President Oprah?

[Dunny]

US used to be the poster child for such government, you'll have to go to Switzerland now, though.

[josh]

Here's a thought: How about limiting the power of central government so you don't really have to worry about who's in it.

More power to State (Provincial in my case) , County and Municipal government actually allows locals to set laws to how they want to live.

Central Government is almost exclusively terrible. I don't want to live like you, you don't want to live like me. Seems pretty obvious that de-centralization is the answer.

Wont happen. This is deemed a "Republican" idea.
How about we compromise, make more departments, and make the government bigger, with more vast "one size fits all" regulations

[Dunny]

Yes, a Nanny State without a border and with little regard to restricting immigration in any fashion. What a grand idea.

[josh]

[G1000]

Wont happen. This is deemed a "Republican" idea.
How about we compromise, make more departments, and make the government bigger, with more vast "one size fits all" regulations

This isn't a Republican idea. This is, quite literally, the Libertarian platform. It's worked well in places like Kansas and Djibouti, as both of these thriving states flush with great laws and disposable income are high on the list of places people want to live.

All kidding aside, the issue at hand is balance. States can - and in many cases do - override federal law. And they should, especially when it's particularly detrimental to the state.

[josh]

This isn't a Republican idea. This is, quite literally, the Libertarian platform. It's worked well in places like Kansas and Djibouti, as both of these thriving states flush with great laws and disposable income are high on the list of places people want to live.

All kidding aside, the issue at hand is balance. States can - and in many cases do - override federal law. And they should, especially when it's particularly detrimental to the state.

in this country, its labeled as a Republican stance.

[G1000]

in this country, its labeled as a Republican stance.

Maybe. I'm frankly unsure what Republicans stand for anymore, because I'm pretty sure they no longer exist in any recognizable form.

Anyway. Oprah for president is a terrible idea. Can we nominate, like...a scientist?

[Phil in Absentia]

President Sam Harris sounds good to me.

[josh]

President Sam Harris sounds good to me.

I don't even know who that is.

I google him and its Atheist, blogger and podcast crap. Phils wet dream.


fuck that.

If we are going with wackos, I'm nominating James Franco (barring outcome of recent ... shit) and Michael Richter. Previously mentioned politics... but might be a little too "goalie" to get enough public support

[Phil in Absentia]

Try neuroscientist, public intellectual, philosopher, author. I'm also half joking. If ever there was a perfect candidate of high intelligence meets unwavering national pride, it was Christopher Hitchens (though he'd have been disqualified having not been born here).

[josh]

[Phil in Absentia]

I mean, I would. For sure.

[josh]

fuck it, I'm voting Oprah

[Phil in Absentia]

You get a car (you can't afford)!
You get a car (you can't afford)!
EVERYONE gets a car (they can't afford)!

[josh]

personal acquisition <1m exemption.
business expense usage.
donation. (old car)

[Dunny]

This isn't a Republican idea. This is, quite literally, the Libertarian platform. It's worked well in places like Kansas and Djibouti, as both of these thriving states flush with great laws and disposable income are high on the list of places people want to live.

All kidding aside, the issue at hand is balance. States can - and in many cases do - override federal law. And they should, especially when it's particularly detrimental to the state.

Only partly. It's more Federalist. Libertarians don't like borders.

[AmericanJesus]

Here's a thought: How about limiting the power of central government so you don't really have to worry about who's in it.

More power to State (Provincial in my case) , County and Municipal government actually allows locals to set laws to how they want to live.

Central Government is almost exclusively terrible. I don't want to live like you, you don't want to live like me. Seems pretty obvious that de-centralization is the answer.

I'm not sure what it's like in whatever Providence you live in, but we have as much, if not more, corruption at the state and local levels. While it's impact might be less than corruption at the Federal level, collectively I'm sure it is much worse. The old saying is true, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Our government system has outlived it's usefulness. I'm more and more convinced that the only role of representatives in "democracy" should be as an HR department. We put a "Congress" in place to staff out the heads of the necessities of Federal government and the CEO of America for final authority on any imminent matters. We put state assemblies together for the same role and then again at the local level. Each position has a job description, each person hired must fill those requirements. And most importantly, EVERYTHING IS COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT outside of military/law enforcement (Congress along with the CEO and department heads have to make the determinations as to what should be classified). So Joe Smith is the head of the EPA. We can see his resume, the resume of those whom he beat out for the job, video of his and their interviews, details of every decision he makes, heck, there's 3 different live feed cameras in his office 24/7 that anyone can "tune into" at any time.

Anyone at any level of government caught abusing their "office" is guilty of treason. Treason is punishable by a minimum of 20 years in prison, the maximum penalty is death. So Joe Smith decides he's going to work with the oil company for a kickback to lower emissions standards lower than scientiests employed under him recommend? 20 years. Minimum. And maybe death, depending on the jury.

I'm sure there are more details that would need to be hammered out, but this is the basic jist of things.

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

Her speech at the golden globes was great and all but can we stop with this? She shouldn't be the democratic nominee.

[Dunny]

She would likely win. Women get to vote, remember. Generally speaking, of course, they vote on nothing but emotion.

[josh]

Plus the black vote. Generally speaking, of course, they vote on nothing but color.