President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:30 am

Fact Finder wrote:We're tired of what O'donnell called Obama Republicans....We've had enough with the go along to get along mentality of inside the beltway bullshit.

Considering that the GOP has filibustered in lockstep even the most insignificant Obama legislation, I'd love to know who these moderate "Obama Republicans" are. Today’s GOP is suffering from too much ideological uniformity, not a lack of it. The GOP Big Tent has caved, leaving behind the talk radio fringe, who think repealing social security and installing machine gun turrets on the border is a winning formula for electoral success. Good luck with that! Meanwhile, over on the Democrat side, (y'know, the same party who is supposedly controlled by the extreme likes of Daily Kos, Michael Moore, and Nancy Pelosi), they can’t even agree to let the Bush tax cuts expire.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16111
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby conversationpc » Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:44 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:they can’t even agree to let the Bush tax cuts expire.


Hopefully, they don't let them expire. I can't afford the additional two grand tax hike right now.
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby lights1961 » Thu Sep 16, 2010 6:00 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:We're tired of what O'donnell called Obama Republicans....We've had enough with the go along to get along mentality of inside the beltway bullshit.

Considering that the GOP has filibustered in lockstep even the most insignificant Obama legislation, I'd love to know who these moderate "Obama Republicans" are. Today’s GOP is suffering from too much ideological uniformity, not a lack of it. The GOP Big Tent has caved, leaving behind the talk radio fringe, who think repealing social security and installing machine gun turrets on the border is a winning formula for electoral success. Good luck with that! Meanwhile, over on the Democrat side, (y'know, the same party who is supposedly controlled by the extreme likes of Daily Kos, Michael Moore, and Nancy Pelosi), they can’t even agree to let the Bush tax cuts expire.



because they know deep down that any less money we have in our pocket means less money to spend by conusmers...
and that effects all of us...
Rick
lights1961
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5362
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:33 am

Postby Monker » Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:53 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Monker wrote:
slucero wrote:it could mean that Independents who previously simply voted Republican voted Tea Party instead...


I don't think Independents can vote in the primaries in DE. This is a demonstration that radical voices and opinions have taken over the Republican party. I said this months ago in this thread. The Tea Party is making the Republican party WEAKER in the long run. The Republicans may take over the House...but it's more due to a general hatred for congress and incumbents in general...But, in the long run, purifying the Republican party to exclude any moderate voices is going to make them the minority party for decades to come.



You couldn't be more wrong. Real run of the mill Repubs want Conservative candidates, not RINOs. We're tired of what O'donnell called Obama Republicans. Say no to Healthcare, Say no to higher taxes, Say yes to less government spending, say yes to protecting our borders kind of Repubs. No more mealy mouthed wishy washy Mc Cain/Bush/Graham types. We've had enough with the go along to get along mentality of inside the beltway bullshit. Run this Government like a business or household would and get the hell out of peoples way and business.

I can see November from my house! :lol:


And, that is exactly why I say they will become the minority party. They are now a party of exclusion...and include only extremists. There is a reason why it was called the Reagan COALITION. In the long run, Republicans lose when they are too extreme...and so do Democrats. The Republicans may win this November...just as Newt did years ago. But, they will still lose in the longer term...just as Newt did. Remember, Clinton was reelected, and Bush barely beat Gore and eventually they lost congress.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12673
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby lights1961 » Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:24 am

Monker wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
Monker wrote:
slucero wrote:it could mean that Independents who previously simply voted Republican voted Tea Party instead...


I don't think Independents can vote in the primaries in DE. This is a demonstration that radical voices and opinions have taken over the Republican party. I said this months ago in this thread. The Tea Party is making the Republican party WEAKER in the long run. The Republicans may take over the House...but it's more due to a general hatred for congress and incumbents in general...But, in the long run, purifying the Republican party to exclude any moderate voices is going to make them the minority party for decades to come.



You couldn't be more wrong. Real run of the mill Repubs want Conservative candidates, not RINOs. We're tired of what O'donnell called Obama Republicans. Say no to Healthcare, Say no to higher taxes, Say yes to less government spending, say yes to protecting our borders kind of Repubs. No more mealy mouthed wishy washy Mc Cain/Bush/Graham types. We've had enough with the go along to get along mentality of inside the beltway bullshit. Run this Government like a business or household would and get the hell out of peoples way and business.

I can see November from my house! :lol:


And, that is exactly why I say they will become the minority party. They are now a party of exclusion...and include only extremists. There is a reason why it was called the Reagan COALITION. In the long run, Republicans lose when they are too extreme...and so do Democrats. The Republicans may win this November...just as Newt did years ago. But, they will still lose in the longer term...just as Newt did. Remember, Clinton was reelected, and Bush barely beat Gore and eventually they lost congress.


Clinton had Perot to help out against Dole... otherwise an old WWII hero would have crushed Clinton... just saying... remember Clinton never got about 50% of the populer vote... but won easily because of the Perot issue... in 1996...
Rick
lights1961
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5362
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:33 am

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:06 am

lights1961 wrote:because they know deep down that any less money we have in our pocket means less money to spend by conusmers... and that effects all of us...


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-1 ... -says.html
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16111
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Postby conversationpc » Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:21 am

Fact Finder wrote:As well they should. More people could learn from this. The Country will be better off in the long run if more people adopted this philosophy. Saving means security and the more of us that are secure in our own lives means less of us dependant on others.


Halle-frickin'-lujah!
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby Monker » Fri Sep 17, 2010 6:05 am

Fact Finder wrote:
The_Noble_Cause wrote:
lights1961 wrote:because they know deep down that any less money we have in our pocket means less money to spend by conusmers... and that effects all of us...


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-1 ... -says.html


As well they should. More people could learn from this. The Country will be better off in the long run if more people adopted this philosophy. Saving means security and the more of us that are secure in our own lives means less of us dependant on others. When we're secure in our lives we'll be more liberal in our spending. That will bolster the economy, not Government confiscation and spending our money [on loOsers] for their votes.


yeah, but give the middle class a tax cut and they SPEND it....and most probably can;'t afford to 'save' it. The general philosophy has always been the 'trickle down' thing...The rich will spend their million dollar tax break on a new yacht, or whatever...As I argued months ago, the rich can already to buy a yacht - they don't need a tax cut to do it. The trickle down thing is a myth.

And, you are just wrong. When consumer spending is dropping, it leads to bad things. I've never heard anybody cheer the fact that consumer sending is dropping and it's a good sign for better times ahead. Why was nobody cheering the fact that house sells are down? Where was this argument then? "Yay! Nobody is buying houses...they must be saving their money...such good times ahead!" True, you shouldn't spend beyond what you can afford...but nobody buying anything causes problems.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12673
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby Monker » Fri Sep 17, 2010 6:13 am

lights1961 wrote:
Monker wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
Monker wrote:
slucero wrote:it could mean that Independents who previously simply voted Republican voted Tea Party instead...


I don't think Independents can vote in the primaries in DE. This is a demonstration that radical voices and opinions have taken over the Republican party. I said this months ago in this thread. The Tea Party is making the Republican party WEAKER in the long run. The Republicans may take over the House...but it's more due to a general hatred for congress and incumbents in general...But, in the long run, purifying the Republican party to exclude any moderate voices is going to make them the minority party for decades to come.



You couldn't be more wrong. Real run of the mill Repubs want Conservative candidates, not RINOs. We're tired of what O'donnell called Obama Republicans. Say no to Healthcare, Say no to higher taxes, Say yes to less government spending, say yes to protecting our borders kind of Repubs. No more mealy mouthed wishy washy Mc Cain/Bush/Graham types. We've had enough with the go along to get along mentality of inside the beltway bullshit. Run this Government like a business or household would and get the hell out of peoples way and business.

I can see November from my house! :lol:


And, that is exactly why I say they will become the minority party. They are now a party of exclusion...and include only extremists. There is a reason why it was called the Reagan COALITION. In the long run, Republicans lose when they are too extreme...and so do Democrats. The Republicans may win this November...just as Newt did years ago. But, they will still lose in the longer term...just as Newt did. Remember, Clinton was reelected, and Bush barely beat Gore and eventually they lost congress.


Clinton had Perot to help out against Dole... otherwise an old WWII hero would have crushed Clinton... just saying... remember Clinton never got about 50% of the populer vote... but won easily because of the Perot issue... in 1996...


