Very European thinking, and shows a complete ignorance of how America operates.

Elections, inside the USA, have limited consequences. Washington is not the Central Government of The USA. There is no Central Government within The USA. Washington is not even called The American Government regarding internal matters.

They might have 'limited consequences' but it still matters who you send to congress. Its the difference between a congress that actually passes laws and a congress that can't agree on anything.

Besides, you also vote for state legislative bodies right? The same applies there. If you vote for the right people you will see a remarkable improvement in quality of local government bodies as well.

Europe may believe in Mandates and complete changes in Inferior Laws, but inside The USA: That power has been limited by, let's say, the Supreme Law of The USA, The Constitution.

And I'm pretty sure the constitution clearly states that Congress can enact laws on certain issues. Even so, there is again the local state governments which are also democratically elected and who pass laws on a far wider range of things.

Therefore, a Majority, even a Large Majority of The People, or Politicians, can not impose sanctions against a hated Minority Opinion (European Hate Speech Laws is one example).

We weren't even talking about hate speech laws or anything related to that. How is this remotely relevant?

On a side note, yes they can. The US has its own hate speech laws, though those only apply if the hated minority opinion will lead to actual violence.

And on the other hand, you keep saying it's up to the people to vote for the right (sounds like 'white') people.

On one hand, you say it's up to the people to make the right (white) decisions and vote. On the other hand, you imply a congress that can't do any thing is bad.

Straw man

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Мишель, you're still not getting it.

On one hand, you imply in many posts in the past that government needs to control all aspects of its citizens.

I have never said such a thing. That is simply your conservative anti government black and white thinking. If you are not totally against the government you must want the government to control every aspect of citizen life. That is a false dichotomy.

What I argue for and what I have always argued for is a government that enacts tight regulations in the economic sphere. With that I don't mean they have to go all communist and come up with 5 year plans, what I mean is that there are clear rules for companies to abide by. Those rules cover environmental standards, workplace safety, wages, anti discrimination rules and to some degree what is appropriate business conduct and what is not (and given what some major corporations and banks pull off those kind of conduct rules are sorely needed).

Other than that, people are free to do whatever they want, vote for whoever they want, say whatever they want and believe in whatever they want.

So what I want is a government that actively works to create a society based on justice, equality, fairness, freedom and where everyone makes a decent wage. And I believe such societies cannot be reached by governments that loath themselves, retreat from the public sphere and leave it to private enterprise to do the right thing.

Its the difference between a congress that actually passes laws and a congress that can't agree on anything.

And on the other hand, you keep saying it's up to the people to vote for the right (sounds like 'white') people.

This is the second time you seem to be accusing me of some form of racism by implying that what I want is white people in charge. I would like to know where you got the idea that I am suggesting or implying such a thing.

Man (used in the most non-sexist, original english form) is fallible.

Now that you draw attention to it I'm going to argue that the original English form was actually sexist as it has been used from the start to also refer exclusively to males. And even then you are referring to a term that is centuries old. If you care about not being seen as sexist to the point that you feel the need to point out how much of a non sexist you are, why not go for the gender neutral term 'human'? Much easier.

1. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Consent which is given through the democratic process.

Our founders purposely made it difficult to change government. Their thought was that it's better to keep things as they are until enough people stood up and said they wanted change. They understood that 51%/49% always leads to disaster.

Yes, I guess that is why you have elections every 4 years. They are not going to wait until enough people finally say that Obama should go, he is simply up for reelection every 4 years, where he has to regain the consent of the governed. And after 2 terms he has to go. The same goes for everyone in congress and the state legislature.

On one hand, you say it's up to the people to make the right decisions and vote. On the other hand, you imply a congress that can't do any thing is bad.

So which is it?

Its both. Its crisis outside, laws have to be enacted, things need to be done but congress just sits around and does nothing. Well great, a government that is paralyzed is worthless and will lead to the ruination of the country. You can see it happen, things that need to be done don't get done, people are unhappy (congress is now rated at the same level as dog poo) the country goes to hell.

But sure, if your objective is to have a government that is completely in gridlock and does not do its job, then great, keep up the good work. Just don't get angry if the rest of the world moves on while the US slowly slips into some feudal dark age.

And I'm still not sure you understand the difference between our Washington DC and our states. We have 50 independand and SOVERIGN states who've agreed to allow a central authority WITH LIMITED POWER to take care of a very small list of items BEST handled by a central authority. That list was written down also at the time of our founding. But because of incrementalism and precedence (now always decided 4/5 or 5/4) allowed by people who are "more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable", power has been migrating towards Washington DC for over 100 years now.

You still vote for the governments of those sovereign states of yours don't you? What I said applies to voting for state level governments as much as it applies to federal level government. Unless of course the idea is to have states get stuck in a gridlock as well.

Its both. Its crisis outside, laws have to be enacted, things need to be done but congress just sits around and does nothing. Well great, a government that is paralyzed is worthless and will lead to the ruination of the country. You can see it happen, things that need to be done don't get done, people are unhappy (congress is now rated at the same level as dog poo) the country goes to hell.

But sure, if your objective is to have a government that is completely in gridlock and does not do its job, then great, keep up the good work. Just don't get angry if the rest of the world moves on while the US slowly slips into some feudal dark age.

Sometimes, the best course of action is to do nothing.

If you can't get enough agreement on an issue to move forward on it immediately in Congress, it almost certainly isn't important enough to require it.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Don't assume Europeans haven't. Europeans see the flaws in your system, the same as they see the flaws in our own systems - perhaps that is why the EU is a doomed project, the people don't want to fall into the same trap as the USA has.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

As an ex-european living in the US, I see one flaw with US government. It always runs as a coalition government, where 2 parties share power based on their relative control of house/senate/presidency. By staggering elections (House and senate elected 1/3 every 2 years, president every 4th), you ensure that you can never get any radical change. Given the current gridlock, a winner takes all system might be much better. I suggest that the entire house/senate/president are elected once every 4 years. That way, the winners get 4 years to either solve (or screw up) the country and they can't evade responsibility. Constant rolling elections every 2 years protect unpopular politicians/parties and limit the ability of angry voters to remove them form office.

---

I think Americans are the most wonderful people
in the world. You can always count on Americans
to be right there to lend a hand and help out; why,
these people make me happy.
I just don't understand how any one could ever
offer up even one word of complaint against them.
I can only hope the rest of the world
will be able to step up and see what Americans
themselves see in each other. I am so
glad there are Americans in America.......

---

As an ex-european living in the US, I see one flaw with US government. It always runs as a coalition government, where 2 parties share power based on their relative control of house/senate/presidency. By staggering elections (House and senate elected 1/3 every 2 years, president every 4th), you ensure that you can never get any radical change. Given the current gridlock, a winner takes all system might be much better. I suggest that the entire house/senate/president are elected once every 4 years. That way, the winners get 4 years to either solve (or screw up) the country and they can't evade responsibility. Constant rolling elections every 2 years protect unpopular politicians/parties and limit the ability of angry voters to remove them form office.

The US House, Senate, and Presidential term lengths and elections are set up the way they are for a Reason.

Under the original Constitution, the House was the only place in the Federal Government where the People directly elected their Representatives. The Senate and the President were 'elected/appointed' by the State Governments.

The House was given a LOT of power in the Federal Government. The Constitution mandates that ALL Revenue (taxes) legislation MUST originate in the House. By custom, all Spending Legislation originates in the House as well, but that is only custom.

In order to make the House more responsive to the people, they were given 2 year terms. That is to say that it is easier to throw the bad ones out of office (since there are no recall elections at the Federal level).

The Senate was given 6 year terms, since they were appointed by the State governments (which presumably made them somewhat more unlikely they would be bad ones). Since the Senate was envisioned as a continuing body (as opposed to the House, which goes away and gets completely re-elected every 2 years) the Senate elections were separated into 3 roughly equal sized groups, and staggered, 1/3 of the Senate getting appointed every 2 years.

The President, being elected by the State Legislatures, they split the difference and made the President's term 4 years. By custom started by George Washington, the President only served a maximum of 2 terms until FDR managed to get elected to 4 terms. A Constitutional Amendment got ratified soon thereafter putting directly into the Constitution George Washington's custom.

The President is still elected by the State Legislatures today (see electoral college)... There IS NO popular nationwide vote for President. The US Constitution places the process directly on the State Legislatures, ONLY, and does NOT mandate any elections by the people, anywhere in the process. By custom, each State holds a 'beauty contest' on 'election day' every 4 years to determine how they should vote, but that is only Custom. The Constitution does NOT even require that much.

