Message boards :
Politics :
US Elections '14 and '16 Sound_Bites
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes Send message Joined: 16 Jun 02 Posts: 6895 Credit: 6,588,977 RAC: 0 |
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. ' ' May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!! |
James Sotherden Send message Joined: 16 May 99 Posts: 10436 Credit: 110,373,059 RAC: 54 |
Im waiting for a certain hack to say, What differance does it make. [/quote] Old James |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
The next Presidential election will be on November 8, 2016. 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. https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE #Texit Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016. Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power. |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
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. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
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.
Well, at least ONE other person out there "gets it".
Yep... https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE #Texit Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016. Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power. |
MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes Send message Joined: 16 Jun 02 Posts: 6895 Credit: 6,588,977 RAC: 0 |
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. ' ' May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!! |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
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 Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1817 Credit: 262,693,308 RAC: 44 |
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. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
Chris S 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. |
KWSN - MajorKong Send message Joined: 5 Jan 00 Posts: 2892 Credit: 1,499,890 RAC: 0 |
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? 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. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24884 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
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! |
The Simonator Send message Joined: 18 Nov 04 Posts: 5700 Credit: 3,855,702 RAC: 50 |
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. Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge. |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24884 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
All the above show is Personal ambition. During the past four years, nowhere is it seen that the country has been put first! But it wasn't always that way and I'm pleased to quote Chris's best comment again. I do not think I will ever see a better one for the remainder of my life. "We need experienced and dedicated managers who care about people, and who put the job first and the salary second. They seem a dying breed." |
Мишель Send message Joined: 26 Nov 13 Posts: 3073 Credit: 87,868 RAC: 0 |
Except in a feudal system the king has no power. Sure, technically everyone calls him king, but he has to give pieces of land to his commanders, and they to their knights, and before you know it the entire country is divided in tiny pieces of land, each ruled by a knight. And while technically they swear loyalty to their king, that is completely based on a honor system. In other words, if the king calls you to fight for him but you don't feel like it, you can just tell the king to sod off and the king can't really do anything about it. So in a Feudal system, there is a flat hierarchy, the king has just as much power as his knights. Only on paper he commands the entire country, but in practice he only rules a piece of land which is about as big as a few hours walk in each direction of his castle. |
The Simonator Send message Joined: 18 Nov 04 Posts: 5700 Credit: 3,855,702 RAC: 50 |
I can't blame anyone for having for having those views. Over the last decades, by their general behavior, and it has to be said, denigration by the press, politicians have lost the confidence of the General public, both in the UK and in the USA. Precisely this. I wish it weren't so, but then i also wish for world peace and we're no nearer that either. Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge. |
MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes Send message Joined: 16 Jun 02 Posts: 6895 Credit: 6,588,977 RAC: 0 |
Who Will Ride The Bear? DEM/LIbs or GOPTers? yOu Get Wat yOu vOte fO. There 'is' Never Any 'There' 'There', 'is' 'There' ? ' ' May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!! |
James Sotherden Send message Joined: 16 May 99 Posts: 10436 Credit: 110,373,059 RAC: 54 |
But. How many times has a king marched an army to a so called noble who had defied a king? Read English history for that answer. All that had to be said was. I will divide his holdings between those who give me his head. The king could give and take away. He wasnt has powerless as you believe. [/quote] Old James |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.