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.

#101 2016-03-19 08:14:50

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

Re: Politics

RobertDyck wrote:
kbd512 wrote:

*I* am going to sit back and watch whomever is elected finish us off.

I read a quote. Tried to find it's source. It's attributed to Edmund Burke but disputed.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

You think you know who the next "Hitler" is? What if someone ran over a child in the street claiming that he was the next "Hitler" and claiming that he did humanity a service by doing so? At one point in his life, Hitler was a child, the problem really is in identifying that child. Often times people talk about what would happen if you went back in time and killed Hitler as a Child. But we don't have time machines, we don't know who is going to be the next Hitler, so we can't identify that child, to everyone else we would just look like a child killer. and if someone had a time machine, went back in time and killed Hitler as a child, and then his time machine broke down, authorities would arrest that time traveler for killing that child, and all the arguments in the World couldn't convince them that the Time Traveller had legitimate cause for killing "little Hitler", to them, he would just be an innocent murder victim.

Now you don't have a crystal ball, Trump has given no indication that he is going to murder millions of people. Maybe he is a little unpredictable, perhaps Putin would give the United States wide berth if Trump is ever elected, that might be a good thing!

Offline

#102 2016-03-19 12:05:27

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 6,231
Website

Re: Politics

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

I believe those are called Traffic tickets

No Tom, it's not a traffic ticket. I'm talking about police seizing cash that an individual carries, simply because he/she is carrying cash. A ticket is something you receive, and have to go pay. This is police using force to take what you have on your person or in your vehicle. That's robbery. And police are armed, so that's armed robbery. Read the article. I quoted a couple points from the article for those who are too lazy to click the link. Try reading before you respond.

And I gave an example of someone interfering with my bank account. It was so severe that I couldn't open an account at any other financial institution, bank or credit union. I had to carry cash, because there was no alternative. This was done to me because I ran for political office. What I didn't say is the individual the party appointed to replace me as the candidate was attacked by the same bank. I was with him when he got the first phone call from the bank; volume of his cell phone was cranked up so loud that I could clearly hear both sides of the conversation. That was a couple days after the public announcement that he was candidate. He had to sell his business because of what the bank did to him. Two individuals who were candidate for the same party, in the same riding, in the same year, for the same election? No one will convince me that was just a coincidence. That was political interference in banking. This is why someone would work with cash.

The Washington Post article describes an individual who tried to start a business. His expenses were greater because it was business. He couldn't get a bank account for different reasons, but again he had to work in cash. Police seized his cash. Read the article.

Offline

#103 2016-03-19 12:15:58

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 6,231
Website

Re: Politics

Tom, I'm trying to treat you as an intelligent person. That's increasingly hard. Internet fora (plural of forum) often say "Don't feed the troll". Are you a troll? If you don't want to be treated as one, then don't act as one.

I said several times before, Hitler did not start by gassing the Jews. He started with political rallies where he had thugs throw out anyone who disagreed. Hitler ordered those thugs to beat up anyone who disagreed. Trump has done the same, he had people remove by force anyone who disagreed. And Trump instructed those at his rally to "beat the crap out of" anyone who disagreed. He even offered to pay their legal expenses. This resulted in people actually beating those who disagreed.

Hitler also had his people start a riot, then claim how bad the riot was. Claimed needed authority to prevent riots. But he was the one who caused the riots. Trump has done the same thing.

Watch the MSNBC video again. This is how Hitler and Mussolini started.

Offline

#104 2016-03-19 12:56:26

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

Re: Politics

Lots of people disagree, one can disagree and not make a nuisance of oneself, such as jumping over a fence or shouting out and interrupting the candidate's speech! People beat him up because the protestor was being rude and inconsiderate, and interfering with other people who came to see what Trump had to say. There are appropriate ways to disagree with someone and inappropriate ones. Now how would you feel if one of those protestors did the same thing in a movie theater? Would they deserve to be thrown out, as other people are trying to watch the movie? Do you want hecklers at a Broadway play? You pay money to see the play, and you don't want a person loudly giving his opinion about it in the seat next to yours, do you? He has the right to free speech, but not a right to disrupt the show you paid to see, it goes the same with a Trump rally!

Offline

#105 2016-03-19 17:23:04

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,312
Website

Re: Politics

So you are going to wait for us to hit that ice berg?

No, I'm going to steer us into that other iceberg instead.

[/sarcasm]

If you're presented with a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, you're not obligated to vote for one of them, and you shouldn't be told "you should have voted, then" if you complain about whichever gets elected. Or, if you wrote in a different option, "you shouldn't have wasted your vote". Or, if you voted for the one that didn't win, "well, you had your chance, that's democracy". Or, if you voted for the one that did win, "well, you voted for them". Whatever you do, there'll be someone with a justification for why you shouldn't complain about the result.

Saying that, I should still contact the town clerk of Enfield, NH and get my postal ballot sorted out. Maybe I'll vote for John McAfee. Or do a write in for Justin Amash. Or for a bipartisan figure, Taylor Swift, though she's not old enough yet.

On the other hand, someone has suggested the idea of voting for Sanders, on a "Bern it to the ground" platform. So there's that. Also, a Trump presidency could persuade governors, both Democrats and Republicans, that the Federal government really needs to be shrunk. Possibly even enough to get in Constitutional amendments - via the convention route, if Congress won't act. Or even a whole new Constitution.

As for Canada... well, I'm a dual national of the US and the UK, so I'm pretty much Canadian anyway, right? tongue I don't know much about their politics. Are the Liberals similar to our Liberal Democrats?


"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

#106 2016-03-19 17:54:00

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 3,772

Re: Politics

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

So you are going to wait for us to hit that ice berg? That is pretty pathetic, my feeling is, if you feel someone in power is doing something wrong, stop reelecting him, elect someone different, and don't trust the media, just elect someone different, never mind what the Media says about him, they are probably lying anyway. Just elect someone new who isn't in power, someone who stands a decent chance of getting elected. Right now that someone is Trump or Cruz. If you just complain and do nothing about it, you are like a sheep being led to the slaughter!

Tom, the ship has already run aground.  It's no longer a question of whether or not we should change course.  The time to make that decision came and went.  With respect to the media, the only faith I've ever had in them is that they will attempt to sell a story to people, fact-based or otherwise.  As far as electing people I think will take the country in a different direction, no Presidential candidate I've ever voted for has been elected.  It's not a complaint, it's just a statement of fact.

Reading the posts between you and Rob is like looking at a scale model of what's wrong with our country.  Both of you are convinced that there is a "right" answer to our problems, but neither you nor Rob will admit that you don't know what the right answer is and start from there.

Here's what little I do know:

1. Our spending far outstrips our ability to pay.

In an economic exchange system such as the one currently in use worldwide, this should be the first priority of every government.  Paying our bills needs to be our first priority.

2. There is either no effective dialog between political parties to get done what needs getting done or there is collusion between the parties to spend money we don't have on things we don't need.

To believe that one has all the answers or knows what is best for everyone is the very pinnacle of arrogance and hypocrisy.  Anyone elected to office has a duty to their fellow citizens, not a political party, interest group, or whomever has the most money.

3. No government in the history of the world ever reduced budget deficits by increasing spending and devising arbitrary and constantly changing rules for conducting business is not a good way to increase economic growth.

Spending money is not bad or good, in and of itself.  It's a question of reasonability and purpose.  That said, it is clear that there must be limitations placed on spending that are not subject to the proclivities of whomever currently holds elected office.  Similarly, it is also clear that spending money in a manner intended to promote one's own interests is a sign that whomever is doing the spending is no longer looking after the public's interest.

Offline

#107 2016-03-19 17:56:05

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 6,231
Website

Re: Politics

Terraformer wrote:

As for Canada... well, I'm a dual national of the US and the UK, so I'm pretty much Canadian anyway, right? tongue I don't know much about their politics. Are the Liberals similar to our Liberal Democrats?

I'm not sure how to characterize the Liberal Party of Canada. It's generally centrist, moderate, but can change with leader. When Paul Martin was Finance Minister then Prime Minister, it was about reducing government spending, balanced budgets, reducing the debt, and reducing taxes. It was able to do this while maintaining a national healthcare system, ensuring the Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance were healthy and sustainable. Gasoline tax was introduced in the 1970s, but Paul Martin promised to give cities half of the gasoline tax. That was to help pay for infrastructure.

However, Bob Rae was the interim leader before our current leader. Bob Rae switched parties, he was a member of the NDP. At one point he was an NDP federal Member of Parliament, then switched to provincial politics in Ontario. He won the provincial election, becoming the only NDP premier of Ontario. The NDP are socialist; it's part of their party charter. After the 2011 election, he saw an opportunity to run for Liberal party leader. He didn't get it, but did become interim leader. The Liberal party had criticized the Conservatives for spending like a drunken sailor, running the federal government back into deficit. But Bob Rae criticized them for even talking about controlling spending and balancing the budget. Current Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau noticed the NDP attempt to move toward the centre, so Justin moved the Liberal party to the far left (by Canadian standards). It worked, he unified anti-Conservative votes to the Liberal party. But now we have the problem that the Liberals got elected on a platform to increase spending even further, and throw us back into deficit.

So is the Liberal Party of Canada similar to the Liberal Democrats? Not sure. Don't know enough about the Liberal Democrats.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-03-19 17:56:40)

Offline

#108 2016-03-19 18:02:39

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

Re: Politics

kbd512 wrote:
Tom Kalbfus wrote:

So you are going to wait for us to hit that ice berg? That is pretty pathetic, my feeling is, if you feel someone in power is doing something wrong, stop reelecting him, elect someone different, and don't trust the media, just elect someone different, never mind what the Media says about him, they are probably lying anyway. Just elect someone new who isn't in power, someone who stands a decent chance of getting elected. Right now that someone is Trump or Cruz. If you just complain and do nothing about it, you are like a sheep being led to the slaughter!

Tom, the ship has already run aground.  It's no longer a question of whether or not we should change course.  The time to make that decision came and went.  With respect to the media, the only faith I've ever had in them is that they will attempt to sell a story to people, fact-based or otherwise.  As far as electing people I think will take the country in a different direction, no Presidential candidate I've ever voted for has been elected.  It's not a complaint, it's just a statement of fact.

Reading the posts between you and Rob is like looking at a scale model of what's wrong with our country.  Both of you are convinced that there is a "right" answer to our problems, but neither you nor Rob will admit that you don't know what the right answer is and start from there.

Here's what little I do know:

1. Our spending far outstrips our ability to pay.

In an economic exchange system such as the one currently in use worldwide, this should be the first priority of every government.  Paying our bills needs to be our first priority.

2. There is either no effective dialog between political parties to get done what needs getting done or there is collusion between the parties to spend money we don't have on things we don't need.

To believe that one has all the answers or knows what is best for everyone is the very pinnacle of arrogance and hypocrisy.  Anyone elected to office has a duty to their fellow citizens, not a political party, interest group, or whomever has the most money.

3. No government in the history of the world ever reduced budget deficits by increasing spending and devising arbitrary and constantly changing rules for conducting business is not a good way to increase economic growth.

Spending money is not bad or good, in and of itself.  It's a question of reasonability and purpose.  That said, it is clear that there must be limitations placed on spending that are not subject to the proclivities of whomever currently holds elected office.  Similarly, it is also clear that spending money in a manner intended to promote one's own interests is a sign that whomever is doing the spending is no longer looking after the public's interest.

What you do is hold spending down and grow the economy to increase revenue. All Democrats can think of is increased taxes = greater revenue, that is not the case, any more than increasing prices will automatically make a business more profitable! Democrats think running a business is simple, they think all a business has to do is increase its prices until it can afford to pay all of its bills and the salaries of its employees, it doesn't occur to them that the customer may choose not to pay the high prices and take their business elsewhere. Democrats assume no competition, and that companies will stay in the US no matter what! Not true!

Offline

#109 2016-03-19 18:04:14

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

Re: Politics

RobertDyck wrote:
Terraformer wrote:

As for Canada... well, I'm a dual national of the US and the UK, so I'm pretty much Canadian anyway, right? tongue I don't know much about their politics. Are the Liberals similar to our Liberal Democrats?

I'm not sure how to characterize the Liberal Party of Canada. It's generally centrist, moderate, but can change with leader. When Paul Martin was Finance Minister then Prime Minister, it was about reducing government spending, balanced budgets, reducing the debt, and reducing taxes. It was able to do this while maintaining a national healthcare system, ensuring the Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance were healthy and sustainable. Gasoline tax was introduced in the 1970s, but Paul Martin promised to give cities half of the gasoline tax. That was to help pay for infrastructure.

However, Bob Rae was the interim leader before our current leader. Bob Rae switched parties, he was a member of the NDP. At one point he was an NDP federal Member of Parliament, then switched to provincial politics in Ontario. He won the provincial election, becoming the only NDP premier of Ontario. The NDP are socialist; it's part of their party charter. After the 2011 election, he saw an opportunity to run for Liberal party leader. He didn't get it, but did become interim leader. The Liberal party had criticized the Conservatives for spending like a drunken sailor, running the federal government back into deficit. But Bob Rae criticized them for even talking about controlling spending and balancing the budget. Current Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau noticed the NDP attempt to move toward the centre, so Justin moved the Liberal party to the far left (by Canadian standards). It worked, he unified anti-Conservative votes to the Liberal party. But now we have the problem that the Liberals got elected on a platform to increase spending even further, and throw us back into deficit.

So is the Liberal Party of Canada similar to the Liberal Democrats? Not sure. Don't know enough about the Liberal Democrats.

Socialism is for insects such as ants and bees, it isn't for humans!

Offline

#110 2016-03-19 18:35:04

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 6,231
Website

Re: Politics

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Socialism is for insects such as ants and bees, it isn't for humans!

The Liberal Party of Canada is not socialist. It's Liberal, moderate. In fact it doesn't match what American Republicans mean when they use the word "liberal".

Offline

#111 2016-03-19 21:49:46

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

Re: Politics

RobertDyck wrote:
Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Socialism is for insects such as ants and bees, it isn't for humans!

The Liberal Party of Canada is not socialist. It's Liberal, moderate. In fact it doesn't match what American Republicans mean when they use the word "liberal".

I didn't say it was, I was merely commenting on socialism. Socialism doesn't work for the people, its been tried many times, and it has failed the people each and every time, but what it has not failed was the government. Socialism is an excellent tool for controlling people and for those in government staying in power despite the hardship it imposes on people! Look at what it has done to the people of Cuba! But it has kept the Castros in power despite the declining standard of living it imposed on the Cubans! And now their are nitwits running around the United States supporting Bernie Sanders! A lot of people seem interested in selling the idea of Socialism to the American People, in spite of what exists 90 miles south of Miami! "Never mind that Caribbean island, Americans are special, so socialism will work for us, never mind what the stupid Cubans have, cause they are not as smart as we are! They aren't Americans, so Socialism won't work for them, but America is a Special place, so it will work for us. Lets try it!"

Offline

#112 2016-03-19 21:56:56

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.

You know, the interesting thing is, people with good paying jobs just don't need social programs! It is people who don't have good paying jobs that need them. So Canadians leave Canada behind, and those social programs, to get those good paying jobs. I guess the price for social programs in Canada is not having those good paying jobs. So Canadians leave Canada behind, and Canada becomes poorer, as they come to the United States to get those good paying jobs. Wouldn't it be nice if Canada had those good paying jobs too? I suppose the Canadians feel that if they lose those good paying jobs in the United States, they can always move back to Canada and go under those social programs that have cost the Canadian citizens so dear. So what happens if the United States emulates Canada's social programs? Bye bye good paying jobs!

Offline

#113 2016-03-19 22:15:30

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

Re: Politics

Terraformer wrote:

So you are going to wait for us to hit that ice berg?

No, I'm going to steer us into that other iceberg instead.

[/sarcasm]

If you're presented with a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, you're not obligated to vote for one of them, and you shouldn't be told "you should have voted, then" if you complain about whichever gets elected.

No two choices are ever exactly the same. One choice is always worse than the other. The worst choice of all is not to vote! If you do that, you are leaving yourself at the mercy of someone else's vote! The fact that you didn't vote does not mean that terrible things couldn't happen to you as a result of someone else voting and not you! The governments laws affect us all, even those people who didn't vote for that government which imposed them. At least I voted against Barack Obama twice! Obama has done some terrible things to this country, but at least the voters have to overcome my votes in order to get Obama elected. All the terrible things that have happened, including those things that left wingers criticize my country for are the result of Barack Obama getting elected. I hear it every day, some left winger, sometimes even an American tells me what a terrible country the USA is, so I say to him, "then why don't you vote for someone else other than Obama next time? Because Obama is a terrible President if you are not happy with what the United States is doing with him in charge? I ask him if he will vote for Trump, he says nope, then I ask him if he will vote for Cruz, and he says no to that too. So basically he wants to vote back into office the same party that has given him so much to complain about in the first place. Can you name any problem that the Democrats have ever solved, rather than "trying to solve?" Has Obama eliminated racism in this country? Has he increased incomes, standard of living? Do you support Obama's foreign policy if it goes against Russia or Iran? nope?

Or, if you wrote in a different option, "you shouldn't have wasted your vote". Or, if you voted for the one that didn't win, "well, you had your chance, that's democracy". Or, if you voted for the one that did win, "well, you voted for them". Whatever you do, there'll be someone with a justification for why you shouldn't complain about the result.

Saying that, I should still contact the town clerk of Enfield, NH and get my postal ballot sorted out. Maybe I'll vote for John McAfee. Or do a write in for Justin Amash. Or for a bipartisan figure, Taylor Swift, though she's not old enough yet.

There are only a few names on the ballot, you can write in many different names on that same ballot, and it appears that each write-in candidate will get only a few votes, because their are so many you can write compared to the ones that are already printed on that ballot sheet. Most people will fill in a circle of one of the pre-established candidates. The people writing in a candidates name are wasting their vote, they might as well not have voted in the first place. A write-in candidate can only win the mostly local and poorly attended election, you might get a member of the school board elected that way, but never a US President!

On the other hand, someone has suggested the idea of voting for Sanders, on a "Bern it to the ground" platform. So there's that. Also, a Trump presidency could persuade governors, both Democrats and Republicans, that the Federal government really needs to be shrunk. Possibly even enough to get in Constitutional amendments - via the convention route, if Congress won't act. Or even a whole new Constitution.

As for Canada... well, I'm a dual national of the US and the UK, so I'm pretty much Canadian anyway, right? tongue I don't know much about their politics. Are the Liberals similar to our Liberal Democrats?

You mean, you are not going to vote for the "Canadian" Ted Cruz? Why not, don't you like your country? Wouldn't you feel proud to help elect America's first Canadian born President? Why would you vote for Sanders, who hasn't even been born in Canada?

Offline

#114 2016-03-20 07:34:48

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,312
Website

Re: Politics

So Tom, let me get this straight. I shouldn't complain if I don't vote; I shouldn't complain if I do, but don't vote for someone with any chance of winning; and I shouldn't complain if I vote for anyone with a chance of winning, even if I don't want them to be President.

Yeah. Really.


"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

#115 2016-03-20 08:22:26

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 19,934

Re: Politics

Then the vote is for whom we feel to be the lesser of the evils between those that get the nod for each party that we perceive that they have, as in a liar is still a liar for either of the top 2 candidates as its only the difference of what we feel is the more severe lie to create.....in this case cadidate alignment with followers mouth pieces, other lower candidate vote givers to the leader and actions that speak louder to the sistuation of a liar for whom we will vote for....The raw action that helps the people is the one we must trust and that does not mean the one with the most money...

Offline

#116 2016-03-20 10:38:25

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 6,231
Website

Re: Politics

There are other parties, and independent candidates. If you feel that strongly about candidates for the two major parties, you may want to look at other candidates. Of those Terraformer named, John McAfee is actually on the list. He's a candidate for the nomination of the Libertarian party.
Politics1.com: 2016 Presidential Candidates

Offline

#117 2016-03-20 10:59:19

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,312
Website

Re: Politics

The trouble with strategic voting is that those elected think having a majority means people actually support them, rather than it being that people don't loathe them as much as the other candidate.

If they used a preferential voting (PV) system, however, that wouldn't be an issue. I'd be able to put, say, Cruz right at the bottom and make it clear that, whilst I prefer him to Clinton, Sanders, or Trump, I don't particularly want him to be the President.

Come to think of it, states could bring in PV unilaterally, because it's up to them to decide how the electoral colleges decide to vote...


"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

#118 2016-03-20 11:12:51

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

Re: Politics

RobertDyck wrote:

There are other parties, and independent candidates. If you feel that strongly about candidates for the two major parties, you may want to look at other candidates. Of those Terraformer named, John McAfee is actually on the list. He's a candidate for the nomination of the Libertarian party.
Politics1.com: 2016 Presidential Candidates

You can vote for him and then forget all about him after the election, because he is not going to be President on this campaign cycle, your would be a purely symbolic vote if you vote for him. A better candidate would have been Rand Paul, he is a Libertarian, if you wanted Rand Paul to be President, you should have voted for him in one of the Republican Primaries in one of he strategic states before he dropped out. Trump was wise not to run as an Independent, Ross Perot was not. Probably the only chance an independent ever has of being elected would be after one of the main two parties self-destructs. I think the Democratic Party is in the process of doing that right now! Once it is gone, a billionaire can probably run for President and win if the public I dissatisfied with the remaining party that is in power, then shortly thereafter another party will form to replace the one that self-destructed.

Offline

#119 2016-03-20 11:18:55

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

Re: Politics

Terraformer wrote:

The trouble with strategic voting is that those elected think having a majority means people actually support them, rather than it being that people don't loathe them as much as the other candidate.

Well you don't expect the candidate to loathe himself do you, just because the public didn't like him? He would probably view it as a chance to persuade the public, through his policies, that he wasn't so bad after all, he has his chance once he is in power, and a wise President would take it!

If they used a preferential voting (PV) system, however, that wouldn't be an issue. I'd be able to put, say, Cruz right at the bottom and make it clear that, whilst I prefer him to Clinton, Sanders, or Trump, I don't particularly want him to be the President.

Well, you should have worked at the grass roots level earlier to make sure a candidate you liked was of the list that you could pick, mostly that involves persuading other people that you are right.

Come to think of it, states could bring in PV unilaterally, because it's up to them to decide how the electoral colleges decide to vote...

What do you think Party primaries are for, they are your chance to make sure your party nominates the candidate you like, problem is not everyone is going to agree with you, so you have to make compromises, everyone does! You settle for something less than what you consider the perfect candidate and so does everyone else. I don't think PV would change that.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-03-20 11:19:38)

Offline

#120 2016-03-20 15:35:40

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 19,934

Re: Politics

We do agree that the american political system is broken and that the electoral college system has out lived its original purpose but a total populous vote is another that must be weighed as well as with the voter fraud, voter denial of services turning away voters, voter elligibility to vote are all issues to be corrected at the same time that we do a reform of the system....

Offline

#121 2016-03-20 17:34:39

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 6,231
Website

Re: Politics

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Actually, Jimmy Carter would be able to run

In the interview I saw, Mr. Carter said he wouldn't be able to raise the money necessary today, and wouldn't be inclined to even try. He feels the amount of money required is just wrong. That was the point.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

and you know what? He'd probably beat Hillary Clinton

Interesting. So you'll vote Jimmy Carter for president?

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Problem is the grassroots conservatives have had a bad experience with insiders that promise them one thing while campaigning and failing to follow through once elected!

No shit! Most politicians do that. In Canada in 1984, some voters organized something called the "Rhinoceros Party". It was formally registered as a political party, they fielded candidates. Their major election promise was to break all of their election promises. The Rhinoceros candidate in my riding (before they changed the name to "electoral district"), was a local comedian who dressed up in a clown outfit and wore a "one man band". It was total satire, intended to highlight how much candidates lie. But since they registered as a political party, they were given time at debates, and even air time on CPAC (Canadian equivalent to C-SPAN). They dissolved after the Liberals actually fulfilled most of their election promises following the 1993 election. (Most)

Offline

#122 2016-03-20 20:00:28

IanM
Moderator
From: Chicago
Registered: 2015-12-14
Posts: 276

Re: Politics

RobertDyck wrote:

The United States has state laws for presidential elections. All hodgepodge, inconsistent.

States are sovereign entities and thus have virtually full power for stuff fully in their jurisdictions. Indeed, the US is probably the most aggressively federal country in the world. It is debatable whether a full nationalization of election laws is thus permissible; one could argue that Congress with the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution has such power, while one could also argue that that's a stretch, since elections aren't really commerce. The best bet for that is either to have the DNC and GOP, both private entities, synchronize their internal laws across the states for conventions, and/or draft model legislation like the Uniform Commercial Code and hope the states adopt it.

In any case, we do have some uniformity via the Constitution; maximum minimum age of 18 via 26th amendment, no poll taxes via 25th amendment, women's suffrage via 19th amendment, etc. And we do have a Federal Elections Commission, which governs election financing and campaigning and does take action when such regulations are breached, but it is mostly concerned with individual candidates' campaign financing and spending and not as much with the actual administration of elections, which is at the state level.


RobertDyck wrote:

Checking... Section 1 of the Constitution governs the President, clauses 2, 3 & 4 states how elections are run. The Twelfth Amendment changed how "electors" are chosen. The "electors" being the college of electors. So changing this requires a constitutional amendment.

Actually, there is an interstate compact going around that would allocate each of the adopting states' electors to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, and which would take effect when adopted by enough states to give the majority of electors, and would avoid the cumbersome process of a constitutional amendment. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com

RobertDyck wrote:

The way presidential elections were run in years 2000 & 2004 made the US look like a banana republic. One individual who was involved with "election anomalies" said he has no intent to stop. That statement was on TV news.

On a similar note, in Chicago a lot of the Election Judges are High School and College students who volunteer with the Illinois Board of Elections. I plan on being one in the general election.


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

Offline

#123 2016-03-21 11:29:01

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 6,231
Website

Re: Politics

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

No, I was thinking you might, since you keep on bringing him up.

I couldn't, even if I wanted to. The Constitution states any candidate for president must be born in the US. I was born in Canada, so I don't qualify.

By the way, I saw a short video on Facebook. Two young men with others watching asked Justin Trudeau to run for President of the United States. He was just elected Prime Minister of Canada, our federal election was October, swearing in was November. The two men literally got on their knees begging. Justin just laughed and pointed out he wasn't born in the States, so can't. Let's see, YouTube...Found it. This is slightly longer, but includes the same clip. In this clip he also says "I don't know if you noticed, but I actually have a job, and it's a pretty good one."
Two guys beg Canada's prime minister to run for president of the United States

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

An American leftists who gets elected, will do anything he can to sabotage his own country

I ran a "vote compass" a few months ago. It asks your opinion of several policy questions, then compares your answers to the candidates running. The closest match to my answers was Bernie Sanders. Republicans accused him of being socialist, and he decided to run with it instead trying to deny, but his actual position on most issues is moderate. I don't agree with everything he says, for example I would leave federal minimum wage alone, the only problem I see is some states have exceptions that allow employers to pay less than federal minimum wage. But most of his positions on issues are moderate. Rather than obsessing about rhetoric from Republicans, why don't you look at his actually position on issues.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-03-21 13:31:44)

Offline

#124 2016-03-21 12:46:56

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

Re: Politics

RobertDyck wrote:
Tom Kalbfus wrote:

No, I was thinking you might, since you keep on bringing him up.

I couldn't, even if I wanted to. The Constitution states any candidate for president must be born in the US. I was born in Canada, so I don't qualify.

Easy to fix, if Canada joined the United States as the 51st state, it would have a California's worth of extra people, then any Canadian Citizen, even if he was born in Canada before it became part of the United States, could then run for President of the United States. The United States acquired other territory where this happened.

By the way, I saw a short video on Facebook. Two young men with others watching asked Justin Trudeau to run for President of the United States. He was just elected Prime Minister of Canada, our federal election was October, swearing in was November. The two men literally got on their knees begging. Justin just laughed and pointed he he wasn't born in the States, so he can't. Let's see, YouTube...Found it. This is slightly longer, but includes the same clip. In this clip he also says "I don't know if you noticed, but I actually have a job, and it's a pretty good one."
Two guys beg Canada's prime minister to run for president of the United States

Ah, but you see, he's the Canadian head of state, if he wanted Canada to join the United States, he could lead the effort, he could talk to his friends in the US Senate and Congress as well as the President and lobby to make this happen. The precident would be the Republic of Texas joining the United States. First Texas was a part of Mexico, then it was an independent country, then it joined the United States. No reason why Canada couldn't follow in the footsteps of Texas, they all speak English after all, so they meet that requirement.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

An American leftists who gets elected, will do anything he can to sabotage his own country

I ran a "vote compass" a few months ago. It asks your opinion of several policy questions, then compares your answers to the candidates running. The closest match to my answers was Bernie Sanders. Republicans accused him of being socialist, and he decided to run with it instead trying to deny, but his actual position on most issues is moderate. I don't agree with everything he says, for example I would leave federal minimum wage alone, the only problem I see is some states have exceptions that allow employers to pay less than federal minimum wage. But most of his positions on issues are moderate. Rather than obsessing about rhetoric from Republicans, why don't you look at his actually position on issues.

Offline

#125 2016-03-21 13:30:32

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 6,231
Website

Re: Politics

Canada doesn't want to join. And Quebec speaks French. You have not heard them whine about how evil the English language is. They're very sensitive about their culture. They actually passed a provincial law banning English.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB