timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

The criticism of Obama by conservatives this morning for not going to France seems hypocritical, because they would have been sure to criticize him had he gone- they would have called it another "Kumbaya moment".

That being said, Im not sure why he didn't go. It's an extremely minor issue, but it does seem like a mistake.

Even more mysterious to me is that Eric Holder was actually there, but just decided to do other things, such as a spot for Meet The Press.

i don't get that either.

 

[jon_mx]

The criticism of Obama by conservatives this morning for not going to France seems hypocritical, because they would have been sure to criticize him had he gone- they would have called it another "Kumbaya moment".

That being said, Im not sure why he didn't go. It's an extremely minor issue, but it does seem like a mistake.

Anytime conservatives open their mouth it irritates you. You even seem to agree with them. This is our political process, the opposition party questions and tries to find fault. It has been going on since day 1 from any and all parties. Only now we don't have duels to settle disagreements just rhetoric.

 

[jon_mx]

The criticism of Obama by conservatives this morning for not going to France seems hypocritical, because they would have been sure to criticize him had he gone- they would have called it another "Kumbaya moment".

That being said, Im not sure why he didn't go. It's an extremely minor issue, but it does seem like a mistake.

Even more mysterious to me is that Eric Holder was actually there, but just decided to do other things, such as a spot for Meet The Press.

i don't get that either.

I would believe France has no interest in receiving 'help' from Holder. A wise move by the French.

 

[timschochet]

The criticism of Obama by conservatives this morning for not going to France seems hypocritical, because they would have been sure to criticize him had he gone- they would have called it another "Kumbaya moment".

That being said, Im not sure why he didn't go. It's an extremely minor issue, but it does seem like a mistake.

Anytime conservatives open their mouth it irritates you. You even seem to agree with them. This is our political process, the opposition party questions and tries to find fault. It has been going on since day 1 from any and all parties. Only now we don't have duels to settle disagreements just rhetoric.

jon I know you disagree with me on this but it is my firm belief that the criticism against Obama has been the most irrational in my adult lifetime. That's why I am so vocal about conservatives. Right now conservatism has reached a level of extremism for which there is no analogy among Democrats since the Vietnam War. Had I been an adult then, nearly all of my criticism would have been against liberalism because they went insane. Now it's conservatives who have gone insane (some of them anyhow).

 

[jon_mx]

The criticism was louder and worse under Bush. Whether the criticism was more rationale is subjective, but the volume was higher. Obama has brought on a lot of this himself starting with how he passed Obamacare. Obama took a dump on his campaign promise of working together and having transparency.

 

[timschochet]

The criticism of Obama by conservatives this morning for not going to France seems hypocritical, because they would have been sure to criticize him had he gone- they would have called it another "Kumbaya moment".

That being said, Im not sure why he didn't go. It's an extremely minor issue, but it does seem like a mistake.

Even more mysterious to me is that Eric Holder was actually there, but just decided to do other things, such as a spot for Meet The Press.

i don't get that either.

I would believe France has no interest in receiving 'help' from Holder. A wise move by the French.

i don't believe the world in general shares your low opinion and disdain for this man.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Dez caught that ball. Classic case of the rules getting in the way of common sense and the game intelf. Having said that, any time something bad happens to the Cowboys on the field, I'm not exactly shedding a tear.

 

[timschochet]

The criticism was louder and worse under Bush. Whether the criticism was more rationale is subjective, but the volume was higher. Obama has brought on a lot of this himself starting with how he passed Obamacare. Obama took a dump on his campaign promise of working together and having transparency.

It wasn't louder and worse. And the criticism against Bush was mostly because of Iraq. Compared to that issue, Obamacare is almost irrelevant. Which goes to my point: Obama has been a mostly mediocre President. Nothing that he's done has been close to worthy of the vitriol against him.

 

[jon_mx]

The criticism of Obama by conservatives this morning for not going to France seems hypocritical, because they would have been sure to criticize him had he gone- they would have called it another "Kumbaya moment".

That being said, Im not sure why he didn't go. It's an extremely minor issue, but it does seem like a mistake.

Even more mysterious to me is that Eric Holder was actually there, but just decided to do other things, such as a spot for Meet The Press.

i don't get that either.

I would believe France has no interest in receiving 'help' from Holder. A wise move by the French.

i don't believe the world in general shares your low opinion and disdain for this man.

. They should. Holder is about 0 for 100 in properly handling situations. Can't think of one situation that was handled appropriately or one where he did it come across as a partisan d-bag. Not saying the Justice Department has been terrible, but in high-profe situations where Holder was front and center, they were absolute cluster-####s.

 

[timschochet]

i just heard on the radio that 33 million new jobs have been created under Obama, and 1 million new jobs were created under George W. Bush.

Assuming this is true, how do we explain it? I have always believed that cutting taxes and clamping down on government spending (and especially excess red trade) would stimulate the economy and create more jobs. Yet Obama is the 5th modern US President (after FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Clinton) to do the exact opposite: more taxes, more spending, more regulations, and the result, just as with those previous Democratic Presidents, has been eventual economic prosperity.

Does this suggest that Keynes was right after all and that conservative economic thinking is wrong? I am not making that argument but it is interesting.

 

[Bogeys]

i just heard on the radio that 33 million new jobs have been created under Obama, and 1 million new jobs were created under George W. Bush.

Assuming this is true, how do we explain it? I have always believed that cutting taxes and clamping down on government spending (and especially excess red trade) would stimulate the economy and create more jobs. Yet Obama is the 5th modern US President (after FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Clinton) to do the exact opposite: more taxes, more spending, more regulations, and the result, just as with those previous Democratic Presidents, has been eventual economic prosperity.

Does this suggest that Keynes was right after all and that conservative economic thinking is wrong? I am not making that argument but it is interesting.

False premise, look at the starting points.

 

[timschochet]

Can you summarize Bogeys?

 

[Bogeys]

Can you summarize Bogeys?

Not really because I am not sure exactly what you heard. But just looking at Bush Jr and Obama and off the top of my head Bush started with ~5% unemployment and Obama started with ~10 (I think those are close). So I will assume that your radio point was dealing with unemployment rate and net jobs.

 

[jon_mx]

i just heard on the radio that 33 million new jobs have been created under Obama, and 1 million new jobs were created under George W. Bush.

Assuming this is true, how do we explain it? I have always believed that cutting taxes and clamping down on government spending (and especially excess red trade) would stimulate the economy and create more jobs. Yet Obama is the 5th modern US President (after FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Clinton) to do the exact opposite: more taxes, more spending, more regulations, and the result, just as with those previous Democratic Presidents, has been eventual economic prosperity.

Does this suggest that Keynes was right after all and that conservative economic thinking is wrong? I am not making that argument but it is interesting.

Horrible fishing here Tim, unless you want us to believe you completely forgot about the banking crisis at the end of the Bush administration which caused the lose of over 10 million jobs in a matter of months. That was completely unrelated to economic policies of any individual president, but was several decade long buildup of a credit bubble caused by loose lending regulations. Obama benefited by his enormously lucky timing of taking over right after that bubble burst. The economy would have rebounded regardless of specific economic policies, but both TARRP and the stimulus were helpful.

 

[timschochet]

Can you summarize Bogeys?

Not really because I am not sure exactly what you heard. But just looking at Bush Jr and Obama and off the top of my head Bush started with ~5% unemployment and Obama started with ~10 (I think those are close). So I will assume that your radio point was dealing with unemployment rate and net jobs.

OK I see where you're going. What i heard is exactly what I wrote. Of course it's not the entire story, but it's enough to raise the question, especially given the history of the other Presidents I mentioned.Let's take one specific issue: for 4 years many highly respected conservative economists, like the editors of Forbes, have been insisting that Obamacare would be highly destructive to our economy. They made good reasonable arguments, mainly that small businesses would be hurt by all of the new regulations involved and that this would lead to far less growth and significant job loss. Yet it hasn't hsppened so far, and now the economy is booming. Is it going yo happen? Or did they get it wrong?

 

[Ilov80s]

i just heard on the radio that 33 million new jobs have been created under Obama, and 1 million new jobs were created under George W. Bush.

Assuming this is true, how do we explain it? I have always believed that cutting taxes and clamping down on government spending (and especially excess red trade) would stimulate the economy and create more jobs. Yet Obama is the 5th modern US President (after FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Clinton) to do the exact opposite: more taxes, more spending, more regulations, and the result, just as with those previous Democratic Presidents, has been eventual economic prosperity.

Does this suggest that Keynes was right after all and that conservative economic thinking is wrong? I am not making that argument but it is interesting.

Horrible fishing here Tim, unless you want us to believe you completely forgot about the banking crisis at the end of the Bush administration which caused the lose of over 10 million jobs in a matter of months. That was completely unrelated to economic policies of any individual president, but was several decade long buildup of a credit bubble caused by loose lending regulations. Obama benefited by his enormously lucky timing of taking over right after that bubble burst. The economy would have rebounded regardless of specific economic policies, but both TARRP and the stimulus were helpful.

I agree that you really need a bigger sample size to actually make a judgement on something like broad economic policy. Since there are so many variables that just can't be controlled, I wouldn't look at these results as anything close to a definitive statement. The truth it, if implemented properly under the right conditions, both approaches likely can both work and fail. I tend to think a balance towards the middle ground is the best approach.

 

[Ilov80s]

Can you summarize Bogeys?

Not really because I am not sure exactly what you heard. But just looking at Bush Jr and Obama and off the top of my head Bush started with ~5% unemployment and Obama started with ~10 (I think those are close). So I will assume that your radio point was dealing with unemployment rate and net jobs.

OK I see where you're going. What i heard is exactly what I wrote. Of course it's not the entire story, but it's enough to raise the question, especially given the history of the other Presidents I mentioned.Let's take one specific issue: for 4 years many highly respected conservative economists, like the editors of Forbes, have been insisting that Obamacare would be highly destructive to our economy. They made good reasonable arguments, mainly that small businesses would be hurt by all of the new regulations involved and that this would lead to far less growth and significant job loss. Yet it hasn't hsppened so far, and now the economy is booming. Is it going yo happen? Or did they get it wrong?

How long has Obamacare been in effect? I wouldn't think you could really draw conclusions on something that large scale for a decade or more.

 

[timschochet]

i just heard on the radio that 33 million new jobs have been created under Obama, and 1 million new jobs were created under George W. Bush.

Assuming this is true, how do we explain it? I have always believed that cutting taxes and clamping down on government spending (and especially excess red trade) would stimulate the economy and create more jobs. Yet Obama is the 5th modern US President (after FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Clinton) to do the exact opposite: more taxes, more spending, more regulations, and the result, just as with those previous Democratic Presidents, has been eventual economic prosperity.

Does this suggest that Keynes was right after all and that conservative economic thinking is wrong? I am not making that argument but it is interesting.

Horrible fishing here Tim, unless you want us to believe you completely forgot about the banking crisis at the end of the Bush administration which caused the lose of over 10 million jobs in a matter of months. That was completely unrelated to economic policies of any individual president, but was several decade long buildup of a credit bubble caused by loose lending regulations. Obama benefited by his enormously lucky timing of taking over right after that bubble burst. The economy would have rebounded regardless of specific economic policies, but both TARRP and the stimulus were helpful.

i don't fish. I am not blaming Bush; I agreed with many of his economic policies. But I'm interested in your last sentence. You seem to be conceding that more government spending can stimulate the economy. That goes against years of conservative thinking. If you believe this, why shouldn't we elect Democrats and let them spend? It's a serious question.

 

[timschochet]

Can you summarize Bogeys?

Not really because I am not sure exactly what you heard. But just looking at Bush Jr and Obama and off the top of my head Bush started with ~5% unemployment and Obama started with ~10 (I think those are close). So I will assume that your radio point was dealing with unemployment rate and net jobs.

OK I see where you're going. What i heard is exactly what I wrote. Of course it's not the entire story, but it's enough to raise the question, especially given the history of the other Presidents I mentioned.Let's take one specific issue: for 4 years many highly respected conservative economists, like the editors of Forbes, have been insisting that Obamacare would be highly destructive to our economy. They made good reasonable arguments, mainly that small businesses would be hurt by all of the new regulations involved and that this would lead to far less growth and significant job loss. Yet it hasn't hsppened so far, and now the economy is booming. Is it going yo happen? Or did they get it wrong?

How long has Obamacare been in effect? I wouldn't think you could really draw conclusions on something that large scale for a decade or more.

I agree. I've made that argument before several times. But Forbes and others said it would happen NOW, the economy would suffer NOW.

 

[Ilov80s]

Can you summarize Bogeys?

Not really because I am not sure exactly what you heard. But just looking at Bush Jr and Obama and off the top of my head Bush started with ~5% unemployment and Obama started with ~10 (I think those are close). So I will assume that your radio point was dealing with unemployment rate and net jobs.

OK I see where you're going. What i heard is exactly what I wrote. Of course it's not the entire story, but it's enough to raise the question, especially given the history of the other Presidents I mentioned.Let's take one specific issue: for 4 years many highly respected conservative economists, like the editors of Forbes, have been insisting that Obamacare would be highly destructive to our economy. They made good reasonable arguments, mainly that small businesses would be hurt by all of the new regulations involved and that this would lead to far less growth and significant job loss. Yet it hasn't hsppened so far, and now the economy is booming. Is it going yo happen? Or did they get it wrong?

How long has Obamacare been in effect? I wouldn't think you could really draw conclusions on something that large scale for a decade or more.

I agree. I've made that argument before several times. But Forbes and others said it would happen NOW, the economy would suffer NOW.

That sells better than..."in 5-10 years".

 

[Bogeys]

Can you summarize Bogeys?

Not really because I am not sure exactly what you heard. But just looking at Bush Jr and Obama and off the top of my head Bush started with ~5% unemployment and Obama started with ~10 (I think those are close). So I will assume that your radio point was dealing with unemployment rate and net jobs.

OK I see where you're going. What i heard is exactly what I wrote. Of course it's not the entire story, but it's enough to raise the question, especially given the history of the other Presidents I mentioned.Let's take one specific issue: for 4 years many highly respected conservative economists, like the editors of Forbes, have been insisting that Obamacare would be highly destructive to our economy. They made good reasonable arguments, mainly that small businesses would be hurt by all of the new regulations involved and that this would lead to far less growth and significant job loss. Yet it hasn't hsppened so far, and now the economy is booming. Is it going yo happen? Or did they get it wrong?

But Obamacare as passed has never been implemented, it has had major pieces delayed. Not sure how it will impact on the economy (nobody really does), but you can't really say someone got a prediction wrong when major things have changed since the prediction.

And I would disagree that the economy is booming. If you are at the top or heavily invested in Wall St you are doing well....otherwise not so much. Wages are stagnant and real spending power is flat for the middle class.

 

[jon_mx]

i just heard on the radio that 33 million new jobs have been created under Obama, and 1 million new jobs were created under George W. Bush.

Assuming this is true, how do we explain it? I have always believed that cutting taxes and clamping down on government spending (and especially excess red trade) would stimulate the economy and create more jobs. Yet Obama is the 5th modern US President (after FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Clinton) to do the exact opposite: more taxes, more spending, more regulations, and the result, just as with those previous Democratic Presidents, has been eventual economic prosperity.

Does this suggest that Keynes was right after all and that conservative economic thinking is wrong? I am not making that argument but it is interesting.

Horrible fishing here Tim, unless you want us to believe you completely forgot about the banking crisis at the end of the Bush administration which caused the lose of over 10 million jobs in a matter of months. That was completely unrelated to economic policies of any individual president, but was several decade long buildup of a credit bubble caused by loose lending regulations. Obama benefited by his enormously lucky timing of taking over right after that bubble burst. The economy would have rebounded regardless of specific economic policies, but both TARRP and the stimulus were helpful.

i don't fish. I am not blaming Bush; I agreed with many of his economic policies. But I'm interested in your last sentence. You seem to be conceding that more government spending can stimulate the economy. That goes against years of conservative thinking. If you believe this, why shouldn't we elect Democrats and let them spend? It's a serious question.

I think spending should increase/taxes decrease in economic down times and spending decrease/taxes increase in up times. Bush's tax cuts were largely unnecessary although they were wrongly criticized for being for the rich. They were as across the board for all taxpayers. Obama was correct to offer a stimulus, but it was too heavily weighted to the lower-income groups. Good for a quick boost, not that good for more lasting sustainable growth. Government spending is not evil, but it should not consume as much of the economy as it does. Each economic theory has its time and place. Neither side is necessarily correct or incorrect, but it is a matter of right timing. That is kind of why two-party system of government works, but it only works if either party does not stay in power too long.

 

[timschochet]

OK, that's a reasonable response. It certainly makes you sound more independent than you've portrayed yourself in this forum, at least on this issue.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

boring.......

 

[jon_mx]

OK, that's a reasonable response. It certainly makes you sound more independent than you've portrayed yourself in this forum, at least on this issue.

That is partly because a lot of stuff I have 'said' on this forum, I never said. Plus when I first started posting, I was used to more one-sided forums and not worrying about offending anyone. So I have toned down the rhetoric quite a bit. Well, unless I am trying to spin someone up after they post something stupid.

 

[timschochet]

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.



Sounds pretty much like they're not sovereign to me.

Now I have a question, and I know this is going to cause Yankee's head to explode, but I'll ask it anyhow- isn't the whole idea of states antiquated? Why do we even need them?

Let's suppose that we had county and city governments, and a large federal government, but no states. Senators were elected based on population centers. California would have 9 senators, Rhode Island would have none, North Dakota and South Dakota would have one combined, etc.) Would our society function much worse than it does now? It seems to me that the existence of states causes far more negative aspects than positive. Let me be quite frank as to what I mean: if the federal government wants evolution or global warming or gay rights or a creative way of learning math taught in each and every public school, I don't want the state of Texas able to refuse. Is that so unreasonable?

Bump for Yankee. Is this more interesting?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I have to be honest, I don't find your question particularly worth a debate. It's the false fairness doctrine. Your "side" isn't based in reality such that I need to come up with another side and debate from there.

 

[timschochet]

I have to be honest, I don't find your question particularly worth a debate. It's the false fairness doctrine. Your "side" isn't based in reality such that I need to come up with another side and debate from there.

Well that's too bad. I was frankly hoping somebody WOULD discuss this with me. It's not even something that I would call "my side"; more of a series of thoughts I've had for some time, stemming from the original thought that it seems unfair to me that California and Rhode Island have the same number of senators.

No worries though, we'll move on.

 

[timschochet]

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

There's a lot of stuff to discuss in this Section alone, so I'm going to break it down and raise some questions that occur to me:

1. Why did the Founding Fathers settle on 4 years? Why not 2 or 6?

2. I notice that when the Confederacy rewrote the Constitution in 1860, they expanded the Presidency to a 6 year term, but limited it to one term. Why did they choose to make this correction? What would be the difference between a 6 year, single term Presidency and what we have now?

3. Did the FF have in mind that the President could run for a 3rd, 4th, 5th term? Was this discussed?

4. Was the original plan to have the Vice-President run on the same "ticket", or to be elected separately?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I have to be honest, I don't find your question particularly worth a debate. It's the false fairness doctrine. Your "side" isn't based in reality such that I need to come up with another side and debate from there.

Well that's too bad. I was frankly hoping somebody WOULD discuss this with me. It's not even something that I would call "my side"; more of a series of thoughts I've had for some time, stemming from the original thought that it seems unfair to me that California and Rhode Island have the same number of senators.

No worries though, we'll move on.

But we've had that specific debate before. You are looking at Senators as a representative of the people and they aren't. They were never intended to be that. The states have their representation through the Senate. The House is where population comes into play. Each state is a co-equal in the system in terms of the Senate.

If anything, your idea to go by counties and municipalities is awful because of the unstatic nature of their borders. They are entities of the state. They only exist because of their parent state. If you eliminate the state you have a logisitcal problem where counties and towns are then controlled by the national government and in doing that you might as well get rid of counties and towns because their existence won't matter a great deal. And while there are some that abhore it, the ideal of local rule is very much important to the american system.

Beyond that, if you get rid of states you eliminate pretty much the entirety of the Constitution. Not to mention the actual entities that created and support it. The documents, without states, is almost useless. So you can't eliminate states without basically changing the very nature of this country and you can't do that and get a good result the way you seem to think you can. What you are advocating would become a civil war.

But back to the Senate - it's not unfair at all that New Jersey and California have the same Senators. Why do you think it's unfair? Because more people live there? Populations move. There is more to our country than the main population centers. Frankly, I find your opinion (and fatguy's) sociopathic in a political sense. We have more people here so we should control and have more power, right? Except this isn't a democracy and the system that we live under can't function as a democracy. Not to mention you are basically advocating the very essence of majority rule - something that your political opinions would never match up with. The protection of the minority in the political system is an important trait of our government.

If anything, your problem with the Senate is made worse by the 17th Amendment and not better. At least when the states controlled the body the body worked for their respective states. Now it's as close to what you say you want than you realize and you are still calling for changes because those obvious idiots on the east coast that have the audacity to not live on top of each other in large metropolitan centers can't possibly be allowed to have a voice in the system equal to mine, right? You got what you want, or at least as close to what you want as can be done within the Constitutional framework we have. And you hate it. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Two Deep]

I've always wondered why they prevented a former president from running again after sitting out a full term?

 

[Ilov80s]

I've always wondered why they prevented a former president from running again after sitting out a full term?

I think it could cause issues with loyalty and taking the new President seriously. Some people might just consider the new President a temporary fill in while Reagan, Clinton or some other more popular ex President is sitting his 1 term out before taking the seat back.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

There's a lot of stuff to discuss in this Section alone, so I'm going to break it down and raise some questions that occur to me:

1. Why did the Founding Fathers settle on 4 years? Why not 2 or 6?

2. I notice that when the Confederacy rewrote the Constitution in 1860, they expanded the Presidency to a 6 year term, but limited it to one term. Why did they choose to make this correction? What would be the difference between a 6 year, single term Presidency and what we have now?

3. Did the FF have in mind that the President could run for a 3rd, 4th, 5th term? Was this discussed?

4. Was the original plan to have the Vice-President run on the same "ticket", or to be elected separately?

1. 4 years was a balance. It's not too short to have the office constantly changin over like the House theoretically can. And it's not so long as to close itself into a monarchy or republican king/dictator.

2. Because they were stupid? The one term of 6 years was one of the plans for the real Constitution. If a President doesn't have to seek reelection he can "do the right thing" whatever that meant in 1861. The choose to make that change because most of the support for a 1/6 term came from the southern representatives in the convention and for whatever reason they still wanted it 100 years later.

What would be different? Hard to tell. Washington only serving until 1784 might not have been enough time for Hamilton to get the economy under control. If we assume Adams gets elected next, then he isn't in office when the crap really hit the fan with France - Jefferson would have been there, and give his support of France you could make the argument that we have some significant problems by the 3rd President in office. Even if we can assume the rough timeline for the world events that played out stayed the same, we wouldn't have had the military guys in office when they were because the wars wouldn't have been over. Monroe would have fought the war of 1812, not Madison. Andrew Jackson probably isn't elected. Harrison, Tyler, Polk and Taylor are all out of timeline if there are still battles going on in various places, but you can't assume that either because the guys in office at that time after Monroe were so different from each other. I guess you would need to piinpoint certain dramatic events to see if anything would be different - like the Civil War. Does it happen still? Probably. But does it happen sooner? If so, the world was a little different. Does it happen later? If so, we are so much more of a mess right now then we are if we made it this far.

Even if you take something as simple as WWII. FDR wouldn't have been there. Just keeping the guys that got elected in order, the President in 1941 would have been William McKinley (and the President right now would be Richard Nixon). But you can't do that either because we know when they all died. Cleveland died in 1908 but would have been elected in this hypo in 1934. So after the first 4 or 5 guys in the office you start running into timeline problems that you can't solve. In fact we never get some of the Presidents we had at all, which is a whole other level of impossibility.

Looking at just the political system, it is only 2 years less and there is no reelection. In the early years the President wouldn't have been too powerful probably. The question would be when does the office get to start gaining the power it has today? Hard to tell. Much of that was based on the men in the office just as much as all other events and things. And we are using our current sensibilities to answer the question which is hard as well.

Maybe you narrow it down and say that we made the change to 1/6 when we passed the 22nd Amendment in 1951. That would have meant that the next guy to get elected from that point would be 1/6. That means Eisenhower only serves to 1958. Does Kennedy run in 1958? Probably. TV isn't as big as it was in 1960 so does the debate between him and Nixon change at all? Maybe not. Kennedy gets his term. If Russia and Cuba follow their same timeline roughly, the Bay of Pigs and Cuba taking place in 1962 still happen, and Kennedy has been there for 4 years already. Does he still get assassinated? If he does, Johnson can fill the term but not run himself in 1965, so does Nixon get the office then? Vietnam is a different animal in 1965 than it was in 1968. At this point our timeline starts to get obliterated I think. If Nixon does win election there is no need at all for Watergate. So Gerald Ford is not President. Nixon leaves office in 1972. Who knows what is going on with Vietnam at that point. Is Bobby Kennedy still alive? Carter isn't running. We basically lose the 70's at this point. Reagain certainly runs in 1978. If he wins he serves until 1984. Does Bush run after him? He serves until 1990. That means Bill Clinton takes office in 1991? Maybe, but I doubt it. The world started changing drastically in what would be Bush 1's term from 85-91. Give Clinton 91-96. Bush gets 1997? Or does Gore win at that point? He might because the impeachment of Clinton probably doesn't happen the way it did if at all (Monica is too young to work there and Gingrich might not have the Contract with America). If Gore is there from 97-03 is Manbearpig running wild somewhere?

And if Gore got it, Does Bush II run in 04? Maybe. That gets him '10. Is Obama the game changer in 10 he was in 08?

Fun exercise. Impossible to figure out at all.

 

[RCon]

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.



Sounds pretty much like they're not sovereign to me.

Now I have a question, and I know this is going to cause Yankee's head to explode, but I'll ask it anyhow- isn't the whole idea of states antiquated? Why do we even need them?

Let's suppose that we had county and city governments, and a large federal government, but no states. Senators were elected based on population centers. California would have 9 senators, Rhode Island would have none, North Dakota and South Dakota would have one combined, etc.) Would our society function much worse than it does now? It seems to me that the existence of states causes far more negative aspects than positive. Let me be quite frank as to what I mean: if the federal government wants evolution or global warming or gay rights or a creative way of learning math taught in each and every public school, I don't want the state of Texas able to refuse. Is that so unreasonable?

Bump for Yankee. Is this more interesting?

Very simple, here. The reason that "two senators per state" isn't antiquated is that the smaller states would never have agreed to form a union in the first place without that stipulation, nor would the small states now agree to remain in the union were that stipulation removed.

 

[timschochet]

I've always wondered why they prevented a former president from running again after sitting out a full term?

It wasn't always. I think Theodore Roosevelt ran again in 1912 after sitting out 1908- the whole Bull Moose thing. He got shot for the effort.

 

[Ilov80s]

I've always wondered why they prevented a former president from running again after sitting out a full term?

It wasn't always. I think Theodore Roosevelt ran again in 1912 after sitting out 1908- the whole Bull Moose thing. He got shot for the effort.

Yep, he thought Taft was not a capable leader and created his own party which just split the Republican vote and got Woodrow Wilson elected.

 

[Two Deep]

I've always wondered why they prevented a former president from running again after sitting out a full term?

It wasn't always. I think Theodore Roosevelt ran again in 1912 after sitting out 1908- the whole Bull Moose thing. He got shot for the effort.

Yep, he thought Taft was not a capable leader and created his own party which just split the Republican vote and got Woodrow Wilson elected.

Interesting I'll have to go research that..Thanks

 

[tom22406]

Not sure if you went into the link I posted about Muhammed to ISIS but he did a blog post on the U.S. Presidents from Washington to Lincoln if you needed something to read while waiting.Pretty entertaining if nothing else and a good time waster.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/02/american-presidents-washington-lincoln.html

 

[timschochet]

Yankee, thanks for your response on the Senate and state issue. That's what I was hoping for. In truth I'm not allied with Fatguy; my argument was sort of a spur of the moment exercise and not something I had thought too deeply about. I do that sometimes (often). I'm still not sure I agree with you- I get that it's purely theoretical and would never happen in real life, but would an America without state governments be superior to the one we have now? I'm not at all sure that it wouldn't. I want to think about some more, anyhow.

As to your answer to my question about the 6 year term: while your answer was absolutely fascinating (I love what if scenarios- I read Harry Turtledove and all of those other authors)- my question was more about format. When I asked how different a single 6 year term would be, I meant how different it would be in terms of the power of the Presidency vs. Congress. In Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPhearson assumed that a single term no matter how long would weaken the Presidency, which is what the Confederacy desired. I am not so sure of this. They also, unlike our Constitution, gave their President a line-item veto, something that I want to discuss later. In any event, it's one of the great ironies of history IMO that Jefferson Davis was a stronger President vis a vis his Congress than practically any of the Presidents of the United States throughout our history. I recognize this was mostly due to the fact that the Confederacy was at war, but even so Davis was stronger than Lincoln. He was for all practical purposes a dictator, and the Confederate Congress had about as much actual political power as the German Reichstag under Hitler. I've always thought that was fascinating, given the principles on which the Confederacy was founded.

Your post also raised another issue that has always intrigued me: when during his term does a President yield the most power? I remember a West Wing episode which speculated that the President is most influential during the first 3-6 months after his first election. Then he is influential during the first 3-6 months after the 2nd election. And he is weak every other time. Of course, this idea really refers to national legislation, usually big ticket items, and not foreign affairs. And it hasn't been true of our last 2 Presidents with regard to the second 4 years. Bush was re-elected pledging to reform Medicare. He tried in 2005 and was shot down. Obama has failed in his second term to get anything of note done. It's almost as if we choose these 8 year Presidents, and the only time that they have real power is during their very first 6 months in office. Their re-election after 4 years can be seen, essentially, as a vote for nothing happens for another 4 years.

 

[timschochet]

Quick note on Harry Turtledove whom I referenced: his best work is The Guns of the South. A group of Afrikaner nationalists get ahold of a time machine, travel back to 1864 just before the Battle of the Wilderness, and give General Lee hundreds of AK-47s which they train the Army of Northern Virginia to use. Yeah I know this sounds really hokey and makes no sense at all (why wouldn't the Afrikaners go back to South Africa instead and help the Boers win against England?) but Turtledove somehow it makes it work, and turns it into a fascinating study of what would have happened if the South had won the war. Among his more controversial predictions is that Robert E. Lee, elected President after Jeff Davis, sets free all the slaves.

 

[Two Deep]

Not sure if you went into the link I posted about Muhammed to ISIS but he did a blog post on the U.S. Presidents from Washington to Lincoln if you needed something to read while waiting.Pretty entertaining if nothing else and a good time waster.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/02/american-presidents-washington-lincoln.html

Thanks,

 

[timschochet]

Not sure if you went into the link I posted about Muhammed to ISIS but he did a blog post on the U.S. Presidents from Washington to Lincoln if you needed something to read while waiting.Pretty entertaining if nothing else and a good time waster.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/02/american-presidents-washington-lincoln.html

That's a great divide the guy did.

75 years from Washington to Lincoln, 75 years from Lincoln to FDR, 75 years from FDR to Obama. That is an excellent way to look at United States history. If I were teaching US History in high school or college, I'm pretty sure I would use this exact format. It's very clean- the eras really do change between those times.

However, for this to be a truly nice and clean analysis, Barack Obama's presidency would have to be transformational in the way Washington, Lincoln, and FDR were: and we as a nation would have to perceive ourselves differently from this point forward. I kind of doubt that either is really the case.

 

[timschochet]

Wow, the thread about France was a train wreck from the beginning but now it's becoming legendary.

Too bad. There were some thoughtful posts early on, especially by Dr. Detroit. If anyone wants to engage in a serious discussion about what we in the western world and the USA should do to fight this sort of terrorism, which we're not doing now, I'm open to it here. Obviously you guys don't like what the NSA is doing, and we've had that argument in some detail, so let's move on from there. How best to combat this evil?

 

[jon_mx]

Some of these posts are getting too long. When does the abridged version of Tim's Thread get released? TIA.

 

[timschochet]

So the whole world is saying "Je Sui Charlie". Yet they really aren't. Sure, several sources are now reproducing the cartoons that the radical Muslims deemed offensive but that's not the same as creating their own. If you were the editor of Mad Magazine, would you run anti Muslim cartoons knowing what the consequences might be? I certainly wouldn't.

Many people have made the point that the next several issues of Charlie Hebdon will sell an enormous number of copies, and this fact proves that the terrorists have failed. Well possibly. But there is also the probability that very few other periodicals or journalists are going to dare publish material that makes fun of Muslims in the de manner as so many make fun of Christians. It's a very effective form of censorship IMO.

 

[joffer]

I'd love to see every major newspaper publish the cartoon tomorrow

 

[Gawain]

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

There's a lot of stuff to discuss in this Section alone, so I'm going to break it down and raise some questions that occur to me:

1. Why did the Founding Fathers settle on 4 years? Why not 2 or 6?

2. I notice that when the Confederacy rewrote the Constitution in 1860, they expanded the Presidency to a 6 year term, but limited it to one term. Why did they choose to make this correction? What would be the difference between a 6 year, single term Presidency and what we have now?

3. Did the FF have in mind that the President could run for a 3rd, 4th, 5th term? Was this discussed?

4. Was the original plan to have the Vice-President run on the same "ticket", or to be elected separately?

1. 4 years was a balance. It's not too short to have the office constantly changin over like the House theoretically can. And it's not so long as to close itself into a monarchy or republican king/dictator.

2. Because they were stupid? The one term of 6 years was one of the plans for the real Constitution. If a President doesn't have to seek reelection he can "do the right thing" whatever that meant in 1861. The choose to make that change because most of the support for a 1/6 term came from the southern representatives in the convention and for whatever reason they still wanted it 100 years later.

What would be different? Hard to tell. Washington only serving until 1784 might not have been enough time for Hamilton to get the economy under control. If we assume Adams gets elected next, then he isn't in office when the crap really hit the fan with France - Jefferson would have been there, and give his support of France you could make the argument that we have some significant problems by the 3rd President in office. Even if we can assume the rough timeline for the world events that played out stayed the same, we wouldn't have had the military guys in office when they were because the wars wouldn't have been over. Monroe would have fought the war of 1812, not Madison. Andrew Jackson probably isn't elected. Harrison, Tyler, Polk and Taylor are all out of timeline if there are still battles going on in various places, but you can't assume that either because the guys in office at that time after Monroe were so different from each other. I guess you would need to piinpoint certain dramatic events to see if anything would be different - like the Civil War. Does it happen still? Probably. But does it happen sooner? If so, the world was a little different. Does it happen later? If so, we are so much more of a mess right now then we are if we made it this far.

Even if you take something as simple as WWII. FDR wouldn't have been there. Just keeping the guys that got elected in order, the President in 1941 would have been William McKinley (and the President right now would be Richard Nixon). But you can't do that either because we know when they all died. Cleveland died in 1908 but would have been elected in this hypo in 1934. So after the first 4 or 5 guys in the office you start running into timeline problems that you can't solve. In fact we never get some of the Presidents we had at all, which is a whole other level of impossibility.

Looking at just the political system, it is only 2 years less and there is no reelection. In the early years the President wouldn't have been too powerful probably. The question would be when does the office get to start gaining the power it has today? Hard to tell. Much of that was based on the men in the office just as much as all other events and things. And we are using our current sensibilities to answer the question which is hard as well.

Maybe you narrow it down and say that we made the change to 1/6 when we passed the 22nd Amendment in 1951. That would have meant that the next guy to get elected from that point would be 1/6. That means Eisenhower only serves to 1958. Does Kennedy run in 1958? Probably. TV isn't as big as it was in 1960 so does the debate between him and Nixon change at all? Maybe not. Kennedy gets his term. If Russia and Cuba follow their same timeline roughly, the Bay of Pigs and Cuba taking place in 1962 still happen, and Kennedy has been there for 4 years already. Does he still get assassinated? If he does, Johnson can fill the term but not run himself in 1965, so does Nixon get the office then? Vietnam is a different animal in 1965 than it was in 1968. At this point our timeline starts to get obliterated I think. If Nixon does win election there is no need at all for Watergate. So Gerald Ford is not President. Nixon leaves office in 1972. Who knows what is going on with Vietnam at that point. Is Bobby Kennedy still alive? Carter isn't running. We basically lose the 70's at this point. Reagain certainly runs in 1978. If he wins he serves until 1984. Does Bush run after him? He serves until 1990. That means Bill Clinton takes office in 1991? Maybe, but I doubt it. The world started changing drastically in what would be Bush 1's term from 85-91. Give Clinton 91-96. Bush gets 1997? Or does Gore win at that point? He might because the impeachment of Clinton probably doesn't happen the way it did if at all (Monica is too young to work there and Gingrich might not have the Contract with America). If Gore is there from 97-03 is Manbearpig running wild somewhere?

And if Gore got it, Does Bush II run in 04? Maybe. That gets him '10. Is Obama the game changer in 10 he was in 08?

Fun exercise. Impossible to figure out at all.

If you wrote a book on one of these alternate timelines, I would buy it.

 

[Gawain]

Quick note on Harry Turtledove whom I referenced: his best work is The Guns of the South. A group of Afrikaner nationalists get ahold of a time machine, travel back to 1864 just before the Battle of the Wilderness, and give General Lee hundreds of AK-47s which they train the Army of Northern Virginia to use. Yeah I know this sounds really hokey and makes no sense at all (why wouldn't the Afrikaners go back to South Africa instead and help the Boers win against England?) but Turtledove somehow it makes it work, and turns it into a fascinating study of what would have happened if the South had won the war. Among his more controversial predictions is that Robert E. Lee, elected President after Jeff Davis, sets free all the slaves.

Read the book, their machine is linear, going back exactly 150 years. It's why they show up in the crisis year of 1864 instead of 1861.

His Timeline 191 series is overly wordy and could have used a harsh editor, but it's a fun read with random historical folks popping up in various settings. If you've ever got a big chunk of time on your hands I can think of worse uses.

 

[timschochet]

What a tremendous victory for Ohio State. I can't say I saw it coming. In the last 3 games, they have been incredibly dominant, particularly the offensive line. Congrats, Buckeye fans! Well deserved.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Yankee, thanks for your response on the Senate and state issue. That's what I was hoping for. In truth I'm not allied with Fatguy; my argument was sort of a spur of the moment exercise and not something I had thought too deeply about. I do that sometimes (often). I'm still not sure I agree with you- I get that it's purely theoretical and would never happen in real life, but would an America without state governments be superior to the one we have now? I'm not at all sure that it wouldn't. I want to think about some more, anyhow.

As to your answer to my question about the 6 year term: while your answer was absolutely fascinating (I love what if scenarios- I read Harry Turtledove and all of those other authors)- my question was more about format. When I asked how different a single 6 year term would be, I meant how different it would be in terms of the power of the Presidency vs. Congress. In Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPhearson assumed that a single term no matter how long would weaken the Presidency, which is what the Confederacy desired. I am not so sure of this. They also, unlike our Constitution, gave their President a line-item veto, something that I want to discuss later. In any event, it's one of the great ironies of history IMO that Jefferson Davis was a stronger President vis a vis his Congress than practically any of the Presidents of the United States throughout our history. I recognize this was mostly due to the fact that the Confederacy was at war, but even so Davis was stronger than Lincoln. He was for all practical purposes a dictator, and the Confederate Congress had about as much actual political power as the German Reichstag under Hitler. I've always thought that was fascinating, given the principles on which the Confederacy was founded.

Your post also raised another issue that has always intrigued me: when during his term does a President yield the most power? I remember a West Wing episode which speculated that the President is most influential during the first 3-6 months after his first election. Then he is influential during the first 3-6 months after the 2nd election. And he is weak every other time. Of course, this idea really refers to national legislation, usually big ticket items, and not foreign affairs. And it hasn't been true of our last 2 Presidents with regard to the second 4 years. Bush was re-elected pledging to reform Medicare. He tried in 2005 and was shot down. Obama has failed in his second term to get anything of note done. It's almost as if we choose these 8 year Presidents, and the only time that they have real power is during their very first 6 months in office. Their re-election after 4 years can be seen, essentially, as a vote for nothing happens for another 4 years.

I think you would have to assume that the President isn't all that powerful. One of the important political realities of the office is that re-election leads to the exercise of power in many ways. Your last paragraph isn't untrue. The most important time for a President in this era is the first 3-6 months of the first term and then depending on how the second term starts he gets another few months there. In between there are Congressional elections in the first term and a preparation for the second term.

But that also works without the frame we have now. The second terms has that limitation to the exercise of power because it's a second term. The parties and the people know that the President won't be back again. So his power starts to drop fairly considerably unless there is a unique event or person in the office. You can take the lessons we have from the typical second term and project it on to a 1/6 term. If other politicians know they never have to deal with this President again, how much of his term is really an exercise of power? The people want him to do something for the first year, maybe two. After that there is another Congressional election. The cycle gets through that point and then you start gearing up for the next Presidential election..... or do you? Does the early start to a nation wide election start the way we have it when the office is 1/6? It might not. Why run for President for 2 years in that scenario? So that practical application might see shorter political seasons when you have the top of the ticket race.

As for interaction with Congress, I think it creates a weak executive. He basically becomes a Prime Minister - something we specifically do not have. You could argue that if a President doesn't need to seek reelection that he will handle the office different - but will he? Will younger men in their 40's - Clinton, Roosevelt, Obama, Kennedy - run for the office where they know that in 6 years they are done with elective office and the power they get to weild isn't that great (if my assumption is right)? I don't know. It seems to me that the President would be an older person more often than not, looking at the office as the end of a career more than an ability to craft a legacy - unique times and events being an equalizer there.

You mentioned Jefferson Davis - you are right. He basically became a dictator. The system they created in the times they created it left little choice there. The very reason why he became a dictator is because they tried to set up a system with no strong central command. And the even funnier aspect of the confederate constitution was that while there was a limit on the President of 1/6 - there was no limit at all on the Vice President. Assuming just for gits and shiggles that the south won the Civil War and the confederate constitution became the law of a land, you could have set up a system whereby the President changed every 6 years, but there was a perpetual Vice President who truly wielded all the power - the President would have been a figure head, more diplomat and PR guy than leader, with the Vice President running the government on a daily basis with a Congress that was more beholden or willing to work with the guy they knew than the guy that changed every 6 years. The south never really understood the futility of its fight until it was too late.

So, back to point, IMHO a 1/6 President is a far weaker animal than our 2/8 current setup. The weaker the executive the more powerful another branch has to become by default, meaning the Congress most likely - the Judiciary still needs the executive to enforce its acts and with that it can never really truly be the most powerful body unless you want to wear tin foil on your head and go that route. A stronger Congress makes the President a Prime Minister with the actual daily operation of the country being a legislative and not executive function by practical default. The game of politics changes, but the totality of the system simply shifts - nothing goes away. There is still money and lobbiests, deals and rougue representatives. Just in a different way.

TL;DR already, but one more thing - you can make a pretty convincing arguement that the 2/8 limit is too restrictive and the 22nd Amendment was a mistake. IT was born out of political jealousy to begin with which is never a good way to amend the Constitution - see, the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th Amendments for more discussion on that point. If you look at our history very few of the men who held that office would have won a third term. The first one that probably seriously considers it is Jackson and he probably wouldn't have won another term. Grant would not have. Teddy basically tried and coudln't although granted the politics were a little different. Wilson might have, but it's debatable. Eisenhower might have been able to although the country was changing a lot going into the 60's and he was very much a product of a time that was ending. Reagan is an interesting study there. He might not have even run given his health late in his second term. Clinton would have won a third term fairly easily I think. Bush is another interesting subject there and recent history clouds that discussion too much, and now we have Obama. At the rate he is going right now he at best would squeak one by - but he also is acting as someone who can't run again which again clouds the possibilities. But overall, through 44 men in the office you are talking about maybe 3 or 4 that we can say likely win a third term - and that doesn't even talk about a 4th. FDR was a unique guy in a very very unique time. And if that is case we should be able to say that the 22nd Amendment was a mistake and it fixed a problem that didn't exist - like the 17th 18th and 19th did.

Yup, I said the 19th. I'm in a mood.