they're career politicans they are all liars and corrupt to a certain extent, thats just how it goes. Hillary definitely isnt the only one doing wrongdoing if she even is, half of them at least are probably doing stuff they shouldnt be. as long as you dont do anything major major when your somebody like clinton then you should be fine.
I'm not okay with any of that. I would say that the Email thing (and Benghazi, and her alleged bullying of Bill's sexual harassment/**** victims [not just Monika, but most were settled out of court]) qualify as major. Still not quite torture and war-crimes I suppose, but none the less... The fact that the DNC is letting her run at all is already insane from my perspective, and speaks to the corruption of that organization.
More generally speaking, I am noticing a lot of you want things to be at the "state level." Of course, this seems weird to me, not being American, as I don't understand the point of being part of the same country if you basically want the states to be their own independent countries for most purposes anyway? And then, to "solve" the potentially problems of larger states having too much power or the federal level having too much power, all these rules and extra stuff is put into place... except that apparently they don't actually work to ensure that this stuff doesn't happen. So why even have a United States of America if everyone hates the fact that it is one country so much?
It's generally very specific things, and in fact, things that are already done at the State level to begin with. For example, taxes and social programs. There are (generally, not all states are the same in this regard) both Federal and State taxes. A portion of State Taxes gets taken by the Federal Government in addition to the Federal taxes already levied, and most of that goes towards a bloated military, and to social programs which could have instead been handled at a local level (and, thus, possibly be more properly apportioned, though obviously there's no way to be sure of that). Of course, there would still be bonds and the like for other Federal programs. The Army, the Navy, and such most agree should be run by the Federal Government, though many disagree as to it's budget and size (actually, everyone disagrees I think. Either they want it smaller or they want it bigger. I haven't heard anyone say: "You know, the size and budget of this is just right." Let alone anyone with long locks of golden hair.) Well, take Calan for instance, they don't want to be a part of Spain. Even though they would be smaller (and ostensibly less well defended) they'd rather be their own nation. Lots of groups want to be mostly by themselves and left more or less alone by people that don't live in the region. The main difference of course comes with defense of the land, or with something that is obviously affecting multiple regions. Then, a larger body can be useful. While I think the EU Council and such is getting bloated and over-reaching (personal opinion mind), there is absolutely a value to having a body governing trade between the various nations involved. The EU's existence also (generally) helps to ensure a military alliance, to deal with invaders or those that betray the alliance itself. But that doesn't mean it should necessarily dictate entirely internal laws and such, or manage the flow of finances of all nations, including internal revenue, directly (or so the argument would go, I dunno, maybe that's appealing to people). Or for that matter to manage (most) criminal laws, etc. I actually think it's slowed down the problems a lot. I think it would have been much worse without those checks and balances stuff. Ultimately, it's still up to the people to deal with the crap rather than assume everything will be fine (or worse, assume they have no ability to do anything about it). Well, just my take on it. I know you're speaking generally here, so maybe some others will have different views or knowledge.
...lol... technically true? how can you Firk up writing Catalonia that badly? did you think it was shortened to Catan but then you knew settlers of Catan was a a game so you put an L in there?
What can I say, it's a gift? The one single thing I can take pride in is my ability to mis-spell Catatonia.
The US of A is desirable for national defense, foreign policy and other matters that really need to be done at the national level. It is not desirable for items for items like social programs. Our nation is diverse in people, climate and geography. It's too big to be run like a small European country. A federal policy is really like the EU trying to impose a system for the whole continent of Europe. That makes no sense. The EU does makes sense for the same tasks as it does for the US of A. Also if my state has policies I don't like it's easier to go to a different state than abandon my country. States truly are supposed to be the laboratories of democracy. Did you know the Senate was originally intended to represent the states as sovereign entities (the House represents the people)? With direct popular vote that was lost so the states no longer have any voice in the federal government.
now I keep immagining french people in Calan just constantly bringing up the fact tht they don't want to be Spanish. like there i a town meeting and they just go "We must focus on our priorities, foremost of wich we do not want to be part of spain. ''and they all just agree and there's someone who just moved there wondering why this was an issue.
People say this a lot, "it's too big" and "should only be this." But as far as I can tell, the US has ONLY tried to do in this half-way wishy washy way. I'd argue that the most important parts of the EU: single currency and open work/travel between member states, are things the USA does already have. Of course, the single currency and wildly different economies and their own ability to set budgets is ALSO why the Greece/Spain/Irish crisis happened - so that's a point in favor for more central over in such a union. I don't think any system is perfect, but I think in most cases, not sticking to a particular approach and trying to be too much at once lends itself more problems.
dunno which thread to put this in, but i'd like to see some takes on it http://benjaminstudebaker.com/2016/02/05/why-bernie-vs-hillary-matters-more-than-people-think/
Hillary is LITERALLY the face of corruption in America. After the Jody Murray/John Lang Fresno PD incident, the (dated) Stephen Avery case and all the police brutality markups that have happened recently, to even consider someone involved in so much scrutiny, be it with merit or not, simply blows my mind. Do people simply not pay attention?
Seems like a decent analysis, I do think it overlooks other economic factors (and especially FED/Bankster policies and stuff), but it's a good article.
oh and i stumbled across this gold nugget Ted Cruz sends a guy a check that the guy can send to Ted Cruz I swear, USA politics is such a joke
no not really, that's jsut the message from the right lol. she is most likely going to be president as long as democrats nominate her. cruz and trump would both lose to her in the general. All the republicans had to do was nominate a regular candidate and they probably would have won, they threw the election lmao. im not complaining tho, i lean left.
I heard a rumor that some people going to the primaries were paid (by candidates) to participate. Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Way too many Republican and Democrat politicians are yucky liars AND corrupt Dbags. None of them are saints. As citizens we let them slide too far.
February 10, 2016 Senator Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton among nearly every demographic group in the Democratic New Hampshire primary, according to exit polls. He carried majorities of both men and women. He won among those with and without college degrees. He won among gun owners and non-gun owners. He beat Mrs. Clinton among previous primary voters and those participating for the first time. And he ran ahead among both moderates and liberals. Even so, there were a few silver linings for Mrs. Clinton. While Mr. Sanders bested her among all age groups younger than 45, the two candidates polled evenly among voters aged 45 to 64. And Mrs. Clinton won the support of voters 65 and older. And, though Mrs. Clinton lost nearly every income group, she did carry voters in families earning over $200,000 per year. http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-ham.../bernie-sanders-wins-every-demographic-group/
