What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Actually, the two of you are probably more capable of compromise than anyone currently in DC. This is a brilliant plan. I'll get 90-95% of what I want on foreign policy, and just agree to a 60/40 split on social and economic policy (your choice of who gets the upper hand on whom for those two).

Kepler/Bob Gray for co-rule by executive orders!
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Bob Gray said:
Maybe we should run on a ticket together! We might struggle to come to an agreement on social issues, but foreign policywise, we'd have a pretty united front!

While public sentiment is of course an important factor, I'm leery of just charting a course based on what the latest public opinion polls tell us the public thinks should be done. It's not like most of the American public even pays a lick of attention to Ukraine, ISIS, Libya, etc. (not when there's important stuff like the Emmys, college football starting, etc. going on!). There are times our leadership has to take quick action and not wait months or however long for a public debate to ensue. Of course the problem is we don't have leadership anywhere in sight that we have much confidence in making such decisions, and our recent track record, whether with a Republican or Democrat in the WH, does not fill one with confidence.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, and I believe we already have in our system a great compromise between having popular support for an action but also attempting to follow a "rolling average" rather than the day-to-day jumpiness of popular polling. Force the legislature to approve any use of military force other than emergency cases of immediate, serious danger such as invasion. Wouldn't it be great if hawks, doves, and pragmatists (owls?) had to debate in the public square before committing our children and treasure to these Quixotic (or grimly necessary) tasks?
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
I agree with this, and I believe we already have in our system a great compromise between having popular support for an action but also attempting to follow a "rolling average" rather than the day-to-day jumpiness of popular polling. Force the legislature to approve any use of military force other than emergency cases of immediate, serious danger such as invasion. Wouldn't it be great if hawks, doves, and pragmatists (owls?) had to debate in the public square before committing our children and treasure to these Quixotic (or grimly necessary) tasks?
Click to expand...
That would be interesting and useful it we could ever pull it off. Of course a big chunk of the problem is the American public having a minimal attention span and a significant lack of interest in such matters. If the populace really cared and understood foreign affairs better, they could push our elected officials to be more pragmatic and realistic about situations in the Middle East and elsewhere. The politicians know that for the most part they just need a good soundbite that they're doing the right thing for America overseas, and most of the public nods for a moment and turns their attention back to seeing Temple crush Vanderbilt and such!
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Actually, the two of you are probably more capable of compromise than anyone currently in DC. This is a brilliant plan. I'll get 90-95% of what I want on foreign policy, and just agree to a 60/40 split on social and economic policy (your choice of who gets the upper hand on whom for those two).

Kepler/Bob Gray for co-rule by executive orders!
Click to expand...
My guess is we're really not that far apart on a good deal of economic policies, so really the social side of things is the only bugger. So, in light of that, I'd let Kepler handle the economics and I'd handle the social issues! ;)
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Bob Gray said:
My guess is we're really not that far apart on a good deal of economic policies, so really the social side of things is the only bugger. So, in light of that, I'd let Kepler handle the economics and I'd handle the social issues! ;)
Click to expand...

In fact, I would accept that division, since to me economics is inherently one of the most important contexts of social issues. In a deeply-rooted egalitarian society I would be extremely "conservative," in the sense of wishing to preserve its institutions and public freedoms in the face of naive and destabilizing experiments like laissez-faire.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Bob Gray said:
That would be interesting and useful it we could ever pull it off. Of course a big chunk of the problem is the American public having a minimal attention span and a significant lack of interest in such matters. If the populace really cared and understood foreign affairs better, they could push our elected officials to be more pragmatic and realistic about situations in the Middle East and elsewhere. The politicians know that for the most part they just need a good soundbite that they're doing the right thing for America overseas, and most of the public nods for a moment and turns their attention back to seeing Temple crush Vanderbilt and such!
Click to expand...

I don't think it's "most." I have no numbers to back this up, but my intuition is of people who vote about a quarter are well informed, a quarter are the entertainment-induced zombies you are talking about, and half are pretty conscientious in their thinking while not having a lot of real information or more than sporadic interest. In short, they're a typical jury. I defer to Mr. Churchill's famous "the worst system except for all the others" to summarize how I feel about trusting the public to weigh evidence and come to verdicts.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Bob in charge of social issues?

Lol!
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I said 60/40. He can amend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but Kepler will ensure he can't send the gays to lockdown mental wards for life. ;)
Click to expand...


Well then, that sounds like a reasonable compromise.

Where do I pick up my government issued bible?
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
I don't think it's "most." I have no numbers to back this up, but my intuition is of people who vote about a quarter are well informed, a quarter are the entertainment-induced zombies you are talking about, and half are pretty conscientious in their thinking while not having a lot of real information or more than sporadic interest. In short, they're a typical jury. I defer to Mr. Churchill's famous "the worst system except for all the others" to summarize how I feel about trusting the public to weigh evidence and come to verdicts.
Click to expand...
As with so many things, it's a spectrum. I'm not saying there's some other option, as the populace is what it is. I just don't find it very common to run across folks who really are paying much attention to things overseas that to me/us are quite important for various reasons. Take something like Ebola. I don't think a lot of Americans even have a clue what is going down in West Africa (read a scary article this morning about how much Ebola is mutating!).
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I said 60/40. He can amend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but Kepler will ensure he can't send the gays to lockdown mental wards for life. ;)
Click to expand...
Naw, it's easier to convert them straight. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top