Should The Senate Be Abolished?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: UK

Re: Should The Senate Be Abolished?

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:31 pm

@Jebus You disappoint me, Mr. Anderson.
Jebus wrote: Vietnam is a good example of how the US presidency fucked things up in a major way.
In what way is this exclusive to the presidency?
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 am
How powerful can the President be if he or she doesn't have Congress or the Supreme Court on his or her side?
Ehm. . . Like one of the three most powerful people on the planet . . .
When it comes to passing laws in your country, the President is not more powerful than autocratic dictators such as Ali Khameini in Iran, Emmerson Mnangagwa in Zimbabwe or Isaias Afwerki in Eritrea. This is because of the checks of balances emposed on them by the constitution.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 am
And I guess you know so much more about it than me?
I'm at least 30 years older than you so it would be strange otherwise.
Using this logic, David Irving knows more than most people about the holocaust.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 am
This reminds me of the flat Earth thread when teo thought he knew so much more about Physics than brimstone.
Most of the discussions I have with you feel like that.
"I know you are but what am I?"
Oh, so countries without a president can't pass reforms that help the poor???
That wasn't what he was saying. His point was that the presidency could be a force for good.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 am
The President does not have the sole power to do that. That must have Congressional approval\
An executive order doesn't need congressional approval before going into effect. They can overturn it and I'm sure you know the process after that. That's why I used the USD as an example. By the time congress overturns the presidential veto the dollar could already be useless. This scenario is unlikely but possible. Either way, a simple comment from the POTUS can wreak havoc on the markets.
False.

Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyOf3g-PJ94
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 am
There are things we can do to combat it, such as fixing the electoral college, and making an amendment (which the President doesn't have any part in deciding on) to allow the federal government to improve education.
Americans will likely get smarter in the future but so will the citizens of other first world nations (possibly at an even faster rate). This will likely improve the quality of a president style government, but since you brought it up you should explain why this style of government would benefit from higher intelligence more than a government with a broader power base.
Do you think it is impossible for a government to have a broad power base and also a presidency? Germany, Iceland and Israel all have systems which guarantee a broader power base, namely an electoral system of proportional representation. These countries are all governed by a President.
Isn't this discussion about the merits of a narrow power base (like the US or Russia) vs. a wide power base (like most European countries). If so, I think it is in order for you to demonstrate how the benefits of having a president outweighs the disadvantages. I'm not sure if you are unwilling or unable to do so. My guess would be unable.
Which European countries are you thinking of? France has a presidency, Germany has a presidency, Italy has a presidency, Finland has a presidency, etc. Most of the European countries which don't have a presidency have a monarch as their head of state. Do you believe a monarchy would be better than a presidency?

Your arguments in favour of a broad power base appear to be much more in favour of the United States transitioning from a presidential republic to a semi-presidential republic rather than "abolishing the presidency".
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Jebus » Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:53 pm

Jebus wrote: Vietnam is a good example of how the US presidency fucked things up in a major way.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:31 pm
In what way is this exclusive to the presidency?
This set the tone for a string of silly questions/comments.

Who else could have done this?:
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:04 am
LBJ was informed by his generals in the mid 60s that there was no way the war could ever be won and recommended a complete withdrawal. He instead decided to escalate the war effort as he thought this would help his reelection chances.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:31 pm
When it comes to passing laws in your country, the President is not more powerful than autocratic dictators such as Ali Khameini in Iran, Emmerson Mnangagwa in Zimbabwe or Isaias Afwerki in Eritrea.
I never wrote that the POTUS is more powerful at "passing laws" so the fact that some dictators have more control of their laws is irrelevant. I suggested that the POTUS is one of the most powerful people on the planet.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:23 am
And I guess you know so much more about it than me?
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:04 am
I'm at least 30 years older than you so it would be strange otherwise.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:31 pm
Using this logic, David Irving knows more than most people about the holocaust.
You never should have ventured out of the Fun Forum as your logic is not strong enough for this type of discussion. Does finding a 100 year old smoker negate the claim that smoking is bad for you? It would be unusual for a teenager to know more about 1960s history than a 50 year old. That does not mean all 50-year olds know more about 1960s history than all teenagers.
Oh, so countries without a president can't pass reforms that help the poor???
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:31 pm
That wasn't what he was saying. His point was that the presidency could be a force for good.
His point was that the presidency could be a force for the good. My point was that this point is irrelevant to the discussion unless it is unique to the POTUS.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:04 am
An executive order doesn't need congressional approval before going into effect. They can overturn it and I'm sure you know the process after that. That's why I used the USD as an example. By the time congress overturns the presidential veto the dollar could already be useless. This scenario is unlikely but possible. Either way, a simple comment from the POTUS can wreak havoc on the markets.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:31 pm
False.

Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyOf3g-PJ94
It seems nothing in the comment above contradicts anything in the video you posted. In the future (in order to clarify the discussion), I suggest you write specifically what you think is false and then support your claim with a video or article.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:31 pm
Germany, Iceland and Israel all have systems which guarantee a broader power base, namely an electoral system of proportional representation. These countries are all governed by a President.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:31 pm
Which European countries are you thinking of? France has a presidency, Germany has a presidency, Italy has a presidency, Finland has a presidency, etc. Most of the European countries which don't have a presidency have a monarch as their head of state. Do you believe a monarchy would be better than a presidency?
I have clearly been discussing the POTUS in particular and a narrow power base in general. The only thing the president of the U.S, the president of France, and the president of Germany have in common is the name of their job.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 4:31 pm
Your arguments in favour of a broad power base appear to be much more in favour of the United States transitioning from a presidential republic to a semi-presidential republic rather than "abolishing the presidency".
Yes. I meant "abolishing the presidency" under its current form.

Congratulations to a strong finish. You got one out of 10 right.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2557
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

Post by Red » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:24 pm

You're never this much of an asshole Jebus, I'm surprised.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:53 pm
I never wrote that the POTUS is more powerful at "passing laws" so the fact that some dictators have more control of their laws is irrelevant. I suggested that the POTUS is one of the most powerful people on the planet.
True. Is this an inherent bad or an inherent good? I personally think it's an inherent neutral.

Going back to your point, how do you estimate that, even not having support from the other branches, still make you one of the three most powerful people on the planet? At that point, Congress runs the country, not the President. See Presidents 17-21.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:53 pm
Does finding a 100 year old smoker negate the claim that smoking is bad for you? It would be unusual for a teenager to know more about 1960s history than a 50 year old. That does not mean all 50-year olds know more about 1960s history than all teenagers.
The point that Blue (new name) was making was that it's irrelevant how long you've lived. How does being 30 years old mean you know more than me about US History?

I personally studied it at College level formally (as well as @EquALLity). Have you?
Or, since you're older, you've experienced more American history first hand? Well, I know several people in particular that are about 15-20 years older than you, been through about 10 administrations. Different kinds of people too; liberals, conservatives, centrists, etc. Does this sound irrelevant? Well, so is your argument.

You experience Physics, Biology, Psychology, etc. everyday and don't understand it all. It's irrelevant
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:53 pm
His point was that the presidency could be a force for the good. My point was that this point is irrelevant to the discussion unless it is unique to the POTUS.
How is it irrelevant?

The President isn't the main legislative body, you know. Congress can pass some severely shitty legislation over a Presidential veto, such as the Taft-Hartley Act.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:04 am
An executive order doesn't need congressional approval before going into effect. They can overturn it and I'm sure you know the process after that. That's why I used the USD as an example. By the time congress overturns the presidential veto the dollar could already be useless. This scenario is unlikely but possible. Either way, a simple comment from the POTUS can wreak havoc on the markets.
I'll attack this point head on, though I'm just going to be repeating myself.
There is such thing as the Supreme Court. They'll make sure the President doesn't overreach on his power.
And you may mention about the Secretary of the Treasury, but the President needs the Senate's approval in order to appoint cabinet members (and Court Justices). That's another important check and balance.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:53 pm

It seems nothing in the comment above contradicts anything in the video you posted. In the future (in order to clarify the discussion), I suggest you write specifically what you think is false and then support your claim with a video or article.
It was an inside joke, but it sums up what an Executive Order is.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:53 pm

I have clearly been discussing the POTUS in particular and a narrow power base in general. The only thing the president of the U.S, the president of France, and the president of Germany have in common is the name of their job.
Developed countries have established their own democracies, similar to U.S.'s.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:53 pm

Yes. I meant "abolishing the presidency" under its current form.
That's a pretty big assertion. Now, you must give compelling evidence as to why.

