Kirk Cameron says he's now target of "hate speech"

[Kulindahr]

What exactly do you mean by 'wingnuts'? What qualifies them as so?

I don't know whether the assumption i make is correct, but i'm guessing it may be quite a fair assumption that Democrat presidents appoint liberal leaning justices, and Repub's appoint more conservative leaning?

I call wingnuts the ones that don't show any evidence of caring what the Constitution says, at least on their favorite issues, and will just vote their party line regardless. On the right that's Scalia, Alito, and Thomas; on the left it's Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Breyer is borderline on the left, Roberts on the right, and until Citizens I would have called Kennedy the one sane justice -- on the case he spouted some pure nonsense, enough to make me wonder if we're going to see him suddenly owning a $20mn yacht in the near future. At any rate, I doubt he'll have another fit of insanity on the Perry v Brown case.

In general the assumption is true, yes.

 

[Kulindahr]

Crazy partisans who will [STRIKE]tow[/STRIKE] toe the party line no matter the situation, or the facts, with reason or without.

Fixed that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Citizens? Something about...?

A case referred to as Citizens United, because that's the name of an organization slapped down by federal law for engaging in political speech. TX put in a link to the Wiki article about it up above. It has the distinction of being one of the most activist decisions in ages while deciding the basic issue entirely correctly.

I'm kind of getting a better understanding of why the US is lagging behind on certain issues now, or rather, more to the point, why it takes longer to finalise the deal when challenges are made.

One reason it takes so long is that a few generations back some court cases were sent back down the line because a higher court had decided they moved too fast and because of it failed to provide justice. It's to the point where courts know they can either honor the right to a speedy trial or honor the right to a full hearing -- but not both. And they can't do anything about it, because making more courts is a power of the legislature.

I'm pretty damn confident that as great as the US system is, it does not mean at all that it is better. In the end, the US is moving in the same direction as everyone else, its simply easier to be caught in the mud in the US system.

Having said that, it would be quite an interesting turnaround, if gay marriage is legalised across the country, BEFORE the UK manages to replace civil partnerships with marriage. Both are in the pipework....

In my libertarian monarchy system, the Queen would just look at the situation, say, "This is unequal", and correct it by decree.

 

[TX-Beau]

Citizens? Something about...?

I'm kind of getting a better understanding of why the US is lagging behind on certain issues now, or rather, more to the point, why it takes longer to finalise the deal when challenges are made.

I'm pretty damn confident that as great as the US system is, it does not mean at all that it is better. In the end, the US is moving in the same direction as everyone else, its simply easier to be caught in the mud in the US system.

Having said that, it would be quite an interesting turnaround, if gay marriage is legalised across the country, BEFORE the UK manages to replace civil partnerships with marriage. Both are in the pipework....

Our system was deliberately designed to be slow and ponderous - the theory being, that this would check rash measures and being stampeded into unfortunate things.

There are several aspects of it that need to change. My favorite whipping boy is the two party system. Since there are only two parties, the people at the extremes bully policy in the Primary stage (as we're seeing happening now) and in order to win the nomination candidates pander - since they usually can't win against other candidates of their own party without that support.

This exaggerates the power of the fringes. In the general elections moderate people are confronted with the decision of figuring out which of the two candidates is the least extreme - and a lot of people are just turned off by this and don't vote.

This is currently much more egregious on the right, but the left has been there also.

If we had several parties, moderates could simply flee wholesale to a party that better represents their interests. It would force compromises to the center much more efficiently and one party would not be able to be blatantly obstructionist without a coalition to back it up.

 

[Kulindahr]

Our system was deliberately designed to be slow and ponderous - the theory being, that this would check rash measures and being stampeded into unfortunate things.

There are several aspects of it that need to change. My favorite whipping boy is the two party system. Since there are only two parties, the people at the extremes bully policy in the Primary stage (as we're seeing happening now) and in order to win the nomination candidates pander - since they usually can't win against other candidates of their own party without that support.

This exaggerates the power of the fringes. In the general elections moderate people are confronted with the decision of figuring out which of the two candidates is the least extreme - and a lot of people are just turned off by this and don't vote.

This is currently much more egregious on the right, but the left has been there also.

If we had several parties, moderates could simply flee wholesale to a party that better represents their interests. It would force compromises to the center much more efficiently and one party would not be able to be blatantly obstructionist without a coalition to back it up.

But we're not going to see multiple parties until two things happen:

1. Adopt the plan (I forget its name) that would increase the size of the House to about 1200, making the amount of people represented by one Representative nearly equal;

2. Allow House delegates to be selected in the states by proportional representation.


Even with that, I suspect it would be four or five presidential cycles before the Senate got away from the D v R pattern.

 

[TX-Beau]

I couldn't agree more. I think both Repub's and Dem's would be doing themselves a great service (and in the national interest) to seperate themselves from the fringe. Question is, how could this be achieved any time soon? It may take a very long time for any 3rd party to garner a profile.

In the course of time, and as Republicans lose more and more - that will happen, and then the pendulum will swing the other way. but not before a lot of damage is done.

Both parties would oppose making it easy for other parties to join the game, the party with the most to lose, more so - and (people in here are going to be shocked) I think that's the Dems. The Republicans are a lot more homogeneous. There are demographics that vote Dem in large part because they are not welcome at the GOP table, or they have been offended by the GOP in some way.

Anyone can start a political party, you have to change the rules about how candidates get on the ballot to have any effect, you have to change campaign finance rules that preclude anyone without literally billions of dollars to devote to various campaigns and party apparatus.

Frankly, the only way I can see that happening is if there is massive public disapproval of the current system. All efforts in that direction so far have been stymied or co-opted by one or the other side.

 

[TX-Beau]

But we're not going to see multiple parties until two things happen:

1. Adopt the plan (I forget its name) that would increase the size of the House to about 1200, making the amount of people represented by one Representative nearly equal;

2. Allow House delegates to be selected in the states by proportional representation.


Even with that, I suspect it would be four or five presidential cycles before the Senate got away from the D v R pattern.

That's not the first time you've mention that. I think I agree. Provided you also require that congressional districts be drawn by geography and or population density - otherwise you'll just get worse gerrymandering.

 

[Kulindahr]

Surely, as a libertarian, you couldn't POSSIBLY agree with a monarchal rule!

All depends on the powers of the monarch. As I envision it, he or she would have absolute authority to uphold individual rights and equality.

One authority I envision would be that any time the popular approval of the legislature dropped below 1/4, the monarch could dissolve the legislature and order new elections.

Another is what I just illustrated, the power to look at an issue, decide it has to do with individual rights and equality, and just decide it in favor of equality.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's not the first time you've mention that. I think I agree. Provided you also require that congressional districts be drawn by geography and or population density - otherwise you'll just get worse gerrymandering.

For House elections there would be no districts -- people across the state would vote for party, or possibly for a candidate from a party, and the votes would be tallied across the state by party. If the Democrats got 30% of the vote, they'd get 30% of the seats, etc.

I've said before I figure we'd see seven different parties represented from California in the first such election. If there were 1200 seats in D.C., it could even be nine different parties. The way the vote has split in Oregon in the past, I'd be we'd have four parties, and Washington five.

D.C. would never be the same.

But first we need to pass an amendment specifying that only actual human beings, citizens and legal residents, have any rights at all pertaining to the political process.

 

[TX-Beau]

Ahhh, I see where you're going with that, I had you confused in my head.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ahhh, I see where you're going with that, I had you confused in my head.

I was in your head?

That would explain why I was so disoriented earlier when I stood up.
And I thought maybe my juice was fermenting.

 

[TX-Beau]

I was in your head?

Well there was an empty bottle of hooch, a full ashtray and underwear rotating on the ceiling fan, so I just assumed....