In 1913, the 17th Amendment changed the Senators from being elected by their state's legislature to being elected by the people in that state. This greatly weakened the power of the State Legislatures, and quite arguably directly led to much of the mess we are in today.

I understand your desire to improve things, but I am hesitant to mess with things further without a LOT of thought on the subject. Things have a way of having unintended consequences, and right now we have about all of those we can stand.

About gridlock, you mention it like it was a bad thing. We do not want whatever party that might have the majority going off half-cocked in acting on something. Remember those 'unintended consequences'?

Our system was DESIGNED to be slow and deliberate... not speedy-speedy-rush-rush. Gridlock isn't a defect, it is a feature.

One thing many people do not understand about political thought in the USA is that there is a DEEP distrust of centralized Authority, with good reason.

Case in point: The Texas Legislature. By the Texas Constitution, the Texas Legislature meets only once every 2 years in regular session, for only 140 days, maximum. After that, they go back home. If any high-priority issues pop up, the Texas Governor (and ONLY the Texas Governor) can call them back into a Special Session (lasting a maximum of 30 days) and they can consider ONLY the issue(s) listed by the Governor in his Proclamation calling them back into session.

Here in Texas, we have a saying: "The Legislature isn't in session... Good! We're safe!"

We don't even trust the Legislature of our own State, much less the danged Federal Government.

Another benefit of this is that members of the Texas Legislature kinda have to have a REAL job. If they had to live on what they are paid by the state ($35,400 per 2-year term, or $17,700 a year) they would, without a doubt, be on 'welfare' if they had any size of a family at all. ;P

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Guy..

Noting the 17th Amendment, Right/White, etc. with Мишель, or any other European, will just confuse them.

Having lived in Europe many years ago. May I ask this question to any European in this Board:

17th ammendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

We do have the ability to look things up over here in the free world.

Since 1945, The USA has been the paramount Military, and Economic Power in The World. (Fading now)

And look where it's got you.

Why haven't Europeans educated themselves regarding the Basic Governmental System in The USA?

Probably because we looked at it and thought "Geez, i'm glad i don't live there!".

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Мишель, I can't seem to convey any real meaning to you.

Come over here and start walking up and down the street with a sign that says, "we need to vote for the RIGHT people!" and see how fast the NAACP/ACLU comes after you and places you at the top of the news hour on MSNBC as a racist.

That still doesn't explain why that is supposedly racist.

You keep saying you have always argued for a government that enacts tight regulations in the economic sphere and then said people are free to do whatever they want, vote for whoever they want, say whatever they want and believe in whatever they want. Which is it? Can't have both.

Yes you can. Life is more than just economics. Regulating certain aspects of the economy does in no way affect your right to believe in whatever god you like, nor does it ban you from starting up your own business or vote for an independent party.

Its clear that you think in very black and white terms. Either you give businesses total freedom and that means freedom for everyone, or you tell businesses that they can't do certain things and suddenly you are not even free to worship whatever God you like.

And I see you conveniantly skipped over point #2 about what history HATH SHOWN.

History hath shown lots of things. It has shown power corrupts. It has shown that countries with ineffective governments fail and turn to anarchy. It has shown that unregulated free market capitalism is not good for 99% of the people. These historic lessons are also in direct conflict with each other. So whats your point?

And the premise of congress sitting around doing nothing is a bad thing? Well, I guess that's something that's at the base of the argument between the producers and the takers. I believe it's better for congress to be in gridlock than congress making changes for light and transient causes (see point #2).

Changes such as approving the budget? Or approving the appointment of ambassadors? Signing in laws that went through the whole legislative progress, a progress that was designed for the explicit purpose of making a law?

As for the states, the 17th amendment was a mistake IMHO. This significantly shifted power away from the states to Washington DC.

Ah so now we are cherry picking the constitution.

This country is TOO BIG to be run by a couple of people in Washington DC.

Which is why states do most of the more day to day policies and are more important in policies that directly affect people.

My impression is that you believe that concentrating all power into the hands of a few under the illusion it's what the people voted for is a good thing. Well I guess it depends how old you are and how long you've been witness to what's actually happening here in the states. The exemptions from the "open meeting" laws, the "classified" papers and briefings to our elected representatives, the reliance on the short-term memory people have, the promises of fixing all our societal woes, the excuses, the blame, the compartmentalization of people into groups and the pitting one against the other while claiming equality and freedom for all, the tricks, the half-truths, the continuous pounding by the 24 hour news cycle of propaganda which parsed word by word can be the truth if you are unaware of other relevent factors... all fooling all of the people some of the time and some of the people all the time...

A minority of us see it and there's nothing we can do about it but slow it down a bit.

Ah so instead of listening to what the majority wants, we should listen to what a minority wants because this minorities views and opinions supersede the views and opinions of everyone else. I don't think you don't understand what the purpose of democracy is.

Take our Affordable Care Act. It was just deemed an overwhelming success. The supporting news and the white house just claimed less than 1/3 of 1 percent of our population signed up under the ACA--and it is now sustainable.

You should check your math. 7 million people signed up for the ACA, that is a bit more than 1/3 of 1% of the American population. Unless of course you think America has more than 700 2.1 billion citizens.

Don't know how many of those people didn't have health care before, don't know how many of those people signed up for medicare, don't know how many of those people are first time users of health care, don't know how many people have made their first payment--don't know don't know don't know--BUT IT'S NOW A COMPLETE SUCCESS!

Indeed, you don't know. So why are you pretending you have an informed opinion on the subject?

It can no longer be repealed. The long list of outright lies during the congressional debates, a brief moment in time when the democrats had the house, the senate and the white house,--not one single republican voted for it--and 5 democrat senators had to be bribed to vote for it--and Nancy Pelosi saying we have to pass it to find out what's in it--and the promise that it'll lower health care costs by an average of $2,500/year--and the pomise that if you like your doctor/insurance, you can keep them--and the almost 40 changes to the law dictated unconstitutionally by our president since enacting it--and on and on... Now Washington has their foot in the door to take over 1/6 of our economy and tell doctors what they get paid and individuals what health care they are *authorized* by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to receive. Ya, that's freedom to do whatever they want, vote for whoever they want, say whatever they want and believe in whatever they want.

I don't believe the ACA has any provisions that state ACA recipients must forever vote Democrat, become Atheist and never utter a single bit of criticism on the almighty federal government. Your statement is utter nonsense.

That along with a whole bunch of flawed non arguments.

Take our national debt, how our federal reserve is handling it, what our representatives are doing about it, what our president is doing about it--because of grid lock in congress, our federal deficit is on a downward trend--GUESS WHAT? He'll take credit for it because he's being FORCED to cut spending. (google "LIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR BILL CLINTON" -- but don't pay any attention to who had the house and -- by law where all appropriations/spending originate so it'll be easier to believe it was all Obama's doing as a great leader.)

Guess what, thanks to your gridlock financial markets are starting to lose trust in the United States ability to pay back their loans. The financial markets are starting to lose confidence that the American political system works, and they worry what kind of effects that has on the American economy. Your little gridlock will cause more economic harm than it solves by forcing to cut spending.

You operate under the flawed assumptions that each of these assertions should be mutually exclusive to the other.

1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.

One does not exclude the other. Capitalism and greed are by no means assurances that people actually end up rich. Quite the opposite in fact. Capitalism will only make a tiny group of people rich, the rest...not so much. And greed may work as a motivator but it in no way means it will make you rich.

2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.

Here we see a causal relation. They think they are victims because they are subsidized. Subsidies mean they are incapable to survive on their own, even if they work hard to earn enough money to do so. So, they feel they are victim of a system that is unfair to them. They work hard and they still need to rely on others for enough money to survive.

3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.

This is just completely unrelated.

4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.

Just because you have representatives somewhere doesn't mean those representatives do a good job.

5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

Poverty is relative. Are you saying that a poor American is not poor because he has more stuff than someone living in an African slum?

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

[/quote]
Well I'm pretty sure no American wants America to be more like Africa. Maybe they want America to be more like Europe. But if you were to apply Europe to the previous statement, you would look ridiculous. American and Europe are on the same wealth level. We have everything Americans have. And sometimes even more (like good quality healthcare for a fraction of the cost).

Don't know how many of those people didn't have health care before, don't know how many of those people signed up for medicare, don't know how many of those people are first time users of health care, don't know how many people have made their first payment--don't know don't know don't know--BUT IT'S NOW A COMPLETE SUCCESS!

Indeed, you don't know. So why are you pretending you have an informed opinion on the subject?

Well, maybe he read that great bastion of lefty-liberalism, The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/us/politics/deadline-near-health-signups-show-disparity.html?_r=0

But those numbers may not reveal much. Federal officials do not know how many of those who selected plans were previously uninsured, or how many actually paid their premiums.

You should check your math. 7 million people signed up for the ACA, that is a bit more than 1/3 of 1% of the American population. Unless of course you think America has more than 700 2.1 billion citizens.

Ok, so he made a math error. We all do so, from time to time. But then again, the REAL issue is what is the net gain in the number of people insured in the USA. Yes, there were loads of signups. But then also there were a LOT of people that lost their insurance they had because of the ACA and had to go to to the exchanges.

What is the net gain? Nobody, at this time, truly knows.

Guess what, thanks to your gridlock financial markets are starting to lose trust in the United States ability to pay back their loans. The financial markets are starting to lose confidence that the American political system works, and they worry what kind of effects that has on the American economy. Your little gridlock will cause more economic harm than it solves by forcing to cut spending.

Hmm.. Perhaps the main reason the financial markets are starting to doubt that the US Federal Government can pay back their loans is the sheer size of the debt. The gridlock may be slowing down fixing the problem, but it is also slowing down its getting WORSE.

Мишель, I can't seem to convey any real meaning to you.

Come over here and start walking up and down the street with a sign that says, "we need to vote for the RIGHT people!" and see how fast the NAACP/ACLU comes after you and places you at the top of the news hour on MSNBC as a racist.

That still doesn't explain why that is supposedly racist.

If you do not understand WHY that statement can be considered racist in the USA, perhaps you should just stay off the subject.

Мишель,
Among many Europeans, the people in the USA have a reputation for being knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. In some cases, that reputation may be deserved.

But then isn't Europe the pinnacle of Culture and Reason?

Your rhetoric is growing increasingly sharp and pointed, and you are displaying less tolerance and understanding of other's points of view. Particularly when the others live under a system, and you don't.

Perhaps you need to soften your rhetoric a bit. You are beginning to sound like a... whats the word... oh yeah... a некультурный American.

Мишель, telling me "people need to vote white" is not racist here in the U.S. is telling me not to believe my own eyes and ears. Your eyes and ears have not seen in the Netherlands what my eyes and ears have seen here in the U.S.

I never said you should vote white, why do you people insist I say people should vote white? Because I say vote for the right people? Since when does right=white? I don't care who you vote for, as long as its not an idiot who rather paralyzes the government and prevent it from doing its most basic job than solving problems by working with everyone else in the government.

Anyways, the rest is just going to be us repeating the same stuff we have already stated a dozen times before. Its clear our views are to different to reach a conclusion other than 'lets agree to disagree'.

Мишель, telling me "people need to vote white" is not racist here in the U.S. is telling me not to believe my own eyes and ears. Your eyes and ears have not seen in the Netherlands what my eyes and ears have seen here in the U.S.

I never said you should vote white, why do you people insist I say people should vote white? Because I say vote for the right people? Since when does right=white? I don't care who you vote for, as long as its not an idiot who rather paralyzes the government and prevent it from doing its most basic job than solving problems by working with everyone else in the government.

Anyways, the rest is just going to be us repeating the same stuff we have already stated a dozen times before. Its clear our views are to different to reach a conclusion other than 'lets agree to disagree'.

I agree with you, i haven't observed you say 'vote white' or any variations on that. Guy does have a habit of misrepresenting words, he told me i was racist for using the word 'niggle'.
Freud had a theory on this..

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

I'm discussing an American trying to attribute to us things we've never said.
Is such behaviour normally considered acceptable in America?

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

I'm discussing an American trying to attribute to us things we've never said.
Is such behaviour normally considered acceptable in America?

Again a typical European attack. (Is it acceptable in Europe?)

Of course not, but as you're always so quick to point out, Europe is not America (thankfully), hence the question.

Guy (whom I don't normally agree with) explains American Sarcasm. Same false accusation against him.

He explains again. Same false accusation against him.

Do kindly point me to these 'explanations'.

These are the last two Posts from Europeans regarding Guy:

I never said you should vote white, why do you people insist I say people should vote white?

I agree with you, i haven't observed you say 'vote white' or any variations on that. Guy does have a habit of misrepresenting words, he told me i was racist for using the word 'niggle'.

What exactly is the level of your ignorance of American Sarcasm? What is so difficult after an explanation?

Presumably then America has redefined sarcasm, because what i've seen here is not sarcasm, but rather an attempt to twist ones persons words by another in order to accuse the first of saying something they have not.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.