that the US and Canadian systems were both designed for a largely rural population to best support/reflect that reality. This has had some unforseen negative implications for today which will eventually need sorting out.

Actually there is clear evidence that women voted in early America. This link addresses NJ specifically, but things worked similarly elsewhere too.

http://www.crf-usa.org/...ho-voted-in-early-america

Dude let's have as many of us run in 2024 as possible. Can you imagine a Congress controlled by Earth: Empires?

I don't think you know what "tolerance" means

This game is full of teatards.