|
Place Your Midterm Election Bets.
Phoenix.Xantavia
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 449
By Phoenix.Xantavia 2014-11-06 17:56:06
While its commendable that you're Pro-Disney, a vote for mickey mouse is a vote for the democrats. It's a wonderful thought that maybe, just maybe if enough people voted for a 3rd party the whole red vs. blue would fall and a perfect utopian world could emerge.
Sucks that in reality it is Red Vs. Blue and if you don't vote for Red you may as well be Blue.
Do you also hate the Tea Party? I would love for a third party to have a chance. What we need for that to happen in the future is to use a run-off style of election. That way, people could put who they really want to win, which could be a good gauge of where it is going. Technically, we do have that system in place. Primaries choose the candidate who people vote for in November. I mean it more for the general elections, not just narrowing down a single party. Say candidates D, R, and I. I really want I to win, but I know realistically the he won't. But I also really don't want R to win. As it stands now, I throw my vote behind D, even though it not so much a vote for as a vote against. With the run-off, I can make I my first choice with D as my second if no candidate gets a majority. End result will likely be the same, but when all is said and done, it might come out that I had 20% of the vote in the first round. That could give people confidence in the future to vote for their real choice instead of voting for what they may see as the lesser of two evils.
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-11-06 18:25:20
lol, poor CSPAN. Everyone shits it up with trollin'
YouTube Video Placeholder
[+]
Garuda.Chanti
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11336
By Garuda.Chanti 2014-11-06 18:42:09
While its commendable that you're Pro-Disney, a vote for mickey mouse is a vote for the democrats. It's a wonderful thought that maybe, just maybe if enough people voted for a 3rd party the whole red vs. blue would fall and a perfect utopian world could emerge.
Sucks that in reality it is Red Vs. Blue and if you don't vote for Red you may as well be Blue.
Do you also hate the Tea Party? I would love for a third party to have a chance. What we need for that to happen in the future is to use a run-off style of election. That way, people could put who they really want to win, which could be a good gauge of where it is going. Technically, we do have that system in place. Primaries choose the candidate who people vote for in November. I mean it more for the general elections, not just narrowing down a single party. Say candidates D, R, and I. I really want I to win, but I know realistically the he won't. But I also really don't want R to win. As it stands now, I throw my vote behind D, even though it not so much a vote for as a vote against. With the run-off, I can make I my first choice with D as my second if no candidate gets a majority. End result will likely be the same, but when all is said and done, it might come out that I had 20% of the vote in the first round. That could give people confidence in the future to vote for their real choice instead of voting for what they may see as the lesser of two evils. That's called instant run-off.
By Enuyasha 2014-11-06 18:59:17
While its commendable that you're Pro-Disney, a vote for mickey mouse is a vote for the democrats. It's a wonderful thought that maybe, just maybe if enough people voted for a 3rd party the whole red vs. blue would fall and a perfect utopian world could emerge.
Sucks that in reality it is Red Vs. Blue and if you don't vote for Red you may as well be Blue.
Do you also hate the Tea Party? I would love for a third party to have a chance. What we need for that to happen in the future is to use a run-off style of election. That way, people could put who they really want to win, which could be a good gauge of where it is going. Technically, we do have that system in place. Primaries choose the candidate who people vote for in November. I mean it more for the general elections, not just narrowing down a single party. Say candidates D, R, and I. I really want I to win, but I know realistically the he won't. But I also really don't want R to win. As it stands now, I throw my vote behind D, even though it not so much a vote for as a vote against. With the run-off, I can make I my first choice with D as my second if no candidate gets a majority. End result will likely be the same, but when all is said and done, it might come out that I had 20% of the vote in the first round. That could give people confidence in the future to vote for their real choice instead of voting for what they may see as the lesser of two evils. The problem with the runoff system is you get kinda what the situation here in Louisiana is, if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote then you have to vote AGAIN until one candidate does. That can go on perpetually if voters keep their same habits. It usually only goes into one runoff here because people get electioneered into voting for the opposite candidate they voted for, but thats our entire election system anyway.
By volkom 2014-11-06 19:13:13
can we still place midterm election bets?
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13638
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-11-06 19:16:21
can we still place midterm election bets?
Sure. I'll set up an account for anyone that wants to put money on the Democrats winning the 2014 Senate majority.
Fenrir.Schutz
サーバ: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3122
By Fenrir.Schutz 2014-11-06 19:19:07
As it stands now, I throw my vote behind D, even though it not so much a vote for as a vote against. With the run-off, I can make I my first choice with D as my second if no candidate gets a majority. End result will likely be the same...
But everyone wants the D. As at-large incumbent, exit polls seem to favour the D, especially with swing voters. Even in your example, I wants the D. :p
By Enuyasha 2014-11-06 19:34:24
As it stands now, I throw my vote behind D, even though it not so much a vote for as a vote against. With the run-off, I can make I my first choice with D as my second if no candidate gets a majority. End result will likely be the same...
But everyone wants the D. As at-large incumbent, exit polls seem to favour the D, especially with swing voters. Even in your example, I wants the D. :p I am officially an I, but because noone else goes I, i have to take D. I am being forcefully given D, because this state doesnt actually recognize I ( I actually had to put D on my ID/license because they dont have an I option on the application). So in essence, our political election system is raping me....and i should join some type of AA program to cope with my repeated annual rape every couple of months :(
Thats a horrible joke, im glad i almost alt+f4'd out that window...but sadly i didnt and now you have this.
Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-11-06 19:55:26
Real I's aren't forced to go for the D.
As a true I, I always try to balance between Rs and Ds and occasional get an I in there when possible.
Some examples:
First time I voted in 2000, I voted for a lot of Ds in lesser positions, but voted for W. Bush. I think it was roughly a 30% R to 70% D ration. Even back then I knew Gore was a snake oil salesman.
2008, I voted for a lot of R's in lesser positions, with one I, but I voted for Obama, cause *** McCain. Roughly 60% R's, ~37% D's and 3% I.
2004 I only remember voting for Nader. Almost went Kerry until some people reasoned with me over his career as a lawyer.
Never voted for Christie, or the other crook, can't remember his name right now (2009). Had to go for an I, even though I knew it was a choice between two exact piles of ***. Local newspaper even endorsed the I candidate.
This election though was the first time I voted for all one party, all R's. But like I said before, most lesser positions had no D contenders or any other contenders, and *** Booker siphoning $100million from the facebook guy + $100million from the city that was meant for education (Look up this situation if you're interested in the con he [Booker] pulled).
Welcome to NJ.
Thank god it's over soon. Only time I didn't voted was in 2012 since I was out of the country. Not even going to speculate.
Also skipped out on 2013 re-election of Christie, cause I knew everyone was duped by his dumbass stronger than the storm commercials. Well that and I was out of the country again. Left like 2 weeks before election day.
EDIT: In NJ Independent is an illegal party and therefore I was always ineligible to vote in any primaries.
[+]
By Enuyasha 2014-11-06 20:01:31
Real I's aren't forced to go for the D.
As a true I, I always try to balance between Rs and Ds and occasional get an I in there when possible.
Some examples:
First time I voted in 2000, I voted for a lot of Ds in lesser positions, but voted for W. Bush. I think it was roughly a 30% R to 70% D ration. Even back then I knew Gore was a snake oil salesman.
2008, I voted for a lot of R's in lesser positions, with one I, but I voted for Obama, cause *** McCain. Roughly 60% R's, ~37% D's and 3% I.
2004 I only remember voting for Nader. Almost went Kerry until some people reasoned with me over his career as a lawyer.
Never voted for Christie, or the other crook, can't remember his name right now (2009). Had to go for an I, even though I knew it was a choice between two exact piles of ***. Local newspaper even endorsed the I candidate.
This election though was the first time I voted for all one party, all R's. But like I said before, most lesser positions had no D contenders or any other contenders, and *** Booker siphoning $100million from the facebook guy + $100million from the city that was meant for education (Look up this situation if you're interested in the con he [Booker] pulled).
Welcome to NJ.
Thank god it's over soon. Only time I didn't voted was in 2012 since I was out of the country. Not even going to speculate.
Also skipped out on 2013 re-election of Christie, cause I knew everyone was duped by his dumbass stronger than the storm commercials. Well that and I was out of the country again. Left like 2 weeks before election day.
EDIT: In NJ Independent is an illegal party and therefore I was always ineligible to vote in any primaries. It more has to do with how i identify politically. I am more center left, so D was a better fit than R (Even though i do hold some conservative values on welfare and municiple/federal services). They wouldnt give me my ID after i answered yes to political affiliation, so i like HAD to choose one or i wouldnt have an ID/license.
Leviathan.Chaosx
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-11-06 20:46:55
Real I's aren't forced to go for the D.
As a true I, I always try to balance between Rs and Ds and occasional get an I in there when possible.
Some examples:
First time I voted in 2000, I voted for a lot of Ds in lesser positions, but voted for W. Bush. I think it was roughly a 30% R to 70% D ration. Even back then I knew Gore was a snake oil salesman.
2008, I voted for a lot of R's in lesser positions, with one I, but I voted for Obama, cause *** McCain. Roughly 60% R's, ~37% D's and 3% I.
2004 I only remember voting for Nader. Almost went Kerry until some people reasoned with me over his career as a lawyer.
Never voted for Christie, or the other crook, can't remember his name right now (2009). Had to go for an I, even though I knew it was a choice between two exact piles of ***. Local newspaper even endorsed the I candidate.
This election though was the first time I voted for all one party, all R's. But like I said before, most lesser positions had no D contenders or any other contenders, and *** Booker siphoning $100million from the facebook guy + $100million from the city that was meant for education (Look up this situation if you're interested in the con he [Booker] pulled).
Welcome to NJ.
Thank god it's over soon. Only time I didn't voted was in 2012 since I was out of the country. Not even going to speculate.
Also skipped out on 2013 re-election of Christie, cause I knew everyone was duped by his dumbass stronger than the storm commercials. Well that and I was out of the country again. Left like 2 weeks before election day.
EDIT: In NJ Independent is an illegal party and therefore I was always ineligible to vote in any primaries. It more has to do with how i identify politically. I am more center left, so D was a better fit than R (Even though i do hold some conservative values on welfare and municiple/federal services). They wouldnt give me my ID after i answered yes to political affiliation, so i like HAD to choose one or i wouldnt have an ID/license. What state is that? That seems like a very strange requirement to get a license, unless you're not talking about a driver's license.
サーバ: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3621
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-11-06 22:00:32
the whole problem with liberalism is this belief that a whole room full of idiots is somehow smarter and better than one singular idiot. Not that I'm entirely clear on what the heck "liberalism" is supposed to be (being dead serious -- the base word "liberal" has half a dozen meanings in political science and one rarely refers to left-wing politics with -ism tacked on), but this really is the problem of governance.
Boiled down, we have three basic options of governance:
1.) None -- commonly called anarchy (a word that, like every other word in politics, gets misappropriated more often than civic funds in Chicago).
2.) A single governor -- monarchy, autarchy, tyranny, dictatorship, whatever word suits your interpretation of having exactly one person determining how everyone else ought to live their lives. Oh, "Mom" is also a pretty good synonym here (Latin having a common root for the words "father" and "nobleman" is very telling).
3.) Committee -- which can be any of several dozen flavors, but generally boils down to oligarchy. Even our happy little nonsense system of republican democracy is an unabashed oligarchy. The overwhelming majority of politicians above the level of mayor are drawn from a very limited pool indeed.
#1 is almost unheard of for any appreciable period of time, if only because of Hobbesian mandates. #2 is largely a fantasy, since every king has a cadre of advisors, but even if we pretend that traditional monarchy suits it, it's rather rare these days and generally looked askance upon.
On a related note, however, I'd be interested to see if our Congress could do any worse if all representatives were elected by lottery. It'd be particularly interesting if silly little things like severe psychological illness weren't impediments to winning the lottery (it doesn't stop us electing Looney Toons to the Senate and House now!). Statistically, a lottery could give us a situation like we have now, where a considerable majority allegedly cleave to similar ideas, but the weight of probability is that you'd get stay-at-home moms, drug dealers, college professors, bank clerks, auto mechanics, and nurses rubbing shoulders. The lack of consensus might actually make it possible to sway others via argumentation instead of our current system of checking who wrote the bill and voting on the basis of their party affiliation.
Actually, nothing would change, since the ultra-rich and their mega-corps would still just be buying votes. At least it'd inject money into randomized parts of the economy, though, when Susie Homemaker and Schizoid Paranoid Lunatic (a former US Senator, of course) find themselves holding a briefcase with $100,000 in non-consecutive bills that was "dropped" by a lobbyist.
[+]
By Enuyasha 2014-11-06 22:57:32
Real I's aren't forced to go for the D.
As a true I, I always try to balance between Rs and Ds and occasional get an I in there when possible.
Some examples:
First time I voted in 2000, I voted for a lot of Ds in lesser positions, but voted for W. Bush. I think it was roughly a 30% R to 70% D ration. Even back then I knew Gore was a snake oil salesman.
2008, I voted for a lot of R's in lesser positions, with one I, but I voted for Obama, cause *** McCain. Roughly 60% R's, ~37% D's and 3% I.
2004 I only remember voting for Nader. Almost went Kerry until some people reasoned with me over his career as a lawyer.
Never voted for Christie, or the other crook, can't remember his name right now (2009). Had to go for an I, even though I knew it was a choice between two exact piles of ***. Local newspaper even endorsed the I candidate.
This election though was the first time I voted for all one party, all R's. But like I said before, most lesser positions had no D contenders or any other contenders, and *** Booker siphoning $100million from the facebook guy + $100million from the city that was meant for education (Look up this situation if you're interested in the con he [Booker] pulled).
Welcome to NJ.
Thank god it's over soon. Only time I didn't voted was in 2012 since I was out of the country. Not even going to speculate.
Also skipped out on 2013 re-election of Christie, cause I knew everyone was duped by his dumbass stronger than the storm commercials. Well that and I was out of the country again. Left like 2 weeks before election day.
EDIT: In NJ Independent is an illegal party and therefore I was always ineligible to vote in any primaries. It more has to do with how i identify politically. I am more center left, so D was a better fit than R (Even though i do hold some conservative values on welfare and municiple/federal services). They wouldnt give me my ID after i answered yes to political affiliation, so i like HAD to choose one or i wouldnt have an ID/license. What state is that? That seems like a very strange requirement to get a license, unless you're not talking about a driver's license. Louisiana, when you get your new ID/License (When they change it over to a new design etc) they have you do a quick information survey to make sure information is correct, and around the part where they ask about organ donation they ask if you'd like to put your political party on it. If you say yes...they cant like, back out of the question (Probably cause the DMV worker is incompetent).
It was strange, but what was stranger was they only had like Dem,Repub, or libertarian. You know, cause you cant claim non-affiliation.
On a related note, however, I'd be interested to see if our Congress could do any worse if all representatives were elected by lottery. It'd be particularly interesting if silly little things like severe psychological illness weren't impediments to winning the lottery (it doesn't stop us electing Looney Toons to the Senate and House now!). Statistically, a lottery could give us a situation like we have now
I Read this and instantly thought Hunger Games style elections where we send our honest people folk into the field of legislative battle and only one will come out to be "The Victor" and get their bill passed into law.
TL;WTFDIJR
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-06 23:03:02
On a related note, however, I'd be interested to see if our Congress could do any worse if all representatives were elected by lottery. It'd be particularly interesting if silly little things like severe psychological illness weren't impediments to winning the lottery (it doesn't stop us electing Looney Toons to the Senate and House now!). Statistically, a lottery could give us a situation like we have now, where a considerable majority allegedly cleave to similar ideas, but the weight of probability is that you'd get stay-at-home moms, drug dealers, college professors, bank clerks, auto mechanics, and nurses rubbing shoulders. The lack of consensus might actually make it possible to sway others via argumentation instead of our current system of checking who wrote the bill and voting on the basis of their party affiliation. It wouldn't work on the notion that, since everyone is only after what's best for them, and them alone, the whole system would collapse within 24 hours.
The only difference between politicians elected and random people in Congress is that the politicians have to serve the needs of their constitutes, otherwise they will not be elected next term.
They are all still idiots though.
[+]
By Enuyasha 2014-11-06 23:06:04
On a related note, however, I'd be interested to see if our Congress could do any worse if all representatives were elected by lottery. It'd be particularly interesting if silly little things like severe psychological illness weren't impediments to winning the lottery (it doesn't stop us electing Looney Toons to the Senate and House now!). Statistically, a lottery could give us a situation like we have now, where a considerable majority allegedly cleave to similar ideas, but the weight of probability is that you'd get stay-at-home moms, drug dealers, college professors, bank clerks, auto mechanics, and nurses rubbing shoulders. The lack of consensus might actually make it possible to sway others via argumentation instead of our current system of checking who wrote the bill and voting on the basis of their party affiliation. It wouldn't work on the notion that, since everyone is only after what's best for them, and them alone, the whole system would collapse within 24 hours.
The only difference between politicians elected and random people in Congress is that the politicians have to serve the needs of their constitutes just barely enough to keep them in ignorant bliss (Or well you know, still ignorant to what the right hand is signing), otherwise they will not be elected next term.
They are all still idiots though, and their constituents are too.
ReFTFY'd for grammar. CAUSE KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-11-06 23:06:11
On a related note, however, I'd be interested to see if our Congress could do any worse if all representatives were elected by lottery. It'd be particularly interesting if silly little things like severe psychological illness weren't impediments to winning the lottery (it doesn't stop us electing Looney Toons to the Senate and House now!). Statistically, a lottery could give us a situation like we have now, where a considerable majority allegedly cleave to similar ideas, but the weight of probability is that you'd get stay-at-home moms, drug dealers, college professors, bank clerks, auto mechanics, and nurses rubbing shoulders. The lack of consensus might actually make it possible to sway others via argumentation instead of our current system of checking who wrote the bill and voting on the basis of their party affiliation. It wouldn't work on the notion that, since everyone is only after what's best for them, and them alone, the whole system would collapse within 24 hours.
The only difference between politicians elected and random people in Congress is that the politicians have to serve the needs of their constitutes, otherwise they will not be elected next term.
They are all still idiots though.
Politicians serve their donors, dollars are more important than votes.
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-06 23:09:15
On a related note, however, I'd be interested to see if our Congress could do any worse if all representatives were elected by lottery. It'd be particularly interesting if silly little things like severe psychological illness weren't impediments to winning the lottery (it doesn't stop us electing Looney Toons to the Senate and House now!). Statistically, a lottery could give us a situation like we have now, where a considerable majority allegedly cleave to similar ideas, but the weight of probability is that you'd get stay-at-home moms, drug dealers, college professors, bank clerks, auto mechanics, and nurses rubbing shoulders. The lack of consensus might actually make it possible to sway others via argumentation instead of our current system of checking who wrote the bill and voting on the basis of their party affiliation. It wouldn't work on the notion that, since everyone is only after what's best for them, and them alone, the whole system would collapse within 24 hours.
The only difference between politicians elected and random people in Congress is that the politicians have to serve the needs of their constitutes, otherwise they will not be elected next term.
They are all still idiots though.
Politicians serve their donors, dollars are more important than votes. Wait, you got paid to vote?
I didn't.
Where can I sign up to get free money to vote, since you think that dollars create votes.
[+]
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-11-06 23:10:12
On a related note, however, I'd be interested to see if our Congress could do any worse if all representatives were elected by lottery. It'd be particularly interesting if silly little things like severe psychological illness weren't impediments to winning the lottery (it doesn't stop us electing Looney Toons to the Senate and House now!). Statistically, a lottery could give us a situation like we have now, where a considerable majority allegedly cleave to similar ideas, but the weight of probability is that you'd get stay-at-home moms, drug dealers, college professors, bank clerks, auto mechanics, and nurses rubbing shoulders. The lack of consensus might actually make it possible to sway others via argumentation instead of our current system of checking who wrote the bill and voting on the basis of their party affiliation. It wouldn't work on the notion that, since everyone is only after what's best for them, and them alone, the whole system would collapse within 24 hours.
The only difference between politicians elected and random people in Congress is that the politicians have to serve the needs of their constitutes just barely enough to keep them in ignorant bliss (Or well you know, still ignorant to what the right hand is signing), otherwise they will not be elected next term.
They are all still idiots though, and their constituents are too.
ReFTFY'd for grammar. CAUSE KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! A) The grammar was fine as it was.
B) So, basically you just called yourself an idiot, along with everyone else in the nation. Good job!
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-11-06 23:18:37
On a related note, however, I'd be interested to see if our Congress could do any worse if all representatives were elected by lottery. It'd be particularly interesting if silly little things like severe psychological illness weren't impediments to winning the lottery (it doesn't stop us electing Looney Toons to the Senate and House now!). Statistically, a lottery could give us a situation like we have now, where a considerable majority allegedly cleave to similar ideas, but the weight of probability is that you'd get stay-at-home moms, drug dealers, college professors, bank clerks, auto mechanics, and nurses rubbing shoulders. The lack of consensus might actually make it possible to sway others via argumentation instead of our current system of checking who wrote the bill and voting on the basis of their party affiliation. It wouldn't work on the notion that, since everyone is only after what's best for them, and them alone, the whole system would collapse within 24 hours.
The only difference between politicians elected and random people in Congress is that the politicians have to serve the needs of their constitutes, otherwise they will not be elected next term.
They are all still idiots though.
Politicians serve their donors, dollars are more important than votes. Wait, you got paid to vote?
I didn't.
Where can I sign up to get free money to vote, since you think that dollars create votes.
Dollars pay for ads, dollars drive media, dollars influence public opinion. With enough exposure and corporate support, votes can be bought. Don't be obtuse.
[+]
By Enuyasha 2014-11-06 23:19:20
On a related note, however, I'd be interested to see if our Congress could do any worse if all representatives were elected by lottery. It'd be particularly interesting if silly little things like severe psychological illness weren't impediments to winning the lottery (it doesn't stop us electing Looney Toons to the Senate and House now!). Statistically, a lottery could give us a situation like we have now, where a considerable majority allegedly cleave to similar ideas, but the weight of probability is that you'd get stay-at-home moms, drug dealers, college professors, bank clerks, auto mechanics, and nurses rubbing shoulders. The lack of consensus might actually make it possible to sway others via argumentation instead of our current system of checking who wrote the bill and voting on the basis of their party affiliation. It wouldn't work on the notion that, since everyone is only after what's best for them, and them alone, the whole system would collapse within 24 hours.
The only difference between politicians elected and random people in Congress is that the politicians have to serve the needs of their constitutes just barely enough to keep them in ignorant bliss (Or well you know, still ignorant to what the right hand is signing), otherwise they will not be elected next term.
They are all still idiots though, and their constituents are too.
ReFTFY'd for grammar. CAUSE KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! A) The grammar was fine as it was.
B) So, basically you just called yourself an idiot, along with everyone else in the nation. Good job! I fixed my grammar in the revision :(
Cause im a bad at words sometimes :(
Basically, but in a more specific sense i have a general idea of what both of the candidates do for my state. I dont exactly fall into a category of gerrymandered districts that keep their representatives in office just because they give them two or three legislative bones every few years before the election. I mean, all it really takes here to get a governor out of office is to have a popular opinion about the way a politician handles an uncooperative governments assistance after a natural disaster. You know, the same way Bush pretended everything was just dandy while New Orleans was up to his ankles in sewage water, but the exact opposite because he kept his job for another term after that.
Or, to have a popular opinion about how your opinion is the best opinion and the elected official in question is not living up to your delusional standards.
Or, for an elected official to punch their own time card and get caught doing something highly illegal and highly visible enough for even Louisiana's corrupt system to say "Bro, thats not cool."
By Altimaomega 2014-11-07 00:02:21
On a related note, however, I'd be interested to see if our Congress could do any worse if all representatives were elected by lottery. It'd be particularly interesting if silly little things like severe psychological illness weren't impediments to winning the lottery (it doesn't stop us electing Looney Toons to the Senate and House now!). Statistically, a lottery could give us a situation like we have now, where a considerable majority allegedly cleave to similar ideas, but the weight of probability is that you'd get stay-at-home moms, drug dealers, college professors, bank clerks, auto mechanics, and nurses rubbing shoulders. The lack of consensus might actually make it possible to sway others via argumentation instead of our current system of checking who wrote the bill and voting on the basis of their party affiliation. It wouldn't work on the notion that, since everyone is only after what's best for them, and them alone, the whole system would collapse within 24 hours.
The only difference between politicians elected and random people in Congress is that the politicians have to serve the needs of their constitutes just barely enough to keep them in ignorant bliss (Or well you know, still ignorant to what the right hand is signing), otherwise they will not be elected next term.
They are all still idiots though, and their constituents are too.
ReFTFY'd for grammar. CAUSE KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! A) The grammar was fine as it was.
B) So, basically you just called yourself an idiot, along with everyone else in the nation. Good job! I fixed my grammar in the revision :(
Cause im a bad at words sometimes :(
Basically, but in a more specific sense i have a general idea of what both of the candidates do for my state. I dont exactly fall into a category of gerrymandered districts that keep their representatives in office just because they give them two or three legislative bones every few years before the election. I mean, all it really takes here to get a governor out of office is to have a popular opinion about the way a politician handles an uncooperative governments assistance after a natural disaster. You know, the same way Bush pretended everything was just dandy while New Orleans was up to his ankles in sewage water, but the exact opposite because he kept his job for another term after that.
Or, to have a popular opinion about how your opinion is the best opinion and the elected official in question is not living up to your delusional standards.
Or, for an elected official to punch their own time card and get caught doing something highly illegal and highly visible enough for even Louisiana's corrupt system to say "Bro, thats not cool."
Yup.. because Katrina was Bush's fault...
[+]
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-11-07 00:22:04
If it had gone down like that on Obama's watch, you'd be all about blaming the president for natural disasters.
By Altimaomega 2014-11-07 00:28:11
So as this little debate simmers back and forth (this section seems as dead as the rest of the site -- I wonder what happened), I have a thought that I'd love to see answered. I am dubious it will be answered, mind you.
I wrote way too many words, so spoiler tag to make it easier to disregard.
I'm one of those filthy liberals who has been dissatisfied with our President for half a decade. But as I've stepped back and looked at why, I realize I'm engaging in fallacy. While it is certainly true that Obama has not be a particularly competent legislator (though the PotUS isn't technically a legislator, anyhow), his very existence has been the crux of Republican political campaigning. It's not that he's done anything especially bad (except ACA which is such a glorious clusterfuck that I'm 100% certain the Republicans actually hoped it would pass -- more on that shortly), but nor has he been able to accomplish much good.
That's also being somewhat unfair. A President can't magic a solution to the jobs problem that the Republican party systematically created over the past 20 years, regardless of whether that President is D or R, yet somehow people blame Obama for poor job recovery. And a lot of the little victories he has had have been brushed under the rug since it doesn't make for interesting headlines to see DOMA slowly dismantled.
But the big thing is that Republicans said, "We're going to obstinately stop anything from happening until we get this guy out of office." It's been a 6 year filibuster. Even when the Democrats had control of Congress, Obama's naive attempts to play nice resulted in very little happening as he pandered to people who were instructed by very savvy political scientists to be mules (in virtually every sense of the word). It's not a new tactic, but this Presidency seems to have experienced the worst instance of it.
But most people appear to be blind to it, myself included. It's easier with a single blame figure and the monolith that is the US President works so much better than pointing at some unknown spin doctor in RNC HQ. I talk to people who lean conservative and what I've noticed is that, in addition to having delusions that their party actually serves their needs (a delusion they share with their liberal neighbors), they think that all the world's ills can be laid at the feet of Democrats. This is verifiably and objectively false, but with the current spin control ensuring that nothing happens (Mitch McConnell even agrees this is what's been happening) while a Democrat is in the White House, it's not too hard to twist people's perceptions. Republican strategy has been to focus on things that are irrelevant, unsolvable, or diametrically opposed to the opposition in order to, what, relive the glory days when we saw habeas corpus illegally suspended and the financial industry was free to *** over the entire planet in a way that makes Bernie Madoff seem small potatoes?
Anyways, I'm being needlessly verbose as usual. My question is why anyone trusts the Republican party when they've unapologetically been doing nothing useful for anyone over the past 6 years? This has gone above and beyond the usual "To hell with the voters" attitude of modern politicians of all parties. How many financial crises have been deliberately orchestrated by the RNC? And yet people still want to blame the economy on our top military commander and chief representative to foreign powers?
I'd love to jump on the liberal bandwagon with everyone screaming that the world's going to burn. And it probably will, given how unrepentantly evil the RNC has become (note: evil is when you treat people as things, and in this case, as things to be fleeced and tossed aside). Is there anyone seriously willing to argue that every person shouldn't have unrestricted access to healthcare?
Actually, on this site, I guarantee there is, since the kooks here are happy to suggest that we murder the poor so long as they aren't forced to use those precise words. You know where some of the biggest welfare cheats are? Living in poverty in red counties across the nation, voting Republican while they cook meth and cheat on their taxes. Just sayin', if you wanna watch the welfare cheats die, you alleged red-state country boys are going lose family, friends, and neighbors.
But, yeah, ACA was such a colossal failure and I've had people continuously claim that Republicans had no part in it. You know, except for demanding all the worst parts be included and having written most of the basic structure themselves 20 years ago. It's the perfect false flag: appear to oppose something that you've helped design to explode on impact and reap the benefits of brainless public backlash.
I really don't see this playing out as well as the Republicans hope it will, though. They need to manufacture another catastrophic attack on US soil to get the kind of unlimited power they're dreaming about and I'm not the sort of person to suggest they'll try that. Not yet, anyways. Political discourse is getting bad enough that I won't be surprised if we have political terrorism in our own country about 20 years from now.
You peaked my interest at "filthy liberal" then lost it at "jobs problem that the Republican party systematically created over the past 20 years".
By Altimaomega 2014-11-07 00:29:33
If it had gone down like that on Obama's watch, you'd be all about blaming the president for natural disasters.
Why? It's hard enough keeping track of all the UN-natural ones...
[+]
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-11-07 00:57:02
If it had gone down like that on Obama's watch, you'd be all about blaming the president for natural disasters.
Why? It's hard enough keeping track of all the UN-natural ones...
By unnatural you mean imaginary.
By Altimaomega 2014-11-07 01:13:59
If it had gone down like that on Obama's watch, you'd be all about blaming the president for natural disasters.
Why? It's hard enough keeping track of all the UN-natural ones...
By unnatural you mean imaginary.
Only card you got huh.. sigh
VIP
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-11-07 01:24:44
If it had gone down like that on Obama's watch, you'd be all about blaming the president for natural disasters.
Why? It's hard enough keeping track of all the UN-natural ones...
By unnatural you mean imaginary.
Only card you got huh.. sigh
When you have such a low bar for "disaster", you open yourself up to mockery.
By Altimaomega 2014-11-07 01:29:42
If it had gone down like that on Obama's watch, you'd be all about blaming the president for natural disasters.
Why? It's hard enough keeping track of all the UN-natural ones...
By unnatural you mean imaginary.
Only card you got huh.. sigh
When you have such a low bar for "disaster", you open yourself up to mockery.
Hence the reason I was mocking you about Katrina.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Lakshmi.Saevel
サーバ: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-11-07 03:16:06
Quote: While I agree that services have value, especially when they are offered privately, certain things are never argued against. Roads and airwaves, public works like water and sewer, basic laws, protection of personal property (legal documentation and enforcement, not guns or guard dogs), etc. Those things are never argued against. So the primary issue I have with the way entitlements are spoken about on both sides is that they aren't really opposing views. Similar to the thought exercises that start with acquisition.
You ask a cute girl on the street if she'd take money for sex. She says no. You say, what if it was a million dollars. She says for a million, sure.
What you've established is that she is willing to take money for sex, the issue is the price.
Even the most conservative people out there would have to think hard about giving up fire departments and municipal water, and I can't believe anyone would give up property protection. So, the sticking point isn't whether we all should pay for things, it's about what things and who should get them. Approach the issue with what you have in common, not what you disagree on, and the results will always be better.
Some things fall into the governance of central authority and public funding while others don't. Roads, firestations, police (internal security) and military (external security) are equally applied to all, everyone benefits. Female contraception on the other hand only benefits females, same as paid leave for childbirth and other gender specific items.
Personally I'm in favor of socialized healthcare if only because it's impossible to balance the demand side of the free market equation. That unbalanced demand (effective infinite demand) allows suppliers to price gouge and charge all of the disposable income. Not all healthcare is equal, there are many optional items that don't directly effect the life and death of the patient, these should not be covered by the government. Crap like gender reassignment surgery, cosmetic surgery (not for burn victims) and birth control are all optional. You could get a workable healthcare system if only the progressive politicians were willing to separate out the hot button items and focus on the critical life threatening items.
By Enuyasha 2014-11-07 03:35:51
If it had gone down like that on Obama's watch, you'd be all about blaming the president for natural disasters.
Why? It's hard enough keeping track of all the UN-natural ones...
By unnatural you mean imaginary.
Only card you got huh.. sigh
When you have such a low bar for "disaster", you open yourself up to mockery.
Hence the reason I was mocking you about Katrina....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... It may not have been him who created the storm, but how he handled the aftermath was atrocious. Almost as god awful as his attempt at humanity with 9/11.
The money they "Offer to you" in his speech in jackson square had to be fought for tooth and nail by our governor whom was then booted out of office because like any of us in the city or whom evacuated beforehand, she broke down. Now we have Jindal, who cant even hide the fact that he's in the pocket of the biochem industry here. BP Oil Spill? *** you, you have to hire private attorneys to recover your losses in those class action lawsuits. Healthcare? Cut in half as his first measure in office, medicare/caid expansion denied and fighting tooth and nail against it even though its shown to enhance the states its been adopted in. Education? *** YOUR children, mine are in private school where i can PAY for current books and an undeniably better education. Colleges? Yea, LSU gets all that money.
So where can i point all of my frustrations in the aftermath of his presidency on a state level? On a regional level? On a federal level?
Bush.
He truly lied to this region and decided to pass all the blame to the state level when the federal system is what broke down in this instance. Largely, a lot of the assistance he says he worked with congress to get either never came or were lobbied for and fought for by our state officials at the time and he took credit for it ALL.
YouTube Video Placeholder
I'm betting either the Republicans gain massive seats in the senate or are one seat short of the majority.
|
|