Author Topic: Election 2012  (Read 231752 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1050 on: February 02, 2012, 12:10:19 PM »
What do you all think about Mitt saying "I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it."?

Stupid comment that may very well come back to haunt him.

#1, as you said, it goes against party principles about even having a "safety net."

#2, even leaving #1 aside, I don't disagree with what he was trying to say, but what he actually said doesn't sound a whole lot like what he was trying to say.

And by the way, in context, here is what I believe he was actually trying to communicate:  What he was trying to say is NOT that he doesn't care about the poor; what he was trying to say is that the very rich don't need help, and there are programs in place to help the very poor (and he said right after that that those programs need to be fixed so that they work better and more efficiently).  So given those facts, his focus is on the vast majority that fall somewhere in between.  Again, not an issue of not caring about the poor.  But rather an issue of where to put more focus, the thought being that, for the poor, it takes a lot less energy to improve programs that are already in place than to spend a ton of energy trying to create something new.  His really sloppy way of saying that is going to haunt him, I just know it.  It really makes him sound out of touch.

Very good post  :tup

Agreed, and unfortunately for him the highlighted section will inevitably be undermined by the fact that, as you acknowledge, the party platform is against allowing the safety net to exist in the first place. He'll be caught between betraying his platform and therefore his party or betraying his constituents.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1051 on: February 02, 2012, 01:33:06 PM »
Of coures the man's out of touch, he' makes 57k a day, which is basically more than the average person makes in a year.

I still wish him and Ron Paul would both get in a teleporter together, and become Barack Paul, or Ron Obama. Give me a candidate who wants to end our empire, end the drug war, but not completely go after Medicare and Social Security (especially considering neither of those programs are truly responsible for any debt at this point).
You know, Ron Paul isn't cutting much at all out of Social Security and Medicare as of his current plans.

See, the way I look at it, there shouldn't be any cutting out of Social Security or Medicare. They're paid for by their own taxes, and they have their own trust funds (which have been raided constantly). Some tweaks need to be made for the system (raising the age of eligibility makes sense to me, seeing as how we're living longer, working longer and are healthier longer), but to actually cut anything out of this irresponsible.

I guess I should also add someone who is willing to have sensible financial reform (completely reforming the Fed is fine with me, getting rid of a national bank is not), as well as a serious attempt to deal with our health care problem, and energy problems.

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1052 on: February 02, 2012, 02:33:11 PM »
I've seen that, but apparently nobody really knows where that poll comes from. PPP Polls also said that RP wouldn't make second, but instead 3rd or 4th.
Besides, the above result I find also very implausible. Romney only getting 34% in a Mormon state? RP getting a quarter of the votes when he barely made 7% in FL? And Gingrich only 14%? All very bizarre. I find the other polls far more believable.

rumborak

Romney won with over 50% of the vote last time by dragging out every last LDS vote.

Paul supporters were treated miserably at the state convention, because McCain robocalls had identified them by phone polling. That's why a lot of Paul supporters aren't answering to polls now. I don't know how true that is, but I believe Paul will end up second, far behind Romney.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 02:39:08 PM by jsem »

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1053 on: February 02, 2012, 02:43:43 PM »
I've seen that, but apparently nobody really knows where that poll comes from. PPP Polls also said that RP wouldn't make second, but instead 3rd or 4th.
Besides, the above result I find also very implausible. Romney only getting 34% in a Mormon state? RP getting a quarter of the votes when he barely made 7% in FL? And Gingrich only 14%? All very bizarre. I find the other polls far more believable.

rumborak

This place has the best polling I've seen anywhere.

Offline unklejman

  • Posts: 715
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1054 on: February 02, 2012, 02:45:40 PM »
See, the way I look at it, there shouldn't be any cutting out of Social Security or Medicare. They're paid for by their own taxes, and they have their own trust funds (which have been raided constantly). Some tweaks need to be made for the system (raising the age of eligibility makes sense to me, seeing as how we're living longer, working longer and are healthier longer), but to actually cut anything out of this irresponsible.

I guess I should also add someone who is willing to have sensible financial reform (completely reforming the Fed is fine with me, getting rid of a national bank is not), as well as a serious attempt to deal with our health care problem, and energy problems.

But shouldn't people have the choice to be involved or not?

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1055 on: February 02, 2012, 02:51:02 PM »
It seems by design that the challenging party will rarely ever able to beat the incumbent. And I'm not just talking about the money disparity, either -- the candidate selection process has been pretty crap. Since Reagan:

Walter Mondale
Bob Dole
John Kerry
Mitt Romney

I wasn't around for Mondale, but jeez talk about a lot of bland, uninspiring folks.

Mondale sucked.  When he picked Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate, he chose to lose the election just to make a social statement.  Biggest landslide in a presidential election in my lifetime.  The Gipper carried 49 states. 

Offline Riceball

  • It's the economy, stupid.
  • Posts: 969
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1056 on: February 02, 2012, 04:33:31 PM »
All I hear from the candidates, as well as voters, is that the biggest issue is who can beat Obama.
I personally get put off when the main platform or concern is to just beat the opponent of the opposing party, rather than what they can or will do to fix the country.
Timewarp quote lol.

We had this happen to our Labor Party (leftish) in 2007 - although we are talking parliamentary not presidential. They elected this guy called Kevin Rudd as leader, had this massive campaign around him being this deity sent to save ua from the horrible conservatives who had been in power for a decade or so. He won, but it turned out he was a little dictator, making decisions with no consultation with his ministers and very little with his bureaocracy. Made a bunch of bad moves, pissed off the media, community at large, lobby groups and, finally, the parts of the business community and got rolled. Labor still won power in 2010 in minority, but they are still working through the shit he kicked up and are so deeply unpopular that a the opposition looks like they will waltz into power with basically no policies.

So, beware.
I punch those numbers into my calculator and they make a happy face.

A $500 Musical Odyssey: Now accepting nominations

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1057 on: February 02, 2012, 06:21:15 PM »
See, the way I look at it, there shouldn't be any cutting out of Social Security or Medicare. They're paid for by their own taxes, and they have their own trust funds (which have been raided constantly). Some tweaks need to be made for the system (raising the age of eligibility makes sense to me, seeing as how we're living longer, working longer and are healthier longer), but to actually cut anything out of this irresponsible.

I guess I should also add someone who is willing to have sensible financial reform (completely reforming the Fed is fine with me, getting rid of a national bank is not), as well as a serious attempt to deal with our health care problem, and energy problems.

But shouldn't people have the choice to be involved or not?

You do. No one is forcing you to stay in the country. There's plenty of places to live that don't have such laws.

The guarantee is one reason why Social Security and Medicare can work. Without that guarantee, you neuter the entire system. It's a social contract, that changes how you are compensated, it does not change how much you are compensated. 

Offline unklejman

  • Posts: 715
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1058 on: February 02, 2012, 06:57:50 PM »
I've not signed any contract.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1059 on: February 02, 2012, 07:06:37 PM »
You never signed a contract to be a US citizen either. Or held an oath to uphold the law. Or asked what religion or language you want to be taught by your parents.

Just because you don't sign something doesn't mean you aren't bound by it. It's called "society".

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1060 on: February 02, 2012, 07:19:00 PM »
I've not signed any contract.
You never signed a contract to be a US citizen either. Or held an oath to uphold the law. Or asked what religion or language you want to be taught by your parents.

Just because you don't sign something doesn't mean you aren't bound by it. It's called "society".

rumborak


Ya, and where's my contract I signed approving my being born? How dare my parents force to me live, it should have been consensual.

unkle, do you feel you have the right to your property? Or life? Or all the other things guaranteed to you by the US Constitution? Cause you didn't sign onto any of those things, either. It's called a social contract for a reason, and you "sign" it by continuing to be a part of the society.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1061 on: February 02, 2012, 07:50:26 PM »
Unless you wanna go live in the woods and be a Unibomber. Or go to another country.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline unklejman

  • Posts: 715
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1062 on: February 02, 2012, 08:46:45 PM »
You never signed a contract to be a US citizen either. Or held an oath to uphold the law. Or asked what religion or language you want to be taught by your parents.

Just because you don't sign something doesn't mean you aren't bound by it. It's called "society".

rumborak

The things listed here are not the same as forcing some one to be involved in a retirement plan.

unkle, do you feel you have the right to your property? Or life? Or all the other things guaranteed to you by the US Constitution? Cause you didn't sign onto any of those things, either. It's called a social contract for a reason, and you "sign" it by continuing to be a part of the society.

I didn't sign on to those things, but they are natural rights inherent to being a human being, and none of them require me to partake of them if I choose not to.  And it's funny you mentioned the constitution. I don't believe I have read anywhere that the federal government has the authority to set up a mandatory retirement plan.

Unless you wanna go live in the woods and be a Unibomber.

So I have a choice of being forced to give up my money for a retirement plan that I don't want, or being the Unibomber.... got it.

Or go to another country.

This is an interesting comment. The U.S. is supposed to be a union of states. The federal government was not given authority to mandate things like retirement plans, although the states can initiate social experiments like this.  This gives an individual the option to vote with their feet. They can move to a totally different place under different laws without giving up their citizenship and protection of the bill of rights. This is one of the separations of power, and generates competition between states. And most of all it gives people choice.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2012, 10:07:43 PM by unklejman »

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1063 on: February 02, 2012, 09:49:38 PM »
Anyone that appeals to the "Go live to another country" argument or even implies that it's a relatively valid one immediately lands in my "ignore" list.

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10293
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1064 on: February 02, 2012, 09:58:13 PM »

Ed Norton: emindead

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1065 on: February 02, 2012, 10:01:35 PM »
Anyone that appeals to the "Go live to another country" argument or even implies that it's a relatively valid one immediately lands in my "ignore" list.

OK.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1066 on: February 02, 2012, 11:29:20 PM »
unkle, do you feel you have the right to your property? Or life? Or all the other things guaranteed to you by the US Constitution? Cause you didn't sign onto any of those things, either. It's called a social contract for a reason, and you "sign" it by continuing to be a part of the society.

I didn't sign on to those things, but they are natural rights inherent to being a human being, and none of them require me to partake of them if I choose not to.  And it's funny you mentioned the constitution. I don't believe I have read anywhere that the federal government has the authority to set up a mandatory retirement plan.

There are no natural rights, there are only socially agreed upon moral rights. The only "natural" right is your right to be free, becuase it's physically impossible to ever fully control someone (at least so far). You're right to property? How inherent is that right, when I can easily steal your property? It's a "right" because I, and other people in our society, have an obligation to respect your right, and claim, to your property, in exchange for the same. How is property a "natural right" when numerous societies in history have not had a conception of property, or thought you could really "own" something? It's a pure social fabrication, it's a social contract. Notice how historically, "rights" came into proper conception with the concept of a social contract, and of the evolution from a state of nature to a social state. "Rights" are simply statements of a morality, to be enforced by a government and a collective will. If you don't respect my claims to property, we'll imprison you. If you don't respect my right to life, we'll imprison you (and maybe kill you). It set's up a framework.

I also never said that the social contract we have is limited to the Constitution, nor is the Constitution a strictly limited thing. It set's up a groundwork for how the government can work, it does not say with precision what can and cannot be done. It gives the power for certain things, it denies the power for certain things, and it gives the framework for other things to come about. The framers were smart enough to realize that setting up a strict and rigid government, like the one you advocate, would be harmful, and it wouldn't work. Where does the authority come from for social safety nets? The stated power to "promote the General Welfare," and the stated power to do everything "necessary and proper" to achieve this end. Did the Founders imagine something like Social Security? No, but they didn't write anything in the Constitution that actually forbids this from occurring, and it leaves the door open; allowing for the people of the Nation to come to their own decision. They first and foremost set up a government responsible to the People.

Your kind of libertarian faces a huge inherent problem: the Founders set up a government. If they believed as you did, there wouldn't BE a federal government, there wouldn't BE a Constitution.


Anyone that appeals to the "Go live to another country" argument or even implies that it's a relatively valid one immediately lands in my "ignore" list.

You are aware it's an extenuation of libertarian philosophy, don't you? Every libertarian I have ever argued against has no problem with people banding together, and doing the things discussed about on their own accord. However, for some reason, when the scale of this banding together get's so large, this goes out the window, and people are no longer allowed to come to social agreements.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1067 on: February 02, 2012, 11:38:01 PM »
It's like that old joke about the anarchist convention, and it makes no sense to me.
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline MasterShakezula

  • Posts: 3733
  • Owes H $10
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1068 on: February 02, 2012, 11:43:01 PM »
I do not see why one would so harshly oppose some portion of their income going into SS.  I mean, one may or may not end up needing it, but you cannot necessarily tell for sure until around the time you are eligible.  Even if you don't end up needing your SS checks, they're still a nice bonus.  It's the gov. doing something real beneficial for you; why be so opposed to it? 

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 25281
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1069 on: February 03, 2012, 07:24:32 AM »
I do not see why one would so harshly oppose some portion of their income going into SS.  I mean, one may or may not end up needing it, but you cannot necessarily tell for sure until around the time you are eligible.  Even if you don't end up needing your SS checks, they're still a nice bonus.  It's the gov. doing something real beneficial for you; why be so opposed to it?

I don't think the fact that it is social security that is the problem. I think people get upset because their money is being taken away for something they never agreed to. In this case it happens to be social security, any other fund with the same money holdings would generate the exact same response.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1070 on: February 03, 2012, 07:32:16 AM »
Where was the agreement I made to pay any sort of taxes?  Fed Taxes.  State Taxes.  Sales Tax.  I never signed an agreement to obey any laws either.
Its a social contract that is agreed upon by our society.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline unklejman

  • Posts: 715
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1071 on: February 03, 2012, 08:16:29 AM »

There are no natural rights, there are only socially agreed upon moral rights. The only "natural" right is your right to be free, becuase it's physically impossible to ever fully control someone (at least so far). You're right to property? How inherent is that right, when I can easily steal your property? It's a "right" because I, and other people in our society, have an obligation to respect your right, and claim, to your property, in exchange for the same. How is property a "natural right" when numerous societies in history have not had a conception of property, or thought you could really "own" something? It's a pure social fabrication, it's a social contract. Notice how historically, "rights" came into proper conception with the concept of a social contract, and of the evolution from a state of nature to a social state. "Rights" are simply statements of a morality, to be enforced by a government and a collective will. If you don't respect my claims to property, we'll imprison you. If you don't respect my right to life, we'll imprison you (and maybe kill you). It set's up a framework.

That's your opinion, mine is that we have natural rights.

The framers were smart enough to realize that setting up a strict and rigid government, like the one you advocate, would be harmful, and it wouldn't work.


I'm not advocating a rigid government, I'm advocating that we use the rules that we have set up. We give the federal government new powers by ammendment. It makes it a harder and slower process, but this is a good thing. It prevents major changes at the whim of poplular demand that may or may not be good in the long run, or easily reversable if need be.

Where does the authority come from for social safety nets? The stated power to "promote the General Welfare," and the stated power to do everything "necessary and proper" to achieve this end.

If this was a method of granting the government powers, then why was the tenth ammendment added?


Your kind of libertarian faces a huge inherent problem: the Founders set up a government. If they believed as you did, there wouldn't BE a federal government, there wouldn't BE a Constitution.

No, the federal government was created to regulate commerce between (not within) states and provide national deffence. And these are necessary roles for it.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1072 on: February 03, 2012, 08:32:02 AM »
But we don't live in the 18th century anymore. The demands on the nation have drastically changed.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1073 on: February 03, 2012, 08:42:06 AM »
You know this will get a few mentions on the campaign trail once Obama hits the road: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/business/economy/us-economy-added-243000-jobs-in-january-unemployment-rate-is-8-3.html?_r=1&hp
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1074 on: February 03, 2012, 08:44:17 AM »
Romney won with over 50% of the vote last time by dragging out every last LDS vote.

What's to stop him from doing so this time?

Quote
Paul supporters were treated miserably at the state convention, because McCain robocalls had identified them by phone polling. That's why a lot of Paul supporters aren't answering to polls now. I don't know how true that is, but I believe Paul will end up second, far behind Romney.

I find it highly unlikely he will come in above Gingrich. In both polls used by realclearpolitics.com, Gingrich gets 25%, whereas RP has either 9% or 15%.  Your explanation of "the RP supporters are hiding because they got treated badly last time" will not amount for a 10% difference.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline unklejman

  • Posts: 715
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1075 on: February 03, 2012, 08:48:20 AM »
But we don't live in the 18th century anymore. The demands on the nation have drastically changed.

rumborak

Well there is a way to change the constitution if it really is needed.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26664
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1076 on: February 03, 2012, 08:48:43 AM »
Speaking of the Green Party, they declared their nominee: Roseanne.

https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/roseanne-is-running-for-president-not-a-joke/

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline Dark Castle

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6532
  • Gender: Female
  • SmegmaPrincessX
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1077 on: February 03, 2012, 08:51:30 AM »
Speaking of the Green Party, they declared their nominee: Roseanne.

https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/roseanne-is-running-for-president-not-a-joke/

rumborak

DDDDDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
I've been watching Roseanne lately  :lol

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10293
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1078 on: February 03, 2012, 08:54:58 AM »
:|

Offline jsem

  • Posts: 4912
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1079 on: February 03, 2012, 09:16:02 AM »
Romney won with over 50% of the vote last time by dragging out every last LDS vote.

What's to stop him from doing so this time?

Nothing. He'll probably end up at around 50% this time too. I never made any claim that he'd lose votes.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16265
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1080 on: February 03, 2012, 09:57:19 AM »
But we don't live in the 18th century anymore. The demands on the nation have drastically changed.

rumborak

Well there is a way to change the constitution if it really is needed.

Weren't you just saying that we need to go back to the Constitution's original intentions?
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.
:superdude:

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1081 on: February 03, 2012, 12:36:45 PM »
See, the way I look at it, there shouldn't be any cutting out of Social Security or Medicare. They're paid for by their own taxes, and they have their own trust funds (which have been raided constantly). Some tweaks need to be made for the system (raising the age of eligibility makes sense to me, seeing as how we're living longer, working longer and are healthier longer), but to actually cut anything out of this irresponsible.

I guess I should also add someone who is willing to have sensible financial reform (completely reforming the Fed is fine with me, getting rid of a national bank is not), as well as a serious attempt to deal with our health care problem, and energy problems.

But shouldn't people have the choice to be involved or not?

Shouldn't I have a choice about whether or not the money taken from my paycheck every week is used to drop bombs on people in a country 6000 miles from here that I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about?


Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1082 on: February 03, 2012, 12:40:43 PM »
See, the way I look at it, there shouldn't be any cutting out of Social Security or Medicare. They're paid for by their own taxes, and they have their own trust funds (which have been raided constantly). Some tweaks need to be made for the system (raising the age of eligibility makes sense to me, seeing as how we're living longer, working longer and are healthier longer), but to actually cut anything out of this irresponsible.

I guess I should also add someone who is willing to have sensible financial reform (completely reforming the Fed is fine with me, getting rid of a national bank is not), as well as a serious attempt to deal with our health care problem, and energy problems.

But shouldn't people have the choice to be involved or not?

Shouldn't I have a choice about whether or not the money taken from my paycheck every week is used to drop bombs on people in a country 6000 miles from here that I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about?

It is moot.  The logistics of invividuals directing tax revenue to their own particular destination makes it impossible.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8521
  • Gender: Male
  • Bryce & Kylie's Grandpa
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1083 on: February 03, 2012, 12:45:05 PM »
Should have colored my post for more clarity

Offline unklejman

  • Posts: 715
  • Gender: Male
Re: Election 2012
« Reply #1084 on: February 03, 2012, 01:33:42 PM »
It is moot.  The logistics of invividuals directing tax revenue to their own particular destination makes it impossible.

So put the most invasive and controlling as close to the individual as possible. City, county, state. It is much easier to leave from under them, or change them this way.

Shouldn't I have a choice about whether or not the money taken from my paycheck every week is used to drop bombs on people in a country 6000 miles from here that I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about?

I've vowed to never argue with you again, but I'll say this one thing. Act's of war should only be done as a last resort under direct threat of attack, or actual attack,  with declaration of congress, and with an exit strategy.  I feel that those who want preemptive war with 3rd world nations should pick up a gun, buy a plane ticket, and fight it themselves.