I don't think this is quite true. From what I remember, it was hurting him early on but after the VP debate, with Perot's General Zombie, his numbers tanked and was not much of a threat to anybody....and he didn't just take votes from Clinton...he stole from Dole too. It may have been closer without Perot, but I do not believe you can prove he caused Clinton to be reelected. And, also Dole just did not perform well at all in the debates...I don't think he would have crushed anything one to one...well, except maybe Dukakis.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12673
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby Rockindeano » Fri Sep 17, 2010 8:50 am

lights1961 wrote:

Clinton had Perot to help out against Dole... otherwise an old WWII hero would have crushed Clinton... just saying... remember Clinton never got about 50% of the populer vote... but won easily because of the Perot issue... in 1996...


I haven't laughed this hard in a long long time. Thanks for that. Good God you cannot be serious?
User avatar
Rockindeano
Forever Deano
 
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:52 am
Location: At Peace

Postby S2M » Fri Sep 17, 2010 8:56 am

The ONE and ONLY time I have ever voted, and I've been eligible to vote in 5 elections, was for Perot in '92. It took me once to become jaded. Well before the Great Voting Misshaps of '00 and '04....I will never vote again.
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby conversationpc » Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:15 am

S2M wrote:The ONE and ONLY time I have ever voted, and I've been eligible to vote in 5 elections, was for Perot in '92. It took me once to become jaded. Well before the Great Voting Misshaps of '00 and '04....I will never vote again.


Voting misshap of '04?
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby S2M » Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:23 am

conversationpc wrote:
S2M wrote:The ONE and ONLY time I have ever voted, and I've been eligible to vote in 5 elections, was for Perot in '92. It took me once to become jaded. Well before the Great Voting Misshaps of '00 and '04....I will never vote again.


Voting misshap of '04?


Absolutely....losing popular vote, yet still winning. And I made a mistake, that happened in '00. Sorry.
Last edited by S2M on Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby S2M » Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:38 am

Fact Finder wrote:
S2M wrote:
conversationpc wrote:
S2M wrote:The ONE and ONLY time I have ever voted, and I've been eligible to vote in 5 elections, was for Perot in '92. It took me once to become jaded. Well before the Great Voting Misshaps of '00 and '04....I will never vote again.


Voting misshap of '04?


Absolutely....losing popular vote, yet still winning. And I made a mistake, that happened in '00. Sorry.



We could quibble about those 537 Fla votes all day long, but the winning popular vote issue and losing is provided for in the Constitution via the Electoral college. We are a Republic and not a Democracy.


Riiiight....but we sure like to police the world and spread democracy.....a democracy, mind you, you claim doesn't exist.
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby S2M » Fri Sep 17, 2010 9:41 am

Fact Finder wrote:
Rockindeano wrote:
lights1961 wrote:

Clinton had Perot to help out against Dole... otherwise an old WWII hero would have crushed Clinton... just saying... remember Clinton never got about 50% of the populer vote... but won easily because of the Perot issue... in 1996...


I haven't laughed this hard in a long long time. Thanks for that. Good God you cannot be serious?


In '96, everybody alive was watching OJ and not the runup to the election. Just sayin'. I remember being in Daytona Beach hotel watching a Dole Stump speech and here came OJ and the White Bronco....it's all we saw for weeks. And Fox News was not even in play back then.


The OJ White Bronco thing was in '94....FYI
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby Monker » Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:27 pm

Fact Finder wrote:
yeah, but give the middle class a tax cut and they SPEND it....and most probably can;'t afford to 'save' it.


Think about what you're saying and why. When you say "can't afford to save it" I take it you mean that they are already overextended and can use any dime that they can get their hands on to cover their bills.


No, I am not saying that. Of course that is ONE thing that some people have to worry about. But, for me, for example, the ONLY bills I have are the house payment and utilities...NO balance left on credit cards and not even a car loan. But, I can GUARANTEE you that if I get a $5000 -10,000 tax cut, it will be spent on home improvements...new furnace/central air, and flooring for the upstairs...and other things.

Do I save? Of course I do...probably more then most people with my income. So what? There are still daily needs that could be made easier, life and home improvements to be made. THAT is the middle class.

