Soxbadger

Where did I say we had to or else? I dont recall anywhere in my posts suggesting that there was some sort of ultimatum or that the US had to do this. Ive merely stated that I believe it is a good business practice to every so often visit your business partners. And that when you visit, you generally spend some money, show them a good time, to keep relations good. The point is that you dont let the relations go bad, and then try and win the back. You have to take steps to make sure that the relationship never gets to a strained point. India is far to important to risk on $800mil. They are a country of 1billion, it is the equivalent of less than $1 per person spent on India. It is the equivalent of every American spending $5 to make sure that we keep good relations with a country who could become very important in the next few years. We can disagree on whether the costs are worth it. I think spending $800mil on India is worth far more than spending $800mil on new military toys, but who knows which is the right answer. The $800mil could be worth far more in goodwill in the future, or it could be worth nothing. There is no good way to predict the future. What I do believe is that the US has to have good relations with India, and if that means we take them out and show them a good time, then so be it. I am not going to lose any sleep over trying to make sure that we have India in case there are problems in the Asia or the Indian subcontinent. Well once again I will just concede(arguendo) that they are taking 6x more than the British trip. Why? Because after the attack on Mumbai the US can not rely on Indian security the way the US could rely on British security. Obama in India is very close to major centers of terror. It also is in a country that has shown a complete lack of ability to respond to a terrorist situation. Given that information, it would stand to reason that to be safe the US would require Obama to travel with a larger security force to India (considerably more dangerous) than England (considerably less dangerous with far more skilled security).

I think that the founding fathers are a good starting point, but they are not the ending point. I think that the founding fathers would have agreed with me. I believe that some of the founding fathers wished they could have gone farther (ie freeing slaves) but the that the times dictated compromise on some issues. The problem with relying on the US founding fathers to much, is that they were merely just relying on the enlightenment thinkers before them, specifically Locke, Montesquieu and Smith. It is my opinion that had they experienced some of the events that occurred in the 19th and 20th centuries, that some of their policies may have changed, that some of the amendments may have changed. I believe that the US constitution and US law is not in stasis, but that it is instead changing. And that in the same way the founding fathers relied on those who came before them, we rely on the founding fathers. But, we need to make sure that we do not allow the govt to remain in stasis. Just because something was the best policy in 1776, does not mean it is the best policy in 2010. We must allow the law and the constitution to evolve. I just think the problem is some people take their ideals as cannon, that can not be questioned. Where as I believe that the founding fathers would want us to question everything. (Yes they started the X-Files)

It was an unpopular position, not sure how risky it was, but there is no way to know for sure. I think that Adams' wanted to make a point, just like those who set out to defend AQ did, that even the most infamous deserve a fair trial. The difference in my opinion is that AQ is far more unpopular than the British. The British in 1770 were unpopular to some, but they also enjoyed a significant amount of loyalists. I dont believe that you can find one influential person in the US to say they are an AQ loyalist or sympathizer.

But that is doing business. If I have a very important client and they are going to be signing agreements, I go and meet them. You cant just slap your business partners in the face, every once in a while you actually have to put in the time and effort. Its not like Obama goes to India every month, he doesnt even go there every year. So if over a 4 year period Obama spends $800mil wining and dining the second most populous country in the world, a country who may play a vital role in the war on terror and a country that can help the US offset China, I dont see it as a problem. I think there are plenty of other horrific uses of money. But once in a while we have to keep up good relations.

Its a little different representing British soldiers than AQ terrorists as well. British soldiers were a representation of the crown, which was perhaps the most powerful govt in the world, and current govt of the US. (Boston massacre is before the revolution). Adams defended the British so that there would be a fair trial and that it would not further escalate the conflict. If the British soldiers were convicted in a sham trial, the British undoubtedly would have intervened. Furthermore, Adams had a Tory (British sympathizer) play the role of prosecutor. So you had a revolutionary as a Defense attorney and a Tory as a Prosecutor. Adams was not risking anything, he was not representing "terrorists" he was representing British soldiers who were being tried in criminal court. A better comparison would be if a US soldier was charged with being a terrorist in Afghanistan and one of the most prominent Taliban supporters defended the American soldier, while an American was chosen as the prosecutor. Or to use AQ, if a Bush supporter was hired to be the Defense attorney while the Prosecutor was a AQ supporter. Regardless the lawyers who support AQ terrorists were taking far more risk than Adams. Adams was representing the establishment (British Crown) and trying to put on a fair trial. In the AQ trials you had the establishment trying to do everything in its power to give an unfair trial, and you had a few attorneys trying to stand up for them. Many of them did good things, but there are times were we need to think for ourselves, instead of relying on others.

How many more fighter jets, missiles, tanks, etc did we just order? http://www.militaryaerospace.com/index/dis...s-big-cuts.html That money could go a longway in this country. But we as a country cant make decisions to cut off our nose to spite our face. In the long term, I have no doubt that $1bil spent on India will be worth it. When we spend billions to trillions on machines of war, its worth it to spend a small fraction on goodwill. You never know if it will pay off, but we cant just start cutting things just to cut them. Is maybe the spending excessive? Sure, but some spending had to happen, so its the difference between the excess and the non-excess that we have to discuss. I doubt that Obama is spending in excess of 2x what the minimum cost could be, and I doubt that Obama is spending to spend, so there has to be some reason for the expense. I guess I believe that being a diplomat is part of being the President and that through diplomacy we could potentially save far more money in the future. No way to verify, just my belief.

Ha hilariously I misread and thought the extreme number was $200bil. $200mil is probably high, but does it really matter if the number is $50mil, $100mil, $200mil or $250mil? Its a drip in the trillion dollar bucket. $200,000,000/ $1,000,000,000,000 = .0002 Its the equivalent of spending an extra $2 on a $10,000 budget. (If I did my math right and im not a mathematician so I wouldnt be surprised if im wrong)

Well you cant even compare Bush v Obama because Obama is visiting after the Mumbai Terrorists attack where the Indian security forces showed they were extremely incapable of handling a situation of that nature. The only relevant question here is, "What is India's value to the US". My opinion is > 200bil, price of doing business. Sure they could probably scale somethings back, but all govt could scale back some. With the President they usually take the better safe than sorry route, and I honestly agree with that policy. I wouldnt want them skimping on Bush's security just as I wouldnt want them doing it for Obama. A President being assassinated in a foreign country would unacceptable.

I dont know if its true or not, but we will assume arguendo that Obama is bringing 3,000 people. Times have unfortunately changed, India is very close to an active war front. Obama traveling to India presents extremists in Afghanistan, Pakistan etc a very real opportunity to strike the President in their backyard. If Obama is going to travel to India, he is going to need more security detail because I really believe that the US just wont rely on the Indian security forces at all. Conversely in a country like England, France etc, the US will rely some what on the other countries security and therefore not have to bring as many people. Why India? The US needs a friendly India. India is a potential front line against terrorism and against China. The US sphere of influence in the Indian subcontinent and surrounding areas is imperative to the US stability today and in the future. India could become an invaluable ally in the very near future. The US must continue to foster the relationship and do everything to keep India as a Republic in that region. Its hard to say are the costs worth it. To put it in a business context, many businesses send people to take out clients etc, and spend money in hope that it will build a better relationship and that money will come back to the business in the end. You are never sure if those expenditures are worth it, but they are calculated risks. India is the 2nd most populous country and we need their markets/support. Hard to say what the right policy is, even if the number is $200bil.

Not to speak for Tex, but I do not believe that is a flaw in his argument. A lot of people are a lot of things on paper. But besides for Washington, which of the founding fathers was not part of a political party? Which of the founding fathers didnt either join the Federalists or the Democratic Republicans? While Washington was "independent" he had enormous support from Hamilton, the founder of the Federalists. Furthermore, if you look at the Federalist v Democratic Republicans, you see a troubling similarity to today's politics. After 200 years we are still fighting the same battles. Democratic Republicans fighting for strict construction of the constitution and states rights, Federalists fighting for a more powerful federal govt. The reality is that even back then the founding fathers understood that the United States was nothing more than a collaboration of states, who were only working together because the other option (British subjects) was far less tolerable. When you have an enemy, or some other threat, people tend to forget smaller differences and focus on the whole. There is no other country like the United States, we are fortunately or unfortunately, unique. We are a conglomeration of people who have come to this country for many different reasons with many different ideals. Our shared identity is still being shaped, we do not have hundreds of years of being "American" to tie us together. It has yet to be seen what will happen with a nation such as ours. Over time we will either grow together or splinter apart, but the US idea of checks and balances, did want to make sure that majorities would not be able to quickly enact change. There are reasons why the Senate was voted on by the state legislature and the House by the people. In my opinion its because they believed the people were to fickle on a national scale. That they would be to quick to change things, and that the Senate would stabilize the swing in the House. There is a reason why every state has equal say in the Senate, its to make sure that the larger states could not quickly make change to the disadvantage of the smaller states. The system was created to be slow, the system was created to withstand the whims of the common person. In my opinion the fatal flaw is that we put the opinion of the founding fathers on a pedestal. They were good enlightenment thinkers, but the times have changed. To put it in perspective, not one of them was alive to read the Communist Manifesto nor did they ever witness the Civil War. The founding fathers were extremely liberal for their time (I use liberal in the classic sense as opposed to conservative), why do we believe that they wouldnt have been extremely liberal in any time?

Why would Feingold run? Maybe hell be a VP candidate, but I cant see any set of circumstances besides for Obama resigning where Feingold would even try.

Ill bet you that in 2012 (a Presidential election when you get much higher turnout which means a shift in voter age younger) you will see a Democratic push back. Its a Sun Tzu principle, but you want to fight your battle on death ground. The last 2 years have been death ground for the Republican's they were pinned into a corner to be destroyed. But nothing makings people fight harder than being put in a position where the alternative is death. Now it is the Democrats turn to be on death ground. You will see Republican's start to act as if they are bringing Democrats to their grave, but this will inspire Democrats to fight back harder than before. Because the Democrats could only lose in this cycle, there was basically no way they would improve from 2008. So you had complacency. Now whether they can fully take back the House, hard to tell, but I think youll see them gain back seats as well as most likely hold on to the Presidency.

Its hard to predict swings because they depend on individual circumstances. But its not very hard to see that in 2012 there will be a push back. Historically the last 2 times a large swing like this happened (Clinton and some one else) they both were reelected 2 years later. No matter what the sun will set tonight and rise tomorrow, something needs to change and I think this election is more of the same.

I know that you are a lot better with numbers than me, but I have a serious problem with Republican "economic policies". I understand no one wants to pay taxes, but how are we going to get out of a deficit without both cutting spending and increasing income? I just have yet to hear a plan that we can some how magically make more money while taxing less. Its also easy to say that you are going to cut spending, but no one can ever seem to agree on what to cut. Some people would slash the defense budget, other people might want to cut welfare, and so on and so forth. I just have some reservations because there is little historical or economic evidence to suggest that higher taxes hurt the economy or that lower taxes help the economy. The second problem with Republican economic policies, is that they start to blend social policies with economic policies, case and point would be illegal immigration. If you truly believe in capitalism, and by that I mean the least govt interference, then you should be adamantly against any govt interference with the work supply. You should allow business's to hire anyone at any price because that would let the market control. By artificially reducing supply of the work force and at the same time artificially increasing the price of the supply, you have created a system where labor is to expensive and therefore you see manufacturing and other jobs going to other countries. But at the same time this is the inevitable progression of a world economy. The US grew because we were cheap labor compared with England or France, we had less govt rules on labor and we allowed labor to work at extremely cheap prices and long hours, with very little control over business. The problem was that there were social costs to not having the govt set some guidelines. Perhaps we have gone to far. Perhaps in all of the workforce protection we have priced ourselves out of the market. But I dont believe our economy is faltering because of taxes or govt spending, there just is very little correlation. Our economy is faltering because we arent the only industrial nation who can produce goods anymore. And when there is competition, you have to compete back. The problem is that the a country like China is willing to compete in a way the US wont. Im not sure there is a solution, but at the end of the day I really dont think either party is going to drastically change the course of the American economy. There is a fundamental issue that can not be solved by taxes or spending. We eventually are going to have to look in the mirror and ask ourselves "Do we want to work hard", because as long as other countries will work harder, longer and cheaper, not much of a chance we can compete on prices. So perhaps it is time for the US to reinvent itself, because otherwise we will just keep pricing ourselves out.

Its not about the coasts, its about urban versus rural. And I think that there is definitely truth in the idea that the Democrats have become an urban party. There are exceptions, but if you look at the last few elections the major urban centers, NY, Chicago, LA, etc have been dominated by Democrats. From the founding of the United States you had tension between agrarian and industrial ideals, these tensions will continue to manifest themselves in a large country that is a republic or democracy. I believe that we are beginning to see a real fundamental problem in the United States, and that it started post Cold War. In the absence of a unifying enemy or common goal, we lose site of our similarities and begin to focus on the differences. I have begun to lose hope that a govt that is best for me, will be the best for some one else or vice-versa. And if that is the case, that we as a country can not reconcile our differences, then we have to begin to look to alternative solutions. At this point the only thing that a majority of Americans can seemingly agree upon is that the system isnt working.

Maybe slim was the wrong word choice, but they do not have control of both houses so its hard to claim mandate when you dont even have the power to make change. I think itll be interesting to see if they hang themselves with their own rope.

I think it was unlikely to win, but if it can get 45%+ of the vote I think it is a good start. Im pretty sure in my lifetime it will become legal. Also I should have stuck with my prediction of Quinn for Governor and Kirk Senator. Alexi was just a bad candidate.

Well I guess now a slim majority in the House is a "mandate". Its hilarious to hear people like Cantor talk. He wants to cut spending, but he will almost never actually give a way to cut spending. But its going to be fun to have a split house and senate, politics are going to be really bad for the next 2 years.

So for conspiracy theorists a bunch of the Cook County districts have seemingly been holding back votes for a while. Kirk jumps into the lead, but there is still 20% of the 1st and 2nd district unreported.

Sestek will probably lose. Most of the Philly vote appeared counted. This election is turning out to be a classic rural versus urban vote.

Kirk- Alexi is going to be a razor thin margin. From what I can tell Alexi may hold on by a few thousand votes. It looks like the suburbs have caught up with Cook County and some of the biggest Democrat strongholds are still at less than 80% reporting. Its going to be super close and a chance that Alexi gets the unexpired term while Kirk gets the regular seat.

If I had to guess id say Quinn is Governor and Kirk is Senator. Down to 90k lead for Alexi and 70% of Cook County reporting. He really needs to boost that up because most of the slow reporting counties are going heavy Republican.

It changes the nature of the legislation. Now if you want to maybe say that President has line item veto on budget only and then that 1 item could be over ridden by 2/3 vote of House and Senate, I could potentially be persuaded. But even cutting a single word can alter how a law is written or interpreted. For every word there is in the Constitution, there is probably 1,000 words of legal precedence discussing exactly what it meant. You cant let a President change the intention of the law.

No way to line item veto, thats giving to much power to president. The problem is that people cant come to reasonable solutions anymore, the US has just outgrown the original idea of the federal govt. What makes sense for Chicago, IL may not even make sense for Carbondale, let alone a state that has absolutely no similarities to us. The only solution is to give a lot of power back to the states, and let the states decide on most issues, with the federal govt making sure that no state goes to far. If Kansas wants to let a mule marry a donkey, what ever. If Alaska wants to let people own bazookas, I dont really care. If California wants to legalize lsd, go for it. I am a Federalist at heart and I believe in a strong federal government. But this s*** is just to f***ed up. There is no way we can get the whole United States to agree on all of these issues, without a common enemy or unifying idea we are divided, no one is going to give in or compromise, even if it is the best for all of us. I may not think Republicans or Democrats are smart or good or whatever, but I certainly can tell you that I wouldnt want be on a ship that had 2 different captains, with each captain completely changing course every 2 weeks. Id rather have the s***ty captain who at least heads one direction, most things really just dont matter in the end, but we need some sort of direction. Otherwise we are going to look back 50 years from now and wonder how the US went from a super power to China's b****. Sorry for the rant, I hate elections.

If Wisconsin is that close itll be interesitng to see how Dane County (madison) votes. They have pretty liberal voting rules so they basically get all of the college students to vote which can push the election Democratic potentially.