US Elections '14 and '16 Sound_Bites


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : US Elections '14 and '16 Sound_Bites

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 15 · Next
Author Message
Profile DEAD
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 2166
Credit: 3,659,144
RAC: 3,208
United States
Message 1478437 - Posted: 17 Feb 2014, 21:15:53 UTC

Not Hearing Anything New. Same 'ole Crappola.

Hoping fO a Great New Speechifier with Real Change He/She/Other can Prove. You know, Gibberish dat makes sense. Gooba Gabba Heeba Habba Broheims.

Huckabee in '16

Oh Yeah.

' '
____________


Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 8564
Credit: 31,555,522
RAC: 55,949
United States
Message 1478600 - Posted: 18 Feb 2014, 7:14:33 UTC

Im waiting for a certain hack to say, What differance does it make.
____________

Old James

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31159
Credit: 11,397,148
RAC: 22,499
United Kingdom
Message 1478685 - Posted: 18 Feb 2014, 10:25:45 UTC

The next Presidential election will be on November 8, 2016.

All I can find for 2014 is this on Ballots

2014 Ballots

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1406
Credit: 793,366
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1478782 - Posted: 18 Feb 2014, 19:58:43 UTC - in response to Message 1478685.

The next Presidential election will be on November 8, 2016.

All I can find for 2014 is this on Ballots

2014 Ballots


Well, as far as US Federal elections go in 2014, I think you may have forgotten the so-called 'Midterm' elections.

Here in the USA, the entire 'lower' house of Congress (The House of Representatives) stands for (re)election every 2 years. Their term length is 2 years. Also, 1/3 of the 'upper' house of Congress (The US Senate) stands for (re)election at the same time. Their term length is 6 years.

These elections are in many ways way more important than the US Presidential elections once every 4 years. 2014 is no exception to this, and is shaping up to be a real dog-fight between the R's (who will try to hold their majority in the House and take the majority in the Senate), and the D's (who will try to hold their majority in the Senate and take the majority in the House). The 2 most powerful politicians in the US Government are the Speaker of the House (the 'leader' of the majority party in the House) and the Majority Leader in the Senate. Together, they set the legislative agenda in Congress and control what comes up for a vote and what doesn't in their respective Houses. Way more direct political power than the US President has (about all the President can do is beg and plead to the People to try and motivate Congress to do certain things).

Yep, 2014 is looking to be some rather good high political theater but for one thing. I don't have a dog in this fight. I am not a D nor am I an R. I am a L, a rather minor so-called '3rd party'. The D's and R's have set things up in this country so that they have a hugely powerful lock on the political process, and exclude pretty much everyone else.

My dog in this fight has been effectively run over by a bus and is lying in the ditch by the side of the road, dying. De Tocqueville was right in his book Democracy in America(1835) when he said that it would last until the American People figure out that they can vote themselves largess from the Public Treasury.

The D's are bad for the country. So are the R's. There is no choice in US politics, and hasn't been for years... Decades... It is all an illusion. Both use the same methods, only differing on who the 'favored, protected class' is. Neither party has the Good of the Nation in mind, only trying to maintain a lock on political power, and both don't care what they have to trash to keep it.

And please don't reflexively flame me for saying this. I am already wearing sackcloth and sitting in a pile of ashes in mourning for this once-great nation.

Sic transit gloria mundi.
____________
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome

“Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty.”
― Tacitus

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31159
Credit: 11,397,148
RAC: 22,499
United Kingdom
Message 1478790 - Posted: 18 Feb 2014, 20:16:12 UTC

Thanks Major Kong, I knew that I had missed out something, and that was obviously it!

The 2 most powerful politicians in the US Government are the Speaker of the House (the 'leader' of the majority party in the House) and the Majority Leader in the Senate.

In the UK the Speaker may be an MP of any party, but unlike presiding officers of legislatures in many other countries, the Speaker remains strictly non-partisan, and renounces all affiliation with his or her former political party when taking office. We also have a Father of the House, a title that is by tradition bestowed on the senior Member of the House of Commons who has the longest unbroken service.

