Thank's Kong for the lesson . Interesting .

Jeb may be the best of them and a good bloke ..but ,but , but

So far the youngest hasn't made much noise so i did know Jeb's son was also in politic's ....gowd there everywhere ......

---

Thank's Kong for the lesson . Interesting .

Jeb may be the best of them and a good bloke ..but ,but , but

So far the youngest hasn't made much noise so i did know Jeb's son was also in politic's ....gowd there everywhere ......

Yep. That they are:

George H.W. Bush (Bush the Elder) and his wife, Barbara Bush had 6 children.

George W. Bush (b. 1946).
Robin Bush (b. 1949, d. 1953).
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush (b. 1953). ("Jeb" is from the initials of John Ellis Bush, by the way).
Neil Mallon Bush (b. 1955).
Marvin Pierce Bush (b. 1956).
Dorothy Bush Koch (b. 1959).

Good ole' H.W. and his wife were 'fruitful and multiplied'.

W. and Jeb have been in politics, and we have heard of Neil from the Silverado Savings and Loan fiasco back in the 1980s which kinda ended his hopes in politics.

The two youngest of the Bush kids have kinda stayed out of the political limelight.

Kong so the bush's had there grubby hands involved with the savings and loan affair and Jnr didn't even know or try to stop the GFC (which even I had herd was going to happen 2 yrs before it did and I've been out off the market for 10 by then ) and you think you should vote for them again ....man are you lot silly .

Oh as for your logic about liberals , conservatives Blah , Blah .
It's nice to know we are in good hands with people that vote alone the views you have .

So when I wish to fly somewhere using your logic I should not fly Qantus but get on a known bad airline because at least then I know it will crash you never know if Qantus will they never had a accident involving loss of life .

At least the non-moderates and non-centrists have the courage of their convictions. You kinda know what you are getting. Moderates and centrists, however, decide what to support and do on any given day based on which way the political wind is blowing that day, Their politics is close to the proverbial 'Forrest Gump box of chocolates'. You never know what you are gonna get

What you don't get is in your country where you are considered dead peasents , and your employer doesn't have a vested interest in you dieing because they are the ones whom pay for your medical bills . Is why your country is the way it is . So by your logic we should vote for the ones that lie and back flip the LIBERAL PARTY(REPUBLICANS) and keep the status quo , is that what you mean ?

All ways err on the side of caution when voting if they lie DON"T VOTE THEM IN , if they have been involved in something like the GFC or Savings and loan DON"T VOTE for them if the advocate war as the first responce DON"T VOTE THEM IN .

otherwise all that stuff you wrote is just WEDGE POLITICS

Country's that don't have compulsory voting should not tell those whom have had it for 80 yrs what and how to vote you just don't get it and until you do have compulsory voting you never will and just be porn's of the political system

---

Kong so the bush's had there grubby hands involved with the savings and loan affair and Jnr didn't even know or try to stop the GFC (which even I had herd was going to happen 2 yrs before it did and I've been out off the market for 10 by then ) and you think you should vote for them again ....man are you lot silly .

Uhh.. vote the Bushes back in??? Hardly.

In message 1656054

MajorKong wrote:

I didn't support the previous 2 Bushes for any political office, except in 1980 I kinda had to vote for Bush the Elder for Vice-President when I voted for Ronald Reagan for President. A mistake I did NOT repeat in 1984. And I am not going to support any other ones for any political office.

I don't think any more Bushes would be good for the US (or the rest of the World, politically, economically, or even environmentally.

Glenn wrote:

Oh as for your logic about liberals , conservatives Blah , Blah .
It's nice to know we are in good hands with people that vote alone the views you have .

So when I wish to fly somewhere using your logic I should not fly Qantus but get on a known bad airline because at least then I know it will crash you never know if Qantus will they never had a accident involving loss of life .

At least the non-moderates and non-centrists have the courage of their convictions. You kinda know what you are getting. Moderates and centrists, however, decide what to support and do on any given day based on which way the political wind is blowing that day, Their politics is close to the proverbial 'Forrest Gump box of chocolates'. You never know what you are gonna get

What you don't get is in your country where you are considered dead peasents , and your employer doesn't have a vested interest in you dieing because they are the ones whom pay for your medical bills . Is why your country is the way it is . So by your logic we should vote for the ones that lie and back flip the LIBERAL PARTY(REPUBLICANS) and keep the status quo , is that what you mean ?

All ways err on the side of caution when voting if they lie DON"T VOTE THEM IN , if they have been involved in something like the GFC or Savings and loan DON"T VOTE for them if the advocate war as the first responce DON"T VOTE THEM IN .

otherwise all that stuff you wrote is just WEDGE POLITICS

Country's that don't have compulsory voting should not tell those whom have had it for 80 yrs what and how to vote you just don't get it and until you do have compulsory voting you never will and just be porn's of the political system

I don't support the Bushes. I don't trust them. Bush the Elder (H.W.) was a king spook (head of the US CIA). Nor do I like their politics. They (just as most all Republicans and Democrats) would sell their own mothers down the river for a few dollars and/or a little more political power.

I am NOT a Republican (rightist big-government authoritarian statist). Nor am I a Democrat (leftist big-government authoritarian statist).

As I have said before, I am a libertarian, and vote accordingly.

Compulsory voting? Nope!! It is a bad idea. You will wind up with a bunch of uneducated yahoos voting in a bunch of corrupt, unprincipled lowlifes. Most people really don't know enough about the issues to cast a vote rationally. Perhaps if they were somehow educated on the issues, it might be different. But that begs the question of exactly how one can educate them without bias. The current educational system in the USA fails at this and indoctrinates the students into either a rightist, or most commonly a leftist viewpoint.

I agree, don't vote the Democrats or the Republicans in, but each party has its own list of supporters with a vested interest in keeping them in power.

Majoritarian democracy is a BAD thing. It rapidly becomes tyranny.

Only a Representative Democracy (aka a Republic) operating under STRICT Constitutional LIMITS has a chance of doing a reasonable job of properly governing a nation.

Compulsory voting? Nope!! It is a bad idea. You will wind up with a bunch of uneducated yahoos voting in a bunch of corrupt, unprincipled lowlifes. Most people really don't know enough about the issues to cast a vote rationally. Perhaps if they were somehow educated on the issues, it might be different. But that begs the question of exactly how one can educate them without bias. The current educational system in the USA fails at this and indoctrinates the students into either a rightist, or most commonly a leftist viewpoint.

I agree, don't vote the Democrats or the Republicans in, but each party has its own list of supporters with a vested interest in keeping them in power.

Majoritarian democracy is a BAD thing. It rapidly becomes tyranny.

Only a Representative Democracy (aka a Republic) operating under STRICT Constitutional LIMITS has a chance of doing a reasonable job of properly governing a nation.

Kong i glad your what you call a Liberterian ,......Tag!

But i disagree with the above comments .

We here in Australia have had to vote because if you don't you get fined .It's only about $50 but you don't go to jail or anything else .

Compulsary voting was introduced here by funny enough the Liberal Party (Repuplicains) in sometime around the 1920's i believe and the argument they used was the complete opposite to what you say .

http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/Compulsory_Voting.htm

I put it to you that it is easy to win the vote if less people vote as in the case of Bush who won with only 35% . 50% of 100 is what ? 50% of 70 is what ? is 36% a majority ?

The Liberal Party thought by doing it , making every one vote would pay in there favor but they lost the first election after introducing it.

Remember we have had it since 1924 so all the theory you may read is based on , no offence crap !. You need to look here in Australia to see what happens not listen to people whom talk out there backsides because they wish to keep the stats Quo . democracy does work if everyone participates .

---

Only a Representative Democracy (aka a Republic) operating under STRICT Constitutional LIMITS has a chance of doing a reasonable job of properly governing a nation.

Major what an elitist devil you are.

---

Kong i glad your what you call a Liberterian ,......Tag!

But i disagree with the above comments .

We here in Australia have had to vote because if you don't you get fined .It's only about $50 but you don't go to jail or anything else .

Compulsary voting was introduced here by funny enough the Liberal Party (Repuplicains) in sometime around the 1920's i believe and the argument they used was the complete opposite to what you say .

http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/Compulsory_Voting.htm

Hmm...

Glenn, it looks like Aus-Soc is alive and well in Australia, just as Ing-Soc is alive and well in the UK.

Aussie Big Brother wrote:

Not voting is doubleplusungood!

Bahh... where is the Freedom? If you don't wish to vote, for whatever reason, why should the Government use its Police Powers to force you to do so?

You know who else had compulsory voting? The U.S.S.R.

The Liberal Party thought by doing it , making every one vote would pay in there favor but they lost the first election after introducing it.

So, you admit it was done for reasons of political corruption? How is it working out now? Everything should be peace, love, and paradise? Right??

Then why do you and other Australians spew so much vitrol towards your compulsory-voting elected leaders?

Maybe it isn't working as well as you have been indoctrinated to believe.

Remember we have had it since 1924 so all the theory you may read is based on , no offence crap !. You need to look here in Australia to see what happens not listen to people whom talk out there backsides because they wish to keep the stats Quo . democracy does work if everyone participates .

Excuse me, but the Libertarian Party is NOT seeking the preservation of the status quo but the END of the status quo. And the theory? It all pre-dates 1789. It most certainly is nothing new. The ones talking out of their backsides are the Democrats and the Republicans.

Representative Democracy under STRICT constitutional limits works no matter how many participate.

Majoritarian Democracy rapidly slides down into Tyranny.

I put it to you that it is easy to win the vote if less people vote as in the case of Bush who won with only 35% . 50% of 100 is what ? 50% of 70 is what ? is 36% a majority ?

What are you talking about?

I presume you mean the 2 elections (2000,2004) OF Bush the Younger (Dubya) to the Presidency.

Those 2 elections had a very HIGH turnout.

Here are the results:

2000

Bush 271, Gore 266. One elector did not vote.

Bush wins with 50.4% of the vote.

2004

Bush 286, Kerry 251. One elector cast a spoiled ballot.

Bush wins with 53.2% of the vote.

So, effectively each of the Presidential elections had a 99.8% 'turnout'.

Or were you perhaps getting confused about that total FICTION of a National 'popular vote' for President?

In the USA, the President is elected by the State Legislatures, per the US Constitution.

Now, traditionally, the various State Legislatures hold 'beauty contests' on 'election day' to decide who to cast their votes for, but this is NOT a Constitutional requirement. So, you have 50 totally separate 'opinion polls' on election day, which are not totally strictly binding on the State Legislatures anyway.

Note: there are NO U.S. Federal Government positions elected nationwide by popular vote, with good reason.

Getting off topic in another thread so ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

Here is a place to talk about and debate different forms of government, which is better, etc.

---

So, you admit it was done for reasons of political corruption? How is it working out now?

Yes i Admit it was done for Political reasons , But not the Demorcrates = Labor . But like all stupid things they do it backfired AKA: Prohibishon witch you repealed 20 odd years later

Maybe it isn't working as well as you have been indoctrinated to believe.

In fact our system is working and why the current Government does not hold the Senate . You say people are to stupid to understand . but i say no there not there may be a very small number of people that have a I.Q that would be to low , but fail the see even without compulsary voting you still have the same % of the population with the same I.Q voting regardless .

Common cents

So, effectively each of the Presidential elections had a 99.8% 'turnout'.

% over last 91 years please ?

Or were you perhaps getting confused about that total FICTION of a National 'popular vote' for President?

In the USA, the President is elected by the State Legislatures, per the US Constitution.

Now, traditionally, the various State Legislatures hold 'beauty contests' on 'election day' to decide who to cast their votes for, but this is NOT a Constitutional requirement. So, you have 50 totally separate 'opinion polls' on election day, which are not totally strictly binding on the State Legislatures anyway.

No , but that's for clearing that up you don't actually vote for the President ....explains things ...:)

Note: there are NO U.S. Federal Government positions elected nationwide by popular vote, with good reason.

The Prime minister is not elected here . He is appointed by the winning party party or group and must have the Governor General's Blessing and can be dethrone'd . No government minister is elected but appointed, here by the winning Government

And the Governor General , theoretically ask the Queen of England if he wishes to sack the government

---

So, you admit it was done for reasons of political corruption? How is it working out now?


Yes i Admit it was done for Political reasons , But not the Demorcrates = Labor . But like all stupid things they do it backfired AKA: Prohibishon witch you repealed 20 odd years later


Maybe it isn't working as well as you have been indoctrinated to believe.


In fact our system is working and why the current Government does not hold the Senate . You say people are to stupid to understand . but i say no there not there may be a very small number of people that have a I.Q that would be to low , but fail the see even without compulsary voting you still have the same % of the population with the same I.Q voting regardless .

Common cents

So, effectively each of the Presidential elections had a 99.8% 'turnout'.


% over last 91 years please ?


Or were you perhaps getting confused about that total FICTION of a National 'popular vote' for President?

In the USA, the President is elected by the State Legislatures, per the US Constitution.

Now, traditionally, the various State Legislatures hold 'beauty contests' on 'election day' to decide who to cast their votes for, but this is NOT a Constitutional requirement. So, you have 50 totally separate 'opinion polls' on election day, which are not totally strictly binding on the State Legislatures anyway.


No , but that's for clearing that up you don't actually vote for the President ....explains things ...:)


Note: there are NO U.S. Federal Government positions elected nationwide by popular vote, with good reason.


The Prime minister is not elected here . He is appointed by the winning party party or group and must have the Governor General's Blessing and can be dethrone'd . No government minister is elected but appointed, here by the winning Government

And the Governor General , theoretically ask the Queen of England if he wishes to sack the government

From anther Thread

EDit : A chat with Kong and myself ,Government s and Idiology

---

So, you admit it was done for reasons of political corruption? How is it working out now?

Yes i Admit it was done for Political reasons , But not the Demorcrates = Labor . But like all stupid things they do it backfired AKA: Prohibishon witch you repealed 20 odd years later

Maybe it isn't working as well as you have been indoctrinated to believe.

In fact our system is working and why the current Government does not hold the Senate . You say people are to stupid to understand . but i say no there not there may be a very small number of people that have a I.Q that would be to low , but fail the see even without compulsary voting you still have the same % of the population with the same I.Q voting regardless .

Common cents

So, effectively each of the Presidential elections had a 99.8% 'turnout'.

% over last 91 years please ?

Or were you perhaps getting confused about that total FICTION of a National 'popular vote' for President?

In the USA, the President is elected by the State Legislatures, per the US Constitution.

Now, traditionally, the various State Legislatures hold 'beauty contests' on 'election day' to decide who to cast their votes for, but this is NOT a Constitutional requirement. So, you have 50 totally separate 'opinion polls' on election day, which are not totally strictly binding on the State Legislatures anyway.

No , but that's for clearing that up you don't actually vote for the President ....explains things ...:)

Note: there are NO U.S. Federal Government positions elected nationwide by popular vote, with good reason.

The Prime minister is not elected here . He is appointed by the winning party party or group and must have the Governor General's Blessing and can be dethrone'd . No government minister is elected but appointed, here by the winning Government

And the Governor General , theoretically ask the Queen of England if he wishes to sack the government

From anther Thread

EDit : A chat with Kong and myself ,Government s and Idiology

I can see that moving it here is a good thing. Don't want all the extra hot air in the global warming thread, no do we? :P

So, Glenn,

Exactly why do you think compulsory voting is a good thing? And might it, in your opinion, possibly have any negative consequences?

You have already admitted that it was done in your country for reasons that are corrupt, politically. What else is 'hoping to cement a political lock on government for a party' but corrupt manipulation of the electoral process?

Oh, and I did NOT say people were too stupid to understand things. I did say 'why force them to vote if they do not wish to?' with the subtext that those not interested in voting are not likely to be sufficiently informed on the issues and thereby open to manipulation by corrupt politicians to elect more politicians that are corrupt.

interested in voting are not likely to be sufficiently informed on the issues and thereby open to manipulation by corrupt politicians to elect more politicians that are corrupt.

We have found people do take interest and are informed .

We will give a polition a chance and let them trip over them self's by spliting there vote .

The house of Rep's make policy but it has to go through the Senate , so if a party get's the house of Rep's but not the Senate as in the case now , they can't get things there way. It doesn't mean the Crock's won't try but that's why you vote to make shore there are the right people .

The Liberals where given both houses in the final term of the Howard period and it backfired , yes they started to get way out of hand but it also cased them to lose the every next one and all the things they did where repealed
As Democrocey should be .

One of the arguments the Lib's used in 1924 was that the Unions where better organised and there voters could not get to poling stations blah blah blah , They said the Unions could get people to vote because of there workplaces ,
Communism was also used .

Give me a break 91 years .....are Australians all what you say now . our system is not perfect but in a modern world i think people are more in touch than you think and better Educated.

You know your system so work how how to change things if you don't like them

---

In Message 1659130

betreger wrote:

MajorKong wrote:

Only a Representative Democracy (aka a Republic) operating under STRICT Constitutional LIMITS has a chance of doing a reasonable job of properly governing a nation.

Major what an elitist devil you are.

So, for believing in the central, founding principle of the USA, you call me an 'elitist devil'?? Seems I hit a nerve. I must be doing something right.

In a Majoritarian (Majority rules) Democracy without strict limits on governmental power, as I have said before, it will rather quickly degenerate into a Tyranny... A Tyranny of the Majority.

In Message 1659126,

Gary Charpentier wrote:

MajorKong wrote:

Majoritarian democracy is a BAD thing. It rapidly becomes tyranny.

That it does. It squelches different viewpoints. You can't express them, because everyone knows what is right, never mind the Earth isn't flat or at the center of the universe, or that global warming is .....

Betreger,

What, exactly, in your opinion, about my initial statement is elitist?

Centralization of unfettered power is what allows elitists to turn into tinpot dictators.

Strict, Constitutional limits on the power of the US Federal Government is intended to slow down or stop the dictatorial process.

Kong i find it funny that the Lib's introduced it Labor opposed it but now it's the Lib's that wish to remove it .

Again the biggest crocks come from the Lib's

Labor won't support removing it and why should they .

I think you guys are to eager to start talking revolution and grabbing a gun than using your vote to try and get things to change

you'll find in 1940 people where not as educated as they are now . Far less people could read let alone write

The current argument i've herd about why it's good is that it's your obligation to vote or you have no say buy knowing you'll be fined you will take a active interest .

And that comes from the Lib's , hippocrites your party's are no less the Republcans otherwise the tea party type would not be there

Compulary voting is a pain but if i did not have to i would not vote

---

Exactly why do you think compulsory voting is a good thing? And might it, in your opinion, possibly have any negative consequences?

It does prevent that other kind of tyranny, the tyranny of the minority. Look at the US, its currently ruled by what is essentially only a fraction of the people. State elections have horrible voter turnout rates, like literally less than half of the people show up. That half is then roughly divided in half as well with one half being a bit bigger than the other. So that basically means that 25% of the people get to rule the other 75%.

Yeah, its peoples own fault for not voting, but even if all those people just don't show up because they just don't care at all, I think its unhealthy for a democracy.

Now this gets worse since the people that do show up at all the elections are also the people that often have more extreme views than others. Its why the Tea Party does so well in the primaries and on the local level, but why they can't get someone elected to President. At the same time, while people are more likely to vote for the president, that is arguably also one of the least important elections. Yeah it determines who becomes the guy sitting in the Oval office, and yeah thats important. But, most of the policies that actually directly affect people are done on the local or State Level. And when Congress isn't working with the President, you see how paralyzing that works on the Federal government.

Mandatory voting would alleviate some of these problems. Yeah, some voters would not be that informed. They are still more likely to vote for moderate politicians, which could help bridge the current gap between republican and democrat and might lead to some more bipartisan cooperation.

interested in voting are not likely to be sufficiently informed on the issues and thereby open to manipulation by corrupt politicians to elect more politicians that are corrupt.

We have found people do take interest and are informed .

We will give a polition a chance and let them trip over them self's by spliting there vote .

The house of Rep's make policy but it has to go through the Senate , so if a party get's the house of Rep's but not the Senate as in the case now , they can't get things there way. It doesn't mean the Crock's won't try but that's why you vote to make shore there are the right people .

The Liberals where given both houses in the final term of the Howard period and it backfired , yes they started to get way out of hand but it also cased them to lose the every next one and all the things they did where repealed
As Democrocey should be .

One of the arguments the Lib's used in 1924 was that the Unions where better organised and there voters could not get to poling stations blah blah blah , They said the Unions could get people to vote because of there workplaces ,
Communism was also used .

Give me a break 91 years .....are Australians all what you say now . our system is not perfect but in a modern world i think people are more in touch than you think and better Educated.

You know your system so work how how to change things if you don't like them

Sounds to me like you are very proud of 'gridlock' in your Government, and you cite this as the main reason why compulsory voting is a good thing.

Well, we have gridlock in our Government, as well, all WITHOUT the freedom-robbing compulsory voting enforced by the police powers of the government.

Oh, we (the Libertarians) know how to change things. It just is not going to happen at the ballot box unless things change drasticly.

Perhaps after the collapse of the Government that their current policies are making a virtual certainty, we might still be around to help pick up the pieces.

Remember, the political 'war' in the USA is not between the Authoritarian center-left statist party (the Democrats_ and the Authortarian center-right statist party (the Republicans). Those two reached an accomodation many, many years ago.

The Real political 'war' in the USA in between the libertarian priniples the Founding Fathers organized the USA around, and the Authoritarian Statists.

The Authoritarian Statists have all but won.

Individuals have the Natural Right, and the Freedom of Choice, to participate, or not.

No one, excepting petty, wanna be dictators, believe otherwise.

Yeah but here we are talking about government. Its not like you can opt out of that. You can perhaps choose not to vote, but that doesn't mean that the actions of the government no longer concern you. And if you opt out of voting, you essentially let a minority rule you.

A wannabe dictator would never want compulsory voting, because its much easier to be a dictator when everyone is is fine with a minority telling the majority what to do. Why give that away?

Voting is compulsory in North Korea with a turnout of 99.97% :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_parliamentary_election,_2014

Voting is compulsory in North Korea:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_parliamentary_election,_2014

Marxism is very instructional.
Just look at what they do - then DON'T DO IT!

I wonder where the 0.03% North Koreans are now...

If I may join the discussion with a couple of points and the opinion they cause me to have. First off I label myself a 'Rational Anarchist' or Jeffersonian. In practical politics I am a Conservative leaning to Libertarian.

I believe compulsory voting in national elections would be an improvement IF THREE OTHER CHANGES ARE MADE.

First ALL political commercials and soundbites are prohibited. The only exposure of the issues and candidates allowed would be televised debate.

Second All statements and promises made by all candidates are subject to slander, defamation and perjury laws. With imprisonment as punishment for the most egregious offenses.

Third Lawyers are prohibited from seeking or holding public office.

The first and second are pretty much self-explanatory, the third is due to my long held belief that laws written by lawyers are the same as Developers writing the Building Codes.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>