And that same person in Texas has 32 times more representation in the House than the person from North Dakota.
How so? Texas has 32 representativies in the house and 25 million people, so slightly more then 1 representative per million of people. North dakota has 650 000 people and one representative. So that is one representative per 600000 people. So in fact, North dakotans are twice as much represented in the house as texans.
We have very many socialist qualities. You know nothing if you truly do not think we are socialist. Welfare, national healthcare, weapon restrictions, Our central government getting huge and unnecissary(sp o.0).
Socialism is defined in the following ways:
Uhm, How does that match up with this:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. [1]
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. [1]
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. [2]
You have a very limited national healthcare, very limited gun control and yes the government is getting large but that has nothing to do with socialism and more to do with a outdated democratic system.
Also, socialism is a very wide and unspesific word to use. Even Norway is far more socialdemocratic then socialist.
No we don't, we have almost 5. What is your point?
Gay people do not want equal rights, they want more rights in america. They have sex in parades on the streets, they want to show everyone they are gay. i dont go have sex in the street to show im straight. So ban gay marraige. Plus marriage is between a man and a woman.
What gives you the right to decide what gay people want? That is quite a claim. Most gay people I know simply want a normal life without discriminations and they want their relationships to worth as much as other relationships as far as the law is concerned. And mentioning people having sex in the street as a "gay" thing is ridiculous. Do you really think most gay people are like that? And why do you think you have the right to decide that other people don't deserve to get married?
I don't see how you say that ruining someone and the people around them lives doesnt deserve a long sentence. You killed someone, you deserve punishment. its all about morals.
Imo if you have justice system based upon doing justice to the people affected by it then you get a system based on mob mentality and vengeance. That is just plain uncivilized. A good justice system imo is one that helps prevent crime and protects society. And long punishments, even for murder is not necessary towards that goal. In fact, I would even say it is detrimental towards that goal.
And our country is only fu**ed because of socialism. So yea.
First of all, that is probably breaking the rules. And secondly how is the US socialist? Welfare is not inheritly socialism. Socialism is all about putting down the rich and making everyone even. It is also heavily into government run firms and such. Considering the amount of rich people in the US it is quite far from socialist. You could perhaps call them somewhat socialdemocratic but that's about it. Norway is very little socialist which is not strange as we only have a very few socialist parties. So I don't really see what socialism has to do with it.
Yes it should it is check and balance system against the house. Not all bills are in a states best interest. It is up to those senators of that state to say so. In the house those rep's don't get the chance as there are not as many of them. The senate gives them a voice like they should have.
But you have yet to argue why they should have that kind of voice?
What you are writing is not correct. Yep they do and they get more representatives. They only have an equal say in the senate because all states have their right of equal representation under the constitution.
The fact that it says so in the constitution does not make it inheritly good or democratic.
Yep and everyone has equal voting rights here as long as you are a citizen. majority doesn't always rule. It has to be in line with the constitution.
Why does it have to be in line with the constituion? You are not arguing why, just stating it as a fact. And no, at the federal level some people have more representation then others. Do you not understand basic math?
Nope they don't. The larger state will have more representatives working on their behalf. In the senate they will have the same representation.
How the hell do they do not? DO THE MATH! 300 people in a small state means a larger percentege of the votes for the Senate seat then 300 people in a large state. Basic math.
The system is setup to stop tyranny which is what you are advocating basically.
Come on, this is ridiculous. I am advocating democracy and you call it tyranny?
Ofcourse the larger states should be able to decide (if they agree). In a democracy majority rules. If majority doesn't rule it is not democratic.
This has got to the most stubbornheaded "talking-to-a-wall" discussion I have ever had. If you cannoth even see the basic math that the Senate makes 300 votes in a small state count for more then 300 in a large state then there is nothing i can say that will make you understand it and its better I just ignore you so I don't break any rules.
Othersider: Luckily I don't think there are any scientologists here. And that is good as I might have deserved a flaming infraction if I were to discuss with any of them
Again you really don't know what you are talking about. they don't have more of a say. in the house they have less of a say. the senate is not a representation of the people that is the house. the senate is the represenation of the state. In which every state has an equal say.
They have more to say per capita which is what matters democratically.
With the Senate being not a representation of the people, but of the States it should not have the kind of power it has.
So no smaller states don't have a larger say they have an equal say. again equal representation.
Can you not see what I am writing? They have a larger say PER CAPITA. Smaller states having an equal say in things as big states is undemocratic as it makes some peoples votes worth less.
Yes it does has those people are sent to represent the will of the people. whether they do that or not is a different story. so yes it is a majority vote based on the majority of people. yes it is a democratic decision.
You still don't know a lot of details. you are putting your assumptions out as fact when it is further from the truth.
Yes they are supposed to represent the will of the people. The will of the people that voted for them. So with Senators having an equal say even with very different number of people being represented you have a situation where some peoples political opinions count more then others.
In a proper democracy the majority rules and all modern democracies have equal voting rights. That means that your vote counts equally no matter if you are black or white, man or woman, republic or democrat, citizen of one place or another.
When it comes to down to it, a political party gains more political power (on average) from 300 voters in a small state then in a big one. That just makes no sense in a democracy.
I don't know what you are talking about. we have democracy on the federal level. the people there are elected by the people of the country.
Yes, but its a quite discriminatory system. People in smaller states have a much larger say then people in larger states. That is comperable to giving people in a small town in Calefornia more say then people who live in LA. How is that right?
In order to get a bill through congress you have to have the majority of the vote. There are things put in place so that the minority party doesn't get man handled though. there are also things in place that keep government power in check. which is the way that it should be.
Yes, but the majority of the vote doesn't nessecerily mean the majority of the people, so it is not a democratic decision.
I must say that I didn't know a lot about the details of this system before I entered this debate and didn't have an opinion on the Senate vs House thing, but now, the more I read about this subject the more undemocratic it seems.
So assuming your system is better than ours do you think your system would work in america at reducing crime? Or is the difference in crime levels more about other things than how long you are putting them in jail.
Yes I do believe so. Shorter prison sentences would lead to less people in prison so its an economic benefit for the country. Shorter prison sentences combined with more focus on rehab would give criminals a chance to change their lives and not become worse off while in jail and at the same time have nothing else to do when they do get out. So in the long run I believe such a way to do it would lead to less criminality, happier people, better national economy, etc.
edit: I am not saying there are no other differences, and it is only part of the problem of crime in the US, but I do think it would help.
so telling people that you get 1 year per person you kill does?
The 21 year max prison sentence is there no matter what you actually do. This is because we do not wish to put people away for life. If someone kills 1 person or kills 20 persons they still have a chance of rehabilitation. And 21 is the max sentence, not the standard sentence for murder. Depending on if the murder was planned or not, depending on the amount of people and other circumstances sentences can vary from 3 year (accidental homicide) to 21 (multiple planned murders). Examples of 21 year penalties are two men that killed two young girls, 3 siblings that killed their parents to get their inheritence, etc. However, in cases where someone for example kills in a moment of rage (catching a cheating husband for example) there is little chance of it happening again as it wasn't a planned thing and sentences aren't that harsh. The lowest sentences are for people that kill others by carelessness, drunk driving, etc.
And Imo this seem to work very well. Repeat offenders of murder are very very rare and we have a 4 times as low murder rate per capita as the US. The only Eropean countries having less murder then Norway is Ireland, Switzerland and Greece.
Bitsy: Sad to hear. I also tried all the drugs availible and they didn't really help much and a few gave me mild side effects. What drugs have you tried? I have tried Ritalin, Dexedrin, Concerta and Straterra. You should at least have tried all those. Also, what meds work can change over time. My little sister first tried ritalin, no luck. Then she tried dexedrin and it worked like a charm. However, taking 3 pills a day was proving problematic so she changed to concerta which is basicly the same drug as ritalin, just as a once a day pill. And now it worked. So as the body changes so can the effect of these drugs.
But yes, if no drugs work then working hard with oneself on prioritizing and keeping a strict schedule is the only thing that works. I am having big problems with this myself and it makes it much harder to function at school or at certain jobs.
To bad we aren't dealing with democracy. It is a great idea. we are dealing instead with people. Those people need to be kept in check. Hence why we have 3 branches of government and the separation of powers.
Most democracies have 3 brances of government and seperation of powers. the US is nothing special there. But why do you think that democracy is good for state level and bad for the federal level?
Let this be a lesson on the value of fact-checking.
Sure I have no problems admitting it when I am wrong.
There is one: the Secretary of Transportation. However, since a Democrat was Bush's Secretary of Transportation through 2006, Obama can hardly claim distinction here.
Ah ok, that explains it
Same applies here every vote has a say. on the federal level we elect represenatives to represent us (or they are suppose to i feel they forget who votes for them).
There is no way to have every american vote on every bill that is why we send representatives. The states representation is the senate. it use to be that senators were decided by state legislatures. The senators are there to represent the state and local governments as well.
Every vote has a say yes, but some votes has a lot more to say then others. How is that fair? And to repeat myself, I do not favor direct democracy. I do however favor democracy. And representatives that are not democraticly elected is bad for democracy.
Othersider: I don't think anyone here claim that they don't exist, just some people that claim that they are overdiagnosed and such. Myself I have ADD, have had depression and I am very mildly bipolar.
This is incorrect. Senators and House members face primary elections as well.
Well ok, with that information and the diversity within the party I will admit that its not a big problem. I don't think the solution is optimal, but I won't argue it's bad.
Actually I was referring to the diversity among members of Congress, but: name two Republicans in Obama's government.
He doesn't? I won't claim to know that as I haven't checked it up in any way or form. I just remembered reading something about him using a republican or two in his government and I thought you refered to that.
In the house they don't have that as there is only 50 people. so they might get at least 2 delegates maybe 1. the senate is another beast that keeps the house in check.
I don't see why democracy needs to be kept in check?
Maybe in your country everything is decided on the federal level but that is not how it is here. States still pass laws everyday that have more of an effect than federal law does.
Everything is not decided at a federal level. The country is divided into 19 counties (somewhat comparable I think) that runs a lot of things (which are elected the same way) and about 400 municipalities which also decide alot of things. The difference is that all levels of government are all run by democraticly elected representatives and every vote has an equal say.
Varg is out, or is getting out very soon. I think he's going to do another Burzum album, which is pretty exciting. It was definitely more than one person, but he was the most famous.
I would hardly call him mentally ill. Total moron, yes.
Yes you are actually right. He was released earlier this year. And yes, I would call him a bit off at least
No, we cannot. Instead, we vote for individuals. Barack Obama didn't have to say, "Here is what my party, the New Liberal Reconciliationists, believe." Instead, he could say, "Here is what I believe".
That is for the president election only, which we don't something to compare with.
We can't? We seem to be doing a decent job of it.[/QUOTE
Obama is a rarity in that he has republicans in his government. Usually a president has only people from his own party in the government.
[QUOTE]
And in 2008, you could vote for Hillary Clinton, you could vote for Barack Obama, you could vote for Bill Richardson, you could vote for Mitt Romney, you could vote for John McCain, you could vote for Mike Huckabee... it was called "primary season".
Again, this is the president election only.
Federal power has expanded since the 18th Century, but it's a gross misstatement to claim that the states don't matter any more. Mostly everything is in fact not decided at the federal level. Most of the laws that people encounter in their everyday lives - for instance, traffic laws - are set by state legislatures. And most of those that aren't are city ordinances. The federal government just has a disproportionately high profile (though don't get me wrong, what happens in Washington matters).
Yes ofcourse, I might have overdone it abit. The states still have alot of laws that they decide, but far different then it used to be when the Senate was created.
How so? Texas has 32 representativies in the house and 25 million people, so slightly more then 1 representative per million of people. North dakota has 650 000 people and one representative. So that is one representative per 600000 people. So in fact, North dakotans are twice as much represented in the house as texans.
Uhm, How does that match up with this:
You have a very limited national healthcare, very limited gun control and yes the government is getting large but that has nothing to do with socialism and more to do with a outdated democratic system.
Also, socialism is a very wide and unspesific word to use. Even Norway is far more socialdemocratic then socialist.
No we don't, we have almost 5. What is your point?
What gives you the right to decide what gay people want? That is quite a claim. Most gay people I know simply want a normal life without discriminations and they want their relationships to worth as much as other relationships as far as the law is concerned. And mentioning people having sex in the street as a "gay" thing is ridiculous. Do you really think most gay people are like that? And why do you think you have the right to decide that other people don't deserve to get married?
Imo if you have justice system based upon doing justice to the people affected by it then you get a system based on mob mentality and vengeance. That is just plain uncivilized. A good justice system imo is one that helps prevent crime and protects society. And long punishments, even for murder is not necessary towards that goal. In fact, I would even say it is detrimental towards that goal.
First of all, that is probably breaking the rules. And secondly how is the US socialist? Welfare is not inheritly socialism. Socialism is all about putting down the rich and making everyone even. It is also heavily into government run firms and such. Considering the amount of rich people in the US it is quite far from socialist. You could perhaps call them somewhat socialdemocratic but that's about it. Norway is very little socialist which is not strange as we only have a very few socialist parties. So I don't really see what socialism has to do with it.
But you have yet to argue why they should have that kind of voice?
The fact that it says so in the constitution does not make it inheritly good or democratic.
Why does it have to be in line with the constituion? You are not arguing why, just stating it as a fact. And no, at the federal level some people have more representation then others. Do you not understand basic math?
How the hell do they do not? DO THE MATH! 300 people in a small state means a larger percentege of the votes for the Senate seat then 300 people in a large state. Basic math.
Come on, this is ridiculous. I am advocating democracy and you call it tyranny?
Ofcourse the larger states should be able to decide (if they agree). In a democracy majority rules. If majority doesn't rule it is not democratic.
This has got to the most stubbornheaded "talking-to-a-wall" discussion I have ever had. If you cannoth even see the basic math that the Senate makes 300 votes in a small state count for more then 300 in a large state then there is nothing i can say that will make you understand it and its better I just ignore you so I don't break any rules.
With the Senate being not a representation of the people, but of the States it should not have the kind of power it has.
Can you not see what I am writing? They have a larger say PER CAPITA. Smaller states having an equal say in things as big states is undemocratic as it makes some peoples votes worth less.
Yes they are supposed to represent the will of the people. The will of the people that voted for them. So with Senators having an equal say even with very different number of people being represented you have a situation where some peoples political opinions count more then others.
In a proper democracy the majority rules and all modern democracies have equal voting rights. That means that your vote counts equally no matter if you are black or white, man or woman, republic or democrat, citizen of one place or another.
When it comes to down to it, a political party gains more political power (on average) from 300 voters in a small state then in a big one. That just makes no sense in a democracy.
Yes, but its a quite discriminatory system. People in smaller states have a much larger say then people in larger states. That is comperable to giving people in a small town in Calefornia more say then people who live in LA. How is that right?
Yes, but the majority of the vote doesn't nessecerily mean the majority of the people, so it is not a democratic decision.
I must say that I didn't know a lot about the details of this system before I entered this debate and didn't have an opinion on the Senate vs House thing, but now, the more I read about this subject the more undemocratic it seems.
Yes I do believe so. Shorter prison sentences would lead to less people in prison so its an economic benefit for the country. Shorter prison sentences combined with more focus on rehab would give criminals a chance to change their lives and not become worse off while in jail and at the same time have nothing else to do when they do get out. So in the long run I believe such a way to do it would lead to less criminality, happier people, better national economy, etc.
edit: I am not saying there are no other differences, and it is only part of the problem of crime in the US, but I do think it would help.
The 21 year max prison sentence is there no matter what you actually do. This is because we do not wish to put people away for life. If someone kills 1 person or kills 20 persons they still have a chance of rehabilitation. And 21 is the max sentence, not the standard sentence for murder. Depending on if the murder was planned or not, depending on the amount of people and other circumstances sentences can vary from 3 year (accidental homicide) to 21 (multiple planned murders). Examples of 21 year penalties are two men that killed two young girls, 3 siblings that killed their parents to get their inheritence, etc. However, in cases where someone for example kills in a moment of rage (catching a cheating husband for example) there is little chance of it happening again as it wasn't a planned thing and sentences aren't that harsh. The lowest sentences are for people that kill others by carelessness, drunk driving, etc.
And Imo this seem to work very well. Repeat offenders of murder are very very rare and we have a 4 times as low murder rate per capita as the US. The only Eropean countries having less murder then Norway is Ireland, Switzerland and Greece.
But yes, if no drugs work then working hard with oneself on prioritizing and keeping a strict schedule is the only thing that works. I am having big problems with this myself and it makes it much harder to function at school or at certain jobs.
Most democracies have 3 brances of government and seperation of powers. the US is nothing special there. But why do you think that democracy is good for state level and bad for the federal level?
Sure
Ah ok, that explains it
Every vote has a say yes, but some votes has a lot more to say then others. How is that fair? And to repeat myself, I do not favor direct democracy. I do however favor democracy. And representatives that are not democraticly elected is bad for democracy.
Well ok, with that information and the diversity within the party I will admit that its not a big problem. I don't think the solution is optimal, but I won't argue it's bad.
He doesn't? I won't claim to know that as I haven't checked it up in any way or form. I just remembered reading something about him using a republican or two in his government and I thought you refered to that.
I don't see why democracy needs to be kept in check?
Everything is not decided at a federal level. The country is divided into 19 counties (somewhat comparable I think) that runs a lot of things (which are elected the same way) and about 400 municipalities which also decide alot of things. The difference is that all levels of government are all run by democraticly elected representatives and every vote has an equal say.
Yes you are actually right. He was released earlier this year. And yes, I would call him a bit off at least
That is for the president election only, which we don't something to compare with.
Again, this is the president election only.
Yes ofcourse, I might have overdone it abit. The states still have alot of laws that they decide, but far different then it used to be when the Senate was created.