I agree that the Presidency can do a world of bad (Trump, Hoover, A. Johnson), but also a world of good (Obama, FDR, Lincoln).
I think you're falling prey to confirmation bias. Perhaps study U.S. History and Government? It isn't hard at all, like physics.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:53 pm
Congratulations to a strong finish. You got one out of 10 right.
I honestly think Blue is making good points (but maybe not communicating them well, he doesn't do it very formally). You may want to get your act together, it'd be awkward to lose to my dearest VP :lol:.
If the circumstances make it such that you can't fuck a man in the ass, then just peckerslap him. Better to let him know who's in charge than to let him get the keys to the car.
-Lyndon Baines Johnson

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2557
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: White House

Post by Red » Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:36 pm

Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:45 pm
That was the whole point of the war and his generals told him he wouldn't be able to win the war so that comment means absolutely nothing.
???
I agree, it was a lost cause, and Johnson probably knew that. But why would he dispatch so many more troops, which involved a draft which weakened his popularity, even after his reelection?
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:45 pm
Oh, so countries without a president can't pass reforms that help the poor???
If a country doesn't have a democratically elected leader, it seems very unlikely that the poor would move out of poverty.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:45 pm
Americans will likely get smarter in the future but so will the citizens of other first world nations (possibly at an even faster rate). This will likely improve the quality of a president style government, but since you brought it up you should explain why this style of government would benefit from higher intelligence more than a government with a broader power base.
...Since they'd be able to vote more intelligently?
I think Neil deGrasse Tyson makes an interesting point in that it's not stupid politicians that is the problem; it's stupid voters.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:45 pm
Isn't this discussion about the merits of a narrow power base (like the US or Russia) vs. a wide power base (like most European countries). If so, I think it is in order for you to demonstrate how the benefits of having a president outweighs the disadvantages. I'm not sure if you are unwilling or unable to do so. My guess would be unable.
Wow, you're being such a dick, did something happen? Or are you feeling extra sure of yourself today?

To answer your pointless and dumbass question, yes, for better or for worse, a president is needed. If we get rid of the presidency now, we won't have one in 2 and a half years. Maybe we can reverse the damage Trump is doing.
If the circumstances make it such that you can't fuck a man in the ass, then just peckerslap him. Better to let him know who's in charge than to let him get the keys to the car.
-Lyndon Baines Johnson

User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Jebus » Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:33 am

Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:24 pm
You're never this much of an asshole Jebus, I'm surprised.
LOL
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:24 pm
Going back to your point, how do you estimate that, even not having support from the other branches, still make you one of the three most powerful people on the planet?


I never wrote that the POTUS is more powerful at "passing laws" so the fact that some dictators have more control of their laws is irrelevant. I suggested that the POTUS is one of the most powerful people on the planet.[/quote]
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:24 pm
Is this an inherent bad or an inherent good?
Obviously I think it's an inherent bad. That's the whole point of my argument. Any system where attempts to limit the powers of the presidency must be approved by the president is inherently fucked up.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:53 pm
how do you estimate that, even not having support from the other branches, still make you one of the three most powerful people on the planet? .
Power comes down to two things:
1. The freedom to do as you please.
2. The potential of impact of the decisions the leader is able to make.

If one were to compare Trump to Putin, Putin definitely wins on point 1 whereas Trump would win on point 2. Some of the dictators mentioned earlier in this thread are so weak on point 2 that they don't come close to the power of Trump or Putin.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:24 pm
The point that Blue (new name) was making was that it's irrelevant how long you've lived. How does being 30 years old mean you know more than me about US History?
Accumulated knowledge over time is not irrelevant (at least not until senility kicks in), especially when discussing history that one of the parties is old enough to remember (or old enough to remember the direct aftermath).
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:53 pm
I personally studied it at College level formally (as well as @EquALLity). Have you?


Yes.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:24 pm
I agree that the Presidency can do a world of bad (Trump, Hoover, A. Johnson), but also a world of good (Obama, FDR, Lincoln).

Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:24 pm
His point was that the presidency could be a force for the good.


Could be, should be. Who gives a shit? The whole point of the discussion is if one type of system is superior to the other, and that includes both potential benefit and potential harm.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:24 pm
The President isn't the main legislative body, you know. Congress can pass some severely shitty legislation over a Presidential veto, such as the Taft-Hartley Act.


Who do you think has the biggest potential to pass shitty legislation: one person or a group of people?
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:24 pm
There is such thing as the Supreme Court. They'll make sure the President doesn't overreach on his power.


An executive order can go into effect immediately. Lots of damage can be done before the Supreme Court or Congress overturns the order.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:24 pm
Developed countries have established their own democracies, similar to U.S.'s.


Very few (if any) countries give away as much power to one person as the U.S. If one were to define a country's success according to the life quality of all its citizens relative to that country's location and amount of natural resources, the most successful countries are those with a wide power base.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:24 pm
Perhaps study U.S. History and Government?
I both started and finished my formal education in the U.S., and having lived most of my life outside the U.S. I think I am able to look at US history and government more objectively than most.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Jebus » Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:55 am

Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:36 pm
why would he dispatch so many more troops, which involved a draft which weakened his popularity, even after his reelection?
He chose what he thought would be the lesser of two (political) evils.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:36 pm
If a country doesn't have a democratically elected leader, it seems very unlikely that the poor would move out of poverty.
This comment makes no sense. I'm not even sure if you are bringing up the importance of democracy or if you are writing that a country requires a leader rather than leaders to move out of poverty.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:45 pm
Americans will likely get smarter in the future but so will the citizens of other first world nations (possibly at an even faster rate). This will likely improve the quality of a president style government, but since you brought it up you should explain why this style of government would benefit from higher intelligence more than a government with a broader power base.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:36 pm
...Since they'd be able to vote more intelligently?
Wow! I always thought you were a reasonably intelligent kid. I'm not so sure anymore.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:36 pm
I think Neil deGrasse Tyson makes an interesting point in that it's not stupid politicians that is the problem; it's stupid voters.
Of course, but how is that relevant to a discussion that discusses the merits of a narrow vs. a wide power base? In both cases, stupid people are more likely to make stupid voting decisions.
Jebus wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:45 pm
Isn't this discussion about the merits of a narrow power base (like the US or Russia) vs. a wide power base (like most European countries). If so, I think it is in order for you to demonstrate how the benefits of having a president outweighs the disadvantages. I'm not sure if you are unwilling or unable to do so. My guess would be unable.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:36 pm
IWow, you're being such a dick
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:36 pm
IWhat a pointless dumbass question.
We are both being dicks. The difference is that I am being a dick with some good arguments.
Red wrote:
Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:36 pm
IIf we get rid of the presidency now, we won't have one in 2 and a half years.
I obviously never suggested getting rid of the presidency today. I am advocating that the US (in this day and age) would be better off if they had a political system that excludes the president.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: UK

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:08 am

Jebus, I agree with your viewpoint that a wide power base is better than a narrower one, and a semi-presidential republic would be better than a presidential one. However, this isn't what you said. You said you wanted to abolish the presidency.
Jebus wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:33 pm
Would be better to get rid of the presidency.
Not "Would be better to get rid of the presidency as it stands", not "Would be better to reform the presidency". No. Get rid of. Abolish. Demolish. Crush. Decimate. Vanquish. Destroy without mercy.

If you had been more clear about what you really meant, there would be an avoidance of confusion. However, I know full well why you said you wanted to "get rid of the Presidency". It was because the original thread was about "getting rid of" the Senate. It would make no sense to talk about reforming or changing an institution in a thread which is about abolishing one.

However, what you have posted was a diversion from the original topic. If you want to make a thread about your concerns with the Presidency, go make one. Don't post about the Presidency in a thread which is about the Senate.
You never should have ventured out of the Fun Forum as your logic is not strong enough for this type of discussion
Is there really any need for these snide remarks at my expense? Have I done something to offend you, or has something happened and you are taking your frustrations out on me?

Is this really all about the presidency or is there something else you want to talk about, Jebus?
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Jebus » Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:44 am

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:08 am
Jebus, I agree with your viewpoint that a wide power base is better than a narrower one, and a semi-presidential republic would be better than a presidential one. However, this isn't what you said. You said you wanted to abolish the presidency.
I don't see how one can achieve a wide power base while still keeping the US presidency in place. The two are interchangeable.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:08 am
If you had been more clear about what you really meant, there would be an avoidance of confusion.
I do think it's better to get rid of the presidency and that's exactly how you understood it so no confusion there.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:08 am
However, what you have posted was a diversion from the original topic. If you want to make a thread about your concerns with the Presidency, go make one. Don't post about the Presidency in a thread which is about the Senate.
I can easily split the thread if needed. However, I see no need to as no one is discussing the senate specifically. Anyway, the topic is government reform so it is not totally unrelated.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1040
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: UK

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:09 am

@Jebus Do you want the United States to become a semi-presidential republic or to have no president at all?
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger." - Friedrich Nietzsche

User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Jebus » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:21 am

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:09 am
@Jebus Do you want the United States to become a semi-presidential republic or to have no president at all?
Semi-presidential is better than its current form but I would prefer no president at all.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests