52 replies to this topic

[kirant]

ZepherTensho - The entire world was pretty much behind Obama. I think online Europe polls (take them for what they're worth) were generally showing 90/10 Obama splits. Canada was pretty heavily leaning Obama too (The one I quickly ran ended up in the 70-30 range).

QUOTE (Oblivion Knight @ Nov 16 2012, 04:34 AM)

QUOTE (Holy Kensai @ Nov 15 2012, 05:59 PM) Let's just ignore the fact that Bush ****ed the states up so much Obama had a huge mess to clean up. You mean how much Clinton ****ed up that Bush had to deal with? Yeah, I totally get where you're coming from.

I think you need more data than that.

We are certainly aware that Bush was President during the emergence of the crisis and failed to do anything meaningful. What makes you so sure his hands are tied the same way Obama's have?

A simple way to look at it is due diligence - What would a competent person in that field do? If the answer is "do more than what they did", then they were negligent...pretty simple legal definition. So, I think we have far more than enough data to say that Obama was handed a ticking time bomb. The overriding factors were already at play: money had been stretched too thin and that magic multiplier that exists due to bank/loan relation made it such that any real jolt would deal this sort of damage (which, incidentally, is why the EU is hurting pretty bad too: they actually loaned at a far higher ratio if memory serves). Any competent President (nor, in my opinion, even an amazing President) would not have the means to navigate this crisis effectively.

If you don't understand the basic theory of how money is used to far greater means than the money that actually exists (As Holy Kensai mentions, it's part of Macroeconomic theory), please consult a video on it. It's a very easy concept to pick up and important for understanding the events that occurred.

So what lets Bush off the hook?

[Rujio]

Can we get more facts if this debate is going to continue? Right now it's mostly "No, this is what happened, idiot." "No, you're wrong, this is what happened, stupid. "No, THIS is what happened, dumbass." There's a reason people hate discussing politics, and that's because it tends to be a screaming match rather than an actual discussion.

[Zepher Tensho]

QUOTE (Oblivion Knight @ Nov 16 2012, 06:34 AM)

QUOTE (Holy Kensai @ Nov 15 2012, 05:59 PM) Let's just ignore the fact that Bush ****ed the states up so much Obama had a huge mess to clean up. You mean how much Clinton ****ed up that Bush had to deal with? Yeah, I totally get where you're coming from.

Hey, our country wasn't trillions in debt when Clinton left. Nor was gas $4 a gallon. Until Bush, an oil man, got in office. Yea, that was totally Clintons fault.

[Nils]

Well. I'm not a political expert but I believe that there are a few things causing the recession:

1. American consumption (Its a well known fact, no matter how much you yell about it, that Americans consume WAY too much)

2. Our shitty foreign policy (Shitty is putting it nicely. We need to stop being the world police)

3. Corrupt Politicians (Kind of general but...need I say more)

4. Bad presidents (Who are mainly voted into office by lazy white trash who don't want their free government handouts taken away. So they vote for whoever gives the most free stuff. In my humble opinion, there would be little to no welfare if everyone worked hard)

In all honesty, I could fix at least a few major things in the US right now. But I have no doubt that I would be the most hated person in US history for the methodology that I would use. The least I would do is keep my word on what I say I will do.
I'm prepared for lots of yelling on this so fire away

[kirant]

QUOTE (Nils @ Nov 16 2012, 03:35 PM)

Well. I'm not a political expert but I believe that there are a few things causing the recession: 1. American consumption (Its a well known fact, no matter how much you yell about it, that Americans consume WAY too much) 2. Our shitty foreign policy (Shitty is putting it nicely. We need to stop being the world police) 3. Corrupt Politicians (Kind of general but...need I say more) 4. Bad presidents (Who are mainly voted into office by lazy white trash who don't want their free government handouts taken away. So they vote for whoever gives the most free stuff. In my humble opinion, there would be little to no welfare if everyone worked hard) In all honesty, I could fix at least a few major things in the US right now. But I have no doubt that I would be the most hated person in US history for the methodology that I would use. The least I would do is keep my word on what I say I will do. I'm prepared for lots of yelling on this so fire away

These are more general issues than the heart and real trigger that pulled the recession. When the world realized they were on the verge of a bubble bursting, loans got recalled, less money floated around, and the lack of money caused problems.

Again, I suggest taking a look on how banks allow more money to flow than naturally exists. That was a much bigger issue and cause of a recession than the above. None of the above help, but aren't the key reason for a recession.

[Zepher Tensho]

QUOTE (Nils @ Nov 16 2012, 05:35 PM)

Well. I'm not a political expert but I believe that there are a few things causing the recession: 1. American consumption (Its a well known fact, no matter how much you yell about it, that Americans consume WAY too much) 2. Our shitty foreign policy (Shitty is putting it nicely. We need to stop being the world police) 3. Corrupt Politicians (Kind of general but...need I say more) 4. Bad presidents (Who are mainly voted into office by lazy white trash who don't want their free government handouts taken away. So they vote for whoever gives the most free stuff. In my humble opinion, there would be little to no welfare if everyone worked hard) In all honesty, I could fix at least a few major things in the US right now. But I have no doubt that I would be the most hated person in US history for the methodology that I would use. The least I would do is keep my word on what I say I will do. I'm prepared for lots of yelling on this so fire away

1. Consumption is America's passtime lawl.
2. I agree with the world police thing. With Isreal about to attack Gaza, you KNOW our military is gonna jump in ene
3. Thats never going away XD
4. Thats never going away either sadly.

[Falaflame]

See, this is why I moved from USA to Dominican Republic. Well besides the fact that my mom hated the direction USA was headed towards and I agree with her entirely about it but that's beside the point. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: I personally feel it's better to abandon ship than to stay on a sinking ship.

Most people in the USA won't notice. Several peole OUTSIDE of the USA notice. But do you actually know how entirely ignorant 65% of the USA is? (and 95% of the politicians... hell, I could possibly argue 100%)

The fact ~20 states want to pull out of the union speaks for itself. The USA is just a one massive egotistical ball of ignorance. They don't want the change, so why should they want to stay? And sadly, I doubt there's any effective, fast method to remedy that state of mind.

I was speaking to a friend of mine earlier, and he agreed, and I agreed, that this is following along the SIMILAR (note: not entirely the same) path of the French Revolution in the late 1700s. King Louis's entire bloodline caused a debt so massive, that HIS OWN PEOPLE started revolting against him. And because history can repeat itself, as we all well know, I fear if things stay the same or get worse in the USA, the same thing could very well happen.

As far as questions about Obama's plans are concerned, at the very least he's TRYING to stop the bleeding. And from word of mouth, he is ACTUALLY getting somewhere in that. This is something that cannot be remedied in 8 years. So the best Obama can do is put a bandaid on it, theoretically speaking.

As far as the states actually wanting to recede? Let them. Trust me, they'll come crawling back soon enough, and I will be there to tell them, "I told you so."

[Germanicus]

QUOTE (Falaflame @ Nov 17 2012, 07:54 AM)

See, this is why I moved from USA to Dominican Republic. Well besides the fact that my mom hated the direction USA was headed towards and I agree with her entirely about it but that's beside the point. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: I personally feel it's better to abandon ship than to stay on a sinking ship. Most people in the USA won't notice. Several peole OUTSIDE of the USA notice. But do you actually know how entirely ignorant 65% of the USA is? (and 95% of the politicians... hell, I could possibly argue 100%) The fact ~20 states want to pull out of the union speaks for itself. The USA is just a one massive egotistical ball of ignorance. They don't want the change, so why should they want to stay? And sadly, I doubt there's any effective, fast method to remedy that state of mind. I was speaking to a friend of mine earlier, and he agreed, and I agreed, that this is following along the SIMILAR (note: not entirely the same) path of the French Revolution in the late 1700s. King Louis's entire bloodline caused a debt so massive, that HIS OWN PEOPLE started revolting against him. And because history can repeat itself, as we all well know, I fear if things stay the same or get worse in the USA, the same thing could very well happen. As far as questions about Obama's plans are concerned, at the very least he's TRYING to stop the bleeding. And from word of mouth, he is ACTUALLY getting somewhere in that. This is something that cannot be remedied in 8 years. So the best Obama can do is put a bandaid on it, theoretically speaking. As far as the states actually wanting to recede? Let them. Trust me, they'll come crawling back soon enough, and I will be there to tell them, "I told you so."

Part of the problem and not the solution, defeatism at it's best. There's a good reason nothing changes here.

[kirant]

QUOTE (Germanicus @ Nov 17 2012, 09:23 AM)

QUOTE (Falaflame @ Nov 17 2012, 07:54 AM) See, this is why I moved from USA to Dominican Republic. Well besides the fact that my mom hated the direction USA was headed towards and I agree with her entirely about it but that's beside the point. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: I personally feel it's better to abandon ship than to stay on a sinking ship. Most people in the USA won't notice. Several peole OUTSIDE of the USA notice. But do you actually know how entirely ignorant 65% of the USA is? (and 95% of the politicians... hell, I could possibly argue 100%) The fact ~20 states want to pull out of the union speaks for itself. The USA is just a one massive egotistical ball of ignorance. They don't want the change, so why should they want to stay? And sadly, I doubt there's any effective, fast method to remedy that state of mind. I was speaking to a friend of mine earlier, and he agreed, and I agreed, that this is following along the SIMILAR (note: not entirely the same) path of the French Revolution in the late 1700s. King Louis's entire bloodline caused a debt so massive, that HIS OWN PEOPLE started revolting against him. And because history can repeat itself, as we all well know, I fear if things stay the same or get worse in the USA, the same thing could very well happen. As far as questions about Obama's plans are concerned, at the very least he's TRYING to stop the bleeding. And from word of mouth, he is ACTUALLY getting somewhere in that. This is something that cannot be remedied in 8 years. So the best Obama can do is put a bandaid on it, theoretically speaking. As far as the states actually wanting to recede? Let them. Trust me, they'll come crawling back soon enough, and I will be there to tell them, "I told you so." Part of the problem and not the solution, defeatism at it's best. There's a good reason nothing changes here.

But he left the US. If he's part of the problem, then it should be a good thing in your mind

Seriously there are problems. The solution is a much more fundamental issue: That the demanded education out of each person is NOT good enough to perform their civic duty to society. In order to fully and functionally elect citizens that best reflect them, very basic levels of psychology, economy, and sociology are needed. No more of this "Grade 8 minimum" type of talk.

[Ristau]

QUOTE (Zepher Tensho @ Nov 13 2012, 01:54 AM)

Anyway a lot of people think this means nothing. The petitions HAVE to be reviewed by congress if they hit the signature requirement

I stopped reading there. Seceding from the Union is illegal, thus it is not a concern.

[Zepher Tensho]

QUOTE (Ryokutheman @ Nov 20 2012, 07:03 PM)

QUOTE (Zepher Tensho @ Nov 13 2012, 01:54 AM) Anyway a lot of people think this means nothing. The petitions HAVE to be reviewed by congress if they hit the signature requirement I stopped reading there. Seceding from the Union is illegal, thus it is not a concern.

Yea which is why it happened last time. And in a way, it isn't. The constitution has a loophole, which these petetions are trying to invoke. It says that if a government no longer operates in the best interest of the people, and has become self destructive, the people reserve the right to dismantle said government, and try again.

Needless to say, a lot of people think this applies to Obama, which is the point of the petetions.

[Ristau]

No. According to my government teacher, secession was made illegal, not as an amendment, but by the supreme court, after the Civil War (which is why it wasn't technically illegal for them to leave the union).

Edit: I hope you don't mind Wikipedia, but I found this there: "Secession in the United States can refer to secession of a state from the United States, secession of part of a state from that state to form a new state, or secession of an area from a city or county.
Attempts at or aspirations of secession from the United States have been a feature of the country's politics since its birth. Some have argued for a constitutional right of secession and others for a natural right of revolution. The United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession."

[kirant]

QUOTE (Ryokutheman @ Nov 21 2012, 09:41 AM)

No. According to my government teacher, secession was made illegal, not as an amendment, but by the supreme court, after the Civil War (which is why it wasn't technically illegal for them to leave the union).

I think that was Texas v White. It effectively stated that the Confederate states had no legal ability to secede from the US. In addition, they left in the obvious answer that a secession may occur with the United States' government's permission. Of course, a later judgment stated that had they Confederate managed to fight to a stalemate, there was nothing the courts could do about it...if they had the might, they could just force the United States' hand and figured a way around it.

I think there's a bit of a misconception on that case though. It's an extremely unusual circumstance as the decision had no legal precedence (as such a thing had never happened before). Many pro-secessionists point out that then-President Grant had to sign to bring the state of Texas back into the US. This conflicts with the Texas v White case, where Texas would not have to sign to return - a case which has never been cleared up. Another hard reason they use is that Texas is still an "independent state" after its split from Mexico, which provides the implicated rights that if they join a United State as an independent, they have the right to secede if they wish to do so. Now I think we have a case as to whether or not the readmission of Texas or the court case are wrong, but I think there's some legal standing that no real clarification as to whether or not the Supreme Court or Grant is right at the moment and would create wiggle room in a modern court scenario.

Of course, the legally-keen side of me would think that these two actions may not be within and of themselves contradictory. Texas v White and Grant's signing are neither addressed in any legal form of precedence and therefore may be considered two different events in this scenario.

Another interesting thing is that Texas' constitution reads that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States". Note that it says Constitution, not President or Congress.

So I guess:
- Short answer: Texas v White pretty much stated that States couldn't secede without Federal consent.
- Longer answer: But on the other hand, there are some errors between Texas v White, Grant, and within the Texas Constitution and creates some inconsistencies that have not been tried in court.

Of course, I'm not a constitutional expert (I'm not even an American), so I may be missing some key details.