If the rich keep that money they generally use it as a means to make more money and that usually means by way of investments. Most rich that I know would invest most of this money and that means invested in stocks which are Companies. Companies use the invested cash to keep growing which means hiring and expansions or acqasitions.


I was laid off last June. The company I worked for based their spending on a Dow of 10,000. So, they cut expenses, cut salaries, and then cut employees. As long as there is so much flux in the markets, companies (especially those in the financial industry) are going to be reluctant to restore those cuts. Consumer spending increases demand for goods and services, which increases corporate profit, which means they can spend more on salaries and benefits. THAT is what matters...much more then the stock price...Well, unless you are an executive and you have lots of stock options.

Figuring this fictional rich guy already owns a yacht, lets assume that he upsizes, or redecorates the thing. What about how much it cost him to employ deck hands, pay docking fees, and god only knows how much fuel he might buy which is taxed enough already.


LOL. Please, this convinces me of nothing. If Bill Gates, or Trump, or whoever, wants a yacht, he can afford to be an admiral....without a tax cut.

Does it help the economy? Sure...but it has NOTHING to do with a tax cut.

I think you've somehow missed what has just happened here over the last couple of decades. People were cheering that people were buying houses, in fact our Government mandated (in some instances)that banks lend a ton of people money they couldn't afford to buy a house. What we've learned is that that don't work. If consumers don't have money they shouldn't be buying things like Flat Screens, Big Houses and meals every Friday at Outback on a CCard.


Of course I didn't 'miss it'. Crooks were making bad loans and caused the entire financial industry to collapse because of it. That does NOT change the fact that NOBODY was making the argument that housing sales falling were a good thing.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12673
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby Monker » Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:30 pm

Fact Finder wrote:
S2M wrote:
conversationpc wrote:
S2M wrote:The ONE and ONLY time I have ever voted, and I've been eligible to vote in 5 elections, was for Perot in '92. It took me once to become jaded. Well before the Great Voting Misshaps of '00 and '04....I will never vote again.


Voting misshap of '04?


Absolutely....losing popular vote, yet still winning. And I made a mistake, that happened in '00. Sorry.



We could quibble about those 537 Fla votes all day long, but the winning popular vote issue and losing is provided for in the Constitution via the Electoral college. We are a Republic and not a Democracy.


It all depends on who gets elected. Back when Clinton was President, it was the Republicans arguing to get rid of the electoral college.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12673
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby Monker » Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:31 pm

S2M wrote:
Fact Finder wrote:
S2M wrote:
conversationpc wrote:
S2M wrote:The ONE and ONLY time I have ever voted, and I've been eligible to vote in 5 elections, was for Perot in '92. It took me once to become jaded. Well before the Great Voting Misshaps of '00 and '04....I will never vote again.


Voting misshap of '04?


Absolutely....losing popular vote, yet still winning. And I made a mistake, that happened in '00. Sorry.



We could quibble about those 537 Fla votes all day long, but the winning popular vote issue and losing is provided for in the Constitution via the Electoral college. We are a Republic and not a Democracy.


Riiiight....but we sure like to police the world and spread democracy.....a democracy, mind you, you claim doesn't exist.


There has never been a true "democracy" in the entire history of the world.

We are a Republic, not a democracy.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12673
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby slucero » Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:29 pm

The word “democracy” has been used for the last 40 years as a way of defining the type of society we have in the United States. An unfortunate (some would argue intentional) consequence has been the miss-association and assumption that our form of government is also democratically based. Although U.S. society has many democratic values, our form of government is not democratic, never has been, and should never become so.

The United States is actually mixture of the two systems of government (republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law).

In a republic - The People enjoy their God-given natural rights.
In a democracy - the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

The U.S. has a blend of both.

The average citizen today no longer understands:

1. The significance and difference between the two forms of government,
2. The societal AND personal risk they face if the U.S. form of government were to become truly “democratic”,

…and MOST importantly, that

3. They are individually responsible for ensuring that the Republic endures… via their participation in the electoral process.

Failure to do so GUARANTEES those future generations will lose not only their natural God-given rights, but also many others. So moving towards, or becoming a democracy would actually transfer power from the people → to the government, which would be a REALLY BAD THING for individual rights and those with opinions that would be considered "in the minority"

The true reality is that a democratic form of government equals LESS individual freedom… something very important to remember… because once lost, those freedoms are usually retrieved only when paid for in blood ...the Founding Fathers knew this, and remembered this lesson when they created the U.S as a republic, because they clearly saw the slippery slope a democratic form of government would lead to. Simply stated, a democratic form of government is a dictatorship of the majority!


Some distinctions between republic and democracy:

REPUBLIC

1. The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4).
2. No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic.
3. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all."
4. Minority individual rights are the priority.
5. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights.
6. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy.
7. In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the People, is obliged to its owner, the People.


DEMOCRACY

1. In a pure democracy 51% beats 49%.
2. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Its important to note that proponents of democracy as a form of government would point to ancient Greece as having a successful democratic government. They may NOT mention that Socrates was executed by that very same democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.
3. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States.
4. In a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.



As “definitions”, here is how both forms of government are defined in Blacks Law Dictionary:

Government; Republican government.
One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Government; Democracy government.
That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Postby S2M » Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:46 pm

1. In a pure democracy 51% beats 49%

This is exactly how the electoral college works....if 51% of California votes Repub, and 49% votes for Dem....then the Repubs get the 55 electoral votes...the voting system IS Democratic....HOWEVER, it would be more fair if the electoral votes were divided by ratio of votes. Meaning if California WAS split up 51% to 49% in favor of the Republican candidate - He would get 28 electoral votes, and the Democratic candidate would get 27 electoral votes. And that equals the 55 votes CA. has...you could do the same for each state. Although in some of the smaller states it may be hard to divide by the actual percentages....

You cannot say that the country is not democratic when the voting system is most democratic, while the government proclaims - ad nauseum that they are spreading democracy to the rest of the world.....

Another thing....there is no such thing as God-given rights....only civil rights.

7. In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the People, is obliged to its owner, the People.


Yeah. Ok. Especially the last sentence. When has the government EVER been held accountable by the 'people'....if that were the case the people would vote if we went to war or not...Our government is self-serving, and acts only in self-preservation...cronyism runs rampant, and the good old boy network is alive, and well....
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby S2M » Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:10 pm

This is what the electoral system of voting is like:

Let's say your boss comes into work and says, 'We are going to have a vote today on whether we will have dress down day on fridays. Each department will vote as a group. We'll tally the votes and see how things shake up.'

Each department votes, and they are tallied. and the breakdown is as follows:

Admin
Yes - 4
No - 7

Maintenence
Yes - 1
No - 1

Sales
Yes - 5
No - 0

HR
yes - 2
No -0

The boss returns after adding up the votes and says, 'The votes are 12 in favor of dress down fridays, and 8 against. But since Admin voted 7 to 4 against - we won't be having dress down day. '

In this scenario Administration's votes held more weight than the 'other' departments. And so it is with large states vs. small states. Moreover, once a large state has handed out it's electoral votes the minority's votes no longer matter. Talk about being disenfranchised!
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby Monker » Fri Sep 17, 2010 3:38 pm

S2M wrote:You cannot say that the country is not democratic when the voting system is most democratic, while the government proclaims - ad nauseum that they are spreading democracy to the rest of the world.....


I can say this country is not democratic because even if %99 of the citizens in this country do not like the fact that I am writing this post right now...they can't stop me. Only Andrew can - and he's Australian!

The majority does NOT rule. How do you amend the Constitution again? Explain to me what it would take to repeal the 14th amendment, or add a "life begins at conception" amendment, and how that is 'majority rules'.

We are NOT living in a democracy. There has NEVER been a pure democratic government - EVER. The government can say they are 'spreading democracy' because people are stupid and don't know any better...and when they say "democracy" people just know it's not a dictatorship and people vote on one thing or another.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12673
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby S2M » Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:00 pm

Monker wrote:
S2M wrote:You cannot say that the country is not democratic when the voting system is most democratic, while the government proclaims - ad nauseum that they are spreading democracy to the rest of the world.....


I can say this country is not democratic because even if %99 of the citizens in this country do not like the fact that I am writing this post right now...they can't stop me. Only Andrew can - and he's Australian!

The majority does NOT rule. How do you amend the Constitution again? Explain to me what it would take to repeal the 14th amendment, or add a "life begins at conception" amendment, and how that is 'majority rules'.

We are NOT living in a democracy. There has NEVER been a pure democratic government - EVER. The government can say they are 'spreading democracy' because people are stupid and don't know any better...and when they say "democracy" people just know it's not a dictatorship and people vote on one thing or another.



It even takes a democratic process to repeal the Electoral college:

Two-thirds of the states to petition congress to convene a constitutional convention, and then three-fourths of the states to ratify the amendment. Sounds like a majority in BOTH cases.
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby conversationpc » Fri Sep 17, 2010 10:06 pm

Monker wrote:
S2M wrote:You cannot say that the country is not democratic when the voting system is most democratic, while the government proclaims - ad nauseum that they are spreading democracy to the rest of the world.....


I can say this country is not democratic because even if %99 of the citizens in this country do not like the fact that I am writing this post right now...they can't stop me. Only Andrew can - and he's Australian!

The majority does NOT rule. How do you amend the Constitution again? Explain to me what it would take to repeal the 14th amendment, or add a "life begins at conception" amendment, and how that is 'majority rules'.

We are NOT living in a democracy. There has NEVER been a pure democratic government - EVER. The government can say they are 'spreading democracy' because people are stupid and don't know any better...and when they say "democracy" people just know it's not a dictatorship and people vote on one thing or another.


Monker's right...We are a Constitutional Republic. There would be no point in having a Senate AND House of Representatives if were a democracy. The founders HATED democracy and it's really only one step short of having a socialist government.

S2M wrote:In this scenario Administration's votes held more weight than the 'other' departments. And so it is with large states vs. small states. Moreover, once a large state has handed out it's electoral votes the minority's votes no longer matter. Talk about being disenfranchised!


You're completely wrong. The Electoral College was designed to give more weight to the smaller states. From the University of Columbia...

It is well known that the Electoral College favors small states: every state, no matter how small, gets at least 3 electoral votes, and so small states have more electoral votes per voter. This "well known fact" is, in fact, true.

To state this slightly more formally: if you are a voter in state X, then the probability that your vote is decisive in the Presidential election is equal to the probability that your vote is decisive within your state (that is, the probability that your state would be exactly tied without your vote), multiplied by the probability that your state's electoral votes are decisive in the Electoral College (so that, if your state flips, it will change the electoral vote winner), if your state were tied.

If your state has N voters and E electoral votes, the probability that your state is tied is approximately proportional to 1/N, and the probability that your state's electoral votes are necessary is approximately proportional to E. So the probability that your vote is decisive--your "voting power"--is roughly proportional to E/N, that is, the number of electoral votes per voter in your state.

A counterintuitive but wrong idea

The point has sometimes been obscured, unfortunately, by "voting power" calculations that purportedly show that, counterintuitively, voters in large states have more voting power ("One man, 3.312 votes," in the oft-cited paper of Banzhaf, 1968). This claim of Banzhaf and others is counterintuitive and, in fact, false.

Why is the Banzhaf claim false? The claim is based on the same idea as we noted above: voting power equals the probability that your state is tied, times the probability that your state's electoral votes are necessary for a national coalition. The hitch is that Banzhaf (and others) computed the probability of your state being tied as being proportional to 1/sqrt(N), where N is the number of voters in the state. This calculation is based (explicitly or implicitly) on a binomial distribution model, and it implies that elections in large states will be much closer (in proportion of the vote) than elections in small states.

Above is the result of the oversimplified model. In fact, elections in large states are only very slightly closer than elections in small states. As a result, the probability that your state's election is tied is pretty much proportional to 1/N, not proportional to 1/sqrt(N). And as a result of that, your voting power is generally more in small states than in large states.

Realistically . . .

Realistically, voting power depends on a lot more than state size. The most important factor is the closeness of the state. Votes in so-called "swing states" (Florida, New Mexico, etc.) are more likely to make a difference than in not-so-close states such as New York.

Above is a plot of "voting power" (the probability that your vote is decisive) as a function of state size, based on the 2000 election. These probabilities are based on simulations, taking the 2000 election and adding random state, regional, and national variation to simulate the uncertainty in state-by-state outcomes.

And above is a plot showing voting power vs. state size for a bunch of previous elections. These probabilities are based on a state-by-state forecasting model applied retroactively (that is, for each year, the estimated probability of tie votes, given information available before the election itself).

The punch line: you have more voting power if you live in a swing state, and even more voting power if you live in a small swing state. And, if you're lucky, your voting power is about 10^(-7), that is, a 1 in 10-million chance of casting a decisive vote.


Go here to view the text WITH the graphs... http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/mova ... ral_c.html
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby Monker » Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:50 pm

conversationpc wrote:
Monker wrote:
S2M wrote:You cannot say that the country is not democratic when the voting system is most democratic, while the government proclaims - ad nauseum that they are spreading democracy to the rest of the world.....


I can say this country is not democratic because even if %99 of the citizens in this country do not like the fact that I am writing this post right now...they can't stop me. Only Andrew can - and he's Australian!

The majority does NOT rule. How do you amend the Constitution again? Explain to me what it would take to repeal the 14th amendment, or add a "life begins at conception" amendment, and how that is 'majority rules'.

We are NOT living in a democracy. There has NEVER been a pure democratic government - EVER. The government can say they are 'spreading democracy' because people are stupid and don't know any better...and when they say "democracy" people just know it's not a dictatorship and people vote on one thing or another.


Monker's right...We are a Constitutional Republic. There would be no point in having a Senate AND House of Representatives if were a democracy. The founders HATED democracy and it's really only one step short of having a socialist government.

S2M wrote:In this scenario Administration's votes held more weight than the 'other' departments. And so it is with large states vs. small states. Moreover, once a large state has handed out it's electoral votes the minority's votes no longer matter. Talk about being disenfranchised!


You're completely wrong. The Electoral College was designed to give more weight to the smaller states. From the University of Columbia...

It is well known that the Electoral College favors small states: every state, no matter how small, gets at least 3 electoral votes, and so small states have more electoral votes per voter. This "well known fact" is, in fact, true.

To state this slightly more formally: if you are a voter in state X, then the probability that your vote is decisive in the Presidential election is equal to the probability that your vote is decisive within your state (that is, the probability that your state would be exactly tied without your vote), multiplied by the probability that your state's electoral votes are decisive in the Electoral College (so that, if your state flips, it will change the electoral vote winner), if your state were tied.

If your state has N voters and E electoral votes, the probability that your state is tied is approximately proportional to 1/N, and the probability that your state's electoral votes are necessary is approximately proportional to E. So the probability that your vote is decisive--your "voting power"--is roughly proportional to E/N, that is, the number of electoral votes per voter in your state.

A counterintuitive but wrong idea

The point has sometimes been obscured, unfortunately, by "voting power" calculations that purportedly show that, counterintuitively, voters in large states have more voting power ("One man, 3.312 votes," in the oft-cited paper of Banzhaf, 1968). This claim of Banzhaf and others is counterintuitive and, in fact, false.

Why is the Banzhaf claim false? The claim is based on the same idea as we noted above: voting power equals the probability that your state is tied, times the probability that your state's electoral votes are necessary for a national coalition. The hitch is that Banzhaf (and others) computed the probability of your state being tied as being proportional to 1/sqrt(N), where N is the number of voters in the state. This calculation is based (explicitly or implicitly) on a binomial distribution model, and it implies that elections in large states will be much closer (in proportion of the vote) than elections in small states.

Above is the result of the oversimplified model. In fact, elections in large states are only very slightly closer than elections in small states. As a result, the probability that your state's election is tied is pretty much proportional to 1/N, not proportional to 1/sqrt(N). And as a result of that, your voting power is generally more in small states than in large states.

Realistically . . .

Realistically, voting power depends on a lot more than state size. The most important factor is the closeness of the state. Votes in so-called "swing states" (Florida, New Mexico, etc.) are more likely to make a difference than in not-so-close states such as New York.

Above is a plot of "voting power" (the probability that your vote is decisive) as a function of state size, based on the 2000 election. These probabilities are based on simulations, taking the 2000 election and adding random state, regional, and national variation to simulate the uncertainty in state-by-state outcomes.

And above is a plot showing voting power vs. state size for a bunch of previous elections. These probabilities are based on a state-by-state forecasting model applied retroactively (that is, for each year, the estimated probability of tie votes, given information available before the election itself).

The punch line: you have more voting power if you live in a swing state, and even more voting power if you live in a small swing state. And, if you're lucky, your voting power is about 10^(-7), that is, a 1 in 10-million chance of casting a decisive vote.


Go here to view the text WITH the graphs... http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/mova ... ral_c.html


Actually, this is wrong too. It's the electoral college votes that elect the President...not ours. The electoral college are not required to vote the way the people voted in their state. In fact, I believe there was a case where one electoral vote was cast for Benson/Dukakis instead of Dukakis/Benson because the voter felt that Benson was more qualified to be President then Dukakis, so she flipped the ticket. Traditionally, the votes are always cast to reflect the voters wishes - but there is no requirement. That is the one thing that should be changed.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12673
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby S2M » Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:04 am

The founders HATED democracy and it's really only one step short of having a socialist government.

I disagree.

From wikipedia (Jeffersonian democracy): "The core political value of America is [i]representative Democracy
; citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption, especially monarchism and aristocracy."[/i]

Washington, in his farewell address, said, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government."

The proponents of having a Limited Republic, and those who cling to such an antiquated idea, like the Electoral College seem to be saying is, 'The general public can't be trusted with the outcome of a presidential election. The will of the people must to be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college.' I guess these 'electors' know what's best for the country. Another example of just how little power the american people have....

With a Popular Vote system, Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby Monker » Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:17 am

S2M wrote:The founders HATED democracy and it's really only one step short of having a socialist government.

I disagree.

From wikipedia (Jeffersonian democracy): "The core political value of America is [i]representative Democracy
; citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption, especially monarchism and aristocracy."[/i]

Washington, in his farewell address, said, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government."

The proponents of having a Limited Republic, and those who cling to such an antiquated idea, like the Electoral College seem to be saying is, 'The general public can't be trusted with the outcome of a presidential election. The will of the people must to be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college.' I guess these 'electors' know what's best for the country. Another example of just how little power the american people have....

With a Popular Vote system, Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.


Wow, this is so not true on so many points that I just don't even feel like arguing it any longer. Ignorance is bliss, I spose.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12673
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Postby conversationpc » Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:43 am

S2M wrote:The founders HATED democracy and it's really only one step short of having a socialist government.

I disagree.

From wikipedia (Jeffersonian democracy): "The core political value of America is [i]representative Democracy
; citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption, especially monarchism and aristocracy."[/i]

Washington, in his farewell address, said, "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government."

The proponents of having a Limited Republic, and those who cling to such an antiquated idea, like the Electoral College seem to be saying is, 'The general public can't be trusted with the outcome of a presidential election. The will of the people must to be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college.' I guess these 'electors' know what's best for the country. Another example of just how little power the american people have....

With a Popular Vote system, Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.


You can disagree all you want but you're still wrong...

Great article on this here... http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle332-20050814-05.html
My blog = Dave's Dominion
User avatar
conversationpc
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 17830
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Slightly south of sanity...

Postby S2M » Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:00 am

I still disagree....

Btw, do any of you learned folks know why the Senate was started in the first place? The North had more people and was against slavery, whereas the South had less people and was afraid that a Popular vote would mean the end of slavery. So they created a Constitution to save slavery. The North wanted free people to count towards the total for adding seats to the House of Rep. But the South wanted slaves to count too, but blacks didn't have voting rights. So they wanted them to count towards House seats - but in the end wouldn't have voting priviledges...subsequently, the founders, in their infinite wisdom, decreed that a slave counted as 3/5ths of a person and gave the South more seats in the House. The Senate was invented to give more power to the slave loving south.

As James Madison said, 'a Pure Democracy is a society consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person.'

and the model for the Senate was England's House of Lords....didn't mind escaping religious opression, but goddamn it - give me that English style of controlling the people.
Tom Brady IS the G.O.A.T.
User avatar
S2M
MP3
 
Posts: 11981
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:43 am
Location: In a bevy of whimsy

Postby slucero » Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:01 pm

What ails this government has less to do with its form and more to do with its loss of morality...

Changing the form of government will not repair that... it will in fact, "give the mob the gavel"... who will further strip individual rights away, that rights the current one in its original and intended form, would protect..

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests