The most critical issue your society is facing.

So I assume 'Happy Endings' is set more in the affluent areas.
How has the police and local government been reacting to it, aside from sending in the National Guard.

I don't think I know Happy Endings?

The police didn't really step up enforcement mechanisms until mid this year, where they have stepped up patrols in known gang areas and tried to improve their gang intelligence. They have not yet employed the substantially more heavy-handed approach that NYC or LA employed (frisking basically everybody or borderline occupying the areas by the cops). I don't know of a good solution, I don't know enough about crime fighting. I do know that it is a drag on the rest of the city though.
 
Conservatism is the ultimate cause of America's current and long run problems. Dialing that back is the most critical issue. Every other issue we are dealing with we are failing to resolve because we have become so conservative that we are unwilling to take the steps necessary to resolve them.
 
Conservatism is the ultimate cause of America's current and long run problems. Dialing that back is the most critical issue. Every other issue we are dealing with we are failing to resolve because we have become so conservative that we are unwilling to take the steps necessary to resolve them.
Just when I think a post couldn't get anymore ridiculous and without substance, I am proven wrong...

Blame Bush, still?!? It's 2012 man.
 
I think the biggest problem is free market capitalism has created monsters too big for the government to manage. Look at the finance industry, the fossil fuel industry and a bunch of others. The government couldn't do jack about them if it wanted to unless there is a great public outcry for change.
 
I think the biggest problem is free market capitalism has created monsters too big for the government to manage. Look at the finance industry, the fossil fuel industry and a bunch of others. The government couldn't do jack about them if it wanted to unless there is a great public outcry for change.
Allow them to fund campaigns is what makes them impossible to manage... the presidents are bought and sold for over $1B these days.
Our contributions are a drop in the bucket, hence, our real representation is the same.
 
Actually campaign finance is a good answer... that might be #1 on the list of non-cynical real answers for me.
 
Actually campaign finance is a good answer... that might be #1 on the list of non-cynical real answers for me.

Agreed... the problem is, now that it has been ruled on by the SC, it would take an amendment... I don't see that ever happening.
 
Actually campaign finance is a good answer... that might be #1 on the list of non-cynical real answers for me.

Does anything think that maybe, just maybe this campaign proved we don't need campaign finance reform? Look at the oodles of money flowing through the Republican SuperPACs that didn't change the outcome.

I'm not saying I'm right, just bringing it up for discussion.
 
Does anything think that maybe, just maybe this campaign proved we don't need campaign finance reform? Look at the oodles of money flowing through the Republican SuperPACs that didn't change the outcome.

I'm not saying I'm right, just bringing it up for discussion.
Jeez dude... that's really the surface level of it.
Contributions are returned in favorable legislation, etc... crony capitalism at its worst.

Obama isn't immune, and he got just as much and more corporate donations...
 
Here in my hometown the biggest issue is how to get people to stay after they've graduated. We're a mid-sized town that feels like a small town but has a bunch of large-town amenities.. It's an excellent to place to raise a family and is really popular with older conservative type people, but over the last couple decades we have had problems retaining graduates. A lot of them do stay, but a lot also move to Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, other parts of Canada, the U.S., etc. There has been a lot of progress in this area, but it remains a big issue.

Another one is public transport. We don't have an LRT or BRT system set up at all, nor do we have streetcars, and we are a city of 450,000 or so (metro). We also don't have any highways going through town or a ring road.. Our bus system is okay, but not great.

The third local issue that's important is unemployment. I think we are somewhere in between 7-8 here in this city, and that's higher than the national average. That's sort of tied into the whole "graduates are not staying" issue.

So those are local issues. Country-wide, I think a big one is the idiotic plan by the conservative government to build more jails - and to privatize some of them. Crime rates have been falling over the last 2 decades - there is no need for jails.. and private jails are just the worst idea ever.

As for a global issue, the environment is gotta be high up on the list. We are a civilization of consumerism and that is not good for the planet. We are going to have to figure out how we can improve on our grossly inefficient lifestyles so that this planet is still liveable in 200 years.
 
Does anything think that maybe, just maybe this campaign proved we don't need campaign finance reform? Look at the oodles of money flowing through the Republican SuperPACs that didn't change the outcome.

I'm not saying I'm right, just bringing it up for discussion.

It would be dangerously naive to say that since Karl Rove looked like a fool on election night, we're totally fine going forward.

There's two big reasons: 1) It's not just the national election that should be concerning. Lots and lots of local State elections saw money pour in from outside groups seeking to install their own personal candidates. 2) Just because "the right side" for some of us won, that doesn't mean the system is good. It still is having a profound effect on the way both sides have to function, and who both sides have to listen to and chase after for money. Money and politics go hand in hand outside of election cycles too. Needing billions and billions of dollars to run a campaign is not a good thing.
 
It would be dangerously naive to say that since Karl Rove looked like a fool on election night, we're totally fine going forward.
Hey I'm just raising the possibility.

There's two big reasons: 1) It's not just the national election that should be concerning. Lots and lots of local State elections saw money pour in from outside groups seeking to install their own personal candidates.
Do we know how many of those won? Also, even if we could get campaign finance reform through, would that lessen or stop lobbying? That's just as big of a problem as outside campaign financing though they are entertwined.

2) Just because "the right side" for some of us won, that doesn't mean the system is good. It still is having a profound effect on the way both sides have to function, and who both sides have to listen to and chase after for money. Money and politics go hand in hand outside of election cycles too. Needing billions and billions of dollars to run a campaign is not a good thing.
I'm not approaching this from a Rove lost = we win perspective. Rather I'm just looking at the fact that one side spent more money than other via SuperPACs and they lost and using that to suggest maybe SuperPACs themselves are overrated as a threat to democracy.

The bolded sentence is kind of where I was going with what I said about lobbying and how capaign finance reform won't necessarily fix it.
 
The modernist heresy and the subsequent slow-motion collapse of the west socially and economically due to the consequences of its ideological dysfunction. Just the suicide of the west, nothing major :p
 
So those are local issues. Country-wide, I think a big one is the idiotic plan by the conservative government to build more jails - and to privatize some of them. Crime rates have been falling over the last 2 decades - there is no need for jails.. and private jails are just the worst idea ever.
Hey, how can you follow us into being a police state up north if you don't have enough prisons?

I'm not approaching this from a Rove lost = we win perspective. Rather I'm just looking at the fact that one side spent more money than other via SuperPACs and they lost and using that to suggest maybe SuperPACs themselves are overrated as a threat to democracy.
Doesn't matter... still makes BOTH sides beholden to corporations for massive contributions.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
Furthermore, the Dems outspent the repubs $852.9m:$752.3m
 
Back
Top Bottom