New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#1 2015-11-05 15:23:28

RobertDyck
Member
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,121
Website

Politics

We seem to always end up debating politics. I guess that will happen as long as Congress has control over space. We can redirect all politics here. Consider this the toilet to flush politics.

Offline

#2 2015-11-05 15:24:56

RobertDyck
Member
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,121
Website

Re: Politics

From "Profit" in "Martian Politics and Economy"...

I just can't let Tom have the last word.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

The unemployment rate quoted in that ad doesn't reflect the low participation rate of Americans in the Job Market, that rate hasn't been so low since 1972. The Unemployment rate has gotten so low by Americans giving up looking for work after being unable to find them over the last 7-8 years, it hasn't gone down by Americans finding jobs, there has been a slight uptick in employment but most of those jobs went to illegal aliens who work for much less than American Citizens, and most of those illegals don't come from Canada!

Of course illegals don't come from Canada. We have better social programs, so the only reason to work in the US is a good paying job. That requires a social security number and work visa. I get annoyed by some Americans who try to treat the Canadian border like Mexico. The best way to prevent illegal immigration from Canada is not a wall, it's just the paperwork of a work visa.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

As for levels of military spending you have to take into consideration two things, a dollar in the year 2000 was not worth the same as a dollar in 2015, so some of the increase is just inflation.

Not significant. I've calculated that before. If you want to use that argument, then you calculate it now.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Also in 2000 we were at peace, the Cold War had ended and someone decided to stir things up in 2001.

No, you're not. The Persian Gulf War in Iraq in 1991 was justified because Iraq invade Kuwait. President George H. W. Bush told general Schwarzkopf to have a clear military objective before he went in. Go in, kick butt, pull out. Don't get bogged down long-term. He did exactly that. But some yahoo in Washington DC couldn't leave well enough alone. Just had to establish "no fly zones" and fantasies of "weapons of mass destruction". The Iraq war never did end, it's been continuous since 1991. Al Qaeda decided they want all foreigners out. This resulted in escalation. Bill Clinton really screwed that up, but not as bad as George W. Culmination was 9/11. Everyone saw it coming, everyone but George W. Of course death of 3,000 Americans had to be addressed, but the attack came from Afghanistan. Again, the Taliban offered to hand over Al Qaeda, but George W. wanted a war. That was screwed up again, but even if a war was necessary, it should have been Afghanistan only, and completed within the same year. All US troops out by the end of 2002. There is no excuse to drag this out indefinitely, and no excuse at all for Iraq.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

As far as Bush was concerned, Putin was just another European Leader, Putin has since been trying to demonstrate otherwise. It is a shame really, a lot of kids growing up today don't remember the Cold War, it never occurred to them that Russia was supposed to be the bad guy, and now Putin is reminding them, they grew up in an era of peace, and Putin is trying to drag them back into an era of Cold War, both Russians and Americans. I'm sure if it was put up for a vote, most Russians would have voted no on a new Cold War, but Putin didn't give them any choice!

It takes two to tango. Putin complained that all Russian patrols ended when the Soviet Union collapsed, but NATO patrols have not. He feels threatened. And look what happened to their sphere of influence: all former Warsaw Pact members other than the Soviet Union itself are now full members of NATO, and the Baltic States were republics of the former Soviet Union but now are also members of NATO. He objected to further cutting off trade with former Soviet republics. If Ukraine agreed to trade with Russia, the invasion would never have happened. And Ukraine started the process of not only joining EU, but NATO. So the only warm weather sea port Russia has, Crimea, would be taken by NATO. That's a threat. Puttin didn't start it.

I do remember the Cold War. We wanted an end to the Cold War my whole life. Its end was a miracle! But military contractors in the US want their fat contracts back, so lobbied hard to have the US military incite Russia. Yeltsin refused to take the bate, but Putin felt he was pushed too far. You want to stop this? Stop pushing Putin.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

This "Hawkish Obama" you talk about is not the same person as the one who is President of the United States, I know he is a wimp, he won't fight ISIS, he sends a tokein force of 50 Special Forces people, what are they supposed to be Superheroes with superpowers? Obama didn't bomb ISIS when they were vulnerable, walking across the desert into Iraq, he was more interested in pulling US forces out of Iraq, so a Hawk he is not. Putin would much rather have a President like George Bush as a Foil, so he could say Bush is being aggressive and that Russia is just defending itself, but Barack Obama provides no such person, so Russian Propaganda has that difficult job of making a wimp like President Obama look like Mr. Bush, I'm not so sure how successful he is at convincing the Russian People that Obama is President Bush. That "Obama" they make up in the Russian Media is not a real person.

Partisan bullshit.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

By the way ISIS needs to be fought just as Nazi Germany needed to be fought, they most recently claimed responsibility for blowing up a Russian airliner. ISIS doesn't consider the Russians to be their friends, Perhaps Russia ought to devote more of their time a resources to fighting ISIS than to fighting their pretend Cold War with us.

You want to end the Cold War? Then stop trying to take over major Russian military bases. And close many American military bases abroad. Here are a couple lists, Wikipedia:
List of Russian military bases abroad
List of United States military bases
The United States list included both domestic and overseas. I have difficulty adding up the number of American overseas military bases. It's hundreds.

Offline

#3 2015-11-05 15:27:19

RobertDyck
Member
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,121
Website

Re: Politics

Moved from "Profit" in "Martian Politics and Economy". What Tom responded to...

12063590_1715117455384271_5822059860983409596_n.jpg?oh=1c4c9d43bf974afd83774adf19981aba&oe=56C38F71
Tom, Canada is inundated with American media. I lived in the US a couple times: 6 months in 1996 in a suburb of Richmond, Virginia, and 10 months (beginning of June 1999 through end of March 2000) in Miami, Florida. Many Canadians think the culture in the US is pretty much the same as Canada, because what we see on TV. But there are differences you only see when you live there.

But Obama? One campaign organizer (local for one electoral district in 2008) came to Canada, and gave a talk to Liberals how to do the same. There is some contact between the Democrat party and Liberal Party of Canada. And much stronger association between the Republican party and Conservative Party of Canada. I met one former member of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, before it merged with the Reform Party of Canada, who said the Republican party had paid for his party membership. Some Canadians have referred to the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) as Republican Party north. And that's an insult.

You hate Obama-care, but it's only a fraction of the coverage you get in Canada. Obama-care is actually based on a proposal by Mitt Romney when he was a state governor. Romney is Republican. That was an attempt to get bipartisan support. Obama-care costs as much per individual as Canada's system, but only provides a fraction of the coverage. I've seen Obama on TV many times, once he complained that hard-core Democrats would never be happy until they get the Canadian medical system. Ok, that sounds good to me. Obama-care is a compromise.

Valid criticism of Obama:
- He promised to get American troops out of Iraq, expected within the first 100 days of his presidency. The pullout was ordered in August 2010, the pullout did start that month, but full withdrawal was not complete until December 2011. However, there was still 17,000 troops at the embassy in Baghdad. 17,000! How is that a pullout? And now American forces are going back in to fight ISIS/ISIL.
- He promised to get American troops out of Afghanistan, expected by the mid-term Congressional election of 2010. American troops still haven't pulled out.
- Obama has used drones to kill more people on foreign soil than all previous presidents combined.
- American deficit: The budget was balanced in year 2000, when George W. Bush took over from Bill Clinton. The recession started in February 2001, just two weeks after the inauguration. It got worse after 9/11, but didn't start then. Military spending was $288 billion in year 2000. It was $700 billion in 2008, $799 billion in 2009. The first budget approved by Obama was 2010, that year the military budget was $901 billion. And people wonder why America is broke.

Summary: Obama is too hawkish. I'm a political junkie. I watched the New Hampshire primaries in 2008, but Democrat and Republican. On CNN. Obama was the most hawkish Democratic candidate that year, Hillary the second most. They were both too hawkish for my taste.

Obama is highly popular among Democrats in the US. He's only disliked by Republicans. Of course you're a Republican.

Offline

#4 2015-11-06 09:55:54

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 2,541
Website

Re: Politics

I hardly think Obama can be praised for Saudi Arabia increasing production of oil. Or for increased fracking in America. Or for having the good fortune to not be in a recession towards the end of his Presidency. Also, hasn't the House of Representatives been largely Republican during his two terms?


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#5 2015-11-07 10:59:05

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Politics

RobertDyck wrote:

From "Profit" in "Martian Politics and Economy"...

I just can't let Tom have the last word.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

The unemployment rate quoted in that ad doesn't reflect the low participation rate of Americans in the Job Market, that rate hasn't been so low since 1972. The Unemployment rate has gotten so low by Americans giving up looking for work after being unable to find them over the last 7-8 years, it hasn't gone down by Americans finding jobs, there has been a slight uptick in employment but most of those jobs went to illegal aliens who work for much less than American Citizens, and most of those illegals don't come from Canada!

Of course illegals don't come from Canada. We have better social programs, so the only reason to work in the US is a good paying job. That requires a social security number and work visa. I get annoyed by some Americans who try to treat the Canadian border like Mexico. The best way to prevent illegal immigration from Canada is not a wall, it's just the paperwork of a work visa.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

As for levels of military spending you have to take into consideration two things, a dollar in the year 2000 was not worth the same as a dollar in 2015, so some of the increase is just inflation.

Not significant. I've calculated that before. If you want to use that argument, then you calculate it now.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Also in 2000 we were at peace, the Cold War had ended and someone decided to stir things up in 2001.

No, you're not. The Persian Gulf War in Iraq in 1991 was justified because Iraq invade Kuwait. President George H. W. Bush told general Schwarzkopf to have a clear military objective before he went in. Go in, kick butt, pull out. Don't get bogged down long-term. He did exactly that. But some yahoo in Washington DC couldn't leave well enough alone. Just had to establish "no fly zones" and fantasies of "weapons of mass destruction". The Iraq war never did end, it's been continuous since 1991. Al Qaeda decided they want all foreigners out.

Have you ever asked yourself, why it is that Arabs never really seem to ever get tired of war, they are always happy to fight never ending battles against superior opponents for multiple generations, even though their backs aren't to the wall, and we aren't trying to exterminate them. Who made the Arabs that way, it wasn't us! We didn't turn them into a bunch of fanatics willing to throw their lives away for Allah, they did that to themselves! The thing is we haven't done a damn thing to the Russians, and the Russians are looking for excuses to hate us because their leader needs a distraction for the people that would otherwise chafe under his rule, and the bad economic results he has otherwise delivered to them. Hitler needed his Jews, Putin needed us Americans to be his enemy. We mean Russia no harm, we never did, and it really boils me when men like Putin try to vilify the United States despite all the good we have done, because they need an "Enemy". They don't try to vilify Switzerland or Austria, though in the case of Austria, you could argue they did more damage to Russia than the United States did.

Speaking of Iraq, why should Russians care about what happens to Arabs? They are not Christians, they are not Orthodox Christians, they are not their people. Russians aren't fanatics, and Russians are the latest victims of their terrorism.

This resulted in escalation. Bill Clinton really screwed that up, but not as bad as George W. Culmination was 9/11. Everyone saw it coming, everyone but George W. Of course death of 3,000 Americans had to be addressed, but the attack came from Afghanistan. Again, the Taliban offered to hand over Al Qaeda, but George W. wanted a war.

That is not what I saw, the Afghans refused to hand them over, I saw it on CNN. You are just trying to assign the bad guy role to George W. Bush, because the Russians need a bad guy to distract the public from their misrule. Putin is the richest man in the World, and he got so rich largely by appropriating Russian Wealth while ruling as President and Dictator. Putin is actually robbing them, but Putin needs another bad guy to distract them, and it needs to be a superpower, Switzerland won't do!

That was screwed up again, but even if a war was necessary, it should have been Afghanistan only, and completed within the same year. All US troops out by the end of 2002. There is no excuse to drag this out indefinitely, and no excuse at all for Iraq.

You fail to make the case as to why the Russians should care. The Iraqis aren't Russians, Iraq is not a part of Russia and it happened almost 15 years ago, a rather delayed reaction, don't you think? Putin getting all hostile with Obama because of something George Bush did at the beginning of his two-term Administration. All that is, is an excuse by Putin to start a Cold War, and he wanted this cold war anyway. Putin thinks Russia can only be a great nation when it is in opposition to the United States, and so apparently do you. You don't seem to want a Russia that is just another European country albeit a large one. You need to have a Russia that is pointing nuclear missiles at you, you seem to prefer a cold war, as you are going along with all of Putin's excuses to have one, and make no mistake, it is his Cold War, Putin can end it any time he wants, and the Russian People can end it by getting rid of him, if Putin won't do it himself!

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

As far as Bush was concerned, Putin was just another European Leader, Putin has since been trying to demonstrate otherwise. It is a shame really, a lot of kids growing up today don't remember the Cold War, it never occurred to them that Russia was supposed to be the bad guy, and now Putin is reminding them, they grew up in an era of peace, and Putin is trying to drag them back into an era of Cold War, both Russians and Americans. I'm sure if it was put up for a vote, most Russians would have voted no on a new Cold War, but Putin didn't give them any choice!

It takes two to tango. Putin complained that all Russian patrols ended when the Soviet Union collapsed, but NATO patrols have not.

NATO didn't collapse, so why should its patrols end, it takes some time to determine whether what follows the Soviet Union would continue to be a threat or not, a power vacuum is always filled after all, and with what, we did not know. It is only prudent to remain on guard to determine whether the future Russia is going to continue to be a threat, and thank God we did!

He feels threatened.

Why, what have we ever done to Russia? We defeated Nazi Germany which did attack Russia, and what was Russia doing since the end of World War II, it has been trying to spread Revolution, unprovoked, it took over Eastern Europe, unprovoked, it started a number of Brushfire wars, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars!
vietnam-war-memorial-wall.jpg
You ever visit this war memorial? Look at the names on this wall, they are the names of Service members who's lives were taken as part of Russia's misadventures in the Third World, was that Russia's "thanks" for our helping them during World War II?

And look what happened to their sphere of influence: all former Warsaw Pact members other than the Soviet Union itself are now full members of NATO,

And why shouldn't they be? They never did a thing to Russia, they were mostly victims of Hitler's aggression, why should Russia be punishing them? They never belonged to Russia, and Russia started World War II on the side of Germany until the Germans showed them the error of their ways.

and the Baltic States were republics of the former Soviet Union but now are also members of NATO.

Before the Baltic States were forced to become "republics" of the Soviet Union against their will, they were independent nations, not Russian at all, they simply returned to the natural state as independent nations after the Cold War. Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Finland could also have been made into Soviet "Republics" in the same manner as the Baltic Republics, except that Stalin wanted those additional votes at the UN so they remained ostensibly independent nations even though they were controlled by Russia, so Russia could have more than one vote at the UN when its puppet states voted. The difference between the Baltic Republics status as members of the Soviet Union and the Rest of Eastern Europe was only a matter of what Russia decided to do with them. I do not feel the Baltic Republics deserve to be punished for what the Russians did to them.

He objected to further cutting off trade with former Soviet republics. If Ukraine agreed to trade with Russia, the invasion would never have happened.

That's not a free trade if one trades to avoid an invasion, if one side as a gun pointed at your head, that is not a free trade and is not the way the free market is supposed to work. Free Trade is supposed to be mutually beneficial and agreed to by both parties for mutual benefit. Has Canada ever traded with the US because it feared a US invasion? Free trade should not come about as a result of threats or under duress, Russia failed this test, it would not trade freely or fairly.

And Ukraine started the process of not only joining EU, but NATO. So the only warm weather sea port Russia has, Crimea, would be taken by NATO. That's a threat. Puttin didn't start it.

the Crimea was a gift to Ukraine by Khrushchev, Putin could have argued that it was not legitimate, but he didn't.

I do remember the Cold War.

So why are you giving Putin's argument to start a new one? Do you like to die? You seem to forget that Putin is also pointing nuclear weapons at you! You are among those that will die if he launches those missiles, why do you make his arguments and excuses?

We wanted an end to the Cold War my whole life.

We lived a long time without a Cold War, a while human generation grew up in its absence, we didn't miss it, Putin did? Don't kid yourself, Obama is not a Cold Warrior, he has not made friends with the armed services, he has cut their pay, the military contractors have gotten less, that is what has been happening, and this has not changed even after Putin started his new Cold War against us, the US has not increased military spending, Some European countries next to Russia have, which is not surprising, as they see the threat that Obama doesn't.

Its end was a miracle! But military contractors in the US want their fat contracts back, so lobbied hard to have the US military incite Russia.

How have they incited Russia? Did they launch a missile?

Yeltsin refused to take the bate, but Putin felt he was pushed too far. You want to stop this? Stop pushing Putin.

So who was worse, George Bush or Obama? Do you like George W. Bush better than Obama. you seem to have a need to blame an American no matter what. Of course the result is Russian missiles pointing at you.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

This "Hawkish Obama" you talk about is not the same person as the one who is President of the United States, I know he is a wimp, he won't fight ISIS, he sends a tokein force of 50 Special Forces people, what are they supposed to be Superheroes with superpowers? Obama didn't bomb ISIS when they were vulnerable, walking across the desert into Iraq, he was more interested in pulling US forces out of Iraq, so a Hawk he is not. Putin would much rather have a President like George Bush as a Foil, so he could say Bush is being aggressive and that Russia is just defending itself, but Barack Obama provides no such person, so Russian Propaganda has that difficult job of making a wimp like President Obama look like Mr. Bush, I'm not so sure how successful he is at convincing the Russian People that Obama is President Bush. That "Obama" they make up in the Russian Media is not a real person.

Partisan bullshit.

That's all you have, calling it bullshit. I know who got elected President of the United States, his father was a Marxist, and his mother too, he associated with various radicals who had sympathies with Russia, this is not a war hawk. Why don't you do some research on him, see who Barack Obama is, not through Russian Media sources, as they need to have their bad guy?

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

By the way ISIS needs to be fought just as Nazi Germany needed to be fought, they most recently claimed responsibility for blowing up a Russian airliner. ISIS doesn't consider the Russians to be their friends, Perhaps Russia ought to devote more of their time a resources to fighting ISIS than to fighting their pretend Cold War with us.

You want to end the Cold War? Then stop trying to take over major Russian military bases. And close many American military bases abroad. Here are a couple lists, Wikipedia:
List of Russian military bases abroad
List of United States military bases
The United States list included both domestic and overseas. I have difficulty adding up the number of American overseas military bases. It's hundreds.

ISIS is evil, that is all that matters, it doesn't matter how they got that way, they only thing that matters now is how to deal with them and how to get rid of them, We can't go in the past and change history to get different results, we have to deal with ISIS now, and ISIS is in Ira and Syria.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2015-11-07 11:00:39)

Offline

#6 2015-11-07 11:09:20

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Politics

Terraformer wrote:

I hardly think Obama can be praised for Saudi Arabia increasing production of oil. Or for increased fracking in America. Or for having the good fortune to not be in a recession towards the end of his Presidency. Also, hasn't the House of Representatives been largely Republican during his two terms?

Obama has said himself, he prefers higher oil prices, that is why he vetoed the Keystone Pipeline from Canada, he does not want oil getting cheaper than it is, after all he has friends in the middle east that earn money by selling monopoly oil. Obama wants the Arabs to get back in control of the price and supply of oil, and that is the reason he doesn't like fracking or oil from Canada, the Canadians simply aren't radical enough, they don't hate America enough, and they don't support terrorism, so we therefore can't buy oil from them according to Obama!

Offline

#7 2015-11-07 17:05:11

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 2,746
Website

Re: Politics

Careful,  guys.  Don't overload this toilet with too much BS.  The sewer pipe might clog up. 

GW


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#8 2015-11-08 14:05:31

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Politics

Lets keep track here, RobertDyck just accused the United States, and thus Obama of being a warmonger and starting the next Cold War instead of Putin, and I think that is unfair. As I didn't accuse Canada of starting this Cold War. I guess Canada just isn't big enough for the charge to stick, but the United States is plenty big, so I guess being big means you get blamed for all the evil in the World, whether justified of not, that is standard operating procedure. It doesn't matter that Obama did nothing, he started no wars in Europe and didn't react to anything Putin did in Ukraine except make a few empty statements opposing it without backing it up with real force, Canada did the same by the way! the person who started this Cold War and the one who is keeping it going is Putin, that is all I am saying. Remember Obama's promise to Putin that he would be more flexible in his second term, once he is reelected? That is the one promise he kept to Putin, but Putin doesn't want a cooperative American Ally, he needs an adversary, so he is accusing Obama of being a warmonger and starting this Cold War, and RobertDyck is simply echoing this, so I am calling him out.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2015-11-08 14:06:01)

Offline

#9 2015-11-08 15:43:21

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 2,746
Website

Re: Politics

That pretty much clogs the sewer as far as I am concerned.  I refuse to participate further in this BS.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2015-11-08 15:43:41)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#10 2015-11-08 16:58:20

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 2,541
Website

Re: Politics

To be fair, I'm actually skimming over Robert and Tom's posts. They'd probably be better served by Private Messaging instead, because no-one else (save Martienne?) seems to be interested.

This reminds me why were banned politics in the first place, a rule which is still on the books. So Josh could still lock this thread.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#11 2015-11-08 20:12:18

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 10,843

Re: Politics

As suggested topic closed....

Offline

#12 2016-03-05 16:18:15

RobertDyck
Member
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,121
Website

Re: Politics

This guy is hilarious. (click for video)
maxresdefault.jpg

Click for another video.
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyRIw8fvNRuKeswNDaByU5_6eRRRSHuP3qjoYQhrW4cATtAFQcrQ

His website: (click image)
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT8T7S6L31EXNdhskLGYUZ9511VVWRQARUi2_Dqkjjayv6u7A8Q

Offline

#13 2016-03-05 20:29:31

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Politics

A reference to Ted Cruz perhaps?
Cruz-Headshot.jpg
I hear he won a couple more states. Trump is not unbeatable, and the anti-Trump vote is coalescing around him!

Offline

#14 2016-03-05 22:12:13

RobertDyck
Member
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,121
Website

Re: Politics

No particular endorsement for any candidate. I did notice strong voter support for non-institutional candidates: Trump and Sanders. Congress should seriously address institutional problems that voters are rebelling against. Some people are horrified at the prospect of either non-institutional candidate. My greatest worry was when I saw TV video of Trump having rally organizers escort out anyone who disagreed with him. Past politicians who did that were Hitler and Mussolini. They rose during the Great Depression, when voters in their countries were desperate. Although I'm told Putin did that too. When Sanders and Trump started, if you read their policies, they both sounded moderate and sensible. Republicans accused Sanders of being socialist, although his policies were really moderate. However, Sanders has embraced the label rather than fighting it. And Trump supporters are more red-neck than Trump himself; he's pandering to what gets attention. As this primary goes on, rhetoric has already gone beyond scary. But voters appear determined not to allow another institutional candidate to get in.

May I make a serious recommendation? Canada introduced both election spending limits, and campaign donation limits. Each electoral district has a maximum amount each candidate is allowed to spend according to district size and population. We had a candidates exceed this limit. He was not permitted to sit in Parliament. In early 2000s the limit was each person could donate up to $5,400 to each candidate per year, and Corporation could notate at most $1,000 to each candidate per year. And this includes donations in kind. That means goods or services have to be valued at fair market value, and that contributes toward the donation limit. Before this a person could donate any amount he/she wanted. Only a certain amount was eligible for an income tax credit, but if you wanted to donate more with no tax credit, go ahead. This new limit made it illegal to donate more. And in 2006 it was restricted further: no donations from corporations at all, and persons could donate up to $1,100 to each candidate per year.

The newly elected government in 2006 tried to make it $1,000 and make it retroactive to the beginning of that same year, but that was blatant interference in the other major political party. They knew the just-voted-out party was going through a leadership race, and the delegate fee was $995. So this would mean anyone who donated more than $5 during the last election would not be allowed to be a delegate. The Canadian Senate intervened, made it $1,100 and made it take effect 01-Jan-2007, not retroactive. The newly elected Prime Minister wasn't pleased his blatant attempt to screw the other party wasn't allowed. I still think the first limits made more sense.

But look what's happening in the US today. Corporations and billionaires donating millions to campaigns, and expecting serious considerations in exchange. That's why Canada introduced donation limits. I recommend the US do something similar.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-03-06 00:02:00)

Offline

#15 2016-03-05 22:15:28

IanM
Member
From: Chicago
Registered: 2015-12-14
Posts: 177

Re: Politics

RobertDyck wrote:

But look what's happening in the US today. Corporations and billionaires donating millions to campaigns, and expecting serious considerations in exchange. That's why Canada introduced donation limits. I recommend the US do something similar.

We did, but that was overturned for nonprofits by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC as a violation of the First Amendment.


The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot live in a cradle forever. -Paraphrased from Tsiolkovsky

Offline

#16 2016-03-06 01:14:36

RobertDyck
Member
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,121
Website

Re: Politics

IanM wrote:
RobertDyck wrote:

But look what's happening in the US today. Corporations and billionaires donating millions to campaigns, and expecting serious considerations in exchange. That's why Canada introduced donation limits. I recommend the US do something similar.

We did, but that was overturned for nonprofits by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC as a violation of the First Amendment.

Justification was the First Amendment? That'll be hard to overturn. But it has to be. Some have said America is already an oligarchy, not a democracy. It's ruled by a few rich people, average voters don't matter. There's a book Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire. It compares America to "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire". Description from Amazon...

Is America an empire? Certainly not, according to our government. Despite the conquest of two sovereign states in as many years, despite the presence of more than 750 military installations in two thirds of the world’s countries and despite his stated intention "to extend the benefits of freedom...to every corner of the world," George W. Bush maintains that "America has never been an empire." "We don’t seek empires," insists Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. "We’re not imperialistic."

Nonsense, says Niall Ferguson. In Colossus he argues that in both military and economic terms America is nothing less than the most powerful empire the world has ever seen. ... When overstretch comes, he warns, it will come from within—and it will reveal that more than just the feet of the American colossus is made of clay.

Published 2005. Before the banking system collapse of 2008. Prescient?

Offline

#17 2016-03-06 02:48:12

IanM
Member
From: Chicago
Registered: 2015-12-14
Posts: 177

Re: Politics

Yeah, IIRC, the gist was that as corporations are people under the common law, their campaign contributions are speech, and thus protected under the 1st Amendment. There are still some regulations in place; a regular Political Action Committee (PAC), representing a single candidate or special interest, is still capped at $5,000/candidate and $15,000/year per party, and individuals may only give up to $2,500/candidate and $30,800/year to a party's National Committee. Super PACs, however, have unlimited donation potential, being "limited" in that they have to report all spending to the FEC and cannot be formally associated with any one candidate or special interest, thus somewhat declawing the above (http://people.howstuffworks.com/super-pac1.htm).


The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot live in a cradle forever. -Paraphrased from Tsiolkovsky

Offline

#18 2016-03-06 03:48:33

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 2,541
Website

Re: Politics

Those leaps of logic - corporations as natural persons, and money as speech - ought to have broken the legs of the judges who voted for that decision...


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#19 2016-03-06 05:15:15

kbd512
Member
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 1,251

Re: Politics

All,

Ted Cruz suggested that we weaponize satellites in the last Republican debate.  What are the politics around that?  I don't think it bodes well for our current cooperative program with ROSCOSMOS, although the military space program is a program unto itself.

Thoughts?

Offline

#20 2016-03-06 06:45:10

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 2,541
Website

Re: Politics

Isn't that banned under international law? Well, WMDs are, and it's hard to see how an Orbital Death Ray can be considered something other than a WMD...


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#21 2016-03-06 08:51:22

RobertDyck
Member
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,121
Website

Re: Politics

Outer space treaty

States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;

Offline

#22 2016-03-06 11:58:39

RobertDyck
Member
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,121
Website

Re: Politics

Found video of the last debate. (tedious and juvenile)
Part 6 of the Fox News GOP presidential debate in Detroit
Skip to 5:30 (5 minutes, 30 seconds). Ted Cruz says "We need to be pursuing space based missile defence."

Offline

#23 2016-03-06 12:19:35

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 10,843

Re: Politics

RobertDyck wrote:

My greatest worry was when I saw TV video of Trump having rally organizers escort out anyone who disagreed with him. Past politicians who did that were Hitler and Mussolini.

Yup when Trump came to NH and held a rally in the hick little town of Farmington the protestors were kept outside of the Gymnasium which it was held in even thou they held tickets to go in.
This kind of has been seen at other such venues where people to whom that did speak up were escorted out of each.

So long as missile defence is satelites and not actually more then ok

The other thing that bothers me is the russian engine flap for military use, it should be a non issue as it was for over a decade....

Offline

#24 2016-03-07 09:33:38

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 2,746
Website

Re: Politics

Hey,  somebody unplugged the sewer for the politics!

Keep the flushed amounts smaller,  and maybe it won't get plugged up/shut down again!

I see I'm not the only one to notice the analog to 1932 Germany.

At this point in time,  the evident alternative to the con man is just another con man.  Trump stole the angry-voter insurgency role from Cruz,  being a better rabble-rouser. 

That leaves Cruz as just a Trump "mini-me".  He's just as much a con man,  too.  He has no plans other than to exercise personal power and to shut the government down if he doesn't get what he wants (something he has already done).

We don't need either one of them.

GW


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#25 2016-03-07 12:29:04

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Politics

RobertDyck wrote:

No particular endorsement for any candidate. I did notice strong voter support for non-institutional candidates: Trump and Sanders. Congress should seriously address institutional problems that voters are rebelling against. Some people are horrified at the prospect of either non-institutional candidate. My greatest worry was when I saw TV video of Trump having rally organizers escort out anyone who disagreed with him. Past politicians who did that were Hitler and Mussolini. They rose during the Great Depression, when voters in their countries were desperate.

We kind of have our own "Great Depression" right now, and this tends to produce some radical policies and politicians, if the traditional politicians hadn't done such a bad job, then people like Trump wouldn't have seen their great opening! That said, I'm not convinced that he is as bad as Hitler, their backgrounds are dissimilar, for instance Trump never was a starving artist, he didn't serve in the military like Hitler did! Hitler started out poor, Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I don't think Trump has quite as much anger as Hitler did, much of what he does show is carefully designed to get him votes from angry voters. I think Trumps tide has crested however, were more likely to get your fellow Canadian, Ted Cruz, as the next President, you should feel proud!

Although I'm told Putin did that too. When Sanders and Trump started, if you read their policies, they both sounded moderate and sensible. Republicans accused Sanders of being socialist, although his policies were really moderate.

He is a registered socialist however, he is the only one in the Senate!

However, Sanders has embraced the label rather than fighting it. And Trump supporters are more red-neck than Trump himself; he's pandering to what gets attention. As this primary goes on, rhetoric has already gone beyond scary. But voters appear determined not to allow another institutional candidate to get in.

Yes he is a quick study, he is also up on his World War II history, he went to an excellent school, he knows what got Hitler elected, and he sees a similar circumstance today, the American people are angry, just like the Germans were back then, but Truthfully, Trump has more in common with FDR, as they both have similar backgrounds. Though Trump is less of a "gentleman" that FDR was.

May I make a serious recommendation? Canada introduced both election spending limits, and campaign donation limits. Each electoral district has a maximum amount each candidate is allowed to spend according to district size and population. We had a candidates exceed this limit. He was not permitted to sit in Parliament. In early 2000s the limit was each person could donate up to $5,400 to each candidate per year, and Corporation could notate at most $1,000 to each candidate per year. And this includes donations in kind. That means goods or services have to be valued at fair market value, and that contributes toward the donation limit. Before this a person could donate any amount he/she wanted. Only a certain amount was eligible for an income tax credit, but if you wanted to donate more with no tax credit, go ahead. This new limit made it illegal to donate more. And in 2006 it was restricted further: no donations from corporations at all, and persons could donate up to $1,100 to each candidate per year.

What about "donations in kind" by the media, For example if a News service likes one candidate over the other and gives slanted coverage towards that candidate, how can you regulate that? Also what if there was a Canadian Billionaire who wanted to be Prime Minister, would that stop him from spending his own money the way Trump has to become PM? Just wondering. It would seem much easier for a billionaire to become leader of Canada, as all he would have to do is convince Parliament to vote him in, and generous contributions to each of the sitting members of parliament could accomplish that, since you don't have direct elections of PM in Canada!

The newly elected government in 2006 tried to make it $1,000 and make it retroactive to the beginning of that same year, but that was blatant interference in the other major political party. They knew the just-voted-out party was going through a leadership race, and the delegate fee was $995. So this would mean anyone who donated more than $5 during the last election would not be allowed to be a delegate. The Canadian Senate intervened, made it $1,100 and made it take effect 01-Jan-2007, not retroactive. The newly elected Prime Minister wasn't pleased his blatant attempt to screw the other party wasn't allowed. I still think the first limits made more sense.

But look what's happening in the US today. Corporations and billionaires donating millions to campaigns, and expecting serious considerations in exchange. That's why Canada introduced donation limits. I recommend the US do something similar.

But Trump didn't take any donations, all this does is stop all the non-billionaire who need campaign donations in order to run. What about rich people who want to be Prime Minister in Canada, what stops them?

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB