Reasons the U.S. political system is ridiculous

[milton waddams]

I came up with five. There are others. What else can the rest of you come up with?

1. Supreme Court is given lifetime appointments but no other branch of government is.
2. Supreme Court is not directly elected by the people, but the President and Congress are.
3. Congress has no term limits but the Presidency does.
4. The system is dominated by two parties who have a lot more in common then not. Both parties systematically complain about third parties even though third parties represent an expansion of the democratic process.
5. The electoral college. If it might have been useful 200 years ago, many feel it wore out its welcome a long time ago.

 

[ChefChiTown]

1. Stop making threads
2. Stop making threads
3. Stop making threads
4. Eat a spoonful of my dad's cum
5. Stop making threads

 

[Bone]

why should the same population that voted in George W. Bush be trusted to vote for Supreme Court justices?

what's wrong with a two party system? you like Italy's system better? the 2 party system insures that things are kept basically the same which has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. why change it now with no guarantee that things will get better and a good chance it could be disastrous in fragmenting the country?

those are just two obvious objections to your list. i have many more but i don't want to waste any more of my time.

 

[pikachar]

I came up with five.
1. Supreme Court is given lifetime appointments but no other branch of government is.
2. Supreme Court is not directly elected by the people, but the President and Congress are.

Two main reasons for those 2...
A) The Judges are supposed to overlap Presidents so there is no "Democrat or Republican" fill-ups (i.e. replace all the judges so if it's pro party A, it's looked over and "rubber stamped")

B) There is no Article like Article 22 (Presidency Limitations to 10 years consecutive and no more than 2 consecutive elected terms) for Judges, so don't like it, add a bill to congress.

3. Congress has no term limits but the Presidency does.

Look at point B above, it's not riduclous, it's law... don't like it tell your congressman and get a bill passed, good luck since it's his seat you might make vacant though.

4. The system is dominated by two parties who have a lot more in common then not. Both parties systematically complain about third parties even though third parties represent an expansion of the democratic process.
5. The electoral college. If it might have been useful 200 years ago, many feel it wore out its welcome a long time ago.

Wow, you know both Dems and GOP canidates attack 3rd partys then swallow them whole... The only party that ever had a shot was Teddy's Bull Moose Party, and he got Electoral votes. The Electoral College makes the politics split into 2 factions, since that really what it takes to get a majority (I mean think if we had 3 strong parties, the office of President would be a nightmare getting 281 electoral votes)

 

[HeartBroker]

why should the same population that voted in George W. Bush be trusted to vote for Supreme Court justices?

Perhaps because the same people voted in Obama? :dunno:

 

[YMIHERE]

Congress has no term limits but the Presidency does.

There are term limits on Congress. It's called elections.

 

[Will E Worm]

4. The system is dominated by two parties who have a lot more in common then not. Both parties systematically complain about third parties even though third parties represent an expansion of the democratic process.

I agree with this. The "two" party system is actually one party.

Milton Waddams
The squirrely looking guy in your office who mumbles a lot about nothing and eventually sets the building on fire.
Milton Waddams: "And I said, I don't care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I'm, I'm quitting,.. I'm going to quit. And, and I told Dom too, because they've moved my desk... four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see... the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched... from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn't bind up as much,.. and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it's not okay because if they take my stapler then I'll have to... I'll set the building on fire..."

 

[Legzman]

you could only come up with 5 reasons? You must not pay much attention...

 

[Psychology]

1)The people have no say in the political/legal system
2)The legal system doesn't apply to celebrities. If I get a Felony, I lose my job. Simple as that. If a celebrity gets a Felony, it's no big deal, they get special treatment, and in some cases it even raises their appeal.

 

[milton waddams]

ChefChiTown: You are so funny. Someone should give you an award.

Bone: "the 2 party system insures that things are kept basically the same which has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. why change it now with no guarantee that things will get better and a good chance it could be disastrous in fragmenting the country?" this is ridiculous. there is a growing number of people who are alienated by the two parties and I say for very good reasons. there would be even more if it weren't for the two parties manipulating people by fear into not voting for third parties. your logic is so full of holes i hardly even want to spend the time typing a reply. For example, if there is no absolute guarantee anything will get better, and if everyone took that attitude, no one would have ever done anything in human history that in some sense of the word represented progress. think about it.

Pikachar: First of all, it is absurd to say "it's not ridiculous, it's law." How the hell can a law not be ridiculous. If there was a law that said it is o.k. to rape children, i could understand why people would call that ridiculous and not say something as outlandish as "it's not ridiculous, it's law." come on. i really wonder about some people's ability to think clearly. Second, i understand what you are saying about "rubber-stamping," but once again your reasoning doesn't quite hold up. if there is a democratic presidency, senate, and congress, should this be outlawed since there is a danger of "rubber-stamping"? Also, it is theoretically possible that even with the current way of appointing supreme court justices that you could get all nine members being part of 1 party. just think a lilttle and you can figure out how this could happen. As for third parties, Ralph Nader got 2.7 percent in 2000 which ain't bad considering that no other third party in the last 15 years has got higher then that. If Nader wasn't systematically denigraded as well as being denied access to presidential debates, he might have a better shot. Finally, you don't understand what i and others are saying about the electoral college. The problem is if someone gets the popular vote and loses the electoral vote, they lose the election. this is absurd and outdated.

YMIHERE: I hope you are not serious. A term limit is not the same thing as having to run for re-election. A term limit, as with the presidency means you can only be elected so many times. This does not apply to congress. Hence we have a clear example of a logical absurdity which is really a disgrace given we are talking about the "sacred" values of democratic government.

Legzman: I didn't say i could ONLY come up with five.

In conclusion: some of you people are seriously retarded.

 

[Magnet]

Look at point B above, it's not riduclous, it's law... don't like it tell your congressman and get a bill passed, good luck since it's his seat You Might make vacant though.

Uhh...I think you kinda proved his point for him.

If a majority of the people want this changed then it should be changed. But if it actually is controlled by our rep. then the Citizens arent really in control now are they?

 

[ChefChiTown]

ChefChiTown: You are so funny. Someone should give you an award.

...I know.

 

[stampede2873]

...I know.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I can see you saying that and giving a wink!!

 

[ChefChiTown]

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I can see you saying that and giving a wink!!

If by "wink" you meant "gently swaying my naked penis back and forth, like it was dancing at a Phish concert", then YES...you would be correct.

 

[stoopidphuck]

I think the reason why the Supreme Court appointments are for life, is so their decisions are not motivated by popular opinion. Their role is to interpret the laws, since few laws are written with out some vagueness and make sure those laws are constitutional.

 

[milton waddams]

I think the reason why the Supreme Court appointments are for life, is so their decisions are not motivated by popular opinion. Their role is to interpret the laws, since few laws are written with out some vagueness and make sure those laws are constitutional.

Your second sentence only explains what they do and adds nothing to your point. Now your point is ridiculous on multiple levels. First, why not use your same logic and apply it to the congress and president? Let's have state legislatures appoint the president and the congress and give them life terms. Then we wouldn't have to worry about anyone being annoyed by that pesky thing called "popular will." Second, supreme court justices already are being picked based on popular will, but in a very indirect way since they are appointed by the president and the president is supposed to represent the popular will. If you don't want them being motivated by any kind of popular will, why not just let bill gates appoint them? Then you don't have to worry about anybody being elected and then using some indirect sense of popular will to pick a judge.

Let me put it to you in another way which might be easier to understand. You are saying the judges shouldn't be picked on millions of voter's preferences, only on the preferences of one single guy who is president? Does that sound like it makes sense?

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Sure, it has some flaws, but if you go up about 10 threads, there's a story about some porn stars in Iran being arrested for making porn movies. They were mostly women, and the offense carries the death penalty. I bet they wish they had those judges...but they don't, and along with many other rights, like gun ownership, and the right to criticize there leaders, they will probably sit in a cell that makes Gitmo look like a resort, until they are "found" guilty, then beheaded for offending "allah". I would like what America has to be better...but it sure as hell could be worse!

 

[maildude]

3. Congress has no term limits but the Presidency does.

Because us nutty Americans love to see good 'ol boys like Robert Byrd and Ted Stevens try and stagger their way into some hearing, then babble on incoherently and drool live on C-Span.

 

[bendover]

Your second sentence only explains what they do and adds nothing to your point. Now your point is ridiculous on multiple levels. First, why not use your same logic and apply it to the congress and president? Let's have state legislatures appoint the president and the congress and give them life terms. Then we wouldn't have to worry about anyone being annoyed by that pesky thing called "popular will." Second, supreme court justices already are being picked based on popular will, but in a very indirect way since they are appointed by the president and the president is supposed to represent the popular will. If you don't want them being motivated by any kind of popular will, why not just let bill gates appoint them? Then you don't have to worry about anybody being elected and then using some indirect sense of popular will to pick a judge.

Let me put it to you in another way which might be easier to understand. You are saying the judges shouldn't be picked on millions of voter's preferences, only on the preferences of one single guy who is president? Does that sound like it makes sense?

Milton, I'm not sure its really ridiculous at all. The supreme court is in place to decide matters in dispute with rulings that within the limits of the laws. They are given some latitude with respect of deciding interpretation of the laws, but they can't decide to make it illegal for Milton to post to Internet forums. They can decide that a law to make it illegal for Milton to post on Internet forums is either constitutional or unconstitutional. If they were bound by popular pressure, may people would like a law preventing Milton from Posting on Internet forums, even if that law is unconstitutional. So if the justices had terms and were fearful of being voted out of office because poling data showed that 99.9999 percent of those poled support a law preventing Milton from posting on Internet forums, they could make a judgment based on pressure instead of what is a matter of law.

Supreme court justices are not appointed by the president. Their appointments are based on a nomination from the president. It is the Senate that confirms the nomination and seats them. You could have a liberal president that nominates a liberal justice and conservative Senate. The Senate will not likely seat that justice. They will have to collective look for someone more centered in order for the justice to be confirmed.

Congress and the presidents collectively make the laws. They, with the states can change the constitution. Therefore their powers are greater and need to kept under a closer eye.

Years ago the Senators were appointed and not elected to their seats. I don't think they were life terms.

I don't don't think it would be a problem for congress or the president to be appointed to their seats by state officials, voted into office by the people, as long as they are not life appointments, because of the powers they share to create laws. It would be kind of like a Parliamentary system

Parliamentary systems work very well. The head of the government, the prime minister is voted into office by the members of Parliament. If the government does a bad job or makes laws that are consider wrong by the people, they vote new members of Parliament and if the ruling party is voted out of power, then a new prime minister is elected.

To make it easy for you Milton, life time terms of the justices are OK because they decide whether laws are legal within guidelines, not make them. Not OK for law makers and the president to have life terms because they make laws.

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

Perhaps because the same people voted in Obama? :dunno:

Obama has not nominated any in yet...