2016 Primaries, Caucuses & Conventions

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by DarkJello, Feb 2, 2016.

  1. StormChasee

    StormChasee The King of Potatoes

    I missed this one. My bad. I'll cover some of the issues.

    He's not anti-science. You mentioned the climate change issue. The issue is not whether the climate has warmed in the last 200 years or so. The issue is how much impact man really has on it. Cruz is not sold that man has a big impact on it. Neither am I and I am a meteorologist and understand the principles of climate. I also understand that when you look at the absorption/emission spectra of CO2 you will see the impact is largely saturated. Thus you could double the concentration and get very little further climate signal. The climate models do not model this accurately. My opinion on the climate change issue is man has only added a slight amount to an already warming climate. The other issue is the proposed remedies always seem to involve more government regulation, taxes and interference that frankly wouldn't solve the problem and are extremely costly. Do you know what the best way is to solve the stated problem (and let's take it for a moment that man is causing the warming)? Let all governments agree to pay businesses a reasonable amount to take CO2 out of the atmosphere until we get to say 300 ppm concentration.

    You damn right he'd repeal Obamacare! So do I. The federal government has no constitutional authority over individual health care coverage period. The idea is to repeal and replace with a system that is more grounded on economics and principles of the free market that work. Which brings me to the next point. His views of government are not extreme. They are grounded on sound economics and more importantly sound governance. Rather the views that let government get into everything are the ones that are extreme. The Department of Education has no business at the federal level. Every state constitution I've seen authorizes that power to the states and again I see no authority in the US Constitution for the federal government. WRT IRS, there will always be some entity to gather funds for the government. What he wants to abolish is the obtrusive, destructive aspect of it. If the tax system is simpler then the IRS doesn't have to be so fearsome. The IRS should not have the authority to seize your assets without going through a court of law yet they can. Again thanks to the tax system. You hear of these horror stories every year.

    He wants to free the federal government of the burden of doing what the states can do so it can focus on doing the things that by nature a national level government must do and do those things well. That's not extreme. That's sensible. I think it's absurdly extreme to have the government try to do everything for everybody. If anything he doesn't go far enough.

    Out side of a declared war a balanced budget should be the norm, not the exception. These continual deficits and building debt is robbing from our future generations. If you are a young person you should be particularly sensitive to this issue. Is a balanced budget amendment the best way to deal with it? I don't know, but he's correct in sounding alarm bells about the debt.

    From your previous posts I should have realized your ideology is closer to Karl Marx than James Madison.
     
  2. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    @Sokolov rabbit hole goes deep, connected to badger den and pole-cat warren see above.
     
  3. mw24

    mw24 I need me some PIE!

  4. badgerale

    badgerale Warchief of Wrath

  5. BurnPyro

    BurnPyro Forum Royalty

    Oh you extreme right Republicans crack me up
     
    Geressen likes this.
  6. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    "No Overton, you're supposed to move the window a bit more to the left!"
     
  7. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

  8. StormChasee

    StormChasee The King of Potatoes

  9. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    The entire US system for voting is pretty stupid:
    • leads to 2 party system

    • controlled entirely by the parties in power

    • you "pretend" to vote for the person, but you don't
      • instead, you vote for "delegates" who vote for "super delegates"
    • wtf is with this "primary" business?
      • one of the many reasons why it's 2 party
    • disincentivizes people from paying attention to local elections
      • unlike parliamentary systems like Canada, where you do not vote for the "Prime Minister" (President) directly
    • why does campaigning take so long?!
    • gerrymandered to hell
      • so you can have one party win 60% of the state but have much fewer actual seats (many "red" states are like this, incidentally)
    • you can win without having the popular vote
    • low population states have more "vote power" per capita than larger population states
    Ultimately, if nothing else, it leads to people not understanding how it works (there was a right-wing blogger who claimed that Democrats only got 1400 votes total, while Republicans got 180,000 votes in Iowa, which he used to showcase how sick and tired of socialism the American people are).
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2016
    Geressen likes this.
  10. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    1. Causation is a bit off. There were more parties before, but the two main parties changed the voting system, and put themselves in control over it via various "campaign reforms."

    2. You don't "pretend" to vote for the person, you do actually vote for them, however, it's not a direct vote. You're voting for what the delegats/Electoral College for your region/State submits their votes for.

    3. Gerrymandering around has always been an issue, but it's less to do with the basics/history of the voting system than it does with people letting corrupt politicians do what they want. It's an issue for local politics, and I'd be surprised if it were limited to the US.

    4. It's not intended to be a Democracy. States are supposed to have a "minimum" of power individually, because originally the States were supposed to be largely stronger in their area than the Federal government. While this has changed over time, it was deemed "unfair" to continue giving "extra" voting power to States like California for example, with their much larger (and growing) populations. Basically, they didn't want to give the larger States too much power over the smaller States via the Federal government. Like I'm sure Cyprus, Luxemburg, and Malta wouldn't want German and French governments to determine all EU policies simply because they have much larger populations.

    There are a couple reasons for this. Essentially, the original intention is that the People control their State directly, then the State represents the will of the People amongst the rest of the States. It makes somewhat more sense if you consider each State as individual, erm, States (in the sense of being little Nations). So the Federal Government would be more like how the EU is seen by many. More there to manage inter-State issues than to interfere in intra-State ones.

    The other reason is that "Majority Rules" goes against the basic principle that "Government Should Serve Everyone" (rather than "most everyone"). Whether you agree with that or not that is what the people who set up the system were thinking at the time*.

    I don't really think it's much more complex than common Parliamentary systems. In some ways it is actually simpler. Ultimately, I blame people not understanding it on our incredibly shitty education, as mandated by our Federal government (and thus people like Cruz calling for it to be disbanded and education handed back to the State/Local level, though really I don't see why it can't just be fixed personally).



    *(Well, all Citizens. Though many had argued for more people, especially those of darker complexion, to be included as Citizens at the time, it sadly didn't happen to be so until much later, so unfortunately not everyone residing in the area were considered to be Citizens at that time.)


    EDIT: Of course, none of this has to do with Primaries, since that is entirely an internal Party affair. The only problem with it of course being the lack of media exposure due to the Debate issue. Otherwise parties can determine who should be their main (only) candidate for President however they damn well wish as far as I'm concerned.
     
  11. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Mathematically, the way the EC and First Past the Post works tends to lead to a 2 party system. For anyone who wants to vote 3rd party in the US, it's basically throwing away your vote or spoiling your second preferred party, so you are just better off not voting. This is a direct result of the way the EC works in combination with First Past the Post. Note that a Parliamentary system with First Past the Post is much less likely, historically, to have the same problem.

    I know the US likes to be different just to be different sometimes, but to me, this is simply a case of bad design and making things complicated for what amounts to a negative.

    That sounds like pretending to vote for the person to me. Your vote isn't counted as a vote for the name on the ballot. It is obfuscated behind a layer of delegates and super delegates, who are supposed to, but not required to, vote for what those they represent wanted.

    It is a problem mostly with First Past the Post. And sure, some of these problems aren't only in the US, but it is still part of the reason the US system is messed up.

    Oh, I understand, and I still think it's messed up. Instead of votes being equal individually instead the US has a system where it's somehow "fair" to give states "extra" votes because they have lower populations. Basically, they want to give the smaller states more power than they should have in an equal system - so they make it lobsided on purpose.

    Basically, it's absurd when someone who votes in Wyoming votes with almost 4 times the power of that of someone in California or Texas for President.

    And it gets even MORE absurd at the Senate level:
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/democracy-tested.html?_r=0

    "Vermont’s 625,000 residents have two United States senators, and so do New York’s 19 million. That means that a Vermonter has 30 times the voting power in the Senate of a New Yorker just over the state line — the biggest inequality between two adjacent states. The nation’s largest gap, between Wyoming and California, is more than double that."

    30 times?! Really? This is making it more "fair?"

    The result?

    "In the four years after the financial crisis struck, a great wave of federal stimulus money washed over Rutland County. It helped pay for bridges, roads, preschool programs, a community health center, buses and fire trucks, water mains and tanks, even a project to make sure fish could still swim down the river while a bridge was being rebuilt.

    Just down Route 4, at the New York border, the landscape abruptly turns from spiffy to scruffy. Washington County, N.Y., which is home to about 60,000 people — just as Rutland is — saw only a quarter as much money.

    ...

    Here in Rutland, the federal government has spent $2,500 per person since early 2009, compared with $600 per person across the state border in Washington County."

    That sounds super fair, alright.

    It is definitely more complex even if just because of all the extra math you have to do and the fact that a person has to both pay attention to the national campaign as well as local campaigns, and then half the local campaigns don't even happen at the same time, and also to vote multiple times per election cycle.

    I am not sure in what way you can argue it's simpler. There may be individual aspects that MIGHT be simpler, but the US system as a whole is absurdly complex and obfuscated, and that has nothing to do with education.
     
    doubtofbuddha likes this.
  12. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    Of course, originally the idea was that states handle their own crap, rather than having to give it to the Feds and then lobby/pork barrel it back into the states.

    In other words, one could very easily view this as a Tax Law problem, rather than a problem with the form of government itself.

    For example, take the above situation, and reverse it. Say Washington gets 2500 and Rutland got 600 per capita. This because Washington's higher population allowed it much greater leverage over Rutland. That could easily be done, or made worse, if population had a much stronger impact on how the system and legislation worked.

    The inequality is not ideal, but it could very easily be worse.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2016
  13. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    Most states (IIRC, there are only a very, very small number that don't, if any still) require their Electoral College voters to follow the will of the people. Primaries are again a different thing, being Party specific.

    Don't forget that Voter Participation is actually rather low in the US, so it's not even populations (though that originally determined the "extra" votes given states had), but the small portion of voting populations.

    I honestly think requiring people to vote would have been the way to go (in all countries where voting matters as well). But that's neither here nor now.


    In any event, when dealing with multiple cultures, vastly different regions, and such, I think that "equal votes" per capita is over-rated, albeit only slightly. Whether or not there's a better way to represent lower population areas and ensure their voices and desires are heard is of course up for debate I suppose, For example, perhaps the "cap" on Representatives Per Capita should be removed, and let the Senate's existence form the main "balancing" factor in that regard (as originally intended). But ultimately I think it's important that lower population areas be able to have a significant impact, and at some point that equates into relatively different values in terms of voting.
     
  14. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    The problem in this case is that Rutland County and Washington County has the same population, roughly, but because one happens to be in Vermont and the other in New York, the former got way more representation even though the two areas are actually very close together. This is because even within a state things are not evenly distributed, so the current system punishes the small regions living in high population states who get almost no representation. So a system that purports to help the lower population regions only does so at the state level.
     
  15. mw24

    mw24 I need me some PIE!

    hillary clinton is going to be president, this race is over. She is the only real candidate that has a chance to be nominated. All of the others are too extreme/far from the center to win in the general. The democrats know this and for this reason(and others) won't nominate bernie.
     
  16. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    The State of Vermont itself is the lower population region at the Federal level. But again this only supports the notion that (most) taxes and distributions of programs should be handled on the State level rather than the Federal level. Again, an issue of Tax Law rather than voting rights.

    My point is that if NY State could easily bully Vermont (given current tax laws) and reverse the situation it wouldn't be better, and could very easily become worse.

    The investigation into her email account is ongoing. Apparently, at least 24(?) of the emails will not be released by State on grounds that doing so would "harm national security." Note that her private email servers are not a secure server and should not have any classified materials (and indeed it looks like it was probably hacked into at least once).

    At this rate, we'll have no "real" candidates, which will leave us with only the "fake" ones.
     
  17. mw24

    mw24 I need me some PIE!

    that doesnt matter, if she had any real challengers it would but there are no other normal candidates running that are doing decently well in the polls. rubio is the closest thing to that and hes not going to get past the republican nomination.

    trump and cruz would both lose to a normal candidate like clinton in the general election. they could beat bernie but democrats arent going to nominate him.

    what the republicans are doing is stupid but i lean left anyway so i dont really care, lol. they could have won had they nominated and supported rubio, jeb, or maybe even christie.(especially because of obama being elected/re-elected) They pretty much threw the election.
     
  18. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    So it doesn't matter if she gets indited for felonies half-way through her campaign?

    If that's truly the case, add that to the "scary questions" thread.
    Maybe, maybe not. I think you either over or under-estimate the US voters. (Also, several polls have put Trump ahead of Hillary, though whether that remains true going forward remains to be seen. No idea about Cruz, but probably not so well, Iowa may have given a boost though.)

    Or maybe I underestimate the ability of a corrupt establishment to fix the vote anyway.
     
  19. mw24

    mw24 I need me some PIE!

    she wont get indited, this type of stuff happens like nearly every politician there is always a scandal, very rarely does anything ever come out of it. the right might make a big deal out of it because shes a democrat but nothing will happen and the people who really care about the emails arent voting for her in the first place. This is similar to the birth certificate and benghazi thing its politically motivated.
     
  20. Ohmin

    Ohmin Forum Royalty

    Scandals sure, but flagrant violations of the law tend to not get ignored often, at least not without something else going behind the scenes (blackmail, bribes, or what have you).


    But whatever, if Bush and Cheney can get away with Torture and going to war under false pretenses, maybe you're right. Even if Hilary hasn't become President herself yet and thus gained the ties/information, her Husband was, and she probably got enough going during that time and during her time as Secretary.

    That certainly isn't a good thing though, if it's so.
     

Share This Page