Yep, 2014 is looking to be some rather good high political theater but for one thing. I don't have a dog in this fight. I am not a D nor am I an R. I am a L, a rather minor so-called '3rd party'.

Join the gang!

The D's and R's have set things up in this country so that they have a hugely powerful lock on the political process, and exclude pretty much everyone else.

Same here, except we have things like hung parliaments and coalitions which you guys don't have.


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 37,814,300
RAC: 16,592
Message 1478875 - Posted: 18 Feb 2014, 23:09:18 UTC
Last modified: 22 Mar 2014, 0:09:57 UTC

--

Мишель
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 1306
Credit: 36,722
RAC: 57
Netherlands
Message 1478894 - Posted: 19 Feb 2014, 0:04:33 UTC - in response to Message 1478875.

Reagan once said he didn't leave the Republican party, the republican party left him. I relate to the libertatian party, but it doesn't make sense to create more than two parties in the U.S. It'll only lead to what's been happening in Italy for decades. You either want more government or you want less government. I want less FEDERAL government. Centralizing power and control has always lead to the downfall of nations. What we have here in the U.S. is precious because it started out with the realization that issues are best dealt with at the lowest level possible in government. We currently have 50 experiements and the federal government is wiping those out. Wipe those out and we're on a path to failure for sure. History shows it time and time again.

Just because this interests me (and I had to write a paper about it) but history actually shows the opposite. Countries with governments that successfully organized centrally are historically much much more successful than countries that don't. And over the course of human history, there has been an almost continuous move from decentralized power structures to centralized power structures. It is actually only since recent history that states have effectively given up some of its powers, and with disastrous consequences I might add.

I can assure you that it won't be a strong central federal government that will rip the United States to shreds, but a government that insists on decentralizing and giving up government authority in the areas of defense and the economy. You are already at the mercy of the international financial markets who can bankrupt nations in a matter of hours and who only operate for their own personal profit. And of course the creation of the military industrial complex has ensured that more and more of the US's defense capabilities are relying on private companies with less and less control of the state.

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1406
Credit: 793,366
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1478897 - Posted: 19 Feb 2014, 0:10:11 UTC - in response to Message 1478875.


You're in the GREAT, INDEPENDENT, and SOVEREIGN state of TEXAS, right?


Yep... Born in Texas, Spent all but about 6 or 7 months of my 50-something years of life in Texas. Lived in several different parts of the state; east and west, north and south, urban and rural. I am a Texan. Been to much of the rest of the world. Lots of nice places to visit, but I wouldn't wanna live there.



Take our declaration of independence, second paragraph. Quote: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." We acknowledged 238 years ago that once people are comfortable, we accept whatever is handed to us. And since we are now in the age of instant global communications (facebook, twitter, etc.), we have now shown a period in which we rise as a nation and then fall as a nation. At what point do we realize the basic truths of human nature and realize as a nation what the basic truths of human nature are again? How many more of these cycles is it going to take? How short a period is it going to take before everyone who is so wrapped up in the Kardashians, Miley Cyrus twerking, the latest XBOX video game, who's going to win the superbowl, the celebration of gayness, what the latest is on the red carpet, what the latest fad is in NY or Los Angelese, etc etc etc before we all realize as a nation that "the ruling class" is absolutely screwing the nation?


Well, at least ONE other person out there "gets it".


And the ruling class will keep laughing...

Yep...
____________
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome

“Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty.”
― Tacitus


Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2082
Credit: 37,814,300
RAC: 16,592
Message 1478923 - Posted: 19 Feb 2014, 1:26:53 UTC
Last modified: 22 Mar 2014, 0:09:32 UTC

--

Profile CLYDE
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 1522
Credit: 21,179,384
RAC: 34,926
United States
Message 1478972 - Posted: 19 Feb 2014, 4:56:03 UTC - in response to Message 1478790.

Chris S

Same here, except we have things like hung parliaments and coalitions which you guys don't have.


What are 'hung' parliaments and 'coalitions?
____________

Profile CLYDE
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 1522
Credit: 21,179,384
RAC: 34,926
United States
Message 1478986 - Posted: 19 Feb 2014, 5:14:03 UTC - in response to Message 1478437.

To: I Am A COWARD and A MOANER. Please Respect Me and Don't Bully Me. But, if you do, I Deserve 'it'. Thank You.

Your 'Image Links' are interesting.

What does 'Corn... Corn Corn Corn' mean?
____________

Profile DEAD
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 2166
Credit: 3,659,144
RAC: 3,208
United States
Message 1478991 - Posted: 19 Feb 2014, 5:34:38 UTC

What does 'Corn... Corn Corn Corn' mean?


The Plaintive Pleading of a Raven.

Much Like The Pleading of OBlabby's(Hustlin'Hussein) Army of Bacon...Bacon Bacon Bacon Lovers.

Yea, I knew yOu wOuld Get 'it'.

Now, do the Gooba Gabba Heeba Habba to Da Beat, and youse beba...now, what would our Resident Hiding/Lurking Prof say.....?

fO shO fO eva.

' '
____________


Мишель
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 1306
Credit: 36,722
RAC: 57
Netherlands
Message 1479075 - Posted: 19 Feb 2014, 10:11:48 UTC - in response to Message 1478923.

Мишель, since you wrote a paper supporting this hypothesis, can you list the successful countries with governments that successfully organized centrally and are historically much much more successful than countries that don't organize centrally?

Actually I had to write about Russia which is an example of a government where centralization of power did not happen in a successful manner. Even to this day, Russia is actually a very weak state due to its lack of centralized power.

Another example of a state that failed due to its weak centralized power was medieval Poland. It was in fact so weak that Prussia and Russia had very little trouble with conquering the place.

But if you want success stories, just look at any Western European country. Or the United States. They went from feudalism (which is decentralized power in the extreme) to modern, democratic states with functioning state institutions and state bureaucracies.

I suppose that the earliest success stories are England and France (France especially).

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1668
Credit: 203,624,556
RAC: 25,104
Australia
Message 1479149 - Posted: 19 Feb 2014, 15:10:46 UTC - in response to Message 1478972.
Last modified: 19 Feb 2014, 15:14:52 UTC

Same here, except we have things like hung parliaments and coalitions which you guys don't have.


What are 'hung' parliaments and 'coalitions?[/quote]
A "Hung Parliament" occurs when there are sufficient people elected from minor parties or independents that neither of the major parties has a majority on the floor of the house.

Therefore both parties are forced to negotiate with said minor parties and independents until one party gets their support and is able form a "coalition" to gain the 51% of members that is required to govern.

This was the situation in Australia until last year when the Labor Party ruled with with the support of 3 independents and in England where the Conservative Party has the support of the Liberal Democrats in order to govern. Usually the deal is that the minor coalition partner agrees to support the major partner in supply bills and motions of confidence.

How this would work in the US I don't know. In both Australia and England the MP's vote mainly along party lines. In the US both Members of Congress and Senators are free to "cross the floor" and vote with the other party if they wish. Meaning that if the majority party in the house introduces a bill, there is no guarantee it will pass because members of that party are free to vote against it if they wish.

T.A.

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1406
Credit: 793,366
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1479150 - Posted: 19 Feb 2014, 15:13:13 UTC - in response to Message 1478972.

Chris S

Same here, except we have things like hung parliaments and coalitions which you guys don't have.


What are 'hung' parliaments and 'coalitions?


If I may answer...

In representative democracies, a political party having a Majority (>50%) of the seats in a legislative body, as opposed to just a plurality of the seats (more than any other party), has certain perks and advantages. In the US style of legislative bodies, these perks include a rather strong measure of control over the legislative agenda. In the parliamentary system in use by many countries (such as, for instance, the UK), these perks include a process known as 'forming a government' (selection of the Prime Minister, etc. etc.).

If you have only 2 political parties of consequence (that is holding seats), it is virtually certain that one of the 2 will have a majority (over 50%) of the seats. But, when a nation has more than 2 political parties of consequence things can get quite a bit more... interesting.

The more parties of consequence there are the more likely there will be difficulty. What happens when a nation's legislative body after an election does not have 1 party with a majority of the seats? First, they will see if there is some combination of political parties that can stand each other enough to cooperate and work together and together have a majority of seats. If a suitable group can be found, this group gets the perks (such as forming a government) and is known as a coalition.

If a suitable group can not be found, then it is 'hung', and its time to go back to the voting booth, rinse and repeat, until such time as either a majority government gets elected or a coalition can be formed.

As I said things can get rather... interesting... when there are more than 2 parties of consequence.

Profile CLYDE
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 1522
Credit: 21,179,384
RAC: 34,926
United States
Message 1479157 - Posted: 19 Feb 2014, 15:37:18 UTC - in response to Message 1479150.
Last modified: 19 Feb 2014, 15:40:00 UTC

Thanks for the reply's regarding 'Hung Government'.

I understand (perhaps) Parliamentary Systems, but was unsure of the term 'hung'.

Here is the US: Our System has evolved/devolved into a 'Winner Takes All' within the State's Elections.

There are NO National Elections in the US, EVEN for President. ALL Elections are at the State Level, and 51% takes Everything.

This has Forced Most 'Minor Parties/Idea's' into the Modern 2 Parties (Republican - Democrat).

Americans: Please don't note exception's: I am aware of them, but just trying to give some understanding of Internal American Political System's.
____________

Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 1406
Credit: 793,366
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1479180 - Posted: 19 Feb 2014, 17:12:24 UTC - in response to Message 1479075.

Мишель, since you wrote a paper supporting this hypothesis, can you list the successful countries with governments that successfully organized centrally and are historically much much more successful than countries that don't organize centrally?

Actually I had to write about Russia which is an example of a government where centralization of power did not happen in a successful manner. Even to this day, Russia is actually a very weak state due to its lack of centralized power.

Another example of a state that failed due to its weak centralized power was medieval Poland. It was in fact so weak that Prussia and Russia had very little trouble with conquering the place.

But if you want success stories, just look at any Western European country. Or the United States. They went from feudalism (which is decentralized power in the extreme) to modern, democratic states with functioning state institutions and state bureaucracies.

I suppose that the earliest success stories are England and France (France especially).


You say that the USA is a success due to it being a Centralized Authority and that feudalism is extreme decentralized power?!?! I think you have your terms wrong.

Feudalism is centralized power in the extreme. Power and authority flows downward from the 'king' (or whatever title that particular nationstate uses) through the major and minor hereditary nobility down to the non-hereditary nobility. 'The People' (peasants, serfs, etc.) ain't squat.

The Founding Fathers of the USA had a very healthy distrust of Centralized Authority. So, under the Articles of Confederation, a Governmental structure was devised that dispersed governmental authority very widely. Now they made a mistake or two and made the power of the 'national government' a bit too weak, so a few years later they got together and 'fixed' it with the USA 2.0 under the 'US Constitution'. The US Constitution gave the 'national government' a small amount of additional power, but it was still VERY limited. Political power in the USA flows from 'The People' upward (explicitly recognized in the first part of its first sentence of the Preamble to the Constitution... WE THE PEOPLE...). We were not 'subjects' of a government, but government was our servant.

As I said, governmental authority is widely dispersed in the USA, with each governmental entity having strict limits on what it can (or at least is supposed to be able to) do. Just off the top of my head, there are 5 different governmental entities where I am living now. ISD (independent school district), City, County, State, and Federal (national). Each with separate, rigidly defined powers and authorities. Other jurisdictions may have a slightly different mix, but the last 3 are universally present. I vote for representatives on all 5 levels to make various decisions in their respective spheres of influence.

Yes, governmental power is widely dispersed here in the USA. Now, that said, starting in Washington's first term, the struggle began against those that wished to concentrate governmental power in the nation's capital. Yes, these authoritarians are winning, especially since FDR's New Deal back during the Great Depression. But, the USA achieved its greatness before that, and has been in decline since then.

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31159
Credit: 11,397,148
RAC: 22,499
United Kingdom
Message 1479181 - Posted: 19 Feb 2014, 17:13:08 UTC

Major Kong and TA are basically correct but there other nuances to it.

A hung parliament is where in a basic two-party system, neither major political party has enough seats after the election for an absolute majority, and there is no overall control. This means that one party may win the most seats, but if all the others join together to vote against them, and if also some of theirs abstain or vote against, they will never win a vote or get any legislation passed. They may choose to continue with what is known as a Minority Government, but the opposition can always bring down the government with a simple vote of no confidence, usually within a few months. General elections cost millions of dollars and extra ones are not in anyone's interests least of all the Country. This happened with Wilsons Government in 1974.

Historically, the last proper Coalition government was during WWII when all of the parties agreed to put aside their parliamentary and party differences, and rule together to win the war for Britain. In peacetime, a Coalition is where a larger party and a smaller party come to an agreement to form a joint administration, that between them will have a majority Government. The leader of the senior party will then be "invited" by the Queen to form such a government with them as the Prime Minister.

The result in 2010 was this for 650 seats

Conservative 307
Labour 258
Liberal Democrat 57
Others 28

Simple maths tells you that having the most votes, the Tories could have chosen to form a minority government, but at only 307, the opposition could at any time have mounted 343 against them, it wouldn't have been a stable government. As the incumbent administration, the Lib Dems holding the balance of power, first went to see the Labour PM Gordon Brown, but again a Labour/Lib Dem Coalition would only total 315 votes, and the rest would total 335 votes, another unstable government. Apart from which, Gordon Brown wouldn't do an amicable deal with the Lib Dems.

So they went to talk with the Tories, which gave a joint vote of 364 as against 286. Even allowing for abstentions and defections, it was the only sensible solution. At that stage Cameron was desperate to be PM, and the Lib Dems were desperate to be in government again for over 70 years. So for the benefit od both parties and the country a deal simply had to be hammered out, with Cameron as PM and Clegg as DPM. Many concessions were hard won from both sides, and with bad grace, but they finally came to a workable agreement. And a Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition Government was formed.

But right from that first day at the press conference in the Rose Garden at No.10, both men made it clear that they would run the country together, but each would reserve the right to campaign separately at the next election, which they are now doing. Has it worked? Not very well no, it hasn't. Hardly anyone alive remembers how to run a coalition or live under one. Plus as the larger party and PM, Cameron regularly plays the bully boy card to try to get his own way, and renege on Coalition agreements. Best compromise at the time.

Profile Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10294
Credit: 1,530,578
RAC: 248
United Kingdom
Message 1479201 - Posted: 19 Feb 2014, 18:05:10 UTC - in response to Message 1479181.

Very fine post, deserves at least a +10.

However, several flaws....

"At that stage Cameron was desperate to be PM, and the Lib Dems were desperate to be in government again for over 70 years"

"Has it worked? Not very well no, it hasn't."

"Plus as the larger party and PM, Cameron regularly plays the bully boy card to try to get his own way, and renege on Coalition agreements. Best compromise at the time."

All the above show is Personal ambition. During the past four years, nowhere is it seen that the country has been put first!
____________

Profile The Simonator
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Nov 04
Posts: 4990
Credit: 1,935,162
RAC: 1,112
United Kingdom
Message 1479205 - Posted: 19 Feb 2014, 18:12:03 UTC - in response to Message 1479201.

All the above show is Personal ambition. During the past four years, nowhere is it seen that the country has been put first!

True, but i've come to not expect that from any government, regardless of party allegiance.
____________
There's nothing cuter than a baby's laugh.
Unless it's 2am and you live alone!

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 15 · Next
Post to thread

Message boards : Politics : US Elections '14 and '16 Sound_Bites

Copyright © 2014 University of California