Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
m Whatever happens in the next election, no matter who wins, they need to heal the US and actually unite people. The other month we went out for drinks with some US Air Force people, one of our lot broke the rules and mentioned politics, it was pretty hysterical for an outsider watching a bunch of professional people descend into caveman mentality, there was a pretty even split between Republicans and Democrats.
The US has since 1941 decided it will take a very prominent role as the leader of the free world, it either keeps in that role or stands down and accepts that China and Russia will along with North Korea and Iran will take on the leadership direction internationally.
The Russians do want to invade the Baltics and also Moldova, they will do that if Ukraine is defeated, this is pretty much accepted by NATO and the EU, Poland are very much making sure they are ready. A lot of the planning now is without US support and what that looks like on the ground and in the air.
China does want Taiwan and domination of the pacific, they need more room and more resources.
The Middle East needs to be resolved by the Arab League and Israel, there will be a full on war between Saudi and Iran, it’s teetering there now. If this was left to the EU and others without the US, then Israel would not have much of a voice.
The US just needs to sort out itself internally and then decide what role it wants or needs to play.
Well said and we'll reasoned!
I'm not in US borders, but I sympathize with anything mentioning unity. Now, what I see from overseas doesn't look like going towards unity, I hope that what I see is not true. What I see is a terrifying gap between progressive and conservative, with the conservative jumping into the national-populism box, and the progressive going all in into far-left
@Maybe_Maybe_not Are the "progressive going all in into far-left"? Or are they trying to keep what was already there? In the UK, Labour is trying to save the NHS which has been part of Brit's lives for generations - that's practically conservative!
So is preserving the environment and fighting global warming. It's cheaper than dealing with the effects.
@goaded since I'm realizing you're in germany, you're not far from me, france here. I can't really say exactly for america, but I can tell that in france, the left-wing leans towards far-left and the right wing is definitely being flirty with the far-right. This is a drastic shift in wing distribution operating since less than 2 decades
@Maybe_Maybe_not in the UK there is a lot of cross over at policy level between Conservatives, Lib Dem’s and Labour, all put their fingers n toes into the others more normal area.
personally, I have no objection with more left in the left, since my views are rather far-left from the beginning, but... this shift does confuse a lot of people, especially people voting for the traditional left or traditional wing
*traditional right
the inability to edit any comment is terrible design from this website damn lol
@rebelinsteelwell I'm glad to hear that, and maybe, just maybe, france will need to find a way to unite as well in practical terms because our current assembly is a three headed beast with 3 factions of near equal representative-ness but of really opposite ideology at core. I have no idea how the state will be run like this
lol
@Maybe_Maybe_not Can you imagine what some of the people on here would do with editing privileges, expecially if is was as opaque as blocking?
Maybe edits within a minute of posting would work.
@Maybe_Maybe_not Does France have as many parties as Germany? (ISTR having a choice from around 30 last time I voted.) At least the left had the sense not to split the left wing vote in the second round last time.
and you will have to zoom in, as gag does not feature the og picture but a resized version instead
@Maybe_Maybe_not The right want royalty back? That's insane! And don't the centrists want feminism, too? I don't think we should underestimate the influence of Putin in this picture.
The other bit that does need added to the mix on this, is the role of social media in both influencing and directing actual government / presidential policy. I know in the UK there is a lot of media influence to push what are pretty much non important agendas and it’s some editor or journalist with a hardon for that topic. This then pushes the government in power at the time to focus on something that is not really important, focusing means spending cash needed elsewhere.
For the US it is going to be the role of Musk and Twitter, 140m multiplied by Y for number of subsequent tweets (many bots and or fake) will influence future presidents, especially if they listen to the fuckwit running Twitter.
What happens when the president does not agree with Musk and there is a falling out, it’s now negative posts and Musk is more than happy to spread unverified stories aka spread lies.
@goaded sadly, historically, our far-right faction is tied to royalty since forever, they will avoid admit it for the most part, but studies on the far-right in france sheds light on this sympathy for royalism they have. Centrists strike me as rather neutral on the feminism front, but I will pay attention, maybe I'm underestimating their relation to this
Our foreign policy of the last 12 years has been obscenely high spending and several dick measuring contests.
I can't even imagine a president that actually focused on domestic issues and ignored Egypt, Israel (AIPAC), and the entire shit hole Britain created by destroying the Ottoman empire.
If we didn't care in 1918 we shouldn't be fighting and spending money on their aftermath. Lobbying alone will ensure that never happens though, every politician is either bought, soon to be bought, or soon to be voted out and replace by someone who is bought.
EXCELLENT REPLY!!! TY!!
Opinion
8Opinion
The President shouldn't have anything to do with ANY domestic policies, theses should be thing your elect your State legislator and governor to address.
A presidents real area of control is forign policy, monetary policy (inflation/economy), Federal budget, and immigration.
A president has almost no influence on crime policy, abortion policy, race policy, limited influence on education, gun, healthcare , climate change, etc...
This is both because the Federal Constitution gives the federal goverment almost zero say on the issues, and because even where they have taken such power congress has to be able to act, which divided as it long has been is not likely.
So if you want results on any of those issue elect your Governor & state legislator to deal with it.
States CAN outlaw or legalize Abortion. (This was effectively true even before SCOTUS finally Returned the issue to them)
States CAN make Guns basically legal or illegal.
States OWN the schools and can do almost whatever they want if your willing to ignore or abuse Federal strings.
States CAN make almost any kind of healthcare procedure illegal, and do much to legalize stuff. Granted the Feds are a major Obstical here. States can still do major things like mandate transparent pricing, to increase competition, or implement tort reform to reduce costs.
State can even create a Government run healthcare system, several states have already. (People don't like them when given a choice and move away generally).
States CAN address "climate change" whatever you think the issue is via outlawing whatever they want.
States CAN even make laws on LGBQABCT or whatever you want.
States Unlike the federal goverment have what is legacy refereed to as the General "police" powers which is referring to a general presumption of domestic power to control almost whatever they want.
There is no neat separation for POTUS. Congress or states. That's why parliamentary systems are VASTLY superior to our suicide pact Constitution
I guess it makes sense that you @drpepper12 would feel that way given the inability of some ideologies to observe any written law at all. That it is better to simply give your faction all of the power as a parliamentary system does as to effectively enable them to ignore the law.
The problem with parliamentary systems is they require a relatively homogeneous culture or a at least a stable dominating one for the system to be stable. Otherwise your looking at different cultural units competing for their respective cultural values in a winner take all system. Not unlike what post-constitution America has become.
The constitution is a border of law to fight this centralization and live in peace together so we don't need borders of armies.
🙄 Parliamentary is better. Voters judge on policy proposals and record, not vacuous superficial bs that American like to choke down
@drpepper12 That's not what I see of Canadian, British, or Australian politics. Ours would be far more divisive than any of those largely homogeneous countries.
Agree to disagree. I think USA Americans would learn the advantages of coalition govts avoiding primaries that throw up extremists. With ranked choice voting, elimination of Senate, expansion of Congress, public campaign finance, neutral redistricting commissions, etc
We would be better off eliminating the union in favor of simply maintaining a more international type relationships with each-other and the other north American States similar to what South America and Europe have. @drpepper12
Without the Senate a few states and City's would run everything at the expense of everyone else. Then we would certainly be better off entirely independent of them.
As for Collision governments that is simply where we negotiate policy compromises between parties rather than individual. This already happens in almost every act of congress BECAUSE of the nature of the goverment.
The fact that nobody likes the results is an illustration on how much we disagree and how little we can tolerate the compromize. Not a reflection of the system that forces said compromises rather than more frequent backroom party deals as a rule.
As I said the countries with Parliaments have far more homogeneous majorities.
Why do I get the feeling this is projection: "Without the Senate a few states and City's would run everything at the expense of everyone else."?
It's what tiny states are doing to the majority of the population (although they're not even helping themselves, for some reason), and ignores the fact that most people are fine with helping out the less fortunate states.
Just look at how red states didn't want to help New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy, but happily accepted aid for themselves after Hurricane Ian. www.politifact.com/.../
Republicans have even floated the idea of eliminating FEMA.
@goaded "Hurricane sandy" wasn't even a Hurricane by the time it hit new Jersey. So the harm done was more because New Jersey was unprepared for a storm than the power of the storm itself.
Lets not pretend the northern states are not holding the southern states as imperial colonies here.
There is no obligation of the South to help the north after the "Civil War" and there never again will be so long as the North holds the south as imperial colonies refusing to let the south exersize the fundamental the right of self-determination as was foundational to all the States in the Revolution.
If the north wants to play empire they should pay the bills.
@goaded Sorry to say my ancestors fraught for the North. I like to think they didn't know any better which is probably the case for most people. Including myself until Actually read the documents myself and the history around and leading upto them.
It was a compete and absurd lie upon which Lincoln Justified his war, contradicted by the example of countless countries including our former oppressor England and Canada that actually permit the very voluntary union we were founded to be.
Lincoln was driven like many of his extremist backers by ideological zealotry on a crusade against his political enemies. To that end he gave little thought to throwing out the constitution with the most ridiculous excuses ranging from the "I couldn't do it if it were not constitutional" to "the union must survive therefore the constitution must allow this" none of which is ever true. There are no exceptions to the limits of a constitution and those limits apply to the Federal Government Not the people or their states.
This is the point of a constitution it is the limits of our consent to be governed, just as the law that goverment makes is the limits of what we agree to follow.
To this end you can almost understand how a shallow person might get the two confused. But a Constitution is a law for the state not the people.
In the end he tried to justify the hundreds of thousands of people killed by completely bandaging his original justification for his actions in favor of some moral crusade against slavery.
"we asked constitutional law experts whether a state could secede from the U. S. The consensus was a resounding "no."
...
"... it’s pretty significant evidence that during the debates over ratification, when states were deciding whether or not to join this new union, no one said, ‘Well, if you don’t like it, you can always leave,’" said Kermit Roosevelt, a University of Pennsylvania law professor.
...
After the Civil War, in 1869, the U. S. Supreme Court held in Texas v. White that the U. S. is "an indestructible union" and states do not have the right to unilaterally secede.
"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation," the ruling stated. "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.""
www.wral.com/.../
Now, the current corrupt SCOTUS might overturn that, but then who would leave? Most red states would lose out on net federal income, the others would find themselves in a Brexit situation where they have to negotiate trade treaties with the US, Mexico, the EU etc., which is easier said than done. Not to mention creating a whole new currency (Britain kept the pound).
They'd also lose any say in the governing of the US. They'd be threatening the US with more money and a chance to pass the progressive agenda most people want.
You're all stuck with each other.
@goaded I find it amusing how people declare people to be "experts" when really their qualifications are disputable and conclusions often enough predetermined.
I have previously addressed each of the arguments they tend to make all of which fall on their face in light of what we both said and did in 1776.
They are in a word absurd and ultimately depend upon might makes right arguments which undermine the assistance of any free state. An argument we can the next time make preparations to deal with.
Texas v. White is a particularly amusing argument in that it tries to overcome the total contradiction of their case by hypocritically making an exception for "revolution" as if the British monarchy had simply to declare the 13 colonies were not in a revolution to de-legitimize their actually explicitly outlawed by parliament claim to independence.
But hardly unusual among the other arguments made equally hypocritical as they are divorced from logic & history.
@goaded I didn't claim to be an expert and I had made a serous case unlike all the ones I've seen who have. I challenge you or anyone to argue against my case. Let facts, reason, and debate decide the truth for yourself.
You claimed that they aren't ("their qualifications are disputable") and that you know better. Par for the course for a supporter of the Oath Keepers. Did Elmer think he knew better than the lawyers too?
If you want to argue the case, argue with Scalia. "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede,"
I'm more interested in your views on who would leave, should the current corrupt SCOTUS overturn precedent once again? Most red states would lose out on net federal income, the others would find themselves in a Brexit situation where they have to negotiate trade treaties with the US, Mexico, the EU etc., which is easier said than done. Not to mention creating a whole new currency (Britain kept the pound).
They'd also lose any say in the governing of the US. They'd be threatening the US with more money and a chance to pass the progressive agenda most people want.
I think you're all stuck with each other, what do you think?
@goaded I don't know of any Elmer nor am I arguing with him or his lawer, I am arguing with you.
If I were going to argue instead with the former Justice Scalia I would have agreeded no constitutional issue was resolved by violence ever including the "Civil War" which technically was not a civil war at all but a war between states given the south's lack of int rest in the north. Only the question of if the Northern states in 1861 could defeat the southern States in war under such circumstances.
If the war were repeated today however among the same States the South would clean the clock of the north. Due to the North's industrial, economic, and demographic decline relative to the South. A fact that itself strongly suggest the North's ideology was self-defeating ultimately.
As for the hypothetical issues a new Southern confederacy would face you might want to start on the negatives rather than the positives for the south. That generally isn't a fan of the inflationary U. S. dollar, nor as much a fan of free trade with Mexico.
Being more inclined towards something more solid like a gold standard and a trade policy that does not put southerns in direct competition with people who have a fraction of our cost of living.
@monoprise. Was the paint by your crib flaking and yummy?
@drpepper12 Perhaps you could make a case for your point of view or at least against my case rather than trying to imply someone is brain damaged.
You know him! "Elmer Stewart Rhodes III (born 1966) is an American former attorney and convicted seditionist. He founded the Oath Keepers, an American far-right anti-government militia." He's in prison right now, for a looong time.
I think you're projecting your feelings on to other people in the South: "inflationary U. S. dollar", "free trade with Mexico" (your biggest trading partner in the world, by the way).
Do you know what I think? I think Democrats should propose a law that makes secession legal upon a majority vote of the state's legislature, after a six year delay to give the people a chance to choose. We'd see how long far right nutcases would last in office then!
@goaded I do not know this man at all, never met him, and only ever heard of him from you.
Seditious-conspiracy however I would remind you is not a constitutionally valid charge, as it is premised on a violation of the 1st amendment. Sometimes the federal goverment prefaces theses charges on the supposed relation of anther crime.
But doing so is still passing a law abridging freedom of speech, as well as imposing unequal application of federal law on the basis of said abridgment of freedom of speech.
If you think that is acceptable, it shows your totalitarian German insticts
You don't know of the founder of the Oath Keepers, a group you've admiringly mentioned in the past? ISTR you said you wished you were in a position to become one.
Not even this SCOTUS, corrupt as it is, is going to go against his seditious conspiracy conviction and sentence. No country has ever said actively trying to violently take over power have done nothing wrong. And that's what they conspired to do.
On Trump's behalf.
@goaded No i don't know the man, never met him nor much cared to learn about his history.
As I said many times before, ideas stand on their own merits regardless of who speaks them.
As it stands Oath Keeping originates with the founding fathers not someone living today.
Funnily enough the idea of keeping oaths is thousands of years old. Today's "Oath Keepers" insist, like you, that only their ideas, their interpretation of the Constitution (which was designed to be amended) are correct and that they were entitled to try to overturn the democratic system in the United States by stealing the presidency for Trump.
By the way, the Pledge of Allegiance is an oath spoken to the U. S. flag.
@goaded The subject of said Oath being the Constitution is what the founders created. You are of course correct it can be amendment via a very specific and difficult process which is why we know it can't be changed at the whim of a politician elected or otherwise. Therefore must retain a consistent meaning from the point it was ratified.
That of course makes it rather obvious that the goverment authorized should be similarly limited and small to the one we had then. Not the effectively limitless goverment which claims power over everything we have today.
As for the Pledge of Allegiance, I must admit this is anther subject I was confused about as a kid not knowing any better like most of my peers. In truth you can't hold Allegiance much less pledge it to a cloth. You can if you are not forced as we were in school and understand what your talking about as we did not in school pledge allegiance to a republic but that republic in our case is defined by the Constitution.
The nature of that republic much like the logical nature of the pledge was among many thing I didn't understand as a Kid.
That's not "obvious" at all, and you don't have an "effectively limitless goverment which claims power over everything we have today".
"you can't hold Allegiance much less pledge it to a cloth"
Sigh. "... and the republic for which it stands...", and you've not been legally forced to take it since 1943.
@goaded
The foundation of the concept of law is that it should remain the same meaning from the moment it is passed to the moment it is repealed, or its goverment is abandoned. This is why precedent consist of 3 not just 1 part, The written text, the executive precedent, judicial precedents.
A: The written text refers to what the text means in the language of the people who wrote it.
B: The executive precedent is what people were actually getting away with at the time.
C: It is perhaps for self serving reasons that the judicial precedent seems to be the only thing lawyers really care about, but as you know it reflects what past cases of law with similar facts did.
All 3 are important in establishing consistency and equal justice under the law.
A: The written text is quite obvious from a compartment language point of view and even sold/authorized in papers like the federalist among others.
B: the Executive precedent is even more stark that the Federal Government of the 1790's thou 1830 of the people who wrote this constitution was never allowed to do even a fraction of the things the present federal goverment IS doing.
C: its even clear among the relatively few cases the court has acknowledge it overturned precedent that the court itself is not honoring original cases of law.
So yes it is very obvious.
As for the observation that Washington has effectively few if any limits, that can be demonstrated in the things they do. Again very obvious.
I already addressed the pledge of allegiances issue, and the fact that the republic to which it stands is defined as the Constitution.
Did you just make all that up? A and B are covered by C because it's the courts that decide what the written text means, and what people are permitted to do.
"Washington", far from being "effectively limitless goverment which claims power over everything we have today", is regularly stopped from doing things by asshole judges in places like Texas, which is why right wing extremists go judge shopping there.
@goaded While the Court's like anyone else who takes the exact same Oath have a right to regard A, B, and C, Soo too does every other branch of every other goverment which takes that oath. This is The Oath Keeping we were speaking of. It does not belong to 1 branch of 1 goverment but all of them.
You don't have a constitution if its only one of them, for that one would do as you suggest in abusing that power to command the others, thus effectively making itself Oligarchs with no effective constitution at all.
@goaded There is no disputing that today's SCOTUS is very much the unconstitutional and despotic oligarchy that is inevitable from such a suggestion.
Thou much less so than the courts of just 40 years before, they are nonetheless in that position.
Until the last decade I uses to blame the court for this abuse of power. But in reality it is the other 2 branches and levels of goverment that are responsible not the court itself. The court has simply done what any set of politicians would do without restraint.
The blame is on the presidency for enforcing their orders, the legislator for giving them jurisdiction and funding such enforcement, and the States to a lesser degree for peacefully going along with it.
A Constitution is but a paper wall if unless the guy on the other side demands you respect it.
The USA has been a strong force for good in the world and the rules based order the US put in place after WWII has been of great benefit to every country that accepted it. China most of all ironically.
The US president being the Leader of the Free World does sound a little corny but is nonetheless very true.
The alternative is domination by China and Russia and if that succeeds then we will really know what hegemony looks like. So we do need the US to be in a strong position and to be involved internationally.
Equally though we do need to be militarily stronger and to combine with the US. Immediately after WWII Europe was rubble but it ain't now. US allies must make stronger contributions to support an order that we do like and benefit from.
Eventually we are going to have to sanction Russia and China back to the stone age - better sooner than later. Lets GO!
m Outside USA opinion here.
One problem though, this question asks what we want, but we, and I, don't get to choose what we want in geopolitics. I mean, everything you mention lies in the hands of a small number of people that certainly don't spend time on a website named GirlsAskGuys
A president can have a huge effect on the lives of citizens. All you have to look at are all the people killed by illegal aliens since the Biden/Harris administration opened the southern border and let in over 10 million unvetted illegal aliens.
That wasn't the question. Also, what source do you have for 10 million exclusive to the past 3.75 years?
Fox feeds you fear, not facts. How many illegal DONT kill people out of your "10 million"? Shall we do the math? Yeah, that's what I thought...
Hopefully none but that's not realistic is it? Question still stands
since we have absolutely no idea how many illegal aliens have come into the US the estimates are between 10 and 20 million. some has even more. These are Border Patrol agents that make these estimates. Since we don't know how many are here it cannot be determined how many people they have killed. Then there are the rapes and the B&Es , shoplifting, drug dealing, assaults and accident s while driving drunk.
I really worry about you. Truly. I just can't understand how exhausting it must be to be afraid all the time. You dont have to live like that!
Not at all. Domestic issues affect our everyday lives more than international affairs. If we stayed out of the business of other countries, the only international issue that would happen that the average person would care about is if we get invaded.
Yeah. Foreign policy is pretty much their sole purview.
Trump is straight up better than his competition on foreign policy as well so that is factored into my considerations when voting.
He's a fool and we're a laughing stock.
Kim gained More from that meeting than Trump did. Trump conferred international legitimacy on him and provided invaluable propaganda for his own people. Trump got what exactly? a temporary moratorium on missiles over Japan? Exactly
Be the first girl to share an opinion
and earn 3 more Xper points!
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions