[burger]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14611.msg156594#msg156594 date=1455584830]
At this point it's basically inevitable. It seems wildly unlikely that we'll ever get reforms that ensure unified government, or that we'll go back to the non-ideological parties that could actually govern together. But we've seen the president taking more and more power (and congress sometimes willingly abdicating it), so it's pretty easy to project that trendline.

But, unlike ferrari, I'm not totally sure this is a bad thing. The question is what do you think is worse, a term-limited, judicially (and somewhat congressionally) constrained monarch, or a nearly nonfunctional government? Besides "fear of change" I'm not so sure why the latter is obviously better.

You're not serious, are you?  There are still a few "Peoples' Republics" out there and no thank you.  Whether it's an individual or an oligarchy, there are numerous counties in the Middle East, not to mention China, North Korea, Cuba, and Russia that offer that sort of rational, efficient government if that is what you prefer.  Each has a "judiciary."  Each has a "parliament."  If that appeals to you, you should feel free to emigrate there.  "Fear of change?"  Are you kidding?  As an elite I'm sure you would fare well, but I am willing to die before it happens here.  Not that you care, probably, but I am deadly serious.
[/quote]

I don't think you understand, Ferrari.  What stupac2 is talking about is essentially a parliamentary system in which you vote for an entire government, with both executive and legislative power.  Then, when that government becomes unpopular, it gets voted out and replaced with a new one.

I'm all for this.  If you like democracy, you should be in favor of this, too, because these types of governments are much more responsive to the current mood of the people (for better or worse).

Also, can we please do away with the death and 2nd amendment talk?  Killing people ("willing to die" = "willing to kill people" in my book, like that guy in Oregon who pulled a gun on the feds) has no place in this sort of discussion.

[burger]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14611.msg156594#msg156594 date=1455584830]
At this point it's basically inevitable. It seems wildly unlikely that we'll ever get reforms that ensure unified government, or that we'll go back to the non-ideological parties that could actually govern together. But we've seen the president taking more and more power (and congress sometimes willingly abdicating it), so it's pretty easy to project that trendline.

But, unlike ferrari, I'm not totally sure this is a bad thing. The question is what do you think is worse, a term-limited, judicially (and somewhat congressionally) constrained monarch, or a nearly nonfunctional government? Besides "fear of change" I'm not so sure why the latter is obviously better.

You're not serious, are you?  There are still a few "Peoples' Republics" out there and no thank you.  Whether it's an individual or an oligarchy, there are numerous counties in the Middle East, not to mention China, North Korea, Cuba, and Russia that offer that sort of rational, efficient government if that is what you prefer.  Each has a "judiciary."  Each has a "parliament."  If that appeals to you, you should feel free to emigrate there.  "Fear of change?"  Are you kidding?  As an elite I'm sure you would fare well, but I am willing to die before it happens here.  Not that you care, probably, but I am deadly serious.
[/quote]

I don't think you understand, Ferrari.  What stupac2 is talking about is essentially a parliamentary system in which you vote for an entire government, with both executive and legislative power.  Then, when that government becomes unpopular, it gets voted out and replaced with a new one.

I'm all for this.  If you like democracy, you should be in favor of this, too, because these types of governments are much more responsive to the current mood of the people (for better or worse).

Also, can we please do away with the death and 2nd amendment talk?  Killing people ("willing to die" = "willing to kill people" in my book, like that guy in Oregon who pulled a gun on the feds) has no place in this sort of discussion.