Two sorely needed amendments to the US Constitution

Page 2 of 3<123>
March 11th, 2017 at 9:07:53 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 744
Posts: 8747
Quote: RonC
C'mon...we all know everything is just peachy down there. That is why there is so much time for the OP to comment on US Politics!!


Mexican people are usually fairly guarded about politicians, including their own presidents. The elevation of candidates to near-deity status is much more common in American presidential politics.

Only about half of the illegal immigration population in the USA is from Mexico and the majority have now been here for over a decade. Illegals are not a root driver of the economy of either nation.
March 11th, 2017 at 3:42:11 PM permalink
Wizard
Administrator
Member since: Oct 23, 2012
Threads: 148
Posts: 3226
Quote: Nareed
\2) Anyone running for president must have held at least one post gained by popular election at any level


I think it is up to the public to decide how important past political experience is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Eisenhower never held office before his presidency, right?

Furthermore, some people believe that political experience is actually a negative. Experienced politicians are often viewed as partisans interested only in their own political career. I think that's why the "drain the swamp" promise went over so well.
Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber
March 11th, 2017 at 5:03:44 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 744
Posts: 8747
Quote: Wizard
I think it is up to the public to decide how important past political experience is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Eisenhower never held office before his presidency, right?


Outside of George Washington such a requirement would have excluded 5 presidents.

We've had three presidents with only military experience who had never been elected to office before running for POTUS
1) Dwight D. Eisenhower
2) Ulysses S. Grant
3) Zachary Taylor
4) Herbert Hoover was Secretary of Commerce, but had never been elected to office
5) William Howard Taft was Secretary of War, but had never been elected to office

Other presidents had very thin electoral candidate histories which did not include governor or senator before becoming VP or President.

George H. W. Bush (2 terms as US representative)
Abraham Lincoln (1 term as Illinois representative)
Gerald Ford(13 wins as Michigan representative)
March 11th, 2017 at 5:14:07 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 119
Posts: 5368
Quote: Wizard
I think it is up to the public to decide how important past political experience is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Eisenhower never held office before his presidency, right?

Furthermore, some people believe that political experience is actually a negative. Experienced politicians are often viewed as partisans interested only in their own political career. I think that's why the "drain the swamp" promise went over so well.


Considering all the complaining people do about the results of elections --shouldn't we find it odd that the prerequisites for head of the country are little more than age and citizenship?

And the next big rule often is when they get too much experience we require them to leave.

Imagine if you staffed every company like that.

I know the downside arguments but it still sounds a bit crazy. You could say, well, we know a lot about how they'll do after months or years of campaigning.
But actually, that just like if a job interviewee just tried to convince you he was right for the job for up to two years.
No one has ever proven I am not God.
March 12th, 2017 at 6:22:46 AM permalink
RonC
Member since: Nov 7, 2012
Threads: 6
Posts: 566
Quote: Pacomartin
Mexican people are usually fairly guarded about politicians, including their own presidents. The elevation of candidates to near-deity status is much more common in American presidential politics.

Only about half of the illegal immigration population in the USA is from Mexico and the majority have now been here for over a decade. Illegals are not a root driver of the economy of either nation.


I just get tired of hearing from some foreigner about how the United States should be run when the positions she believes in involve allowing more illegal entry from and through her country. Those people would not be interested in leaving Mexico if things were great down there and the economy was robust enough to give them decent wages. The government down there even tells them how to leave. No wonder so many people here want a wall, even though that is not the real answer (hint: neither is just let them come in when they want).

Immigrants are the backbone of this nation. Illegal immigrants are not. Most of us are descendents of immigrants. However, we are also citizens of a country that has laws governing immigration. Follow the law, get here legally, and contribute to making our society better. The whole "they jobs others won't" is a pile, too. They do jobs others won't for the price they are being paid. Since they are illegal and live in the shadows, they won't complain, will live in poverty, and will be vulnerable to the unfulfilled promises of Democrats and the sweatshop work provided in meat cutting plants by Republicans. In other words. screwed by both parties.
...While Mr. Wolf smoked opium and grinned at Mama Bear
March 12th, 2017 at 8:03:11 PM permalink
Wizard
Administrator
Member since: Oct 23, 2012
Threads: 148
Posts: 3226
Quote: rxwine
Considering all the complaining people do about the results of elections --shouldn't we find it odd that the prerequisites for head of the country are little more than age and citizenship?


I don't find it odd. Those seem like good requirements to me. Especially in the light of the times at the time the Constitution was written. Personally, I would not oppose the requirement to be a "natural born citizen" be lifted. What other requirements are there supposed to be?

Quote:
And the next big rule often is when they get too much experience we require them to leave.


I agree with that. The concept is that serving in government is supposed to be doing a service to the country, not to yourself. If you make a permanent job out of it, you quit serving the country and start serving your own re-election. I think the founders should have instituted MORE term limits. In fact, I don't think they mandated any at all. The term limits of the presidency came after FDR was elected four times.

Quote:
Imagine if you staffed every company like that.


Fair point. One could talk about this all night long. Ultimately, business is more about social Darwimsim and survival of the fittest. It is assumed that competition keeps things working in the private sector or it will die out. However, government has no competition. That is why serving it is supposed to be a charitable thing. You do it for the love of the country, not to make a career out of it. Plus, it is good to get some new blood from time to time.
Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber
March 12th, 2017 at 8:42:41 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 50
Posts: 5005
Quote: Wizard
Plus, it is good to get some new blood from time to time.
And even better if some of that new blood does a good job and then goes back to his plow.
March 13th, 2017 at 1:00:38 AM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 119
Posts: 5368
Quote: Wizard
I don't find it odd.


I view everything in light of the "Dental Floss Example"

Quote:
The latest dietary guidelines for Americans, issued by the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, quietly dropped any mention of flossing without notice. This week, The Associated Press reported that officials had never researched the effectiveness of regular flossing, as required, before cajoling Americans to do it.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, the American Academy of Periodontology acknowledged that most of the current evidence fell short because researchers had
not been able to include enough participants or “examine gum health over a significant amount of time.”


My point being: just because we've done it one way seemingly forever, or we think it makes sense doesn't mean anyone really knows for sure or even studied it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/health/flossing-teeth-cavities.html?_r=0

(btw you should probably still floss)
No one has ever proven I am not God.
March 13th, 2017 at 7:53:42 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 330
Posts: 11585
Quote: Wizard
Ultimately, business is more about social Darwimsim and survival of the fittest.


Social Darwinism is a long-discredited idea that misunderstands and misrepresents evolution, competition and Darwin's theory of natural selection. It is also not what business does.

Quote:
It is assumed that competition keeps things working in the private sector or it will die out.


No. But competition keeps some companies or sectors changing.

Suppose there's a widget with a potential market of 25 million units per year. That's a lot of money. Now, company A makes it in country X entirely, at a cost of $5 per unit and sells them to retailers at $6. Retailers charge you $7 for it.

Now company B in country Y sets up a global supply chain and automation, and manages to produce the widget for $4, it sells to retailers at $5 and retailers charge you $6.

This means company B is likely to get a much bigger market share in the widget. This could also imperil company A's capital investment. So what does company A do? It can either accept a much lower market share and lower profits, or it can cut costs and lower its prices, or it can offer an added value along with the widget. If it opts for the second option, it may outsource manufacturing to a third country, say, and undercut company B by producing the widget at $3.95

That's one example of competition. there are others. In services, for example, selling an added value with a higher price is easier than in manufacturing or retail.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
March 13th, 2017 at 11:59:08 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 744
Posts: 8747
Quote: Wizard
Fair point. One could talk about this all night long.

However, government has no competition. That is why serving it is supposed to be a charitable thing. You do it for the love of the country, not to make a career out of it. Plus, it is good to get some new blood from time to time.


I like the idea that Democracy is inherently inefficient. Dictatorship is extremely efficient. But by it's very nature Democracy will spend a great deal of time undoing it's previous "accomplishments" and waste a lot of time in consensus building.

I think one of the more historic interviews was Porfirio Diaz being asked his opinion about Teddy Roosevelt running for a third time for President of the United States. The interview was a significant cause of the Mexican Revolution in which a million people died. Diaz clearly didn't expect this interview to be translated and so widely circulated in Mexico. The interview gave the Mexican people courage to start parties to run against Diaz in the 1910 election. When Diaz ran again and won by a large margin the country exploded into war.
Quote: James Creelman, Porfirio Diaz interview 1908

"You know that in the United States we are troubled about the question of electing a President for three terms?"

He smiled and then looked grave, nodding his head gently and pursing his lips. It is hard to describe the look of concentrated interest that suddenly came into his strong, intelligent countenance.

"Yes, yes, I know," he replied. "It is a natural sentiment of democratic peoples that their officials should be often changed. I agree with that sentiment."

It seemed hard to realize that I was listening to a soldier who had ruled a republic continuously for more than a quarter of a century with a personal authority unknown to most kings. Yet he spoke with a simple and convincing manner, as one whose place was great and secure beyond the need of hypocrisy.

"It is quite true that when a man has occupied a powerful office for a very long time he is likely to begin to look upon it as his personal property, and it is well that a free people should guard themselves against the tendencies of individual ambition.

"Yet the abstract theories of democracy and the practical, effective application of them are often necessarily different--that is when you are seeking for the substance rather than the mere form.

"I can see no good reason why President Roosevelt should not be elected again if a majority of the American people desire to have him continue in office. I believe that he has thought more of his country than of himself. He has done and is doing a great work for the United States, a work that will cause him, whether he serves again or not, to be remembered in history as one of the great Presi- dents. I look upon the trusts as a great and real power in the United States, and President Roosevelt has had the patriotism and courage to defy them. Mankind understands the meaning of his attitude and its bearing upon the future. He stands before the world as a states- man whose victories have been moral victories. ...

"Here in Mexico we have had different conditions. I received this Government from the hands of a victorious army at a time when the people were divided and unprepared for the exercise of the extreme principles of democratic government. To have thrown upon the masses the whole responsibility of government at once would have produced conditions that might have discredited the cause of free government.

"Yet, although I got power at first from the army, an election was held as soon as possible and then my authority came from the people. I have tried to leave the Presidency several times, but it has been pressed upon me and I remained in office for the sake of the nation which trusted me. The fact that the price of Mexican securities dropped eleven points when I was ill at Cuernavaca indicates the kind of evidence that persuaded me to overcome my personal inclination to retire to private life.

"We preserved the republican and democratic form of government. We defended the theory and kept it intact. Yet we adopted a patriarchal policy in the actual administration of the nation's affairs, guiding and restraining popular tendencies, with full faith that an enforced peace would allow education, industry and commerce to develop elements of stability and unity in a naturally intelligent, gentle and affectionate people.

"I have waited patiently for the day when the people of the Mexican Republic would be prepared to choose and change their government at every election without danger of armed revolutions and without injury to the national credit or interference with national progress. I believe that day has come. ...

"In the old days we had no middle class in Mexico because the minds of the people and their energies were wholly absorbed in politics and war. Spanish tyranny and misgovernment had disorganized society. The productive activities of the nation were abandoned in successive struggles. There was general confusion. Neither life nor property was safe. A middle class could not appear under such conditions."
Page 2 of 3<123>