MovieChat Forums > The Ides of March (2011) Discussion > A ban on gas-pwered cars in ten years? C...

A ban on gas-pwered cars in ten years? Compuslory service in exchange...

posted 12 years ago by placebeau1
27 replies | jump to latest

college tuition?

I'm paraphrasing here, but that's essentially two pieces of Morris' platform.

Disclaimer: I'm an independent, I don't take a side. I love political thrillers, I don't care what party's the target.

I thought Ides of March was fantastic. I loved it. That said, I didn't feel that Morris' was a believable character, especially when they trotted out pieces of his platform (like those stated above) that are utterly ludicrous. How did he ever think he would get elected president with policies like that?

It took me right out of the story, and I even chuckled at the "ban on gas-powered cars" line. Especially since we later see Morris riding in a gigantic, gas-powered, ozone-destroying, carbon-emitting bus, and later still in an SUV.

I just wish they brought Morris back down to earth, and didn't make him sound so ridiculous. I wish he were more believable.

Thoughts? Opinions?

[–] BiffC 12 years ago

Yeah the ban on gas powered cars in 10 years seemed a bit out there. I chuckled at that too. Sounds like something a guy like Bill Maher might say, but a candidate running for President?....c'mon.
Oil's not going anywhere anytime soon if we all want to enjoy the trappings of a modern society. I'm all for alternative energy sources- solar, hydro, etc. but none of that's going to help you if you want to hop on a plane (or cruise ship) and travel anywhere in the world. Human beings are a mobile species with a built in urge to explore and travel. With 7 billion people on this planet and counting, we need every available energy soure we can use.
Electric cars like the Nissan Leaf, for example, are a great start. Yeah they produce zero emissions and are powered by electricity, but the USA gets about what- nearly 60% of it electricity from coal-fired power plants. And how many barrels of oil were used to produce that electric car...the upholstry, seats, paint, door panels, dashboard, tires, hoses, fan belts are all, in some form or other, petroleum products. You can't get something for nothing.

[–] nutsberryfarm 12 years ago

it is plausible.

Just put it on the Underhill's tab.

[–] Zuider_Zee 10 years ago

Plausible as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

[–] martint-6 12 years ago

Exactly.

Though his platform for presidency doesn't matter to the plot, the idea that a man with this platform would get elected is just ridiculous.

We are NOWHERE CLOSE to getting off of oil, and there is just no way that could happen to our vehicles in ten years.

Mandatory Service would also be an issue with the Constitution not mandating that one has to do anything of the sort. You'd have to get Congress to create a new amendment to the Constitution and the outcry against it would be enormous.

The whole "Terrorism would stop if we stopped using 'their' oil" was also absurd, though I thought it the least absurd of his platform.

All in all I thought it was a great movie, especially for politicos. But you are right, leaving the fact that he is an atheist beside, a man with that platform, especially announcing it so candidly, would have NO CHANCE of being elected.

Of course, still see the movie.

[–] BQQ 12 years ago

I just watched this film and came here to find posts like these.
Was it a crowd of hippies going wild when he unleashed the eco-nonsense? How many people not too stoned to vote actually give a *beep*? Not even Al Gore used stuff like that during his campaigns.
The scene when they were discussing mandatory service was one of the strangest, most surreal scenes in recent memory. The way they all gave that evil chuckle and swept it away like it was no big deal... I don't think the writer understands the way the world works.

[–] GethinVanH 12 years ago

A candidate here in Canada proposed a "green shift". He was trounced in the election by the Conservatives. Although in Canada it's the party that wins the most seats which has its leader become Prime Minister.

"The tax shift would create an ecotax on carbon while reducing personal and corporate income taxes. He stated that the taxation on carbon would generate up to $15 billion per year in revenues to offset the reduction in income tax revenue."

It's funny to me seeing a fictional candidate propose something similar in the US. It didn't even work in reality in Canada. The lesson learned from the campaign here in Canada was essentially, people care about the environment, they just don't want to sacrifice anything themselves to save it.

[–] GaelicLass 12 years ago

Mandatory service is already in affect in many countries and works well. I would like to see it here because so many youngsters are just drifting with no direction and they don't volunteer for any programs. Many young people sit around and wait for their parents or the government to give them something.

Didn't any of you hear JFK's speech "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". We took those words seriously while this generation does nothing but play on their electronic games.

It does not need a Constitutional Amendment and neither did the draft. It would be a form of the draft, but they wouldn't necessarily go into the military.

"Sometimes you have to know when to put a cork in it."
~Frasier

[–] cmap2 12 years ago

It does not need a Constitutional Amendment and neither did the draft. It would be a form of the draft, but they wouldn't necessarily go into the military.

It really is sad how little some people know about the Constitution and basic civics.

Any kind of mandatory non-military national service for individuals past the age of majority (18 in all but three or four states) would require passage of a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of military conscription because it is encompassed by Congress' express powers under Article I "to declare war" and "raise and support armies." There exists no comparable power in the Constitution that allows the federal government to impress civilians into the PeaceCorps, AmeriCorps, or any other kind of non-military mandatory national service those like you and the fictional Governor Morris advocate. Ours being a government of enumerated powers, that alone is enough to render mandatory national service programs unconstitutional. Yet the Thirteenth Amendment and its prohibition on "involuntary servitude" would provide an additional ground.

[–] GaelicLass 12 years ago

The draft is involuntary servitude.

If those other functions where moved under the military and called Peace Keepers or some such other thing than they would be able to "draft" them. Not everyone who was drafted in Viet Nam saw war time action but were used in peace keeping missions in other parts of the world as well. I had family and friends back then who got lucky enough to go to Germany and wait it out on an base while they saw Europe on their leaves. Others were not so lucky. We are in a continual "War" on Terror now thanks to GW Bush declaring it so.

There are also incentives that would be offered to get those young people to go voluntarily.

I have a friend who is a constitutional lawyer who reviews cases which may or may not be held up as a precedent setting case to be published in law books so I will run it by him.

"Sometimes you have to know when to put a cork in it."
~Frasier

[–] denise1234 9 years ago

ikr!

And to say/imply that no one over the age of 18 wouldn't care because they are past the age of eligibility, and for 'Morris' and his crew to not give a care about the ones who can't vote (and would be the ones FORCED into that service)...says a lot right there.

Plus: I beg to differ that people 'over 18' wouldn't care.

A whole lot of parents would most *certainly* care.

And what about those who aren't going to go to college?

Am I missing something here?

"Shake your hair girl with your ponytail"

[–] themadride 12 years ago

So, I only have to give up 2 years of my life working for government to get my free college education.....except I want to be a farmer, carpenter, take over the family business, be a musician, a painter, a criminal....or whateverthef#ckever.

Uh oh. Guess I'm f#cked.

Sh#tty platform. Sh#tty candidate. Sh#tty movie.

Nuff said.

[–] modestaustin811 12 years ago

in reply to him saying he was going to get rid of gas cars while driving a SUV

I think the whole movie was just showing how hypocritical politics can really be, this is a perfect example.

He wants integrity but really he just wanted to win, and was saying everything and doing everything he had to do so.

[–] benjtsang 12 years ago

Not to mention paying for every single kid's college education is such a socialist thing to do that every republican would be against it, not to mention that it would bankrupt the US government in a heartbeat.

"Even my parents called me Mulder" -Fox Mulder

[–] GethinVanH 12 years ago

Other countries do it and aren't bankrupt. They just don't have a defence budget of over 1 trillion dollars (the largest defence spending of any country in comparison to GDP).

[–] cmap2 12 years ago

Other countries do it and aren't bankrupt. They just don't have a defence budget of over 1 trillion dollars (the largest defence spending of any country in comparison to GDP)

This is such nonsense. The defense budget has nothing to do with the country's budget problems. As both a percentage of GDP (4%) and a percentage of the federal budget (19%) the defense budget is at historically low levels. In contrast, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone account for 57% of the government budget - and growing and growing. It is idiotic, unsustainable entitlement programs like that proposed by the fictional Governor Morris that are the source of the country's budgetary problems, and his and his ilk's only harebrained idea is to ask for "More cowbell!"

[–] Ruby_4815162342 12 years ago

This.

Last watched: Prometheus

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 9 years ago

Our military budget is larger than all of the military budgets of every other country in the world combined. That is ridiculous.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] denise1234 9 years ago

Not to mention that many *other* countries don't have to spend as much money on defense because they depend on the good ole USA...in more ways than one.

"Shake your hair girl with your ponytail"

[–] Gabe1972 7 years ago

the defense budget is at historically low levels.

And yet it's still, BY FAR, the most ridiculously high costing military in the world, so the fact that it's at its lowest level in years isn't much of a consolation. In addition, to say it has nothing to do with the country's budget problems is not only untrue, it's an absolutely ridiculous statement to make.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid aren't going anywhere, nor should they. The military budget is ridiculously bloated with paying for things not needed and OVERPAYING for things they do.

Time wounds all heels.

[–] mightymac101 12 years ago

That's the crazed "la-la" land in which liberals live.

It's a form of brain damage really.

[–] Kroyall1962 11 years ago

His views were as ridiculous of those of Andrew Shephard from "The American President". It does serve the useful purpose of revealing how unrealistic, uninformed and naive most liberals really are.

[–] denise1234 10 years ago

placebeau1^

Agree.

Sad to think it's quite possible that Clooney actually believes these are good ideas (as presented in the film).

~~ If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story ~ Orson Welles